28/02/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Ed Miliband's promised some pretty "seismic

changes" to his party. His words, not mine. He hopes a package of

measures, to be voted on tomorrow, will change Labour's relationship

with the unions and allow individuals more say in the party

leadership. We'll be putting them under the spotlight. The crisis in

Ukraine continues to unravel. The country's interior minister accuses

Russia of an "armed invasion and occupation" of his country. He says

Russian troops have taken control of two airports on the Crimean

peninsula. Russia has denied involvement. The daffodils are out

and the Spring Conference season is underway. Today it's UKIP's turn to

steal the limelight. And they rolled out the red carpet for her. German

Chancellor Angela Merkel even had a cosy cup of tea with the Queen. But

her message yesterday: EU reform won't be" a piece of cake". All that

in the next hour. And with us for the next half an hour is former

Political Editor of the Sunday Times, Isabel Oakeshott. Welcome to

the Daily Politics. Now first today, the continuing row about whether or

not Harriet Harman should apologise over the links between a civil

rights organisation she worked for in the 1970s and a paedophile group.

Yesterday the former Labour Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, who was

in charge of the National Council for Civil Liberties, at the time,

said that she had "got it wrong" and was "naive" about the pro-paedophile

group. Harriet Harman, has so far "regretted the link". Last night on

Question Time, the Defence Minister, Anna Sourby was asked whether

Harriet Harman should have apologised. She had this to say: it

was handled badly. She should have come out and the story would have

disappeared and gone away. I am really not interested between the

fight between Patricia Hewitt and the Daily Mail. She has not done

herself any favours. It is the Westminster consensus that Harriet

Harman has got this wrong. Absolutely. I am amazed by how badly

Harriet Harman has handled this row. Had she apologised

straightaway, it would have gone away, as the defence minister said.

There is no political capital to be made by stringing out an apology for

something most people regard as indefensible. What would she be

apologising for? She could say it was a mistake to be linked with the

paedophile organisation. Harriet Harman was just a lawyer at the

time. I do not think voters going into the fine detail of all of

this. People are not bothered about the detail. The point is that people

are not bothered about the fine detail and she should have made a

simple apology in the way that Patricia Hewitt has done, and

perhaps she was encouraged by the fight that Ed Miliband had with the

Daily Mail. She thought she could win it but she will never win it.

The Daily Mail is toxic for people like Harriet Harman. Do you think

our judgement was skewed about how to handle this? Absolutely. Had this

campaign been led by the Guardian, her attitude might have been

different, but she saw it very politically right from the start and

that was the wrong approach to take. When Ed Miliband was at the wrong

end of the Daily Mail, he came out quite well. He had the moral high

ground and it was a different fight. People felt sorry for Ed Miliband

and felt that the Daily Mail had behaved inappropriately. When it

comes to links with paedophile organisations, that is a much more

difficult thing to get away with. I suppose it does not go away. The

caravan will move on to whether Patricia Hewitt has made an apology.

Harriet Harman, why can you not do the same? I do not think Harriet

Harman will say any more on this. She has put out a detailed regret

statement and that is as far as it goes. It has become a face saving

exercise for her. Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for

today is: Which one of these is the odd one out? A) Angela Merkel b)

Michelle Obama c) Larry the cat or d) Nigel Farage. And a bit later in

the show Isabel will give us the correct answer. Do you know the

answer? Give me time! You have plenty of time! Ed Miliband wants to

shake up the Labour Party - promising "seismic changes" that he

says go further than Tony Blair ever dared - he's even holding a special

conference this weekend to prove it He wants unions to vote on reforms

that aim to rebuild Labour as a "mass movement". He wants a change

in the way the party leader is elected - demolishing the electoral

college, replacing it with a one member, one vote system. Automatic

union affiliation fees are also set to bite the dust. Union members will

have to agree to giving their share of fees to the Party. And they'll

have to pay ?3 to become an 'affiliated supporter' - changes not

without financial risk. But could this destabilise the relationship

with the unions? Last year the GMB union vowed to collapse their

affiliation funding from ?1.2m to ?150,000. And Unite, Labour's

biggest affiliated union, meet next week to discuss halving it's annual

affiliation fees to ?1.5m after leader Len McCluskey described the

current situation as "untenable". With me now is Sadiq Khan, the

Shadow Justice Secretary. Welcome. Tomorrow is going to rubber-stamp

changes that have been agreed. I hope the vote goes through. There is

a special conference and they will vote yes or no to the proposals. In

the end, nothing much changes and nothing changes for five years, is

that not right? No. You mention the huge financial risk. The new members

of trade unions will make a decision of whether to opt in. Any new member

joining does this under the new rules. You mentioned that five-year

period. If you remember the Chris Kelly reports, they recommended a

system of opting in and thought that five-year period was sensible,

bearing the difficulties that trade union members had. They said five

years is the transitional periods recommended. The leader of the GMB

said the collective role of trade unions in the Labour Party is not up

for grabs. Is that true? There have been difference of opinions about

the role that trade unions play. It is about modernising the trade union

link. John Smith began this process and nobody would argue that John

Smith's changes or Tony Blair's changes have led to the trade unions

separating from Labour. We are after a transparent arrangement. I

appreciate this is a change that has implications for the Labour Party.

The unions will retain their block vote in the conference, 50% of all

the boats they can control, they will still be the biggest group on

the controlling committee, their own political funds will swell, and they

say that they will hand the money over to you come the election, but

only if they get the policies they want. Their influence could be

bigger. At the moment, my vote, as a member of Parliament,

bigger. At the moment, my vote, as a that they have a lot of money in the

political funds, more than ever before because they are not giving

it to you, and they were only handed over if they agree with the

policies. We want trade union members to become candidates for

Parliament, so that would be a strengthening of the relationship.

We want trade union members to come to our local events. I am not

embarrassed that teachers, care workers and bus drivers have more

others say in the Labour Partyfuture. When Len McCluskey says

this could lead to trade unions having a bigger role, that is a good

thing. In a curious way, because of the changes, they may have more

control over the purse strings. That is not true, come on, Andrew. We

will continue to try... How much have you taken... The people in the

party are ordinary members. The unions hand-out this money every

year and the affiliation fees come in, you get a chunk of that. That

won't happen any more and you hold onto that. They will be sitting on a

pile of cash, just before the election, and they will have no

leverage on what they want in the manifesto. You are making the

relationship between Labour Party and trade unions are binary one,

based on money. We recognise that we have lost money through the

consequences of what we have done. A lot will give money as individual

donors. Len McCluskey, on Newsnight this week, said that this would now

give him more power over what was in the Labour manifesto. He may well

say that but as a party, we have a long process to draw out policies.

There will be an open process of making policies. We are very open to

policy ideas. Of course. We live in the real world and money talks, and

your party is not flash with cash. We are running up to an election and

the unions are sitting on ?6 million. You are drawing up your

manifesto and Len McCluskey says is this policy is not in the manifesto,

you are not getting the money. That is not how we do business in the

Labour Party. We want to be more in tune with the British public, have

policies that are designed to address their concerns, and I think

it is good that trade unions will have a role in the Labour Party. The

cleanest form of money in British politics is from hedge funds

managers, and not from millionaires. You are happy that the unions will

continue to have a 50% block vote? As an obvious consequence of the

changes we are making I think there will be an evolutionary process. You

have got to realise that the process that began under John Smith has been

evolutionary. It has benefited the party and the trade union movement.

You are right, of course, about the issue of trade union bosses having

more discretion over their spending. He did not answer the question about

how much money is coming into the party from big business. The answer

is that it is almost none. They have no big business donors. I accept

your point about cleaner money from smaller donors rather than people,

as you put it, having dinner in Number Ten. The final word?

Hard-working trade union members who vote, I am proud of. I'm proud of

the links with the trade union members. Are you going to the

conference tomorrow? I am. Are you looking forward to it? I am. It

should be a good event. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Now the party

Spring Conference season has sprung. UKIP are in sunny Devon this

weekend, in Torquay in fact. They will, of course, be hoping to do

well in this year's European Elections. But what hope, in some of

the other elections coming up? Adam's been to a different seaside

town. Folkestone in Kent where the tide turned in UKIP's favour. Here

are some of the challenges facing the party nationally. First, can

UKIP win the European elections? Here is how the story goes. Everyone

was convinced that UKIP would win this summer's election for the

European Parliament. Then a poll came out suggesting they might only

come second. The political class drew the conclusion that UKIP what

run out of momentum. Don't be so hasty says the author of a new book

about the party. The one thing you have to remember though about UKIP

is that at previous European elections in 2004 and 2009, they

surged very late on. People are already writing them off this time

around. It is too early with UKIP. You have to wait until early to

mid-May to begin to see whether this party is going to rocket forward

like they did in 2009. But how about the general election

in 2015? It will be tough because of the voting system. The party's

support is spread out rather than concentrated in particular places

making it hard to turn votes into seats. Unless they hunker down in a

few places which begs the next question, where will Nigel Farage

stand in 2015? Well, Folkestone has been suggested, but the UKIP leader

says he will make the decision in June. He will like it if he comes

here, there is plenty of lunch time drinking. I think he is a nice guy.

He is down to earth. He is not stuck up He is a drinking man. A smoking

man. And he has opinions about the safeguarding of England.

REPORTER: If he turned up to join you for a pint, you would be happy?

I would enjoy having a pint with him. Yeah, absolutely. But can UKIP

broaden their support and reach the parts of the electorate that they

need to? They are not connecting with women to the same extend they

are connecting with men. They are not connecting with the Young. Their

vote is very old. It will be difficult for this revolt to sustain

itself over the long-term. There is a the lot of Young people in Britain

who have been hit by austerity. UKIP are not connecting with them. There

is the biggest question of all. By succeeding do UKIP take support from

the Tories and sink any chance of a referendum on our membership of the

EU? Joined now from Torquay by UKIP's

Communities spokesman, Suzanne Evans. Welcome to the Daily

Politics. What measures have you taken to ensure that the disaster of

your last autumn conference, which Nigel Farage had to admit Jeffrey

Bloom destroyed it, doesn't happen again? It won't happen again. It

wasn't a disaster. There was one incident with Godfrey Bloom. I was

at conference last year. It was a fantastic event. We showed our

policies. We showed the depth of the talent we have on board. This

conference is going to be even better. Actually, it was two

incidents, Godfrey Bloom declared the UKIP conference to be full of

sluts and he went on to hit someone over the head with a brochure. You

are serving up free fruit cake at this conference. Does this make

sense? It is one fruit cake that's on the desk at reception. It is a

joke, are Andrew. It is a good joke! We are going to put up on the screen

the UKIP slogan so we can see it which is, "Love Britain, vote UKIP."

We have put up on the screen the BNP's slogan, "Love Britain, vote

BNP." Is that wise? The BNP does not have a monopoly on any words in the

English language and lots of people, lots of organisations use the

slogan, "Love Britain." It is a great slogan. I love Britain. As one

of the men said, Nigel Farage and UKIP stand up for this country and

I'm not ashamed to say I love Britain. I don't care who used the

term before, there is clear water between us and the BNP and we're

just standing up for Britain. One of your image problems is that people

suspect there are a lot of people on the right of your party who may not

be that different from BNP. Does it make tactical sense to choose a

poster slogan that minimumics the BNP?

Andrew, as I said no political party has the monopoly on the words in the

English language. The Guardian used the phrase, "Love Britain" When they

were talking about the Edward Snowden affair. I love Britain. The

party loves Britain. It is about standing up for British sovereignty

in the face of the onslaught of laws and a take-over by the European

Union. Nigel Farage said that UKIP has been guilty of resembling the

rugby club on a day out. Is it like a rugby club in Torquay today? Well,

I'm not that familiar with rugby clubs on a day out. That's not my

impression are, are no. Since I joined UKIP. I have been warmly

welcomed. I have been not been made uncomfortable because I'm woman.

There are a growing number of women in UKIP. You said the that party is

finding it hard to connect with women and I don't find that. It is

my role to stand up for women and show women what UKIP can offer them

and UKIP offers women the same thing as it offers men. It offers policies

which resonate. What we care about is how much tax we pay? How safe we

are on the streets when we walk home? How many laws we can create in

our own country and not having laws and rights taken away by a European

stupor state -- superstate. These are things I'm interested in and all

things that women are interested. What's your policy on child benefit?

As you know, our manifesto is being re-jigged as we speak. Child benefit

is a tricky one. We don't want to make a big statement and then find

we couldn't afford it. There was criticism after the 2010 manifesto

was launched that we couldn't afford the manifesto promises we made. So

at the moment we are having them all independently costed by an economic

think-tank and... So you haven't got a policy on child benefit? I am sure

we will have policy. What would you like it to say? We haven't got a

policy we are ready to announce. What would you like? As a woman, and

as a mother, I think child benefit is very important and I'm sure...

That bit we got. But what's your policy? As I said, Andrew, we have

not yet, I haven't got authority at the moment to tell you what our

policy might be. It is being costed Ah, Mr Farage hasn't given you that

so it is the men holding the authority in your party, is if? --

is it? No, I was part of developing the Labour manifesto as woman and

there was a few women involved in that. Do you agree that women

employees are worth less than men? No. I don't. Neither does Nigel

Farage. Well, he doesn't agree with himself? No, he was talking about a

specific incident within his own particular realm of experience at a

particular point in time in the City some years. I think his quotes were

taken out of context. Nobody thinks a woman is worth less than a man. I

don't and I don't think you do, Andrew. Can we move on from that

because it is irrelevant to our campaign going forward? When will we

get the UKIP manifesto for the European elections in May? Well, I

think the European election manifesto is clear really. I think

there is only one top polls I why, we want out -- policy, we want out

of the EU. So all you need is a one line manifesto? No, that's what

people are going to vote on, isn't it for the European elections? I

would encourage people to do that because the European elections are

going to send a strong message to David Cameron, but perhaps that we

should have that referendum sooner. They are going to send a strong

message to Ed Miliband that maybe he needs to commit to having an EU

referendum. I would like to see both of them do that pretty soon and

ahead of the 2014 general election. What point would you like to make? I

would like to see more of her. Wow, this is a very impressive

spokeswoman for UKIP. How refreshing to see them put up a woman? What do

you say to that? That's very kind, indeed. Thank you. Are you in danger

of mis-managing expectations? Your people are going around saying you

expect to come first in the European elections. If you don't, that will

seem like a failure? It is a Westminster process thing, but don't

you need to get more sophisticated about this? Andrew, I'm amused by

the spin that's being put on this. A few weeks ago, we were a fringe part

We were somebody not to be taken seriously. We were a protest vote.

Now suddenly, if we come only second in the European election we have

failed. Come on, you are an experienced journalist, you must be

able to see the irony in that? If Nigel Farage fails to do well in the

European elections is his position under threat?

No, I don't think so. I think if we come second it will be a close

second. It is not about the number of MEPs, we get it is about what

vote share we get. Everyone here is behind Nigel Farage. He is a

fantastic leader. I'm very, very proud to be on his frontbench team

and yeah, I think we will do very well in the euro elections. Do you

think you will come first? If we come first, that will be fantastic,

if we don't, UKIP is on the rise. UKIP is going forwardment we are a

major player in British politics. The tide has turned. There is an

earthquake and we are here to stay. All right, well you watch that tide

behind you there. It is looking threatening there.

I was just thinking about that! It is getting darker as we speak. Thank

you for joining us. Now the crisis in Ukraine appears to

be worsening by the day with Russian troops said to have moved into the

Crimea region. One Ukrainian Government Minister has accused

Russia of armed invasion. Here's what David Cameron had to say

yesterday. Every country should respect the territorial integrity

and sovereignty of the Ukraine. Russia made th commitment and it is

important that Russia keeps its word. The world will be watching.

This is not a zero sum game. If the people of Ukraine want greater ties

with Europe, then, of course, we welcome that. But it is not about

forcing the Ukrainian people to choose between Russia and Europe. It

is in all our interests to have a stable and prosperous Ukraine.

We're joineed by Orysia Lutsevych from the international affairs

think-tank, Chatham House. What do you believe is the Kremlin's aim

here? What will the Kremlin do? I think the master plan is to

destabilise Ukraine furthermore. It is to prevent Kiev to consolidate

power over the territory of Ukraine and it is to distract attention for

dealing with painful economic reforms and consolidating the aid

package that should come from the West. Now, we learned yesterday, on

Wednesday, Mr Putin saying that he was checking the battle readiness of

the troops. Then we were told that fighter jets were on combat

readiness. This morning we hear of helicopters in Crimea, of airports

being taken over by armed men. Is this sabre-rattling or could it be

the prelude to a military intervention? It is a very dangerous

situation, I think. A lot of conflict could start by chance, by

provocation, the spark could happen in the evidence of having so many

troops gathered around and including in Crimea some of the Russian groups

could be armed. So in a way, I think the strategy would be to start to

present Crimean unrest as a home-grown protest. Russia is not

confirming that its troops are taking over the Parliament, but we

know that where would they appear overnight? It is an old soviet trick

to create a set of events that then justify a military intervention? It

is not only soviet. Putin was trying this trick recently Georgia where he

was going to protect compatriots and defend the Russia delegation abroad.

Should we not regard Mr Putin as having a lot in common with the old

sof jets? -- soviets? I think he is a reincarnation of that system. The

system in the Ukraine is complicated. There are, there is

huge differences between the largely pro-Russian east and the more

European facing west and the Crimea is a whole game on its own that used

to belong to Russia, there are major Russian ports in Crimea and it only

became part of Crimea in 1954. So there is plenty of problems to stir

up there, isn't there? We should not forget that there are Crimea n

tartares, they came back during the independent time to reclaim the land

and we have 15 to 20 population. We don't have a recent population poll

to really know how many there are, but this is not just between Ukraine

and Russia, there is a population that is pro-Ukrainian in terms of

keeping the integration with the mainland of Ukraine.

Ukraine is bust, isn't it? The risks are growing every day and that is

why I think the West should not wait, like it was waiting to see the

situation in Ukraine. They should be on the ground, monitoring it. They

should be there to take hold of the situation and ask questions. When

Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons, the USA and the UK guaranteed

sovereignty to Ukraine. They should be asking why they are in the

Crimea. I have just come back from the USA and does not seem to be a

lot of interest there. Under EU rules, we are not allowed to give

funding to a country unless it has the proper democratic credentials.

Clearly, yesterday, we saw the new government voted into Parliament by

the majority. This government is in talks with the USA and IMF.

Yesterday, it was said that the USA will guarantee part of the loan that

the IMF would give. The strategy of Russia is to show that this

government cannot make orders in its own House. What should the EU do?

There are few things. It should enforce what it is already doing. It

should understand that the Ukrainian situation is a European vacuity

issue. It is very close to home and a major piece of the border, so they

should be together with the USA and discussing the situation. --

European security issue. But they only have soft power, Moscow has the

hard power. There are military ships in the Black C. They are not going

to get involved -- Black said. We have seen people dying for this soft

power, waving flags. The worry is that they are standing for something

that will let them down. They also understand, throughout the crisis,

that they have to rely on themselves. This is a big mental

shift. It is a big country, 46 million people. It is not a small

European country. I think this is an important lesson that they are

acting upon, and taking stock, that is the first lesson. The fact is, we

are irrelevant. We are not even the players. You said you were in

America and was not much there. I struggled to find interest at

Westminster. It was not even brought up at Rye Minister 's questions. It

is complicated, there are so many factions involved. -- Prime

Minister's Questions. I spoke to some MPs and they said they are

absent, we are not really part of this. What are the chances of

Ukraine being partitioned? It depends on Vladimir Putin's plan. I

think the risks are high. The Ukrainian authorities should work to

find a way to localise the movement of troops and trying to negotiate

and see who the people are. Exactly. They are saying that they

are not entitled to negotiate. Events are unfolding as we speak.

Thank you for joining us. Time to get the answer to our quiz. The

question was... Which one of these is the odd one out? A) Angela Merkel

b) Michelle Obama c) Larry the cat or d) Nigel Farage. So, Isabel,

what's the correct answer? Soft furnishings? The answer is Nigel

Farage. It is, he is the only one not to have sat on the sofa. Coming

up in a moment it's our regular look at what's been going on in European

politics. But for now it's time to say goodbye to my guest of the day,

Isabel Oakeshott. So for the next half an hour we're going to be

focussing on Europe. We'll be discussing, Switzerland,

immigration, Angela Merkel and we'll also be taking a look at the runners

and riders for one of Europe's top jobs. First though here's our 60

second guide to what's been happening in Europe this week. Blink

and you may miss it. The Nordic model of prostitution has been

attacked by MPs who voted to legalise the selling of sex and

criminalise those who are buying it. Smaller German parties including the

far right are more likely to gain European Parliament seats after the

top court scrapped a rule requiring parties to win at least 3% of the

top boat. Tough new smoking rules have been voted through by the

European Parliament, including mandatory health warnings covering

two thirds of cigarette packs. All new cars will have to be fitted with

a life-saving device from 25th team. It automatically dials the emergency

services in the event of a crash. MEPs say it will cut response times

and save lives. In a high profile visit to London, German Chancellor

Angela Merkel said she would work with Britain to reform Europe. She

wants to remain a strong boys inside the EU. -- a strong boys. Voice. And

with us for the next 30 minutes I've been joined by The Conservative MEP,

Timothy Kirkhope and the UKIP MEP, Gerard Batten. Now to Angela Merkel.

What did the visit achieve? Auntie Angela Kane to visit young David. He

cannot have his train set, he needs a dinky toy. She said there would be

no fundamental reform. It was a meeting of the two most important

politicians in Europe. Working together, they can get reforms in

Europe. She made it clear that she was not up to the fundamental

reforms that David may need. She made it clear that if there was a

treaty change, it could not be within Mr Cameron's timetable. She

did not close any doors, she opened a lot. She was being pragmatic, and

so was the Prime Minister. This is a marvellous combination and it is

important we work hard at this. There will be no fundamental

renegotiation. This project is about creating a United States of Europe.

You are in or you are out. The arguments today are the same as 40

years ago. If we could have a referendum now, if Mr Cameron went

to Parliament and asked for a referendum, that would make him

strong for an election. The situation is quite clear. We need

reform, we need change, she needs change in Europe, they are very much

of the same mind, I think. Hold on, a fundamental reform of the European

architecture is what David Cameron once but she says you are in for a

disappointment. The negotiations are going on and will continue to go on

and we have a fair prospect of success, despite the misery guts

approach of this man and his friends. If you are going for a

major treaty change, not just repatriating powers from Brussels to

Britain, but treaty changes that affect the whole of the continent,

they take ages to do, they have to be ratified by every Parliament, and

by a referendum, and I would suggest to you that France Warhol and needs

a referendum like a hole in the head! E-mail have certain limits on

the number of Daisy is going to remain in power. Is in power until

2017. The number of days he is going to remain in power. UKIP are never

going to be in power and are never going to give the people of this

country a referendum. We will and we will give them a referendum as well.

Every month we go to straddle the, we get lots of legislation and the

Tories and Lib Dems vote for it. I do not know what it is that they

want to reform. -- every month we go to Strasbourg. The reason that they

will go to Brussels and shown at this rubbish out is because they are

being paid an extra ?256 a day to do it. Okay... What percentage of votes

in the Parliament do you think you have been out? Me? About 80%. Do you

not think it is demeaning that we are cosying up in a sycophantic way

to Angela Merkel? Germany is a great success story and she is a great

leader but do we have two demean ourselves? Are we doing that? We

have two great leaders. We seem desperate to suck up to the Germans.

Not at all. We take the Germans seriously. That is different to

sucking up. Nigel said, you cannot have change, you need barn. We stand

for own country and we want to run our own affairs. If we cannot

control immigration... We had a headline in the Son in German! That

of the first time. -- The sun. Do you think the Queen and Angela

Merkel spoke in German? I would not be surprised. I am sure the Queen

would have spoken in German out of courtesy. I think BT would be

English! The tea. Certainly English. ! Now figures released yesterday

show that there was an increase in net immigration of almost a third,

to 212,000, in the 12 months to last September. There was a big rise in

the number of people arriving from European Union countries, but a drop

in the number from outside Europe. Vince Cable, says it is "absolutely"

committed to reducing net migration to tens of thousands by 2015. He was

almost rubbing David Cameron's nose in it! Yvette Cooper said the

immigration target is in tatters. She is right. No, she is not right

at all. This is one set of figures and I was Immigration Minister in

the 1990s. This is one set of figures. Looking at the overall

position, from the start of the government, we have reduced

migration, but more importantly, the nature of migration has changed. It

has changed from largely nonproductive to productive

migration. Who was nonproductive? 70% of the entrance were coming for

education purposes. There were bogus universities or colleges. 30% were

coming into normal, productive work. It has completely reversed in the

last year. Hold on. Your party promised to get immigration down to

the tens of thousands die next year. It has now gone up. It has gone up

to 212,000. -- by next year. We are going in the right direction. How,

when you have just added 60,000 to the figures? Over the term, we are

reducing net migration. We had a set of figures from September last year

and the situation, even after September, has changed dramatically

as a result of the government clamping down on benefit abuse.

Indeed, these figures do not include any Romanians or Bulgarians who have

come since the law was relaxed. Indeed, and UKIP made it clear that

from January, 27 million plus will be arriving. We employ people on the

basis of their commitment to work and their contribution to the

economy. It is true. Do you understand... Do you understand why

people despair of politicians when your party promises to get

immigration down to the tens of thousands and it actually goes up to

212,000? You come onto this programme and say it is going in the

right direction! Yes, it is going in the write direction. What are you

on? Clearly... It was water, wasn't it? It has given me a good laugh if

nothing else, Andrew. They can't do it because they are

against immigration. Isn't this something Britain should be proud

of? That our economy is doing so well that Young Italians, Young

French, French Germans, Young Spaniards, Young Poles are coming to

this country because there are jobs. Because they are welcome here and

they will be a huge asset to our economy? Let's come back to the

numbers in a minute. We have got a net 212, 500,000 people coming here.

This is the figure between 180 odd and 230 has been going on since

Labour were in power. We are adding an extra one million people to the

population every four to six years which is a city the size of

Birmingham. It is unsustainable. The current Government can't control

immigration while it is a member of the European Union. It is as simple

as that. They are powerless... What's the answer to your question?

UKIP would have a policy of controlled immigration where we

allowed people on a work permit basis where they did have the skills

that we want to fill vacancies in the job market, real vacancies. We

are not just bringing in highly skilled people. We have 1.5 million

unemployed, something like a the people you talk about are not all

skilled people coming in to work. What a lot of these are doing, they

are coming in and driving wages down. Let me finish, please. Driving

wages down at the bottom end of the economic scale when they do work and

we have got people who come in and don't work. I have had people living

in rough in the bushes outside my house during the summer. I went over

to spoke to them. We a couple of Poles who I spoke to, we a Russian,

it is all out of control. No, it is not out of control and the companies

and businesses that are developing and world leaders who like

intercorporate transfers as part of the migration figures now, moving

important staff around would not agree with you and at the end of the

day, don't talk about denying people in this country work nine out of ten

of the new jobs that have been created are British citizens. OK. So

you get that in prospective, please. Instead of this being a good news

story as Vince Cable made clear, it can be presented as because your

party takes a hard-line in immigration, you can't present it

like that. You can't say this shows the success of the British economy,

because it flies in the face of what your policies is meant to be? Our

policy is to have the right kind of immigration where the people who

come here provide economic benefit to the country and help us develop.

That's a sensible approach and the abusers which have gone on under the

Labour Government previously are being denied now. So that's very,

very important. I am afraid we have run out of time. Endless waves of

cheap labour. In Switzerland they like to have referendum about

immigration. They have just had one and they are not that keen. Here is

Adam with his latest A to Z. Forgive the cliche, but

Switzerland's's relationship with Brussels is like a cuckoo clock. In

and out. You can travel to France or Germany without one of these. They

can export these because they are a part of the single market, but

Switzerland isn't in the euro, but these are accepted. The country

voted to stay out of the EU in the early 2000s, now Swiss lsh EU

relations are governed by 100 agreements, one of which commits

Switzerland to send millions of euros in aid payments to EU members

in Eastern Europe. In this posh restaurant, political scientist

explains what this stand-offish says about the Swiss psyche. The local

authorities are very important. Accountants are very important. It

is built from the bottom up. We feel and I think it is real, that Europe

is a construction of elites and up side down from Brussels. So it is

against our, the whole culture of our country.

That uneasiness was exposed in the referendum. Swiss voters chose very

narrowly to impose quotas on how many people can come into the

country from the EU. Although they will have to wait for legislation to

fill in the details. When I met Brussels ambassador to Switzerland

at the end of last year, his number one priority was selling the

benefits of the EU. We think that the agreement that we've had with

Switzerland now for well over ten years has been of great benefit to

them and to us. And Switzerland is a country that's done very well in the

economic downturn and one of the reasons is because it has been able

to fill jobs, it has been able to do that because it can call on labour

and workers from the European Union. He is being less diplomatic now.

Negotiations about education and science have been called off and

there is a warning of further consequences. But Euro-sceptics say

the referendum ranks along with the scenery and chocolates as one of the

Switzerland's attractions. You would be welcome to join us in a Free

Trade Agreement. Many would suggest the idea of a more detached

Swiss-style arrangement is well, totally cuckoo.

Would UKIP like to see Britain have the same arrangement with the

European Union as Switzerland? No. Because it is almost just as bad.

Switzerland had a referendum in 92 not to join the European Union, but

they decided not to join the European Economic Area. They have

got this 100 bilateral arrangements. We would be more distant from the EU

than Switzerland? My view and I think the party as a whole view, is

we leave the European Union. They sell us far more than we sell them.

They have trading arrangements where Mexico, Israel and countries around

the world. We could have a trading arrangement with them. We could

control our borders and control what legislation we want in our country

or don't want... I am not clear what our relationship would be with the

European Union though? Is the Switzerland model of any interest to

you? No. You can have a country like Switzerland which is having to abide

by hundreds of, but hasn't any say at the top table. It might be OK for

Switzerland, but it is not OK for Britain. The trouble with UKIP is

you don't think, you don't think big. You don't think about our

country and you are a part of this... You are part of this

ideological thrust. You both don't want the Swiss model. The Swiss did

a report in 2006 and they worked out that it would cost six times as

much. The last figure I saw was 78%. In

the European Parliament it is not legislative. A lot of it is own

initiative reports which are hot air. There is under three months to

go until the European elections, oh, yes they are excited in here.

Despite your enthusiasm, I can feel it coming through the camera,

turnout in the election is expected to be low indeed. Turnout across the

EU has been down in every it European election since they first

began way back in 1979. This year, the powers that be have come up with

a plan to give you, the voter, more of is a say and who gets the top

jobs. Chris Morris explains all. The European Parliament is on a

mission to persuade you, the voter that, it matters. And so does your

vote. Economic crisis has made the European electorate wearier than

ever, but the get out of the vote campaign is trying to send a

message. This election will be differentle. -- will be different.

The European Parliament. Act. React. Impact. So the main political groups

here in Strasbourg have come up with a cunning plan. Call it three men in

a vote. They are putting forward their preferred candidates to be the

next president of the European Commission. There is the socialist

candidate the President of this Parliament. There is the MEP and

former Prime Minister of Belgium, the liberal candidate and the

probable candidate on the centre-right, another former Prime

Minister from Luxembourg. The idea is to per swayed voters that they

can have a role in picking the next leaders of remote institutions.

The man leading the socialist group of MEPs is determined that the focus

on Parliament's enhanced role will not be lost. We should get rid of

the lack of democracy in the European Union. That the Prime

Ministers decide who should run because they will always choose the

weakest one. More Euro-sceptic groups in Strasbourg aren't putting

forward any commission candidates. Many of them smell a federalist

plot. They are trying to turn the whole of this legislature into a

Shadow Government able to nominate someone acting as a Prime Minister

of Europe. We think it is a nonsense. An election of three

people who say the sa thing. These guys maybe well-known in this

building, but the idea of anyone having broad popular appeal in 28

member states right across Europe, that's a tough ask.

If any national leaders decide to flex their muscles which they

probably will, then the chances of any of these guys getting the top

job will disappear rapidly. Because everyone knows who Europe's big guns

really are. National leaders still rule the roost and there are plenty

of conversations going on already about the top EU jobs. The vision of

Euro-enthusiasts is to make the whole process of choosing the

commission president more open, more democratic, but it is complex and

rather than less haggling behind closed doors, there could end up

being rather more. These three candidates. They are all

hard-line European federalists. Where is the choice? I don't think

there is much choice and I don't think the European Parliament should

get involved. I agree with Martin. You are not bothered? It is about

the United States of Europe, they are in favour. Some are so awful and

they will bring a lot of votes to us. At least they do turn up

occasionally. Either of you are really involved in this process,

because you have left the main centre-right group and you don't

care? I don't think it is a European Parliament function. It is a matter

for the European leaders to decide these matters. Will one of these

become the next president? I hope not. If you are building a single

unified political state which is what they are... The Parliament

should have a say. Somebody should elect the president, not appoint

them. The Parliament is taking upon itself these powers and it ought to

be told clearly that it is not a function. Who is going to be the

next president? I am going for Shortz. Who would you like to see?

It is a matter for the leadership in our country. They will have to make

a decision. There could be good candidates. It is an important job,

of course, it is, but those candidates there, I don't think many

of the public are aware who they are, what they are, or really care.

All right. We will have to leave it there will. Thank you very much.

That's it for today. Thanks to my guests, Timothy Kirkhope and Gerard

Batten, both MEPs. Bye-bye.