24/10/2016 Daily Politics

live to its promise to take child refugees? First of Wales, Scotland

and Northern Ireland are meeting at Downing Street to make their Brexit

case but can different parts of the UK really expect different deals? It

is going to desecrate the countryside, argue campaigners

against fracking. Why has a leading green campaigner come out in favour?

What makes a good political insult? We will countdown the top five. The

House has noticed the Prime Minister's transformation from

Stalin to Mr Bean. It was a good one. With us for the whole

programme, prominent Conservative remain campaigner, Nick Herbert. He

described three senior campaigners as three blind mice. And Gisela

Stuart, who spent time with those blind mice during the campaign.

First of all, French authorities have begun the process of clearing

the giant migrant camp in Calais. Coaches have been chartered to take

migrants to reception centres across France where they will be

invited to apply for asylum, or deported to their

country of origin. A few minutes ago I spoke

to our correspondent I asked her how it has been going.

So far it has been running very smoothly. Migrants have come here

and formed orderly queues. They were asked for the names, nationalities,

and ages. They've been boarding buses quite swiftly. So far this

morning we are told by the authorities that 17 buses have left,

carrying on them 700 migrants. They have been told there will not be

enough buses for everyone to get on today. Some people will come back

here and the process will continue tomorrow. Many of the migrants I've

spoken to have said they are happy to leave. Some of them have been

here for many months. I was speaking to one young man who says he's been

here for eight months, it is called, dirty, life is difficult and he was

pleased to be moving somewhere he will be provided with proper

accommodation and food. Others say they will not leave, they have one

very clear: that is to start a new life in the UK. Some of those people

say that they will not move and this is moving further away from their

new life. They are clearing people who still want to make it to the UK.

What are the French authorities saying about that? The French

verities are being very clear that this is an eviction, the will be

closed and dismantled. The charities working very closely with migrants

in that camp, their advice is also very clear, to follow the

instructions of the French authorities. That is the safest and

best route. The charities working with those people say whilst the

camp is full it is easier for them to say, we are going to stay here,

but they hope as people move on, over the days to come, they will

change their minds, and get on the buses that have been provided for

them. The people living here, some of them more than a year, their

great worry is even if the camp is closed the people will need to still

be somewhere. Gisela Stuart. Let's pick up on that final point by

Sophie Long. Is this going to solve a problem, dispersing the migrants

across France, or will we see lots of new jungles emerging? We must

make sure this does not happen. One of the difficulties, because of free

travel on mainland Europe, once you have pressure, people can travel

wherever they want to. How do you prevent this happening? At some

stage, they were talking about reintroducing border controls.

You've got to deal with the pressure on the outside. The deal with Turkey

is not working properly. You've got to do the triple thing, between the

people traders, deal with the displacement, then you deal with the

pull factor. On top of that I hope Britain lives up to its promise in

dealing with some of the unaccompanied children. Let's come

to that. You nod your head. There is a fear, one of the Lord's made a big

play to persuade them to take the children. There is a worry that not

all those children have come across. Do you think they are going to be

dispersed across France before they get here? I hope not. Clearly, it is

going very slowly. It is a complicated process. I became aware

of that when looking at how my local authority was dealing with it. All

the local processes they need to put in place. It is not straightforward.

Even if they've got family? It is still not straightforward. They are

processed by the council then given to those they have a connection

with. There is a necessary amount of bureaucracy around it. We need to

speed up but we also need confidence in the process. It would be damaging

in that if we take people who are not eligible or there were concerns

about whether they are the right age or not. You agree with your

colleagues. Would you like to see further checks? Dental checks? I

certainly would not want to see that, I thought that was an

appalling proposition. It has been ruled out. There needs to be proper

checks. We have taken over 5000 Syrian refugees, adults, in the last

few years. There is a commitment to take 20,000 from the new campus. We

are doing our bit. Would you like to see further checks to verify the

ages of the unaccompanied minors claiming asylum or joining families?

DH check needs to be one of those. Would you like to see further checks

or, like Nick Herbert, did not want to see dental checks. If anybody

convinces me that they are better than what we've got at the moment

then I'm open to the suggestion but I did not think they were the answer

to the problem. What about the migrants who just want to come to

the UK, going to try and stay, whether they are able to, we will

need to see. What about those people? They are not going to give

up. Some of them are not but others are being offered proper

accommodation and they are being taken through the asylum process. I

think there are issues, why have they got to this point if they are

asylum seekers? When they've got as far as France, the rules are they

offered it in the first country they arrive at. There is a problem with

Europe and that has to be solved with the agreement made with Turkey

and Europe but I think we agree these are not easy problems, it is

generally wrong to make political capital out of them. It is time for

the daily quiz. The question for today

is who was Ed Balls advised not to try and emulate

on Strictly Come Dancing this weekend after he struggled

to lift his partner Katya Jones. At the end of the show Nick

and Gisela will give Maybe you could demonstrate the left

for us. Now, what's the collective term

for First Ministers? Because three of them

and a deputy first minister went into Downing Street about an hour

ago to talk Brexit. She needs to keep all the parts of

the United Kingdom together. The Prime Minister is hosting

a special joint ministerial committee in Number Ten involving

the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First

and Deputy First Ministers Both Scotland and Northern Ireland

voted to stay in the European Union, All three First Ministers

want their nations to continue to participate in the single market

and both Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones have

said their Assemblies should be able to vote to approve the government's

negotiating strategy. Nicola Sturgeon has also called

for Holyrood to have special arrangement with the rest of the EU

that could see Scotland remaining within the single market

and keeping free movement. Theresa May has rejected these

demands but has instead offered a direct hotline

for the three leaders to Brexit Secretary David Davies

so they can report any concerns, as well as a forum chaired

by Mr Davis where representatives from the nations can

air their concerns before the negotiations to leave

the EU begin next year. And we're joined now by the SNP's

Europe spokesman, Stephen Gethins. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

What's this got to do with Nicola Sturgeon? Isn't this something to do

with the Westminster Government? There is barely any area of devolved

competence that is not impacted by our future relations with the

European Union. It is right that the First Ministers come together and

discuss this. I notice the First Minister backed up a letter written

by the Labour First Minister from Wales calling for an agreed position

and a vote in the four parliaments. What do you say to these demands?

These seem to be fairly typical demands. They voted to stay within

the European Union. What is wrong with these demands? The very thing

what is happening at the moment is those who did not like the outcome

of the referendum are trying to rerun the referendum under a

different heading. Let me just finish this. Certain myths are being

developed. That this was not the United Kingdom referendum. It was

the United Kingdom referendum and that binds the entire United

Kingdom. Second, demands about remaining in the single market. If

you negotiate to leave and it means we still have free movement of

Labour, the supremacy of EU law, the WTO, then you have not left. During

the campaign it was made absolutely clear that leaving meant you left

the single market. David Cameron and George Osborne said if you vote to

leave you have left the single market. This is quite extraordinary.

If I can respond... This is quite extraordinary. In the Conservative

Party manifesto, and I think we should try to ferment what it says,

it says, yes, to the single market. I am not a conservative. It is

difficult to make the difference. That was before the referendum. It

was the part of the manifesto that said we should have a referendum.

You can maintain part of the single market, you can have different

situations for different parts of the UK. Nobody is denying it was a

UK referendum, but Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. Having

voted overwhelmingly to remain, I think the Prime Minister has a

responsibility to get to a position that agrees that. Let's take them

one by one. You say you could get an agreement but you want Scotland to

remain a member of the single market. Theresa May has said that is

not going to happen. She hasn't. She doesn't want the country to be under

the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and she wants to

curb freedom of movement. She is saying it would be nigh to

impossible to remain a member of the single market. What makes you think

Scotland could have a different arrangement? To pick up on this.

Believe campaign did not campaign on whether to leave the single market,

they campaigned on a blank piece of paper in an act of utterly gross

irresponsibility. The First Minister is rightly standing up for Scottish

business. Something that would be good for business throughout the

United Kingdom. Our universities, food Drink, energy sector, rely so

heavily on freedom of movement. Let's take the issue of the single

market. It is not true. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, even remain

campaigners said that. Let's listen to what some of them said.

The British public would be voting to leave, we would leave the EU and

the single market. Should we come out the single market? That would be

the case. Should we be inside the single market? No, we should be

outside the single market. I said after Brexit, Michael Gove said Will

we be inside the single market and he said no. He is right. We would be

out of the single market, that is the reality. We played this clip

before, but you can see clearly they did state on both sides of the UK

would have to be the single market if they leave the EU. You may

disagree with that but you cannot say they did not say it. If that was

still the case of the UK Government, I have asked them, everyone has

asked them, are we in our out, do we have membership of the single

market, they will not answer the question. Michael Gove also told

Scotland would get power over immigration. Now we have been told

we are not getting that either. Do you think the government is not

absolutely sure about leaving the single market? Yes, and it is right

they have not fully ruled it out. Although we tend to look at this in

a binary way, the terms on which we might still have preferential access

to the single market, those are still up for discussion. I think it

is in Britain's economic interests, and what businesses are saying, that

would be perfect. It would lead you to the view you have a border

between the different parts of the UK. That would be problematic. What

I want to do is reject what Bisla Stewart said, anyone raising these

issues is trying to frustrate the results of the referendum. Aren't

they? I was leader of the conservative in campaign, I said we

had to respect the results of the referendum. We are going to leave,

but the question is on what terms? The majority of the UK public is a

hard Brexit would be damaging to our economy and would drive a divide

between different parts of the UK as well. What is wrong with the vote,

what is the government so frightened of, why not have a vote so that we

could have the will of Parliament being honoured, head of the

negotiations? Because what precisely are you going to put on the paper?

We have had a referendum where people voted to leave. Parliament is

implementing that. But the next general election I want to have the

position where the United Kingdom voters will have the choice is what

immigration policy will be, they will have a choice on who does the

trade negotiations. You don't trust people to honour what the people

said. Otherwise we had not left. People are saying we should give

Parliament a full say in the matter but then so Parliament cannot

discuss these issues. Let Stephen Gethin answer because no one can

hear you all talk over each other. The league campaign campaigned on a

blank page and that was irresponsible. I am pleased the

first ministers have come together to try to get a common agreement. It

will do everybody the power of good. The First Minister has gone with

asking about the implementation and getting an agreed position. I don't

know about this hotline, I cannot get any answers out of David Davis

in the chamber. It has to be meaningful. It is not meaningful

because the demands being made by Stephen Gethin 's and the SNP are

not the man is that Theresa May will be able to... Not Arlene Foster. She

has said, and Northern Ireland is saying they are not bothered in the

way that Nicola Sturgeon and is Carwyn Jones are about membership of

the single market. But they are about Freedom of movement. This idea

of a hotline, it is symbolic, nothing will happen, they will not

get anything from ringing of David Davis? I am sure they will have a

very nice conversation. It is pointless. What I think is important

the government set out in broad terms, what its ambition is for this

Brexit process and that is what we have been unable to drag out of them

so far. That is the concern, I suspect in the dissolved reasons but

also the devolved nations, but also in the UK Parliament. That is why

many of us will be pursuing this issue and I suspect there will be a

parliamentary majority for saying the government must set out its

broad ambition and that must happen before the article 50 is triggered.

Let's come to the demands. Some will say they are unrealistic and you

making them in order to justify calling a second independence

referendum. I am not sure what is unrealistic. What we have asked for

is there should be a vote in the different devolved administrations.

We have such a significant impact on the devolved responsibilities, it is

right they should have their say. We need to get a common agreed

position. Theresa May should be doing that and who knows, she might

learn something. You think it is a demand Theresa May should look at,

the freedom of movement. This is something demanded in her own

backbenchers. She said it is not something people voted for. People

didn't vote for anything. They voted to leave the European Union, it was

a blank piece of paper and it was irresponsible and why we are having

these discussions now. When it comes to the single market, which was, you

stop free movement of labour. You have just seen the clips. It wasn't

a blank piece of paper. It suits the SNP perfectly well to go on

demanding the right to veto. So you don't have to answer about what has

happened to the education system in Scotland, what has happened to the

education system in Scotland and what has happened to policing in

Scotland. Picking a fight our Westminster level distracts from the

other things. Just on the idea of an independence referendum, when would

you call that if you don't have your demands met? The First Minister is

looking at a whole other range of options. For instance, the UK

Government is prepared to try and block at a special arrangement for

bankers in the financial sector, so why not a special arrangements for

Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is something that has been done

elsewhere in the European Union. Will that be allowed to happen when

they're looking at the problems of Catalan? They are not looking to

leave the European Union at the minute. It is about a realistic

demand. We are looking for a solution that protects Scottish

jobs. I understand that, but that was not my question. When would you

call a second referendum because that is what you said you would do

if your demands are not met. The First Minister, like her colleagues

elsewhere is going with a reasonable set of demands to the Prime Minister

today. Let's see if she can get further than we have managed to do

in the chamber. Gisela talks about the single market, but we cannot get

a straight answer out of the Prime Minister on the single market. Is

there a deal he would recognise that benefit Scotland in terms of the

single market? Would that be enough for you to say you won't call a

second independence reference? If you get a deal that keeps jobs,

access to the single market, then you need to consider it. Would it be

possible to have some freedom of movement, some relaxation on

immigration to Scotland, could you treat a nation like an economic

sector like banking, or is it totally unfeasible? I am trying to

see how he would implement this. How would you enforce that? Michael Gove

talked about regional quotas. I am a Labour politician. Could you control

and do this? I don't think it would work. It would work for particular

professions, but not geographical regions. It worked in Australia like

you talked about in the campaign. Are still for membership of the

single market or would you be happy with access? I don't think we should

rule anything out and I don't think the government... What would you

like? What I do like is the public were saying they wanted some control

over immigration and the binary choice we are offering, which is

between membership of the single market where there is full freedom

of movement, or out. I think it is potentially a false position and we

would be able to negotiate preferential access to the single

market while maintaining control over our borders. Where I would

disagree is I do not think the British public would accept an

arrangement which saw the continuation of free movement. I

think that would be problematic. We did say this would happen in the

remain campaign we did say one of the consequences of Lee vote, which

I respect the fact the public voted for, there would then be pressure in

different parts of UK. Do you accept your position is now imperilling the

union? We have got to make sure it doesn't. It wouldn't have done if

Leave hadn't have one. You could argue the Prime Minister should not

have called the referendum. Referendum always have a divisive

results, not just between the regions and we have got to make sure

the United Kingdom stays together. Thank you.

Now, plenty of developments in the Ukip leadership

So far seven candidates have declared their interest

In alphabetical order they are - Andrew Beadle, Bill Etheridge,

Suzanne Evans, Raheem Kassam, David Kurten, Paul Nuttall

Nominations close at midday next Monday, there will be a series

of hustings in the first two weeks of November and the new leader

will be announced in a month's time, on Monday 28th November.

Over the weekend three of the more prominent candidates were out and

about over the airways and this is what they had to say.

I think I'm absolutely the right person to champion the cause

of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave

the European Union and now seeing their democratic choice

So, I absolutely want to be their champion.

We are seeing hundreds of MPs trying to overturn the verdict,

we are seeing activists, lawyers trying to undermined

I want to say to them, don't you dare!

My job has been to be a very combative journalist.

My job is to be a little bit out there, a little bit you know,

get some attention, things like that.

But nowadays, 21st century, we live our lives in short bursts.

I've been a journalist, I've been a think tanker,

I've been a Comm director, I've worked for Nigel Farage.

You can be different people in your life.

I haven't sat here my whole life and gone, I want to aspire to be

a politician and therefore I'm going to carry myself

I have huge support out there across the country.

Not only amongst people at the top of the party,

in Westminster, with the MEPs, but also amongst the grassroots.

I want to stand on the platform as being the unity candidate,

I am not going to be on here and gild the lily,

Ukip at the moment is looking over the edge of a political cliff.

We'll either step off or it will step back.

I want to be the candidate that will tell us to come backwards.

Some of Ukip's leadership candidates touring the TV studios yesterday.

And we're joined now by prominent Welsh Ukip

Welcome to the programme. Are you going to declare and BB-8 Canada?

Yes, I have come on here to declare I am standing for the candidacy for

the leadership of Ukip. Not many viewers will know you. Tell us about

yourself bestial Mark I am an entrepreneur with a background in

mountaineering. My business mostly relates to adventurous tourism. I

have been a strong supporter of the work of Ukip since the early 1990s.

In fact, I only became a member fairly recently because in the past,

I was perfectly happy to play a background, supportive role. White

background? I believed there were talented people who were capable to

do what needed to be done, and we did prove over half the country

supports our basic foundation and premise. As you have admitted your

self, you are not that well-known, we have done some research. News

profile said last year you were a survival expert. One said when you

visited IKEA in Bulgaria, you persuaded the cashier to let you

carry your handgun in case terrorists besiege the building. No,

the man who wrote that rights for an audience who likes embellishment.

Which bit is embellished? I do competitive speed pistol shooting.

Of course, I was trained by the British Army to operate weapons. It

is a waste of taxpayer money if I don't maintain those skills. I have

access to Bulgaria. Did you have the gun on you in the store? Yes I did,

it was unsafe to hand over to security.

The story about laying siege to a building, quite simply, they said to

me, the reason they don't allow weapons in their is in case there is

an attack. I said, surely you want law-abiding people to be armed? Some

people might think that is quite an extreme position to hold in terms of

carrying arms. The profile says you are building a secure compound in

bulky area in case of a global meltdown featuring a church, a

leisure centre, firing range and a watchtower that will double as a

diving platform. Do you think you might struggle to convince enough UK

voters you're the man to lead Ukip? I really respect what you're doing,

I don't know who has assisted you with these questions. With all due

respect, I believe people are interested in why I'm standing. That

story was entirely exaggerated. If you have property and there are

animals around, of course you will secure the property. A secure

property simply means a garden with a wall. I'm sure you have that. I do

have a garden, I don't secure it in quite that way. People will want to

know about what sort of person you are. These reveal you in a certain

way and viewers can make up their own mind. What do you want to do

with Ukip if you win the contest? The situation we have, Ukip is at a

very severe crossroads. My understanding is all the other

candidates are jostling to take Ukip down a given path. It may look

obvious and straightforward but the end result is Ukip is going to end

up as just another political party where people work themselves into

positions of power to pursue their own agendas. What I'm proposing to

do is transfer power from the leadership to the membership. I

believe in a process known as direct democracy where the leadership does

not have any authority to move the party in any direction without

direct consent. Do you think with that platform you will beat some of

the more established candidates? It depends whether people in media are

willing to listen to my ideas or whether they want to trivialise it

with stories like this. I'm not sure that is trivialising it. Let's talk

about one of the other candidates. Paul Nuttall has spoken of his

experience of winning over Labour voters in the North of England. Is

he the man you are most worried about? I think Labour has got a

challenge in those areas, where they would not dream of voting for the

Tories and therefore Ukip would be a fallback position. What I think

Labour voters would look for is whether there's anything out there

which actually improves living conditions. Improve their skills, I

don't see at the moment that Ukip are that seductive. What about you.

The Conservatives could be saying, did we worry too much about Ukip a

few years ago? When you look at the infighting that has broken out. In

my party? In Ukip. Did you worry too much about them as a threat? I don't

think it was a worry about Ukip. Was a legitimate sense of the public

being promised a referendum on the EU and it was taken away and we

dealt with that. I still think that was the right thing to do even

though the result was not the one we want because I am a Democrat. I

think Theresa May, mounting a broad appeal to the whole country, is

taking the ground from under their feet. What is the point of Ukip when

the public have voted to leave and we have our Prime Minister pledging

to implement that? What is the point of Ukip? Can I please summarise my

understanding of the situation and what Ukip needs to be moving

forward? I will not deny that there is infighting. The situation with

Ukip is you have freedom fighters without an enemy. They just won the

last battle. When fighters don't have a common enemy they turn on

each other. Parachute Regiment. People going out during the week,

working hard and doing challenges together. On the weekend, with

nothing to do, they fight with each other. It is very common. What I

propose to do is direct the aggression towards the enemy. The

enemy is? Any kind of politics in Britain that does not represent the

will of the people. The politics that puts people into positions of

power to pursue their own agendas rather than the agenda that British

people give them. Let me push further on your background. You were

strongly criticised for the way that you were asked to respond to a claim

made by another Ukip candidate. You said a gay donkey tried to assault

your horse. Do you stand by that? It is interesting what you're doing. Am

trying to tell you my position and your trivialising it. It was playful

banter with activist. I would be so appreciative if you could understand

the concept I'm trying to communicate to your viewers,

according to the plan I have four Ukip, Ukip is going to grow. Right

now there is a very little reason to join Ukip. I would not be surprised

if we had less than 25,000 members. Are those the sort of answers you

would give as leader of the party, even in a frivolous way? I concede

it was a mistake to be playful with an activist in the street. I am not

a politician. He was asking me questions in the street. It was an

error of judgment. I was very early coming into politics. I'm sorry if I

offended anyone. Should Theresa May be thinking of calling a snap

election? She said she wouldn't and in doing so she would be exchanging

the certainty of another 3.5 years. It would give her a mandate for the

negotiation. She has a mandate for the British people that we're going

to leave. Although I can see that it might be temptation, that would be

the question, why run the risk of going for another five years when

you already have 3.5 with a workable majority? All right. Thank you very

much. The four month EU referendum

campaign was fought vigorously by both sides, indeed "All Out War"

is the title of a new book about the EU Referendum and we'll be

talking to it's author, But had the battle been lost

by the remain side before the campaign itself began,

because the deal that David Cameron came back with from Brussels didn't

live up to voters' expectations? Here's a reminder of those

months of EU diplomacy. When we have negotiated

that new settlement, we will give the British people

a referendum with a very simple in Britain, I know you want this

sorted, so I will go to Brussels, And when it comes to free movement,

I will get what Britain needs. The British people have

spoken and the answer is, The Sun has risen on an

independent United Kingdom. And just look at it,

even the weather's improved. I love this country and I feel

honoured to have served it. And I will do everything I can

in future to help this And we're joined now

by the author of "All Out War" and Sunday Times Political Editor,

Tim Shipman. Welcome to the programme. Your

thesis that David Cameron failed to meaningfully get anything out of

that the gauche Asian was the key to why he lost. -- negotiation. I think

that is why he lost. People think the deal was nothing much and that

made things easier for them. There is what happens during the campaign

and the context of 30 years of Euroscepticism, and a view across

the western world that globalisation has failed people. But if 600,000

people had voted differently we would have a different result and

there are a lot of things David Cameron got wrong during that

campaign that could have swayed some of those notes. Why'd you think he

thought he could dramatically reform the EU, bearing in mind 30 years of

Euroscepticism? It seems blindingly obvious they were not going to give

way on those key cornerstones of the EU. In terms of the practicalities,

he never put them on the spot. He asked them for certain things on

benefits. He never said we are going to leave unless you do this on

freedom of movement. It is very likely perhaps he would not have got

that but he never forced them to choose. Lots of other things went

wrong as well. He ran a campaign that replayed the Conservative

playbook from the Scottish referendum and from the general

election. He didn't have a proper campaign chief running the show. He

didn't have the press onside echoing his messages in the way they had

done previously. Ultimately, he put the unity of the Conservative Party

ahead of winning the referendum. It was tactical changes all the way

through. The unity of the party was what it was all about and he could

not have believed he would dramatically reform the EU. I agree

with the fundamental weakness being a policy or an answer on immigration

and if we had done then the result would have been significant. I think

the benefit changes were not enough to persuade the British people.

There were other elements of the deal that were quite significant but

it was impossible to persuade the public of that at the time. It is

worth pointing out that one thing that happened between David

Cameron's speech where he declared he wanted radical reform and that

negotiations which was the other countries deciding they did not want

treaty change. He was forced into a negotiation on things that would not

require treaty change, which meant it would be less radical. Which was

precisely the argument that George Osborne was making. He was violently

against holding a referendum and he thought it would divide the party

and there was a danger of it being lost. At the time treaty comes up

then we can have the argument. We did not have leveraged. He set a

timetable in advance and when it came to it, the rest of them were

worrying about the migration crisis and the continued problems. They did

not want to talk to us about Lisa Derrick concerns about sovereignty.

George Osborne was his closest ally, why was he not able to persuade

David Cameron against making that speech and holding the referendum?

Michael Gove was also making the same argument but Cameron had taken

the view that something must be done. The problem was he decided

something must be done, you had not worked out precisely how that was

going to work through. At that point he made that argument in 2013 it was

still five years away from when he thought it was going to be an issue.

A lot of people thought there was no way the Tories would have won the

2015 general election without making that pledge and perhaps the argument

would not have worked. If we'd had a different political environment,

Ukip were on course to win those elections, they could have won some

parliamentary seats. Were you with George Osborne on not holding the

referendum? I was urging we should hold it because we knew that there

was this groundswell of concern and that had been exacerbated by the

cancellation of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty when people felt

they had been betrayed. If you read what he said in his speech about

what was going wrong in Europe, it is faultless. The problem was the

package did not live up to the reforms that were needed. You could

just as easily blame our partners for not recognising the forces

present in this country and their own countries. You could blame them

but in the end... Expectations may have been raised far too high,

because you could not meet those demands. David Cameron was relying

on Labour getting more people out to vote in favour of remaining. If

there had been changed to immigration would you still have

voted that? If Cameron had recognition from the EU that they

could see some countries never been part of the single currency,

different relationships, I would have fallen silent.

The big error labour made is it gave itself as a remain party. There was

a debate about whether there would be a two speed Europe. Speed means

the same end point. Let's talk about Theresa May, now obviously as Prime

Minister. You say David Cameron wanted to go in with a tough

negotiating stance, but they didn't support him? There was this one

moment when he made a big speech on immigration which set the tone for

the rest of the immigration parts of the deal, which was a year in

advance. There was a meeting where David Cameron was pushing for an

emergency brake on numbers. Before and after the meeting, Theresa May

backed him. In the key meeting it transpired she and Philip Hammond

said you cannot go against Angela Merkel. If she is not going to

support this, they didn't see the point in doing it. It is a key

moment where things have turned. What does it reveal in terms of how

she will then carry out her negotiations now with Angela Merkel

and others? It shows she is quite practical and is also someone who

will probably be quite cautious about how she goes about things.

Will she capitulate? The politics are different now. When she was Home

Secretary, she could stay positions, but it wasn't her who was going to

be the person in the firing line. It's different when you are Prime

Minister and the buck stops with you. As a remain campaign, if

slightly half-hearted, Theresa May has got to prove to the Eurosceptic

she will take a tougher line, and so far that is what she's doing. A lot

of people in the Cabinet suspect she will be closer to Philip Hammond's

soft Brexit position than she is letting on, but at the moment she

has to stick to it. She knows if she doesn't deliver something that looks

like a robust departure from the European Union, her job is on the

line. That is different from David Cameron's job being on the line.

Gisela, he wrote about the 24, 48 hours ahead of Boris Johnson's

campaign collapsing Michael Gove's campaign. Did you think Boris

Johnson was up to the job of being Prime Minister? What I thought would

be a problem for the Conservative Party, they would end up in a

position similar to the Labour Party if they had a ballot paper with

Boris Johnson and Theresa May on. They would have had one candour that

the party members liked and another candidate the MPs would like. That

would have been their problem. Lots more to discuss, but at another

time. Then I will declare for the leadership of Ukip next time. It is

going to be a crowded room, isn't it?

It's going to desecrate the countryside, pollute water

supplies and contribute to climate change.

Fracking would be an environmental disaster no less, well that's

the view of most environmentalists, but not the former boss

of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, here's his soapbox.

I've spent the last 25 years campaigning on Green issues,

including five years as head of Greenpeace UK.

But there's one issue on which I think the Green movement

Here in the Lancashire countryside, the government has now given

permission to Cuadrilla to frack at Preston New Road.

That's a good start, but we need dozens more such sites.

Activist groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,

should stop opposing shale gas and start embracing fracking.

The reality is, Britain is facing an energy crisis.

And the number one environmental priority has to be to get rid

The government has said coal stations will close within the next

decade, but only if alternatives are available.

So green campaigners must support all the alternatives.

Anything but coal must be in the motto.

The best alternative is renewable energy such as wind.

But there is no way renewables can expand fast enough by 2025

Nuclear is also progressing very slowly.

Gas is a proven technology, only half as damaging

And most homes in Britain use gas for central heating.

Britain now imports gas from Norway and Qatar.

In Qatar, the gas is turned into liquid and brought by tanker.

That makes it about 10% more climate damaging than shale gas would be.

And there are very serious human rights campaigns about Qatar.

Shale gas, that can be extracted from rocks,

such as these on the Fylde Coast, offers a better option.

Fracking needs to be tightly regulated, as President Obama

And evidence now shows that fracking does not lead to the devastation

So, if we want to keep the lights on and stop burning coal,

it's time for green campaigners to stop saying "frack-off"

He's here in the studio with us now and we're joined from Blackburn

by the Anti-Fracking campaigner, Tina Rothery.

People will be amazed to listen to you in the green cause, promoting

fracking? Why must fracking be the answer? Fracking must be part of the

answer, not the whole answer but part of the answer. Because we are

still burning coal. It is much worse than any other option. As long as

you get rid of burning coal, gas is the way forward, do you not agree to

keep the lights on in the interim period until renewables are far

enough on? There is a great deal of infrastructure required. If Stephen

is talking about keeping the lights on, at what they does he feel they

are going out and how does he think fracking could meet that date when

to get a decent contribution to energy, it's going to be at least

ten to 15 years. Also, when Stephen spoke about it, fracking originally

when he started promoting it, he talked about when we had carbon

capture and storage. The government has blown that out of the water, so

surely his argument fails on that also. Also what about it won't be

online on time? It will come online more quickly, if green activists,

who have an important role in society, but shouldn't be beyond

criticism, if green campaigners started supporting fracking, it

would come online more quickly and that would enable us to get rid of

coal more quickly. The point about carbon capture and storage,

absolutely, I am doing everything I can to try and persuade the

government to bring carbon capture and storage back into the equation.

Then it would be possible to burn coal safely and gas safely. With the

right regulations and the sort of conditions Stephen is talking about,

what is your objection to fracking? We don't believe the regulators are

up to the tasks, we have seen Canada, America and Australia, their

regulators have let them down. We give 1.3 billion in tax breaks to

the fossil fuel industry but we are cutting them for renewables and we

are saving ourselves 67p households on what we save on putting renewable

subsidies. It isn't just the activists who are back the

production of new technologies, if the government would maybe give some

of those tax breaks to renewables, we could surge ahead and start

weaning ourselves of this old fossil fuel industry, that no matter how

you look at it, has an expiry date. Shouldn't you be taking your fight

to the government and pushing further ahead in the way Tina is

outlining to push renewables, which you do believe in. As opposed to

directing your fire at anti-fracking campaigners? I am picking plenty of

fights with the government. In regulation, the UK regulators are

better, they are not perfect. They need to be properly resourced, but

the Environment Agency is already requiring any fracking sites to be

properly closed down and not just left and any water that has been

used for water to be held in closed containers, not just in empty ponds,

which is what happened in The States. On the subsidies, tax breaks

or indirect subsidies, but the government currently gets no money

from tax on fracking because there isn't any fracking. If they were to

actually give money to fracking I would oppose that and I have said

that. But they are proposing a lower tax rate so they will get some tax

revenues, which should go to renewables. In the end, we have seen

the arrival of the first shipments of shale gas from the US, if we are

going to be importing it, why wouldn't it be better to have some

fracking Lancashire where it could create local jobs and help the

economy? From Pennsylvania, they begged us not to because it

encourages the industry in an already damaged area. The deal we

have for importing shale gas from America, I believe is a 20 year

contract that would be very hard to get out of. An industry like this in

our country, the requirement for silica sand is huge and that will

happen in Cheshire and that will rip be required to service the fracking

industry along with pipelines and infrastructure. We would put that

investment in that would put out in about ten to 15 years' time, would

last only a couple of decades then be closed down and then we will be

hearing about job losses. In Australia they recently banned

fracking because it would decimate agriculture and for every ten jobs

you get in fracking, you lose 18 in agriculture. That was a cross-party

five-year study that proves that. Nick Herbert, you are against

fracking in your constituency? I am not against fracking per se, I have

raised concerns about the impact on landscapes such as the South Downs.

There is an interest in protecting areas like the South Downs. The

issues, one is the below the ground issues, which can be dealt with. But

then there are the surface issues which require setting up the

wellhead and lorry movements. You would be happy for it in Lancashire

but not in West Sussex? There are already oil wells in West Sussex,

including my constituency. The question is whether they are

sensibly located that doesn't cause disruption to local communities or

damage to the countryside. It can be achieved if the industry is

sensible. Is it acceptable or is it NIMBY -ism? It is a bit of both. I

make no apology for wanting to protect the South Downs. That is the

role of a constituency MP. The wells have to be where there is shale gas.

It is better to have shale gas in the UK than imported, or import any

gas from Qatar where they have slave labour. I will have to say goodbye

to both of you. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was who was Ed Balls

advised not to try and emulate on Strictly Come Dancing this

weekend after he struggled I like the way he pushed her back

on. But that's it for today, thank you to my guests. Goodbye.

DINAH WASHINGTON: # Now you say you love me