24/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



live to its promise to take child refugees? First of Wales, Scotland


and Northern Ireland are meeting at Downing Street to make their Brexit


case but can different parts of the UK really expect different deals? It


is going to desecrate the countryside, argue campaigners


against fracking. Why has a leading green campaigner come out in favour?


What makes a good political insult? We will countdown the top five. The


House has noticed the Prime Minister's transformation from


Stalin to Mr Bean. It was a good one. With us for the whole


programme, prominent Conservative remain campaigner, Nick Herbert. He


described three senior campaigners as three blind mice. And Gisela


Stuart, who spent time with those blind mice during the campaign.


First of all, French authorities have begun the process of clearing


the giant migrant camp in Calais. Coaches have been chartered to take


migrants to reception centres across France where they will be


invited to apply for asylum, or deported to their


country of origin. A few minutes ago I spoke


to our correspondent I asked her how it has been going.


So far it has been running very smoothly. Migrants have come here


and formed orderly queues. They were asked for the names, nationalities,


and ages. They've been boarding buses quite swiftly. So far this


morning we are told by the authorities that 17 buses have left,


carrying on them 700 migrants. They have been told there will not be


enough buses for everyone to get on today. Some people will come back


here and the process will continue tomorrow. Many of the migrants I've


spoken to have said they are happy to leave. Some of them have been


here for many months. I was speaking to one young man who says he's been


here for eight months, it is called, dirty, life is difficult and he was


pleased to be moving somewhere he will be provided with proper


accommodation and food. Others say they will not leave, they have one


very clear: that is to start a new life in the UK. Some of those people


say that they will not move and this is moving further away from their


new life. They are clearing people who still want to make it to the UK.


What are the French authorities saying about that? The French


verities are being very clear that this is an eviction, the will be


closed and dismantled. The charities working very closely with migrants


in that camp, their advice is also very clear, to follow the


instructions of the French authorities. That is the safest and


best route. The charities working with those people say whilst the


camp is full it is easier for them to say, we are going to stay here,


but they hope as people move on, over the days to come, they will


change their minds, and get on the buses that have been provided for


them. The people living here, some of them more than a year, their


great worry is even if the camp is closed the people will need to still


be somewhere. Gisela Stuart. Let's pick up on that final point by


Sophie Long. Is this going to solve a problem, dispersing the migrants


across France, or will we see lots of new jungles emerging? We must


make sure this does not happen. One of the difficulties, because of free


travel on mainland Europe, once you have pressure, people can travel


wherever they want to. How do you prevent this happening? At some


stage, they were talking about reintroducing border controls.


You've got to deal with the pressure on the outside. The deal with Turkey


is not working properly. You've got to do the triple thing, between the


people traders, deal with the displacement, then you deal with the


pull factor. On top of that I hope Britain lives up to its promise in


dealing with some of the unaccompanied children. Let's come


to that. You nod your head. There is a fear, one of the Lord's made a big


play to persuade them to take the children. There is a worry that not


all those children have come across. Do you think they are going to be


dispersed across France before they get here? I hope not. Clearly, it is


going very slowly. It is a complicated process. I became aware


of that when looking at how my local authority was dealing with it. All


the local processes they need to put in place. It is not straightforward.


Even if they've got family? It is still not straightforward. They are


processed by the council then given to those they have a connection


with. There is a necessary amount of bureaucracy around it. We need to


speed up but we also need confidence in the process. It would be damaging


in that if we take people who are not eligible or there were concerns


about whether they are the right age or not. You agree with your


colleagues. Would you like to see further checks? Dental checks? I


certainly would not want to see that, I thought that was an


appalling proposition. It has been ruled out. There needs to be proper


checks. We have taken over 5000 Syrian refugees, adults, in the last


few years. There is a commitment to take 20,000 from the new campus. We


are doing our bit. Would you like to see further checks to verify the


ages of the unaccompanied minors claiming asylum or joining families?


DH check needs to be one of those. Would you like to see further checks


or, like Nick Herbert, did not want to see dental checks. If anybody


convinces me that they are better than what we've got at the moment


then I'm open to the suggestion but I did not think they were the answer


to the problem. What about the migrants who just want to come to


the UK, going to try and stay, whether they are able to, we will


need to see. What about those people? They are not going to give


up. Some of them are not but others are being offered proper


accommodation and they are being taken through the asylum process. I


think there are issues, why have they got to this point if they are


asylum seekers? When they've got as far as France, the rules are they


offered it in the first country they arrive at. There is a problem with


Europe and that has to be solved with the agreement made with Turkey


and Europe but I think we agree these are not easy problems, it is


generally wrong to make political capital out of them. It is time for


the daily quiz. The question for today


is who was Ed Balls advised not to try and emulate


on Strictly Come Dancing this weekend after he struggled


to lift his partner Katya Jones. At the end of the show Nick


and Gisela will give Maybe you could demonstrate the left


for us. Now, what's the collective term


for First Ministers? Because three of them


and a deputy first minister went into Downing Street about an hour


ago to talk Brexit. She needs to keep all the parts of


the United Kingdom together. The Prime Minister is hosting


a special joint ministerial committee in Number Ten involving


the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First


and Deputy First Ministers Both Scotland and Northern Ireland


voted to stay in the European Union, All three First Ministers


want their nations to continue to participate in the single market


and both Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones have


said their Assemblies should be able to vote to approve the government's


negotiating strategy. Nicola Sturgeon has also called


for Holyrood to have special arrangement with the rest of the EU


that could see Scotland remaining within the single market


and keeping free movement. Theresa May has rejected these


demands but has instead offered a direct hotline


for the three leaders to Brexit Secretary David Davies


so they can report any concerns, as well as a forum chaired


by Mr Davis where representatives from the nations can


air their concerns before the negotiations to leave


the EU begin next year. And we're joined now by the SNP's


Europe spokesman, Stephen Gethins. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


What's this got to do with Nicola Sturgeon? Isn't this something to do


with the Westminster Government? There is barely any area of devolved


competence that is not impacted by our future relations with the


European Union. It is right that the First Ministers come together and


discuss this. I notice the First Minister backed up a letter written


by the Labour First Minister from Wales calling for an agreed position


and a vote in the four parliaments. What do you say to these demands?


These seem to be fairly typical demands. They voted to stay within


the European Union. What is wrong with these demands? The very thing


what is happening at the moment is those who did not like the outcome


of the referendum are trying to rerun the referendum under a


different heading. Let me just finish this. Certain myths are being


developed. That this was not the United Kingdom referendum. It was


the United Kingdom referendum and that binds the entire United


Kingdom. Second, demands about remaining in the single market. If


you negotiate to leave and it means we still have free movement of


Labour, the supremacy of EU law, the WTO, then you have not left. During


the campaign it was made absolutely clear that leaving meant you left


the single market. David Cameron and George Osborne said if you vote to


leave you have left the single market. This is quite extraordinary.


If I can respond... This is quite extraordinary. In the Conservative


Party manifesto, and I think we should try to ferment what it says,


it says, yes, to the single market. I am not a conservative. It is


difficult to make the difference. That was before the referendum. It


was the part of the manifesto that said we should have a referendum.


You can maintain part of the single market, you can have different


situations for different parts of the UK. Nobody is denying it was a


UK referendum, but Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. Having


voted overwhelmingly to remain, I think the Prime Minister has a


responsibility to get to a position that agrees that. Let's take them


one by one. You say you could get an agreement but you want Scotland to


remain a member of the single market. Theresa May has said that is


not going to happen. She hasn't. She doesn't want the country to be under


the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and she wants to


curb freedom of movement. She is saying it would be nigh to


impossible to remain a member of the single market. What makes you think


Scotland could have a different arrangement? To pick up on this.


Believe campaign did not campaign on whether to leave the single market,


they campaigned on a blank piece of paper in an act of utterly gross


irresponsibility. The First Minister is rightly standing up for Scottish


business. Something that would be good for business throughout the


United Kingdom. Our universities, food Drink, energy sector, rely so


heavily on freedom of movement. Let's take the issue of the single


market. It is not true. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, even remain


campaigners said that. Let's listen to what some of them said.


The British public would be voting to leave, we would leave the EU and


the single market. Should we come out the single market? That would be


the case. Should we be inside the single market? No, we should be


outside the single market. I said after Brexit, Michael Gove said Will


we be inside the single market and he said no. He is right. We would be


out of the single market, that is the reality. We played this clip


before, but you can see clearly they did state on both sides of the UK


would have to be the single market if they leave the EU. You may


disagree with that but you cannot say they did not say it. If that was


still the case of the UK Government, I have asked them, everyone has


asked them, are we in our out, do we have membership of the single


market, they will not answer the question. Michael Gove also told


Scotland would get power over immigration. Now we have been told


we are not getting that either. Do you think the government is not


absolutely sure about leaving the single market? Yes, and it is right


they have not fully ruled it out. Although we tend to look at this in


a binary way, the terms on which we might still have preferential access


to the single market, those are still up for discussion. I think it


is in Britain's economic interests, and what businesses are saying, that


would be perfect. It would lead you to the view you have a border


between the different parts of the UK. That would be problematic. What


I want to do is reject what Bisla Stewart said, anyone raising these


issues is trying to frustrate the results of the referendum. Aren't


they? I was leader of the conservative in campaign, I said we


had to respect the results of the referendum. We are going to leave,


but the question is on what terms? The majority of the UK public is a


hard Brexit would be damaging to our economy and would drive a divide


between different parts of the UK as well. What is wrong with the vote,


what is the government so frightened of, why not have a vote so that we


could have the will of Parliament being honoured, head of the


negotiations? Because what precisely are you going to put on the paper?


We have had a referendum where people voted to leave. Parliament is


implementing that. But the next general election I want to have the


position where the United Kingdom voters will have the choice is what


immigration policy will be, they will have a choice on who does the


trade negotiations. You don't trust people to honour what the people


said. Otherwise we had not left. People are saying we should give


Parliament a full say in the matter but then so Parliament cannot


discuss these issues. Let Stephen Gethin answer because no one can


hear you all talk over each other. The league campaign campaigned on a


blank page and that was irresponsible. I am pleased the


first ministers have come together to try to get a common agreement. It


will do everybody the power of good. The First Minister has gone with


asking about the implementation and getting an agreed position. I don't


know about this hotline, I cannot get any answers out of David Davis


in the chamber. It has to be meaningful. It is not meaningful


because the demands being made by Stephen Gethin 's and the SNP are


not the man is that Theresa May will be able to... Not Arlene Foster. She


has said, and Northern Ireland is saying they are not bothered in the


way that Nicola Sturgeon and is Carwyn Jones are about membership of


the single market. But they are about Freedom of movement. This idea


of a hotline, it is symbolic, nothing will happen, they will not


get anything from ringing of David Davis? I am sure they will have a


very nice conversation. It is pointless. What I think is important


the government set out in broad terms, what its ambition is for this


Brexit process and that is what we have been unable to drag out of them


so far. That is the concern, I suspect in the dissolved reasons but


also the devolved nations, but also in the UK Parliament. That is why


many of us will be pursuing this issue and I suspect there will be a


parliamentary majority for saying the government must set out its


broad ambition and that must happen before the article 50 is triggered.


Let's come to the demands. Some will say they are unrealistic and you


making them in order to justify calling a second independence


referendum. I am not sure what is unrealistic. What we have asked for


is there should be a vote in the different devolved administrations.


We have such a significant impact on the devolved responsibilities, it is


right they should have their say. We need to get a common agreed


position. Theresa May should be doing that and who knows, she might


learn something. You think it is a demand Theresa May should look at,


the freedom of movement. This is something demanded in her own


backbenchers. She said it is not something people voted for. People


didn't vote for anything. They voted to leave the European Union, it was


a blank piece of paper and it was irresponsible and why we are having


these discussions now. When it comes to the single market, which was, you


stop free movement of labour. You have just seen the clips. It wasn't


a blank piece of paper. It suits the SNP perfectly well to go on


demanding the right to veto. So you don't have to answer about what has


happened to the education system in Scotland, what has happened to the


education system in Scotland and what has happened to policing in


Scotland. Picking a fight our Westminster level distracts from the


other things. Just on the idea of an independence referendum, when would


you call that if you don't have your demands met? The First Minister is


looking at a whole other range of options. For instance, the UK


Government is prepared to try and block at a special arrangement for


bankers in the financial sector, so why not a special arrangements for


Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is something that has been done


elsewhere in the European Union. Will that be allowed to happen when


they're looking at the problems of Catalan? They are not looking to


leave the European Union at the minute. It is about a realistic


demand. We are looking for a solution that protects Scottish


jobs. I understand that, but that was not my question. When would you


call a second referendum because that is what you said you would do


if your demands are not met. The First Minister, like her colleagues


elsewhere is going with a reasonable set of demands to the Prime Minister


today. Let's see if she can get further than we have managed to do


in the chamber. Gisela talks about the single market, but we cannot get


a straight answer out of the Prime Minister on the single market. Is


there a deal he would recognise that benefit Scotland in terms of the


single market? Would that be enough for you to say you won't call a


second independence reference? If you get a deal that keeps jobs,


access to the single market, then you need to consider it. Would it be


possible to have some freedom of movement, some relaxation on


immigration to Scotland, could you treat a nation like an economic


sector like banking, or is it totally unfeasible? I am trying to


see how he would implement this. How would you enforce that? Michael Gove


talked about regional quotas. I am a Labour politician. Could you control


and do this? I don't think it would work. It would work for particular


professions, but not geographical regions. It worked in Australia like


you talked about in the campaign. Are still for membership of the


single market or would you be happy with access? I don't think we should


rule anything out and I don't think the government... What would you


like? What I do like is the public were saying they wanted some control


over immigration and the binary choice we are offering, which is


between membership of the single market where there is full freedom


of movement, or out. I think it is potentially a false position and we


would be able to negotiate preferential access to the single


market while maintaining control over our borders. Where I would


disagree is I do not think the British public would accept an


arrangement which saw the continuation of free movement. I


think that would be problematic. We did say this would happen in the


remain campaign we did say one of the consequences of Lee vote, which


I respect the fact the public voted for, there would then be pressure in


different parts of UK. Do you accept your position is now imperilling the


union? We have got to make sure it doesn't. It wouldn't have done if


Leave hadn't have one. You could argue the Prime Minister should not


have called the referendum. Referendum always have a divisive


results, not just between the regions and we have got to make sure


the United Kingdom stays together. Thank you.


Now, plenty of developments in the Ukip leadership


So far seven candidates have declared their interest


In alphabetical order they are - Andrew Beadle, Bill Etheridge,


Suzanne Evans, Raheem Kassam, David Kurten, Paul Nuttall


Nominations close at midday next Monday, there will be a series


of hustings in the first two weeks of November and the new leader


will be announced in a month's time, on Monday 28th November.


Over the weekend three of the more prominent candidates were out and


about over the airways and this is what they had to say.


I think I'm absolutely the right person to champion the cause


of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave


the European Union and now seeing their democratic choice


So, I absolutely want to be their champion.


We are seeing hundreds of MPs trying to overturn the verdict,


we are seeing activists, lawyers trying to undermined


I want to say to them, don't you dare!


My job has been to be a very combative journalist.


My job is to be a little bit out there, a little bit you know,


get some attention, things like that.


But nowadays, 21st century, we live our lives in short bursts.


I've been a journalist, I've been a think tanker,


I've been a Comm director, I've worked for Nigel Farage.


You can be different people in your life.


I haven't sat here my whole life and gone, I want to aspire to be


a politician and therefore I'm going to carry myself


I have huge support out there across the country.


Not only amongst people at the top of the party,


in Westminster, with the MEPs, but also amongst the grassroots.


I want to stand on the platform as being the unity candidate,


I am not going to be on here and gild the lily,


Ukip at the moment is looking over the edge of a political cliff.


We'll either step off or it will step back.


I want to be the candidate that will tell us to come backwards.


Some of Ukip's leadership candidates touring the TV studios yesterday.


And we're joined now by prominent Welsh Ukip


Welcome to the programme. Are you going to declare and BB-8 Canada?


Yes, I have come on here to declare I am standing for the candidacy for


the leadership of Ukip. Not many viewers will know you. Tell us about


yourself bestial Mark I am an entrepreneur with a background in


mountaineering. My business mostly relates to adventurous tourism. I


have been a strong supporter of the work of Ukip since the early 1990s.


In fact, I only became a member fairly recently because in the past,


I was perfectly happy to play a background, supportive role. White


background? I believed there were talented people who were capable to


do what needed to be done, and we did prove over half the country


supports our basic foundation and premise. As you have admitted your


self, you are not that well-known, we have done some research. News


profile said last year you were a survival expert. One said when you


visited IKEA in Bulgaria, you persuaded the cashier to let you


carry your handgun in case terrorists besiege the building. No,


the man who wrote that rights for an audience who likes embellishment.


Which bit is embellished? I do competitive speed pistol shooting.


Of course, I was trained by the British Army to operate weapons. It


is a waste of taxpayer money if I don't maintain those skills. I have


access to Bulgaria. Did you have the gun on you in the store? Yes I did,


it was unsafe to hand over to security.


The story about laying siege to a building, quite simply, they said to


me, the reason they don't allow weapons in their is in case there is


an attack. I said, surely you want law-abiding people to be armed? Some


people might think that is quite an extreme position to hold in terms of


carrying arms. The profile says you are building a secure compound in


bulky area in case of a global meltdown featuring a church, a


leisure centre, firing range and a watchtower that will double as a


diving platform. Do you think you might struggle to convince enough UK


voters you're the man to lead Ukip? I really respect what you're doing,


I don't know who has assisted you with these questions. With all due


respect, I believe people are interested in why I'm standing. That


story was entirely exaggerated. If you have property and there are


animals around, of course you will secure the property. A secure


property simply means a garden with a wall. I'm sure you have that. I do


have a garden, I don't secure it in quite that way. People will want to


know about what sort of person you are. These reveal you in a certain


way and viewers can make up their own mind. What do you want to do


with Ukip if you win the contest? The situation we have, Ukip is at a


very severe crossroads. My understanding is all the other


candidates are jostling to take Ukip down a given path. It may look


obvious and straightforward but the end result is Ukip is going to end


up as just another political party where people work themselves into


positions of power to pursue their own agendas. What I'm proposing to


do is transfer power from the leadership to the membership. I


believe in a process known as direct democracy where the leadership does


not have any authority to move the party in any direction without


direct consent. Do you think with that platform you will beat some of


the more established candidates? It depends whether people in media are


willing to listen to my ideas or whether they want to trivialise it


with stories like this. I'm not sure that is trivialising it. Let's talk


about one of the other candidates. Paul Nuttall has spoken of his


experience of winning over Labour voters in the North of England. Is


he the man you are most worried about? I think Labour has got a


challenge in those areas, where they would not dream of voting for the


Tories and therefore Ukip would be a fallback position. What I think


Labour voters would look for is whether there's anything out there


which actually improves living conditions. Improve their skills, I


don't see at the moment that Ukip are that seductive. What about you.


The Conservatives could be saying, did we worry too much about Ukip a


few years ago? When you look at the infighting that has broken out. In


my party? In Ukip. Did you worry too much about them as a threat? I don't


think it was a worry about Ukip. Was a legitimate sense of the public


being promised a referendum on the EU and it was taken away and we


dealt with that. I still think that was the right thing to do even


though the result was not the one we want because I am a Democrat. I


think Theresa May, mounting a broad appeal to the whole country, is


taking the ground from under their feet. What is the point of Ukip when


the public have voted to leave and we have our Prime Minister pledging


to implement that? What is the point of Ukip? Can I please summarise my


understanding of the situation and what Ukip needs to be moving


forward? I will not deny that there is infighting. The situation with


Ukip is you have freedom fighters without an enemy. They just won the


last battle. When fighters don't have a common enemy they turn on


each other. Parachute Regiment. People going out during the week,


working hard and doing challenges together. On the weekend, with


nothing to do, they fight with each other. It is very common. What I


propose to do is direct the aggression towards the enemy. The


enemy is? Any kind of politics in Britain that does not represent the


will of the people. The politics that puts people into positions of


power to pursue their own agendas rather than the agenda that British


people give them. Let me push further on your background. You were


strongly criticised for the way that you were asked to respond to a claim


made by another Ukip candidate. You said a gay donkey tried to assault


your horse. Do you stand by that? It is interesting what you're doing. Am


trying to tell you my position and your trivialising it. It was playful


banter with activist. I would be so appreciative if you could understand


the concept I'm trying to communicate to your viewers,


according to the plan I have four Ukip, Ukip is going to grow. Right


now there is a very little reason to join Ukip. I would not be surprised


if we had less than 25,000 members. Are those the sort of answers you


would give as leader of the party, even in a frivolous way? I concede


it was a mistake to be playful with an activist in the street. I am not


a politician. He was asking me questions in the street. It was an


error of judgment. I was very early coming into politics. I'm sorry if I


offended anyone. Should Theresa May be thinking of calling a snap


election? She said she wouldn't and in doing so she would be exchanging


the certainty of another 3.5 years. It would give her a mandate for the


negotiation. She has a mandate for the British people that we're going


to leave. Although I can see that it might be temptation, that would be


the question, why run the risk of going for another five years when


you already have 3.5 with a workable majority? All right. Thank you very


much. The four month EU referendum


campaign was fought vigorously by both sides, indeed "All Out War"


is the title of a new book about the EU Referendum and we'll be


talking to it's author, But had the battle been lost


by the remain side before the campaign itself began,


because the deal that David Cameron came back with from Brussels didn't


live up to voters' expectations? Here's a reminder of those


months of EU diplomacy. When we have negotiated


that new settlement, we will give the British people


a referendum with a very simple in Britain, I know you want this


sorted, so I will go to Brussels, And when it comes to free movement,


I will get what Britain needs. The British people have


spoken and the answer is, The Sun has risen on an


independent United Kingdom. And just look at it,


even the weather's improved. I love this country and I feel


honoured to have served it. And I will do everything I can


in future to help this And we're joined now


by the author of "All Out War" and Sunday Times Political Editor,


Tim Shipman. Welcome to the programme. Your


thesis that David Cameron failed to meaningfully get anything out of


that the gauche Asian was the key to why he lost. -- negotiation. I think


that is why he lost. People think the deal was nothing much and that


made things easier for them. There is what happens during the campaign


and the context of 30 years of Euroscepticism, and a view across


the western world that globalisation has failed people. But if 600,000


people had voted differently we would have a different result and


there are a lot of things David Cameron got wrong during that


campaign that could have swayed some of those notes. Why'd you think he


thought he could dramatically reform the EU, bearing in mind 30 years of


Euroscepticism? It seems blindingly obvious they were not going to give


way on those key cornerstones of the EU. In terms of the practicalities,


he never put them on the spot. He asked them for certain things on


benefits. He never said we are going to leave unless you do this on


freedom of movement. It is very likely perhaps he would not have got


that but he never forced them to choose. Lots of other things went


wrong as well. He ran a campaign that replayed the Conservative


playbook from the Scottish referendum and from the general


election. He didn't have a proper campaign chief running the show. He


didn't have the press onside echoing his messages in the way they had


done previously. Ultimately, he put the unity of the Conservative Party


ahead of winning the referendum. It was tactical changes all the way


through. The unity of the party was what it was all about and he could


not have believed he would dramatically reform the EU. I agree


with the fundamental weakness being a policy or an answer on immigration


and if we had done then the result would have been significant. I think


the benefit changes were not enough to persuade the British people.


There were other elements of the deal that were quite significant but


it was impossible to persuade the public of that at the time. It is


worth pointing out that one thing that happened between David


Cameron's speech where he declared he wanted radical reform and that


negotiations which was the other countries deciding they did not want


treaty change. He was forced into a negotiation on things that would not


require treaty change, which meant it would be less radical. Which was


precisely the argument that George Osborne was making. He was violently


against holding a referendum and he thought it would divide the party


and there was a danger of it being lost. At the time treaty comes up


then we can have the argument. We did not have leveraged. He set a


timetable in advance and when it came to it, the rest of them were


worrying about the migration crisis and the continued problems. They did


not want to talk to us about Lisa Derrick concerns about sovereignty.


George Osborne was his closest ally, why was he not able to persuade


David Cameron against making that speech and holding the referendum?


Michael Gove was also making the same argument but Cameron had taken


the view that something must be done. The problem was he decided


something must be done, you had not worked out precisely how that was


going to work through. At that point he made that argument in 2013 it was


still five years away from when he thought it was going to be an issue.


A lot of people thought there was no way the Tories would have won the


2015 general election without making that pledge and perhaps the argument


would not have worked. If we'd had a different political environment,


Ukip were on course to win those elections, they could have won some


parliamentary seats. Were you with George Osborne on not holding the


referendum? I was urging we should hold it because we knew that there


was this groundswell of concern and that had been exacerbated by the


cancellation of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty when people felt


they had been betrayed. If you read what he said in his speech about


what was going wrong in Europe, it is faultless. The problem was the


package did not live up to the reforms that were needed. You could


just as easily blame our partners for not recognising the forces


present in this country and their own countries. You could blame them


but in the end... Expectations may have been raised far too high,


because you could not meet those demands. David Cameron was relying


on Labour getting more people out to vote in favour of remaining. If


there had been changed to immigration would you still have


voted that? If Cameron had recognition from the EU that they


could see some countries never been part of the single currency,


different relationships, I would have fallen silent.


The big error labour made is it gave itself as a remain party. There was


a debate about whether there would be a two speed Europe. Speed means


the same end point. Let's talk about Theresa May, now obviously as Prime


Minister. You say David Cameron wanted to go in with a tough


negotiating stance, but they didn't support him? There was this one


moment when he made a big speech on immigration which set the tone for


the rest of the immigration parts of the deal, which was a year in


advance. There was a meeting where David Cameron was pushing for an


emergency brake on numbers. Before and after the meeting, Theresa May


backed him. In the key meeting it transpired she and Philip Hammond


said you cannot go against Angela Merkel. If she is not going to


support this, they didn't see the point in doing it. It is a key


moment where things have turned. What does it reveal in terms of how


she will then carry out her negotiations now with Angela Merkel


and others? It shows she is quite practical and is also someone who


will probably be quite cautious about how she goes about things.


Will she capitulate? The politics are different now. When she was Home


Secretary, she could stay positions, but it wasn't her who was going to


be the person in the firing line. It's different when you are Prime


Minister and the buck stops with you. As a remain campaign, if


slightly half-hearted, Theresa May has got to prove to the Eurosceptic


she will take a tougher line, and so far that is what she's doing. A lot


of people in the Cabinet suspect she will be closer to Philip Hammond's


soft Brexit position than she is letting on, but at the moment she


has to stick to it. She knows if she doesn't deliver something that looks


like a robust departure from the European Union, her job is on the


line. That is different from David Cameron's job being on the line.


Gisela, he wrote about the 24, 48 hours ahead of Boris Johnson's


campaign collapsing Michael Gove's campaign. Did you think Boris


Johnson was up to the job of being Prime Minister? What I thought would


be a problem for the Conservative Party, they would end up in a


position similar to the Labour Party if they had a ballot paper with


Boris Johnson and Theresa May on. They would have had one candour that


the party members liked and another candidate the MPs would like. That


would have been their problem. Lots more to discuss, but at another


time. Then I will declare for the leadership of Ukip next time. It is


going to be a crowded room, isn't it?


It's going to desecrate the countryside, pollute water


supplies and contribute to climate change.


Fracking would be an environmental disaster no less, well that's


the view of most environmentalists, but not the former boss


of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, here's his soapbox.


I've spent the last 25 years campaigning on Green issues,


including five years as head of Greenpeace UK.


But there's one issue on which I think the Green movement


Here in the Lancashire countryside, the government has now given


permission to Cuadrilla to frack at Preston New Road.


That's a good start, but we need dozens more such sites.


Activist groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,


should stop opposing shale gas and start embracing fracking.


The reality is, Britain is facing an energy crisis.


And the number one environmental priority has to be to get rid


The government has said coal stations will close within the next


decade, but only if alternatives are available.


So green campaigners must support all the alternatives.


Anything but coal must be in the motto.


The best alternative is renewable energy such as wind.


But there is no way renewables can expand fast enough by 2025


Nuclear is also progressing very slowly.


Gas is a proven technology, only half as damaging


And most homes in Britain use gas for central heating.


Britain now imports gas from Norway and Qatar.


In Qatar, the gas is turned into liquid and brought by tanker.


That makes it about 10% more climate damaging than shale gas would be.


And there are very serious human rights campaigns about Qatar.


Shale gas, that can be extracted from rocks,


such as these on the Fylde Coast, offers a better option.


Fracking needs to be tightly regulated, as President Obama


And evidence now shows that fracking does not lead to the devastation


So, if we want to keep the lights on and stop burning coal,


it's time for green campaigners to stop saying "frack-off"


He's here in the studio with us now and we're joined from Blackburn


by the Anti-Fracking campaigner, Tina Rothery.


People will be amazed to listen to you in the green cause, promoting


fracking? Why must fracking be the answer? Fracking must be part of the


answer, not the whole answer but part of the answer. Because we are


still burning coal. It is much worse than any other option. As long as


you get rid of burning coal, gas is the way forward, do you not agree to


keep the lights on in the interim period until renewables are far


enough on? There is a great deal of infrastructure required. If Stephen


is talking about keeping the lights on, at what they does he feel they


are going out and how does he think fracking could meet that date when


to get a decent contribution to energy, it's going to be at least


ten to 15 years. Also, when Stephen spoke about it, fracking originally


when he started promoting it, he talked about when we had carbon


capture and storage. The government has blown that out of the water, so


surely his argument fails on that also. Also what about it won't be


online on time? It will come online more quickly, if green activists,


who have an important role in society, but shouldn't be beyond


criticism, if green campaigners started supporting fracking, it


would come online more quickly and that would enable us to get rid of


coal more quickly. The point about carbon capture and storage,


absolutely, I am doing everything I can to try and persuade the


government to bring carbon capture and storage back into the equation.


Then it would be possible to burn coal safely and gas safely. With the


right regulations and the sort of conditions Stephen is talking about,


what is your objection to fracking? We don't believe the regulators are


up to the tasks, we have seen Canada, America and Australia, their


regulators have let them down. We give 1.3 billion in tax breaks to


the fossil fuel industry but we are cutting them for renewables and we


are saving ourselves 67p households on what we save on putting renewable


subsidies. It isn't just the activists who are back the


production of new technologies, if the government would maybe give some


of those tax breaks to renewables, we could surge ahead and start


weaning ourselves of this old fossil fuel industry, that no matter how


you look at it, has an expiry date. Shouldn't you be taking your fight


to the government and pushing further ahead in the way Tina is


outlining to push renewables, which you do believe in. As opposed to


directing your fire at anti-fracking campaigners? I am picking plenty of


fights with the government. In regulation, the UK regulators are


better, they are not perfect. They need to be properly resourced, but


the Environment Agency is already requiring any fracking sites to be


properly closed down and not just left and any water that has been


used for water to be held in closed containers, not just in empty ponds,


which is what happened in The States. On the subsidies, tax breaks


or indirect subsidies, but the government currently gets no money


from tax on fracking because there isn't any fracking. If they were to


actually give money to fracking I would oppose that and I have said


that. But they are proposing a lower tax rate so they will get some tax


revenues, which should go to renewables. In the end, we have seen


the arrival of the first shipments of shale gas from the US, if we are


going to be importing it, why wouldn't it be better to have some


fracking Lancashire where it could create local jobs and help the


economy? From Pennsylvania, they begged us not to because it


encourages the industry in an already damaged area. The deal we


have for importing shale gas from America, I believe is a 20 year


contract that would be very hard to get out of. An industry like this in


our country, the requirement for silica sand is huge and that will


happen in Cheshire and that will rip be required to service the fracking


industry along with pipelines and infrastructure. We would put that


investment in that would put out in about ten to 15 years' time, would


last only a couple of decades then be closed down and then we will be


hearing about job losses. In Australia they recently banned


fracking because it would decimate agriculture and for every ten jobs


you get in fracking, you lose 18 in agriculture. That was a cross-party


five-year study that proves that. Nick Herbert, you are against


fracking in your constituency? I am not against fracking per se, I have


raised concerns about the impact on landscapes such as the South Downs.


There is an interest in protecting areas like the South Downs. The


issues, one is the below the ground issues, which can be dealt with. But


then there are the surface issues which require setting up the


wellhead and lorry movements. You would be happy for it in Lancashire


but not in West Sussex? There are already oil wells in West Sussex,


including my constituency. The question is whether they are


sensibly located that doesn't cause disruption to local communities or


damage to the countryside. It can be achieved if the industry is


sensible. Is it acceptable or is it NIMBY -ism? It is a bit of both. I


make no apology for wanting to protect the South Downs. That is the


role of a constituency MP. The wells have to be where there is shale gas.


It is better to have shale gas in the UK than imported, or import any


gas from Qatar where they have slave labour. I will have to say goodbye


to both of you. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was who was Ed Balls


advised not to try and emulate on Strictly Come Dancing this


weekend after he struggled I like the way he pushed her back


on. But that's it for today, thank you to my guests. Goodbye.


DINAH WASHINGTON: # Now you say you love me


Download Subtitles