22/01/2017 Sunday Politics West

It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US

President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very

frank" conversations with the new and controversial

Speaking of the 45th President of America,

we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold

in store for Britain and the rest of the world.

And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should

have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask

In the West business of Brexit, as what Labour will do next.

In the West business of Brexit, as BPM puts together an new

relationship with And to talk about all of that

and more, I'm joined by three journalists who, in an era

of so-called fake news, can be relied upon for their accuracy,

their impartiality - and their willingness

to come to the studio It's Steve Richards,

Julia Hartley-Brewer and Tom Newton Dunn,

and during the programme they'll be tweeting as often as the 45th

President of the USA in the middle So - the Prime Minister has been

appearing on the BBC this morning. She was mostly talking

about Donald Trump and Brexit, but she was also asked about a story

on the front of this It's reported that an unarmed

Trident missile test fired from the submarine HMS Vengeance

near the Florida coast in June The paper says the incident took

place weeks before a crucial Commons Well, let's have listen

to Theresa May talking The issue that we were talking

about in the House of Commons It was about whether or not

we should renew Trident, whether we should look to the future

and have a replacement Trident. That's what we were talking

about in the House of Commons. That's what the House

of Commons voted for. He doesn't want to defend our

country with an independent There are tests that take place

all the time, regularly, What we were talking about in that

debate that took place... I'm not going to get

an answer to this. Tom, it was clear this was going to

come up this morning. It is on the front page of the Sunday Times. It

would seem to me the Prime Minister wasn't properly briefed on how to

reply. I think she probably was, but the Prime Minister we now have

doesn't necessarily answer all questions in the straightest way.

She didn't answer that one and all. Unlike previous ones? She made it

quite clear she was briefed. You read between the Theresa May lines.

By simply not answering Andrew Marr four times, it is obvious she knew,

and that she knew before she went into the House of Commons and urged

everyone to renew the ?40 billion replacement programme. Of course it

is an embarrassment, but does it have political legs? I don't think

so. She didn't mislead the Commons. If she wanted to close it down, the

answer should have been, these are matters of national security.

There's nothing more important in that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm

not prepared to talk about testing. End of. But she didn't. Maybe you

should be briefing her. That's a good answer. She is an interesting

interviewee. She shows it when she is nervous. She was transparently

uneasy answering those questions, and the fact she didn't answer it

definitively suggests she did know and didn't want to say it, and she

answered awkwardly. But how wider point, that the House of Commons

voted for the renewal of Trident, suggests to me that in the broader

sweep of things, this will not run, because if there was another vote, I

would suggest she'd win it again. But it is an embarrassment and she

handled it with a transparent awkwardness. She said that the tests

go on all the time, but not of the missiles. Does it not show that when

the Prime Minister leaves her comfort zone of Home Office affairs

or related matters, she often struggles. We've seen it under

questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and we saw it again today. Absolutely.

Tests of various aspects of the missiles go on all the time, but

there's only been five since 2000. What you described wouldn't have

worked, because in previous tests they have always been very public

about it. Look how well our missiles work! She may not have misled

Parliament, but she may not have known about it. If she didn't know,

does Michael Fallon still have a job on Monday? Should Parliament know

about a test that doesn't work? Some would say absolutely not. Our

deterrent is there to deter people from attacking us. If they know that

we are hitting the United States by mistake rather than the Atlantic

Ocean, then... There is such a thing as national security, and telling

all the bad guys about where we are going wrong may not be a good idea.

It was her first statement as Prime Minister to put her case for

renewal, to have the vote on Trident, and in that context, it is

significant not to say anything. If anyone knows where the missile

landed, give us a call! So Donald Trump's inauguration day

closed with him dancing to Frank Sinatra's My Way,

and whatever your view on the 45th President of the United States

he certainly did do it his way. Not for him the idealistic call

for national unity - instead he used Friday's inaugural

address to launch a blistering attack on the dark state

of the nation and the political class, and to promise

to take his uncompromising approach from the campaign trail

to the White House. Here's Adam Fleming,

with a reminder of how First, dropping by for a cup of tea

and a slightly awkward exchange Then, friends, foes

and predecessors watched I, Donald John Trump,

do solemnly swear... The crowds seemed smaller

than previous inaugurations, the speech tougher then any

previous incoming president. From this day forth,

it's going to be only America first. In the meantime, there were sporadic

protests in Washington, DC. Opponents made their voices heard

around the world too. The President,

who'd criticised the work of the intelligence agencies,

fitted in a visit to the CIA. There is nobody that feels stronger

about the intelligence community And, back at the office,

in the dark, a signature signalled the end of the Obama era

and the dawn of Trump. So, as you heard there,

President Trump used his inauguration to repeat his campaign

promise to put "America first" in all his decisions, and offered

some hints of what to expect He talked of in America in carnage,

to be rebuilt by American hands and American Labour. President Trump has

already started to dismantle key parts of the Obama Legacy, including

the unwinding of the affordable care act, and the siding of the climate

action plan to tackle global warning. Little to say about foreign

policy, but promised to eradicate Islamic terrorism from the face of

the Earth, insisting he would restore the US military to

unquestioning dominance. He also said the US would develop a state

missile defence system to deal with threats he sees from Iran and North

Korea. In a statement that painted a bleak picture of the country he now

runs, he said his would be a law and order Administration, and he would

keep the innocents safe by building the border war with Mexico. One

thing he didn't mention, for the first time ever, there is a

Eurosceptic in the oval office, who is also an enthusiast for Brexit.

We're joined now by Ted Malloch - he's a Trump supporter who's been

tipped as the president's choice for US ambassador

to the EU, and he's just flown back from Washington.

And by James Rubin - he's a democrat who served

Let's start with that last point I made in the voice over there. We now

have a Eurosceptic in the oval office. He is pro-Brexit and not

keen on further European Union integration. What are the

implications of that? First of all, a renewal of the US- UK special

relationship. You see the Prime Minister already going to build and

rebuild this relationship. Already, the bust of Winston Churchill is

back in the oval office. Interestingly, Martin Luther King's

bust is also there, so there is an act of unity in that first movement

of dusts. Donald Trump will be oriented between bilateral

relationships and not multilateral or supernatural. Supranational full.

What are the implications of someone in the White House now not believing

in it? I think we are present in the unravelling of America's leadership

of the West. There is now a thing called the west that America has led

since the end of World War II, creating supranational - we just

heard supernatural! These institutions were created. With

American leadership, the world was at peace in Europe, and the world

grew increasingly democratic and prosperous. Wars were averted that

could be extremely costly. When something works in diplomacy, you

don't really understand what the consequences could have been. I

think we've got complacent. The new president is taking advantage of

that. It is a terrible tragedy that so many in the West take for granted

the successful leadership and institutions we have built. You

could argue, as James Rubin has argued in some articles, that...

Will Mr Trump's America be more involved in the world than the Obama

won? Or will it continue the process with running shoes on that began

with Mr Obama? President Obama stepped back from American

leadership. He withdrew from the world. He had a horrendous eight

years in office, and American powers have diminished everywhere in the

world, not just in Europe. That power will reassert. The focus will

be on America first, but there are foreign interests around the

world... How does it reassert itself around the world? I think the

institutions will be recreated. Some may be taken down. There could be

some new ones. I think Nato itself, and certainly the Defence Secretary

will have discussions with Donald Trump about how Nato can be

reshaped, and maybe there will be more burden sharing. That is an

important thing for him. You are tipped to be the US ambassador to

Brussels, to the EU, and we are still waiting to hear if that will

happen. Is it true to say that Mr Trump does not believe in EU

integration? I think you made that clear in the speech. He talked about

supranational. He does not believe in those kinds of organisations. He

is investing himself in bilateral relationships, the first of which

will be with the UK. So we have a president who does not believe in EU

integration and has been highly critical of Nato. Do the people he

has appointed to defend, Secretary of State, national security, do you

think that will temper this anti-NATO wretched? Will he come

round to a more pro-NATO situation? I think those of us who care about

America's situation in the world will come in to miss President Obama

a lot. I think the Secretary of State and the faculty of defence

will limit the damage and will urge him not to take formal steps to

unravel this most powerful and most successful alliance in history, the

Nato alliance. But the damage is already being done. When you are the

leader of the West, leadership means you are persuading, encouraging,

bolstering your leadership and these institutions by the way you speak.

Millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, have now heard

the US say that what they care about is within their borders.

What do you say to that? It is such an overstatement. The point is that

Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian tradition of national populism. He

is appealing to the people first. The other day, I was sitting below

this page during the address, and he said, everyone sitting behind me as

part of the problem. Everyone in front of me, the crowd and the crowd

on television, is part of the solution, so we are giving the

Government back to the people. That emphasis is going to change American

life, including American International relations. It doesn't

moving the leak back -- it doesn't mean we are moving out of Nato, it

simply means we will put our national interests first. There were

echoes of Andrew Jackson's inauguration address of 1820. That

night, the Jacksonians trashed the White House, but Mr Trump's people

didn't do that, so there is a difference there. He also said

something else in the address - that protectionism would lead to

prosperity. I would suggest there is no evidence for that in the post-war

world. He talked about protecting the American worker, American jobs,

the American economy. I actually think that Donald Trump will not

turn out to be a protectionist. If you read the heart of the deal...

This is referring to two Republican senators who introduce massive

tariffs in the Hoover administration. Exactly. If you read

The Art Of The Deal, you will see how Donald Trump deals with

individuals and countries. There is a lot of bluster, positioning, and I

think you already see this in bringing jobs by the United States.

Things are going to change. Let's also deal with this proposition.

China is the biggest loser of this election result. Let me say this:

The first time in American history and American president has set forth

his view of the world, and it is a mercantile view of the world, who

makes more money, who gets more trade, it doesn't look at the shared

values, leadership and defends the world needs. The art of the deal has

no application to America's leadership of the world, that's what

we're learning. You can be a great businessman and make great real

estate deals - whether he did not is debatable - but it has nothing to do

with inspiring shared values from the West. You saying China may lose,

because he may pressure them to reduce their trade deficit with the

US. They may or may not. We may both lose. Right now, his Secretary of

State has said, and I think he will walk this back when he is brief,

that they will prevent the Chinese from entering these islands in the

South China Sea. If they were to do that, it would be a blockade, and

there would be a shooting war between the United States and China,

so US - China relations are the most important bilateral relationship of

the United States, and they don't lend themselves to the bluff and

bluster that may have worked when you are trying to get a big building

on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China the biggest loser? I think the

Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi

Jin Ping was in Davos. Is Germany the second biggest loser

in the sense that I understand he hasn't agreed time to see Angela

Merkel yet, also that those close to him believe that Germany is guilty

of currency manipulation by adopting a weak your row instead of the

strong Deutschmark, and that that is why they are running a huge balance

of payments surplus with the United States. American - German relations

may not be great. There is a point of view throughout Europe. You only

have to talk to the southern Europeans about this question. It

seems like the euro has been aligned to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz,

the famous left of centre Democrat economist, made the same case in a

recent book. In this case, I think Germany will be put under the

spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown herself to be the most respected and

the most successful leader in Europe. We who care about the West,

who care about the shared values of the West, should pray and hope that

she is re-elected. This isn't about dollars and cents. We're living in a

time whether Russian leader has another country in Europe and for

some inexplicable reason, the American president, who can use his

insult diplomacy on everyone, including Mrs Merkel, the only

person he can't seem to find anything to criticise about is Mr

Putin. There are things more important than the actual details of

your currency. There are things like preventing another war in Europe,

preventing a war between the Chinese and the US. You talk about the

Trident missile all morning, nuclear deterrence is extremely important.

It doesn't lend itself to the bluff and bluster of a real estate deal. I

understand all that, but the fact we are even talking about these things

shows the new world we are moving into. I'd like to get you both to

react to this. This is a man that ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that

beat the Clinton machine. In his inauguration, not only did he not

reach out to the Democrats, he didn't even mention the Republicans.

These are changed days for us. They are, and change can be good or

disastrous. I'm worried that it's easy in the world of diplomacy and

in them -- for the leadership of the United States to break relationships

and ruin alliances. These are things that were carefully nurtured. George

Schultz, the American Secretary of State under Reagan talked about

gardening, the slow, careful creation of a place with bilateral

relationships that were blossoming and flowering multilateral

relationships that take decades to create, and he will throw them away

in a matter of days. The final word... I work for George Schultz.

He was a Marine who stood up America, defended America, who would

be in favour of many of the things that Donald Trump and the tramp

Administration... Give him a call. His top aide macs that I've spoken

to are appalled by Mr Trump's abdication of leadership. He is

going to our radically -- he's going to eradicate extremist Islam from

the face of the year. Is that realistic? I know people in the

national security realm have worked on a plan. They say they will have

such a plan in some detail within 90 days. Lets hope they succeed. We

have run out of time. As a issues. Thank you, both. -- fascinating

issues. So Theresa May promised a big speech

on Brexit, and this week - perhaps against expectation -

she delivered, trying to answer claims that the government didn't

have a plan with an explicit wish-list of what she hopes to

achieve in negotiations with the EU. To her allies it was ambitious,

bold, optimistic - to her opponents it was full

of contradictions Here's Adam again, with a reminder

of the speech and how There are speeches,

and there are speeches. Like Theresa May's 12 principles

for a Brexit deal leading to the UK fully out of the EU

but still friendly in terms This agreement should allow

for the freest possible trade in goods and services between

Britain and the EU's member states. It should give British

companies the maximum operate within European markets

and let European businesses do She also said no deal would be

better than the wrong deal, We want to test what people think

about what she's just said. Do we have any of our

future negotiating As the European Parliament

voted for its new president, its chief

negotiator sounded off. Saying, OK, if our European

counterparts don't accept it, we're going to make

from Britain a sort of free zone or tax haven,

I The Prime Minister of Malta,

the country that's assumed the EU's rotating presidency,

spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger. We want a fair deal

for the United Kingdom, but that deal necessarily needs to be

inferior to membership. Next, let's hear

from some enthusiastic leavers, like, I don't

know, the Daily Mail? The paper lapped it up

with this adoring front page. For Brexiteers, it was

all manna from heaven. I think today means we are a big

step closer to becoming an independent country again,

with control of our own laws, I was chuckling at some of it,

to be honest, because There were various phrases there

which I've used myself again and Do we have any of those

so-called Remoaners? There will, at the end

of this deal process, so politicians get to vote

on the stitch-up, but We take the view as

Liberal Democrats that if this process started

with democracy last June, We trusted the people

with departure, we must trust them Do we have anyone from

Labour, or are you all watching it in a small

room somewhere? Throughout the speech, there seemed

to be an implied threat that somewhere along the line,

if all her optimism of a deal with the European Union didn't work,

we would move into a low-tax, corporate taxation,

bargain-basement economy on the I think she needs to be

a bit clearer about what The Labour leader

suggested he'd tell his MPs to vote in favour

of starting a Brexit process if Parliament was given the choice,

sparking a mini pre-revolt among Finally, do we have anyone

from big business here? Of course, your all in Davos

at the World Economic Clarity, first of all, really

codified what many of us have been anticipating since

the referendum result, particularly around

the I think what we've also seen

today is the Government's willingness to put a bit of edge

into the negotiating dynamic, and I Trade negotiations are negotiations,

and you have to lay out, and you have to be pretty tough

to get what you want. Although some business people

on the slopes speculated about moving some of their

operations out of Brexit Britain. We saw there the instant reaction

of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but how will the party respond

to the challenge posed by Brexit Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow

Home Secretary, Diane Abbott. People know that Ukip and the Tories

are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are four remain. What is Labour for? For

respecting the result of the referendum. It was a 72% turnout,

very high for an election of that nature, and we believe you have to

respect that result. You couldn't have a situation where people like

Tim Farron are saying to people, millions of people, sorry, you got

it wrong, we in London no better. However, how the Tories go forward

from here has to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow

Cabinet policy to vote for the triggering of Article 50? Our policy

is not to block Article 50. That is what the leader was saying this

morning. So are you for it? Our policy is not to block it. You are

talking about voting for it. We don't know what the Supreme Court is

going to say, and we don't know what legislation Government will bring

forward, and we don't know what amendment we will move, but we're

clear that we will not vote to block it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it,

but you could abstain? No, what we will do... Either you vote for or

against all you abstain. There are too many unanswered questions. For

instance, the position of EU migrants working and living in this

country. You may not get the answer to that before Article 50 comes

before the Commons, so what would you do then? We are giving to amend

it. We can only tell you exactly how we will amend it when we understand

what sort of legislation the Government is putting forward, and

in the course of moving those amendments, we will ask the

questions that the people of Britain whether they voted to leave remain

want answered. When you come to a collective view,

will there be a three line whip? I can't tell you, because we have not

seen the government 's legislation. But when you see it, you will come

to a collective view. Many regard this as extremely important. Will

there be a three line whip on Labour's collective view? Because it

is important, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. When we see what the

Supreme Court says, and crucially, when we see what the government

position is, you will hear what the whipping is. Will shadow ministers

be able to defy any three line whip on this? That is not normally the

case. But they did on an early vote that the government introduced on

Article 50. Those who voted against it are still there. In the Blair

years, you certainly couldn't defy a three line whip. We will see what

happens going forward. I remember when the Tories were hopelessly

divided over the EU. All these Maastricht votes and an list

arguments. Now it is Labour. Just another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor

leadership. Not at all. Two thirds voted to leave, a third to remain.

We are seeking to bring the country and the party together. We will do

that by pointing out how disastrous a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile,

around 80 Labour MPs will defy a three line whip. It's too early to

say that. Will you publish what you believe the negotiating goal should

be? We are clear on it. We think that the economy, jobs and living

standards should be the priority. What Theresa May is saying is that

holding her party together is her priority. She is putting party above

country. Does Labour think we should remain members of the single market?

Ideally, in terms of jobs and the economy, of course. Ritt -ish

business thinks that as well. Is Labour policy that we should remain

a member of the single market? Labour leaves that jobs and the

economy comes first, and if they come first, you would want to remain

part of the single market. But to remain a member? Jobs and the

economy comes first, and to do that, ideally, guess. So with that, comes

free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the European, and a

multi-million never shipped thief. Is Labour prepared to pay that?

Money is neither here nor there. Because the Tories will be asked to

pay a lot of money... The EU has made it clear that you cannot

have... I am asking for Labour's position. Our position is rooted in

the reality, and the reality is that you cannot have the benefits of the

member of the European Union, including being a member of the

single market, without responsibility, including free

movement of people. Free movement, is remaining under the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice. Is that the Labour position? You've

said that Labour wants to remain a member of the single market. That is

the price tag that comes with it. Does Labour agree with paying that

price tag? We are not pre-empting negotiation. Our goals are protect

jobs and the British economy. Is it Labour's position that we remain a

member of the customs union? Well, if we don't, I don't see how Theresa

May can keep our promises and has unfettered access... You said

Labour's position was clear. It is! It is clear that Theresa May... I am

not asking about Theresa May. Is it Labour's position to remain a member

of the customs union? It is Labour's position to do what is right for

British industry. Depending on how the negotiations go, it may prove

that coming out of the customs union, as Theresa May has indicated

she wants to do, could prove catastrophic, and could actually

destroy some of her promises. You do accept that if we are member of the

customs union, we cannot do our own free trade deals? What free trade

deals are you talking about? The ones that Labour might want to do in

the future. First, we have to protect British jobs and British

industries. If you are talking about free trade deals with Donald Trump,

the danger is that Theresa May will get drawn into a free-trade deal

with America that will open up the NHS to American corporate... The

cards are in Theresa May's hands. If she takes us out of the single

market, if she takes us out of the customs union, we will have to deal

with that. How big a crisis for Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour

loses both by-elections in February. I don't believe we will lose both.

But if he did? I am not anticipating that. Is Labour lost two seats in a

midterm of a Tory government, would that be business as usual? I'm not

prepared to see us lose those seats, so I will not talk about something

that will not happen. Thank you. You're watching

the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20

minutes, The Week Ahead, when we'll be talking

to Business Minister Margot James about the government's

new industrial strategy and that crucial Supreme Court

ruling on Brexit. Hello.

Politics where you are. Welcome to Sunday

Politics in the West. Coming up, is it one mayor too many,

we've got Lord Mayors and elected mayors, soon will get a West

of England Metro Mayor. And there's also a new American

president, of course, We did think of inviting him

on the programme today, but he's probably building

a wall somewhere! And anyway, we are only interested

in A-listers on our little show. So we have two people

who for one big in Bristol, they are Charlotte Leslie

for the Conservatives, Charlotte, do you think that

Donald Trump can make I think expectations are so low,

maybe we are going to be I think we have to keep calm

and carry on, not panic. He is there for a reason,

people might lament yesteryear, when Obama was there,

but that regime is what led I think we just have

to see what happens. And he speaks, obviously,

he does speak for a lot And I think it's a mistake

to dismiss all those How he's going to respond

is going to be very interesting. We just have to try and make

the most of whatever happens. People have been out saying,

build bridges and all that, do you think we should

give him a chance? He's been elected president, and,

like it or not, he's there. For the duration, well,

possibly not for the duration. But, you know, it is hugely

depressing, particularly when I don't agree with Charlotte,

she says that Obama's eight years has led to this,

you've got to remember that Hillary Clinton actually got nearly

3 million more votes than tempted. But he did connect

with the working class. He connected with a

particular demographic. You must look at Jeremy Corbyn

and think well if a billionaire can connect with the working classes why

can't Mr Corbyn? There's always this odd thing,

it's like Nigel Farage was public school educated,

a stockbroker, very wealthy. He is somehow seen as the voice

of the working class in the UK because he's photographed drinking

a pint of beer. There's a real issue

about a disconnect between certainly the left, the appeal

the Metropolitan voters, if you like, and then

the vote to the post People that lost their jobs

in the big factories, there's not that sense

of cohesion anymore. I would say his message

is all about who he hates, You know, Obama was about hope,

Clinton was about hope, and I just think Obama was such

a decent, dignified man, I would hope that Trump doesn't just

destroy that legacy. Brexit means Brexit,

used to be the catch phrase trotted out to deflect difficult questions

about the future outside the EU. But this week as the Prime Minister

shed more light on the issue, if you know you're single market

from your customs union then But businesses here

have been complaining What I am proposing cannot mean

membership of the single market. It was the week when her

words echoed across We will pursue a bold and ambitious

free trade agreement Brexit must mean control

of the number of people who come No deal for Britain is better

than a bad deal for Britain. Assembling such a complex trade deal

inside two years will require this But while we wait for negotiations

to start changes already happening. Speak to any firm in the West that

does business with Europe and they'll tell you that Brexit

is already having It's down to the weakening value

of this, British Sterling, These caravans are being

fitted with a German Since the referendum last June

there's been a 15% rise That is being passed

on to the customer with the price tag for a new caravan

or motorhome up 5%. The costs might be rising,

but bosses remain upbeat. One of the upsides for us

is a weaker pound means that overseas holidays

are more expensive. As a result people will holiday

in the UK which is good for us. The staycation phenomenon

will continue. A weak pound makes life tougher

for those who import goods, but businesses that this food

and drinks then in Bristol are being Look what the pound

has done since Brexit. The pound has never been as weak,

well, not for decades, Our products, people

love our products, they've just got There is no legislation at the

moment, or very little, crack on! Political turbulence isn't

to everyone's taste. The bank, HSBC, is moving

a thousand UK staff to Paris. At this clothing distribution

business near Bristol Boss, Charlie Allen,

isn't taking on new staff For him, any end to free trade

might mean moving some At the moment he ships

in skateboarding clothes from China to Bristol,

where they are hit He then distribute them

on to markets across the EU. The single market means

he pays no further fees. But he worries Brexit might mean

new trade barriers with Europe, which is why he has costed out

starting up a new warehouse It's a decision we weren't

making until we can see We hope to be able to keep

all of our warehousing here. But it all hinges

on those negotiations. One third come from Europe,

and he's offered to pay for them He says it's to reassure them

that they can carry on living here. I preferred it when we just used

to sell skateboards, Ultimately, it's hardly huge

impact our business. In London and on the Swiss Alps this

week the Prime Minister But still not clear enough for some

West Country businesses feeling That was Robin Barkwell, Charlotte,

what mandate has the Prime Minister got for a hard Brexit

when the country was pretty evenly split on whether we

should leave the EU? I think you can rehearse

whether a referendum result means a referendum result,

there was a majority We do face a challenge of a very

divided country now with a section But was she right to say out

of the single market, possibly out of the customs union,

the whole works. The independent think tank,

told Europe, which has been neutral on this,

and just pragmatic, said that her speech

was a masterclass in common sense. And I think what she was doing

is looking at the realities and doing her best to make it

work for Britain. You can't base what you want to do

one a fantasy, however much you might want the world to be

something else, it isn't. As we saw in your clip,

there are difficult challenges to overcome, but there arch

two members upsides. Particularly for Britain, but also,

for emerging economies like Africa, for whom Europe has been a real

barrier to trade. Britain now has a chance to deal

with them and help lift those I think the problem

was that we still, we had a little bit more clarity from Theresa May,

but she just outlined 12 She's now got to go around 27

European countries and get I simply don't think she's

going to get, you know, it was a very positive speech

about this new era. These countries aren't

going to sign away... We can't go into this negotiation

saying we want all the good bits, and we don't want any of the bits

we don't like. That still seems to be

the negotiation stance. Is there anything at all

that she is prepared to give up, because we want complete access

to the market, we don't want to pay anything into it,

we don't want free movement. I think they really important point

she made is that a lot of this, a of the success of Europe,

she said we want a strong Europe, It hasn't been said

enough in the past. She was saying, look,

we are up for being pragmatic. And we really want

you to succeed as well. And, actually, an awful lot of this

is a choice for Europe, whether it wants to punish us

because it are proud of its project, or whether it wants

prosperity and pragmatism. So the pragmatic thing is for them

to give us everything, The pragmatic thing is to do a deal

whereby we do well, they do well. Often it said that Britain want

something for it so that other countries don't want,

but Britain, I think, would say to any other country

in Europe that wants to play to its strengths and not be part

of a homogenous group together, you can do

that as well. Kerry, do you accept that this

was a debate about immigration? This is what Theresa May,

sort of, understands. I think, certainly,

during the referendum campaign a lot of people who voted leave voted

because they had concerns about the level of

immigration in this country. I think that is something that does

have to be addressed. This is why the whole discussion

about membership of the single market would mean you sign up

to the full freedoms which would I think almost everybody accepts

that we do have two address that. But you also have to acknowledge

that a lot of the businesses, we heard from a business on that

clip that has a lot of European Food sector, farming sector,

across the south-west, there are workers that depend

on that Labour. That leads very neatly

to the next question. Do you accept that you got it

wrong on immigration, Do you think it should be cut back

drastically from Europe? Or should we continue

to have free movement? It's difficult to unpick

because you have... It is, because your party,

in the Bristol scenario a lot of immigration would be people,

refugees, asylum seekers, We are talking about people

moving from Europe. When people voted and expressed

concerns at immigration they weren't just talking

about Eastern European immigration. They were talking about

immigration across the board. You do have to look

at it in the round. I think that what hasn't been

answered is how we square that, where people, sometimes,

justified, sometimes unjustified concerns about immigration,

how do you square that I'm none the wiser, really,

about whether you think there should Yes, I think we need

European workers. I think there are so

many businesses... I'm not saying that they shouldn't

be some restrictions, but I am saying that we cannot just

close the doors One word answers from you both,

will you vote to trigger Article 50? I think, unless Theresa May comes

forward with the white paper with clarity, unless she explains

how on earth she thinks she's going to manage to get this deal

on the table with about 18 Mr Corbyn said on Friday

that he expected all Labour MPs to support the triggering

of article 50. I think it's a serious issue,

but I'm going to give it 900,000 people in the West will soon

be getting a brand-new type of political leader, a Metro Mayor in

May. Voters will go to the polls in South Gloucestershire, Bath, North

East Somerset and Bristol. Most candidates have been chosen for what

should be a high-profile job. They may struggle to get voters

interested. The West already has plenty of

Mayor. Most perform ceremonial roles in the town and cities. The

collected Mayor so far is in Bristol. The new Metro Mayor will be

different, covering Bristol, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North

East Somerset. But with separate powers from central government over

things like transport, planning and adult education. That has so far

failed to make an impact on many voters.

To be honest I don't know. I've heard that there is a process,

but I don't know what it is. These three areas have different

needs. It doesn't seem a good idea to me.

No. Not aware. It's different for those involved in

the West's politics. They have been focused on it since they voted for

the change last summer. They know the result is far from a foregone

conclusion. Based on the votes cast across the

sea council areas in the last general election the Conservatives,

who came well ahead, reckon they are favourites for the contest. But go

back to 2010 and the Lib Dems came first. Labour know the area can be

good for them. They got the most votes in the three previous general

elections. Local elections usually see the

party and government suffer at the polls. The Conservatives hope to

buck that trend. There was a smile on the face of Tim Bowles who was

yesterday chosen as their candidate. Genuinely absolutely thrilled and

humbled. It was an amazing turnout. A to reflect thing to see so many

people. I know the other candidates got to know them well. They were to

whether brilliant candidates and I was really surprised to learn from

every body else how many other good quality candidates we had.

Labour's selection of Leslie Mansell has pleased the other parties.

Especially the Liberal Democrats. Two are competing to be their

candidate, council leader Simon Clark and ex-Bristol West MP Stephen

Williams who feels they are on the up.

Ask me a year ago could the Liberal Democrats aspire to win an election

across the West country I would have said no. We need more time to

recover. Maybe by 2020 we will have done, but the referendum vote, the

Brexit outcome has transformed British politics.

Morale is very, very bullish. There is a smile back on our faces. We've

stopped being disillusioned and stopped being disillusioned and

disgruntled. We are going to win. Ukip's candidate is Aaron foot. They

are likely to concentrate on other more winnable contest. The Greens

have selected former Parliamentary candidate for Bristol West.

I think Bristol and Bath is one of those places where people are aware

of the next generation. They are aware of the pressures from climate

change. They are aware of the need for jobs that are resilient in the

future. I think we've got a good opportunity in the Bristol and Bath

area. All will now be getting about

campaigning, but the hardest task may not be winning electors over as

getting them to actually vote. The biggest problem is that this is

going to be the fourth election for the electorate in two years. I

strongly suspect that we could see turnouts fall below 20%. That is

going to be very difficult for all the parties.

The candidates have just over 100 days to sell themselves around the

new role to the people of the West. So we've got another election coming

up. Does anybody want a Metro Mayor? We want the things they could

accomplish. Such as what? A joined up transport

strategy for the region. Don't be ridiculous! I'd like to

think that a Metro Mayor could accomplish that.

Would they be senior to the Bristol Mayor?

One of the arguments for a Mayor and Bristol know that the public know

who is accountable. Marvin is well-established. People know who

they are. I worry that the Metro Mayor will be an obscure person and

no one is quite sure who they are or what they do.

You won't have that accountability. You won't have that accountability.

Who your candidate Leslie Mansell. Would you put her in that category?

It isn't about the individual. It's about the way it is structured. How

do you establish yourself in such a role? Anyone will find it difficult

because people won't understand. It might be that once they are imposed,

you see this with police and crime commission is, we get low turnouts,

and the lot of people just don't realise why they are there and what

they are doing. It's a bit of a democratic deficit.

That is a reasonable point, isn't it? Voter fatigue, and we've got a

Mayor, why do we want another one? It's having another election, do

people know what this other Mayor is? That's a big effort to explain

to people and not long to do it. This is the first time the role is

there, we'll be voting again and next time people will have an idea

who they are. Secondly, what this Mayor can do to make the roll their

own. I think there is huge potential. Bristol's region

misanthrope again and again because we haven't spoken together.

But we could have had a transport authority in the other big cities

have always had these passenger transport executive 's. You could

have had leaders coming together. We've always tried to do it on an ad

hoc basis. You will remember anyone, is this a way of bringing back an

evil authority which can look at the big issues across a wide area? --

Avon authority. We both campaigned for transport

authority but it didn't happen. Maybe the Metro Mayor will enable

the change to take place. I think it was sort of imposed on people. At

had a referendum. We were the only had a referendum. We were the only

city, all the others rejected the idea.

We've been pushed into this. Bad personality, whoever it is, will

have to come to a working arrangement with the leaders of the

other, smaller authorities, given the historic differences between

local authorities that won't be easy.

It may not be easy, but I think they Metro Mayor could be in a good

position to do that. They key task should be to bring areas that think

they are different to be a wider region.

Would you go for it? I wouldn't, I'm happy being an MP.

I have more than enough to keep me I have more than enough to keep me

busy for a while yet. So that they may be? It's a no!

Now, let's take a whistle-stop tour of the news this week in 60 seconds.

Bristol's other banks become Aaron Banks launched an antiestablishment

website, the Brexit campaigners said West Munster would shake up the

media. He was among a handful of Brits to go to Donald Trump 's's

inauguration. He won't be afraid to bring in that other people don't

find very palatable. The man in charge of promoting

businesses in Somerset about a row by getting a 26% pay rise. Local

enterprise partnership said it put Chris Garcia's salary in line with

reverence. Somerset Council leader claimed it

was out of touch. Councillors in Bath say they are now looking at

just two sites for the city's new park and ride. They will decide next

week. Campaigners oppose both. And more councils announced inflation

tax rises, they will all be charging 3.5% more. They save money is needed

to social care. -- to fund social care. That was the week, it has

flown by. Let's talk about council tax than this referendum suggesting

a very large increase in the tax. Is that something Labour would support?

After all, you've been asking for better public services for years.

What we want is very funding. The problem with devolutionist

austerities that poorer communities aren't able to raise as much as the

wealthier committees but are the ones that probably have more need

for services. It can be unfair. It's always a combination of local

funding, but National funding as well. That's why we're making case

for a Meno, government funding, to support what Bristol needs. Marvin

has got fined ?100 million with cuts in five years, that's sustainable.

Charlotte, is very excuse for continued austerity and local

government? We had to make efficiencies.

Interestingly, the area of the country having the rest around them,

if they are at their council tax they will still be below the average

national council tax. They have had real efficiencies, they are only

rising their tax to an average level. I think Bristol council still

has the enormous efficiencies it could make.

Name one. I'd like to see what they spend on consultancies and

recruitment agencies. We will ask them. That is it from the West this

week, my thanks to my guest, Charlotte Leslie and Kerry McCarthy.

Follow us on Twitter for the latest news from the West. Catch up on my

player, this would be available there. For now, back

have to do this. Thank you to you both.

What exactly is the government's industrial strategy?

Will ministers lose their supreme court battle over Brexit, and,

Well, tomorrow Theresa May is launching the government's

industrial strategy - and to talk about that we're joined

by the Business Minister, Margot James - welcome to the show.

When you look at what has already been released in advance of the

Prime Minister's statement, it was embargoed for last night, it's not

really an industrial strategy, it's just another skills strategy, of

which we have had about six since the war, and our skills training is

among the worst in Western Europe? There will be plenty more to be

announced tomorrow in what is really a discussion document in the

preparation of an industrial strategy which we intend to launch

properly later in the year. Let's look at skills. You are allocating

117 of funding to establish institutes of technology. How many?

The exact number is to be agreed, but the spend is there, and it will

be on top of what we are doing to the university, technical

colleges... How many were lit bio create? We don't know exactly, but

we want to put them in areas where young people are performing under

the national average. But if you don't know how many, what is the

basis of 170 million? That is the amount the Treasury have released.

The something that is very important, we are agreed we need to

devote more resources to vocational training and get it on a par with

academic qualifications. I looked on the website of my old university,

the University of Glasgow, the Russell group universities. Its

spending budget every year is over 600 million. That's one University.

And yet you have a mere 170 million foreign unspecified number of

institutes of technology. It hasn't got equality with the academics? You

have to remember that just as you have quoted figures from Glasgow

University there are further education colleges all over the

country. The government is already spending on 16 to 19-year-olds. But

also, we are going to be adding... This is new money that is all to the

good, because we are already spending a lot. We have already

created 2 million more apprentices since 2010. That many are not in

what we would call the stem skills, and a lot come nowhere near what the

Dutch, Germans and Austrians would have. I'm not clear how another 170

million would do. You said it is more than skills. In what way is

this industrial strategy different from what Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne

did before? It's different because it is involving every single

government department, and bringing together everything that government

does in a bid to make Britain more competitive as it disengages from

the European Union. That is what the last Labour government did. They

will much more targeted interventions. Under the Labour

government, the auto industry got some benefit. A few more sectors

were broached under the coalition government. This is all about

communities all over the country, some of whom have fallen behind in

terms of wage growth and good jobs. The Prime Minister has already

announced 2 billion as a research and development priority in specific

technologies, robotics, artificial intelligence, medical technology,

satellites... So you are doing what has been done before. There is

nothing new about this. Wait until tomorrow, because there will be some

new strands emerging. It is the beginning of the dialogue with

industry and with workers, and the responses will be invited up until

April. That will inform a wider strategy that goes beyond skills. I

have moved on to beyond them. I'm slightly puzzled as to how the

government knows where to invest in robotics, when it can't even provide

the NHS with a decent IT system. Discuss. I have to say I find it

bizarre that the government is making an announcement about an

amount of money and don't know where it's going. This is typical of all

governments over all political shoes, which is total disregard for

technical education, so different from Germany, who actually invest in

the technological side. Germany has a long history. We want to emulate

some of the best of what German companies do. Siemens sponsor

primary schools, for example. We want to get a dialogue on with

business. We don't want to decide where this money is going. By the

way, it was 4.7 billion that the government has agreed to invest in

science and research, which is the most significant increase in

decades. Can you remind us what happened in Northern Ireland, when

the government invested money in state-of-the-art technology for

energy? No one needs to be reminded of that, and that is not what we are

doing. We are inviting business and industry to advise where that money

is best spent. That's very different from government deciding that a

particular technology is for the future. The government's chief

scientific adviser has determined that we will invest a huge amount in

battery technology, which should benefit the electric car industry,

and... This is taxpayers' money. Who gets it? Ultimately, business will

get it, but often only when there is a considerable amount of private

sector finance also drawn in. But who is held to account? Various

government departments at local authorities will hold this list to

account. A lot of it is about releasing private capital as well.

Thank you very much. This week, the Supreme Court, I think we know the

ruling is coming on Tuesday. And the expectation is that the judges will

say Parliament will have to vote to trigger. Is this all much ado about

nothing? Parliament will vote to trigger, and the government will win

in the Lords and the Commons by substantial majorities, and it will

be triggered? Completely. We've known that. Parliament is voted.

Everyone is pretty confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the

High Court's decision and say it has to go to MPs. There will be a bit of

toing and froing among MPs on amendments. You heard Diane Abbott's

slightly car crash interview there. The Lib Dems may throw something in,

but we will trigger Article 50 by the end of March. If it also says

that the roll of Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast should be picked up,

that could complicate matters. Absolutely. That could delay the

planned triggering of Article 50 before the end of March. Not what

they say about the Westminster Parliament, because it is clear that

it was. I never understood the furore about that original judgment,

because every MP made it clear they wouldn't block it. Even though Diane

Abbott was evasive on several fronts, she said they wouldn't block

it. You are right, if they give a vote, or give some authorisation for

the Scottish Parliament and other devolved assemblies, that might

delay the whole sequence. That is the only significant thing to watch

out for. Watch out on Tuesday. Mrs May goes to Washington. It will be

another movie in the making! I would suggest that she has a tricky line

to follow. She has got to be seen to be taking advantage of the fact that

there is a very pro-British, pro-Brexit president in the Oval

Office, who I am told is prepared to expend political capital on this.

But on the other hand, to make sure that she is not what we used to call

Mr Blair, George Bush's poodle. It is very difficult, and who would not

want to be a fly on the wall in that meeting! I can't think of anyone in

the world who would despise Mr Trump more than Mrs May, and for him, he

dislikes any woman who does not look like a supermodel, no disrespected

Mrs May. Most of it is actually anti-EU, and I think we should

capitalise it. Let's get the Queen to earn her money, roll out the red

carpet, invite him to dinner, spend the night, what ever we need...

Trump at Balmoral! Here is the issue, because the agenda is, as we

heard from Ted Malloch earlier, that this is not an administration that

has much time for the EU, EU integration or Germany. I think

Germany will be the second biggest loser to begin with. They will not

even give a date for Angela Merkel to meet the president. This is an

opportunity for Mrs May... It is a huge. It could sideline talks of the

punishment beating from Germany. The Trump presidency has completely

changed the field on Brexit. Along came Donald Trump, and Theresa May

has this incredible opportunity here. Not of her making, but she has

played her cards well. To an officially be the EU emissary to

Washington, to get some sort of broker going. That gives us huge

extra leveraged in the Brexit negotiations. People around the

world think Germany as a currency manipulator, that it is benefiting

from an underpriced euro, hence the huge surplus it runs of America, and

they think it is disgraceful that a country that runs a massive budget

surplus spends only 1.2% of its GDP on defence, and America runs a

massive deficit and needs to spend a lot more. He's going for Germany.

And what a massive shift. I think Obama was quite open, in a farewell

interview, that he felt closer to Merkel than any other European

leader. And Jamie kind of reflected that in our discussion. Yes, that's

very interesting discussion. I think she was the last person he spoke to

in the White House, Obama. And now you are getting the onslaught from

Trump. This Thatcher- Reagan imagery is dangerous, though. Blair was

hypnotised by it and was too scared to criticise Bush, because he wanted

to be seen in that light, and we know where that led. Cameron

similarly with Obama, which presented him with problems, as

Obama didn't regard him as his number one pin up in Europe. I would

put a note of caution in there about the Thatcher - Reagan parallel.

Everything Trump is doing now is different from before, so Mrs May

should not have any of these previous relationships in her mind.

That is not entirely true. Donald Trump aches to be the new Ronald

Reagan. He may be impeached first! He sees her as the new Margaret

Thatcher, and that may her leveraged with him. Thank you.

We'll be back here at the same time next week, and you can catch up

on all the latest political news on the Daily Politics,

In the meantime, remember - if it's Sunday,

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

it feels much more violent, dark and exciting.

Join Michael Buerk as he explores the dishes fit for kings and queens.