19/05/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines. Nigel Farage faces Jeremy Paxman, and there is a feature on the lost yachtsmen.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Would you want National Heritage living next door? You


Would you like Nigel Farage living next door, we find out what UKIP's


plans are and unsavoury foreigners. Everything you wanted to know about


Europe and were afraid to ask, these three shed light on the lumbering


workings of Europe. And we have the pervert's guide to Europe in this


cornucopia of all things European. Some of the latest opinion polls


suggest that when we vote in the elections to the European Parliament


later this week a party which has never won a general election might


come top of the poll. Other polls show different predicted results and


there is many a slip, but we seem to be in unchartered waters. Before we


talk to the extraordinarily shy and retiring leader of UKIP, Nigel


Farage, we trace how we got here. The other parties may have been


making plans for Nigel Farage, The other parties may have been


those plans aren't obviously working. According to some polls his


party could be heading for outright victory, first place in Thursday's


European Parliament elections. Although 40% of people say UKIP is


out-of-touch with modern Britain it is all about the past, et cetera,


even more people, around half say that UKIP is raising issues that


other parties don't really want to talk about. That's not to say his


campaign has gone flawlessly, a string of members, activists and


candidates going off message, and some pretty uncomfortable interview,


like this on LBC. I made a comment that wasn't intended to say any more


that I felt uncomfortable about the rate and pace and change. It was you


found it uncomfortable about people around you speaking foreign


languages, your own wife speaks Germany, are you uncomfortable. What


about not wanting to live next door to Romanians. What about if a group


of Romanian men moved in next door to you. What about a group of German


children? You know that to you. What about a group of German


same. What is the difference? We want a debate on quantity and


quality as well. That led to a full page advert in the Telegraph


attempting to put his comments in context, he was tired and hadn't,


pressed himself well he told interviewers. He was definitely


right to apologise, they were offensive comments and a racial


slur, I don't think he should have said them, he's certainly right to


say sorry. Is he a racist? I think he has said in recent days some


pretty unpleasant things, even he himself has had to admit he got it


wrong, and so I will leave others to judge. What I have heard from some


of the candidates, some of the donors to the party, there is a


succession of pretty appalling things. Will this big party


condemnation make any difference to the enthusiasm of UKIP's potential


supporters. There is nothing we are saying here that isn't true. Someone


who has studied the rise of the party believes it is


counter-productive. parties and commentators are not


going to get anywhere simply framing UKIP as racist party. Those European


countries that have UKIP as racist party. Those European


right parties for 20, 30 years realised this long ago in the


right parties for 20, 30 years early 90s, you simply


right parties for 20, 30 years organisation or is it not, but why


is it that the British working-class have never


is it that the British working-class our politics. Will this anger


translate into seats at the general election next year? Don't be so sure


say the pollsters. The main thing is because everybody gets terribly


excited about the result its, particularly if UKIP managers to


come out a-- manages to come out ahead, and the odds of that is going


down. But main leaders get trounced in the European elections and go on


to win stonking elections. That is what Mr Blair was good at and the


Conservatives have done it as well. It doesn't have much relation to


what will happen next year. Nigel Farage a can at least claim to have


won one battle, the other politicians are now taking


won one battle, the other seriously. And the man himself is


won one battle, the other with us now. Your slogan, "we want


our country back", back from whom? It is given away. We are governed


from Brussels, everyone is in denial, whether it is where our


legislation is made who decides whether Pfizer


legislation is made who decides AstraZeneca, how to control of


farming or what is left of our fishing. These are not decide by men


and women we vote for in general elections. What is your problem with


Romanians? I have no problem with Romanians, I have a big problem with


Romania. I have visited the country, communism failed a few years ago,


and it hasn't made the transition to western democracy. There are a


minority there of Roma treated unimaginably, and the country is in


the grip of organised crime. Joining the European Union for them meant


richer pickings. I have no problem with Romanians coming to Britain on


work permits, taking part in life here. But I have a huge problem with


our Border Agency and police not being able to stop known criminal


gangs coming through Dover. But you don't go on about any other


nationality apart from Romanians in the manifesto, here it is page 2, an


open-door to crime, 22,000 Romanians held for crimes in London, you don't


say that about Poles? Pro-rat a the are you -- pro-rata the Romanian


problem is more serious, because it is organised crime and people


trafficking and young teenagers brought to London and made do all


sorts of things. As a civilised country we shouldn't allow that to


happen in London or elsewhere. Let's have a look at your advertisment in


the Telegraph this morning, when you said in that advertisment that 7% of


crimes across the EU are committed by Romanians, do you want to


withdraw that now and apologise or wait a couple of minutes? It is 7%


of criminal networks across the European Union are from Romania.


That isn't what you said, it was 7% of crimes? What I could have gone on


to say and perhaps should have gone on to say was that 90%, 90% of card


skimming across the entire European Union is caused by gangs from


Romania and Bulgaria. Let's have a look at it. I know what it says. It


says 7% of crimes? It was simplified. It was wrong? Well, it


was criminal networks not crime. According Europol it is wrong? If


they say it is wrong, 7% of criminal networks across Europe are Romanian.


That is not the same of 7% of crimes? You haven't challenged me on


the arrests and 92 ATM crime. There is no figure that is reliable and


obtainable on that at all, you quote a policeman in a television


documentary, don't you? Yes, and actually the figure... That is


unverifiable? The figure that has been used is quoted by every


national newspaper. And until today it has not been questioned. We can


argue about figures but... These things matter? Do we or do we not


have a problem with organised criminal gangs coming into this


country, and the one country in the grip of it worse than anybody else


is Romania. No that is not true. According to Europol the most


dangerous set of gangs are actually Italian? There are 60 million


Italians and there are 21 million Romanians, it is a question of


scale, on a pro-rata basis, unarguably, the biggest problem, not


just for Britain, but it is felt in Spain, France and elsewhere, it is


coming from Romania, it gets to the heart of what do we want our


relationship to be with countries like Romania or Bulgaria or whatever


it may be. My argument is we want to trade with them, be friendly with


them, be completely open for their people to come here on work permits


and work here and take part in the life of our country. Surely common


sense says we should have quality control at Dover and elsewhere and


be able to stop known criminal gangs from coming into Britain. Let me ask


you a very simple question, do you think it is the responsibility of


politicians to do whatever they can to diminish and discourage racism? I


certainly do. And I think that actually what uncontrolled


immigration to Britain has done has bred a new form of racism. I have


seen all over the country, I talk to people who say, I hate to say this,


I have never felt like this, but I'm beginning to feel a degree of empty


towards communities I'm living with, such is the pace of change in my


communities. You really think what you have done in the last few days


has helped discourage racism? Let's put it like this, if what I just


said to you twice, if we had Romanians coming to Britain, on work


permits, with the necessary checks, then nobody would feel if a group of


Romanian men moved in next door that there would be a problem. So


relations between communities would be better, not worse. And you would


be more alarmed by a group of Romanian member moving into the


house next door than a group of Pole, Italian, Nigerians or Somalis?


This is not my comment. My comment, the question was would people be


concerned if a group of Romanian men moved in next door. Let me be clear,


I did not want this to dominate. You said Romanians? No, the question


asked me about Romanians and I tried to bat the question away. I didn't


want to have this debate, and I regret using the word that I did. I


regret not taking it on. Here is your manifesto, page two of the


manifesto starts banging on immediately about Romanians? There


is a crime problem. Should we not have quantity control and quality


control into Britain. This the S nationality you talk about? Because


pro-rata that is the most intense problem. I agree with you, I think


actually if we have people who come to Britain and commit crime we


should be able to get rid of them. We can't even do that. If we can do


that we should be able to stop them reentering the country, and under


European rules we can't do any of those things. Can we look at one or


two other pledges in the manifesto, you want more grammar schools? Not


in the European elections. Local councils you do? Certainly, I will


be fighting for that and campaigning for that. You want to restore


abolished bus routes, you want to reduce business rates, these are


commitments? These are promises for what UKIP councillors will campaign


for on councils. Will campaign for? Of course, until you win control of


a council, and we're not going to win control of council this year.


How do you propose to pay for it? Most of the councils are up by


thirds, we won't be controlling any councils of that there is no doubt.


But this is what UKIP councillors will be campaigning for. How will


the promises be paid for? Why would having grammar schools cost more


money? Restoring abolished bus routes certainly would, and business


rates would cost too? That would depend, our high streets are full of


shops not paying business rates, there is an argument that says if


you get business rates right you maybe get more revenue. We have had


this in the past. You also promised to get rid of the so called spare


bedroom tax, that of course is a Government, that is central


Government? Yeah. How would that be paid for? At the moment, it wouldn't


be any cost at all, but frankly it hasn't even been implemented.


Councils can't do that, this is just a lot of airy fairy eye-catching


nonsense? We want to cut public spending in this country,


nonsense? We want to cut public will come up and these are


commitments to will come up and these are


do. Our job in a general election is to show how we can cut the budget.


do. Our job in a general election is Foreign aid is a very good start.


European Union contributions are a very good start, we are getting near


2% cuts, there very good start, we are getting near


throughout the public sector, since 1997, the fat cat salary, the growth


of middle management, the vast growth


of middle management, the vast areas we


of middle management, the vast What sort of response are you


getting on What sort of response are you


number that do, across a very wide spectrum, this is fascinating but


all Labour voters and nonvoters and Lib Dem voters along with ex-Tories,


amongst those who support us has been very strong. Strong to the


point that about 60% of our voters out on Thursday say they will vote


for us at a general election, in a by-election, in local elections.


Amongst those not well disposed to UKIP I have to say that the


campaign, the singling out of some of our own idiots who have said


silly things on Twitter and Facebook, stupidities that have been


held up to represent the view of the party have, I'm afraid, led to a


growing number of people despising UKIP a believing that we are a


racist party which we most certainly not. Do you feel hurt by that? Yes I


do, and I feel you know. In week there have been 17 councillors


from a Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative


from a Lib Dem, Labour and arrested for a variety of


everything from child pornography and assaults, you


everything from child pornography Yet someone who has joined


everything from child pornography slipped through the net


everything from child pornography told the truth on


has damaged in the minds of some people what UKIP is. I can't stand


that. As party leader you have to take responsibility? Yes, but I


can't micromanage everything. If you take responsibility? Yes, but I


were interviewing Clegg, Cameron or Miliband. , you wouldn't ask about


stupidities of people out there. If you can't run your own party how can


we trust you with anything bigger? We do run our party, everyone saying


offensive things we will boot out and make the process of becoming a


candidate tougher. These charges, levelled at us because of what


others have done, levelled at us because of what


had a former BNP activist and Labour have had BNP defectors, we are


threatening and challenging the establishment, they very scared to


what we can do to their vote on Thursday. They have really clubbed


together and tried to hurl as much abuse at UKIP as they K-FOR those


that don't like u they really don't like us, they have been pretty


offensive towards us in many cases, but actually for those who support


us it has almost stiffened their resolve. How many more nutcases in


the party? I have given you 17 from the three established parties


arrested in the last week! I have to say I have just spent


three-and-a-half weeks in the length and breadth of the UK. I have met


runs of our candidates standing for council, and I think we have a


fantastic group of people. We have a team building, an open membership.


You have homophobes in the party? You name people who haven't,


particularly those over the age of 70 who were brought up at a time


when they were taught at school this was wrong. What about Roger Helmer?


70. That's an excuse? Just think about this, he was brought up in a


traditional biblical upbringing, he lived as a young man in the country


where home sexual behaviour was an impressible offence, so this


generation were taught to believe this was wrong. And I think for many


people of that age and older, they still find it difficult, Roger has


said he is now relaxed about it and his views have moved on. Social


attitudes do change. Yes they do. We shouldn't demonise people. They have


particularly changed on a subject like race, would it be OK to be a


racist atp 0? -- at 70? No and actually you would find very few of


those f you went to France, Germany or elsewhere, right across Europe,


you would find racist attitudes, this country has been the most


relaxed country in the whole of the western world, when it comes to


different cultures, different religion, offering refugee status,


my family, came into that category. But Roger is classic of that


generation, but he's now accepting that the world has moved on. When


someone like Mr Helmer says that people find homosexuality viscerally


repulsive, that is not right? No, he wrote that 12 years ago as a


Conservative, when he was a Conservative. Now he's UKIP you do.


He was a younger man? He was, but still born in the same year, but it


is interesting as I say he was a Conservative. If you are a


Conservative backbencher all of this goes unnoticed, if you are UKIP is


any capacity it becomes a big story. Let me ask you one personal


question, you explained away some of your difficulties last week by


saying you were very tired? Well, do you know something, often you get


into interviews with aggressive interviews, you know the sort of


people I'm talking about, and they will fire a series of questions at


awe, I wry to avoid conflict in that interview. I try to avoid getting


into the crime figures and everything else by saying you know


what I mean. And I regret saying that because that gave people the


impression that I was saying, a nod and a wink, we don't really like


Romanians. And I regret doing that, but I do absolutely insist we must


have a proper debate about this, and we must get back control of our


borders. But your health is OK? My health is fine. Yeah. Nigel Farage,


thank you. More than any other exercise of democracy in this


country elections to the European Parliament are probably the ones


which most perplex us. Who are these men and women asking for our


support, and what will they do if they get it? The electoral system is


some weird method named after an obscure Belgian, how many people can


explain properly what the European Parliament does. Worry no more, our


policy editor Chris Cook will explain everything you wanted know


about Europe but afraid to ask. Not everything but a start at least.


First, who are we voting for and what do they cost us?


The European Union is fatastically complicated, that is why we decided


to strip things down a little. We would lay is bare. We asked for your


questions about the EU, and boy, did you send them in. We can deal with a


lot of them by answering one big question, what exactly is the


European Parliament? That's a very good question. The European


Parliament is officially the EU's most important institution. That's


because it is directly elected. It doesn't have the right to start new


legislation. In that respect it is less powerful than our parliament in


Westminster, for example. The European Parliament can only amend


or block things that come through from the commission, that's the EU's


executive. Now that means that it acts as break or accelerator on what


the EU does as a whole. So whether you want more or less of Europe, the


European Parliament really matters. That means that this week's


elections to pick Britain's 73 MEPs really matters too. So why don't we


talk about it more? Part of the reason is you don't get the same


intrigue you get at Westminster, with Governments falling and


forming. Who would want to watch a house of cards set in Strasbourg,


whatever happens the European Parliament will puff along, dealing


with whatever legislation it gets sent.


And it is just weird, it is multilingual, some MEPs have


ten-times as many voters as other MEPs, in moves, every month the


whole parliament goes to have Strasbourg for two days. That costs


200 million euros a year. The next question is how much do MEPs


actually get paid? That question came through a lot. The short answer


95,482 euros a year. They get perks, a generous pension, and when all the


voters decide it is time for them to stop being an MEP, they get a


handsome payoff. How much are they worth those extra bits? Complicated,


to a man of 45 years old elected, the pension and the payoff are worth


equivalent of 45,000 euros in cash. That brings it up to ?100,000. And


there are allowances, for every day that MEPs turn up at the parliament


at the get 304 euros of subsitence allowances. It is a very comfortable


life. With us now are the editor of Reuters and the author of the


"in-out question", Stephaine Flanders and Tim Stanley historian


and columnist. The number of us voting will be low, most of us not


voting I suspect, why is that do you think? I think we don't know who our


MEPs are. They are second rate politicians, not to say that all MPs


are first rate politicians. And despite what people like Nigel


Farage was telling you just now, although the European Parliament is


more important than it was, it is not nearly as important as our


voting for our MPs at Westminster. Stephaine, do you think the way that


the economic crisis has been handled has made things worse? I


the economic crisis has been handled have ended up with a situation where


certainly within the eurozone have ended up with a situation where


the eurozone crisis is have ended up with a situation where


ways more integration, more have ended up with a situation where


towards a more federal Europe. Yet have ended up with a situation where


less of as a result of the crisis is more integration and


less of as a result of the crisis is powers. Hugo is right, that all the


key decisions are at powers. Hugo is right, that all the


exciting summits where David Cameron stands up for our rights, and Angela


Merkel will have a set-to stands up for our rights, and Angela


French President. I don't think anyone is taught that anything


important happens at the European Parliament. There is a paradox


important happens at the European everything and dominates our lives,


and the fact that everything and dominates our lives,


out for it is irrelevant. I don't think


British people it is irrelevant. I don't think


European. If you grow up in continental


European. If you grow up in European countries you feel an


European. If you grow up in investment in the project. People in


Britain see the European insurance scheme. It is good we are


a member of it because it insurance scheme. It is good we are


us out if things go wrong. I don't think people feel the connection


with it they do with the ordinary MPs and the British parliament. I


agree with you there, but I think there is apathy across Europe for


the elections. If you look last time around we only had a turnout of 35%,


Europe as a whole it was about 43%, it was a bit better but not as


though all the French and Belgians and Dutch and Portuguese were going


out in their 70-80%. I think the problem is the European Parliament,


really we shouldn't have had a European Parliament that was


directly elected, we should have stuck with a system where there was


a European assembly where national MPs were sent to it. That was how it


was until 1979. Less and participation, extraordinary. They


had a connection with the constituents? And people know OK who


their MPs are, I like what Boris Johnson has said, we should go back


to the system of national MPs being sent to the European Parliament and


they should be chosen by lottery. But also the national politicians


would have to take responsibility for some of the decisions being


taken. Again I think it is particularly true in the eurozone


countries and less so here. Part of the problem in the last couple of


years this perception, a true perception that really important


decisions about that will further intergrate the eurozone countries


with each other are being taken by Government, but without any real


accountability by the Government. The public are carefully not given


choice on this, that is an elite project. The Government is chosen by


the people, the system where the Government have a lot of say over


who Europe operates is a good thing. We know who Cameron is, and the


Germans, Merkel, and it is natural the political leaders are having the


biggest say. I'm impressed that you are in favour of less democratic


participation. The problem is it is so big and there is a sense of it


controlling everything, but it is the problem of distance and if


national Governments surrender sovereignty to it, people don't feel


they have the personal relationship you have with your MP and a much


smaller parliament within your own country. This is part of the revolt


against Europe, it is not just Britain flirting with UKIP this


week, there are a whole range of parties far worse that Mr Nigel


Farage's, but they will do well because everyone is rejecting the


powerful and big system. No understand why you want it to have


more democratic power, then you will immediately say it is too powerful.


I don't think it can ever reach a point of democratic participation


that will make it legitimate. You guys can argue about something else,


because the argument that we couldn't leave the European Union


without suffering serious economic damage is key, set against that is


what it costs us to belong to this club. Time to bring back the man


with the mechanical arms, Chris Cook, the is the EU good for our


bank balance. Are you sitting comably, here is a question --


comfortably, here is a question that came up, is the EU very wasteful? In


2012 the EU spent 139 billion euros, 5% was frittered away in error, it


doesn't mean it was stolen or wasted it means the proper processes


weren't used. How much does it cost, in 2013 our subsidy to the EU came


to ?14 billion. We get stuff back for that. Not least about ?5 billion


in cash. I say cash, it was really more like a gift voucher, you have


to spend it on certain stuff. Nonetheless it brought down our net


contribution to ?8. 5 billion. Is it a good deal? If the UK economy were


1% larger because of our membership of the EU, and all the trade


benefits it brings, it would probably pay for itself, so does it?


A new study by the London School of Economics, estimates that Britain


has done very well out of its EU membership. They worked out about


15% of our economy comes from selling stuff to Europe. They also


estimated that in the best case scenario, if we were to leave, our


economy would shrink by just over 2%. That is about a year of normal


economic growth. One consequence of being an EU member is we have to


follow a lot of EU rules. And some people believe that if we were freed


from that obligation we would be able to deregulate and be


competitive when it comes to selling to the fast growing countries of


East Asia and South America. There is a wrinkle, if we could deregulate


to pursue the distant markets it is more likely we would be kicked out


of a lot of markets in Europe. So trade with Asia would have to sky


rocket to make up for it. That raises the question of just how much


the EU's rules and regulations costs the UK. The EU regulates an enormous


amount. But the real weight varies with your business. For example, if


you are a graphic designer you probably won't have much effect. But


if you sell chemicals it will have an enormous weight. So you often


hear estimates for the proportion of British laws that come from


Brussels, or the cost of European regulation. But in truth, the effect


of the European Union is very varied, it is really reshaping our


society, it is helping some businesses and it is hurting others.


Why can't we get straight answer on this? Part of the reason it is by


definition a meaningless question. We have no idea what a post-EU


scenario would be. No-one has any incentive to tell the truth. We


don't know what a negotiation would look like. If we don't know what the


situation afterwards would look like, how you could possibly compare


with the situation now, it is an inherently impossible task. The


truth is clear from an economic standpoint, we have had enormous


benefits from being in the EU. You could never say what without it but


we have had enormous benefits. The problem and slight of hand that


politicians are being caught out on is we have tended to talk about how


we like the single market and we just don't like the bureaucracy and


Britain is always in favour of the single market and we have benefitted


from that, but the single market is the free movement of people,


difficult politically, the free movement of goods requiring a


significant set of rules to have the market. It is those rules people


don't like and consider to be EU bureaucracy, and free movement of


capital we sort of like but we worry about the City. At the heart, the


awkward thing, the reason why these arguments about Europe have become


very difficult for supporters of our membership of the EU, is that


actually we're not sure if we are in favour of this stuff any more, the


stuff that was at the core of our argument for membership? I'm in


favour of it. The four freedoms Stephaine has spoken about have


enriched our economy and society. I make no apology for being in favour


of free movement of people. The people who have come to Britain who


have got about 2. 3 million of them from t rest of the EU. They are


young, hard working and paying their taxes and arriving at a time when


educated in their home country, we are not paying for their education.


They are not so old they are a burden on the National Health


Service. That is the economic advantage of them. On top of that


there is a cultural enrichment we have from having all of these


nationalities coming to London. And there is also the freedom our people


have to go and work and live across the channel. Don't forget there are


2. 2 million, almost as many Brits living, about a million of them in


Spain. So the free movement, the treaty of Rome that set off


Spain. So the free movement, the the biggest charters


Spain. So the free movement, the that the world


Spain. So the free movement, the is a


Spain. So the free movement, the looking like? I


Spain. So the free movement, the possible, the things we want like


proper controls over borders freedom to say no to people coming


in. We won't be given that, we only have the support


benefit tourism of Holland and Germany. Stephaine is right talking


about leaving the EU, we are talking hypotheticals, but there are facts


that suggest we can flourish. Still the sixth largest economy in the


that suggest we can flourish. Still world, and only 10% of the GDP


dependant on Europe, and we sell more to them than they us. It is


dependant on Europe, and we sell interesting Norway and Switzerland


outside with the EU trade more with the EU than we do. There are certain


fundamental economic factors. They are small country and they trade


more than big countries as a proportion of their GDP. That is a


statistical quirk you have mentioned. A new


statistical quirk you have would mean complying with a lot of


the same rules. Lots of would mean complying with a lot of


we need to be out from it. But one argument euro-sceptics are dubious


about if we left lots of regulations would disappear, and we would have


about if we left lots of regulations to sign up because we need the


business. America and China needs to investor in Britain is not the EU


but America. Stepping outside means investor in Britain is not the EU


lot of that trade is with Britain. give them access to the whole single


market with 500 million people. This idea that we could be like the


Swiss, it isn't a good argument. Take the City, you may not like the


City, but it is 10% of our economy, financial services. If we were


City, but it is 10% of our economy, wits land we would -- Switzerland we


wouldn't have a passport, we have now a passport, our firms


wouldn't have a passport, we have city can offer services right across


the EU. If we were like Switzerland they couldn't. The Swiss have


the EU. If we were like Switzerland a passport for their banks for years


and the EU has denied it. If we put ourselves off from the City we will


be... . The Financial Transaction Tax they want to put on. Only ten,


one jumped out. If that happens it affects competitors doesn't it? Not


much, the Financial Transaction Tax, I'm against it, but it has been


diluted every month. Not only falling from 11-10%, it is confined


now to shares and other derivatives it looks like our own stamp duty but


at a lower rate. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but a damp squib.


I'm more or less on your side on this. But surely you have to accept


it is much harder to make these arguments now, it sound more like an


elitist argument, it is wonderful being in London having lots of


national toes, but the city is good for large arts of the south-east and


parts the UK. But I think it has become a much more respectable


intellectual argument to be outside. You can't deny that? It is not just


the city, we can talk about the car industry it depends how much damage


we suffer depending on how much we come out with and what the arangment


is. Some people want us just to rely on our webship of the World Trade


Organisation. If we were part of the World Trade Organisation there would


be tarrifs on exports, taxes on all cars we export to the EU. Those


taxes would be 0%. I'm not saying that is the only scenario, but that


is what a credible euro-sceptic, Nigel Lawson is arguing for. I have


to cut across you there. Can you store it up for later. We come to


the most charged issue of all, the EU is all about open borders.


Freedom of trade and freedom of movement. The European Union was not


sold to us as a way of bringing large numbers of foreigners to this


country, to work and live without let or hindrance. That is what has


happened. On to your third block of questions, ready for it A number of


pro-European viewers asked why talk about Europe as a thing that is done


to us. We have MEPs in the parliament and ministers in the


council. A large part of that sense comes down to one issue, European


immigration and the feeling we never really had a vote about the extent


of it. EU citizens can, of course, work in EU country and some people


dislike the idea of not controlling our borders on principle. Others


don't really mind. Let's take a look at some of the numbers. At the 2011


census 2. 7 million people were registered born in another country.


When people talk about European immigration they don't mean French


and German people, they are thinking people further east. Since the fall


of the Iron Curtain the European Union has been spreading east, it


now includes portions of the former USSR itself. These new EU members


are much poorer than Britain, a manufacturing worker in Poland can


only expect to earn one quarter as much as their counterparts in


Britain. That creates a pull drawing people into the UK. There are a


million people living in the UK born in the so called A 8 countries,


those are the nations that join the EU in Eastern Europe in 2004. It


takes them to other rich European nations. But back in the year --


2000, there was a disproportionate share. They are big numbers, but


academics don't think there is a link between imdrags and employment


nor crime. It is worth mentions immigration isn't a one-way street.


1. 8 million British people have gone to live elsewhere in the EU.


What effect does our EU membership have on all these numbers? Of course


it increases them. It is not easy to say by how much. Remember Britain is


a very open country, two thirds of our foreign born population comes


from outside. So we shouldn't assume there wouldn't be immigration to


Britain if we weren't EU members. Even so it is the issue that most


people associate with the European Union. It is the explanation for why


a lot of people feel there is a democratic deficit between them and


Brussels. On past form most of us won't bother to vote in the


elections to the European Parliament, and it is important to


recall that most of the politicians in the parliament, the overwhelming


majority aren't British. And nor are they overwhelmingly any other


nationality. They are chosen by the many millions of voters of the EU in


28 countries. One of them is the Shrove convenientian philosopher


here tonight. Will you vote? No. Why not? Because I'm very pro-European,


but I'm very critical of what Brussels and its bureaucracy stands


for. I think that the lesson to the politicians should be as large as we


can imagine boycott of votes, not to abolish Europe but to awaken it in a


way. What has gone wrong? What is going wrong, I will answer it with a


question, Freudian question, what does the woman want? Nobody knows


that, but the question what does Europe want? I claim that it is


obvious that at least three Europes are fighting. On the one hand it is


the predominant what Brussels today stands for, Europe, it is just an


efficient technocratic idea. We are entering the multisensory world so


we have to be well organised to compete with other power centres and


so on. I think that will not work. It is not good enough. Then we have


what we saw at the beginning of our programme tonight. That is to say


let as call it the populist anti-immigrant reaction. I think


that first let's not underestimate them, they really do formulate some


awe THNTic anxieties, fears of the people, but I think that the tragedy


is they are just channelling in this direction fears which are not really


generated by the poor Romanians and whoever. Yes, ordinary working-class


people, leaving anxiety, but it is more about where global capitalism


is, healthcare no longer functioning whatever you want, and so on so on.


The logic of global capitalism is the problem, that is moving in a


certain direction, outsourcing and so on. I think that in other words,


in this sense I'm still a leftist. I think that the votes for this


nationalist anti-immigrant parties are the votes which should have been


leftist votes. Only a more radical new left can save Europe, I think.


Because I think and as some kind of radical leftist I'm totally


pro-European. I think Europe has introduced something which is


incredibly important for the entire humanity. Greek democracy could


straddle the European modernity. In all of this we have an idea of a


community of equal people living in freedom in solidarity. I will not go


in this poetry, I'm saying that this basic European legacy, I see it


today threatened by global capitalism. Take China and


Singapore, until now we could have said that capitalism and democracy


go together. In the sense that even if we have 20 years of dictatorship


in South Korea, when things start to function you have a demand for


democracy. I doubt if this is still the case. The most... You are


talking about China now? China, Singapore, South Korea, there is a


new capitalism emerging and I don't think we can dismiss it. Let's go


back to Europe for a moment or two, is there any way that you can


imagine of forging some sort of European identity, so


imagine of forging some sort of questions of migrants and an


imagine of forging some sort of between nations no longer exist. We


are talking something that is incredibly long-term here aren't we?


It is no so easy, I will tell you why. Let's be serious. Do, let's.


The problems we are facing today, are global problems, ecology, who


will regulate biogen metrics, who will regulate the flow of financial


capital and intellectual property. Global capital isn't today it is


calling for some kind of global regulation. This is maybe worldwide


our biggest challenge. I think the European way to do it while keeping


the European legacy alive, equality and all that stuff we usually


designate as welfare state. If it will not be done in the European


way, it will be done in a much nastier way through some kind of


universalised what we call capitalism and so on. I think this


is a serious threat, even if we still have democracy, isn't it that


they are becoming more and more insubstantial.


Thank you. That's it, I will be back tomorrow with an interview with the


former Italian Prime Minister, billionare and convicted fraudster,


Silvio Berlusconi. Do you have a particular problem with Angela


Merkel? Is it true you called her a BEEP lard cars? Well more of that


tomorrow, also tomorrow, the Royal Opera House will be streaming a live


performance on the Internet for the first time, it is La Traviata,


performed by husband and wife Eileen Perez and Steven Costello. Here is a