13/12/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. On the show today:

Iain Duncan Smith tells people on benefits that they must speak

English or see their payments cut. We will have the details.

Could Britain become Europe's top destination for prostitution? That's

the warning from a Labour politician who says the law should change. We

will talk to her, and a former sex worker.

Jo reports from Berlin on Angela Merkel's new coalition government,

which should get a final go-ahead this weekend. What does it mean for

Europe? Could the world be turned upside

down in 2014? We will be gazing into the Daily Politics crystal ball and

giving you our top political predictions for the year ahead.

All that in the next hour. And with us for the next half an hour is

Carla Buzasi, editor in chief of the online newspaper Huffington Post UK.

Welcome. Let's start this morning by talking about the government's plans

to cut down on benefits tourism. The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain

Duncan Smith, says that migrants whose English is deemed to be so

poor that they would struggle to find work in this country could be

denied benefits. The announcement comes just a couple of weeks before

restrictions on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria are lifted.

Our correspondent joins me now. Can you give us an idea of what is being

proposed here? It is not just being proposed, it is being rolled out in

Jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales this week and next. It is

a tougher habit jewel residents' test which migrants who come into

the country will have to pass before they can claim benefits. The idea

was to make sure people are coming here because they want to contribute

to the economy, not take advantage of the benefits system. The staff in

the Jobcentres will now be able to introduce a new range of questions.

One of them will be about whether the person's grasp of English is

good enough for them to have a realistic chance of getting work

here. The staff will also be able to look at things like that family

connections, housing arrangements, how long they have been in the

country and so on. So clearly, someone with little English who does

not seem to have been making an effort to look for work before they

come into the country, has nowhere to live and has no family to stay

with is unlikely to get sufficient documentation to claim benefits,

whereas if you have obviously been looking for work, you have job

interviews coming up, somewhere to stay and relatives you can stay

with, you are more likely to get it. This is about what Iain Duncan

Smith calls cracking down on benefits tourism, which many people

have argued about how much there is. Has the government given an

indication that it is sure this would be legal under the Treaty of

Rome free movement of labour provisions? Well, even the old test

is already being challenged by officials in the European

Commission. They are already planning to take the UK to court

because they feel it discriminates against workers from other parts of

the European Union. Iain Duncan Smith's people say they will fight

that robustly, and they are confident that their new test can

also be defended. Is the requirement to speak English properly going to

apply to British people as well? It is not applied to British people at

the moment, but there is a wider look at the whole benefit system

going on ahead of the next election. George Osborne said to the select

committee yesterday that billions more would have to be found from

benefits. One thing they are looking at is the benefits cap, whether it

could be brought down from the current level of 26,000. That is

being considered. What do you make of this? I am

terrified about the rhetoric around this. People are coming here as

tourists, it is all a sop to the people's fears, and yet we know

migrants are great for this country. I feel it is a knee jerk

political reaction rather than looking at the issues. But they are

clearly worried that a lot of Bulgarians and Romanians are going

to come. They don't know, but they are terrified that it will fall back

on them. We have interviewed people in those countries. We have spoken

to someone who is coming and already has interviews lined up, and we are

going to follow her through next year, because we want to see what

the reality is. There is the idea that we are going to be flooded by

people from other countries who will take our benefits, and nobody is

interrogating whether that is true. Do you think they should be able to

speak English? It will obviously help get a job. But what about our

people who retire to Spain. They can't speak Spanish. But they are

not taking benefits. But they need access to benefits they get over

there. They have access to the health care system, that is a quid

pro quo. We have to be careful that it is not one rule for us and

another for everyone else. What is wrong with that? Right, time for a

quiz. What does David Cameron want for Christmas? A new smartphone with

megapixel camera? A Nigella Lawson cookbook? A Mumford Sons CD?

Awesome squidgy tennis balls? Do you know the answer? I could have a

guess. Don't. Now, should it be illegal to pay for sex? Last week,

France became the latest European country to decide it should be. The

French government is following the so-called Nordic model where it is

the purchaser and not the seller of sex who faces criminal action. In

the UK, paying for a prostitute is not illegal, but soliciting, curb

crawling and running a brothel are. Our laws are increasingly out of

step with the rest of Europe, with more countries like France and

Northern Ireland following the example of Sweden, which changed its

laws in 1998 and is said to have cut street prostitution by two thirds.

Even countries like the Netherlands and Germany, where prostitution has

been legal for a number of years, are becoming disillusioned and are

considering tightening their laws. It means the UK could be out of step

with the rest of Europe and a number of MPs, peers and women's groups

said Britain could become a magnet for prostitution unless we change

our laws. It could put pressure on Theresa May to tighten prostitution

laws as part of the government 's human trafficking bill due to be

published this month. But senior police officers are already warning

that any change in the law would be difficult to enforce. I am joined

now by the Labour MEP Mary Honeyball, who wants the UK to

follow the rest of Europe in changing our laws, and Charlie

Daniels, a former sex worker who wrote a book on her experiences.

Mary Honeyball, the police chief in charge of dealing with prostitution

in England and Wales says changing the law to prosecute those buying

sex will" drive prostitutes into dark and unsafe areas of our

cities". Well, they already are often in dark and unsafe areas. Of

course, the police will have a respect on this, but as you said in

the introduction, a lot of European governments as well as myself now

believe that we should be looking at reducing prostitution and at the

same time reducing human trafficking, which is closely linked

to it. Some statistics say as much as 90% of those women who work in

prosecution have been trafficked. But prostitution and trafficking are

of course connected, but they are also separate issues. Trafficking is

illegal. Prostitution has a different set of laws. We have the

power at the moment to deal with trafficking if we choose to do so.

You want to change the law on prostitution. There is evidence from

Sweden, where they have had this law since 1996, that if you criminalise

the buyer, usually a man, the number of women trafficked will go down.

But the evidence is that they are off the streets, but they could have

gone elsewhere. The Danish are not keen on this. But the police officer

who made those comments, it is the streets that are the dark and

dangerous places. What do you think? I am not a former sex worker, I am a

current sex worker and I defend the right of any woman who chooses to

sell her body behind closed doors, causing no other in legal issues.

And what is your attitude to the changes that Mary wants to see? I am

jaded with this argument. I have had 20 years of people suggesting

decriminalisation, changing this or that law. There is an obvious

solution. But it does not suit politicians. It is positive

intervention with young people in care. 90% of young people in care

who are in institutes and prisons and the street girls, have spent

time in care. We need to prevent, not cure. But, clarify, are you

against those who pay for sex? I am against the criminalisation of

clients for the indoor markets. I do feel that there might be some

discussion that is feasible for those women who work on the streets,

because the clients who are outdoors those who want a woman without a

condom or want to kill women or want the woman in a vulnerable situation.

There is no room for those clients. The Mary Honeyball, how would you

enforce this if you were to criminalise the client? In the end,

this is an act between two people. There is money involved, but there

has to be consent as well. If neither of them is prepared to admit

to money passing hands, how do you enforce it? It is being enforced in

Sweden, so there are lessons to be learnt from that. Also, I totally

take what Charlie is saying about sex workers who work indoors. That

is maybe a different market. But in street prostitution, there is a lot

of violent and rape involved. There are crimes continually being

committed. If you look at the trafficking side, that is a crime as

well. So there is a huge amount of criminal behaviour happening which

is already persecuted. In a sense, criminalising the buyer is part of

that package. The police manage to deal with the other parts of it, so

this is a case of the police creating difficulty which may not be

there. I know we have some common ground here, so forgive me, but

don't you think that if we strip all this back and look at the women who

are exploited, raped, trafficked and abused, we don't seem to be

concentrating on them. There is a core of lobbyists who are feminist.

Forgive me for saying, but you said on your own blog that you don't find

the sale of sex acceptable. So the problem is that as long as the

debate is not looking at these serious issues, trafficking is a

problem that has happened with immigration. Women from other

countries are already here for commercial reasons because of the

pound and the euro. Where is the proof that there is going to be a

big rush? They are here. I have quadrupled in numbers because of lax

immigration laws. A lot of that is right, and that concerns me. You are

also right to say that I don't think it is right that women should be

able to sell their bodies. I come at it from that aspect of. But you

don't want to criminalise that? Why criminalise my clients if I choose

to sell my body? Because there was a big issue society needs to tackle,

which is that prostitution in any society which allows women to sell

their bodies makes women I meet all. I think you are taking away a

woman's choice. I don't ask for the vote, I have never voted in my life,

but these respect the fact that I choose to sell my body and are

thousands of women who do. Carla, what is your view? It is

fascinating. We were talking before the show about what side of the

argument I was on, and I find that on both sides... , oh, no! Women

need to be protected. If you criminalise this further, it will

force people down those alleyways. It is the oldest profession in the

books. I think men will always find a way to pay for sex, and if we

criminalise it, will we put more women at risk 's --? What would

happen to the porn industry? It is very closely linked. It involves

pavement... The thing about the porn industry... We need to look at it

more closely than we are. There's a lot of evidence coming out that

teenagers who look at porn actually get very unrealistic

expectations... I agree with you, I've seen it with the younger

clients. We do need to educate men about sex and respectability. You've

seen the impact of younger people looking at porn? Absolutely. I've

had younger clients who think it is appropriate to spit on someone

because they've seen that in a movie. Completely inappropriate. We

do need to protect the vulnerable women in the industry. I completely

agree with you all stop I've talked to quite a lot of survivors, most of

whom have come from that sort of background, have come from care, who

were exploited. I came from care but I choose to do this now. Respect

that decision. What do the words "digital switchover" mean to you?

It's likely you're thinking of the move of terrestrial TV from analogue

to digital. But there's another digital switchover in the offing -

for radio. It was originally slated to happen in 2015, but in a speech

next week the Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey, is expected to announce the

date has been pushed back. Here's Giles.

Digital radio. No more hiss, crystal clear sound, lots of choice, but AM

and FM switch off. That was the deal. But in terms of that process,

government, manufacturers and broadcasters have had to go back to

the drawing board and adapt the plan, because building public

interest from scratch as proved harder than expected. Here at Pure

Radio's headquarters, they made a commercial decision to create set

that get both signals. If you go back about ten years, it became very

clear very quickly that not only the UK but all international markets,

the transition to digital would be a relatively slow process with many

steps along the way, as networks roll-out. It was important that

there was the capability for radios to take care of the digital signal

but also the analogue signal as well. That's a recognition that even

though they are world leaders in digital radio, and that this country

leads the world in hardware and software inside them, in terms of

the method of transmission, which they don't control, the public seem

not to be entirely on the same wavelength. The original idea was

that when digital listening reached 50%, people would have two years to

switch over. Now digital listening is below that, so what I'm saying is

I don't think we should give people this narrow two your window.

Instead, we should look for digital listening to be 75% before we decide

on the switchover term. So far, only a fifth of us have switched. Just

one in 20 of us have it in our cars. Smaller FM stations have complained

at the much higher cost of broadcast, and our coverage areas is

patchy. And if you don't have a digital set, if analogue is switched

off you will have to buy one. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, I

think that's a cost that people don't need. It might cost somebody

between ?20 to ?50 at, and ?100 to convert their car. That is quite a

lot of money. The digital will be the future, that's not in doubt.

Next week, the government announces plans for that timetable and the

industry, a UK success story, is wary. When it comes to processor

core technology, the kind of electronics that's driving this

graphics programme and makes digital radios work, Britain leads the

world. But when it comes to business, and all businesses, the

last thing they want and need is unc ertainty. With uncertainty, a

business like ourselves can plan around that. But the with

uncertainty, a business like ourselves can plan around that. But

preparing their product range and strategies and delivery of digital

radio stations and retailers can plan around that and make sure they

are preparing their product range and strategies and delivery of ready

for the consumer, but consumer. If we are able to give a certainty to

digital switchover, consumers can make sure that when they are buying

a new product that digital is standard within that product what is

in the best interest of the consumer. If we are able to give a

certainty to digital switchover, consumers can make sure that when

they are buying a new product that digital is standard within that And

we've been joined by Ford Ennals, who, as the chief executive of

Digital Radio UK, is responsible for preparing the ground for digital

switchover. In the world of digital radio, politicking has potential

risks, and nobody wants the idea to become a complete Ed Vaizey will be

making a speech at the BBC on Monday. He will digital is the

future for radio. He will say we are planning a digital switchover. What

he won't say is he is setting a date. He will say that there will be

government digital is the future for radio. He will say we are planning a

digital switchover. What he won't say is he is setting a date. He will

say that there will be DA people love DAV if they've got great

reception. If they happened, they are concerned. We need to make sure

that people will get a robust signal people love DAV if they've got great

reception. If they happened, they are concerned. We need to make sure

that people will get a robust signal. Just as we did with TV, we

built transmitter so everyone could get the will mean. What the

government will confirm on Monday is they are going to sustain it hit

will happen on radio as well. You asked a question about FM and what

it will mean. What the government will confirm on Monday is they are

going to sustain, and the Minister will say it is not happening in 20,

and the Minister will say it is not happening in 2015

The digital radios you get today have FM as well.

The local stations will stay on FM. But I am talking about the national

stations. You need to get a digital set or listen on your iPad or your

iPhone. But we are talking about seven years away, and think about

the trans-formation we have already seen. Almost half of homes have a

Diaby radio already. So you are right, there will be a transition of

the national BBC services from FM to digital and other platforms. But

will cricket still be on the long wait 's that is for the BBC to

decide. No call has been made on that. This could be the game

changer! You are on a fine edge here. At the moment, you can listen

to the cricket overnight on 5 Live sports extra. If you compare that

with trying to listen on medium wave, where the quality is very

poor... Do people still listen to medium wave? They do. 7 million

still listen to talk sport and 5 Live. But you would not want music

on medium wave. There is some music. Absolute have music on there. But we

would expect to see a transition from medium wave to FM and digital.

But it is a lot of money to replace all the radios in different rooms.

In the home, there are about two radios that everybody is using, and

many others that are dormant. Freeview is digital as well. The big

talk was that is going to go to the mobile phone companies for 4G. They

will need new equipment. That will cause a new row as well. I don't

think there's any announcement about that yet. What we are focusing on is

this transition over a period of time. Digital radio is now lost...

I've got a digital radio in my car. The quality is not that great. It

will be where you have great reception and coverage. But that's

true of FM as well. What will be announced on Monday by the Minister

is an investment in hundreds of transmitters that will improve

coverage, particularly on road networks. Good. You are in a perfect

position to lobby to make sure that the cricket is still on the right

wave. Are you ready? Do you listen to radio on the radio? I don't, I

don't use radio now. I get it all through my tablet and smartphone. I

love it. Menu to tablet and smartphone, but I've also got one of

these boxes that you put your iPhone in as well. That allows you to get

better sound. An old steam radio, whose death has been predicted again

and again, the more ways you can listen to radio, whether through

your satellite system, Freeview or through the tablets and all the rest

of it, I think the more people are listening to radio. Radio has been

incredibly robust, over 90% of people still listen to radio every

week. But we can't stand still. We do need to make this transition

towards digital. We need to discuss that on Monday and work to deliver

it over the next seven years. Good luck, because there's going to be a

huge row. You never mess with the radio for audience, you know that!

It's 2014, the decorations are packed away, you've recovered from

your festive hangovers and that unfortunate incident with the

eggnog. But what does the world look like now, and what are the odds on a

happy political New Year? In a moment, we will talk to Philip

Coggan, who makes predictions for the Economist. Now let's cross to

College Green. Give us the odds for next year, Alex. The one I think

would be most relevant to you is the Scottish independence. For- one.

That was 5-1 we've cut the odds. I've got people who work for me, you

know. There's growing confidence. At first the odds were quite long. We

thought it was almost certain to be no. But there seems to be more

confidence returning to the yes. One man in Scotland yesterday put

?10,000 down. Was that Alex Salmond? I'm not sure. Still against

independence. You put up ?1 down and you get ?4 back if the Scots vote to

go. You look pretty clear that UKIP is in with a very good chance of

coming top of the poll. Absolutely. Even money favourite. They've been

the favourite for quite a long time. Labour just behind them. When I was

speaking to our political compiler yesterday, he says that of all the

bets on the board here today, this is the best bet. Take us through all

the other odds you've got there. Millar interest rates to rise, 4-6.

That's the most likely to happen. 11-10 the other side. Ed Balls will

be replaced at 3-1. That would suggest he is probably fairly safe.

Boris Johnson to be parachuted into the House of Commons at 5-1. That

should be 10-1. Looking at things that have real outside chances,

England to win the World Cup, 33 - one. That should be 50-1! What are

the odds on us winning the third test? You name your price, I don't

think that's happening. We are joined by Philip Coggan, from the

Economist magazine. You do this every year will stop what did you

get wrong about 2013? Golly. I'm sure we got lots wrong. I can't

remember. It's the best thing not to remember. I think it's important we

work that out, so we can work that if we listen to you in 2014. What do

you think the themes will be for next year? The big theme is the

threat to Western democracy. We are seeing a bottom-up problem, voters

are not getting the improvements and prosperity they expect. They are

seeing years of austerity and are turning to extremes. There is a

top-down problem, which is that the decisions people make up being taken

not out of the hands of voters but out of the hands of elected

representatives. Central bankers are the most powerful people in the

world. Fiscal policy in Europe is moving out of the hands of

governments and towards Brussels. If you add in the courts, which are

often on a European wide basis, the IMF is a very powerful force, then

voters vote, but do they really decide on who the powerful people

are who get into office? You were pro-European, probing new row for a

while as well. But we are in favour of a reformed EU. We all want that.

Whether David Cameron can get that is a different matter. Marine Le Pen

to do very well in next year's elections in France. UKIP, as we've

just seen in the odds, are to do well. There could be about 35% of

the European Parliament by next summer who will be outside the

mainstream right and sometimes the hard right. Absolutely, you have far

right parties in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Austria. There was

one in Italy. There is a vote in most of these countries of a quarter

to a third of people who are willing to try something new. In Ireland,

21% of the vote is going to Sinn Fein. In recent years, you have

chucked out governance of the centre-left or centre-right, put in

the opposition and got exactly the same policies, and people are fed up

with it. They don't see a difference between the two main parties, and

they are looking at who can offer something new. What about our

backyard? Cameron, Clegg and Miliband? Starting with Cameron,

everything depends on the state of the economy. Recent figures have

been quite good. We worry that too much of it is based on consumption

and not enough on revival and manufacturing. That is right, in

terms of the electoral cycle, he may get away with that for most of

2014. Yes, if anything goes wrong with that, it is more likely to be a

year or so ahead. It is very unlikely that interest rates will

rise next year, which means housing will not come under pressure. What

is the having post-prediction for 2014? There are similarities in

terms of the non-mainstream parties. They will rise next year. My concern

is where young people are being mobilised. They are totally turned

off politics. They don't believe in people elected by their parents and

generations before them. We have big personalities saying, don't bother

voting, it doesn't make a difference. I passionately hope

politicians will start talking to young people. They do. In France,

the largest percentage of young people in the 18-30 group of voting

for the National Front. They have tapped into the youth vote . Is that

because those are the only politicians talking to young

people? And the centralist parties who have held power have got

complacent and stopped talking to the generations coming up and are

just worried about those who did or did not vote for them last time.

Young people don't vote, old people do, and old people are getting the

benefits out of the pension and state, and young people have to pay

for it. If you are an established petition, you are drawn to appeal to

the elderly. If you look at youth unemployment, 60% in Spain, 30% in

France, it is remarkable that the extremes have not done better. Yes,

we are lucky in that they often appear a bit thuggish. And they are

not socially liberal, so that cuts them down. In Greece, you have 27%

or 28% voting for the far left. Thank you for that. Now, time to get

the answer to our question. What does David Cameron want for

Christmas? A smartphone, a Nigella Lawson cookbook, a Mumford Sons CD

or some squidgy tennis balls? I will go for the squidgy tennis balls.

What does that mean? I don't know. Neither do I, but he says that is

what he wants to play with his kids. Coming up in a moment, our

regular look at what has been going on in European politics. For now,

can't say goodbye my guest of the day, Carla.

So, for the next half-hour we will be focusing on Europe. We will

discuss the situation in Ukraine. The new coalition government in

Germany, and the reform of the European fisheries policy. First,

our guide to the latest from Europe in 60 seconds.

Good news for plug-in air passengers. The European Commission

says that in the future, devices like smartphones, tablets and

e-readers can be kept on in-flight mode during taxiing, take-off and

landing. The Maltese approved a controversial plan to sell their

passport for more than half ?1 million a time, in effect allowing

wealthy people to buy you citizenship.

-- EU citizenship. Pro-EU Ukrainians were attacked by

riot police during a visit by European foreign holiday chief

Baroness Ashton. The European Parliament approved a

new plan for trading power in mission credits. They are hoping to

encourage industries to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, MEPs agreed changes to the common fisheries policy. From

January, overfishing and growing edible fish back into the sea will

be banned. With us now for the next 30 minutes,

I have enjoined by the new leader of the Conservative MEPs, Syed Kamall,

and by the Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies. Let's look at one of those stories

the European Parliament on fishing. You have been campaigning for

changes. Are you happy? It is a work in progress. There will be loopholes

that have to be tightened, but it is a dramatic transformation. The CFP,

the common fisheries policy, has been condemned for years because of

overfishing and the like. At the heart of the CFP reform is a legal

requirement to rebuild fish stocks when setting annual quotas and to

end the discarding of fish. What is the timescale? The discarding ban

comes in from 2015 . The rest of the policy will be implemented as soon

as possible. Syed Kamall, are you happy? Yes, it has been one of those

issues which has got consensus across political groups. We both

agree that more power should be brought back to member state. We

also agree on trying to end the process of discarding. So this is a

reform that has happened. Of all the issues people hate about the EU, the

CF he is at the top. This is a demonstration that it is possible to

bring about sensible reform and rebuild Europe's fish stocks. Now,

let's look at the situation in Ukraine. This week, pro-EU citizens

have continued their protests in the capital city of Kiev against the

decision of the Ukrainian government not to sign a deal on closer in you

ties. Riot police confronted the protesters, tearing down are caves.

The confrontation started when President Viktor Yanukovych

announced last month that he would not sign an agreement on free trade

with the EU, despite years of negotiations. His change of heart

came after pressure from Russia. You's -- pee you's high

representative on foreign affairs, Cathy Ashton, has been to Kiev this

week for talks with the president. She says he told her he intends to

sign the agreement after all. President Yanukovych made it clear

to me that he intends to sign the agreement. He talked about the

short-term economic issues that the country faces. It is my view that

those challenges, which are real, can be addressed by the support that

not only comes from the European Union institutions, but by showing

that he has a serious economic plan inside the agreement, which will

help to bring in investment. We are joined now by Ian Bond, director of

foreign policy at the think-tank, the Centre for European Reform. His

President Yanukovych really going to sign this? We think his family is

involved in some of these deals. Will he do it? He has said he is

going to do it. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will

the Russians allow him to do it? That is neither here nor there. He

is not dependent on Russian gas as he was a few years ago. The fact

that the EU has brokered a deal to open the pipelines from Slovakia

back into the Ukraine means that he has more options there. But if the

Kremlin turn nasty, they could make life unpleasant or Ukraine. They

could in the short-term, but in the long-term, that is more likely to

drive Ukraine Westwood stands as wedding them to stick with Russia.

President Yanukovych is an old-style autocrat, isn't it? He is not the

ideal man to be trying to do business with. Is that what we call

a British understatement? Weak probably. But he was the elected

leader in 2010 and his term runs until 2015. So unless some

constitutional way is found for the opposition to take over from him, we

have no option but to deal with him. But there economy is shot to

hell. That is one of the drivers for Ukraine to get a better relationship

with the EU. They need to get a deal with the IMF, and the best way to do

that is with the help of EU. They want a lot of money from Europe. I

don't think they will get the 20 billion euros they are asking for,

but if they get more trade with Europe, we will buy things from them

and they will certainly buy more things from European Union

countries, which means they will buy less from Russia. And who buys

anything from Russia other than gas or oil? They don't make anything.

Russia regards Ukraine as their sphere of influence. Looking at the

way they behaved to Georgia and threats they have made to other

places, I would have thought this has the potential to be a major

international crisis. There was a possibility there. The relationship

between Russia and Ukraine is more balanced than you might think. There

are a lot of producers in eastern Ukraine who still supply the Russian

defence industry. So there is a limit to how far the Russians would

want to go to damage Ukrainian industry. We know that the West is

more westward looking. The young people are protesting in favour of

Europe and so on. We know the East is more Russians teaching and more

looking towards Moscow. Is there a possibility but the country could

split? That is unlikely. The Russians underestimate the extent to

which people, regardless of the language they speak, feel

Ukrainian. The polling supports that. How big a deal is this for

Europe? It is a big deal. We are not getting letters from constituents

saying this is important, but the EU feels on the back foot because of

the economic crisis. But here we have, in Kiev, people waving EU

flags and saying, our future is with the European Union. And pulling down

statues of Lenin. Very interesting. You thought you would see that 20

years ago. President Yanukovych tried to play off Russia against the

EU in order to get money, and it has not worked. Both Russia and the EU

think they are moving closer to their position. Will Europe have to

send development aid to Ukraine? I don't think so. Opening up trading

possibilities, lowering tariffs barriers and so on will help the

Ukrainian economy. There might have to be some short-term bridging

loans, but the main economic input has to come from the IMF. But it is

not just about trade, it is also about democratic reforms and

respecting pluralism and European values, as well as a more prosperous

economy. There was a time when Ukraine was considerably more

prosperous than Poland. Now Poland is considerably more prosperous than

Ukraine. You could say the glass is half full rather than half empty.

There is huge ground it could make up. Absolutely. For years, is the

Ukraine was a breadbasket for the old countries of the Soviet Union.

There is a lot of ground to make up, but Ukraine has to decide which way

to go. Optimistic? Cautiously positive. Back in September, German

voters went to the polls to elect a new government. And now with

Christmas just around the corner, Germany could be about to get a new

government, a coalition of the conservative CDU and the social

democratic SPD. This grand coalition is expected to get the final

go-ahead this weekend. But will an alliance of parties from the left

and right herald a new direction for the European Union? Jo Coburn went

to Berlin to investigate. The result of the election here in Germany back

in September saw Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats emerge as the

largest party, but still in need of coalition partners in order to form

a government. After almost 90 days of negotiation, it looks as if that

coalition is about to be formed between the left and right here in

Germany. But will the news bring any festive cheer to the people here and

across Europe? So the picture of government here

will look different in 2014. And it's clear which political direction

the social Democrats are taking the coalition. Even though the

Conservatives on the majority party in this coalition, everything is

moving towards the left. For example, we are going to see a

minimum wage being instituted here in Germany, and expansion of

pensions. So possibly big changes on the cards policy wise at home in

Germany, but what about relations with other European countries? In

Britain, David Cameron's attempts to take back powers from Brussels

certainly isn't going down well with many Social Democrats here. They

hate it. In Germany, not only by the Democrats, but especially with them,

there's a widespread feeling that England is cutting loose from Europe

and going its own way with the dreaded United States. That is very

widespread opinion. The Prime Minister may find common ground with

Angela Merkel's sister party in the coalition, the CSU. Particularly

when it comes to the issue of EU and benefits. We are in line with

Cameron, concerned with restriction of migration in our social security

systems. But we would not generally restrict the freedom -- the freedom

of movement, but prevent people from Romania and Bulgaria, for example,

to come to Germany only to benefit from our social security systems.

David Cameron's working relationship with Angela Merkel will be critical

to any future reform of the EU. I think she is quite open to support

Cameron if it comes to really pragmatic improvements. But if it

comes to give the Brits a special... Special treatment because

his domestic constituency is demanding for it, but if it doesn't

make sense in practical terms she will strictly oppose it. So Great

Britain and the rest of Europe will watch with interest as Germany's new

government gets to work, and see how much influence the left wing part of

the coalition has an daily life. Every coalition partner has impact

on the direction of this government. However, the

Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is very strong in all European issues. The

powerhouse of Europe is heralding in a new grand coalition in time for

Christmas. But any change in political direction for Germany is

unlikely to be dramatic at this stage, as all eyes will be on the

European elections next spring. One of the dangers of this

coalition, we will come to the implications for Britain in a

minute, but one of the dangers for Germany is it could be a recipe for

rigor mortis. It could be. The agreement is 185 pages long. We have

to get used to the idea that we have to give our politicians more time to

forge a coalition agreement in future. It could be. On the other

hand, it's a fascinating partnership. You have the CDU trying

to drive forward the economic enterprise. Then you have the others

saying a higher minimum wage and the like. A stronger economy, fairer

society. Unlike the Conservatives in this country, Mrs Merkel was never

ideological opposed to the minimum wage. She was quite sympathetic to

it. We look at Germany, the latest German industrial production figures

are terrible. We look at Germany as the one economic success story. But

it has two major problems. A huge productivity problem because the

population is ageing and collapsing, there will be 6 million

fewer Germans by 2030. And they have an energy policy which is proving to

be a disaster. The one really successful heavy industry country in

Europe and the energy policy doesn't match. I suggest to you that the

coalition will do nothing to tackle these two fundamental issues. I

wonder about that. What often happens, politicians go into an

election with all sorts of claims, then you knuckle down and get down

to the reality, not only of coalition politics but also the

world outside. Think about the way that Francois Hollande has tackled

some issues in a completely unexpected way. Reality will bite.

Conservative MEPs using Francois Hollande as an example of good

things that might happen to Germany, can you explain how that is going to

work? Merkel has been looking over her shoulder at the position on

nuclear power, for example. She was looking at the leader of the SDP and

saying, I don't want to be attacked by him. Now they are together and

they had to sort out this energy policy. And they are building more

coal-fired stations. It's madness. Subsidising solar power and building

the new stations. And they are using the dirtiest possible coal

imaginable. Here's the rub for Mr Cameron. There were a lot of

indications that Mrs Merkel was prepared to help Mr Cameron

repatriate, in his repatriating mission, no details but she seemed

reasonably sympathetic. We know the social Democrats have no sympathy

with this. This is a problem for the British Prime Minister. Cameron has

talked more about reformed and repatriation. Both Merkel and

Cameron, if you look at the situation they both face, they are

both strong leaders at the head of coalitions. They will make sure, by

working together, that they achieve as much of that reform as they can.

I would suggest the real significance is not the fact that a

grand coalition has been formed. It is that the institution that has run

Europe for 60 years, the Franco German alliance, has broken down.

Yes, it has. The leader of the left within the new Hjohlman coalition, I

doubt he has much time for Francois Hollande. It's just a matter of who

is credible. This is no longer a Europe of 15, it is 28 nations. They

have potential for building new alliances. You know that what gave

Europe its drive, the summit their direction and what decisions was the

fact that Paris and Berlin... But that was then and this is now. New

member states, Poland, getting stronger and stronger. No proper

banking union. The banking union, a major step was taken this week. The

risk is still with sovereigns. Indeed. It gives us a huge

opportunity for the reform agenda, led by Cameron and Merkel. As we

were discussing earlier, the European Union's foreign policy

supremo Cathy Ashton has been making headlines in recent weeks, getting

involved in the crisis in Ukraine as well as recently brokering an

international deal on Iran. She heads up an organisation called the

External Action Service. Never heard of it? Never fear. Here's Adam. It

is in Europe but not in the EU, so Switzerland has an outpost of the

External Action Service. The union's three-year-old diplomatic

corps. Around 2000 people, about two thirds of the service, are stationed

in outposts abroad. Brussels man in Byrne is Richard Jones, on

secondment from the Foreign Office after a stint in Iraq. Basra,

Brussels, any similarities? They both begin with B but apart from

that, no. First up, a meeting of diplomats from the 28 member states.

There isn't a name for a group of ambassadors, but critics say there

is one too many here. Why can't they just represent what the EU with?

They are the members of the EU. That is what we used to do. The

difficulty was that the presidency of the Council is a resident for six

months. It was like a relay race with people passing the battle

over. There's only so much you can do in six months. Then we are off to

the Swiss parliament for a chat with MPs, because next year there will be

a referendum on limiting migration from the EU. My job here has been to

set out the facts as we see them. The arguments which perhaps they

wouldn't hear if we didn't have a delegation here to explain them. If

that is the EU's relations with one country, here is where they have

them with the whole world. This is the headquarters of the UN in

Geneva. Working the corridors is the Italian diplomat who heads the

mission here. Today she is giving Europe's response to a not exactly

thrilling report about development. Every word agreed by EU members in

advance. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and

its member states. Britain guards its relations with other countries

pretty jealously. When I ask about us, Marie Angela is diplomatic.

Sometimes it is a little bit difficult. But I think in the end

there is one quality that the UK expresses at least here, and I try

to take advantage of that and make of that also my own policy, which is

being pragmatic. Don't lose too much time in discussing what we can do or

not. But even cheerleaders at the time has been wasted in admin

problems in bureaucratic turf wars in setting up the External Action

Service. So what is it really like to work for? I read into Brett that

you are meant to call an ambassador your Excellency. Do I have to call

you that? No, you call me Richard. Do you go to lots of cocktail

parties? Guess. Do you get off with lots of parking fines? Absolutely

not, I paid a speeding fine yesterday. Is this just a huge

bureaucracy, jobs for diplomats around the world is it doing

anything? I think it is amazing that the External Action Service is an

unknown term. When the Lisbon Treaty was being negotiated, UKIP and

others were saying this is the end of the British foreign service. Here

we have an organisation which is trying to pull together all these 28

different foreign ministers so we are speaking with one voice. It

seems a perfectly sensible way to go forward for me. We've not spoken

with one voice in Syria or the French intervention in Mali or even

in Libya. It's a pretty limited number of issues in which we do

speak with one voice. Exactly. And that's what demonstrates why member

states have to have a strong foreign service. When it was originally set

up, it was supposed to be cost neutral. No extra money from the EU

budget. It has cost extra money, 420 million altogether. Some of it was

existing resources. It's also got 140 missions around the world, does

it need them, particularly when it is trying to duplicate the work of

the foreign offices? No, but we should be sharing missions in some

places. There were some countries around the world, different

countries in the European Union trying to maintain offices there

instead of sharing facilities. It is Cathy Ashton, is she leaving on a

bit of a hike? She is, no question. A good girl from Wigan. No one

expected her to get the job. She was utterly astonished when she got the

job. She has had a very rough couple of years. But now, with Iraq and

Kosovo and the like, she is on a high. I think people have been very

unkind to Cathy Ashton, sometimes justifiably so. But I think she has

proved herself with Iran. Her softly softly approach seems to be working.

She hasn't got long to go. We will see who gets the job next. That's

all for today. Thanks to my guests, Syed Kamall and Chris Davies. Hope

to see you again soon. Bye bye.