05/09/2014 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

NATO leaders continue their summit in Wales, with Iraq

David Cameron says Britain is ready to commit 3,500 troops to

David Cameron prepares the ground for British airstrikes

against Islamic State fighters in Northern Iraq - but all the signs

Nationalise the railways! Raise the minimum wage!

No, not the cry of the unions - but the latest policy pledges from the

Their leader joins us live at the start

And Meet the Neighbours - in the first of a new series profiling

the members of the European Union, Adam has been finding out what

With us for the first half hour of today's programme is the LBC

Let's start with the latest from Calais in northern France, where

there's an increased police presence after scores of migrants tried to

The local mayor says over 1,000 migrants are camped in the town and

And she's threatened to call on local residents to blockade the port

Is it the British government's response ability to stop these

migrants crossing the Channel? Partly. I speak to people night

after night on my late night show and immigration and asylum seekers

is always a hot issue, as you would expect. It is easy to say this is

France's problem, Calle' problem, get on with it but in this country,

there's a real about people coming in, in some cases illegally. What do

you do about it? You have had the authorities in Calais asking for

more cash to help them. I think that's right. It poses a massive

problem for David Cameron because as we go into 2015, and immigration is

a political issue, certainly with the Ukip threat, if he cannot be

seen to be sorting out Calais, 30-40 miles across the water, where is the

credibility in saying he can be tough on immigration, illegal or

otherwise? Those are striking pictures, watching people trying to

get onto lorries, here, trying to climb over extremely high wire

fences. But the mayor of Calais is calling for a blockade. Is that an

overreaction? You have to spend some time there. I have been watching

reports and listening to people. You had a near riot in the week, where

the guys on the ferry had to people. You had a near riot in the week,

where the guys on the ferry had staff. It is political pressure. --

they had to turn the fire hoses on to stop people getting on board.

People that ring into my show ask why people want to come to Britain,

and why they -- ask why they don't stay in France. There have been

stories of asylum offer is being given to people but they say they

want to come for Britain. They could have many reasons for that. English

is a language well spoken. And jobs, not benefits necessarily. They

have family as well. You can understand it but you get into this

whole area, how do you tell the difference between a genuine asylum

seeker and someone who quite understandably just wants to go to a

country to better their lives? The question for today is -

in a speech last night, which city did Boris Johnson say was

the best in the world? Was it a) Paris in the 19th century,

b) Athens in the 5th century BC c) New York in the 20th century

or d) London in the 21st century? And in half an hour's time Duncan

will - we hope - We are

"surrounded by an arc of crisis" according to the Secretary-General

of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. But has the NATO conference in Wales

been a talking shop? Or have member countries actually

managed to agree any concrete action on the two big issues of the day,

Ukraine and the threat from Let's hear what the Prime Minister,

David Cameron, has had to stay at the conference

this morning, on Ukraine. As Russia tramples illegally over

Ukraine, we must reassure our Eastern European members that we

will always uphold our Article five commitments to collective

self-defence. We must be able to act more swiftly. In 2002, NATO stood

down its high readiness force. I hope that today, we can agree a

multinational spearhead force, which can be deployed anywhere in the

world in just 2-5 days. This would be part of a reformed NATO response

Force, with headquarters in Poland, forward units in the Eastern allies,

and equipment and infrastructure positioned to allow more exercises

and if necessary, rapid reinforcement.

The Prime Minister there, announcing a UK commitment of 3,500 personnel

The Prime Minister there, announcing a UK commitment of 1,000 personnel

We'll discuss what that means in a moment.

First, let's take a look at the other developments.

More than 60 presidents and prime ministers have gathered for the

final day of the NATO summit in Newport. Despite talk of an imminent

cease-fire in Ukraine, an announcement of further sanctions

against Russia is still expected. These include further travel bans,

more financial restrictions on banks, and increased curbs on

defence exports. Discussion of action against Islamic State

extremists in Iraq and Syria has also dominated the conference. David

Cameron has said military action is an option. He believes there are no

legal barriers in the UK to air strikes. He added, "we have to use

everything in our armoury to wipe out Islamists terrorists". This

morning, NATO defence ministers have met to discuss initial -- additional

help to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

Let's get the latest from the NATO summit

and speak to the BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith.

We had from the Prime Minister, 3500 troops being committed to the rapid

reaction force but it is now 1000. What was the confusion? The 3500

troops will go towards exercises in Eastern Europe in the next two

years. They are military training exercises. There will still be the

formation of a rapid reaction force, 4000 strong, with 1000

British troops, led by a British general but based in Eastern Europe

with headquarters in Poland. The clear message is meant to be

directed at President Putin, in other words, back off, NATO is

getting serious about organising along your borders. That coincides

with what is in effect a rebuff to President Putin's offer of a

cease-fire. If you speak to senior figures here, it has been dismissed

out of hand. They simply don't believe President Putin is serious.

For that reason, they are going ahead with a new raft of sanctions,

regardless of the cease-fire. What we are seeing is a definite

hardening in attitude of Western leaders towards President Putin. The

view is, unless the West stand up, President Putin will keep demanding

more, and pushing further. David Cameron seems to be preparing the

ground, if those conditions are met, for UK involvement in air

strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq and possibly Syria. I think that is

true. I do think we are at the point of action but I think we are now in

a waiting game, waiting firstly to see whether a genuinely inclusive

government is formed in Baghdad, and secondly, whether other neighbouring

countries in the region get their acts together and actually start to

put together forces and resources to confront Islamic State. Thirdly,

crucially, we're waiting for President Obama. Everything is

predicated on his decision to go for air strikes in Syria. But if you

speak to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, it is clear in my

mind that they are up for air. Thank you for joining us.

And we've been joined by former British

ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Labour's shadow defence secretary, Vernon Coaker

joins us from our studios in Westminster.

David Cameron has said that he won't rule out UK participation in air

strikes. Waiting for President Obama, what sign is there that he is

actually going to call in Britain to make a contribution? We have not

seen a public sign yet but I would be most surprised if President Obama

decided he did not want British help in any air strikes or anything else

we might do in the region, and not just British. It could be that Obama

is looking for a coalition of the willing inside the NATO membership.

All this will unravel over the next few days and weeks. The most

important thing I heard said by David Cameron, and I am sure the

president subscribes to this, is that we do actually have the outline

of a strategy, a three pronged strategy. It has changed from

President Obama's initial pronouncement that he did not really

have a strategy? Taylor he has been given a lot of stick for that and I

think very unfairly. He is right, as the Prime Minister is, to be careful

about the next steps in Iraq. I think he will be able to come out of

the NATO summit saying that they have something like a strategy. It

is military, political, they are waiting for a new Baghdad government

next week and it is diplomatic, in other words, trying to bring in the

big regional powers. Like the Gulf States and Iran although that could

be a problem. It could be but it is not impossible. Vernon Coaker, will

Labour support UK air strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq? As it stands,

we have had no request from the British government, and no

discussions with the government about that. We have shown in the

past that we supported it where we felt it was appropriate in Libya. We

were not prepared to support it in Syria. If the government comes

forward with proposals, we will consider them on the basis of the

purpose of the air strikes, and what support there is in the region and

some other things. But the government needs to be clear to us

about what they are proposing to do and why. I think the discussion is

being framed along those lines. I put you the scenario which would

proceed air strikes. President Obama calls on the UK Government to join

air strikes, on the basis that there is some kind of government in

Baghdad, and there are players involved. Will Labour, at that

point, get behind it? As I say, we need to consider the proposals. If

those were the proposals, would you be happy to be there? You cannot say

that without knowing the actual proposals. What does it mean to say

there is a regional alliance? We need to be clear about the purpose

of the air strikes. What are you... Frightened is not the right word but

what are you worried about when you say you need to know the nature of

it? Those are the conditions as I understand them. They may change but

if those conditions were still put to you, what would worry you about

it? You would want to know exactly, in clear terms, the purpose of the

air strikes and their outcome. You would want to know who among the

regional countries were supporting what you are doing. In other words,

you have to have some clarity about this. It is not an objection one way

or the other. It is not to say we are in favour or against what we

need clarity from the government about what they are proposing and

then we could look at the proposals, discuss them and decide on that

basis whether we would support them or not. That is Iraq and I cannot

get you to commit one way or the other, maybe Ferran. What about air

strikes in Syria? Many voices say you would have 2 attack ISIS in

Syria as well to make it effective if you are going to defeat the

enemy. -- have 2 attack. Would air strikes without President Assad's

permission be illegal? Again, you would need to know the legal base.

It is difficult. You would need to know, and any action against ISIS

need a legal basis. That is what we said about Iraq. A legal basis is

absolutely vital to proceed. Taking up that point, it is true, bearing

in mind the kind of problems we have had in the past over things like the

invasion of Iraq and the legality of war, as Vernon Coaker got a point

about making sure it was legally tight before air strikes in Syria

took place? I am not a lawyer and I don't know but I do know that it

makes no sense to confine attacks on ISIS within Iraq alone. What they

have introduced into the equation is something quite new, a terrorist

organisation which elides frontiers, namely that between Syria and Iraq.

If you are going to do something against them which is going to be

militarily, politically and diplomatically effective, you have

to take them as a whole, not in an Iraqi chunk and then a Syrian chunk

to be left hanging around. I don't know the legal imprecations, but the

other reasons are very compelling, for going into Syria. --

implications. Just for one moment, putting legal issues aside, because

we will discuss them separately, but do you agree that any strategy of

air strikes has to be one that includes both Iraqi targets and

Syrian targets? All I would do is point to the evidence we have so

far. We supported American air strikes in support of the

humanitarian mission and what they were doing. Those air strikes in

Iraq were successful in holding the advance of the ISIS forces. But not

defeating them which is what the Prime Minister set and Ed Miliband

says he supported mum that. Clearly in terms of Iraq, we have 40 of the

advance -- vaulted the advance which has allowed the Kurds to regroup and

now the Iraqi government has space to produce the type of inclusive

government we want to see there. Do you regret in any way Labour's

refusal to support earlier this year David Cameron's attempt to get some

kind of mandate for air strikes against President Assad? No, I

don't. What you have to do is look at the issues as they arise, the

context in which you are asked to make decisions. That was the right

decision about Syria. As I said, we are not a party that opposes

intervention per se, as we showed with respect to the support we gave

air strikes in Libya. But let's look at the context within which we are

asked to make these decisions, see what the purpose and outcome is and

when we get the request, we will look at it. What do you say about

going ahead with air strikes without a Parliamentary mandate? It is

dangerous. Going back to the conversation we had earlier, the

countdown to next year's general election, political capital powered

be lost. The one thing that has not been considered is the support of

the British people. It is all well and good politicians debating this,

and it is right and proper, but in a survey this week, 50% of people

surveyed by the Independent newspaper were against air strikes

and there was more opposition to boots on the ground. There's a real

responsibility to bring the British people onside. I think it has

changed in the last few days, particularly with the second video

being released and a third, British captive. I think a poll now would

show more support but the British people need to be behind this. Is

that do with the Labour's reticence? Possibly.

Do you think we will be bombing those targets in Iraqi in a few

weeks? It is possible because it is possible to demonstrate that bombing

in Iraq and in Syria is quite a different case from that made last

year to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Those who support

intervention now have to show that it is different to the situation

last year, and I think that can be very easily done. Vernon Coaker,

briefly, before we turn to Ukraine, have you and other shadow ministers

been talking to Labour MPs about whether they support air strikes?

Obviously not in a formal way that the Conservatives are doing, asking

MPs if they support air strikes. What are you doing? You informally

meet with members of your own party and there are discussions going on.

And what is the reaction? Labour MPs go back to the point I was making,

what is the context and the purpose and the outcome? Thank you. We have

heard that 1000 UK troops will be committed to the rapid reaction

force. Will that frighten President Putin? It will make him anxious.

NATO has always been the bogeyman for the Soviet Union and now for the

new state of Russia under Putin, and he needs to congratulate himself, I

think, in having revived single-handedly a NATO alliance that

was moribund and lacking in papers until he went into Crimea and then

Ukraine. This is one of the unintended consequences of his

invasion. The message to Putin, and whether it will worry him or not I

don't know, but he needs to listen carefully, is that it is not about

Ukraine. Ukraine is not likely to be a member of NATO in the near future.

The Prime Minister referred specifically to Article five,

obligations of the NATO treaty. That refers to current members of NATO

and the message to Putin is don't you dare mess with the Baltic

states, with Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, in the way that

you have done with Ukraine. Because if you do that, we invoke the

article and we are on the edge of war, you see. And that is if you

attack one NATO nation then you attack them all. Do you support

tougher sanctions? We certainly support the toughening of sanctions

with respect to Ukraine and as far as NATO is concerned, the

announcement today about the spearhead to the Iraqi reaction

force -- rapid reaction force, I think that is also good and

reassuring. Will it work? I think it will. On it though it is not

sufficient but alongside other policy proposals being made. -- on

its own. If you look at NATO allies in Poland and the Baltic states,

they are anxious to be reassured. It is ironic that is happening on a day

when the Government is having trouble recruiting reserves. But

this specific point about the spearhead is a good thing. You would

support more defence spending, would you? I would certainly support

ensuring that the defence capabilities that we have got are

matched by the policies the Government pursue, and with respect

to reserves they are failing on that. Would Labour commit more

resources and money to the armed forces? We support the Government up

until 2015 and after that it will be a question of the next spending

review. Thank you very much. A rally demonstrating against

the Government's health reforms is It's the culmination

of a month-long march that began in Jarrow and followed the route of

the original 1936 Jarrow Crusade. Named 999 Call For The NHS,

the group is protesting against what they believe is the increasing

privatisation of the health service. Adam Fleming joined them for part

of the walk. I got up with the Jarrow marchers

bright and early at a community centre in Luton where they had spent

the night kipping on the floor. They were getting ready to March 11 miles

to St Albans. Such a long way but such a small breakfast. It has been

hard to deal with people's generosity on the march. People have

been so kind, and we have been offered so much food and cake and

hospitality. People have baked for the march and the NHS continually

and it has been wonderful that people have put time and effort and

care into it. We have been finding it hard to beat all the cake. A core

group of 20 started off in Jarrow in mid-August and when they reach

London on Saturday, they will have marched 280 miles. It is a mixture

of trade unionists and lefties and those that say they including a

nurse and psychiatrist. They have been joined by all sorts of people

along the way. It was the brainchild

of some campaigners from Darlington, You have to make sure everyone gets

up on time and their luggage gets on the buses and that everyone is

ready to go, fighting fit. The reason why they are is

the amount of people that have just come out

and joined us for the march, shared They are following the footsteps of

the original Jarrow March of 1936. They were highlighting a lack

of jobs in the North. What motivates the modern-day

marchers is the health service, which they fear is being flogged

off without the public noticing. That is denied by the Department of

Health, who told us 6% of the NHS budget goes to the private sector,

and that number has hardly changed But these people feel

so passionate about the National Health Service, they really

are prepared to go the distance. We've been joined by

Dr Louise Irvine from the National Health Action Party which supports

the march, and by Julia Manning from the 2020 health group which supports

the Government's NHS reforms. Can I start with you? The NHS is

still free at the point of use. Do you think the public cares who

provides the health care as long as they are not paying for it directly?

Well, for the public it is very important that health remain free at

the point of use, but how it is organised and delivered is also

important and I think if the public knew the amount of wasted that there

is in the privatised system, and the risks of destabilising NHS care, but

also the risks of poor quality care, they would care very much about who

provide the care. What examples have you got poor quality care being

provided by private providers? Well, Circle took over the provision

of out of hours services in Cornwall, and have lost the contract

because of the poor quality. They were putting in misleading reports

and results. There have also been two cases recently of cataract

operations which were being done by private providers. They have been

pulled because of poor results. What do you say to that? There may be an

argument that some of the public cares about what happens in the NHS

but many will want a decent quality of care provided by whomever, so

long as it is free at the point of use but not if the care is

substandard and dangerous. I think this march is a fantastic display of

public support and commitment to the NHS, which we absolutely agree with,

and we want to see the NHS fit for the future and the 21st century. In

terms of the concerns around privatisation, the reality is that

the NHS is a partnership between independent providers and public

sector providers. The amount of money the NHS budget spent in the

independent sector, so IT support, GPs, drugs, the whole thing, it is

actually 28% already. It is a partnership and without each other

the system would fall down. People are worried that private sector

provision will begin to engulf parts of what they feel is a health

service that will lose its identity. I don't think it will lose its

identity. I think everybody is committed to the same core

principles and what is really important is that we recognise

fantastic independent providers. Nobody wants to get rid of Macmillan

nurses and nobody wants to stop the provision of wheelchairs for

children. It is a great partnership and we should celebrate it. Isn't it

true that the NHS has always been a mixture of public and private

providers and what is being said is emotional but in reality has always

existed? This is a way of misleading the public, talking about Macmillan

nurses, the charity, and GPs who are independent contractors but very

much part of the NHS. We do not have shareholders, we do not draw profit

into the pockets of shareholders. The problem is the company is taking

these contracts are big private equity funds, hedge funds, out to

make major profit from the NHS. That is a real risk. The number of

contracts that has gone out to the private sector has increased three

times in the last year. It is only last year that the regulations came

out. The provision percentage has not increased. The health and social

care act was fermented two years ago and the regulations that enforce it

would just one year ago. -- was implemented. And we have seen

contracts going out to the private sector since. We used to have a cap

on profits and we should have that. You admit it is a dangerous

precedent to allow companies to focus on profit rather than care? I

think any company that does not focus on the care they are providing

should not be providing services to the NHS. But how on earth do you

stop that? It is quite difficult to unravel what is going on in the

NHS. The public may be very worried about what they see happening. Yes.

There is a responsibility on both your parts and language is so

important. When you use the P word, toxic privatisation, people pony up

on the radio and think that you can only have treatment if you get your

credit card out. You have to be very clear about what your concerns are.

The word privatisation can be misused and abused. I think there is

a point here that the majority of patients, and this is the battle you

have, don't really care whether care comes from, so long as it is first

class. -- where the care comes from. By the definition of the World

Health Organisation and Oliver Letwin, who wrote about privatising

the world, where public sector services are put over to the private

sector to provide, that is privatisation. The Government does

not want to use that word because it knows it is toxic and the public

does not want it. The debate needs to be about how we find the NHS in

the future, what services are provided by the NHS because it can't

do everything. It raises our expectations about what is possible.

We need that public debate and it needs to be about the inequity that

is increasing as well. You can have one treatment in one place and not

in another and that is what we need to be debating. I will leave it

there. Thank you very much. What do you do if you're

a left wing voter disillusioned with Well, the Green Party of England

and Wales hopes you'll join them and they reckon they might just have

the policies to entice the left The party is meeting

for their annual conference in Birmingham as they look to add

to their one MP gained in 2010. They want to renationalise

the railways, something they say is They also want to introduce

a wealth tax on the super rich with The party would also legislate

for a living wage which will rise to ?10 an hour

by the end of the next Parliament. To discuss

their prospects we're been joined from Birmingham by the leader of

the Green Party, Natalie Bennett. Welcome back to the daily politics.

Let's pick up on that last policy proposal about a living wage rising

to ?10. Have you got businesses on side? I think very much though.

Businesses recognise that the low pay economy is doing them out of

customers and opportunities to provide the services and goods that

people need. Have you got any names about who has signed up? No, I am

not going to give you any names. What I am going to talk about is how

we are saying today that we need to make the minimum wage a living wage.

If you work full time, you should earn enough to live on, and a survey

has shown 76% of the public agree with that statement. The living wage

is a basic principle. We have to offer people hope for the future as

well. So many people are struggling to pay bills, facing payday loans

and credit card bills, and we need to offer hope that things will get

better in the future. We also want to... That is what the offer of ?10

an hour for everybody by 2020 offers. You are criticising the

Labour Party for signing up to the same spending limits as the

government, especially initially, but what limit on public services

are you add a catering? We need to restore the pay of public sector

workers and we also need to restore the level of services. The fact is,

we are cutting back so much on youth clubs, social care, there are so

many areas, like social care workers... How much would you spend?

In terms of the 2015 general election, we will have a fully

costed manifesto, as we did in 2010, setting out the full details. But we

want to start the election campaign here. We want a sales Territories

are failed model. We have a situation where the economy at the

moment, rich individuals and multinational companies are not

making a fair contribution in tax or in wages. The 99% of us simply are

not getting a fair share of Britain's wealth. We are, after

all, the world's sixth richest economy. Some of the policies you

advocate, you share with the Labour Party. Are you in danger of not

achieving your policies, for instance the increased minimum wage,

the mansion tax you have talked about, on a higher top rate of tax,

all of which the Labour Party is proposing? Will you split the vote

and not get anywhere near any of the proposals? If we look at the detail,

the Labour Party is making noises about lots of these things. Henri

nationalising the railways, Caroline Lucas has a Private members Bill

before Parliament that says we should simply, as the train

operating companies' contract slats, allow them to come back into public

hands and run them as a public institution. Labour say they will

create a public company, which bids into this failed, fragmented

privatised system we have now. That is not renationalisation. It is

supporting the model we have a ready got. If you look at the living wage,

I believe Labour's position if they want to ask companies nicely and

offer them tax breaks for the living wage. We are saying that white to

become if you work full time, you should have enough money to live on.

Do you think Natalie Bennett is making an offer, and her party is

making an offer, which will have a broader appeal than they have had in

the past? Two I think it is. I spoke to Natalie last night about one of

the policies and they are broadening their range of policies, broadening

from just being about the idea of the environment which is a

perception a lot of people have. Where it goes is interesting because

it may well take votes from Labour and the Lib Dems. It may well spin

to the slightly centre-left chunk of the electorate. -- splinter. I think

that might be a good thing but whether or not it will translate

into MPs in 2015, no one knows. I also think, about fracking, the

Green party will pick up votes from people who don't want it in their

back garden. Thank you for joining us.

Before we say goodbye to Duncan, let's see if he worked out

The question was which city did Boris Johnson say last night was

Was it a) Paris in the 19th century b) Athens in the 5th century BC,

c) New York in the 20th century or d) London in the 21st century?

So Duncan, what's the correct answer?

My get out of jail card was I was working last night so I did not see

it. I would like to think it is London but he's besotted with our

things and was also born in New York. I'm going with Athens. I have

to be honest, I'm not sure whether the right answer was Athens or

London. But you're right! In a moment, we'll be turning

our attention to the latest But for now, it's time to say

goodbye to my guest Duncan Barkes. So for the next half an hour we're

going to be focusing on Europe. We'll be discussing Europe's

approach to the crisis in Ukraine, the line-up of

Jean-Claude Juncker's new Commission, and Adam reports from

Croatia - the EU's newest member. First though,

here's our guide to the latest Germany breaks its post-war policy

of not sending arms to conflict zones and authorises the arming

of a 4000 strong battalion of Kurdish fighters to battle

Islamic State in northern Iraq. The newly designated EU foreign

affairs chief, Federica Mogherini says NATO

countries bordering Russia need more than a paper pledge that NATO will

step in if it comes to fight. You lost

your independence once before. With NATO,

you will never lose it again. Strong words from the president

as 60 world leaders meet in Wales for the latest NATO summit,

with security issues A potential Merkel headache with

a victory for the For the first time,

a party against the euro won seats New rules banning the manufacture or

import of over 1600 watt vacuum cleaners led to a huge rush on

the things before the ban came in. And with us for the next 30 minutes,

I've been joined by Ukip's Jane Collins, and Catherine

Stihler for the Labour party. Let's take a look at one

of those stories in more detail - the EU's response to the

Islamic State militants in Iraq. Jane, should ransoms be paid to

ISIS, to release hostages? It is a very emotive question. I think once

you start doing that, you are going down a one-way street and you can't

come back. So, no. So your position is never to pay ransoms to

terrorists, to have a British hostage release? Once you have done

it, as I say, you open the door to the one-way street and there's no

turning back. Do you agree, and with the Prime Minister being, as was

said in some of the papers, quite hawkish on this? I agree. There are

other ways to deal with the situation. None of us want to be --

this to be the way it is but we have to use other means than paying

ransoms. The German parliament is arming a battalion of Kurds, to some

extent, changing a decades-old commitment not to get involved,

certainly militarily, in international conflicts, and

therefore, a minister has recently given a speech advocating more

masculine German policy. Do you think that it would be a good idea

for a concerted EU effort to do things like arming the Kurds? In

Iraq at this moment in time, and remember, we are virtually guilty of

causing the situation with this illegal war and we have got the two

sides now that we are struggling to get some kind of stability and it is

looking impossible, but I think with the Islamic terrorist groups and

everything, there has never been a better case for armed intervention

in Iraq. So you are saying that we caused it in 2003? We went into an

illegal war, led by Tony Blair. Do you think that has led to the rise

of ISIS? They have taken advantage of a destabilised country. What

about the situation in Syria? Should the UK Government have led air

strikes in Syria earlier this year? The thing is, Ukip disagreed with

arming the rebels. The very same people now are using the arms

against us. They would say they are not the same people. They were the

moderate resistance. Do you think that Ed Miliband should firmly stand

and support air strikes if America calls on Britain? I think we have to

work together to find solutions to the ISIS threat which is why we are

working in NATO. I think at the moment, we have to look at all the

options. However, at this moment, we had to negotiate a make sure we are

working together. Who are we negotiating with? With our

colleagues and alliances. I don't think that we can rush into things.

It is such a serious situation, we have to make sure the humanitarian

situation, looking at what is happening with the Christians and

other religious minorities in Iraq, we have had a humanitarian effort

and obviously, that cooperation which is essential. But now we have

to work together with NATO and across the EU to tackle this serious

and poisonous threat. I agree it is a terribly poisonous threat but you

can't negotiate with terrorists and that is the main problem. I was not

say negotiate with terrorists. We have to work together. With other

regional powers? Or within the EU? That is something the Europeans...

Isn't this the time we need EU allies more than ever rather than

being isolated and out of Europe, it is what Ukip once? I totally

disagree. I think we can have our input in these situations quite

positively, without having to be part of the EU. I think we have to

work together. North and south Iraq really need to split. I completely

disagree with that. It is so destabilised, and we can move some

of the Christian populations through to the Nineveh plane for safety. We

should be helping the Iraqi government, recognising the Sunni

minority to make sure their voices are heard. This has been the big

problem with Iraqi democracy, the minorities have not been heard. We

have to work hard to make sure it happens. You want to see the

break-up of Iraq because you don't think the different tribal groups...

It is just not working and until it stabilises, it won't.

The EU is piling more pressure on Russia over the crisis

in Ukraine, with deeper economic sanctions targeting state-controlled

banking, energy and defence sectors under discussion.

France has already halted the delivery of a warship to Russia

this week, one of two that were on order before the existing

Now more of President Putin's inner circle,

dubbed "Putin's Cronies" could have travel bans imposed on them.

And if that doesn't persuade Putin, there are suggestions that the EU

could recommend that Russia be banned from participating

in sporting events, including stripping them of the 2018 World Cup

Jane Collins, what do you think about 1000 troops being committed to

a rapid reaction NATO force? Can I just address the fact we have 30

soldiers already on exercises in Iraq? Sorry, in Ukraine!

Ukraine is not part of NATO. We have no benefit in actually interfering

in this situation. Really? We have had America and the EU

pushing/insurance, and interference. Don't get me wrong, we don't condone

President Putin's annexation and acts of aggression. Do you think he

has a right to do it? No, we are saying we don't condone the

annexation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So you approve of what he

is doing? I have just said we don't. But you don't think it's worth

trying to stop him? We are saying that what he's doing is wrong. We

don't think it is right but what we are saying is, there is no benefit

for the sanctions, going in hard, like they are doing, to the UK. What

do you say to that? Sanctions have to be a measure. I disagree

completely, we have to work together in the European Union. This is a

near neighbour, a foreign power has invaded the eastern part of a

sovereign country. This is the most serious crisis in Europe since NATO

went into Serbia. This is something that is really critical. I think at

the moment, when you look at what is happening in a sovereign state,

where a foreign power has invaded, and also, the fact that many of our

Eastern European neighbours, who are now full members of the EU, their

viewpoint of Russia and Russian power, don't forget, is Dhoni had a

cyber attack. And countries like Poland. The fact is, countries like

the EU and America encouraged a clue to depose an elected president. -- a

coop. But what about the people living there. And look as what -- at

what has happened with MH17, not being able to get to the crash

site. President Putin plays it both ways, one minute saying he has

nothing to do with the people creating havoc in eastern Ukraine,

but on the other, trying to organise a cease-fire. I am pleased with what

is happening with Belarus today. What about the Prime Minister today?

I'm not sure if it was today, but on Ukraine, dismissing President

Putin's 7-point plan. President Poroshenko, talking about the

cease-fire. Belarus are coming together to talk, as far as I

understand, and that might be happening as we speak, maybe later

but it is important we recognise that is happening. We welcome that

because we need to make sure there's a cease-fire. Are you not worried

about what is going on in eastern Ukraine in terms of how it could

affect other Eastern European countries and the rest of Europe? Of

course it is worrying but we see any benefit in putting armed troops on

the ground. -- we cannot see. But sanctions is what we are doing. But

they are not touching gas and oil, so they are completely toothless. We

are going to leave it there. The buzz

in Brussels this week has been all about who Jean-Claude Juncker will

choose to be his new commissioners, when he takes over from Jose Manuel

Barroso as President of the Will he have enough

women candidates? Will he rearrange the Commission?

And who will get the best jobs? two months left of weekly meetings

before their replacements take-over. Appointments to these jobs are

closely scrutinised. They are powerful positions because the

Commission is the only part of the EU that can propose new laws. It is

up on the 13th floor office building, the home of the European

Commission, that you will find the President, soon-to-be Jean-Claude

Juncker, and his 27 commissioners. There is one commissioner from each

member state and each looks after a different policy area. It is the

President who decides which portfolio each member state gets, so

will this week he has been interviewing the candidates.

Surprisingly he seems to think I might have a chance. What job are

you going to give the UK candidate? Are you a candidate? Sadly, I am

not. The Denmark representative has been head of the climate Commission

for five years and knows all about the gruelling process of getting the

job. You come from your national Government normally and you know

about politics but this is a different kind of world. You have a

certain humility in your approach, but you also know for instance that

that first meeting with the President-elect is extremely

important because that is where it is to find what you are going to do.

What is your true portfolio for the next five years? Lauderdale, what

position are you getting? How did the interview go? Very positive,

thank you. A positive candidate! The new portfolio is already taken. All

the other jobs are still up for grabs, which means journalists still

have plenty to gossip about. The most sought-after jobs are generally

speaking economic ones. Save economic affairs, trade, the

internal market, competition, those areas. Britain has said that is what

he wants, a top economic job. But if he gets energy and to change, you

can argue that energy is crucial to the economy, so whatever he gets as

long as it is in economic area, he will be able to sell. Ultimately

decisions will be taken in the European Parliament when MPs will

vote on the package of commissioners and their portfolios. Vivian Reding

used to be the Vice President of the Commission. She is also from

Luxembourg and says the number of women candidates is an issue. Women

are half of the talent, half of the knowledge, half of the

responsibility, so let's also carry half of the doing, what we are

standing for. I have the impression that in some member states

unfortunately, this is not taken seriously. If everything goes to

plan, new commissioners will be in these suits by early November but it

is an incredibly complicated process. Even after Jean-Claude

Juncker has made up his mind, it is still not a done deal. Jane and

Catherine are still with me and we have been joined by Syed Kamall from

the Conservatives. It does not look like Lord hill will get one of the

top economic jobs. We don't know. We have just seen the draft Commission

plan but if it is true that he might get the energy portfolio, that is

crucial. Look at what David Cameron and Obama are talking about at the

moment, reducing reliance on energy from Russia. You can't have a modern

digital economy if you can't switch on the lights. One of the

commentators in that film said that the Government will argue any job is

crucial to the economy because everything is crucial to the

economy, and it is not the same as getting one of the top economic

portfolios. Jean-Claude Juncker has made it clear that he is going to

change all the portfolios so it will not be exactly the same. If someone

had asked me what we would like a few weeks ago, energy would have

been one of the top ones. Sounds like he will get that then! Is that

what you know? I don't know. Tell us on Daily Politics! If he gets it,

great. Which other top economic portfolio would you have liked for

Lord Hill? I like to see things like international trade. We are very

interested in monetary affairs and that is a crucial industry for

Britain. Whatever happens, British MEPs will continue standing up for

that crucial industry. Do you accept that without occupying one of the

top economic portfolios, Britain's influence in the discussions between

austerity and spending, now rife in the European Union again, will be

diminished? Not at all. Commissioners all discuss the issues

and commissioners often bring up issues not strictly related to their

portfolio. It is interesting that it is not just energy but climate

change. Paris conference next year, it is a very important issue to deal

with. Of course. Wouldn't it be better if the UK was occupying one

of the top your league economic roles? Of course. Everything is

based on the economy. It is a Mickey Mouse appointment, really. Climate

change is not Mickey Mouse! It is for him because he will be made very

unpopular at home because energy bills will go up. He is going to

push through European legislation, which will increase wind farms and

it is going to... All right. It will. It is pensioners and young

families and their bills will go up and he will not be popular. Jane is

talking about the portfolio. Is it because Lord Hill was not well known

to anyone, particularly Jean-Claude Juncker, that actually his chances

of getting a key role were also reduced? If you look at most of the

commissioners, most people do not know many of them. Not outside the

Brussels Circle. But everyone I have met across the political spectrum,

they have all said they have been impressed with Lord Hill. How many

former Prime Ministers will be chosen as commissioners? Some

clearly have been. Former Prime Ministers are much more important.

But just because you are former Prime Minister does not mean you are

an effective commissioner. I accept that but it is all about profile. It

is not, actually, it is about being well respected in British

institutions. Jean-Claude Juncker had to Google Hill! It is the job

you do in Brussels that is crucial. But Britain is not well respected in

Europe. Is that UKIP's fault? But the single market is not there any

more. Consumer rights is not there any more. Those are the things that

I wonder about. There is better regulation. The German has got the

trade portfolio and the French have got competition. These rumours and

we will find out next week. But we have to look at this. These people

have to go through a hearing process that is very tough, and then they

have to be voted into Parliament, so there is some time to go before we

see these commissioners approved. I am pleased to see that there are now

nine female candidates. I welcome that. I would rather see no

commissioners. We don't have a British Commissioner. Are EU

commissioners. Right, but they are working on behalf of the UK as well.

You would not think so if you saw what was happening. Should the

public know more about what the commissioners do and who they are?

Yes, I think that is important. I spoke to the committee at the House

of Commons this week, and I made the point that whatever you think of the

EU, we are members, and legislation that is created in Brussels

eventually becomes law in Britain, and we have to recognise that. What

reaction did you get? Very positive. People want to know who these people

are. People are recognising how many laws are made in Brussels. Do you

think there would have been more chance of getting a top job if David

Cameron has nominated a woman? You are saying that Hill's job is not a

top job. I am not saying that but it is how it is regarded in

Conservative circles. If you look at the crucial issues, energy is one of

the top issues. Now, hold onto your hats, we've got

something very exciting in store. Yes, it's the first in a new series

of films called Meet The Neighbours. Adam's going to profile

the EU's 28 member countries. He started off in Croatia,

the EU's newest member, where he got Can I start with you? The NHS is

still free at the point of use. Do -- where he got into a bit of a

fight. I am finding out about life

as a gladiator in a town Yes, another empire was

here long before the EU. Would you rather be a subject of

the Roman Empire or the EU empire? OK, Roman empire was

definitely more cruel. This is a country which is used

to joining and leaving things. I was born in Yugoslavia

and my kids in Croatia, Yes, listen, some countries will

never go through what we have gone through in the 20th century

for another thousand years. Nowadays,

Croatia is famous for tourism. But a big industry here is

shipbuilding, so big that you need Right, over there are two ferries

going to Turkmenistan, a massive fishing boat going to Russia, and

this monster is an oil tanker that The country's shipyards were state

run, but they had to be sold off, Brussels also insisted

the country bring lots of sectors up to European standards, from

the police to the sewage system. Now let's get a taste of

the politics. This restaurant's name translates

as cock-a-doodle-doo. The left-wing parties that form

the Croatian government signed their power-sharing deal here,

so they are known There were many courses,

and they were all different, It was good food and good wine,

so with that came good ideas. Another regular diner was

the former Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, who was jailed earlier

this year for corruption on a massive scale, something that

is often on the menu in Croatia. But here is one customer

who is squeaky-clean. Marina is part of a brand-new Green

party The general impression is that

our politics is all about obtaining positions of power and privileges,

well-paid positions, for those who And then not caring

about the rest of the world. But the problem people worry

about most here is the state Croatia has been battling

a fierce recession for six years. Not everyone is convinced that

joining the EU will shield them Not a resounding success for Croatia

then, since it has joined the EU? Talking to Croatian colleagues, I

think Croatia has welcomed being a member of the European Union and

access to the single market. The fact that 4.4 million people across

Croatia are now European citizens. So why is the economy not doing

better? We would all agree that across the European Union our

economies have been hard-hit by the financial crisis are improving and

progressing. The only member state, when I wrote to every EU country,

who said there had been no short cuts. 18 billion spent on them in

2013. Tourism has not taken off as they hoped. 20% unemployment. I

don't see where there benefits. Nothing evident that it has been

beneficial joining the EU. That is it for today. Thanks to my. Goodbye.