21/01/2018 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning.

This week, Europe's most

powerful single leader,

and one of the world's more

glamorous presidents,

swept into Britain.

He came bearing a gift,

or at least a generous loan,

of the Bayeux Tapestry.

It tells, of course,

the story of a charismatic French

leader sweeping into Britain

and giving the British

leader one in the eye.

Not really even a coded

message really, was it?

And we have the exclusive interview.

We'll be hearing more

from Emmanuel Macron -

his thoughts on Britain's possible

Brexit deal and the awkward reality

of dealing with Donald Trump.

Here, it's been a week

dominated by the aftermath

of the Carillion collapse

and serious questions over the use

of private finance by the state.

The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, joins me to talk

about what Labour thinks

is a watershed moment

in our politics.

I'll also be talking

to one of Britain's most

successful female journalists.

Tina Brown spent the wild

1980s rubbing shoulders

with the likes of Donald Trump

and found herself working

uncomfortably closely

with one Harvey Weinstein.

She has some stories to tell.

And reviewing the news,

covering that Carillion

collapse of course, James Cleverly,

the new Deputy Chairman

of the Conservative Party.

And in the week The Guardian

relaunched itself as a tabloid,

the paper's first female editor,

Kath Viner.

But first the news

with Babita Sharma.

Andrew, thank you, good morning.

Afghan security forces have taken

control of a luxury hotel in Kabul.

Battles raged through the night as

special forces troops fought against

the government as they moved around

the Intercontinental are told. Five

civilians and three militants

killed, more than 150 guests and

staff rescued including 41

foreigners. The government will stop

workers' pensions being put at risk

from executives who try to line

their own pockets, the Prime

Minister has said. Writing in the

Observer newspaper Theresa May said

a government White Paper would set

out tough new rules for company

bosses. It comes as construction

firm Carillion's collapse could

leave a pension scheme deficit of

£900 million potentially affecting

27,500 workers.

The Ukip leader, Henry Bolton,

will fight for his job today

when the party's national executive

committee holds

an emergency meeting.

Mr Bolton has been under pressure

to step down since it emerged

that his former girlfriend,

Jo Marney, had made racist comments

about Prince Harry's

fiancee, Meghan Markle.

People with hidden disabilities such

as autism and dementia could soon

qualify for blue badge permits

in England, entitling

them to free parking.

The Department for Transport

is beginning a public

consultation on the proposal.

It says it would make it easier

for people to travel to work,

socialise and shop.

That's all from me.

The next news on BBC One is at 1pm.

Back to you, Andrew.

Many thanks for that.

Now to the papers.

Not all of them looking entirely

familiar, that is the new Observer

with an interview with Theresa May

saying she will find greedy bosses

who betray their workers by failing

to pay into pension pots, and in the

Sunday Times, Corbyn allies plot to

oust 50 Labour MPs, which we will

talk more about. Sunday Telegraph,

we should welcome Trump visit, says

Boris. There is lots of Boris on the

papers today, I wonder why. Sunday

express, the Brexit enforcers, 100

Tory MPs will try and keep Theresa

May on the straight and narrow when

it comes to Brexit, they say. Jacob

Rees-Mogg, no surprise he is

involved. The Mail on Sunday, top

Tories in Chinese cash for Brexit

furore but is it really a funeral is

it the sting that didn't stink? --

funerary. Let's start by talking

about the Observer's exclusive with

Theresa May. They have made quite a

substantial peace.

It is a

substantial piece, the economy has

to work for all. There is a quote,

too often we have seen top

executives reaping big bonuses for

recklessly putting short-term profit

ahead of long-term success. It is

strong language, we have heard

Theresa May talk about this before

on the steps of No 10, this language

is strong but the question is

whether we will see anything happen.

As ever the public mood has shifted

dramatically in the last couple of

years against turbo-charged

capitalism, against high executive

pay and something needs to be done.

The question is whether this will be

enough. I'm glad it was in the

Observer, it knows how to get

impact.

Like the Guardian the

Observer has changed dramatically.

When you relaunch a paper you are

taking something away from readers

so you have to make sure they

recognise the has changed. You call

these tabloids, not compact, why?

They are just papers so I don't mind

what people call them as long as

they have the good strong Guardian

and Observer journalist and they

used to have. There is an

interesting question about the role

of print in people's lives, the

Guardian has 150 million readers

around the world who are digital but

the people who want to buy print,

what is it they want from us? They

want something tangible and physical

to keep hold of.

I will talk about

this with Tina Brown later, but the

problem is people are buying less

print and therefore you have to find

an alternative way of earning your

lunch, the times has its

subscription model which seems to

work quite well but you have a very

different model.

Our model is a

voluntary pay wall rather than a

compulsory one, we still have lots

of subscriptions and they do well

for the Guardian, both subscription

and in print but our new model, the

last 18 months, has been a really

successful model, people were very

surprised because it's based on

supporting the journalism, you don't

get anything back, you don't get any

freebies, but what you do is support

Guardian journalism.

And you feel

better for that, you feel warm

inside?

Lots of people say one of

the reasons they want to give us

money is it keeps Guardian

journalism available to everyone and

that only works with organisations

like the Guardian, you need a strong

mission, something very distinctive,

the Guardian is the world's biggest

progressive news organisation. You

also think, I you need a good

relationship with your readers. We

have 12,000 people giving us money.

James Kelly, deputy chairman of the

Conservative Party, perhaps not a

glaring surprise you have chosen a

Sunday Times splash about Momentum

tightening its grip. We will talk

more about its origins in a moment.

What we have here is what we have

seen happening subtly at the

national level, which is Momentum

really tightening its grip on the

Labour Party. In the NEC elections

they really consolidated. What we

are seeing here now is this playing

out at local government level, which

will be the first time that we see

the Momentum ideas put into

practice, we have a story here about

Momentum gets its clutches on its

first council, we have local

government elections coming later

year in the spring. We have some

indications of the kind of policies,

including cutting the salaries of

public employees who are earning

over £60,000 a year.

On the front

page, they have said Corbyn allies

will oust 50 Labour MPs, sounds very

dramatic. When you look at it it's

based on a single unattributable

anonymous quote and Momentum put out

a story saying this is nonsense, it

is very thin, and I was hoping to

read who the 50 Labour MPs are gone

and who in Momentum is doing it but

I can't find anything in the paper

about that.

We will come onto why

that is not the strongest story for

a front-page splash on a national

newspaper.

We will certainly come

onto that later. Let's keep moving

ahead because there is quite a tough

story again for the Conservatives

inside the Sunday Times, this is

Michael Gove and others, I would

say, on manoeuvres, is that a fair

phrase?

The amazing quotes from Nick

Boles, former Housing Minister,

still a Tory MP, he said we have a

government full of boiled rabbits,

which is apparently an Orwellian

phrase, George Orwell phrase, saying

that he thinks that the government

is full of people who are either

wet, meaning soft, or they are not

brave enough to be radical and it is

a timid government.

Because he is so

vivid I will read the whole quote,

or most of it. We have a government

full of boiled rabbits, Theresa may

needs to give ministers their head

and needs to tell them to follow

their convictions, and ideally she

needs to have a few convictions

herself. Ouch! What do you make of

that, James Kelly?

Unsurprisingly I

don't agree with Nick.

What has gone

on?

on?

The Prime Minister set out her

views about corporate responsibility

and big business, which were a

reflection of the things she was

saying on the steps of Downing

Street when she set out her vision.

Would you expect strong actions to

go after these words?

The fact she

has made such a powerful statement

in the Observer indicates that we

are very much focused on getting a

grip on this kind of stuff and

people expect that. The point I was

making is this is not new, this is

not a response to things that have

happened, this is her long-standing

position on these issues.

You have

been a supporter of Boris in the

past, we have seen him all over the

front page of the Daily Telegraph

and again in the story, it said he

will win a cabinet battle to put

more money into the NHS after

Brexit. Is he on manoeuvres?

Not as

far as I know.

Silly question, I

know. Still, the Momentum story?

Quite possibly.

Something that is

definitely not thin because it's in

his own words, John McDonnell in the

Shadow Chancellor talking in the

Sunday Mirror about his plans for

the NHS and Emergency Budget.

John

McDonnell says if he were Chancellor

at the moment he would unveil an

Emergency Budget next week for the

NHS is providing £5 billion input

and he would do this by taxing

higher earners more.

This is stuff

we know up to a point already in

terms of the high rates of tax but

he's bringing it forward, he's

saying it's about momentum in a

different sense, I suppose, early

days for a Labour government, we

would first do an emergency digit

and put more money into the NHS.

They think there is a mood out there

for people to pay more tax to save

the NHS, as it were. This is another

watershed moment.

Well, it depends.

If the Labour Party were honest

enough to say we are going to pump

extra spending into the NHS, and you

are going to pay more tax, I would

have more respect. Once again what

we are seeing is the Labour Party

saying they will put money in and

somebody else.

Over 80,000 fourth of

the vast majority of British people

in reality will pay more tax on the

Labour's plans and we will come onto

that in a minute.

What they keep

doing is they say we will spend this

extra money but don't worry somebody

else will foot the bill and that's

just fundamentally dishonest

position to help with the British

people.

Telegraph has a story, the

right of centre think tank, we

should say, has costed some Labour

spending plans when it comes to

renationalisation, is that right?

The figure they have put on it which

they have calculated is £176 billion

to renationalise these public

utilities and the rail companies. To

put that into perspective, that is

about the same size as the NHS

budget and the defence budget put

together.

If it's true...

Even if

the figure is slightly off, we are

not looking at an order of magnitude

error, you are looking at something

at or near 100, 50 billion and that

is a massive amount of money. Once

again someone is going to have to

pay -- 150 billion.

I will talk to

John McDonnell about that later.

Talk about the story that stung but

maybe not enough, on the front page

of the Mail on Sunday and inside the

Mail on Sunday and there suggestions

the Sunday Times had it and they

were working with Channel 4's

Dispatches programme and they set up

a sting operation in an office in

Mayfair and had a Chinese lady who

brought in three leading

Conservatives and she tried to

persuade them to do something

improper and sadly for everybody

they didn't.

This is the point I was

making about those seeming

making about those seeming gaps in

The Times. The Mail on Sunday has

gone with a big splash but when you

look at the language it is all about

what was done to the MPs and not

what they have actually said. As far

as I can make out, I've read through

this in a bit of detail, it seems

they were approached and they also

bass interesting, I will consult the

Parliamentary authorities and get

back to you.

Exacted what they were

supposed to not do, they were

supposed to say, yeah, give it to

me.

It is a bit of a nonstory, big

splash.

As a newspaper editor there

is nothing worse than having a big

story you are excited about,

emptying space across the paper for

it and it's not quite ready on the

day.

Especially if people know about

it which is what happened in this

case, it is best to keep these

incredibly secret so nobody knows

about it when you fail to deliver.

UNIX story is a bit further afield,

but still a British connection to

the talks in Germany between Angela

Merkel and social Democrats.

It is

crunch day today because there is a

vote amongst the social Democrats

about whether their leader and

whether they should go into a grand

coalition with Merkel's

Conservatives. It's particularly

interesting because according to

this terrific piece in the Observer,

the people who are most opposing the

idea of an alliance with Merkel are

the young activists in the social

Democrats. They say they want a

chance for the SPD to renew itself,

they want to prevent the far right,

AfD, from being the official

opposition in the Bundestag, so they

may prevent this from happening. The

idea it is the youth wing causing

all the excitement I think is

interesting and has parallels here

and the boat is today.

Fascinating

story and we will watch closely. A

few days ago I noticed Nigel Farage

said something quite odd. He said

that we Brexiteers are losing the

argument, things are going backward,

something will have to change, you

wonder what he's up to. The Sunday

Times thinks it knows what he's up

to.

Apparently he seems to feel that

not being the leader of a political

party is something he is unhappy

with her as a status and there is

talk about him launching a new

political party, which I think is

interesting. The internal arguments

in Ukip are boiling up here.

Do you

think Henry Bolton fans arrive as

leader of Ukip?

I'm not sure is that

relevant, this is the challenge Ukip

have got, they are no longer

relevant. What is the question to

which Ukip is the right answer? I

certainly don't know.

Long pause

there. Thank you, that was a really

good counter, indeed a gallop from

the newspaper stories. And so to the

weather, lots of snow in the north

and lowest temperatures for a very

long time, -13 in some places, but

beyond that down here soaking, it's

coming down in Sderot, cats and

dogs, sluicing, dripping, gushing,

gurgling, nice for docks, over to

Tomasz Schafernaker.

What an introduction, you have

summed it up perfectly. We are

talking about snow, take it steady

on the roads today, the snow will be

coming down in the coming hours. The

very mild areas in the south, the

cold air in the north and it was the

coldest night of the winter so far,

minus 13 degrees. This snow from

Scotland and to the Highlands and

the north of England as well.

the north of England as well. Up to

15 centimetres of fresh snow on the

way, turning milder in Northern

Ireland, Wales and the south-west,

but in the Midlands we would have

seemed a bit of snow. It is very

difficult today to say how much

snow, but the overall message is

many northern, central and some

southern areas will get at least

some covering here and there. Most

of the snow will fall across the

hills but it will be a temporary

feature because by the time we get

to the end of the night the mild air

arrives of the Atlantic. The

snapshot for tomorrow, you can see a

completely different day, no snow in

the forecast

completely different day, no snow in

the forecast and that little bit

milder as well.

So for once we can look forward to

Monday.

Tina Brown was a bright young

British journalist who grabbed

Tatler at the age of 25

and basically saved its bacon.

She married the great

newspaper editor Harry Evans

and went to New York.

There, she reshaped much

of American journalism,

latterly at The Daily Beast,

before that at the New Yorker,

and perhaps most successfully

of all, Vanity Fair.

She's just published

the Vanity Fair Diaries

and she joins me now.

Tino, welcome. You tell in the

stories of the diaries, a world of

rubbing shoulders with

extraordinarily glamorous people

like Michael Jackson, Andy Warhol,

all sorts.

all sorts. Is there anybody now

where you can turn around at a party

and say, wow, and standing next to

X?

An completely obsessed with

Angela Merkel but she is the

anti-Vanity Fair person.

You

couldn't put her on the front cover,

could you?

I would now. She's been a

rock star, her charisma is fading a

little but she still remains the

incredible purpose-built pantsuit

that conquers the world.

The first

really big moments in New York were

putting onto the front page of

Vanity Fair some extraordinary

pictures which grabbed attention

very famously of Demi Moore. Did you

know at the time, did you think this

will change things?

As soon as I saw

that picture I was obsessed with

having it on the cover. It happened

because I had just been pregnant and

was militant about wearing maternity

clothes. I said to the photographer,

do hurts so you can show the bulge.

What I didn't say was doing naked

and pregnant, but she came back with

these pictures, I went ballistic and

I had to have it.

So you didn't look

at it, and think this is too much?

No, I thought it was a liberating

statement for women. I don't think

women have ever really worn

maternity clothes since.

It did

change things and of course you put

on about a million on Vanity Fair's

circulation mainly on the news stand

so people would walk past the new

stand, put their hand in their

pocket and by that.

Indeed, a

wonderful day.

You think it is still

possible for print to get its Mojo

back?

It is not possible I don't

think for the newsstand to ever

return. Actually with Demi Moore, we

were at 700,000, we went up to 1.2

million. When the Caitlin Jenner

cover, the transgender cover of

Caitlin Jenner was on the cover of

Vanity Fair, it didn't really impact

at all... It had an impact but it

didn't have newsstand impact because

everybody looked at it online.

So

this means a whole new way of

thinking about journalism and Harry

Evans, the idea you have to have a

great headline and picture, that's

how you build circulation, that is

all going?

You still need a great

cover, more than ever, because now

nobody reads inside magazines.

Everybody hopes that will get you

talking and drive you to the content

inside.

In the Vanity Fair Diaries,

one figure appears again and again

added to his Donald Trump. You

compare him initially to Elvis, what

was he like when you first came

across him?

He does recur like a

virus! When I first met him I had

just extracted the art of the deal

in Vanity Fair. I say in the diaries

this is all

this is all -- full-hit but it is

authentic. He was loud and brash,

and I thought he was for me.

Later

on one of your reporters does number

on him and discovers he has a

collection of Hitler's speeches in

his office and various other things

about him. She goes to a party with

him, what happens next?

This piece

which had gone into his financial

failings and then the Hitler

speeches which have made enormous

news, so she's at a dinner party

sitting at a black-tie benefit and

she suddenly feels something wet

down her back. She looks behind her

and thinking the waiter had spilled

the wind. She sees the sneaky figure

of Donald Trump taking off, he had

spilled wine down her back and she

wanted to send him the cleaning bill

but decided that would only get more

thunder from him.

And to understand

Donald Trump you have to understand

New York in the 1980s, high rolling,

brash, over the top, people spoke

and acted in an unusual way.

His

gilded grossness is the icon of that

whole era and it was his tower in a

sense. If you can think of one image

of the 1980s it was that the old

tower with Donald Trump at the top

of it. It is interesting now how

that sort of sense of the 1980s has

returned, like we are in the

constant recurring waves of the

past.

Is it not possible, you are

involved in corporations of one kind

or another, big personal tax cuts

and corporate tax cuts, is it

possible Trump economics will work,

bringing jobs back to America and a

return to the Roaring 1980s?

Frankly

you already feel the animal spirits

on Wall Street just like in the

1980s. I think the Democrats'

mistake is not to allow him any

credit. Apple has 270 billion

offshore account, coming back to the

US, which will result in 38 billion

dollars in taxes, jobs, it is a big

thing and will be emulated by other

people. It is just possible...

That

he could be re-elected.

Without

doubt, there is a strong possibility

he could be re-elected.

The other

big figure you were involved with in

Talk magazine is Harvey Weinstein,

and you didn't know he was engaged

to like this, you have great and

tonight.

It was not my greatest

career move going to work with

Harvey, I was more concerned with

the volcanic chicanery

the volcanic chicanery than any

sexual stuff. I didn't know what was

going on inside his office. One knew

he had a million and one women who

would like to hang out with at night

but he was a Hollywood guy.

He was a

bully and caused you post-traumatic

stress disorder, you said?

I've

never experienced battling with

Harvey because on a daily basis he

so profane and awful.

You wrote an

interesting book about Diana, the

day chronicles, in that context

anecdotes about Meghan Markle as she

embarks on this odd life inside the

royal family?

What's interesting to

think about is the fact at 36 Meghan

Markle is the same age Diana was

when she died. With Meghan Markle

the main thing is she's had this

huge life already and she's this

well-trained public woman so that is

one of the biggest differences.

Diana was a child, she was 19 when

she met Charles.

Absolutely

she met Charles.

Absolutely funds --

fascinating, Tina Brown. And for

anybody offended by a word used, we

apologise.

Now coming up later this morning,

Sarah Smith will be talking

about Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg goes

head to head with

arch remainer Lord Adonis.

And she'll be talking to beguiled

Ukip leader Henry Bolton.

That's the Sunday Politics

at 11am, here on BBC One.

I first interviewed Emmanuel Macron

in 2016 when he was a relatively

unknown economic minister determined

to swipe hi-tech jobs from London.

Since then, of course,

he tore up the political rule book

and romped to a historic victory

in the French

presidential elections.

With Angela Merkel

struggling in Germany,

President Macron is widely seen

as THE Leader in Europe.

This week, he came to talk

defence and the migrant

crisis with Theresa May

at the Royal Military

Academy in Sandhurst.

I caught up with him there and began

by asking him whether he thought our

Prime Minister could secure the deep

and special partnership

with the EU that she talks of.

I do hope.

I do hope, because I think it will

be good for the EU and for the UK.

She said a deep relationship.

However, I imagine your view

is if the UK is not going to be

a member of the customs union

or the Single Market,

or accept the four freedoms,

it can't be that deep.

Look, it will be by definition less

deep than today because the deepest

possible relation is being a member

of the European Union,

so I think you have to be lucid

and you have to be fair with people.

As you decided to leave, you cannot

be part of the Single Market.

But in the function of the nature of

the negotiation, you can have some

deeper relations than some others.

For instance, we have a deeper

relation with Norway than the one

we have with Canada.

So, it depends on the outcome

of the negotiation.

But, for sure, except

if you change your mind,

but you will not be part

of the Single Market,

as you will not be part

of the European Union.

And in concrete terms, let's talk

about what that might mean.

You've said in the past you can have

Canada or you can have

Norway, but you can't

have your own special deal.

Is that really fair,

given how long Britain has

been part of the EU?

No, it's not a question

to be fair or unfair.

I take that as a reference

but for sure you'll have your own

solution, and my willingness...

So there will be a bespoke special

solution for Britain?

Sure but I take these two references

because this special way should be

consistent with the preservation

of the Single Market

and our collective interests.

And, you should understand that

you cannot, by definition,

have the full access

to the Single Market

if you don't tick the box.

And to get full access

to the Single Market you need

contribution to the budget

and you have to accept...

The freedoms.

..The freedoms and the four

pillars, and you have

to accept the jurisdiction.

As soon as you decide not

to join these preconditions

it's not a full access.

So, it's something perhaps

between this full access

and a trade agreement.

But what's important is not to make

people think or believe that

it's possible to have...

Your cake and eat it?

Exactly.

So, when I talk to David Davis,

our main Brexit negotiator,

and I say what is Britain really

want out of this, David?

He says we want Canada

plus plus plus.

And, by plus plus plus, he means

a deal on services because so much

of the UK economy is based

on services in general

and on the City in particular.

From what you've said today,

I guess that you don't believe

that we can have any special deal

involving the City.

I mean, you don't just speak

about services but you speak

about financial services.

Cooking a deal is the job of

Michel Barnier, and we have a very

dedicated organisation.

I don't want to start

a negotiation country by country.

It would be ridiculous and the best

way to dismantle the whole EU.

I think what we have to do,

and what we will do,

is first to take the decision

in March regarding the mandate

we want to give to Michel

Barnier to negotiate,

after what he will have to negotiate

with your negotiator.

Full access to the single market is

not feasible.

So in concrete terms,

some form of passporting deal is off

the table with these negotiations as

far as you are concerned?

I am not

the one to negotiate but it depends

on what you are ready to put on the

table in terms of preconditions.

If you respect the precondition

to get But there is no cherry

picking in the Single Market.

I mean, if I have to wrap up

the full philosophy,

no cherry picking of the Single

Market.

Because it's not feasible.

Because otherwise that's the

dismantling of the Single Market.

And for me it's one of the pillars

of the European Union and something

you loved in the past.

And you say that you're not

negotiating and that's absolutely

right, but you are very much saying

that one of the consequences

of Brexit, you thought,

was to reaffirm Paris's centrality

in the financial system

and France has made a very,

very strong pitch to British

financial institutions

to come over to Paris.

How is it going?

In terms of European dialogue

on financial services, but for sure,

for sure we want to attract

the maximum activity.

Why?

Because this decision has an impact

for a lot of players.

So a lot of players will decide

to be part of the EU

and the Eurozone, and they have

to choose between

different countries.

So there is a competition

between different countries.

Of course there is.

I suppose the case for the City

is that it has built up a very big

part of the whole global financial

system and to unplug the City

from the rest of the European

financial structure is a big

risk and danger.

Look, I think, first of all,

it's absolutely not my willingness

and not a reasonable perspective.

Second, it's something to be taken

into consideration by your

negotiator and your own proposals.

But my willingness is not precisely

to unplug,

as you say, the British City,

I think it doesn't make sense

because it's part of the whole

financing of our European Union.

But for sure, if there is no change

in terms of full access

to the financial Single Market,

it doesn't make sense for the other.

So, I want to preserve

what we created post-World War II.

So, I want to preserve

what we created post-World War.

And what we created is this

sophisticated organisation

called the European Union,

which is for the very first

time not an hegemony

of one on the others but a very

complete, democratic,

economic and human construction.

Why do you think the British

voted to leave this

sophisticated structure?

Look, I'm not the one

to judge or to comment

the decision of your people.

But my interpretation is that a lot

of losers of this new globalisation

and this new system suddenly decided

that it was no more for them.

You always take a risk

when you have such a referendum.

Just yes or no in a very

complicated context.

If France had had a referendum it

might have had the same results.

If France had had a referendum it

might have had the same result.

Yeah, probably.

Probably, in a similar context.

But our context was very different,

so I don't want to...

..Make any...

I mean, to take any bed,

but I would have definitely

fought very hard to win.

But I think it's a mistake

when we just ask yes or no

when you don't ask people how

to improve the situation

and to explain how to improve it.

As for the Brexit vote,

my understanding is that middle

classes and working classes,

and especially the oldest

in your country, decided

that the recent decades were not

in their favour and that

the adjustments made by both

EU and globalisation,

because for me it was a mix of both

of them, was not in their favour.

But surely it was about Europe as

well, and the structure of Europe.

And second, I think one

of the reasons was precisely

an organisation of our

European Union, probably

which got too far in terms

of freedom without cohesion,

towards free markets without any

rules and any convergence.

And I have to say that

your government had some

responsibilities in it.

Too neoliberal, perhaps?

Ten years ago ultra-liberal

and purely free-market

without any regulation,

because all your people saying

the Hungarian workers or the Polish

workers are much more favoured

than I am, it was exactly the debate

we had in France ten to 15 years ago

against some directives that a lot

of your governments pushed at that

time saying, guys,

you are not free market.

I do believe in free market.

I do believe in a market economy.

But we need regulation

and convergence.

Your vision seems to me

to be deepening Europe

as a response to this.

You want a single financial minister

over the whole thing,

more European taxes,

more done at the centre.

Again, is that not a terrible risk?

No.

Given how many European people

look at this and say,

"It's too far away already."

No.

"I don't feel engaged with it."

No, because it's not just my view.

I think what we need is first

of all to have a much

more protective Europe.

Europe is something which will

protect you on digital,

environment, migration,

collective security,

and a fair organisation.

But my, I would say,

on the mid- to long-run view

of Europe is the following.

I do believe that we will

have a European Union,

we will be, unhappily, 27.

Inevitably, definitely?

I mean it's on your own,

it depends on you.

I mean, I do respect this vote.

I do regret this vote.

And I would love

to welcome you again.

I can say it.

Your vision of a different Europe.

But my vision, to be clear,

on the very short run,

be much more concrete,

less bureaucracy and more concrete

and so to protect people

and address the issues.

More sovereignty, more

unity, more democracy.

That's the recipe in order

to succeed in Europe.

If you lose your sovereignty

and you don't protect people

they don't believe in you.

If you are not based on a democratic

approach they will not follow you.

If you are not following this unity,

ie creating consistency

and convergence they will leave.

You said France is back.

What did you mean by that?

I mean that we are delivering

reforms which were

impossible for decades.

This is, for me, the pillar

because when you are not credible

at home you have no chance

to be credible outside.

You talk about values,

which must involve, presumably,

freedom of the press and human

rights and so forth.

Did you raise those

with the Chinese President

when you were talking to him?

I raised with all the leaders I met.

In China it's absolutely

counter-productive to raise it,

there is no press conference.

Because, I mean, the political

systems, regime, presidency,

is not in a situation,

in an environment...

Not going to help, you think?

I do believe it's totally

counter-productive.

OK.

So, what I did is I had

a direct discussion,

we have tried to discuss the issue.

We decided an organisation

and I provided, I would say,

visibility and the ability for him

to be sure that this is not

a diplomacy in front of the camera.

But I issued a very clear statement.

Let me ask you, if I may,

about yet another leader and wonder

what you thought when you got up

in the morning and read

what President Trump,

I can't say the word,

had said about certain African

countries, s-hole countries,

he denies it but a lot of people

say he used that word.

And among the African countries

who were outraged and very offended

by that were many Francophone

countries, many French-speaking

countries in Africa, and I wondered,

did you share their outrage?

For sure.

For sure.

It's not a word you can use,

and if we want precisely to build

peace, development in this country

and a respectful relationship.

You can't use those kind of words?

That by definition, and I think

a lot of our issues in both

the Middle East and in Africa is due

to a lot of frustrations,

due to a lot of past humiliation.

And we have to understand that,

and I do believe that we have

to respect all the countries.

That's what we owe them and that's

much more efficient.

So, I have a very direct

relationship with President Trump.

We have a very good relationship.

You sat down for him with dinner

at the top of the Eiffel Tower.

Sure.

I wondered what you make

of him as a person having

come across him closely.

Look, I think he is not

a classical politician.

So, first of all, he was elected by

the American people as the President

of the United States.

And that's a great country

and that's a great ally.

So, I want to work with him

and I think we built a very

strong relationship.

We disagree on several topics.

Sure.

I call him very regularly.

I'm always extremely

direct and frank, he is.

Sometimes I manage to convince him.

And sometimes I fail.

Do you wake up in the morning

thinking, what has

he tweeted this night?

No.

No, because I think

we should not overplay

the situation and these tweets.

I'm asking you...

That's a sort of mix

between personal and political

reaction, and I think it's not

feasible when you are the President

of a Republic like the US Republic

but like the French ones.

To respond too much like that.

The reason I'm asking

with a slight smile on my face,

but it is very, very serious.

We've got something

like the North Korean situation.

When Trump basically says,

"My nuclear button's bigger

than your nuclear button," a lot

of people in the world think

this is just slightly

unhinged and very dangerous.

Yes, but the best answer you can

provide to that is what?

Just to say we have to work very

closely and seriously to force

North Korea to come back

to the table of negotiations.

We have to follow the UN

sanctions and implement them.

And the critical country in order

to deliver is China.

Absolutely.

And that's what we discussed

with President Xi.

Talking about bringing

countries back...

It's just, calm down everybody.

Do you think that there is any

chance at all of persuading

the Americans to come back

to the table on the Paris

climate change agreement?

First of all, I don't think

there is any option to come back

to the table of negotiations

to the Paris Agreement.

I've always been very clear,

it's negotiated and signed.

It's just deciding

to sign what is done.

Why?

Because...

To sign it then?

We negotiated, more

than 180 countries signed

and have been ratifying.

Come on, we will not

renegotiate for one people.

So, I do believe it's a big mistake.

I told him there is

no new negotiation.

You join or you don't join.

China decided to remain in the loop

and we will deliver,

I think we have to accelerate.

But what I see is that the private

sector and the state in the US

are following this line.

They are trying to comply with

the agreement, so we will do it.

Very final question.

You said you were going to be

a Jupiter-like president.

What did you mean by that?

I think I never used

like that this expression.

When you preside you have

to preside, it's different

from governing, and you have

to avoid permanent comments,

to avoid the sort of day-to-day

presence without strong decisions.

You have to have a bit

of elan, a bit of gloire.

I would not say that exactly.

You need efficiency,

authority, humanity.

So that's why the third pillar

is not compatible with Jupiter,

or anything of this kind.

But what's important to me

and the message I want to say

is that our credibility

is to explain what we want to do,

to deliver, to change the country,

to prepare the country

for the new centuries.

That's what we are doing in France

because that's a precondition

to succeed in Europe.

And our role in this world is to

help everywhere to build peace.

That's it, that's my job.

President Macron, thank

you very much indeed.

Thank you very much.

If you are a dog soul you can see a

longer version of my interview with

President Emmanuel Macron on the BBC

News Channel at 11:30am this morning

and also tonight at 8:30pm.

So, we've heard from

President Macron that the EU

won't be doing the City of London

any favours in the Brexit talks.

Yet more financial headaches

for the next government.

And if he is Chancellor in it,

Labour's John McDonnell,

is also going to have to find major

resources to reverse the private

finance revolution which,

after Carillion, seems

to be unravelling.

He joins me now.

What did you make of President

Macron.

It was an impressive

interview, I thought you interviewed

him extremely well, I will flatter

you, but I thought he was

impressive, very straightforward in

his views.

Very eloquent.

And also

he set the parameters of the debate.

He regards himself as a man of the

left, do you think he is?

He is

centre-left, some of his policies,

some of them I disagree with. He

veers too much towards dominance of

the market within the economy itself

but it's interesting, some of the

reforms he is advocating are also

about the protection of the lower

earners as well. I agree with his

analysis about the referendum, by

the way. About how neoliberalism has

alienate people as a result of that

and they voted in a particular way

in the referendum.

That's

interesting because he was very

specific, he said neoliberalism, or

too much liberalism, free markets

without protections, was the

responsibility and fault of previous

Labour British government.

Previous

governments but also governments

across Europe as well. This

adherence to neoliberalism, Mark

Cridge, nation, we are seeing the

consequences of it. Carillion is one

example of that. He hit the nail on

the head about how that alienating

people, and people were not getting

the benefits about how the economy

was developing. As a result of that

in the referendum they rejected.

He

was also very clear that the British

can get a passporting deal from the

City of London. You have said in the

past that any deal over Brexit

without passporting writes for

financial services would be

unacceptable.

I'm really worried

that if we don't get the passporting

right it will impact upon our

financial sector. But also about our

services sector overall. That is

something we have got to negotiate.

He said they would set the Michel

Barnier mandate in March. We will

see what that mandate is but, yes,

it is a worrying instance that is

being cited.

Very worrying because

not only would it mean less taxes

for a Labour government, it would be

a big part of the British economy.

It would cost jobs.

If you are the

Chancellor after Brexit was

negotiated and the City did not get

passporting writes what would that

mean?

It would cost jobs and

undermine our financial sector. That

is why there is a deal to be had. It

isn't just the City of London and

financial sector in London

benefiting our own country, it

benefits Europe as a whole because

it brings together the opportunities

of investors joining together and

investing in Europe as well as in

Britain. I think there is a deal to

be had. I understand why President

Macron has been hard-nosed about it

at this stage but in the

negotiations I think we will see a

softening because they will be an

increasing recognition of the joint

benefits we get from passporting.

Do

you think he's bluffing?

No, he is

setting up certain parameters but I

don't think it will dominate in the

discussions about the mandate but we

will see.

If you were negotiating,

in charge of the negotiations, you

wouldn't accept any deal that didn't

have passporting in it, or something

like that?

I set that as a redline.

I said passporting, or the

equivalent, basically. I think that

is a deal to be had. I don't believe

that our current government can

secure that deal but I think we

could in government.

In those

circumstances to get that kind of

deal, would you, like Keir Starmer

and Diane Abbott, he prepared for

Britain to pay money in?

It's

interesting because we have already

said certain institutions like

Euratom, we need to pay our way

because of the costs and get

services in return. I'm not sure

what President Macron means when he

says we have to pay to get access on

services.

You have said in the past

you wouldn't pay financially, purely

for financial services to get

access.

I don't understand why we

would have to pay. Does that mean we

would have to charge them for access

to our market as well? I think it is

a negotiating ploy rather than a

reality.

He brought up again and

again the Forde freedoms and Single

Market. Can I ask you about

something that puzzles lots of

people. Jeremy Corbyn said

repeatedly that you can be a member

of the Single Market once you have

left the EU, what is Norway? -- the

Forde freedoms.

Norway has access to

the Single Market but it's not a

full member in the sense it is a

decision-making, it is a rule taker

rather than real mega, that's what

Jeremy means.

When people say can we

be a member of the Single Market?

Would could be so long as we agreed

we would not make the rules.

You can

have access to the Single Market.

Effectively members of the Single

Market.

You will have access but not

be a decision maker when it comes

the rules which is important.

Owen

Smith, one of your Shadow Cabinet

ministers, totally disagrees. He

says he finds these comments

slightly puzzling because it's

clearly possible for us to be

outside the EU and inside the Single

Market, as is Norway and other

countries. Is he wrong?

He means

access to the Single Market. The

distinction fact is you will not be

a decision-making, you will not be a

party to make decisions.

To that

extent it is a semantic difference

and an obvious one.

It is quite

important because there is a

distinction between having access

and then being a member where you

are determined the rules of the

future which is significant.

In the

circumstance of you being able to

negotiate this, would you like us to

become in effect, part of the Single

Market? Not rule-makers. We are

leaving the EU but really close

accepting the Forde freedoms and

paying in.

We would like the benefits of the

single market.

But you have to give

something back.

I think there is a

way in which we can negotiate around

that which would be acceptable to

our European partners, reform of the

single market so it would not be the

same single market access to a

single market.

That would involve

meaning a certain amount of free

movement, paying in, and certainly

copying a lot of their directives.

All of this is subject to

negotiation but on freedom of

movement we always said we wanted

reform because we don't the

exploitative employment that has

forced down wages, we want

protections. In terms of

decision-making, of course we want

to be party to that but that's about

equivalence rules as well.

Jeremy

Corbyn has said that Carillion

collapsed marks a watershed in our

politics and raises the PFI issue.

However, the people who

turbo-charged the private finance

initiative were the Labour

government, 75% of those contracts

were signed under Gordon Brown.

It

started with John Major, you are

right New Labour took it up and over

the last seven years it has

continued on as well. One of my team

dugout for me some of the speeches I

made as far back as 1998 in

Parliament and of the articles I

wrote. I opposed private finance

initiative, why? I said then, it is

cheaper for us to use the state to

borrow funds to fund public services

rather than go to the private

sector, in addition to that we will

have control and ownership of the

asset. I think PFI was wrong and

said so from the beginning.

The

people promoting it said this is the

only way here and now we can get the

new schools and new hospitals and

that innocence is fair enough, isn't

it?

I can understand the argument

but it was wrong. It would have been

cheaper, let me give you an

example...

Let me give you an

example because you had hospital in

Hillingdon and you said at the time,

"I am not supportive of PFI schemes

but if this is the way to secure the

money, fair enough".

That was the

point I made time and time again in

debates. You are forcing people into

PFIs when they don't want one. If

they don't go down the PFI route the

patients will suffer.

This was the

dilemma, you were against the PFI

principle but when you get a

hospital in your own constituency,

you are in favour of it.

It is

because we were forced into it and

all the way along I said this is

wrong, it won't work, it will cost

more.

Now you want to take those

contracts back home, you said to the

Conservative Party, back in-house.

Do you accept that involves quite a

large upfront payment?

We have

already got the upfront payment. The

National Audit Office report this

week said we are now committed to

£200 billion worth of expenditure

over the next 20, 25 years so that

money is already there in terms of a

liability we have got. What I'm

saying is if we bring into public

ownership the special vehicles,

equity in these stakes is 10%, the

rest 90% is debt, what we could do

then is control then and refinance

in a way that would save money and

in the long run it would save money.

The problem you have got is some

pretty savage break clauses, penalty

clauses, written into these

contracts. I went on to the Treasury

website and they give an example of

one of these clauses, they say the

contract around its financiers are

fully compensated, no worse off than

if the contract had

if the contract had proceeded as

expected.

Departments across

Whitehall are supposed to use those

contracts to do PFIs. You take

Transport for London, they terminate

on PFI, they save nearly £500

million. There will be some

contracts with clauses, we will look

at those but Parliament will

determine the price we pay for the

special-purpose vehicle, that's the

first thing, and Parliament will

determine the conditions for the

future. I have warned against these

for over 20 years.

I am just arguing

about the cost of bringing it back.

The advice I'm saying to people, it

will be cheaper now to bring the

special-purpose vehicles into public

ownership, Parliament will determine

the price, we can renegotiate the

terms of the debt there now and make

it cheaper. That's what a lot of

people do in their own lives, they

renegotiate their mortgage to save

money.

Another conversation we have

had over the years is the cost of

renationalisation and you have never

given me a figure anywhere like it,

but now one of the admittedly right

of centre leaning think tanks has

kindly moved in to help.

It is more

than right of centre, it is almost a

Department for the Conservative

Party.

If you won't give the figures

other people will. There are lots of

voters who look at the sky above and

look at their taps and think why are

we paying £86 billion to a private

company to give us water, and they

would like water to be

re-nationalised but the cost would

be £86 billion according to the CPS.

Too high?

The CPS is almost like a

Department for the Conservative

Satie, that report was written to

Amber Rudd so hardly independent.

What I'm saying is Parliament will

determine the price that we pay.

determine the price that we pay. Let

me use this analogy because people

need to understand the process of

it. It's almost like buying a

property. We go out and buy a house

in London, the average price is half

a million, we borrow that money from

the bank. I rent that house out, it

brings in rent so I have borrowed

half a million but I have an offset

of half a million. I rent it out,

that rent comes in, I pay the

mortgage, the rent will also cover

income for

income for myself but also it will

cover a bit of repair maybe extend

the property. That's what we will do

here, bring them in-house, borrow

the money to do that but the income

that comes from those assets will

cover that cost and enable us to

reduce price and invest.

Socialism

is the language of priority, someone

once said. As Labour Chancellor you

have lots of call on money, lots of

things on education, welfare and the

NHS. Is it worth it to spend so much

money to bring the PFI contracts in

early?

Yes, because at the moment

the NHS, our education services and

other services are being drained by

the exploitation of this. Look at

the National Audit Office report, it

gives one example of schools, 40%

above the cost than if we have

borrowed as a state. One hospital

70% above costs. Some of our local

health authorities are paying out

20% of their income.

There is one

other thing I must ask about this

week. Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of

the House of Commons, made a strong

personal attack on nukes, about

comments you have made about Esther

McVey. "This Is truly evil,

disgusting. Seriously, is this

Jeremy Corbyn's kind of gender

politics? This has to stop"

Jeremy Corbyn's kind of gender

politics? This has to stop".

I am

surprised that Andrea, I like her,

she's a good woman.

The problem is

the audio has become available of

that meeting. You were quoting

someone else, but somehow quoting

them approvingly.

Of course I

wasn't. It was a stand-up thing and

I was saying this is how rough

politics is up there. Remember, a

couple of weeks later in Parliament

I got up and made a statement and

said of course I don't agree with

that, I don't wish harm to anybody

and refuted it completely.

We can

play the audio, would you like me to

play the audio?

You don't need to, I

know exactly what was on it. That

was recorded by The Mail, it did

nothing until Ed Miliband was

getting up to make a major speech,

then they ran the story to spike his

speech, it was a political

manoeuvre.

There was laughter in the

background.

I was saying look how

rough politics is up there, it's

ridiculous. When people

misinterpreted it, I got up and said

of course I don't support this and I

wish harm nobody.

You completely

disagree with Esther McVey's

politics but can you now apologise

to her, if she was upset as she

would have been by this?

I said then

I didn't support what was happening,

of course I didn't and it was for

those people who make that statement

if they wish to make that apology. I

made a statement in saying of course

I don't support this, I wish harm to

nobody but what I do want people to

think about is the policies the

Government was pursuing against

disabled people who suffered so much

as a result of those policies.

Thank

you for talking to us. Coming up

after this programme...

Join us at ten from Cambridge where

we will be debating President

Trump's first year. And here we will

be asking if inequality functions as

an insensitive. Is the urge to

better your neighbour quality and

not a sin?

That's all for this Sunday.

Thanks to all my guests.

Lots more next week, join me then.