:00:36. > :00:40.It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:41. > :00:44.Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",
:00:45. > :00:47.and this week her government will announce new measures to boost
:00:48. > :00:49.the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.
:00:50. > :01:00.After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules
:01:01. > :01:04.it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle
:01:05. > :01:07.tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House
:01:08. > :01:10.is making good on his campaign promises.
:01:11. > :01:13.As the Government gets into gear for two years
:01:14. > :01:16.of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come
:01:17. > :01:18.over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -
:01:19. > :01:24.and the costs and savings once we've left.
:01:25. > :01:28.In London, banned in 2015 from standing for public office.
:01:29. > :01:30.Is the former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman,
:01:31. > :01:44.And with me, as always, a trio of top political
:01:45. > :01:46.journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn
:01:47. > :01:50.They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,
:01:51. > :01:56.So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House
:01:57. > :01:59.of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way
:02:00. > :02:04.Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,
:02:05. > :02:07.with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.
:02:08. > :02:13.Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn
:02:14. > :02:16.will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted
:02:17. > :02:20.Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally
:02:21. > :02:23.Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -
:02:24. > :02:25.blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy
:02:26. > :02:28.The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked
:02:29. > :02:32.about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.
:02:33. > :02:36.The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,
:02:37. > :02:40.and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.
:02:41. > :02:45.Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very
:02:46. > :02:48.difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,
:02:49. > :02:51.Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.
:02:52. > :02:59.We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,
:03:00. > :03:05.But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,
:03:06. > :03:10.we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.
:03:11. > :03:18.That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water
:03:19. > :03:22.torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a
:03:23. > :03:25.situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has
:03:26. > :03:30.drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.
:03:31. > :03:34.What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite
:03:35. > :03:38.plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The
:03:39. > :03:44.only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.
:03:45. > :03:48.Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere
:03:49. > :03:54.else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but
:03:55. > :03:59.Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of
:04:00. > :04:02.the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would
:04:03. > :04:07.like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do
:04:08. > :04:12.something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the
:04:13. > :04:19.main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on
:04:20. > :04:23.Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article
:04:24. > :04:29.50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to
:04:30. > :04:32.abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the
:04:33. > :04:39.North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of
:04:40. > :04:44.our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered
:04:45. > :04:47.policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is
:04:48. > :04:50.divided and we represent the country, in other words we are
:04:51. > :04:53.divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial
:04:54. > :04:57.moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called
:04:58. > :05:02.meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a
:05:03. > :05:08.point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is
:05:09. > :05:12.a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for
:05:13. > :05:16.that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's
:05:17. > :05:21.negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain
:05:22. > :05:27.sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting
:05:28. > :05:29.against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have
:05:30. > :05:34.been a token gesture with no support. But there might be
:05:35. > :05:38.meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The
:05:39. > :05:46.government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of
:05:47. > :05:49.those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates
:05:50. > :05:51.the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved
:05:52. > :05:56.on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I
:05:57. > :06:01.struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the
:06:02. > :06:07.bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not
:06:08. > :06:11.everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on
:06:12. > :06:16.Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little
:06:17. > :06:20.earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say
:06:21. > :06:23.this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in
:06:24. > :06:28.power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week
:06:29. > :06:33.may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.
:06:34. > :06:36.Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people
:06:37. > :06:39.on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week
:06:40. > :06:42.we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -
:06:43. > :06:45.when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters
:06:46. > :06:47.are published in the Government's new white paper.
:06:48. > :06:49.Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU
:06:50. > :06:52.by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing
:06:53. > :06:56.Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,
:06:57. > :06:58.and the likely costs and savings once we've left.
:06:59. > :07:01.It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.
:07:02. > :07:06.It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -
:07:07. > :07:10.vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.
:07:11. > :07:12.So, is that what's going to happen now?
:07:13. > :07:15.The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them
:07:16. > :07:17.and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts
:07:18. > :07:22.She needs something quicker, something more sporty.
:07:23. > :07:28.According to the most recent Treasury figures,
:07:29. > :07:30.Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate
:07:31. > :07:33.is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.
:07:34. > :07:39.There are some complicating factors that means it can go up
:07:40. > :07:42.or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK
:07:43. > :07:44.will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.
:07:45. > :07:47.But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.
:07:48. > :07:50.First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.
:07:51. > :07:56.It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier
:07:57. > :08:00.and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability
:08:01. > :08:03.as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion
:08:04. > :08:08.The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely
:08:09. > :08:13.to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,
:08:14. > :08:15.but what does the money they are going to argue
:08:16. > :08:21.Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's
:08:22. > :08:24.already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are
:08:25. > :08:29.Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,
:08:30. > :08:32.so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten
:08:33. > :08:40.Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded
:08:41. > :08:42.spending commitments, the so-called RAL.
:08:43. > :08:49.Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros
:08:50. > :08:54.for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again
:08:55. > :08:56.12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.
:08:57. > :08:59.Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.
:09:00. > :09:04.They include things like this building, the European Commission
:09:05. > :09:11.Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion
:09:12. > :09:14.euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.
:09:15. > :09:17.So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.
:09:18. > :09:20.They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks
:09:21. > :09:24.because actually they can hold us to ransom.
:09:25. > :09:27.They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.
:09:28. > :09:30.But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think
:09:31. > :09:33.a lot of European states think they are in a very strong
:09:34. > :09:35.negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make
:09:36. > :09:41.The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast
:09:42. > :09:46.contributions to the European Union every year will end.
:09:47. > :09:51.Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up
:09:52. > :09:56.to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.
:09:57. > :09:58.The Europol for example, that's the European crime
:09:59. > :10:03.agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.
:10:04. > :10:06.If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK
:10:07. > :10:09.675 million euros a year, based on analysis by
:10:10. > :10:17.But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.
:10:18. > :10:27.If we only opted back to those dealing with security,
:10:28. > :10:29.trade, universities and, say, climate change,
:10:30. > :10:32.it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.
:10:33. > :10:34.Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.
:10:35. > :10:36.I wonder if they're going to let me in!
:10:37. > :10:39.There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve
:10:40. > :10:42.trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part
:10:43. > :10:47.Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes
:10:48. > :10:49.between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
:10:50. > :10:55.That costs 4 million euros to run each year,
:10:56. > :10:57.though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,
:10:58. > :10:59.the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent
:11:00. > :11:05.Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some
:11:06. > :11:11.contribution for some preferential access to its market?
:11:12. > :11:13.The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting
:11:14. > :11:15.at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership
:11:16. > :11:23.Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,
:11:24. > :11:27.pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,
:11:28. > :11:29.but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.
:11:30. > :11:32.The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified
:11:33. > :11:34.in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated
:11:35. > :11:37.and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate
:11:38. > :11:43.Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat
:11:44. > :11:45.when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's
:11:46. > :11:55.But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such
:11:56. > :12:12.Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!
:12:13. > :12:15.And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet
:12:16. > :12:17.by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,
:12:18. > :12:20.and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.
:12:21. > :12:28.Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at
:12:29. > :12:32.the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make
:12:33. > :12:34.of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we
:12:35. > :12:41.should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former
:12:42. > :12:44.ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about
:12:45. > :12:49.the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I
:12:50. > :12:53.personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about
:12:54. > :12:55.getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our
:12:56. > :13:00.departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce
:13:01. > :13:04.settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until
:13:05. > :13:09.they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,
:13:10. > :13:15.if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come
:13:16. > :13:18.in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has
:13:19. > :13:23.a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the
:13:24. > :13:25.divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.
:13:26. > :13:30.Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or
:13:31. > :13:33.thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a
:13:34. > :13:36.softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the
:13:37. > :13:42.divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as
:13:43. > :13:46.the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the
:13:47. > :13:51.atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in
:13:52. > :13:58.Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure
:13:59. > :14:02.or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions
:14:03. > :14:04.believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations
:14:05. > :14:07.start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are
:14:08. > :14:14.prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the
:14:15. > :14:19.cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a
:14:20. > :14:23.figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because
:14:24. > :14:28.negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even
:14:29. > :14:33.60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa
:14:34. > :14:36.May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You
:14:37. > :14:42.could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would
:14:43. > :14:48.be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour
:14:49. > :14:53.Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should
:14:54. > :14:56.give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let
:14:57. > :15:00.her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few
:15:01. > :15:03.weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much
:15:04. > :15:08.detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's
:15:09. > :15:12.helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red
:15:13. > :15:17.line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if
:15:18. > :15:21.there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what
:15:22. > :15:25.the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't
:15:26. > :15:29.have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but
:15:30. > :15:33.spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or
:15:34. > :15:39.what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the
:15:40. > :15:44.NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.
:15:45. > :15:50.Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The
:15:51. > :15:53.question of whether something is political possible for her in terms
:15:54. > :15:57.of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the
:15:58. > :16:02.European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up
:16:03. > :16:06.settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be
:16:07. > :16:12.politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult
:16:13. > :16:16.for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.
:16:17. > :16:20.Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this
:16:21. > :16:24.issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May
:16:25. > :16:29.to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and
:16:30. > :16:36.will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.
:16:37. > :16:39.What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?
:16:40. > :16:45.Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here
:16:46. > :16:51.and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite
:16:52. > :16:56.bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all
:16:57. > :16:59.the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in
:17:00. > :17:05.Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in
:17:06. > :17:09.Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the
:17:10. > :17:14.Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans
:17:15. > :17:19.or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At
:17:20. > :17:27.the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for
:17:28. > :17:33.the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who
:17:34. > :17:37.will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is
:17:38. > :17:42.not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the
:17:43. > :17:46.UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit
:17:47. > :17:53.scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want
:17:54. > :17:58.to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to
:17:59. > :18:02.security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that
:18:03. > :18:07.was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is
:18:08. > :18:14.more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a
:18:15. > :18:19.little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price
:18:20. > :18:24.ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime
:18:25. > :18:28.Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our
:18:29. > :18:32.own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part
:18:33. > :18:36.of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other
:18:37. > :18:40.options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are
:18:41. > :18:43.looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with
:18:44. > :18:46.recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing
:18:47. > :18:51.boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in
:18:52. > :18:55.practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,
:18:56. > :19:01.Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a
:19:02. > :19:07.country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be
:19:08. > :19:12.quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of
:19:13. > :19:17.the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and
:19:18. > :19:21.eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it
:19:22. > :19:26.is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the
:19:27. > :19:32.tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having
:19:33. > :19:34.mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,
:19:35. > :19:39.but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of
:19:40. > :19:43.origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish
:19:44. > :19:47.because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of
:19:48. > :19:50.customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the
:19:51. > :19:54.South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we
:19:55. > :20:00.don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to
:20:01. > :20:04.lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the
:20:05. > :20:07.negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic
:20:08. > :20:24.reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the
:20:25. > :20:26.solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a
:20:27. > :20:29.positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it
:20:30. > :20:32.turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't
:20:33. > :20:35.really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the
:20:36. > :20:39.wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up
:20:40. > :20:42.crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free
:20:43. > :20:48.trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very
:20:49. > :20:52.hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from
:20:53. > :20:57.you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard
:20:58. > :21:00.crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional
:21:01. > :21:06.arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We
:21:07. > :21:07.will leave it there. Thank you, both.
:21:08. > :21:09.Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants
:21:10. > :21:12.and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim
:21:13. > :21:14.countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.
:21:15. > :21:17.On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it
:21:18. > :21:22.That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets
:21:23. > :21:24.criticising what he says was a terrible decision
:21:25. > :21:27.by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department
:21:28. > :21:35.Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate
:21:36. > :21:46.the ban until it hears the case in full.
:21:47. > :21:50.Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant
:21:51. > :21:54.I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban
:21:55. > :21:56.was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration
:21:57. > :22:09.There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the
:22:10. > :22:15.facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly
:22:16. > :22:21.inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out
:22:22. > :22:30.of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias
:22:31. > :22:34.and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are
:22:35. > :22:38.no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what
:22:39. > :22:44.I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order
:22:45. > :22:51.being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't
:22:52. > :23:00.travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no
:23:01. > :23:05.chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,
:23:06. > :23:11.National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",
:23:12. > :23:14.what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not
:23:15. > :23:20.going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the
:23:21. > :23:28.world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama
:23:29. > :23:31.Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some
:23:32. > :23:36.kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that
:23:37. > :23:40.they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the
:23:41. > :23:46.last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any
:23:47. > :23:52.multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?
:23:53. > :23:55.Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what
:23:56. > :24:00.President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of
:24:01. > :24:05.general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in
:24:06. > :24:12.seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real
:24:13. > :24:18.coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created
:24:19. > :24:22.under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want
:24:23. > :24:30.to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come
:24:31. > :24:37.together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups
:24:38. > :24:42.like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with
:24:43. > :24:46.these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral
:24:47. > :24:50.alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically
:24:51. > :24:55.talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish
:24:56. > :24:58.to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are
:24:59. > :25:03.simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's
:25:04. > :25:07.agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's
:25:08. > :25:11.only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So
:25:12. > :25:23.he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato
:25:24. > :25:29.is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the
:25:30. > :25:33.spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat
:25:34. > :25:40.up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to
:25:41. > :25:45.that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the
:25:46. > :25:52.salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I
:25:53. > :26:03.and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is
:26:04. > :26:07.not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump
:26:08. > :26:10.administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very
:26:11. > :26:18.interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the
:26:19. > :26:23.EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up
:26:24. > :26:29.to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was
:26:30. > :26:33.wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy
:26:34. > :26:38.was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even
:26:39. > :26:42.become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so
:26:43. > :26:47.would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I
:26:48. > :26:50.will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to
:26:51. > :26:55.have the best relations possible with our European allies, and
:26:56. > :26:59.whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself
:27:00. > :27:03.suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European
:27:04. > :27:08.nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that
:27:09. > :27:13.answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is
:27:14. > :27:18.to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral
:27:19. > :27:25.institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an
:27:26. > :27:29.unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the
:27:30. > :27:34.opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to
:27:35. > :27:40.nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think
:27:41. > :27:43.it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that
:27:44. > :27:49.don't take the interests of the populations they represent into
:27:50. > :27:54.account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became
:27:55. > :27:58.President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are
:27:59. > :28:02.obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about
:28:03. > :28:07.the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the
:28:08. > :28:10.interests of the people they represent. Given the
:28:11. > :28:13.unpredictability of the new president, you never really know
:28:14. > :28:18.what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime
:28:19. > :28:25.Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish
:28:26. > :28:28.questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen
:28:29. > :28:34.to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may
:28:35. > :28:38.be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and
:28:39. > :28:44.the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that
:28:45. > :28:49.we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about
:28:50. > :28:55.Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do
:28:56. > :28:59.next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his
:29:00. > :29:06.election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are
:29:07. > :29:10.flourishing economy, and most important of all from your
:29:11. > :29:14.perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends
:29:15. > :29:20.and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and
:29:21. > :29:27.we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.
:29:28. > :29:34.Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political
:29:35. > :29:36.capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed
:29:37. > :29:38.change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out
:29:39. > :29:42.of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just
:29:43. > :29:45.about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense
:29:46. > :29:48.of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost
:29:49. > :29:51.of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's
:29:52. > :29:52.new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce
:29:53. > :29:55.new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid
:29:56. > :30:01.has previously said politicians should not stand in the way
:30:02. > :30:03.of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures
:30:04. > :30:08.to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised
:30:09. > :30:10.to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas
:30:11. > :30:14.on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be
:30:15. > :30:16.relaxation of building height restrictions,
:30:17. > :30:18.allowing home owners and developers to build to the height
:30:19. > :30:21.of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek
:30:22. > :30:27.planning permission. Other elements trialled include
:30:28. > :30:30.new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land
:30:31. > :30:32.without building homes, land banking, and moving railway
:30:33. > :30:35.station car parks Underground, The Government today said it
:30:36. > :30:43.will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically
:30:44. > :30:46.to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability
:30:47. > :30:48.for young families, alongside its proposed ban
:30:49. > :30:55.on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,
:30:56. > :31:05.Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home
:31:06. > :31:08.ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now
:31:09. > :31:13.emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the
:31:14. > :31:16.Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on
:31:17. > :31:21.that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So
:31:22. > :31:24.far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we
:31:25. > :31:30.absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do
:31:31. > :31:33.so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for
:31:34. > :31:36.everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who
:31:37. > :31:41.want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,
:31:42. > :31:46.used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this
:31:47. > :31:50.government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have
:31:51. > :31:54.stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't
:31:55. > :31:59.bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the
:32:00. > :32:03.decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard
:32:04. > :32:07.the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have
:32:08. > :32:11.helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of
:32:12. > :32:15.it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You
:32:16. > :32:21.say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%
:32:22. > :32:25.additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent
:32:26. > :32:29.properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the
:32:30. > :32:32.speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised
:32:33. > :32:37.concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there
:32:38. > :32:44.is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional
:32:45. > :32:48.investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on
:32:49. > :32:52.the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional
:32:53. > :32:55.money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones
:32:56. > :32:58.before said it would get pension fund money to invest in
:32:59. > :33:03.infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is
:33:04. > :33:06.already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see
:33:07. > :33:10.some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the
:33:11. > :33:21.White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to
:33:22. > :33:24.rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other
:33:25. > :33:26.day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money
:33:27. > :33:29.on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We
:33:30. > :33:32.need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large
:33:33. > :33:39.developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable
:33:40. > :33:45.renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%
:33:46. > :33:49.below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it
:33:50. > :33:54.another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of
:33:55. > :33:57.their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what
:33:58. > :34:00.we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or
:34:01. > :34:04.rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable
:34:05. > :34:08.because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white
:34:09. > :34:12.Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power
:34:13. > :34:20.six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new
:34:21. > :34:23.homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year
:34:24. > :34:28.programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.
:34:29. > :34:31.The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the
:34:32. > :34:34.last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new
:34:35. > :34:38.programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,
:34:39. > :34:44.this government has built more affordable housing than the previous
:34:45. > :34:50.one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the
:34:51. > :34:53.figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this
:34:54. > :34:59.cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it
:35:00. > :35:03.happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer
:35:04. > :35:09.leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband
:35:10. > :35:13.promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and
:35:14. > :35:18.George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's
:35:19. > :35:23.changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which
:35:24. > :35:28.we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have
:35:29. > :35:32.six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much
:35:33. > :35:36.the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the
:35:37. > :35:41.tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed
:35:42. > :35:46.Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons
:35:47. > :35:50.institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home
:35:51. > :35:54.and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a
:35:55. > :35:59.short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term
:36:00. > :36:06.return and give families more security. You have set a target,
:36:07. > :36:09.your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million
:36:10. > :36:17.new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we
:36:18. > :36:20.are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this
:36:21. > :36:28.country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...
:36:29. > :36:34.2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking
:36:35. > :36:38.about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with
:36:39. > :36:43.respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is
:36:44. > :36:47.wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes
:36:48. > :36:50.built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total
:36:51. > :36:56.change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the
:36:57. > :37:01.figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1
:37:02. > :37:06.million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three
:37:07. > :37:10.quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1
:37:11. > :37:15.million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't
:37:16. > :37:19.do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this
:37:20. > :37:23.country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions
:37:24. > :37:28.or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.
:37:29. > :37:34.If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,
:37:35. > :37:39.100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am
:37:40. > :37:43.confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It
:37:44. > :37:47.is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes
:37:48. > :37:54.are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the
:37:55. > :37:57.white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there
:37:58. > :38:02.for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove
:38:03. > :38:04.land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should
:38:05. > :38:10.look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We
:38:11. > :38:16.have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million
:38:17. > :38:20.homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken
:38:21. > :38:23.housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green
:38:24. > :38:26.belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,
:38:27. > :38:28.Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.
:38:29. > :38:31.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
:38:32. > :01:33.Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...
:01:34. > :01:37.have do stop that and do another programme at another time an airport
:01:38. > :01:38.expansion, but thank you to both of you for being here. Back to you,
:01:39. > :01:43.Andrew. Will the Government's plan
:01:44. > :01:47.to boost house-building Could a handful of Conservative
:01:48. > :01:50.MPs cause problems for And what is President
:01:51. > :02:09.Trump going to do next? You have been following the genesis
:02:10. > :02:13.of this housing white paper. What do you make of it? I think it will be
:02:14. > :02:20.quite spectacular, pretty radical stuff. We heard bits about beating
:02:21. > :02:23.up on developers. I understand it will be a whack, walk, covering
:02:24. > :02:29.every single problem with housing supply and trying to solve it. Which
:02:30. > :02:32.means bad news if you are a huge fan of the green belt, because they will
:02:33. > :02:35.go round that the other way by forcing large quotas on councils are
:02:36. > :02:41.making it down to councils where they build. If you fill up your
:02:42. > :02:44.brown space in towns they will have to trigger the exceptional
:02:45. > :02:48.circumstances bit of the bill to beat on green belts. Beating up
:02:49. > :02:53.developers, opening up the market for renters across the board. And
:02:54. > :02:57.Theresa May, one of the most defining thing she could do on the
:02:58. > :03:03.domestic agenda. I am not as excited as Tom about this. I look back to
:03:04. > :03:08.2004, do you remember the Kate Barker report? Successive
:03:09. > :03:16.governments, successive prime ministers have been promising to
:03:17. > :03:18.address the housing shortage. In 2004 Kate Barker recommended
:03:19. > :03:24.hundreds of thousands new homes. Gordon Brown talked about 3 million
:03:25. > :03:29.new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never happens. The reason is at the end of
:03:30. > :03:31.the day this is local politics, local councillors need to keep their
:03:32. > :03:33.seats and they won't keep their seats if there are hugely
:03:34. > :03:39.controversial developments locally that they support. Yes, the
:03:40. > :03:44.government can and are proposing to overrule councils that don't back
:03:45. > :03:47.local developments, but they may find themselves completely inundated
:03:48. > :03:52.with those cases. I think that is the whole point of it, to take on
:03:53. > :04:01.those NIMBY often Tory councils and force them to build. I can't think
:04:02. > :04:05.of a better defining issue for Theresa May than sticking one in the
:04:06. > :04:11.eye of some quite well off half Tory countryside councils. The government
:04:12. > :04:15.gives councils a quota of homes they have to fill, if they don't have to
:04:16. > :04:19.fill that all run out overland to fill the quota, the government then
:04:20. > :04:23.comes in and tells them they have to built on the green belt? How is that
:04:24. > :04:26.going to work? At the moment the green belt is absolutely sacrosanct
:04:27. > :04:33.in British politics. They'll have to do some work on educating people on
:04:34. > :04:38.what green belts means. Potato farms, golf courses... At the moment
:04:39. > :04:42.the idea people have of the green belt being verdant fields needs to
:04:43. > :04:47.be dismantled. You are right. I agree with Tom, 11 million people in
:04:48. > :04:50.the private rental sector in the UK. In the last election more voted
:04:51. > :04:54.Labour than conservative. This is an area where Theresa May would look to
:04:55. > :04:58.expand her vote. The problem has always been, the same problem we
:04:59. > :05:03.have with pension policy and why pensioners have done better than
:05:04. > :05:08.working families in recent years. They are older and they vote more
:05:09. > :05:15.and anything to the detriment of older people. I wonder how they will
:05:16. > :05:19.get private money to come in on anything like this go they would
:05:20. > :05:24.need to have a huge expansion? There is a huge amount of speculation and
:05:25. > :05:27.one of the thing that locks up the system as you have people buying
:05:28. > :05:32.land, taking out a stake of land in the hope that one point it may at
:05:33. > :05:36.some point free up. At the end of the day, unless you have councils
:05:37. > :05:40.far more willing to quickly fast track these applications, which they
:05:41. > :05:45.won't for the reason I said before, it's a very long-term investment. Ed
:05:46. > :05:50.Miliband proposed three-year leases in which the rent could only go up
:05:51. > :05:55.by an agreed formula, probably the three years to give the young
:05:56. > :06:00.families a certain stability over that period. He had a use it or lose
:06:01. > :06:04.it rules for planning development, if you don't use it you lose the
:06:05. > :06:08.planning rights. Somebody else gets it. The Tories disparaged that at
:06:09. > :06:14.the time. This is at the centre of their policy now.
:06:15. > :06:17.This is probably item number four of Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa
:06:18. > :06:22.May has wholesale pinched in the last six months or so. Why not? I
:06:23. > :06:26.think if you look at the change in mood across housing and planning
:06:27. > :06:31.over the last 5-6 years, it used to be an issue very much of green belt
:06:32. > :06:34.versus London planners. Now you have grandparents living in houses in the
:06:35. > :06:37.countryside, knowing their grandchildren can't get on the
:06:38. > :06:43.housing ladder any longer. Maybe a bit more intervention in the market,
:06:44. > :06:46.tougher on renting conditions, maybe that is exactly what the country
:06:47. > :06:52.needs. Will they meet the 1 million target? It would be a defiance of
:06:53. > :06:57.every political thing that has happened in the last ten years. I
:06:58. > :07:00.think Tom is right, if there is only one difference between Theresa May
:07:01. > :07:05.and David Cameron it's the willingness of the state to
:07:06. > :07:10.intervene. When Ed Miliband said that he was seen as communism, but
:07:11. > :07:17.Theresa May can get away with it. How serious is this talk of a couple
:07:18. > :07:22.of dozen Tories who were very loyal over voting for the principle of
:07:23. > :07:26.Article 50 but may now be tempted to vote for some amendments to Article
:07:27. > :07:30.50 legislation that they would find quite attractive? I think that
:07:31. > :07:37.threat has certainly been taken seriously by levers. I spoke to the
:07:38. > :07:41.campaign group Leaves Means Leave last night. The figure they
:07:42. > :07:44.mentioned was up to 20 remaining Tories. That sounds a lot to me but
:07:45. > :07:49.that is what they are concerned about and those Tories would come
:07:50. > :07:53.together with Labour and the SNP to vote for that amendment. Although
:07:54. > :07:58.that amendment sounds rather nice and democratic, actually in the eyes
:07:59. > :08:02.of many levers that is a wrecking amendment. Because what you are
:08:03. > :08:06.doing is giving Parliament a sort of veto over whatever deal Theresa May
:08:07. > :08:10.brings back. What they want is the vote to be before that deal is
:08:11. > :08:14.finalised. It isn't necessarily the case that if Parliament decided they
:08:15. > :08:18.didn't like that deal we would just go to WTO, we would fall out of the
:08:19. > :08:24.European Union. There are mixed views as to whether we might remain
:08:25. > :08:29.in and things could be extended. My understanding is the people making
:08:30. > :08:33.the amendments, they won any deal that is done to be brought to
:08:34. > :08:39.Parliament in time, so that if Parliament fancies it it's done, but
:08:40. > :08:43.if it does and it doesn't just mean go to WTO rules. There will be time
:08:44. > :08:48.to go back, renegotiate or think again? The question is where it puts
:08:49. > :08:56.Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of the options... Once we trigger
:08:57. > :08:59.Article 50 the two negotiation begins on the power switches to
:09:00. > :09:02.Europe. They can run out the clock and it will be worse for us than
:09:03. > :09:07.them. I don't think either option is particularly appealing. I think what
:09:08. > :09:10.seems like a rather Serena week for Article 50 this week isn't going to
:09:11. > :09:15.be reflective of what will happen next. The way the government's
:09:16. > :09:19.position is at the moment, if at the end the only choice Parliament has
:09:20. > :09:23.is to vote for the deal or crash out on WTO rules, then even the
:09:24. > :09:27.remainder is going to vote for the deal even if they don't like it,
:09:28. > :09:33.because they would regard crashing out as the worst of all possible
:09:34. > :09:37.results. Possibly. It will be a great game of bluff if Theresa May
:09:38. > :09:39.fights off any of these amendments on Wednesday and gets a
:09:40. > :09:43.straightforward deal or no Deal vote. I have a funny feeling this
:09:44. > :09:47.amendment, if it's chosen, we must remember because we don't know if
:09:48. > :09:53.they will choose this amendment, if it does go to a vote on Wednesday it
:09:54. > :09:56.will be very tight indeed. Remember, one final thing Theresa May can do
:09:57. > :10:02.if she gets Parliament voting against, as Isabel would have it,
:10:03. > :10:06.she could try to get a new parliament and go for a general
:10:07. > :10:12.election. And probably get a huge majority to do so. The Lords, it
:10:13. > :10:22.goes there after the February recess. They are very pro-Europe,
:10:23. > :10:28.but does their instinct for self-preservation override that? I
:10:29. > :10:31.think that is it. A Tory Lord said this morning I will vote to block it
:10:32. > :10:37.on a conscience measure, but you have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran
:10:38. > :10:41.Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to the Lords reform saying is an
:10:42. > :10:44.outrage. I doubt they will vote for their own demise, to hasten their
:10:45. > :10:52.own demise by blocking it. What did you make of Doctor Gorka smart
:10:53. > :10:55.fascinating. Cut from the same cloth as his boss. I thought it was
:10:56. > :10:59.extraordinary listening to him, saying everything is going dutifully
:11:00. > :11:03.to plan. But at the end of the day, what they are doing is what people
:11:04. > :11:07.in America voted for Trump to do. If you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling
:11:08. > :11:11.on why America voted for Trump, they went into this with their eyes wide
:11:12. > :11:17.open. One of the top fears among American voters, particularly
:11:18. > :11:20.Republican leading ones was America's immigration policy is or
:11:21. > :11:24.could be letting in terror arrests. As far as he is concerned, he is
:11:25. > :11:28.doing what he was elected to do. This whole year is turning into a
:11:29. > :11:31.wonderful year long lecture series on how democracy works at a
:11:32. > :11:35.fundamental level. I'm not sure anyone wanted it but it's what we've
:11:36. > :11:40.got. This same in the way we've been talking about direct democracy and
:11:41. > :11:45.Parliamentary democracy. The same is happening in America between
:11:46. > :11:49.executive and judicial branches. We are seeing the limits of
:11:50. > :11:52.presidential power. Regardless of the fact that people voted for Trump
:11:53. > :11:58.they voted for senators. The judge who blocks this was appointed by
:11:59. > :12:03.George W Bush. So-called Judge Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush!
:12:04. > :12:06.It's fascinating we're having all these conversations now that I never
:12:07. > :12:11.bought five years ago we would be having at such a fundamental level.
:12:12. > :12:15.Has the media yet worked out how to cover the Trump administration or
:12:16. > :12:21.has he got us behaving like headless chickens? He says something
:12:22. > :12:26.incendiary and we all run over to do that and when you pick it off it
:12:27. > :12:29.turns out not to be as incendiary as we thought? And then back doing
:12:30. > :12:35.something and we all rush over there. Is he making fools of us? Is
:12:36. > :12:39.exactly what he did in the election campaign. So many quick and fast
:12:40. > :12:43.outrageous comments frontrunner on a daily basis, no one single one of
:12:44. > :12:47.them had full news cycle time to be pored over and examined. I think
:12:48. > :12:52.there is a problem with this. Although he keeps the upper hand,
:12:53. > :12:56.keeps the agenda and keeps on the populist ground, the problem is it
:12:57. > :12:59.easy to campaign like that. If you are governing in a state of
:13:00. > :13:02.semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the American public will be comfortable
:13:03. > :13:05.with that. They don't really want their government to be swirling
:13:06. > :13:10.chaos all the time, as fascinating as it might be on TV. They will be
:13:11. > :13:16.exhausted by it, I already am. I have been interviewing White House
:13:17. > :13:20.administration official since 1976 and that is the first time someone
:13:21. > :13:21.hasn't given me a straight answer on America supporting the EU. That is a
:13:22. > :13:23.different world. Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two
:13:24. > :13:27.tomorrow at midday with the Daily Politics -
:13:28. > :13:29.and I'll be back here Remember, if it's Sunday -
:13:30. > :14:08.it's the Sunday Politics. TV: He's not your father.
:14:09. > :14:22.WOMAN GASPS