16/10/2016 Sunday Politics

Boris Johnson hosts a summit of allies in London

to discuss how to broker a peace settlement in Syria.

But as war continues to rage, could "no-bomb zones" -

thought to be backed by the Foreign Secretary -

protect civilians, and how would they work?

We were told by the Remain campaign that a vote to leave the EU would

But with the economy growing and employment at record

Can Theresa May make a decision on airport expansion

without triggering a Conservative cabinet bust-up

We look at what's at stake, as the PM prepares to choose

In London, with a decision imminent on whether to expand Heathrow, is

Brexit causing uncertainty in the aviation sector?

All that to come before 12.15 - and the Scottish Secretary, David

Mundell, on Nicola Sturgeon's plans for a second referendum

And with me throughout - Tom Newtown Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.

They'll all be tweeting their thoughts and comments

So, in just over an hour, the Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, will host a meeting of foreign allies in London,

including US Secretary of State John Kerry,

to discuss military options in Syria.

Last week, Mr Johnson said the public mood had changed

after relentless bomb attacks on Aleppo

and that more "kinetic action" might be possible.

Has the public mood changed on Syria? There is a desire to end the

horror, but has the public mood really changed? Not really. When

asked, the Public say that something must be done and we must stop the

slaughter, but when also asked whether to put British troops there,

they say, probably not. We have a new Foreign Secretary and British

government, and we will have a new White House come January for sure.

So there is a feeling that what has gone so far in terms of not

intervening, not trying to oppose or block Putin from doing what he wants

in Syria has failed, so time to try something else. There was talk of a

no-fly zone. There's not so much talk about it now. Now there's

suddenly a no-bomb zone. Are we clear what that would be? It is

meaningless without a no-fly zone and no one is willing to enforce it.

For me, the biggest issue is, what is the point of the United Nations?

With Russia vetoing any possible peace plan, we are in a situation

where we are basically handing over our moral authority in the world for

dealing with humanitarian disasters and war crimes being committed by

the side regime and Putin to an organisation which is controlled by

Putin effectively because he has a veto on the Security Council. The

situation is untenable. We cannot sit and pretend we don't want to be

involved in this war. We are already at war, and we will be at war. We

need to get to grips with it sooner or later. If we are willing to say

that we don't care about Syrian children dying... But we are not

willing to say that, so we need to do something about it. We could care

deeply but admits there is not something we can do about it.

Indeed. When Julia says "Get involved", that does not translate

to anything precise or specific. The problem is you go round in circles

when it comes to reaction, because when people are then asked what the

endgame is - and you do need to have a sense of the end and an aim, and

one of the problems with Iraq was that there was not that - you can

simply say, something needs to be done and we are involved and there

should be military action, but that raises 10,000 other questions which

no one is capable of answering. As I understand it, the no-bomb zone

would be that we would designate areas where no bombing would be

allowed. We wouldn't have planes to stop it happening, but if bombing

did happen in those areas, we would use missiles to take out Syrian

infrastructure. It seems complicated, and to not take into

account what we would do if the Russians put anti-missile batteries

around this Syrian infrastructure, as well they might. And you could go

one step further. Your understanding is the same as mine. Doing something

to prevent drops being -- ones being dropped in that area, but without

engaging with Russia. You could fire cruise missiles into a runway, which

we were warned could be done, but the problem is, you could have a

Russian jet in the middle of that runway, or a bus of school kids. We

know that they are capable of doing that. You are looking towards a

confrontation with Russia, what ever you do. Boris Johnson would say this

is the kind of HARDtalk we need to get the man to listen, because

everything else has failed. Mr Kerry being there is significant, but at

this stage in the election cycle, it's hard to sue what -- see what Mr

Obama would do. We have no idea what to reason may's foreign policy is in

terms of intervention. The last thing she would want to do is to get

involved in a Middle Eastern war. But we are already involved. And the

idea that our entire foreign policy should be based on not having a

conflict in the Putin... The West as a whole is not wanting to have a

conflict with him, and that is why he is acting how he is.

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has repeated her

warning that, if the UK leaves the single market, she will push for

Speaking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning, Ms Sturgeon said

she would not hesitate to protect Scotland's economic interests.

There's a principle here about, you know,

Does what we think, and what we say, and how

And that's what's going to be put to the test, I think,

Theresa May, perfectly legitimately, says she values the UK,

In the Independence Referendum, Scotland was told repeatedly

My message to the Prime Minister is, it's now time to prove these

things, and demonstrate to Scotland that our voice does count

within the UK, and our interests can be protected.

Because if that's not the case, then I think Scotland

would have the right to decide whether it wanted to follow

I've been joined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. During the Scottish referendum

campaign, two years ago, the ETA Together campaign claimed that the

only guaranteed way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to stay in the

UK. That turned out to be untrue. You owe the people of Scotland an

apology. That isn't the full facts. It was made clear during the

referendum in Scotland that there could be an EU referendum. Ruth

Davidson, on many occasions, made it clear that people in Scotland would

have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they remained in the

EU. What was clear in that referendum, and you played a

significant part in highlighting it, was that those who were advocating a

yes vote could not set out a clear route for Scotland to get into the

EU as an independent nation. They were told if they stayed in the UK,

that was their best route to remaining in Europe. It turned out,

it is obvious that that was untrue. It was a route that meant there was

going to be an EU referendum. That was made very clear throughout that.

People voted in Scotland decisively to remain part of the UK in full

knowledge that there would be a referendum on whether the United

Kingdom remained in the European Union. That is what the vote on the

23rd of June in Scotland was about. It was about the UK remaining in the

EU, not Scotland. The people of Scotland were told to vote for the

union to be sure of staying in the UK. They also voted 62% to 38% to

stay in the EU. Now they are being dragged out against their will.

Surely that is grounds for a second Scottish referendum? I don't accept

that. I've voted to stay in the EU, but I didn't do so on the basis that

if I didn't get my own way that Scotland would be dragged out of the

United Kingdom. We have had a once in a generation vote as to whether

Scotland remained part of the UK. There was a decisive result in that.

On the assumption that we would also remain part of the European Union,

so a major change has taken place. I don't accept that analysis. People

were told that there would be a vote on whether the UK remained in the

EU. The reasons for Scotland remaining in the UK were

overwhelmingly economic, and those issues remain today in relation to

the UK single market. It is very odd that people who are concerned about

the EU single market are quite willing to

give up the UK single market, which is four times as valuable to

Scotland, and responsible for a million jobs. If the Scottish

Government demands another referendum, will the UK Government

grant it? The UK Government will have two agreed to a referendum, but

we want to argue that there shouldn't be another referendum. It

is in Scotland's best interests at the two governments work together

with 18 UK approach to get the best possible situation for Scotland...

If the Scottish Parliament decides that we do want -- we do not like

the terms of Brexit and we want another referendum, would you grant

it? There would have to be an agreement between the two

governments in the same form as the Edinburgh Agreement. The great shame

of the Edinburgh Agreement, which the SNP used to quote repeatedly, is

that they have not adhere to it, because a fundamental part of that

would be that both sides would respect the result. Viewers will

notice that you haven't really answered my question. Could Scotland

remain inside the single market in Europe as part of the Brexit

process? From the outset, I have said we would listen to any proposal

that the Scottish Government brought forward in relation to Scotland's

interests. We have had for months and no specific proposals have come

forward. Nicola Sturgeon was talking about proposals this morning, but at

this moment, I see it impossible that Scotland could remain within

the EU whilst the rest of the UK leads. It would be difficult to see

how that could be achieved. But we will listen to any proposals the

Scottish Government bring forward in relation to achieving the best

interests of Scotland. I am convinced that Scotland's best

interests are being part of the UK. You praised Scotland's membership of

the single market during the referendum. In March of this year

you said it secured jobs, was vital to tourism and industry, inbound

visitors and the rest of it. So why would you not want to retain it for

Scotland? I agree with the benefits Scotland has received from the

single market, but we are in a different situation now. The UK is

negotiating its exit from the EU. The Prime Minister has said it is

not going to be on the basis of existing arrangements, it will be on

the basis of a new arrangement, and as part of that, we will want to

secure the best arrangement for Scottish businesses. Given the

history we have gone through, do you want to guarantee a special post

Brexit status for Scotland. We leave the EU, but Scotland will have a

distinct status? I'm willing to look at any proposal brought forward that

looks at Scotland's interests. We have had no specifics from the

Scottish Government. They say now that they have them. It is a bit rum

to attack the Scottish Government. The principle is, could Scotland

have a special position, and would you help that or not? I am willing

to listen to any proposal brought forward. Will fishing and farming go

back to Edinburgh? The devolution settlement are going to be a

change,... Will they go to Edinburgh or to London? We will have a

decision at the end of that process. I want to make sure we have the best

arrangement for Scotland. You can't answer the question? We want to

listen to what fishermen and farmers say, and the people of Scotland. It

will be a package of arrangements, clearly, that need to be taken

forward as a result of leaving the EU. One final question. If the

Scottish Nationalist MPs vote against grammar schools, which are

purely for England, isn't that proof that your English votes for English

laws isn't working? It demonstrates all MPs in the

Parliament have the opportunity to vote on all issues. You wouldn't

mind if they voted to stop Grammar schools? Of course I wouldn't --

would mind... I think we have got the balance right in that

legislation. It is meaningless if they can vote to stop grammar

schools when it doesn't affect Scotland. They have to answer for

that, based on an opportunistic approach and cause resentment in

England. Thank you for being with us.

During the EU Referendum campaign, leading Remain supporters repeatedly

warned that a vote to leave the European Union would cause

Three months on, were their forecasts accurate?

Since the vote on June 23rd, the economic news

The value of the pound has been in pretty steady depreciation

since referendum day, falling to a 31-year

It was as low as $1.18 but has still rebounded a bit.

The weak pound left Tesco in a situation.

They stopped selling Marmite and other products for a day online

And a leaked Treasury report said that Government tax revenues

could be down by 66 billion a year in a post-Brexit economy.

Though the report emanated from Project Fear days.

However, many of the short-term economic fundamentals

The dominant service sector grew a healthy 0.4% in July.

In the same month, the unemployment rate dipped to under 5%,

House-buying has also been rising since the referendum,

nearly 110,000 properties were purchased in August.

Is the economy already suffering from the Brexit blues or not?

Joining me now is the former shadow Europe Minister,

the Labour MP Pat McFadden, who was a Business Minister

Do you know concede that nearly all the short-term economic forecasts

made by the Remain campaign have turned out to be untrue at best,

scaremongering at worst? No, I think this week was the week that the

beginnings of the economic effects of Brexit began to take hold, most

obviously on the currency fall. You talk about short-term, this began on

the night of the referendum itself and was given booster rockets by the

signals sent out by the Conservative Party conference. In terms of the

warnings next to reality, the warnings about the fall of the

currency speculated that it might fall in value by about 12%, the

reality is closer to 20%. Let's look at some of the warnings. We will

come back to the currency, but let's look at this. The Treasury report on

maybe 23rd said the following: That turned out to be untrue, didn't

it? What has happened here, which isn't in line with those warnings,

is consumer confidence has remained high. The actions of the Bank of

England in cutting interest have been important, so the short-term

effect in terms of consumer confidence... So it is wrong? Hasn't

turned out in line with that, but it would be complacent in the extreme

to conclude that with the effects of the currency which we know also from

the Bank of England's comments the other dates will feed into higher

prices, which will hit lower income consumers hardest. But we don't know

yet, I will come onto that but in the short term, I will show you

another one. A month before the referendum, the Chancellor George

Osborne said this: That turned out to be wronged too,

didn't it? We are not in recession but if you look at the forecasts of

growth over the next few years, the Bank of England have forecast growth

next year to not be the 2.3% it thought before the referendum but to

be 0.8%. Is it forecasting a recession? No, but it is forecasting

a slowdown which would mean GDP after two years would be for the ?5

billion less than the estimates before the referendum took place.

And it might be wrong, because look, it was wrong about the recession. Is

anybody now forecasting a recession? I don't know if anybody is

forecasting a recession. The IMF are certainly forecasting a slowdown in

a similar way to the Bank of England. George Osborne also said

house prices will plummet by 18%. Any sign of that? House prices are

not plummeting by 18%. Your side that you represent made much of the

IMF's claim that provoked Leave would mean an immediate slide into

recession, a collapse in house prices, and a crash in stock markets

which of course are currently at record levels. Even the IMF admits

there is none of that. There maybe longer term dangers but in the

short-term it happen. In the short-term it didn't happen. In the

short term what has happened here, as I said a moment ago, is consumer

confidence has remained high, the Bank of England cut interest rates

which put more money into people's pockets and I think the action they

took was important, but I think it would be wrong to say imply that

because these things haven't happened in the first few months

that we are somehow out of the woods on the economy. I understand that,

that's the last thing I would say, but here's the question - most of

these forecasters are still pretty gloomy about the long-term but if

they couldn't get the last few months right, why would you trust

them for 2025 when they couldn't say what will happen in September? Why

would you trust them to say what happens five years from now? People

will ask the question but the big tangible we have is in the decline

of the currency and that is a real and now effect. We can talk about

whether it is lost or minus, but the Government said the other day this

would bring inflation back, to use his words it is going to get

difficult, particularly for people on lower incomes and that will feed

into people's purchasing power. The international markets partaking of

you have our future prospects and at the moment it is not a vote of

confidence. Do you agree with the latest Remain mantra that people

might have voted to leave the EU but didn't necessarily vote to leave the

single market? I do agree with that. A lot of people have said people who

voted to leave didn't know that's what they were voting for, so let me

show you a clip of David Cameron at the height of the referendum

campaign. The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the

EU and the single market, we then have to negotiate a trade deal from

outside with the European Union. There you have it loud and clear on

BBC television, voting Leave means leaving the single market, not

losing access to it but leaving the membership of it. We have George

Osborne on tape saying the same thing, so why do you make out Leave

voters didn't know what they were voting for? I think people voted

Leave for a number of different reasons. For some it might have been

immigration, for some it might have been the promise of more money for

the NHS, but there are number of countries outside the EU which can

have full access to the single market, we know about Norway and on.

But they all have to pay in and have free movement. We can come onto that

but what I'm saying is it's not the case that when you are outside the

EU you necessarily have to be outside the single market and the

reason this is important is because this has been a cornerstone of

British economic policy for many years, particularly in terms of our

inward investment, and the reasons why both manufacturing industry and

financial services has invested and created employment in the UK, and I

think it would be cavalier to begin this negotiation by closing the door

on that. Is it Labour's policy, I know you don't speak for Labour

leadership, but is it their policy to remain in the single market? You

are right, I'm a backbencher, but it is the policy to have as full access

as possible to the single market. At least what we have now in terms of

goods and services. You can call it membership or not but that is what

Keir Starmer and the Labour Party wants. The old party home affairs

select committee is blaming Jeremy Corbyn's lack of leadership for

creating a safe space for what they call vile anti-Semitism. Do you

agree with that? I think this report should be taken seriously. The

atmosphere in the Labour Party, there has been a lot of nasty things

said on social media over the past year in particular. I hope we don't

make the mistake of shooting the messenger, I hope we take the report

seriously and I hope we don't fall into the trap that sometimes I see

when these accusations are wielded, that we point to antiracism records

and say look at our virtue in our record here, that must mean we

cannot be anti-Semitic. Let me be clear about this, pointing to your

own sense of righteousness is no excuse for nastiness or cruelty to

someone else so we should take this very seriously indeed. Pat McFadden,

thank you for being with us this morning.

A third runway at Heathrow was first given the green

light by Gordon Brown's government in 2009.

Almost eight years on, could Theresa May be about finally

to allow Heathrow expansion to go ahead?

Or could she surprise everyone and back Gatwick instead?

Maybe she will come out in favour of both of them!

A decision is expected imminently, but it's not straightforward

Several members of her cabinet are opposed to any plan to expand

Heathrow, and reports suggest as many as 60 of her backbenchers

Our reporter, Mark Lobel, has been looking at

A growing number of people want to take more flights and some

accuse the Government of dragging their feet over

All the while, our airports are operating flat-out.

So this is fully autonomous, you just have to press the start

Matthew Hill is from a business-backed group campaigning

We haven't had a full-length runway in London and the south-east

Gatwick was built in the 1930s, Heathrow in the 1940s,

Heathrow is full, Gatwick will be full in the next few years.

Matthew's group claims the lack of a new runway is costing us

I think there are huge economic benefits from the construction

At the moment, because we don't have that new runway, we don't

have that new capacity, the new flights to new markets,

we are missing out on ?9.5 billion a year in lost trade.

Until we get that decision and we get that runway

built, we will continue to lose out on that trade.

One airport that's eager to expand is Heathrow,

either by expanding this northern runway, the one closest to us here,

or, the Airports Commission's favourite proposal, building

a new runway parallel to here, about a kilometre that way in place

It's said that would offer 40 new destinations from the airport,

carry lots more air freight, provide 70,000 new jobs

and an overall boost to economic activity in the country,

with a promise of no night flights, new environmental and community

Heathrow's hub status also services many of the UK's other airports,

On average, every year a quarter of a million passengers travel

to and from this key exporting region via Heathrow,

While we've been very strong supporters of a third runway

at Heathrow, we think it's in the best interests

of the north-east, we also think it's in the best

Our services connect to many, many destinations across the world,

and allow businesses to trade right the way across the globe.

Gatwick Airport also wants to expand with another runway here.

By doubling Gatwick's capacity, the plan would create 22,000

new jobs, a vastly expanded short-haul network, and more

I think the expansion of Gatwick will bring firstly

the certainty of delivery, we can have spades in the ground

in this Parliament and we can be operational in the next,

so that's within ten years we can have a new runway,

and Gatwick can provide the increased capacity at a price

Now, before anyone gets carried away, there are of course some

people who would far prefer no extra planes in the sky.

We already fly more than everybody else,

most of these are leisure flights, well who's taking

Actually 70% of all of our flights are taken by 15% of the population.

It's a wealthy frequent-flying elite.

But with approval of a third runway looking likely,

could more protests be on the horizon?

I can tell you now, they are dusting off the handcuffs, you know,

And you have to remember, Heathrow, if they choose to expand

Heathrow, you are talking about hundreds of homes

being bulldozed, whole communities being eradicated, wiped off the map.

Over the last few years, since the last big protest around

Heathrow, the relationship between local people around

the airport and grass roots climate change activists

Those guys are going to get together and just cause merry hell for people

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, who once called for a better not

bigger Heathrow whilst in opposition, will chair a select

group of colleagues expected to decide imminently

on whether to build a new runway and where.

It will then take months for a national policy statement

outlining the new works to get drawn up before MPs get to vote on it,

leaving plenty of time for any further opposition to airport

I've been joined by two Conservative MPs.

Adam Afriyie is opposed to Heathrow expansion,

Adam, the independent Daviess report into runway expansion said the case

for Heathrow was clear and unanimous in the Commission. 180,000 more

jobs, more than ?200 billion in economic benefits. So why are you

putting the interests of your constituency before the national

interest? I will fight tooth and nail for the interests of my

constituents, but the wonderful thing about the binary choice

between Heathrow and Gatwick is that it is not in the regional or

consumers' interests to expand Heathrow. The Daviess report has

already been largely undermined. There are 17 reasons why it doesn't

work and is wrong. Number one, they said Gatwick would not have 42

million passengers until 2024. This year, they already have 42 million

passengers. Gatwick have increased their destinations to 20 now, which

they didn't expect either. The Davies review was good in its day,

but is it had a limited remit. They were talking about Heathrow as a

hub, but the airline industry has changed. We have to pay to this for

more than 15 years. The government White Paper in 2003 suggested we

should expand Heathrow. ?20 million and 12 years later, the Davis Report

came to the same conclusion. We are never going to get any form of

progress on this is competing MPs are allowed to frustrate the

process. You could have had about three people who are Gatwick MPs

arguing very passionately against Adam's desire to expand Gatwick. The

point is, we are in a paralysis. We are having a theological debate that

will last decades, and Heathrow is... Why Heathrow? Why not expand

Gatwick and increase the capacity of our regional airports? I thought the

government's strategy was to rebalance the economy in favour of

the North and the Midlands. If you listen to northern MPs, or people

representing Northern or Scottish interests, they all say they want to

increase Heathrow. The SNP said last week they wanted Heathrow to be

expanded. If you want to help the economy is in those areas, listen to

what they are saying. They are saying expand Heathrow. 32 regional

airports support the expansion of Heathrow to maintain its position as

one of the global hubs. Even the Scottish Government agrees with

expanding Heathrow. They all say, we want to be a serious player in

aviation. We need a global hub, and that is Heathrow. The interesting

thing is that there is no argument that Heathrow is the UK hub, and no

one is trying to get rid of that. But if you are adding a single new

runway, is it better to add it at Heathrow or Gatwick, and for me it

is overwhelmingly clear. Heathrow is the most expensive airport in the

world. If you add another runway at taxpayer expense, you make it even

more expensive. So flight prices go up. Whether or not Heathrow could

ever be delivered is another question. My own Borough Council as

part of the legal action... So even if the decision is made, we may not

see the capacity. At Gatwick is dirt cheap. It can be delivered within

ten years. But it is not a global hub airport. But the hub that we

have at Heathrow is perfectly adequate for the next ten or 15

years. It is running at 99% capacity. Every airline, the new

planes being ordered... The airline have decided that the hub capacity

is sufficient and they are moving to a different model. Let me ask you

this. We haven't built a major new runway in London and the south-east

for 60 years. Since 1946, so 70 years. Why not expand Heathrow and

Gatwick? Personally, I would do both. If we are serious about having

international trade and Golding links to the outside world,

especially after Brexit, we have to get serious about aviation and

accept that we need more capacity. I think it's scandalous we haven't

managed to expand capacity for 70 years, when we think of the economic

growth that has happened in that time. If we want to build a

prosperous economy, it seems bizarre we are reluctant to increase

aviation. Whatever the decision, do you think there will be a free vote

on this? I think this is one area where I think the government does

need to take a lead, and I hope they will make a rational choice for

Gatwick. If the government comes out for Heathrow, will you defy the

whips? Yes. I will always vote for Heathrow, because it doesn't make

economic sense. If MPs are happy at the prospect of Heathrow... Does the

figure strike a chord with you? I would hope there would be more, but

it depends on the political position of Labour and the SNP. I hope that

the government decides inclusively... Ad is doing what he

feels is the best for his constituents. I think 60 is way off

the mark. I don't know what journalists suggested 60 Tory MPs.

My sense is that it is probably about 20 hard-core people in the

House of Commons. I think it will be a free vote. If it is 20 hard-core,

you will need Labour to get it through? Labour MPs were very keen

on supporting Heathrow, in my experience. It may be delayed again,

of course. After 70 years, what's another week here or there!

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

We say goodbye to viewers has to be some degree of allowances

in return for renewing vehicles. You.

Will MPs get a vote on Theresa May's Brexit plans?

Why are the Lib Dems throwing everything they've got

at the by-election in David Cameron's old constituency?

And what will happen next in the US presidential election?

So this cross-party push to make the government come forward with the

outlines of this negotiating strategy for Brexit, and put it to

the Commons in particular, has that got traction? It has in that it is

attracting a wide range of support in the House of Commons, which is

now the crucial forum for these debates. Theresa May has said there

will not be a vote before she triggers article 50. So we have two

assume there will not be a vote. With this whole debate, there is a

myth going about that we don't know much about what Brexit means. We

know a heck of a lot about what it means. We know that when she opens

her mouth, the pound falls. The pound is in a different position to

the other Brexiteers. There is an accountability issue in terms of

what the House of Commons will have a say in, and that could become a

big story. Nicola Sturgeon has supported a second referendum. We

know a huge amount, all of it dire, and I hope that MPs do get votes at

some point. I suspect they will. For example, we are going to get one on

this so-called repeal act, which is an act of consolidation. There will

be others. We cannot leave the European Union without votes, but I

don't think we will get one on Article 50. What they seem to be

pushing for at the moment is a vote on the government's bargaining

position. They are not saying they want all the details, although

Labour has asked 70 questions. The Commons needs to improve them, it is

said. Is that fair? It is absurd. You don't go into negotiating with

Brussels talking about what was published in all the national

newspapers last week about what our red lines are. I don't remember any

other international trade deal being done in the public eye. Theresa May

hasn't said a red line on immigration. She has uttered those

words. There are lots of other intricate details. Of course they

are, but we broadly know her position. And broadly we know the EU

position. Broad knowledge is not the same as specific. The point is that

the British Parliament, all these people who are so obsessed with the

British Parliament having its say and democracy, they didn't care for

very many years when they happily handed over powers. The Lisbon

Treaty, which is like a new constitution. It handed over far

more powers again and again. And there was an express vote not to

have a referendum for the British people. But we have now given our

say. Putting aside whether you are for or against, is it realistic that

the government will come forward with some kind of green paper all

white paper that gives a broad outline of the government's Brexit

position? When you have the majority of between ten and 20, there is one

thing you have to do as Prime Minister, and that is to learn to

count. Theresa May hasn't done that. There will be a vote in the House of

Commons. Whether it's binding or not, because MPs will make one. What

will vote be on? They will demand that the government spelt out its

Brexit strategy. It will not be binding, unless they tried to

shoehorn something onto government legislation, which I don't think

they will do. They will be unsure. The will of the House of Commons

will express itself simply because there is a majority in the House of

Commons, a clear one, for soft Brexit. There will be a vote, the

government will lose it, and then it is up to Theresa May whether to pay

any attention to it. But she has got herself into this problem because

she has adopted the views of the 52 against the 48, dropping any sort of

language about consensus and bringing the country back together.

If the Commons votes against the government on this, it will be seen

as a major setback for the government and the Prime Minister.

Yes, seismic. Of course she can ignore it if you are talking about

it in relation to triggering Article 50. In a way, it happened with

Maastricht as well. The House of Commons will move centrestage, and

that context is that tiny majority. She has a smaller majority than John

Major had in the 90s, and it's going to be far more turbulent than

perhaps her calm, assured a facade suggests. Theresa May is a serious,

fully formed politician, with six years in the Home Office, but she

has never had experience of the Treasury or the Foreign Office. This

is massive, massive politics, and I don't think she's ready for it. I

don't blame her for that. If it comes to a conflict between the

result of the referendum and the position Parliament has taken, there

is a chance she will call another election? Effectively, it will be a

vote of no-confidence in her government. She should call another

election. I think the British people be very clear. The remainers I know

have all completely accept it that we are going to have this. There is

a mandate for leaves and the Prime Minister should get on with it. I

think the British people will not take kindly to any MP who gets in

the way. We have two by-elections this week. One in Whitley and one in

Batley and Spen, the seat held by Jo Cox. The main parties are not

competing in that because of the appalling circumstances in which her

terrible murder took place. The Lib Dems are coming big in Witney. They

came fourth in the general election, rather forepaws, that they are

bigging themselves up in this one. That wise? They've got to do

something to get themselves attention. They need to get noticed.

But what they have in their favour is that the constituency Witney

voted 53% remain and 47% leave in the EU referendum. So they will be

trying to get the remain a vote. This is the first test of their

remain a strategy. It is interesting that Theresa May bothered to come

out and campaign on Saturdays. There she is. The Prime Minister and the

former Prime Minister out campaigning. They are not going to

win, that they would have to come second. David Cameron had a 60% vote

there, for goodness sake. The Tory candidate was a Leave campaign. The

fact she is out campaigning isn't a sign of lack of confidence. She must

be confident they will win, otherwise she wouldn't be seen near

the place. OK, the American election. Just when you thought it

couldn't get crazier. We are familiar with drug tests for

athletes and cyclists, and all sorts of things in sport. But Mr Trump has

now called for a drug test before the third and final debate coming up

this Wednesday. Am I making it up? No, I'm not.

I think we should take a drug test prior to the debate.

We should take a drug test prior, because I don't know

what's going on with her, but at the beginning of her last

debate she was all pumped up at the beginning,

and at the end it was like, uuh, take me down.

So I think we should take a drug test.

He's also talking about the election being rigged as well, which may be

ground work for making his excuses. But here's the issue. That was

yesterday. With everything that went before, overnight, the latest

Washington post-ABC News poll. Mrs Clinton is ahead by only four

points. It's almost within the margin of error. Down from about ten

points after sexual assault gate. The simple reason why Trump got the

Republican nomination, beating 50 or 60 Republican moderates, why he's

been doing pretty well in the polls until the last two of weeks, people

buy into the anti-establishment thing. All you need to do is stand

there and say, of course they would say that, because they are all

crooked. That is the single biggest thing he's got going for him. The

Washington Post - ABC News poll suggests the whole business of the

nude tapes actually haven't made that much difference. -- huge tape.

-- lewd tape. Once you position yourself, you can almost say

anything you like, and then respond by saying, the elite would say that,

wouldn't they? You cannot really deal with that as an argument,

because you would just say, oh, that's you lot, you would say that.

There is a point where it becomes absurd, though, and I think this

current thing on doping tests is laugh out loud stuff. That surely

can't help him. You cannot think, what are the undecideds thinking

about this? There was a lot of information, not in the century, but

some information is more e-mails from Mrs Clinton are leaked. They

are showing her to be very much a globalisation person, very close to

Wall Street, talking about why... As Donald Trump said last week, it was

good to have the shackles off. This is him with the shackles off. The

reality is, all the stuff about Hillary not being very likeable and

dishonest, that is already factored into the polls. All the stuff about

Donald Trump being lecherous and racist is already factored in. What

still blows my mind is that people are still undecided! He's given

Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. It is going to be very interesting to

see. Jo Coburn has more Daily Politics

tomorrow at midday on BBC Two. I'll be back next Sunday

at 11am here on BBC One. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.