Skip to main content

tv   Newsnight  BBC News  January 31, 2017 11:15pm-12:01am GMT

11:15 pm
mr fillon says he'll withdraw his candidacy if a formal investigation is launched. nearly 50,000 gay and bisexual men, who were convicted of sexual offences which have since been abolished, have been given posthumous pardons. another 15,000 men who are still alive can also apply to be pardoned under the so—called turing's law which was named after the second world war codebreaker, alan turing. the irish novelist, sebastian barry, has become the first person to win the prestigious costa book of the year award twice. at a ceremony in london tonight, he won for his historical novel, days without end, set in 18505, telling the story of two irish soldiers in america. he said he was inspired to write about a gay relationship after his son came out. that's a summary of the news. newsday is coming up at midnight. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight with emily maitlis. tonight, we bring you a story that goes right to the heart of the brexit campaign. did a feud between
11:16 pm
the then prime minister and the editor of the daily mail help to shape how the nation voted? newsnight understands paul dacre believes david cameron was trying to have him removed. what does a feud between the country's most powerful figures tell you about how the battle was lost and won? the basic evidence is that this was a very important engine of the result. and dacre versus cameron — dacre won. absolutely. we'll hear from the sun's former political editor, trevor kava nagh. also tonight, the home secretary says donald trump's immigration travel ban could become a propaganda tool for isis. why did it happen the way it did? this came out of thin air, as a kind of a stage play, for some of the folks in the white house who seem to want drama. we speak live to the deputy assistant to the president of the united states. and viewsnight — tonight greece's former finance minister, yanis va roufakis. we need to establish a universal basic income to be funded from the
11:17 pm
returns of capital, not tax. it's what i call universal basic dividend. this will allow us to spread the returns from automation to the whole of society. good evening. tonight, we bring you an extraordinary story that goes right to the heart of the brexit campaign. it involves two of the country's most powerful men — the former prime minister david cameron and the editor of the daily mail, paul dacre. newsnight has learnt the mail's editor believes mr cameron was trying to have him removed from hisjob, fearing he could not win the eu referendum whilst he was still at the helm of britain's most popular newspaper. mr dacre is a firm eurosceptic. lord rothermere, who owns the newspaper group, was a remainer. so did prime minister at the time seek the help of lord rothermere in removing what he felt would be the thorn in cameron's side?
11:18 pm
here's what i've found out. # a long time ago # we used to be friends...# the british people have spoken, and the answer is we're out. # a long time ago # we used to be friends...# cast your mind back to that heady summer of 2016, the brexit campaign and the fallout from it, politics had never looked more brutal, and we were all slack—jawed, watching some of the most powerful figures in the country knock the stuffing out of each other. amidst the carnage, one particularly major casualty — just a year after his election, the prime minister had been felled. but for another of britain's most powerful people, a man whose face you'll rarely see, brexit marked the ultimate victory. paul dacre shuns the limelight, but every day his message is received by millions. for 25 years, he's been
11:19 pm
the editor of the daily mail, the voice of middle england. in the run—up to the 2015 general election, his newspaper had savaged the labour party and championed mr cameron. but on brexit, it had been mr cameron who'd been on the receiving end of a relentless daily mail assault. with the result in the balance, the daily mail had nailed its colours to the mast and won the sweetest of victories. looking at the coverage at the time, you could be forgiven for wondering if it was about more than just dacre‘s long—standing dislike of the eu — if it wasn't tinged by something rather personal. well, now i can reveal an intriguing subplot to that whole brexit campaign that might help explain the pretty brutal treatment of a prime minister he had so recently helped to get elected. i've learned that early in the campaign paul dacre heard something guaranteed to make any editor see red.
11:20 pm
he'd been told the prime minister was trying to get him sacked. this is the story of a very personal stand—off between two of the country's most powerful men. it's a story of how the pre—eminent figure in british journalism went to war with the prime minister and won. this is where it all began, almost exactly a year ago. david cameron had a deal on europe, one he hoped he could take to the country to persuade us to stay in the eu. he recognises a stumbling block, and that is paul dacre, a man he needs to have on side. dacre is invited to the private flat in downing street, the camerons' home. from what i understand, the two chat amicably within the early—evening chaos of a family setting. the kids are still up, the tvs on, the two men share a glass of wine, and the prime minister asks his guest if he'll cut him some slack, just pull back a bit from some of the intense euroscepticism. the response from mr dacre is,
11:21 pm
i'm told, swift and uncompromising. he can't change his position on such a core principle, one he has held for some 25 years. his readers, too, viscerally eurosceptic — he owes it to them to show backbone. then, i'm told, he points to the television, showing pictures of migrants arriving in southern europe. "those are the pictures that will decide the outcome of the referendum," the prime minister is told. over the coming weeks, dacre sticks to his line. but not everyone at the paper is pro—brexit. lord rothermere, who owns the daily mail, is a known remainer. it will be rothermere who cameron approaches next. in march, dacre learns something that leaves him incandescent. he's told the prime minister approached viscount rothermere with a view to having dacre removed from hisjob. is it conceivable that david cameron would have requested paul dacre be removed from his post by his proprietor? it's certainly consistent
11:22 pm
with what i know to be the case about the attitude at the very apex of the cameron government about dacre. a member of the cameron government told me very recently that there could be no revival in centrism in this country as long as paul dacre was editor of the mail. and that was presented to me as an absolute precondition of any advance of the centre—right or centre—left, which is a striking thing to say. you're operating here in a context where one individual, one editor, is regarded as being of supreme importance in their political universe, as if the daily mail is a kind of planet which exercises a huge gravitational pull over the whole of the print media. a spokesman from lord rothermere‘s office refused to confirm or deny newsnight‘s story but added, over the years, lord rothermere
11:23 pm
has been lent on by more than one prime minister to remove associated newspapers‘ editors, but as he told lord justice leveson on oath, he does not interfere with the editorial policies of his papers. the relationship between david cameron and paul dacre has never been a simple one. back in 2005, tory hopefuls lined up to lead the party. paul dacre originally backed ken clarke, an arch europhile. but as cameron's popularity grew, he attracted the mail's backing, even though, politically, the two men were often at odds. of course, there's always a honeymoon when a leader comes in who has the makings of a potential prime minister. but cameron in 2005 hit the ground running with his modernisation agenda, which was green, it was about recycling, it was about gay rights, it was about being nice to hoodies. it was almost as if he had drawn up a list of things that the mail hates. and so, obviously, there was an ideological gap between the mail and the conservative party at that point. and then there was andy coulson,
11:24 pm
a murdoch old hand who david cameron wanted to bring into the heart of his team. dacre warned him not to — cameron ignored him. coulson would eventually be jailed for phone hacking. when dacre found himself dragged in front of the leveson inquiry, he felt a palpable sense of grievance. am i alone in detecting the rank smells of hypocrisy and revenge in the political classes‘ current moral indignation over a british press that dared to expose their greed and corruption? the same political class, incidentally, that, until a few weeks ago, had spent years indulging in sickening genuflection to the murdoch press. for a year after leveson, i'm told dacre refused to take cameron's phone calls. by now, in other words, there were plenty of reasons for dacre to dislike cameron. politically, the two were at odds. personally, they'd fallen out. but would david cameron, a sitting
11:25 pm
pm, who'd vowed to the papers to preserve their press freedom, really seek to oust an editor? i asked david cameron if he'd tried to have dacre removed. this is what we got. it is wrong to suggest that david cameron believed he could determine who edits the daily mail. remember, that is not actually the question we asked. his spokesman then went on... it is a matter of public record that he made the case that it was wrong for newspapers to argue that we give up our membership of the eu, particularly when they had not made the case before. this appears to refer to the mail's former support for ardenteuropean ken clarke. his statement finishes by confirming those two meetings. he made this argument privately to the editor of the daily mail, paul dacre, and its proprietor, lord rothermere. from paul dacre‘s office, simply this. for 25 years, i have been given the freedom to edit the mail on behalf of its readers without interference from jonathan rothermere or his father. it has been a greatjoy and privilege. june the 24th brings a new political dawn,
11:26 pm
and a cameron resignation. shortly afterwards, dacre is told by rothermere something he has known privately for months — that david cameron wished him gone. but the big question remains — was the mail's coverage, or even the final brexit result, influenced by a very personalfeud at its heart? what we can say unequivocally was that the most brash and noisy and confident newspaper in the country was stridently anti—eu, and increasingly bitter and hostile towards cameron. so alleging causality is impossible, without access to the mind of every voter. but the basic evidence is that this was a very important engine of the result. so how should we read this —
11:27 pm
a newspaper editor who wielded too much power? or an elected pm seeking to make his mark on the free press? and dacre versus cameron, dacre won. absolutely. matthew d'ancona ending that report. earlier i spoke to trevor kavanagh, the former political editor of the sun, and i asked whether editors ever get removed by politicians. i've never heard of one in my lifetime being removed, and i think the idea that the person involved here, paul dacre, one of the biggest newspaper editors, one of the giants of fleet street, would be removed by a compliant proprietor is almost totally preposterous. isn't it conceivable that a prime minister would want to be cut a bit of slack if he felt that he was facing the political fight of his life and wanted a fair playing field? it's easy to imagine david cameron, in that period in march,
11:28 pm
just before the campaign got into its stride, wondering and worrying whether he was going to lose, and lose everything in the process, including hisjob, and therefore to panic, and start thinking what he could do to silence one of the biggest guns aimed in his direction. but the idea that you would ask lord rothermere to get rid of the man who has turned the daily mail into such a huge success is fantasy, and he would have been utterly deluded before he even began that conversation. what would tell us, then, about david cameron at that time the political year? i think a man who saw everything beginning to disappear before his very eyes, he had just won the general election, against all the odds, or apparently against the odds, and here he was possibly about to lose the premiership because of its promise to hold a referendum. he must‘ve been extremely alarmed, and to take a step like this would have been an act of sheer desperation.
11:29 pm
isn't there an understanding perhaps that he saw paul dacre, a man who swore his priority was to brexit, but thought, hang on, you supported ken clarke, a renowned europhile, he is not being consistent on the issue at all? well, supporting ken clarke is one thing, we at the sun very nearly did the same thing when he was a candidate for the leadership of the conservative party, simply because of this sort of feisty personality. but in the end, we had the same advice is paul dacre, we could not get over the point that he was resolutely pro—european, so i don't think the two things are quite comparable. what does it reveal to you about the extent of paul dacre‘s power? he is a giant in fleet street, has been for many years, i cannot imagine anyone being stupid enough to think that a proprietor would simply dismissing, especially in the heat of battle
11:30 pm
over an issue as big as brexit. and i think that he emerges stronger, in fact, from the result, because he was fervently in support, he campaigned vigorously for brexit, brexit was the outcome, and all his enemies or opponents are scattered before him on the battlefield. so who is there now to beat paul dacre? is it conceivable that this falling out could have had an impact on the daily mail brexit coverage or on the vote itself? it is true that paul dacre found out through other sources than lord rothermere himself that cameron had asked for this, asked for him to be sacked. and no human being would be able to avoid the feeling that they were going to up the ante and double down on the campaign.
11:31 pm
i think the mail was vigorous and devoted an enormous amount of space to the campaign and the arguments. and i would be surprised if it did not have some effect on the outcome, although, i think a lot of other factors were involved and it might have been that the gap could have been even bigger. the home secretary, amber rudd, today issued a stark message about president trump's immigration ban, warning that it could be used as propaganda by islamic state. but a reuters poll tonight shows that more 49% of americans agree with it, whilst a1% of them are opposed. this evening, in washington, democrats walked out of congressional hearings, in essence choosing to boycott the appointment of steve mnuchin as treasury secretary. later this evening, we will hear trump's choice for the supreme court, a decision which bears enormous cultural weight in america and is often bitterly divisive. here's our diplomatic editor, mark urban. the trump administration wants to move on from the entry ban story, not least because it believes
11:32 pm
that the president has done no more than implement a policy he campaigned on. he has an agenda that he articulated clearly to the american people. and it is his job to lay out that vision and the people he appoints and nominates and announces as staff members, theirjob is to fulfil that. but if they do not like it they should not take the job. but it is the president's fi—safld {51° j° “tuner across the world by very weight for further vetting, continues and lawsuits are expected. there may be some very serious challenges to this rule, clearly it was put together at the last minute without input from the people who enforce the law, the people who make the law, the people who are affected
11:33 pm
by the law. the executive order took shape last friday. key to the drafting was steve bannon, strategy director, and stephen miller, just 31, another staffer in the president's inner circle. on friday afternoon trump signed the order at the pentagon with the vice president and defence secretary looking on. sidelining key departments, the white house extended the ban to holders of valid visas and green card residents. angry officials briefed journalists alleging a cavalier disregard for process. stephen miller saying we're not going to go to the other agencies or talk to the lawyers, we're going to do this all alone. you get a very young person in the white house on a power trip and you can just write executive orders and tell all your agencies to go to hell. within an hour of the order being signed, detentions started at airports. it didn't take long then for legal challenges to begin.
11:34 pm
by sunday, some officials were rowing back on green card holders or indeed british nationals. influential senators were complaining about the implementation and reports appearing that border control officers were obstructing court orders to release some detainees. this executive order... ..was mean—spirited and un—american. this came out of nowhere, there is no national emergency, no earthquake, no trees toppling, no bomb found in a waste can at kennedy airport. this seems to have been in my common opinion as a former very tough prosecutor, used to work for rudy guiliani, this came
11:35 pm
from thin air as a kind of stage play for some folks in the white house who seem to want drama. by yesterday evening, acting attorney general sally yates was instructing officials not to contest cases challenging trump's order. and she was promptly fired. white house staffer stephen miller went on fox news to defend her dismissal, but also to cast light on the broader concept behind trump immigration policies. how do we keep this country falling into the same trap as happened to places like germany and france. we have a permanent intergenerational problem of islamic radicalism that becomes a routine feature of life in those countries. a new normal. this afternoon, the homeland security secretary gave a robust defence of administration policy, but there were nods too towards the failure of coordination, a ragged and imperfect process that trump's appointees as they get a grip of their departments, will want to address.
11:36 pm
as you have more and more cabinet level officials confirmed and you start to seek deputy secretaries getting confirmed, there will likely be more bureaucratic pushback. the question is even if there is pushback whether it actually matters. again, proximity is power in washington and the factors stephen bannon and stephen miller have the closest proximity to president trump. until president trump sees or believes their advice is hurting him politically he will continue to listen to them. with the entry ban, as with many other trump policies, they are open to legal challenge. the supreme court could provide the hearing of last resort. later this evening the president is expected to announce his appointment of a right leaning candidate to a vacant seat on that court. joining me from washington now is sebastian gorka
11:37 pm
who is deputy assistant to the president of the united states. and katy walderman from sebastian, the sacking of sally yates set the bar quite high, does the president intend to get rid of everyone who refuses to execute his ideas? that is the sort of argument i would not expect from the bbc. let us not get carried away. sean spicer simply sent a message in his masterful press conference yesterday afternoon where he said we have a new president, if there are members of the bureaucracy who do not wish to execute the policies of the new president well come in a private company those individuals would have to resign or be fired. the issue is does someone who works as a federal employee wish to implement the policies of the new president. that simple.
11:38 pm
i'm sorry you find me extreme, some 900 people have signed notices or petition saying they disagree with these executive orders. will you make moves to get rid of them all? that is not my call, not myjob to do it. should president trump do that? should a ceo get rid of people who do not want to work in his company and abide by his rules? if the bbc had employees that completely acted in ways flagrant to the request of the governor and his actual policies, what would happen to them? so, the answer is yes, then. she assumed that she was in her job to uphold the law and that she could not uphold the law by carrying out his demands. i think she fell victim to the politicisation of national security. the fact is this order is based upon an 0bama identification of seven nations of primary concern to the united states when it
11:39 pm
comes to immigration. so, we are acting on analysis from the last administration. we simply wanted to make sure there was no further threat and 109 people were slightly delayed out of 325,000 entering america on saturday. if that is too much for someone to execute that mission then they will pay the consequence. and there was no national emergency and you had to roll back on key elements. not required. let mejust bring in katie, a reuters poll tonight shows whatever you think the liberals and the airports are saying, that the majority of americans agree with this ban. that is kind of a shocking number, and ijust have to say also that the job of a civil servant in this country is not just to obey the whims of the roman emperor, of the leader, you know
11:40 pm
it is to uphold the constitution. and they have been strong and persuasive arguments advanced that show that this executive order is not constitutional and is very contrary to the american idea as it has been broadcast around the world. as i think many americans are quite ashamed that the new president has so quickly... not according to the polls. roman emperors were not elected and donald trump made very clear on the campaign trail that this is what he was going to do. it can come as no surprise. yes, and i think that team has been very effective at creating a mandate out of a very tight race. and assuming that the electoral victory justifies any action that they can dream of doing. that was a campaign promise. you may make promises on a campaign which are chaos in reality.
11:41 pm
you had to pull back on... how is 109 people chaos? explain. green cards, military translations. mildly delayed. so, you're saying this has gone according to plan? absolutely, i met with general kelly, the new secretary of homeland security, he told me that like clockwork, what the left wing media presented was absolutely and utterly fallacious. the idea that principles were not consulted, that agencies were not brought into the decision—making process. does it matter to you if leaders in europe and around the world think this is the efforts of a dictator gone mad? it matters to us that people are being mowed down in mass numbers in france, being massacred on the streets of paris, brussels, and we do not want that to happen here. that is what matters to us, and anyone using that kind
11:42 pm
of language on a duly elected, democratically chosen head of government, should have their credentials examined very closely. katie, this is part of it, whenever there are protests or placards, whenever the left, if you like, gather, this plays into the hands of trump because he knows the rest of the country is delighted. i think that is a good point, he is a wonderful showman and you can see in the way he is rolling out his announcement of his supreme court nomination later tonight, eight o'clock prime time, the rumour is that he has his finalists both appearing in the white house. it is going to be great entertainment i'm sure. is there any supreme court choice the democrats could accept? my sense is that democrats are hoping that congress, which distorted the make—up of the court by not even considering barack 0bama's nomination, will wait until another
11:43 pm
vacancy opens up and then evaluate both garland and whoever trump chooses to nominate. we will find out probably tomorrow morning for us who the supreme court choice is, but let me ask you, whilst governments around the world are trying to work out donald trump has a strategy that was the question of the state visit. if that gets pushed back, by one year, 18 months, is that still acceptable to president trump? i'm not going to speak directly for the president, the fact is the visit with theresa may thatjust happened a few days ago went superbly. as a result i expect everything to go along swimmingly. you know there is a petition of more than a million people who do not want him to come and see the queen? absolutely, i know that, but i know there is also
11:44 pm
a duly elected government. a duly elected government, the british or american one? the british one, that is going to invite the duly elected chief executive of the united states. and if we keep government policies hostage to petitions that everyone would say i do not want to pay any taxes and there would be a petition for zero taxes. that is about how a representative democracy functions or a republic. this is what the left will come up against time and again within the trump administration, this is a man who was voted in by a credible electoral system, a populist, who is enacting the things he said and was democratically elected to do. where do you go from here? i think trump speaks the language of as i said, showmanship, and i think of people protest and he concedes there is a lot of opposition... protests by walking out, people were called idiots today and you can see the point. i see the point and i am a bit
11:45 pm
at a loss, it is dismal, i think that the mood in a lot of places that are predominantly democratic as opposed to republican is discouraged and searching. but i am encouraged by the example of elizabeth warren, people in government, who are not running over to this and who seem to be marshalling their resources. we have run out of time, thank you both. viewsnight now. this is where we give people a chance to opine. you wont agree with everything they say. but that's sort of the point. tonight, greece's former finance minister yanis va roufakis. western democracies need a new deal. having dismissed their poverty as a personality defect
11:46 pm
and their zero—hours contract as efficiency gains, the deep establishment is looking on in despair as a nationalist international triumphs. two are its handmaidens. involuntary underemployment, the bitter price of austerity, and involuntary migration, the bitter fruit of concentrating decentjobs in small areas. people do not move to london because of the theatre scene, or to britain because of the weather. they move because they must. neither globalisation nor electrified border fences can fix this. it is delusional to believe that britain or america can prosper sustainably when neighbouring nations are in crisis. the cure is decentjobs with a right to a living wage, health care, education and social housing in people's own communities. this is why we need a new deal on both sides of the atlantic, a new bretton woods that conceives of investment in people's
11:47 pm
communities, in the same way that the green movement conceives of climate change — a joint responsibility of a species whose interests are intertwined. we also need to establish a right to universal basic income. fear of machines that can liberate us from drudgery is a sign of a timid and divided society. the luddites are amongst the most misunderstood historical agents. their vandalism of machinery was not a protest against automation. it was against social arrangements that deprived them of life prospects in the face of technological innovation. 0ur societies must embrace the rise of the machines but ensure that they contribute to shared prosperity. every citizen must be granted property rights over part of the wealth that the machines produce. we need to establish a universal basic income to be funded from the returns of capital, not tax — it's what i call
11:48 pm
a universal basic dividend. this will allow us to spend the returns from automation to the whole of society. yanis va roufakis there. as i speak, the house of commons is still in session. mps will be there until midnight tonight debating whether or not to trigger article 50 of the lisbon treaty — which would start the clock on us leaving the european union. tomorrow, just as newsnight comes on air, the mps will vote. but tonight, we thought we would look at the initial cost of the divorce. there have been figures floated in the press that the uk might face a bill of around 60 billion euros to cover spending commitments we've already entered into and things like the pensions of eu staff. nick watt‘s been investigating. time is running out for both sides. in just over a month's time, theresa may hopes to trigger
11:49 pm
the start of the brexit negotiations. the uk is focused on paving the way for a bright future based on new trading relations across the globe. but here in the heart of the eu, they are putting the finishing touches to the list of demands that will concentrate on a much more immediate challenge. when the talks are under way here in brussels, it will soon become apparent that they are a divorce negotiation. and as any lawyer can tell you, one of the first items on the table in any divorce is alimony. my impression of the british position is they enter a football club, they say what we really want to do is play cricket, and by the way, we don't want to pay because we already invested in our cricket equipment. and when we go, we would like to take away some pieces of the clubhouse. this is impossible. the eu is planning to play hardball with an early focus on demands
11:50 pm
for a substantial exit fee. though there are tentative signs of a mellowing. newsnight understands that a figure ofjust over 3a billion euros is doing the rounds in brussels, somewhat lower than the 60 billion floated last year. the new amount has been reached by examining the uk's roughly 12% share of the eu's assets and liabilities, with some signs of flexibility. the uk's share of the eu's total budget shortfall of around 200—250 billion euros works out at between 2a and 30 billion euros. and the uk's share of the eu's pensions bill of 50—60 billion euros is between 6—7.2 billion euros. the uk will be expected to pay at least a third of its commitments under the eu's current budget up to december 2020, 21 months after the planned brexit date. that works out at around 10 billion euros. there are also the eu's assets
11:51 pm
of 153 billion euros. the uk will say its 18 billion share should be deducted from the liabilities. some in the eu say their figures already take account of this. definitive figures are notoriously difficult to pin down. the new exit bill is slightly lower, because the eu acknowledges that the uk should not have to fund those parts of the budget up to 2020 where spending has not yet been committed. the overall figure that is being bandied around in brussels is something like 60 billion euros. that assumes that we're fully liable for the seven—year period, and we might be able to escape some of that. but that is the top figure. negotiation might bring that down, but it is not going to be
11:52 pm
a small bill. i would have difficulty getting it down to any lower than a0. newsnight understands that the exit bill and the rights of eu citizens in the uk will be the first items tabled by brussels. 0ne eu source told me not a single member state is going to pay one cent to help the uk leave. a leading mep from germany is hoping for a benign settlement. either we keep everything in the eu like it is, that would mean somebody would have to cover the difference. and that would be on the net payers‘ side. the net payers are not very keen on the idea. my home country germany, being the biggest net payer, not at all. the other possibility is that the uk is obliged to pay. whether it will be the full money or with some other sort, is open and a matter of negotiation.
11:53 pm
it will be very difficult to find a way of filling this gap — 10 billion is quite a lot of money from an eu budget of 130 billion. and that is why we go to this solution of increasing revenues, it's very bad for net contributors. 0n the other hand if we decide to cut spending, of course the big losers are the net recipients, the countries that are benefiting most today from agriculture. so it's going to be difficult because it is already like this, there's a big gap between net contributors and net beneficiaries. but it is going to be exacerbated by brexit, of course. the uk is hoping that old friends in the eu will ride to its rescue. jens geier suggests that germany wants to be constructive, but it too has its red lines. what we want to achieve is a fair deal and fair means the obligations have to be on both sides bearable. and what will not happen is that the european institution and the european government will let the uk go away with only big advantages. pay nothing and forgetting about all the obligations they have on the continent. no way. britain will soon be
11:54 pm
on the route out of the eu. we can expect some hard stares across the negotiating table when the brexit bill is presented. it looks slightly less expensive, but money could still make or break the talks. and nickjoins me now. 0ur report shows there is something of a mixed blessing for david davis on that sum of money. 0n the one hand, the 60 billion euros figure seems to be coming down, but 3a billion euros is the figure doing the rounds now, a colossal sum of money. but before david davis can get to the talks, he has to get the parliamentary bill triggering the negotiations onto the statute book, and tomorrow there are three votes. there will be a vote on the snp amendment, which would stop the bill in its tracks. it will fail.
11:55 pm
the second one is about the second reading, that will go through, we expect about 29 labour rebels. the third and final vote will be on the programme motion, how much time should the bill have? it looks like a higher number of labour mps voting against the government on that. next week it is consider that committee stage, on the floor of the house of commons, and if, as seems likely, amendments are not passed, you will see the shadow business secretary resigning from the shadow cabinet to let them vote against the bill. this is all in the house of commons, but the real battle will be in the lords. government whips in the lords are not relaxed, but they are confident that pro eu peers will not seek to block the bill, and there are two restraining influences. they know that if they are seen to thwart the will of the people from that referendum, it is not going to end well for them. in the second place,
11:56 pm
any peers who have not appreciated that point are being told by the government, if you block the bill, we will hold an election with two key pledges — take the uk out of the eu and abolish you! i thought it would end like that! before we go, time for our fact of the day. as peter capaldi announces he‘s standing down as the 12th doctor who, in fact 1a actors have been credited on screen as the doctor, including the late john hurt. but we mustn‘t count peter cushing, because he played a completely different character calling himself doctor who. or the four comic relief doctors. or the evil valeyard doctor. 0r number 15, whoever she might be. anyway here they all are, you decide if it‘s right. good night. it changes nothing, absolutely nothing!
11:57 pm
i‘ll explain later. did you call him...the doctor? wearing a bit thin... aaah! the weather overnight is pretty wet
11:58 pm
and it is raining heavily in eastern parts of the uk. 0nce and it is raining heavily in eastern parts of the uk. once the rain clears the way it will remain really damp. lots of puddles first thing in the morning wherever you are. it will be mild out there and relatively mild, five degrees in scotland, nine in the south. this is what it looks like in the morning. most of the cloud and rain across eastern... central and eastern areas of england. the chance that things will brighten up through the day, especially across central areas. but then a little bit more rain is on then a little bit more rain is on the way. wales and northern ireland for the afternoon. this is a snapshot of thursday. i won‘t bother with the temperatures. dust to give you an idea of the strong winds and periods of rain. towards the end of the week there could be some storms heading our way. at this stage it looks like west and south—western parts of the uk, but many of us will experience some strong winds. keep
11:59 pm
tuned to forecasts over the coming days. hello, everyone. iam rico hizon hello, everyone. i am rico hizon in singapore. the headlines. 0ne hello, everyone. i am rico hizon in singapore. the headlines. one hour to go. donald trump will announce his pick for the supreme court. a judge that will shape america‘s laws for yea rs judge that will shape america‘s laws for years to come. the white house continues to defend donald trump‘s immigration policy with officials rallying to explain the travel ban. this is not, i repeat, not, a ban on muslims. the homeland security mission is to defend the american people. shark nets on australian beaches. they protect swimmers, but we look at the harmful side to marine life. and we had to antarctica to try to unlock the secrets of the universe.
12:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on