22/02/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.

The date has been announced, the big players have picked sides

Boris Johnson says he will campaign to leave the European Union,

So does Boris have bigger things on his mind?

There will be plenty of time to talk about Europe and the great future

that Britain can have outside the European Union.

Is our national security better protected inside or outside

The Prime Minister says we are safer in.

His Cabinet colleague Iain Duncan Smith says

Is George Osborne planning a ?4 billion raid on

One of his former Lib Dem colleagues thinks the Chancellor may be

about to abolish the tax-free lump sum.

And speaking of great national decisions, we speak to the director

of a new play about the relationship between Marshall Petain

But first, Westminster's most glamorous blonde has been

Boris Johnson announced his decision to back a vote to leave

in the referendum in his own newspaper, the Daily Telegraph.

And many of the other papers splashed on Boris's decision, too.

The Sun described it as a "blonde bombshell".

But others saw the move as more about Boris's own ambitions.

The Mirror said that the move was BoJo's bid for PM's crown.

The Mail said it was a "dagger blow" to Cameron as "Boris Goes

And the Independent declared the London mayor as

Speaking outside his home yesterday, Mr Johnson declared his intention

I have decided after a huge amount of heartache, because the last thing

I wanted was to go against David Cameron or the government. But after

a great deal of heartache, I did not think there was anything else I

could do. I will be advocating vote leave, or whatever the team is

called. I understand there are many of them. Because I want a better

deal for the people of this country. To save them money and to take back

control. That is really I think what this is all about.

We can speak now to our deputy political editor, James Landale. Is

this authentic RS or is it about ambition? I think it is authentic

that Boris is very much agonising over this decision for many months.

As long as I have known him, he has been agonising over Europe. I was a

journalist in Brussels, and he was a journalist there, as I was. He began

life as a very straight reporter. I remember talking to him when he

voted for Ken Clarke, a pro-European leadership candidate in the past. I

think the sense of agony is authentic. But what I think that

overlays it is a strong suspicion amongst many Conservative members

that he is not just inking about the national interest, he is also

thinking about his own interest. A lot of people think that whatever

happens, you will have aligned himself with the Leave campaign,

which will place him in good favour with Tory members who will be the

people who will choose David Cameron's replacement. And that

would be no bad thing if wished to be a process candidate in that

selection process. Even in his article where he has written about

this agonising decision, there seems to be a little bit of continuing to

hedge his bets, with implications that a comment has been interpreted,

that you could go for a second referendum, if the UK voted to

leave, which would put more pressure on Brussels for a better deal? Boris

has floated this idea before and it was squashed by the government. The

idea is that Britain would vote to leave, and that would be the only

way of getting Brussels to really negotiate properly. And then Britain

could have a second referendum once it has negotiated better terms of EU

membership. In the Daily Telegraph today, Boris Johnson nods to this,

in a very subtle way. I have to say, the Prime Minister's spokesman this

morning said, no, this is a one-off vote. If Britain votes to leave,

they will leave. A lot of lawyers and constitutional experts say the

same thing. A second referendum simply would not be possible. How

angry it is Downing Street? Obviously, publicly they are staying

relaxed. How delighted also is the Leave campaign? Number 10 Downing

Street is not happy. They know that Boris Johnson is one of those

politicians who can reach out and get those voters who might otherwise

have been swayed by the Prime Minister's arguments. Polls do

suggest that people will listen to Boris Johnson's voice. The Leave

campaign are happy because they think they have finally got a

figurehead. The question is - do people look at Boris Johnson and

think, nice bloke for London mayor, and will they listen to his

arguments on Europe? Also, if his presence means that this referendum

is shrouded in a debate about Tory leadership in the future, will Mr

Johnson's presence put David Cameron's future on the ballot paper

as well? And what impact will that have on the electorate? Will they

think, if I vote to leave Europe, does that mean we lose David

Cameron? There are lots of consequences which we might not have

appreciated yet in Mr Johnson's decision.

The PM has come back from Europe with a deal,

and it will now be up to the public whether the UK remains a member

of the EU, or whether we opt for life outside.

Later this afternoon, David Cameron will be

Each side will be trying to convince as many voters as possible

to back their cause, which has led to some unlikely bedfellows.

Prime Minister David Cameron will lead the campaign to stay in,

together with Chancellor George Osborne.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also wants to stay in,

Campaigning for out are Mayor of London Boris Johnson,

and Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary,

who have found themselves alongside Ukip's Nigel Farage

and George Galloway, former Labour and Respect MP.

The PM says the UK will be "safer and stronger in a reformed EU"

and that his deal strengthens British sovereignty.

Boris Johnson says remaining in the EU would lead to "an erosion

of democracy" with the UK unable to control its own affairs.

Voters will decide for themselves soon enough.

The question on the referendum ballot will be...

The Prime Minister says he'd like the referendum to take place

The date of the referendum and various rules about

the administration of the poll still need to be confirmed by

The Electoral Commission needs time to choose which two

organisations will officially campaign for Remain and Leave,

and receive public funding to do that.

This so-called "designation period" could last six weeks.

There also must be a "referendum period" -

when the formal campaign takes place and various spending rules apply -

that must last a minimum of 10 weeks.

That means campaigning could begin in April.

With me now is the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, who last night

revealed he would vote to leave the EU.

And we're joined by the Labour MP Chuka Umunna, a former member

He is campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU.

Welcome to both of you. Nadhim Zahawi, that was a surprise - I

thought you were one of those who would be wanting to remain in the

EU? I have always instinctively wanted to do the best possible

within the EU. Two weeks ago I thought we were there. 80% of the

deal was there. The last 20% is always the toughest. I thought

actually that the EU elites would listen to David, and David was

trying very hard. Unfortunately, it was -- it is with a heavy heart that

I look at it now and I do not think they have done enough. I do not

think it is a reformed Europe. You are a loyal MP, so which bits did

they fail on, as far as you're concerned? And do you feel a sense

of betrayal? No, I think David Cameron was the man who gave us the

referendum, so the nation should be grateful for that. Secondly,

importantly, we will have these differences. Michael Gove has come

out, Boris Johnson, others will come out. Many of my colleagues and

friends are on the other side. Let me give you one example. On

financial services - we are giving up a veto to allow the Eurozone

countries, the currency countries, to try to fix their currency. It is

broken. Unemployment is running at 25%, 50% a month to the youth. And

it is white to back them on, maybe give up that Vitae. But what are we

getting in return? If, whatever whatever decision they make, it

hurts our financial services, the best we can hope for is an emergency

brake and the discussion. They will discuss the pain they will deliver

on us. That for me is not enough. I would like to see better protection

for our financial services. If possible. If not, maybe it is better

that we go it alone. Have you just come to this decision in the last

few weeks? Not that long ago, you said divorce would be worse for

everyone. You really have changed your mind. Divorce is painful, as

you know. I don't, but...! We have many friends, and let's hope none of

us go through that. Chuka Umunna is getting married... I am not planning

to get divorced! Let's get back to the EU. We will wake up, the channel

will still be there, trade will still be there. We should be

confident of what we can do. 80% of our economy is service based. Do you

take the arguments which are being put forward by Nadhim Zahawi, that

actually we will have a better chance of improving our business,

our financial services industry, if we come out of the EU? No, I

disagree. I think Nadhim Zahawi takes a very downbeat view on what

British ministers and prime ministers have been able to achieve

in the past, and what they can do going forward. Take financial

services - in the main, British prime ministers have been able to

marshal a majority behind the British position on the EU council

on financial services. Actually, the only time that we have recently lost

a vote was when George Osborne was voted down when the EU was trying to

bring in regulations to end the exorbitant bonus culture we see in

the City of London. But the bigger reason. Just a minute. Because the

bankers then got salary instead of bonus, which is short-term instead

of long-term. Terrible decision. The irony of that particular decision is

that once it was passed by the European Council, Mark Hoban, who

was a City Minister under the last Parliament, and George Osborne,

seeking to take ownership, and boasting about... But the important

point... It is this issue of sovereignty. The thing about this -

you listen to what people who want us to leave are arguing for. They

say, we cannot determine any of our own affairs. I remember sitting in

the last Parliament, watching the last Tory government, the troubling

of tuition fees, we had the different benefit cuts, we had the

NHS reorganisation, one of those things which the EU had absolutely

nothing to do with. In fact of the 121 acts of Parliament which were

passed in the last Parliament, just four of them were implemented to

pass EU legislation. The majority of this stuff was determined domestic

leave. Let's just stick to financial services. Are you saying that the

City of London will always be protected from decisions which are

made within the Eurozone, by countries in the Eurozone, who will

not be looking to pass favourable laws and decisions to the City of

London, and surely if we came out we would be able to protect our

financial services more effectively? I don't think so. This goes to a

broader point, which is that ultimately if we want to continue to

trade with the EU free trade area... They will trade with us, we are the

fifth largest economy in the world! The point I am making is, one

question is, what is the model? If you say, look at Norway or

Switzerland, which trade with that area, they pay to be part of that

area, they are subject to all the rules of that area, but because they

are not in the EU... We are the fifth largest economy in the world,

soon to be the fourth. 80% of it is services, but also we sell goods and

manufacturing. The automotive sector sales across Europe. Europe will

want to trade with us. We buy more BMWs and Mercedes from Europe than

they buy stuff from us. Ultimately the world will not stop. This

scaremongering that everything is going to stop on the 24th of June is

simply not true. They will trade with us. America does very well in

Silicon Valley, where I have got experience, or in Wall Street, with

the rest of the world. The argument is not that they will not trade with

us, it is the terms on which they trade.

You were saying that we would be allowed to basically have all the

benefits of being in the club without being in the club, without

paying into it. That is unprecedented. To take your

discourse, which is that we get run over and we cannot do anything in

the club, somehow paradoxically when we leave the club, they are going to

allow us to do whatever we want. First of all, the clubs are very

different. But should you not do this from within the club? The way

you do it is to say listen, this is not good enough, we want to help you

but you have not thought seriously about reform. Look at what they do

on the Strasbourg Circus. In a world of austerity, they have to

parliaments, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on buildings when

George Osborne is cutting back on buildings. But now seems a whole,

you accused... -- Nadhim Zahawi, you accused Chuka Umunna of

scaremongering. But John Whittingdale was honest yesterday

when he said there would be an element of risk. There will be and

you do not know exactly what sort of deal you will get. Absolutely right.

But to say to you that you are scaremongering by saying we are

losing 3 million jobs is just that, scaremongering. It is not actually

true. I don't think there is anything wrong. It is perfectly

legitimate to point out the risk. I have not said that 4 million jobs

will go but I have said that the jobs are undoubtedly linked to us

trading with the EU. And it is not just what we stand to lose, it is

what we stand to gain. We know we need to balance the economy by

investing more in skills, research and of element and other things. A

lot of inward investment comes from the EU. And if we deepen the single

market, and you are talking about services, we need to do that in

digital, and independent research shows of this could create an extra

800,000 jobs in the UK. On that point. It is not just a question of

what you lose, it is... I have built a digital business and it is

ludicrous to say that we are best served just dealing with Europe. The

out of the Silicon Valley do not need the EU to be able to operate

globally. Digital business can do well over the world -- all over the

world. We need to be confident with our economy. We can go out there and

do well. But you need a big home market. I need to end it there with

some yes no answers. Hilary Benn told me he will not be campaigning

alongside David Cameron. But you will be. I have already shared a

platform with Damian Green so I think it is unlikely that I will be

asked to share a platform with him. I think it is for each and every

Labour politician to make a decision. And now seems a heart, are

you happy sharing a platform with George Galloway? -- and Nadhim

Zahawi at I am not happy doing that. Now, when it comes to national

security, would Britain be safer Yesterday the Work and Pensions

Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, claimed our membership of the EU

made us more vulnerable What we see with the European Union

is incapacity to get its act Who is to say in the next few years,

countries that have taken people from various areas are not

then going to give them leave to remain, and even passports,

as we have seen in some cases, and then in due course may well

turn up again in the UK? So these are big issues further

down the road for us, because this open border does not

allow us to check and control people We see what happened in Paris,

where they spent ages Who is to say it is not

beyond the wit of man that those might already be

thinking about that? This morning the Defence Secretary

Michael Fallon questioned that position and said we would be taking

a "big gamble" with our security No, it isn't true and I don't think

he actually quite said that. The position is, we already

have control of our We have opted out of all of the open

border arrangements in Europe. Russia invaded the Crimea,

then they started to foment The only organisation

that could deal with that wasn't Nato, which is

the cornerstone of our defence, but was the European

Union, which we were able to lead into applying

sanctions against Russia - legally binding sanctions

against trade with Russia to ensure that Russia

paid a price for that, learned that it can't behave

like that and can't ignore We're joined now by our security

correspondent Frank Gardner. Frank, how dangerous, in your mind,

is it for either side to indulge in what some people are calling project

fear and scaremongering over security issues? I don't think it's

dangerous but it is unfair on the public who deserve straight answers.

Security is not something that should be politicised or obfuscated

and confused and conflated with other issues like the economy or

migration. It stands on its own. There are several different issues

here. One is people. The other is our hands. The reason why we have

not yet experienced, and I use the word gets deliberately, the reason

why we have not yet experienced the marauding terrorist firearms attack

that Paris did last year in January and November, the main reason is

because it is much harder to get hold of powerful automatic weapons

in this country. It is not impossible and it may not always be

that way but we are protected by our coastline. We do not have the open

borders arrangement that continental Europe does. After the Paris attack

at the Charlie Hebdo offices in January, I spoke to the coordinator

of EU counterterrorism and he told me that they have strengthened their

external borders with the Balkans, where most of the stop comes

through, hard weapons, big weapons, but once they are in continental

Europe, it is difficult to stop them. That is unlikely to change

whether we are in or out of the EU but if you were looking at

counterterrorism in the EU, the police and terrorism and agencies do

not share what they know. -- terrorism agencies. In Britain, they

do. Britain's courses arrangements in terms of intelligence and

Security Committee oration are not with Europe, they are with the US

and the five eyes countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Those are

the closest links, not with Europe. You were saying that the issue of

intelligence and geography, the fact that we are an island, to some

extent better protects us against any potential future terrorist

attack. But what about the issue of where the terrorists are coming

from? Because much has been made about links with migrants coming

from the Middle East, that there could be jihadis hidden there. There

was also the evidence that a lot of the attacks have been from

home-grown terrorists here and on the continent. I think it comes down

to numbers. If there were to be terrorists who hide themselves

amongst the wave of migrants trying to get into Europe and Britain, if

there were Isis members in there, their numbers will be small indeed.

But the fear is that these could be highly trained people who have spent

time in Syria. But the fact remains that there are more than 2000 people

in this country already, UK citizens, UK residents, living and

working here who have sympathies with or connections to international

terrorism. Nearly all of them have committed no crime but they have

been detected by MI5 and the Metropolitan Police as having those

sympathies. That is not going to change whether we are in or out of

the EU. That is a fact that is there already.

Joining me now are Conservative MP Mark Pritchard, a former member

of the National Security Strategy Committee who believes

And Gerard Batten is a Ukip MEP - formerly his party's spokesman

Welcome to both of you. You are for Remain. Why were you one of the MPs

that led the rebellion that called for a referendum in 1981? The fact

of the matter is that the majority of people in the UK were not old

enough to vote in 1975, and it is right that we should have a

referendum. I campaigned for that. And from a security point of view

you think we are better in the EU? Why? Is the is a time for Europe to

stand together rather than divide on issues of security. I saw the

Commons earlier by Iain Duncan Smith and I have a huge amount of respect

for him. But I think he is wrong to suggest that we have open borders.

We are not part of the Schengen Agreement as Michael Fallon said.

And the Paris attacks, eight of them work EU nationals. The leader of the

Paris attack was a Belgian national and as Frank Gardner alluded to, the

attack in this country, three of them were British and one was

German. Yes, we have to guard our borders from external threats but we

have a home-grown threat and the government is taking action to deal

with that. But I think it is wrong to suggest we have open borders when

we do not. It is wrong to suggest that if the public vote to leave the

European Union, that we will be safe from terrorism. I think that is a

bold statement to make. Can anyone make that statement? Was Iain Duncan

Smith right or wrong to imply we would be at more threat if we stay

in the EU? We know it is a growing threat. It is not right to say that

we do not have open borders, because although we are not in the Schengen

area, and if a European citizen wants to come to the UK, we have

open borders. There is nothing we can do to stop them coming. Not an

EU citizen but we do have border checks in France at the moment. And

those could be under threat if we pulled out. How can you have a

border checks be a threat if you are an independent country? You will

find that on the Eurostar, very seldom are people checked as they

come off the boat. We had problems with people getting on at Lille and

bypassing the checks that go on at brussels, for example. But if we

controlled borders we can put inappropriate checks for us. Frank

Gardner said the most important security arrangements are bilateral

agreements that we have with other countries, and not necessarily

membership of the EU. What do you say to that? I think he was right to

say that we have to be careful not to conflict the issue of asylum

seekers and immigration and migration from within the European

Union with the wider security issue. The fact is, as I concluded over the

last few months, as someone who sat on the committee you mentioned, and

previously on the Parliamentary assembly, our security is best

served by our transatlantic relationship, and also being a

counterbalance to France and Germany's domination of security

policy and foreign policy. If we left of the European Union, and this

is a question for Gerald, if the British people vote to leave, do you

agree that would put France and Germany in a more dominant place in

Europe? If you don't think Germany is in a dominate position now, you

should spend more time in Europe. I'm not saying that, do you think

they would be more dominant. We were an independent nation for the

thousand years before we joined. But is Britain a character to German and

French dominance? It is very much a German project. The Germans pay the

vast amount of the budget, the biggest contributors of the budget.

Chancellor Merkel, by making one statement that nobody will be

refused entry, as let in literally millions of migrants. And... Do you

support Nato? Of course I do. And do you agree that if the United Kingdom

left of the European Union, France and Germany would build up defence

structures in competition to Nato? The European Union wants to have one

seat in Nato, which is the European Union, and not one individual seat.

Do we want to give up our seat on Nato in order to bring this

together? You said about Germany opening its doors to 1 million or so

migrants. But Frank Gardner said again that actually the biggest

threat is home-grown terrorists here, rather than an unknown

quantity perhaps smuggled in. Two of the people who blew themselves up in

the sports stadium in Paris were there on forged passports. I read an

article which says that Interpol knows of 250,000 fake passports in

circulation, the tip of an iceberg. Greece and Italy are seen as

industrial producers of faked passports in the European Union so

if somebody gets into the European Union on a fake passport, we are

powerless to stop them. But you are not addressing the issue. You made a

allusion to a Syrian passports and there was only one found at the

scene of the crime. The majority were EU nationals. What would you do

about them? We also talked about... He is not answering a single

question? Our individuals have done a terrific job here. If we knew more

things about European citizens, suspecting that they could be

involved in terrorism, under the current rules we cannot stop them

coming into the country because they have right of entry. But

intelligence sharing will only come about if we are full and active

members of the European Union and if we were to withdraw, Germany and

France do not have to share it under their own internal legislation.

Now, on Friday the cross-party Eurosceptic group Grassroots Out

held a rally in Westminster to coincide with the final day

Attendees were promised a special guest speaker, but when that was

revealed to be former Respect MP and London Mayoral candidate

George Galloway, some people in the audience were

Our Adam was at the event, and spoke to some of the people

Why are you walking out before it is finished?

I wasn't too interested in hearing the last speaker,

I'm afraid. George Galloway.

Why are you leaving - it is not finished yet?

George Galloway. What is wrong with him?

I will never sit in a room with a man

I'm a member of the Christian Friend of...

We don't want George Galloway anywhere near...

Really? It was all going so well!

It is a disgrace. Anglican Friends of Israel!

This has torpedoed it as far as I'm concerned.

I am not staying here to hear George Galloway.

How did you feel when they said the name George Galloway?

I said immediately to my husband, we must go.

Erm, I don't like what I have just seen on stage.

I think any sort of association with George Galloway is wholly

inappropriate and I think a lot of people here feel the same way,

whichever side of the argument they are on.

George Galloway - it seems you're unveiling was not quite the

triumphal...? Well, not for the first time, you have misled me by

asking me to come in and talk about the referendum, but instead wanting

to talk about me. I am sure we have not misled you. Hang on. No, I won't

hang on. If you had told me that I was coming in to discuss me, I would

have said, there are much bigger issues

have said, there are much bigger occupied by van six or however many

vox pop Siew had... This is going on to the issue of the

vox pop Siew had... This is going on want to ask you this. You

vox pop Siew had... This is going on defend... I do not want to defend me

at all. You are not my judge, you are not fit to be my judge. Thank

you very much. All I am saying is, are you going to be a benefit to

this campaign...? You asked me to come into this studio, I did not ask

you. You told me you wanted to hear your views on the referendum. And I

do. So can we move on to that, please? Are you happy to link arms,

to use the please? Are you happy to link arms,

expression, with others that you do not agree with? I do not link arms

with anybody. It is a binary choice. You are in or you are out. The last

fellow you had on who said he would not share a platform with me claimed

?40,000 of the taxpayer to hit his horses in a stable. Would I really

want to link arms with him? No. But if he can bring any net jig voters

into the polling booth, and if I can bring any no voters into the polling

booth, I hope that would be... What we were trying to say about this

interview is that this interview as far as you are concerned is bigger

than people's... Tony Blair is for yes, does that mean anybody

associated with Tony Blair? It is such childish discourse. Except that

political bedfellows can sometimes lead people to say, is one being

authentic about the issue? For example, you said about Nigel

Farage, he should be disqualified from any civilised company

henceforth. But you are going to put that aside in order to campaign for

this issue, which you think is bigger... Bigger than all issues. It

will affect the future of all of our people for the rest of time. So what

do you say to those people who obviously do not feel it is bigger

than their personal antipathy towards Hugh? More the fool them. I

hope they are not going to vote for the European Union because they do

not like me. That would be a very foolish and childish thing to do.

But are you worried that you might be turning off some people who would

like to support it? But you asked me to come here presumably because you

thought I had something which some people might like to hear. And we

will get onto it. Yet onto it! We are almost finished the interview

children how do you know, I might have you on for another 15 minutes!

I very much doubt that. But if you are going to convince people of an

argument... Please stop this. You misled me into coming here today.

And every question you have asked has been about me. I am campaigning

amongst my 1 million followers on social media, on the radio, on the

television, on platforms, on the streets, for Britain to leave for a

series of important reasons, to which you have not yet turned. I

will get to it if you would just answer the one question. When have

you ever not wanted to talk about yourself? It is so childish, it is

so tabloid, it is so Daily Mail. Good forbid! Are you and Nigel

Farage going to be able to attract and keep enough support for this

campaign, which you say is important enough to override any other

personality? I don't know because the public have not voted yet. But I

am convinced that Britain should leave. So is Boris Johnson, for his

own reasons. So is Nigel Farage, for his own reasons. What is the

overriding reason for you? Because I believe in democracy, I believe

Britain should control its own events, who comes into our country,

who can be told to leave our country, what our foreign policy

should be, what our economic policy should be, should be decided by the

British people in a British Parliament. It is not rocket

science. Have you always held that position? In 1975, I campaigned... A

lot of people in the Labour Party at that time also campaigned to come

out. I leaned to the views about the EU of Tony Benn. But the last straw

for me was Greece, the crushing of democracy in Diyala, which told me,

not to tell Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, that if they attempted to

implementing the kind of policies which they believe are necessary,

and I agree, then they will be crushed underfoot by the EU

bureaucracy -- Greece -- and by the power of Europe. So you have returns

to the issue of workers' rights, which is was actually the basis of

Labour's division in 1975. So, are you disappointed that somebody like

Jeremy Corbyn is not pushing harder to look at that issue? I think the

Prime Minister's negotiation was smoke and mirrors. If Jeremy Corbyn

had been going into those negotiations, he would have raised

far more fundamental issues. I know why, given the domestic balance of

forces within the British Labour Party, why Jeremy Corbyn has been

frankly hobbled on this question. But I am clinging to the view I took

under the leadership of Tony Benn, and I will continue to do it with

all my breath, if anyone is persuaded by it, I will be happy.

There you go. You had your say, finally, on the issue.

Time now to take a look at what else is in store for the Week Ahead.

Later today, Jeremy Corbyn will address the regular weekly

meeting of his MPs for the first time this year.

Tuesday sees the deadline for an agreement on the so-called

fiscal framework between the governments in Westminster and

On Wednesday, Mr Cameron and Mr Corbyn will face each other

Will there be a new spirit of solidarity now that they

are on the same side in the referendum campaign?

On Thursday, EU ministers will meet in Brussels to discuss

Here, the Government will be presented with the latest

And on Friday, we get back in to the party conference groove

with the Greens, Ukip and the Scottish Lib Dems

all heading off for their spring jamborees.

We're joined now by Chris Hope of the Telegraph and Rowena Mason

Welcome to both of you. Let's continue, following that George

Galloway interview, where he did not really want to talk about the issue

of whether or not people were turned off by his presence at these events

- the Prime Minister used it as a threat for people wanting out that

they would be linking arms with George Galloway and Nigel Farage. In

turn, you could say they would be linking arms with Nicola Sturgeon

and Jeremy Corbyn - how would that look to Tory MPs? Of the problem is,

basically it is a binary choice, nothing to do with politics, it is

about a choice about whether you feel happy in the EU or not.

Therefore you will have George Galloway on one side, on the same

side is Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, against the other team, who

will have David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn on the same side. I don't

think it really matters that much. You have to recognise that all sorts

of politicians in this country, nothing wrong with that, it is a

democracy. The big choice in the end is, in or out? It will have people

on both sides. Is Jeremy Corbyn an enthusiastic in? Will he be a

cheerleader for the Remain camp? Jeremy Corbyn has now made it really

clear that Labour's position is that they will campaign to remain in the

European Union. There are some within the Labour Party who would

prefer him to be a bit more full-blooded about supporting the EU

and remaining in the EU. But there are others who are just very happy

that he has set aside some of his historic Euroscepticism to say that

the collective position of the party is definitely for in. How realistic,

though, is the prospect? We have seen people dividing over this issue

within the Conservative Party. How realistic is it that the Cabinet and

the Conservative Party can come back together after the result on the

24th of June? I think it is realistic for stop there will be

this reshuffle in June or July, where you might see Boris Johnson,

who has been tipped for Foreign Secretary. He may well get that job.

Certainly they want to bring the party back together. If they lose

and we voted to go out, then David Cameron's future is certainly not

assured. So there is all to play for. But there will certainly be an

attempt to bring everybody back together in some kind of unity

reshuffle after the referendum. I spoke to Hilary Benn yesterday, who

said he would not be sharing a platform with David Cameron. Is that

a hangover from what happened in Scotland? Yes, I think absolutely.

There is a really big danger for Labour. They were burnt by Better

Together with the Conservatives in Scotland. The SNP portrayed them as

this kind of Westminster elite, that it was a stitch-up by the

establishment. And so, Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of the Labour Party

will be really keen to separate themselves from David Cameron when

they are arguing to remain in the EU. And crucial to that, Jeremy

Corbyn has been very rude about Cameron's deal which he got in

Brussels the other day. Arguing that he should have focused more on

workers' rights and fighting the trade deal. It is not like they are

linking arms and making exactly the same argument. They will be putting

forward different ideas with the same aim of keeping the UK in the

EU. Thank you to both of you. And joining me now for the rest

of the show are two new MPs - Victoria Borwick for

the Conservatives and Labour's Nick Now, the Government has issued

new guidelines to local councils and other public bodies that bans

them from boycotting Israeli goods. The government says it will end

"divisive" town hall boycotts and encourage community cohesion,

but campaigners have called the changes "an attack

on local democracy". John Hilary from anti-poverty

charity War on Want is here. John Hilary - why should public

bodies be able to impose local boycotts on goods from countries

with which they have disagreements and they disapprove? I think it is

an essential part of local democracy. At the moment, we as

local taxpayers can call on our locally elected representatives and

say, we do not want our money to be given out in contracts to countries

which are complicit in the human rights abuses of Palestinians, for

example, through trading with illegal Israeli settlements in the

occupied West Bank, or indeed, we do not want our money to be given out

in contracts to arms companies which are doing deals with the Saudi

regime. Similarly, in terms of local pensions, for teachers, police

officers and government officials, aiming to their pension pots. The

government is now saying to them, you no longer have the right to

choose that your money should or should not go into these companies

which are complicit in human rights abuses. For us, it seems like an

extraordinary abuse of local democracy. You were investigated by

the Charity Commission after a complaint about allegedly

anti-Israeli campaigns, so you can hardly claim this to be part of that

campaign, can you? Our charity is promoting human rights around the

world, as well as the fight against poverty. I should make it clear for

the record - the charity, and has rebuffed all of the complaints which

were made against War on Want in the past by certain Zionist groups. I

think we are completely in the clear from the point of view of the

Charity Commission. This is not about Israel. This is about human

rights abuses being committed against either Palestinians were

indeed any other peoples by companies which are complicit in

those violations. So, should the councils continue their boycotts, in

your mind? Of course. At the local level, we surely have the right to

say where our money goes? In fact we have the obligation. The UK

Government itself has got an obligation under international law

to hold to account like the Israeli regime - and it has failed to do

that. So it is up to us as local activists and local taxpayers.

We're joined now by the Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock.

Why can't councils make that decision? I am all in favour of

devolution, but we cannot devolve foreign policy. Councils and public

authorities should not discrimination against different

countries that we have trade relationships with. Their job is to

provide services to local taxpayers, relationships with. Their job is to

not to try to have a localised foreign policy. But what if those

local taxpayers agree with the line the councils are taking, and have

put pressure on their local representatives to take a stand on

something like boycotting Israeli In in the case of Israel, and this

guidance is not only about Israel but of course it is about Israel,

there are some councils who wants to target a particular country. But we

have a trading relationship with Israel and the foreign office

decides our foreign policy. It is for them, not local councils, to

decide our foreign policy. There is a problem here specifically around

Israel because some people use a boycott we are really they have an

anti-Semitic sentiment. More broadly, this is a question of who

do you think should be deciding the foreign policy of this country. And

on the issue of devolution, government always likes of

devolution and they promise it in opposition and then in power, when

they do not like the decisions taken by local bodies, they try to

withdraw the power. It does look cynical. I don't think it is

cynical. Quite the contrary. We are devolving enormous amounts of power

to Scotland and Wales and areas of the country. I am involved in a

devolution bid in East Anglia and Manchester. There is an enormous

amount of devolution going on. But when you devolve, one of the ways

you get it right is by making clear what is to be done at a national

level and what is to be done at a local level. And no one is arguing

that foreign policy should be set by local governments. Shouldn't be a

national policy in terms of making a decision about boycotting goods from

a particular country? No, and Matthew Hancock is mixing two

matters. The reality is we hear a lot about mayors and local councils'

devolution, but the first moment that George Osborne approaches

something he does not like, he tries to claw power back to the centre.

And every government does that. Is it not just about those in power?

With respect, the last Labour government created the Welsh

Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and devolved London. They are

privately happy to take investment decisions, and that is the mixture

of the answer from Matthew Hancock that does not stand up. It is for

local councils to answer the electorate. It is quite clear that

we need to treat all suppliers the same. In London, you can buy things

from everywhere, and that is the fun thing. People should be able to

choose where they buy things from. It is very artificial. Everyone

should be treated equal. We have wonderful things all over the world

and I know when I go and choose, I choose British bacon and British

apples because I want to support our farming industry. It is getting very

supposed -- very confused, saying the council should be asked where we

should procure things from. You see it as an investment decision, not

foreign policy? I think that people should be able to free trade where

we want. If we believe in localism and free trade, we should have an

open border. Ultimately, this is a question of discrimination. Do you

want to have a discriminatory policy and it seems that some people want

that, or do you want to trade openly and freely. Ultimately, do you

determine it against Israel or do you not? A final question, will you

be boycotting Brad Forrest from now on? On the great European debate,

people will take their decisions and I came into politics essentially on

the question of economic security, that is what I want to promote and

that is what I want to unambiguously answered by remaining within the

European Union. But it is for every individual to decide in this

referendum. The Chancellor is due

to unveil his Budget next month, in which we can expect to see

the results of pensions consultation One of the ideas he floated

was transforming pensions into a type of "retirement ISA",

and one former ministerial colleague has claimed George Osborne

will abolish the current tax-free Let's have a look at the Chancellor

saying he is open to radical change for pensions

in last July's Budget. We have taken important steps

with our new single-tier pension and generous new ISA,

but I am open to further radical Pensions could be treated like ISAs

- you pay in from taxed income, and it is tax-free

when you take it out. And in between, it receives a

top-up from the government. This idea and others like it

need careful and public consideration before

we take any steps. So I am today publishing a green

paper which asks questions, invites views and takes care not

to prejudge the answer. Joining us now is the former

Lib Dem Minister for Pensions, He now works for the private

pensions firm Royal London. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Are you convinced of the Chancellor is going to do this? I think it is

very likely. It is not definite and not even he has made up his mind.

But because this is the only option he has mentioned in the House of

Commons, people have started saying that it will be a flat rate and

there is a risk he will announce the ice and the problem with that is

that if all your money has been taxed when you put it into a

pension, the idea of a tax-free lump sum disappears. He could abolish the

lump sum without saying the words and people in future would not be

able to take advantage of the popular bit of the pension. What is

your response to that? At the moment, this is speculation. We no

wonder the Conservatives that we have a confirmed triple lock where

pensions have gone up every year and we have guaranteed that it will go

up in line with earnings and inflation. At the moment, we do not

know. Gordon Browne made himself very unpopular when he took people's

pensions. Would George Osborne make himself unpopular if he did this? I

hope not. You're not, but would it make I have no idea what the budget

is going to be. Are you making mischief, Steve Webb? On the

contrary. Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that because a lot of

people were opposed to the pensions ISA, it is off the agenda. I have

not been into the Treasury, but lots of people go in and come out saying

that the pensions ISA is on the table. I am concerned that if we go

through without people understanding, we would lose a

popular bit of the pension system that attracts people to pensions.

And we need people to want to savour for a pension. What would your

reaction be if this was announced? My worry about this is that rather

than having one single overarching savings strategy, and looking at

policy to see how savings can be encouraged in the economy, the

Chancellor sees pensions as a tax grab. That is a worry. I worry that

this is the chance about looking for if few billion pounds rather than

thinking for the long-term. What would this mean? Having a ISA would

mean that people have the money, and it is a huge gravel tax from

tomorrow to today. It is really attractive if you are Chancellor.

And chancellors have in the past looked at pensions as a fruitful way

of getting money. What would you do instead? I would publicly say that

the idea of the generous flat rate of relief, giving more help to

people who need it most, lower and middle earners, yes you might take

some away from higher earners but if you keep the tax-free sum, you can

square the circle. But he should not be taking money out when people need

more help, not less. 'Patriot' and 'traitor' are the sort

of insults likely to be thrown around over the next few months

as we discuss Britain's Jonathan Lynn's new play -

The Patriotic Traitor - deals with a decision France's

leaders made in 1940, whether to surrender to Nazi Germany

as the war hero Phillippe Petain Or whether to fight

on with the Free French 30 years ago, the high command will

write about you. Write for the wrong reasons. You are a defeatist. You

have no hope and you never had. I had. I won. Not this time. The end

of hope is the beginning of death and without hope it is impossible

for a reasonable man to have hope. In that case, there can never be

hope because it is not possible for a reasonable man to believe in God.

I believe in God and I have always been reasonable. And I give away

everything I believe in to save France. I inherited the catastrophe.

I was not responsible for it. How do you think I feel? Signing on the

dotted line, giving away my soul. I said I would take defeat on my

shoulders and I did. Tom Conti as Marshal Petain

and Lawrence Fox And here in the studio

is the author of that play, Welcome. It has sold out. Yes.

Although there may be a couple of extra performances scheduled in the

next day or two because of demand. Let's look at these two figures. If

you looked at it in black and white, Charles de Gaulle was the hero, who

fought against the Nazis, and the tan was the traitor who fought

against them. Is it more nuanced than that? --.... Petain was the

goal's mentor. They had a father-son relationship and at the end of the

war, tragically, de Gaulle out of that is on trial for treason,

something he was reluctant to do. But surely when you look back, even

now, at history, there was not a detente. Petain had collaborated and

that is how history has judged him. It is, and that is right. But from

Petain's point of view, de Gaulle was the sword and he was the

shields. He makes the point in the plate is that it was all very well

for de Gaulle to save Paris but if it was not for Petain, there would

have been no Paris to savour. Is this a revisionist look at the role

of Petain? People tried to say once that he thought he was doing what

was best for France. It is not revisionist. I think there is no

doubt in my mind that he was wrong. He collaborated with the Nazis and

he allowed all sorts of terrible things to happen but at the same

time it is interesting to try to find an explanation for what made

him so wrong, what made this French hero do such terrible things. It is

not enough to say that he was a bad guy, but why? We have said that

patriot and traitor are emotive words. The work you are most famous

for, of course, is yes Minister and yes prime minister, known and not

just here but all around the world. Did that surprise you? Absolutely.

just here but all around the world. We thought we would do six episodes

for BBC Two and nobody would watch it, but

for BBC Two and nobody would watch astonished by the increasing

success. My father once said it has been used as a textbook for

government. Have you thought of doing the job yourself? Why not?!

Wouldn't you want to be prime Minister. I would love to be but it

is a big job. I'm not sure I could. Prime minister. Perhaps the Minister

feels he is not absolutely prime ministerial calibre, Jeffrey. There

is no doubt about that, free. You feel a little hesitant. Modestly

put. There's only one fly in the ointment, you are a bit of an

outsider. Unless you can stage manage some sort of public success

in the next few days. A tall order. I am up to my neck in the Euro

sausage. Art imitating life, do you think? Are you fans? Absolutely. Do

you think it is accurate? I have not been a government minister so I

cannot comment. Look at them, distancing themselves from! I think

being in politics and being in government are completely different

things. And will this come back to the fore with Europe debate, what do

you make of it so far? The European debate? Well, I am not sure, really.

There are arguments on both sides, as Sir Humphrey would say but I have

thought about it from de Gaulle's point of view because I had been

writing about him. He wanted a free-trade area. And let's leave it

on that free trade area. Angst to all of our guests. -- thank you to