28/10/2015 Newsnight

It is the missing question in the great EU debate.

Come the vote we will know what it is to remain in the EU,

Would we exit on terms that mean the grass here is

greener, or would we be left worse off than when we started.

It was the Prime Minister today in Iceland who raised the danger.

Norway pays as much per head into the European Union as we do.

When it comes to migration they actually have many more people

coming to live in Norway than we do, and yet while they pay they do not

Top Tory Eurosceptic Owen Paterson is here to tell us

the deal he expects Britain to get if we leave the EU.

Also tonight Gabriel Gatehouse is on the streets

of Turkey where the government is cracking down on Islamic State.

There was an explosion just now and what they are saying is the building

where the stand-off happened might have been booby-trapped.

Also tonight, the acclaimed political biographer

Robert Caro tries to compress his thousands of pages

If you try to do something and conceal it from the public,

in the first place they are going to find out about it.

if you have not brought them along, in the end you are going to fail.

Up until now, the Prime Minister has resisted firing the starting gun on

But maybe he was feeling frustrated, or maybe he just needed

a decent speech to deliver on a trip to Iceland.

Whatever motivated him, he weighed into

the fledgling argument by raising what is a most important question.

We know what it means to be IN the EU, but what does OUT mean?

We're going to devote quite a bit of the show to this question tonight.

The Prime Minister is in Iceland, which is not in the EU, but he

specifically talked about Norway, a country you might have thought was

The PM said he didn't think the Norwegian model would be right

Well, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg, formerly one

of our own, is over in Reykjavik, where the prime minister is.

Laura, on the politics of this, why would he raised this now? If you

listen very carefully in Reykjavik tonight, you might just hear the

sound of a third EU referendum campaign getting off the ground. Not

an official state campaign, not an official go campaign, but an

unofficial, different political campaign, the man in charge is David

Cameron. His complex campaign is he wants to stay and get a better deal,

if not pack up and leave. He is putting this message forward now

because although Downing Street denies there is any panic there is a

sense the momentum has been with those who would like the UK to exit

the EU. Downing Street thinks it is time to push back and try to expose

some of the problems with the suggestions they are putting

forward. That is why he is using this visit to make his case and that

is why he seized on the Norway model, the one he claims would not

be right for us. Never has so much attention been showered on Norway as

there has been today. Take this briefly through the substance of his

argument. This is all about control. Norway and Iceland have a looser

friendship with the EU. They trade with the EU and are part of the area

and can do business with whoever they like, but they have to pay for

the privilege and they are still bound by many of the rules and

regulations decided in Brussels. If you listen to the Norwegians talk

about that... We will hear from the Norwegians in a few minutes. Sorry

Well, we thought it might be useful to drill down into more detail

at the different kinds of non-EU membership that are out there.

First, we'll have to decide what freedoms we want and what

And secondly, the rest of the EU will have to decide what

Let's hear from our political editor Allegra Stratton about some

The Northern lights, you cannot see them from any old spot, you have to

go north to see them clearly, and so to the Prime Minister suggested

today Britain's future relations with the European Union. From

Iceland to David Cameron warned he could see clearly what Britain's

future looked alike. Some people have said the Norway option is

available to Britain. Norway pays as much per head into the European

Union as we do and when it comes to migration and they have many more

people coming to live and work in Norway than we do, and yet while

they pay they do not get a say. Is he right? Yes, Norway is often held

up by Eurosceptics as a prosperous, successful state operating with, but

not inside, the EU. Like Lichtenstein and Iceland they are

members of the European economic area that allows the free movement

of goods, services and people and capital within the area of the EU.

But by signing up they have to adopt much of the regulation of the EU,

but with less scope to influence that legislation. Eurosceptics have

distanced themselves from Norway in the last few days. What about

Switzerland? The Swiss are not in the European economic area, but they

have a series of bilateral agreements with the EU and as

members of the European free trade area they get favourable trading

relations. Boris Johnson has suggested we could join with the

Swiss and make a new outfit here of the European Union with free trade

with the European Union, but the right to help set the terms of that

trade. Critics say this only allows access to parts of the single market

and would exclude our financial services sector and Switzerland

still pays into the EU budget. There are so many different options and

all of them are worse than what we currently have. We have the best of

both worlds, we get to sit around the table and we have a say and all

of these other options would leave us worse off. We would pay and we

would have no say over the rules we would have to implement. I then not

other options? Turkey is an outsider to the EU, but they have struck free

trade agreements, giving them access to the single market, but there is

small print. This is small print. This only force UK to follow EU

trade policies. One last option, it is none of the above, but one day we

could become a kind of Singapore trade deal with the EU with out EU

red tape. Pro-Europeans this welcomes and loosened our client.

Their business models are different, they have oil and gas which is a key

part of their economy and comparing one country with another is

irrelevant. I want to see re-negotiation that works for us in

the UK. I knew Tory MP disagreeing with her leader's warning issued

from Iceland. The ad campaign think today David Cameron has blundered.

By rubbishing Norway they think he has placed himself firmly on the

inside of the referendum regardless of what he gets back from the EU.

Why has he done what he has done? One of the arguments that persuade

voters to stay in the European Union is the idea of Norway, that we would

still be subject to the same regulations. That is the strategy

behind the Prime Minister's comments today. Lots of examples of how

Britain could function outside the EU. Northern lights yes, but beacons

elsewhere as well. The outcome means we could be in a category of our

own. Nervous voters would like more details.

A little earlier I spoke to Vidar Helgesen,

the Norwegian Europe Minister, and I began by asking what he made

I don't think it was pointing to Norway as such,

but the Norwegian model of being affiliated with the European Union.

And it's serving Norway economically well, because being a part

of the single market is very important to us, to our businesses,

But it's also a system that has its dilemmas, because we are

Over 20 years more than 10,000 EU laws have been imported directly to

Because that's necessary for us to be part of the single market.

We don't sit at the EU decision-making table,

Is your influence limited, incidentally?

I mean, you must have an ambassador in Brussels who argues

Yeah, but our ambassador in Brussels is one of the European ambassadors

that doesn't sit at the meetings of EU ambassadors.

But it's better for us to be part of the single market through this

arrangement than being cut off from the single market,

There is some discussion and argument about what proportion

of European laws are e-mailed, faxed through to you, and you have

There's one figure about 9%, others I've seen another figure of 75%.

Do you know what proportion of law you have to comply with?

I think the latter is closer to the truth.

Any legislation, pertaining to the single market,

The Norwegian parliament, for each day

of sitting over the last 20 years, has adopted five per day EU laws.

And we do it while we are paying to the European project roughly

on a par with what we would do if we had been a member state.

It's conspicuous in Norway that the public are pretty happy with the

arrangement, at least there's no demand, there is antipathy towards

joining the EU, the political class, you included, you are fairly keen.

What is this gulf between the establishment, the political

You guys want in, they don't want in.

In Norwegian politics there is no membership debate looming at all.

Considering the financial crisis, I don't think anyone would be

surprised that there is a limited appetite for another

The reason why the EEA agreement is commanding

support in the Norwegian public and in Norwegian politics is simply

that it's good for business, it's good for the economy.

You would like Britain not to join you in the European economic area,

Since the rules are made in Brussels, in the EU,

and we import them, it's important for us that the rules are sensible.

And we believe that Britain at the table produces more sensible

EU rules than if Britain were on the outside, so that's why it's

in Norway's interest that Britain remains at the table.

Vidar Helgesen there, the Norwegian Europe Minister.

But as as we heard earlier in the show, it's not just Norway that

people cite as versions of what it might look like to be out of the EU.

Let's get some help from two other places, Singapore and Switzerland.

On the line from Singapore is David Kuo, who runs

an investment advice service there, and from Frankfurt, though she's

Swiss, is Dr Anne van Aaken who teaches at St Gallen University.

I am going to start with you. You are in Switzerland, Switzerland is a

very affluent place, by your observation does the Swiss

relationship with the EU work? Well, I would say it would be difficult

for Britain to repeat the Swiss model. It is a very special model

and it has to be understood historically by Switzerland not

wanting to join the EU and trying to have bilateral treaties. Since

Switzerland is not in the European economic areas, it has to make a

treaty for everything where it wants to have economic relationships with

the EU. That is where we currently stand. It is more complicated than

the Norwegian one, but it gives them more flexibility, like an a la carte

menu rather than a fixed meal? That is right, but services are not in,

which is difficult for Switzerland. Switzerland has quite a strong

financial industry sector, so that is difficult for them. The EU

basically negotiated that if one treaty is not adhered to, and the

Swiss had a referendum in 2014 concerning the free movement of

persons, then all the other treaties can be terminated as well. So in a

way even though they are bilateral treaties, on its single issue it is

a package. You do not take the whole package. All or nothing. Thank you,

that is very useful. Singapore is not directly comparison to the UK,

but the suggestion is the model of being an enterprise Hub, a kind of

offshore almost halved against a large continent, it certainly seems

attractive to some people. How attractive do you think and how easy

would it be for the UK to become like Singapore?

We are part of a free-trade organisation, free trade region here

for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. -- it is called the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Part of a bigger

organisation but at the same time there are big differences between

that and the European Union. 80% of the trade done by Singapore is

outside and only 20% is within those nations. Singapore does work, it's a

very successful economy. For it to work what do you need? Singapore

taxes are very low, much lower than the UK ones. It's certainly one

area, as far as Singapore is concerned we have one of the lowest

corporation taxes, no capital gains tax whatsoever and no inheritance

tax, it's very attractive for corporations who want to come here,

financial institutions and wealthy individuals. Those people who want

to pass on their wealth to the next generation. As far as the UK is

concerned, it needs to copy that model. Reduce its taxes to an

it'll start to attract corporations and financial institutions which

they already have. It'll encourage those companies to

stay within the UK and not think about moving elsewhere. Thanks

Here with me now is the former Conservative cabinet minister and

you've been listening to the whole caboodle of options and things,

which is your favourite by the way? My favourite option is the British

option, we are the fifth largest economy in the world, we have a huge

deficit with our European neighbours up to ?70 billion per year, 5

million Europeans they'll want to do a deal with us. What was useful

about your clips, it shows there are different solutions for different

countries. What was interesting, none of them missed, they almost,

actually, key movement, towards global regulation, global

government. What you missed out is that we want to get our seat back on

those global bodies. The Prime Minister set out five questions he

thought were important today. I thought we could go through some of

them quickly, because they are useful. Would the UK still be

obliged to follow EU rules on free movement of people? In your opinion,

if we're out, would free movement apply? It depends what the final end

solution is. I'm asking what your preferred solution would be. The

Treaty of Rome was free movement of labour and the Treaty of Lisbon free

movement of people. What I'd like to see is laws made in our own

parliament so we get back control of our immigration policy. Not free

movement? Not like Norway. It has to be negotiated. Will the UK be forced

to pay an EU subscription fee like Switzerland and Norway? It depends

what the end solution is. I don't know where these figures have come

from. The figures I've seen, Norway pays about half. You would expect

the UK to or not? It all depends what the end solution is, I want to

get back to the global level, I want Britain to take a 4 seat on the WTO.

Norway, which was missed out by their minister, chairs the global

body committee... A global committee on fish. They export 3 billion euros

of fish. It isn't an answer to the Prime Minister's question. What the

UK pay the EU 's abduction? I don't want to hear about fish, I want to

hear about the UK subscription under the scenario you are advocating, yes

or no, it's quite simple. You might not want to hear about fish but

fishermen do. We've talked to you about fish before and Norway, I can

remember sitting over there talking. And you interrupted me last I'm like

you are interrupting now. I won't interrupt if you answer the question

about the EU subscription, will we pay one or not?

I want to move to a global system where we have full representation as

a full nation on a global bodies. We are represented by a 28 of a

commissioner, highly unsatisfactory as we move to global regulation. The

EU is retreating as a law creator, the global bodies moving. You have

to think out of your EU box. Is it an answer to the question will see

you -- have you answer the question the public will read into it what

they want. You are presuming we will be in the EU. The EU is going to

leave us. I've explained a scenario and you fail to tell me whether

we'll pay a subscription, I'm thinking your answer is no. You are

assuming we'll be in something called the EU. The EU is leaving us.

It won't be like Norway, we won't pay a subscription? We'll be getting

our seat back. Would we be in a trade deal with EU, would we be in

the trade steel if it's negotiating with other nations? Yes, I said that

already, we have a huge... We'll come up with a solution in

everybody's interest. What if they set terms which you don't like for

us to have access to the market? The market? Reply minister says 31 other

governments and parliaments, will they all agree to the UK's new

relationship? The procedure is they go into a locked room, decides the

treaty that will determine our relationship with them, and they

handed to us and we take it or leave it. We are getting outvoted now,

we've been beaten in the council 55 times the last few years. We are

constantly being outvoted, was out voted when I was the secretary for

Defra. I'm saying we have an unsatisfactory deal now which costs

a fortune, we have laws and regulations imposed upon us, we

don't have our full seat on the global bodies. I know I know. Which

I'm very keen on. We will get our full roll on that and it changes the

relationship completely. We would love you to have access to our

single market, full access, we don't want a race to the bottom on labour

standards, to have full access to the single market you will have two

basis, that and the other, part of social Charter. Social chapter. As

part of the condition. Do we say yes or no? No, I'm looking to a global

system. You said... It's inconceivable we won't come to an

unsatisfactory trade deal when we have a 70 billion deficit when 5

million of their citizens depend on us for trade, we'll come to a deal

with them. What proportion of their GDP is exported to us? Depends on

the countries, somewhere like Germany is higher. 3%. It varies

dramatically between the countries. The key factor for the last few

months, each of the last 12 months, sales outside the EU to the rest of

the world have increased faster than EU sales. It's still important we

have a satisfactory trade deal with them, but we get our rollback on the

world bodies and we galvanise the Commonwealth... It's the breakdown

in the movement to world free trade that is causing so many problems

around the world. Have you answer the question, I'm not sure you have,

about how we establish a trade relationship with them that gives

access to their market without them dictating some of those terms. 31 of

them, 26 of them, plus five EAA members. Varies us. -- there is them

and there is us. In that they have interest in coming to a satisfactory

deal with us. People on your side of the argument have said, we can't

possibly think about a treaty change option under David Cameron.

Renegotiation, without it being signed in blood and ratified before

we have to vote on it. Are you going to ask us when we come to the

referendum to vote on and out prospectus as they as the one you've

been describing tonight? I'm not being very casual, I have a clear

view we want a new relationship as they move away from us and form

their new country. Hang on! I want a relationship based on trade and

cooperation, which is what we voted to join in 9075. Allied to that,

want to make our own laws in our own parliament and have our own

full-time or presented on the global bodies. -- we voted to join in 1975.

Yet our role on the global bodies. It'll cascade down through the EU.

I'm hearing what you want but I'm not clear, if they say they don't

want the relationship you are describing, what you can do about

it. I think what you are saying is we should trust that in the end

it'll be all right, they won't play hardball. But you seem to forces

which have ended with irrational hardball playing characters doing

stuff that may not be in the interest of both parties. They have

a huge interest. Have you seen a divorce case where somebody has

acted against their own interests to hurt the other one. It's different

when you have a massive deficit going one way. And something

integrated across borders. They allow vested interests in Europe

that will want trade and cooperation to carry on. -- there are vested

interests. We allow them to move into a political interest. We'll

never be in the euro, in Schengen, they will form their new country, as

they've announced in various reports. It gives us the

opportunity, we have the whip hand, to get that through they have to

have a treaty change and we have a whip and to ensure we have a totally

new relationship with our neighbours based on trade, cooperation and

making our own laws in our own parliament. Owen Paterson, thanks

very much indeed. Well, from a discussion

about a Britain off one side of the EU, to a country sitting just

off the opposite side, Turkey. It's in a far less temperate zone

of course, a Syrian war and IS on its doorstep and a long-running

struggle with Kurdish separatists. Earlier this month, suicide bombers

in the capital Ankara killed more than a hundred people at a rally

of a pro-Kurdish opposition party. A ceasefire with the Kurdish

militant group All in all, it's not been

an easy time for Turkey, Elections in June were inconclusive,

so the country votes again Gabriel Gatehouse has been there

and found a country struggling to insulate

itself from the war on its border. Turkey, a bulwark of stability

on the edge of Europe. A buffer against the chaos

of the Middle East. The violence that surrounds

this country is now beginning Now Turkey is suffering from

terrorism attacks because of Syria. Because terrorists,

both PKK and Isis, are using Syria, an uncontrollable area,

for practising terrorism attacks. In the run-up to Sunday's election

there have been deadly bombings blamed variously on Islamic State,

or President Erdogan's

message is this: Only a strong majority for his party

can hold the country together. For such attacks,

like tourist attacks, the people of Erdogan is an important

figure to unite this nation. Some people have been suggesting it

might have been the government itself that was

behind the attack in Ankara. I think it is really dangerous

to play sectarian politics and to In this atmosphere

of mutual suspicion Turkey is once again at war with the Kurds, a war

fuelled by the conflict in Syria. In the Kurdish dominated

East, Turkish jets are bombing PKK targets in response to attacks

by the Kurdish militants. But now a new threat has injected

itself into this toxic conflict, On a residential street

in the city of Diyarbakir we arrived as security forces carried out

a raid on an IS safe house. This was more a battle than

a shoot out, police using armoured They have implanted IS

into our midst, this man told me, they are only conducting this

operation now because They are trying to use IS to

put pressure on Kurdish people. There is a car reversing out

of the area. They are saying the building

where the stand-off happened Two policemen were killed as well

as seven militants. Turkey has long allowed

Islamic State fighters to use IS oppose the Syrian regime,

IS are also a barrier to Kurdish But now some of those IS

fighters are coming back. In places eastern Turkey looks

like a country at war, but these soldiers are not here because

of a threat from Islamic State. They are here because Kurdish

militants have taken over swathes turning whole neighbourhoods

into so-called autonomous zones. This is essentially a rebel zone, an

area that is not under the control of the Turkish security forces, it

is under the control of rebel youths They have strung up tarpaulin to

shield themselves from the view There are signs here

of recent heavy battles, pockmarked The group's leaders are shy

of the cameras. They did not want us to film their

weapons, mostly automatic rifles, They will be coming for us,

they will use tanks and mortars. They want to clear everyone out

of this neighbourhood then hit it Emboldened by their fellow Kurds

in Syria who have carved out a vast territory along Turkey's southern

border, these Marxist guerillas now sense perhaps new momentum

in their decades-old struggle. We shall overcome

and we will resist to the end. We can take the violence of

the state no longer. There are people who are digging

these trenches who do not want to be identified, they are all

covering up their faces. These are young, armed men who are

affiliated with the PKK, the Kurdish rebel group, and one

thing is for sure, this is now Not everyone here wants to pick a

fight with Turkey's powerful army. These women told us all they want is

peace, In his office the local head

of president Erdogan's AKP party showed me the bullet holes where PKK

militants fired at his window. As Kurdish fighters grow

in strength across the border in Syria, Mohammed Akar feels

this rebellion could become President Erdogan has presided

over a decade of stability Sunday's election is essentially

a rerun. In June his AKP party failed to get

a majority. His critics accuse him of becoming

increasingly authoritarian. Over the past few weeks, many towns

in the East have been under curfew. In Diyarbakir's old town we found

people venturing out for the first time after special forces were sent

in to quell clashes between Kurdish All this commotion is because there

is a food distribution here, they are handing out supplies to people

who are affected by the clashes that happened in these narrow alleyways

just a few days ago. All of this is organised

by a pro-Kurdish opposition party which is capitalising

on the anger among people who were prevented from getting to work or

even to the shops. We had nothing to eat or drink,

this woman says. She told me her daughter had gone to

the mountains, President Erdogan came to power

as a champion of the oppressed, His base is

among religious conservatives and Islamists, empowering people who

once felt marginalised by Turkey's Now there are those who feel

the pendulum has swung too far In 2012 Gurbuz Chapan was one

of dozens of people implicated in He insists he supports change

only at the ballot box, but he This election is essentially

a referendum on the limits Strong leadership has kept Turkey

stable amid the chaos of the Middle East, but Erdogan's

opponents believe that by giving space to Islamic State

and by re-engaging in conflict with If you love biographies,

you may well love the American His majestic history of the life

of US president Lyndon B Johnson is It's considered one

of the most important political His other monumental work was

about the man who shaped That one's forty years old now,

but has just been published here. From afar, Johnson and Moses may not

seem the obvious lives to devote more than a thousand pages to, but

Mr Caro has fans in high places. The Chancellor is one of them,

Gordon Brown too. Because his books are really

about power and its use. Well, it's amazing to me, thank you,

England! But I think part

of the reason is that it's not really only about Robert Moses, it's

about political power, how you get political power, what is political

power, how can it shape our lives? Moses was interesting to me because

he was never elected to anything. We live in America in a democracy

where power is supposed to come from Here is a man who was never elected

to anything, he had more power than anyone who was, more than any mayor,

more than any governor, more than And he held this power for 44 years,

it was half a century, So I set out to do,

how did he get it? Can we talk a little

about biography? I mean, one of the dangers of

biography, particularly the thorough biographical style of which you are

the master, perhaps it puts too much weight on the individuals, too much

weight on Moses shaping New York. Not enough on historical forces,

motorcars, the ability to build tall buildings, whatever

the architectural trend was. Is that

a danger with big biographies? Well, I think it's a danger,

I think in my particular case the danger is mitigated because I'm

not interested in writing... I never thought

of writing a biography. Just to write the life

of a famous man. I never had the slightest

interest in doing that. I started The power broker because,

I think I mentioned, no one seem to So it started on one part as

an examination of political power. How did he create this power

outside the electoral process? It's a study of power, that's why I

call it The Power Broker. With Johnson, what attracted me

to Johnson, was the same thing. It was his Senate years more

than the presidential years. And he continues his informal Texas

style, I said, my God,

he did something no one else has If I can sit and figure out how he

got the power to do that, and explain it to people, you have

to figure it out and you've got to explain it, then that really is

something you feel you are adding to people's understanding of political

power, that they should understand. If you don't know what you want to

do with your power, you are not really going to be very

useful, are you? And if you don't have

the ability to work the system, you are not going to be very useful, you

need both of those, do you or not? You know, Johnson is really very

interesting, he has to give this speech for Congress three days

after Kennedy is assassinated. Speech writers are gathered

around the table. He comes down to see what

they are turning out. They say, well, whatever we do,

don't touch civil rights, don't mention civil rights,

the Southerners control Congress. They are going to stop all your

legislation, don't antagonise them. It's a noble cause,

but a lost cause. In a speech he says,

my first priority is to pass Now,

I wonder whether the techniques used by Johnson, skulduggery you might

call some of it, the techniques used by Johnson, whether they created

a disenchantment with politics? Today, the word is authenticity

that we want in our politicians. I wonder whether the kind of cynical

manipulation of people like Johnson Yes, the answer to your question is

he created something called Everyone realised,

no one could believe, what he said. Now, when I hear

the telephone tapes, I hear him telling his advisers, I've decided

to send 75,000 men to Vietnam. He says, but let's say

the policy hasn't changed. Remember that in everything you say,

we haven't changed the policy. But everyone knew he had changed

his policy. For years he would say,

I see the light, we are winning. The disenchantment with the American

presidency, in your words, not believing what

the president tells us, that really Before Watergate, we think of it

as starting at Watergate. If people say it started with

Watergate, they don't remember it started before Watergate,

it started with Vietnam. You are almost 80 years old,

and you've said, if anything should happen to you, that means you can't

finish this fifth volume, you don't want anyone else to finish it or

take the work and complete it. I want everything, you know,

that I've done under my name to be If someone else wants to write about

Lyndon Johnson, of course many people do, they are writing about

him now, that's fine, but I don't... You know, there are others, like

Manchester's biography of Churchill, People who read that book say, this

isn't William Manchester's writing. If you had to encapsulate

the one lesson that Johnson teaches You'd better bring the public

along with you. Like on Vietnam, if you try to do

something and conceal it from the public, in the first place they

are going to find out about it. If you haven't bought them along,

in the end you are going to fail.