04/02/2016 Daily Politics

David Cameron promises to put "beyond doubt" the sovereignty

of Parliament over the European Union.

The Prime Minister will acede to demands from Boris Johnson

for a new law to assert the authority of Westminster over

World leaders gather in London for a conference on Syria

while Russian jets pummell Aleppo and peace talks break down.

Will billions more for Syrian refugees make much of a difference

Whatever happened to Labour's eurosceptics?

Lots of them voted No in 1975, so where are they now?

And, it all came down to the toss of a coin

So just how important is coin tossing in the democratic process?

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is the former Labour Foreign Secretary,

First this morning, world leaders have descended on Westminster today

in an attempt to raise over ?6 billion to help those

David Cameron has pledged an additional ?1.2 billion

in aid to support refugees in the region.

-- that's on top of the ?1 billion we have spent in the area.

Here is the Prime Minister speaking earlier today.

If ever there was a moment to take a new approach to the humanitarian

We are facing a critical short fall in life-saving aid,

that is fatally holding back our humanitarian efforts.

And after years of conflict, we are witnessing a desperate

movement of humanity, as hundreds of thousands of Syrians

fear they have no alternative than to put their lives in the hands

of evil people smugglers, in search of a future.

We're joined now by our correspondent, Ben Brown,

who's at the conference in Westminster.

He is with David Miliband. On the Daily Politics, you get two Labour

former Foreign Secretaries for the price of one. Over to you, Mr Brown.

Well, international leaders at the London Syria Donor's Conference

being asked to dig deep. ?9 billen is the amount that has been asked

for. $9 billion. Let's talk to David Miliband straight away. David

Cameron promising ?1.2 billion, another ?1 billion of tax payers'

money for this emergency. Is that money well-spent? How do you justify

that to a British taxpayer? I think thats is necessary. It is not a

matter of being the right thing to do, because these are people in

desperate need, both inside Syria and the neighbouring state. It is

also a smart thing to do. All the evidence is that unless the

humanitarian needs are met, that there will be an exodus from the

Middle East and Europe will be in the frontline T makes sense to do

this, as well as being the right thing to do. -- it makes It so it is

essentially in Europe and Britain's self-interest to spend money in

countries like Jordon, Turkey, Lebanon, almost to persuade the

millions of refugees it stay there, not to come to Europe. It is a

matter of global instability. The idea it is a Syrian war is wrong. It

is a contagion that has spread across the Middle East. The exodus

of a million people coming to Europe last year shows the price of the

political failure to bring this war to a close P my organisation has

2,000 staff inside Syria. Daily barrel bombs, daily Russian bombing

raids and terror devices and for those who flee in the neighbouring

states, 200,000 kids without education in Lebanon. Hundreds of

thousands of people without jobs in Jordon. There needs to be a new deal

for those refugees. To be fair to the Government they are recognising

the need for more aid which you pointed to but different aid,

long-term economic health, not just short-term humanitarian financing.

The emphasis of the British Government here is very much helping

the refugees who have stayed in the region, in Lebanon and Turkey, but

not on helping those who have come to Europe. Is that the right

approach, David Cameron's approach The truth is, you have to do both.

Most of the refugees are the anybody nag states of Syria. You wouldn't

know that from the media comment. You would think they were in Europe

but a country like Jordan, 20% of the population is Syrian refugees. A

country like Lebanon, 40% are Syrian refugees. Those countries are

bearing the brunt of the load. For those in Europe, I think there is a

strong case that Europe has to justify and address the refugee

needs they have got. Refugees have rights in international law that

should be represented. People like me think Britain should be playing

its part in that. You have to do both. It is right to work in the

region but it is also right to recognise that those fleeing for

their lives need to be looked after OK, David mill bant of the

Commission on International Rescue, stay with us. -- David Miliband. The

track record on the conference coming up with the cash it has been

asked for is not great. The last year, the international can be

community have only come up with 50% of the money that has been pledged.

We will see what happens this time around. Thank you very much Ben

Brown, there, outside the international conference on aid for

Syria. The humanitarian case for sending

aid and more aid is clear but the argument that if we do that t stops

them becoming migrants, I would suggest is not so clear. We have

already given ?1 billion and this January alone, 767,000 migrants came

to Europe from that and other regions, verses 5,000 in January

2015. -- 67,000. I don't think anybody would suggest it would stop

all of them but something a lot of people have forgotten is blast year

at a fairly crucial time, because the money, as Ben was just saying,

wasn't coming in that people had promised, the international

organisations actually cut the funding that was going to people.

They cut the food aid. They cut the money people were receiving and

that's what lay behind that sudden great surge of people. If that

happens again, then, yes, that will increase the pressure on people

wanting to leave. But, clearly, there are substantial numbers of

people who do prefer to stay in the region, to stay in the locality but

they won't, if they can't provide for their families there, the

security they left Syria to achieve. But even if we double the money and

if, unlike last time countries that make promises live up to their

promises, which as Ben Brown was pointing out, they didn't, are we

seriously saying we are going to create sustainable communities with

jobs and education in the refugee catches? I mean, we have got - there

is a picture of one that we can probably put up on the screen now,

just to give an idea of the scale of this. I mean they are all over

Jordan now and they are in other parts of the area, on the edge of

Turkey. Are we seriously saying that - even if we were to pump billion

upon billion in, that we can make sustainable communities out of that?

That? I understand and share your anxiety, if you like and scepticism,

not least because, you know n lots of countries, including this one,

creating jobs is not always that easy. And that's what we are talking

about doing. On the other hand, I do think it is worth trying. . The

situation is so desperate you have to try anything. And something that

could make the lives of these people in the camps better, whether they

are in the region or in Europe, has to be the right way to go. Obviously

when you see the camps you want to do what you can to at least make

life bearable until there is a solution sorted out but there is

another problem. As we speak and as they gore for this enormous --

gather for this enormous conference down the frood here, Assad's forces

and Russian bombers are thumping the surrounding areas of Aleppo as we go

on and the peace talks have had to be suspended in general eva, as we

spend -- Geneva. As we spend, thousands and thousands more

refugees are being created. There is clearly very much that risk and

that's why it is important not to - I mean, I understand anybody who

says - I look at and that I despair, there is nothing we can do. But that

will only make things worse. It is a council of despair. We have to try.

Well Well, let's stay in the region. Now, it's been over two months

since the House of Commons voted to extend British airstrikes

targeting the so-called Islamic State group

from Iraq into Syria. But as the media focus

on the parliamentary debate has subsided, what action has the RAF

actually been taking? around Mosul and Ramadi

which are both in Iraq. Since the 29th January,

the RAF has carried out four separate air strikes around

the area of Mosul in Iraq. and also an attack near

the Kisik Junction both in Iraq. On Friday and Sunday there were also

RAF air strikes carried out We're joined now by our

correspondent Paul Adams. RAF air strikes are obviously taking

part in coalition force air strikes. Do we have any idea of what our,

what British air strikes are Do we have any idea of what our,

Well, as you just outlined, the bulk Do we have any idea of what our,

of the operations remain in Iraq and you have explained why that is,

because there are ground operations and in a way that is not the case in

Syria. So we are and in a way that is not the case in

activity still around Ramadi, which was recaptured

activity still around Ramadi, which situation remains

activity still around Ramadi, which there is a lot of focus

activity still around Ramadi, which soften-up ISIS

activity still around Ramadi, which of Defence won't give

if you like, a national breakdown on achievements but they do say

if you like, a national breakdown on the course of these operations - and

by the way the tempo of the operations has

by the way the tempo of the dramatically since December. The

Ministry of Defence says it roughly trebled

Ministry of Defence says it roughly involvement. But the overall effect

they say is so-called Islamic State has lost around 24% of the territory

it he previously controlled in Iraq and around about 10% in Syria. They

talk about operations going back to Tikrit. And they talk about the

impact on oil revenues. A 30% cut on the oil revenue that is so-called

Islamic State can achieve and a 10% cut in its overall available budget.

They think the air strikes cut in its overall available budget.

having an impact but, of course, it's difficult to see that

having an impact but, of course, when ISIS retains its grip, if

having an impact but, of course, tactical operations in

countries. What are you hearing, Paul, perhaps, about widening the

war against Islamic State to the med terry andian coastline of --

Mediterranean coastline of Libya, where they appear to be well

ensconced If you remember the terrorist attacks in last year in

Tunisia, there was a strong connection to that. Growing fears

about whether Libya could emerge as a significant IS base. Reports

recently that a number of IS figures from Iraq and Syria have moved to

Libya. So, yes, there are clearly efforts being undertaken to examine

the possibilities for widening the campaign. There is a British

training operation that's ready to go. It is just waiting for an

invitation from the Libyans to go in there. There were reports of

intelligence and SAS elements going into eastern Libya to possibly

prepare the ground for some kind of operations. The Ministry of Defence

say there is no immediate prospect of any of that. But I don't think

anyone will be surprised if, in the coming months, we didn't seat US-led

coalition, and various members of that coalition turning their

attention to Libya and mounting air strikes. -- if we didn't see the

US-led coalition. There is a threat. Thank you for

filling us in. Margaret Beckett, it would be fair to say, as regards

Syria the extension of air strikes to Syria hasn't made much of a

difference yet Well, if you recall, during the debate we had in the

House of Commons, there was this curious sort of mixture that on the

one hand, obviously it was an important decision of principle and

one that people attached great significance to, but on the other

hand, the step we were taking was really very small. It is just to

say, the RAF no longer has to stop at the border. And that was quite a

stark contrast that did emerge in that debate. So, yes, they are doing

a great deal but one of the things I think is interesting and useful, is

that those who argued we should still stop at the border, shouldn't

have any involvement in Syria a lot of that you are argument was - we

should be going instead for their sources of funding and so on and of

course that's exactly what the RAF is doing. The in sense of what is

bombing, the boils? Bombing oil wells. The US Air Force seemed to

bomb the bank in Mosul and blew up several hundred million dollars Alf

You don't regret your support for new kind of military pollcy. Yes.

You don't regret your support for extending the bombing? No, I don't.

It wasn't an easy decision for anyone but as I say, is a matter of

principle it was important that it was the House of Commons taking the

decision but in practice it was a small step that we were authorising.

Do you now get the impression, given that the Iraqi army and other forces

have made some progress in reclaiming some towns, and we hear

these reports, those of us who remember the Vietnam War are always

dubious unofficial body counts. We hear that Islamic State is

suffering. I saw some reports that a number of fighters were moving into

Raqqa because it was dangerous with the bombing around there. Do you get

the sense that they are now on the defensive? 18 months ago it seemed

as though they were taking all before them. It seems to me as

though some impact has been achieved because it's not very long ago that

people were talking about them being on the brink of taking Baghdad and

now they will take the whole of Iraq, but that is not happen. Yes,

it's slow, and no doubt very painful, but it seems as though it

is making a difference and that's the point. We will keep an eye on

what's happening. The question for today

is what narrowly missed hitting Margaret in the chamber

yesterday? B, a copy of the Beckett report

into why Labour lost the election? At the end of the show Margaret

will give us the correct answer. David Cameron has suggested he may

bring forward legislation to ensure the sovereignty of

Parliament over the EU. The Prime Minister was responding

to a question yesterday from the Mayor of London,

and Tory MP Boris Johnson. Mr Cameron said he was "keen to do

more" to reassert the authority of the Commons at the same time

as concluding his EU renegotiation. The Prime Minister said

he would "put beyond doubt" the sovereignty of Parliament

when in exchanges in with Boris This could come through beefing up

the Supreme Court to make it analagous with the German

Constuitutional Court - which reviews legislation inlcuding

EU law to ensure compliance Of course, Germany has a written

constitution. However, it has been suggested that

such changes would be largely symbolic as there is no suggestion

it could actually veto EU law. And of course the German courts

never has. It is thought Mr Cameron is keen

for the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, to lead these changes,

though Mr Gove is said to be caught between his "conscience" and loyalty

to the Prime Minister. A sovereignty law is also

being drafted by policy chief Oliver Letwin,

but some are sceptical about how the UK could effectively "disapply"

EU law without massive fines and throwing our

membership into doubt. It's not even clear if that is what

the Prime Minister intends. Some Conservative MPs and MEPs

are also lobbying the Prime Minister to repeal Sections 2 and 3

of the 1972 European Communities Act That is the one that made us members

of the common market. That would effectively render EU law

unenforceable within the UK - and again be seen as

a declaration of war on the EU. And the first step to getting out

altogether. Let's have a look at the exchange

between David Cameron and his old Etonian pal Boris

in the House of Commons yesterday. Perhaps I ask could the Prime

Minister how these changes as a result of this

negotiation will restrict of legislation coming from Brussels,

will change the treaty, so as to assert the sovereignty

of this House of Commons and these In terms of asserting

the sovereignty of this House, that is something we did in 2010,

through the European Referendum Act, and it's something I'm

keen to do even more on, to put beyond doubt that this House

of Commons is sovereign and that is something

that we will look to do at the same time as concluding

these negotiations. In terms of what are we doing

to restrict the flow of legislation from Brussels, for the first time

ever in here is a commitment not only that Europe has to examine

all of its competences every year to work out what should be

returned to nation states, you have welfare powers

and immigration powers that I have Bailout powers coming back,

and the massive return of power we achieved in the last

parliament, the justice The biggest return of power

from Brussels to Britain We have absolutely nailed it down

in these discussions to make sure I'm not saying this is perfect,

I'm not saying the European Union will be perfect after this deal,

it certainly won't, but will the British position be

better and stronger? That was the Prime Minister replying

to Boris Johnson. Joshua Rosenberg joins me from Belfast. We hope to

talk to Craig McNally from the Houses of Parliament. When I studied

political science we were taught that Parliament was always

sovereign, particularly the Commons. The Queen in Parliament is always

sovereign. Why does restating that make any difference? You are right,

it won't. The Queen in Parliament, that is the House of Commons, the

house of lords, and the Queen who has to give Royal assent, are

sovereign and the courts accept that. It is Beverly true that in the

1972 act the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen agreed

to cede sovereignty in part to Europe and Parliament could repeal

parts of the legislation to retain sovereignty. -- it is perfectly

true. There is no need to put the sovereignty of Parliament beyond

doubt, it is sovereign. Parliament can do what it once but if it puts a

limit on EU migrants coming to this country, which is in clear breach of

EU law, either the EU law takes precedence even though Parliament is

sovereign or the Parliament is heading for the exit, it is taking

Britain out, one or the other. I would suggest you cannot break that

kind of law and still be a member of the EU. Yes, it would breach the

treaties that tie the UK to the EU law and it would pose a dilemma for

Parliament which has been told that EU law trumps domestic law so it

would have to be made clear what the courts were meant to do. That's a

matter for Parliament, and you don't need to strengthen the UK's Supreme

Court, you simply need to tell the court which law to apply. Craig

McKinley is in the Commons, and they have just dotted debating this. What

do you think about the emphasis on sovereignty? We have to be

realistic, to get 55% of our European partners to actually blog a

law that we don't find acceptable, I don't think that barrier could never

be reached. His red card is something that will never be used.

Of course Parliament is sovereign in that we can vote down completely the

European communities act and subsequent treaties and I hope that

is what we will do in the national referendum, so in that way it is

sovereign. With the European court of justice and the body treaties

over the years, we are not in control of our own house

over the years, we are not in and it not acceptable to me. For

you, does and it not acceptable to me. For

of an explicit declaration of and it not acceptable to me. For

Parliament, perhaps even at the thing up of the Supreme Court,

Parliament, perhaps even at the have seen it mentioned too. Does it

make any difference? It is better than the situation we have been in

for many years. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for offering this

negotiation and having the referendum. What difference does the

sovereignty offer make? It doesn't mean much at all which is why we are

having this wide ranging debate. I am sure these matters will be aired

and I am taking a robust stance and I hope many people will watch. We

have changed in this parliament because it is looking as though it

could become a museum. It looks like a museum behind you at the moment!

As lovely as it is. The sovereignty of Parliament is abstract and I'm

not of Parliament is abstract and I'm

is until it's lost. I like of Parliament is abstract and I'm

get rid of me but they can't get of Parliament is abstract and I'm

gone in the process. The top of the German Constitutional Court, it

looks at all of the laws that are passed by the German parliament and

by the European system, the commission or Parliament as well. It

decides whether the laws are compatible with the constitution,

like the Supreme Court in the United States and our Supreme Court has a

bit of that as well, I would suggest. Germany has a written

constitution and we don't, and secondly, the German Constitutional

Court has never ruled that an EU law was incompatible with the German

constitution. What if it were to do so? You would have a clash between

obligations in Germany as to the obligations of Germany and the

court. You could give powers to the UK Supreme Court to declare laws

unconstitutional, even without a codified constitution which some

people think would be required. Then what would happen? You would have a

clash between the UK, because the courts would have declared laws

unconstitutional and the EU and it would have to be resolved with

negotiations with Brussels. The courts have never asserted the

power, even to overturn domestic legislation in the United Kingdom.

Unlike in the United States and other countries. Sometimes, thinking

of the Attorney General and the Prince of Wales's letters, they have

made it hard for Parliament to achieve what it thought it was doing

but they always access it sovereignty and until that changes

and Parliament changes, that will remain the case. Is it not fair to

say, that your concept of what you mean by Parliamentary sovereignty is

incompatible with our membership of the European Union? I think it

entirely is, there is no doubt. You do have both domestic judges but

increasingly European judges reinterpreting what our sovereign

parliament has decided. They have to be either overturned or our laws

will be changed and it happens on a regular basis. It's not helpful and

that's the reason for this debate today. I'm looking forward to it and

it's part of the like that needs shining on the whole European

referendum debate, because we are in great danger of it becoming one

about trade and threats and the fear factor. This is getting to the heart

of what Britain's relationship is with the European Union and I really

do salute the backbench committee for allowing this debate and it's

come at a good time. Do you fear that the Prime Minister is going

down this road with his offer of emphasising the ultimate sovereignty

of Parliament, because he wishes to deprive you of the one leader of the

leave campaign which could make a difference, Boris Johnson. I don't

know where Mr Johnson is at the moment on this, but as I say, this

is a debate at the right time, we have heard lots of warm words about

the renegotiation and I will come back to first principles, we were

offered fundamental reform and I'm afraid that the terms of the Tusk

letter, if that was the high water mark... Is this debate going to come

down to how long migrants are going to be allowed to have benefits and

at what rate? Whether they can remit back to their home countries. The

debate should be rather wider than that. We will let you get on with

the debate. Thank you for joining us. Margaret Beckett, just before we

move on, the argument about sovereignty is a red herring, is it

not? The one thing that is really significant about this conversation

and this issue is that what it makes absolutely clear beyond question is

that the most important negotiation, at the top of David Cameron's mind,

is not his negotiations with the rest of the European Union but his

own party and not for the first time he has come up with something off

the cuff, not thought through. This is a big issue about whether the

judiciary has authority over a sovereign Parliament. We seem to be

walking into land. He is offering a souped up Supreme Court. It seems as

though he is but not everyone has worked out what it means. Not for

the first time, what does this do to his negotiations with the rest of

Europe? If they get the idea into their heads that they thought they

knew what he was asking for and all of a sudden he has come up with

something else it will not help him to do the best for the country. He

is keen to stop Boris Johnson from leading the tent. He is keen to stop

Boris Johnson at all. Very well. We just had a Conservative

Eurosceptics. We hear plenty from them. What about Labour

Eurosceptics? Plenty within the Labour movement

have long-harboured sceptical views about the EU, not least our guest

of the day, Margaret Beckett, who, like Jeremy Corbyn,

voted against the UK's continued The word common market was in

brackets on the referendum ballot paper in 75.

But now the Labour Party, under My Corbyn's leadership,

says it will campaign to remain in the EU.

Just how strongly, we don't yet know.

So what happened to Labour's euroscepticism?

We have been here before, and referendum about what Britain's

In 1975 it was Labour who, after holding a special conference,

decided their position should be to leave the European Economic

The country decided the opposite in the referendum that was held

Fast forward eight years and a gang of four had left to form the SDP.

Labour pledged to bring Britain out of the EEC.

A document that became known as the longest suicide

Labour's rejection by voters led many who had been sceptical,

Neil Kinnock in particular, to say the time has come to embrace

To ensure potential gains it is necessary to work together.

Your movement has a major role to play, Europe needs you.

But the pivotal moment came in the autumn of 1988.

The then president of the European Commission Jacques

Delors made a speech to the Trade Unions Congress.

He extolled the virtues of a social Europe, where workers rights

and social benefits would be guaranteed on a Europe-wide basis.

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of

Only to see them reimposed on a European level.

Just a few weeks later Margaret Thatcher made

Signalling more than a hint of euroscepticism.

The first election that Labour won after its defeat in 1979

Margaret Thatcher famously fought that.

With the slogan, if you vote Labour you will live on a diet of Brussels.

It was an explicitly Eurosceptic campaign on behalf

of the Conservatives and they lost it.

Labour's victory in that election validated a pro-European strategy.

We must have the confidence as a political party to stand up

Rethinking and reshaping its direction, of course,

but being in no doubt at all that Britain's future does indeed lie

The pro-European stance was solidified in the 1990s,

but one Labour MP who, during Tony Blair's premiership,

worked on the original EU constitution has become more

She says Labour should reassess its position.

Because of our internationalism, the issue of sovereignty is not

There are also real scars, it was in the 80s the subject

of Europe that led to a Labour Party splintering.

We have remained in a comfort zone and kept saying,

this is how we like the institution to be, and not being open enough

We have had more results since we have come on the air.

The last referendum was more than 40 years ago, but the likes

of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Hilary Benn were around

They won't this time, and Labour's policy is clear,

but at least some of their colleagues remain unconvinced.

Margaret bect, you voted to come out in 1975. You are now broadly prove

European. Was that a slow conversion, or did something happen

to change your mind? -- pro-European? Two things. To an

extent it was a slow conversion, in terms of accepting it willingly and

happily. But the significant thing was that 1983 general election. If

you recall - I'm sure you do, Andrew, although not all your

listeners will - it was Enoch Powell during the election campaign who

said, "We have now been in the European Community for ten years,

increasingly our economy and society, everything is becoming more

emmeshed, if we don't leave now, it is too late, it is over, we are then

in there forever." That was very much the pitch on which the Labour

Party, unsuccessfully fought the election. In '83 you fought with a

manifesto to withdraw. The manifesto said it was incompatible with a

radical, socialist agenda. Well, a will the has changed since then.

Well, I don't know, you may have a leader who wants a radical,

socialist agenda? What I mean is, among the things that have changed

is when we were arguing we could come out and have a sustainable

trading relationship, etc, we had trade links with the after

countries. We still had links with the Commonwealth. All those

countries, pretty much, nearly all, are in the European Union now. One

of the things we said in our campaign - these six countries are

not Europe. You are a bit pushed to say it is not Europe. It is so many.

Speaking of Europe, we say it is not Europe. It is so many.

part of it, Scotlands joins us, we have been

part of it, Scotlands joins us, we questions. We are talking Europe

with Margaret Becker, the former Labour Defence Secretary. Are we

with Margaret Becker, the former be suspicious about how

with Margaret Becker, the former that Mr Jeremy Corbyn and Mr

McDonnell, the shadow that Mr Jeremy Corbyn and Mr

aboutp Euro-scepticism? I don't think so. The hard left of the

Labour Party has always been anti-EU at least and very eurosceptic at

most. Well, I think once you start to really look at the issues, in a

perhaps a way that not everybody on the hard left has done before, you

begin to realise what a difference it would make and the fact that

there were very strong rumour that it would make and the fact that

unpin some of that social Europe that

unpin some of that social Europe underpin it, it destroy it. Unpick

It, that underpin it, it destroy it. Unpick

to people in our party that, yes, this is actually, with

to people in our party that, yes, there is, this

to people in our party that, yes, be. And you would vote to stay in,

even if Mr Cameron had achieved nothing? Many people don't think he

has achieved a lot. But even if he had achieved nothing. Even

said after the election - right let's have a referendum now on our

existing terms of membership, you would vote to stay? I probably

would. Shrimp - not because I'm a would vote to stay? I probably

Europe fanatic, but because the alternatives are so undesirable. I

don't think there is. There is so much dishonesty. All this talk about

how we stop free movement of Labour. There is no country that trades with

the European Union that doesn't have to abide by the free movement of

Labour. Well there are a lot of countries with free trade

arrangements with Europe and they don't have free movement of people

arrangements with Europe and they Nothing of the significant players

around like Norway Nothing of the significant players

with whom we are always compared. Canada? Well, that's rather a

with whom we are always compared. separate issue. It is a free trade

arrangement They are not in our neck of the woods, so to speak. Also, it

leaves out of consideration how, if we vote to come out, how the rest of

Europe is going to feel to us? Are they going to feel warm and generous

and - yes, OK let's give you a more preferential trading arrangement. I

suspect not. Time will tell, depending on how we vote.

Now last month Labour published Margaret's long-awaited report

into why the party lost last year's General Election.

But one Labour pollster who carried out research for the report wasn't

Here's what Deborah Mattinson told the Sunday Politics last month.

I would say that my conclusions were very different from Margaret

Beckett's. I did brief Margaret Beckett so, I was somewhat

disappointed not to see some of that reflected back. Yes, I think she

picked up on the economy. But there was actually no analysis - it's

reduced down effectively to one Bullet point in the report. Quite

apologetic. Lots of defensive stuff in there but nothing that actually,

really, I felt shone a light on what had gone wrong. I think it was a

white wash. I think it was a massive, missed opportunity. So,

Deborah Mattinson calls your report a white wash. What is your response?

Well I'm sorry I have a lot of respect for Deborah who has done a

lot of good work for the Labour Party in her time but I thought it

was a rather silly thing to say, to be perfectly frank. By the way, the

work she did was not commissioned for our task force, it was

commissioned separately for Harriet Harman as something to inform her

period of leadership. But, yes, we were briefed about it. What hasn't

come out in these conversations is it was actually quite a restricted

group of people. Deborah herself acknowledged that when she briefed

us. It was a restricted tight group of people she bass talking to. The

reason we were briefed about it shall she was talking to. The reason

we were briefed was because I asked what information we could have that

could come in from the general public, rather than from around the

party or professional pollsters. What is there if anything that could

tell us where the general public were coming from. All this was was

this one, set of ideas, no, it was comments, really, but, from, as I

say a Retallick stricted single group. Only -- a really restricted

single group. Only because there was no money to do more. You didn't

criticise the Labour leader, you called the manifesto an impressive

document you blamed the Tories, the SNP, you blamed the media, naturally

t didn't seem to be Labour's fault. When you see that, it does seem to

be a white wash I don't think that's what the report did say. There are

two groups of people who have responded to the report, one is a

group that approached it with a relatively open mind and another is

a group that approached it in their own various ways with axes ready to

grind. I didn't ignore the fact of some of the things that the

Conservatives had done, some of the ways they had played T I didn't

ignore some of the other players, I touched on the issue of the media. I

could have written a back about that, I didn't, I touched on T I did

not excuse - I said, "We failed." Our job was to try to create trust

in our economic policy, in our approach on immigration, in our

approach on welfare and we failed. Did you speak to Ed Miliband for the

report? Yes. Did you tone it down a bit as a result? You were very kind

to him. I know a lot of people will disagree. You may be one of them.

But what I said about Ed Miliband's leadership is what I believe and had

believed all the way through. I didn't tone it down out of kindness.

I thought Ed did a much better job than he was given credit for. If I

can say to you, one of the things that I think people who are critical

are overlooking, who the report was for and what it had to take into

account. There is a sense in which we all know why we lost the

election, everybody knows that, because of the issues we didn't get

trust on but one of the things that certainly people in the Labour Party

wanted to know is - but why did we do well in some parts of the country

and not in others? What happened with the opinion polls? Why did they

mislead us? People wanted the answers to those questions as well

and that's what we tried to do. Well you cite reasons to be positive

about Labour now, including Jeremy Corbyn, as one of the reasons to be

positive. So, do you no longer regard yourself as a moron, your

words, not mine, for nominating Mr Jeremy Corbyn? It wasn't my word it

was John - I have forgotten his name, somebody who worked in number

ten, he said it, I referred to it, in a radio interview, he said t and

I said I'm one of them. I'm not resiling from that. Are you, or are

you not? I didn't intend, Jeremy, to have a serious chance of being the

leader when I nominated him. I have been quite open about that, there is

no point in pretending. He has been elected overwhelmingly. My hope, if

you like, prayer, is that you can do the same miracle with the public as

he managed to do with members of the Labour Party. Do you think that will

require a miracle? Neither you or eye could have predicted it. No, not

at all. Not even Mr Jeremy Corbyn could have predicted it.

Let's return to our main story - the EU referendum.

We will be hearing a lot about it between now and when we think the

referendum will be, the end of June, possibly.

David Cameron admitted yesterday that the draft deal on the UK's

membership of the EU is "not perfect".

But he added that Britain's position would be stronger and better

Not so, say his critics, who argue that Britain will be

Among them is Conservative MP, David Davis, who has been giving

The thin gruel has been further watered down,

My right honourable friend has a fortnight, I think,

in which to salvage his reputation as a negotiator.

This is a process and he might not get what he wants.

Now I understand he won't able to come to Manchester

because he is still in the negotiations,

but could he come on February 19th to our Go conference then,

if he doesn't get what he wants and would it be possible for me

to drop off at tie at Downing Street for him?

My honourable friend is always very generous with his time,

with his advice and now also with his clothing.

I feel the blazer is soon to follow...

I won't be able to come, I don't think on February 19th.

I hope I will still be in the thick of negotiations but I of course

will report back to this House and give the results.

That was the Prime Minister. Let's speak it David Davis who joins us

now. So summarise for us what would

Britain's position be outside the EU? Well, it looks, I spent this

morning giving a great - long lecture on the current benefits and

what we could get outside. We would be better off in terms of global

trade. We can do greater trade deals than the European Union does on our

bha. We would not lose anything in temples our access to the European

markets. Apart from anything else, the German car industry alone would

have a $16 billion market put at risk and Merkel, politicians would

not allow that. There is a very not easy but straightforward

negotiation. You think we would get the advantages and pay no price for

that access? The only area where it won't work is on agriculture where

we would have to have some particular deal and subsidise

British farming in a free market position. Other than that, it is

pretty straight - it is pretty clear that the end game would be a free

market arrangement. Just as they have just struck with Canada. They

have just - Canada is a famously free market, world market. I used to

work in Canada, you buy sugar in Canada, it is world market sugar,

everything is world market. They have struck it with Canada. If they

When you talk about the single anybody.

When you talk about the single market you are talking about

manufactured products and not services. 70% of our GDP is

services. It does not follow that is Europe widens and deepens the single

market that our services would get the same access as if we were

inside. That is right if we ... There is not really a single market

in services now. When the EU does free trade agreements with the rest

of the world, 20 odd agreements, in only six of them were services

mentioned. If we did our own they would the mentioned every time,

banking will be left out completely because of the sensitivities in

Europe. If we did a TTIP ourselves it would be in. There are balances

and they look squarely in favour... So we would not have too continue

with the free movement of people in the single market? We are talking

after a Brexit referendum. Several million votes will be about

migration so no government could offer anything on free movement,

they would need absolute governmental control of borders. The

Europeans understand that and at the end of the day European

negotiations, I have been there and done it, are about national

interest. No national government, Angela Merkel, they are not going to

give up the interests of their major industries to promote the European

ideal. That may be logical. It's also political. What about the point

Margaret Beckett was making earlier? Europe could be so angry as a result

of us leaving that they may not be inclined to be as generous with the

single market as you think. There could be an element of Britain

leaving and not suffering, getting the benefits without having to sit

in the European the benefits without having to sit

the European Council, others may follow. So they will be tougher on

us. That bit is certainly follow. So they will be tougher on

judging from history follow. So they will be tougher on

happens is that if we have there will be three months of

screaming and shouting and there will be three months of

and then they calmed down. The day after Brexit happens the Chief

Executive 's dogs barking, BMW, Audi and Mercedes -- of Volkswagen. They

would be queueing up saying that we have do have access for the 16

billion market. What do you say to that? It is pie in the sky, frankly.

I know David was the Europe minister at one time but I have had a bit of

experience myself over something like ten or 11 years of intense

negotiation on agriculture and climate change. I just think, if I

can say so with some modesty I pride myself on my negotiation track

record. The risks are huge and the certainties are non-. What's

interesting in the last decade, people always say this will give us

huge leveraged. If you look at the way we are treated, we lose twice as

many votes as anyone in Europe. Just now, David Cameron has asked for a

really trivial set of demands and haven't even been given them. If you

look at something really important like the free trade agreements that

Europe strikes with other countries and areas of the world, we lose out

in two thirds of them and that is how much influence we have in Europe

now. We do better. If you want to go down this road you need someone

strong to sell the message and it looks as though it won't be Theresa

May leading believing campaign? That is up to Teresa. I have no idea.

Boris Johnson? You would need to get Boris to answer that question. But

you speak to these people all the time. To be honest I don't think it

matters that much, beyond the M25 what matters is this, what will this

do for the 3 million jobs that get thrown around, my job, my welfare,

my interest, and they will make that decision not on whether a blonde

bombshell makes it. It's not for me. I tried. You did.

Now we know that tossers are commonplace in politics,

but did you know that tossing is, in fact, a vital part

Yes, in Iowa earlier this week, some of the Democratic caucuses

literally came down to the toss of a coin.

But coin tosses have been used plenty of times in democratic

elections, as have other random selection methods.

In sport it is used at the start of a match and in politics it is used

to end one. Coin tosses are a rare sight and only used in the event of

a tie and when there are rounding errors. Monday's Iowa Democratic

caucus was one of the history books as Hillary Clinton tied with her

rival Bernie Sanders in six precincts so it was down to look to

decide and Clinton won them all, one 64 chance. It's not the only time

that the random factor has been harnessed for democracy, the mayor

of a town in Peru was decided when the top two candidates tied at 236

votes each, not a huge turnout. It's not always coin tossing, cutting

cards and drawing lots. The legal position is that the winning coin

toss is considered a vote. As it was with the Bari council elections in

2011. After three and recounts it was a dead heat in Ramsbottom. They

are obliged to produce a result and they were clutching at straws. It

has never happened yet at a UK general election but if it does one

imagines that the loss of a toss might make the defeated candidate

flipping annoyed. Well joining me now from Norwich

is Lana Hempsell, a Conservative councillor who actually won

an election on the toss of a coin, and Rene Linstaedt, an expert

on American politics Welcome. In Iowa it was necessary in

some of the caucuses to flip a coin because it was a dead heat for

Sanders and Clinton? Part of the problem was that in some of these

caucus sites, individuals that had registered had actually left prior

to being counted, and the overall number of registered caucusgoers was

higher than individuals left, so not all of the delegates could be

assigned to the candidates. Do we know how many ended up tossing a

coin? I don't know exactly what the number is, but it happened a number

of times. It's not surprising because there are such a small

number of individuals involved that you would either have a situation

where there is a tie or because it is so unorganised, the whole

process, people would just leave. Did they have a recount? Well, yes.

That is what we would do. They counted the number of individuals,

and some in one of the district 's people had gone so there was nothing

they could do. You won your council seat on the toss of a coin, how many

recounts were there before it was decided to resolve it? We had three

recounts in total so it was close on the first one and then we get three

more and it was a dead heat. I see. A coin was tossed. Did you choose

heads or tails? I chose heads and it was a split-second decision because

the coin was already flying before I was asking if anyone got to choose

and as it was landing I shouted out heads because my agent nudged me. Do

you still have the coin, it must be your lucky coin? No, this was

Broadlands, the coin went back into the pocket of the returning officer.

He spent it on a diet Coke later on. How did your opponent feel? Did they

feel cheated? Did they think in the end it was a fair way of resolving

the matter? He wasn't there at the count so I have no idea why he

didn't turn up, but I was there to bask in the glory all by myself. I

did see him later and he did not think it was fair. And there were

questions about double sided coins etc. You could have said heads I

win, tails you lose and he would not object as he was not there! The New

Hampshire primary, not a caucus, if it is closed their there will be

recounts an recounts rather than tossing a coin. -- if it is close

there. Sometimes delegates are proportionally split so you do not

need to toss a coin? 49.6 versus 49.4. That is true. It can happen in

smaller states where you have ties and it certainly happens all the

time in smaller elections for City councils. Because you were asking

earlier about elections, Federal elections in the US or national

elections here, it actually hasn't happened. Who will win New Hampshire

for the Democrats? It will be close. I know that. I'm not in the business

of making predictions. CHUCKLES Thank you both.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what narrowly missed hitting Margaret

report into why Labour lost the election?

Maybe Deborah Mattinson through it! I'm just joking.

So Margaret, what's the correct answer?

It was a mobile phone dropped from the press gallery. By accident?

Presumably. And we're joined now

by the fellow who nearly The political editor of the Sun,

Tom Newton Dunn is on the phone now. Can we just clear this up, it was

entirely an accident? I can confirm it was not an assassination attempt.

It was entirely an accident. Margaret, let me say that I'm

incredibly sorry and I was utterly mortified that I almost hit you on

the head. Thank you very much for taking it in the right way. To be

fair it was a bipartisan attack because Cheryl Gillan was next to

me. It could have gone either way. We agreed that former Cabinet

ministers who are women are not popular! Did the phones survive? It

fell 20 feet and it did. I won't say what type of phone it is on the BBC

but it is still intact. Cheryl Gillan tweeted me to say that if I

had been four inches to the left I would have killed two birds with one

stone. I think we will say goodbye there. Thank you very much. Thank

you to my guests especially Margaret Beckett. I will be back at 11:45pm

on BBC One for this week when we will have Michael Portillo and Alan

Johnson and we may talk about Europe, who knows? I will be back

also here tomorrow on BBC Two with the Daily Politics