14/12/2015 Daily Politics

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,