12/03/2017 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning - we may trigger Article 50 to leave the EU

But today, there's a major confrontation between MPs

and the government over a simple but hugely important question.

I'm joined this morning by the man at the centre of the argument,

And as the aftershocks of the budget continue,

I'll be talking to Jeremy Corbyn's left-hand woman Rebecca Long-Bailey

But those aren't the only political rows this weekend.

With the future of power sharing in Northern Ireland hanging

in the balance Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams joins us

We also have the new face of Star Wars Thandie Newton.

And singing us out, fresh from her Brits

On my paper review panel this morning

Owen Jones of the Guardian and the Sun

All that after the news, read for us this

The Brexit Secretary, David Davis, has urged MPs to leave the bill

for exiting the EU unchanged when it is debated in

Mr Davis, writing in the Sunday Telegraph,

says the Prime Minister must be able to enter negotiations

If MPs pass the bill, the Prime Minister could trigger

The diplomatic row between the Netherlands

Riot police in Rotterdam have used water cannon to break up

a demonstration by Turkish protestors, angry about a decision

to ban their country's Foreign Minister from

Another Turkish minister who tried to reach the protesters was expelled

The Metropolitan Police have been given additional funding to extend

the search for Madeleine McCann for a further six months.

The Home Office has given officers ?85,000 to cover

The investigation was expected to wind up next month,

but the extra money will extend it beyond the tenth anniversary of her

The Sister Sledge singer Joni Sledge, who had a number

of disco hits with her three sisters in the 70s, has died

The band was formed in 1971 with their biggest hit

"We are Family" hitting the charts eight years later.

Three of the sisters have continued to record music and last performed

That's all from me. The next news on BBC One is at 1pm.

The mail on Sunday with a savage attack on David Davis, grossly

negligent and a direction of his duty, picking up on the report that

we will talk about a lot in this programme later on. The Sunday

Times. Our spies are apparently briefing political parties on the

dangers of the Russians trying to hack them and what they can do about

it. Another interesting story about Theresa May who could ask the EU to

pay back ?9 billion from a European bank as part of negotiations. We are

tasteful, we will not talk about the rugby very much! The Sunday

Telegraph, the Cabinet War overbudget shambles. This is

interesting. After the national insurance row and the allegation the

Conservatives have broken their manifesto pledge, a lot of MPs have

been wading into the Chancellor Philip Hammond including Norman

Lamont, ferociously. Suggesting this is connected to Philip Hammond being

moderate on the Brexit argument and they are trying to take it out. We

did not know whether it is true or not. The Observer, MPs slam a over a

lack of a planet Brexit talks collapse. We won't talk about the

rugby. Let's talk about the big Brexit

story. David Davis writing in the Sunday Telegraph. Yes, Brexit,

Brexit, that is what we will talk about for the next 20 years! David

Davis making the government's case against the amendments would have

come back to the House of Lords. It would give MPs a proper say over

the final deal. It would also safeguard the rights of EU citizens

in this country. The problem, we had a referendum partly about Parliament

true sovereignty, taking back control, giving Parliament a proper

say is obviously consistent with that. The crucial issue is, if they

don't have... If they give what they say at the moment, which Parliament

will take or leave the deal, if there is no deal, this country will

revert to, World Trade Organisation rules, food prices will hurtle up,

the cost of other goods will hurtle up on the economy will be thrown

into recession. Parliament are saying they should have a proper

scrutiny of the final deal. This is when a lot of people find it hard to

understand the government said say we will give Parliament a vote at

the end of the process -- the government says. What is the

problem? Parliament have basically been told that you take this deal or

you throw the country into recession and heard a lot of food prices. Who

would you blame? The government would say we had a deal but

Parliament rejected it, it is their fault. But I think it is reckless.

This is a calculation the government will make, people will look at what

the government is doing and say, hang on a minute, you are seriously

going to threaten the very future of the economy instead of saying,

actually, Parliament can scrutinise aspects of the deal, the single

market, customs union and other aspects. To which the government

replies, however, that if we allow the Commons to second-guess us,

Jane, we're not already in charge of our own negotiations? Precisely.

Also, going into the Mail on Sunday Pages six and seven, the Mail on

Sunday has been very pro-Remain from the beginning. They have really gone

for this. They have. It's good that we have a divided media, actually,

for debate. There are saying that the all-party

Foreign Affairs Committee said there is a real possibility of Britain

leaving the EU without a deal. And there is no evidence that the

government was seriously preparing for it. Are they keeping their

powder dry? If you want to get the best deal out of a negotiation, is

it psychologically to your advantage if you go to the negotiator, this is

what we want but by the way, if you don't give it to us, we have this

back-up? Maybe they have got a no deal plan but they are just not

telling anyone. We are leaving the European Union, I

resent the fact the government are basically saying that this is an

attempt to scupper Brexit. It isn't. This could work in the government's

advantage, this story. It has put to one side the other huge row which is

the breaking of the manifesto promise over Southern Bremen. Yes. I

quickly wanted to do the Iain Duncan Smith piece on Brexit. -- over

national insurance. Protecting the rights of EU citizens here it was

mentioned. I absolutely agree with that. But Iain Duncan Smith is

making the very valid point that there is no guarantee for the

protection of UK citizens. Currently living in Europe. The question is

about tactics. Is it better for us to do a big, generous gesture right

at the beginning and say, whatever you say, we will protect your

citizens and hope that improves the tone of the debate? Or is that

handing a cost to the next side. It is the right thing to do.

Absolutely. What about the other way round? It is about making a stand.

The EU are put in a difficult position. This drives you towards

the post-budget story. An excellent story by Tim Shipman in the Sunday

Times. Number ten and 11 are at each other's throats, they are briefing

against each other. This is about the broken manifesto commitment on

national insurance. The Conservative Party were clear about it in the

last general election, for self-employed people.

The Chancellor's office are briefing Theresa May's aids on economically

illiterate. They are saying he cost do politics, he is clueless about

politics and haven't seen it coming. It is vicious. We know, often, the

relationship between a Chancellor and a Prime Minister is rocky.

Always has been. But, normally towards the end. From the very

outset it interesting because we focused so much on Labour's internal

turmoils. We are a very divided party. Whenever I mention that

people say what about labour? But there does need to be scrutiny about

their divisions. The point about self-employed people, self-employed

people being asked to pay more but not being given the same rights that

other people expect. Absolutely. Social Security, paid maternity

leave, you name it. Vince Cable did a good piece in the Mail on Sunday.

There is a picture of Philip Hammond with a rugby ball. I am not a rugby

fan, has there been any matches? Nothing! Nothing! Nothing to talk

about! He talks about a hospital pass, which is what you were

referring to about David Cameron's pledge. Which he handed over. The

pledge about the national insurance. He is saying he is likening it to

the Lib Dems broking their election manifesto pledge, which of course,

was not to raise tuition fees. I'm really interested in the allegation

that people are going after Philip Hammond because he is not a hard

Brexiteer. Seen as soft on this issue. A bit like a remain.

They are briefing him, saying he has lost the, is on the single market,

customs union and now on the budget. Clearly, on the issue of Brexit,

let's not forget the Conservative Party has a very long history of

falling out in very acrimonious ways over our relationship with the EU.

Those divisions haven't just disappeared. As the negotiations

continue, we will see those splits widen. Philip Hammond is campaigning

for a sub Brexit. What I find astonishing is this own goal against

the people that voted for them. -- soft Brexit. The self-employed

people, not just the white van man but women. A lot of women, highly

trained, highly educated women have started up little cottage industries

because they can't combine looking after their children with going back

to a full-time job. It hammers them as well. They are. The number of

self-employed people is predicted to be bigger than in the public sector

in the next few years. Let's crack on. We have a glossy iPad. I've been

told not to throw this on the floor. A bit of a kerfuffle. Jeremy Corbyn

said it would be fine for another vote to be held on Scottish

independence. It has caused fury in the Scottish Labour Party. Scottish

Labour Party are absolutely outraged about this. What else does he say?

It's difficult to say. He could have perhaps fudged his words a bit more.

If you have a situation where the Scottish Government are saying, with

their own electoral mandate, they want an independence referendum and

Westminster attempts to block it, that will be not seen as good. The

Observer, this piece about the Scotland moving towards Brexit. The

dynamics have changed in the aftermath of a referendum, that is

the SNP's case. The point is, this article pointed out, the beginning

of the last referendum campaign, support for the yes vote was 28% and

by the end it was 45%. And now it is 50% according to the national

newspaper which is pro-independence. Remember the world of the EU in the

last Scottish referendum? Guarantee EU membership by staying. This

government, we already had David Cameron remonstrated after making a

calamitous decision on his own part. He lost the EU referendum. This

government could oversee the end of the union. The Conservative and

Unionist party. They keep kicking it into the long grass. Nicola Sturgeon

keeps getting it right back again. Really interesting. Read headline at

the top of this page, Labour in the wilderness. All the latest stories.

Champagne Shami. Shami Chakrabarti as Diane Abbott meeting again. I am

all in favour of people drinking champagne. Can I just point out,

this is a very furtive photograph. You can tell it's been done like

this by someone. They have no idea. Their champagne glasses are actually

full. I wondering, maybe someone in the Conservative Party said, we

would like to send over does my glasses of champagne for the ladies.

Meanwhile, we will take a photo. It's quite naughty, photographing

people in private restaurants. You can tell from the shading at the

side. It's ridiculous. They are just going for a new! John Prescott

meanwhile speaking out, forthrightly. I've rarely seen quite

so many Asterix in a front headline. He was a great Jeremy Corbyn support

for a while. And then there is the Scottish story at the end. He is

like all of them. When they are not doing it any more, they get very

vocal. You mentioned the Huffington Post and your iPad. You have been a

big figure... Somebody's iPad. On social media use that I'm pulling

back, it's become too nasty and joining of energy. I don't want to

get out a violin, I'm absolutely fine but it's about priorities. The

problem is, most people on the internet are absolutely fine. There

is a very angry minority and you just end up thinking to yourself,

rather than arguing with strangers who question your motives, send all

sorts of bizarre abuse, maybe go out for a walk. Don't feed the monster.

I think the problem is, with political debate generally in this

country, it's generated. It has become a shouting match. Very

polarising elections. -- it has degenerated.

People communicate here in real life in a way that aren't on the

Internet. Just to wrap this up, how do you deal with social media? Do

you get abuse? I am a bit of a Luddite, I am on there because I

feel I should be but people will die of boredom if they are following me

because I just don't. I like to engage normally. Nobody has died

with boredom during the review of these newspapers. Thank you for

joining us. After the Northern Irish elections,

Sinn Fein is riding high. For power sharing to work,

they have to do a deal with the Democratic Unionists,

but so far they're insisting that the DUP's leader Arlene Foster

can't come back as First Minister. The current system of governance

there is hanging by a thread. Sinn Fein's President Gerry Adams

joins me from Belfast. Welcome, Mr Adams. Can I ask first

of all, is the removal of Arlene Foster as First Minister next time

round absolute red line for you? We're not saying she can't come

back, you may know, Andrew, that the institutions collapsed on the back

of a scandal on a renewable energy scheme in which it is alleged ?500

million Sterling has been abused or wasted and there are allegations it

was caused by corruption or fraud. We're not making the allegations,

they come from within the DUP about the DUP, so we are saying that needs

clearing up. Arlene Foster, in fairness, says she is not guilty and

wants to be vindicated. So what we have said is that there needs to be

an inquiry into all of this and pending the outcome of that inquiry,

without prejudice to that outcome, that Arlene Foster should not be in

the position of Deputy First Minister. But if she's cleared she

could come back? Of course and we are dealing with Arlene Foster and

Michelle O'Neill, and I have met with Arlene myself in the past week.

The tipping point in the current crisis came because of this scandal

but there was also difficulties with agreements which have been made not

being honoured and Martin McGuinness for over ten years in that office

has demonstrated how much Republicans want those institutions

to work so we want him back in place. The Government in London on

the back of Brexit and on the back of its own policy wants to dismantle

lots of the human rights aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit

will drive this part of Ireland out of the European Union, the people

here voted to remain, the party is returned in the last election the

vast majority of those are also forth Remain and Sinn Fein have been

arguing for a special designated status for the North within the

European Union to stop the return of a hard economic border. You have

only got two weeks to have the negotiations with the DUP and

British government and so forth. What happens if you haven't got an

agreement after two weeks? Do you have another election? Well, we are

being threatened with another election and I'm saying half

jokingly that that is a sign of how much progress has been made, that we

are being threatened by a British government with an election, we used

to be threatened with internment. You are against it, are you? No, if

there is another election we will contest that election. Of course in

this election, nobody wanted it, but the position was totally untenable.

What we need, this is what our focus is, and implementation process we

are involved in, those agreements, the different elements of a deal,

the human rights elements of it, the bill of rights, these different

commitments which have been made but not kept need to be delivered on and

if that happens then the institutions will go back in place

and we will continue to do our best to work for the people. Mr Adams,

you mentioned Brexit just now, we have a committee of MPs in the UK

here saying that if Britain leaves without a deal the border goes

straight back up between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Do you think this is the moment when Ireland starts to look again at

uniting? Yes, and Sinn Fein have always been looking for Ireland to

be united but I consider the partition of this island to be

totally illegitimate and immoral. In the Good Friday Agreement we agreed,

and the Government in London obliged, when the majority of people

here want to see an end to partition and want to see Irish unity than the

government is obliged to legislate for that. We have argued a long time

that that is what should happen. At the moment most people in Northern

Ireland want to stay inside the UK, don't they? Yes and that is why we

have a job of work to do to persuade them. Nobody should be threatened by

this. Even without Brexit we have been badly served by the divisions

on our small island with Brexit, as has been my firm conviction from the

referendum result. With Brexit we are going to see a hard economic

border, the frontier between the European state and British state is

going to be on the end of Ireland and that is why we have argued for a

special designated status for the north that doesn't impinge upon the

constitutional position but does guarantee we will not have the type

of misery that's going to be inflicted on our farming, on our

dairy farmers, on our agri- food industry and on our enterprises. We

will talk about that later with David Davis on the programme but for

now, Gerry Adams, thank you for joining us.

No complaints, and I don't often say that.

Louise Lear is in the weather studio.

You might be complaining this morning, a rather drab start, cloud,

mist and rain, spinning up from the south from this weather front

through the night and another hot on its heels but look at that window of

sunshine I've found at the end of the tunnel in Flintshire, you are

very lucky indeed and it will probably not last because we have

two weather fronts continuing to dawdle further eastwards through the

day. One will bring persistent rain across south-east England and

eastern England. Next is weakening and showery outbreaks are likely.

The difference between the two, there should be some between them,

and in north-west Scotland and Northern Ireland are not as warm as

today but not too bad. 10-14d is the high. Through the night we will lose

the cloud and rain but with clearer skies temperatures fall away. We

have seen a couple of really mild nights so this could be a shock to

the system first thing on Monday morning, particularly in rural spots

where temperatures are low enough for a touch of light frost. But

Monday will be a better day, you will be happy with this, Andrew.

More sunshine, dried for most of us and with sunshine this time of year

temperatures start to respond, springlike feel with highs of 16

degrees. There you go. Have a good Sunday.

As we were discussing a little earlier, the cross party

Foreign Affairs committee of MPs warns this morning that

for the government to fail to plan for there being no deal at the end

of the European negotiations would be, and I quote,

The appropriately named committee chairman, Crispin Blunt, is here.

Thank you for joining us. To be blunt about it, I will stop saying

that! What is the essence of your problem? There is a possibility of

no deal, you can try and put probabilities on it, our previous

ambassador to the EU said it was more than 30% and the committee

itself said it was probably more likely than not in the report we did

in April before the referendum trying to look at Britain's role in

the world would be after the referendum. This is a cross-party

committee that has reported unanimously, it reflects the country

in terms of Brexit and it is a narrow majority for Brexit on the

committee. If there is going to be no deal that is going to have

serious implications for businesses and individuals and the government

needs to make sure we have planned for it. Let's talk about what the

implications of no deal would be as far as your committee is concerned.

British business first of all as what has been called a cliff edge,

is that right? Yes and you have tariff and nontariff implications

for trying to do trade with the European Union. Obviously these

things are very complex. If people want to get into the detail, we have

produced it in the report and we have put two appendices in the

report, we commission advice from the bar council and also

commissioned advice from leading professors in European law at

Cambridge University. If people want to get into the detail and see the

applications they are there. What about the status of EU nationals in

this country and our people over there, as it were? That is one of

the uncertainties that has been highlighted elsewhere, both on the

floor of the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. There is

detail about exactly how citizens would be affected depending on how

long they have been in the UK, if they are European Union citizens.

But, of course, there is the point about UK citizens in the EU. The

Norwich clinic Northern Irish border as well. There was a cabinet meeting

recently whether discussed little else if there wasn't a deal. The

Mail on Sunday with their headline about dereliction of duty said that

as Wahab would happen if they did not plan properly for this. -- what

would happen. This planning appears to be starting, and of course the

applications of no deal will inform the negotiating position completely.

One would anticipate this happening internally and it now seems it is

happening, and if our report and the headlines today put a bit of behind

the planning that is a good thing. Do you think people should see what

the plans are? Yes and that's one of the reasons we have got into this

space, as parliamentarians we think we have a responsibility to help

businesses and individuals prepare for the consequences of a probable

outcome, or a possible outcome, which is that there is no deal at

the end of two years. What is the effect of that on the negotiating

position of the government? My view is it strengthens because you could

cope with no deal and if you look at the implications on both sides, in

absolute terms it's my view that the impact on the 27 is greater in a

negative sense in absolute terms than it is on the UK because that is

where the balance of trade sets and where the money flows sit at the

minute and it is where most people are. But, of course, the expression

we have used, it is mutually assured damage on both sides. Strong

language. Do you think MPs should have a vote anywhere if there isn't

a deal? I understand we will get about. Even if there isn't a deal?

If there isn't a deal there is no deal so in that sense there is

nothing to vote on. It sounds to me as if you disagree with the Prime

Minister when she said no deal is better than a bad deal. No, in the

report we made clear there are circumstances where you can

logically envisage that no deal would be better than a bad deal, for

example if you get a huge upfront bill to pay for the divorce and then

there is no route to a future free trade agreement that would look like

a pretty bad deal for the UK and would be worse than no deal, because

the implication of there being no route to a free-trade deal is you

are dealing with us anyway, if there is no agreement at the end of the

negotiation. Much to pick up with David Davis later but for now, thank

you very much indeed. Thandie Newton has portrayed

many strong women, from Mission Impossible

to Crash to Westworld. She's about to go interstellar

in the new Star Wars film, but first up is Line

of Duty on BBC One. Newton plays a senior cop who comes

under suspicion of framing I've seen a preview and it really

is another fine piece I met up with Thandie Newton

recently to talk crooked coppers, Everything we've put

out to the public has difficult upbringings

at my insistence. Prostitution is not a factor

in these cases, the victims No-one at this station calls

those girls prostitutes. Anna Reznikova works

two jobs, all hours. Yes, ma'am, still, my gaffer's

asked me to rule out any connection. She's a senior

investigating officer. Investigating a chain of crimes that

seem to be connected. And it's a case that's been

going on for a year and she needs to crack her case for her integrity

as a police ... To please her peers and,

you know, her boss. So, there's a lot of

pressure on this person. It's a difficult character

to play in this sense, that she is veiled

a little bit of the time. You're not quite sure

which side she's on... ..You have to play

the character in a mask... But that's what people in this

position, in this career, too. But that's what people in this

position, in this career do. I say, single-handedly,

the person that influenced my performance is Jed Mercurio

because he is a mastermind, He'll only give the bare facts

but so much is happening. He allows the audience

to participate by If you look at a similar procedural

drama on television in America, there's a lot of emotion,

there's a lot of I'm not corrupt, sir,

nor are my team. Evidence met the threshold test,

met and surpassed it. I stuck with you on this because

you're better than your record. All those years out

being a full-time mum. Some would worry that

had cost you your edge. But I have the advantage of knowing,

first-hand, how good you are. One of the really interesting things

about this is the background There's a moment when your character

is told she is being given a promotion, despite the fact she's

taken off time to have children And also the surrounding pressure

from the world of social media. Twitter appears as a kind

of problem for the police. Did you have a lot of sympathy

for the way, particularly, female police officers now

have to operate? Well, I had sympathy but I also felt

that it was reflecting It's just, you have to make

a decision about, do you let this crush you or do you force

yourself through it? I think one of the reasons why women

in positions of authority are as powerful and have,

you know, unsurpassed excellence is because they've had

to push through that, The ceiling?

They've had to push through that and shatter that glass ceiling.

And, of course, we have Cressida Dick now going to become

Oh, my goodness, I know! Absolutely...

I saw that and I thought, my God, this is like art reflecting life.

But I think that's what gives us the edge.

Let's talk about Westworld because it was criticised

right at the beginning for the objectification of women.

For rape, for violence against women.

Your character starts off as a cyborg bordello madam,

That's exactly what the show runners wanted.

They wanted that sense of outrage, "it's disgusting".

And we needed to push it to the absolute brink of believability.

Because we then needed to subvert it.

Not cynical, no, I don't think it was cynical because I think

that is what the world is actually like.

People are just addicted to everything.

Addicted to shoes, addicted to sex, addicted to alcohol, PlayStation.

We're addicted to all these things because we don't

We don't want to feel the pain of being a human being.

I savoured every word, particularly one speech about,

"at first I thought you were gods, but then I realised you're

I've died a thousand times, I'm great at it, how many

You're going to be the face of the new Star Wars.

You're going to go global and mega in a completely new way.

Do you think, do you reflect, now, that with Star Wars,

your life is going to become completely different?

It's become completely different with Westworld.

I can't imagine it getting more difficult than that, really.

And the other thing is that, you know, I've been

We've got three kids, there's no drama there.

2012 was massive. Crash was enormous.

All these... Mission Impossible!

Yes, it blows up for a minute and then it just calms down.

Thandie Newton, lovely talking to you, thank you so much.

It's lovely talking to you, Andrew, all the best.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is being tipped by the Corbyn camp

as the next generation of Labour's socialist leadership.

As Shadow Business Secretary she's at the heart of

Welcome. Can I ask, first of all come about this row in Scotland? Do

you think it would be fine to have a certain Scottish referendum? Jeremy

Corbyn made it clear that if Scottish Parliament and people

wanted a second referendum it would -- we would advise Westminster not

to block that because it is the democratic will of the people. But

we would vigorously oppose the exit of Scotland from Britain. If it was

up to you, you wouldn't as a party want a second Scottish referendum?

Not in principle but we wouldn't go against the will of the people. It

is a democratic decision they would make and we would uphold that. This

has absolutely infuriated your colleagues in the Scottish Labour

Party. Ian Murray, you're only MP in Scotland says, I am often asked why

I resigned from the Scottish Shadow Cabinet. Ladies and on demand I give

you Jeremy Corbyn, he is destroying the party that so many people need.

I don't think there's any ambiguity. The leader of Scottish Labour said

July in last year that it would be wrong for Westminster to block a

decision if it was done in a democratic way and the Scottish

Parliament had put it forward. Let's turn to the big row at the moment,

national insurance contributions. The Conservative Party apparently

breaking a manifesto pledge. You were in charge of the opposition at

the time they put the legislation through and it seems you didn't spot

they had withdrawn the self-employed... To say the

Chancellor has been economical with the truth is an understatement! The

national insurance ceiling rates bill, that is class one insurance

contributions only. There was no inference in that bill at all that

there was going to be any changes. We put that to David Cork and we

asked him if there were any further proposals to change national

insurance contributions and he stated he had no further proposals

to make any changes at this time. The government was perfectly clear.

That was one is all part of our manifesto commitment. You didn't say

at the time the government has answered its manifesto obligations

and you didn't put any amendments. We said it dealt with one small part

of their manifesto obligations. We were perfectly clear on that point.

Now are, presumably these are self-employed entrepreneurial

people, do you want to reverse this change or not? We need to look at

the way self-employed people are treated as a whole. The reason they

have lower national insurance... Let me answer. The reasons they have

lower national insurance contributions is because they don't

have access to maternity pay, holiday pay and other benefits

employed people enjoy. The government needs to look at the

whole package and put forward a set of fundamental reforms to support

self-employed people. And deal with the issue of bogus self-employment

where people are being exploited. It sounds like you wouldn't reverse

what the government has just done? As I said, if the government had put

forward a package when it announced this proposal and have provided the

support that we have been asking for we might have supported them but

they haven't. They completely attacked low and middle income

earners, they breached their manifesto pledge and as a Federation

of Small Businesses state, this is completely undermining their

supposed abstract it to support UK businesses. It doesn't do that. --

supposed strategy to support. I talked to John McDonnell last week

about your own spending pledges and we doubted them up. Here they are.

Is that, broadly speaking, accurate and right? Broadly but these are

based on forecasts. The position would change, should we get into

government in 2020. The cost is based on Redbook numbers, official

numbers or Labour's official costing. ?60 billion of extra

spending. He also said your fiscal credibility rule means you won't

borrow to do any of this. Where does the money come from? We certainly

wouldn't have made the decision of this government has, for example

slashing taxes for the most wealthy and society, in territories tax,

capital gains tax on the bank levy, corporations tax. -- inheritance

tax. Corporation tax, how much do you raise from reversing

corporations tax? We asked the House of Commons to do some research in

terms of the money that we would gain back if we reversed all of

those tax breaks. I want to go through them one by one. 70 billion

towns in total by 2020. I don't think it is. -- 70 billion towns. We

have done the research. On the details. The House of Commons

carried out independent research on this very point based on Adobe

forecasts. -- ?70 billion. How much would you get from reversing the

corporation tax changes? The package as a whole is 70 billion, all based

on forecasts. In terms of other potential changes that we've asked,

we preferred in the budget do business rates. We asked the

government to make changes to the business rates scheme to support

businesses. Let the answer to the question is ?17.7 billion. You are

still about 40 odd billion away from your target. 70 billion in total

referring to those four tax breaks, by 2020. I don't think you get 70

billion. We will go through those four tax breaks in specific terms.

17.7 billion from corporation tax, how much do you get from raising the

inheritance tax threshold? 70 billion by 2000 and 20. That is a

meaningless overall figure. -- by 2020. The a total of total of all of

those tax cuts is 70 billion by 20 20. It's not. It is independent

research by the House of Commons library. Corporation tax cuts

according to the budget gets you 17 billion. Rating inheritance tax 2.8

billion, capital gains tax just under 3 billion, according to the

budget and proceeds from the bank levy are forecast to only be 4

billion. These are all official figures. It is ?30 billion, not 60.

You are still ?30 billion short. If you are talking about credibility,

if fiscal credibility really matters to you, where does that money come

from? Inheritance tax, corporation tax, cuts to the bank levy. ?70

billion by 2020. I don't want to hammer this but we have carried out

independent research in the House of Commons library that totals it took

70 billion. You can give everybody watching a full breakdown of how you

get to ?70 billion in detail? We can indeed. Can you do that later on

today as a party? I will speak to John McDonnell if he is available!

One of the ways you could deal with this big problem is that you could

do what he has talked about in the past, a wealth tax on the top 10% of

people in this country. Is that a prospect in the Labour Party could

go for? We need to look at the way the economy works as a whole and

taxation is one point the government needs to look at in terms of

generating tax receipts. But the economic model in total. It needs to

invest in business and ensure that they have the tools to succeed in a

fertile business environment so that they can boost wages for their

employees and deliver a high paid, high skilled environment where tax

receipts are increased. They are certainly not doing that. We didn't

see that from this week 's budget. The government did not go far on the

business rates issue like we would like. They hammered the lower income

middle earners on national insurance. What if the proper rate

of corporation tax under Labour? We would reverse the cuts the

government has made on corporation tax but we can't look at corporation

tax as a stand-alone issue. Philip Hammond stated if we don't get a

deal from Brexit we would slash corporation tax but that alone is

not enough to make us competitive, we need investment in skills,

investment in infrastructure, research and development. We saw

very little of that in this week 's budget. The government is not

setting us up for the future, no mention of industrial strategy in

this weeks budget strategy at all. One final question on the future,

the Brexit bill comes back to the House of Lords within a couple of

days. Are the Labour MP is going to roll over or will they carry on

their opposition to the Brexit billion tonnes of the amendments

they will support? The two key amendments that have been put

forward from the House of Lords is protection of the EU citizens in the

UK and we fully support that. Would Labour MPs stick with that in the

House of Lords no matter what happens in the Commons? It is

important and it is one of our red lines. We need to protect EU

citizens in this country. Not just morally but economically. Businesses

up and down the country have stated they can't see their EU citizens

leaving, it will have a damaging effect on the economy. And an issue

of a meaningful vote, we want to discuss the package the government

finally seeks to obtain from Europe. And urged Labour MPs to stick with

with they've done and demanding meaningful vote when it comes to the

House of Lords? -- stick with a meaningful vote. We do need it.

Thank you for talking to us. Later this morning,

Andrew Neil will be talking about the Brexit bill with

Ukip's Nigel Farage, the Tory rebel Anna Soubry, and he'll be talking

to the Trump critic and former MP That's the Sunday Politics

at 11am, here on BBC One. Well, as we've been hearing,

an important Commons committee is attacking

the Brexit Secretary David Davis. To go into the EU talks

without a proper plan for no deal would be a "dereliction of duty

and grossly negligent". Grossly negligent? Good morning,

this is like Brexit Central this morning. It is. The simple truth is,

we have been planning for the contingency, the various outcomes,

the possible outcomes of the negotiation. Including a proper plan

for no deal? Indeed. About two or three weeks ago, I can't remember,

it was briefed out that I had spent most of the Cabinet meeting talking

to the cabinet about the importance of making sure the contingency plans

were on line as well as the other plans. Do you have part of your

team, as it were, round the back of the building thinking if it doesn't

work, this is what will happen? Not just my team but the whole of

Whitehall. It every single department. Understand, it's the

contingency plan. The aim is to get a good outcome and we are confident,

I'm confident. One of the reasons we don't talk about contingency plans

is because we don't want people to think this is what we are trying to

do. That is there because we need to have it there. Firstly, as Crispin

intimated earlier, the Chairman of the select committee, if it happens

we need to be ready to make sure that we are in a good position to

deal with that. If we get the main outcome, it is quite helpful in the

negotiation and in the planning for that. For them to know that we are

planning? For us to know and be confident that we don't face, as you

say, a cliff edge. In terms of the consequences of not getting a deal,

the committee was very strong in its language and said "It is clear from

our evidence that a complete breakdown in negotiations represent

a very destructive outcome leading to mutually assured damage for the

EU and the UK". Are they right? I don't think that is remotely likely,

to be frank with you. Since the referendum, the whole government,

the Foreign Office, my department, the Prime Minister's department,

have been engaged with every country in Europe and institutions. The

feedback we get... It will be tough, let's make no bones. There will be

tough points in this negotiation but it is in absolutely everybody's

interest that we get a good outcome. Hours and theirs. The reverse of

what the committee was saying. It is in Spain's interest, Estonia's,

France's Italy's interest. Everybody had an interest in a good outcome.

What is your message to MPs tomorrow? Who better to understand,

bluntly, than the importance of Parliamentary catalytic? I spent a

decade of my life doing nothing but. I have said, since the beginning of

this exercise, it's inconceivable to me that there wouldn't be a vote on

the outcome. Wait a minute. But the simple truth, what I don't want to

do, is take a simple bill, which is designed to do nothing more than put

the result of the referendum into law. As the Supreme Court told us to

do. We waited for the Supreme Court to give us the detailed guidance on

that. We will do that. Please don't tie the pro-Minister's hands in the

process of doing that for things which we expect to obtain any way --

Prime Minister's hands. Let me ask you about that vote. If you don't

get a deal, will be comments have a meaningful vote about what happens

next? -- will the Commons. We have the vote on Article 50 going

through and then we have the Great Repeal Bill, all of the aspects of

European law coming into UK law, a huge bill, then we have primary

legislation and secondary legislation and then we have a vote

at the end. What MPs say to me is what we really want is a meaningful

vote which means that we have the ability to send David Davis and

Theresa May back to the negotiating table if we don't like the outcome.

Firstly, there is limited time on this, we didn't choose the

timetable, it is a time limit on Article 50 so there is a limit. What

we can't have is either house of Parliament reversing the decision of

the British people. They haven't got a veto. What does it mean otherwise?

People talk about a meaningful vote. I'm quite sure there will be votes

to this process, there will be a vote on the deal we strike, it will

be a meaningful vote in the sense of accepting it or not like any other

international treaty. What happens if they don't accept it? That is

what is called most-favoured-nation status with the World Trade

Organisation. We go out on WTO rules. That is why we do the

planning to make sure that is not harmful. But this is a reality, the

decision has been made, the British people decided on June 23 last year

to leave the European Union. That is going to happen. My job and the job

of the government is to make the terms on which that happens as

beneficial as possible. And remember, we keep talking about all

of the negative sort of stuff, protecting this and protecting that,

as well as protecting our European markets we are also going to be

freed up to access all those other high-growth markets in the rest of

the world, markets which we are uniquely equipped to make the best

off because of our history, language etc. Let's assume just for the sake

of argument you win the vote in the House of Commons tomorrow, the bill

goes back to the House of Lords and they don't cause any more trouble.

At that point is that when Article 50 can be triggered? In theory it's

the point at which you have royal assent, at which point the Queen

gives her approval and the built goes into law and becomes an act of

Parliament. When it will be, people have been predicting the sixth, the

ninth, the 15th. I want to pick the right day, each date has different

locations in terms of when it can be responded to by the council and so

on. I will not go into the details of why but there is politics in

terms of success. There are elections and all that kind of thing

and I understand that. Very soon we are going to trigger Article 50. My

question is, what happens then? What happens then is very straightforward

in formal terms, whether it is straightforward in negotiating terms

is another matter. The letter goes to the Council and the Council must

decide on a guideline and tell the commission had to carry out the

negotiation. That would require a meeting of the council which will

probably take a month. We now officially but probably a month

depending on how they address it, and then they hand that guideline

back to Jean-Claude Juncker who tells Michael Spanier how to run his

negotiation and then we start -- Michel Barnier. The first

negotiation will be how many meetings, will meet, and will come,

specialists, etc. Where will it happen? Will it be here or Brussels?

I suspect mostly Brussels but it won't just be Brussels. We have

massively strong bilateral relationships with all of our other

colleagues. This is an important question. Who are you really

negotiating with? Is it Brussels Central as they think, or is it

leaders around the EU? Does Angela Merkel get involved, or is it to you

and Michel Barnier and you until you agree? It's both. The formal

negotiation will be between the United Kingdom government and the

Commission on behalf of the 27 member states, on behalf of the

Council representing the 27 member states. But at certain points along

the way they could be points of tension, let's imagine we disagree

on a point and the Council says let's take a decision. A really

important question, I've talked to people on the other side, and they

save Britain can get friction free access to the Single Market and what

they want but they will be a heavy financial price to pay. Dufner

discussions about the so-called divorce Bill, the money, does that

go in parallel with the other discussions or do you have to deal

with the first? Firstly our argument is plain, we think these things have

to be done in parallel and you can only make a judgment that way. The

European Commission has favoured phrase which is nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed and on this occasion I rather agree with

them. So you want to run everything in parallel? There may be an

argument for that but let's see how it turns out. They say they want to

see how much British money they will get before they see how generous

they will be another thing is. As the Chancellor said you last week

and as the Prime Minister said during the course of the week, the

days of giving huge sums of money are passed. What is huge? I am not

going to negotiate on there. But on this point, if I'm may very quickly,

because it's being suggested by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and

others, there is a story in the Sunday Times today, that we might be

getting money back from them rather than giving money to them. And that

the actual bill might be negative as far as we're concerned. As they

might say on a football programme this is a negotiation of two halves.

We are not engaged yet, we haven't had a formal proposal from them yet.

The thing to is that there is one thing which we know, the same from

the member states and the commission, and that's the issue of

the rights of citizens, European citizens here and UK citizens

abroad. That is right up front, that is the first thing. That is the

first thing you will deal with. And will we the result before the entire

thing is concluded in two years' time? It may may not require a

treaty but principle will be negotiated. I'm bluntly aware of

where the negotiation will end. Virtually everyone I have been to

see has raised that as a first issue and they all understand something,

by the way, this has context. I understand why people are concerned

and I think there is a moral responsibility towards citizens too

but everybody understands that this is an issue that has got to be

resolved together. Brits and Europeans together. The Polish Prime

Minister when here said we must work together. In your best judgment of

what is the day when we leave the European Union? March 2019, that is

not to say there will not be some transition or implementation phase.

In terms of people looking at Dai Rees, March 2019 is the date? Yes.

Let me turn to the Northern Ireland question, they are worried about the

return of the border and if we don't get a deal what is your message? We

have put that pretty much as our top priority. The first visit I made was

to Belfast to talk about this. We have looked very closely, and one of

the contingency plans, or one of the plans being put together, is how on

earth we create an invisible frictionless border between North

and South, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We have

talked to the Irish government about it. The first foreign trip I made

was to Dublin. They are on-site. We are determined to do it. The

commission are on-site. The commission had a part to play in the

peace process. Indeed Michel Barnier had a in the peace process. They are

determined in their mind that this will not go wrong. That the

combination of determination that exists here. When you were sitting

in Cabinet on Wednesday did the Chancellor warned you he was about

to break an election pledge? He told us the package he had put in front.

Did you spot it? I will not go into detail on Cabinet issues, that would

be a breach of my oath. There was no hiding of anything. Everybody knew

what we were talking about. Sorry, did everybody know you were breaking

an election pledge? I will not speak for everybody. I want to know if you

knew he was breaking an election pledge. People say my job is the

most difficult in government, I think the Chancellor's is the most

difficult. Why? Because he's having to deal with the overhang of debt

from 2008, Gordon Brown's mess. Understand this, what he has

proposed is fair in terms of the less well off. It breaks an election

pledge. Yes... You said yes, you have agreed. You are trying to trip

me up. Pays for social welfare, National Health Service, all of

those things everybody wants to do. Almost out of time. Are we going to

see by-elections as a result of Conservative election fraud,

alleged? I know nothing about that at all but I don't think so. Thank

you, David Davis. Now a look at what's coming up

straight after this programme. Joiners from Canterbury from 10am

when we are asking whether the brightest children do better in

grammar schools. And then the ethics of drones, military and domestic.

And other side of the famous cathedral, the mother church of

Anglicans, is it time to cut the Church of England's assets to size?

We will see you at 10am. Thanks, as ever, to all my guests,

because we're almost out of time. A decent show coming

next week, I think, But for now, performing Highs Lows

from her album Long Live The Angels, # Just pack your bags

and run as fast as we can # We hold the future

in the palm of our hands # I know you hear me,

but do you understand # I'm giving you forever,

baby, it's yours # And we run out of all

the silver and gold # Will you still wanna

be my someone to hold # See, I would tell

you but you already know # It's banging in my heart

like thunder # I'm giving you forever,

baby, it's yours You can still see her -

but it has to be supervised. You thought it was YOU

I was afraid of.