28/10/2015 Newsnight


What happens if we quit the European Union? Fighting Islamic State on the streets of Turkey. Veteran biographer Robert Caro. With Evan Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It is the missing question in the great EU debate.


Come the vote we will know what it is to remain in the EU,


Would we exit on terms that mean the grass here is


greener, or would we be left worse off than when we started.


It was the Prime Minister today in Iceland who raised the danger.


Norway pays as much per head into the European Union as we do.


When it comes to migration they actually have many more people


coming to live in Norway than we do, and yet while they pay they do not


Top Tory Eurosceptic Owen Paterson is here to tell us


the deal he expects Britain to get if we leave the EU.


Also tonight Gabriel Gatehouse is on the streets


of Turkey where the government is cracking down on Islamic State.


There was an explosion just now and what they are saying is the building


where the stand-off happened might have been booby-trapped.


Also tonight, the acclaimed political biographer


Robert Caro tries to compress his thousands of pages


If you try to do something and conceal it from the public,


in the first place they are going to find out about it.


if you have not brought them along, in the end you are going to fail.


Up until now, the Prime Minister has resisted firing the starting gun on


But maybe he was feeling frustrated, or maybe he just needed


a decent speech to deliver on a trip to Iceland.


Whatever motivated him, he weighed into


the fledgling argument by raising what is a most important question.


We know what it means to be IN the EU, but what does OUT mean?


We're going to devote quite a bit of the show to this question tonight.


The Prime Minister is in Iceland, which is not in the EU, but he


specifically talked about Norway, a country you might have thought was


The PM said he didn't think the Norwegian model would be right


Well, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg, formerly one


of our own, is over in Reykjavik, where the prime minister is.


Laura, on the politics of this, why would he raised this now? If you


listen very carefully in Reykjavik tonight, you might just hear the


sound of a third EU referendum campaign getting off the ground. Not


an official state campaign, not an official go campaign, but an


unofficial, different political campaign, the man in charge is David


Cameron. His complex campaign is he wants to stay and get a better deal,


if not pack up and leave. He is putting this message forward now


because although Downing Street denies there is any panic there is a


sense the momentum has been with those who would like the UK to exit


the EU. Downing Street thinks it is time to push back and try to expose


some of the problems with the suggestions they are putting


forward. That is why he is using this visit to make his case and that


is why he seized on the Norway model, the one he claims would not


be right for us. Never has so much attention been showered on Norway as


there has been today. Take this briefly through the substance of his


argument. This is all about control. Norway and Iceland have a looser


friendship with the EU. They trade with the EU and are part of the area


and can do business with whoever they like, but they have to pay for


the privilege and they are still bound by many of the rules and


regulations decided in Brussels. If you listen to the Norwegians talk


about that... We will hear from the Norwegians in a few minutes. Sorry


Well, we thought it might be useful to drill down into more detail


at the different kinds of non-EU membership that are out there.


First, we'll have to decide what freedoms we want and what


And secondly, the rest of the EU will have to decide what


Let's hear from our political editor Allegra Stratton about some


The Northern lights, you cannot see them from any old spot, you have to


go north to see them clearly, and so to the Prime Minister suggested


today Britain's future relations with the European Union. From


Iceland to David Cameron warned he could see clearly what Britain's


future looked alike. Some people have said the Norway option is


available to Britain. Norway pays as much per head into the European


Union as we do and when it comes to migration and they have many more


people coming to live and work in Norway than we do, and yet while


they pay they do not get a say. Is he right? Yes, Norway is often held


up by Eurosceptics as a prosperous, successful state operating with, but


not inside, the EU. Like Lichtenstein and Iceland they are


members of the European economic area that allows the free movement


of goods, services and people and capital within the area of the EU.


But by signing up they have to adopt much of the regulation of the EU,


but with less scope to influence that legislation. Eurosceptics have


distanced themselves from Norway in the last few days. What about


Switzerland? The Swiss are not in the European economic area, but they


have a series of bilateral agreements with the EU and as


members of the European free trade area they get favourable trading


relations. Boris Johnson has suggested we could join with the


Swiss and make a new outfit here of the European Union with free trade


with the European Union, but the right to help set the terms of that


trade. Critics say this only allows access to parts of the single market


and would exclude our financial services sector and Switzerland


still pays into the EU budget. There are so many different options and


all of them are worse than what we currently have. We have the best of


both worlds, we get to sit around the table and we have a say and all


of these other options would leave us worse off. We would pay and we


would have no say over the rules we would have to implement. I then not


other options? Turkey is an outsider to the EU, but they have struck free


trade agreements, giving them access to the single market, but there is


small print. This is small print. This only force UK to follow EU


trade policies. One last option, it is none of the above, but one day we


could become a kind of Singapore trade deal with the EU with out EU


red tape. Pro-Europeans this welcomes and loosened our client.


Their business models are different, they have oil and gas which is a key


part of their economy and comparing one country with another is


irrelevant. I want to see re-negotiation that works for us in


the UK. I knew Tory MP disagreeing with her leader's warning issued


from Iceland. The ad campaign think today David Cameron has blundered.


By rubbishing Norway they think he has placed himself firmly on the


inside of the referendum regardless of what he gets back from the EU.


Why has he done what he has done? One of the arguments that persuade


voters to stay in the European Union is the idea of Norway, that we would


still be subject to the same regulations. That is the strategy


behind the Prime Minister's comments today. Lots of examples of how


Britain could function outside the EU. Northern lights yes, but beacons


elsewhere as well. The outcome means we could be in a category of our


own. Nervous voters would like more details.


A little earlier I spoke to Vidar Helgesen,


the Norwegian Europe Minister, and I began by asking what he made


I don't think it was pointing to Norway as such,


but the Norwegian model of being affiliated with the European Union.


And it's serving Norway economically well, because being a part


of the single market is very important to us, to our businesses,


But it's also a system that has its dilemmas, because we are


Over 20 years more than 10,000 EU laws have been imported directly to


Because that's necessary for us to be part of the single market.


We don't sit at the EU decision-making table,


Is your influence limited, incidentally?


I mean, you must have an ambassador in Brussels who argues


Yeah, but our ambassador in Brussels is one of the European ambassadors


that doesn't sit at the meetings of EU ambassadors.


But it's better for us to be part of the single market through this


arrangement than being cut off from the single market,


There is some discussion and argument about what proportion


of European laws are e-mailed, faxed through to you, and you have


There's one figure about 9%, others I've seen another figure of 75%.


Do you know what proportion of law you have to comply with?


I think the latter is closer to the truth.


Any legislation, pertaining to the single market,


The Norwegian parliament, for each day


of sitting over the last 20 years, has adopted five per day EU laws.


And we do it while we are paying to the European project roughly


on a par with what we would do if we had been a member state.


It's conspicuous in Norway that the public are pretty happy with the


arrangement, at least there's no demand, there is antipathy towards


joining the EU, the political class, you included, you are fairly keen.


What is this gulf between the establishment, the political


You guys want in, they don't want in.


In Norwegian politics there is no membership debate looming at all.


Considering the financial crisis, I don't think anyone would be


surprised that there is a limited appetite for another


The reason why the EEA agreement is commanding


support in the Norwegian public and in Norwegian politics is simply


that it's good for business, it's good for the economy.


You would like Britain not to join you in the European economic area,


Since the rules are made in Brussels, in the EU,


and we import them, it's important for us that the rules are sensible.


And we believe that Britain at the table produces more sensible


EU rules than if Britain were on the outside, so that's why it's


in Norway's interest that Britain remains at the table.


Vidar Helgesen there, the Norwegian Europe Minister.


But as as we heard earlier in the show, it's not just Norway that


people cite as versions of what it might look like to be out of the EU.


Let's get some help from two other places, Singapore and Switzerland.


On the line from Singapore is David Kuo, who runs


an investment advice service there, and from Frankfurt, though she's


Swiss, is Dr Anne van Aaken who teaches at St Gallen University.


I am going to start with you. You are in Switzerland, Switzerland is a


very affluent place, by your observation does the Swiss


relationship with the EU work? Well, I would say it would be difficult


for Britain to repeat the Swiss model. It is a very special model


and it has to be understood historically by Switzerland not


wanting to join the EU and trying to have bilateral treaties. Since


Switzerland is not in the European economic areas, it has to make a


treaty for everything where it wants to have economic relationships with


the EU. That is where we currently stand. It is more complicated than


the Norwegian one, but it gives them more flexibility, like an a la carte


menu rather than a fixed meal? That is right, but services are not in,


which is difficult for Switzerland. Switzerland has quite a strong


financial industry sector, so that is difficult for them. The EU


basically negotiated that if one treaty is not adhered to, and the


Swiss had a referendum in 2014 concerning the free movement of


persons, then all the other treaties can be terminated as well. So in a


way even though they are bilateral treaties, on its single issue it is


a package. You do not take the whole package. All or nothing. Thank you,


that is very useful. Singapore is not directly comparison to the UK,


but the suggestion is the model of being an enterprise Hub, a kind of


offshore almost halved against a large continent, it certainly seems


attractive to some people. How attractive do you think and how easy


would it be for the UK to become like Singapore?


We are part of a free-trade organisation, free trade region here


for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. -- it is called the


Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Part of a bigger


organisation but at the same time there are big differences between


that and the European Union. 80% of the trade done by Singapore is


outside and only 20% is within those nations. Singapore does work, it's a


very successful economy. For it to work what do you need? Singapore


taxes are very low, much lower than the UK ones. It's certainly one


area, as far as Singapore is concerned we have one of the lowest


corporation taxes, no capital gains tax whatsoever and no inheritance


tax, it's very attractive for corporations who want to come here,


financial institutions and wealthy individuals. Those people who want


to pass on their wealth to the next generation. As far as the UK is


concerned, it needs to copy that model. Reduce its taxes to an


it'll start to attract corporations and financial institutions which


they already have. It'll encourage those companies to


stay within the UK and not think about moving elsewhere. Thanks


Here with me now is the former Conservative cabinet minister and


you've been listening to the whole caboodle of options and things,


which is your favourite by the way? My favourite option is the British


option, we are the fifth largest economy in the world, we have a huge


deficit with our European neighbours up to ?70 billion per year, 5


million Europeans they'll want to do a deal with us. What was useful


about your clips, it shows there are different solutions for different


countries. What was interesting, none of them missed, they almost,


actually, key movement, towards global regulation, global


government. What you missed out is that we want to get our seat back on


those global bodies. The Prime Minister set out five questions he


thought were important today. I thought we could go through some of


them quickly, because they are useful. Would the UK still be


obliged to follow EU rules on free movement of people? In your opinion,


if we're out, would free movement apply? It depends what the final end


solution is. I'm asking what your preferred solution would be. The


Treaty of Rome was free movement of labour and the Treaty of Lisbon free


movement of people. What I'd like to see is laws made in our own


parliament so we get back control of our immigration policy. Not free


movement? Not like Norway. It has to be negotiated. Will the UK be forced


to pay an EU subscription fee like Switzerland and Norway? It depends


what the end solution is. I don't know where these figures have come


from. The figures I've seen, Norway pays about half. You would expect


the UK to or not? It all depends what the end solution is, I want to


get back to the global level, I want Britain to take a 4 seat on the WTO.


Norway, which was missed out by their minister, chairs the global


body committee... A global committee on fish. They export 3 billion euros


of fish. It isn't an answer to the Prime Minister's question. What the


UK pay the EU 's abduction? I don't want to hear about fish, I want to


hear about the UK subscription under the scenario you are advocating, yes


or no, it's quite simple. You might not want to hear about fish but


fishermen do. We've talked to you about fish before and Norway, I can


remember sitting over there talking. And you interrupted me last I'm like


you are interrupting now. I won't interrupt if you answer the question


about the EU subscription, will we pay one or not?


I want to move to a global system where we have full representation as


a full nation on a global bodies. We are represented by a 28 of a


commissioner, highly unsatisfactory as we move to global regulation. The


EU is retreating as a law creator, the global bodies moving. You have


to think out of your EU box. Is it an answer to the question will see


you -- have you answer the question the public will read into it what


they want. You are presuming we will be in the EU. The EU is going to


leave us. I've explained a scenario and you fail to tell me whether


we'll pay a subscription, I'm thinking your answer is no. You are


assuming we'll be in something called the EU. The EU is leaving us.


It won't be like Norway, we won't pay a subscription? We'll be getting


our seat back. Would we be in a trade deal with EU, would we be in


the trade steel if it's negotiating with other nations? Yes, I said that


already, we have a huge... We'll come up with a solution in


everybody's interest. What if they set terms which you don't like for


us to have access to the market? The market? Reply minister says 31 other


governments and parliaments, will they all agree to the UK's new


relationship? The procedure is they go into a locked room, decides the


treaty that will determine our relationship with them, and they


handed to us and we take it or leave it. We are getting outvoted now,


we've been beaten in the council 55 times the last few years. We are


constantly being outvoted, was out voted when I was the secretary for


Defra. I'm saying we have an unsatisfactory deal now which costs


a fortune, we have laws and regulations imposed upon us, we


don't have our full seat on the global bodies. I know I know. Which


I'm very keen on. We will get our full roll on that and it changes the


relationship completely. We would love you to have access to our


single market, full access, we don't want a race to the bottom on labour


standards, to have full access to the single market you will have two


basis, that and the other, part of social Charter. Social chapter. As


part of the condition. Do we say yes or no? No, I'm looking to a global


system. You said... It's inconceivable we won't come to an


unsatisfactory trade deal when we have a 70 billion deficit when 5


million of their citizens depend on us for trade, we'll come to a deal


with them. What proportion of their GDP is exported to us? Depends on


the countries, somewhere like Germany is higher. 3%. It varies


dramatically between the countries. The key factor for the last few


months, each of the last 12 months, sales outside the EU to the rest of


the world have increased faster than EU sales. It's still important we


have a satisfactory trade deal with them, but we get our rollback on the


world bodies and we galvanise the Commonwealth... It's the breakdown


in the movement to world free trade that is causing so many problems


around the world. Have you answer the question, I'm not sure you have,


about how we establish a trade relationship with them that gives


access to their market without them dictating some of those terms. 31 of


them, 26 of them, plus five EAA members. Varies us. -- there is them


and there is us. In that they have interest in coming to a satisfactory


deal with us. People on your side of the argument have said, we can't


possibly think about a treaty change option under David Cameron.


Renegotiation, without it being signed in blood and ratified before


we have to vote on it. Are you going to ask us when we come to the


referendum to vote on and out prospectus as they as the one you've


been describing tonight? I'm not being very casual, I have a clear


view we want a new relationship as they move away from us and form


their new country. Hang on! I want a relationship based on trade and


cooperation, which is what we voted to join in 9075. Allied to that,


want to make our own laws in our own parliament and have our own


full-time or presented on the global bodies. -- we voted to join in 1975.


Yet our role on the global bodies. It'll cascade down through the EU.


I'm hearing what you want but I'm not clear, if they say they don't


want the relationship you are describing, what you can do about


it. I think what you are saying is we should trust that in the end


it'll be all right, they won't play hardball. But you seem to forces


which have ended with irrational hardball playing characters doing


stuff that may not be in the interest of both parties. They have


a huge interest. Have you seen a divorce case where somebody has


acted against their own interests to hurt the other one. It's different


when you have a massive deficit going one way. And something


integrated across borders. They allow vested interests in Europe


that will want trade and cooperation to carry on. -- there are vested


interests. We allow them to move into a political interest. We'll


never be in the euro, in Schengen, they will form their new country, as


they've announced in various reports. It gives us the


opportunity, we have the whip hand, to get that through they have to


have a treaty change and we have a whip and to ensure we have a totally


new relationship with our neighbours based on trade, cooperation and


making our own laws in our own parliament. Owen Paterson, thanks


very much indeed. Well, from a discussion


about a Britain off one side of the EU, to a country sitting just


off the opposite side, Turkey. It's in a far less temperate zone


of course, a Syrian war and IS on its doorstep and a long-running


struggle with Kurdish separatists. Earlier this month, suicide bombers


in the capital Ankara killed more than a hundred people at a rally


of a pro-Kurdish opposition party. A ceasefire with the Kurdish


militant group All in all, it's not been


an easy time for Turkey, Elections in June were inconclusive,


so the country votes again Gabriel Gatehouse has been there


and found a country struggling to insulate


itself from the war on its border. Turkey, a bulwark of stability


on the edge of Europe. A buffer against the chaos


of the Middle East. The violence that surrounds


this country is now beginning Now Turkey is suffering from


terrorism attacks because of Syria. Because terrorists,


both PKK and Isis, are using Syria, an uncontrollable area,


for practising terrorism attacks. In the run-up to Sunday's election


there have been deadly bombings blamed variously on Islamic State,


or President Erdogan's


message is this: Only a strong majority for his party


can hold the country together. For such attacks,


like tourist attacks, the people of Erdogan is an important


figure to unite this nation. Some people have been suggesting it


might have been the government itself that was


behind the attack in Ankara. I think it is really dangerous


to play sectarian politics and to In this atmosphere


of mutual suspicion Turkey is once again at war with the Kurds, a war


fuelled by the conflict in Syria. In the Kurdish dominated


East, Turkish jets are bombing PKK targets in response to attacks


by the Kurdish militants. But now a new threat has injected


itself into this toxic conflict, On a residential street


in the city of Diyarbakir we arrived as security forces carried out


a raid on an IS safe house. This was more a battle than


a shoot out, police using armoured They have implanted IS


into our midst, this man told me, they are only conducting this


operation now because They are trying to use IS to


put pressure on Kurdish people. There is a car reversing out


of the area. They are saying the building


where the stand-off happened Two policemen were killed as well


as seven militants. Turkey has long allowed


Islamic State fighters to use IS oppose the Syrian regime,


IS are also a barrier to Kurdish But now some of those IS


fighters are coming back. In places eastern Turkey looks


like a country at war, but these soldiers are not here because


of a threat from Islamic State. They are here because Kurdish


militants have taken over swathes turning whole neighbourhoods


into so-called autonomous zones. This is essentially a rebel zone, an


area that is not under the control of the Turkish security forces, it


is under the control of rebel youths They have strung up tarpaulin to


shield themselves from the view There are signs here


of recent heavy battles, pockmarked The group's leaders are shy


of the cameras. They did not want us to film their


weapons, mostly automatic rifles, They will be coming for us,


they will use tanks and mortars. They want to clear everyone out


of this neighbourhood then hit it Emboldened by their fellow Kurds


in Syria who have carved out a vast territory along Turkey's southern


border, these Marxist guerillas now sense perhaps new momentum


in their decades-old struggle. We shall overcome


and we will resist to the end. We can take the violence of


the state no longer. There are people who are digging


these trenches who do not want to be identified, they are all


covering up their faces. These are young, armed men who are


affiliated with the PKK, the Kurdish rebel group, and one


thing is for sure, this is now Not everyone here wants to pick a


fight with Turkey's powerful army. These women told us all they want is


peace, In his office the local head


of president Erdogan's AKP party showed me the bullet holes where PKK


militants fired at his window. As Kurdish fighters grow


in strength across the border in Syria, Mohammed Akar feels


this rebellion could become President Erdogan has presided


over a decade of stability Sunday's election is essentially


a rerun. In June his AKP party failed to get


a majority. His critics accuse him of becoming


increasingly authoritarian. Over the past few weeks, many towns


in the East have been under curfew. In Diyarbakir's old town we found


people venturing out for the first time after special forces were sent


in to quell clashes between Kurdish All this commotion is because there


is a food distribution here, they are handing out supplies to people


who are affected by the clashes that happened in these narrow alleyways


just a few days ago. All of this is organised


by a pro-Kurdish opposition party which is capitalising


on the anger among people who were prevented from getting to work or


even to the shops. We had nothing to eat or drink,


this woman says. She told me her daughter had gone to


the mountains, President Erdogan came to power


as a champion of the oppressed, His base is


among religious conservatives and Islamists, empowering people who


once felt marginalised by Turkey's Now there are those who feel


the pendulum has swung too far In 2012 Gurbuz Chapan was one


of dozens of people implicated in He insists he supports change


only at the ballot box, but he This election is essentially


a referendum on the limits Strong leadership has kept Turkey


stable amid the chaos of the Middle East, but Erdogan's


opponents believe that by giving space to Islamic State


and by re-engaging in conflict with If you love biographies,


you may well love the American His majestic history of the life


of US president Lyndon B Johnson is It's considered one


of the most important political His other monumental work was


about the man who shaped That one's forty years old now,


but has just been published here. From afar, Johnson and Moses may not


seem the obvious lives to devote more than a thousand pages to, but


Mr Caro has fans in high places. The Chancellor is one of them,


Gordon Brown too. Because his books are really


about power and its use. Well, it's amazing to me, thank you,


England! But I think part


of the reason is that it's not really only about Robert Moses, it's


about political power, how you get political power, what is political


power, how can it shape our lives? Moses was interesting to me because


he was never elected to anything. We live in America in a democracy


where power is supposed to come from Here is a man who was never elected


to anything, he had more power than anyone who was, more than any mayor,


more than any governor, more than And he held this power for 44 years,


it was half a century, So I set out to do,


how did he get it? Can we talk a little


about biography? I mean, one of the dangers of


biography, particularly the thorough biographical style of which you are


the master, perhaps it puts too much weight on the individuals, too much


weight on Moses shaping New York. Not enough on historical forces,


motorcars, the ability to build tall buildings, whatever


the architectural trend was. Is that


a danger with big biographies? Well, I think it's a danger,


I think in my particular case the danger is mitigated because I'm


not interested in writing... I never thought


of writing a biography. Just to write the life


of a famous man. I never had the slightest


interest in doing that. I started The power broker because,


I think I mentioned, no one seem to So it started on one part as


an examination of political power. How did he create this power


outside the electoral process? It's a study of power, that's why I


call it The Power Broker. With Johnson, what attracted me


to Johnson, was the same thing. It was his Senate years more


than the presidential years. And he continues his informal Texas


style, I said, my God,


he did something no one else has If I can sit and figure out how he


got the power to do that, and explain it to people, you have


to figure it out and you've got to explain it, then that really is


something you feel you are adding to people's understanding of political


power, that they should understand. If you don't know what you want to


do with your power, you are not really going to be very


useful, are you? And if you don't have


the ability to work the system, you are not going to be very useful, you


need both of those, do you or not? You know, Johnson is really very


interesting, he has to give this speech for Congress three days


after Kennedy is assassinated. Speech writers are gathered


around the table. He comes down to see what


they are turning out. They say, well, whatever we do,


don't touch civil rights, don't mention civil rights,


the Southerners control Congress. They are going to stop all your


legislation, don't antagonise them. It's a noble cause,


but a lost cause. In a speech he says,


my first priority is to pass Now,


I wonder whether the techniques used by Johnson, skulduggery you might


call some of it, the techniques used by Johnson, whether they created


a disenchantment with politics? Today, the word is authenticity


that we want in our politicians. I wonder whether the kind of cynical


manipulation of people like Johnson Yes, the answer to your question is


he created something called Everyone realised,


no one could believe, what he said. Now, when I hear


the telephone tapes, I hear him telling his advisers, I've decided


to send 75,000 men to Vietnam. He says, but let's say


the policy hasn't changed. Remember that in everything you say,


we haven't changed the policy. But everyone knew he had changed


his policy. For years he would say,


I see the light, we are winning. The disenchantment with the American


presidency, in your words, not believing what


the president tells us, that really Before Watergate, we think of it


as starting at Watergate. If people say it started with


Watergate, they don't remember it started before Watergate,


it started with Vietnam. You are almost 80 years old,


and you've said, if anything should happen to you, that means you can't


finish this fifth volume, you don't want anyone else to finish it or


take the work and complete it. I want everything, you know,


that I've done under my name to be If someone else wants to write about


Lyndon Johnson, of course many people do, they are writing about


him now, that's fine, but I don't... You know, there are others, like


Manchester's biography of Churchill, People who read that book say, this


isn't William Manchester's writing. If you had to encapsulate


the one lesson that Johnson teaches You'd better bring the public


along with you. Like on Vietnam, if you try to do


something and conceal it from the public, in the first place they


are going to find out about it. If you haven't bought them along,


in the end you are going to fail.


Download Subtitles