Skip to main content

tv   HAR Dtalk  BBC News  January 25, 2019 4:30am-5:01am GMT

4:30 am
diplomatic confrontation — a day after washington recognised the opposition leader as interim president. venezuela has said it is shutting down its diplomatic missions in the us. washington has responded by ordering all its non—emergency personnel to leave venezuela. the republican and democratic leaders in the us senate have been holding private talks — to try to negotiate an end to the partial government showdown. they are trying to agree a deal which would fund federal agencies for three weeks. president trump says he will support a ‘reasonable‘ agreement. scientists at a conference in norway have warned that the frontier of the arctic is likely to shift eastwards away from the barents sea as the climate warms. they say the kara and laptev seas along russia's northern coastline — are likely to become the new arctic frontier. you're up to date with the headlines. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.
4:31 am
i'm stephen sackur. in little more than two months from now, britain is scheduled to leave the european union. that beguilingly simple statement is at the heart of a political crisis which deepens by the day. the ruling conservative party is riven with splits, so too is the labour opposition. if parliament's brexit paralysis persists then britain will leave with no deal in place, no orderly transition, and the prospect of real economic disruption. my guest is labour's shadow chancellorjohn mcdonnell. what will labour do in this moment of political truth? john mcdonnell, welcome to hardtalk. this is the endgame. we've said it before but it's real now. so, will labour do whatever it takes to ensure that britain does not leave the european union with no deal in place on march 29? every week seems to be the endgame. we keep saying it's the endgame... we can't say it for much longer because that clock doesn't stop ticking.
4:32 am
even then, as you've seen with the amendments going into parliament next week, it might not be the endgame as such. that's the problem we've got, the uncertainty that's all the time, and most of the people i speak to in the economic community, trade unions or business leaders, are saying they want certainty. what we're trying to bring to the table is some certainty. as we go through this next few weeks, there is a prospect of a deal being reached that can secure sufficient parliamentary support, i think there is. it is that the government's deal, i don't think, although, who can tell whether or not there'll be some renegotiation of that. i do think there's a will in parliament to avoid and no deal and therefore arriving at some form of compromise. it's got to be a compromise, not everyone get everything that they want but i think there is an overwhelming view that we've got to prevent no deal. right, and for compromise to happen, people clearly need to talk to each other.
4:33 am
why won'tjeremy corbyn and the labour party leadership talk to prime minister theresa may at this critical moment? well, he does talk to her, he talks to her in public every week at prime minister's questions and put his views there. he won't have a meeting with her. well, what he said to her is take no deal off the table, ‘cause that's the first basis of any discussion. she's refused to do that. why impose preconditions? i mean, jeremy corbyn is a man throughout his life who's preached the importance of dialogue. crosstalk. he's talked to her... look, i've heard tory party's central office press releases time and time again about this. but the point is there, jeremy corbyn has always said it is important to open up channels of diaglogue but he won't talk to theresa may. the point it he has, he talks to her in front of the nation every week and he said to her, the one thing you've got to do, before we can even move forward is rule out no deal. she won't do that and why is that? because she's using the threat of no deal to try and blackmail parliament into supporting her deal. and those party leaders who went in and talked to her, came out and said that was virtually pointless. jeremy quoted hilary benn at prime minister's questions
4:34 am
yesterday and i thought he summed it up perfectly. the door‘s open but the mind is closed. len mccluskey, the leader of unite and a whole bunch of tradu union leaders are meeting theresa may today because they clearly feel that there is something important to do here. there is a need for all the leaders at this critical junction to actually sit down together, as you said, discuss what compromises everybody is going to have to make. the only person it appears not prepared to do that isjeremy corbyn. they're on the same page as us, which is basically they're trying to say to her to get the no deal off the table. but they're going in to talk specifically about the employment regulations, protections that we're asking for, and we're saying that's fine, that's exactly what we need to do in terms of protection ofjobs in the future, but no deal has to come off the table first. when i asked you if labour's prepared to do whatever it takes, i was thinking about an amendment that is going to be put before the house of commons next week and the chief architect of it is yvette cooper,
4:35 am
a very senior of the labour party. her amendment would ensure that if there is no agreement that gets through parliament, a deal to get through parliament by february 26, the amendment will say no deal will be taken off the table and in essence, the article 50 deadline of march 29 will be extended. at least we will seek to extend it with the eu 27, probably til the end of the year. ie, to put back the deadline an awful long way. will the labour party officially back that amendment? we've been talking to yvette all the way through. remember yvette moved a motion amendment to the finance bill to prevent a no deal. we supported that. i've been talking to yvette throughout, so has the leader's office. we'll go through our process, highly likely we'll support it but we have to go through oui’ normal processes. highly likely? so we can assume, because you don't say that lightly, we're going to assume the labour party will give official backing? my recommendation is that we do but we go through normal processes within the party, we're a democratic party. there'll be consultation between
4:36 am
the leader and the chief whip... but you think the party will end up whipping that vote... i spoke to yvette and her analysis is the same as mine, that if we reach a situation where the prime minister can't bring forward a deal that has the overall agreement of parliament, we're then left with a matter of weeks and it's physically impossible then to go out in any deal that would be brought forward in that time period. so therefore we're then faced with a no deal situation, so the best thing to do is to put the article 50 off. yvette has put forward the idea to put it off til the end of the year but she said this is subject to amendment so it could be three months, six months or nine months. and that will come out in the debate. what we're trying to do is what the prime minister is failing to do which is building consensus across the parties in the house of commons. how do you think those people across the country, many of them labour voters and supporters... who voted leave, yeah. ..who wanted to see britain leave on march 29, will feel about a delay, possibly for nine months, who knows how long? well, my constituentcy voted leave.
4:37 am
it shocked me, but they voted leave, i'm in a leave seat. your constituency, 58% leave. exactly, yeah. so we've got to explain to people very, very clearly why there is that delay. it's not my view, it's not trying to undermine the process of respecting the referendum result, but it is saying practically, even if a deal is place, the practical arrangements won't be in place, but it is very difficult to see a deal emerging at the moment within that time scale. we'll see what the prime minister comes back with. i suspect the prime minister may come back with some more forms of words around the backstop to try and reassure some of the members. you never know, her deal might well go through, we can't tell at the moment. failing that, we've got to try and arrive in parliament, and this is about parliament taking back a bit of control, arrive at some element of compromise. we've put our proposals forward in amendments, you're aware of those, a customs union with a say over trade deals, strong single market, protection of the regulations
4:38 am
on employment, environment and consumer rights. now, that might form the basis of a deal but at least it starts the debate off. let's engage in that a little bit. the labour party insists it has a deal which will work. a very much modified deal from theresa may's, but it depends upon certain concepts which i simply do not understand how you think brussels would ever accept. one, for example, is what you call a customs arrangement, but really a customs union. the uk in customs union with the eu. but with the uk, you say, getting a say in all future trade negotiations. what on earth makes you think that would be acceptable? that's part of the negotiations that we'd have with our european partners. i understand you'd seek it but what i'm asking you is why, for one second, you'd think that would be acceptable? under article 8, there is the ability for the eu to ensure that there is, with a third country,
4:39 am
to have that arrangement. with what we have seen... well, i'm looking at a statement here from the eu commission. "trade outside the eu is an exclusive responsability of the eu. that means that eu institutions make make laws on trade matters, negotiate and conclude international trade agreements. that is, it is an internal matter for the member states of the eu. the commission negotiates those trade deals. there is an arrangement under article 8 where you can, with third countries, have a relationship where you can have a say. turkey has the same relationship. we don't want the same relationship as turkey, for us that wouldn't work, for our scale of our economy. but that's the subject of negotiations and the point we've been making time and time again with theresa may is that she's had two years in which actually she hasn't really negotiated, as far as i'm concerned, on the basis of a mandate from parliament itself which will enable us to have some of those debates that could lead us towards an agreement we think that could be reached.
4:40 am
for the best part of the last year, the labour party has applied these six tests to any deal to see if it's acceptable to your party. these have included the broad concept that any deal must offer the same benefits as being members of the customs union and single market. that is precisely the concept which the eu commission president juncker, emmanuel macron from france, angela merkel in germany, have insisted from the very beginning is utterly impossible because it represents wanting all the benefits without any of the duties and obligations of membership. what were those tests for? they were to test the government to match its own words. so we said to the government, this is what you've promised us, exactly the same benefits, david davis stood up in parliament and said it... and you ridiculed him and said it was absurd, it was fa ntasyland! the prime minister repeated it. so we said fine, if that's what you're telling us, we'll test you against your own measures, and they've failed. what we're now doing is saying,
4:41 am
well, we've got an alternative deal and you can test us against our own deal and how we achieve that. but we want to get parliament into the debate now to see whether or not, if our deal isn't satisfactory, what is? what sort of compromise can we all make? well, that's right, this is all about trying to find some sort of compromise. in the end, it may be that party lines break down on this and that individual mps will have to decide what is the most acceptable possibl deal. well, we've put an amendment up, first of all let's rule out no deal, but then also here's our ideas on what a deal could look like, and we want that debate to start. and we're open to a discussion with others, other political parties, other individual mps, in a way that actually the prime minister for two years, hasn't. it seems to me that you are accepting now that from the labour point of view, delay is the most likely immediate outcome. if that is the case... it looks as though the government is forcing us into that because they've run down the clock.
4:42 am
remember, we wanted the meaningful vote which we would have a vote on the government's proposals, a month ago. prime minister came along, knew she was going to lose the vote so has delayed it, and then, puts the vote and loses by a majority of 230, the biggest in parliamentary history. so we're in a situation where we're forced into this consideration. what else can we do ‘cause the government has run down the clock, it's not of our making. indeed. but one way out this isn't so much focusing on we've got to get a deal, it's actually focusing on the notion that we put it back to the british people. parliament has failed and we need to go back to the british people with all of the new information we've got, 2016 — it wasn't clear what brexit would mean and now it's pretty clear what it might mean, let us consult the british people, see what they want to do. and that's why we've put that in our amendment. if you've read our amendment, we've said parliament should have all the options before it, here's our proposals on what we think a deal could look like, what do other members from other parties think? but also we've put there that parliament should also have the option of considering another public vote. and that public vote,
4:43 am
in your opinion, because you're now actively talking about it, would include the option to remain? to reverse the whole decision, to remain inside the european union? the way we have posed the debate in parliament, we're tryin to be as constructive as possible and try to bring people around some form of compromise, is that parliament should have the option of looking at a public vote on whatever deal is agreed and put that to the people. if people don't accept that vote, don't accept that compromise, that proposal, then status quo would take place which is remain, basically. jeremy corbyn did say to der spiegel magazine, not long ago, brexit can't be stopped, but he's reversed that position? no, no, the brexit process can't be stopped because we're in the process now. it doesn't mean to say that decisions can't be made by parliament or the people in the future. let's get to these deep splits inside the labor party. i don't think there are. i heard your introduction we're riven with— we're not,
4:44 am
we've held together pretty well. we're having a really good democratic debate right the way through in our party. well, you've got shadow ministers, ministerfor housing, she said if the labor party decides to go for a second referendum she will quit the front bench. you've got other mps like caroline flint who've said quite patently that as far as she's concerned, for her constituents, going to a second referendum would represent a betrayal. but they're properly reflecting their views but also they're reflecting the views of their constituents. so what we've been able to do as a party is establish a process where people can express their views but then we arrive at a democratic decision and we've done that at each stage and that's what we're doing now. but my point is that these are characters who will actually not, even if you whip votes, they will not agree to follow the labour party line. so that represents to me, a split. with great respect, that isn't necessarily the case. people have expressed strong views in the past but when the parties come to a democratic decision, the vast majority have abided by it.
4:45 am
i think the last vote, we lost about three of our members voting with the tories if i remember, maybe four. yeah. how much does it matter to you that the labour party membership — according to polling evidence, which is pretty substantial, and significant over time — 70%, well, 70% remain but 70% wanting to see a referendum with remain on the ballot. is that a huge factor for you? of course it is. we need to take into account the views, and that is why at the labour party conference, we unanimously voted for a way that we would handle this and go forward and we have abided by that all the way through. and of course we've had strong views on either side but they have been able to come to an agreement about how we handle the democratic debate within our society. and going back to len mccluskey, one of the most important figures in the labour movement, biggest funder of the labour party through the unite union, he says that "a referendum could well tear the country apart". he says he finds the idea of sending labour mps back into their constituencies — in, for example, middlesbrough and mansfield — and telling
4:46 am
the people they made a stupid decision and that they should reverse it. he says that is utterly and deeply unappealing. well, he is right. you wouldn't want to go back to your constituency and tell — call your constituents stupid. but his implication is that there is no way that could be avoided. if you go back to the people and say "we didn't like the decision you took so we are going to demand you take it again and make a different decision, that is telling them..." you wouldn't do it though. if we ever did get to another public vote — and it's a big if — and it depends on whether parliament agree a compromise or not — it is a big if — mps would have to be honest and our party would have to be honest and say " pa rliament has not been able to agree. now it goes back to you. here is one proposal that parliament has agreed upon in terms of one way forward." and we'd have a real, proper debate. would you campaign for remain? yes, i would. i'd vote remain — if we ever had another opportunity, i'd vote remain again, because i campaigned for remain
4:47 am
in the first place, but i would have to respect my constituents' views and i have to respect the result of the referendum and do the best job we can on the basis of that mandate. so, as things stand today, you, john mcdonnell, want britain to remain inside the european union? i've consistently done that, but i want people to — i want britain to actually reflect the views of the people that we gave the opportunity to vote in that referendum, which was to leave. if i may... that's those democratic compromises that have to be made when in a democratic society. let's talk about the bigger picture — what brexit says as part of a wider trend across the world. it seems — and again, a very interesting piece was written recently by a left—wing writer, john harris, in the guardian newspaper. he travels the country listening to what people think about the state of the nation and he says brexit in essence was a sort of rebel yell, a howl of frustration and anger from people who are feeling deeply neglected by — not listened to — by the political elite, and he ties it to what we see
4:48 am
about the core support for donald trump in the united states, what we see about nativism and populism across the european union. john's got a strong point there but we shouldn't be too simplistic about our analysis as well. people voted for a range of motivations. in the referendum campaign, i toured to the country and i did meetings particularly in small towns, particularly up north — not cities but smaller towns — and i heard a range of views. you had a view from the left, ‘lexit‘ they called it, about withdrawing from the european union because they saw it as undemocratic, neo—liberal, etc. well, that was you and jeremy corbyn‘s old standard, back in the 1970s. well, we argued, we argued about the need for democratic reform in the european union, we campaigned around it. but to address — one of the examples i was given is the way that the european union they treated greece, so i invited yanis varoufakis across, over — the greek — the ex—greek finance minister, and he was putting the argument on the same platform as me, as "look, i agree with all the criticisms that you've got about the european union's structures as they now are, but we can reform those". and the way they treated
4:49 am
greece was abhorrent, but we can overcome it if we work together on a reform basis. i guess my point isn't so much wanting to go back to a brexit argument, it's how does the left in the united kingdom avoid what we have seen in so many other parts of the world which is that this anger, this sort of populist wave, is so much more easy, it seems, for right—wing conservative movements to channel than it is for left—wing movements? i'm sorry if i am being long—winded but sometimes you have to explain in full. there was a variety of motivations. i dealt with that left motivation byjust demonstrating that the left in europe wanted us to stay to assist in tackling the real problems that people are facing around neo—liberalism and transformation of their neo—liberal policies. there were others who had a view about the european union that, again, it wasn't on the same agenda that they wanted in terms of the parties for britain, so these were views taken that were considered views and you had to respect them but you had to argue against them and confront them in a debate. there were others as well — and it was a bit like a by—election,
4:50 am
where everyone's grievance went into one vote and all that grievance was about an establishment that wasn't listening to them, wasn't investing in their communities, had undermined their — particularly their manufacturing base in some of the towns up north, and this was a way in where we shake the establishment and say "look, listen to us, and we want change". and we have to listen to that as part of this debate. do you believe it is now time for you — and your tradition is from the left of the party, it is a avowedly socialist, as indeed to a certain extent marxist — do you believe it is time to push a really radical socialist agenda or is it time for you, john mcdonnell, to engage in pragmatism? why do you think that socialist policy is not pragmatic? what gives you that idea? crosstalk. let's talk about because one
4:51 am
of your colleagues on the left, he said "look, forget about brexit. we need to be talking about massive redistribution". massive redistribution. yet you, john mcdonnell, have accept — the last conservative budget, which involved tax cuts for people earning £50,000 a year — that's very far above the average — you said "we're going to accept that. we're going to live with those tax cuts." because we're going to introduce our own fair taxation system when we go into government that will confront those issues, so socialism is about pragmatism. it is about practical policies, like you advanced. it's about giving tax cuts to the top 10%? no, it's about having... but that's what you've accepted. it's having a fair taxation system and when we come into power means the top 5% will pay more in income tax, we will reverse some of the corporation tax cuts that have taken place, we'll tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance, we'll introduce a financial transaction tax in the city and it will pay for the public services that we need, and then we'll borrow to invest in our economy. crosstalk. so, how radical? in terms of redistribution, how radical? because right now, britain has some of the lowest top rates of tax across the g7, so if you're serious about chris williamson—style redistribution...
4:52 am
we published our proposals. no, i know, and the point is that you're not, you're not talking about the sorts of tax rates that many people on the left, your old colleagues, would regard as just and right in a truly redistributive system. chris — chris on the left and all the socialist campaign groups stood on that manifesto and campaigned for it, and alongside that, i published the grey book which was the costing of that manifesto, set out in detail our tax proposals and supported them overwhelmingly. and it was incredibly popular — almost took us into government. i suppose the arc of your career is fascinating because you have worked for unions, you've worked on the left of the party — you've always, frankly, since being in parliament for the first 15 years of your parliamentary life, being a rebel against the mainstream of tony blair and then gordon brown. when i left school, i worked on the shop floor. and i was at night school, went to university. all through the time, i was pushing my career in terms of the tuc, the grc etc. i was a chief executive of the local government organisation. you talk about europe — i had an office in brussels. i managed european funds for london on behalf of local government,
4:53 am
so i'm a pragmatist. i'm — in some respects, i have been accused in the movement of being a bureaucrat. i believe that you introduce socialist policies on the basis of practical implementation. exactly like clem attlee, nye bevan, and others. crosstalk. what could be more pragmatic than the nhs? under any analysis of what brexit will mean, whether it's soft brexit, hard brexit, any brexit in between, it is going to leave the uk economy smaller than it would have been had brexit not happened. isn't that the fundamental reason why the labour party should now say quite clearly we are a party of remain. there are two issues here, and i think we're the only party that can do this, really. is that if we accept the mandate that we had from that referendum, we need to explain to people that brexit will have a cost — and it is notjust us saying this, it's the treasury, bank of england, you name, the tuc, the cb — will have a cost. so therefore, how do you overcome...
4:54 am
crosstalk. you have to let me finish a sentence so i can — if it's gonna have that cost, that ups, even needs — ups the need, because greater emphasis for the need for a labour government which has tra nsformative economic policies, that will enable us notjust to cope with brexit, but to build an economy and society in which it's prosperous, where that prosperity is shared by everybody. john mcdonnell, we have to end there, but thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thanks a lot! it was great. hello there. today's the day that our weather is going to turn significantly milder. if we look at the kind
4:55 am
of temperatures we had thursday afternoon, low single figures fairly widely, but this afternoon, we will see temperatures pushing up into double figures. for some, it will be a jump in temperatures of around 10 celsius, perhaps even a little bit more than that in one or two places. and the only thing that has the power to lift temperatures so quickly so far at this time of year is a warm front. and there it is, pushing its way eastwards. now, along with the warmer air that will be coming with that warm front, we will see extensive cloud. quite low cloud with some mist and fog patches around at times, particularly across eastern areas of england and around the coasts and hills in the west as conditions continue to get that bit milder. so as we go through friday morning, certainly a lot of cloud around. there will be a little bit of light, patchy rain pushing its way eastwards across eastern england, followed by extensive cloud with some bits and pieces of light rain and drizzle around our western coasts and hills. some wetter weather getting into western scotland and perhaps at times into north—west england too. now, the far north of scotland in some cool—ish air but central and southern scotland, northern ireland, england and wales
4:56 am
all having a mild afternoon — temperatures into double figures. those mild conditions will continue through friday night and into the early hours of saturday as well, but rain will start to move in and turn heavier across northern scotland. so, not a cold night — for most of us, temperatures 7—9 celsius. so it will be a mild start to the weekend as well. we are in a warm sector for saturday, starting behind the cold front, so a lot of cloud around once again. a westerly breeze and through the day, we will see the cloud thickening in the west to bring general outbreaks of rain into northern ireland and the rain at its heaviest in western scotland. it's probably not a bad thing, to be honest, that we see this wet weather because january has been a very dry month so far. it will be another mild day then with temperatures typically around 8—11 celsius or so, but it is turning colder across the far north of scotland. now, through the second half of the weekend, as our low pressure pushes eastwards, we start to draw down these winds all the way from the arctic so it will be really quite chilly, particularly across western areas where we'll have gales and severe gales bringing
4:57 am
in plenty of showers which will turn increasingly wintry across the hills in scotland, potentially also down to some lower levels late in the day. all the while, outbreaks of rain will continue to affect eastern coasts of england, eastern parts of scotland, so a blustery kind of day. and turning noticeably cooler as well — temperatures in the north just around four degrees or so. that's your latest weather. bye for now. this is the briefing. i'm victoria fritz. our top story: venezuela closes its embassy in the united states — as nicolas maduro accuses donald trump of trying to overthrow him. ten million per cent inflation. in business briefing we're looking at the scale of the economic crisis facing venezuela — as the standoff between the government and opposition continues. what's in a name? plenty, according to these protesters in greece, but why are they so unhappy with their northern neighbour? and the final resting place
4:58 am
of the man who helped name australia — we'll tell you about the mystery of matthew flinders.
4:59 am
5:00 am

39 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on