Andrew Neil talks to UKIP's Nigel Farage and former US Nato ambassador Kurt Volker about the case for Britain leaving the EU. Plus, Labour's row over antisemitism.
Browse content similar to 29/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
Labour promises to get a grip, following the anti-Semitism meltdown
within the party, Jeremy Corbyn says it is not a crisis.
Just a week ahead of crucial elections, has the very public row
which saw former Mayor defend Ken Livingstone defend controversial
remarks about Hitler and Israel seriously damaged Labour?
Nigel Farage says he's aiming for his enemy's goal as he puts
immigration front and centre of his campaign to leave the EU.
Barak Obama's intervention in the EU debate was high
profile and controversial - we'll be asking a former US
ambassador to Nato if it's advice America itself would ever follow.
They were a true blue Conservative idea to strengthen
But have Police and Crime Commissioners confused
of the programme today two political soulmates in the making.
Rachel Shabi writes for the Guardan and the Independent and Toby Young
Actually they've yet to find an issue they agree on,
First today let's talk about the anti-Semitism row that
The former Mayor Ken Livingstone pushed the self-destruct button
in an extraordinary sequence of events at Westminster.
Mr Livingstone, who was co-chairman of the Labour's defence policy
review, claimed in a series of interviews including one on this
programme that Hitler had once supported Zionism; the movement
to establish a Jewish state in what is now Israel.
He said that anti-Semitism was not "exactly the same" as racism,
adding that someone was only anti-Semitic if they hated
all Jewish people, "not just the ones in Israel".
You Nazi apologist. Re-writing history.
As he came into this building to be interviewed
on the Daily Politics Mr Livingstone was involved in a heated
confrontation with the Labour MP John Mann, who accused
Mr Livingstone of being a "Nazi apologist".
Just a week away from elections across the UK that are crucial
for the Labour Party, a series of MPs including the London
mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan called for him to be suspended form
the party for his "appalling and inexcusable" remarks.
Well this is what happened when Mr Livingstone made
But you seem to be implying, "Oh, well, he wasn't such a bad guy, cos
he just wanted to deport them all, but he only went wrong later on".
I mean, people will think it unbelievable, what they're hearing
He was a monster from start to finish but
it's simply the historical fact - his policy was initially to send all
Hitler was not a Zionist and to suggest so
I think you've lost it, Mr Livingstone.
It's a deliberate, calculated attempt to cause
You certainly shouldn't be on Labour's national executive.
Soon after we went off air Ken Livingstone was suspended
from the Labour Party, while John Mann was hauled before
the Chief Whip to be told it was completely inappropriate
to be involved with rows with other Labour members on TV.
Well Mr Corbyn insists here is no crisis in the party,
and that the small number of cases of anti-Semitism in the party have
Mr Livingstone spoke to reporters this morning as he left his house
I'm not making any statement until I do my LBC programme with David
Mellor at ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
If you got questions, phone in and ask us, just like all the
What do you think Corbyn should do about...
I've just told you, I'm not doing interviews.
You can waste your time standing here all day.
I've got to do the washing, then I'm doing some
work on the pond, moving some of the newts.
Good to boost your ratings in your show, we never miss an opportunity
To bring us up to speed with what's been happening this morning,
we're joined by our correspondent Iain Watson.
Have there been developments this morning? It has, Andrew, apart from
Ken Livingstone spending time with his much-loved reptiles rather than
members of the press, regarded as much the same thing to be honest!
But Watson called Ken Livingstone's remarks crass and in addition
suggested that an investigation currently carried out by a Labour
peer, Baroness Royal, connected to Neil Kinnock and into anti-Semitism
by some of the students at Oxford University that investigation could
have a wider remit to look at anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
There could be suggestions for changes to rules against
anti-Semitism and racism. So he is going on the front foot But the
criticism has been that while Jeremy Corbyn is not in the slightest bit
anti-Semitic has been slow to act. So what we are beginning to see in
the Labour Party is the issue being used as the soft underbelly against
his own leadership and calling into question his judgments.
There must be a danger that this story, as we say in the trade, has
legs, over the weekend. That it will carry into the weekend, everybody
trawling around for examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party,
especially in Jeremy Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party. They may not
find anymore, we don't know. But I get the sense this story will not go
away quickly? I think that is right. For a number of reasons. Firstly, I
think you are right, there will be a continuing trawl. Speak to a Labour
MP offer the record he said there is more to the story. Some have been
looking at the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps some to the left of
the Labour Party and came to the Labour Party in order to support his
leadership, many of them prove Palestinian and anti-Zionist, or at
the least, critical of some of the actions of the government of the
state of Israel and people are looking to see if those comments
have spilled over into anti-Semitism and can be used as a stick with
which to beat Jeremy Corbyn's own supporters. In addition, there are
former frontbenchers lining up to denounce what will be poor elections
results for Labour in England. And I think that they have been given am
mission, as they can say that Jeremy Corbyn's lack of grip will
contribute to poor results. So pressure on his leadership and more
pressure on his supporters in the next few days.
Thank you. And before you start writing in to
us, I think that newts are amphibians and with are the
reptiles, the journalists? That is probably right.
Rachel Shabi was it right to suspend Ken Livingstone? Anti-Semitism
clearly is a problem. At the same time I think it would be naive to
not see what is going on in the #4r5i7 in the context of there being
elements of the reason and the Labour Party itself that are using
this, that want to undermine the Jeremy Corbyn leadership and have
openly spoken about him not wanting to be there.
So was it right to suspend him? So there is that as a context and
looking at the speed with which the Labour Party responded and the
numbers involved, that is where the claim it is is a specifically a
Jeremy Corbyn issue, start to lose credibility. Yes, it was right to
suspend him. While we are at it, is there a wider issue with
anti-Semitism in the wider progressive left, absolutely, yes,
there is. Why? The progressive left has become
desensitised and careless to anti-Semitism. One of the reasons is
that they somehow feel that they can't be racist. Obviously a
mistake, we are all capable of racism. I think when you see a
strong and heavily ministerialised Jewish state, some people are
incapable of understanding that Jewish people are also a minority
and vulnerable to racist abuse. I think that anti-Semitism has been
used to shut down legitimate criticisms of Israel so there has
been an element that some have not been able to see beyond. And also I
think there is a hypocrisy around this which fuelled resentment. We
have a sitting Lord Mayor, that has made racist comments against a black
American President... He has been taken to task on that.
We have a Conservative mayoral candidate, openly dogging
Islamophobia, and a perception of double standards in the way we
handle these things. Which, to be serious about tackling
anti-Semitism, we have to take it seriously and to be consistent.
Toby Young is this used as a way to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's
leadership? I think clearly the anti-Corbyn group within the Labour
Party will use anything that they can to try and winkle him out. But I
don't think that you can claim that they somehow prompted Ken
Livingstone to behave in the way he did yesterday. That was an
expression of how he actually feels. I think that the difficulty for
Corbyn and the reason he hesitated before acting, I mean it was claimed
yesterday when he was interviewed for the 10.00pm news that he acted
decisively and quickly, when these episodes were brought to light.
Actually he tried to avoid suspending Naz Shah and make do with
her resigning, and delayed saying anything in response to the Ken
Livingstone fiasco in the hope, imagine, that Livingstone could
cling on. The reason for that is, I think that there is a lot of the
same baggage in Jeremy Corbyn's past. He has described Hezbollah and
Hamas as friends. Appearing on Iranian state television and also
Ken Livingstone. And the denying of the Holocaust. It is difficult for
him to come on top of Livingstone too heavily without trouble for
himself. You can make the claim but all of
these reactions have come within 24 to 48 hours. If you make it quicker,
what you are doing is a witch hunt. You have not given fair
consideration. I don't know why we think that 24 hours is too long to
react to this. I think as there were a number of reports that Jeremy
Corbyn was trying to avoid suspending Ken Livingstone.
But the issue about the Labour Party and anti-Semitism is that this
didn't happen... This is not a result of Corbyn becoming Labour
Party leader. In all of the instances, these are instances that
have been in play before he came in. It is not as though this suddenly,
magically appeared as a result of his leadership. There has always
been a toxic strand within the Labour Party who have had a blind
spot when it comes to things like anti-Semitism.
Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot about anti-Semitism? I
do. I think that his anti-western ideology means he is willing to
embrass other groups that he sees are engaged in an anticolonial
struggle... There are moral short comings as he thinks of himself and
them on the side of the answeringels.
I think there is a confliction there. I trust Corbyn's track record
on all forms of racism. Tony Blair shared platforms with
Hamas. The shared platform thing is really dodgy.
Has he shared platforms a platform as leader of the Labour Party with
Hamas? No. He had to speak for Hamas in the
quartet... Are we to smear people as they stand next to somebody with
unsavoury views? That is starting to sound like a witch hunt.
If a Tory politicians shared a platform with BNP, what would you
say? Tory people have shared plot forms with all kinds of unsavoury
people... What leading Conservative in recent times has shared a
platform with BNP... You trying to tar people on association as opposed
to their track record on racism. I am trying to have a sensible
conversation about anti-Semitism it is important.
If you share a platform with people who think that the Jews and the
Israels should be driven into the sea, is that not an issue? It is an
issue whether you decide if you want peace and justice for both
Palestinians and Israel is. I have seen nothing that contravenes that
from Corbyn. When people attack Zionism, they are attacking Israel's
right to statehood. What they are saying is that the Israeli people
should throw themselves at the mercy of their enemies in what is probably
the most dangerous and anti-Semitic parts of the world. I will have to
move on. It is a very important subject but
we have to have time for the daily quiz.
The question for today is all about George Osborne's
appearance at the Westminster correspondents dinner last night.
The Chancellor surprised many of Fleet's Street's hungriest
and thirstiest hacks by telling some quite good jokes.
One of them was about Boris Johnson's timepiece,
so the question for today is - who appeared on the face
At the end of the show, Toby and Rachel will give us
Westminster is shutting up shop for the bank holiday weekend
but those campaigning ahead of the referendum on Britain's
membership of the EU aren't taking any time off to catch up
This morning the former Prime Minister John Major took aim
at those arguing to leave, saying the only place
they would find "undiluted sovereignty" in the modern world
And just a few hours ago Ukip leader Nigel Farage,
who of course is campaigning to leave, has tried to turn
the debate to what he sees as his side's strongest
Here is he is speaking in central London.
He discussed immigration and the sexual attacks in Cologne on New
Year's Eve. We saw the mass, open sexual
molestation of hundreds of women appearing in public and,
frankly, if we're prepared to accept - or if Germany and Sweden
are prepared to accept - unlimited numbers of young males
from countries and cultures where women are at best second class
citizens, then frankly And I do not want those young men
that were outside Cologne train station to have one of these,
in a few short years, And Nigel Farage is
here in the studio. Let's look at this issue of border
controls. Not the right to come and work here, which I understand would
change if we were to leave the EU. Anyone who comes into the UK, even
from the EU, they are checked. We stop terrorism at the border. That
won't change. The only people we can stop who got EU passports are people
who pose a direct threat to national security, namely terrorists. People
with criminal records, even serious criminal records, we have no right
to stop. We have stopped thousands coming in. There's an awful lot we
don't stop and there are people with... Whether it's burglary or
sexual assaults up Bob it's very difficult for us to stop people with
criminal records coming into Britain and once they are in Britain, it
almost impossible to stop them residing here. We cannot completely
insulate ourselves from the modern world, from the risks of terrorism
and all of these things, what we can do is make ourselves a little bit
safer by getting back control of our borders. But you won't be able to
stop people coming in, even if we are outside the EU, if they've got
EU passports, unless... Are you going to go through these assistant?
Lets say for arguments sake, the people who were outside Cologne
train station on New Year's Eve get convictions in Germany, all right?
They then in five or six years have a German passport, which is the same
as a British passport. They can come to Britain, they can settle here. We
could at that moment in time, as a free country, stop them from
entering the workplace and settling here. There's a problem with that
because anybody convicted under German law cannot get a German
passport. Under German law, you need to have a crime free record for up
to eight years before you can get a German passport. If they are
convicted, they will be ineligible for a German passport. In theory,
German citizenship is eight years. In Hungary is about three years. But
you don't get is at all if you get a criminal record. I think there is a
feeling that that will be ignored given the scale of the problem. We
are only one year in to Merkel's open door. The evidence thus far
this year is that the numbers coming to Europe are many, many times
bigger than they were last year. But it's eight years before you can get
a German passport. That's what citizenship is. I see no politician
in Germany recommending its going to change. You've got to speak the
language, you've got to have a clean criminal record. So none of the
Cologne attackers who been convicted would be accepted under German law
and therefore they couldn't come here. It's an and Sally, isn't it?
Very few of them are going to be convicted. Do we want to protect
ourselves or don't we? Are we safer nation with border controls or
without them? My point is that we still have that ability to control
the border from the kind of people you're talking about and that
doesn't change, whether we are in out of the EU. We cannot stop
criminal is coming into this country if they've got an EU passport,
simple as. The biggest threat to this country, I would suggest, given
the recent record, is not from people coming from the outside, its
home-grown terrorism, people with British passports. That was 7/7,
that was the attack on Liebrich B. That's most of the attacks at the
moment. -- Lee Rigby. Given that we have a huge home-grown problem
already, which is our own fault, why on earth would you wished to
compound that? Given that two of the eight attackers in Paris had come
back to France through the Islands, posing as migrants, given that
Europe also is that 5000 jihadis have come to Europe in the last few
months posing as migrants, you can see the scale of the problem. I
agree we have a problem. We cannot insulate ourselves completely from
global problems but we can relieve the pressure. Let me come into the
-- on to the economic arguments. You making more of an immigration case
because you are losing the economic battle? It's very clear what the
Remain camp have tried to do is pretty much what they did 40 years
ago, to use arguments about trade. I believe are spurious arguments. My
own view is that even with no successful renegotiation and just
trading on WTO rules, we'd still be better off than we are now because
the maximum cost of tariffs would only be two thirds of what our net
contribution is. However, the leave camp have been playing in their own
half of the pitch, defending the goal against these constant attacks
from the international community, whether it's the IMF or the OECD or
Obama or ogle tom Cobleigh, and where they are vulnerable, they are
vulnerable on immigration. They know there is no way we can control the
numbers coming into Britain as members of the European Union. I'm
urging the Leave camp to get onto the other half of the pitch and
start attacking their goal. You said that there would be no damage done
to the British economy if we leave and you've got Patrick Minford now,
a leading economist on your side, with six or seven other economists,
but Patrick Minford says that if we beat the EU it would" lemonade
manufacturing in the UK". Eliminate manufacturing. And is on your side!
He says it would be cheaper and we would have the ability to have
cheaper energy. So Patrick Minford says we would be better off by 4%
and not being part of the EU. But he also says if we let the EU, it would
seem likely that we mostly eliminate manufacturing, leading industry such
as design, marketing and hi-tech, in other words services. That's someone
on your side of the argument and anyone involved in manufacturing
would think, why would I vote for that to be a limited? He takes the
view that we are moving from a manufacturing to a service... But we
know that. I was in Sheffield last week and went to a steel foundry
where his Energy Bill is 60,000 quid a month. His competitors in America
and India have energy bills of 30,000 a month. I think outside the
EU, freed from some of the obligations that Blair signed us up
to, we would have a better chance stop We could change our energy
policy towards Manufacturing now. We don't have to leave the EU. The
Germans have. French and German electricity for intensive users is
much lower than ours and last time I looked, France and Germany were in
the EU. There is no question that George Osborne has been a disaster
for Manufacturing and has made the initial EU root words. But this
debate gets that are where we started the stop I don't think Joe
soap watching this hearing once I'd say we would be better off and
another saying we would be worse off will be convinced by any of it. I
think there will be a score draw because people will not get it and
understand it. If we want to win, we have to make the argument not just
for making our own laws, being in charge of our destiny, but
controlling our borders, controlling immigration and being able to have
something like the Australian style points system to measure the
quantity and quality of who comes to Britain. If we get there, we will
then motivate and mobilise Leave voters and that's how we win. But
the vote League Cup a, the official campaign, don't agree with you. They
don't think it's a score draw on economics. They think they are
winning the economic argument. And on the case of economic, if you look
at the polling, on the economic case the Remain people are winning by a
substantial amount, and they think that you and others, buying on about
immigration, it consolidates your core but it doesn't reach out to the
wider British public who, by and large, have come to terms with
immigration. And they are wrong. They back row wrong. All the polling
of the undecided shows that by a massive factor immigration,
controlling our borders, is the factor that would swing undecided
voters one way or the other. However, we have moved on. The
number of genuinely undecided voters now is quite small. It's changed a
lot. How do we know that? Consistent polling. Some polls show it at 5%,
some at 18%. But whatever, many undecideds won't vote. Maybe it is
12 or 13%. It isn't a massive number. This referendum now gets won
on turnout, gets won on passion, and the advantage that Leave has over
Remain is that the people who have made their minds up to leave
generally feel it quite passionately, and we have to
mobilise. If we get every person in this country who says they want to
leave and the big hook for nearly all of them, or the majority of
them, is the immigration argument, we make that point, we mobilise them
to vote, we win this referendum. You, Toby Young, are part of the
Leave campaign. You want us to leave the European Union. What do you
think of Nigel Farage's approach and how do you think the campaign is
going from your point of view so far? On the one hand, I share some
of the concerns you just flagged up, which is that people who are
concerned about the immigration and security risks that come from
freedom of movement and the enlargement of the EU are probably
already going to vote Leave and that the vote leave campaign should be
focusing on alleviating the anxiety about the economic risks that have
been whisked up by the campaign. But I think Nigel has a point. The
number of don't knows are shrinking and I also think that the outcome,
the result, will in the large part hinge on how great the turnout is
and if you can mobilise the levers, and I think the leave is generally
are more passionate and care more about this issue than the
remainders, that is one way to win and this is an issue that they care
deeply about. Are you Leave or Remain? I think the idea of the
right wing debating how leaving Europe could solve problems created
by the right wing is frankly laughable. Before you get into that,
are you Leave or Remain? On that basis, I am Remain because the
problem is that you want to fix are caused by right-wing policies. It's
not migration that has caused a drain on access to resources and
jobs. Its austerity. It's the Conservative policies that have
diminished trade and growth and production and the British economy,
not migration and not the EU. So the problems you are seeking to fix are
not EU problems. They are right wing austerity problems. Just come back
on the austerities point, the IMS calculator that over the five-year
term of the Coalition they save 36 billion from austerity measures.
That is less than even our net contribution to the EU in the same
period. So to blame our problems austerity is nonsensical. To say
that people aren't worried about stagnating jobs and wages is...
Statistic after statistic has shown that migrants are not a dream at any
of those things. They do say that for the average worker their real
income has declined by ten percentage 2008 and that is because
we have oversupply in the labour market in this country. I take issue
with you on one thing. I doubt that the case for or against Brexit has
anything to do with left or right wing politics. It a basic question
of democracy, of sovereignty, of controlling our borders, putting our
own people first. And there are many millions of Labour voters who are
attracted to that message. All right. We need to move on.
Now, while we've got Nigel Farage here -
or should that be Nigel "Farridge" - we can't let him go
without attempting to answer one of the burning questions
Have a listen to this from Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
With the United Kingdom facing our most momentous decision
for a generation in eight weeks' time, does the Prime Minister think
it makes more sense for us to listen to all of our closest friends
and allies around the world or to a combination of French
fascists, Nigel "Farridge" and Vladimir Putin?
Well, I'm glad he takes the English pronunciation of "Farridge",
rather than the poncey foreign-sounding one
I think that's a thoroughly good thing.
And is one as English as John Bull, warm beer and county cricket?
And is the other as foreign and, as the PM would say "poncey",
as croissants, capuccinos and kissing on both cheeks?
Well, who better to give us the definitive answer than the head
of pronunciations for the Oxford English Dictionary,
Over to you Dr Sangster. How does this play out? What is the correct
pronounceation? We don't normally put surnames and first names in the
dictionary unless a noun or a verb. So sadly, Farage is not in the
dictionary. But I would say if it is your name,
you can say it how you like. There are lots of word from English from
the French that end in age. Some saying"age" like village. You can
say barrage, balloon, or gashage, I think that Nigel used that example
himself in his own defence. Is the English equivalent of
"Farage", "Farridge"? Is there a connection? If there is a D in the
spelling, then yes. But surnames are funny things. They
don't always behave like words. They often, the pronounceations can lag
behind. The other thing that is worth saying
about surnames, there are lots of British surnames with two
pronounceations. Norman Lamont was an example.
Relevant in this case. Most Scots, as you recognise, Andrew, would say
Lamont. He used to say that but then after,
he used the French pronounceation. . Stress shifting in names is fairly
predictable. There is nothing especially foreign about it.
Where does Farage come from? I have no idea. Perhaps Nigel does. It was
originally a Huguenot name. If you look back, you can see that
generation after generation spellings of names change. There was
an Faridge going back. But at a wedding in East London this
particular spelling arrived and Prime Minister, who is Home Counties
educated, who went to Eton. Did he really? Do you think that
David Cameron parks his car in a gashage? I don't think so. People
from Bolton do. They call me "Farridge" and people from Oxford
generally call me "Farage". How do you pronounce it? "Farage".
I say "Farage". As I would say" garage." Thank you
for talking about the F word it is wonderful! The finest.
Dr Sangster, thank you very much for joining us this morning. Good to
talk with you. Thank you. And thank you, "Farage"!
Now did Barack Obama's attention-grabbing plea
for the UK to vote to stay in the European Union
The US president's visit was seen as a potentially decisive boost
to the 'in' campaign, although polls since -
which are still too close to call - haven't shown any rise in those
planning to vote to remain a member on June 23rd.
At the heart of President Obama's argument was trade -
he said if the UK left the EU it would go "to the back
of the queue" in getting a trade deal with America.
He said that voting to leave would not be in Britain's economic
interests given that 44% of our exports go to the EU -
And he said that the UK strengthens both its own -
and the United States' - security and prosperity
His comments didn't exactly go down well with leave campaigners.
Boris Johnson said it was "ridiculous" that Barack Obama
would seek to "bully" the UK in this way.
He also courted controversy by drawing attention
Nigel Farage said the President would be out of office by the time
Britain had left the EU, and said we should be wary
of following foreign policy advice from the US after the Iraq war.
Justice Minister Dominic Raab accused the President
of being "hypocritical" because he would never
dream of opening the US border with Mexico.
And Liam Fox said President Obama was now "largely irrelevant"
and was merely parroting lines given to him by Downing Street.
Well to discuss this we're joined now by Kurt Volker.
He's a former US ambassador to Nato, he now heads a think-tank
founded by the Republican senator John McCain,
and he's in London taking part in a US-European Forum
organised by the Centre for European Reform.
Welcome to the programme. . Thank you.
What do you make of the bold point, we will listen to you, whether you
open the bored tore Mexico? That is scoring points. You get a point
coming in, you push back. That is what political dialogue and debate
is about. What I would have said, I think that
President Obama would have been wiser to make two points: The UK is
a better, I'm sorry, the EU is a better partner for the US with the
United Kingdom in it. That works well for us.
And the EU would probably be more outward looking with the UK in it.
That is a US interest. It is perfectly legitimate for a US
President to express its interest. When it crosses the line to define
for British voters, what the interest is, that is where you hear
a backlash. That is what we got from Boris Johnson and others.
And it is in America's interest. The reason is that if we leave the EU,
the dominant form policy pure power in the EU becomes France.
Overall France because diplomatically and militarily,
Germany does not play to its strength. That is not in America's
interest. That is the reason. The other thing he could have said
as well. I think we must be wary of scaremongering. But while if the UK
leaves the EU that America will no longer be a close ally and partner
to the UK, I don't think anyone should say that. There is such
goodwill in the United States, we will work it out it is really for
the UK to define. Then many could not understand why
the President said what he said. If you look at the extent of the
intelligence sharing, you know better than me the military
co-operation between the two countries, they are linked at the
hip, especially on the military and the intelligence front. So why stick
that on to the statement? Well, exactly. The NATO membership all of
that prove dates membership to the EU. It would be the same either way.
Our guests made a good point earlier on. Most of the things that affect
how this will play out or the political decisions that the UK
makes about governing itself, whether it is in the EU or not.
These things can go both ways in both circumstances.
I was looking through the websites of the US trade representative, if
we were to go to the back of the queue on a trade deal, if we were to
leave, who is ahead of us in the queue? It's a good question. It
would not stay there very long. If you look at the amount of US and
British cross-investment and the trade... We are the biggest
investors in America, and you are in Britain? Exactly. It would be a huge
business pressure to ensure nothing changes.
Is it not right to say that there is no queue? The only negotiation I can
see that the US is in is the negotiation with the EU? All other
bilateral trade talks have been suspended or got nowhere? There are
some. Which ones? The trance Pacific
partnership is a big one. But that is waiting to be confirmed
by Congress. We will see if the President can get that through
before, I mean our man said he would try to shove that through in the
lame duck period between the November election and the new
President being sworn in. Good luck. That is a done deal in terms of the
negotiations? That is not a matter for the democratic process. Who else
is ahead of us? I don't want to challenge on TTP. The way that
domestic politics played out in the US election campaign, all of the
candidates are against it. Even if the President chooses to push it
forward, anyone coming into office, even if they wish to see it
ratified, they will push for changes before they do so.
If Britain were to vote to leave, by the time it comes round to thinking
of a bilateral trade deal, this could be no more? The I and US
negotiations have been stumbling for some time. They met in New York this
week. There is no sense of progress. There is even talk, the European
Commissioner for trade saying that we will not get this done before
President Obama steps down next January. In which case it will be
nothing to do with Barack Obama. There will be a new President and
Congress. More isolation as Congress as well? It is unknowable at this
point. Anything can happen in the presidential election. That will
have major consequences for the House and the senate elections at
the same time it is really hard to know what will happen. In terms of
the transatlantic trade deal, though, you are right. Nothing will
happen in the current US administration. If something is to
happen in the next one, it will have to be shaped by the new President.
I mean, looking at the things that Britain has to do as a member of the
EU, we negotiate trade deals through the EU now. We have open borders
with the rest of the EU. We pull our sovereignty with these countries.
They may be good or bad things, that is for the people of Britain to
judge it on June the 23rd. A lot is simply a price you pay for being a
member. That is decision we now have to take. But would America agree to
any of that? We are unique. We go in for a trade deal... We go in for a
trade deal that is comprehensive. Thankser is a good one. It is a free
trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Two different economies. It has been
great for the United States. So you would not, is the answer. You
would not agree for America what you expect Britain to continue to have
with the EU? I would it the other way around. The US is generous in
terms of the way it deals with sovereignty issues, the UK is
already a member of the EU, so it is asking itself a different question,
is it better off in or out? Again that is something only the British
voters can make a choice about. One of the arguments of those who
vote to leave, is our special relationship with the United States,
is our role in NATO, we are the second most important power in NATO,
we have the best intelligence services in NATO other than the
United States, and we all take that for granted but when you look at the
rise of Donald Trump and his attitudes to NATO and to Europe,
maybe we can't take that for granted now? There is a high degree of
frustration in the US about the European levels of defence spending
overall and the perception that we are doing more for European defence
than Europe itself and should we continue doing that? If the
Europeans don't do it, why should we? So the frustration comes not
only from Donald Trump but Bob Gates, when leading the Secretary Of
Defense, giving a speech, talking of how the expenditure Rose from 50 to
75% after a ten-year period. And you have bigger fish to fry in
the Pacific? Yes. There is a question why can't Europe take care
of themselves, they are wealthy, rich, they are democracies. That is
what Donald Trump is playing to. It is not defined policy. He is
literally playing to people's emotions.
Or even making it up as he goes along? Indeed.
One of the reasons that the back of the queue comment was inappropriate
and offensive is that we are the only member of NATO that meets the
defence spending obligations. But can I ask, do we need a bilateral
trade agreement with the US if leaving the EU? We don't have one at
the moment, yet we sell about ?35 billion worth of goods and services
in America, and each year they sell roughly the same amount. Would it be
catastrophic if it did take 10 to 15 years to regulate the rules?
Businesses need to know the rules. With the UK out of the EU,
businesses want to know what is the basis of on we are trading? But the
US does not have an agreement with the US.
-- the UK. We do have substantial rules in
place with the EU on trade, investment, data privacy, legal
protections and intellectual property. A whole reservoir of
things ironed out with the EU. We don't know how many have come
here from America as we are inside the EU? It is a combination. It is
the story of the relationship and the great business relationship with
the UK. As President Obama's intervention
been helpful? We are talking about two different things. Countries
bristle when outsiders come in and tell them stuff. That is
understandable. But there is something going on. The back of the
queue was about economics. We are not talking about security
arrangements and from what security officials have said it is clear it
is not either or. It is both. We need both to do effective security.
I don't really see what that has to do with Obama as back of the queue
comments about trade? The case was given we are close on military and
security matters... That if we are good friends... James Clapper, the
director of national intelligence, he is worried that there are
intelligence consequences from the free movement of peoples inside of
the European Union? Absolutely. One of the things that is the US a
lot of pause right now is the unchecked migration crisis affecting
the EU, where you have a lot of people from Syria and the Arab
world, Afghanistan, coming in, forming large, an integrated
communities -- un-integrated communities that are connected to
existing nonintegrated immigrant communities in places like France or
Germany or the Netherlands, many of whom have EU passports, so that they
are able to come to the US. So we are having to rethink, how do we
screen a potential terrorists or radicalised persons who may be
coming in as immigrants - that's one thing. You may be citizens of EU
countries, who have been radicalised by some of this change in
immigration. So if we were not only EU it might be more difficult for
British is to get to America? Not all British tourists but we're going
to have to have a look at what the rules are. So Remain has got
President Obama and you have got dream the pen. There's a pretty even
Stevens? -- Marine Le Pen. I don't think you can always choose your
allies. A minute ago UL busting Corbyn for his eyes but your allies
are fine! -- you were lamb busting Corbyn. If Ted Cruz doesn't win the
Indiana primary next week, does Donald Trump get enough votes for
Cleveland? If he wins Indiana, the presumption is that he is also going
to win California because the accommodation will get him over. So
he could well now be... I think it is very likely you will be. And Mrs
Clinton is almost certainly be Democratic nomination. Does she beat
Mr Trump? To early to say. I think in every poll that we look at today
she would clearly defeat him but that has been the case with Donald
Trump this entire campaign. Everyone says he can't win and he keeps
winning. Well, we, being totally impartial at the BBC, hope that it
is a contested convention in Cleveland because it is just such a
good story. Thank you very much. Now, among the smorgasbord - do you
like that? - of elections being held around the country next Thursday -
that means there's a lot of them... Voters in England and Wales will be
choosing their Police As long as you're not
in London or in Manchester, where the role is
taken by the Mayor. These commissioners are intended
to be the voice of the people to hold police forces to account,
but have they been a success? Here's our very own police
cadet, Ellie Price. They
are your democratically elected Police and Crime Commissioners
and you're going to vote You see, operation PCC hit a bit
of an early snag when not many The 2012 election saw the lowest
turnout in British electoral I think the voters made it slightly
easy for your staff on the basis that the numbers didn't make it too
arduous task to actually count. This new role gave PCCs the power
to set police budgets and to hire So, good idea or waste
of police time? I think we've seen Police
and Crime Commissioners trying out I think they've been more
accessible, more visible, than the old police
authorities were. And I think they've held the police
to account much more So broadly, I don't think that PCCs
have been the kind of disaster that It's a new role that's
being invented by the government The main reason the role
was invented was, said the Tories in their 2010 manifesto,
to give people more of a say about how policing
in their area was run. But four years on, it's fair
to say the idea hasn't Do you know who your Police
and Crime Commissioner is? Do you know who your Police
and Crime Commissioners are? You've got to vote for them
next week. It's already come and I haven't got
a clue who they are. The point of it was to make policing
more accountable, so... Well, I think Police
and Crime Commissioners I think we'll see an expansion
of their role, so we're already seeing fire and rescue coming under
the remit of Police and Crime Commissioners and I think
we might even start to see some things like bits of the prison
estate, bits of probation, coming under the remit of Police
and Crime Commissioners as well. And I think that's
probably a good thing. Next week, 40 Police
and Crime Commissioners around This time round, they may end
up with more powers - and they may even end up
with more voters. And we're joined in the studio now
by Gordon Wasserman - he's a Conservative peer and has
been described as the architect of the police and crime
commissioner policy - and by Bella Sankey
from the campaign group Liberty. Bella, let me come to you first. Has
this been a worthwhile innovation or waste of time? I think it's been a
huge waste of time, effort and money. There was never any evidence
that the police authorities which previously were the body charged
with holding blues to account locally were doing a bad job or that
the public weren't pleased with the work they were doing. There was an
element of democracy in that model but they were also independent
people drawn from the community, that would genuinely representative
of the community. The idea was that these Police and Crime Commissioners
would be visible. They certainly have been visible but on so many
occasions, in a really bad way. We think that has undermined, rather
than increased, the legitimacy and credibility of police
accountability. What do you say to that? I would say I think it's been
a great successful stopped I think that police are to the community. I
think there is a much more holistic approach taken to crime prevention
and community safety, rather than simply having police and crime and
they look beyond the police. I think there's been much more innovation in
individual forces, rather than waiting for the Home Office to send
out Mermoz. I think on the whole, it's been better value for money,
mainly because the direction of policing is at the local level and
local policing is a local service. Not the NCA and serious organised
crime - that's national. But local policing, safety of our communities.
No one has said it is not a local issue but the point is, there was a
local model and structure that worked incredibly well. Were you
happy with that model? A lot of people were... I'm not arguing that
what's replaced it is any better. One of the constant complaints we
hear, if you read over the past ten years, is how the police on many
occasions were not held to account in an independent way, which is why,
for many people, trust and confidence of the police has gone
down. Absolutely. We have huge concerns about instances where the
police have been properly held to account -- haven't been. But the
answer to that is to have an independent body. At the moment, the
police really deal with complaints that are brought against them and I
think, as it is widely viewed, the IPCC, the body charged with looking
at the more serious complaints, has been performing as it should, so
there are definitely problems. There was a lot of reform that could
improve that but the PCC model hasn't solved this problem is, it's
just created more. Could you give a substantive example of where what is
happening now is a clear improvement on what happened before? I really
think that Hillsborough is a very good example. The events wouldn't
have changed but those are operational police mistakes, done
under the pressure of the day. The planning was no good and so on. The
actual cover-up, I believe, would never have happened if the Police
Commissioner had been there and would have been inundated,
overwhelmed, by witnesses, by family, by social media, and you
would have had to act to get to the truth in a much more the direct
sway. -- vigorous way. It seemed to go along with the police. They
inevitably... Did the PCCs coming are was in Sheffield but of a
watershed, or Hillsborough, in that it was the Police and Crime
Commissioner who removed the chief of police in South Yorkshire after
what has happened? All of the powers that PCC is currently have were
available to police authorities. The point was that they didn't use them.
I think it's a huge stretch and potentially quite a dangerous thing
to say that PCCs would have prevented Hillsborough cover-up.
This model is one that was imported from the US, where corruption
between police and the sheriffs that they have over their, their version
of the PCC plea roll, is endemic. I simply don't accept that. I worked
as a chief of staff for the third of the police department after I left
the Home Office, I was in the NYPD. It's simply not. Of course there is
corruption. There is corruption in individual police forces in this
country. I'm not denying it. But it seems to me that a Police and Crime
Commissioner who is a public figure, who is standing for election, will
have to act on the kind of complaints, rather than people
standing a police authority and there was a tendency to go along
with it. Rachel, should we scrap them build on? I think the
accountability issue is really important. The abuse that we have
seen in the past... They work for us but sometimes they have abused that.
I'm interested in, what kind of model might avoid this sort of
cover-up that happened at Hillsborough quest Bob briefly
because we are coming to the close and only to get to be in. What would
be better than what we have now quest Bob you could have a local
model that was similar to the one before. The key thing about
Hillsborough is that the police need to be accountable to the rule of
law. They need to act lawfully and do their jobs and you do that
through the court system. The Human Rights Act, which we now have the
statute book that we didn't have during Hillsborough has achieved
this inquest and that's how you get the kind of lesson learning, the
investigation and things been put right. Toby Young, final word? I'm
in favour of it for dogmatic reasons about you can say that because so
few people actually know the name of their Police Commissioner on you
that they had about is a reason to do away with it. After all, not many
people know the names of their MPs and a large percentage of the
population don't actually vote in general elections. Are you voting
for yours? Oh, no, you're in London, so you don't a vote. Thank you.
There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
According to George Osborne, speaking at a dinner last night,
who appears on a watch owned by Boris Johnson?
So, Rachel and Toby, what's the correct answer?
I'm going to go with Mickey Mouse. Yeah. You're both wrong. It was Che
Guevara. It was said that they execute people with the Che Guevara
on their watch and George Osborne was disappointed to find that it was
only a joke. I'll be back on Sunday at 11am
on BBC One with the Sunday Politics, when we'll be talking
about next week's elections
Andrew Neil talks to UKIP's Nigel Farage and former US Nato ambassador Kurt Volker about the case for Britain leaving the EU.
Plus, Toby Young and Rachel Shabi join Andrew to discuss Labour's row over antisemitism.