14/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron will deliver a four year ban on in-work


Has the PM's EU renegotiation descended into pantomime?


Former Guantanamo detainee Shaker Aamer alleges


that he was beaten in the presence of British Security officials,


but what was the evidence against him?


And we get exclusive access to Margaret Thatcher's wardrobe


Bling is the last word I would describe Mrs Thatcher as.


And with us for the first half of the programme today


is the Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan.


Over the weekend the summit in Paris finally decided on an historic


climate deal aimed at driving greenhouse gas emissions down


and limiting global warming to "well below" 2C and possibly just 1.5C.


If fulfilled, it would see 195 signatory countries weaning


themselves off fossil fuels completely within just a few decades


and switching to a mix of nuclear power and renewables.


But some estimates put the cost of meeting these commitments at $1


I think this is a huge step forward from the previous approach, which


was to have global technocracy trying to enforce everything on


member states. What they have done is got the individual nations to


agree to want to do something, answerable to their electorate, not


some global police, a better way to carry people to where you want to


go. Is it achievable? To keep global warming below two Celsius, is it


achievable? We don't know. It is a step in the right direction. A broad


goal is good. The way they go about it, to say maybe things that would


be expensive to do today but would be cheaper as the tech -- technology


comes on stream, that is a sensible and practical approach.


comes on stream, that is a sensible have said if we look at


comes on stream, that is a sensible carbon reduction target, we could


not have carbon reduction target, we could


stations left? The UK was one of the few countries already meeting the


coyotes -- Koyoto criteria. The issues are coming largely from


developing countries and any issues are coming largely from


that only involves Britain or Europe will miss the point because the


emissions are coming from will miss the point because the


industrialising countries. They will miss the point because the


would need to make deeper cuts, though. They understandably have


other priorities such as lifting hundreds of millions of people out


of grinding poverty, which was why hundreds of millions of people out


the deal was done to allow them, the basket of fractionally reducing


climate change, to use the basket of fractionally reducing


try to lift people to what we would the basket of fractionally reducing


regard as a bare minimum of decent living and you do that through


cheaper energy. Until people have electricity, running water,


understandably, politicians in those electricity, running water,


countries will say they have more immediate priorities. Unless they do


enact changes, parts of the world will be less habitable and possibly


lead to further waves of migration. People have this almost aggressive


moral certainty about People have this almost aggressive


not like the idea of weighing up priorities. They do not like


allocating resources judiciously. When you look at the problems


developing countries struggle with, elimination of disease, basic


education for girls, you elimination of disease, basic


understand there are more pressing things than just the issue of


climate change. It is time for the quiz.


Council employees in Bradford have been told they will not longer be


allowed to make what on council premises?


Later we'll give you the correct answer.


David Cameron goes to Brussels later this week to meet other EU leaders.


A crucial meeting as the Prime Minister tries to secure a new deal


for the UK ahead of the referendum on the EU membership. What is he


after? -- what is he after. years has been seen as the real


demand of substance in the Prime Minister's


renegotiation strategy - and a Conservative


manifesto promise. But it was also a major sticking


point for the rest of the EU. In a letter last week,


EU Commission President Donald Tusk described it as delicate


and Poland declared it Some Sunday papers appeared to have


been briefed that the Prime Minister was now willing to compromise


on the issue - for example, by requiring UK as well as EU


citizens to pay National Insurance contributions for four years before


they can claim in-work benefits. But last night a Downing Street


spokesman briefed "the proposal that is on the table


is the four-year benefit delay one. "That's the basis


of our renegotiation. David Cameron is due to discuss


the issue with other leaders But there has already been angry


reaction from some Tory MPs, who remember the Prime Minister's


speech in autumn 2014, which placed cutting EU migration


at the centre of his strategy. EU migrants should have a job offer


before they come here. UK taxpayers will not


support them if they don't. And once they are in work,


they won't get benefits or social housing from Britain


unless they have been Yes, these are radical


reforms, but they And the British people


need to know that changes to welfare to cut EU


migration, they will be an absolute requirement in the negotiations


I am going to undertake. I'm confident they will


reduce significantly EU migration to the UK


and that is what I am We're joined now by our political


correspondent, Alex Forsyth, How likely is it the UK will


compromise? There is a school of thought that says it is a


manufactured argument and the reason David Cameron faces opposition is so


when he comes to Brussels to negotiate the final deal, he can go


back to the UK and say it was tough, and what I have managed to achieve


is worthwhile. I think on this point of welfare, there is genuine


opposition. We have had countries such as Poland, Romania, Slovakia,


saying they do not agree. What we are hearing from the government


is... This morning, Philip Hammond was in Brussels and spoke to us on


the way into a meeting of foreign affairs and esters. His language


suggested it might be time for compromise. The four-year waiting


time for access to benefits has been a consistent demand. We put that


proposal on the table. We have heard a lot of partners in Europe have


concerns about it. So far, we have not heard counterproposals, we have


not heard alternative suggestions that will deliver the same effect in


a different way. We have made clear if people have other ideas that will


deliver on this important agenda for the British people we are prepared


to listen and enter into dialogue about them. At the moment, the only


proposition is our four-year proposal. He does talk about other


ideas they would be open to listening to, what might they be? We


had a suggestion by Boris Johnson who points to the Danish model where


there are rules where before you buy a property you have to meet


residency criteria. The problem with that is it may require change to


domestic law and who is eligible for benefits in the UK. Another idea is


an emergency brake, so if the UK could show public services are


overwhelmed there might be a possibility to limit migration. But


question marks about who would decide the criteria and how you


activate it. Downing Street saying they are not formal proposals. The


only one seriously considered is theirs on welfare and that is where


the attention is focused. European leaders meeting later this week to


discuss this, what I think is the bigger challenge is not just what


David Cameron can get agreement on, but whatever he achieves, whether it


will be enough to satisfy those who have concerns about the yuan the


basis of immigration. Will the outcome make a difference in that


referendum, of this negotiation? Apologies for some of the technical


difficulties on sound. Occasionally we have these problems. We are


joined by the Conservative MP. Has this turned into a meaningless


exercise? There were four things the Prime Minister was asking for and


this is the politically sensitive one. There are other important ones


making sure that even though we are not in the eurozone, that we have a


fair crack at the single market, protecting national parliaments, and


Britain's adherence to ever closer union, those are important. It was a


central part of the renegotiation and the redline seems to have been


drawn by other EU leaders and now we hear it will do very little,


according to the OBR, to cut levels of migration, which was the point of


doing it. Part of the point. The other part is there is a strong


feeling I share that people should not be able to come here and claim


benefits from day one, or in particular, one that gets people,


the idea of sending child benefit to children who have never set foot in


this country. Those are the details at the heart of the negotiation. Do


you accept it will not have a significant impact on migration? We


don't know. You cannot be sure what mix of motives there are. But a


requirement in renegotiation, and it does not look like he will deliver


what was first anticipated. We cannot know that. That is why the


Foreign Secretary is saying that if other people have ideas to help us


do this, fine, but at the moment, the British Government's idea is the


only one on the table. Damien is doing a brave job. Have you met


anyone, is anyone watching, thinking, I am undecided but a


four-year moratorium, on benefits, that is the clincher for me? Instead


of asking for meaningful changes in the location of sovereignty they a


list of demands -- have a list of demands of what he knows he can get


so he can come back and declare victory. What is significant, if the


EU is unable to make significant concessions now when its


second-largest economy is about to have a referendum, what would it be


like after we voted to stay in? Imagine with that permission, we


would be ignored and taken for granted. Why is it the centrepiece


of the negotiation? The only people you know care deeply about this


politically are Tory MPs. You declared it the centrepiece will


stop I think Downing Street made it the centrepiece and Philip Hammond


and David Cameron are talking about it as if it is the be all and end


all. Was it a tactical error to make it?


Where I do not agree with him is he's says the renegotiation is a


fraud. I do not think that is true. There is renegotiation. The fact


that people have not said you can have it, shows that this means real


reform will happen in Europe. Nothing the Prime Minister brought


back would satisfy the hardline people... Hang on. David Owen set


out a plan, a reasonable plan for staying in the market but opting out


of the political ones. Someone who left the Labour Party because it was


insufficiently pro-EU. I would have happily gone with that but for some


reason the PM did not go for it. Why not? That is pulling out of the EU,


creating something that would put at risk the single market and


cooperation on security, the fact that Britain's voice in the world is


louder because of membership. Putting that at risk will be at the


heart of the referendum campaign. We are talking about political


institutions. We are agreed that what ever the outcome, we will stay


in the single market. It is not our single market. Not a single European


country, in or outside the EU, faces tariffs when selling to the EU.


These would have to tariffs when selling to the EU.


true there is nothing that would keep Britain in the EU, that you


would ever support, that is the case? That is not true. I have


written articles saying that UK law, freedom to trade outside the EU,


they are perfectly reasonable. It would mean us having to leave. We


could have gone for those things in an amicable renegotiation.


could have gone for those things in have been achievable. It will not


happen because it is not on have been achievable. It will not


agenda and the only way to get them is to vote to leave and strike a


deal from the outside. When you know the British


deal from the outside. When you know to recommend his deal, campaign to


stay in, whatever, why make concessions? They will save


He is worried about the result of leave.


He is worried about the result of the referendum if he is talking


about what happens after. Talking about Eurocrats as if there is a


homogenous body democratic friendly countries all of


whom have democratic friendly countries all of


the world and all of whom for some peculiar reason wants to do Britain


down. That is what is not true. That peculiar reason wants to do Britain


are no Eurocrats who are a body peculiar reason wants to do Britain


Germany to Scandinavia, all of whom who have one for you and what to do


Britain down. I am not suggesting that might want to do Britain down.


What Angela Merkel says is the same, we want to have a United States of


Europe, we want more integration millet narrowly -- militarily and


politically. We want market access. It is not going to happen through


these talks. Moving away from the in work benefits, what else can really


be achieved that is substantial that is going to make a difference to


everyday people? Talking about retaining national sovereignty, not


wanting ever closer union, these are words written down in documents,


how's it going to be materially different to what we have now? What


we have now is the best of all worlds. We are members of the single


market but have control of borders. We do not belong to the euro. It


clearly beneficial to Britain to have its own currency. We want to


reform Europe so it gets better. That sounds very general. That will


not mean anything to the person down the pub saying we are going to


reform this institution to make it better. Better in what way? Better


in terms of security. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. We


have seen terrible events in Paris and who knows when they are going to


happen in some other European country? It makes sense to have


things like the European Arrest Warrant that allows us to chase


people quickly across borders. It makes sense to sign up to


co-operation measures that enable quick exchange of DNA information of


convicted criminals and terrorists. That is the kind of thing the


European Union gives us that makes the streets of Britain safer that


would be put at risk. Do you believe legislating in the UK so that


British as well as EU people must pay contributions is viable? That is


the fallback position. They may get the deal. The reason we are not in


the Europa is because Damien lost that argument and like so many of


the people... We did not lose the argument. Let us not fight an


argument that has been settled. They are using exactly the same scare


tactics. They said if we did not join the single currency companies


would relocate away from Britain. They were wrong then and are wrong


now. What about in work benefits if you were to impose that on British


workers for four years? Then it would be accepted. It would be


accepted. Would you agree to that? I think the current proposal is a


better one than that. It may be that somebody has a better idea to hit


the underlying point about reducing migration. Nothing so far. Would you


sign up to a deal if the compromises that British citizens will also be


prevented from claiming in work benefits? It would depend,


particularly with benefits you have to look at the detail. The broad


brush approach does not work. There is a wider point that the benefits


we get in people's daily lives in terms of jobs and prosperity are


bought would be put at risk by pulling out of the European Union


and that will be the actual heart of the referendum debate. The real risk


would be voting to stay. This is an organisation that will not reform.


If we stay we have the almost certainty of being dragged into


deeper political and economic trouble. We will continue this


conversation for many months, since we do not know when the data is


going to be for this referendum. He spent 14 years in


detention in Guantanamo Bay. Now, Saudi-born British resident


Shaker Aamer has been speaking to the British media and alleging,


among other things, that he was beaten in the presence


of British intelligence officers. Let's hear a little of what he said


when he spoke to the BBC's I have had my head boom,


bang in the wall. And all the while I remember


that my head is just keep banging the wall, back and forth,


back and forth, back and forth. Are you adamant that there


was an English officer, intelligence officer, agent,


in that room when your head Because the way he spoke,


the way he is very careful, the way he was sitting


far away looking at me. And the day before I met someone


who already told me I am I had no doubt from day


one I would be out because I have no doubt that


I did not do anything wrong Years after years after years,


justice will prevail. It took 27 years for Nelson Mandela


to get out and be the president It took me only 14 years to prove


to the world that I am a good person Victoria Derbyshire talking


to former Guantanamo detainee But not everyone is welcoming


Mr Aamer back to the UK. Earlier I spoke to Hannah Stuart


from the right-wing foreign affairs think tank the Henry


Jackson Society. I started by asking her


if she thought Shaker Aamer I am not sure necessarily that he


now poses a threat to the United Kingdom but certainly when he was


picked up the allegations were that he was fighting on behalf of Osama


Bin Laden whose house he is believed to have been at. He was working for


Islamic charities, he says. You might have been designated later as


connected to Al-Qaeda. The Americans believed he was part of the Al-Qaeda


network and was a threat not just to the UK but the wider western world.


We had just been attacked in 9/11. He has denied that. He says proves


that I was not working for a charity that was a genuine charity. Prove


that I was associated with Osama bin Ladin and others who have turned out


to be jihadi fighters. You, like the Americans, do not believe him. I am


not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that mainstream


commentators do. It seems that because he has been a victim of


human rights, and I am not disputing that, it is being said that


everything that the Americans alleges not true but everything he


alleges the Americans did to him is true and that is a double standard.


Both of their behaviour should be under increased scrutiny. What


concrete evidence other than claims and allegations from the US is there


that Aamer was a terrorists and Al-Qaeda operative? There are a


number of bits of evidence which come from documents, Gwent animal


interrogations and interviews where he has confessed to a number of


actions including Al-Qaeda leader training. He will say that is under


duress as a result of torture. Some of those the Americans have said


were tortured, but not him. Some people have alleged that Aamer was


connected with Al-Qaeda operatives. He says that was under duress. We


have here detailed claims by Shaker Aamer of torture over years. If that


is true it is an abuse of his human rights and lets down the Western


world. The treatment meted out to him does not white was the


allegations and he chose to take his family to live under Taliban rule.


That says a lot about the sort of society he would like to 11 and the


charities he was connected to, those he willingly acknowledges he working


for, our Al-Qaeda designated charities. If the evidence is there,


why is he not facing trial? Britain has no legal case against Shaker


Aamer. They have no jurisdiction over his actions in Afghanistan at


that time. We have seen British fighters joining the conflict in


Syria, an extension of jurisdiction. That is something that has been put


in place in the last 18 months. It was not there then. It is right that


the UK's legal system cannot be applied retrospectively so we do not


have a legal case against Shaker Aamer. The US has established a


system of military tribunal is which is supposed to address those issues


and some people from Guantanamo were tried. Why was that not the case for


Shaker Aamer? I believe the military tribunal is very complex and


difficult and very few of the detainees have been put under


military tribunal. Shaker Aamer was cleared a number of years ago, in


2007, and released to Saudi Arabia. That is what the Americans wanted to


do, to release him back to his country of birth. He chose to fight


that. Some would say rightly or wrongly, because he wanted to come


back to his family in the UK. If there is not enough evidence to


convict somebody how can there be enough evidence to detain somebody


without trial for so many years? I do not think that Guantanamo should


exist or there is a case. I do not think people should be held without


trial. That does not mean I think he is innocent. Is that not the crux of


this case, that holding somebody for that length of time without a trial


or without gathering of evidence that could be put on trial is always


going to end up in either a miscarriage of justice or with


complaints about alleged torture of false imprisonment? Yes. What


distinguishes a functioning state from a gang of terrorists is the


distinguishes a functioning state rule of law, due process and


procedure where people are surly rule of law, due process and


tried and you cannot keep somebody locked up without bringing charges


against them. We established that in Magna Carta. That is


against them. We established that in like Al-Qaeda. They would argue


these are special circumstances, following the attacks in 2001, the


national security in a way was more important for that period of


national security in a way was more than the concerns that you have just


outlined, and a lot of people will feel sympathy. That is the argument


outlined, and a lot of people will always made. It is or was that of


cases that make the bad law. People always made. It is or was that of


we should suspend due process. I have no idea what this man was doing


taking his family to Afghanistan. There are lots of things that no


dodgy about this case but none of that is relevant if there was no


evidence to bring against him in a due court. Thank you.


On Wednesday, it's the last Prime Minister's Questions


of the term and Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron will be back


Wednesday also sees the monthly unemployment figures published.


Last month's figures showed that unemployment fell by just over


100,000, with the unemployment rate at 5.3%.


The BBC Director General, Lord Hall, is in front of the Culture Committee


Will he also be asked about Tyson Fury being nominated


Thursday and Friday sees the eagerly anticipated EU summit in Brussels.


The Prime Minister has conceded that the meeting will not resolve


Britain's EU renegotiation "in one go" and, consequently,


he now does not expect to get agreement at the meeting.


Unison elect a new leader on Thursday - Dave Prentis,


the incumbent, will be standing for a third time,


And the DUP announce their new leader after


Northern Ireland Finance Minister Arlene Foster is the only candidate.


The new leader will also become the new First Minister


We're joined now by the Telegraph's Christopher Hope and The Times' Lucy


Christmas cheer for David Cameron at the EU summit? He is going with not


much in his Christmas sack this year. Trying to get a four-year ban


for benefits on EU migrants going nowhere and Boris Johnson popping up


with an idea about Denmark and how they can opt out to stop foreigners


buying property there. It is not easy. Not the end of negotiations he


wanted, it will drag to February which is not good news for him.


Number 10 say they hold the line on the issue but we hear phrases about


being open to other ideas, and other suggestions from EU leaders will be


welcomed. Is it an admission of failure? It has been branded


humiliating climb-down by David Cameron's critics. He is stressing


flexibility. It is possible to see other options on the table that


could address migrants coming to the UK and limit the attractiveness of


the option, such as an emergency brake or changing domestic


legislation. Their manifesto included a pledge to crack down on


child benefit and tax credits for EU migrants. And levels of migration,


which was slightly questioned by the OBR. Tory sceptics -- Eurosceptics


will enjoy the discomfort of number 10. I think Daniel -- what he set


out, and a big group that looks after the Tory Eurosceptics, he is


saying to party members when you meet the MP over Christmas, get them


to vote for Brexit. It is like a Tory version of Momentum. Jeremy


Corbyn, coming up to his first 100 days as leader. Is his position now


more secure than a month ago? I do. You hear members of his closest team


talking about the fact most of the errors he has made, such as quoting,


John McDonnell quoting Chairman Mao, are unforced errors from their own


side. There is a degree of paranoia from his team but they are certain


of the overwhelming support of the membership and they know for now he


is saved, certainly until May, so they have time to get their people


in positions of power in local parties. We will see selections for


delegates and that will be a key moment, and party rule changes will


shore up his position even further. Lucy talking about getting people


into positions of influence to present the style of leadership in


the Labour Party feeds into speculation about Shadow Cabinet


reshuffle is. Is there anything concrete, the idea Ken Livingstone


would be put in the House of Lords? That is where we are, the fact that


Redken could emerge in red ermine in the House of Lords a player in


national Labour politics. It is like 1981. Labour have to work out when


they want to start governing again, rather than protesting. That is a


question the Labour Party must think about over Christmas. I wish you a


good festive season. We're joined now by the Labour MP


and Shadow Women's Minister And Craig MacKinlay,


who's been the MP for Thanet South since May, where he beat off


a challenge from Ukip leader Let's just remind ourselves


of that big election night Craig McKinley, the Conservative


Party candidate, 18,848. Welcome to both of you and happy


memories there, were you confident of winning? We were as time went on.


We did a lot of canvassing and it was clear we would win, it was the


margin, we knew it would be tight but we thought we would win. You


would founder, deputy leader and leader of UK before defecting to the


Conservatives, what was it like to defeat Nigel Farage? It was bizarre,


why he bothered to stand against me, a strange choice. It was a shame


from personal friendships we shared in the early days of Ukip that we


were fighting each other but a handsome victory and he was rather


silly. Cat Smith, Jeremy Corbyn, about two approaches 100 days. You


worked in his office, did you imagine he would be leader? When I


nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leader at the beginning of the process I


was not confident we would get him on the ballot paper, so the idea of


him becoming leader seemed far-away. What we have seen through the first


100 days is he is in a stronger position now than he was. He won a


huge mandate from the membership and we have seen that grow in terms of


support with many more people saying to me, I did not support him but I


see what he's doing, they really like what he is doing. How is that


manifested in itself? He has a big mandate but there is a rift in the


Parliamentary party, is he winning them over? I dispute there is a big


rift in the Labour Parliamentary party, which has always had a


diversity of views. If you look at the vote on Syria. The majority of


party members, the Parliamentary Labour Party, MPs and Shadow Cabinet


posts the intervention and if you said a week before the vote that


would be the outcome I don't think anyone would believe it. Why did he


win the vote -- whip the vote. I do not think we should whip the vote on


matters of war and peace. I think in future we will have free votes on


issues as serious as that because as an MP you have to listen to your


conscience, as well as what the party whips tell you. How does it


work when you have the Shadow Foreign Secretary with the


government and against the party leader on a key issue Assyria? You


saw how it worked. Some MPs decided to vote with Hilary Benn, a minority


of MPs, and the majority were convinced by the arguments Jeremy


Corbyn made to oppose action. It was not the right answer to the question


posed. What about Ken Livingstone? Labour Party HQ said it was


nonsense. It is nonsense. He will not be put into the House of Lords


or Shadow Cabinet? I think Ken Livingstone did a great job as Mayor


of London and is a good support to the party but I do not see him


playing a big role in the future. Is he not very much part of Jeremy


Corbyn's thinking in terms of new politics? There are a lot of other


people. The House of Lords, if Labour put names forward to go into


the House of Lords, I would like to imagine the names did not include a


majority of older, white men. The Lords is dominated by them and I


would like to see others to represent diversity in the House of


Lords. Is that why you would not want to see Ken Livingstone as part


of a Shadow Cabinet? I see the Labour Party being more diverse and


representative. Jeremy set the example by having more women in the


Shadow Cabinet for the first time, having a majority there. Jeremy's


view will be a more diverse front bench team. How will he moulds the


Shadow Cabinet more in his and John McDonnell's image? In that sense


Shadow Cabinet more in his and John are having discussions as a


Parliamentary Labour Party. I imagine the Shadow Cabinet have the


Parliamentary Labour Party. Discussing ideas is important, to


have an open debate. We have had that open debate and I am grateful


for that. Now, should 16 and 17-year-olds be


able to vote in the in-out Many peers in the House of Lords


think so and they're likely to vote in favour of that again today


in teeth of opposition from the government who say they're


frustrating the will of elected MPs. What say you? I am not in favour. It


is bizarre the unelected house, having a discussion of that place,


is trying to influence the franchise for an election, it is a bizarre


state of affairs. I don't agree 16 and 17-year-olds


state of affairs. I don't agree 16 elections but if we want to change


the franchise it should be elections but if we want to change


debate for all elections, there should be a


debate for all elections, there take an amount of time with a


debate for all elections, there commission to decide yes it is a


good or bad idea. We have the Scottish referendum. This would be


another election and that is Scottish referendum. This would be


start these things? Just because the Scots did it under devolved


start these things? Just because the is a matter for them. You


start these things? Just because the think it was a success? I don't


think it is a good idea. Youngsters, we want them involved in the


political process. 18 to 24-year-olds are the lowest turnout,


I want to encourage it when they are 18 and onwards and I am not


convinced those under 18... They 18 and onwards and I am not


have not always joined the world of work. They are not into taxation,


they cannot do many things. If there was a commission... I think this is


the wrong approach. In order to encourage young people to engage in


politics and debate arguments, we need them to be franchise to take


part in votes. We saw in Scotland that those are 16 and 17 listen to


the arguments and will probably vote that future elections. Evidence


shows the more likely you are to vote when you have voted Young.


I.e., the first time you have done it. You put your cross in the box


once and can do it again. It is important the 16 and 17-year-olds


today, who will live with the consequences of the referendum, have


a stake in that. That is the point. Generally about the franchise, not


just added on for one election. I would be happy to see the franchise


extended for all elections. Let's have the debate. We have seen in


Scotland that voting young people is a huge success. We have an


opportunity to see if it is a success in the rest of the UK. Let's


go on to the EU renegotiation, what you make of it? I think he could


have gone with asking for more than the four baskets he has asked for


and it seems one of the key points, the restriction of in work benefits


seems to have been rebuffed by EU partners. They realise Britain is on


the cusp of 50-50 Brexit, they must realise that and they must realise


they need to give us a fair bit to that renegotiation that a lot of


people want, or else there will be a Brexit. We are being intransigent


and I am shocked by the approach taken. Which way would you vote? I


am out. Out even if he secures renegotiation on the four baskets as


you call it? He went for renegotiation, a fundamental


renegotiation, I do not think he was asking for that. In my mind


fundamental is more. If he delivered that and perhaps more, yes. I am not


out at any cost but at the moment I am more out than in because I do not


think what is negotiated is fundamental. The manifesto


commitment was to reform the EU to try to bring down there. Migration.


Do you think that would do that? I think it would help, but there are


other factors why EU immigrants are coming to Britain, not least the


failures in Euroland, mass unemployment in Greece. And the


reason people are coming here is we have a vibrant economy, a global


economy. It is more than just benefits involved. Do you think


increasing the national wage could be a pull factor? Facts could be


another reason why Romanian wages are probably a quarter of what they


are here, and that difference will be greater as we go to the national


wage. If you extended a four-year ban on in work benefits to EU


migrants to British workers, that might be accepted, because it would


not discriminate, would you support that? I think what is going on is


camera and trying to please Tory backbenchers who wish for the exit


door. His renegotiation is around whether we would deny EU migrants


benefits for for years and whether he would penalise young British


workers by denying them benefits goes to show how far he will go to


hurt British workers by trying to please Tory backbenchers. If it was


part of the deal, then it would no longer be discriminatory, and it


might be accepted, would you support it? Labour's position is clear, we


support being a member of the EU. I am asking about the specific on in


work benefits because one option might be to say that until you have


worked for years and contributed here, you also won't be able to


claim in work benefits will stop then everybody is treated fairly.


Would you back that? That is wrong. Penalising workers


for four years is wrong. I said it should be two years. Looking more


seriously at the bigger picture this is all about camera and trying to


please... You have said that but Labour will be... Labour will be


campaigning. We would not support the four year ban on benefits. We


would stay within the EU and when we had the chance we would reverse that


if we were to be in power. That is fair enough. You think David Cameron


should compromise to try to get something on in work benefits or


stick to his guns? I think he should stick to his guns but it is a


developing situation. We will not know until Thursday. It seems pretty


clear. It seems pretty clear. It would be fundamentally wrong to


change the basis of how we do benefits in the UK for our citizens


to fit a stalled EU negotiations so I do not support that. We should


have the flexibility to have whatever benefit system we want in


the UK, not to be changed by membership of the EU. You would not


want to see any extension and you think there would be other Tories


and Eurosceptics who would feel the same. It seems a funny back door way


of trying to achieve what has been in negotiation point. The wrong way


of doing it. Now, fans of Margaret Thatcher,


or political memorabilia, A collection of the former


PM's possessions - from dresses to handbags,


books to ornaments - is being auctioned


off at Christie's. But before you decide


whether to bid for the Iron Lady's former despatch box or her favourite


set of earrings, take a look at Peter Hunt's behind the scenes


report on what's up for grabs and what it might tell us


about Britain's first,


Download Subtitles