27/06/2014 Daily Politics

David Cameron takes his battle against Jean Claude Juncker to

Brussels, where all the signs are he'll fail to stop his appointment

Mr Cameron remains defiant though, insisting he'll force other leaders

to vote on the issue and warning of the need to embrace reform.

After the row over Oxfam's poster campaign, we ask how political

And what impact will the Bank of England Governor's new rules

on mortgage lending have on Britain's housing market?

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole programme

today I'm joined by two estimable political commentators -

Iain Martin from the Telegraph and Zoe Williams of the Guardian.

Now while all eyes are on David Cameron and

his epic battle in Brussels against the appointment of Jean Claude

Juncker, European leaders have other business to attend to today.

The President of the Ukraine is also in Brussels to sign the

Association Agreement with the EU which sparked last year's coup and

Today's events do not please Vladimir Putin.

Here's his spokesman, Sergei Glazyev, speaking to

the BBC's Steve Rosenberg. Given it was his attempt to get closer to

Europe that got the Russians wild in the first place, will face stop

things up again? Obviously that is the question one asks, but the EU

cannot stay out of this forever. The constant refrain is maybe if we

don't say too much of this will go away, or Vladimir Putin will get

what he wants and his ambitions will be over. At some point the bodies

that were set up to establish equilibria and peace have got to put

their cards on the table. Whether it is exit or not, I don't see what

they can do. The Russians don't like the idea of being encircled. They

are not being encircled militarily, obviously, but they don't like

people that are in the near sphere of influence getting muscled in on

by the Europeans. Absolutely. Vladimir is a fascinating guy. He

stood against Putin in 2004. It suggests that he is a pretty brave

guy and then he was hired in 2012 by Putin to set up the customs union

because the Russians wanted to control most of the former Soviet

states. It talks a lot to what is happening with Mr Juncker at the

moment. We think of Europe from a British point of view but if you

look at the opinion polls attacking David Cameron, that is really about

the rise of Russia and the Polish fear of a resurgent Russia, and if

the polls see anyone causing disruption to European Union unity,

that is a threat. That is such an interesting point of view. In

discourse we have seen nobody as a territorial threat. But if they

are... That is why Mr Cameron's erstwhile ally the polls are now

siding with Germany. They have to stick with Germany like glue. It is

fascinating. I wish it was not quite so close.

It would be worth seeing what the fallout is. David Cameron is also in

Brussels today. The Finnish PM this morning said

that the people of the UK "need to wake up and smell the coffee" when

it comes to the European Union. So, as Jean Claude Juncker looks set

to get the top job at the European Commission, what else is brewing

in the world of European politics? A new President of the European

Council will have to be chosen: the Danish Prime Minister Helle

Thorning-Schmidt has been tipped as a possible contender to take

over from Hermann van Rompuy. The EU also needs to find

a new foreign policy chief, known as the High Representative

for Foreign Affairs. The Italian Foreign Minister,

Federica Mogherini, is a name There also some key economic

portfolios in the Commission that member states

are keen to get their hands on: competition,

economic and monetary affairs, Andrew Lansley is seen

a leading candidate to be sent to Brussels as a Commissioner but it's

by no means assured that the UK will And finally the European Parliament

will choose a new President: Martin Schulz, the previous

president, could well get the job As he arrived

in Brussels this morning, David Cameron reiterated his

opposition to Jean-Claude Juncker. The European elections showed there

is huge disquiet about the way the European Union works. Yet, the

response, I believe, will be wrong on two grounds. It is not right for

the elected heads of government of the European countries to give up

their right to nominate the head of the European Commission, the most

important role in Europe. That is a bad principle and it is the wrong

person. He has been at the heart of the project to increase the power of

Brussels the power of nation states for his entire working life. He is

not the right person. I am very clear about right thing to do. You

have to stand up for what you believe and vote accordingly. Let's

speak to our political editor. Those voters who care about it, which is a

minority, they are on his side and back benches love it. What is being

said about it? Was a poll done by the financial Times which asked

voters what they would think of the Prime Minister losing but fighting.

Losing but fighting is popular. He did not think it would be like this.

He thought the Germans were onside and were the Swedes and the Danes.

One by one, as Angela Merkel changed her mind, all the others changed

theirs as well and he finds himself on his own. He is trying to snatch

some form of moral victory for the defeat for his negotiating strategy

by saying to voters at home, as well as people here in Brussels, you

might think I am the sort of guy who changes his mind when I am on the

losing side, I might do a deal here or a deal that would take a

compromise, I will not. This is where I stand. This is what I do.

This man is being chosen by a process he does not believe in. Am I

right in detecting that a lot of the other European leaders are bit fed

up with them? The criticism is getting a bit bitter about Mr

Cameron. The wake up and smell the costly line was directed at the

British voter rather than David Cameron. You can stand as the cars

roll up and Prime Ministers and presidents come to the cameras and

talk. Many of them are being asked by their own media in the own

languages about David Cameron. I managed to speak to quite a few of

them in English. They go out of their way and say, yes, David

Cameron loses today but we do not want them to leave. The Danish Prime

Minister was expected to be a key ally. It was about Britain being

back in the game after today. What they are trying to do is to say,

look, forget the man, let's look at the agenda for the next five years

in the EU being agreed here. They claimed that is more to British

tastes than it might otherwise have been. I think we know the outcome

today. What happens after that? Does the bitterness linger on and begin

to affect European attitudes towards Britain in other matters? It clearly

has to be a danger that European leaders think maybe there is nothing

we can do or say. Maybe David Cameron has made his mind that he

constantly has to be at war with us. Maybe the British people are

beginning to make their minds up to go. British diplomats are determined

that not happen. There certainly is this case that when Angela Merkel

talked yesterday, she used the phrase, good compromises for

Britain. There may be a pang of conscience in the mind of the German

Chancellor. Maybe I did give him the suggestion I was onside and I now

have to give him a lot in return. What the British Government is

banking on is there are a lot of countries, for all they find Britain

irritating and these rows frustrating, like Britain onside in

particular over arguments about free trade. If you are a German, a

Swede, a Dane or a Dutchman, you want to free market for use within

the EU, you do not want Germany to be alone, if you like, running what

one British official called the Club Med of Nations. You look like you

are in the Club Med right now, it is so bright. Thank you for joining us!

Watch out for the sun! The BBC political editor marking our card as

always. At this stage, we had hoped to be joined by Sajjad Karim, but he

is not here at the moment. Tell us about Jean Claude Juncker. Why would

he make a good president? You said we would be backing him. We have not

decided that yet. We want that the council nominates Jean Claude

Juncker. He will be running for the jobs. It would be nice if the Greens

had got in those seats. They did not. Once he is nominated, we want

to have a hearing with him in our group and have all the green members

of the European Parliament asking questions to him and we will see

what his programme is. The way Mr Cameron wants to reform Europe, and

I agree you have to change things, I actually agree when he says that we

need to really change the way the European works. Part of that is more

democracy, more solidarity, more of a social union. I want to see what

Jean Claude Juncker proposes in those areas when it comes to

fighting climate change and coming out of the crisis. We will not buy a

less Europe programme like Mr Cameron wants to see it. Did you say

that Jean Claude Juncker had a Cameron programme? Well, I mean,

they're clearly as to be a deal. Jean Claude Juncker will be

nominated and now be a lot of pressure on him. We want to hear

from Jean Claude Juncker what he proposes and how he wants to ensure

that peoples worries about social issues are important, how he wants

to create jobs and fight climate change. It is important for us and I

would find it very problematic if now the deal for Mr Cameron is that

now they nominate Jean Claude Juncker but then he gets a programme

which is completely a Tory one. Your line from Berlin is breaking up a

bit. Stick with us we are going to stick with you. We now have Sajjad

Karim with us who has joined us in the studio in London. Why don't you

want Jean Claude Juncker when almost everyone else in Europe seems to be

gathering around him? It is quite clear if you look at the recent

European Parliament elections, people are not happy with the status

quo as it is. Mr Juncker is a face from the past and it is a time now

for new faces and new ideas, a wholesale reform programme to take

place. Mr Juncker is simply not an individual who has a record that

would stand to be tested that he is the man who can deliver this. Europe

is divided over Jean-Claude Juncker. We have just heard from the

Green party that they have not yet made up their minds. What Mr Cameron

has done, instead of being divided against Mr Juncker, Europe is now

divided against Mr Cameron. We have ensured that this process becomes

much more transparent. If you look at what the treaties say, we have

acted in accordance with that. We are taking into account the European

Parliament election results but the responsibility remains with the

heads of state in Council and consultation takes a part of the

process as is required under the Lisbon Treaty, and that is exactly

what is happening now. Ska Keller, I hope the line has restored itself.

If not Mr Juncker for the Green party, who? You have not got another

choice, have you? As I said, we want Mr Juncker to be nominated by the

council. He has the right to find a majority in the Parliament. Whether

we are part of the majority, we will see if that is linked to the

programme. INAUDIBLE. I am sorry but if the bigger parties did not manage

to find someone among them bringing the fresh new ideas, new and fresh

faces, then I am really sorry. They could have put forward their own

candidate but Mr Juncker was backed by many heads of state. INAUDIBLE. I

really have to apologise. I have got to interrupt you. I am fascinated by

what you are saying but there is a technical problem on the line.

Please come back onto the programme when we get the line sorted out on

another day and we can hear your perspective. Many apologies to you

but thank you for what you have told us so far. We hope we can get you

back on the programme. Where does this leave Mr Cameron? It leaves him

isolated. Perversely in this case it is probably not a bad place to be.

In terms of domestic politics? Domestically it is perfectly healthy

that he finds himself in this position. For the European Union it

is an absolute catastrophe. This is a very significant, important

historical turning point, potentially, and this could be the

week that the door is opened to Britain leaving and I speak as

someone in favour of reform and trying to stay in. But in choosing

Jean-Claude Juncker, the rest of Europe is essentially saying that

kind of reform that Britain once is off the table. The European election

showed that there was a lot of unhappiness with the way Europe is

going across the continent at the moment. Some people will see it as a

bit of a slap in the face that you then choose as the new President

someone synonymous with the old way of doing things. Look, he is

synonymous with the old way of doing things but he does have a programme

of increased federalism and the European line, which is true, is

that you cannot have a currency that you all share if you do not have

other mechanisms that you all share. But we don't all share it. We don't,

obviously. So federalism for the eurozone or the EU? We don't share

it but we cannot interfere with their attempts to draw it together.

But he is President of the EU, not the eurozone. We have to understand

their priorities as people try to get out of depression in many

cases, and keep their currencies together, which are different to our

priorities. I don't see David Cameron in an involved chess game,

ten moves ahead of anyone else, instead I see a man up turning the

chessboard and saying he does not play test because he has read that

is what the British opinion polls want him to say. That might work

well domestically. Does Mr Juncker's appointment matter in the

end in terms of Mr Cameron's reform agenda and the repatriation of

power? The people who determined that in the end will be the

Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. Does it really

matter if Mr Juncker is there or not? What does matter is the work

programme that he will have to follow. I imagine that is the very

thing that will be debated in Belgium right now. We have to make

sure the work programme is right. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact

this is not the only top job on offer at the moment in Brussels.

There are other very significant positions, where if we can manoeuvre

and get our people into place, we stand to benefit greatly. What is

happening here, actually I am very encouraged by it. For the first time

we are seeing European politics is being made transparent. When was the

last time we saw this kind of debate taking place right across Europe

about the types of personalities we need to have in these important

positions? It is hardly transparent with the federalists claiming Mr

Juncker is the choice of the European voters. The number of

voters in Germany who knew that Mr Juncker was a candidate could fit

into one Munich beer Seller! You are the Conservative nominating

President. It is not going to happen, is it? We have put forward a

strong programme. I did not ask about the programme. I said it would

not happen. Yesterday evening and important publication in Brussels

called the European Voice came out and said that the linkage of the

European Parliament's presidency with the European Commission

presidency by Martin Schultz is the wrong thing for him to do and this

is an exercise of deceit. Now it is up to the MEPs. They have a secret

vote as to whether they fall into line with this exercise of defeat.

Or do they stand for what European citizens want? Will you give us the

first interview? I will be on the first train over, Andrew. Having

seen our link to Brussels, I am not surprised you will come back on the

train! Thank you! How careful the British charities need to be about

straying into British politics? Should politicians be more relaxed

when charities turned their campaigns to policy? This follows

her out over an Oxford -- a row over an Oxfam poster which politicians

said amounted to campaigning. Politicians like being associated

with charities and charitable works and make no mistake, charities and

enjoy and benefit from link to politicians. But recently one of the

Prime Minister's fold complained that one charity had stopped being a

charity and was sailing dangerously close to being a group of

politicians with an agenda that looked very similar to that of the

Labour Party. The perfect storm poster was Oxfam promoting a report

it was publishing on ongoing work that it is calling breadline

Britain. But it got caught in a storm of its own. We have the

Government giving unrestricted grants to charities and then

charities using that money to lobby the charity that money to lobby the

charity I think that is an abuse and it should come to an end. -- that

money to lobby the Government. I am all for lobbying. But if you give

money to Oxfam you think it will alleviate poverty in poor parts of

the world and not be involved in politics in this country. Oxfam

defended themselves on their website. They said they'd do it

straight into policy areas but they are not politically biased. They are

very careful to make sure they are not party politically aligned. I

know that of Oxfam. I know that of other reputable development

agencies. That does not mean they are not political and that is where

people get confused. Political means dealing with issues like poverty and

riots and they are political issues. Oxfam and other major charities

lobby Government all the time, but for the MP who made the complaint,

there is a wider problem. If you look at the list of some of the

so-called charity leaders who attacked me in The Times newspaper

recently, a good number of them have stood for the Labour Party in

general elections, they have advised Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and

they are coming into charities and using their position to campaign

against people who wear their political opponents. The sad thing

for me is the debate becomes whether it is right to say this rather than

a debate about poverty, what causes it and what can be done. We should

not get off into focusing on Oxfam's poster. Many charities

survive on donations alone but some receive grants from Government.

Critics of the Oxfam policy say that greater transparency and

accountability of how taxpayers' money is spent would be better. The

charity says they are looking into the post and will report on whether

it breached charity guidelines soon. -- the poster. Did they crossed the

line? Absolutely. When I saw it I thought it was a Labour Party

poster. People who go into Oxfam stores and donate money to Oxfam, I

think they have a fairly clear idea that Oxfam is about dealing with

famine and hunger and poverty abroad. That is the principal point.

I think the danger here is that some of the big charities appear to have

been captured by people who would really like to be in politics in

Whitehall, running things, but in the five years that they are not

they can get a gig outside and behave politically. They should

stick to charity. If that were a Labour Party campaign poster, I

would be delighted if the Labour Party were saying things that French

ad about what is wrong. It was not party political. All poverty is

political, as a spokesperson said. The idea that you cannot raise money

for poverty is preposterous. The idea that Oxfam should be

campaigning abroad is very strange. If you can see people below the

poverty line having trouble putting food on their own tables in your own

country, to say we only deal with Tanzania is perverse. And

furthermore, the reason the Trussell Trust was set up was because the

founder of it was working abroad and in Salisbury he did a phone in and

somebody rang up and said this is all very well but I cannot even feed

my own children. OK, set up a charity and if someone wants to

campaign on poverty in the UK, do that, fine, no problem. It is the

deceit. If you ask most people, and I have certainly bought things from

an Oxfam book store and people do, I think I would now think twice about

it after that poster. You only want poor people abroad to get money but

not people in England. I think the pollution of a big, respected

charity who does fantastic work abroad, the pollution of that by

political hacks is disgraceful. We have to move on but an interesting

debate. It has been an interesting week in politics. Here is our 60

secondary cap. -- recapture. Andy Coulson was found guilty of phone

hacking. The PM said sorry for hiring him. I am really sorry for

hiring him. It was the wrong decision and I'm clear about that.

The judge was hacked off with him for talking about a live case. The

debate continues about ISAs. William Hague went to Baghdad for a flying

visit. You wait ages for a high speed railway line and then a third

one turns up as the Chancellor announced the bozos to improve

connections up North. I am here to -- proposals to improve connections

up North. Instead of popping the housing bubble, the Bank of England

went more of a gentle fizzing, with curbs on mortgage lenders. No more

than 15% of any number of total mortgages should be at or above 4.5

times the borrower's income. That was the governor of the Bank of

England bringing in curbs on mortgage lending to take heat out of

the market especially in London and the South East. They also indicated

on the Today programme that interest rates would not go above 3% even by

2017. That is the end of the programme for today. Thank you to

our guests. I will be back on Sunday on BBC One with Sunday Politics and

before then on Newsnight. Try to join me. Goodbye.