04/07/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Politics. Democracy in Egypt is over. It lasted no more than a year.


Last night, soldiers arrested the man the people elected President


after decades of military rule. To wild celebrations, in Cairo's


main square. So what happens now, and why are


these young people, liberal secular and pro-democracy cheering on the


Army as it mounts a military coup. At home, ministers tighten the rules


on immigration. How ever if Equitablive are the rules and are


they tight enough? And who's upset the speaker and just


what have they done wrong? The administration of this matter


has been woefully inadequate and frankly utterly incompetent. I've


not known a worst example during my tenure as speaker.


Was he talking to you? ! No, it was you! Me?Yes. Better not be.


All that in the next hour. With us throughout the programme, Melanie


Phillips. This is from the blurb in her book, once a Guardian feature


writer, she changed her mind on practically everything and emerged


to champion the high moral ground at the Daily Mail. That's what your


publishers say about you? I'm the publisher of my own book you see. I


wrote that blurb. I'm an e-book publisher, thank you for the advert,


wasn't expecting that, but thank you. Cheque's in the post.


The big news story of the day - the military coup in Egypt. Yesterday,


soldiers arrested President Mohammed Morsi, the country's first freely


elected leader. The President's opponents had been camped out in


Cairo's main square for days and the move sparked wild celebrations. Army


chiefs say they are suspending the constitution which had been improved


by a referendum just last year and are promising to hold new elections


after a brief transition. Within the last hour, the Prime


Minister has given his reaction. We have we never support the


intervention by the military, but what now needs to happen, what we


need to happen now in Egypt, is for democracy to flourish and for a


genuine democratic transition to take place and all parties need to


be involved. That's what Britain and our allies will be saying to the


Egyptians. With us from Tahrir Square is the BBC's Ben Brown. Ben,


we saw the wild celebrations, the pictures of Tahrir Square being


full. What is the atmosphere like there now?


Much quieter, Jo, than it was last night. Feels rather like the morning


after the night before. Last night, that square was absolutely packed


with tens of thousands of people and when they heard the announcement


from the Head of The Armed Forces that effectively, they were taking


over or there was going to be a new interim president taking over and


that Mr Morsi was out of power, the people in the square went absolutely


crazy, setting off fireworks, firing their green lasers into the night


sky. Today, a lot quieter, a few people down on the square. The


Egyptian Air Force actually a few minutes ago did a rather dramatic


celebratory flypast over the city. Nine jets trailing red,


black-and-white smoke, the colours of the Egyptian flag, so a


celebration from the military, of course. The people here in the


square have not described this as a military coup. They say it was


people power that forced out Mohammed Morsi, but Mr Morsi's


supporters in the country say he was this country's first democratically


elected lead leader. Only a year ago he was elected with more than 50% of


the vote and now he's been pushed out of power, they say, by a


full-scale military coup. Thank you.


We are joined by Jack Straw. He was Foreign Secretary from 2001-2006.


Welcome to to Richard Ottaway too. Should we regard this as a military


coup? Yes, because it is a military coup and the Middle East editor,


Jeremy Bowen, has been saying exactly that. No two ways about it.


Of course, there is obviously quite a lot of popular support for this,


but we should be very clear indeed that if you have democratic


elections and no-one said they weren't democratic when they took


place a year ago, you need to respect the result, even if it is


the result you don't like and so, a very clear message has to go out.


Whatever the reality we have to accommodate now, we can't pick and


choose the results of elections. We support the democratic principle


because it's the best long-term way of ensuring stability and prosperity


for people and that has to be the message for the people of Egypt.


you regard it as a military coup, as Jack Straw described it? Yes, I do.


Democracy really has gone out of the window here at the moment. I think


there have been misunderstanding on all sides. I think the President,


President Morsi, has decided he'd rule, rather than govern. The people


have expected quick results which haven't been possible to achieve and


I think the real mistake was when the constitutional court over


overthrew or decided that the elections to the lower House were


uncontusional and President Morsi didn't have fresh elections. That


was the moment it started to go wrong. How long before the young


people largely secular, liberal, as Jo was saying, who were cheering the


demise of Mr Morsi last night, how long before the Army's knocking on


their doors and starting to pull out their toe nails and stick catting


prod in them? I'm afraid the default setting of the Egyptian military is


not necessarily cattle prod, but it's to rule by that kind of method.


And Richard is right to say that Morsi's error was to rule, not to


govern, and not to recognise that if you are in a democracy, you give


vent and power to the will of the majority, but you also are very


careful about the rights of minorities and the rights of


individuals who disagree with you. That's how you get a balance, as we


have in this country. But this is not a military take-over is not a


solution. Does the British Government recognise the military?


As William Hague said this morning, we recognise states, not Government.


We have made it clear that we intend to work with the new Government to


try to bring about a democracy. Can I just pick up on a point that Jack


was making there. These young people in Tahrir Square are enthusiastic


and secular. The truth of the matter is, over 70% of Egypt is Islamic and


voted for Islamic Parties in the one time they had a chance. Particular


political the working case and the rural. I think the young people are


still in for a big shock. They mange they have a result, but in the


long-term... That was the point of my question to Jack.


The fact is though, that the Muslim Brotherhood, the party was elected,


a lot of people don't think the elections were quite as transparent


as Jack Straw has made out, they've governed very badly and they have


instituted a lot of the Islamic things that these young folk don't


like. I mean, the country could be heading, either for a


straightforward military dictatorship or a Civil War?


could be heading for a number of things, including an Islamic


Republic, an Islamic regime. But the mistake being made by my colleagues


here and by the Prime Minister and the President of America is to


confuse elections with democracy. I mean you are quite right that


overturning an elected result, the result of an election, is not good.


But the idea that elections bring democracy is simply false, as we


have heard. Mr Morsi was governing uncontusionally. The people opt


streets were reacting to what they saw as the progressive imposition of


Islamic tyranny, which had been facilitated by the naivety and


stupidity of the British and American Governments which looked at


Mr Mubarak and helped lever him out and installed the Muslim Brotherhood


on the basis of the Muslim Brotherhood as people we can do


business with. They are Islamic fundamentalist fanatics and people


are reacting against that. Sounds like an argument in favour of


oligarchs. Richard nor I don't believe elections equal democracy.


However, you may not have spotted this, but you can't have democracy


without elections. It's a necessary but not a sufficient component of a


democratic system and, one of the real tragedies is, they had


elections, they are not perfect but they are relatively free, no-one


denied the mandate that Morsi achieved. Plenty of mistakes were


made. He won?He did win, fair and square. With the backing of the


American President. Leave that fact out. It's important.I believe the


future of the Arab world depends critically on there being democratic


Governments installed. It's not happening though, is it? But the


elections bring to power Islamic fundamental... Melanie, so what are


you going to do? Are you going to send the tax in, whenever you go get


a democracy you don't like, this was a failure, included a mistake made


by me, Palestinian territories, we had elections and I kept saying to


people, you could end up with the wrong answer, Hamas and we did.


mistake after another from your Government and the Americans.


can't say there shouldn't be elections. Sorry about this, what


you have to say, even in this country we sometimes get Governments


we don't like. There shouldn't be elections until you have free press,


free judges, free police officers. This country took hundreds of years


when before we got to the point of elections. What about the interim?


You will have people in charge who're undemocratic regimes which


are not nice and you have elected regimes which are nice. What do you


make of the Egyptian Army? In many ways, it's similar to the Chinese


Army, runs its own businesses, it's very important as as part of


Egyptian society, it's a way Egyptians make your way up if you


work hard. They are not going to give this up, are they? I was out in


Egypt before the elections and met President Morsi before he became


President. I have to say, Melanie, if you think President Morsi's a


fundamentalist, you've got a big shop coming. Just go and visit the


other hardliners. What a shame Mr Mubarak went. You think that's a


shame? Absolutely. He was dreadful, but what came after him was worse


and what will come after this will be worse. What I discussed with


President Morsi was health, transport services and religion


doesn't come into this stuff in providing basic fundamental


services. That's why the Americans, rightly, decided they were people


they could do business with. Jack Straw, can I ask you to step back a


bit. If we look at the borders of this part of the Maghreb and into


the Lavant, they were all drawn, just half a mile from here, in the


office where you use Yahoo!ed to work by Mr Sykes, the Brit and Mr


Pickle, the Frenchman. That survived in various ways. -- used to work.


Are we seeing this Syrian war tipping into Lebanon with these


events in Egypt, is that the Sykes Pickle settlement beginning to


unravel? Look, the Sykes Pickle settlement was never a proper


settlement because during the First World War, we made three


contradictory sets of undertakes, this agreement was to carve up the


Arab world, Maghreb, Lavant between France and the UK. There was letters


which basically said it was handed over to the Arabs and then the


Balfour one which said we'd create a state of Israel. We created the


stability, that said that's getting on for 100 years ago. What is


happening now? We have to do our best to ensure that there is


relative stability there and I just say to Melanie whose argument in


favour of authoritarian regimes is refreshingly honest if nothing else,


that one of the reasons you have had a rise of not just thes Muslim


Brotherhood but also the Salifies, is precisely because people's wish


to have a say and for prosperity was held down by the regimes like


Mubarak and you reap what you sew in this life, Melanie. Easy agree.


That's why you have the problems. agree and I'm the first person to


support the desire for true democracy among a proportion of the


population. When you say I support authoritarian regimes, you know


that's a can cheap jibe. I'm saying that you in your naivety are setting


the authoritarian regimes against democracy. What you have brought


about is, through the appearance of democracy, elected dictatorships.


All right. Richard, an attempt to look at the wider picture now -


these countries that were created, you can see how artificial they are


because they are straight, so you know someone draws on the map. You


have Iran standing to the east of all this, a major player in Syria


and in Lebanon, on the border with Israel, we have Civil War in Syria,


we have Jordan on its knees because it cannot afford to look after these


refugees and they are destabilising it. We could be on the brink. We


have had a military coup in Egypt and we could be on the brink of


Civil War there. This region is unravelling, I would suggest to you?


In total turmoil and was intervention, Melanie and I


fundamentally disagree with you, we are facing a major configuration


where the people are trying to express their views. It's not a


spring or uprising, it's a change. It's a fundamental change. You are


right to point to Iran pulling the strings with Hezbollah. The


Palestine Israel question is off the agenda now at the moment. Jordan is


really struggling. The king is doing his best at the moment. One rule and


one thing that comes out of this, the rule we are going to learn from


history is you have to stay ahead of the curve and this is a man busting


a gut here to stay ahead of the curve and to do the right thing and


hold on to the country. We are leaving the country, but we are not


leaving the region, are we? We'll look at Syria in more detail. Next


weekend, MPs will debate whether they should be given a vet if ever


the British Government decides to send weapons to the opposition. In a


moment, we'll discuss the vexed issue of arming the rebels, but


first, Adam will bring us up-to-date the United Nations estimates that


90,000 have been killed and nearly 2 million have become refugees. A


fortnight ago, the White House confirmed that Assad had used


chemical weapons. The Obama administration also said it was


upping its support for the rebels, who are massively outgunned. The UK


is still providing them with non-lethal assistance such as


armoured vehicles and body armour. Next week, MPs will debate whether


they should be given a vote if the British government bans to go any


further. There are still questions about who the rebels are. The BBC


has seen mounting evidence of Sharia law in some of the areas that they


hold, including the execution of a 14-year-old boy for blasphemy. All


sides came in for criticism from our guest of the day on question Time


last month. She said the real issue was Iran and got this reaction when


she said it was a country that That is the problem, the defeatism


of the British people against a clear threat to this country's


interest. It was all smiles at the G8 summit.


All they can read agree on is where the regime and rebel should meet for


peace talks in Geneva, which seem to be slipping further and further into


the distance. Richard Ottaway and Jack Straw are


still with us. Do we know who the rebels are in Syria? We know a lot


of who the rebels are, a lot of them are sensible, some of them are not.


Some of them give us very great cause for alarm. One of the reason


why I am a reluctant... Not wholly opposed but reluctant to see us


arming the rebels, I certainly would not vote for it if there was a vote


tomorrow, I am not clear what controls there would be on the


weaponry. Is David Cameron being naive in his apparent support for


the rebels, non-lethal support as he would call it? No, I think it is a


sensible humanitarian gesture, as long as it is non-lethal support.


The difficulty is knowing what is non-lethal and what is lethal. Is


training people with weapons lethal support? I think David Cameron is


driven by Basic instinct, to try to stabilise the region and he will do


what ever he thinks necessary. The humanitarian case has been appalling


but we are now seeing images of sharia law being used, the execution


of a 14-year-old boy is equally shocking. What does it do to your


mindset when dealing with the Syrian situation? There are good rebels and


bad rebels and the trouble is finding a distinction between the


two. The whole region is fragmenting and I agree that bundling in a few


cases of rivals will not help things at all. We should only do something


in Syria if we think it would improve the lives and prosperity of


the people of Syria. Gesture politics is long gone here and there


is no obviously should. Maybe just doing nothing is the right solution.


Is it the right decision? I think I absolutely agree, we are looking at


two hideous alternatives in Syria. Assad is a hideous situation and we


can all see what a terrible butcher and tyrant he is. He has run a


regime which is a sponsor of international terrorism against


Western interest, so he is terrible. What opposes him is as


bad, if not worse, probably worse, insofar as the intentions towards us


are concerned. It is a bit like what I was saying earlier about


authoritarian regimes. We are facing... Looking at the Middle East


region, facing a situation where there is no good option. It is only


a series of what is the least worst option. It is a hideous choice but


from our point of view there is no point in getting involved in arming


people who might themselves be extremely dubious and not in our


best interest to arm, and secondly, those arms may fall into the hands


of people who are really a threat to us. Should the government be


supporting the rebels at all? No. view is that in the whole region, we


should only ever be involved if there is a clear advantage to our


national interest. It is not the case that we are doing nothing.


There is a great deal of non-lethal support. It is doing quite a lot of


Anshuman a Terry and aid. Slightly more hopeful news from the region --


Iranians. There is a chance that we can. I am not naive about Iran.


did not get anywhere four-year is? We were getting somewhere. -- you


Americans got what they didn't want, Ahmadinejad. We have got to get Iran


to this peace conference which is planned in Geneva. What did you mean


when you said Iran should be neutralised? Green I meant that, the


threat should be neutralised. It is stunningly naive and we have been


negotiating with Iran one way or another for a very long time. We


have given them the one priceless gift they wanted, time to make their


lot of alarming evidence that they don't want nuclear energy just for


peaceful purposes. We have a former British Foreign Secretary here,


seeming to question that Iran has a nuclear programme for weapons


purposes, is that what you are saying? My instinct about Iran is


that they are building a civil nuclear programme and they want the


intellectual capacity to make a nuclear weapons programme as well,


but there is no evidence, not from the IAEA, not from the Americans,


quite the reverse from the Americans, which says there is a


smoking gun here. Much less of a smoking gun then there was in


respect of Iraq or Libya. Are you saying they are not involved in


building a bomb as we speak? I don't know for certain but there is no


evidence they are involved in building a bomb at the moment.


halfway between these two. The IAEA, which I went to the other day, is a


very cautious organisation and they will not say they are building a


bomb unless they can hold up a bomb. That isn't going to happen. But they


are saying there is quite a lot of supporting evidence that they have


gone beyond the civil programme, into a nuclear capacity. You said


neutralised but you did not say how. We only had sanctions that started


to bite quite recently and that was a terrible mistake. Military action


always much be an absolute last resort. You only take military


action if the alternative is worse. Neutralise means we have to remove


the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The war?No, which means no


longer talking to them. Which means excluding them from the Society of


civilised nations, which we have not done. Will it make a difference?


Absolutely. They must know that there is a big stick that we are


wielding, the Americans, it is only the Americans who matter. The United


States publishes a National intelligence estimate, they


published one in 2007, saying that they judge that Iran had abandoned


its development of nuclear weapons programmes in 2003 and saw no


evidence it was being brought back. That has not been countermanded


since. I accept there is ambiguous evidence about the enrichment of


uranium but that does not equal a bomb. Are you satisfied that the


government has committed itself to the idea there would be a vote in


parliament before arms could be sent to Syrian rebels? Absolutely, Andrew


Lansley, leader of the house, said it in undeniable terms, that there


would be a vote. The debate is slightly academic. And a vote that


the government probably would not win. It depends what is proposed.As


always. Thank you, gentlemen. The Government has been promising


more action on immigration this week - clamping down on landlords renting


to illegal immigrants and charging non-European migrants to use the


NHS. Today, ministers have been talking about tightening up on the


rules on soldiers who might want to bring family members into the UK. In


a moment we'll talk to the Immigration Minister about the


changes but first, Jo's going to take us through the coalition's


attempts to reduce net migration. The Conservative Party's 2010


Manifesto stated: "We will take steps to take net migration back to


the levels of the 1990s - tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of


thousands". To achieve this, the coalition has introduced a number of


measures to reduce non-EU migrants. Since 2011 they have imposed an


immigration cap stipulating that only 20,700 non-European workers can


enter the UK each year. The rules surrounding visas for non-European


students have been tightened and hundreds of colleges stripped of


their rights to bring international students to the UK. They have also


introduced new rules for the families of migrants from outside


Europe - you must earn a minimum of �18,600 if you want to bring a


spouse or partner into the country, more if you have children as well.


Today this has been extended to cover members of the Armed Forces.


And yesterday, proposals were unveiled that could see non-EU


migrants forced to pay at least �200 a year to access the NHS. Despite


proving controversial, these measures appear to be working. The


most recent figures showed a drop in net migration of 89,000 to 153,000


in the year ending September 2012. But they can't do anything about the


number of European immigrants and with restrictions due to be lifted


on Romanians and Bulgarians entering the country at the end of the year,


could we be set to experience a rise again?


I'm now joined by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee


Keith Vaz, and the Immigration Minister Mark Harper. Mark Harper,


you have extended the family migration rules, you want to bring


in your spouse, to cover the Armed Forces. You set a salary limit of


�18,600 a year. Which is higher than the basic salary of a regular


soldier. We looked carefully at that. After three years in the Armed


Forces, most member will be earning higher than that number. We have


done two things. When we brought the rules in last year, we deliberately


did not bring them into the Armed Forces because the Home Office and


Ministry of Defence wanted to make sure we would not disadvantaged


people, articulate those who serve overseas. When we brought in the


rules that apply to the Armed Forces, those who are already on a


path to a settlement, who have applied for a Visa, will be dealt


with under the old rules. It applies to new people who join and we have


very good and transitional arrangements which will be made


clear to service personnel. If you are in phase one training on �275 a


week, it rises to �17,767 after a year. You have been serving your


country and you have set a limit higher than what they are learning.


The rules should apply to everybody who wants to bring a foreign


national spouse into the United Kingdom, they apply to everybody


else in the UK. Once you have been in the Armed Forces for three years,


your salary will in able you to do that and we think it is fair and


reasonable. If you are an officer you can do it, but if you are a


squaddie, you will not be able to. Once you have been in the Armed


Forces for three years, you will be earning more than the salary level.


It was one of the questions I asked we looked at income through the


Armed Forces. This is most unfair but my constituents have had to put


up with this since the rules changed. The average salary in


Leicester is 16,000. You are now allowed to fall in love, you are


allowed to get married, at you can't bring your spouse in unless you


reach that limit. I thought it was a booming migrant city of


entrepreneurs and hard-working successful people? You're not paying


them enough restaurant I don't do them the pain. I don't work for the


BBC so they have to take what they some are working very long hours to


get up to that limit. I don't think there was abuse under the old


system. Mark and his government extended the length of time people


had to stay here before they could get indefinite leave and claim


benefits. I think it was the right thing to do, to make it a longer


probation or period, and that is the way you deal with abuse --


probationary period. I think the service personnel will have years


and years of misery without their spouses before they come in and that


is very sad. Let me make it clear why Twell made the changes. You can


fall in love and marry whoever you want. If you want to bring your


family to the UK, we are just asking you to support them, rather than the


taxpayer. The reason we set the salary level, it wasn't a made up


figure, we got the migration advisory committee to do some


research on it. You have to stand on your own two feet. We had a debate


in the House of Commons and there's a debate in the House of Lords this


afternoon. Lots of Labour MPs didn't like it and said it was unfair.


Interestingly, and Keith's challenged the Labour frontbench on


this, the Labour frontbench don't seem to be disagreeing with this. I


think they know it's the right thing to do and it's popular. It's about


making people being able to support themselves. In general, is the


Government on the right track on immigration? In general I think they


are. I mean, it's a very serious problem that we now face, due to


many years of wilful neglect and worse, in just ignoring the terrible


strain put on the country by accepting too many people. The


Government is trying to bite the bullet. I'm not sure about the


arcane details of precisely what salary levels should be and so on,


but the minister makes a perfectly reasonable case about the point


people standing on their own two feet, we should say welcome to them.


We should say welcome to immigrants, immigration enriches the life of a


nation. I myself am the grand child of immigrants, but we all have to


understand that there comes a point where a society simply can't take so


many people. Keith Vaz, there is a general mood in the country that


we'd like a break from mass immigration, which is what we had


during the Labour years? The 26 years I've been in Parliament,


there's always been the issue of immigration. Thest not something


new, Melanie. People have always said there's too many people coming


in, I declare my interest as a first generation immigrant, I was nine


when I came here. Immigration's hugely benefitted the UK, however,


it's the detail that's going to cause so many difficulties. Are you


against the principle under Labour? It rose to over a net immigration


into this country of over 250,000, sometimes higher than that. As a


growth figure, it was over 500,000 a year. The Government want to bring


this down, it was a manifesto pledge of theirs, is that right or wrong?


It's right under Labour and under this Government as well. The system


of immigration is still broken. It was Theresa May who said only in


March of this year that the body that was administered to look after


immigration, the UK Border Agency was closed, secretive and defensive.


That hasn't changed in four months, it's the administration that's the


problem. You can avoid my broader question, but is it right to be


cutting net migration by roughly the ballpark figure that the Government


is attempting? No, it isn't right because, at the Prime Minister said


in the leaked letter today, what's happened on education is that fewer


students want to come into this country. As a result of that, he's


suggesting, or somebody in Number Ten is suggesting that people should


be allowed to go to our schools and pay to go to our schools when they


come from abroad. The proper universities in this country have


had a record intake of foreign students? They have.Public schools


have been closing which you allowed to flourish under Labour? I didn't


because I wasn't the minister. were an avatar for Labour?


committee's made it clear that under successive Governments, they had not


done enough about abuse. This is changing and the issue is cutting


down on abuse, welcoming people and there's common ground on this


between Mark and I, those who make a contribution should be allowed to


come to our country. Those who come illegally... Sometimes you don't


know it until they arrive? I'm not in favour of the amnesty, for


example. People would never have known you were going to make a


contribution until you got here. At the border we probably would have


said, don't let him in, and what a mistake that would job! You would


have noticed the skills I would have contributed and immediately let me


and my sisters in! But the fact is, let's take the politics out of


immigration. I think... Really?Yes. There's a lot of common ground.


We'll all be pushing up the Daisies before that happens. The only party,


an anti-immigration party, is UKIP. The rest there's common ground.


Melanie's right. We welcome immigrants, but people want a system


that's under control. We want people coming here to contribute. The


points we made in the consultations yesterday about making people come


here to study and about make making contributions to the Health Service,


that's right, stopping people being able to rent property if they don't


have the right to be here is right, so it discourages those who're not


having a trying be here. We have rules on family migrations, you can


come here and you have to stand on your own two feet, don't expect the


taxpayer to contribute for you. and sausages are two things you


never want to see being made. The European Parliament in a surprise


move yesterday passed a Bill that will have a huge effect on energy


Bills for the next 40 years. It will force up the price of carbon


allowances and the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. That's not been a


great success so far. It's largely been irrelevant. They are trying to


change that. It seeks to make businesses pay for the CO 2


emissions and they'll pass on the Cos to the consumer. That would be


us, by which point we won't feel so enthusiastic about it. The vote ends


over the future of the EU oo else energy and climate change policy and


the climate change commissioner, Connie Hedegaard joins us now from


Brussels -- E U's commissioner. Why are you pushing up the costs at a


time when it's on its knees? We are not pushing up costs, we are taking


care that despite the Christ sits in Europe, we are not making it free,


making it cost nothing to pollute. I think most Europeans would agree


that that would not be a wise future strategy for Europe. What we are


trying to achieve is that the price to pollute will come back to what


they were last fall. It's extremely important to get the proportion


right. So far the scheme's been ineffective because the price hasn't


mattered, it's down to five euros I think, a metric tonne of CO 2 and


maybe even lower, so it doesn't affect it. You can only get the


industries to produce less CO 2 if you charge them a lot more for doing


it. So by definition, your same to make it more expensive to do


business in Europe? It. So by definition, your same to


make it more expensive to do business in Europe?


We want to put a price on pollution. It's clear that if I say we should


take care that the price is not coming too close to zero, that the


price costs more than if it was at zero. I'm not sure that's bad for


industry. When we analyse in the commission which sectors have the


potential in Europe in the coming years, to create the jobs we so


badly need in Europe, which sectors come out? Communication, health and


the green sector, renewables, energy efficiency and waste handling. That


has actually been proven through the crisis that the green sector has the


potential really and has done and made a contribution to net creation


of jobs. So I would say if there is an incentive to produce greener,


cleaner, more efficient products, on the other hand is what this whole


discussion is all about, then it can stimulate innovation in our


countries and create growth and export possibilities for Europe. I


simply do not buy the claim that if we had a decent price on polluting


with CO2 that it's a negative effect for jobs. It's not. But Europe is


awash with unemployed people and even before you eve... Not because


of climate policies. Let me finish the question. But that is extremely


parent to get it right -- important to get right... Even before you add


to the price, European energy costs are the highest in the world.


Germany's 40% higher than the average, this country's lost its


almum-in industry because of the costs. French companies are


investing in America now, being built in the East Ohio Valley. In


BASF, one of the biggest producers of chemicals, now unvesting in the


US, not in Germany, you are forcing industry to leave? !


No. It's simply wrong. Although it was a very, very long question for


someone who's supposed to interview, but take the steel sector that you


mentioned, we have just analysed that very carefully in the


commission, together with the steel sector. Why does the steel sector in


Europe have problems? They have it because they have Sa surplus


capacity, they have too much capacity. Some people, like


yourselves, tend to argue that that's because of climate policies,


but what is the reality - the reality is that the steel sector up


until this very day has benefitted economically from the European


emissions ratings scheme, even the steel sector would admit that after


the exercise exercise we have been through with them. My point is that


yes we are in very challenging times in Europe. It's incredibly important


to create the jobs. It's not a purpose in itself to give people


higher bills for anything, but if I were going to choose, should we


lower taxation and pricing of Labour or should we do it with energy and


resources, I believe that most Europeans would agree, it is


probably a very good idea for Europe to become more energy efficient as


almost no region in the world imports as much of its energy as we


do in Europe. How would we bring down that kind of cost? Last year,


every day in Europe, we paid 1 billion euros for our oil, our


imported oil. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an incentive to become


more energy and resource official, bring down that kind of cost and


instead invest in activities and industries in Europe? That is


pacically at the core of of what we are trying to do. OK, I had a long


question, but you were allowed a long answer. What's more important


to you, capping CO2 emissions or getting jobs for the 25 million


people in Europe who don't have jobs? A very good question. To me


it's not an either or. We have to get out of the economic crisis and


create the jobs. It's not so that we can say, let's do that first and


then some five, ten, 15 years from now when we have nothing else to do


hopefully, then we could come to our climate challenges and resource


challenges. We have to do it intelligently - we


do that by trying to find the instruments, the tools, where we can


both do something good for our economy and create the jobs we need


and at the same time also do it in a way that's not harming the climate


policies. Unfortunately, climate change is getting worse, so that is


also a crisis that we need to attend to as part of the economic


challenge. Sorry, I haven't got time to pursue you on your claim there


that climate change is getting worse. We have to leave it there,


come back and see us soon for another interview. Will you do that?


Yes, you are welcome. Bye-bye. a good day.


I think that's a yes! The speaker of the House doesn't have an easy job.


No, I don't envy him. One minute you are keeping across the mind


numbingly boring detail of a Parliamentary legislation detail,


the next you are trying to keep the House in order while hundreds of MPs


yell at each other. So speakers develop a bruising and robust style.


John Bercow had a go at the Secretary of Defence Philip Hammond


when he refused to produce notes. One thing is for certain, if you get


told off by John Bercow, you stay told off by him. Here is a look at


him. Woefully inadequate and frankly utterly incompetent. I've not known


a worst example as my tenure as speaker. Although the Secretary of


State's expressed himself in understated terms, I hope he feels a


sense of embarrassment and contrition at what has been a total


mishandling by his Department for Which the right honourable gentleman


is solely responsible. If we could tackle this problem,


then... I say to the honourable member for Bridgwater, be quiet, if


you can't be quiet, get out. You are adding nothing, you are subtracting


a lot. It's rude, it's stupid, it's pompous and it needs to stop.


She tends 20 behave as though every exchange is somehow a conversation


with her. If the Government had wanted - don't shake her head - if


the Government wanted to put the honourable lady up to answer, it


could have done. It didn't. What I say in all courtesy to the


honourable lady is, sit there, be quiet and if you can't do so, leave


the chamber, we can manage without you.


Mr Stuart, I'm going to say it to you once and once only, you are far


too excitable, be quiet and calm down and - order! If you can't,


don't shake your head at me! If you can't, leave the chamber.


Leave the studio, Andrew, John Bercow - calling Phillip


Hammond incompetent and Ian Liddle-Grainger stupid - amongst


others. So what do MPs think of his robust style in the House? Rob


Wilson is the Conservative MP for Reading East. What do you think?


Yesterday I think it was a high point because I think he did the


right thing, he said it in a way that was not too angry and to


robust. Generally, there is a suspicion with John Bercow that he


fails to have a balanced and unbiased view of the house. In the


sense that he takes on Conservative MPs and ministers to a greater


degree than he does Labour shadow ministers and MPs. Is that just your


view sitting there as an MP? You have any evidence? I produce a six


monthly survey which clearly shows that John Bercow has intervened in a


quite robust way on Conservative is about 65% of the time, when we only


have about 46, 40 5% of the MPs. He does so to a much less degree with


Labour MPs. There is a record to look at. Melanie, are you a fan of


the speaker? Not really, my impression has been that he shows


partisan ship towards the Labour side. Also, the extract that you


showed showed him breaking members of Parliament for being excitable.


One of my problems with him is that he is very excitable. He seems to


sort of lose it very often, and this does not do well for the speaker's


whole stature. The speaker should be above the fray. The great speakers


in my experience, Speaker Thomas and Betty Boothroyd sale Serena Leon.


You never felt that Betty Boothroyd was scrapping in the benches --


serenely on. John Bercow does try to champion the backbenchers. Has he


not modernised it? He has taken control, perhaps you don't like the


style but he has done rather a lot for Parliament. He has changed since


2010 when the new government came in. He uses urgent questions a lot


more since then, to hold the government to account. A massive


increase in urgent questions which is difficult for the government to


deal with. You ask yourself, why didn't he do that when he first came


in? All right, but getting ministers to come to the house and demanding


answers in principle, is a good thing. It is and many backbenchers


welcome that. He has made changes that benefit backbenchers to that


extent. Sometimes you get the feeling that the wave of


unpopularity on the Conservative benches is that they are obsessed


about this idea that he is biased, rather than what he's doing in terms


of his role for the house. I think if he is partisan, that is a very


significant reason why it people would not take kindly to him. The


fact is coming in May well have done some very good things in terms of


Parliamentary procedure, I am prepared to give him all credit for


that. But is this going to be one of the great speakers of our time? I


think the answer is no. He does have the potential to be a great speaker,


he is very articulate, able and bright. The way he puts things can


be very credible. But I think he lets himself down obviously with his


temper. Do you think the public think this is the kind of speaker


they want? I don't think the public view the speaker in one way or


another, I think they look on Parliament as a bear pit of


uncivilised, out-of-control, making noises to each other and are


irrelevant to the lives and prosperity of ordinary people.


the speaker trying to combat that? think Melanie is watching the odd


big debate and prime ministers questions but most of the time it is


perfectly civil and people debate in a civil way. You could have fooled


It will be an unusual evening in Westminster tonight - not least


because a large number of MPs will actually still be here on a Thursday


night - but also because a number of Conservatives are having a barbecue


with the Prime Minister at Number ten. Is it an end of term party? No,


it's all a bit of a Tory Party bonding session ahead of a Private


Members' Bill. James Wharton MP will bring his Europe Referendum Bill to


the Commons on Friday, but why him? And why are Tories so keen on it?


Giles has been following the action, and the MP from the start.


Every year Parliament has a lottery. The backbench winner doesn't get


money, but the prize is influence and a chance to change the law.


Welcome to the world of Private Members Bills, and in a


controversial twist, this year the draw was done in reverse order.


but not least and the winner of the it was drawn, I was leaving my flat


in London to go back to the constituency on expectation of


anything exciting happening that day. I got a phone call from the BBC


as it happens and be present at, congratulations, you have come top


of the private member 's ballot. I won't repeat what I said but it made


my feelings quite clear. I realised then, my phone began to ring off the


hook. Because anyone topping the bill gets instantaneously offered


advice on what to take on, whether they want it or not. A very busy


morning of TV and radio interview started which only stopped about


midday, when David Beckham announced he was retiring. But bend how you


will, this year any Tory who won was going to be asked to take on one


thing - a Europe referendum. Once you have, the next thing then is to


find sponsors for your bill. There will be a list of sponsors and a


good range of sponsors with some senior parliamentarians throwing


their weight behind the bill. I hope that will be enough weight to


support the Conservative party to take it through. I am grateful for


what he says and I would urge all colleagues to come to vote for this


bill. Be under no illusions this is the Conservative Party making PR


trying to do a number of jobs to draw a clear line between themselves


and the Lib Dems on Europe, and hoping to embarrass Labour into


whether they would commit to a such a vote. The PM wanted to sponsor the


vote but he can't. Any ministerial involvement would make it Government


business. What's rather odd is that when the bill has it's first reading


it's called a dummy bill. All we need to present is the dummy pill


which shows the indication of what we want to bring forward. European


Union referendum Bill. Friday the 5th of July, the whip was


interfering a little. More on whips in a minute but meanwhile, one


backbencher has been getting creative - she sees the Referendum


Bill as a badge of honour. I have been making badges, I am one of the


12 sponsors of the bill. This is something that we can deliver as


backbenchers. If my e-mail inbox is anything to go by, it is certainly


something that the British people want. It's a feeling that has


galvanised Conservatives to get on board and it never hurts to get some


last minute guidance from a former whip. I think work with everyone,


don't just work with the usual suspects on both sides of the


argument. Look beyond what is happening on Friday as well. Most


people probably think it is done and dusted on Friday. In many ways, it


is the start of the process. It will very much set the tone for how


things go forward. I would personally avoid getting too many


amendments, ones that look too supportive in later stages. You


don't want to get this bill hijacked. I think it was a smart


move not just accepting the bill as it was, picking sure it was your


bill rather than just the government's bill. -- making sure.


And there's one last ploy, given MPs have left Westminster by Friday.


Have a party the night before to persuade colleagues to stay. Make


sure people don't drink too much the night before because it could go


very badly wrong the next morning. Drinking too much in Westminster?


That will never happen. I'm now joined from Brussels by the


Conservative MEP James Elles. You talk about, it is time to say enough


is enough and that the remaining pro-Europeans in the Conservative


party should stand up and be counted. How many of them are you?


Judging by a poll in the open Europe a few days back, when it was asked


how many people would like to vote in favour of the status crawl across


the country, they said 37 in favour and 47 against. -- the status quo.


When you look at the conservatives who make up the 47%, it said 39%


would be Conservative supporting the status quo. I think there are many


more conservative voters who would be happy to vote for remaining in


the European Union without going into renegotiation or repatriations.


What percentage of the Conservative Parliamentary party do you think


have your views on Europe? I think very few, there are not that many in


the European Parliament either but it does not stop the European


parliamentarians saying what he believes in and what many of his


people and supporters say to me, as they were last weekend. Are you a


dying breed, a pro-European Conservative? I think it has been a


bit like red squirrels being chased out of the woods by the grey


squirrels. I think the red ones will come back because for time it will


be appreciated. We have been through an extremely difficult economic


situation. A lot have been able to make a lot of capital. If you look


at the bitch and of where our country should be and with who we


should be, I think ying in the European Union will still appeal to


the majority of the British people -- I think being in the European


Union. Is the Conservative party now explicitly Eurosceptic and James


else is in extremely -- James Elles is in an extreme minority? I think


it reflects a large proportion, probably the majority of


Conservative voters. As for the public in general, it is a close


call. I am baffled about this bill. What everyone thinks about the


necessity or desirability of a referendum, as far as I understand


it, this bill has minimal chance of getting through because the Lib Dems


would be against it. Even if it did get through, legal advice is it will


not buy into the next Parliament anyway. I am confused as to whether


this is not anything more than a PR stunt -- will not bind the next


Parliament. Would you vote for a referendum Bill, would you vote for


repatriation of powers back to London? I would be in favour of a


referendum because I think it has been shown in Ireland and Denmark,


where they have had similar anti-European movements, they have


had votes at every stage of the changes in the treaties. Euro


scepticism is less in both of those countries, so we need a referendum.


The Irish were forced to have the referendum again because it does not


suit Brussels. Nothing is normal in Ireland, you would probably say. If


you look at our case, we need and in out referendum. I would be happier


to have that attached to the changes in the treaties. When there is a


significant change in the constitutional management of our


country. We had it in 1995 and because we haven't had it since


then, whatever government has been in power, there has been an enormous


amount of frustration and people want their say. Will you stand for


election again next? I won't be, but I would like to touch on something


millennium has said, the nature of this debate. If it were -- Melanie


has said. If it were the referendum would cure our economic ills, that


would be an important issue. But if you look at the problems we have in


infrastructure investment or the way many factoring industry has


disappeared, these are not things which are European questions.


have to stop there, thank you for joining us.


That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'clock News is


Download Subtitles