04/07/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Prime Minister's former Director of Communications has been sentenced


to 18 months in prison for phone hacking. We'll bring you the latest


reaction. A bottle of single malt whisky is


about to be smashed against the hull of the Navy?s biggest ever warship.


But is ?60 billion of aircraft carrier money well spent?


"Stand Up Against Austerity." Can comedy win the argument over cuts?


Comedian Francesca Martinez makes the case for taking the brakes off


spending. And Hardeep Singh Kohli tells us why


peace loving father-of-a-nation Mahatma Gandhi should be an


inspiration for politicians around the world.


I can only imagine if we had people with that for the loss of the --


philosophy around in Palestine and Israel, there might be peace.


All that and more coming up in the next hour of the very finest public


service broadcasting. So the Prime Minister's former


Director of Communications is on his way to prison. Andy Coulson has been


sentenced to 18 months behind bars, having been found guilty of phone


hacking last week. He was sentenced this morning, along with four


co-defendants. Let's talk to our correspondent Robin Brant, who is at


Did the judge say why he did not get the maximum sentence of two years?


What he did was explain how he came to reaches decision. Andy Coulson


has to take the major blame for hacking at the News of the World,


said the judge, the cos it increased enormously during the period he was


editor. -- because. He said he did not start it but he knew about it


and he encouraged it as he felt as editor, it gave the paper a


competitive edge. The cut -- before he passed sentence, the judge said


the maximum he could give us two years and he said he was aiming


close comments at those who may feel outrage she could not give more and


those who may feel this is an attack on the press by the courts -- he


could not. There was a focus on the most emotive case, the hacking of


the phone of Milly Dowler in April 2002, the missing teenager. The News


of the World targeted her phone and they accessed her voice mails but


the judge said it was unforgivable that when they got the information,


they did not tell the police for a 24 hour period. This was not about


helping the police but about trying to sell newspapers. That is a


glimpse into some of the reasons why the judge reached this decision.


It is not over for him. He is being tried again another charges the jury


could not come to a decision about, when will that start?


We do not know. Possibly early next year. He is likely to be released


from prison in April next year. Entitled to that, once he has served


half his sentence, so he could be out in the middle of the general


election campaign. Pictures of him from prison might not be what David


Cameron wants to see. Both him and Clive Goodman will be retried over


allegations of corrupt payments to police over internal phone


directories. Police investigation is going to claims about more phone


hacking, Sunday Mirror hacking as well, claims of computer hacking.


The prospect of further legal action against Andy Coulson. He is inside


being dealt with by the present service and Andy Coulson will leave


this building in a prison van. But it is far from over in terms of time


in court and further allegations he will face.


We have had a reaction from the Prime Minister. He is in Scotland


for the floating of this new aircraft carrier.


It says it is right to justice is done and nobody is above the law, as


I have always said. I guess he does not want to say any


more than that. He will probably be in jail when the retrials begin. If


he is sentenced on these retrials and found guilty, will the speak


additional sentences or will they serve concurrently? -- will these


be. The best I can do is explain what


the sentence is for somebody convicted of misconduct in a public


office. There has been a lot of sensitivity around this and


subsequent trials. David Cameron got into a lot of trouble with the judge


in the aftermath of the conviction of Andy Coulson last week. If you


offer on to guilty, technically you face life in jail because it is


known as, more offence. It is serious, police officers and other


public officials have gone for six months, some less and others more.


The issue is if he is found guilty, it will be the role he played as


editor. A senior role, and that may be reflected. We are a long way from


that and we do not know when this trial will take place. I was not in


court at the time but a colleague was and Andy Coulson was asked to


stand alongside the other four and I am told he was stored upright, there


was a glance at a public gallery, but no visible reaction of the van


that. That sounds like the expressionless face he had when


convicted in this court over a week ago. -- reaction other than that.


Barely any other expression on his face.


I sentence you to staying on that street for the rest of this year!


Not guilty. You are, you have been sentenced!


Now, it's as long as the Houses of Parliament. At 65,000 tonnes, it?s


Britain's biggest ever warship. In the next hour, the Queen will smash


a bottle of the finest single malt whisky against her hull. Well, only


the best will do. The Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship the


Prince of Wales have already cost more than ?6 billion.


Greg Miskiwi it is not a launch, they do not launch these ships, they


float them -- it is not a launch. There is still a lot of of fitting


out to be done. That is it, HMS Queen Elizabeth. That is what you


get for about ?3 billion before counting the planes and the


equipment. And it will need many sailors, more than we currently


have. Robert Fox knows a lot about these things, what do you make about


this? I know the outrage, currently ?6.2


billion for the two ships and counting. But the Navy say ?6.2


billion for a ship expected to be lasting 50 years. And it looks quite


good at the price. The carrier concept I have sympathy with, the


conception they came up with, it is a dog's breakfast from inception to


the naming. About 15 years. It does raise some very serious questions.


Did it really have to be this big? Did it really have to be this shape


and require so much in terms of escort and ancillaries that she


rightly referred to. I think the general agreement on both sides of


the House is now we have the things, we had better use them. And there is


a use. And we are joined now by former


Defence Minister Nick Harvey. When I see the American equivalent,


they are surrounded by other American naval ships. To form US


battle fleets. Have we in off sweets to protect these carriers?


We will struggle cos the fleet is small. -- have we got enough sweets.


And if one of these was to be sunk, that is a lot of capacity that has


gone. -- enough fleets. They will need crew. That is no small


undertaking. It has taken a long time to get here, they were


conceived in the 1988 Strategic Defence Review, it is another six


years because they are in service. There are issues with the aircraft.


The American aircraft which has had its problems. The engines just went


on fire this week. They have had a succession of problems, but there is


enough investment in it. But I agree with Robert, for all the problems,


this is a happy day. We are going to make extensive use of these over 30,


40 years, but probably in a quite different way from what George


Robertson envisaged in 1988 when he thought it would be full of fighter


jets which we cannot afford. We would be lucky if we have one third


of the numbers he thought we would have.


These are a great visual projection of power. You can project a lot of


power with these but you also have two defend these, because if you


lose these, it is the equivalent of the naval nine 11. July the 4th was


the date of one of the biggest losses in World War II. The loss of


a convoy. So you are right. That is where I am quite sanguine. If the


Navy, and it is not very expensive... By the way, these are


as cheap as chips compared with what the Americans spent on the


equivalent. One third bigger. They need almost six times the crewing. I


think the escort will be there, particularly if they get the type


they wanted. Alex Salmond wants to hang on to that deal if Scotland


goes independent. But they will use this in a context they did not


devise. We do not want to fly aircraft to bomb Baghdad, they are


dealing with points at the choke point like the red Sea, even the


channel, where you have new kinds of threats. -- the English Channel. We


are vulnerable in terms of maritime security. You mentioned the joint


strikeforce. The capital cost is substantial but it seems we are not


able to run two at one time and to put enough planes on them. Between


them, these ships could take 36 each. I was told we would be lucky


if we get 12 on one of them. They are working out 16 of their


capacity, how does this make sense? The MoD are no longer talking about


the original concept of carrier strike but carrier enabled power


projection. What you will see is about 12 of the strike fighters,


helicopters, and also unmanned aerial vehicles. And the roles they


will be performing will be much more about getting people out of conflict


zones, getting essential supplies into disaster zones. Literal


manoeuvre rather than the heavy strike capability that Robert was


describing. To carry marines. That is what it


will be used for. And fly big helicopters off the deck at the same


time. That is the real role of these things, but it is hardly being


discussed. Starting from now, what would we


have done this? No. We would have done something but


it did not need to be on this scale. Don't the Spanish, they fly jumbo


jets as we used to call them off the back of votes which are not aircraft


carriers. -- ships. They fly from ships less than half this size and


we have won them off smaller ships. -- loan them. We were originally


going to fly conventional aircraft but that only survived a couple of


years before the money men said we could not afford them. Nobody ever


said, the emperor has no clothes, let's start again. But they will be


magnificent, no doubt about it. The second one will be called Vince of


Wales. -- music -- the Prince of Wales. We can see pictures of the


Queen and the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. And in the


background, you can see to the other side of the Firth of Forth. You can


see the road bridge and the railway bridge. The Red Arrows, I assume.


aircraft carrier? The Labour frontbenchers are talking about it.


It's nonsense. To make this work, you really have to have the second


carrier. It is not particularly complicated. The maths is easy in


order to do the training. If you want to use one ship, you have to


have one in preparation to train the kids, do the ammunition, food,


hospital and this that and the other. The real question is the Navy


is by about 2,000 to 3,000 girls and boys too small. That is one of the


real disasters of the 2010 defence review.


They better start training. We leave it there. Big day for the Royal navy


and the British taxpayer. The Queen will be floating this Queen


Elizabeth aircraft carrier in the next couple of minutes.


??EDITNEXTSUBTITLE next couple of minutes.


??EDITNEXTSUBTITLE The watchdog that regulates the NHS


in England, called Monitor, has been criticised this morning by MPs


on the Public Accounts Committee. They've said it must get better


at identifying NHS hospital trusts at risk of failure


and highlighted the large proportion of foundation trusts that are


in financial difficulties. Let's talk to our Political


Correspondent, Norman Smith. Was this is surprise? It is. The MPs


appear to have discovered Monitor could do with monitoring of its own


performance. A quarter of Foundation Trusts are in financial trouble. The


question is how on Earth did that come to pass if Monitor's meant to


be on top of the situation and try to make sure that doesn't happen.


Secondly, they are concerned about the way Monitor goes about its


business. In particular, the fact it only has 1% of its staff, just


seven, with any clinical background. Out of the 330 or so people who work


for Monitor, just a tiny percentage have hands on experience of what on


Earth goes on in hospitals. As a consequence of that, they are having


to buy in people who have some know how about hospitals. The committee


found Monitor is spending something like 20% of its budget on bringing


in consultants to tell them about the nuts and bolts of running a


hospital. Not surprisingly, the Labour chair woman of the Public


Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge, was somewhat less than impressed.


Monitor is supposed to protect the public in relation to these


independence foundation Hospital Trusts. Yet, among their 340 or so


staff, they only have seven who have any clinical experience at all. We


found they are spending... 20% of their money on buying in people on


consultancy fees because they haven't go the in-house staff. They


have a real issue as to whether they have the skills and competence to


support these foundation hospitals during a very difficult time when


money is tight and when there isn't enough leadership talent to go round


and fill the jobs. The monitor needs a monitor. Norman,


Prime Minister's Questions, a lot of Argy bargey about statistics, A


Waiting lists. Any further developments in this statistical


battle? I think what we learnt is the old Winston Churchill saying,


lies, damn lies and statistics! It is as relevant today as it was then.


The House of Commons put up a blog raising the question mark about how


David Cameron reached his figures. Downing Street were incensed that it


was being questioned how he came up with these figures. Last night, the


House of Commons official took down the blog saying Mr Cameron had


confused mean waiting times with median waiting times. He'd confused


waiting times for assessment with treatment. I got on to them this


morning. I asked if they'd been put under pressure from Number Ten. They


say not, they will be putting up a reviewed blog shortly. It tells us


in the run up to the election how figures will be in the frontline of


the Argy bargey. Not only have we had Downing Street getting laid into


the House of Commons people over this set of figures, you think back


earlier in the week when we had Ed Miliband and his launch of his


measures to help growth outside of London and Downing Street got waded


into him for coming up with figures which they said were not correct.


Figures will be at the sharp end in the run up to the elections.


Thank you for that. We all regard the House of Commons


library as gospel. We'll look forward to what they are now going




He's the father of a nation who has inspired movements for civil rights


And Mahatma Gandhi is also comedian Hardeep Sing Koli's


Giles Dilnot's been finding out more about him.


You know the thing about being a politician and wax figure in Madame


Tussauds, you're only really relevant because you're in power.


You're a here today, gone tomorrow politician unless you're a true icon


There is one still relevant in 2014 even though he died in 1948. Mahatma


Gandhi. Not only a prolific philosopher and writer. Because he


lived that philosophy he changed the course of history for four


countries, including our own. I'm off to meet a comedian and


broadcaster who thinks Gandhi's influence goes even furthers than


that. We leave this bizarre little man


whose coming has caused so much comment complete with loin cloth and


goats milk. You've brought me to Bow. We're


talking about Gandhi. He was here in 1931 for a huge conference. Loads of


countries part of the empire invited. It is up in the West End


and he's here. That epitomised the man. He was offered to stay with the


king but he decided to come to the gritty East End to the real people.


That Martian him out from other great states men and leaders. He


travelled around the country listening to people about their


needs, worries and concerns. I'd like to think we could all carry an


element of that. Speaking for people who cannot have their voices heard.


It is a powerful message. They have his room here kept as was. Would you


like to have a look? I have a loin cloth, goats milk and spinning top


for you. Mr Gandhi will be able to meet friends, talks when he likes,


just as we do. This is the balcony. He was staying in 1931, pretty much


as we've seen. This is Mahatma Gandhi's room. Defined by its


simplicity. Few cushions on the floor. He slept there. His spinning


wheel. Like a prison cell which is apt considering how much time he did


spend in prison. What do you think is his basic philosophy? India in


the forties, incredibly February rile. A war was being fought around


the reported. India had a choice, to have an around uprising or find


another way. Gandhi found another way. People think it was passive but


it wasn't. Gandhi and the rest walked up to the line and were


battered down by the sticks of the Indian members of the British Army.


They went back the next day and were battered down again. I think what


Gandhi showed is there's only so many times you can hit a man with a


stick before you realise it is pointless, you're losing the moral


argument. That's the point. Once you wage an armed conflict you lose the


morality of the argument. He never lost that. All that influence is


demonstrated in paperwork from the British. They don't know how to deal


with him. I can show you documents which prove it. Dr Elizabeth Fraser


from Oxford University says Gandhi had many ideas which influenced


Indian politics. It is a follows if I of non-violence. It has several


elements to it. First, he's very worried about state power laws and


policing which he thinks will always have to use violence. Secondly, of


course, he sees the British imperialism as a arc typically


violent, oppressive system. He thinks the only way to answer


violence is with non-violent rest Is fence tb -- resistance.


Got it. Let's look at this. This is basically at the national archives.


Records of what the Government were making of Gandhi's campaign for


Indian independence. In 1940, they are all just reporting back his


intransigence, if you like. It's very clear it's independence or


nothing. By 1943, they've just arrested saying he can't


correspondent with begin in a, the founder of Pakistan. They won't let


him talk to him. It is clear Gandhi's crucial to Indian


independence. But it is not India he wants that he gets. I believe


without Gandhi there would be no independent India. He was


instrumental to the entire process. What's not as well known is the work


he was doing in terms of keeping the internal body politic coherent,


stopping the factional violence between the Hindus and Muslims. It


was a dying regret partings occurred. But what's fascinating


about Gandhi is he managed all this change, all this influence without


being a formal politician. He never held office. It might sound cheesy.


I'm taking you to an Indian restaurant but there is a point to


it. I don't really like all that foreign muck! See why? Come on in.


Hardeep, I've brought to Gandhi's restaurant. It is not just a name.


This is frequented by Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown, Alistair


Darling. Prime Minister of Bangladesh. Does Gandhi have any


relevance to modern politics? There isn't an international figure in


recent history who's had a greater impact on politics. If you trace the


line from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, what's been happening


recently in Burma, the passive resistance, not stepping down, but


neither stepping too far up, has proven to work time and time again.


I only imagine if we'd people with that ganged eian philosophy warned


in Palestine and Israel, there might be peace there. There may not have


been a genocide in Rwanda. No Crimean situation now. But, really,


I think, what we should do to honour Mahatma Gandhi, is have a small


vegetarian Indian snack. I'm not going to tell you how to eat it.


Last thing I'll do is give you a pop a Dom don't preach... But #50i78'


keeping the baby. It was going very well till the end.


Well the economy seems to have bounced back but our public finances


We're still spending ?107 billion a year more than we can afford


and we're less than halfway through the planned cuts.


Not everyone is in favour of sticking with that programme though


and next week some of Britain's best known comics will be taking to the


And we're joined now by Francesca Martinez who will be


taking part in the "stand up to austerity" and by Harry


I'll be at the Apollo on 7th July. You should come because it is


supporting the People's Assembly which is this huge movement at grass


roots level looking to change the way that the austerity is happening.


Looking for an to that. There will be loads of brilliant comics. It


will be for a marvellous cause. You can console yourself with the fact


you've done some. All you will have done is go to a gig and done


nothing, really! On 7th July it will be up against austerity. On 7th,


Francesca Martinez will be there. I advise you to go. I endorse it as a


concept and as a cause. And we're joined now by


Francesca Martinez who will be taking part in the


"stand up to austerity" and by Harry We've had austerity for years? We


need to fight it. 80% of the cuts have not come in yet. It is really


important we stand up against it now. Let's not kid ourselves.


Austerity is not about money. It is about bringing in a near liberal


agenda dominated by corporate interests. I think it's really


important we challenge that rhetoric. Cameron said recently that


we were having permanent austerity which proves it's about ideology and


not money. If it was about money, they would be regulating the banking


sector to ensure a crash never happens again. Instead, that's been


left largely untouched. We have not really had austerities yet and we


never really will. The government has been spending aliens this year


and at the end of the government -- the Labour government, they were


spending less. The debt has hit ?1.3 trillion. Why are we not talking


about that? If you want to talk about protesting about future and


fairness, how is saddling people not born yet with thousands of debt for


our spending now fair? The problem is not money, there is always money


for war, why? There is always money to bail out banks and four MP pay


rises. They voted on an 11% pay rise.


Actually, they have not. They tried hard! They did not say, there is no


money for a pay rise. So when it suits the government, they find it.


If you want to create more money in this world, there is a what we can


do. We can tackle the ?120 billion tax gap that we currently have. We


could introduce a living wage which would ensure working people do not


have to be on benefit -- benefits. Only 3% of people on benefits are


unemployed. Welfare is not the issue. But welfare is being


demonised to justify the cuts. And as a taxpayer, I am totally proud to


fund welfare, the NHS, education, I am not proud to fund legal wars,


that is what should be demonised. She is right, there is always money


around. Even borrowing ?107 billion seems a lot but interest rates are


low and despite the fact the government has not cut the deficit


by anything like it said it would, the economy is growing again,


employment is growing, so the original strategy might not have


been right. There is a ticking time bomb, they


are not addressing the debt and we are living on borrowed time. Unless


we radically address the situation and we do not just tinker around. We


are over five years proposing a 3.9% reduction in state spending in real


terms, the same amount Denis Healy did in the 1970s in one year. These


are not radical cuts, which are tinkering. -- we are tinkering. We


should be taking out departments. If you want to address the economy


and make sure the crash never happens again, you have to change


this economic system which is fundamentally unjust. It benefits an


elite few. You tell the 1 million people who use food banks the cuts


are tinkering. There is going to be a what more trouble than that. -- a


lot more. If we do not address the financial situation. You say we want


to regulate the city so it cannot happen again, the city is creating


the wealth that pays the series. -- the taxes. It remains in the hands


of vinyl beat a few. It pays for the NHS and the public services. -- an


elite few. The NHS is being privatised because private health


funds the Tory party. That is how policy works.


We will have to leave it. It is time to look at what is going on in


European politics. MEPs elected in May have met for the


first time in Strasbourg this week. In a moment, we'll be joined by two


of them in the studio. First though, here's our guide to the latest from


Europe, in just 60 seconds. The week's most awkward phone call,


as the Prime Minister congratulates Jean-Claude Juncker on his new job,


despite spending week is trying to prevent him. The Parliament began


the session with Beethoven's Ode to Joy, the anthem of the EU. Most MEPs


looked two way, UKIP, the other. While UKIP think the EU is rubbish,


the European Commission is talking rubbish. The commission has proposed


councils will have to recycle 70% of household waste by the end of next


decade. Better news for David this week


after Germany backed plans to back migrants sending child benefits


abroad. And who is this smoothly? Matteo Ramsey is the new Italian


Prime Minister who says the continent is moving at half the


speed of the rest of the world, so time to move on, Pronto!


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


Ian Duncan and Labour's Jude Kirton-Darling. Welcome to the


programme. Let's just pick up on the comments made by the Italian Prime


Minister, Matteo Renzi, that we saw at the end of that clip there.


That it is time to end austerity, is it? Is it going to happen? I think


it is fundamental we see a change in direction at European level. This


leads neatly from the discussion you are having about the UK. If we look


across Europe, austerity has been extremely counter-productive in a


lot of countries. Fran?ois Alonso was elected to bring


an end to it -- Francois Hollande. France is now in a worse state than


any other European economy. Figures suggest there is no growth, so why


did he fail? Because we have not seen that change at European level.


We saw one President elected in France but we did not see a change


in the overall strategy at European level. What we need is to seek a


change in the EU strategy and a posh in terms of investment and growth.


-- eight posh. Labour are calling for concrete measures to put forward


growth and job creation because we still have catastrophic levels of


unemployment across Europe. Would that make a difference?


Austerity is causing serious problems in Europe but the Eurozone


is causing real problems around the Mediterranean countries. Youth


unemployment above 50%. Unless you can get a serious adjustment,


generations will be lost. What would that be? The Eurozone has


to adjust. You have got to allow some sense of freedom. Allow


devaluation, potentially countries we focusing and building themselves


back up. You cannot have that unless they


read. If you do not do that, you are just


hoping inside that lifeboat will be survival. -- they leave. I think


there will be starvation. Now, we're all used to a left-wing


and right-wing divide in politics. But after the recent European


elections in which anti-establishment parties made big


gains, are the new division lines in European politics now between


europhiles and eurosceptics? The European Parliament is still


dominated by the two big traditional political groupings. The EPP, the


European People's Party who have 29% of the seats, and S, the


Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, who have 25% of the


seats. Although these groupings are on opposite sides of the political


spectrum, the EPP on the centre-right and the S on the


centre-left, they definitely have one thing in common. They are both


very pro-European. But their European love-in faces a threat,


after voters returned a significant numbers of MEPs from Eurosceptic


parties such as UKIP, France's National Front and Italy's Five Star


Movement. So the traditional rivals of European politics have got


together and negotiated a grand coalition with themselves and the


Liberal grouping ALDE to prevent the EU's programme being derailed, and


the dividing lines in the European Parliament were on show from the


very first debate a few days ago. The Eurosceptics are the


progressives. These two gentleman had nothing to say today, it was the


usual dull, looking back, invented 50 years ago, and we want democracy,


we want nation state, we want a global future for our countries, not


to be trapped inside this museum. Thank you.


What are you doing here? I heard the speech of the Leader of the


Opposition in the House of Commons. If you want to be considered as the


leader of the European political group, make speeches of eight


political European leader, thank you. -- apolitical.


We are joined now by the UKIP MEP Tim Aker.


Is Eurosceptic and Europhile the dividing line?


It is business as usual. Some are challenging the big rocks. We have


formed a democracy group and you could hear applause. There is a


movement away from the old Moore Europe and more integration, it is


coming on in stages but it is a trend that will continue at the next


elections because it cannot go on. Is he right? The centre-left


grouping is a coalition with the centre-right because although you


disagree on individual policies, what unites you is a strong European


feel. What we are there to do is to defend


the people who have elected us to go to the European Parliament.


Implement the programme we have committed to. In the north-east


where I stood, it was during game investment, creating jobs in a place


with the highest employment -- unemployment in the country. --


bringing in investment. It is not opposition government, it is ELT on


alliances and they need to work. You have joined a group that is


Federalist. -- it is built on. The EU has to work for the people of


Britain. Are you Federalist? Not especially. I think we are stronger


together. That is the issue. The Labour group is explicitly


Federalist, are you Federalist? I would say that I believe that


Europeans working together are better off than nation state is


trying to poll behind national lines. So you are Federalist. I am


quite pro-European and I am proud of that. You have not answered my


question. I think it is a false debate. It is not a dictatorship, as


UKIP present. Where are the Conservatives in this? Isolated. The


Conservatives are part of the third-largest group. A group which


believes in reform. We were the only serious opposition of the stitch up


whereby Jean-Claude Juncker got the presidency of the commission. But


none of your allies, the German Christian Democrats, the French UMP,


the Spanish Conservatives, none of these, your natural allies in


Europe, or in your group. The reality is that they believe in


reform and only we can deliver that. Would you want to have dinner with


them? I had dinner with them several times.


Should you not to choose your company more carefully?


They believe in reform. When it comes to a battle between the


Eurosceptics and the strongly pro-European or most federalist on


the other side of the other groups, where are you? UKIP are going to


turn their back on Europe as they did in the anthem. Federalism is not


what we are for, we believe we can make Europe work. But it has to be


serious reform and we are the only party that can deliver a referendum


to give people the choice. Where does UKIP go because although the


anti-European parties did very well in the European elections, when you


put together the centre-right, the centre-left and the liberal


grouping, you are still outnumbered and you do not all agree.


The questioner who took my daughter task, what are you doing here if you


oppose this? -- who took Nigel to task. That is the mindset. There


were more spoilt papers that your candidate got in the elections. We


want nothing to do with this. We got 100 votes, we got beyond our


numbers, which is quite impressive. We are isolated because we are not


willing to do cosy deals. We are not able to build alliances and at


European level, you have to do that to reform. If you are going to give


up on your principles, you can do what you did. He called it a free


and open election but it was not, there was no EPP candidate, that is


a cosy stitch up. There were five candidates and it was a secret


ballot and anybody could vote. The EPP did not put up a candidate and


they are the August group in -- the biggest group. You still outnumbered


in the European Parliament. You are part of the group in which the


British Labour Party does not agree with its policies, and you are not


part of anything. We the third biggest group. You cannot swing


anything, you are outnumbered by the three centre groups. For as long the


Labour Party believes it should be Federalist minded, we will have a


problem. We believe it is about reforming the EU. Building


alliances. So you agree with me. No, it is what you define as reform.


What is your most important reform? I would like a real commitment, use


unemployment at the top of the programme. That is a programme. --


youth unemployment. How would you like to reform Europe? It is about


redressing the balance. They put employment issues in the last


commission and they have been at the bottom of the pile, it has been


about this ghost ability. Start on our own house, stop the circus that


travels to Strasbourg every month. Save the hundreds of millions that


represents. leader of my political group in the


European Parliament. I didn't vote Conservative. He was the candidate,


the leader of my group. So, after that 26-2 defeat


on the election of Jean Claude Junker as Commission


President and UKIP's success in the European Parliament elections


what does the rest of Europe think of Britain and its prospects


as a member of the European Union? By the magic of television


Giles Dilnot's been able to talk to If you reflect on it, members ship


of the European Union has not been conjured out of nowhere. However


warped the debate gets our leaving the whole show has been rising up


the agenda. Not only do lots of country think it's a difficult trick


to pull off but it is the kind of magic you shouldn't even attempt. It


is very important Britain stays in the EU. And in Austria, we think


it's only a threat from Britain it will leave. Mr Cameron will show us


how important he is in Europe we take it as a joke. After the


European elections, nearly half the old MEPs have transformed into new


ones. As a result of attitudes here and elsewhere, it is worth flagging


up for Britain and many of the other 28 member states their con tingents


are now more eurosceptic than ever. Debating our exit is a good thing


and also very revealing. It is not a joke. It is a big issue. Whatever


the British decide to do it is significant for all. It is not


harmful for the EU. It is helpful for the EU to know we are not locked


in. We can exit if we want to. It's even better that a big country like


Britain has taken up these issues of reform and even possible exit if the


EU continues on this path of federalism. But many Europeans see


Britain as descending into the dark arts. The official awkward squad


making tactical threats. Then they think, well, maybe they are


blackmailing us. Is it worth it. Or maybe they think, can we conceive of


the European Union without the UK? The answer to that, if you ask it


often enough, yes. The costs would be very high both ways round. A


terrible loss of prestige. What that really reveals to those who want to


map you out Britain's future is we can leave without each other. But


when you see the gap, it's something everyone a would want to reconsider.


I'm one of those who thinks it could work better. Be careful what you


wish for. Be careful of destroying something that has taken wars to


create and peace to stabilise. Do you want to be the political group


that pulled it apart when others look to Europe as being the envy of


democracy, modernisation, freedom, liberty and free movement. For those


who are transparently pro-European, this strike tearily debate appears


to disstrict. Eurosceptic voters need to know where that leaves those


who want out. All the voters need to understand they have no influence.


They are not part of the discussions in the committees where we are


talking about creating rules, financial sector stab I willisation.


There's no participation of these groups. They getting money for doing


nothing. In one sense, it doesn't really matter what other countries


think. If we have a referendum and if we vote no, like that, we're


gone. How big an issue is it with other


Europeans in the European Parliament of the possibility of Britain's


departure? It's been discussed now. This Parliament is one which is


different from the past. The general consensus is it is different. There


is a mood for reform and change. There's the Rec negligence Britain


is pushing for that. I think many other countries want that same


reform. It is not just about what Britain wants. It is about what the


rest of Europe wants as well. We have to listen to people who put us


into that Parliament. They want something different. If everyone


shouted for reform, why can't a consensus emerge and we proceed?


Fundamentally, we're talking about different of reforms. There are some


things we clearly agree. Stopping the charade of us all trooping down


to Strasbourg and making one seat for the Parliament. That makes


complete sense. You know that's not going to change? . That would take


David Cameron going into negotiation with other leaders and being able to


build an alliance for that. An alliance would make no difference.


The French would just veto it. You find ways of finding a compromise


which could work forthe French. Those reforms are actually in the


hands of the European council. Many of the things in the European


Parliament are more policy reforms. Redirecting where the focus is in


terms of growth, in terms of investment, in terms of employment.


Could you get this biggest spending in Europe is still the Common


Agricultural Policy. Not as big as it was but still the biggest. Would


reform include getting that money being spent on infrastructure, job


creation, modernising Europe? If you look at how the negotiations over


how the budget was placed, Monet fecked things like broadband, to


shore up the French needs for farming. It is not just about


maintaining how things have been in the past. We have to get things more


focussed. No idea the number of times I've


been told that. Maybe one day it will happen. Snell


How big an issue is it with other Europeans in the European Parliament


of the possibility of Britain's departure? It's been discussed now.


This Parliament is one which is different from the past. The general


The biggest thing which surprised me on my travels in Euroland is the


number of British people I've bumped into. In the Hague, the head of euro


poll. In Switzerland, the EU's ambassador. And in Brussels, Mrs


Evans. She overseas fish. When people are talking to you, they


don't say, she's a British person. They are talking to you as the woman


in charge of fisheries policy or state aid. They are not saying, she


is a British person. It's not really the primary thing. Is it useful for


Whitehall having you in this job? Is there a little back channel there?


There's no back channel. I will talk to anybody that wants to talk to me.


The problem is, there are a lot of senior people reaching the end of


long EU careers and not enough Jones who's starting her as an assistant


in the IT department of the European Commission. Since I've been here,


I'm probably one of a handful of Brits that I've known over the last


18 months. Mainly my colleagues are from lots of different European


countries. And, of course, that was part of the appeal of coming to work


here. The mix of people and cultures and I find that really interesting.


And that's the story the statistics tell too. For simplicity let's look


at the commission where Joanne works. The number of UK nationals


employed there has fallen by 24% over the last seven years which


means now just 4.5% of the staff are British. The UK makes up 12.5% of


the population of the EU. So, as a nation, we're seriously


underrepresented. A situation one British EU official told me is a


catastrophe. That's how they see it here at the


Foreign Office in London too. So much so, earlier this year, they


launched a new drive to get more people thinking of careers as EU


civil servants. There's a whole office dedicated to getting people


working in Whitehall to Brussels. But what's the EU really like as an


employer? Do you find yourself going home and being an advocate of the


EU? Absolutely. 100%. Is this a fun place to work? We don't have fun,


you know. We have job satisfaction! We've neither here sclachlt The


position of European Commission working for Jean-Claude Juncker. Who


will it be? I put my money on Malcolm Rifkind. Malcolm Rifkind?


Yeah, former Foreign Secretary. You'd probably win a by-election in


Kensington. The important thing is to get the ride man up for the job.


He's not up for the job. I've heard his name talked about. News to me.


From our perspective it is the Government who decides. So bound to


be a Tory? You'd guess unless Nick Clegg wants a platinum balloon out


of the coalition, I'm guessing it will be a Tory. Provacative! Whoever


it is, we hope it is somebody able to build those alliances at European


level and we'll work with them. What would be a good portfolio for them


to get? There's quite a ripe choice. An economic Nd one! The British have


always gone for internal market. We've not managed to get it tube to


our position from other countries up to now. There are big issues in the


future around energy, climate change. There are lots of key


issues. Which would you like and the British commissioner to get?


Internal market would make a difference but trade. It will be


important to trade internal markets. These trade agreements are not going


well at the moment? They've been bogged down. We need to get them


moving. You can create growth and jobs.


Peter Mandelson took the prey seriously? He did. He's regarded


well in Brussels as a result of it. The key thing is to have a


commissioner who's willing to do the hard work and is willing to put


themselves into the job fully. If that's the case, then I think the UK


will be in a good position. I think the key, it is interesting in the


report, we have to be encouraging younger people to work in the


institutions. That's also about changing and informing better the


British public about what the institutions are. We have to leave


it there. Thanks to my guests Jude and Ian, bye-bye.


When Barbara and I started the Review,


we were seeking to examine the workings


and the truthfulness of establishments.


Albatross? There it is. The albatross.


The albatross is going to need a hair-styling.


A thrilling tale of double agents and a man on the run.


John Buchan's flair for wartime propaganda


Download Subtitles