28/02/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles