23/04/2012 Newsnight


Can the Eurozone cope with French elections? Will plans to reform the Lords survive? Is the Norwegian televised murder trial a good idea? With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/04/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme includes flash photography.


Have the technocrats lost control of Europe, the French have voted


against austerity, the markets are in turmoil.


Six million cast their votes for the French far right. We will talk


to one of its leading members. The Dutch Government has collapsed,


others are in peril, where does this leave the eurozone's grand


plan. In France, so influential in European politics, and incumbent


President, who promised austerity, is floundering, while those who


seem to say it doesn't have to be that bad, have prospered at the


polls. As the economic indicators nose


dive, for much of the eurozone, there is only recession ahead. The


unelected law makers in the House of Lords are faced with reform


again, don't hold your breath. Here are all the successful acts of


parliament, if you want to seat unsuccessful attempts to reform the


House of Lords, you would need a room twice as big.


We have the minister responsible for this can of worms, and the peer


who formerly led the liberals. Also: a mass murderer on prime time


TV, are the Norwegians right to let Breivik rule the airways, we ask if


Scandinavian liberalism is the way ahead.


Good evening, like a good old fashioned horror film, the eurozone


blockbusters get bigger and brasher. On the eve of the French election


results put a man who doesn't believe in austerity in the lead.


Six million voters voted for the far right.


The Dutch Government has resigned, the Czech Government is in peril


too, is this the end of the centre right dominance in Europe, where


does it leave hopes of a UK recovery.


If Nicolas Sarkozy was just running on his record, his task would be


difficult enough. Millions of French people blame him for what


they call the bling-style of presidency, for fail to go protect


jobs, and running huge public sector deficits. Of course, it is


the future he appears to promise, by signingp to that fiscal EU


budget deal, which limits the way Governments can spend money, and


puts all sorts of sanctions in place, that is his real political


problem now. The other key candidates in this election seem to


be promising the people it really doesn't have to be that way. And


over the past 24 hours, we have seen, that a big majority of the


electorate seems to buy that argument.


Extreme politics and extreme weather, an incumbent President


seems to be swept away, and some ideas about France's position in


Europe with him. After the polls closed on the first round of voting,


crowds of supporters gathered at Socialist Party headquarters. Their


leaders' predict they will win, and recast the European debate about


how to beat recession, and mass unemployment.


The vote and the majority of the people want a new economic dynamic


created in Europe, especially in France. It is sure. We don't accept


this situation, concerning industry, concerning salaries, concerning


employment. We have to change. They extol the country's


revolutionary ideals and the struggle for social justice.


Facing the choice of Government cups, or deeper economic pain, the


French have voted for neither of the above. Each candidate has a


different formula of how exactly the country should now push ahead,


and the results, when they came in the early hours, showed opinion


polarised. Francois Hollande, the socialist


won with 28.6%, Nicolas Sarkozy came second with 267.2%, Marine Le


Hollande and Melenchon essentially believe in borrowing their way out


of recession, Le Pen, in leaving the euro, Monsieur Sarkozy


campaigned for following the EU's new rules, but suffered for it.


So the result service notice to Brussels, Berlin, Europe more


widely, that the system of political management, Merkozy,


Franco German domination of the politics of the eurozone, and


indeed their ideas on austerity, may all be on borrowed time.


But, of course, the socialist activists here, at Monsieur


Hollande's headquarters, are not taking victory for qant granted,


they are setting out to win that second round decisively. Today the


socialist leader was in Brittany, fighting on what is a now two-horse


race with the President. The socialists did well in this


region, but so did the National Front. Now madame Le Pen south of


the race, he's trying to get some of her votes.


TRANSLATION: If I become the next president, I will continue to do


what I do now, to come and talk to you and listen, because you have


given me important messages, on work, school and health.


Mr Sarkozy returned to the stump today as well, having suffered the


shame of being the first incumbent President to lose the first round


of IRA election campaign -- a re- election campaign. Is his prestige


fatally damaged, he's moving right wards, also trying to get National


Front votes, but Marine Le Pen is not in the mood to do him any


favours. TRANSLATION: I no longer believe in what Nicolas Sarkozy


says. There is many voters who trusted me and showed dignity and


strength in voting for me, they also don't believe in his postures


and his promises. So will Le Pen's voters now go to the centre right,


and Sarkozy? It doesn't usually poll voters to go for the right,


they don't make any suggestions, or they call for abstention, it is


likely they will do the same again. Which means that the electorate


will probably go maybe up to half to Sarkozy, maybe less than that,


and then spread between abstention and Hollande. You have to remember


that theers of the National Front are usually not liking Sarkozy.


There is a strong position. But also a number of them are strongly


disappointed by Sarkozy. Hoping to find some suitably right-


wing cabbies, we dropped in at this taxi haunt, but found them in


moderate mood, wanting to vote for the man they expected to do more to


protect the economy. TRANSLATION: I haven't decided how


to vote, I will wait and see what they both propose over the next two


weeks. TRANSLATION: I'm anti-Sarkozy, I'm


voting Hollande. I think he will bring a new flair to the country, a


change for the French people. Mr Sarkozy is stepping up his


campaign messages, on themes like immigration, the control of


national borders, things he hopes will gain him those far right


voters. But will it be enough to close the gap with Monsieur


Hollande? Almost nobody outside the President's campaign thinks it will.


The socialist has an advantage of 10% in the polls, even 12% in some.


And there is a view that means he cannot be beaten at this stage of


the election. There has been plenty of negative


campaigning already, and it could easily become nastier during the


second round. If the left, as expected, wins, it will have to


live with a newly-empowered far right, that represents positions on


immigration or Europe that have, up to now, been kept out of the


mainstream by the French political elite.


I have been speaking to a member of the Front Nationial. Why did six


million French people vote for your party? I think they have come to


realise that not only did we put forward the good questions, as even


a former socialist Prime Minister recognised, Mr Laurent Fabius, but


that we also got the good answers to these questions. The what was


that, was it rejection of the euro, was it rejection of immigration?


I think it is rejection of what you could call the decadence of France,


but not only France but maybe also of some other countries in western


Europe. That is a loss of independence, declining of the


identity, given the massive immigration policies, that is for


sure. Also because of globalism, that unemployment is increasing,


jobs going elsewhere. You have split the vote on the right, do you


really prefer to see President Hollande instead of President


Sarkozy? We did consider that the called progressives didn't bring


any progress, and the called Conservatives did not conserve


anything of our inheritance, cultural, political, economic


inheritance. That is why we disagree with both. What should


your voters do on the 6th of May in the second round? I think they will


listen to what Marine Le Pen will say, on May 1st. But I doubt, very


frankly speaking, that you will ask our people to vote either for Mr


Sarkozy nor for Mr Hollande. What will be, then, the relationship now


between your country, France, and Germany? We will have to be


independent. I have, we have nothing against Germany, and we are


happy to have at least a peaceful relationship with Germany, but I


think the interests of Germany are not necessarily our's. I don't know


if the economic or financial policy of the strong mark may be that it


fits German interests. Mr Gollnisch, in 2007, you yourself


were convicted for contesting the existence of gas chambers and the


number of deaths in the Holocaust, can you see why the world is uneasy


with your party? Sorry, you are completely mistaken. The Supreme


Court of my country, the 11 judges stated very clearly that I was


completely innocent. They wiped out all accusations against me, and


they stated very clearly that I had been prosecuted on the basis of a


forgery. Thank you very much indeed. You are welcome.


Paul Mason, our economics editor, is here with me now.


It looks like there is more political crisis coming from the


Netherlands tonight, prompted by Europe. Where are we going with


this? We have to roll back the film a bit, to last December. When they


came up with the plan to save Europe. And part of it was pumping


money in from the Central Bank, and part of it was this new treaty, the


one that Cameron, remember, vetoed, they had to do it as a separate


treaty, it says no more discretionary fiscal stimulus,


instant austerity. We have the basic of it here. 06% of GDP debt


limit, they have to impose that. They have to stick by the old


Maastricht rules, and make them tighter. Essentially you can't do


fiscal stimulus, the structural deficit can never be more than 0.5%


of GDP. You can't do what Obama, and Alastair Darling did,


stimulating the economy. Hollande said he would renegotiate that, if


he win. He then rolled back from it saying he would make additions to


it. Tonight the Dutch Government has fallen because it tried to


implement this by 2014, they all are. And the far right there,


supporting the Conservative-led Government, pulled out of the


Government, because they wouldn't make social security cuts. So the


whole thing is now a mess, the Czech Government, also, teetering,


on the whole brink of trying to to this. But it is a dead letter, it


is something the Germans will very quickly, as the markets already


have, have to get their heads around. If you separate out the


politics for a second, real concerns about the economy itself


now? The eurozone shrank in the last three months of last year. We


think it has probble shrunk in the first three months of this year,


today's statistic tis -- statistics say it is probably shrinking in the


second quarter. We are looking at a whole year's worth of stagnation


and recession in the eurozone. The Spanish Central Bank confirmed it


is officially in recession. In the face of it, what does Hollande


stand for? Hollande stands for spending more, he stands for taxing


people more. He has promised to balance the books, but later, to do


the austerity later. It is the he wants to balance the books, which


completely flies in the face of the way most of the financial markets


and bankers want, which is austerity. Where next? The Greek


elections, 6th of May, on the current standing the combined votes


of the elive lent of Labour and the Tories, are 36% in the polls, and


the communists and Trotskyists are 36%, we will be talking about a


different extreme in European politics there.


How do the rest of Europe feel about the French result, they don't


claim to be a representative cross section, we have brought together,


Peter Altmaier, Angela Merkel's Chief Whip from Berlin, Nigel


Farage, leader of UKIP, and Keith Mangan, senior leader of the bank


UBS. How big a moment do you believe this is? It is quite


significant. Your package has clearly explored the way in which


the votes have split about almost a third of French voters went more


parties of the more extreme left and right. So the battling over


these votes, particularly for the National Front parties' votes, I


think, will drive the French political debate towards an even


stronger tone of nationalism, and anti-austerity. This is quite


destablising. I'm not saying this will cause an imminent eruption in


Europe, but it is certainly detablising against an already very


unstable economic backdrop. Peter Altmaier, clearly it isn't in


the bag for Francois Hollande, but how much do you think would change


under his presidency, relations with Germany? First of all the


presidential race is far from being over. Nicolas Sarkozy is a fighter


and he will fight on. But even if the outcome of the second tour


would be different I suppose that, at the end of the day, I cannot see


any working functioning alternative to what was decided by the European


Summit in November, as soon as Mr Would start spending more,


disregarding the principles, he would be punished by the financial


markets. Therefore, I'm quite optimistic that after a while we


can continue in consolidating, instead of making and allowing more


public deficit than we can pay back. Let me get this straight, would you


be scared of an Hollande presidency, or do you think it would end up


being exactly the same? Well, first of all, as a Christian democrat, I


would be very much in favour of a winning of Mr Sarkozy, but if Mr


Hollande, at the end of the day, would become the new French


President, it wouldn't change, of course, fundamentally the Franco


German relationship, this has worked independently of all


political constellations. Secondly, it is quite clear the Fiscal


Compact cannot be changed, retro actively, it is under way for


ratificaton in many member states. And so, perhaps we will have some


debates, internally, in France, but I cannot see the risk of any major


change in European economic politics.


We will come back to that, Nigel Farage, when you look at the French


political scene, as it stands today. When you see the National Front in


France doing well. What do you think? I think Marine Le Pen has


tried to change the National Front, and take it away from debating race,


and take it away from this awful anti-semitism that seemed to


permeate it. She has been campaigning on the fact that she


wants France to leave the euro. She has a sneaking admiration among


many Conservative figures in France. If Hollande does win, two things


happen, firstly, the huge competitive gap between France and


Germany gets wider, and in fact, the debate about the future of the


euro won't be between Germany versus Greece, it will be Germany


versus France. Secondly, she will be the ability, if Sarkozy loses,


to completely reconfigure Conservative politics in France.


you think she has shred the party of the Zen know phobic image, do


you see her as a kindred spirit? don't think the National Front can


get rid of that horrible, anti- semetic, deeply racist past, I do


know from skrfr friends of mine in France, that if -- Conservative


friends of mine in France, if she was to leave the National Front,


and set up a new party in the wake of the Sarkozy loss, then you would


find a real, genuine, big euro- sceptic party, in France. The


Franco German pact is what has kept this whole thing together. I think


really for the euro and for the European project, the game is up.


When she talks about, as the speaker earlier did, about loss of


identity, those being the things that people voted for them, those


are issues close to your heart? Very close. I don't support the


National Front, or her father, or Bruno Gollnisch, and I never have,


I know what she tried to do, and she said so herself, is to take the


National Front from being the BNP and turning it into UKIP. She has


said that herself. I admire what she has tried to do, I think she's


a bigger front than the National Front, and if she breaks away from


it and has a genuine, non-sectarian, non-racist party in France, I will


cheer to the rafters. If Hollande, George Magnus, wants to leave


austerity behind, as you suggested, could it be that France alliance


itself much more closely with southern Europe, with those


neighbours like Spain and Italy, who have rejected it? I'm not quite


sure which way the cause and effect works, my understanding, certainly,


is that a lot of politicians in Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece,


elsewhere, actually who have been willing an Hollande victory,


because his victory could act as a lightning rod, for this general


disaffection with the politics of austerity. I mean, that in itself


is a different issue. It's possible that Hollande could articulate that


view on behalf of more and more European countries, in what clearly


might leave Germany a little bit isolated now, particularly with the


Dutch Government having fallen. is very difficult that, you might


have been living in cuckoo hand, talking about austerity as if --


cuckoo land, talking about austerity as if it is the only way,


and the people around Europe are saying no to it? It was clear from


the beginning this was a very difficult process indeed. But my


impression is to the contrary, the new Governments in Italy and Spain


and Portugal have made the basic choice in favour of reforming of


regaining competitiveity, of restructuring the country, of


bringing down the deficit. What do you make of the Dutch and the


Czechs tonight? Well, if Mr Hollande would change, would try to


change that strategy, I cannot see how this could work, already today


all the money is flooding back to Germany, we have spreads where


Germany can borrow for 1.6% for ten years, the money it needs, other


countries have to pay up to 4% more. This is an indication of trust of


financial markets. You cannot survive without the trust of the


financial markets. I think this sort of dysfunction in European


financial markets is very much about the fact that the markets


actually, they are not willing austerity in other countries. That


may have been the case a year or two in Greece, but actually they


are frightened by what austerity will lead to in terms of the


viability and the stability of political systems. So I think you


know, what Hollande, if Hollande is elected, I'm not sure it is much


better under Sarkozy, but if Hollande actually becomes the


President, that is why I feel he may well feel with momentum behind


him that this is a moment, to basically launch, as it were, an


anti-austerity alliance in Europe. If there was an anti-euro alliance,


you would cheer it to the rafters, what would Europe look like with


Marine Le Pen around the table, with others, if the euro collapsed


and your dream came true, it would be a mess? Let's think of a Europe


with democratic nation states not being dominated by German economic


policy, or unelected bureaucrats based in Brussels. We could trade


together, we could co-operate together, we could have mutual


deals and our workers moving around countries and our students on


exchanges, we would get back our democracy, independence, pride and


self-respect. It is going to happen, I'm certain of it, this model is


being reject. Mr Altmaier can say what he likes, people do not want


to live under German-dominated austerity. We are seeing a


democratic rebellion across Europe. Nobody is dominating Europe, but


the consensus of 27 sovereign states. All these states, except


the UK and the Czech Republic, have agreed on the fiscal package. The


far left and far right have been defeated in the elections, it is


now a battle between centre left and centre right. I'm convinced


this will go on and succeed. They are yelling in my ear now, we


must leave it. When it comes to the House of Lords,


Britain finds itself in the esteem country of Kazakhstan and one other


country, the only place where the second chamber is bigger than the


first. Today it was recommended the House of Lords be elected by a --


be replaced by a elected body. Some Lib Dem MPs will vote against


their leader's plans for reform. George V on his way to open


parliament in 2010, much has changed, but much is still the same.


The Government then was heading for a showdown with the Lords, it was


determined to reform the Upper House. On its way to its promised


abolition of the Lords, the then Government put through the


parliament Act of 1911, to establish, in law, the primacy of


the Commons. But only, you And boy were they not kidding on


that one. In the 100 years or so since the parliament Act was signed,


and this is the original, held in the Parliamentary Archive, there


have been numerous attempts to reform the Upper House. Where they


have been successful, they have generally been about excluding


people from sitting in the Lords. The last Labour Government got rid


of the vast majority of hereditary peers, and shipped the Law Lords


off to sit in their own Supreme Court. A far trickyier, and


impossible question to answer satisfactorily, is who should sit


in the Lords, and how should they be selected. One of the issues is


it is will legislating about parliament itself. Every single


member of parliament, in both houses, 1400 people, think they are


an expert in the subject and they all have their own opinion. As if


to illustrate the point, today of the day the joint committee, made


up of MPs and peers, was supposed to publish its recommendations. It


did, but at the same time. people are entitled to a say.


minority group of the committee, published their own report,


disagreeing with the first lot. The issue that d divided the committees,


divided many parliamentarians, should members of a reformed Upper


House be elected or not. At the moment the country understands very


clearly that we go to an election with a manifesto, whatever party


you vote for can come to this place and legislation a dlifrb its


legislative programme, very clearly. -- deliver its legislative


programme, very clearly. The moment you have a mandate from the people,


they will ask why do you have primacy.


However used to getting their way the Lords might be in their day


jobs, they have to accept that the Commons is the boss when it comes


to making laws. The Government and majority committee report both say


electing peers won't change this. Indeed, the Government and the


committee have come up with remarkably similar proposals.


There is a difference in the numbers involved, the Government


wanted 300 members of the new Upper House, the point committee 450, but


both propose 80% should be elected, the rest nominated, and include 12


bishops, both proposed that an elected member should serve a non-


renewable term of up to 15 years, and both that the elections should


be held under a single transferable vote, and should coincide with


elections to the Commons. But, today's report recommends a


referendum, before the changes become law. I don't think a


referendum is strictlinessry, because this change to --


strictlinessry, because this was in -- strictly necessary, because this


was in every manifesto. We should take it seriously and it should be


debated and discussed, I can see arguments against it, but I'm happy


to listen and consider. The Deputy Prime Minister, emphatically, does


not want a referendum? It is something we have been talking


about for 100 years and we need to get on with it for minimum fuss.


One thing that hasn't changed since 1911 and the Parliament Act, then


it was a liberal Government pushing reform, today it is Liberal


Democrats in Government pushing for reform. Their coalition pearer ins


are far less enthuse aix, in some cases openly hostile to what Nick


Clegg is proposing. Some believe this issue, far more than health


and deficit reduction, has the capacity to rip the coalition apart.


Indeed, some Lib Dems suggest that if the Conservatives don't back


Lords reform, without a referendum, well, they won't vote through the


reduction in parliamentary seats that would, or should, favour the


Conservatives. We have had one referendum that proved disastrous


results, from a coalition point of view, we don't need another.


Another one would put a strain on the coalition? It would put a great


strain on the coalition, and if we don't vote through the


redistribution, and equally great strange on the coalition, if the


Conservatives don't stick to the coalition agreement and vote


through Lords reform. I think David Cameron, although he may wish it


otherwise, has no choice but put it into the Queen's Speech, because it


is part of the coalition deal. The bill will be introduced, but


subject to hundreds of amendments on the floor of the House of


Commons t will take weeks there. I think the likeliest thing is that


the bill will be withdrawn. Predicting failure for Lords reform,


has been a pretty God bet over the last century. It combines three


factors that make inertia likely. The politicians are split. None of


the solutions comes without potential problems, and, according


to opinion poll, the public don't really care one way or the other.


Is it right to prioritise reform at that time of such vulnerability.


What will be the knock-on effect for the House of Commons.


The man the Huffington Post said one day could be party leader, and


-- Mark Harper. The Prime Minister and his


colleagues were called posh people who don't understand ordinary


people, how will reforming the Lords dispel that image? The Prime


Minister made it clear this morning, the Government's priority is still


reducing the deficit, economic growth and jobs for hard working


families in the country. It is absolutely possible for the


Government to do more than one thing at a time. Even though the


public don't care about it? If you knock on somebody's door, they


won't ask you about it. If you ask the public if they think somebody


who makes the laws should be picking by them as opposed to


leaders of the political parties, overwhelmingly they say yes, the


public should pick emthis. It might be a subject they don't care about


much, but they agree with what the Government is doing, and electing


80% of the House of Lords is part of that. How do you begin to


explain to people why an unelected man like yourself, spend a day


longer making laws for the country? I don't at all. To return to the


basic question, our two parties came together in a coalition to put


the financial situation in the country right. We are being


constantly side tracked on to things like the AV referendum, the


National Health Service Bill and now this. It simply is distracting


from what is the main issue. It has always been distracting, and has


been more 100 years t doesn't put something that is undemocratic


right? You are wrong about that, there has been steady improvements


and changes over that 100 years, and more are now needed.


elections? I think there is a very interesting new report out today


from the Conservative lawyers, saying there should be instrict


elections. This report itself, to my -- indirect elections. This


report itself, to my surprise, says the committee has recommended, that


the committee would like the Government to give further


consideration to a nationally indirectly elected House. That


would have the advantage of not setting autopsy competition between


the two houses, there would be no popular mandate from the Upper


House. Would it matter if the Lords did become more powerful than the


Commons, if they were both essentially elected bodies, fairly


representing our countries, would it matter? The point we have made


is this, the relationship between the two houses will change if the


Lords is elected. The Parliament Act means that the Commons can


always get its own way. My own view is actually if we strengthen


parliament, I think strengthening the laws will strengthen parliament.


If ministers have to work harder to persuade parliament as a whole to


pass legislation, I think that is a good thing. If you made things


better by the number of bills you passed, the last Labour Government


would be more successful. Even if they are in competition with each


other? The Commons will always get its own way, and that is right,


they determine what governs the country, ultimately is controls the


budget and the money. I think a stronger House of Lords would be a


good thing. The committee itself has said that the House of Lords


will have more power, and that will be a threat to the Commons. That is


what your colleagues in the Commons are worried about. The committee


says the things in place to ensure the primacy of the Commons, the


Parliament Act, all the underpinning. They say class two is


a waste of time? They say to look he at the drafting of the bill, and


we will. The things that guarantee the primacy of the Commons, the


committee thinks that is solid, and that will guarantee the primacy of


the Commons going forward. You made the point that the coalition


parties came together to sort out the deficit in the economic crisis,


why is your leader prior yietsing this now then? I think Nick has had


a consistent view, he thinks the House of Lords should be wholly


elected. It doesn't go into the detail of how the House of Lords


works. Are we seriously going to have Members of Parliament, with


senators, presumptionably they will be called senators, not Lords, for


15 years marching around their constituents, saying we have a


mandate too. That is why the House of Commons is saying do we want


this and the cost of it. If the public has to vote, the referendum


will put the kie Bosch on it, people won't vote for something


that is 400 unelected Lords. The mass murder on trial in Norway


has been given rock star attention and prime time television time. The


man accused of shooting 70 people, many teenagers, has been discussed


and dissects as merely a point view. The approach to the trial of Anders


Behring Breivik, whose evidence ended today, is perhaps


unsurprising in such a liberal society in nor way. But is it the


right one? To many, the courtroom scene is


beyond the grotesque, the evidence certainly far worse than gruesome.


A mass murderer, whose only regret at killing 77, is it was 500 short


of the number of victims he wanted. With his fascist salute and bovine


smirk, spent a decade in his room dreaming up an audience like that.


That was his plan, to use this explosion, and the massacre at


Utoeya, to give him a time in court that should be his stage, his way


of propaganda for his case. In one way you could say the more he


speaks, the fewer followers he will have. There are many thinking this


is too much. Yet even some of those who escaped


the horror of the island of Utoeya, whose friends were killed, even


they endorsed the process. I think it is good to see him now, when he


is surrounded by police, and in a safe place.


It gives a little closure. What is striking is the courtliness


of the courtroom, the way the prosecutors lined up to shake the


killer's hand, before listening to his long and detailed account.


He wanted to behead the former Prime Minister, leaving the island.


He was explaining why he even killed those under 16 years,


because they also were a part of the brain-washing camp of the


Labour Party. He had so many things to explain, and it is important for


the court, to decide if he's insane or not. Is there not concern that


he is getting the platform which he said was his reason for committing


the crimes in the first place? we are dealing with here now is a


dilemma. How to get the information from the man, that has committed


this horrendous crime, and the ideas about it, how long does it


take. The court in Oslo says it will take five days. What he means


is Norway's court system might be described as liberal, but it isn't


niave, they have limited Breivik's statement to five days, in a trial


lasting 12 weeks. What's more the cameras have been banned for the


statement, they are determined that clips won't bounce around YouTube


for all eternity. The world's media have been following the case, news


channels filled with hours of the trial, and they will return if they


are allowed back in. For Norway this is unusual. They welcomed the


cameras because this is a national tragedy, and the nation needs


catharsis. They heard Breivik's voice and his justification of the


unjustifyable initial low. TRANSLATION: I acknowledge the acts,


but I do not plead guilty, I will claim was doing it in self-defence.


Elsewhere in Europe judges give short shrift to defendants using a


court for a political platform. In the US, the alleged architect of


9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, goesen to trial next month, before


a military tribunal, where his rights are limbed so he won't use


it. The Scandinavians are growing weary of Anders Behring Breivik.


think we will see his photo on the front page another week or two. But


then I think the appeals from the victims of going to the supermarket


without seeing his face on the front pages, can we be free of that,


and I think the newspapers will do Brian Friedman, a Guardian writer


and author of political thrillers human rights lawyer.


I'm wondering if you buy the argument that a nation in grief


needs the catharsis that comes with seeing a trial like this? It is


hard to speak against the survivors of the attack that say it helps


them. That is not the main reason, Norway feels it is their legal


system, and they don't want to change it just because of him. They


want to plof the system is robust enough, -- prove it is robust


enough and they can cope with it. There is an immediate dimension to


this, let's say the courts are right to remain open and stick to


their principles, it doesn't make it right for the media in Norway


and the world, to hand this man a megaphone, to treat his statement


as if it is a familiar flet written for a think-tank and people arguing


the rights and wrongs of it. It is about the media coverage of this?


It feels the courts have been responsible, they won't have


cameras on his statement, there is a question about whether you do.


Let's say you have made that choice, there is a burden of responsibility


on all of those of us around the every nugget, and nuance of his


speech, ass if a thinker whose opinions deserve debating, that is


-- as if a thinker whose opinions deserve debate is wrong. Do you


believe they are feeding this oxygen? I'm a firm believer in open


justice. I don't like the way we have been recently going, which is


when it comes to terrorism, and things that we really are horrified


by, that we seek to deal with things increasingly behind closed


doors. I think open justice is an essential element in a democracy. I


think the Norwegians have dealt with this rather well. I'm somebody


who opposes tell advising of criminal trials. I don't know --


teleadvising of criminal trials. This is clearly a man who relishes


psycho analysing himself in front of an entire world? The court is


psycho analysing him, they are having to decide is this man


somebody who is pathological, I think it is coming through he is.


He is playing it carefully, he said he wouldn't testify at all unless


he got a full hour to read his statement. He had written in his


1800-page manifesto that your trial is stage to the world. Knows the


propaganda value of that, the problem is, by giving him that


stage, we are setting out an incentive to other Breivik, kill as


this man did and you will be rewarded with this global platform.


Should we not turn up on the doorstep and mention how many


people are shot in these situations as journalists? You don't pour over


these manifestos as if they have kick started a debate, rather than


committed a murderous crime. Many of the trials in this country, the


people who did the airline bomb plot, the focus of the coverage in


2006, it was about the mechanics of the plan, the scale of it, people


did not go into great depth about their political ideas. We don't


need to know his views on multiculturalism, he is a mass


murdering? It is very important for this court to hear about this man's


motives for doing what he did. It exposes the uglyness of his views


of how important it is that we engage with difference, and we do


not have automatic hostility to the other. Which I think is happening


increase league across Europe. are more understanding of the fact


these motives killed 70 people? have to understand what brought


this man to this position. So that you can sentence him and what will


happen to him is he will get a heavy sentence. It is not to do


that by covering it as if it is the Chancellor's budget statement,


minute-by-minute. There is a plea for consistency, Breivik is treated


differently because he as a threat to Norway and Europe from within.


Those people deemed from without, the 9/11 hijackers, mom hom mom is


a definitive -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a definitive example,


and they are treated in a different way. Do you think it is a prepable


system? There is a legal argument, my instincts are with normway, the


response of the Norwegian Prime Minister was responding with more


freedom and more democracy. That is great, the rest of us outside, the


media, we have then a response toblt say that is happening as a


trial. But -- responsibility to say that is happening as a trial.


public are entitled to know what happened and what went wrong. It is


important for the victims of this atrocity and families to have a


public hearing, that is absolutely vital, that is what law is about in


a democracy. The 29th certificate national kite


festival kicked off in China this weekend. Hopefully you will be


If you get a try day you will be doing well. A lot more rain to come.


This is Tuesday, a damp start across East Anglia and the south-


east. Fade ago I way and the showers getting going by the


afternoon. Sunshine and showers, many places vieding them but many a


downpour or two. The best of brightness getting up


to 12-13, warmer than southern counties, when the showers come


along they will tumble by seven degrees. Some of the best sunshine


across the west coast of Wales, reasonable here, but heavy showers


inland, especially over the high grond. Northern Ireland seeing


sunshine and showers, you might get lucky to avoid them, you will be


doing well. Ten degrees in Belfast, best across Scotland will be west.


Further east clouds, showers, cool, and some snow over the Grampians.


Looking further ahead it goes downhill on Wednesday. Really wet


weather, pushing across the country, starting off in the south, heading


northwards, a deluge, sproing strong winds, temperatures held


Download Subtitles