05/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Unaccompanied child migrants already in Europe will be given refuge


in Britain as David Cameron performs a U-turn ahead


But could the move encourage more to come?


The EU gives its conditional backing for a deal that allows 77 million


Turks visa-free travel to Europe's passport-free Schengen zone.


Is this a step closer for EU membership for Turkey?


Donald Trump's almost certain to be the Republican


presidential candidate, but how would he square up against the


# Say you don't believe in signs from up above.


And why has the Welsh Flag been banned from the


All the big issues of our time on this election day broadcast.


Diplomatic Editor of Sky who now edits a website called


As opposed to the loo. Not, the who. Welcome back to the programme. As we


came near, a development in the junior doctors dispute. Let's go


straight to Hugh Pym. I understand that the government is now doing


something with the contract it said it was going to impose this summer?


That's right. Never mind a week being a long time, three hours as


long time in politics. In essence, a proposal was put the medical


leadership, backed up by senior management, to put aside for a week


of their main issues. The government will suspend for a week the idea of


imposing the contract. In return, the BMA will suspend for a week or


five days the idea of pursuing further strike action. The BMA


immediately said this looked promising but the initial government


reaction earlier this morning was that this was not possible because


it was not possible to suspend the work being done on the new contract.


They were prepared to have other talks. But literally half an hour


ago, the Health Minister told the Lords that Jeremy Hunt would be


writing to the Academy of royal colleges saying that he would be


willing to enter into talks on Monday and agree to this temporary


suspension, as long as the BMA agreed to talk about what they feel


are the key issues, working hours and pay. We have not yet had a


formal reaction to this from the BMA, but certainly very interesting,


a change in the whole story. So the BMA has blinked, to use the language


of these industrial disputes. And the government has blinked in its


own way. They must be a hope, I put it no higher than that, but at least


a hope that we could see some kind of resolution in the week ahead?


That is possible. There have not been any talks at all since February


when Jeremy Hunt decided to press on and introduce this new contract. He


felt he had made a lot of concessions already and the BMA


refused to negotiate. They formerly disputed that. In addition to the


contract being announced, he pressed on. At least this is the prospect of


talks and getting them back around a table which is what the senior


leadership of the medical profession really wanted to see. There is a


chance of that happening now. Whether it can be resolved in five


days, it has taken them to match or three years to get to this point. A


tall order but things seem to be changing. And you will be on the


story for the BBC. Thank you for joining us. Quite a development


there. Turning now to another issue of dispute.


The U-turn began yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions.


Having insisted that Britain was doing more than any other


European country to help refugees, David Cameron bowed to pressure


and said Britain would take in unaccompanied child


Yesterday David Cameron announced a U-turn on the government's policy


on the UK accepting more unaccompanied child


The government currently takes children from camps in Syria


and its neighbours as part of its pledge to take 20,000


And in January, they agreed to take some additional child


refugees directly from North Africa and the Middle East.


But before yesterday, the PM had ruled out taking children


directly from mainland Europe, saying it would create a pull factor


The climb down came as Conservative backbenchers, including


Heidi Allen and Will Quince, threatened to rebel on the issue


Downing Street have not said how many children will be given


the right to live in Britain, but officials are working


on an assumption that it will be between 1,000 and 2,000.


Only unaccompanied children registered


as refugees in Greece, Italy and France before March 20th


We're joined now from Stoke by UKIP's deputy leader,


Paul Nuttall, and here in the studio by the Conservative MP,


Steven Phillips, who has just retuned from visiting refugee camps


Welcome to both of you. Stephen Phillips, you have any idea, as you


had any indication how many child refugees coming to Britain we're


talking about? No is the short answer. The government is consulting


with local authorities. The numbers being bandied around by ministers


look like between one and 3000. -- 1000 and 3000. You have to take into


account the ability of local authorities to look after these


children properly. And that, I think, is one of the good amendments


that was made when the Lords sent the amendment back to us, which the


government has now accepted, and I think they would probably have been


defeated next week if they had not. According to Eurostat, there are


almost 90,000 unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Europe last year


alone. Would it not be fair to say that the figure that we are taking,


if it is as low as 1000 it is a token gesture? I don't think it is.


1000 out of 90,000? There are other countries in Europe that can help


aside from us and if everybody plays their part, we can deal with these


unaccompanied children. Well, if everyone of them took 1000, that


would only be 27,000 out of 90,000. I met with the Greek Home Secretary


yesterday and Greece is in a to accept, even with its austerity and


everything else in forced upon it, they say they are in a position to


take 50,000 refugees, some of whom will be unaccompanied children. So


Greece will perhaps be taking up to 50 times as many as we are taking?


Greece, as you know, is a country whose GDP is 30% smaller than it was


six years ago, where living standards have collapsed, and even


middle-class people can be found rummaging for food. That is refugees


generally, that is what they said they can cope with. That is what I


was told yesterday when I visited with Yvette Cooper. Some of those


will be unaccompanied children and a lot of those are not. They are


families forced to flee Syria and other places as well. If everybody


plays their part, the important thing is that Britain will do its


bit, as we always have done. Paul Nuttall, should we be doing our bit


with these unaccompanied children, many of them just disappearing


altogether? We fear that they are prey to people traffickers, and they


end up in child abuse, perhaps child prostitution. Should we be doing our


bit to help, even at -- even if it is only on the margins? Firstly,


none of us want to see children in camps and children destitute on the


streets. Of course we should be doing our bit, but my problem is


that I think we are doing a grand job out in Jordan and Lebanon, with


charities telling us that for every one person we bring to Britain, we


can help 20 or 30 out in the camps already. The other issue we have is


that there are 40,000 children in this country now awaiting foster


homes. Will they be pushed to the back of the queue? I hope not. And


we do not know the numbers that will come back. At the same time, I think


Cameron is generally getting this right in the sense that he is asking


local councils first to see what they can cope with in terms of


school places, in terms of foster homes, so he is getting it right on


this point but equally I would like to see the money spent in the camps


which exist already. But we are already spending money on the camps.


The government tells us endlessly that we are spending more than any


other country except the United States, which means that per capita


we are spending more than any other country. I am unclear if you think


we should make any contribution to the plight of the unaccompanied


children already in the European Union, that some of them should be


taken in by this country or not? My fear is that we will be encouraging


even more traffic. It could be a pull factor. I think the Prime


Minister was probably right on his point before at this decision was


taken. We do not want to see more children being brought through


Turkey and the GMC, forced across Europe, because it puts money into


the pockets of the traffickers. -- through Turkey and the Aegean Sea.


So that is a no? Well, it is a caveat. I would like to see how many


are going to come and I do not want to see British children already


waiting for foster homes pushed to the back of the queue. Moreover,


last night there were 100,000 children in Britain who either slept


homeless or were in homeless accommodation. I do not think it is


wrong to say that I want British children pushed to the front of the


queue. What do you say to Steven Phillips, who says there are a


number of kids waiting for foster homes, a number of children


effectively homeless because their families are homeless, and that they


risk being pushed to the back of the queue as Paul Nuttall said? That is


the important thing about consulting with local authorities. It is


important that those children are not pushed to the back of the queue,


that what the government does is to consult with local authorities to


see what capacity they have. And I am afraid I disagree with Paul that


this is some sort of cool factor. The evidence that unaccompanied


children will leave their homes and make their way to Europe because


Britain is going to take some of these kids is nonexistent. -- this


is some sort of cool factor. It is no example at all. Like the children


I met yesterday, who is here without parents looking after her sister. It


is no answer to those kids to say that we are not going to do


anything. But if this government consults the local authorities and


combined they say we have room for 3000 in various ways surely the next


question is, well why are you not making room for the 3000 already on


the list needing foster homes? Well, that is really a question for the


local authorities. But isn't that a decent question? It is a decent


question and it is a question that the government will have to put a


local authorities when it writes to them next week or this week to


assess how they can help. The other thing I want to see is some of our


massive aid budget used to help bring these children not only from


the camps in the region, but to help the children already in Europe on


their own, called, frightened, alone and hungry too often, and very


vulnerable to people traffickers. I want to see some of that money used


to fund local authorities to help those kids. And is it not the case,


Paul Nuttall, that what ever conditions many of our children are


already in, in this country, children born in this country,


whatever bad conditions they are in, and some are in bad conditions, no


doubt about that, but they are not as bad, they cannot be as bad as the


plight of some of these unaccompanied refugee kids? You are


quite right. And many of these refugees are coming from war-torn


areas. But let me pick up one point. It was said that maybe it was a


children shifting west because of the result of the doors opening to


child traffickers. It wouldn't be, it would be the traffickers who


pluck them from their communities and then extract money from the


wider family. That is my fear, that what we will be doing is encouraging


trafficking. It is a fair point but you are shaking your head. Paul


needs to go and talk to some of these children in Athens or Rome or


the camps in Calais and Dunkirk. They have often been separated from


their families because during the long passage to Europe they are


making different journeys. Traffickers will only have the


ability... They are given to an uncle or something and they


accompany the uncle while the parents stay behind. Some of these


kids have lost their parents. Whose hands are they now in? Are they in


camps? Some of them are in camps. Those are the ones we know about. Of


the 90,000 figure, that is an estimate, and a lot of those are


unregistered and we do not know about them. Are they in the hands of


or are they vulnerable to people traffickers? Yes. Some of them go


missing. I visited a shelter where children frequently go missing


yesterday. There was a report yesterday saying that 10,000 of


those have simply gone missing. Returning to the point that Paul


Nuttall was making, how will we not know that it will be the people


traffickers who identify the kids that will come here? The answer is


that we do not know. There is no evidence that unaccompanied children


find themselves in Europe because we or anybody else is prepared to offer


than century. That was not my question. -- offer them sanctuary.


My question was, if these children are currently vulnerable, and some


of them are disappearing, and we say we are going to take between 1000


and 3000, is there a danger that people traffickers will go around


and say, we can get you to Britain, officially to Britain but how much


money have you got or how much money have your relatives got, and they do


the picking. These kids generally do not have a lot of money, and they


are not able to pay the traffickers. So there is a practical problem for


those who would seek to exploit them in this way. What do you make of


this, the Marshall? They won't be watching this. It goes


back down the line of, well, Britain has made a decision. It gets mixed


up down the line, they think, they will take 3000 children, I will push


my 14-year-old forward here. When the introduction was made, use of


March the 20th, because that was the EU Turkey deal. -- you said. The


Prime Minister is trying to block the Paul factor. We will deal with


the people in the EU countries, the children, now, but that message also


needs to go back down the line. -- pull factor. But I'm not sure the


clarity of that message will reach all the way to the Syrian camps. One


final question. References and comparisons are sometimes made


between getting the Jewish kids out of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. But


surely there is one major difference. Even by then we knew if


these kids stayed in Nazi Germany they could end up in concentration


camps and perhaps even at some stage extermination camps. The children we


are talking about and living, are in liberal Western democracies. Two


points. I don't think when the decision was made to go ahead with


the candid transports was the fate awaiting them. We didn't know about


the extermination camps but we knew that German Jews were being rounded


up. -- kinder transports. We knew later that the Jewish population in


Germany and German occupied Europe was under threat. That's one reason


why the kinder transport, no doubt, went ahead. But they are relatively


safe, they are in civil democracies. But they are not, it isn't that a


problem for Paris, Berlin, and Athens? The reason they are not


safe, which I saw in Greece and Italy and to a less extent in


France, is that the system in place to deal with the refugees and the


children is overwhelmed by the people coming. We will now pick up


on the deal being made with Turkey, that is to return migrants making


their journey from there to Greece. It seems to have stemmed


the flow of people In return for their co-operation


Turkey has been promised visa free travel to the EU's Schengen zone


for their 77 million citizens. Yesterday the European Commission


gave its conditional backing to the deal -


which some see as a stepping stone David Cameron was asked


about the prospects for Turkish Frankly, I don't think the accession


of Turkey to the European Union I don't think it will


happen for decades. If you look at the facts,


the facts are it requires unanimity The French, for instance,


have said they would So I would say very clearly


to people, if your vote in this referendum is being influenced


by considerations about Turkish membership of the EU,


don't think about it. It's not an issue


in this referendum. A change of stance from the last


time he was Arc -- he was asked about it.


We're joined now by the Lib Dem Peer, Merel Ece and UKIP's


Paul Nuttall is still with us from Stoke.


Paul, what is your view on this? I think we are rewarding Turkey for


bad behaviour in the past. They've pretty much done nothing about


people traffickers. If you look at the things President at a gun has


been doing in recent years in terms of shutting down freedom of speech,


newspapers, opposition TV channels, looking at journalists, these are


the people we are making this deal with. -- president Erdogan. If we do


this in effect Turkey has already got one that matter within the EU.


Then the EU border goes all the way to Syria, Iraq, Iran. And when we


are being told by the head of Europol there are already 5000


jihadis in Europe wanting to do us harm, I think this will make Europe


a less safe place a -- if we reward Turkey. But are you expecting Turkey


to do something for nothing here after all the work they have done to


stem the flow of migrants coming over? The fact we will be giving


money to Turkey over the next few years the doing this deal is pretty


good for Turkey. Is it pretty good for us? They are opening the next


chapter towards Turkey's accession to the EU. Turkey has no place


within the EU. Even if Turkey doesn't join to the next five or ten


years, if we vote to stay, it shows you the direction in which the EU is


travelling. That is towards Turkish access on. Only 3% of Turkey is


actually in Europe. It will be the poorest country in Europe. When it


joined it is estimated that within the first decade 15 million Turks


will drift west onto the European continent. Therefore I think that is


a dangerous prospect. Although, of course, the PM said, in his view,


that Turkey would not be joining for decades. Let's pick up on what Paul


said about Turkey, that we are rewarding Turkey, a country that


does not deserve it because of allegations of corruption and


controlling the press. Basically a regime we should not be doing a deal


with, what is your view? I have concerns about the deal. The choice


of words is interesting, rewarding... Let's not forget,


Turkey has the largest number of Syrian refugees in the world, 3


million, which has destabilise the country in many ways and put strain


on it. Paul talks about a Haddins and terrorists, well, Turkey has had


to deal with that. -- about Jack -- about jihadis. Well, there have


been many attacks on the capital and other places, as well. They have


already said that it has cost them more than $10 billion of their own


money that they have spent. And Turkey is a fairly affluent and


economically strong country. It is a dynamic country. The idea that Paul


Nuttall is saying this is somehow a reward, it is a deal. I have


concerns about the deal in terms of Turkey's ability to deal with the


refugees it will be containing. And those that will be sent back.


Because only a small percentage of those are in camps. The rest of free


to move around the country. Some are given vouchers. They are in rented


accommodation. Some are working, some are sleeping rough, some are


begging on the streets. Is this EU Turkey deal sustainable? It seems to


be working in the broader sense that there are refugees getting back into


Turkey who failed with their asylum. And I presume the refugees are


legitimately coming into the EU. But will it work in the long term? It is


a stopgap. They have flailed around looking for work. It has partially


worked. It hasn't stopped, it has simply reduced. That deal is agreed,


but this Visa deal is not yet agreed. There is a lot of stumbling


blocks in the way. Because the European Parliament has to agree.


They haven't done all of the deals. Including giving working visas to


Syrians in Turkey. I think they have kicked it into the medium length


grass. They were not going to make a decision before the referendum. We


will know for sure after that. Do you think it might not happen?


Possibly it might not because they're stumbling blocks. Their only


7 million passport holders. -- there are stumbling blocks. You will not


see an immediate flood if the deal goes through, but you will see an


increase in numbers. If we look at the numbers now, yes, 77.6 million


Turks, but 7 million passport holders. The biometric testing


probably isn't going to happen or be completed until the end of the year.


We are talking about a slow process. That is when it has been ratified by


the European Parliament and no doubt the individual member states. I


leave the biggest British delegation in the European Parliament and we


will vote against this deal. Whether we are successful I doubt it and it


probably will go through. You say that Turkey is bearing the brunt of


terrorism in Syria, actually, Turkey is promoting terrorism in Syria,


covertly or averted. It has been alleged that they have been helping


the Islamic State. -- or overtly. They were standing by when the Kurds


were routed only a few years ago. We should be stepping away from Turkey,


not promoting them to join the EU, we shouldn't be helping them. Are


you happy to work with Turkey in terms of dealing with the migrant


issue as it stands, for people to take 3 million Syrian refugees, are


you saying you want to scrap that? Turkey has basically encouraged what


has gone on. That isn't my question. Would you be prepared to say to


Turkey, have an open border, and those refugees can come across?


Sometimes in politics you have to make deals. I just believe that this


deal, which includes a Visa free access and opening the next chapter


to Turkish access and into the EU simply goes too far. -- accession


into the EU. In 2013 the pro Minister said Turkey deserves top


place in European politics and that is what I will fight for. -- the


Prime Minister. And yesterday he said that it will not happen for


decades, don't think about it around the referendum vote, has he changed


his mind? He has. But Britain has always supported Turkey's access


into the EU and has always been an official candidate since 1999. Talks


were put on track. Turkey has a long way to go. Cameron is right on that.


It will not happen tomorrow, or next Tuesday which Paul seems to be


indicating, that millions of Turks will be heading this way. That is


nonsense. There are hurdles to overcome. There are many sanctions


Turkey needs to satisfy. A country like Turkey is firmly anchored in


Europe. We should encourage it to reform. There are huge problems with


freedom of speech, freedom of expression. These things have to be


done. It has gone the other way at the moment. Yes. Quite rapidly. It


is. Some years ago when Turkey was going in the right direction that


you closed its doors and said go away, no thank you, and it has gone


the other way. In order to keep on track I think it is important that


those chapters should be opened at some point and Turkey is forced to


reform its judiciary and all of its other political systems. But there


is no sign of that. It is just whistling in the wind. I agree.


Everything is going in the other direction. The biggest newspaper has


just been nationalised by the government. The Turkish judiciary,


which used to be by the standards of that part of the world quite


independent, but that has all gone. And we have a developing story this


morning. I know about this. The Turkish Prime Minister is about to


resign. I am in dismay. I had many friends -- I have many friends who


are politicians and journalists over there and they are dismayed about


what is going on. However, if we say to Turkey, push it away further, one


of the criticism I have is that this deal is not including, it is not


asking Turkey to reform a step back from the teller Terry and is. It


would not do that. -- totalitarianism. He was always going


to lose. Erdogan Is trying to get power around him in a single


structure. The Prime Minister was unsure about it because he is more


liberal. They have a battle. He has lost. Erdogan Is still on track to


be an ultimate power of Turkey. You are right, it is not part of the


refugee deal with the EU, but it is part of entering the U. That is what


I meant. -- entering the EU. France is completely against it. We have


got to finish that there. Thank you to all of you.


Now they said that he had about as much chance of becoming


president as Leicester City winning the Premiership.


Or Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader.


And he's not there yet of course - but it's almost certain Donald Trump


will be the Republican nominee for President


In a moment we'll discuss what that contest might look like -


first let's just remind ourselves of how Mr Trump managed


When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.


They're bringing drugs, they're bringing


crime, their rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.


We are gonna have our borders nice and strong.


I'm gonna build a wall and Mexico's gonna pay for it, right?


# I heard trouble's come to your town


# I've got a little something guaranteed to ease your mind #.


Written by a nice reporter, now the poor guy, you got


He's a war hero because he was captured.


I like people that weren't captured, OK?


Are you ready for a commander-in-chief who will let


our warriors do their job and kick Isis's ass?


Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of


Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives


can figure out what the hell is going on.


You know what they used to do to guys


like that when they were in a place like this?


They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks.


You will be so proud of this country very, very soon.


We're joined now by the US talk show host and former republican advisor,


Charlie Woolf, and the Conservative MP and Hillary Clinton


Are in also. I have just promoted you. We're working on the


assumption, it seems to me a fairly bankable assumption, that it is


Trump versus Clinton for the general election in November. But how does


Mr Trump make up lost ground at the moment? Hillary Clinton has a 25


point lead among women voters at the moment. Among non-white voters, she


has a 67% lead. How do you overcome that? I think there is a lot of work


to be done but remember when you get into a general election, the


candidate gets a better introduction. And also I think there


was a lot of dislike for Hillary as well. Hillary is not a strong


candidate. Look at the fact that Trump has taken on 16 seasoned


opponents and knock them down one by one. And here is Hillary, who was


supposed to be the successor to the throne, battling it out against a


74-year-old socialist. Simon Burns, we know that when you get away from


the Republican primary process, Mr Trump's ratings are very poor, with


the electorate as a whole so far. But Hillary Clinton's ratings are


not that great either. Indeed she has the worst negative ratings of


any democratic frontrunner since the 1960s. But what she has going for


her which people recognise, is experience, confidence and a


lifetime commitment to record vote. -- experience, competent.


African-Americans, Hispanics and Latinos. And she has proven her


track record. There have been 58 opinion polls in this cycle, where


it was Clinton versus Trump. And as you said in your introduction, she


is miles ahead, even yesterday, with the latest poll that came out, she


was 13 points ahead. That is true, but here is the issue. Everything


you have said makes the establishment candidate. It makes


the candidate of the status quo. And you cannot get more establishment


than that. In an America where antiestablishment, on the left and


right, is running rampage, how does she overcome that? By appealing to


the vote. She, more than Bernie Sanders, is the air to Barack Obama.


Barack Obama is more popular than he was a year ago, and if you look at


the democratics in the United States, it is moving towards the


Democratic party. Telefonica, the large estate with the most Electoral


College votes, it is no more than 50% non-white voters. Texas, in 20


years, I expect it will be a Democrat, not a Republican state.


And because those people will come out in a determined way, like they


did for Barack Obama, to protect his legacy, and because of what Hillary


has two offer, she will... What do you say to that? They want. They are


not getting the millennials. The millennials will not come out for


history. You mean that Hispanic millennials will stay home? And


Amanda says he will build a wall with Mexico, they will stay home? In


a lot of the exit polling, Latinos, he won that group. Among Republican


voters. And there are not that many Republican Hispanics. We are talking


about Hillary is serving this audience. The audience has moved on.


If you look at feminism, hers is a sort of dinosaur version of


feminism. We have Madeline Albright doing the thing, there is a place in


hell for a woman that does not support another woman. That is


yesterday's news. You have conceded that he has ground to make up, but


it does not mean he cannot do it. But here is the issue, the Clinton


campaign will be stocked full of cash. It will be incredibly well


financed. So far Donald Trump has spent ?36 million of his own money.


-- 30 $6 million. Either in grants or loans to his campaign, and he has


raised $12 million. In British terms, that is tuppence. How does he


raise the money, when even the Cork brothers have said that they will


probably rather have Mrs Clinton? -- Coch brothers. This is a man who


raises cash for a living. I think things will change. Actually, he


borrows cash for a living. That is how he built his property empire. I


will concede that is his biggest obstacle, getting the money and the


machinery. But remember, this is a movement that he has created, and


that is very strong. And this is taking off like wildfire. We have


yet to see that but it is certainly true in the Republican primaries.


Commentators like me should be careful what we see weight say


because we have called a lot of this -- careful what we say because we


have called a lot of these things wrong in the past. You wear that the


two living Republican former presidents are likely not to endorse


him? But then again, George Dubya Bush did not get involved in the


last election either. They are staying out of it. But it does not


help when it comes to raising money. And your candidate is going to be


bankrolled by Wall Street. But I suspect that this year, despite the


surprises so far, it is going to be like 1972 for the Democrats with the


governed, and 1964 for Goldwater. You can always see -- you can


already see with the Cork brothers and others, there are congressmen up


for re-election. -- the Koch brothers. They do not want to be


dragged down by Trump and many of them will distance themselves from


supporting Trump in the hope that they will save their own heights.


You saying that it is to be as bad for the Republicans as with the


governing? I am saying that the Republican hierarchy are those who


are standing for office and think that they have tight races, they


will distance themselves from the party nominee because he is going to


be a drag on the ticket, all the way down. That is an interesting point,


Charles, because I have seen over the past two months three sets of


major Republican strategists, seniors, who have fought and won at


the core of every presidential campaign for 40 years and all of


them said that if Trump leads the ticket, they will almost certainly


lose the Senate and they might even lose the house. I think things have


changed now that he is leading the party. He will have to verify it.


The question I would put the these different senators and voters who


say they will not vote for him is why would you vote for Hillary


Clinton, who is going to change the Supreme Court, and could damage the


second Amendment? I would say to Trump... She can only change the


Supreme Court if she has a majority in the two and she might have that.


If you really want to risk that, for me, that is lunacy. Trump is not my


first choice. Who was? I was probably looking at Rubio initially.


But that ship sailed along time ago. He has probably reached his


domination. Is he prone Nato? Can we count on him for our defence? He has


not said anything like that. He is not talking to us, isn't it? David


Cameron fended them. He has not spoken to the outside world. --


offended him. He gives to say there were no votes in Britain, so they do


not care about us. I understand that but every candidate has a policy and


it is clear that Hillary Clinton, she will probably be even more prone


Nato than Mr Obama. We have spent five minutes talking about things we


always talk about, but he is talking about something else. These are new


times, different times. The European audience watches this buffoon, and


the things that come out of his mouth, and they hear it with a


European elite here. You have to put yourself in the years of


steelworkers in Pittsburgh, and realise that he is talking about


protectionism, putting tariffs on. People in Pittsburgh who are worried


about steel jobs, they are not hearing an orange buffoon, they are


thinking, yeah. I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs, but the


single most important thing Ronald Reagan ever did that was -- did to


get elected was having an advert that ended with, it is summarised in


America. He punches through and this guy punches through. The phrase was


morning in America. But we have run out of time. You have a great memory


for the adverts of Ronald Reagan! I need to get out more. I am just


disappointed that will not be a contested election. The amount of


work I have done to cover that. Save it for next time. Next to both of


you. Now the Americans have they are


Super Tuesday and we have our super Thursday. In America they talk of


little else. Voters in every part of the UK


are going to the polls today. Here's Adam's guide to keeping up


with all the results. Make sure you are back from the pub


by 11:45pm because that is when the BBC One election programme starts.


And we are in for a crazy three days of results. By 3am, we will be in


full flow with declarations from many of the seeds of the Scottish


Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Around eight -ish English councils


are tempting overnight. -- around 80 English councils are tempting


overnight. By mid-morning, more English councils will be declaring.


And will be some results from Police And Crime Commissioner is in England


and Wales. Crack open your favourite beverage at about five on Friday


when we will have information about the votes in Northern Ireland. Might


news from City Hall about the London assembly and the blockbuster contest


to become the mayor. But don't bet on it. Last time we hung around for


hours thanks to a power cut. On Saturday morning, I will be heading


out for a run, I promise. In the afternoon, we will get the last few


English council results and later on, the results for mayor of


Bristol. On Sunday morning it will be time to tune in to your favourite


political programmes. But there is still the results to go -- but there


are still if you results to go. The final tally for the Northern Ireland


tally, and the last count for Bristol. Apparently someone called


Robert Preston has a new show on another channel. A shame I can't


find the remote. And if you missed any


of that, don't worry! We have created our very own handy


cut-out-and-keep guide to the election results


which will be coming Just to go to our twitter feed


or the programme website. In Syria, a temporary


ceasefire has been extended A nationwide "cessation


of hostilities" was in theory agreed in February but,


since then, the violence It's hoped that interested parties


will return to Geneva later this month to try and thrash out some


sort of lasting settlement. Joining me now is Crispin Blunt,


Chairman of the Foreign and Muzna al-Naib from


the anti-Assad pressure group Welcome to both of you. Do you think


the ceasefire is going to hold? I don't know. The signs are not great.


There are reports of barrel bombs today outside of Aleppo. But we have


to put the maximum pressure on through the Russians, to make sure


that it does hold. There is no alternative here. This has to end


with politics. And that means looking at the French proposals to


try to bring together the anti-Assad coalition, that needs to be looked


at so that they do not fall apart and start fighting each other. There


have been reports of vicious biting fighting between those groups. --


reports of vicious fighting between those groups. We need to engage with


the Russians, the key decision-makers here. They have a


decision about how much they are prepared to engage. If they


overcommit to resident Assad, they will be in there for a long time.


With a scale of commitment that I do not think they want. So they need a


deal as much as the rest of us. We will talk about the Russians and how


much influence they had two have on the regime but returning to Aleppo,


let's talk about the images and pictures, which have been horrendous


throughout this conflict. In terms of holding that ceasefire, even


though it is very short, there are stories that the regime is still


using the fact that they can attack the al-Nusra front, or Islamic


State, and actually the violence has not ceased in the way it should have


done. Just leaving the ceasefire to


President Assad and Russia is a mistake. Opposition groups have been


saying for a long time no ceasefire no political solution is going to


work without the protection of civilians. If you don't force them


to protect the civilians they will not. You are talking to people who


are expert in playing games and in killing people. Isn't that the


problem that while President Assad is still in play, and while the


Russians are the critical players here, there isn't going to be a


proper cessation of violence. More civilians will be killed. In a way


you were putting pressure on perhaps the only people you can, but not


right ones. The Russians have the capacity to put the pressure on


President Assad. Do they still have that influence on him? If the


Russians decide to depart then he is backing the trouble he was back in


last September with his regime teetering on the brink of collapse.


That is what brought the Russians and the Iranians in in a way they


hadn't been in that conflict before. There has to be a negotiated way out


of this. We got quite close to this in November. A mechanism was set up


by which there was a route to an end of this. That route actually still


exists. Do you agree with that? No, it is not a question about capacity,


it is a question of them not being willing to do that. They are being


allowed to get away with it. It isn't a question of negotiation. The


people on the ground want to negotiate. Even though they are


negotiating with killers. The main issue is the killers are not


stopping their killing. We are not negotiating and our children are


being killed. We want a guarantee from our family from around the


world that they will protect us. We are not going to offer ourselves to


be killed. We are not going to offer our children to be killed. This is


just going over everything that is logical in Syria and simply playing


the Russian game. But what does that mean? Because President Assad needs


to be moved. He cannot stay in place if there is to be any lasting


settlement. As Britain and the US and other Western powers are not


willing to commit with the Russians and Iranians around President Assad.


That is the reality. How do you protect the civilians? We need to


identify our common interests with the Russians who have the capacity


to put pressure on President Assad's government. There are common


interests. The fight against IS is a common interest. It is a common


interest with the non-Islamist resistance in Syria, as it is with


all of the people who have turned to President Assad for protection. Is


that a common goal that you share, the destruction of the so-called


Islamic State? No, because President Assad is coordinating with Isis and


we have documents to prove that. And Russia is back in President Assad.


How will that work? You are backing the person working with Isis, how


will that stop Isis? Don't look at this from what is good for Syria is,


have a look at what is good for the British people in defeating Isis. Is


backing President Assad going to stop Isis in any way? No, if you


want to stop then you have to protect those fighting both Isis and


President Assad. -- if you want to stop them. For people like her


President Assad is the problem. Yes happened as a result of the


brutality. -- of -- Islamic State happened as a


result of the brutality. There is a ceasefire in Aleppo, less violence,


but people are still being killed. I gave evidence on the subject


yesterday. I argued that you have to talk to the Russians. Because they


have made themselves a player in this. It is pointless not engaging


with them. The rights and wrongs of it have to be sorted out. The second


thing I was arguing for was made monetarily in front. -- was for the


military front. Anthony Lloyd of the Times was next to me in the


committee. He said something I hadn't thought of, the said you have


to negotiate with the Russians to get humanitarian aid in. But even


people on the ground might shoot at it because they are so angry with us


for abandoning them. Are the Russians minded to put pressure on


President Assad soon to step down? How much longer? When it suits them.


They have already safeguarded their interest, the port in the region. It


cannot win but it cannot lose. At some point they will settle. We've


been here before. At some point they will settle but it will become


placated. The last thing that must be put on the agenda is the arming


of the Kurds. We've given them machine guns. We cannot get


ammunition to them because it goes through Baghdad. We are not really


supporting the Kurds and they are the boots on the ground everybody


talks about. Thank you both very much.


It has just been confirmed that the Turkish Foreign Minister will be


stepping down at his party's conference. That will have


ramifications for everybody, including the European Union.


Now to the vote that's dominating thoughts in Europe.


but Eurovision, which is now just nine days away.


And is already beset by controversy, after organisers decided


They have linked it to those of ISIS, the Crimea


and the Basque Country as states not recognised by the United Nations.


Bad enough - especially when you consider one of the duo


singing for Britain this year is Welsh.


But first, let's take you back to happier times,


when Bonnie Tyler was belting out Believe in Me in 2013.


See if you can spot the Welsh flag in the audience!


# In the dark of the night, in the middle of the fight


# When you're reaching out for something and there's nothing


# Yeah, believe in the way I look at you


# The way I speak the truth I'd never lie to you


# If you'd just believe in the things your eyes can see


We asked for a representative from Eurovision to come on but they


declined. They told us they aimed to keep your vision free from political


statement and only allowed National flags and rainbow flags.


French was our representatives in 2000. How did feel about having the


Welsh flag banned? It is a real downer.


CHUCKLES I thought you might say that. We


rarely achieved the big-time in Wales. And here we are, representing


the UK, and they are lumping us in with Isis, Northern Cyprus,


Palestine, and other politically sensitive areas. What is interesting


is they are allowing the EU flag. Given what is going on in this


country at the moment, is there anything more political than the


youth flag? This is a personal slight to the people of Wales, isn't


it? It is a snub to the people of Wales. Nicki French, how important


is it to see your country's flag-waving when you are performing?


I still remember the day of the contest. It is being held in the


same place where I performed. The global arena is in the same place as


your Hotel. It is all the same complex. As soon as people start


waving flags, and suddenly when I saw the union Jack it very special.


You and your countrymen and women will not have that facility, what


will you do instead? This will be the first occasion that I will


actually watch the Eurovision Song contest.


CHUCKLES And I will be waving my red Dragon,


as will everybody else across Wales. What about the guys performing?


There are loads of flags in that audience nowadays. There have been


problems with flags over the years. In 2000 the Israelis wanted to wave


a Syrian flag at the end of their performance. That all came to blows.


CHUCKLES The Israeli delegation almost


boycotted them because they did not want it happening. In the end they


compromised. It does not fit the criteria, the Welsh flag, from what


I understand, but it is not officially banned. The result is the


same, I think, even if the semantics are slightly different. Your next


book is about flags, Tim, it is a sensitive issue, politically, isn't


it? My next book is called Worth Dying For because people think it


is. And's introduction talked about the Welsh flag and Isis flag and


made no mention of the Scottish Saltire. But it isn't in the Song


contest. Neither is Wales. The red Dragon is our national flag and it


should be there. But they are not singing for Wales. It should be


represented. Moving on. Somebody will try and smuggle in an offensive


flag now the story is out there. I have the rules. Confiscated flags


and banners will not be returned, so don't turn up with one because you


will not get it back. Anyone bringing in an offensive flag, not


my criteria, may be removed. So there could be more controversy at


the Song contest. What will you do to remedy this? I have already


tabled a question to John Whittingdale, so I am looking


forward to a reply. CHUCKLES


He should take an interest. This is one of our national flags. I think


it is quite disgraceful that it is not being recognised by the European


broadcasters. We have to leave it now. I will be watching, Andrew,


will you be watching? Are you mad?


LAUGHTER Thanks to all of our guests. The one


o'clock news will be starting over on BBC One now.


Daily Politics will not be on tomorrow. I shall be returning on


Sunday on BBC One. Hopefully we can give you a more considered, rounded


picture, with all of the results in. I hope you can join all of us for


the BBC coverage. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles