29/01/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale are joined by Nigel Farage, MEP. The Political Panel consists of Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.

Similar Content

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



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


mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.


On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire: A drop


A radical idea is needed to resolve the crisis of


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. You are watching the Sunday


politics for Yorkshire and We investigate a drop in care home


places and meet one man with the radical solution to the


crisis of looking after our elderly Yes, they give money to local


authorities but it is the Government through taxation that


ought to be caring for the elderly. Yes, it's a slightly shorter,


but not less important, Sunday Politics from Yorkshire


and Lincolnshire today. I'm joined here in the studio


by Diana Johnson, the Labour And from Cleethorpes,


the Conservative MP for that It's known as bed blocking -


when hospitals can't discharge patients because there is no


suitable onward care available. But Sunday Politics has discovered


that the number of care home places available across Yorkshire


and Lincolnshire has dropped by 5% in the last five years,


whilst the our aging Now one man says its time


for radical solutions after his father-in-law


lived in five different Pat McGuire has spoken out


after he and his family chose to find residential care


in Beverley, in East for his father-in-law


who had dementia. But because of issues surrounding


closure and suitability, his father-in-law had to be moved


four times after initially settling While we can't ever prove it,


we honestly believe that the moves that he had to undergo affected him


and made his condition worse. Yes, they give money


to the local authorities but it is the Government


through taxation that ought to be caring, just as we would expect them


to do for small children, the young. We ought to be providing


the same level of care from Government


for the elderly. Others believe that the way money


is distributed within the care sector is vital in assuring that


the right services are delivered. Even when the country


was better off economically, social care was left


at the bottom of the list so it never got the funding


But the NHS, struggling as it is at the minute,


Spending a bit more on social care relieves the pressure on the NHS,


so moving some money from them to us.


My personal view is, it's about time the NHS and social


Funding issues have been blamed for a number


of care homes which have had to close down.


Earlier this month, Jeremy Corbyn said a Labour Government


would take failing private care homes into public ownership in order


The Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness says


What we do not want to do is what the Labour


Party wants to do - things like nationalising a failing


home with high costs, low numbers of residents


The Government is absolutely committed to getting this right.


If we look on the ground in Beverley, despite the current


problems, in the next few weeks we are going to see


over the next year I expect to see a much improved situation


In a statement the Department of Health says that it


recognises the pressures of an ageing population which is why it


announced nearly ?900 million of additional funding for adult


It adds that the Prime Minister has made clear this is not just about


money and that they are working to find a long-term solution which


helps councils learn from each other to raise standards.


Back in Beverley, Pat McGuire is not convinced.


I can only believe that it is going to get worse.


Here in Beverley we have lost or are about to lose


over 30% of the beds that dementia patients could be going into


There are new homes being built in Beverley but they are


extremely expensive and I suspect they will not want to see people


that need far greater care then many people who are just frail.


This is something I am sure many people watching today will be able


to relate to. We have a rising elderly population but fewer care


home places. What is the solution's ?900 million has been found to help


social care in the next two years but the local Government Association


say the shortfall was going to be ?2.6 billion. I think actually that


what Mr McGuire was saying about a radical solution to this needs to be


lit at. After the Second World War women knew that health care needed a


national approach we sat at the National Health Service. I think now


the time has come for all the parties to come and think about a


national care service is funded through taxation. I think we need to


integrate the National Health Service and whatever social care we


have committed work for people. This is going to get worse I think that


is why action is needed now. Martin Vickers, you heard there an elderly


man with dementia who in the last year of his life was in five


different care homes. Can you understand why many people say the


care sector is in crisis? Of course because people judge the care sector


or the health service by the own experience. Politicians can come on


TV and say we are putting in the extra resources in, so many


brilliant... Judgment is made by personal experience. I do not think,


as Graham Stewart was saying on the package, the solution is in effect


nationalisation because local authorities have a duty to find a


place for someone if a care home causes anyway. Let me put that point


to you Diana, Jeremy Corbyn says he wants to take failing care homes


into public, nationalising the care industry. I think we need to think


about how we do that. He has talked about failing care homes. I want to


think about how we provide the kind of level of social care across the


country that people rightly should expect. You don't agree with Jeremy


Corbyn? That as one bed but I do not think that solves the problem of


providing good social care around the country. I want to see about


local authorities, my own local authority will have taken ?40


million out of adult social care from 2010 to 2020 because of


Government cuts. To put it all onto Government cuts. To put it all onto


local authorities is wrong and that is why the national Government needs


to step up to be played here and save as a country we need to


think we provide for our elderly population. The heart of this


debate, Martin Vickers, is the fact that many councils say we do not


have enough money to deliver social care, do they? I am on record in the


House of Commons saying that cuts to cancel budget have reached a tipping


point now. In fairness, as Theresa May has said, it is not just a


matter of putting resources in, it is ensuring that councils and care


home operators use those resources to their best. There are many cases


where that is not the case. I do agree that has got to be a solution.


Whether you could find a cross-party solution, as Diana was mentioning,


in all honesty, I rather doubt. I the Labour Party going to give up on


attacking the present Government on the NHS because they have reached


some agreement? I rather doubt that. Part of the problem with the NHS at


the moment as social care and, I think as you said in your


introduction, as bed blocking. There are places for people to move onto


after the had been in the NHS. If we can get some agreement around social


care, that will help in terms of the NHS and budget and the problems the


NHS have at the moment. People are asking to Page 3% more on council


tax bills. Should they be paying more than that? -- pay more. That 3%


from people who are just about managing is a lot to ask. Nationally


the Government needs to consider the fact that in Surrey they can ask


their council taxpayers to pay a lot more but they have a bigger council


taxpayers, they will get more money from the council taxpayer Demi get


an Hull. Poor areas will never be able to provide that level of


service we need to see for our elderly population. You represent an


area that is not swimming in money, those council tax rises are nowhere


near going to cover the extra costs of social care? Note, it is to some


extent putting a plaster on a gaping wound. When much more serious


surgery is needed. It is a stopgap measure. I recognise the fact that


the care sector... We all know about ageing populations and the reasons


for this, but people do expect higher standards now. Changes in


society mean that the elderly zero longer stay with their families or


their extended families in the dying years. -- stay longer. It is the


biggest issue, certainly in cost terms that Government over the next


decade or two it will have two phase. It is an issue we will come


back to. Here is more of this week's political views Split-mac news. --


political news. Here's Richard Edwards


with our round up in 60 seconds. MPs will debate the Brexit bill for


the first time next Tuesday, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ordering


his MPs to back the bill regardless There have already


been resignations. A war of words has broken out over


a move to scrap the seven district councils in Lincolnshire and replace


them with a unitary authority It is a money-saving exercise


but will it be popular? Organisations involved in Jo Cox's


national lonliness commission met The late MP was passionate


about reducing isolation. The commission which she started


to organise before her And while Theresa May was a bit busy


across the Atlantic, the campaign to honour the last


surviving British dambuster went to Downing Street with some


celebrity support. Lincolnshire-born Johnny Johnson


was part of the crew that destroyed German dams


in World War II. More than 200,000 people have signed


that petition. The strength of public feeling there is clear. How


will you vote when it comes to Article 50? I have signed that


petition as well and I got something happens. I have always been clear I


am voting to trigger it. The hard work is going to start once that is


triggered and the negotiations. Making sure we get the very best


deal we can for the people of the United Kingdom and for my


constituency in Hull north. Can you understand why some MPs who


majority of remained voters, can you majority of remained voters, can you


understand why they would defy the Labour whip and vote against a? This


has never really been about the whip, this is about listening to


what my constituents said. Most of my constituency wanted to leave. I


wanted to stay but I respect that. I do understand that it is difficult


for MPs if they come from constituencies that have had a very


large remain vote. Absolutely, it is difficult but it is not about the


whip for me. It is about listening to the constituents and listening to


what they are saying to you. At Prime Minister questions the other


day, there was a suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn that the Government


will not be protecting workers' rights when we leave the European


Union, your neighbouring MP came up with a bill that would do just that.


Yet the Conservatives topped it down. I am not in the business of


reducing the rights of employees in my constituency but the Prime


Minister and other ministers have already made very, very clear that


there is no intention of reducing workers' rights. To some extent,


Melanie's bill was superfluous. Do you think it was superfluous? I am


worried about this. The Government could have supported her bill. The


good have showed that in good faith we want all the employment rights


people have at work to remain in place. They could have decided, as a


gesture of goodwill and good faith, to action in support. Things like


protection for agency workers and part-time workers, are you convinced


they will be enshrined in UK law when we leave the European Union?


Many of the rights we talk about were actually enacted by the British


Parliament before they became a European responsibility. I have apps


are looking no doubt that the overwhelming majority of


Conservatives will support enshrining the existing rules into


UK law, which is actually what the great repeal act when it comes


forward will do. -- absolutely. What guarantees are you looking for,


Diana? The bottom line is I want to make sure people I represent a zero


worse off and we leave the European Union. I will be looking for


guarantees for industries in Holby able to access the European market.


It is about jobs and investment in the city. -- industries and Hull.


The great repeal act, when it comes, will be spending a lot of time on


that because that is a huge amount to do. A huge amount. -- we will be.


You have new industries in your constituency connected with


renewables on the Humber. You getting positive messages at that


Brexit from them or not? Many of the industries... I most certainly am.


My constituents know I have been a big supporter of Brexit for the last


40 years. I am totally convinced that the country and my constituents


will be better off as soon as we can break three from the heavy-handed


Europe, which is might in recession. -- Miert. We do not want to upset


those Millwall fans. Thank you to Martin Vickers and Diana Johnson.


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.


Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale are joined by Nigel Farage, MEP. The Political Panel consists of Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times, Julia Hartley-Brewer of talkRADIO and journalist Steve Richards.