30/07/2017 The Papers


A lively, informed and in-depth conversation about the Sunday papers.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Now on BBC News, it is time for the Papers.


Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be


With me are Sebastian Payne from the Financial Times


and Prashant Rao from the New York Times.


Let's look at tomorrow's front pages.


The Observer leads with President Trump's decision


to sack his chief of staff causing nervousness among Republicans.


The Telegraph headlines an ally of Boris Johnson


attacking Philip Hammond's approach to Brexit.


The Sunday Times has a report on the lives of teenage


British girls who run away to join so-called Islamic State.


The Mail says that Princess Diana's brother has


called on Channel 4 not to broadcast her video diaries,


The Express also focuses on Princess Diana,


claiming the Princess asked the Queen for help


And that story also makes the Daily Star's front page.


So, let's begin. Let us start with the front page of the Observer.


Republican fears mount after Trump's White House. It has been quite a


week, how would you characterise? Has it really been a week? It feels


like a month, a year... Even just listing the number of things that


have happened in the past seven days is astonishing. Reince Priebus being


booted for the general Kelly, Scaramucci becoming comms director,


Spicer being, you know, his ragged nation. -- his resignation. It's


exhausting just being here, let alone being in Rossington. That in


Washington. What are the Republican fears? A


sense of meltdown and not actually doing anything, reports this has


been the worst week enjoyed by any US president in living memory. This


really is the concern of Washington, President Trump has only been there


six months to forget. It feels like longer that there has been so much


news in so much happening. Yet actually nothing has happened. The


president has not passed any major legislation, his operation is in


chaos. This week did feel like everything came together in a ball


of catastrophe, in a way, with Reince Priebus going, Anthony


Scaramucci's Thai raid, extraordinary for such a senior US


government official to talk in these terms. There are continued questions


over the Attorney General and the health care bill, but amazing


moment. In fact not mentioned here, as one of you pointed out. You talk


about what is actually getting done in this. Proponents of the president


would argue, he has appointed a Supreme Court justice which for most


presidencies would be an enormous achievement. That is definitely


true, but this health care bill has something we have been talking about


not just for months but years, the repeal of Obamacare. The fact this


is not even get me to play in most of the British press, there is just


so much there has been happening. It's been lost. The actual


legislation has been lost. Part of the problem is, people always say


politics would be so much better if we had business people coming in,


they will bring a tighter ship. What you are seeing now is people who do


not really have a lot of political experience, because if you take the


Obamacare repeal process, it took Obamacare a year to get through.


They are trying to rush this through through the skinny appeal, the major


appeal, all these different things. It is also the matter not


understanding how to get things done. They are hoping with General


Kelly coming in who is very experienced, knows how to run a


tight ship, that things will get back on track and they will get some


legislative progress. They risk getting to the end of this year, and


I take your point on the Supreme Court, but really apart from that


it's very hard to say what they have achieved. Fair point. Difficulty as


well as more people jump in and out of this White House. There is a


genuine question as to whether they can continue to recruit the kind of


talented people that need to be in the White House. As it becomes


harder to tell, do you have any staying power? What measure of multi


is sufficient? Jeff Sessions was the first person, the first credible


semitone came aboard the Trump campaign. Trump before Trump, in a


way. -- the first credible senator. Now Trump seems to want to fire him.


If that is not enough loyalty, what is? The difficulty becomes, how do


you recruit people who want to work in this White House if Nolan measure


of loyalty is enough? Someone said to me, the problem at the Trump


White House has is the people who work there don't want to, and the


people who don't do want to. There is this mismatch of skills and


talents. As things continue to disintegrate before our eyes, it


gets even harder. Is it disintegrating or is it just the new


normal? We have to be careful not to normalise the sort of thing. Reince


Priebus is the shortest serving chief of staff in White House


history. You have to keep things in context here. We are bombarded with


these announcements and News alerts all the time about the Trump White


House, we have to remember even this time last year, this was not how


things were done. This was nowhere near the way things were done. It


really should not become the new normal. Sorry to cut you off, but we


were discussing earlier, one thing we have not even mention was the Boy


Scouts speech. That would have been a completely innocuous speech by any


other politician but this has become a huge news event of itself. The


reporters would have been going to the White House, to the White House


speech, the poor reporters would have drawn the short straw of the


Boy Scouts speech, but now there is nothing that is not news any more.


You work for the New York Times, that has come under fire from the


president. What is that like for colleagues? It's difficult to say.


In New York, the mood is very different. There are a lot of things


happening. There is still very much, the leadership says, we are doing


good journalism and that's all you can ask for. The president will say


what he says. I think things like people are coming to news.


Subscriptions are on the rise, the Wall Street Journal as well. Coming


under fire from the president is happening to everyone. We had to be


careful not to say this is normal, but this is kind of what happens


now. Let's move on. Front page of the Sunday Telegraph, Boris Ally


attacks Hammond Brexit plan. I suppose we are going to have Brexit


stories every week now four months to come. Sebastian, who is the Boris


Ally? That is Gerard Lyons, who is the leading city economist, he


worked for Boris Johnson in City Hall. Because the cabinet is now


being more careful of what it can and can't say it is reading the


ruins of it here, and Mr Lyons has written a piece for the Telegraph.


I'm not quite sure how big of an attack that is, because Mr Lyons


says that any transitional phase out of the EU is just two years long,


which the Telegraph reports is a year longer than Mr Hammond, a year


shorter, sorry, it is shorter than Mr Hammond wanted. There has any


consensus growing about Brexit in the Cabinet over the past week. --


has been a consensus. Everyone agrees there will be a transition


out of the EU. It is really a question of how long that lasts and


what it consists of. This two-year period with Mr Lyons and Mr Hammond


are talking about, seems fairly acceptable. There is still this


concern from Brexit supporters, to use the phrase that is in the


Telegraph, there is a bridge to nowhere. A transition with a finite


point. We will see a lot more of this kind of stuff over the next


couple of weeks as everyone tries to get their stuff out there before the


Prime Minister in September is expected to say, this is what the


transition will be. This is what Brexit looks like. You say that, but


on the front page of The Times you have got the international trade


secretary Liam Fox denying there has been a Cabinet deal on immigration.


That's the story we are running this morning as well. It does not


necessarily feel that United, does it? The difficulty is, you are right


to say this is not really a split. Two years, three years, in the grand


scheme of things this will be worked out. The real questions are not


really being tackled in the way they need to be. This is something I


think you are right, there will be a transition, everyone agrees that,


whatever it turns out to be. Immigration is much more difficult


because I think Philip Hammond and certain other members of the Cabinet


do seem to want some measure of immigration, especially from the EU.


I think there is a reasonable economic argument to make that


Britain could use some immigration, especially as the population ages


and younger migrants come through. But then it is, what the people vote


for last year. Did they vote for less immigration? That seems to be a


reasonable consensus that there was a desire for that. We were talking


early as well, this is just one of a whole host of located issues, that


not enough is being talked about. Northern Ireland is another one.


That's on the front page of the observer I think. How you get


through this in 18 months, I just don't know. And of course the


speculation about people manoeuvring within the Cabinet, for eventual


leadership successes. Leadership. Yes, I was just grasping for words


there. There are tribes in a way. You have Damian Green who was


essentially the Deputy Prime Minister and Philip Hammond wanting


a soft as possible approach. They do not want any kind of cliff edge


break. Others like Michael Gove and Liam Fox want to jettison the EU and


back out there and start negotiating these new trade deals. The problem


is we have not really had that conversation over the past year with


what Brexit looks like. A lot of the past year has been people scratching


their chins and thinking, but not much leadership from the government.


I think this is where it turns to the premise in the autumn, when she


comes back from a walking holiday in Switzerland. Hopefully she can say


right, this is where it's going to be. If you keep having these splits


about little details about the transition period, you don't get to


the issues we are talking about, about what our migration policy will


be, what will the Irish border lookalike, is the ECJ going to have


a role? That ultimately will decide what Brexit looks like, and whether


it will fill the needs of the 52% devoted to last summer. Let's move


on to a story we will have a lot of, Princess Diana. -- the 52% who voted


to leave last summer. Lots of papers happiness but let's


look at the mail. Don't show Diana Love tapes on TV, please what's


that? This is a series of conversations, I believe there are


12 tapes in total, but seven are the basis for the stock imagery from


Channel 4 regarding Princess Diana as the marriage was falling apart,


in the midst of the separation. She talks in very Private terms about


the honest conversations she had been having with the Queen, with


Prince Charles himself. There is some... This has been broadcast


before, this is the first time it would be on British TV. NBC


broadcast as the male motes in 2004. -- NBC broadcast this, as the mail


notes. I can understand why family members don't want this to be


broadcast but there does not seem to be any legal justification for it


not be broadcast. The real debate is because these tapes were part of


some training sessions, I believe, according to the reports. The


question is, did Diana ever woollies board was? Obviously we will never


know the answer and that's the real question here. -- did Diana ever


want these broadcast? Some other papers as well, sources close to


Prince William and Harry saying they don't really want them broadcast.


But you are right, there is no legal justification. I suppose it comes


back to taste grounds, public interest, and public appetite. It is


incredible, 20 years since the death of Diana and the public appetite for


this story does not seem to be really that much less than it was in


the late 90s. As we roll into August, I think there will be a lot


more of this as well. I suppose so much of it has been reported, are


nothing new is seized on as an opportunity. What is interesting is


the princes, William and Harry, have opened up quite a lot in recent


weeks about their relationship with their mother. They of course have a


right and want to own the story. She was their mother. But other people


want to tell the story in different ways. There is a tension there.


Absolutely. We saw the ITV documentary where they very much


opened up in a personal way, putting their side of the story across,


where is this is a very different side. There was a lot of reporting


that they were very involved in a documentary. It was not just


interviews and being on camera, but they chose people who would be


there, it was very much as you say, them presenting their side of it.


Not there multiple sides, but their story. But there are multiple


stories to be told. Appetite for stories for Princess Diana have


shown no signs of abating over 20 years. She was an astonishing


figure, I think that I did read imagery we went into a lot of the


remarkable thing she did. It's easy to forget that she was remarkable in


so many ways. This document tree, it's very uncomfortable viewing I'm


sure, it will be uncomfortable for memories of her family, her sons. --


members of her family. But I'm sure there will be more


bluster, this to come as we get closer to the anniversary next


month. Let's move on, I'm keen to get another story. The Times has


done a bit report on the life of teenage brides in Islamic State,


so-called Little Britain. Young women like these British and western


women who have married fighters for so-called Islamic State, not a news


story in a sense of what this reveals is a lot of detail we did


not know. Hugely, there is also this issue of their legal status as well.


Alongside this we have the story about the government stripping


hundreds of jihadists on British passports. A very emotional story on


the front page of the Sunday Times today about one of these so-called


jihadis brides who has had her, she is stateless, she has no


citizenship, no passport. She had gone to the so-called Islamic State


to marry a fighter that. What we are seeing here is that Isis is


collapsing. The fight does seem to be making progress. Syria is on the


brink of collapse as well. When that happens, what will happen to all


these people? These people who have British passports as well. This is


of great concern to the security services here, because there is a


quote from the senior source who says there is an awful lot of people


we have found who will never be coming home again. Our number-1


preferences to get them on trial. We don't think that's possible, we use


disruption techniques. Depriving people of passports? Exactly. Trying


to control the situation that is very hard to control. It will only


get worse. The momentum seems to be against the Islamic State, as they


continue to lose territory in Syria. She talks in this interview, it's


remarkable, her hardships on morale. Fighters and their wives spoke about


leaving, most wanted to go she said, but they did not know how. More and


more people, wanting to go back to Germany, Britain is not alone in


confronting this problem. Another thing where her parents plead with


the government to let her go home but the bureaucracy is a movable and


she fears the stigma she would face if she did return. They will say she


is Isis, she says. Huge problems, legal problems with what you do with


these people. There are people born in Islamic State territory whose


passports will be held, if they are nationals of Britain, Denmark, all


these countries. Even if they do come back, how do you reintegrate


them into society? Do you put them in jail? What do you do with the


children? There are a whole host of problems countries are only


beginning to grapple with as the Islamic State Falls, and as that


happens, there will be a huge number of problems that I get to be


confronted. The British government is taking a very tough line on this,


simply saying given the events of this year they are very conscious


first of all not necessarily of the reintegration but about the security


element. How do you track them? We do not have any good methods in this


country for tracking people who come in and out of Borders. That is their


first concern. They say there is a great human question toward this as


well. We are going to have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.


Thank you Sebastian Payne from the Financial Times


and Prashant Rao from the New York Times.


Coming up on BBC One after this programme


is Sunday Morning Live - with the details, we say good


Download Subtitles