16/10/2016 Sunday Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Andrew Neil is joined by secretary of state for Scotland David Mundell MP and Conservative MPs Adam Afriyie and Kwasi Kwarteng. Panellists include Julia Hartley-Brewer, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles