27/06/2014 Newsnight

Well that went well, the new President of the European Commission

is a card-carrying, Cognac swilling, fully paid up member of the Brussels

federalist establishment. Where is your reform agenda now Mr Cameron?

If I say I'm not going to back down, I won't. This is going to be a long,

tough fight, and frankly sometimes you have to be ready to lose a

battle in order to win war. Conservatives old and new will be

here to tell us what the Prime Minister does for an encore.

Who gives you the visual truth in the age of Photoshop and cosmetic

surgery, the snapper with the camera or artist with the brush. 25 years

ago portraits were so far out of fashion that there was genuine

debate about them becoming extinct. I believe in a snapshot saturated

world, people are looking to the artist to reveal something deeper

about their subject. And Dylan Thomas. Now as I was young and easy

under the apple bough, about the looting house and happy as the grass

was green... He's not quite as good as that one, but we have a

newly-discovered Dylan Thomas poem, who better to give it its first

outing than the man who played him, Tom Hollander.

One Tory MEP said it marked the beginning of the end of Britain's

membership of the EU, even David Cameron admitted that his desire for

a more semi-detatched relationship with Europe had just got heard. The

elevation of Jean-Claude Juncker, the epity -- epitomy of everything

Tory euro-sceptics despise about Britain, this didn't just leave the

Prime Minister an outsider in Europe, but it threatened to

undermine his whole European referendum strategy.

The commission is the mothership of the European project. Employing

33,000 civil servants and producing myriad regulations. Little wonder

that the battle over who should run it became such an emotive one for

the British Prime Minister. But today, he had to leave Brussels,

having seen his plans to stop Jean-Claude Juncker thwarted, with

all the Jean-Claude Juncker thwarted, with

his Europe policy. Today's Jean-Claude Juncker thwarted, with

is nod the one I wanted, frankly it makes it harder and the stakes

higher. This is an important stand but it is far from being the last

stand. My colleagues on the European Council know that I'm deadly serious

about EU reform, that I keep my word, that if I say I'm not going to

back down, I won't. This is going to be a long, tough fight, and frankly,

sometimes you have to be ready to lose a battle in order to win a war.

As the weeks before this encounter ticked by, it became clear that only

Hungary would embrace Mr Cameron and his vocal objection to Juncker. That

Government too is under take from the right, and together they found

themselves isolated today. There has definitely been progress in the

sense of gathering allies on the continent, but when things go really

into an important stage and there is a forcing of countries to choose

between Britain and Germany. Countries will choose Germany. Dane,

Swedes, Dutch and Finns who have some time allied with Britain over

the case for change of late were picked off by Germany. When they

came here those customary Cameron allies were already sending a

message that the Juncker fair was over and it was up to the British to

get back into the persuasion business as soon as possible. I

believe that the UK needs to come back and Europe needs the UK to be

part of us, I very much hope that after today we can get back on track

where the UK is an important partner and influential partner in the

European Union. And the British leader actually followed their

advice in this sense. He stood back from a nuclear option of saying he

would now Campaign for an exit from the EU, instead arguing that the

communique words recognising his request for reform were an

achievement and it would go on. The Prime Minister himself made it very

clear, one, he wants Britain to stay in the European Union, two, he has

plan and a strategy that should be so, three, that the council should

take into account the concerns and anxieties he has expressed. Mr

Cameron has set today's events in a proud tradition of Conservative

defiance to the European federalists. But there are some

inconvenient facts arising from Mr Juncker's appointment. It has shown

the power of the European Parliament, reinforced by the Lisbon

Treaty. And, of course, Britain and Hungary were outvoted by a majority

of other European countries on this. There could be no British veto.

The path awaiting the British PM is unchartered. Being a solitary voice

in Brussels may work well for him at home, but here, with majority

voting, it is not a good place to be. We have the Vice President of

the centre right European People's Party in the European Parliament. Mr

Juncker was their candidate. She joins us from Germany? You have been

dining with some leading supporters of Mr Juncker tonight, were what

were they saying about the British Prime Minister? Well, what I hear

most is concern, I think we would all like to have a European Union

with Britain in it rather than out, so we look with concern to what's

happening in the UK? Where does that leave Mr Cameron's hopes for reform

and chances of repatriating powers from Brussels back to London. . Well

I actually was elected in the Netherlands partially on that

agenda. We would like the European Union to focus on key taxes and not

on the level of detail we would seen in the past. I would be quite happy

for the UK to weigh their fruits and vegtables in pounds and ounces and

us in kilograms. That is not the key issue Europe should be about. We

share part of the same agenda, but you need to be in Europe to change

it. But nobody really wanted Mr Juncker, not even Mrs Angela Merkel

wanted it, at least Mr Cameron was honest? Well, I doubt that. Actually

it only makes sense that you take into account the result of the

European elections. The UK virtually invented parliamentary democracy. It

only makes sense to make sure that the biggest party in the European

Parliament has a say about the kind of leader they want in the European

Commission. Now he might not be the sexiest man alive, but he can get

things done in Europe on this, in my view, hopefully reform agenda. But

the way Britain voted in the European elections and the way

France voted in the European election, they don't want to go down

Mr Juncker's route? Well we have the same issues and the same challenges

in the Netherlands, we have a strong extreme right party that would

rather get out of Europe. My party makes the analysis that for the

Dutch citizen it is better to be in Europe. But a Europe that is

focussed on key tasks. Now the debate in the UK will have to be the

same. Is it in theritish interests to be part of Europe, although

reformed, or do we want out. That is not something we decide in the

European Parliament, that belongs in the British national parliament.

Explain this to British people, the European elite has run Europe into a

financial crisis, economic stagnation, mass unemployment of

Europe's youth, and yet you choose as your new President the epitomy of

that elite, why? I come from a small member-state, and we know that it's

better to be in some issues together rather than alone. Look at trade

negotiations, there are important trade negotiations coming up with

the United States. It is always more comfortable to negotiate on behalf

of 28 countries rather than one. It makes your weight in the world

bigger. And that is the challenge for the 21st sent treatment how do

we make sure that Europe, we're only going to be 5% of the world's

population at the end of the century, that we're prepared for

this age of globalisation. That is the challenge. And sometimes you can

do that alone and we would like to do that nationally, but sometimes

better with allies. Interesting answer gut butt not the question.

My guests join me now. The press tomorrow saying this takes Britain

one step closer to the exit, do you agree? It might be but I'm not

convinced. What happened today was Angela Merkel and other heads of

Government wanting to avoid conflict with the European Parliament, that

was the fundamental machine why Angela Merkel changed her position,

which was originally to support a wider selection of candidates. When

it comes to the renegotiation there is a much more fundamental issue at

stake. Will the other member states be content to see the second-largest

member of the European Union forced into a situation where it leaves the

European Union. My judgment, for what it is worth, is for all sorts

of different reasons, there is hardly a single country in the EU

that wants the UK to leave, that will influence, if David Cameron

puts forward a whole series of proposals that can be considered for

the UK, without doing fundamental damage to other European countries,

that will be the basis of a successful negotiation. Mr Cameron

lost 26-2, needs to win 28-0 for any major repatriation of powers to take

place. It is mission impossible? You say that, but this was about a

different issue. A simpler issue? Forgive me, this was an issue on

which it was safe for the other heads of Government to disagree with

David Cameron, to reject his view, because that way they avoided a

major row with the European Parliament, which at this point in

time was more important to them. If they do not make the best effort

they can. I'm not predicting success. What I'm saying is if they

do not make a genuine effort to actually make contact with the

British position and try to understand UK concerns, then they

know what follows. There will be a referendum in the UK, and the UK

would then possibly leave the European Union, for various reasons,

nobody wants to see that happen. How do you rate the Prime Minister's

chances of major reform? In terms of an overall of the European Union

plainly, that has been shot down in the most visible way this afternoon.

The idea that the European Union is going to start a massive

decentralisation of power is falsified by what has just happened.

Mr Juncker campaigned quite openly, quite honourably for a United States

of Europe. He wants a European citizenship where we vote in each

other's general election, an army, a police force. He has been given a

mandate to address Britain's concerns, it is not all over? It is

possible Britain goes for a Swiss-type deal where we are only in

the free market and outside everything else. If you want to

dress that up as associated status, and it is called Private limbed

partnership or associate partnership. If we get that I'm not

fussed about what it is called. The idea there will be a general

loosening of the European Union, it is not that I think it will happen,

Angela Merkel came out of the meeting today and said in her press

conference, ever closer union must apply to all 28 member states. She

said it didn't have to apply at the apply to all 28 member states. She

same speed. He mentioned the German Chancellor, Mrs Angela Merkel told

David Cameron she didn't want Mr Juncker and then buckled under media

and political pressure. How can he trust her again? You have 28

democratically elected Prime Ministers with domestic

constituencies. I said a few moments ago what David Cameron must seek to

do is achieve reforms that meet the British concerns without imposing

anything on other EU members. What we are talking about should include

elements of repatriation, but that is not all. One of the most

important objectives has to be as the Dutch Prime Minister has said,

we are at the end of the days of ever-closer union. What we need is a

system whereby those countries, like Germany, wish to integrate further

have a right to do so, but countries like the UK, Sweden, Denmark and

others, who don't want, don't have to negotiate opt-out, they have an

equal right to say that kind of European Union is not the one we

wish to be part of. I want to look at the politic of this, what would

the Tory Party response be, if Mr Cameron came back, if he wins the

election and does the negotiation, with only cosmetic changes to our

current terms, and said we should still stay in. What would happen in

the Tory Party? I can't speak for the Tory Party, I can only speak for

me. I would of course vote to come out in that situation. And what you

have just described has been the Foreign Office policy up until now,

to make the minimal changes they think they can get away with, to do

Harold Wilson and come back and oversell it and pretend we have now

great new deal. That policy was aborted today. It is now an

impossible sell for anyone to come to the British electorate and say

there is a whole new deal. There is only two option, one we vote to

leave, the second is vote some kind of semi-detatched status peculiar to

us and we are only in the free market. Do you think we are more

likely to head to the exit? Yes. Mr Cameron's nightmare is this that he

doesn't get any changes and he still says we should stay in. That would

split the Tory Party down the middle, wouldn't it? Whatever

happens that is not going to happen. Why? I will tell you why. The

French, the Germans, all the smaller countries, for different reasons,

are very anxious that the whole European project would be derailed.

They have They have a funny way of showing it. This was a particular

disagreement about an individual's appointment, that has very little

significance in long-term history. Ultimate decisions are not taken by

the President of the Commission but heads of Government. Do you think

there will be enough to appease Tory backbenchers. Daniel is a hardline

euro-sceptic, what he might call cosmetic is not necessarily what

most reasonable people would he see see.

We are talking about the Tory backbenchers? We are talking about

the British electorate who will define this. It is ridiculous to see

this as a Tory split story, it is about the country, we have a

fundamentally different vision of Europe, I don't think David Cameron

or the Conservative Party are unusual. We get it all the time in

our constituency surgeries. We want free trade and collaboration and not

merger. If David Cameron came back with something that was obviously

cosmetic that would be rejected I in judgment by the British public, and

might even be by David Cameron himself. I think there are solid

substantial reforms that could be made which would not be cosmetic,

which would protect the United Kingdom from further integration

that we do not want and would enable us to achieve a European Union which

the UK, so far as its level of integration could be comfortable

with. Suppose you are wrong and Mr Cameron only gets cosmetic changes,

would you vote to stay in on current terms of membership? I would have to

make a judgment at that stage. You know what the current terms of

membership are? If the vote was tomorrow I would vote to stay in.

Based on the current terms? Iternally would, yes. If the choice

was because I think there is enough benefit for the UK to justify that

decision. But that doesn't mean I would want a renegotiation. There

are many issues of reform I would want to see. I think he will come

back with something substantial, time will tell. Europe is the only

continent on the planet shrinking economically, we need to raise our

eyes to more distant horizons and locations.

Thank you very much gentlemen. Now London state schools used to be a

bi-word for mediocrity and underperformance, now the capital is

the best place in England to go to school, especially from a poor

background. We are not exactly sure why. Maybe, just maybe the answer is

about teachers' love lives. Grange Hill is London's most famous school,

but were it running today it would look very different. That is because

the capital's schools have, in the past decade emerged as comfortably

the country's best. And, this month three separate reports are being

published on why. The success of London's schools is enormously

important for the rest of the country. That is because the capital

is now the lens through which all discussion of educational success is

being focussed. For example the Labour Party wants more

collaboration between schools. That's based on the success of a

London scheme called the London Challenge which encouraged heads to

work together. The Tories are more focussed on what you do with failing

schools and replacing management. That happened a lot in London too.

In truth none of these explanation are big enough to explain the size

of the phenomenon in the city. London's schools take the poorest

children in the country, looking at pupils taking GCSEs in 2012, they

were more likely to be on free school meals, a popular indicator of

poverty. Yet its schools get the best results in the country. Most

Inner London children get straight As than the national average. The

data shows this is the result of a decade of improvement. So the many

to this mystery, whatever it is, must be very big and very old. One

idea that has been gaining currency is that of assortive mating, that is

the idea that graduates are more likely to marry other graduates, for

teachers that means that their partners are more likely to be

highly educated, and, since there is greater demand for graduate skills

in London, then in other parts of the country, that means they are

more likely to be drawn to London so their partners can get a good job.

You can see that in the figures. These bars show the share of

teachers partnered up with graduates across length England. And this is

Inner London, where they are much more likely to be partnered up with

other graduates. Outside London graduates married to teachers are

quickly likely to work in the public sector, but in London you see they

do a different mix of jobs. Very few work for the state. Many will be

doing jobs that right now only exist in London. Why did you come to teach

in London? I grew up in London and I was always told that if you can

teach in London you can teach anywhere, because historically it

was the most changing place to teach. That is why I started here.

And I'm still working in the first school I trained in and I absolutely

loved it. Can you see yourself ever leaving London? My husband works in

a job that ties into London pretty much for life, so we are here for

good. These are new teachers starting this week on Teach First,

one big question for future is how do we help these young people choose

a life outside the capital. Cities like Leeds have big recruitment

problems. Perhaps the simplest answer is teachers need to be a bit

more inventive in their dating habit, must try harder!

The BP Portrait Award is in its 20th year with more entries than before.

One of the celebrated artists believe its popularity is people

trust painters more than photographers to show the truth

about their subjects. He has made a film for Newsnight to argue his

case. # I have been looking so long

# At lease pictures of you 25 years ago I was leaving school

and wanted to be painter, at that time portraits were so far out of

fashion that there was genuine debate abo whether they might become

extinct. It was said the camera never lies, and the belief was that

photography was a far more truthful and authoritative medium. But since

the advent of digital photography, and in particular camera phones we

have seen a vast increase in the number of photos being taken by

everyone around us. The emergence of social media means we are now

exposed to a huge number of cleverly posed, selected and enhanced images

of friends and family. We are also more saturated than ever with

glamorous idealised photos of models and celebrities, like these taken by

photographer Rich Hardcast. Digital enhancement is a process in its own

right. We no longer assume that a photograph represents what the

camera saw. It is impossible but you will make me look more hand some.

Removing obvious spots. And when we can go up. Some wrinkle lines.

Bringing down the wrinkles on the forehead, like so. This is about

where I would stop, personally. Because it looks like you. It sort

of says something about you, you can see your laughter lines. But you

know. That looks to me like a slightly improved version of how I

am now. The photo was a bit unkind to me? It is the varnished truth we

have here. If you didn't mind going beyond that. We can get rid of these

lines around your eyes, like so. This is the original image that we

had, and then there is this which you are starting to look a little

bit like a freak! And you know, this is only the start, I mean you could

go all out and make you look like you had the face of a baby! That

would be the stuff of nightmares! Photoshop may be a recent

phenomenon, but image enhancement is as old as the hills. I'm surrounded

here by the 18th century equivalent of a Facebook page now. You have a

circle of friends, who are all advertising their general

fabulousness for all to see. Much in the way that Facebook today tends to

encourage people to project a certain kind of uniformity. The

fashions of time we can see from the pictures was a chubby face, velvets

and pretty much all in ridiculous bouffant hair, except for this guy

who didn't get the wig memo. Me my own paintings I try to do the

opposite and bring out the I haddy -- I haddy sin crass -- id iOS

yncraciess. There is also the use of Botox and fillers that communicate

how we feel about each other in another way. I entered this portrait

prize when there was one hundred entries and now there are thousands

and the quality gets higher every year. I love this painting, there is

something very empathetic about this figure sitting quietly contemplating

something in his own life and invites us to do the same in a more

studied and calm way perhaps than a photographic image. Nor has the

imagined been enhanced by Photoshop, and glamorised to he suit an

editorial and glamour agenda just the subject's agenda on coming

across. I think it is very successful. I believe the loss of

trust in photography is documentary medium, and the deliberate

alteration of our physical appearance is some of the reasons

behind the huge resurgence of a painting portrait. In a snapshot

saturated world, people are looking to artists to reveal something

deeper about their subject. In order to drive this forward we do need

exhibitions like this one to help us find new and brilliant exponents of

the genre. Jonathan is here along with a renowned photographer whose

pictures of people like Barack Obama, Brad Pitt and others have

been exhibited around the world. The camera can lie afterall? Of course

the camera can lie, but I think that the truth is in the intervention. I

think that all art is about the choices one makes. And I think,

well, I totally agree that popular imagery, air brushes the shadow away

from our lives. But one has to ring-fence this as popular imagery.

This is advertising and it is not art, and I think what we are talking

about is art and that is about point of view and one's, how one

intervenes. Cromwell said that his portrait artist should paint him

warts and all. But I bet your celebrity sitters don't say that to

you, you are going along with this in a way? I think you would be

surprised, if you think Cromwell existed at a time when artists would

expect to cover all those things up. Nowadays, you know, you could have a

portrait of you that covered up all the imperfections, but it would be

contradicted by all the photographic evidence around it. You and the

artist would look ridiculous. But it is more obvious if you are truthful

or not these days. How do we know when a photographer has done this or

not? There are lots and lots of bad paintings and lots and lots of bad

photographs. I think that the point is that we have to be in

relationship with our sitter, you enter into a relationship and that's

nonverbal or how I'm feeling, everything that is behind me comes

into the room as well. And how I see this person is how I will photograph

them. And I might recognise in them vulnerability, envy or happiness,

and all of these human conditions I would call them are what make a

portrait interesting. I understand, but how do we know it is the

unalloyed picture, or is there now an expectation that most pictures

are in some way retouched? No I think in the popular media that's an

expectation. But I don't think it is in art. Do you do it? I use

Photoshop to enhance a jacket, to darken somebody's hair because I

want to enhance a mood or something that I felt, or for that kind of

way, it isn't that different to how I might have worked in the dark road

map. Room. -- room. Has your profession been darkened by what has

appeared in the glossy magazines? I think coming out of all of this

popular imagery is a rebirth and better art will be made. I want you

both to look at what is behind me, there is two representations here of

a supermodel, Erin O'Connor, your black and white picture and your

colour portrait of her. Why is black and white picture and your

more honest than his photograph? I don't know that it is. I think a

great portrait photograph does have a great honesty about it. I remember

Owen saying at the time the reason -- Erin saying she wanted a portrait

painted is because at that time in her life she was on magazines and

everywhere she didn't feel it was her because there was editorial

imposed on her. The photograph looks like her? That was a great

photographer! I think it is not so much that, what has happened is our

perception of what photography is has changed. That is an interesting

point about using retouching because everyone does. Do you object that? I

don't object it, most artists use photography, there is more crossover

than there used to be. There is an expectation now that photographers

are becoming artists and using it as a medium rather than being a

separate entity. The devices I choose to use are the devices you

might do, you might use a certain paint brush and use soft light, you

might too. People paint brush and use soft light, you

think there is plenty of room in the world for both. That is it for

tonight because the 13-year-olds have to get to bed. If they are

13-year-old there is a lot of under age drinking going on and they are

not ageing well let me tell you. Something you have never heard

before a new poem by Dylan Thomas read for the first time. And Tom

Hollander played the part in the film marking his death. This appears

to be a drinking song, dashed off the pub.

When licensed to sell beer, wine and spirits and alcohol as well,

advertised in the paper he would open that night his own hotel the

town had a fright. He wept like a baby and took to his bed. Mrs Lil

Jenkins of the old pig and swill sacked all the barmaids and was sick

in the till. In every saloon and public too there was such a

commotion than nobody knew, for the licensed for all, drinking and

smoking by men small and tall had decided to call his hotel the

Liberty Fliberty Giberty Hall Hotel. The drinks were all free and

cigarettes as well in the brand new hotel. There were no set hours,

there were no decrees and nobody shouted "time gentlemen please". For

in this splendid place, no gentleman ever disgraced our fair race, there

was nothing to pay, and nothing to lose, in the Buckingham Palace of

booze.