:00:38. > :00:45.It has its own parliament, courts and diplomatic corps,
:00:46. > :00:48.but should the EU have its own military?
:00:49. > :01:00.Margaret Thatcher didn't think much of them,
:01:01. > :01:02.and they've been wrong before, could economists be
:01:03. > :01:07.getting it wrong again about the impact of leaving the EU?
:01:08. > :01:12.It's been more than six years in the making and has cost
:01:13. > :01:15.millions of pounds, but will the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry
:01:16. > :01:19.come to the right conclusions about Tony Blair's culpability?
:01:20. > :01:22.And it's the Ed and Jez show, the current and former Labour
:01:23. > :01:34.leaders join forces to make the case for remain.
:01:35. > :01:37.All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration
:01:38. > :01:42.Peter Oborne, who writes for the Mail and the Spectator amongst other
:01:43. > :01:43.publications, and Jenni Russell of the Times.
:01:44. > :01:50.First this morning, does the European Union have secret
:01:51. > :01:54.That's the claim on the front page of the Times today.
:01:55. > :02:04.The plans - drawn up by the EU's Foreign Policy Chief -
:02:05. > :02:05.apparently won't be discussed by national governments
:02:06. > :02:08.until after next month's referendum on the 23rd June.
:02:09. > :02:10.We asked to speak to someone from the European Commission
:02:11. > :02:25.How strong do you think the story is? It is a terrific headline but
:02:26. > :02:30.when you read the bit into it, it's about trying to get more strategic
:02:31. > :02:35.operation between nations in the EU, it isn't really about setting up an
:02:36. > :02:38.army. I think the fact that there will be more strategic cooperation
:02:39. > :02:45.can only be a good thing. It means we would be taken by surprise by
:02:46. > :02:52.events like Syria and Libya. Whether there should be an army in the EU,
:02:53. > :02:56.whether there is one, no one is pushing for an army. The Germans
:02:57. > :02:59.have a white paper coming out which they have postponed until July. They
:03:00. > :03:04.are talking about more strategic operation between nations, not a
:03:05. > :03:09.standing army that belongs to the EU which is deployed solely by the EU
:03:10. > :03:14.commission. It's about member states pulling together. Martin Schulz, the
:03:15. > :03:19.president of the European Parliament, if we wish to defend our
:03:20. > :03:24.values the majority of MEPs consider we need an HQ for civil and military
:03:25. > :03:28.operations and trips you can be deployed. John Claude Juncker has
:03:29. > :03:32.said that such an army would help us to build a common foreign and
:03:33. > :03:35.national security policy. It would show Russia we are serious when it
:03:36. > :03:39.comes to defending the European Union. The German defence minister
:03:40. > :03:43.says that the European army is their long-term goal but firstly they have
:03:44. > :03:46.to strengthen the defence union. The European Commission last year said
:03:47. > :03:49.that European defence integration is no longer just a political option
:03:50. > :03:54.but a strategic and economic necessity. That's what they want.
:03:55. > :03:56.They might want one in the future but that's not being proposed now,
:03:57. > :04:02.what they are proposing more coordination. Today we have David
:04:03. > :04:09.Cameron sending another Navy ship to help with the Libyan migrant crisis.
:04:10. > :04:11.There is talk of deploying navies together to help prevent Isis from
:04:12. > :04:16.getting supplies across the Mediterranean. It makes sense and we
:04:17. > :04:20.should coordinate to do that kind of thing rather than sending off ships
:04:21. > :04:24.one of the time. There may be an army of the EU in the future but not
:04:25. > :04:30.imminent. Trashing the story, the Times journalist, on the front page!
:04:31. > :04:38.We are not always responsible for the stories. I wish I could get away
:04:39. > :04:46.with that at the Daily Mail! The day the story appears, trash it on live
:04:47. > :04:51.TV, well done, Jenni. It's a very good story. Is she right to say that
:04:52. > :04:56.the headline is misleading? I didn't say that was misleading, that is
:04:57. > :04:59.misleading. I think what we have got here, a load of things which are
:05:00. > :05:06.going to be announced on June the 24th onwards. The European Union has
:05:07. > :05:12.gone quiet, the Greek debt crisis will go ballistic, we will discover
:05:13. > :05:18.proposals for a European army, all sorts of things are waiting until
:05:19. > :05:24.the British people have voted in blissful ignorance, fuelled only by
:05:25. > :05:29.George Osborne's dodgy dossiers. They will wait until June 24. Of
:05:30. > :05:32.course it's very serious, the Times reporting is very good although you
:05:33. > :05:37.don't seem to think so! It is excellent! We've done that bit,
:05:38. > :05:41.stick to the substance! Would it be a good thing to have a European
:05:42. > :05:45.military? Not if it was under control from the European
:05:46. > :05:49.Commission. What always had to happen, member states who wants to
:05:50. > :05:53.put their forces into a situation have to agree on a case-by-case
:05:54. > :05:57.basis. But it would be under the control of the European Council, not
:05:58. > :06:04.just the unelected commission. That's what I'm saying. Should we
:06:05. > :06:07.look forward to a Europe when the European Council, the heads of the
:06:08. > :06:12.European countries, meet in Brussels and have the power to deploy a
:06:13. > :06:15.European military force? I think that could be a good thing in the
:06:16. > :06:20.way that we have UN peacekeeping forces. We are under threat from
:06:21. > :06:27.Russia which may go to the northern Baltic states. Isn't that Nato? We
:06:28. > :06:30.need a force on the border to show that Europe is serious about it as
:06:31. > :06:35.well, not leaving it to the American forces. That's what Nato does. I
:06:36. > :06:43.will give you a lecture later on the security architecture of Europe.
:06:44. > :06:49.Apologies later! You get muddled up about what the security of Europe
:06:50. > :06:52.is, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We need to move on!
:06:53. > :06:58.We've only got another three weeks of this! Can you not be patronising,
:06:59. > :07:03.if we have America and the Tramp, we know that America is going to be
:07:04. > :07:06.much less ready to participate in Nato operations and Europeans have
:07:07. > :07:09.to do more for themselves. Let that be the last word. Thank you!
:07:10. > :07:15.Today's question, what did Green Party London Assembly member
:07:16. > :07:18.Sian Berry say would break up if Britain leaves the EU?
:07:19. > :07:33.At the end of the show, Jenni and Peter will give us
:07:34. > :07:47.I think we may have shone very to explain. -- Sian Berry.
:07:48. > :07:50.Now, earlier this week the IFS predicted that the economic impact
:07:51. > :07:52.of leaving the European Union could lead to two more
:07:53. > :07:56.It's the latest downbeat assessment from economists of the prospects
:07:57. > :08:00.But should we take any notice of protaganists of what is sometimes
:08:01. > :08:06.Giles has been looking at their record.
:08:07. > :08:11.So have our clairvoyant economists covered themselves in glory
:08:12. > :08:14.or have their palms been crossed with silver for little in return?
:08:15. > :08:19.In 1981, 364 economists complained about Maggie Thatcher's decision
:08:20. > :08:24.to raise taxes substantially at the height of recession.
:08:25. > :08:26.The oracular economists, including future Bank of England
:08:27. > :08:28.governor Mervyn King, said this so-called "monetarist
:08:29. > :08:34.policy" had "no basis in economic theory".
:08:35. > :08:37.Turned out their crystal ball was wrong, with the economy
:08:38. > :08:43.beginning to grow just days after the letter was published.
:08:44. > :08:45.In 1992, the economic establishment once again coalesced to back staying
:08:46. > :08:54.They agreed with the Treasury line that leaving the ERM would "put
:08:55. > :08:56.at risk the hard-won confidence" in the economy.
:08:57. > :08:58.But on Black Wednesday, Britain was forced out -
:08:59. > :09:00.and the economy was soon picking up once again.
:09:01. > :09:04.They clearly didn't see that in their tarot cards.
:09:05. > :09:06.Many of the same wise men and women were soon calling
:09:07. > :09:10.for Britain to join the euro during the Blair era.
:09:11. > :09:13.15 leading economists wrote to the FT in 2001,
:09:14. > :09:15.prophesising that joining the euro would "safeguard" Britain's
:09:16. > :09:25.They needed Gordon Brown to save their bacon,
:09:26. > :09:28.ruling out entry after it failed his five economic tests.
:09:29. > :09:32.So now we come to the latest prediction, with 198 business
:09:33. > :09:35.leaders and economists writing a letter to the Times in February.
:09:36. > :09:37.They say that "leaving the EU would deter investment,
:09:38. > :09:45.threaten jobs and put the economy at risk".
:09:46. > :09:47.Will they be on the crystal ball this time,
:09:48. > :09:54.or will the mists of time once again fail to clear?
:09:55. > :09:57.Thank you for telling me that getting my masters in economics was
:09:58. > :09:59.a waste of time! And we're joined now
:10:00. > :10:01.by professor Tony Yates. He organised a letter to the Times
:10:02. > :10:04.earlier this month - signed by almost 200 economists -
:10:05. > :10:16.arguing that leaving the EU would be Why should we believe that, since
:10:17. > :10:21.you, not personally, your profession seems to have called almost every
:10:22. > :10:27.major economic event wrong? This isn't really about forecasting. A
:10:28. > :10:33.great analogy by Giles in the Financial Times where he said that I
:10:34. > :10:38.couldn't forecast my own weight with any accuracy, 15 years hence but if
:10:39. > :10:43.I stuff my face with pastries every morning, I guarantee that I'm going
:10:44. > :10:48.to get heavier. Similar analogy. Everything we have had from the IMF,
:10:49. > :10:53.the OECD, the Treasury, it is all forecasting? It is couched as a
:10:54. > :10:57.forecast but merely what you are really comparing is two forecasts,
:10:58. > :11:01.all sorts of things are known but one thing is different between the
:11:02. > :11:06.scenarios, leaving the EU and that's something we know about. We can look
:11:07. > :11:08.at history, how trade and openness has affected economic performance
:11:09. > :11:13.and we can get a sense of what happened in the past and what will
:11:14. > :11:16.happen next time. Looking at the Treasury forecast, the long-term
:11:17. > :11:22.one, the first one in 2013, even though it was disguised and they
:11:23. > :11:26.didn't actually put the figures, if you do the sums, what the Treasury
:11:27. > :11:31.forecast said was that if we stay in the EU, we will grow by a lot, and
:11:32. > :11:34.if we leave the EU, we will grow by a lot, but not as much, that's all
:11:35. > :11:40.it said but that's not how it was dressed up. I think the point they
:11:41. > :11:48.made is pretty reasonable." Scenarios, we grow by a lot? -- in
:11:49. > :11:50.both scenarios. There is a fantastic force of innovation and
:11:51. > :11:55.entrepreneurialism that will make itself felt in both cases but in one
:11:56. > :11:59.case you have the restraint on trade, departing the single market,
:12:00. > :12:05.effectively. What a lot of these reports have assumed, particularly
:12:06. > :12:11.the Treasury one, is that between now and 2030 we are incapable of
:12:12. > :12:16.doing any kind of free-trade deals. That's not an economist's call, that
:12:17. > :12:21.is a political call, and it could be wrong. To some extent that's right.
:12:22. > :12:25.Economists don't know any more than... It is the most reasonable,
:12:26. > :12:31.in my view. That we can do no deals? That is the Treasury forecast. They
:12:32. > :12:38.are saying that likely economic life outside the EU involves erecting not
:12:39. > :12:43.just tariff barriers, but nontariff barriers. It is the rules and
:12:44. > :12:47.standards that would emerge when we leave the single market that would
:12:48. > :12:53.be so damaging. I guess people will take notice of other people if they
:12:54. > :12:57.got a track record of being right. You were on the monetary strategy
:12:58. > :13:03.team of the Bank of England up to 2008. Did you see the crash coming?
:13:04. > :13:08.No, I didn't. Most economists thought we should join the European
:13:09. > :13:15.exchange rate mechanism. Would you agree that in the end, that proved
:13:16. > :13:21.wrong? Yes, but I dispute that most did. It was a pretty big consensus,
:13:22. > :13:27.the Labour Party's economists wanted to, the Treasury economists, many
:13:28. > :13:33.independent economists, my economic editor wanted me to as well. That
:13:34. > :13:36.was the consensus and it was wrong. Let me put an analogy to you coming
:13:37. > :13:41.most hospitals there were many people dying every day, people die.
:13:42. > :13:47.Still we entrust our health to doctors and surgeons and nurses, the
:13:48. > :13:53.entirety of medical science, which is accumulated to this point. In
:13:54. > :13:56.economics, it's hard. It's not a science, like medical science. I
:13:57. > :14:01.don't want to get into philosophical semantics, there is a business to
:14:02. > :14:05.control a huge economy of 60 million people and it's difficult. We
:14:06. > :14:10.haven't done it yet. Here's another, take the IMF, it has been taking the
:14:11. > :14:16.Treasury line that our economy would be harmed if we left the European
:14:17. > :14:19.Union. We would grow more slowly, there would be a rise in inflation
:14:20. > :14:25.and various other bad things would happen. This is the same IMF that
:14:26. > :14:29.told us, on the very month that this economy was really starting to
:14:30. > :14:35.recover, that the government was playing with fire on the economy and
:14:36. > :14:40.that we were effectively... If we carried on we will be heading for
:14:41. > :14:45.another recession. It was wrong. Well I think they have a point,
:14:46. > :14:50.actually. But they were wrong. Interesting example because on this,
:14:51. > :14:52.our letter signatories differ quite significantly, I have had heated
:14:53. > :14:57.debate with people on the list about whether the coalition were right or
:14:58. > :15:02.wrong but that is up for debate. If we had a more loose fiscal policy,
:15:03. > :15:07.when it became clear that we weren't going to be categorised as being
:15:08. > :15:11.like Greece for example, we would have a stronger recovery. Hold on,
:15:12. > :15:17.on the month that the IMF said we were going to go backwards and that
:15:18. > :15:22.Britain was playing with fire, we began the strongest recovery of any
:15:23. > :15:27.G7 economy. You could say that it could be stronger. Exactly, that's
:15:28. > :15:31.my point. But the IMF didn't say that on current policy, you will
:15:32. > :15:32.recover but not as strongly as you could, they said that we wouldn't
:15:33. > :15:40.recover. Those that on current policy and
:15:41. > :15:43.given the way we see all the other shocks happening, that's what we
:15:44. > :15:47.think will happen. Then someone came along nobody could have forecast.
:15:48. > :15:53.What was that? Whatever it was spurred the economy into life again.
:15:54. > :15:56.Aren't you worried that the work you do is misused? Last night the
:15:57. > :16:01.Treasury put out this new announcement, saying that pensioners
:16:02. > :16:05.would be worse off by ?137 a year if we beat the EU. The main reason it
:16:06. > :16:10.said that, when you dig down, is that it assumed that because the
:16:11. > :16:18.pound would fall, inflation would be higher. What is clearly wrong with
:16:19. > :16:23.that forecast? I haven't yet read that in detail. OK, I'll tell you.
:16:24. > :16:29.Out of you what's wrong, which is why it is a misuse. -- I'll tell you
:16:30. > :16:33.what's wrong. There is a triple lock on pensions. They rise by whatever
:16:34. > :16:37.is higher, including inflation, so if the Treasury report was right,
:16:38. > :16:44.pensions would rise by the level of inflation. It's a misuse of the
:16:45. > :16:53.canonic. I don't want to comment on that. -- misuse of the economic.
:16:54. > :16:56.This is my view, and my letter was both signatories' view, we are going
:16:57. > :17:04.to get poorer if we left. The prosperity generated... The size of
:17:05. > :17:07.the pie shrinks, and therefore the size of the pensions would shrink.
:17:08. > :17:17.Pensioners can wrestle higher share of it. None of the forecasts - the
:17:18. > :17:21.IMF, the OECD, the Treasury, B none of them say that we will get
:17:22. > :17:25.poorer. They say we won't be as rich. Every forecast says we will be
:17:26. > :17:31.richer and if we beat the EU, we won't be as rich as if we stayed in.
:17:32. > :17:37.That's not poorer. -- leave the EU. There is the short-term cost of
:17:38. > :17:40.leaving. Tell us a forecast. I've looked at the centre for economic
:17:41. > :17:46.performance, the Oxford economic scum of the CBI, the OECD, the
:17:47. > :17:49.Treasury. Tell us one that says we will actually be aura as opposed to
:17:50. > :17:56.less rich than we would have been. -- poorer. Let me give you my
:17:57. > :18:00.projection. They're two issues to deal with, where we end up in the
:18:01. > :18:03.long run and what happened in the short run. What happened in the
:18:04. > :18:08.short run is extremely dicey. And could be uncertain. I think it is
:18:09. > :18:13.extremely likely to be negative. What do you think of economists in
:18:14. > :18:17.these matters? I'm right in saying that these documents produced by the
:18:18. > :18:21.Treasury in the last few weeks, the Chancellor has excluded the Office
:18:22. > :18:26.for Budget Responsibility, because he said before he came into power
:18:27. > :18:30.that the Treasury forecasting was a shambles, it was useless and it was
:18:31. > :18:35.politicised and there was abundant evidence that it was useless. And so
:18:36. > :18:40.he invented the Office for Budget Responsibility to bring independence
:18:41. > :18:43.and authority to forecasting that has been excluded from these last
:18:44. > :18:48.three disgraceful dodgy dossier is so diverse shambles. The Chancellor
:18:49. > :18:53.says there is some strategy reason, that the OBR is only there to do
:18:54. > :18:59.budget forecasts. I don't know what the technical reason is. It is
:19:00. > :19:04.instructed to do specific forecasts. The Treasury has had to go back to
:19:05. > :19:09.what it stop doing five years ago. It was attacked by the Chancellor as
:19:10. > :19:13.politicised and not to be trusted because it had been abused by Gordon
:19:14. > :19:17.Brown and now it has been abused in exactly the same way by Chancellor
:19:18. > :19:22.Osborne as Brown and Darling abused their forecasts beforehand. We got
:19:23. > :19:29.to move on but just a question, Professor. Whether we leave the EU
:19:30. > :19:35.or stay in, how high do you think the risk now is of a booming
:19:36. > :19:38.recession? -- looming. There was quite a lot of talk that the world
:19:39. > :19:43.economy is anaemic and that some economies are slowing down and that
:19:44. > :19:47.there has been no great recovery and that the business cycle is... I know
:19:48. > :19:50.business cycles don't die but on average, we are reaching the end of
:19:51. > :19:56.this one. How high would you rate that? May be 30 or 40 but said John
:19:57. > :20:05.survey recession. If we wake up and find that we are leaving. -- 30 or
:20:06. > :20:12.40 percentage chance of a recession. If we stay in? If we stay in,
:20:13. > :20:15.unlikely. I think we will have very subdued growth for another half year
:20:16. > :20:19.or so, partly because of the worries about Brexit that have accumulated
:20:20. > :20:25.over the last few months, partly because of other things weighing
:20:26. > :20:29.down. Note for -- recession foreseeable? I don't think so.
:20:30. > :20:32.When all the excitement over the EU referendum has calmed down,
:20:33. > :20:34.the next big set-piece in the political calendar will be
:20:35. > :20:37.the Chilcot Report into Britain's role in the invasion and subsequent
:20:38. > :20:42.The inquiry has served a proxy trial of the Blair government,
:20:43. > :20:45.as well as the war's cheerleaders in other parties,
:20:46. > :20:48.the intelligence community, our military leadership
:20:49. > :20:50.and Britain's special, some might argue too special,
:20:51. > :20:56.The report will be published on Wednesday 6th July.
:20:57. > :21:03.So brace yourselves for acres of news coverage.
:21:04. > :21:13.Will also be prime list of questions and a 90 minute Daily Politics. --
:21:14. > :21:17.it will also be Prime Minister's Questions.
:21:18. > :21:19.This is what Tony Blair had to say earlier this week.
:21:20. > :21:21.We underestimated, profoundly, the forces that were at work
:21:22. > :21:24.in the region and that would take advantage of the change,
:21:25. > :21:28.The lesson is not actually complicated, the lesson
:21:29. > :21:32.It's that when you remove the dictatorship, out come these
:21:33. > :21:34.forces of destabilisation, Al-Qaeda on the Sunni side or Iran
:21:35. > :21:39.Our guest today, Peter Oborne, has just published his alternative
:21:40. > :21:47.findings in his book Not The Chilcot Report.
:21:48. > :21:54.It's a lot shorter! Much shorter and cheaper! A tenner!
:21:55. > :21:58.John Rentoul is a long-term defender of Tony Blair's role in the war.
:21:59. > :22:04.He joins us now to talk welcome. This is not the Chilcot Report but
:22:05. > :22:08.since we don't know what the Chilcot Report is, how could you write one
:22:09. > :22:12.that is not the Chilcot Report? I don't know if you noticed but the
:22:13. > :22:19.Chilcot Inquiry went on for about six years. Oh, I noticed! All of it,
:22:20. > :22:25.almost all of it, is on public record. There are fascinating bits
:22:26. > :22:30.of Blair- bush correspondence that aren't but generally speaking, it is
:22:31. > :22:34.on public record. As was the case with the Hutton inquiry. It was on
:22:35. > :22:38.public record. So you can look at the testimony given to Chilcot, and
:22:39. > :22:46.other testimony, and reach a conclusion, and it is 35,000 words.
:22:47. > :22:50.I think it is quite clear and makes certain arguments. I'm not saying
:22:51. > :22:54.that Chilcot will agree with me but at least, when he comes along, you
:22:55. > :22:59.got this book and you can say, well, these are the key points. Do you
:23:00. > :23:05.fear that the Chilcot Report will be a whitewash? I don't think you will
:23:06. > :23:09.exactly be a whitewash but what I do think is troubling at the moment is
:23:10. > :23:17.that it looks like it is spreading itself much too wide. Criticising 40
:23:18. > :23:22.or 50 different people, reportedly. 2.6 million words, five times the
:23:23. > :23:27.size of War And Peace. It looks like a bit of Gothic architecture which
:23:28. > :23:32.is not very clear, not very focused, doesn't deal in an intellectually
:23:33. > :23:39.lucid way with the problems raised. You concluded the war was illegal.
:23:40. > :23:47.For sure. Actually not just wrong in terms of foreign policy or morally.
:23:48. > :23:56.What is the basis of saying that? It is very hard to argue with the
:23:57. > :24:00.Attorney General's advice in 2003, which was plausible. Or 27 members
:24:01. > :24:07.of the Foreign Office but it was illegal. We never got the second
:24:08. > :24:10.resolution to justify going to war. 11 out of the 15 members of the
:24:11. > :24:17.Security Council but it would not be Beagle. Those are the legal
:24:18. > :24:24.arguments, if you like. What do you say to that? I don't think Peter
:24:25. > :24:29.knows what illegal means. It means it wasn't illegal, I think. What
:24:30. > :24:32.does that mean? There is a very simple test to apply. You can get
:24:33. > :24:37.into the legal arguments but there is a short cut, which is that for 13
:24:38. > :24:42.years since the Iraq war, no legal case against the decision has even
:24:43. > :24:46.been started. That is the beginning and end of it. If it was illegal,
:24:47. > :24:53.that implies that there is some court in which it can be tried and
:24:54. > :24:56.it hasn't been. Can I say, I think this really is the less important
:24:57. > :25:00.point. The point isn't so much whether it was legal or not, it is
:25:01. > :25:04.whether it was right or not and everything about the Iraq war was
:25:05. > :25:10.wrong. Iraq was not housing the people who carried out the 9/11
:25:11. > :25:15.attacks against America. It had no justification. Iraq was a country
:25:16. > :25:20.that was not a threat to the rest of us and when you see Tony Blair there
:25:21. > :25:23.saying, "I didn't understand that if I took away the man who had been
:25:24. > :25:27.controlling this very divided country for 40 years in a barbaric
:25:28. > :25:31.fashion, that there were going to be destabilising forces that would rise
:25:32. > :25:35.up and turn it into chaos," you think, "Did you never read a single
:25:36. > :25:40.history book ever in your life er" the first duty of all states is to
:25:41. > :25:43.create security. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times just before the
:25:44. > :25:49.war began said that the danger is trying to take Iraq apart and we
:25:50. > :25:52.don't know whether Iraq is as it is because of Saddam Hussein or whether
:25:53. > :25:56.Saddam Hussein is the kind of brutal dictator he is because of the
:25:57. > :25:59.difficulty of trying to keep together a rhythm, sectarian country
:26:00. > :26:04.like Iraq. There was nothing I like about Iraq's regime, there is
:26:05. > :26:07.nothing I like about that dictator but that doesn't mean we understood
:26:08. > :26:12.in any way how you would run a secure state if you took that system
:26:13. > :26:16.apart. It was sheer arrogance. I'm going to put that to John in a
:26:17. > :26:19.moment but I want to come back to the legal point that he may. The
:26:20. > :26:26.legality is interesting and it will be adjusting to see what the fallout
:26:27. > :26:30.is when the Chilcot Report is published. Why has nobody attempted
:26:31. > :26:38.legal proceedings against Mr Black was Bob because it was lawful. I
:26:39. > :26:48.know you believe that. Their arguments about whether it was
:26:49. > :26:51.lawful or not. One is in self defence and the other is if there
:26:52. > :26:58.was Security Council backing for it. Neither applied. Why has nobody
:26:59. > :27:04.moved on this? This is in the final advice given by Goldsmith. If you
:27:05. > :27:07.are member of the Security Council... And we have the
:27:08. > :27:13.International Criminal Court. It was not in 2003 able... And Goldsmith
:27:14. > :27:18.made... To prosecute a member state for a crime of aggressive war. You
:27:19. > :27:23.are completely right but it is a technical point. The war itself was
:27:24. > :27:28.a war of aggression. Would it not be fair to say that as historians look
:27:29. > :27:32.back at the second half of the 20th century and Britain's foreign
:27:33. > :27:36.policy, that there is quite a consensus that by far the two
:27:37. > :27:53.biggest foreign policy mistakes Worsley wears in 56 and the invasion
:27:54. > :27:58.of Iraq in 2003? -- were Suez. There is no arguing that there were
:27:59. > :28:05.terrible consequences. Peter and I have been arguing about this for
:28:06. > :28:08.years. It is his invocation of bad faith on the part of Tony Blair. I
:28:09. > :28:12.am a defender of Tony Blair in the sense that I regard him as having
:28:13. > :28:17.been quite a good Prime Minister. You think you made a mistake going
:28:18. > :28:21.into Iraq? There is a world of difference between making a mistake
:28:22. > :28:27.and doing so dishonestly. I didn't ask you if it was dishonest. But you
:28:28. > :28:32.concede it was, in retrospect, a mistake? Of course. It was a
:28:33. > :28:38.disaster. I don't want to use the mistake word. Bigger than that, you
:28:39. > :28:45.think? I think it was a reasonable decision to take. I don't think that
:28:46. > :28:51.the good faith argument by the Prime Minister is sustainable. He was
:28:52. > :28:57.called disingenuous by a Lord. I thought that was disgraceful. I
:28:58. > :29:00.going to this in great detail in the book. The statements made to
:29:01. > :29:04.Parliament and in the media by Tony Blair word not the same as what he
:29:05. > :29:12.was hearing from... That is not the same as... You have to substantiate
:29:13. > :29:18.the allegation. You need to let him state the case. But he's not
:29:19. > :29:22.stating... No, no to talk you don't get to run this. I run this. In
:29:23. > :29:31.front of the Prime Minister is the intelligence guidance. It is
:29:32. > :29:35.sporadic, patchy and very, very... And the Prime Minister comes to
:29:36. > :29:42.Parliament and on the media and says... He takes away the caveats
:29:43. > :29:47.and makes it firm and clear that there is the threat and he does
:29:48. > :29:51.possess the weapons and so forth. I'm not saying it is bad faith but
:29:52. > :29:58.he's misrepresenting the intelligence. That is where the
:29:59. > :30:05.Fraser disingenuous was used. Do you think it was an honest mistake or,
:30:06. > :30:07.to use John rental's words, an honest disaster, or did the Prime
:30:08. > :30:12.Minister tell us things that he really knew not to be true? I think
:30:13. > :30:15.he probably believed them at the time he said them. I think he
:30:16. > :30:18.probably thought Iraq was a threat because that's what I've been told
:30:19. > :30:22.and if the evidence is not there because I believe it to be true, it
:30:23. > :30:25.doesn't matter if I is saturated. I think that is scandalous because I
:30:26. > :30:30.don't think his good faith is what we have to question. We have to
:30:31. > :30:33.question having a Prime Minister who is making decisions that ends up
:30:34. > :30:37.wrecking the lives of millions and killing hundreds of thousands and
:30:38. > :30:41.destabilising the Middle East, it is ignorance we have to charge with. It
:30:42. > :30:45.is not OK to go into a situation treating the rest of the world as if
:30:46. > :30:47.it is a fairy story, saying, I am going to take away a bad guy and
:30:48. > :30:58.things will happen. It is very easy to say that in
:30:59. > :31:02.hindsight. You need to let him talk! They were not the arguments made
:31:03. > :31:08.against the invasion at the time. I did. Very impressive but I'm glad
:31:09. > :31:18.that Peter has accepted that Tony Blair didn't act in bad faith. He
:31:19. > :31:22.misrepresented the distance of weapons of mass destruction. Behave
:31:23. > :31:28.yourself or you have to go to the back of the class. Lord Butler
:31:29. > :31:32.calling him disingenuous, after he wrote the report in which he did not
:31:33. > :31:34.say that, I thought that was a disgraceful way of attacking the
:31:35. > :31:41.Prime Minister, with the benefit of hindsight. The war was in 2003,
:31:42. > :31:46.that's when it started and it is still causing tensions to rise.
:31:47. > :31:50.John, we are going to move on but no doubt we will be back on July the
:31:51. > :31:51.6th, which will give us something else to talk about after the
:31:52. > :31:52.referendum. Now, if you're a student
:31:53. > :31:54.in Scotland you can attend a Scottish university
:31:55. > :31:56.free of charge. In England, Wales and Northern
:31:57. > :31:58.Ireland at the moment you pay But a new report from the Sutton
:31:59. > :32:04.Trust and Edinburgh University shows that Scotland is doing far worse
:32:05. > :32:07.than England in getting school leavers from poor
:32:08. > :32:10.backgrounds into university. The Sutton Trust found children
:32:11. > :32:14.from the most disadvantaged areas are four times less likely to go
:32:15. > :32:17.to university than those Only 8% of 18-year-old
:32:18. > :32:23.Scots from the poorest areas enter university,
:32:24. > :32:27.compared with 17% in England. 90% of all growth in those first
:32:28. > :32:33.entering Scottish higher education has been through courses in colleges
:32:34. > :32:38.that are not degree-level. And the report found no evidence
:32:39. > :32:42.that the SNP's abolition of tuition fees had improved application,
:32:43. > :32:44.acceptance or entry rates This is what Scotland's Deputy First
:32:45. > :32:51.Minister, John Swinney, There has been an historical
:32:52. > :32:59.problem in younger people from deprived backgrounds getting
:33:00. > :33:01.into university in Scotland. Of course we are seeing significant
:33:02. > :33:05.improvements in that position. Young people in Scotland are now
:33:06. > :33:11.much more likely to go to university under the actions of the SNP
:33:12. > :33:14.government than when we came But there is much more to do in this
:33:15. > :33:18.subject and that's why the government established
:33:19. > :33:20.the commission on widening access. Its recommendations are essentially
:33:21. > :33:22.reflected in the Sutton Trust's report and the government
:33:23. > :33:36.is in the process of implement This problem is something we have
:33:37. > :33:39.raised before and we have done some interviews and talked about how this
:33:40. > :33:43.is in a country which historically has been rather good at getting kids
:33:44. > :33:44.from poorer backgrounds into prestigious universities.
:33:45. > :33:46.Now, we asked for someone from the Scottish Government
:33:47. > :33:51.to come on the programme, but no-one was available.
:33:52. > :33:53.We are joined in the studio by Dr Lee Elliot Major,
:33:54. > :34:07.So what's going on here? On the face of it, you would think that if there
:34:08. > :34:12.were no tuition fees, it would remove a barrier to students from
:34:13. > :34:15.poorer backgrounds thinking about going to university? Yes, the
:34:16. > :34:19.tuition fees, only part of the problem. One of the golden rules of
:34:20. > :34:27.social mobility is that you have to expand educational opportunities to
:34:28. > :34:31.increase levels of the poorest going to university. There is a cap on
:34:32. > :34:35.faces and if you don't expand them, there is no room to expand access.
:34:36. > :34:41.Is there a cap, I didn't realise that. There is no cap in England.
:34:42. > :34:44.There has been a big expansion. As the camp been a consequence of free
:34:45. > :34:50.tuition fees, that if the money is going to pay for tuition fees, you
:34:51. > :34:55.have to put a cap on the numbers to university? Basically it is a
:34:56. > :34:58.budgetary compromise, if you're not going to charge fees and you have
:34:59. > :35:02.limited government support for universities, these fees allow you
:35:03. > :35:08.to expand universities but it is getting the balance right. There are
:35:09. > :35:12.concerns about the huge debts in England but it doesn't mean that we
:35:13. > :35:17.are not against these. You may want to charge them, but a lower level
:35:18. > :35:23.than than in England. The problem is there is a fixed number of places.
:35:24. > :35:27.Critics have said that the abolition of Jewish and
:35:28. > :35:44.critics have said that the abolition of tuition fees has been a big hit
:35:45. > :35:46.to middling -- meaning a lot of upper-middle-class students get
:35:47. > :35:53.university. There is some truth to that. There is a huge gap in schools
:35:54. > :35:57.as well, so if you're not getting results in the school system, you
:35:58. > :36:00.won't get children coming to university because they won't get
:36:01. > :36:06.the grades. Was it made worse by the Scottish Government, partly to help
:36:07. > :36:12.to pay for the cost of free tuition fees, whittled away the grants that
:36:13. > :36:18.were given to students from poorer backgrounds to help them get through
:36:19. > :36:21.university? If you are from a poorer background, tuition fees are
:36:22. > :36:25.something you have to break down the road, that could be the elephant
:36:26. > :36:31.lurking in the room further away but to get through university, you need
:36:32. > :36:36.some money to be able to survive. That's right, we have a real concern
:36:37. > :36:39.about the lack of loans in Scotland for people who don't have the money
:36:40. > :36:45.to see them through a degree course. You are right, we need more loans.
:36:46. > :36:49.There is some good news, places like St Andrews have places for
:36:50. > :36:54.disadvantaged students and they've been very successful. One thing we
:36:55. > :36:58.have said, keep the place is open for talented students from poorer
:36:59. > :37:03.backgrounds. I was the rector of the University of St Andrews, which I
:37:04. > :37:11.enjoyed, but it has a huge number of English public school kids. Yes.
:37:12. > :37:16.Sometimes it is hard to find a Scottish accent, even a posh one!
:37:17. > :37:21.You want all universities to attract talents from all backgrounds. You
:37:22. > :37:25.are saying that... St Andrews has done good work in terms of places
:37:26. > :37:28.for talented kids from poorer backgrounds. The Scottish Government
:37:29. > :37:34.have said to us before when we've done this that the comparisons being
:37:35. > :37:39.made between England and Scotland show that England is better at
:37:40. > :37:43.getting poorer students to university but they are not,
:37:44. > :37:47.trouble. What do you say to that? We have used a number of statistics in
:37:48. > :37:50.the report, the overall message is compelling and I don't think anybody
:37:51. > :37:54.would challenge that. The problem in Scotland is that many kids are going
:37:55. > :37:58.to colleges rather than university. Many colleges do great jobs but
:37:59. > :38:02.essentially the poor kids go to college and the rich kids go to
:38:03. > :38:07.university. Scotland has a real educational challenge on its hands.
:38:08. > :38:12.Doesn't this surprise you because historically, Scotland, four
:38:13. > :38:21.universities, England only two, the tradition that in Scotland, the "Lad
:38:22. > :38:25.of parts", the bright kid went to the high school and then you could
:38:26. > :38:28.get on to university. Yes, I was surprised because when we grew up,
:38:29. > :38:31.we understood that Scottish education was supposed to be so much
:38:32. > :38:36.better than the English state education. Fascinating assembly
:38:37. > :38:40.children are failing in schools. That's the same pattern in England,
:38:41. > :38:43.poor children start school and by the time they are three, failed
:38:44. > :38:46.already hugely behind their middle-class contemporaries.
:38:47. > :38:53.Everything about our system widens the attainment gap. One thing we
:38:54. > :38:57.learn about this, you have to put much more of our resources into
:38:58. > :39:03.preschool education and then into the schools because you're not going
:39:04. > :39:10.to get pork is going through. -- for kids. I have to say, the picture
:39:11. > :39:17.behind it, stunning picture of the University of Leicester. -- poor
:39:18. > :39:22.kids. My word. One of the finest universities! I was listening,
:39:23. > :39:27.stunned, to the conversation. The first thing we take out of it, Tony
:39:28. > :39:31.Blair, who was brilliant to bring in tuition fees and the left was
:39:32. > :39:35.catastrophically wrong, and the paradoxical effect is that there is
:39:36. > :39:39.more social diversity and more people from disadvantaged
:39:40. > :39:42.backgrounds going, because of tuition fees, going to English
:39:43. > :39:46.universities and privileged kids benefiting from the absence of
:39:47. > :39:51.tuition fees in Scotland. How wrong can the left have been, the
:39:52. > :39:59.universities, the unions, the educational establishment? LAUGHTER
:40:00. > :40:02.We have delivered there! I think that the fees are too high, by the
:40:03. > :40:03.way. That's another issue, thank you.
:40:04. > :40:08.Now, how to engage young people in the EU referendum debate?
:40:09. > :40:12.Well, last night, the BBC staged the first
:40:13. > :40:17.this one in Glasgow in front of an audience of young people.
:40:18. > :40:20.The panellists were all over 50, naturally, but that
:40:21. > :40:23.the enthusiasm of the audience, who engaged in some
:40:24. > :40:26.Me and my mum live in a council house.
:40:27. > :40:30.My mum is disabled and needs a bungalow, which there are none of
:40:31. > :40:35.Immigrants are bumped up the list because of this.
:40:36. > :40:37.Am I right to want to leave, basically?
:40:38. > :40:40.Emily and her mum need to realise that the UK government are the
:40:41. > :40:46.The European Union are not some kind of scapegoat for you to keep blaming
:40:47. > :40:51.Right, we've got to have the shortage now but the
:40:52. > :40:53.more we let in, the less houses we have to house them.
:40:54. > :40:58.It's funny that you've got a selective memory.
:40:59. > :41:00.Just remember how many immigrants like my
:41:01. > :41:04.family, like a lot of the people in this audience's family have built
:41:05. > :41:16.Who said young people are interested in politics? -- aren't interested.
:41:17. > :41:19.A flavour of last night's BBC referendum debate there.
:41:20. > :41:21.Now, the designated Leave campaign, Vote Leave, have their own ideas
:41:22. > :41:24.about how to win young people over to their cause.
:41:25. > :41:26.They've decided to let money do the talking by running a competition
:41:27. > :41:29.Vote Leave's Robert Oxley is here to explain.
:41:30. > :41:41.What are you doing? We've produced a website, 50million.co.uk, and if the
:41:42. > :41:44.public can predict the right results in the European Championships they
:41:45. > :41:48.will win ?50 million. It is 50 million because that's the amount we
:41:49. > :41:53.hand to Brussels every day. Based on your dodgy ?350 million a day? Not
:41:54. > :41:58.dodgy at all, it is the amount debited out of the UK that is given
:41:59. > :42:01.to the EU. Of course it is more than that, ?52 million and when some of
:42:02. > :42:07.that comes back there is a big issue. The head of UK cities to its
:42:08. > :42:12.authority -- statistics authority says that is not genuine. I have
:42:13. > :42:16.them here. I have been down this road too often, the fact is that we
:42:17. > :42:19.don't send that amount every week because the rebate comes off first,
:42:20. > :42:24.it is an abatement, so we don't send that amount of money, that's fact,
:42:25. > :42:28.isn't it? A year ago the Chancellor said that the rebate was not in the
:42:29. > :42:34.UK Government's purview to give out. This is a key argument: people want
:42:35. > :42:39.to talk about how much money goes to Brussels, it is ?350 million a week,
:42:40. > :42:43.?50 million a day, but when the money comes back, the rebate isn't
:42:44. > :42:48.guaranteed. The rebate isn't coming back because it never goes out. It
:42:49. > :42:55.is not actually a rebate, it is an abatement and above the title is the
:42:56. > :43:00.Fontainebleau abatement. Before we send the money over to Europe, as
:43:01. > :43:07.our membership fee, we take the 5 billion off, so actually we sent 13
:43:08. > :43:12.billion. Anyway, giving out 50 million based on the 350. Just
:43:13. > :43:17.explain to me, what do you have to do to win the 50 million? You go to
:43:18. > :43:21.50million.co.uk and register, it is free to register and you predict the
:43:22. > :43:26.result, when, loss, draw, the games in the European Championships. --
:43:27. > :43:30.win. Not many girls are interested in football. All of the girls are
:43:31. > :43:38.predicting the results because they can win 50 million. Good point,
:43:39. > :43:45.Jenni. We will have to stop them now! Have you got to predict the
:43:46. > :43:53.result of every game? Every game. The goals of a Mac just went all
:43:54. > :43:56.lose? Win, lose or draw. You can still win ?50,000. There is going to
:43:57. > :44:01.be a winner in the competition. Given that the government have spent
:44:02. > :44:06.?9 million of your money and my money is doing a kind of propaganda
:44:07. > :44:10.campaign, dredging up this Treasury analysis, we need something that's
:44:11. > :44:13.going to level the playing field and I think this is a great way of
:44:14. > :44:17.engaging voters. To win the 50 million, how many games have you got
:44:18. > :44:19.to get right? I have been concentrating more on the campaign
:44:20. > :44:25.but you have got the group stages, 122 games in total. The key point is
:44:26. > :44:30.that if someone does not predict every result right, and there is
:44:31. > :44:35.every chance that they can there is a guaranteed ?50,000 for the person
:44:36. > :44:39.who goes furthest in the predictor. So if no one gets everything right,
:44:40. > :44:43.there is still 50,000 for the person who got it most right? Absolutely,
:44:44. > :44:47.and the great thing is that you don't have to be a league supporter,
:44:48. > :44:52.you can be a remain supportive. If Lord Rose is the head of the
:44:53. > :44:55.campaign he can still take part. It is great when we are worried about
:44:56. > :45:00.the championship distracting from the referendum. I would like to
:45:01. > :45:03.prove you wrong bike you coming back on the programme and telling us how
:45:04. > :45:08.many young men have entered your competition and how many women. --
:45:09. > :45:13.by you coming back. The idea you can engage people by asking them to give
:45:14. > :45:16.the details of what's going to have an ineffable championship, it is
:45:17. > :45:21.ludicrous. Did nobody in your office that and think about the
:45:22. > :45:26.participation in football? -- in a football championship.
:45:27. > :45:33.This was not just about engaging young people but about engaging all
:45:34. > :45:39.people. She was talking about this being biased towards men. I'm Rabada
:45:40. > :45:43.by female friends and mail going to take part in this campaign. We have
:45:44. > :45:49.an issue in Westminster, that people don't engage in politics. People
:45:50. > :45:53.say, I haven't been engaged with it, and people are more worried about
:45:54. > :45:56.the football championship. What you are doing is data mining, isn't it?
:45:57. > :46:02.We actively want to engage with people. They have to give their
:46:03. > :46:06.e-mails and some other details. We have to get in touch with people if
:46:07. > :46:09.they win. I understand that but it is called data mining. Most
:46:10. > :46:16.publications do it as well these days. How much does it cost you to
:46:17. > :46:20.ensure the 50 million? That is one for the insurance guys. We are going
:46:21. > :46:24.to stay within spending limits. The money I have to pay is the ?350
:46:25. > :46:30.million we pay to Brussels every week. Presumably Vote Leave is
:46:31. > :46:34.paying for insurance? It is insured. There is this ?50,000 available.
:46:35. > :46:39.There are premiums. We will be declaring it within electoral
:46:40. > :46:42.spending. We are making sure we stick in the rules, unlike the
:46:43. > :46:46.Government. I don't think Jenni or I will be taking part.
:46:47. > :46:48.Now, a private member's bill is a piece of legislation
:46:49. > :46:53.As they aren't in government, it's one of the only ways for them
:46:54. > :46:57.It's decided by ballot, but there's only a limited amount
:46:58. > :47:00.of time for debate - so it's usually just the top seven
:47:01. > :47:05.MPs who are successful in getting their bill heard.
:47:06. > :47:08.Though not necessarily on the statute book.
:47:09. > :47:10.It happened yesterday and, in a moment, we'll
:47:11. > :47:12.speak to the lucky MP who topped the ballot.
:47:13. > :47:14.But there was something different about how the ballot itself
:47:15. > :47:18.The mother of all parliaments, a place where the grandest
:47:19. > :47:20.traditions of democracy merge with modern thinking.
:47:21. > :47:25.They used to use a sort of paper raffle ticket system to pick out
:47:26. > :47:27.which MP would top the private members' bill list.
:47:28. > :47:30.But it was decided that was far too outdated,
:47:31. > :47:37.Now they've opted for something more modern.
:47:38. > :47:39.Here it is, the private members' bill ballot brought into
:47:40. > :47:43.the 21st-century, with cutting-edge technology.
:47:44. > :47:45.Each one of these wooden balls represents the hopes
:47:46. > :47:49.and dreams of an MP, and it could be your MP.
:47:50. > :47:51.OK, they're essentially mothballs with numbers
:47:52. > :47:57.engraved in a goldfish bowl, but this is democracy in action.
:47:58. > :47:59.It's a little bit like the lottery, isn't it,
:48:00. > :48:06.You just grind them around a little bit and we will pick out the ball.
:48:07. > :48:13.We will cross-reference the member's name to the number.
:48:14. > :48:16.Tradition dictates it is the Deputy Speaker and chairman of ways
:48:17. > :48:20.This selection process is new but the prestige of coming
:48:21. > :48:24.high up in the ballot goes back centuries.
:48:25. > :48:28.Actually private members' bills matter and it makes a difference.
:48:29. > :48:30.Here is a chance, it's not the government, it's not
:48:31. > :48:35.the opposition, this is individual members wanting to make legislation.
:48:36. > :48:37.Are you ever tempted to do a kind of bingo
:48:38. > :48:47.Well, I think that's always a problem, isn't it?
:48:48. > :48:49.You pick it up, it's a bit harder with something like 173!
:48:50. > :48:52.But you know, if we were to pick at number ten, Cameron's den,
:48:53. > :48:55.we've got a bit of something there, haven't we?
:48:56. > :49:08.And the SNP's John Nicholson, who came top of the ballot
:49:09. > :49:12.for private members' bills, joins us now.
:49:13. > :49:18.Does this mean you are the most popular person in Parliament? I am
:49:19. > :49:21.unbelievably popular or, at least, I have been for the last 24 hours.
:49:22. > :49:26.I've never had so much air kissing in my life. George Osborne came
:49:27. > :49:36.across to see me yesterday. I thought I was about to be hoped in a
:49:37. > :49:38.manly embrace. -- hugged. I think he is worried about what private
:49:39. > :49:45.member's bill and going to introduce an impact on him and the government.
:49:46. > :49:49.When you went into this process, did you have any idea what you wanted to
:49:50. > :49:54.do? The thought never crossed my mind that I would win, I have to
:49:55. > :50:02.say. What are the odds? Very low, but you did. I did and I tweeted
:50:03. > :50:07.asking for ideas and I know that you have done the same on my behalf.
:50:08. > :50:14.I've got some of the ideas here. Let's hear them. They range from
:50:15. > :50:19.compulsory voting, looking after the pensioners who have been
:50:20. > :50:25.disadvantaged, David Chambers says "Jail all MPs for life if they are
:50:26. > :50:31.caught lying". That would be even more popular. There is a straight
:50:32. > :50:36.bananas request. Legalise all drugs. Replace the House of Lords and one
:50:37. > :50:39.of several that I really like from James Melville, which is to force
:50:40. > :50:46.supermarkets to give away food that isn't sold at the end of everyday.
:50:47. > :50:52.We've had some, you know, because we asked. We've got tightening up of a
:50:53. > :50:54.election expenses - that's topical. Automatic voter registration -
:50:55. > :51:00.that's an interesting one. Proper funding for cycling. That is clearly
:51:01. > :51:05.not come from somebody in London, where you see all these cycle
:51:06. > :51:09.highways. Re-nationalise the railways. Make St George's Day a
:51:10. > :51:16.bank holiday, very fitting for an SNP MP. And a knighthood for Dennis
:51:17. > :51:20.Skinner. Two of these you couldn't do. You couldn't do proper funding
:51:21. > :51:26.for cycling. Because it is financial. And you can
:51:27. > :51:28.re-nationalise the railways because private members' bills cannot
:51:29. > :51:33.involve the spending of public money. I have been going through my
:51:34. > :51:38.notes from the House of Commons library telling me what I can and
:51:39. > :51:42.cannot do. I think I am definitely not going to go for something
:51:43. > :51:49.splashy that won't go anywhere, like abolish the House of Lords, much
:51:50. > :51:55.though I would like to, because it will die a death. It is a very
:51:56. > :51:59.privileged position to win this thing and I want to try and get a
:52:00. > :52:03.bit of legislation onto the statute books that will do some good and in
:52:04. > :52:08.order to do that, I'm going to have to build cross bodies abort. Indeed,
:52:09. > :52:13.because the great risk is that even in number one, you get talked out of
:52:14. > :52:16.Parliamentary time, filibustering. Last year, of the 20 private
:52:17. > :52:23.members' world that were introduced, only three made it, and all three
:52:24. > :52:30.were from Tories. The previous year there were one, two, three, four,
:52:31. > :52:36.five. And the previous year... Do you have an idea for John Nicolson?
:52:37. > :52:41.Perhaps you could do something non-contentious like introduce a 50%
:52:42. > :52:43.tax on all property bought in Britain by someone who is not a
:52:44. > :52:49.British resident. He cannot touch tax. Even if it is bringing revenue
:52:50. > :52:55.inquest bob that is exactly what you cannot do. I think automatic voter
:52:56. > :52:59.registration is interesting. Do you want the try Tony Blair at? To
:53:00. > :53:06.impeach the former Prime Minister? A happy thought! And MP already tried
:53:07. > :53:09.that in the last Parliament. Alex Salmond has something on his mind at
:53:10. > :53:15.the moment. When do you have to decide? I have four weeks to come up
:53:16. > :53:20.with a name for it and a further couple of months in order to
:53:21. > :53:23.actually write the bill but, as you know, also, sometimes bills get
:53:24. > :53:30.picked up by governments. Indeed they do. That has happened a few
:53:31. > :53:32.times. We will keep an eye on this. Come back and tell us what it is.
:53:33. > :53:35.Now, they've not been seen together in public since last September.
:53:36. > :53:39.No, I'm not talking about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard -
:53:40. > :53:44.I speak instead of the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
:53:45. > :53:47.They've been sharing a platform this morning to make
:53:48. > :53:58.Let's speed our correspondent Tom Bateman. Where you and what are they
:53:59. > :54:03.talking -- speak to. We are in the centre of Doncaster. Jeremy Corbyn
:54:04. > :54:06.is getting applause. We got the Labour battle bus that has just
:54:07. > :54:12.turned up in the last few minutes and, as you say, he and Ed Miliband
:54:13. > :54:15.sharing a platform together in a significant move for Labour's
:54:16. > :54:21.attempt to try to rally their supporters, to try to get that
:54:22. > :54:26.Labour In campaign focused on what they see as a positive message about
:54:27. > :54:31.the EU. This is a part of the world where there are three Labour MPs,
:54:32. > :54:37.including Caroline Flint and Ed Miliband, who have stumping local
:54:38. > :54:41.majorities. Ukip came second in two of those seats. There is concern, in
:54:42. > :54:44.the same way that many MPs have been reporting they are going back to
:54:45. > :54:47.their constituencies and hearing about reporting hostility towards
:54:48. > :54:52.the EU from some traditional Labour voters. Some in the Labour Party
:54:53. > :54:56.think this is all happening too late but it is part of a push to get the
:54:57. > :55:01.Labour vote out, so crucial it is in the referendum. Thanks for that.
:55:02. > :55:06.There they are together. A historic first, here on the Daily Politics.
:55:07. > :55:11.Angst will bring us up to speed. Mr Corbyn and Mr Miliband gather at
:55:12. > :55:13.last. -- thanks for bringing us up to speed.
:55:14. > :55:16.There's just time before we go to find out the andwer to our quiz.
:55:17. > :55:19.The question was, what did Green Party London Assembly member
:55:20. > :55:21.Sian Berry say would break up if Britain leaves the EU?
:55:22. > :55:30.So, Jenni and Peter, what's the correct answer?
:55:31. > :55:36.The last. No. Couples. London couples. Sian Berry made that claim
:55:37. > :55:40.about cobbles in London and joins us now. I assume this was a joke? No,
:55:41. > :55:44.there are three interventions that I've made in this debate. Let's
:55:45. > :55:49.stick to this one. This was to bring the debate back to the human scale
:55:50. > :55:55.because there is a lot of talk very big numbers and macroeconomics. Why
:55:56. > :55:59.would couples break up? Couples are our friends and EU immigrants are
:56:00. > :56:05.our friends, loved ones and colleagues and I wanted to know how
:56:06. > :56:09.many couples in London were one partner from the EU and one from the
:56:10. > :56:16.UK. The answer is 100,000 that is one in of our couples. Why would
:56:17. > :56:21.they break up? At the moment, EU people can move freely in and out of
:56:22. > :56:27.the UK. None use browsers partners have to have a minimum income. This
:56:28. > :56:33.is not a joke? I'm one of the 100,000. I'm married to a Swede. You
:56:34. > :56:37.said there are 100,000 couples in London where Britain is in
:56:38. > :56:41.partnership with an EU citizen. I only got married last year. Are you
:56:42. > :56:45.saying that if we leave the EU, I'm more likely to get divorced? If your
:56:46. > :56:50.partner hasn't got indefinitely to remain, there is now a minimum
:56:51. > :56:53.income requirement... Nobody has questioned that any EU citizens
:56:54. > :57:00.currently here will not be able to remain. Nobody has questioned that,
:57:01. > :57:03.right? The whole point of this debate, the fact that people who are
:57:04. > :57:07.on the side of wanting to leave and curb immigration, are talking
:57:08. > :57:12.about... But it is wrong for you to raise an issue which is right. EU
:57:13. > :57:17.nationals who are already here will still be able to stay here, whatever
:57:18. > :57:25.the result. That is covered by everybody in this debate. Nobody is
:57:26. > :57:31.asking them to leave. It is also covered by treaties. But the rules
:57:32. > :57:36.are none you people. As soon as we left the EU, new rules would have to
:57:37. > :57:39.be made. We have to assume that people who are trying to stop
:57:40. > :57:45.immigration do want to stop these kinds of immigrants. Are you saying
:57:46. > :57:49.that the Swedes, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians, the French,
:57:50. > :57:53.all of them living here now, are going to be deported? Yeah, and
:57:54. > :57:55.people are very worried that they will be subject to the same
:57:56. > :58:05.requirements that apply to non-EU people when we become not a man of
:58:06. > :58:09.the EU. -- member. Both sides have been guilty of scare stories. You
:58:10. > :58:13.just want to the top of the Premier League on scare nonsense. I'm
:58:14. > :58:17.raising a legitimate concern... You don't believe this, do you? People
:58:18. > :58:27.may have to make very difficult decisions. Up in Doncaster, if the
:58:28. > :58:30.Green Party was a serious party, you would have been anti-Europe and you
:58:31. > :58:34.would have made a lot of games at the expense of the Labour Party. We
:58:35. > :58:36.have to leave it here because I've got to go and tell the new wife we
:58:37. > :58:38.are about to be divorced! The one o'clock news is starting
:58:39. > :58:41.over on BBC One now. We're off for a week now
:58:42. > :58:44.as Parliament goes into recess - but I will be back
:58:45. > :58:46.with the Sunday Politics Thanks for joining us. Have a good
:58:47. > :59:07.bank holiday weekend. People were afraid of
:59:08. > :59:19.her political convictions -