02/11/2011 Newsnight

Tonight, as we come on air, the leaders of the eurozone are putting

extreme pressure on Greece to save the Euro-bailout and the euro

itself. The Greek Prime Minister is summoned to meet the French

President and the German Chancellor. Here at the G20 the Greeks have

been told, fine, have your referendum, but you won't get any

bailout money until that's over. The three-day debate on a no

confidence motion in Mr Papandreou's Government has started

here without him. So just as soon as he can extricate himself from

that French embroillio, he will have to dash back to at thens to

fight for his political life. will speak to the European

council's President's righthand man. How similar are the economic

problems of now to the Great Depression. The new head of the

Press Complaints Commission will tell us why his job is still worth

doing. And : # It's the end of the world as we

know tl Michael Stipe and Mike Mills on why the band REM split,

and why music and politics mix. Good evening, it is probably one of

the most difficult evenings of George Papandreou's political life.

This is the way it was supposed to go. Last week the eurozone leaders

finally saved the currency. This week the biggest economies on earth,

and the G20 would need in Cannes and use that as a springboard to

push the worldwide recovery forward. It was a great script until it was

thrown into the dustbin by Mr Papandreou's decision to hold a

referendum on the terms of their bailout. We begin tonight in Cannes,

where Greece's Prime Minister has been called in to see the head

teachers for a real caning. The press conference with Mr

Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel is still going on. It is not often you get

at one of these conferences a real and serious action. But they are

coming thick and fast in the last five minutes.

The EU has formally suspended the eight billion debt repayment due to

Greece that was agreed last week. Mrs Merkel said that there had been

a big change in the psychology. A dramatic change in the psychology

of the situation, because Greece called this referendum. She has

accused the Greek Prime Minister of playing poker, and said that the

Greek referendum question should be about in or out of the euro.

Something that the Greeks themselves are not, of course, keen

on. China has said that it's not interested in lending to the big

bailout fund, the one trillion euro EFSF, that is going to be aimed at

Italy. It is not interested, because with all this uncertainty

around who can value the risk, who can base a calculation of risk on

lending that kind of money. That is nice work for a country that wasn't

even invited to the Cannes G20 country. Greece, too small to be in

the top 20. The mood here, of course is very tense. It is still

on going tonight. I think the reactions are even now filtering

out and will do throughout the programme. Overall, there is a

feeling that the Greek situation can be contained. Because the

bigger situation with Italy, Spain and the rest of the world, does

beckon the attention of these leaders, afterall the world could

be on the brink of a double-dip recession. That is what they worry

about. All today, ins and outs here at Cannes, with world leaders being

told, get your act together they are under pressure to raise their

game. In diplomatic speak, they are

called Mer kozy, the two heads of state at the heart of Europe. When

they met the Greek Prime Minister tonight, an unexpected invitey, it

was not very cosy, because the Greek PM has basically spoiled

their party. Although Cannes is in full lock down mode, on the luxury

coastline it is some how hard to remember the world is in crisis.

They chose this place to focus on the big issues, growth, currencies,

the reregulation of the world. The summit's bim toll, 20 flags wrapped

- symbol, 20 flags wrapped around something sweet, but Greece has

soured things. Last Thursday Greece was offered a deal to write off 100

billion euros worth of debt, with banks agreeing to take 50% losses.

The price, years of austerity and control of economic policy handed

to outside experts. But Greece needs to roll over 20 billion euros

worth of existing debt by the end of January. With the referendum,

nobody's sure who will lend. In the French parliament the response was

blunt. TRANSLATION: You can't be in Europe to benefit from its

solidarity, and aside from Europe to escape the discipline that every

nation must consent to. Meanwhile, in Italy, there was an emergency

cabinet meeting tonight, because the bond markets are signals danger.

We knew the interest rates on Italy's long-term debts were

getting frightening, but look at the interest rates on 12-month

loans, usually below 1%. This is what's happened, it has spiked now

above 5% this week. And some fear that's a signal the Italian crisis

will imminently spill over into the banks, because this is the kind of

debts banks use for short-term business. Americans are already

telling Mr Berlusconi that you will not be able to sell your bonds for

the next few weeks or months at the punitive interest rates, they are

demanding, they don't trust you. Mr Berlusconi is enough of a business

person to know what that signal means. Then when his closest

friends, here at the G20, and in the G, say look, you have got to

promise and do grb G7, you can't just promise it, you have to do it

back home, and the young people have to have jobs, that is the only

way to grow your economy. I think Berlusconi will finally bite the

bullet and do it. It is hard to see it here amid the luxury of the

Riviera, but the world recovery is slowing, growth is down, and debt

up. Jose Angel Gurria, who runs the influential think-tank, OED, and

who will be in the talks, thinks it is crucial to sort out Greece and

then move on. Greece is unique in terms of the problems. We should

ring-fence it, referendum or not. We should really stop the contagion

and build the big firework. That might mean an even bigger bailout

to Greece, just to ring-fence it completely, otherwise why are we

sitting here worrying about it after a third of the debt is

written off already? Because the original sin was that we said, in

the beginning, two years ago, the future of Europe and the future of

the euro, is linked to Greece. Whatever happens to Greece happens

to all of us. That was obviously a mistake. Why is it that at summit

after summit, we pass resolutions, we pass action plans, but we never

see this structural question addressed? After spending a lot in

order to get out of the recession, into a feeble recovery, where did

that leave us? With huge deficits. And huge accumulated debt. More

than 100% debt to GDP in the OECD on average. And you still have 10%

unemployment, and you still have 20% unemployment of the youth, or

30% or 40%, you still have people all over the world occupying the

streets, occupying Wall Street or the City. They have pint haven't

they? Of course they have a point. - They have a point, haven't they?

Of course they have a point. That means no matter how tight the

budgets are we have to leave space for them and the things that are

the seedz of the future growth. the Greek crisis has centralised

the problem, the rest of the world has enough of things that don't

deliver growth. They have started to punish politics that don't

deliver it. Mr Papandreou's arrival here signals how fast things are

develop anything this crisis. Six months ago the arriving leaders

could have looked at Greece and said that is what you don't want to

happen. That is what happens when you lose control of your sovereign

debt. Now they look at Papandreou and think, that is what happens if

you lose control of your streets. And now, as a result of his

referendum call, Mr Papandreou seems to have lost control of the

very bailout he thought had saved him. I'm just noticing as you were

watching that report, that the Merkel press conference in Cannes,

Mrs Merkel is saying that the Greek referendum must ask does Greece

wish to be in the eurozone area. We will pursue that in just a moment.

The other part of the story is in Greece itself, where Mr

Papandreou's referendum could lead to harder times ahead. There is

really intense pressure on the Greeks, Mrs Merkel saying they are

playing poker, and effectively saying any referendum is an in-out

referendum? Yes, they couldn't be under any greater pressure than

they are already. Mr Papandreou's party fraying under the strain,

ministers going sick, all the rest of it. Of course we don't have a

response at the moment to what's just been said in Cannes. But it is

interesting that earlier today, Mr Papandreou's spokesman said quite

specifically, that this would not be a referendum on the euro in or

out. It was a referendum on the bailout package, and whether the

people were prepared to accept it and implicitly the sacrifices it

involves. It is interesting that they seem to have tried to head off

that line, before even he arrived at that time dinner in Cannes. The

other thing one can't help but think, is in the language of the

accusation from Chancellor Merkel tonight, of playing poker, that

there may be some indication of her own tactics in this supremely

difficult moment. Perhaps they are all playing poker, but perhaps it

is with other people's money. I notice that President Sarkozy is

saying we cannot spend European tax-payers' money if Greece doesn't

follow Brussels' agreement to the letter. How worried do you think

the people are in Greece that they are going to be seriously punished

for this referendum? There is this question of the eight billion euros,

that was supposed to be made available to them in mid-November,

to get them through the cry sifs trying to keep the economy afloat

here. - crisis of trying to keep the economy afloat here. This could

be the element of poker from Chancellor Merkel, is it a credible

threat to withdraw this money. This evening they seem to be saying in

Cannes, yes it is, this is not a deal you can pull apart and take

the candy and then throw the rest of it open to the referendum. But

many people in Greece will reflect that if that money is taken away,

just a week or two, potentially, before Greeks go to the polls, that

could have a disastrous effect on the course of the euro, and it

could actually trigger the implosion that France and Germany

are so desperate to avoid. So it will be fascinating to see whether

they really are in ernest about that threat, or whether some kind

of formula is put together, simply to get Greece through the crisis

that leads up to the referendum, assuming it still happens. Thank

you very much. The Greek decision to hold a

referendum on the bailout package, and the implications, are being

absorbed in every European capital. Joining me live is Alvaro Santos

Pereira, the Portuguese Finance Minister, and Richard Corbett. How

irritated are you in the EU leadership that Mr Papandreou has

made you look like fools? Well, on the one hand the EU, as you know is

not a centralised powerful authority, it is a union of

democracies, and democratic procedures in each member-state

have to be respected. But on the other hand, last week, when this

package was put together, that everybody thought was a key turning

point, there was no indication at that point from the Greek side that

this may well be put to a referendum. Which, whatever its

merits, prolongs the uncertainty for a long period of time. Indeed.

Triggering a return to market volatility, which is undermining

the whole process. Indeed, but it also shows the profound weakness at

the very heart of the EU, when you have a deal which is unravelled

within five days? Well, as I said, the EU is not a dictatorship, it is

a uefpb democracies, you have to work with - a union of demok

circumstance you have to work with the - democracies, and you have to

work with the countries in that. If Greece so chooses to put this deal

to a referendum it can. But you can also understand how others have

reacted to that. They thought there was a deal that could be enacted

quickly, that would already calm the markets, the initial effect was

very beneficial, it was well received, this puts that in

jeopardy. You can understand the reaction from other member states

to that decision. Do you now see, in the words of Mrs Merkel, that

has to be an in-out of the eurozone decision for Greece, however they

word it, that is what is at stake here for Greece? It is indeed

difficult to understand what a "no" would actually mean. Would they be

saying, no, this loan is not big enough, we want a bigger loan to

help us turn the corner, or are they saying we don't want any loan

at all, we can manage wout without assistance from the rest of the

Euro-- - eurozone. It is an odd situation to have a referendum the

leadership, at least, thinks there is only one possible answer. But

the people may well say we don't actually like that answer. But from

different perspectives, you won't have an answer to what they want

instead. Would you contrue this as an in-out - cons true this as an

in-out vote s that how you see it? The Greek Government will formulate

the question. You See the knock-on effect of a potential no-vote might

bring the question of Greece leaving the euro might be possible.

How do you view this Greek referendum? Good evening, for us

the Greek referendum obviously increases the uncertainty, and

increases volatility. On our part what we see is we are extremely

strongly committed to reform, we are strongly committed to fiscal

consolidation, we believe in a reform agenda that would bring,

would make Portugal a country that is more business-friendly, more

business orientated, with better labour laws, with new competition

laws just approved and under public consultation. It could all be blown

sideways? You may be doing all the right things, and with the angels

on this but the Greek decision means months of uncertainty for you

and the people of Portugal. The Greek decision increases the

uncertainty, on our part, what we can do is show the world we are

doing our best and doing whatever we can to maintain dialogue with

the trade unions, we have maintained also a peaceful

environment in Portugal, together we have had a very strong reform

agenda. That makes sure fiscal consolidation is made possible,

together with a growth agenda that is bringing large reforms to

Portugal, unequivocal reforms. suggesting, whatever you do, your

fate is in the hands of ten million people in Greece. It has nothing to

do with these greet reforms you may be doing. It has to - great reforms

you may be doing. It is to do with the Greek referendum going ahead

and whether it blows up the euro? We strongly believe by doing the

reform agenda we are doing, we will be able to stop any contagion that

might come about with the Greek situation. Even if they vote no.

strongly believe. For us it doesn't make sense to get out of the euro,

for several reasons, including the fact that our exports are growing

at 9% a year, they have been growing for quite a while, in the

last three or four years they are growing very well. So, for us the

euro, the impact of the euro has past passed, our exports are

getting stronger and the economy getting more stronger, it doesn't

make sense at all for us. Bringing in Mr Corbett again. You can

imagine if you were in the Chinese delegation, they will look at this

and think it is a complete shambles and not putting the Chinese people

as money in anything to do with Europe? I think that - the Chinese

people's money in anything to do with Europe? I think you have to

look much further than Greece. The package agreed last week was in

part about Greece, but also in part about building firewalls so make

sure there is no contagion from Greece to other states in the euro,

or the rest of the European Union. The increased capitalisation of

banks, increasing the fire power of the so-called bailout fund. That is

all designed to make sure there is no contagion from Greece. If you

were China you wouldn't put money into it? Those aspects are not

subject to the referendum in Greece, they still stand as part of the

deal. They are still there and should reassure potential investors

from other parts of the world. Thank you very much.

Let's go back to Paul Mason in Cannes, who has not just been

following tonight's events ahead of the G20 Summit tomorrow, but also

looking at some of the lessons of history. We thought two years ago

we had avoided a repeat of the Great Depression. We spent

thrillions of digging ourselves out of the Lehman Brothers - trillions

digging ourselves out of the Liam man brothers crisis. Required

reading, the economic history of the early 1930s, that period is the

period that shows us what happens if the - if during the crisis you

enter, as we have done tonight, the finger-pointing stage, the blaming

stage, and the competitive exit out of the crisis stage. I have been

looking at what the parallels are, what we can learn, and how we can

avoid repeating it. The depression of the 1930s began in Wall Street,

with the share price crash. How did it get from Wall Street to the rest

of the world. That is the story of a cross-border

banking crisis, social unrest, countries reneging on their debts,

and the breakdown of an international currency system. If

that sounds familiar, it should. What is haunting the world's

leaders, as they prepare for the G20 Summit is a repeat of the early

1930s. In the 1930s there was a great

fracturing of globalisation. So countries which had been used to

co-operating with each other in a number of ways, all took to doing

their own thing. They took to doing their own thing politically and

economically. The world that collapsed in 1931

was a glilt glittering, ultra modern world, the economic recovery

of the 1920s had produced Art Deco, luxury for the masses, and for the

elite, as with this family and its purpose-built deco mansion, what

could possibly go wrong. The 1920s had seen rapid

technological advance, when the crisis started it looked like just

a blip, what had produced all this was a global system of trade and

currencies based on gold. But in the fight to safe that system, they

would destroy almost everything else. One of the things that

happened in the 1930s was the very mechanism which people focused on,

which they thought would promote globalisation, actually was a

contributor to its end. The gold standard was a system of

fixed exchange rates that obliged Governments to balance their books

long-term. But in the worst-hit countries, once the downturn

started, sticking to gold forced Governments to make austerity worse.

Today some worry what happened with the gold standard could happen with

the euro, here again, adherence to the rules is forcing some countries

to impose harsh austerity. And even as the streets erupt, the European

political class has convinced itself that nobody can leave the

euro. The thing about Europe is the

single currency, and the way that all these 17 countries are tied

together by one exchange rate. The parallel with the early 1930s is

clearly the gold standard, where some countries believe that the

gold standard was the basis for prosperity. The reality was that it

was imposing enormous deflation on some countries and the UK was one

of the first to break-away. Britain's exit from gold in 1931

forms a case study in how events can confound a currency peg. First,

the Labour Government collapsed over the levels of austerity

required to stay on gold. And then, amid defence cuts, the Royal Navy

mutinyed. Those particular spending cuts led to parts of the Royal Navy,

fearing that they would have very large salary cuts, and there was a

mutiny, which included the flagship of the Navy, The Hood, this, in

mid-September 1931 triggered a very widespread panic, people thought

there might be a coup and all kinds of things, and international

investors really panicked in respect of the UK. And the

Government quite soon after gave up on the attempt to hold the gold

standard. When Britain came off gold, the establishment were so

shocked that one former Labour minister said, we didn't know you

could do that. Germany and Japan came off gold in the same year, and

the industrial output showed those who ran for the exits first,

recovered first. The depression of the 1930s was felt worst by those

countries that were last to abandon their commitment to the global

system. America, and France. Of course, we know what happened,

within a decade the big powers were engaged in trade wars, currency

wars, land grabs, and ultimately military conflict.

And the problem today is you can just see the beginnings of some of

that. When the USA decided on a second

round of qeesing, QE-2, the result was to boost inflation in the

rapidly developing countries like bra still. Bra still's Finance

Minister called it economic war and re- Brazil's Finance Minister

called it economic war. Japan, fearing its exports would be hit by

a weaker dollar, intervened to weaken its own currency,

Switzerland did the same, Japan did the same this week and so did

Argentina, that has led to some fearing the break up of

globalisation, others to welcome it. I don't think there is a danger

with retreating from globalisation. Globalisation has led to a lot of

problems causing the credit crunch, we have to ask is this what we want,

a world dominated by large companies with weak labour power.

It is not a level playing field at the moment. You have Asian

Governments gaming the system which manipulating the exchange rate.

last week's euro deal injected, potentially, more friction into

that argument. Europe needs to borrow a trillion, but when the man

doing the borrowing turned up in China, with his begging bowl, he

was told stop criticising us over currency, and then we will see.

In the early 1930s, even as the global economy slid towards break

up, the band played on. This was a world in which radio was growing

rapidly, the movies were beginning to talk, public morals were getting

loser. - looser. Today it seems impossible that our

global system could disappear, so much of our culture is bound up

with it. Their's did. Within a decade, the whole world of jazz,

loose morals and modern art was gone.

There is no legal justification whatever for France not paying the

current installment of $20 million on her debt to us.

Two things drove the break up, debts that had become politic sized,

and social unrest. - politicised, and social unrest.

On the streets, once unrest brokeout, it proved impossible for

politicians to resist, and national route out of the crisis. This time

around, free market economists have been at the forefront of defending

globalisation, but now some are beginning to see the possibility of

retreat. Do you think it is realistic for us to still be

talking about a global, multilateral solution to this

crisis? I think it is both unrealistic and if it were it would

be a mistake. I think it would be better at this stage for us each to

look to our own ramparts, each try our own thing, and if we see

something is working better somewhere else than what we have

tried we can copy them. If you wait too long and end up doing your own

thing, you do your own thing in an environment in which the

populations and the politicians who turn up as their spokesman, blame

international co-ordination for the events. They will say, we have been

forced, by the Germans or the Americans, or the IMF or the UN, to

do things this way, and part of our identity now is that we are against

them, the enemy. In Greece, that's already happening.

But the occupy protests too, though international, are each putting

pressure on national Governments to act. Here again, say the economists,

there are lessons from history. should not underestimate the social

and economic peril of neglecting the moral aspect of policy. If

people are subject to injustice for long enough, they will ultimately

reject that and the political consequences can be terrifying.

1934 the San Francisco industrial strike, this is worse than the

world war. Today we are a lot richer than in the 1930s, that

should cushion the blow. But the social cohesion is lower. To a

generation whose future has been cancelled, it will be of little

comfort that things were worse back then.

In the last few minutes, Mr Papandreou has been speaking, and

he has been quite defiant. I believe it is crucial that we

show the world that we can live up to our obligations. We can live up

to these obligations, and this is crucial for our future

participation in the eurozone. telegraphic though that statement

scenes, it does contain a message, it tells the world that what Mr

Papandreou is trying to do in Greece is to convince the Greek

people to take the bailout, to take the conditions which involve having

foreign civil servants inside their own ministries, and to stay inside

the eurozone. It is telling Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy this is a

gamble, I'm taking on your behalf, to try to convince the Greek people.

It is saying, in other words, it is not to the cynical, a gamble in

which I end up being chucked out of power, and therefore I don't take

the blame for the disaster. I think that was a very clear message there

from Mr Papandreou. Thank you very much.

After their handling, or non- handling of the newspaper hacking

scandal, the Press Complaints Commission has appeared more or

less friendless, a toothless poodle, according to Ed Milliband, a

failure and we need a new system entirely, according to David

Cameron. Now the PCC has a new chairman, Lord Hunt, does it have a

future. We will ask Lord Hunt in a moment. First, how the PCC hit the

headlines for all the wrong reasons. The phone hacking scandal destroyed

Britain's biggest-selling newspaper, News of the World. It still

threatens the Murdoch empire. Hello it is Glenn. How are you.

Just a quick one, voice mail reset on Gordon Taylor, it has Tottenham-

related issues there. Many believe it will soon claim the scalp of the

regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission too. The PCC

has been absolutely shocking in terms of any pretence of regulating

the press. They just haven't done it. If you examine the time line

behind the phone hacking story, then the weight of evidence against

the PCC becomes embarrassingly clear. It reveals an organisation

totally dependian on the good will and operation of those it is

regulating. It also shows that those trying to blow the whistle

were wrong, and it gave the impression of a body trying to shut

down the story. For the PCC the challenge began in 2006 with the

arrest of News of the World's private investigator Glenn Mulcaire,

he had been working with the royal correspondent, Clive Goodman,

hacking phones. The Police swung into action and interviewed the

suspects, the regulatory body said it was one rogue reporter, this

satisfied the PCC. Later the PCC would write it was not its reblit

to replicate the police investigation to establish other

transgressions, so no powers of investigation, no powers of audit,

all was well in the best of all possible worlds. In 2009 the

Guardian revealed other journalists had known about the phone hacking.

Once again the PCC swung action to investigate, and published a report.

That report concluded there was no substantial evidence to support

that and that it had not been materially misled. Indeed, a week

later, when giving evidence to the society of newspaper editors, the

chair said new evidence had emerged from a Metropolitan Police

detective. Who said that the number of victims of phone hacking was

just a handful, not the thoughs referred to in evidence by leading

phone hacking lawyer Mark Lewis. Not only did you go along with the

News of the World lying that it was only one rogue reporter, not only

did you implicitly attack the Guardian. You are not hearing your

answers, you ignored my answers. You then attacked the lawyer to

testified to the Commons that 6,000 people had been hacked. I didn't

attack the lawyer, I'm not going into that. You had to apologise and

pay costs, correct. They ended up paying damages and my legal costs.

They certainly didn't understand the full nature of the hacking

scandal? Not only did they not understand it, they didn't bother

to look at it and get evidence. They were more concerned it seems

in pleasing the crowd and the pay masters rather than investigating

the problem. Shortly after that interview, Baroness Buscombe

announced she was stepping down. Her successor will have to decide

if the PCC has lost so much credibility it can no longer

command respect, or whether it is possible to strengthen the

commission as part of reform. Lord Hunt here, the new head of the PCC.

It sound from that worp that you are worse than useless, because you

give a fig leaf of respectability to those newspapers? My job is not

to look at the past, but to start with a blank sheet of paper and

work out the best possible system for the self-regulation, the

independent self-regulation of the press, that will command the

confidence of the public. You don't start with a blank sheet of paper,

you start with a Levison inquiry, not about the past but the future.

You have to deal with that. Every single thing we have heard there

suggests the PCC, if you like, are a union for newspapers who serve on

the PCC The way I see it, I have just arrived, I have been given a

blank piece of paper, I sense a mood for fundamental reform. It is

my job now to work out what is the best possible structure.

puzzled by the blank sheet of paper thing? There isn't one? There is

for me. The past of the PCC doesn't matter? I'm suggesting you the

future, if you you have got one, does matter, and the Levison

Inquiry could say you are useless, as the Prime Minister and the

leader of the opposition have said? What I would like to do is this,

Lord Justice Levison has this inquiry, he's looking into a whole

range of areas of policy, the ethics of the whole of the press

regulatory system. What I would like to do is fill in my blank

piece of paper, listening to everyone, taking account of all the

concerns, some of which you have just expressed. And then present

Lord Justice Levison with what I believe to be the solution. It is

then up to him to decide whether that is adequate or not. But I'm

going to do everything I can to produce the right result. That is

very interesting, you also said a regulator, or self-regulator, is

that how you see yourself, you would want to be a regulator,

because the charges, - the charge is, you are not? I think one of the

reasons I have been asked to do this job s I'm a lawyer. I have

been with my law firm for 46 years, OK 35 years in parliament, but I

have very understanding partners. I specialise in regulatory law. What

I have to say straight away, in answer to the question you have

raised, is that the PCC is not a regulator. Should it be? There

needs to be a regulator, now another two bodies, the editors

code committee, which actually, if you read the code, it is an

excellent code, the sort of code that the late David Calcott wanted

the press to endorse. Two years after he stepd set up the PCC, he

said it wasn't strong enough or working. The point is systemic

failure, I know you don't want to look back at the past, but as a

regulator, you wouldn't go and regulate anybody by saying what do

you think, OK, fine, would you expect it your self. That has to

change or the PCC will go, won't it? I was in the cabinet that

received the first of the reports and then the second. I approach

this with two fundamental beliefs, first of all in self-regulation,

and secondly in freedom of the press. I think that is one of the

greatest assets we have. It carries with it, not only the right for

free expression, but also the heavy responsibility. I have got to try

to find the structure that will restore public confidence in the

whole system. You are not there to be the last PCC chairman, are you.

That is the implication? That is still to be decided, if there is an

appetite for fundamental reform. I would hope we would see the

existing work of the PCC, a lot unrecognised, which has been very

effective in dealing with complaints. But I want to see a

regulatory system, which does require renewal and regeneration. I

will do my best. Thank you very much.

To their fans they have always proved very popular right here in

Britain. News that REM are spliting up after 1 years was a real moment

of sadness. Their music - 31 years a real moment of sadness. Their

music is called alternative right, but it is also a political voice

throughout the world. Our report talks about why it really is the

end of the world as we know it. # Shiny happy people

The men from Athens Georgia, weren't your typical rock stars. As

Rolling Stone Magazine said, they lived in some weird town nobody

ever heard of, they didn't play power chords, they probably

couldn't even spell spanned decks. Massive - Spandex. Massive stardom

sat uncomfortably on REM shoulders. Unlike Bono, when you see him out

in his leathers waving a flag, someone who looks to the manor born,

it never looked quite that, rather like Morrisey in the Smith, they

looked like they could do it, but never looked as comfortable doing

it. In Michael Stipe he had a rock man, who subverted what the rock

frontman was, more Quentin Crisp than Rock Viking.

# Kaufman in the wrestling match # Yeah, yeah, yeah.

REM took traditional American rock feel, and gave it a reading list.

Their songs could be about subjects as ease sow teric about the

troubled sitcom star, Andy Kaufman as in Man On The Moon.

This was alternative rock. M it's the end of the world

- # It's the end of the world # As we know it

You could say the same of the causes REM championed.

Members of the band have campaigned for environmental, feminist and

human rights causes, and to encourage voting. But are they for

real, or just celebrity liberals, as some have claimed. For a while

they were lumped in with the charity aristocracy, I think they

always remained true to a slightly esoteric and leftfield agenda.

Stipe aligned himself with any number of causes, he genuinely

believed in them, that is not to say anybody else didn't. You

certainly felt his heart was in them rather more than Sting, shall

we say. To take a liberal agenda, quite an

explicitly liberal agenda and fill American rock stadiums with it and

the radio, is no mean feat, it they have remained a constant in

American conscience in the way that politicians haven't.

idiosyncratic REM marked their break-up, not with fights and writs,

but with a new video featuring Kirsten Dunst, was it that

difficult 16th album, or did they chuck the towel in after David

Cameron picked their Perfect Circle for his desert island disc. Was

there a moment when you thought that's it, it's over? It was a long

moment. Two years worth. We took a long time to figure out we wanted

to call it a day and disband. you could go on, separate for a bit,

come back for a bit, other bands do it, why? Because it was an

opportunity for us to walk away on our own terms, which is something

that, as far as I know, very few bands, certainly that have been

around for any length of time, have had the opportunity to do. There

are no external forces making us do this, we have no problems.

don't hate each other? No. We can walk away as friends and feel like

we have accomplished everything we wanted to accomplish. We touched on

the politics there, going back to the Reagan administration, you

spoke at the Clinton inaugural in 1993, how important was that for

you, and does it mix with the music? That was a moment for

America, we had been through 12 years of what I thought were the

darkest political years of my country. In my lifetime. We had no

idea that Bush and Cheney were on the horizon, they trumped his

father. But to be able to welcome in someone who was relatively

liberal-minded or at least moderate, as the Clinton administration

started out to be, it was a great moment for America. This is a great

moment for politics, isn't it, therefore, presumably for political

song writing, I know some of you in your songs have touched in and out

of it. This is great moment for it right now? It is easy to write

about politics in the opposition, when you are the underdog and you

are angry at what's going on. Eventhough we are huge fans of

President Obama, the fact is, he has been stymied in so much of what

he wanted to do by the minority, which seems inherently unfair to us,

and just as irritating as having the majority being the problem.

are not abandoning President Obama, and would support him next year?

absolutely. He's in trouble isn't he? He's in trouble, this is my

opinion, nothing more. He won't say up front that the administration

that he followed screwed things up so badly, and that he and his

administration had to clean up the mess. And I wish he would just say

that. But it seems unpresidential to do so. When you have toured

around the world for many years, very popular here, as we have said,

do you notice how views of America and Americans have changed since

you have started touring. In other words, how popular are Americans

and how popular is America now? think it is better than it was

certainly when we first started coming over here. There were the

civils being placed around, we were the lighten - cuefls being placed

around, and we were - cruise missiles being placed around and

Westminster the face to complain to when we were here. General America

is perceived a little better than when we started out, it is a

neverending struggle and it doesn't get better in the big picture.

important is it when anybody who is a celebrity in any field gets

involved in causes, your causes have been Darfur and domestic

politics. Does that actually help or not? I think it does, people

have come up to me over the course of 32 years we have been together

as band and said I was an aimless 17-year-old and I heard this song

or saw this show and I'm an environmental lawyer, thank you for

helping influence my life choice. Stuff like that happens, more often

than you would think. That makes me feel, as a public figure, like our

actism, although it might turn off some fans because they might have a

different opinion, I think it is important to feel like you can

express yourself. But is there a problem when you are one of the

biggest rock bands in the world doing that kind of thing. Sometimes,

for instance, Sting and Bono, not entirely popular with some people

because of that? You certainly risk alienating people. As a human being,

I have to get up and look at myself in the mirror in the morning. And

what I live for is not to be popular with everyone, but to be

true to what I believe in and what I feel. If that involves using our

platform to make political statements and potentially

alienating a certain portion of the audience, that is something we have

to do any way. When are you getting back together again? We are not.

Thank you for asking. When is the hell freezes over tour going to go

on? It is over. Sad? It is bitter sweet, it is strangely liberating.

Oddly liberating, we feel very comfortable with what we have done.

Today's protest, the Occupy Wall Street, fans of that? Absolutely,

yes. Let's get a quick last word from Paul in Cannes at the G20.

In the last 60 minutes effectively what has happened is the deal done

in Brussels last week has been put on hold. Greece won't get the eight

billion bailout money it was due, until the referendum, it is fairly

clear that the G20 leaders are accepting that Mr Papandreou wants

the referendum, and we are being told he will try to go for it in

December, possibly as early as the 5th of December. This could all

change by Friday, he has to get it through the Greek parliament. But

ultimately, there is a bit of poetic justice, the Greek crisis,

at the root of all the other crises going on in this town, will be

resolved by the Greek parliament and the Greek people.

That is all from Newsnight tonight, more from Kirstie tomorrow, good

Good evening, few of us will be completely dry overnight. Outbreaks

of rain in the north and the east. Northern England and Scotland,

conditions will improve during the day. A scattering of showers across

the west and south initially. Developing a bit further inland.

Some showers puorning into the back of northern England for the end of

the afternoon. Much of the wet start will be dry and bright. There

is that threat of showers anywhere across central and southern areas,

some heavy, some of of the wetter conditions across East Anglia and

the south-east. It looks as if across South-West England and Wales,

the big threat of showers should be in the afternoon. Brighter weather

throughout the day despite the continuing threat of showers. For

Northern Ireland the heaviest of the showers again for the afternoon,

a few rumbles of thunder too, the brighter spells, 15-16, same sort

of values across Scotland, showers in the west of Scotland, but to the

north and east it will be a brighter second half of the day.

From Thursday into Friday, again some outbreaks of rain, Friday, you

can see the city forecast, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not many

showers to speak of, compared to further south, outbreaks of rain on

Thursday, Friday looking that little bit brighter, but there will

be slow-moving, heavy and thundery showers. Those showers will be at