30/07/2017 The Papers

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