15/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The starting gun is fired as the official campaign period


but is it a level playing field for Leave and Remain?


They may have more money but have they also got more love?


Can our EU neighbours persuade Britons to stay with a hug?


The Panama Papers have laid bare the secretive world of tax havens,


can an EU deal on tax transparency crack down on tax evasion?


And, a Conservative MP refers to a female journalist as "totty",


was the journalist right to complain about the MP's language?


All that in the next hour and with us for the first half hour


today Mail on Sunday Columnist, Dan Hodges.


The UK's multi-billion pound contribution to the EU


would better spent on the NHS to "give it the funding it needs",


so says Michael Gove as he fires the latest salvo from


Meanwhile Remain campaigners are preparing to deploy their big


Barack Obama will say that the UK would be better off as a member


of the European Union when he visits the Britain next week.


Today marks the beginning of the official European Union


Ending on June 23 when the UK will vote to decide


Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe have been designated


as the lead campaigns for the respective


will be both allowed to spend up to ?7 million,


But Leave campaigners say it's not a level playing field


as the government has already spent ?9 million on a leaflet


to be delivered to 27 million homes across the UK.


However this morning former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling


of attacking the player not the ball.


Too often, they play the man and not the ball, they cannot compete on the


substance of the message so they attack the messenger, that is what


happened in Scotland, it did not work for the Nationalists then and


it will not work now. Alistair Darling Randa remain in the United


Kingdom campaign. -- -- Alistair Darling ran the remain in the


knighted kingdom campaign. Joining us now is Nigel Farage,


fresh from posting his government's leaflet on the EU back


through the Prime I'm pretty outraged that they are


telling us what to think, it has been said that it is outside of the


spirit in which the referendum should be conducted. Does it offend


the British sense of fair play that in this one leaflet, the remain side


has spent more money than the whole of the league side will spend


between now and June 23? If you look at it on that level, the British


people will not be writing in the streets over a ?9 million leave


leaflet. Will it offend the sense of fair play? People are not looking at


the issue on that level that closely, I think Alistair Darling


has a point, the out campaign have today been focusing very much on the


process elements of the debate, the leaflet, the stuff about whether out


ministers would have the same access to information. Wouldn't it be fair


to give his lot, his side, a free leaflet, as well? That would even it


up, and I would suggest, the British media may not read either of them!


But it would at least be, yes, that is fair, this side has had ?9


million of free leaflet. Talking about neutrality, the government is


not neutral, the government has a clear view, and it is right, and it


would be rather odd if the government was in a position with


the debate going on and could not express itself. The British


government is doing that every day, on television and radio and in the


newspapers every single day, the argument is that at the end of this


campaign, believes side will have had one leaflet to each household,


and the remain side will have at two, that is not fair play. -- the


Leave side. The IMF has come out to warn about economic consequences of


leaving, Barack Obama is flying in, to do the same. The CBI, these are


pretty impressive names lined up against you. It helps for me, I'm


pushing this as people against politicians, the more that the


establishment up together, the better. This is about ordinary folk


making up their minds. Look at the level of threat we have had already,


who else can they produce, virtually everybody in the world of


international politics has come out to declare that they are for the


status quo, does not worry me at all. Is there a danger for Remain in


this, from the United States, the success of Donald Trump, and Bernard


Sanders, in the Democratic primaries, there is an


antiestablishment move around, you can see that in this country as


well. The remain side becomes the establishment side, and that is what


people vote against. -- Remain. That is the narrative but looking at the


history of referendums, general elections, I worked on the no to A/V


campaign, back in 2011, for the yes -- the yes to A/V campaign, they try


to harness this antiestablishment mood, looking at the SNP, they were


supposedly harnessing that, the general election, Ed Miliband were


supposedly harnessing an antiestablishment mood, Nigel


himself was supposedly harnessing an antiestablishment mood. Most British


people would regard Ed Miliband and David Cameron as part of the


establishment but here, a choice between the mainstream forces, and


an alternative. When people, with respect, when people see Nigel,


Nigel Lawson, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, making the campaign from


the other side, I think they do not see those people as outsiders. Do we


have any friends and lies on your side? Ordinary decent people who


want their country back and want to be governing, and... I mean from


abroad. Is there anybody? In private, when you speak with


ministers from around the Commonwealth, they all say that


Britain turning its back on its friends 40 years ago was a wicked


thing to have done, and what we should be doing is opening ourselves


up, indeed, one of the Commonwealth conferences, if you years ago,


debated a Commonwealth free trade area. There are people who in


private would say, if Britain leads, our relationship can improve, but in


public, part of the international community. New Zealand and Australia


were miffed when we joined, because of what happened with their


agricultural produce, they are all saying that we should stay, even


Tony Abbott... Former right-wing Prime Minister of Australia, who may


be thought to be in some way seen as the Nigel Farage of Australia. He


says we should stay. As I said earlier, it is the international


establishment, and all of those organisations, clubbing together, at


the end of the day I don't think it makes any difference. Simple


proposition in this referendum, A/V was not, I was on the other side, my


problem was, I could not explain the people what it was. In a sentence. I


going to try it now(!) LAUGHTER It is too difficult, that is why we


lost! The point about this referendum, what we're saying to


people is, that is why we lost, if you vote for us to leave, then we


will be self-governing, it will not solve all of our problems but we


will be in charge, ample propositions. Given everything that


has been thrown at it so far from the Remain side, all of the big guns


that have been wheeled out, even though the campaign only starts


today, our you not surprised that it is not doing better, that it is nip


and tuck in the polls, and believes side is showing momentum. -- Vote


Leave side. I don't think it is nip and tuck. What is significant about


these polls, from the start of the year, the polls have not shown that


much of a shift, there has been a consistent situation. Showing its


neck and neck. The telephone poles, which everybody seems to regard as


the most accurate measure, they have shown significant... Haven't they


shown the leeside narrowing the gap. This is the fundamental disadvantage


they have, consistently in elections in this country we see there is


innate bias towards the status quo. Ford believes side to have a chance,


they need to very quickly start posting double-digit lead. -- for


the Lee side. That would need to offset it. -- Leave. I understand


the argument about the status quo, if we work to join, that would be a


thumping know, if that is what the referendum was about, but the


difference is this, the plus side is this, I don't think there is any


doubt that the leave side has a bit of momentum, a bit of momentum over


the last few weeks, but what is really interesting is the certainty


of the vote, when you talk with people who are committed, they say,


a sickly, if I have to be dragged on a stretcher, I'm going down to vote


to leave, and there is more energy on our side, and passion, and the


more people I speak with, who are just about Remain voters, they say


their life is OK, they have paid the mortgage, but will they be motivated


to go and vote? In the end it sounds obvious, it is those that turn out


that win election. Will miss Jeremy Corbyn have got inspiration and


motivation behind centre-left voters, which Remain needs to win,


because Tory voters will split more Nigel Farage's Way, was that an


inspiring, inspirational motivational speech yesterday?


Jeremy Corbyn is only slightly marginally more Eurosceptic than


Nigel! LAUGHTER What he has done is given people on


the left licence to, if you like align themselves with David Cameron,


and senior Tories. He spent most of the time bashing the government, he


is entitled, news the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose. That is the


fundamental thing, giving people the green light. Will you appear on vote


leave platforms now? In fact, yes, one of our MEPs is appearing on that


platform with Iain Duncan Smith, and Chris Grayling is coming on a


grassroots out campaign platform with me and some others. Do you


think you will win, as things stand? Yes. You call the election


correctly, famously. I think, remain. Plenty of time to find out


who is right and who is wrong, Nigel, stay with us, you will like


this. Now, we've seen a lot of tactics


employed on both sides rational argument,


scaremongering and of But now a grassroots campaign group


is using a new weapon, love. #hugabrit is asking EU citizens


living in the UK to hug British people and then post


the results on social media. It's been doing rather well


on Twitter in recent days. This is Christine, who's German,


hugging the musician Jarvis Cocker. He says he spends a lot of time


in France but likes popping back to London for gigs


and so is "completely against" And this is Katrin, another German,


hugging the British Nigerian artist Yinka Shonibare, he says: "Wanting


to leave is about clinging Not all the people being hugged


are even alive. This is Geemette, who's French


and clearly a fan of modernist literature, hugging


a bust of Virginia Woolf. But most of the people


being hugged aren't famous, it's mainly ordinary


members of the public. This is Lina, from Lithuania,


hugging her English friend Becky. And finally this is Birgit, who's


also German, And as if by magic, Birgit Maass,


who you'll recognise from that last How did this all come about? We


wanted to do something positive, we do not want to do something that is


patronising, telling the British people what to do, we just want to


say, we are Europe, you are Europeans, we love you, do not leave


us. How many pictures of people hugging have you gathered so far? It


is really spread, a bit uncontrollable. We have more than


100 for sure, but the website exploded and could not take on any


more pictures. Home-made, grassroots, we do not have a budget,


we are not aligned to any campaign, it does. We have built our own


website, it was not easy, it has spread, people are sharing on


Twitter and Instagram, it is hard to say how many we have for sure. How


many citizens want Britain to stay? The rest of Europe, they love


Britain, they want them to stay. Thinking of leaving Europe, people


may say, yes, Europe is something different from you, but from our


point of view. Just a bit! From our point of view, the EU is the


structure that we have built, we have, for three generations, we have


had piece, for me that is very important, I grew up with our


grandfathers, I lost them in the war, for me, the EU, and for many


other Europeans, this is what it is about. And so people are quite


motivated. This is not "Project Fear", Nigel Farage. It's a


conspiracy(!) LAUGHTER All this rubbish about not having


budgets, I don't believe a word of it, it is conspiracy, it really is,


I say this because, Jean-Claude Juncker on Tuesday this week try to


hug me, I said, I am sorry, I am a bit old-fashioned about all of


that... Clearly, this is a commission led initiative! I do not


know where to begin... I do mean that...


It is interesting to a say how good the European Union is. The euro has


been wonderful for you. It has given you most of your growth over the


last ten years, through increased exports. I suspect that if we had


this conversation with people from Spain, Portugal, Cyprus or Greece,


the point about the European project, not fighting each other,


that takes my boxes, but economic and political union, that no-one has


voted for, that is a different thing. I would argue that the EU is


actually not working very at all. Let me just bring you back, because


we are having and will have plenty of this. The British are famously


not very tactile, unlike many of our European neighbours. Have you found


any resistance? We have had a few awkward moments but most people that


we have hugged, most of the reports we get, people are terribly polite


and we have lived here for a long time, at least the core group, so we


would not ambush people. There is not a hug squad are going out at


night. It is only consensual. Would you like to give Nigel a hug? We did


shake hands earlier. Go on, Nigel. This programme is the coffee and


broadcasting. -- Kofi Annan. Thank you.


Now - George Osborne has hailed as "groundbreaking" a new deal


announced last night under which law enforcements agencies


from the big five EU economies - including Britain -


will share information on the true owners of companies,


that will make it harder to evade tax.


Earlier this week the the SNP criticised the government


for devoting fewer resources to tackling tax fraud


than to benefit fraud, though its figures have been


challenged - but what are the public more concerned about?


We sent Giles out with his balls to test the public mood.


It is a political truth that most of us get wound up when we see people


playing the system although it often depends on who we perceive to be


doing the playing. But when it comes to tax or benefits, what upsets us


more? People not paying as much tax as they could or should or people


claiming more benefits than they should? The tax bid. It just as


immoral. In fact, it's rather more immoral because people have


desperate poverty, and they have a faint excuse. Otherwise, it's just


greedy. Not paying your tax, that is also bad. But who is taking the


benefits? Taxes also benefit. I think both are wrong but in the


grand scheme of things, I think tax would probably be a lot more, with


regards to proportion. I am one of those people, you have to give


people the benefit of the doubt in a lot of ways with benefits. People


know it is wrong to avoid tax. Definitely people but take more


benefits than they should. Definitely. White of the two, both


considered to be morally wrong? Why does that wind you up more? Because


I am a big worker and I pay loads of tax. I would say people not paying


taxes. That is a difficult one. I think you are right, I think the tax


issue. We have a moral responsibility to pay tax. Ready,


steady, go. Benefits are for those people who deserve it, 100%. Tax is


for people that pay it if they need to and if they avoid it, that is


perfectly legitimate. My premise was people claiming to many benefits.


Well, that is knotty. In his bid to make a point about benefits, one man


put in a lot of balls. We counted, there were 16. I have to take out


15. Hold on, this could take some time. 15. I sympathise with not


wanting to pay taxes. Do you know why that is? Is it an emotional


reaction? I think it is an emotional reaction and may be a rebellion


against, I don't know, the man. Don't pay the man? Very firmly, you


put the ball in the tax box. Socking it to the man. We have a


responsibility to pay our taxes, fair and square, not too much, not


too little, what is appropriate. A tricky results to analyse. Benefits,


just ahead, but here is the interesting thing. The people who


found that benefit fraud was more morally wrong tended to be less well


off. The people who felt that tax avoidance was wrong tended to be the


better off. Make of that what you will.


I hope he went back to pick them up and didn't just leave them outside


Charing Cross station. I'm joined now by the Chair


of the Public Accounts Committee, Her committee has said this


morning that the government is "not doing enough" to tackle


the estimated ?16 billion cost Welcome to the programme. Your


committee says that at any one time HMRC is investigating around 35


wealthy individuals for tax evasion. Were you surprised by that figure?


As a committee, for a one time we wanted them to take firm action


against people to use them as an example. But what is interesting


here is that they have been given funding so that they will be able to


investigate 100 by 20 20. If they could investigate 100 but they do


not have the resources, why are they not been given the resources? And


how many of the 35 result in prosecution is? No, and it is a


moving thing because when they get a result, then they will do it. --


result in prosecutions. This has been a running issue. But if they do


not prosecute, sometimes have they taken the view that, well, we could


prosecute but it could take ages and the result could be uncertain? Or we


could do a deal now and we would get a chunk of change. That is partly


why we have a disagreement as a committee. You do not think they


should do that? We recognise that sometimes they might be grounds for


that but we think the lack of prosecutions is woefully inadequate


and does not set the right tone for the taxpayer. And that means also


that tax fraudsters think they can get away with it. The committee


claims that the current modus operandi of HMRC creates the


impression that the rich can get away with tax fraud, is that right?


There is a perception of that. We get a lot of correspondence about


tax. There is that the general perception. We think this is perhaps


the difference between HMRC having a minister to read it and a committee


led by politicians. We think there is the need for examples to be set.


But we recognise that these guys, the ones who really defraud the


system, they have a lot of expense of advice and go to great lengths to


hide it. It is a lengthy and expensive process to investigate.


But we're glad to see the extra money going in and we hope to see


more high profile results as a result. Let's look at the deal with


big economies like France and Germany that George Osborne has


announced, meant to facilitate better exchange of information and


account details and company details between of these five economies


only. Mr Osborne described it as ground-breaking. In what way is it?


I would describe it as a good step in the right direction but not


ground-breaking. Hopefully we will see it snowballing. It takes more


than one hammer to crack a nut and we have a long way to go. Hopefully


others will follow suit but it is too early to say. If it includes


companies like France and Germany, which are broadly the same in terms


of tax rules and tax collecting systems as we do. If you have a


company in Germany, whether it is in your name or of beneficial


ownership, you will be paying tax in Germany, so how does it make much


difference? Let's be clear, we know that in terms of tax avoidance,


there are plenty of multinationals that avoid paying tax in a lot of


places. So this is more for big companies? This is about beneficial


ownership. But we know that those are public companies. The beneficial


ownership is a way of masking where the benefits are. But if you are


company, even if it done behind beneficial ownership, masked in


French or Germany, that will not matter to the German authorities


because you will be paying tax. In a couple of months, we will find out


what difference it makes. The Chancellor has called for the rest


of the G20 to get on board. I was looking at the list and that


includes China and Saudi Arabia. How quickly will that happen? That is


why I am saying it is a good step in the right direction, but unless you


have every country, it is still a challenge. Those countries tend to


cooperate with the tax authorities anyway. Despite the argy-bargy with


the frontbenchers, is it true to say that there is a large measure of


political consensus between the mainstream parties on what needs to


be done to tackle what has been called the tax gap, the bit that


we're losing through either evasion or aggressive tax avoidance? That is


the distinction. Certainly, there is a consensus in terms of evasion. I


think as we saw with the debate last week, is when it comes into the


terms of avoidance that the political gap starts to emerge. But


the Chancellor has been outspoken. He has, but what George Osborne


would define as tax avoidance and what John McDonnell would describe


as tax avoidance are different things as we saw last week. I


thought what was interesting was that the government was on the back


foot significantly when the issue was tax evasion. When the debate


shifted to tax avoidance, they became more confident of their


political footing. We will see how this progresses. Please come back


and report to us. Happy to do so. The issue of sexism in the workplace


has reared its ugly head again. And this time, the workplace


is in the palace of Westminster. On Tuesday morning, the Spectator


journalist Isabel Hardman Her tweets stirred


up a twitter storm, receiving many comments


from supporters but Amongst them Isabel Oakeshott,


who as well as writing Since then Hardman has


since received a private apology from the unnamed individual,


who is described as being But this hasn't put


the issue to bed. With us is now is Laura Perrins,


co-editor of Conservative Woman and Catherine Mayer,


journalist and founder Welcome to you both. It is 2016. MPs


should not be saying to female journalists, I want to talk to the


totty. It is going to be a very long life if every time a man pays a


woman a component in the workplace, a Twitter storm is going to be


started. You think it is a component to call somebody totty? We know the


words that was used. Is it a condiment? The point is, this idea


that men might find a woman attractive in the workplace,


suddenly they cannot take her seriously professionally, this is a


misguided idea. We live, as you say, in 2016, and men and women are


working together increasingly. Men can still be attracted to women but


in the -- at the same time, they can still take them seriously


professionally. If you are offended by what a colleague may say in front


of another colleague, I think what you should do is pull them up on it


there and then, and say, listen, I actually don't think that is on. I


find that offensive. And see if he apologises. By going to the whips


office, you are basically forcing an apology out of him, which is not


worth anything. It is like standing over a child and saying, you better


apologise or I will take your toys away. It is not an apology. Let's do


this in two parts. The appropriateness of the word and the


response. How offended would you be by the words totty? For one thing, I


find it hilarious that we are discussing the appropriateness of


her response when clearly his comment was possibly inappropriate.


Just possibly? It is just silly. Was it inappropriate? It was


inappropriate in the sense that all that kind of casual sexism in the


workplace is inappropriate. But I spent 30 years as a journalist and I


understand exactly the response that is no response, brush it over, just


deal with it in person, but that is precisely how you enable that


culture. So I cheer what she did. Not because I felt she needed to do


it from a position of personal weakness, because she could not cope


with it in some way herself, but precisely because she was trying to


change the workplace culture for other journalists and other women.


What do you say to Laura's point that a more appropriate response


would have been to have gone up to them and say, don't dare use that


word with me. That is why I am laughing about discussing the


appropriateness of her response. Any response she had made would have


been appropriate in that context. But what would have been more


appropriate? What Isabel did or what Laura is suggesting? I think what


Laura is suggesting does not tackle the underlying culture. What Isabel


did has the benefit of shining a spotlight onto it and why it is a


generating debate. The MP in question said, I want to speak to


the totty. My idea of sexism is saying, I don't want to speak to you


because you are woman and I am not taking you seriously. I think it


would have been worse if he had said it behind her back. It may have been


ham-fisted. But he did not say he wanted to speak to her because she


is one of the best informed political journalists in the


country, which he is. He said he wanted to speak to using a word that


referred to her looks. point you are assuming that he does


not take her seriously, that is a massive assumption, he is saying


that he wants to talk to her, in a ham-fisted way, she should have


pulled him up on it there and then, not gone to Twitter and Twitter


shamed him. We all know his name would have come out, even though she


has not said it. The second point, as I said, if every sort of


interaction between a manned and a woman is going to be sat down in the


workplace as sexist, it is going to be a very long life! This is a


culture of not taking women seriously. She is an extremely...


What...? She is extremely... Shall we ask the beefcake? LAUGHTER


That is quite inappropriate! LAUGHTER


Hearing in slices on this is fairly familiar... (!) on both sides of the


debate, not just a gender clash but a generational clash, different


opinions, the reality is that there is a new generation of female


journalists in the lobby, like Isabel, and whether or not people


think it is innocent or not innocent, they are not going to put


up with the sort of rubbish that women did in the 1960s... 20, 30


years ago. I have been a journalist for such a long time, this is why


this matters, when I started I thought this would be eradicated,


the point is that it is still perpetuating, young journalists are


having to put up with it, does it matter, yes it does because it


matters in terms of the journalistic output... I think what we are seeing


is they are experiencing what Isabel has demonstrated, she will not put


up with it. It has got marginally better... Surely it has got better.


I can certainly testified to ongoing problems... I do not know any female


journalists who have not experienced harassment by colleagues or


interviewees. Even in the house of parliament. We must leave it there.


Coming up in a moment it's our regular look at what's been


For now it's time to say goodbye to my guest of the day.


So for the next half an hour we're going to be focussing on Europe.


We'll be discussing the proposed crackdown on tax avoidance


in Europe, a deal to share airline passenger details with the police


and security services and what a Brexit could mean


First though here's our guide to the latest from Europe,


VOICEOVER: Responding to the Panama Papers Revelation, the EU announced


on the measures on tax avoidance, leaving big businesses with nowhere


to hide, forcing them to declare how much corporation tax they pay


outside of the EU, including in tax havens. The migrant crisis goes on,


with Italian coastguards rescuing 4000 migrants in just two days,


Austria has strengthened its border controls, causing tensions between


bureaucrats and member states. This is EU officials including Council


President Donald Tusk appeared in front of MEPs on Wednesday, to


defend the controversial deal to return migrants to Turkey. Testers


in Paris spent a second week sleeping out in the Place de la


Republique, expressing anger over labour reforms. That Occupy is.


British MEPs say Jamaal, perhaps did not mean to be caught making this


rather rude hand gesture, during the European Parliament session. --


Saeed Jamal. -- the protest -- protesters.


And with us for the next thirty minutes I've been


joined by two MEPs - the Conservative, Timothy Kirkhope


Let's take a look at one of those stories in more detail,


that's the EU's efforts to crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion


They are saying that the corporation should include details of what is


operating in tax havens if they want to trade with the EU. The right


thing to do? It is right that we should have far more transparency,


there is an understanding that there has been real concerns over tax


havens, wherever they may be, and I am very encouraged by not only the


attitude that we are taking in Europe but also Chancellor George


Osborne with his colleagues, and the meeting at the IMF. Is the EU sure,


that it has done enough about tax havens, in its missed, I think of


Luxembourg, even, some people say Ireland. It has made progress, one


of the problems we have, of course, as conservatives, we do not want to


see tax harmonisation is coming in on the back of this crackdown. We


need to separate the two. That is one of the reasons why we sometimes


have difficulty with some of the things put forward, the proposal


from the commission and the European Parliament. We have no objection to


an international system where countries get together to do this


kind of thing, most tax havens are moving outside of the Unocha. Vonage


and Steyn, and Switzerland, because the EU are begin to clamp down on


them. The danger is that if you do not have an international system,


they move out and do their business elsewhere. -- outside of the EU.


From Lytton Steyn. -- list and Steyn. Has the EU fade a role in


beginning best practice, in doing things which we know cannot be


resolved in a European level alone, but it has started the ball rolling.


The EU is not supposed to be concerned in taxes, it is meant to


be one of the red lines. When the EU does anything it is all about


long-term ambitions. It may initially seem like a good thing,


but we have got a look at the longer plans. The use should not look to


see if member states are able to gather tax revenues that is their


due? It is something that should be done on an international level. --


the EU. You will only have a partial solution if Russia and the US are


not in it. This shows a good example to the world, the fact we have five


Nations agreed on taking much stronger steps to avoid this tax


evasion. It will not be as ground-breaking as the Chancellor is


trying to make out. The is a very good starting point, a good example


of working together. One of the ways in which you can avoid tax


avoidance, aggressive taxation, flat tax system, simple and easy of the


people to understand and then people will be more willing to pay their


taxes. Now, MEPs voted this week to set up


a joint system for police and justice officials to access


airline passenger data, covering Passenger Name Record


data includes names, contact details, itinerary,


the credit card used for payment and baggage information,


along with passport details. It will not include a person's


race or ethnic origin, religion, political opinion,


trade union membership, This data is routinely


collected by airlines, but the EU is planning to set up


"Passenger Information Units" in each EU member state to collect


the information instead. The units will be able to keep this


data for up to five years, and can pass the data on to law


enforcement officials only in cases Critics are concerned over privacy


and the length of time the data can be stored for,


but supporters argue that it is important


to have a "common high standard", and that this is less


information than you would give High-flyer a lot the United States


you have to give all of this advance passenger information, and that goes


to the US border force. -- I fly a lot to the United States. If there


was something dodgy, they would stop me going to the United States before


I even got on the aeroplane. A lot of people will be surprised that


does not happen in Europe. This is my report, I have been working on it


for five years. Having to deal with quite a lot of opposition, mostly


based on the fact that individual data and privacy is something that


obviously we are concerned about but some groups believe that take Robert


Lee over security. We have an agreement with the United States,


three years ago we entered into that. We being the youth. Yes, that


is the only way in which you can operate. The Americans would not let


you fly otherwise. International crime is international, terrorism


does not respect borders, but patterns of activity, which is what


these proposals are designed to deal with, patterns of activity are


enormously important for intelligence agencies and police, I


am delighted that we got the votes this week to get them. Parliament


finally approved, there had been resistance. Five years, it has taken


ten years of my life! It is now through, it is not a silver bullet


but it is an important tool to give us greater security when we travel,


not only when we travel but also on the ground. Quite a large section of


the parliament are against it, 179 MEPs... Almost one third voted


against it. Including yourself. Did you vote against it? I did indeed,


we have a passenger name recognition system in the UK which we share with


other people and other countries have systems they share, this gives


an enormous amount of personal information, which on the basis of


common recognition, which means that week except that all European Union


countries are on any call footing, we give information to


institutionally corrupt countries like Romania and Bulgaria, we do not


think that is a good idea, who knows what they can do with it. We even


know in this country that government-held information on


citizens often goes amiss. It is true, they can lose it, but how can


they miss use it? Criminal purposes, if someone can gain access. --


misuse. This is quite ridiculous, I have got to dispute this, because


the EU is in the title, that is why he voted against it, we have very


tight safeguards, quality standards, a lot of them based on the British


system, which has been in existence, but instead of these ridiculous


slow-moving bilaterals to get information about suspicious people


travelling, from now on, and it is very strict rules and controls we


will be able to move information fast, as fast as terrorists can move


much and that is the key. We have got to do it together. Terrorist


have moved on, they realise they can be trapped in this way, we have seen


in the Harris attacks and Brussels attacks that is how they do it.


Chain and open borders, that is the biggest problem, that people can


move across Europe freely and get in on forged papers. -- Paris attacks.


It is perfectly true that if you... If you close one area, it can open


other areas, but it is not a reason for doing it, it has worked pretty


well on the trans-Atlantic side of things, between the Uganda America,


should we not... If we are better protected that way, as we crossed


the Atlantic, should we not have the equivalent safeguards, if I fly from


Nice to Berlin. We do it with countries that we can trust. We


cannot trust all of the countries in the EU, let me give you a point


which illustrates this. About this common recognition fallacy. European


arrest warrant, anybody can be shipped off to any other country on


the strength of a piece of paper, the European Court of Human


Rights I think it was has recently adjusted a judgment where we cannot


send people back from Britain, to serve their sentence in their own


country, because of human rights. This common recognition thing, it is


not all of the same level. Is it necessary for the authorities to


keep the data for five years. It is made anonymous after six months,


people have not called on that, it becomes statistically important but


not statistically. -- statistically but not specifically. What does that


mean? Intelligence agencies are looking at patterns, and developing


patterns, this is the key to intelligence. You would know that I


had made a trip but you would not know it was me. You knew that trips


were making certain routes, you mention going to a European city


from outside, what people are doing and will continue to do is to do an


indirect set of travel, maybe from Istanbul to Stockholm to Madrid to


Berlin, maybe to attack Paris or London. I think that our own system


has been very successful, but it is having to rely upon bilaterals


occasionally, it is not good enough to try to deal with the modern


threats that we have. When does it coming? Very quickly, within two


years. I'm hoping that we will be operating a lot of it within months.


Now, David Cameron called it a "once in a generation" decision.


Should we stay in the European Union?


Will we still have access to the single market?


If we leave would we be able to curb migration?


But perhaps some of those people most affected by the decision


are the two million Brits living on the continent,


many of whom won't be able to vote in the upcoming referendum.


Our Adam Fleming has been to Malta to meet some of them.


These are celebrating the UK leaving. -- the Maltese. It is the


freak and a bank holiday commemorating the moment in 1979


when British troops left to these islands. -- freedom and a bank


holiday. But in truth, the Brits never really left. There are 12,000


of them still living here. Come with me to meet some of them. Amanda


thinks the European Union makes sense for trade but she worked on an


EU project of the did not seem like value for money, leaving her


conflicted. I have benefited from working and living across the EU. I


like to travel across the EU. And then I am kind of thinking, as


humans we like the status quo, we tend towards that. So I do need to


just check what I'm taking for granted, and the assumptions I am


making, that they actually make sense. Some longer term residents


like Peter cannot vote because they have lived abroad for more than 15


years. I am actually quite annoyed about it. I would like to have some


say. I am still paying tax in the UK and I have always paid them there. I


think perhaps I should have a vote. Among other retirees, the arguments


sound just like the ones you would hear in the pub back home. I don't


know what I want to know about it. I feel that the politicians, the ones


that come out are telling you the scaremongering about staying in, and


the ones that want you to stay in our scaremongering about coming out.


You are getting bad points on both sides. My gut reaction is better the


devil you know, stay in. We like to obey the laws, but sometimes a lot


of the things that are coming out, the red tape and everything coming


out, it seems to be making things up as they go along sometimes. You


think of the UK should be making its own laws but you have actually left


the UK. But the reason I left, I go back very often and I am very loyal,


by the way. I am a royalist. There are a few exclusively expat worries.


I had a look on the internet and one of the things they were talking


about, the retirement pension, they might have to frees that, and they


might not give you any of the increases over the years, like we do


in England. That is all I am worried about, my pension. An Freedom Day,


the Maltese prime minister visits this memorial. He has tried to be


reassuring. He says that British people's health care in Malta is


covered by an agreement by the two countries signed before either was


in the EU, and the tax system is generous to foreign inventions. And


this Swiss law firm is not getting calls from worried Brits in Malta.


Instead, it is worried Brits in Britain. Generally, these are people


living in London, British or otherwise, and for them that is the


European capital of financial services. Previously, they relied on


London being not only London but also part of the European Union, and


now they will need to look for another central European city which


is friendly to financial services and generally pro-business. Of


course, Malta offers more than that, the mild climate and the sun and the


sea and the General Mediterranean way of life. Malta has obvious links


with the UK, making people here seem pretty relaxed about the referendum.


Globally, just 106,000 expats are on the electoral roll, which suggests


that their postal votes will not have a massive impact on the result.


Should British expats who are living in the EU and still British


citizens, should they have the vote in this referendum? I would have


liked them to have had the vote. But I don't think they are. I don't


think they will change the voting system for this. I really would have


been a good idea for them to have something to say because they are a


component, living in Europe, and they are British. Do you think they


should? The cut-off was 15 years ago, I personally would not have too


much trouble... Explain that, you think if you have been away for 15


years, you lose the right to vote? I think that is a fair point. I would


not have an objection to them voting if they had recently left. For the


expats we saw there in Malta, and there are many more in Spain and


France, if we were to leave, are they not right to be worried about


their residency status and access to health care and so on? The macro no,


because there have always been Brits living abroad. There are two and a


half times as many foreign people living in Britain then in the EU. --


than British people living in the EU. We're certainly not going to do


anything to the Europeans living in our country, and as for health


services, we have reciprocal arrangements already, or we had them


before. And there is no reason why it shouldn't. This is what you


always say, Jeremy, there is no reason why this should not be. I


would say that actually there is a lot of reasoning why it would not


be. We are not part of the EU, if we're not we are essentially at the


mercy of different states. Malta may have a positive attitude because of


its history with Britain, but a lot of other countries do not and will


not. And I think therefore it is irrational in to tell the public


that it should be all right on the night. I don't know. -- it is a very


rash thing to tell the public. A lot of European countries do not have


equivalent health services. You have to pay or have insurance in Greece.


In terms of the arrangement we have got, Britain pays far more out to


the European Union and we get back in terms of this. Recent figures


show that we have spent about ?683 million in the EU, while we got ?50


million back. It is published figures. Was that in your manifesto?


You think nothing will really change? Why would it. I think it is


a massive danger. It is not scaremongering, it is reality.


Now it's one of the EU's smallest countries,


but its size perhaps belies its influence.


It's the home of the European Court of Justice


Jean Claude Juncker, is President of the


Adam's been to meet the neighbours in Luxembourg.


In morning at the stables, except it is actually the airport.


Luxembourg's freight only airline, the biggest of its kind in Europe,


specialises in transporting expensive courses. Around 3000 a


year. At thousands of euros each. The horses travel in this specially


designed container. Wood shavings on the ground so it feels like a stable


back home. And the door, so that the groom can check on the animals


during the flight. There is a groom on hand all time, along with food,


water and a vet at each end of the flight. We have to stop at


Prestwick, LA, Seattle and Calgary. When will they arise in Canada?


Tomorrow in the afternoon, I think. -- when will they arise. It is quite


a long flight. And it is not just horses. The company has flown


forces, a giraffe and even a quail. All of this is very Luxembourg.


Looking after assets for fairly wealthy people who live elsewhere. A


tradition that has made this tiny country very big news. Two years


ago, a cache of documents showed that hundreds of multi national


companies enjoyed minuscule tax rates here, a scandal that came to


be known as Luxleaks. I went to this town to meet the mayor, also the


general secretary of the Christian social People's party, which has


provided most of Luxembourg's leaders since the Second World War.


Are you worried that Luxembourg sometimes looks like the pan of


Europe? I hope they do not see us as that. Because we are not the Panama


of Europe. Of course, our affairs might not look quite right, but a


lot of things have changed, and I think when we compare ourselves with


London, we do not have to be ashamed of ourselves. Ouch. He is also pals


with Jean-Claude Juncker, now president of the European


commission. So what do you do the night around the youngers? --


Junkers. You have a ball, with... Jean-Claude Juncker is a fan of


pinball machines? He likes to play. And as for our four-legged friends,


they are ready for take-off to Canada I hope they pay attention to


the city information. Many of the companies that would criticise for


not paying tax are not doing so because they are based in Luxembourg


and many of these arrangements were put in place by Jean-Claude Juncker


when he was Bannister. Are we right to be suspicious? I think the Brits


having natural inclination to be suspicious. -- when he was


Bannister. I think the way that this is moving does not favour anybody


because it happens to be the place where he used to live. But it is a


poacher turned gamekeeper situation, the man who presided over this is


now the man cleaning it up. It is incredible. A slight irony, perhaps.


We were using the European Parliament when this subject came up


because Mr Yunker at presided over all of this when he was Bannister.


And now he's telling the rest of Europe to clean up their act. -- Mr


Juncker. And now Luxembourg is the HQ of the European union. They get


an enormous amount of money out of the EU. And there is a third


Parliament that nobody knows about, mothballs, but which we are paying


millions for the upkeep of. A lot of people have a lot of nostalgia for


Luxembourg. I remember silver sea and margarine, Saturday night out.


It was a wonderful programme. What does that had to do with Company is


not paying their taxes? I don't know. I don't know what happens to


radio Luxembourg. -- companies not paying their taxes. It is still a


place where the tax is very low. It is. And companies will therefore go


there until something is done. Of course, we are in favour of having a


competitive tax system in Europe and hopefully our system will attract a


lot of people to Britain. As long as we are in the EU. We will leave it


there. That is it for now. We'll to see you soon. Bye-bye. -- we hope to


Download Subtitles