19/05/2014 Newsnight

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

review.