20/10/2016 The View

With Brexit getting the blame for almost everything from disputes

over Marmite to delayed infrastructure projects

in Belfast, I'll be asking the Deputy First Minister

who he thinks is looking out for Northern Ireland's interests -

and why he has no faith in Theresa May's government.

And what about the way details of that letter from

We should know about it. That's not the way it works.

Also tonight - it's been put on the long finger for years,

but will MPs back plans to cut their numbers by redrawing

the political map of Northern Ireland?

We'll hear from one MP who's not happy and a former MP

Plus - Prime Ministers and Presidents have been

delighted to feature, but what would happen if Stormont

No room for Marge or Homer, though, in Commentators' Corner.

We'll hear the thoughts of Professor Deirdre Heenan

The First and Deputy First Ministers will travel to Downing Street

on Monday to take part in a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Council.

Top of their agenda will be the fallout from Brexit -

an issue that dominated our news headlines yet again today

after the Sinn Fein Minister, Chris Hazzard, warned

that the decision to leave has jeopardised the future

Earlier today, I spoke to the Deputy First Minister,

Martin McGuinness, at Stormont Castle, and I asked him

why his party colleague had suggested the funding might not be

forthcoming when the UK Government has made it clear it will underwrite

existing projects until at least 2020?

What will have to ascertain is that the Chancellor is prepared to give a

commitment past 2020. That is the issue for the First Minister to take

up with the British Government. I know there is always a tendency when

stories like this crop up to read into our motives. That is a big

mistake. This is a straightforward case of the convocation being the

commitment from the Chancellor after 2020. This project goes beyond that

date and that presents a real pub the eMac problem. We received a

statement saying that the Chancellor made clear that structural forms

were signed until a point when the UK believes the European Union and

will be fully funded by the Treasury even after we leave. So there should

be no doubt, even after we leave? Well, early clarification... Is that

not the clarification you are looking for? No, we need to speak

with the British Government about the peripheral source for late 2017,

20 18. There is no guarantee that the Europeans are going to ground

that money, given the reality that by 2019 the British Government will

exit the European Union. But of course, the UK Government at that

point would overrated anyway. Is this not actually more to do with

Sinn Fein and their policies and priorities? The reality is they are

using Brexit as a smoke screen to cover its own policies rather than

the York Street interchange. That is the fact, isn't it? I haven't even

mentioned Brexit in the cause of this interview. But Chris Hazzard

mentioned it. Let's be clear about this. The fourth flagship projects

are not ones that Sinn Fein has. The ones that the Executive has, the a

five ASICs that are the flagship projects that we are determined to

see implemented in the ten ahead. But you said you wanted to see this

project happen? I absolutely do. We will establish over the next while

whether it can be funded. You just read a statement I wasn't aware of

before I sat down to do this interview. We will exploit that in

the future. On the wider issue, you said that James Brokenshire cannot

be trusted to negotiate on Northern Ireland's behalf on this issue. Why

not? Let me be clear, I spoke with him at an economic conference and I

spoke to the BBC afterwards. The BBC put it to me and asked me the

question, did I trust James Brokenshire? And I said, given the

behaviour of the Conservative Party in the run-up to the referendum, the

infighting within the party, the shenanigan, the confusion, I do not

trust the British Government. The question was then bit to me again,

did I trust James Brokenshire? I said, he is a member of the Cabinet,

I do not trust the Cabinet. We get on well, we have completely

different ideological beliefs, but we have been nothing other than

civil and gentlemanly and our conversations with each other. Yes.

This was a story that was created by the BBC. You also said that these

people do not have the best interests of the people of the night

that hard. These people being members of the Cabinet, James

Brokenshire. Do you seriously believe that? I do not believe that

they have the best interests of baby but denied that hard. Either

deliberately trying to disadvantage as? They have. Deliberately? The

infighting of the Tory party has created massive problems for

Scotland, for ourselves, for Wales and last Currie left us in never

never land. We are in limbo. Can we not trust them to act in our best

interests, can we trust the Deputy First Minister and the First

Minister? The two of you do not agree on issues. You and Arlene

Foster are pulling in opposite directions. Given that we have been

through a referendum on we were on different sides, the DUP for the

leave and asked for remaining, in the aftermath of that, we were able

to agree a joint letter. You do not agree on the validity of the

results. I have to deal with the outcome of the result. Do you accept

that the UK is leaving and Northern Ireland as part of the UK? I was

involved in 14 meetings in Brussels with some very influential people

who will be at the heart of these negotiations and their position is

clear, their priority is to keep the 27 countries committed to the

European Union together and the British Government and the issues

they are presenting I'm not a priority for them. That does present

problems for us in terms of our politics, social interaction and in

terms of how we continue to develop our programmes for Government, the

economy. You famously with Arlene Foster wrote to the Prime Minister

outlining your concerns about Brexit and we wondered when, if the Prime

Minister would reply. This issue came up in the house on Monday.

You're taking Executive office questions. When you're answering

those questions, did you know that the Prime Minister had in fact

replied to your joint letter the previous Friday? I was aware that a

reply has come several days previously. Had you seen the reply?

I had not seen it, I was aware that it existed I was also aware it had

been delivered. I wanted to speak to Arlene Foster. Used it up as Deputy

First Minister and you have not read that letter. You must have known he

would be asked about it. Arlene Foster is First Minister, I am the

deputy. If we received correspondence from the British

Prime Minister, we have the right to sit down, consider the contents of

that letter, given it had only arrived several days previously and

at the weekend, and have a composition about that. After

Question Time in the Assembly, the First Minister and I were due to

meet with James Brokenshire. We have our own process to go through.

Nobody should be in any doubt whatsoever that the content of the

letter would have been released. A great deal was made about the delay

and her reply, I think the MLAs think it is very odd that you did

not put it out any public domain that she had replied a little bit

sooner than you did. With respect to you, and you're a great journalist,

there is a tendency within the media and some of the more extremes within

the media to believe that if I get a letter from someone, they should

know about it and hour later. That is not how it works. We are not

going to dance to that tune. Know, but I'll think what is confusing

this issue is that at least three M L A is referred to the fact that

Theresa May had apparently not responded to your joint letter in

the house on that Monday afternoon and you did not correct them. You

did not say, actually, that letter has been received and you will hear

about it. You carried on as if you had received no letter. That was not

the case, because you'd have just told me the letter had arrived. What

is wrong about that? That chronology is right. I have looked at Hansard

and that is right. It was mentioned during the course of the debate from

Brexit. Nobody in your team mentioned that to you? That three

MLAs had directly refer to the fact that the letter had not been

received? I was aware that it came up during because of the Brexit

debate, but I still make the case that the first and Deputy First

Minister have the right to consider the contents of a very serious

letter from the British Prime Minister, to talk about it amongst

ourselves and not how to dance to the chin of the media are indeed

three MLAs. Does not go to the heart of the issue of transparency and

openness within the Executive and that other politicians think it

looks like you were trying to conceal something? That is rubbish.

We are talking about opposition politics. We are talking about

people who from the get go, first of all, saying that they weren't going

to take ministerial positions, added eating their responsibilities to the

Good Friday agreement, but that is a matter for themselves. And have now

taken up the position of almost criticising every single thing that

you do. For the money for troubles related inquest to be released from

the British Government, the need to be a joint request from the DUP.

Your partners in Government are currently refusing to do that. Which

is that we've your relationship with the DUP? It has become quite clear

to me in terms of the request that Kim and a member I met with the Lord

Chief Justice as did the First Minister, it became clear to me that

there appears to be an attitude within the British Government that

we will only resolved the freeing up of that money to the Lord Justice

around the establishment of the H I U, the information recovery, right

now we want to get the solution. I am very determined and I met James

Brokenshire several days ago. I am determined with the First Minister

to find a solution to that. Is your bottom line that the UK Government

should ignore the signs of the DUP and release the money anyway? I do

think that what I have said to you just prior to this, it appears to be

that the British Government are not going to do that. What we now need

to do is get a solution and the only way we will find that solution is if

we get negotiators and it all can be done on a very short period of time,

who are involved in this process to sit down and try and find a

solution. Of course, it will involve more parties than just Sinn Fein and

the DUP and the British Government. Can be done by the first

anniversary, next month? I think it would be absolutely disgraceful that

Martin McGuinness speaking to me earlier.

Planned electoral boundary changes could be defeated at Westminster

because a number of Conservative MPs are refusing to back them.

Several Tory MPs have told The View they will vote against the changes

which would see Northern Ireland lose an MP and Belfast go down

Our political correspondent, Stephen Walker, has been

investigating with the help of the Irish News

The boundaries are being redrawn and the battle lines are becoming clear.

Northern Ireland is set to lose an NP, going from 18 to 17

constituencies. Well-known conceits could also disappear, and there

would be new names such as here, stop the move is bad news for Tom

Elliott who can see is the man and south Tyrone seat switch from being

a unionist constituency to a nationalist one. You fell for your

seat. You must, surely? I think overall in Northern Ireland I feel

for seats for unionism. You only have to look at the proposals in

Belfast as well was quite clearly what we have is radical changes but

they are obviously slanted towards a better proposal probably for

republicans and nationalists stop but that's what we have to take on

at the moment. Nigel Dodds's also believes that the boundary changes

will have a detriment to affect on unionism. Sinn Fein wonder what

impact any changes agreed in London will have on the size of the

assembly, a point shared by Alastair McDonnell, whose south Belfast seat

could disappear. This would mean that not only we lose an MP reuse

five assembly members come the next election. How fast will be

downgraded, and we restrict APSAC -- abstract places called Antrim, west

down, go an entity with no community identity or cohesion. Some might say

that is all about self preservation. You wanting to be the MP for south

Belfast. I want to see Northern Ireland work and I believe botching

the boundaries and carving up the constituencies will make more

difficult for Northern Ireland to Worksop in recent weeks, as part of

the compensation process, places have given their opinion about the

changes. Members of the Boundary Commission have organised a series

of events so they can hear people's concerns about the changes. The plan

is not the biggest overhaul to Northern Ireland's parliamentary

constituencies in a generation. But the final say does not rest here

stop instead, that rests with politicians hundreds of miles away.

This is where the battle for the boundaries will be won or lost. And

numbers are key. The Labour Party oppose the move, and since Theresa

May has a very small Commons majority, it would only take a

handful of Conservative MPs to rebel and these plans could be in trouble.

It's gesture politics really. We are getting rid of MEPs, all of the

powers are coming back to the UK Parliament after Brexit and also

there is no justification do reduce the number of MPs, no. Other Tories

agree, and feel it is wrong to shrink the House of Commons was more

people are being appointed to the House of Lords. Then a macro we are

talking about reducing the number of people elected at the ballot box

while stuffing the House of Lords with yet more people. That simply

cannot be right in a developed democracy. As of today, you would

vote against? CHEERING If it came to the house today I

would vote against it. Those behind the change would see it right as

having the same size constituencies. It is a manifesto commitment, let's

motion passed by Parliament it is important, not about individual MPs

but about ensuring we have equal sized constituencies and our

democracy is fair and representative. Other critics

suggest that the boundary changes will benefit the Conservatives, and

put them in power for the foreseeable future. To give one

political party, the Conservative Party, a majority of 80 to 90 for

the indefinite future I find it worrying, troubling me greatly. It

is unhealthy in a democracy do have one side that knows it's going to be

perpetually in government. But suggestions of political opportunism

have been rejected. When it comes to the timing of the actual review this

was decided by Labour and Lib Dem MPs in the previous parliament and

they devoted to delay be changed by an initial five years. This was

proposed in the previous parliament and legislated then and would have

happened by the 2015 general election and gone to plan. After the

cause of this process the final boundary changes will ultimately

come before Parliament, and until then this debate has much time to

run and those seeking reform know they have much persuading to do.

And with me now are the DUP MP, Ian Paisley, and the Alliance

Party's interim leader, Naomi Long.

Ian Paisley, why are you so opposed to the Boundary

I think the proposals are a dog 's breakfast when it comes to how they

have been drawn up. I am all for gradual change to boundaries, which

recognise population shifts, which recognise how communities have

developed, but whenever you take a scalpel to Northern Ireland and hash

the province up in such a way that it actually cuts through

communities, cuts through towns. Take a town like Glengormley. With

these proposals, that town will be in for constituents. Had either side

us that it is not about DV self-interest? People will say of

course you will be concerned because you might lose seats? I could be

really selfish and keep my head down and do nothing. My constituency has

been cut in half. Frankly, my party could select me to run in the new

west Antrim constituency, I'd be confident, they wouldn't select me

in another island also be confident. I could still have a job and a seat

but it is not about me. Because being selfish that was I was do. It

is about the constituents. The main towns are being separated from

villages. People don't define their lives by parliamentary constituency.

Yellow macro but they do define their lives by the communities they

live in. For example the west Antrim constituency, geographically, is

block neigh. The west Antrim constituency drawn does not include

the most westerly part of Antrim. Parts of that constituency are now

part of north Belfast. Is it a dog 's breakfast, Naomi Long? I don't

think it is a good idea into these equal sized population

constituencies. I say that every five years. I do think there should

be reformed but the reform I supported with actually accompanied

by a change to proportional representation voting, which then

did not come through. Not happening. When it turns out that we are today

giving a set of criteria are drawing boundaries around communities, I

fail to see how they could have drawn them any differently. We can

only have 5% plus or minus in difference in population per

constituency in terms of who is on the register. Belfast only has 2.8

quotas, so it can only have three seats, so when you start from that

position and you work out and it is normal that you would start in

Belfast and work out it is hard to see how you could draw lines on a

map anywhere else that didn't equalise the population in each

constituency. Your critical look at this and say the Alliance party is

not terribly bothered about this because of self-interest, because

you might do well in new seat, south-east Belfast? That is not the

issue. To be blunt, I won the constituency of east Belfast in some

of the worst boundaries on an airline 's perspective we have ever

had. I am willing to take the previous loss on the chin. I won it

fair and square in the first election and the worst boundaries we

have ever had. Boundaries don't win elections. What wins or loses

elections is the calibre of candidate and how long and how well

they do the work. I don't think Conservatives are right and how they

have set this up but let's be honest this. This is the second attempt now

at electoral reform, and bizarre to hear Conservative MPs claiming they

want to see reform but don't want to see the House of Lords continued to

grow. They blocked reform of the House of Lords, and would have

prevented that anomaly. I think we can dance Kelbie House of Lords and

we can also reduce the number of MPs. Into what adjustments about the

mood in Westminster? We heard in Stephen Walker's report from two

Conservative MPs. They say that they can't support the current proposals.

Will be be prepared to rebel insignificant enough numbers to

actually holds to read a inner tracks? I will make two points.

Boundary changes first of all should not be radical and explosives, they

should be gradual. There is a blueprint there for 17

constituencies will be a gradual change that people could accept. I'm

exactly both parties, all parties in Northern Ireland could sign up to

that, persuading the Boundary Commission to move forward. The

issue about what is else going to happen, with this dog 's dinner as I

have mentioned of how the boundaries luck, I will now use and the other

-- another metaphor I will use. The Westminster proposals themselves are

a dead duck. This is because of Conservative revels -- rebels. In no

certain terms will they vote for boundary changes, and these numbers

won't affect them radically. They are losing seven tree three MEPs

across the whole change. Some would like to get back into the witness

the parliament. The massive House of Lords needs radical reform and

rejection in size and scale. You opposed House of Lords reform in the

last parliament. Yellow macro I opposed the form on the table, and

I... Ian Paisley, you of course say that there are are these MPs who

will not back the changes. We don't expect the Labour Party to back them

because of course there would be an in-built majority, seven Herman

saying there, of 80 to 90 for the Tories will the pitiable future. You

could not think that is a good idea for democracy? The issue is not

about democracies and drawing boundaries in a order to a beats

Conservatives to retire their MEPs to gain cushy numbers in west Mr. It

is not about shooting parties. It is in sharing... Did not dangerous for

democracy? Of course it is, which is why Boundary Commission is dependent

of government -- independent. These are drawn up for a very good reason,

drawn up by an independent body that actually has the meet the criteria

that was put in front of them, and they have done that do the best of

their abilities, and I am not sure they were given a good starting

point. People want Brexit properly reviewed by the west with the

parliament and that is where all the par is going to be. -- power.

Actually, when the powers come back to the UK many of them will return

to the assembly, and your party has agreed, along with the rest of us

that the assembly should be downsized. Many powers are devolved.

Ian Paisley, I would like to ask you whether and certainty over Brexit

imperilling funding for York Street Interchange sized projects. I have

listened patiently to the media since the 23rd and 24th of June, the

radical reform of our community. We are getting freedom back as a

kingdom. I have listened to all the bad news. Is Brexit causing

uncertainty? All of the bad news that emerges from the 23rd of June

until today's decision now about the Interchange in Belfast... Is this a

hazard? Della macro or bad news is apparently the fold Brexit. That is

totally wrong. If it is good news, we don't hear it because it isn't

the folder Brexit because we haven't left. Glad of the matter is that

people in all parties on the remain and leave side, ... How dismissive

of 56% of people of Northern Ireland come to say they are moaners because

they have concerns. What arrogance. They are moaning about this. They

are not moaning about this. Do they have genuine concerns? I've got a

legitimate concerns. No, apparently we aren't allowed to raise issues

will stop it is how it has been put forward. Let's be very clear. I

don't believe that Chris hazard's decision today has anything to do

with Brexit. Yellow macro thank you. I still object strongly to Ian's

suggestion that anyone asking questions about the future are

moaners. He used this as an insult to the people. No, that is not an

insult. Moaning about it is the insult. Tiburon going on telling

people... People who went for remain are as entitled to express their

opinions and to continue to do so vociferously as anyone else. At what

point do you have do except that there was a vote and that vote was

lost? At what point in democracy do we decide that having an alternative

opinion do the majority view no longer count? This is no longer a

democracy if so. A minority opinion still counts, and in the days of

Northern Ireland majority opinion counts. 56%. When I raise issues

around the issue of exit, Ian... Ian, manners. When I raise issues

about the exit of the European Union, I am doing it with a view

that we are better prepared for that, not about moaning about the

outcome but the concern for our economy and our well-being, and our

starters in Northern Ireland and our ability to change them and that is

my job. Huge moaned since 2013. And your party never moaned about

anything will stop do not judge -- do we not judge the democracy by the

way it listens to the minority? I have listened to the majority here.

But there is an issue of Northern Ireland... Theirs is a position that

is held when ever bad news comes out it is the folder Brexit. I have it

wasn't. Every time it is good news, well, this because when we haven't

left yet. I have said that is not the case. Yellow macro people out

there are sick of not negotiating the deals. You have nothing to do

with negotiation of the deals. We need to push the issue that are

important to Northern Ireland. You may well have done, but James broken

Shire will not be at the Cabinet when they are discussing these

issues he will not be sitting on a Cabinet committee and frankly you

will not have a site at the table either Ian. It is entirely

appropriate for us to raise concerns, and if Ian dismisses those

concerns, and says that just moaning, then how can any person in

Northern Ireland have confidence in him to go and talk to David Davis

and broker these concerns? Why would the DUP not take a seat at

the table in Dublin to discuss the issues for the whole of Ireland? It

is not about the whole of Ireland. That conversation will happen within

the formal apparatchiks, agreed by all of the parties and signed up to

buy all of the parties. What would you have to fear from a competition

like that? That is just a circular argument. This is about putting the

best pressure in the best places, that will be done at Westminster. It

cannot be done over dinner. Busted mag that is nonsense. There is a

real opportunity for us to have two voices at the table, one on the

inside and one speaking for us formally in the British Government.

Who would choose one voice over two when things are so crucial? I'm

sorry, thank you both for joining us on the programme tonight.

And joining me now with their thoughts on redrawing the boundaries

- and on Brexit, road-building and resolving those legacy issues -

are Newton Emerson and Deirdre Heenan.

Let's talk about redrawing the electoral boundaries first of all.

What do you make of the party conference on Saturday?

People have been hugely disappointed. There are many issues

that people want the opposition to hold the Executive to account for.

It has to be much more than a gesture. We want to see their

policies and alternatives. They couldn't make a difference when they

were in Government, but they have to show they are relevant, can make a

difference as a coherent opposition. It will be the first time and SDLP

leader has addressed them? There has been lots of criticism that the

parties are not working as closely as people thought. Do you think this

will be a tangible sign of corporation between the two parties?

It is an important cosmetic exercise, but can only be a cosmetic

exercise. I think it explains some of the aggressive language that

Colum Eastwood has used over the last few weeks I'm a holy water and

papist conspiracy is about going down to Dublin and pretending the

door of number ten can be kicked in. I think he is trying to balance

those two off each other, which is disappointing. Would you make of the

exchanges between Ian Paisley and now you'll meet longer? -- Naomi

Long. They're interested in their own electoral fortune, their own

parties. We should not be surprised by that. None of them asked whether

it make for good governance or whether it is better for the

country, whether we help will have a better price. Our local system is

acting much more nonsensical if you look at the boundaries drawn there.

These are quite sensible, given the constraints that the Boundary

Commission had. Do you agree? Yes, when you look at the map they are

rational and fair. You cannot dispute the principle of equal size

constituencies and you cannot debate basing them on the electoral

register. Anita Askey about Martin McGuinness and his comments on

Brexit, particularly the comments about pitting the York Street

interchange on hold. It was clear from that interview this is not a

priority. He said that. He said yes, it is important, but not a priority.

It is smoke and mirrors. There is a deal going on. It was a key part of

the background deal. They have agreed to agree on that and everyone

else can run departments accordingly or otherwise. They have not made it

a priority and that is the issue. There is a bit of smoke and mirrors

going on there. That's it from The View

for this week. Join me for live coverage

of Mike Nesbitt's speech to the Ulster Unionist conference

on Saturday from noon on BBC Two. And as we sign off, have

you ever asked yourself who our political parties would be

if they were characters in one of the most successful

TV shows of all time? Here's what Lad Flag made of

that challenge.