15/03/2012 This Week

Tonight, we present an American Starring Barack and Michelle, and

Dave and Sam. Forget the Carringtons. As the Camerons are

given the red carpet treatment, the BBC's top man Nick Robinson

explains the storyline. This was not a simple soap opera, it was a

full-blown Hollywood romance. All that was missing was the final kiss.

The president and PM tried to make reassuring noises about the

conflict in Afghanistan. The former head of the British Army, Richard

Dannatt, says politicians must hold their nerve under fire. The tragic

loss last week of six of our young soldiers in Afghanistan has once

again brought the future of our mission there into the frame. If we

succumb to the pressure to withdraw early, I believe there is a serious

risk that we will risk all we have achieved so far. And as some

drummers couples attend the state dinner, back home, the fight for

gay marriage takes centre stage. Simon Callow accept our invitation.

I do. So, who did shoot J R? Evening. Welcome. The Goldman Sachs

of BBC current affairs, This Week. Unlike the soul who resigned from

that company, I have also been labouring under delusions. I also

thought I was working for something worthwhile, that our mission was to

bring the finest public service broadcasting TV to your living

rooms. But after almost ten years of selfless service, I now see the

true trajectory of this show's culture, its people and identity,

and they have a lot in common with the real face of Goldman Sachs. Yes,

I also work for a vampire place. I have also decided to resign, with a

dramatic expose of the truth behind the facade. And let me tell you

that never once can I remember us taking the interests of the licence

payer, which we all call Muppets, into account. Never. Executive

producers have come and gone, their pockets stuffed with gold, while

viewers have been left with third- rate scrapes and embarrassing

graphics. Production meetings never start with how we might speak truth

to power, but how to get Blue nun to increase the size of its weekly

deliveries. I have seen more effort going into drafting Diane's

expenses and I'm in Michael's should span into a round-up of the

week. I am off to start Monday as a runner on The One Show, whether

proper values of BBC still shine bright. I am joined on the sofa

tonight by two men who refuse to walk for Westminster plight. Think

of them as the Chris Huhne and Eric Joyce of late-night political chat.

I speak of course of Michael trainspotter Portillo, and trending

as man on the left, Allen Johnson. Welcome to you both on my last show.

That resignation was obviously your moment of the week. Alone and that,

what was your moment of the week? was making a TV documentary this

week, and I went to meet the finance minister of Germany,

Wolfgang sure poor. He has been the scourge of the Greeks, and the man

who has made into them for not paying their taxes and not bringing

down their deficit. Now the deal has been done, so I was asking him

whether he anticipates that there will be another Greek default just

down the road, because the Greek economy is in headlong decline. I

have been a ministers, so I knew what he would say. He said no, the

Greeks will use this period for restructuring and come out at the

other side. But nobody believes that. There will be a Greek default

down the line. A bit of time has been bought. But the economy is in

freefall. Yes, and there are other economies in the Eurozone tanking

as well. That has cheered me up. What was your moment of the week?

Another great man, Dennis Skinner. His question that PMQs was typical

of him in that he managed in one question to get in the fact that

Nick Clegg should be embarrassed for not being invited to go to

America, he also raised a thing about Cameron and the horse, which

will run and run. And a sting in the tail to try and divide the

coalition. It was a typical, vintage Skinner performance. I also

thought Nick Clegg answered much more prime-ministerial leave and

Cameron did a few weeks ago says, when he had another Skinner-type

missile. Whereas Nick Clegg was, I thought, very elegant. We were

watching it on the Daily Politics. He seemed to have more confidence

and like it, rather than being cowed by it.

Now, Afghanistan has been centre stage this week in Washington, with

mounting pressure on both the US and UK governments to bring forward

troop withdrawal in the wake of recent budgets. Kabul's President

Karzai today called on NATO troops to leave Afghan villages, and the

Taliban have suspended peace talks with the Americans. So are we doing

more harm than good after ten years of conflict? Or do we have a

responsibility to finish what we started? General Richard Dannatt is

here with his take on the week. It has been a difficult time in

Afghanistan recently. Just last week, we saw the tragic loss of six

more soldiers, making a total of 404 soldiers, sailors, airmen and

Marines who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, with all the impact

for the mission and on their families. And a few days ago, an

American staff sergeant ran amok, killing 16 innocent civilians in

the Kandahar area. It begs the question of where we go from here.

Do we see this through to the end of 2014, the current policy? Or do

we pack up and come home early? These are important issues which

must be discussed. First, let's remember why we are in Afghanistan

in the first place. It was, of course, in 2001, 9/11, that Al-

Qaeda exported its violence to New York and Washington. And it had

done so in many incidents prior to that. It was from Afghanistan where

Al-Qaeda had established training bases that those operations were

planned and mounted. The West had no alternative but to flush the

Taliban, who were supporting Al- Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda out. We have

done that well. The big issue is, when should our combat mission end?

This is what David Cameron and Barack Obama have been discussing

in the States in the last few days. Our Prime Minister has already said

our combat mission will end by the end of 2014. So we have to get this

right, and the timing is critical. At the end of the day, our British

armed forces, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, have borne the

burden of this. We have to look after them. Yes, the army will get

smaller and there will be redundancies, but these are about

people, and we have to look after them. Only today, the case is being

made to make sure we pay our people properly. We are not trying to make

Afghanistan into a perfect democracy or like a Western country,

but sufficiently stable so that people, if they want to, can live a

reasonable life. That is what it is about. We are giving them an

opportunity. They can take it or they can choose not to take it. The

bottom line is this. We have made ourselves safer by facing down Al-

Qaeda in Afghanistan. We are now giving the Afghans the opportunity

to live in a more stable environment. That is good for them

and good for us. It will prevent Al-Qaeda coming back. If we get

this right, that is a legacy to be proud of.

Richard Dannatt joins us now. Almost everything that has happened

in the past ten days would suggest that we are now doing more harm

than good in Afghanistan? That is one way you could look at it.

Certainly, the loss of six soldiers a week ago was Caddick, as was the

404 that we have lost -- tragic. The Staff Sergeant running amok and

killing 16 civilians was completely inexcusable. But if you put this in

the context of the whole campaign, these are unfortunate incidents.

But we have been in Afghanistan since late 2001, and in southern

Afghanistan since the middle of 2006. Progress has been made. But

people often say, don't you study your history? We have lost all the

other was in Afghanistan. We are not fighting the Afghans. We are

not trying to occupy their country. It was firstly about getting rid of

Al-Qaeda, which has been done. It has made the West safe. You could

argue about the other places that Al-Qaeda has been dispersed into.

Now it has a question of making Afghanistan sufficiently stable.

Then we withdraw. We do not want to stay there. It is their country.

The face we are in now is the progressive handing over, province

by province, to the Afghan national secure G-forces, who are

increasingly cable, so we can bring our troops back. If Michael, we

were struggling last week to give a rationale for staying in

Afghanistan. Are you convinced by the General? I thought the

general's film left out a couple of points. One is the failure, after

the driving out of Al-Qaeda in 2001, to consolidate the achievement in

the country, which led to the second campaign in 2006. In that

period, we were distracted by Iraq. That was a major error. That is why

this has lasted for ten years. Secondly, the general is still

talking about the end of 2014. There has been a massive loss of

political willpower. The president and Prime Minister are now talking

about the cessation of combat activities by the middle of 2013. I

do not believe there is long enough in that window to bring the Afghan

forces and police up to the level required. Therefore, I'm afraid I

think there is a substantial prospect that after we withdraw,

there will be chaos. I would agree with the first point. If I have had

longer in that film, I would have covered it. If you trace the recent

history of Afghanistan, the West failed Afghanistan when the

Russians left in 1989. We should have invested in that country them.

We did not. A terrible civil war followed, which produced the failed

state and the space into which Al- Qaeda went. You are right that we

should have done more. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were kicked out --

should have been kicked out in 2002. You mentioned the war in Iraq. That

is an interesting point. Although this figure of 2014 has been set

for getting combat troops out, all the signals from London and

Washington are that in terms of a combat role of patrolling and

fighting as opposed to being hauled up in a base - middle of 2013.

Let's see what comes out of the next summit in Chicago and what is

really being discussed behind closed doors by Barack Obama and

David Cameron. There we are seeing a progressive handover of the

security operation to the Afghan National Army. That may be speeded

up. But if that is speeded up artificially for political purposes,

we risk prejudicing what we have achieved. It has to be done on a

conditions based programme. 2014 is the end date, but let's not do it

, Alan Johnson, the media want to get the combat troops out as

quickly as possible. If they could do it before 2014, they would do it.

I agree. The Taliban have broken off discussions before now,

although not over the burning of the Koran or the murder of the 16

civilians, but because they will not work with President Karzai. We

are negotiating with the Taliban from a position of weakness. That

is the problem. We want to leave in a condition where girls can go to

school and well we do not go back to a medieval state. President

Karzai has already issued a new rule banning women from even been

able to walk on the street on their Why would the Taliban bothered to

negotiate with us? They do not think President Karzai is

legitimate. They know we are on the way out. They read the opinion

polls and they know that public opinion in Washington, London,

Britain and America has turned against this. They can wait forever.

Why would they bother? This is a fair point. It is worth looking at

this issue from the Afghan people's point of view. They have had the

experience of living under a Taliban regime in the past. Do they

want to go back and live under a Taliban regime in the future, with

the repression of women that we have seen in the past, public

executions? It was a miserable society the Taliban created. What

we have done, and we must not lose sight of this, is to give the

majority of the Afghan people the opportunity of a better life. It is

up to them to choose that, or to fall back on the Taliban. That is

the issue for them, rather than for us. We went with the Americans to

Afghanistan not to make it a better place but to get rid of Al-Qaeda

after 9/11. Now, Al-Qaeda has gone from Afghanistan, so why are we

still there? When was there last a terrorist attack planned in

Afghanistan on Britain? When did that happen? There has been the

most momentous mission creep during the time that we have been there.

Al-Qaeda was dealt with pretty quickly. After that, we declared

that the Taliban was our enemy. It was never clear to me why we did

that because the Taliban were not launching terrorist attacks.

Blair government extended the mission to say that we have to get

girls to school and make it a better place. It has also been

supported by the UN. Although we were making progress against the

Taliban, we could say that girls were going to school. -- although

we were not. Unfortunately, if that is not going to be the enduring

legacy of... If I can cut in, British soldiers have not given

their lives to get Afghan girls to school. This was about making the

country more secure. The wider mission, having neutralised Al-

Qaeda in Afghanistan was to stabilise Afghanistan so it could

not regress again to a space to which Al-Qaeda could flop back.

When did we last kill someone from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? That is

difficult to answer. I am told by the Americans that it is over two

years. In that time, the NATO forces have lost 500 people. There

has been no one from Al-Qaeda to kill, the people we have gone to

clear-out, and yet we have lost 500 lives fighting an enemy that is not

there anymore. You are ignoring the point that you are trying to

stabilise the situation so that Al- Qaeda cannot come back. That is the

wider, medium to long-term point. It is up to the Afghans. It is

their country, not ours. I was listening earlier run to Question

Time. Have we learned lessons, and did we apply them in Libya?

Actually, we did apply some lessons rather better in Libya, to tread

lightly in these countries and give it a light touch. That is an

important lesson that must be taken forward. This is also a battle for

hearts and minds. That has become more important. I do not understand

how we can hope to win the battle of hearts and minds when US troops

have been burning the Koran, urinating on the bodies of dead

Taliban, 16 people killed when the soldier went berserk, drone attacks

on the borders. We have lost the battle of hearts and minds. I think

the point is that those are terrible incidents, but if they

lead to a panic withdrawal, then we would have let down the Afghan

people, and those soldiers would have died in vain. But the Karzai

government is one of the most corrupt on earth. $11 billion least

Afghanistan for Dubai every two years. $11 billion. But it is the

government that we are having to work with. That is what they said

in Vietnam. We were not in Vietnam. I think the final point, as I was

saying, this is really about the Afghan people to choose whether

they want the better life that our young people have died to give them.

I hope they choose to accept that am not fall back on to the Taliban.

The final word is actually about our young marines, soldiers, airmen

and soldiers who have lost their lives there and the families that

have been supporting them. I do not want to see this disappear into a

political mess and say that the military let us down, because the

military have done really well and we have to remember that. Now, are

you still up for Portillo? Because it may be past your bedtime, but we

offer more than just the late night political humiliation of Mr P. Much

more. To be precise, writer, director, thespian, Simon Callow,

who'll be telling us why he's wedded to the idea of gay marriage.

Now, the Director General has revealed that all those nasty

online comments we receive were the result of a sophisticated cyber

attack by those dastardly Iranians, no less! We're sure there'll be

nothing but praise for us from now on on the Twitter, the Facebook and

So, along with the exchanges of kisses and pats on the bottom, the

Obamas and Camerons swapped a series of gifts this week, the

Obamas were given a "wiff waff" table along with a set of Penguin

Classics, and the Cameron's a Braten 1000 Series Grill, that's a

barbecue to you and me, and bean bag chairs with the Presidential

seal for the kids. Call-me-Dave must have been pretty pleased he

hadn't chosen to fly Ryanair again. Just imagine the cost of that

excess baggage! Here's a man who never carries excess baggage, the

BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, with his round up of a

Well, they have really laid out the red carpet for David and Samantha

Cameron. They probably would have preferred the Queen and Duke of

Edinburgh, but they will have to make do. And the Prime Minister not

only gets this and a visit to the basketball, but a dinner almost a

state dinner, and in 19 gun salute. -- own 19 gun salute. Off one plane

and on to another. Not any plane. There Force One. Time, they said,

for 80 minutes of serious discussion with the President, but

perhaps he stole some of the Air Force One chocolates. These are the

pictures they wanted the world to see - two regular guys cheering on

Hot Club -- hot dogs, taking in the game. It was the President helping

you to follow the game? He is giving me some tips. He is going to

teach me cricket because I do not understand what is going on. David

and Barack, as they call each other, look comfortable together, although

I do not rate the Prime Minister's chances of getting the president to

come to watch a full five-day international. So what is the

secret of it? Well, the Prime Minister says of his opposite

number, he is deeply reasonable and deeply rational buck -- rational,

but he is very strong. It is good enough for him. Time for me to go

to bed. For us journalists, these foreign trips are a mixture between

a school outing and a visit to a high-security prison. We had to

come to the White House before dawn to Oscar pressed -- a question in a

news conference after 11am. But I am inspired by what the reporter

from CBS Sports said to the Prime Minister and President at a

basketball game last night. Before asking his question he said, it is

indeed a blessing, a privilege and an honour. Who knows, maybe I

should say that myself! If I do get a question, I have now got a way to

cover my bald head when we are sitting outside in the Rose Garden.

You may remember that President Bush had that friendly advice for

me a few years ago. Better cover up your bald head. At last, the

British embassy have come up with a solution. Down the ages, the

special relationship, as we always have to call it, has been defined

by images. Ronald Reagan dancing with Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair

in those crunch hugging trousers next to George W Bush, when he

joked about sharing the same toothpaste. And the same President

with a rather different Prime Minister. Gordon Brown looking

painfully awkward as he was spun round in the presidential golf

buggy. Well, this is the latest in the photo album of the special

relationship. David Cameron and his wife, Mrs Cameron, expected here on

the south lawn of the White House, to be greeted by just a few 1000 of

the President's closest British friends. There has been no doubting

the warmth of the friendship between these two leaders and their

wives. At the core of not just a special relationship but what they

call an essential one. The President even wanted to impress

his guests that he could speak English, just like the English do.

David, we are chuffed to bits that you are here. I am looking forward

to a greater matter. I am confident that together we are going to keep

the relationship between our two grits Nations absolutely top-notch.

-- between our two great nations. Beneath the public smiles, what

they discussed in great nations could scarcely matter more - how to

end the war in Afghanistan and avoid another in Syria, how to stop

Iran's nuclear programme. The President said it could not nearly

Because we have employed so many of the options available to us to

persuade Iran to take a different course, the window for solving this

issue diplomatically is shrinking. The President and Prime Minister

could pat each other on the back. We have been speaking for an hour

or so and not really said very much at all. But that would ignore the

fact that although they did not want to be quoted, did not want to

make news, did not want to compete with the striking images of their

days together, they are talking about something truly significant -

how to end one war and the possibility that in Syria and in

Iran, two Moore might soon begin. - - two more. David and Samantha

Cameron's visit to Washington DC was rounded off with a lavish

dinner, complete with the Washington great and the good and

the odd smattering of celebrity. George Clooney, Rory McIlroy,

Richard Branson. Just one problem - the starter, Brussels sprouts. As

no one told the Americans that we can't stand the things? -- has no

one told them? Next stop, New York. David Cameron's trip to the United

States will be remembered for so much - the basketball and the

dinners and the mutual back- slapping. But perhaps it should be

remembered for this, the Ground Zero memorial. Because in the end

what matters about his talks with President Obama is whether he,

whether they can find an end to the war whose roots lie deep in that

black hole. Nick Robinson, finishing his report

at Ground Zero. He has promised to bring me back a baseball cap. The

UK Border Force will meet him when he arrives to make sure he has, or

he may not be allowed in the country. We are joined by our

favourite Anglo Brett -- the Brit. You can call me anything. I will

call you Bonnie Greer. Good to see you. Do you think these British

Prime Ministers get intoxicated by the power and the glory of

Washington? Yes, it is kind of weird, actually. I hate to say it,

but the United States has about three or four special relationship,

as we know. There is one with Israel, the really special

relationship. There is Ireland, Mexico, Canada. Canada is the first

foreign country every President visits after the inauguration.

There are all kinds of special relationships. Last year, the

President said this was the essential relationship. That is a

nice one. What I am not sure about, I do not quite understand, the

Obama administration is kind of sniffy about Britain, it was when

it came to power. We were getting briefed when I went to Washington

that it was facing, this was going to be a West would facing, Pacific

facing administration. What has changed? There has been an enormous

change on both parts, because David Cameron was also making a

relationship with India and China and was not going to be so closely

associated with the United States. From Cameron's point of view, to be

pictured alongside the President of the United States is the most

fantastic photo opportunity. From the American point of view, the

success of the Obama period has been the killing of Bin Laden. This

is the President who is bringing the war in Afghanistan to an end.

Therefore, the symbolism of her make -- having Cameron there is to

stand by your strongest ally in the conflict. Also, remember this is a

campaign year and this President is probably one of the most formidable

politicians we will have seen in our lifetime. He ranks up there

with Clinton and Blair, real politicians. And this is for the

campaign year. Last night would have been at that dinner, a bunch

of his supporters and all these people. So it is part politics and

I am not sure anybody in Ohio knows who the British Prime Minister is,

so I am not sure if -- sure it is such so huge campaign boost for Mr

Cameron to be taken there by Obama. Alan, something must have changed

in the foreign policy of the Obama administration. What is it? I do

not think the special relationship would last long if we kept forcing

them to listen to Mumford & Sons. But leaving that to one side

because you do not know who they are, Obama is said to have

described Cameron as a lightweight. So the relationship did not get off

to a good start. But it is gold dust for Cameron to be sitting next

to him. This is the leader of the Conservative Party. It would not

have been politically right for him to see anyone of the Republicans,

but the Americans would have no idea this was also a political

leader. They do not know who he is. He and his wife are nice-looking,

but they do not know who he is. I am sure the GOP must have been

sitting there in their internecine warfare, thinking, this is a

Conservative leader and he did not show up. It is not helpful to a

British prime minister to be seen with people who may not win.

problem is that if he saw one, he had to see them all. Exactly. And

it is against protocol. But he came pretty close to endorsing President

Obama's re-election with the words he used. He obviously believes

Obama will win. Most people now do. Particularly given the state of the

Republicans. He is making a bet that they are going to win. If they

do not win, we could find ourselves in the situation we had with John

Major and Bill Clinton. John Major was seen more or less to have

campaigned against President Clinton, and we paid quite a price

for that. The other part of it is that Obama will probably win, and

he is sure enough up to prepare with what he may have to deal with

- possibly Iran, possibly Syria. So he is making sure he has us as the

back-up dies. That is a very important point. Alan, Mr Cameron

went out of his way to praise the president's judgment and that he

was someone you could trust, a man of integrity. We set the button for

the West's position. So when it comes to potentially difficult

decisions America could face in Iran or Syria or parts as yet

unknown in the world, we are kind of locked in to this man's

judgment? That must be part of Obama's strategy. Also, the fact

that we are in Europe, but outside the Eurozone, helps with that

relationship. But coming back to this point, don't forget that it

was Cameron who invited me came over to the Conservative Party

conference during the run-up to the presidential election last time.

That might be another reason why it did not get off to a good start.

Cameron has learnt from it. But at a time when we thought that after

Iraq and Afghanistan, that Britain and America may not always be

shoulder to shoulder on international developments, this

meeting this week suggests that actually, you are? We are. Lord

Dannatt who was here would no more than we do on the ground. But our

intelligence and military ties, our research Thais, our banks are

practically Anglo-American as well. These are being reinforced so that

when the shift happens next year, the UK will be on the side of the

US. It would be a huge decision for a British Prime Minister not to be

alongside the US if they commit a further action. I do not think the

more or conditions exist for the US to get embroiled in a war in Iran,

nor indeed for his rare to get involved in such a war. But there

is no way America will go into Iraq in an election year. The more

difficult one is if Israel does in. That places a US President in an

election year in a very difficult position. And therefore, Mr Cameron,

too. And he needs his buddies. It is a very Chicago tactic - make

sure you have your people lined up on the table so that he knows that

he can pick up Dave, and he will show up. But that language that he

used about Cameron, do you think it would be different to the language

he would use about other heads of state? Absolutely. David Cameron is

a youngish man, an affable man. And We had better leave it there. I bet

Ed Miliband son was going like this when he saw these pictures! These

pictures of Cameron will be run again and again, come our election

Now, I have a difficult if one for you. Imagine for a moment that you

are Nick Clegg. Try it. Go on. You, too, Bonnie. You are the ugly

political duckling of British politics. You are down in the polls,

disowned by your own party faithful. But at least you have got your man,

that dreamy Call-Me-Dave, the sweet-talking die from the wrong

side of the tracks who made a proposal and convinced you to lose

your political virginity. Then imagine how it feels to see that

very same day that in America, gallivanting around the White House

Rose Garden with that home wrecker, Barack Obama. Did the Downing

Street rose garden made nothing to you, David? We have decided to put

- you guessed it - gay marriage in this week's spotlight.

Two people are in love, they live together and suddenly one day they

run out of conversation. Totally. They can't think of a single thing

to say to each other. Panic. Then suddenly, it occurs to the chap

that there is a way out of the deadlock. Which is? Ask her to

marry him. Brilliant. Could we soon be watching a sequel - four gay

weddings and a Funeral? If the government gets its way, gay

couples may be able to tie the knot before the next election. This

signifies and solemn eyes is their marriage in civil society. It is

the state's view that we are there to facilitate that, encourage it

and rejoice in it. David Cameron has made his own vows, claiming

support from his own philosophy. do not support a gay marriage

despite being a Conservative, I support it because I am a

Conservative. But many are not ready to celebrate the impending

nuptials yet. The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland called

the plans a grotesques and version of human rights. So should we all

be allowed to get hitched, no matter who we are and who we love?

Fingers crossed, because the Blue nun reception in Gretna Green is

already booked and paid for. And everybody is welcome, Simon, aren't

they? The gay couple him Four Weddings were the only happy couple

of the lot, but they were not married coma --, so what is the big

deal? The big deal is that marriage is there. If you are a loving

couple, you want to define yourself according to what is the norm. And

there is no difference on the issue of loving commitment between a

heterosexual or homosexual couple. If people say to you, you have got

civil partnerships, they are legal and contain most of the legal

rights of marriage, so what is wrong with that? It is a compromise.

It is something which has been invented to deal with an unusual

situation. But we are saying it is not an unusual situation. It is two

people that love each other and which to commit themselves together

for the rest of their lives. That is what we call a marriage. When

civil partnerships were introduced, they were widely seen as an

improvement. So but are they still seem by yourself as second class?

They are a step in the right direction. And I can't see why we

don't take that next step. Do you think most people who have gone for

civil partnerships have done so when they would have gone for

marriage? Without question. As Theresa May said today, many people

refer to their civil partnerships as marriage. People within gay

marriages or partnerships do refer to each other as husband and wife.

In terms of the legal rights, for example on inheritance, that is

pretty much the same as with marriage. But are there others

where it is still second class? but I am aware of. But it seems

from what you are saying that it is a matter of equality. Precisely.

Why not? One can think of no other reason. If you go that far with a

sieve or partnership, why not go the extra? Michael, where are you

on this? The government has made an important clarification today. I

don't know why they did not make it in the beginning. Theresa May has

said this applies only to marriage is administered by the state, civil

marriages in a registry office. town hall marriage. It is not just

that churches will not be obliged to carry out gay marriages. They

will continue to be illegal in churches. The Government is

changing the law to make a game marriage in a registry office legal.

They are not making any other change. At the moment, gay

marriages will be legal for register offices. I do not know

whether the gay community will still feel in a second class

situation. But much of this row with the churches seems to have

been unnecessary. I am puzzled by Pat, Simon. I knew the law was

being changed to make civil marriage possible. That is within

the government's remit. But as far as the Church is concerned, I

thought the Government would not make that compulsory. But Michaelis

saying it stays illegal? A church marriage between two people of the

same sex will be illegal under the new dispensation. Will it? Yes.

equality is still some way off. depends how you feel about religion.

Some people feel quite strongly. Yes, but I would argue that a

church may well decide that it does not wish for gay people to get

married. But as long as we understand the that the Church will

then regard gay people as somewhat less than other people, they do not

get the full welcome to the church. I can see the Government saying, we

are not going to force judges to do gay marriage. That is out of our

remit, unlike civil ceremonies. But I do not understand how the

Government can make it illegal. Exactly. I was the minister of the

DTI at the time when civil punishments were introduced. His it

was said that civil partnerships would occur in civil institutions.

But if the Anglican Church decided that they wanted to have gay

marriages after this legislation had gone through, no force on earth

could stop them. In that sense, it is a matter for the Church. For but

we have to acknowledge that the Anglican Church and Catholic Church

are absolutely saying, you are inferior, in our view. A

relationship between two ment or two women is inferior to a

relationship between a man and woman. The average wedding in a

church begins by saying of the sacrament of marriage was invented

for the procreation and bringing up of children. So it is a fundamental

part of what they think. That is obviously the case. But it is not

actually part of the vows. Procreation does not come into that.

That is all about having an holding and cherishing and loving in

sickness, all those things we all believe. Sounds like as though you

do not get as long as you get the civil marriage, you are not

bothered. Are you thinking of getting married yourself? I have

once or twice been asked by some charming people to marry them, but

I don't think I am the marrying kind. If you say yes, can we get an

invite? Simon, thank you for being with us. That is your lot for

tonight. We are off to increase our chances of a heart attack by at

least 25% with a red meat shawarma from Kebabylon on the Holloway Road,

known to locals as north London's very own Dignitas. We leave you

with the week's shock news, that our most popular export to the US