19/09/2012 Newsnight


Stories behind the headlines with Jeremy Paxman, including Vince Cable on Nick Clegg's apology, spending cuts and an editor defending topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/09/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



There's no easy way to say this, we made a pledge, we didn't stick to


it, and for that I'm sorry. The leader of the Liberal Democrats


tries to look like he's eating humble pie, the most naked


political stunt in recent years was a mistake. He wants to say sorry.


Haven't we heard this stuff before. Broken promises. There have been


too many in the last few years, too many in the last 30 years. I will


be asking the second-best known Lib Dem in Britain, whether there's any


more reason to believe them this time than last.


Coming soon to a Government service near you, we gain look through how


the public spending savings will be made.


Tonight for the first time, a further sense of cuts come down the


track, and how more welfare cuts, is the pain elsewhere.


If only European magazines were more deferential, they would never


publish the photos. A Swedish magazine defends its decision to


print the photos. What does royal biographer Andrew Morton think.


And bankers say they are prepared to throw billions at Spain, we ask


is Spain prepared to take the medicine in return.


Well, Hallelujah, a politician has apologised for breaking his promise.


The leader of the Liberal Democrats couldn't quite bring himself to put


it so bluntly, but he is going to say sorry. Oddly, he's chosen the


most desCid dited form of communication known to man, the --


discredited form of communication known to man, the party political


broadcast. He now admits he hadn't a clue what he was doing when he


voted voted about student fees. The apology to be broadcast the week of


their party conference is a collector's item.


Stkpwhrp the symbolism of a country in a mess was no accident. At the


last election Nick Clegg promised to clean things up.


Broken promises. There have been too many in the last few years, too


many in the last 30 years. In fact, our nation has been littered with


them. Whilst all the parties are suffering from low levels of voter


trust, perhaps this is why the Liberal Democrats are suffering


most. That the people who voted for them feel most let down. Choose


real change. Short of opening a vain and sign anything blood, Nick


Clegg could -- vein and signing in blood, Nick Clegg could not have


made his apology about tuition fees any stronger. The plans I believe


the Labour Party and Conservative Partys are cooking up together to


raise the cap on tuition fees, we will resist and vote against any


lifting of the cap. The students and Liberal Democrat activists


loved it, only one problem, skip forward a few months, and Nick


Clegg is not only in Government, but instructing his party to vote


for an increase in the cap of tuition fees from �3,000 to �9,000.


Skip forward quite a few more months, to the eve of this year's


Lib Dem party conference, and Nick Clegg decides he has to apologise,


profusely, without his tie or jacket. We made a promise before


the election that we would vote against any rise in fees under any


circumstances, that was a mistake. It was a pledge made with the best


of intentions, but we shouldn't have made a promise we weren't


absolutely sure we could deliver. I shouldn't have committed to a


policy that was so expensive when there was no money around. Not


least when the most likely way we would end up in Government was in


coalition with Labour or the Conservatives. Who were both


committed to put fees up. This is a move straight out of the Tony Blair


PlayBook, concede, apologise, and move on. It is just that many of


the people who voted for Nick Clegg at the last election have already


moved on, according to the polls, to other parties. This isn't really


aimed at them, more at his nervous party activists and members who are


meeting in Brighton this weekend for the party conference. The


question is, will it make the blindest bit of difference.


Although I don't expect them all to come blooding back tomorrow, I


think people can say, OK, we thought they were wrong about that,


now they have admitted they were wrong about that, now let's look at


what else they are saying. If they like what else we are saying, and I


hope a lot of people will recognise that the Liberal Democrats are


making this Government a better and fairer Government, and if they like


what they see now, there is no reason not to come back and vote


for you. So, I hope that we will have succeeded in drawing a line


under what wasn't a happy episode for us as a party, and that people


will start to come back eventually. The Lib Dem's polls haven't


improved since last year's party conference. Not only has it lost


half of its support since the election, the majority of those


that are left Iasi the polls, declare themselves -- left, say the


polls, declare themselves dissatisfied with Nick Clegg. This


broadcast seems an appeal to the few. We were right to leave the


comfort of opposition to face the realities of Government, we are


fighting for the right things too, rebuilding the economy to make it


strong, changing the tax system to make it fair. Defending the


vulnerable in the tough times. That is what my party believes in, that


is what I believe in. And if we have lost your trust, that's how I


hope we can start to win it back. So, has Mr Clegg got anything to


fear from his party? Some senior Liberal Democrats close to the


Deputy Prime Minister think the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, is


on manoeuvres. In July, he told a newspaper, that he didn't exclude


being party leader one day, now that "the worship of youth has


diminished", who on earth could he have mefpbt. Our political editor -


- meant. Our political editor is with us. This is a pretty fine


kettle of fish? It is so nuanced. The political problem will be, that


it isn't a straight forward apology, it is an apology for process, for


making the promise in the first place, and then the nature of the


U-turn. There will be trouble on. That let's accept he has done T I


will explain what I think. What is odd, in the polls you would expect


this to be a leader on his knees. If you look around the country in


seats where the Lib Dems have MPs, they are bearing up well in


elections and by-elections, this is Nick Clegg ahead of the elections,


two-and-a-half years away from a general election, trying to clear


the decks, get some credit. As it was said in that package, he's very


critical of Clegg before, this is Nick Clegg trying to get credit for


some of the things like increasing the personal tax allowance, and


possibly be able to lead the party into the next election. This is


basically Nick Clegg trying to save his leadership. I think that it


will be difficult, given what we have said about the nature of the 0


apology. One of the things, it is also going to be difficult because


Vince Cable, when put to people in polls, polls better than Nick Clegg.


That is becoming the concrete truth. Very fortunate we have him here.


Indeed. Vince, why has it taken two years to get around to apologising


for this? We have apologised before. But I think, to be frank, people


were so angry, that people weren't listening. Now they are listening.


I think the other reason for the timing is Nick wants to make it


absolutely clear, it is a distinction between the pledge,


which was wrong, and which he and we have apologised for, and the


policy which we are now operating, which we don't apologise for, is


actually in many ways an improvement and now in operation.


You also want to apologise do you for what you said and did before


the election? Yes, we are collectively responsible, we all


participateed in that. It is not just Nick Clegg, it is the whole


parliamentary party wants it apologise? Yes, it is, he has said


this as part of it, I share the responsibility, I don't shirk from


it. The odd thing is, you were warned before the election that the


policy was unaffordable by Danny Alexander, weren't you? Indeed.


That's where the apology is justified. Yet you chose to make a


commitment in the manifesto that it was affordable? There is a


distinction between the manifesto and the pledge. The manifesto, 80%


of which we carried into the coalition agreement, that we knew,


when we joined the coalition, we would have to compromise on that.


The pledge was different, that's what Nick Clegg is referring to.


But you had been told, you have just conceded, before the election,


that the pledge was unaffordable? If it had been affordable other


things would have had to go. were told by Danny Alexander in a


confidential memo? I worked in economic affairs, he was part of


the team. We realised we would have to make cuts in Government. Yet you


chose to say it was affordable, you chose to say it was all costed out?


That is where the apology is due, and rightly so. Did you personally


believe it was affordable? I was sceptical about the pledge, but we


agreed collectively to do it. I take my share of responsibility for


that. Did you personally believe it was affordable? I personally was


sceptical about the whole fees policy. You signed this pledge


knowing it was possibly unaffordable? I signed the pledge


on the basis that had we been in Government on our own, which was


the commitment, we would have put through that policy. And we have


done so. Nick Clegg in that broadcast appeared to suggest that


had you formed a Government other than in coalition with Labour or


Conservatives, you might have been able to implement it? Is that what


thought, if so you are living in fantasy world? I wasn't living in


fantasy world, because for a year before the election, as wul


remember, probably more than any of the other -- as you well remember,


probably more than any of the other people, was spelling out the need


for cuts. It was a policy commitment that would have cost


money, had we implemented it, other things would have to go. Did you


tell Nick Clegg it was unaffordable? It was an unwise


commitment to have made. We regret that. That was the basis of the


apology. Did you tell Nick Clegg it was probably unaffordable?


discussed this between ourselves, as part of our leadership team,


there was scepticism, as part of the whole fees debate. We agreed


collectively to support it, I take my share of responsibility for that.


Who in the leadership team agreed with you that it was possibly


unaffordable? It is not a question of individuals. It clearly is? You


had deep reservations, you were sceptical about it, you have just


said? I was sceptical about any significant financial commitment


before the election, for reasons we have spelt out. But the parties


agree their policies, we agree them collectively, we take on board


things, we personally feel unhappy about, that is how decisions are


made in parties, and in Government. It is called collective


responsibility, and I was part of that. It was a stunt? No, it was


not a stunt. It was part of a genuinely felt wish to assist the


student population. We weren't able to carry through with it, but it


was certainly deeper than the stunt. What else would you call something


that you would deeply -- you were deeply sceptical about being able


to afford, and you were advised was unaffordable, yet your leader chose


to go through with, nonetheless? One has to make a distinction


between the manifesto, that we had already agreed to, that was


actually even more radical. It talked about phasing out fees, and


the pledge, which was about freezing them, actually the pledge


didn't go as far as the manifesto, that our party had decided it


wanted to campaign on. You know, with the luxury of behind sight,


people like me will say we were sceptical of the whole thing at the


time. That is not the point, the point was, whatever views we had at


the time, we all collectively signed this pledge, it was wrong,


and Nick has apologised, and we collectively apologise for it. We


now wish to have the debate about what is the sensible policy on


universities. I think what we have done in office, something we are


pleased of having done, we are careful to advocate. Can you give


us a guarantee now, that everything, be it in this narrow distinction,


either in the manifesto, or in some election stunt, anything you prob


miswill be stuck to at the next election? After our experience --


you promise will be stuck to at the next election? After our experience


we will not go in with a lot of expensive commitments. We have been


apologetic, all three parties in the past have made pledges to


students about either not increasing or not introducing fee,


all three parties went back on those commitments in office. We


have been badly punished for it. We have lost a lot of trust. And we


are acknowledging it. But this is not unique to our party. Do you


recognise the damage you have done to trust in politics? It has done


damage. That is why Nick is speaking in such heart felt terms.


It is tragic in the way, I knew young people who weren't going to


vote, who saw your campaign and pledge and went out. I know people


who went leafleting for you, and then they were betrayed? Certainly


they were very disillusion, we have had that anger, I have encountered


it on a one-to-one basis with students I have met. I go around to


university Camron pusses and there is a significant reappraisal, and


people understand the fee, not paying cash, what we introduced in


practice is a form of graduate tax. People pay in relation to their


income, over their lifetime. It is a more progressive system, the one


we inherited nobody pays upfront fees. You didn't say that at that


time? No we didn't. Now that is embedded, we have a good policy for


higheredcation, I'm very happy to go out and defend it. We want to


make a distinction and having made a pledge we shouldn't have done.


There are bad times just around the corner. Already Government


departments spending tax-payers' money are having to make serious


savings, right now, this Government, which came to power promising to


sort out the vast debt run up by Labour predecessors, is running a


big debt than they did. And whichever party takes power after


the next election will have to find more savings, the worst is yet to


come. What will that be like the - the Institute for Fiscal Studies


has thought the unthinkable, and we have looked at the conclusions.


You have seen incisions to public policing, to hospitals to libraries,


right now, these cuts only go as deep as 2014, the scissors only


keep on snipping for two years. Then they stop abruptly the year


after next. Currently there are detailed plans, right now there is


a great big white piece of paper. No cutting, let alone spending. But


there will be, and the first cuts won't have been the deepest.


Newsnight has been given a simulation of the next round of


spending cuts, on tonight tonight's programme for the first time we


give you the figures and implications of the figure. The


current spending round lasts until 2014, after that there will have to


be new cuts, fresh cuts, cuts upon cut, behind closed doors, in the


Treasury, they are looking at these figure, they will loom large in


your lives, and they will loom large in the next general election.


Here is the number cruncher in chief? What people haven't done now


is to look at what the pain would be like for spending departments,


we have calculated if you held NHS spending constant, or you cut


welfare, or decided to increase taxes.


We have already seen cuts 2.3% to all Government departments, in


order for the Chancellor to meet his own target of bringing the


budget into surplus by the end of 2017, he would have to do more than


the 2.3, he would have to do 3.8%. These are new items to be cut, not


a continuation of the same. For the first time tonight, the Institute


for Public Policy Research for Newsnight, tells us what they


actually mean, from 2015-2017, �8 billion less on the NHS, education


would see a cut of �4 billion. The eagle eyed among you will say


we have forgotten the ring-fenced departments, it is not certain, but


likely, that any Conservative Government will maintain the ring-


fence, Westminster is humming about keeping the ring-fence but stuffing


it with new responsibilities like social care. The IPPR is clear,


keeping the ring-fence for the NHS and Department for International


Development would mean 6% cuts to other departments, if you protected


education too, it would be cuts of 8% to other departments. If this is


too be a straubgt and you forgive crude calculation, it would mean


the lost of some 70 though defence personal, and 20,000 police


officers. -- 0,000 defence personal and


20,000 police officers. What a painful future, that is why they


are looking to make cuts to the welfare putting, it polls very well


with target voters t would allow the Government to cut no further


than the amount it is cutting right now, 2.3% in budgets that aren't


ring-fenced, it wouldn't have to go as deep as the 3.8%. Cutting


welfare effectively halves the cuts other departments, defence, home


and education, must undergo. The Chancellor thinks the �10


billion to the welfare budget have a logic, and Lib Dems have to


accept them, otherwise they are sanctioning deeper cuts elsewhere.


The IPPR think-tank think it is a choice. You can choose to raise


more tax, cut certain forms of spending and not others, or cut


welfare, that is the public debate, whether we have the right inkind of


mix of options ashrailable. There are Lib Dems wondering out loud if


it needs jump leads in the economy for more spending. The think-tank


says more capital spending means more cuts to departments, large


ones, of 5.4%. If it all sounds like too much pain. In order to


meet its target the Government could go for a different kind of


pain, tax rises instead of spending cuts. It could try and bring in �20


billion in tax revenue, a mansion tax, the Lib Dem favoured option,


would only bring in a tenth of that, �2 billion, in order to get up to


that scale, you are looking at putting 4p on the basic rate of


income tax. After an election, the Government


could delay the whole thing, choosing to spend an extra �20


billion, investment in capital projects, lower than average cuts


to departmental spending, without cutting welfare. They could even


temporarily cut taxes. At this, those concerned about the UK's


level of debt shake their head. absolutely would not delay, because


delay costs, it costs you more money, particularly in debt


interest payment, and also you get political uncertainty because


everybody starts to wonder are you serious about this or not. All


politicians in all parties, I think, should be focused on doing this as


quickly as possible. All of this sound incredibly difficult for a


Government to do one year ahead of a general election. The suspicion


is they won't do it, they won't do a vast Comprehensive Spending


Review, but instead hand out one- year spending pots, to tie


departments over to the other side of the election. When they get to


the other side, if this Government is elected, maybe they will chose


to delay the whole thing. When you look at the numbers it is quite an


attractive option. Our artist, Patrick Blower, and the


IPPR, have tried to help you find forms and colour between the lines,


in what is ominously a blank piece of paper.


Now, it was Sweden today, and some fearless journalist in Denmark says


it will be there tomorrow. The editors of celebrities magazines


across Europe remain resolute, they will not be gagged by the threat of


lawsuit. The public must be free to gawp at the breasts of the wife of


the second in line to the British thrown throne. It is in the British


interest, you see -- throne. It is in the British interest. When we


have Magna Carta, Voltaire, ends with a huge lens pointed at the


future Queen. I will talk to my guests in a minute.


According to some reports this was William and Kate dancing to


celebrate their victory in France. True, yesterday, a French court


ordered Closer magazine to hand over all copies of the photographs


within 24 hours or face punitive daily fines. The mood was buoyant.


TRANSLATION: This is great result. This morning French police tried 0


close in on the photographer, raiding Closer's offices for clues


to his or her identity. Today a Swedish celebrity magazine, joined


France, Ireland and Italy, in publishing the pictures, a Danish


weekly also promises what it calls a 16-page spread, full of photos of


England's future Queen, to be published tomorrow. In all this


will bring the total number of countries to see these images on


their news stands, to five. The royal decision to sue early in the


public life of their marriage, has been viewed by many as an attempt


to draw what is inevitably called a line in the sand, and prevent the


level of press harassment experienced by William's mother,


Diana. With this topless story following them around their Far


East tour, has it backfired. We have the editor of the Swedish


magazine, she's in Stockholm now. From Los Angeles we are joined by


royal biographer, Andrew Morton. Would you be happy to have yours


gawped at around the world? sorry, I didn't hear the question.


What would you feel if somebody were to take photographs of you


sunbathing top lesson holiday, in private, and publish them in


magazines around the world? It is quite OK, because even as a private


citizen you always rufpb the risk, because it has -- run the risking,


it has been happening to people sunbathing and published in ads and


so on. What is the public interest in publishing these? This is


nothing unusual for our magazines here, because we write about


relationships, amongst celebrities, and we have published pictures of


Sienna Miller, Sharon Stone, et cetera, they have been more nude


than Kate. It is nothing unusual. It may not be unusual, I'm just


asking you what the public interest is? Because there was such a fuss


about the pictures, even though they were very nice in the context.


I mean it is photographs of a loving couple, who is married, it


is nothing scandalous, they are not something adult rouse, or cheating


or something like that. It is a married couple, it is a very nice


relationship, It is celebrities. They are not entitled to their


privacy? Of course they are, but, I mean. Not according to you (under


his breath) We report these pictures like any other pictures.


How much did you pay for them? very much. How much? I can't tell


you that. Why not? Because it is among. Because we don't disclose


that because we have competitors that want to know what we pay for


pictures and so on, so I can't tell you that. But it is not much, it is


nothing amazing. It is just what we pay for other pictures of this kind.


The invasion of other people's lives? Do you know who the


photographer was? I can't tell you. Can you tell us the name of the


photographer? No, I can't tell you anything about, that I have no


comment about that issue, I'm sorry. Do you know who took them?


bought them, like we buy any other pictures. We get an offer, and we


say yes or no. In this case we said yes, because we think they are


quite lovely pictures of the couple. You know they specifically asked


for these photographs not to be published? We bought them on Friday


the 14th. We are a weekly magazine, it takes some time to print it. We


bought them on Friday the 14th of. Do you regret -- Friday the 14th.


Do you regret publishing them? don't. You don't care they wanted


to keep them private? That was after. We had already bought the


pictures and done the work. We treat any celebrity, whether they


are royal or they are actors or actresses or singers the same. We


don't treat them any different if they are royal. So ...You Treat


them with contempt? That is your opinion. You clearly don't respect


their right to privacy. Andrew Morton, how much does this sort of


event remind you of Diana's troubles with the media? I think


the irony about this whole event, which has gone from a storm in a B-


cup, to a storm in a DD-cup, if Diana and Charles in the early days


of their marriage on a similar kind of holiday, you would have 20, 30


photographers trying to get pictures. In a curious kind of way,


Prince William is getting a fraction, a mere taste of what


Diana went through in her life. Although he's clearly distressed by


it. Yes, what you are seeing by Prince William is a genuine step


change in the way they are handling it. They have used the Middleton


family over the past few years as a kind of stacking horse with regards


to privacy. Prince Charles in the past would standby the old royal


motto, never complain, never explain. Prince William seems to be


of a different generation. He believes that part of his life is


private, and part of his is public, when it is public he's on display,


when it is private there is a red line there. And he's prepared to go


to court. That does seem to me to set a precedent. Is he going to be


taking photographers, editors, magazines around the world to court


for the next 60 years. But he's entitled to expect that if he's,


the best part of a kilometer from any public position, that he is in


private, and that privacy should be respected, isn't he entitled to


respect that? Yes, of course, everybody is entitled to respect


that. But it is a bit like the Harry thing as well. When you are a


celebrity, and it doesn't matter if you are a Hollywood celebrity or a


British royal, you are never really private. So, in a sense, you are at


the mercy of photographers. As far as William is concerned, he clearly


is seeing this through the prism of his mother's experience of the


media, which eventually, accidentally, was fatal. That is a


difficult thing to live with, isn't it? Yeah, I think there is a huge


overstatement in the public about what's been said about this. I


doian that, as we all know, died as a result of a drunk driver, driving


too fast in a built-up area. This is a long-range photograph taken of


Kate Middleton taking her top off. I think that the reaction of


William has been disproportionate, because it is ratchetted up the


ante. And counter-productive? Ultimately yes. This has gone from


being what was a small magazine in France, to being a worldwide could


go flagellation and talking point - - conflagration and talking point,


William is very different to his father, his father is what you call


a Downton Abbey royal, a patrician, and aristocrat, believing his life


is essentially lived in public, and Prince William seems more of an


Archasica Avenue royal, who thinks he's leading a private life and


from time to time dips in and out of the royal world. We are in a


phoney war sort of state in the euro crisis, the basic problem, the


bankruptcy of some incompetently or dishonestly run southern European


states, is as bad as it ever of, but the European Central Bank's


promise to stand behind them, seems to have stayed the hands of the


gamblers who make-or-break national economies. But people in Germany


have yet to be convinced that propping up these countries is a


worthwhile spend of their taxes. Paul Mason, our answer to no sir


tro dam mus is here. -- no sir dam mus is here.


Tell us what is going on? If you can sort Spain out you sort the


acute phase of the eurocrisis, everything the European Central


Bank did over the summer was aimed at Spain. Just to recap, Mario


And? The effect, let's have a look. Here is the Spanish Stock Exchange.


It falls by a third over the year. And as soon as Draghi speaks in


July, not when he acts in September, when he speaks in July, there it is,


it is back, it is significantly back up already. And now let as


look at the all-important bond yield, this is what it costs Spain


to borrow over ten years, it is rising as the panic rises towards


July, Draghi speaks and down it has gone. This creates for the Spanish


Government a bit of a dilemma, things are getting better, before


they have done anything. And there is a temptation, with the Spanish


Government, to do nothing. The only problem is, things are also falling


apart. Tomorrow you will seal the boss of Catalonia, a major region,


go and demand fiscal autonomy with Spain, he will call an election,


and won't get it. We had disturbances on the streets tonight,


and a huge demonstration at the weekend. I have been speaking to


two veteran Spanish politicians, about how to get out of this


impasse. For the railway workers who took over Madrid's main station


this week, time is running out. 65 billion euros worth of cuts and tax


increases are hitting wages and jobs hard. That is what brought


more than 100,000 on to the streets last Saturday. But there is more


austerity to come. Soon the Spanish Prime Minister,


will be forced to take a bail out. The conditions are likely to be


tougher still. It has become an article of faith in Spain that the


country has to modernise and become competitive. But the closer you get


to the politicians here, the more you realise how few of them are


prepared to accept what that means, for them, their supporters, their


party and system they have been running for the past ten years.


So, is Europe really prepared to throw hundreds of billions of bail


out cash at the political class that brought this country to its


knees? One man who helped design modern


Spain is former socialist Prime Minister, gone sal lays, he's --


Gonzales, he's scathing about Mr Rajoy's Government. TRANSLATION:


impression is the Government doesn't know what to do. It is not


that it doesn't know what to do, it doesn't know what to do with the


Spanish economy, nor does it know what role Europe should play.


believes Spain should take a bail out, but based on the austerity


plan, it should stop waiting and propose its own solution now.


TRANSLATION: It has to be a Spanish proposal, this "proposal" from the


Government, let's wait and see what the others are doing, is wrong,


they should say this is my position and this is what we want and the


answer will be either yes or no. All this year, Spanish politicians


have had to live with the specter of social unrest. Last week one-


and-a-half million Catalans took to the streets of Barcelona, demanding


outride independence. The region, one of Spain's richest, is bust.


TRANSLATION: People protest with good reason, they don't know where


we are heading. Including the Catalan mobilise and the one in


Madrid, nobody has a serious explanation of what the Government


wants to do, except for what the Prime Minister says, we do what we


have to do, even if we don't like it T you have to explain what you


are doing and why. Spain's banks, part nationalised,


are to be bailed out to the tune of 100 billion euro, with EU tax-


payers' money. But it will be politically


sensitive, tens of thousands of ordinary savers were encouraged to


buy shares in the busted banks, and they could lose a lot. But the


crucial question for Madrid remains the conditions on the sovereign


bail out. Germany wants them tough, Spain's man on the European


Commission begs to differ. I think more strict surveillance or


monitoring, on how the different obligations and commitments are


implemented, is always good. you don't think Spain needs any


additional, substantive, austerity measures, imposed from outside?


With the information available right now, I don't think so. I


think what Spain needs is to regain confidence in the way those


recommendations and those commitments have been implemented.


Even as Spain waits, and protests, the pro-euro political class sees


this as a moment to go forward. There have been strong calls out of


Brussels for a rapid move to fiscal union, political union, and calls


here in Britain for a referendum. Which he does not agree. What we


need is to see how the European Parliament and the European


Commission, that we are accountable before the European Parliament, we


show the citizens that our decision, our strategies, our discussions,


are as democratic and as transparent and understandable as


the ones that are taking place in the national parliament. What does


that, I'm not sure what that means does that mean there will be a


referendum? I'm in favour of a parliamentary democracy. I think


this democratic election, in 2014, the European Parliament election in


less than two years, is a very, very important day for all the


Europeans, because there the majority of the representive of the


people that will be sitting there, will be those who will have in


their hand most of the most important decisions for our future.


These are the massive stake, solve the Spanish crisis, and for some,


it is fast forward, to political and fiscal union. But few expect


the coming bail out to be welcomed by Spain's people, and if Spain


does get the bail out demanded by the senior politician, will Germany,


so vilified here, buy it? Here to discuss this we have the


chairman of business for New Europe, the UK Independence Party MEP, and


the Pref fesor of economics and strategy at the LSE. -- Professor


of economics and Strategy at the LSE. Would you say it appears the


strategy appears to be working? does, it is an extraordinary


decision by Mario Draghi to say he would do whatever it take,


including buying bonds. It was a brave decision and the Governments


have to ask for it. Even though some things he's doing is right, he


needs a greater sense of urgency. One thing is asking right now for


the bail out that is needed. Can it last? I don't think so, it is a


short-term solution, in the end, when the conditions for this bail


out are laid out, the Spanish Government will have to face


reality. And the people will react to this. I don't think this will


solve the problem. I think the European Union is part of the


problem. And the European Union is not going to bring the solution for


this situation. I think you know, they need to think differently.


Just before we talk about Spain, the Germans, the head of the


Bundesbank was saying the other day that this was like something out of


Faust, they are really, really worried, aren't they? And rightly


so? They are of two mind, this solution allows them not to


actually pay, but to find another way to pay. As long as the bluff


works? I mean the problem is, exactly, if you are not supporting


the solution, it is not really credible, and in the end it might


fall apart. For it to work it needs real strong support, and for people


to believe these can be implement. Is there a logical inconsistentcy


in all of this, how can you say you will do whatever it take, to keep


every country within the euro, and at the same time say, there are


going to be conditions for any kind of bail out? You are right in the


sense of who is actually going to blink first, that is going to be


one of the big things in the whole of this bail out, but I think Mario


Draghi has made very clear, it is irreversible, once ask you for the


help, you get the help, you will have to embark on the structural


reform. The sense of momentum will take the countries through that,


and it will be helpful. You are seeing the structural reform


actually happening already in Spain and in Greece, we need more of it


and with a sense of urgency. Do you get the feeling the Spanish will


accept the conditions? Government is hesitating to long.


They really need to step forward and ask. It is better to ask now


when the situation is relatively calm, than to wait for the next


panic and suddenly on Friday night say you are desperate. Then the


Dutch and Germans will come piling on with extra condition. That is


what happened with the bank rescue. The bank rescue was supposed to be


just that. It is about printing money, to sort out the situation.


And to keep the eurozone going. It would be much better to allow these


countries that do not really have the economies at the level they


should be, to allow them to leave the eurozone, and the value and


default. They won't leave the eurozone, they don't want to.


don't want to leave. Printing money for the UK and the US they have


been doing that. When the euro of introduced, the Spanish people were


mad, because a coffee of worth one pesata, the following day it was


worth one euro. That is a very cheap coffee? 100 pesetas, the


following day it was 166pesetass, the people weren't happy, then the


European comes in and injects the funding, but it was short-term.


the moment you think Spain would be better off out of the euro? I think


that not only Spain, not only Spain, but you know, many of the countries


in the southern part of Europe, that do not have the level. What


about the alternative being canvased, which is this fast


progress towards fiscal union and all sorts of other institutions


which make it impossible for that sort of thing to happen? The key


thing is the banking union, basically what has been happening


is this vicious look between the banks of the country get weak, then


the state, back the banks, gets also weakened. Or indeed the other


way round. You can't have a bad Government pulling down a good bank


or visa versa. With fiscal union you only need a minimum amount of


fiscal union to get through. You don't need eurobonds and that.


essence of the banking union is a European deposit insurance. And you


are playing regulator and resolution authority. It is deposit


insurance, this has not been agreed by Germany, I don't think that


Germany is ever going it agree to this deposit insurance. This


banking union is a treem of Mr Barroso, that's all -- a dream of


Mr Barroso, that is all. I'm afraid that is not it. Talking about


dreams among the European political class, the difficulty is when they


choose to act them out? Exactly. They come up and the commission has


been drawing policies and proposals for the last decade. They have


injected money and it money has been wasted. Things that two weeks


ago. Nothing has happened. Things that two years ago would have been


considered unconceivable have happened. This is acting like any


grown-up Central Bank. He saved a crisis, we would have had a huge


financial crisis in July if he hadn't done that. He has postponed


the cry he is.S That is the key point. Has he postponed the crisis,


and mixed it, flattened it? because you can already see big


changes in Spain, there have been proper labour reform. No way.


there are. There are greater variations of pay in Spain. The


fact is he needs to do more, and the best thing to do is ask for the


help so it can happen now. comparison between the UK and Spain


is very useful. The UK had the worst problem in the financial


sector, the reason the financial sector didn't drag the state, is


you have the a Central Bank that can back the state with pounds.


Spain doesn't have that, the state is being dragged down by the


financial sector. In the UK we had an effective bail out of the banks


done with recapitalisation. In Spain you have had had four


attempts, that is why you need the European Stability Mechanism, where


actually you get an independent institution that actually


recapitalises a bank, not going through the nation. That is wrong,


it should be closed down. I want you to ask you a simple and trivial


question, these two clearly think this is going to work, what is your


prediction for, well you have reservations, but a lot of things


need to be done. I'm an optimist. What is your prediction for 18


months time, how many countries will still be in the euro? I think


know, I know the EU from the bottom of my heart, so I know that they


will drag on and on and on. They will drag on.S What the


answer? The answer is, that I think Greece is going to leave in the


near future. We are down to 16, and then? Spain will follow. Spain will


take some time, Spain will be the end of the eurozone. If Spain


leaves it will be the end of the eurozone. And I am sure. No such


look luck. We will have all 17 this. The commission will do all it can


to save it. That is all from Newsnight tonight, more tomorrow,


until then, gie good night. -- good Hello, there was plenty of


Hello, there was plenty of September sunshine around today.


Much less tomorrow. We will see some rain across that central slice


of the UK. Quite a wet day for northern England, southern Scotland


and Northern Ireland. Chilly too, 11 in the castle. Further south the


temperatures are higher, some breaking through now and again


across southern counties of London. It will feel reasonably pleasant


when the sun comes through. The winds fairly light as well. A fine


afternoon across south-west England, across most places in Wales, a fair


bit of cloud. North Wales still prone to patchy


light rain. Northern Ireland the rain may ease for a time, it is


likely to come back in again through the afternoon, turning


fairly heavy at times. The rain assisting across the central belt


of Scotland. Scotland at the sidedly on the low side, 10-11 or


best. Brightening up through Friday. It


goes the other way for southern part. Generally dry for Thursday,


the rain moving in, as we go into Friday. The weather front that has


Vince Cable on Nick Clegg's apology, the spending cuts ahead, an editor that defends topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge and will Spain take eurozone medicine?

Download Subtitles