Donald Trump has slapped massive import
taxes on India. He's been accused of
trying to mess with the minds of people
who live in Greenland. And he's hosting
a meeting related to Gaza, but no one
actually knows what it's about. Lots for
us to try and work out on this episode
of the BBC's Daily News podcast
newscast.
So, we need to follow up the news about
Taylor Swift's engagement. I thought,
who is the BBC correspondent who could
give us the best insight? So, we've got
James Landale.
You know what? I'm more Jonathan Swift
than Taylor Swift.
>> Uh, so I can tell you a lot about, you
know, 20th century satire rather than
21st century mass popular music. Um, but
clearly, you know, what, you know, I
mean, hugely significant. Um, I'm not
sure what it means for
US uh, Ukrainian relations or what it
means for the future of the Middle East,
but I'm I'm sure it's very interesting.
I can tell you spent many a year filling
for hours on the news channel from that
answer. Uh, luckily we do have Katrina
Perry on the line from Washington. She's
back from her holidays. Hello, Katrina.
>> Hello. I don't know about you, but I'm
feeling 22.
>> Oh, lovely.
>> Boom.
>> I mean, it's a great love story and it's
definitely not a cruel summer. Blah blah
blah blah blah's
on the ring finger now.
>> No. And she had great style in those
photos. Exactly. James, welcome to what
it's like having two. You know what it's
like having teenage children. We're just
recreating it for you. Anyway, right
here is how the news of the Taylor Swift
with Travis Kelce engagement was broken,
too. President Trump, let's hear it.
>> I have to tell you the biggest pop
culture news of the year broke while we
were in this cabinet meeting. Travis
Kelce and Taylor Swift are engaged and
the world wants your reaction, sir.
>> Well, I wish him a lot of luck.
>> No, I think it's I think he's a a great
player. I think he's a great guy and I
think that she's a terrific person. So,
I wish them a lot of luck.
>> Right. I thought we'd do like a little
mini album of US and diplomatic news at
the start of this episode because
there's quite a few things that we need
to check up on. Um, so first of all,
Katrina, um, we were talking about,
well, we were talking about a minute ago
about how Donald Trump was cold on
Taylor Swift and is now warmed up to
her. But actually when it comes to
India, he was quite warm towards India
earlier this year and now he's gone cold
on them and it's all to do with with
their relationship with Russia.
>> Cold, even frosty, you could probably
say, um, in terms of the tariffs which
are coming into effect now, 50% tariffs
on India imposed by the president. It
was 25% and then an extra 25%
because India is such a big customer
when it comes to Russian oil. second
biggest customer, second only to China.
China has 55% tariffs imposed on it by
President Trump. Um so yeah, very strong
language coming from the president. I
mean, obviously we've seen over the last
few months him delay the impact of
tariffs on other countries and blocks of
countries. not the case here and it's
really causing uh you know a lot of
concern about the future of US India
trade relations but broader relations as
well because um the Indians are
expecting this is going to damage their
economy to the tune of about $5 billion
so massive amount of cash and also here
in the US the potential for impact in
very particular sectors textiles in
particular stuff like shoes clothes
diamonds jewels jewelry and so on. So,
uh, potentially a lot of impacts right
around the globe really for this one.
>> And James, is this another kind of proof
point about whether Donald Trump is
getting tough on Putin or whether he's
going soft on Putin? Is this another
kind of bit of evidence that suggests
maybe he's going in a more anti-Russian
direction because he's doing this to
India because they're being like pro or
neutral towards Russia?
Yeah, I mean it's it certainly if he
follows this through uh will you know
damage the Russia's ability to keep its
economy going fueling the war machine
because clearly selling cheap energy to
India and China is a key driver of the
Russian economy at the moment but of
course the first question we need to ask
is does Donald Trump follow does Donald
Trump follow through on this tariff and
sustain it? you know, tariffs only have
an impact if they're held on for a long
period of time. Um, you know, we know
that, you know, tariffs have gone up and
down uh since January. Uh, how long is
this going to last? The second question
is actually, uh, will it continue? Will
it will it not just be limited to India,
but will it actually be imposed on China
as well? Because that's the crucial one,
whether or not the Americans are willing
to go that far. because a lot of
commentators have been saying actually
they won't go that far because a uh the
US do not want to have a trade war with
China that's even worse than it already
is and secondly they don't want to do
anything that's too inflationary
because you know the more you restrict
and take Russian and Chinese energy out
of the market that means you create
demand elsewhere and the last thing that
the US and the White House want at the
moment is more inflationary pressures
because that will damage um his attempt
to repair the US economy. So I stood
there. It's interesting that but also
it's interesting that it hasn't happened
as part of a package. If Donald Trump
had gone to Anchorage just a few days
ago and met Donald President Putin and
said, "Right, if you do not shift on
your position on Ukraine, then I am
going to put sanctions on the Indians
and the Chinese and I'm going to crack
down on your shadow fleet that's selling
oil around the world secretly. And
thirdly, you know what we're going to
do? We're just going to expropriate
all those frozen Russian assets." If if
it was part of a package that was really
tough then potentially it could have you
had some leverage. Here it sort of comes
after you know a weekend of of you know
makco chammo stuff in the back of the
beast with all smiles all around. That's
why it's another example of the slight
inconsistency in the messaging.
>> If I can just add on to what James was
saying there. The other thing to note
about this tariff which President Trump
is saying because India is such a big
customer of Russia and its you know
support for its efforts and its war in
Ukraine. When Narendra Modi was here in
Washington DC earlier in this year at
the White House and the leaders gave
joint press conference and they were
talking about how India was going to
start buying huge amounts of American
oil. And I think part of this also is
President Trump trying to make uh a case
that India would continue on on that
contract that Modi promised but which
hasn't been followed through on since.
So yes, there might be quite uh big
aspirations in relation to the Russia
Ukraine situation and which James has
explained there. But I think there might
be something else a bit more America
first about it as well because as we
know that's everything that motivates
President Trump.
>> Um Katrina, tell us about this slightly
weird sounding story about Greenland and
the the Danish foreign ministry accusing
Americans of sort of stirring up
anti-danish sentiment there.
>> It's been a few months since we've been
talking about Greenland. I mean, it
really dominated those first few weeks
of this Trump administration, didn't it?
Um and then of course that visit by JD
Vance there. Now we have the situation
where the Danes are summoning the US uh
representative in Copenhagen for a
meeting. There isn't an ambassador there
in place at the moment. Although
President Trump has tapped Sergio Gore,
his 38-year-old head of basically the HR
office in the White House will be the
new Danish ambassador subject to Senate
confirmation. But it's the charge affair
that's there who's been summoned in
because the Danes say they have evidence
of some American nationals in Greenland
seemingly gathering information or
trying to gather information to um mount
some kind of effort to push for
Greenland to separate itself from
Denmark. Um which as we know is a very
controversial thing. It's something that
President Trump and many members of his
team have been talking about for months
now, which the Danish PM and all of the
Danish representatives have pushed back
very firmly on, saying, "No, Greenland
and Denmark are together and they're not
for splitting up."
>> James, interesting that Denmark aren't
just sort of putting their fingers in
their ears and ignoring this as like
some kind of crazy idea that could never
happen. They're actually engaging with
it quite directly as a concept in quite
a lot of different ways.
>> Yeah. And I think that uh they have to
be they've got a very tricky job here
because on the one hand they have to
push back the if there is this idea um
of internal influence by the Americans
then they have to push back but equally
they have to push back in a way that is
not saying you know Greenland is ours um
because they they need to respect the
wishes of the people of Greenland and so
that there's a quite a sort of delicate
act for them to uh to play here um but
it is still astonishing you Denmark like
the United States were both founder
members of the NATO military alliance.
Um the fact that this is this is
happening again is just one of those
pinch yourself moments. Uh that this is
this is the modern way of the world and
that relationships that previously would
have been you know on a very different
plane are now um you know you're
summoning ambassadors you've got people
walking the streets of of nuke. I mean I
mean the thing is the thing that strikes
me about this story that's really
interesting is that you know Greenland
is is a is a very big place but with a
very small population has sort of you
know um 57,000 people I think so
>> so everyone will know one of these
people knows everybody and they're all
the vast majority are populated in the
capital nuke and so if there are any you
know Americans there who are known to be
you know connected to Donald Trump you
know they're not going to be able to
hide
there is nowhere to hide. And so any
kind of foreign influence, it's it's
different to what I'd call foreign
influence um in bigger societies. So for
example, like the UK at the moment, this
year, you'll remember, introduced a
special register
of foreign influences. In other words,
people who are here at the direction of
a foreign government to promote that
government, they are obliged to register
with the British government. And if they
don't, it's a criminal offense. And in
other words, you know, we're talking
Chinese, we're talking Russians, we're
talking Iranians, various people. And
the question is is in the British
society, in developed society, that's a
very subtle thing. If you're in a
society of 57,000 people, you know,
that's it's a very very small group of
people there. You're in you're in a
slightly different scale. And so there's
a I there's a there's a a small question
mark um in my head about when I first
heard this story about just how
professional is this operation that
we're talking about here. And also
Katrina like the the US doesn't
necessarily need to do under the radar
scop under and the US doesn't
necessarily Katrina have to do under the
radar sigh ops in Greenland. I mean like
JD Vance came over and like directly met
with the opposition on the eve of the
German election. Sometimes they do it
very much on the radar.
>> Exactly. And as James said, you know,
you're not talking about a very densely
populated area. Things are noticed when
they're there and what they're doing.
And you know, there has been polling
there. The people of Greenland do not
want to leave Denmark and join America
either. And we saw when JD Vance was
there initially there was this big trip
organized and his wife was to go and his
children were to go and it was all
scaled down because the advanced
protocol party had met with a lot of
resistance there. There weren't people
that wanted to come out and be part of a
big welcoming party for the second lady
and so on. So, um, you know, it's very
it's it feels partly also perhaps it's
one of these distraction tactics that we
talk about so much with President Trump
as well that he's trying to take the
focus off many other topics. Take your
pick really at this point in time. But,
um, you know, again, as James said, the
the Danes have to be seen to be doing
something about it. And Katrina, on a
completely different subject, uh, as
we're recording this episode of
Newscast, the White House is getting
ready to host a series of meetings about
Gaza, but I'm not clear what the
meetings are about. Are they about Gaza
now? And what kind of ceasefire deal
could you arrange? And could you get the
hostages back to Israel? Or whether it's
about the the future of Gaza after all
of this if this ever ends? Well, you're
not the only one who is unclear on that,
Adam, because despite the best efforts
of myself and all our colleagues here
and indeed colleagues in the other
American media outlets as well, we
haven't been able to get any clarity
from the White House about just what's
happening today. The US special envoy
for everything, Steve Wickoff said on
Fox News last night that there would be
a quote large meeting taking place today
on the future for Gaza. day after was
the kind of phrase that he uses used
that we hear used so often. But there
haven't been any more details coming
from the White House as to who is
attending that meeting, even what time
it's happening at. I don't think we'll
probably find out about it in advance.
We may find out something about it after
the fact. The Israeli foreign minister
is here in town. He's meeting with the
US Secretary of State and National
Security Adviser and two other jobs as
well, Marco Rubio later today. Again, no
press conference. They're going to pose
for the cameras for a photograph, a
photo opportunity, but there's not any
anticipated question time or press
conference or anything around that. So,
it's all quite curious as to just what
is happening here. Um, and the White
House, you know, when we've asked for
comment today have just said President
Trump remains committed to finding a
solution and talks are ongoing, but
anyone's guess at this point. Um,
Katrina, I know you're going to have to
go, so I'll say goodbye and thank you to
you.
>> Thank you. A pleasure as always.
>> And yeah, James, what's your take then
on the on the Middle East related
shenanigans in the White House this
evening?
Well, the idea of thinking about the,
you know, what happens after the war,
uh, particularly the status of Gaza and
what happens there in terms of its
reconstruction, its security, its
governance,
um, is clearly something that has to be
discussed.
um not just because it it it's something
that has to be discussed, but also
because it is going to be a key the fact
of it is a will be a key element of any
kind of long-term political settlement
because it's only with some kind of
political horizon and security and
logistical horizon that you get on board
the support of external parties to this
conflict. In other words, countries in
the Gulf and elsewhere. They have to
know that if you know if you're going to
say to a a country you know like the UAE
will you contribute military force to
secure Gaza in the short term they will
only do that if they think there's a
Gaza to secure if there's a political
process if there's some kind of
legitimate representation and governance
and so you have to get to that sort of
place. Uh so it's not just a question
about stopping fighting. It's a question
about what happens next. Where I I think
that you know that conversation has to
happen. It you know it's not hastily
arranged meetings um whose status is
unclear and whose membership is unclear
at the White House. This is going to be
a much broader conversation. A lot of
those conversations have happened
already. Uh but it's not just going to
happen you know overnight. This is a
long detailed
uh negotiation as part of a process and
I think that the next phase of that will
be probably when we get to the UN
General Assembly next month when various
countries including the UK and France
and others are likely to recognize
officially the state of Palestine and to
see what that unlocks if anything. And
one of the the conditions that Kier
Starmer put on Israel in terms of him
recognizing a Palestinian state at the
UN in in September in a few weeks time
was improving the humanitarian situation
in Gaza and access for aid to to
Palestinians. Is there any sign that
Donald Trump is changing his position on
that? Because he seems to have been
quite kind of handsoff with the Gaza
Humanitarian situation other than
setting up the the new humanitarian
foundation, the much criticized new aid
delivery setup. Is there any sign that
he's maybe going to have a word with the
Netanyahu about the situation
humanitarian wise
>> thus far? Um, occasionally the Americans
do talk about the humanitarian
situation, but not in a sustained way
and not in a way that in any way I think
uh leaves the Israeli government feeling
that it's put under pressure from them.
>> Um, James, lovely to catch up. I've got
to ask, how's the beard going?
>> Well, it's sort of it's sort of there
for a bit. Um, I I fear for its life. It
might not survive um contact um with
that much reality, but it's still there
at the moment. Holding holding its own.
>> Good. keeping the men's facial hair end
up for us all. Thank you. Although it
does sound like you're a bit ambiguous
about it.
>> It's not that I'm ambiguous. It's there
are other there are others in my life
who who who do not share uh the
certainty.
>> Say no more. Say no more. James, thank
you very much.
>> Thank you.
Now, yesterday, Reform UK well and truly
seized the airwaves with the unveiling
of their new policy on deportations for
what they describe as illegal migrants.
Today, the government tried to wrestle
the airwaves back. And the way they did
it was a speech by Nick Thomas Simmons,
the cabinet office minister, who's
responsible for UK EU relations, who
gave a few more details and tried to
spell out some more benefits of the
government's reset with Brussels. He did
that in a speech and conversation with
Michael Gove, one of the godfathers of
Brexit, who's now the editor of the
Spectator magazine. They had a tatat in
Westminster and then I had a tat with
Nick Thomas Simmons with him sitting in
the newscast studio at Westminster.
Nick Thomas Simmons. Hello.
>> Hi, Adam. Very good to join you.
>> Yeah. So, um, yeah. What made you want
to go and sit down with Michael Gove,
archite?
Well, I wanted to take the argument uh
out today about the benefits, the
tangible benefits, what's going to make
a difference to families up and down the
country as a consequence of the new deal
that we've agreed with the European
Union back on the 19th of May. And I
want to talk about those advantages.
talk about the advantages in jobs uh
renewable jobs we can create in the
North Sea for example tens of thousands
of them or whether it's on borders and
having more secure borders because we
can share to a greater extent criminal
records and biometric uh data but also
then on trade as well on bills talking
about the new agreement in food and
drink that we're now going to be looking
to implement that's going to reduce
trade barriers areas and as supermarkets
have been saying we'll have that
downward pressure on prices for the
weekly shop is going to be uh so
important for people particularly with
the pressures they face.
>> Well, you say you're going to implement
this deal on on food and animal
standards. Actually, you have to
negotiate it first, don't you? Because
the deal that you did earlier in the
year was a deal to negotiate some other
deals.
>> Well, so there were some things that
were finalized on the 19th of May, the
uh the defense and security partnership
was signed that day. uh very important
particularly at this moment with the war
in Ukraine after Putin's illegal
invasion but we will now be moving
forward for to implement other aspects
of it and in relation to the the SPS
negotiating the SPS deal
>> then you can implement it
>> well no you look look at the text of the
common understanding you'll find the
principles of the SPS agreement are
already in it what we will now look to
negotiate are going to be particular
carveouts where we want to continue to
diverge but then we are actively making
a choice of having common high standards
because it's going to reduce costs for
businesses and just give you one example
Adam take export health certificates now
that is a fee that is paid when a
business in the United Kingdom wants to
export animals or animal products so
particular food products obviously to
the EU it's £200 per consignment so
that's not per year not one a one-off
fee not for an entire lorry but per
consignment
And I want to be in a position where we
can sweep away those costs and we want
to be there at the next general election
actually with that message that is
looking forward. It's the Conservatives
and reform and Nigel Farah saying
they're going to undo this deal and put
those costs back onto businesses back
onto the weekly shop that are going to
be the ones that are looking backwards.
>> And that sort of what you just said
there kind of suggests why you did the
speech today. this was as much about
attacking Nigel Farage or at least kind
of trying to frame his position as it
was selling the benefits of your deal.
So, first and foremost, it is about the
benefits of of this deal. Uh also the
free trade agreement we have with India,
indeed the economic deal with the United
States. That's what I've been out making
the case for today. But absolutely it is
about the opposition parties uh being
owning up to the positions that they've
got and owning up to the consequences of
the positions they've got. If they want
to unravel this deal, if they want to
put jobs at risk, if they want to take
away from people tools to keep our
borders more safe, if they want to uh
take that risk of people's household
bills going up, they should front up
about that to the British public. And
that's absolutely the message uh that I
was taking in that speech today. I mean
reform have only got four MPs in
parliament. Why does a party with only
four MPs basically get a whole speech
directed at them from you?
>> Speech was directed to the British
public. It wasn't directed to particular
politicians. It was making the case for
the advantages of what we had negotiated
and also setting out by the way how by
2027 I want to have that food and drink
agreement in place so people can feel
the benefit. So that's the purpose of
the speech. But absolutely it is also
about setting out the government store
for its vision of the future. The fact
that we are making that hardheaded
analysis of what is in our national
interest in the mid2020s not going back
to the Brexit debate of the past but
looking forward and yes challenging the
opposition parties uh that to to
actually own up as I say to the
consequence of their position. By the
way, neither party even read this deal
before they came out in opposition to
it. That is not acting in the national
interest and they should be honest about
that.
>> Um, when you talk about the SPS deal,
sanitary and fighter sanitary, which you
say will be fully in place by 2027, is
that the target date for that?
>> Yes. And and that's what I've been
talking about uh today. Obviously, the
EU has its own internal processes to go
through. there's some negotiation to go
in terms of the carveouts and I'm
working not just within government but
within stakehold with stakeholders as to
what the most important things are in
that regard. There'll have to be as well
uh a piece of legislation to go through
parliament. But I'm going to relish that
debate with the opposition parties when
it comes. So that is to do. But that's
the target I've set today which I
believe is a realistic one. And I've
said that because I don't want
businesses up and down the country
paying these fees that they are paying
at the moment for any longer than they
need to. And I also want the benefits to
be felt by the British public as soon as
possible.
>> Um I mean export health certificates are
paid for British exporters to send
products to the EU. So that doesn't help
to bring down the price for British
consumers, does it? That makes it
cheaper for European consumers. It means
they can get more British products. But
it's it's both it look it's it's both
ways isn't it in terms of reducing
non-tariff barriers and also of course
costs that businesses here in the UK are
paying obviously has an impact on our
domestic economy obviously uh Adam so
that does make a big difference it's why
for example thousands of businesses have
stopped exporting to the EU altogether
because of these barriers and secondly
by taking away these barriers. It
enables our businesses to export more
and to grow more. So, it's most
definitely got this this effect. And by
the way, don't take my word for it in
terms of the downward pressure on prices
of the household shop here in the UK.
Look at what the super the leading
supermarket said uh when we negotiated
the deal on the 19th of May. Uh they've
been very clear about the downward
pressure on prices here in the UK. in
terms of the process once this deal is
in place and you have implemented it
all. So, parliament will be able to vote
on on the terms of the deal overall and
and the specifics of it. But then once
it's in place and we are having the same
standards on food and animal products as
the EU, there won't be any more votes
for MPs when those standards change,
will there? That's what that's what
dynamic alignment is. You just
automatically do it in the UK.
>> Well, so let's let's just take the stage
by stage. The first stage is we will I
just hle through it. So you you you did
at speed. We will then have a piece of
primary legislation on the SPS agreement
that will go through parliament in the
usual way. So MPs across the both houses
can have their say on it and they can
take a position for or against it as
they see fit. you will then have a
situation where yes, this government is
making a sovereign decision to follow
common high standards and we're doing
that firstly because we believe it's in
the British national interest. It's in
the interests of consumers and
businesses to reduce costs also in the
interest by the way of being able to
reduce the number of checks uh across
the Irish Sea which is hugely important
as well. we will have internationally a
rulesshaping
role. But I would also point out as well
that just as with we have a free trade
agreement with India that we've secured.
We obviously have the economic deal with
the United States. Any free trade
agreement that you enter into as a
sovereign independent nation has to have
an arbitration mechanism. This one is no
different. It has an arbitration
mechanism that is independent. So if
there are disputes and by the way we are
taking a choice of not engaging in a
race to the bottom. We are taking a
choice of common high standards but if
you have a relationship as broad and
deep in trade terms as ours with is with
the EU of 800 billion pounds the trade
you are going to get some of these
disputes and then what will happen there
is is there will be an independent
arbitration panel that will then uh
adjudicate upon it. So when we come to
these sovereignty arguments and you'll
know them very well, Adam, from your
days doing Brexit cast in the past. I
actually I reject what what opponents
say about this. This is an exercise of
sovereignty. Just as the other free
trade deals are an exercise of
sovereignty, choosing to align on high
standards is an exercise in sovereignty.
And the truth is as well, the reality of
it is alignment is happening anyway, but
we're not getting the economic benefit
for it. may recall in recent months a
controversy about smoky bacon crisps
where there was an accusation that uh
because of changes in EU regulations,
we're going to have to change the
ingredients in our smoky bacon crisps.
When you spoke to crisp manufacturers,
it was already happening anyway. And it
was happening because they wanted to
have access to such a large market on
our doorstep. So, it's an active choice
this government has made. And I'm, as
you've seen from me giving a speech
today in the way that I have, it's a
debate that we very much relish going
forward.
>> While you were talking, I was listening,
but I did just check my WhatsApps and
somebody sent me the original smoky
bacon story and it was written in the
Telegraph by my dear friend James Crisp.
Boom. How did I not know that? Should
remember that. Great bit of nominative
determinism there. Um, now you talked
about the supermarkets welcoming all of
this and because if there's fewer
barriers to trade and fewer kind of um,
standards things getting in the way,
then they can pass on savings to
consumers. But I saw a thing in the
papers last week where the supermarkets
were all warning that actually if
business rates change in the way that
that Rachel Reeves has suggested, then
supermarkets will have to pass on extra
costs to their customers. So what's the
point of potentially saving supermarkets
some money in one area but forcing them
to pay more in another?
>> Well, look, in terms of
>> and I know you're not a Treasury
minister, so you can't go into all the
nuts and bolts of that, but just address
the principle. Well, in terms of the the
principle you're talking about around uh
business rates, for example, obviously
I'm you wouldn't expect me to anticipate
what the chancellor uh whether it's on
that particular rate or indeed anything
else uh in the budget and it would
indeed be irresponsible of me to start
doing that. But can I take your broad
point which is well what are we doing
generally about the cost of living? What
are we generally doing about the cost of
food in supermarkets? Well, first and
foremost, we've had to take difficult
decisions to stabilize the economy. That
is what the chancellor has been doing.
We inherited uh a level of debt. We
inherited a situation where we had that
22 billion pound black hole we had to
fill. We we made difficult decisions to
stabilize uh the public finances. But we
now move into a phase where we're trying
to build that uh fear of Britain, help
people with the cost of living and for
supermarkets as well as other
businesses. Firstly, it's important we
have that rock of economic stability,
which is what this government is
building everything upon. But secondly,
there is no doubt at all that securing
the trade deals we have is a vote of
confidence in our economy. that
economies like India, the United States
and indeed the EU, three massive
economic powers in the world are all
willing to have this close these closer
economic ties with us.
>> Okay. So, it's um the day after Nigel
Faraj's big speech about his
deportations policy, although I noted
after yesterday's newscast that actually
the technical word for a lot of what
he's talking about is returns. So, he's
trying to get us to use different
language, but let's just park that
issue. Um I've got two questions for
you. Number one, um, are you okay as a
government minister with the idea of
sending migrants back to Afghanistan
because yesterday number 10 said that
they were open to the idea of
negotiating a returns agreement with
Afghanistan. Would you be okay if that
happened?
>> Well, it it already does happen. We
already return uh asylum seekers with no
right to be here to Afghanistan. that's
already been happening
>> on the basis of a deal with the Afghan
government
>> to you you don't you can still do do
these uh things without that you and
that is what the government has already
been doing uh I mean what I saw from
Nigel Farage yesterday was stoking of a
grievance then a series of empty
unworkable promises to solve it he was
talking about uh detaining people but I
wouldn't wouldn't tell anybody where he
was then talking about and asked about
what would happen with women and
children. He had no idea. Uh he then
talked about to your point wanting to do
these specific deals with uh hostile
governments around the world and he
wants to apparently negotiate those. He
can't negotiate the politics of a
parliamentary party that can fit in the
back of a taxi. So I don't really put a
great deal of confidence in his ability
to do that. And to your point, I find it
quite extraordinary that when he was
talking about his priority for a deal
with another country, he was talking
about a deal with the Taliban, but
doesn't, it appears, want to do a deal
with the European Union with which we
have 800 billion pounds worth of trade.
I mean, that's just not a serious
position. Okay. Okay. Then somebody on
your own side, Jack Straw, former home
secretary and the man who who did the
Human Rights Act, which put the European
Convention on Human Rights into domestic
law. Jack Straw told the Financial Times
today that he thinks maybe we should be
decoupling, in his word, UK law from the
European Convention on Human Rights. Do
you think he's got a point? Well, the
approach that the government is taking
is first of all to you know what what
Jack has been saying to look yes at the
implementation by our courts the
interpretation of both article 3 and
indeed article 8 of the European
convention on human rights. The home
secretary is leading that work at the
moment. So we will be looking at how
that is being interpreted.
But to the wider point that is often
made here by people like Nigel Farage
and others that somehow leaving the
European Convention on Human Rights is a
silver bullet to solving the issue of
the boats small boats in the English
Channel. Really that is not the case at
all. In fact, that would make our
position so much weaker. It would be so
much harder to get the international
agreements that we need to tackle this
issue. That's what we've been doing in
terms of our oneinone out deal with
France in order to send back people who
arrive here. Also, the deal with France
in terms of changing their maritime law
so that they can intercept the small
boats up to 300 m from their shore. So,
the idea of leaving the ECR would make
the situation far harder uh to solve and
Nigel Farage is completely wrong about
>> And we should just end for newscasters
with some ECR bingo which was just
played there. Article three is the pro
prohibition on torture, inhuman and
degrading treatment and article 8 is the
right to family life. It's for people
who don't know the treaty as well as you
do. But that is your job in the cabinet
office. Nick, thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much, Adam. Pleasure.