03/01/2017 The Papers

Welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us

tomorrow. I'm joined by Charlie Wells. The FT

looks at the abrupt resignation of Britain's ambassador to the EU, Sir

Ivan Rogers, and says tensions with number ten led to his departure. The

Daily Telegraph also leads with that story, reporting that Theresa May

plans to pick a Brexiteer to replace him, somebody who backs the Brexit

calls wholeheartedly, it claims. More on that story on the front of

the times. Downing Street has been caught on the hop by the

has claimed that by lunchtime has claimed that by lunchtime

tomorrow bosses at the top FTSE 100 companies will have earned as much

as most people do in a year. A warning from the head of the NHS.

Hospitals are apparently colluding with ambulance chasing lawyers. And

the story of the Chelsea football fans who have been charged with

racial abuse is on the front of the Guardian. A man has been prevented

from buying his dream home because developers will not let him park his

van outside, according to the Son. Financial Times, Tipper, London's

frustrated envoy resigns weeks before deadline on Brexit clause. It

resign, three months potentially resign, three months potentially

before article 50 is triggered. What is increasingly apparent, or

unavoidable, is that we are looking at the front pages of all of the

papers today. Brexit is going to be the big story. Our EU ambassador,

Sir Ivan Rogers, has quit. As you mention, it is just the four Theresa

May triggers article 50. I suppose you could argue that he felt he was

due to stand up in the autumn anyway, that he felt that it would

be better for somebody else to take over before that point and to see

through the negotiations from the very beginning. However, this has

caught a lot of people, not just number ten, but across Whitehall on

the hop. I suppose the problem is speaking truth. His job was to say

some rather unpalatable realities, to share some unpalatable realities

with number ten. Last month, after the Brussels summit in December, he

was the leading diplomat that suggested it might take Britain ten

years to negotiate a trade deal. And even then it might not be ratified

by the parliament, which wasn't popular at the time. I

point is, he is saying that he is point is, he is saying that he is

getting the vibe, he would not have used those exact words, but he was

getting the vibe from other EU countries that it was going to take

a while. He wasn't saying he thinks, was he? That is the role of late

diplomat, to convey messages from foreign countries back into the home

country. -- of a diplomat. To explain as truly as possible what

appears to be going on. We see this word of the FT, frustrated,

frustrated by the fact that perhaps frustrated by the fact that perhaps

he wasn't being listened to. Politicians in other countries

communicate very differently. For instance, in Germany, France, people

are much more direct. Politicians tend to do the same. OK, the Daily

Telegraph, Brexiteer as our man in Brussels. So is the implication that

Sir Ivan Rogers was too pro-European and as a result he somehow wasn't

being aggressive enough in convincing the French that they

should give us what we all want? That is certainly a suggestion. In

that negotiation, when he was attempting to get a deal ahead of

the Brexit referendum, that Sir Ivan Rogers wasn't... Was possibly too

ready to take no for an answer, and very much a status quo man. And that

he was maybe too entrenched in what was going on. The flip side is you

need your man in Brussels to know need your man in Brussels to know

serious, heavyweight diplomats who serious, heavyweight diplomats

have in very recent times, have have in very recent times, have

left, have stood back from advising the Prime Minister on the European

Union. We have Kim Derek in Washington... These are all people

who, probably now if you had to make a list of runners and riders to take

over, would be on that list. If they over, would be on that list. If they

could be persuaded to come back. Will anybody want that job? It'll be

the toughest diplomatic position for some time for Britain. This person

will take the blame if things go wrong and won't get the glory if

things go right. Is that what is going on? I wouldn't want to be in

that position. From a journalistic perspective. I took issue with this

story. It seemed to be moving the story a bit too quickly. For my own

methods, there are so many anonymous sources in high-level paragraphs.

What are you suggesting? I'm sure What are you suggesting? I'm sure

the Wall Street Journal wouldn't do this.

CHUCKLES I take issue with it. It makes me

think that such a strong headline needs some sources on the record.

This would never happen in America. Different papers. It needs to be

pointed out that the Daily Telegraph is a Brexit newspaper. There you go.

We will stay with the Daily Telegraph. The FTSE closes on fourth

consecutive high. I know the Dow Jones is heading towards 20,000,

which would be a record, as well. Everything going swimmingly. People

are calling it the Santa rally. But you must remember that the stock

market tends to be very short term. In the short-term people are

optimistic, it seems like in the UK manufacturing is on the rise, we are

heading towards a high in the stock heading towards a high in the stock

market which we haven't seen since the late 90s. But we know what

happened after that, there were crashes. The other thing the article

weak pound. For manufacturers, in weak pound. For manufacturers, in

the short term that is a good thing because it means that you can export

your products. The FTSE predominantly is exported. Exactly.

But when you have to start making things in Britain and import goods,

a weak pound makes that very expensive. In the longer term it

more positive about the British more positive about the British

economy. You sound like the outgoing Brussels man. Hard truths. Speaking

truth to power. CHUCKLES

And all of that money sloshing around the markets means... Fat cat

Wednesday. I haven't heard this term before. You know there is a day, I

think it is sometime in November where women start actually taking

home the money they earn because of the gender pay gap. Really? The fact

that we work for free because of the gender pay gap. This is an

equivalent for executives and workers. It has only taken them four

days because executives are paid so astonished the well and workers are

paid so little in comparison, the gap is so huge. This analysis has

worked out that chief executives of FTSE 100 firms are typically paid ?4

million. They only need three and a half days to rake in the average

salary of their staff of ?30,000. It is a massive gap. That is what is

serious. If you are trying to create social equality, or reach that as an

endgame, there has been talk about executive pay, things like that,

shares, is that being watered down, it is all about how we will water it

down. What is the government going to do about that? Theresa May's

first Commons on the steps of Downing Street where that this would

be a government for everybody, not just the haves. -- comments. The

messages concrete. People find it hard to understand big numbers. This

is a simple way to communicate this to the public. Learn in -- they earn

in a few days would you earn in a year. Pretty simple. In the FT now.

It seems like magic before Trump is in power. The question on a lot of

economists' minds, is this sustainable? Can a person go company

by company and encourage them to make fairly, you know, fairly small

changes to the way they operate. We are talking about 700 jobs, $700

million that Ford is going to invest in a domestic plan as opposed to

investing in a plant in Texaco. Just to be clear, Trump said if this was

going to happen it wouldn't be a good idea. -- in Mexico. He has been

talking about this quite a bit on the campaign trail. And he had been

talking about other car manufacturers, and that he would

punish them. It has changed the rhetoric. The Ford CEO has made the

change. And he mentions about other policies. The protectionist

approach. And how that will filter down when it comes to the

relationship with countries like China. They have been vocal about

doing business. Interesting one to watch. And trade is not as simple as

having one fact in one country and -- one factory in one country and

sold to another. The same product might be designed and begun in the

US, cross the border to Mexico, shipped to Canada, and sold in the

US essentially. It is complicated. What is not complicated is the video

that emerged of a few Chelsea fans, abusing a black man on the Metro in

Paris, it was his home city. This took place in 2015 before a football

game between Chelsea and Paris Saint Germain. These four Chelsea

have finally been convicted. It is have finally been convicted. It is

an awful attack. It is great that they have been convicted. Problem

is, it sends a really bad message once again about British football

fans abroad. We don't have the best reputation anyway. Incidents like

this do nothing for our standing in other European countries. I think

the Guardian is the only paper that has it on its front page. Does that

surprise you, Charlie? People tend surprise you, Charlie? People tend

to turn a blind eye to difficult issues. We are talking about this,

unfortunately. What we see here is a French state prosecutor talking

about this as a "Defining moment" because there is an increasing

lots of countries. This is a lots of countries. This is a

clear-cut example of what racism is. President is important in law. --

precedence. The police are very conscious of it. NHS boss, kick out

hospital blood suckers. He isn't talking about leeches, he is talking

about lawyers, ambulance chasers. It is these no-win no fee companies.

They are targeting inside hospitals. They are targeting inside hospitals.

There are leaflets. Some have rented out space in hospital for ways to

get the information to patients and to sue the NHS. Apparently it is

?440 million per year, which would be better used in the NHS. We won't

get onto the cultural aspects in the US. OK. Diet drinks, no healthier

than sugary versions. We know that, that is why we drink sugary

versions. Go full fat. Economists have found that people who consume

diet drinks might end up eating more calories in food because they are

telling themselves, OK, I haven't had a full calorie soda, why not

have a doughnut? Go further full should in the first place. Exactly,

just have the Mars bar. And you can get other types of chocolate bars,

by the way. Thank you for having you both here to talk about the papers.

You can read a detailed review of The Papers on the website. You can

see us each night with every edition posted. Thank you for watching.

Goodbye.