26/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


Cameron's in the dock for apologising over Andy Coulson.


The judge says the PM - and other leading politicians -


could have scuppered the rest of the phone-hacking trial.


We delve into the head of Jean-Claude Juncker, who looks


set to be the next president of the European Commission,


And want to get beach fit for the summer?


Try Adam's London tour of European think tanks and pressure groups.


This is the office of a very Eurosceptic group inspired by


Margaret Thatcher's speech from the 80s. It is next door to the Calvin


Klein shop, which is appropriate, because they think Europe is a load


of pants. And with us the duration is


Mats Persson Mats here doesn't want Britain to


leave Europe but wants big reform Now, first today, let's talk about


the phone hacking trial because yesterday the judge presiding over


proceedings strongly rebuked Are asked him and my chief of staff


asked him whether he knew about phone hacking. We accepted his


assurances. That was the basis on which I employed him. I was always


clear I was giving someone a second chance. He had resigned from the


News of the World because of the bad things that happen there. I accepted


his assurances and gave him a job. It was a second chance and turned


out to be a bad decision and I'm extremely sorry about that. But I


would say that he didn't, in the work he did for me before I became


Prime Minister or as Prime Minister, people have complained about that


work. But still, employing someone when they gave false assurances was


the wrong decision. I'm profoundly sorry about that. I always said that


if this turned out to be the case, I would not be found wanting in giving


a full apology. I'm sorry about that. It was a bad decision. I


shouldn't have made it. He apologised on Tuesday. Mr calls and


was found guilty of conspiracy to hack phones. The only problem was


that the jury was still considering other verdict in the trial.


The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said he was "very concerned" about


the Prime Minister's intervention and accused Mr Cameron of launching


an "open season" on the defendant, who was still facing two charges of


conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.


Well, joining me now is the Labour MP Tom Watson


and the former Solicitor General, the Conservative MP Edward Garnier.


Can clock so that the problem was that the Prime Minister wasn't a


lawyer but it turns out he had the Attorney-General in the room giving


him advice. Did the Attorney-General give the wrong advice? Depends what


advice he gave them. Add voice to speak out, clearly. We don't know


that. We do know that. The Prime Minister would not have spoken out


like that without taking legal advice. What we do know is that the


political imperative for the Prime Minister to make some statement was


there. I accept that the judges extremely concerned that he made the


statement when he did but if you consider the timetable - there had


been verdict given, though I appreciate there were several more


to come. The following day was going to be Prime Minister's Questions. It


was inevitable that Miliband was going to go on this. If we think the


Speaker would have stopped Mr Miliband from asking questions about


it even though the jury was still out, we are living in a different


country, not least because he allowed the Chancellor to be


questioned by the shadow chancellor. Should the judge have


given more explicit guidance after the first set of verdicts came out,


knowing there were two other verdict? He could have put a blanket


no reporting order until all verdicts were returned. But bear in


mind this trial had been going on for eight months and a number of


people had been acquitted. I think they were entitled to have those


acquittals made public as soon as possible. Why didn't he deliver the


verdicts altogether? He could have done but the jury were entitled to


come back and say that they had decided on some but not on others.


Having acquitted a number of people, who have been in the dock


for eight months, I dare say the judge thought that the acquitted


people had a right to see their exoneration is out there as soon as


possible. The Attorney-General clearly gave the Prime Minister one


piece of advice - that he could go ahead and make his apology, call Mr


cool son a liar -- Andy Coulson a liar. I don't know what advice the


Attorney-General gave the Prime Minister but the short point is,


what effect would it have. I researched around for advice and the


advice came back from the deputy as a kid, please do not comment until


the verdict. Tom Watson says nothing is news in itself. Would you have


commented at that point? I know you wouldn't have done. You're a very


able lawyer. That's kind of you to say so. I'll give you my telephone


number. I'm very expensive. You need to be careful. The problem that the


Prime Minister faced was that he had a media storm already building up.


We know the circumstances. I'm just wondering what advice he would have


given the Prime Minister. I'm not going to say because I wasn't there


to give it. Would you have commented? I haven't commented. You


said in July 2011 that Rebekah Brooks was not only responsible for


wrongdoing at News International but that you believed she knew about a.


Do you accept that is wrong? Rebekah Brooks is not guilty. She has been


found not guilty of conspiring to hack phones in a court of law. She


is innocent. I wish her well with her life. Do you apologise for


saying she knew about it? I'm not going to apologise. The club against


a very powerful company that a court case has exposed for having


potentially 5000 victims of phone hacking. If you remember, back then,


there were many public institutions - the police, the criminal justice


system, past prime ministers - who were not standing up for families


like the Dowlers. I was shaking the tree. The tree has been shaken but


you said the story of Rebekah Brooks being far from events was simply not


believable, when a jury of her peers found it very believable. At the


time, I thought that an editor would be on top of those stories. She is


now said that the staff under Hurd took the decisions without her


knowing. She basically said she knew nothing about it and she wasn't the


editor that I thought she was. I do accept that she has been found not


guilty and I hope she goes on to do something productive with her life.


It was said in court that you hated her. I don't hate anyone. Not even


Tony Blair, although I'm not very happy with him at the moment. I


don't hate anyone and it wasn't personal. It was about trying to


expose criminality at News International. Six people have


pleaded guilty or been found guilty, very senior editors. We have an


eight-month trial, estimated to cost ?100 million, and we've had seven


defendants and one charge out of 14. That's because five of them


pleaded guilty. But the real cost was in the trial. There were huge


costs at pre-trial. They pleaded very late. If they had dropped the


one rogue reporter defends in 2006, as we now know Andy Coulson now knew


that was the case -- could not be the case because he was played a


phone hacked message in 2004, we wouldn't have had any of this cost.


About 40 descent of the annual budget of the Met's homicide


division was being spent on this. -- 40% bracket one charge out of 14 has


been held up. The Murdoch family's net wealth has almost doubled and


the sun has hailed it as a great day for red tops. -- the something


aggro. If the whole organisation was criminal, the aim was to bring it


down. The aim was to expose wrongdoing and if the alternative is


just to let the journalists carry on hacking the phones of abducted


teenage schoolgirls, do you think that is right? The alternative would


be to make sure we got ?100 million worth of justice by perhaps getting


better than one charge out of 14. I wasn't a prosecutor. Maybe you


should have been. But is that the right measure? Lots of people are


acquitted when the jury considers the evidence. Lots of people are


convicted when the jury considers the evidence. An acquittal is not a


failure of the justice system. But it isn't a great track record for


the CPS. The point I'm making is that the justice system is there to


try people. Your leader, Mr Miliband, has dined out on his claim


that he is the man who took on Murdoch when all around him would.


You, as well as I, know that isn't true. -- would not. He only turned


on Mr Murdoch after the Milly Dowler scandal became public. In a day that


I will never forget, he got up in the chamber and said Rebekah Brooks


should resign and BSkyB should be shelved. I owe him a great debt of


loyalty for that because I'm not taking away anything from the other


people that run for leader of the Labour Party but I think he's the


only candidate, other than Diane Abbott, who that decision. He


decided to take it on. I think the others would have taken a different


path. But it was only after Milly Dowler broke and by then it became


toxic. The week before, he'd been sitting champagne with Rupert


Murdoch at a summer party. Some reports say he was one of the last


to leave. Well, I wouldn't have done that but he did do the right thing.


But only after it was like shooting trout in a barrel. What would you


like me to say? You took on Murdoch before Milly Dowler. He did the


right thing and I stand by him for that. I would liken to commit the


Labour Party to permitting the Leveson proposals in full, which


would you deeply. It doesn't upset me at all. You commit the Labour


Party to what you want. What I think is not the issue. What did you think


of a man who boasted taking on Murdoch being pictured reading the


Sun? I was very embarrassed. Why did it not dawn on him what he was


doing? I suspect because he is head of press thrust the paper in front


of him. He is the Rubiks cube kit. Has he not got a brain to think for


himself? I haven't been in that kind of job where you have things coming


at you from all sides. I was his performance in the Commons are so


poor yesterday? He had an open goal against David Cameron and drew less


blood than Luis Suarez. I'm not sure whether the position David Cameron


took will hold because Leveson is not over. There is a second part of


Leveson, which is the bit that, as Leveson said, should show who did


what to whom and when. I think he was asking legitimate questions


about what David Cameron knew when he took Andy Coulson into Downing


Street. He didn't quite make it. David Cameron had a single, robust


line of defence, not answering the questions. It doesn't mean the


questions will go away. Isn't it just time to park it? We've have


this massive case. There are still scores of journalists still under


bail. They don't know what their future is and some will be waiting


four years until they get to trial. There am many occasions where I wish


we could have this behind us and I actually do feel very sorry for


those junior journalists who were part of a big corporate culture that


expected these things to happen. They have my sympathy. One of the


things I hope can happen is that the newsrooms of the tabloid newspapers


say to their proprietors, "get the self-regulatory proposals in place,


let journalism move on, and let's hope that at some point we can ask


whether there is a public interest in continuing with these cases". Did


you think it was right in these cases but scores of Claude Rampage


-- scores of policeman Rampage into your house in the middle of the


night as if they were dealing with terrorists or gangsters? They had a


reasonable suspicion that evidence was being destroyed. That's what


they said in the court case. No, they weren't terrorists, as far as I


know. I don't make anyone has ever accused Rebekah Brooks or Charlie


Brooks of terrorism but the police had a reasonable suspicion that they


needed an element of surprise. What do you make of all this? It's MS,


isn't it? But in other countries, the security services, or others,


record and tap politicians then leak it to the press. I wouldn't


encourage anything! How interesting is the public in this in the long


run? -- interested. Thank you. The Prime Minister appears to be


on the verge of failure in his efforts to prevent the former


Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean Claude Juncker, from being


nominated as the next president EU leaders begin gathering


for a two day summit today - first David Cameron is demanding that


a vote take place at the summit - he wants other leaders to have to


justify their support for Mr Juncker But, barring any last-minute


disasters, Mr Juncker looks set to become one of the most


powerful figures in Europe. And why is Britain


so vehemently against him? Mr Juncker was Prime Minister


of Luxembourg from 1995 to 2013. He was forced to resign after


becoming embroiled in a wiretapping scandal involving the country's


intelligence service SREL. He belongs to Luxembourg's


centre-right Christian Democrat But he's suspicious


of always pursuing free-market solutions and has been described


as "the most socialist From 2005 to 2013 he chaired


the Eurogroup of finance ministers At the heart


of EU decision-making for so long In May 2011, he told a meeting


of the federalist European Movement that he often "had to lie" and that


eurozone monetary policy should be It's also well known that Mr Juncker


is partial to a glass of wine and the odd cigarette, even leading him


to deny that he had a drink problem. In March the centre-right grouping


in the European Parliament the EPP chose him as their candidate to be


the next President of the European He has pledged "to give


an answer to the British question." But he says,


"My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market


and its four freedoms." Well, joining me now is Dirk Hazell,


leader of the 4 Freedoms Party or UK EPP - it's a pro-EU, centre right


party which contested the recent And we're also joined by one


of UKIP's new MEPs, Tim Aker. It's all a bit confusing! You should


make your name is a bit more different so we could see exactly


what you are. I think it's fair to say Mr Younger has not had the best


of the British press. Are we all wrong about him? The fact of the


matter is that we have a treaty framework which was agreed by the


British Parliament. We've had a European election conducted under


that treaty framework. All the serious EU parties were clear about


that and he is the winning candidate. Having both been in the


Conservative party when Mr Cameron was selected and in the EBP when Mr


Younger was selected, Mr Younger's selection process was at least as


clean and democratic as Mr Cameron's why would you pick a man


who had to quit as Prime Minister after being involved in a scandal


and has had to lie? The decisions on monetary seizure shouldn't always be


conducted in the full light of publicity, according to Mr Juncker.


I think he has a point. He was talking about when issues become


serious. He said you have to lie. And we have no lies ever from


British politicians, do we? You can't ask me that doing this


programme. But why would you have someone who says that sometimes you


have to lie and thinks that most things should be in secret, dark


debates. Some of this is very difficult. He has been confronted


once or twice about English, which is not his native language. But he


is, in person, engaging and formidable. And the really relevant


point is that he stood on a very transparent 5-point action


programme. What should have been happening over the last month,


instead of these spinning techniques coming out of Number Ten, we should


have had a very firm focus on getting British people in the right


places in a Juncker commission to see through the 5-point action plan,


which is focused on getting millions of people back into work. Tim, you


must be quite pleased. It's business as usual over there, isn't it? It's


a sign that David Cameron's renegotiation efforts have the first


real test of getting European ministers to sign up to his


programme and it looks like they've turned against him. At one point it


looked like he was getting them on side and there might be a rival


candidate but now it's fallen apart around him and Juncker seems to be


the favourite to go forward. Cameron said that if he becomes the


commission president, it could lead to the UK "drifting towards the


exit". I think there's political symbolism in this, the fact that


Cameron has been unable to block a candidate that represents what most


Brits would consider wrong with the EU in the first place. There are tee


separate issues. On the one hand, it is personality. Juncker may be as


unhelpful as any other commission president that has been a candidate


who has been taught about. That's the substance but the principle, the


president, is not very good. This idea that Younger is -- Juncker is


on some kind of democratic mandate is silly. 9.7% of the European


electorate voted for parties that were, in theory, affiliated with the


centre-right political European Parliament. Most opinion polls show


that a minority of them actually knew who Juncker was. In Germany, 7%


could identify Juncker. More Germans believe in ghosts than that. The


opinion polls drifted in Germany as awareness group. The trouble is,


with the way Mr Cameron has mishandled this... That's your


opinion. It has had the effect of greatly strengthening the strength


of opinion behind Juncker, which has made it very much more difficult.


What choice did he have? I've been amazed that you managed to find


someone who is pro-Juncker. He has no legitimacy in this country. The


Lib Dems back the other guy and the Tories are not part of the EP P who


nominated. That is precisely my point because the real issue... He


had no choice. The real issue, as you have admitted in print, is that


Cameron left the EP P. If Britain is going to be in the EU, the three


main parties should be in it. What lessons do you take from all this?


It's Christmas early for you! Yeah, it's Christmas come early. A


federalist who thinks more Europe is the solution. What you've been


talking about with Juncker and the 5-point plan... UKIP coming top in


the European elections means that your agenda is way off course. We're


heading for the exit door. There we are. We'll see if you're right.


Thanks for joining us. Now, do you you know your Centre


for European Reform from your centre Your European Policy Centre


from your European Policy Forum? But fear not,


our reporter Adam lives, breathes and quite often hangs


around outside some of the many, Come with me. No need to go to


Brussels, when there's so much Europe a short stroll from your


office. Behind this tour, you'll find the centre for European reform,


a Europhile think tank. Just round the corner, above the Faith Society,


you'll find Open Europe. They have a team of multilingual researchers who


translate all the European press so you don't have to. Just down the


road, you will find Business For Britain, which is pro-reform and


pro-Britain. Under all this scaffolding, under the new campaign


group called British Influence, which describes itself as a


cross-party pro-EU membership organisation. Time to head further


afield. In these offices, you will find the


extremely pro-EU group Business For New Europe, Either? Run A Europhile


Businessman. On Regent Street, The Office Of The Very Euro-sceptic


Bruges Group, Inspired By Margaret Thatcher's Speech Of The 1980s. Then


there are groups that are no longer with us like Britain in Europe,


which united big names in support of the euro, or its antithesis,


Business for sterling. I didn't have time to visit some, but now to the


better off out campaign, an offshoot of the freedom association, a bunch


of libertarians. Their offices on that vote. -- their office is on


that vote. I've heard there is a bar on board stop don't make the mistake


as me. How are you different from Get Britain Out? They put their


case, we put our case, but we look to emphasise the positives.


And finally, the EU has its own presence here, in the form of Europe


House, where you can get all sorts of literature. And no peace would be


complete without pointing out that this used to be Tory central office.


Adam is now lying down in a dark room to recover. Here is a test for


you. Which is the odd one out? Open Europe, centre the European reform,


friends of Europe or the Bruges group? Open Europe because of those


groups we get the most things right. No, the Bruges group because it is


the only one that advocates withdrawal from the union. What have


you achieved in ten years? We've moved the debate. We were right on


the euro. We said it would be a mistake for Britain to join and we


were right. In many ways, everyone is now where we were several years


ago, which is talking about the need for reform and in that sense we set


the terms of the debate. On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate Mr


Cameron's chances of getting some real repatriations? On a scale of


one to ten, between a six and a seven. You think he might do it?


Absolutely. It depends on a number of factors but Mr Juncker is not the


main match. It is the warm up. There is a lot still to come in this


Europe debate. We will have a lot of business in future. That's it for


today. I'll be back with This Week tonight. That's after Question Time


on BBC One tonight. I'll be back tomorrow at 11am with all the big


political stories of the day and on Newsnight tomorrow on BBC Two.




Download Subtitles