29/01/2017 Sunday Politics West

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

mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.

In the West: Why are they still at it?

why is it not yet last orders for Leave and Remain?

Should she have spoken out more strongly?

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

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

In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze

and why it doesn't apply to everybody.

And with me, the best and brightest political

panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

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

Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven

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

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from

where refugees are banned from until further notice.

Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban

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

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

But the ban has sparked protests across the US,

as people affected and already in the air were detained

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

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

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

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

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

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

of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.

Downing Street later issued a statement saying:

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

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

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

She wants to see the evidence, she wants

to understand precisely what the implications are.

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

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

understand it, and then will respond to that.

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

pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.

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

We're joined now from North London by the Conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street

spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority

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

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

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

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

and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

right place. Thank you for joining us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she

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

These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does

something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her

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

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

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

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

communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit

was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,

keen for a new trading relationship with the United States

in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated

the new US President for his "stunning election victory"

but might not have intended to be pictured walking

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

Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade

will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President

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

said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries

increased their defence spending It's been announced

that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,

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

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

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

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

to Donald Trump her continued

backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over

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

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

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

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

decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the

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

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

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

protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening

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

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

America, they then go through biometric screening, database

screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who

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

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

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

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

herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial

president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building

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

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

controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying

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

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

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

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

elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

being with us. It's just gone 11.25,

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

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

be talking to our political panel. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. We've got a shorter segment

for you this week, but ready to pack a lot in are our guests

Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham, and Chris Philp, Conservative MP

for Croydon South. Let's kick off with proposals

to devolve more financial powers to the Mayor

and the capital's boroughs. The suggestions are contained

in the second report of the London Finance

Commission, out this week. The first report, you may remember,

happened under Mayor Boris Johnson. This one's gone further in what it's

asking for: retention of income tax, maybe a share of VAT,

as well as control of property taxes And it recommends looking

at new taxes like a London tourism The commission chair

is Tony Travers. What we're recommending that's

different this time is that in the spirit of further devolution,

which the Government itself has been talking about,

the possibility of greater health devolution, skills and further

education, possibly more transport They've launched a new news

website and are considering If we want to organise

a rally, if we want to give information on what's

happening, we have a massive following, so we can touch a lot

of people through our messaging. A recent rally in Bristol

drew hundreds to And it's unfair that my generation

should have to leave the EU, when we didn't get to vote

on it in the first place. Whether you can overthrow

Brexit itself, I don't know. We have to fight for the best

conditions, I'm ready to bend

anybody's hear about this. We don't know what we are

letting ourselves in for. And at Bath University

this week, the man who wrote Article 50 is now

drawing huge crowds. And at Bath University

this week, the man who wrote Article 50 is now

drawing huge crowds. When he wrote it, as a senior

diplomat, he never imagined And he still believes

Brexit could be stopped. You can't ask 48% of the country

to stay at home and shut up. Everybody who took

part in the debate Some Leavers would say,

this question is Now we need to discover

what being outside is. Can we have our cake and eat it?

We were told we could. And for many, there

is a simple reason why the debates and campaigns

are still so passionate. The ballot paper in

the European referendum. But it turns out that interpreting

the result For many Brexiteers,

Leave means not just leaving the EU, but the customs union, the single

market, and plenty else besides. For Remainers, Leave

means an agreement to depart. It wasn't a decision

about the destination. And while there is still

that argument about what the result means,

people will always want Let's pick up on a few of those

issues and talk about them. Julie Girling, you're

a Conservative MEP. Are you getting the cold shoulder

over there from your We are still very much

part of the mainstream. I've always been

an MEP who worke hard on committee, I saw my role

as making sure that European legislation is fit for purpose

for the UK. You told me when I met

you in Strasbourg last year that, if it went the wrong way for you,

you'd have nothing much to do. Well, that's clearly not the case,

because what's happened is, we have no clear view whether we're

in or out of the single market. We don't know what the trade

deal's going to be. So we have no idea whether we

are going to be subject So I work on the basis,

business as usual. We are in there until the day we

leave and I carry on doing my job. You saw Lord Kerr,

who is a retired senior diplomat. So, as he says, if we can't

have our cake and eat it, Do you accept that

might be a good idea? Well, there was a poll last week

and, out of the people who have voted Remain,

only 49% were unhappy And 51% said that they don't want

a second referendum. And we have what were

reluctant Remainers, who had listened to Project Fear,

and voted Remain because of it, I just want to pick up

on what Lord Kerr said. He wrote Article 50,

or helped to draft it. He said, "We can change our minds

and, if the benefits aren't there, "it might be sensible

to think about that." I just wondered

what your opinion was. We believe once Article 50 has

been invoked, that's it. And so, this has

a different...say on it. So, if it turns out that

Project Fear, as you like to call them, were right, you don't think

there should be a second chance No, I don't.

We've had a referendum. We were told it would be

a binding referendum. Nigel Farage told us before the

referendum that if he lost he would not give up, you keep asking for

another referendum. And now he expects everybody else to shut up.

Are you sitting around in little huddles in Europe working out how to

thwart what appears to be the will of the people? Not at all. It

doesn't work like that, does it? I don't know. We had a very clear

signal in the referendum. Everybody accepts that. But one question was

asked. It was a very simple question. Everybody interested in

what is going to happen next, and what the deal is going to be. I

don't understand why people are so frightened to ask people what they

think of the final deal, when it comes. What is wrong with that? It

is so complex, people have the is so complex, people have the

right, I think, to comment on it. It is just Brexit, not hard, soft or

whatever Brexit. The people who voted to leave voted so that they

could retain control over their borders. They wanted to make their

own laws. They wanted to stop sending money to the EU, and they

wanted to make their own free-trade agreements. None of that was on the

ballot paper. There was no clear Brexit manifesto. It was made clear

by Cameron, Osborne, it was made clear by Michael Gove. And they all

said, if you vote to leave it means leaving the single market. We are

running out of time on this discussion, but now that the courts

have decided that it has to go to Parliament before Article 50 can be

triggered, do you think it is right that MPs should vote on their

conscience and vote against it? I believe MPs should consider very

carefully. They shouldn't just vote with what their constituency voted

weigh up the pros and cons, and the weigh up the pros and cons, and the

most important thing for parliamentarians, they sit in our

Parliament, if they wish to be sovereign, they should be asserting

that on my behalf are your behalf. We have the right, in my view, to be

consulted before and after the deal and Article 50. Should they vote

against it? If they believe it is the right thing to do. Julia? They

voted 6-1 on the referendum -- on the Referendum Bill to say that the

decision to be that of the British people. So I think they should

honour that,... They represent the British people. We vote for them to

represent us. What is wrong, why are you so frightened of giving

Parliament the opportunity of having a say in how the deal should be

negotiated and saying at the end whether it is a good deal? Why are

you so scared of that? If it had been Leave against Remain on a

constituency basis as if it was for a general election, then Leave would

have won overwhelmingly. That doesn't answer the question. It

tells you that the majority of MPs are in constituencies where people

voted to leave. That tells you do something about the British

electrician system. -- election system. Let's have a look at the

political news in the West in 60 seconds. Here is our Martin. There

were protests in Bath this week as councillors finally decided where to

put a new park and ride. But campaigners are still not happy.

Pretty upset but I suppose it was inevitable. We didn't think we were

ever going to shift the opinion of this council, try as we might. The

director of GCHQ Edmonston these quitting his job. Robert Hannigan

has run the government intelligence agency in Cheltenham since 2014. He

says that it is for family and health reasons. This new road in

Taunton could cost taxpayers ?10 million. It is two years behind

schedule with Somerset County Council and its contractor locked in

a legal row. The loser faces a hefty bill. Bristol West MP confirmed she

would vote against triggering Article 50, in defiance of Labour

Leader Jeremy Corbyn. It came after Kerry McCarthy told us last week

that she would likely do the same. That was the week in 60 seconds.

Again, let's return to the chat about Europe. Labour obviously

having great problems over this debate. Conservative MPs have been

relatively quiet. When is your party going to have its next punch-up?

Everyone is distracted by what is happening in labour which is just a

complete train crash. But we are not talking about labour, we are talking

about you and the King -- the history of rows that the

Conservative Party has had about the EU? It has always been a very toxic

issue for us, it still is, but we are more disciplined and holding it

together. I'm not in the House of Commons, so I'm not party to the

daily chat. But we do have Conservative MPs. I live in a

constituency that voted to remain. My MP is a Brexiteer. How is he

going to vote taking the point that you go with your constituency? We

are not without our own issues. You go with a vote of the nation. Let's

talk about future trade. We know that the Prime Minister is in

Washington talking to President Trump. Would you be prepared to

lower standards of food production, say, in order to get a free-trade

deal with the United States? No, no. Already at the moment, figures show

that the United States is the biggest importer of our goods. So,

if they are quite happy to import our goods to the standard they have

at the moment. It is their stuff coming in. Would you take stuff of a

lower standard, for example, chickens washed in chlorine, which

would not pass EU regulations? Mirror. It is the same with growth

hormones. They are allowed to use growth hormones to make their

animals to choose more milk. So why, then, are we turning our back on the

EU? Because it is easier to note -- to negotiate a bilateral trade deal

with just two countries than for one country, seeing the problem with

Canada, it has taken years to Canada to negotiate a trade deal because it

has 28 countries. Bilateral trade deals, yes, but I'm saying it is

very difficult, the EU has not been very successful, because it is not a

bilateral trade deal. They have to have 28 countries in agreement. We

have seen what happened with the Canadian one. Some people in Belgium

decided they did not want some particular aspect of it. Do you get

the sense that our EU partners are likely to punish us for wanting to

leave and give us a bad deal? I would not use the word punish. I

don't think there is any and tension to be punitive. What I think they

are saying is, we're not going to give you a deal that makes it better

and easier for you to be outside than on the inside. Even if it

causes them to lose out, to lose jobs. They will make a calculation

on that basis. Everybody on the Leave side is saying that we are too

big a trading partner to throw away. Don't you believe it. The odds are

not stacked in that direction. We are one country, they are 27. Thank

you. That is it from a smack this week, thank you to my guests, Julie

Girling and Doctor Julia Reed. We are shorter today because of the

football, as you know. air-pollution. Thank you for being

here. Welcome back and let's get back

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

mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,

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

should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discovering that being a president is different from being a business

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

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

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

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

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

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

streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opposite the next day. Brown did the same.

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

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

the major government, even though their position on the single

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

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

dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

week. The Daily Politics is back

tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here

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

it's the Sunday Politics. a free five-a-side tournament

that's for everyone. For more information,

go to the Get Inspired website.