Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament HARDtalk

All 28 leaders of the European Union word holed in buildings here in

Brussels for hours late into the night to the end of last week trying

to strike a deal that would keep the UK in the European Union. The

British people have their say on what they came up with in a

referendum in June. If they vote to leave

the EU what will it mean for the UK My guess today is the president of

the European parliament, Martin Schulz.

Could Britain's vote tear the whole union apart?

Martin Schulz, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Did David Cameron get a

good deal from the other leaders of the European Union? Yes. It was a

difficult negotiation, but very prepared and by parliament

contributed to improve the papers on the table and I think, yes, it is a

deal which helped, I hope, to convince British voters to say in

the European Union. It is a far cry from the fundamental change he

promised when he went into the negotiation, isn't it? I think there

is a change to the four pages of this negotiation paper and the deal

on the basis of that paper, you will find a lot of things he asked for,

especially the agreement on better lawmaking between the European

Union, the commission and the member states, which shows a lot of

requests from David Cameron, less burden for small to medium

enterprises, more effectiveness, less bureaucracy, more transparency,

is already in that agreement, so I think that the deal is based on some

major improvements. Let's consider what difference it will make. Those

things you are talking about were things that he European Union,

Brussels, promised it would do, become more competitive. What about

this promise that the UK will be excluded from ever closer union? Do

you think that will actually change anything for the UK? I think the

list of opt outs of the UK from European policies is impressive, and

opt out from Schengen, the euro, the police and justice cooperation in

some areas, so if ever closer union was not binding in the past, the UK

is approved. So what we described now is a reality. That is what I am

curious about, what is different? Those things already exist. Now the

28 member states agreed this is not binding for those who don't want

that. This is clarity. It makes clarification for British voters in

the referendum that this is now crystal clear, this is not binding

for the United Kingdom. And the treaties will be changed to reflect

that? Future treaty changes, changes to come, yes. This is an agreement

to include this when the treaty change will happen in the next

years. But one thing we should add is also other countries, especially

eurozone countries, yes, in a future treaty change, that should be

implemented and others as well. To be clear, because a lot of people

have said different things about this, not least the French Foreign

Minister, who says there will be no revision of treaties, no veto for

the UK and no calling into question the principle of free circulation,

that is certainly different from what has been told to the UK which

is that this will be legally binding and irreversible because it will be

in the treaties of the EU, that is right? The deal with the United

Kingdom was absolutely clear. Never closer union is legally not binding

for the United Kingdom. It was agreed between the 28 member states

and in the future treaty change that will be written exactly, literally

like it is in the treaty. So, nobody can tell to British voters other

things. It was written clearly on the paper. OK. On migrants and

benefits, which is a big issue which caused difficulties on negotiations,

there was as a result of this deal that there will be changes to

in-work benefits with a four-year taper that can be in place for seven

years, and then they will be paid child benefit at the cost of living

from the migrants own country. Do you think the effect of those

changes to benefits will put EU migrants off going to the UK? I

don't believe so. The whole exercise was to protect the United Kingdom

for the time being, to be abused with the welfare system of the

United Kingdom, and this is understandable, and in a temporary

limited time I think it is admissible to accept differences

between UK citizens and noncitizens. If this is temporarily

limited it is acceptable because other countries did the same after

the Eastern Europe countries joined the EU. Some countries, my own

included, had a seven year free period of access to the labour

market. The UK did not participate in there. That is the justification

for allowing it but my question is different - will it put off migrants

and you say no? For the time being the UK described the situation, and

the situation was the justification to get this out. The answer to your

question is logically, if this is then applied, I think it will lead

to less migration to the United Kingdom but for the time being it is

obviously the case that the United Kingdom argues we have too much and

therefore we want that opt out and I understood your question as a

question for the future - will it in future times - and it is difficult

for me to predict it, but I presume the opt out is asked to prevent too

much in the United Kingdom. Indeed it is but there are some people who

say that you can introduce changes but they won't make a difference,

they won't put people off coming, so why did you have so many leaders

negotiating into the night over this? Look at some people might say

it, OK, but the reality is the United Kingdom feels too much burden

for the time being. I think for the labour market, they asked that a

temporary limit exception because they want to bring order in that

situation, and the goal is to reduce the number of people looking for a

job in the United Kingdom with this additional credits and therefore the

whole exercise led to exactly that conclusion. So, it may be that

people say, it won't lead to the effects David Cameron raced but my

opinion is it will lead to it. That makes for a lot of people, by the

way, it led to difficult debate in the European council, because

especially the eastern European countries felt that this is a

problem for their citizens and therefore I have to repeat that it

will create the perfect but everybody must be clear it is

temporarily limited. Seven years, no more. And the other thing is that

other people not least Germany, since it has been struck, have

looked at it and have said, we should look if we can apply this,

indexation of child benefit, for example. Exclusively, indexation of

child benefit, all others claim to do the same. A spokes person said it

is a viable option that child benefits will be adjusted and they

will discuss it. That was one conclusion that from a certain

moment it is open for all member states to do the same, and the

German Chancellor said this is a thing we should consider as well,

yes, that is true, but only this one. Only that aspect? This was a

fear that was raised, this idea of contagion. Is it entirely acceptable

if other countries now say let index child benefit? I have a certain

understanding for it because the question is where other children

living? If someone is working in one place and family is living in

another place the question is not if he has not the right to get child

benefit but the child benefit should be linked to where the child lives.

This is no dramatic thing. I find it a very pragmatic approach. Other

countries saying OK we will do the same and that is understandable.

There will be some element of contagion. We discussed at the

request of the UK and this was a specific UK negotiation, not German.

If the Germans, after the agreement, say one element of the

agreement could apply also for us, OK. But that doesn't change the

reality that we negotiated about the specific status of the United

Kingdom. You will know David Cameron came back and there were plenty of

people not least a Tory MP Jacob Rees who said for so much labour he

has achieved so little. And it was this argument that, you had everyone

talking about child benefit, or tapering in-work benefits. These are

tiny details that are not the fundamental reform that a lot of

Britain wants a. Yes but this is because I can't comment on every

observation of any backbencher in the Tories. I want to ask you about

another conservative MP, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, because he

argues, you may say it is significant, but he thinks there is

a better and bigger negotiation that can be had and he is arguing,

campaigning, to leave the EU because he says there is only one way to get

the change we need, and that is to vote to go because all EU history

shows that only listen to population when it says no. I would like to be

in a reformed EU, that is my hope, and EU based on fundamental change.

I have nothing to comment about Boris Johnson and what he is doing

-- an. One thing is clear for me, clearer since Boris Johnson has

expressed his view, for the first time since a long time a

conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is fighting for

Europe and for the European Union. This is progress in itself. So Boris

Johnson contributed to a real change in Europe. The Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom is fighting for the European Union. Boris Johnson is

suggesting something else, that there could be a second referendum

and a second renegotiation. He should read the conclusions. My

feeling is he is also contributing to clarification. The Prime Minister

of the United Kingdom is running for the campaign to stay in and that

makes him, because it is not about a Tory debate, it is about the

competence of British voters, all British voters, and this is an

advantage for David Cameron. OK, so, if there is this referendum in

June, and actually the British people vote to leave, and perhaps,

perhaps David Cameron resigns, or David Cameron comes back, or maybe

Boris Johnson is negotiating again and saving, hold on a second, we

might be prepared to stay in a fully reformed EU -- saying. OK, now we

have an agreement, we are running all to convince British citizens to

vote for that agreement. I am asking you, could there be a second deal?

28 heads of state and government after a very difficult and details

negotiations, on the basis of a very tough negotiated result, are now

asking all together British voters to vote for an agreement on the

table. What do you believe, that we ask all together British voters to

vote yes because we say, but if you vote not yet then we restart the

whole exercise? I think it is quite clear that we ask it is a good

deal, British voters to vote yes. But you don't will out a

renegotiation, an alternative, more fundamental, after a no vote, which

could lead to another referendum. The only thing I will out is the

following one, that I participate in any debate about not to defend the

deal we agreed and to ask British voters to vote for that deal. I

could never imagine in my life where it is the case to support a

conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to fight for the

European Union! It is a wonderful thing. You are enjoying it.

Absolutely! It changed Europe already. Look, the fact that a

conservative Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, is now running in

the Commons across the country, defending the European Union, saying

we should stay in because it is better for us and the union, this is

real progress. But he might not win. He will. I am

convinced. And those who are saying vote to leave and have a free trade

arrangement with the EU. He raised the number of free trade agreements

to 57. He has to renegotiate with all of the states of the European

Union. Let us be honest about that. This is a better way to stay in.

Between negotiating with people who want access to British markets, so

there would be, not least the companies within the EU, saying do a

deal because we need the buyers. I'm grateful for your question because

it shows the Eichmann for those who want to leave and restart the whole

negotiation process. They're leaving one of the biggest economies of the

world in limbo for years. Particularly in uncertain times. Is

better to stay in. The day after the deal was struck, Britain remains in

the EU, it kills it under the conditions it is in. If it leaves,

it kills it too. The art and that was that setting up special

conditions to those not happy to start to the membership causes

problems because any member of the state could say I want that. Do you

think there is something in that that it has damaged the European

Union? The agreement on Friday and Saturday was crystal clear. It was a

United Kingdom agreement. It was only the United Kingdom asking and

the government pushing for a referendum. On the other countries

it was discussed. I've heard that 27 heads of government that this was a

UK deal. Nobody made a similar appeal. But all those leaders go

back home to the country 's with there are significant Eurosceptic

parties saying that we want some of that. I hope my answer was clear

enough. And I repeat. There's no room for Semler besieges. There was

another issue to be discussed and that is migration and the refugee

crisis. Is their frustration there was discussion about ' yellow

particularly in Germany that we had not found the necessary solidarity

with other countries. But we also moved in the right direction. We'll

meet again with the Turkish government and we will apply to the

so-called package with Turkey and we will control the borders more

effectively, and the transfer of those who have no right to be

political asylum seekers. We agree on the relocation scheme and putting

that into force and we have a good chance to do that. Will look at the

way the EU is reacting to the situation in Greece. Let us be

precise. My parliament, the commission, even some of the

authorities of the countries are acting coherent and in a clear and

precise and defined way of relocation, receiving the citizens

in the hotspots, identification, and cooperation between the necessary

authorities. Who is objecting against his? And the threat to

reimpose for a new border... Who is arguing for that? The European Union

or member states with an egoistic approach. They are saying if they

don't get their act together the border will be reimpose in three

months. It will be a big refugee camp. And that would be a mistake?

Absolutely. What will the people do. Will they flee from Islamic state?

Will look for another way. They will head to the Mediterranean. You will

not prevent with closing the borders someone who is fleeing from Islamic

State. To close the borders is no solution. It would be a fair

redistribution of the refugees among the 28 member states. And yet there

is no movement towards that for all the people saying this is what

should be done. Countries all over the EU are effectively ditching the

agreement and closing their borders. Absolutely. And why? National

interest instead This is your bleeding into disaster.

On the migration question, how do you change that? Because there is no

evidence countries will accept the redistribution. We need a pragmatic

solution based on our humanitarian responsibility. We are the richest

part of the world and very egoistic in some of the member states. Joe --

Joe Mennie has said that refugees can coming to our country. And we

ask that other countries practice that solidarity. You know there are

plenty of people in Europe that say that Germany has made a mistake and

acted like a magnet. I can't understand that a very rich country

sticking to this humanitarian responsibility makes a mistake. If

it is a mistake to be solid with people fleeing Islamic State, then I

will repeat that mistake. Those who are saying it is a German problem,

we have nothing to do with it, I draw a fence around my country and

then globalisation will pass away. So Austria, Sweden... They've

already drawing up defence when they were taking in refugee. We should

not blame them, but the others had not taken a single refugee. Because

they've taken so many, they are closing their borders or putting a

cap on it. Are you saying don't blame them because they've already

taken them in? I find this unfair for those who taken hundreds of

thousands of refugees compare to those who have taken nobody cast be

criticised. I would criticise those who have taken nobody. Like to? --

who? The Prime Minister of Hungary, here in the European Parliament

standing beside me said, ladies and gentlemen, this is a German

problem. It is not I Hungary and problem. We don't take refugees.

This is a member state of the European Union. What you think

should happen? You blame the countries like Sweden who have taken

many refugees. What you think should happen to those people question

yellow we should stick to the relocation scheme. And if they don't

accept it with you kick them out -- will you? I can't risk excluding a

country from the European Union. I prefer to answer to the previous

question, how to solve a problem. Not through exclusion, but by

encouraging those countries who want to participate in the relocation

scheme to do so and to start to relocate the people. The refugee

crisis, Britain leaving, can you remember a time when the EU was

under threat as it was now? Is very data it can tear itself apart -- is

there a possibility? Never in my lifetime. If Reddish voters vote to

stay in the European Union, this is a signal of an coachman for all of

us. -- British. Thank you for coming in.

Fairly frosty out there at the moment.

The sunshine that many saw by day captured nicely by some of

our Weather Watchers, well, followed by moonlit skies through the night.

The cloud melted away for many, and temperatures have taken a tumble.

Even in the city centres we've got temperatures close to freezing