04/07/2014 Daily Politics

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

??EDITNEXTSUBTITLE ??EDITNEXTSUBTITLE

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