:00:08. > :00:09.Britain, Syria and the so-called Islamic State.
:00:10. > :00:17.Are we a nation poised for action, inaction or indecisiveness?
:00:18. > :00:27.I'm in Washington and has been talking to the Foreign Secretary.
:00:28. > :00:33.No strategy, no foreign policy there at all. It is not fair to say we
:00:34. > :00:36.have no strategy but it is absolutely true to say that the
:00:37. > :00:39.speed and decisiveness of Russia's intervention has taken the
:00:40. > :00:42.international community by surprise. Talking of foreign policy -
:00:43. > :00:54.back in Britain, it's Europe day. The commitment in the treaty to an
:00:55. > :00:58.ever closer union is not a commitment that should apply any
:00:59. > :01:02.longer to Britain. We do not believe in it, we do not subscribe to it. We
:01:03. > :01:04.have a different vision for Europe. But is he doing a Wilson,
:01:05. > :01:06.a renegotiation pretending to be We have discussed
:01:07. > :01:09.the very controversial subject of cheese, on which I am satisfied
:01:10. > :01:13.with what has emerged this evening. Good evening from Washington, where
:01:14. > :01:31.the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, here in the US to hold
:01:32. > :01:34.talks on Syria with the Secretary of State, John Kerry, has confirmed to
:01:35. > :01:37.Newsnight that he'd like to see a House of Commons vote
:01:38. > :01:40.on airstrikes in Syria go ahead. He said he believes airstrikes in
:01:41. > :01:46.Iraq had saved Baghdad from falling, but the mission would need a local
:01:47. > :01:49.ground force of troops if the battle I asked him whether he believed
:01:50. > :01:54.the UK really had a foreign policy at all against Isis,
:01:55. > :01:58.what the airstrikes had achieved, whether Putin was currently seen as
:01:59. > :02:01.our enemy or our ally, and whether Britain monitored how Saudi Arabia
:02:02. > :02:04.used the ?5.4 billion worth We'll hear from the Foreign
:02:05. > :02:08.secretary in an extended interview First, here's our diplomatic editor,
:02:09. > :02:21.Mark Urban. There are pictures of bodies with
:02:22. > :02:26.symptoms consistent of that of nerve agent exposure. Our allies in the
:02:27. > :02:29.Middle East, like Saudi, Emirates and others cannot take military
:02:30. > :02:35.action, why does it fall on us again? For me the biggest danger of
:02:36. > :02:39.escalation is if the world community stands back and do nothing, because
:02:40. > :02:48.I think Assad will draw conclusions to that. The eyes to the
:02:49. > :02:55.The Government tried and failed to get Parliament's backing for strikes
:02:56. > :03:01.against the Assad regime after chemical weapons were used. Before
:03:02. > :03:06.the vote it seemed that as in Libya Britain might even draw a reluctant
:03:07. > :03:13.America into a. After it, the Government struggled to find a
:03:14. > :03:17.policy. We are encouraged people to take up rebellion against their
:03:18. > :03:22.dictators but we then weren't prepared to arm them once they had
:03:23. > :03:26.done so, so Syria's a classic case where we weren't quite prepared to
:03:27. > :03:30.go all the way through with the rhetorical and moral position that
:03:31. > :03:36.we took. In that sense we led people on to the punch. With the failure to
:03:37. > :03:43.secure parliamentary support, the US also stood back from bombing Assad.
:03:44. > :03:48.Britain then had to follow the American lead 15 months ago when
:03:49. > :03:53.operations against a different enemy, the self-declared Islamic
:03:54. > :03:57.State, started. I think it has become very clear that the approach
:03:58. > :04:03.that the coalition has decided to take is not going to have rapid
:04:04. > :04:08.effects. There may be ways in which we can speed it up, but there are
:04:09. > :04:17.also ways in which Isis are desperately trying to slow it down.
:04:18. > :04:22.So they use terror tactics. They use lots of vehicle-borne IEDs, but they
:04:23. > :04:27.also mine all the towns and cities that they operate in, which makes it
:04:28. > :04:32.very hard to move anywhere. America's offensive doesn't look
:04:33. > :04:37.capable of ensuring anything other than military stasis amid a
:04:38. > :04:40.diplomatic vacuum. So when Russia geared up for its intervention
:04:41. > :04:46.against the militants and in favour of the Assad regime, Britain finally
:04:47. > :04:51.had to come to terms with the death of any Arab Spring-type optimism on
:04:52. > :04:54.Syria. I think there was quite a lot of the Arab Spring, we are all going
:04:55. > :04:59.to be on the side of history. Nothing could be worse than these
:05:00. > :05:05.dictators. And what we found for a lot of people for many people are
:05:06. > :05:10.worse than some of these dictators. It is a Hobbsian world there in
:05:11. > :05:14.Syria and Iraq, absolutely ghastly. Russia's intervention has at least
:05:15. > :05:18.been the catalyst for a new diplomatic negotiation. It started
:05:19. > :05:23.last month in Vienna with the main foreign players trying to set the
:05:24. > :05:27.stage for Syrian peace talks. The UK at least was here, but does it know
:05:28. > :05:31.what it is trying to achieve now? In the end you've got to get a
:05:32. > :05:35.transition out of a civil war in Syria. For those parties who are
:05:36. > :05:39.going to be prepared to transition. That's not going to include Isis and
:05:40. > :05:45.other Islamist rejectionists who are going to try to impose their version
:05:46. > :05:48.of the world on others. But it should include the Syrian regime. It
:05:49. > :05:53.should include the Syrian opposition. There is within the
:05:54. > :05:58.Vienna nine points that came out nearly two weeks ago now there is
:05:59. > :06:05.the basis of an agreement. Let's get to work op that track and then the
:06:06. > :06:09.international community can then coalesce around, around our only
:06:10. > :06:12.common interests the defeat of Isis. Syrian civil war has been so violent
:06:13. > :06:17.and complex that British policy makers have struggled to find
:06:18. > :06:23.convincing answers. And all against a backdrop of uncertainty about
:06:24. > :06:26.whether their nation still wants great power status or overseas
:06:27. > :06:27.military entanglements. Well, this afternoon, at the UK
:06:28. > :06:30.amabassador's residence in Washington, I caught up with our
:06:31. > :06:33.Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond. I asked about UK arms exports to
:06:34. > :06:35.Saudi Arabia and about our But I began by inquiring whether,
:06:36. > :06:41.given his fears the Egypt air crash could have been caused by an Isis
:06:42. > :06:54.bomb, the UK strategy towards Isis I don't think it changes anything
:06:55. > :06:59.notice way we deal with Isis. We've always known they were trying to do
:07:00. > :07:02.us harm. We've seen them executing our citizens, committing all sorts
:07:03. > :07:06.of atrocities in areas they control, so we absolutely know what kind of
:07:07. > :07:09.organisation we are dealing with. We are going after them and we'll
:07:10. > :07:14.continue to go after them. What does it mean? What it does change is the
:07:15. > :07:18.way that we deal with the threat, because that would suggest if this
:07:19. > :07:21.is what has happened that would suggest that there's a threat to
:07:22. > :07:27.civil aviation from Isis, which we have to respond to. So when you say
:07:28. > :07:30.going after them, Michael Fallon said it is morally indefensible not
:07:31. > :07:37.to bombitesis in Syria. Do you agree? What Michael Fallon said was
:07:38. > :07:43.that he has a difficulty with the idea that our allies are taking
:07:44. > :07:46.action on the basis of British reconnaissance flights, that we have
:07:47. > :07:51.to leave somebody else to carry out the strike. He said morally
:07:52. > :07:54.indefensible. It is no secret we would like to be able to extend our
:07:55. > :07:57.strike operations into oi. But we have to get that through the House
:07:58. > :08:01.of Commons. We'll go back to the House of Commons as soon as we are
:08:02. > :08:04.confident that we can win a vote in the House of Commons. This should be
:08:05. > :08:07.done on the basis of a broad consensus in the House of Commons.
:08:08. > :08:10.That has always been the tradition in Britain, when we are sending our
:08:11. > :08:14.Armed Forces into combat, that we do it on the basis of a broad
:08:15. > :08:19.consensus. I think that's deliverable. The changes in the
:08:20. > :08:26.Labour leadership have created some uncertainty about the dynamics in
:08:27. > :08:30.the Commons. We've got to let that settle down. You think that you
:08:31. > :08:36.suggest the bombing has achieved things so far by the UK in Iraq, by
:08:37. > :08:41.the US and allies and Iraq and Syria? Yes. What has it achieved? Is
:08:42. > :08:48.well, first of all the intervention in Iraq, the use of allied air
:08:49. > :08:52.power, coalition air power in Iraq stopped what was a precipitate
:08:53. > :08:56.advance towards Baghdad. If you take your mind back 18 months Baghdad
:08:57. > :08:59.looked as though it was going to fall to the Isil advance. Do you
:09:00. > :09:06.think it would have fallen without that? There was a serious risk. We
:09:07. > :09:10.stopped in its tracks. Since that time Isil have lost 30% of the
:09:11. > :09:15.territory they occupied in Iraq at the peak of their power, so it has
:09:16. > :09:21.had an effect. But we have always said that you can't win a war
:09:22. > :09:28.against an organisation like Isil by air power alone. Eventually there'll
:09:29. > :09:33.have to be a ground force dimension to this combat. A ground force of
:09:34. > :09:39.what kind of troops? Well, it won't be British or American or European
:09:40. > :09:43.troops. It will have to be people from the region ideally. In Iraq it
:09:44. > :09:47.will be Iraqi forces raised and trained in Iraq and a force that's
:09:48. > :09:51.reflective of the population of the areas that Isil currently operates.
:09:52. > :09:58.Who are partners on the ground in Syria? In Syria we have a moderate
:09:59. > :10:03.opposition force. Somewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 fighters on the
:10:04. > :10:09.ground now, primarily fighting the Assad regime. But who are also
:10:10. > :10:17.strongly opposed to Isil. Talk me through that slowly, because if we
:10:18. > :10:22.are attacking Isis and succeeding under the scenario, the beneficiary
:10:23. > :10:26.is Assad. So how are the people that are currently fighting Assad going
:10:27. > :10:32.to be helping us? Well, not the case. As the Assad regime is not in
:10:33. > :10:37.practice fighting Isil. There's a couple of points of contact between
:10:38. > :10:43.the regime and Isil forces, but primarily the regime is being
:10:44. > :10:50.challenged by non-Isil moderate prosecution groups and al-Nusra.
:10:51. > :10:53.Isil in their stronghold has quite carefully kept itself disengaged
:10:54. > :10:57.from the main fight ing with the regime, and we though that the
:10:58. > :11:03.regime has done deals with Isil. They trade with Isil. You concede,
:11:04. > :11:08.though, that if Isis were weakened Assad would be stronger? If Isis
:11:09. > :11:20.were weakened... I don't necessarily accept that, no. There's a three-way
:11:21. > :11:24.fight going on here. We've got the moderate opposition and Isil. Isil
:11:25. > :11:31.would like to control all of the territory of Syria but effectively
:11:32. > :11:35.it has abandoned the part of the country where Isil is. Is it is
:11:36. > :11:39.taking on the opposition forces that are primarily non-Isil forces. That
:11:40. > :11:47.three-way fight, the third part of that fight is currently being bombed
:11:48. > :11:52.by Russia. By Putin. The moderate opposition, the Russian intervention
:11:53. > :11:55.claimed to be in the name of the fight against Isil has been largely
:11:56. > :11:58.directed against the moderate opposition, which tells us that the
:11:59. > :12:04.real intelligence of Russia's intervention is to shore up the
:12:05. > :12:09.Assad regime. I have no doubt that Russia shares our ambition to
:12:10. > :12:12.destroy Isil in the longer term, but we have a difference of view about
:12:13. > :12:18.how best to do that. The Russians think you do it by shoring up the
:12:19. > :12:25.Assad regime and going off Isil. We don't think you can settle the
:12:26. > :12:29.conflict between Assad and the opposition without agreeing a date
:12:30. > :12:33.and a modality for Assad's departure. So as things stand, do
:12:34. > :12:39.you look at President Putin and say, you are our ally in this fight? Not
:12:40. > :12:44.at the moment, but Putin could be our ally if he decides to work with
:12:45. > :12:49.us in order to achieve a political transition. We've got two different
:12:50. > :12:52.struggles here. We've got the struggle against Isil, which has to
:12:53. > :12:56.be a military struggle. There isn't a deal you can cut with Isil. There
:12:57. > :12:59.isn't a negotiation to be had with them. They can't be part of the
:13:00. > :13:03.political future of Syria. And then we've got a civil war going on.
:13:04. > :13:07.Everybody is agreed that the solution to that has to be a
:13:08. > :13:12.political one, not a military one. Everybody's agreed that it would be
:13:13. > :13:17.a mistake to dismantle the regime and create a vacuum, as happened in
:13:18. > :13:22.Iraq. What we need to do is remove those with the most blood on their
:13:23. > :13:26.hands at the top of the asset regime, bring in representatives of
:13:27. > :13:29.the moderate opposition and form a transitional Government in Syria
:13:30. > :13:36.that can take the country forward. Isn't the truth that we have been
:13:37. > :13:41.outflanked quite rawly and bluntly by President Putin here? And when
:13:42. > :13:49.you look at our strategy in Syria, in Iraq, against Isis, that Ramadi's
:13:50. > :13:54.fallen, Palmyra has fallen, Mosul is in Isil's hands. We've got 700
:13:55. > :13:58.British citizens going to fight for Isis and a wave of hundreds of
:13:59. > :14:02.thousands of migrants leaving the country, with very no strategy? We
:14:03. > :14:06.have no foreign policy there at all. It is not true to say we have no
:14:07. > :14:10.strategy but it is absolutely true to say that the speed and
:14:11. > :14:14.decisiveness of Russia's intervention has taken the
:14:15. > :14:20.international community by surprise. We are in the process of responding
:14:21. > :14:24.to that. Russia is both carrying out military action and joining us at
:14:25. > :14:29.the table. We'll be meeting against this weekend in Vienna with 19
:14:30. > :14:32.countries to try and move forward on the political track. The Russians
:14:33. > :14:37.say they want a political solution. They say they accept the need for a
:14:38. > :14:42.political solution. Actually... With Assad. With Assad. And that's the
:14:43. > :14:47.big point of difference between us and the Russians and Iranians. I
:14:48. > :14:51.want to look more broadly now at what the Foreign Office does. David
:14:52. > :14:58.Cameron said in 2012 those emphasis you've got, turn them into showrooms
:14:59. > :14:59.for cars, department stores for our fashion. That's what's happened
:15:00. > :15:10.isn't it? Trade is an important part of the
:15:11. > :15:17.overseas missions. It is now embedded in the mainstream of our
:15:18. > :15:20.diplomacy around the world. In Washington had senior executives
:15:21. > :15:27.from a dozen US companies investing in the UK. To encourage them to
:15:28. > :15:32.invest more is my goal. The mission in Saudi Arabia, the weapons sold,
:15:33. > :15:37.would you like that figure to be higher? We would always like to do
:15:38. > :15:43.more business, more British exports and jobs. And in this case high end
:15:44. > :15:48.engineering jobs protected and created. By our diplomacy abroad.
:15:49. > :15:53.Does it matter what Saudi Arabia does with the weaponry, if it is
:15:54. > :15:59.used against civilians in Yemen or against protesters at home? It does
:16:00. > :16:03.matter and we have one of the strip is export licensing regimes in the
:16:04. > :16:08.world. We only export weapons systems were all the criteria of our
:16:09. > :16:12.export licensing system are met. So you know those British weapons are
:16:13. > :16:19.not being used in Yemen, you know that? I know some of them are being
:16:20. > :16:22.used in Yemen, it does not fall foul of the export licensing criteria. It
:16:23. > :16:29.would be hypocritical to think we could have a large defence industry
:16:30. > :16:34.exporting weapons systems and they never get used. So you do not have a
:16:35. > :16:40.veto in where the weapons are used or how? What matters is they are
:16:41. > :16:44.used legally in compliance with international humanitarian law, and
:16:45. > :16:49.we monitor that carefully. Saudi Arabia is currently accused of war
:16:50. > :17:02.crimes in Yemen. The UK signed up to the arms control treaty. So if those
:17:03. > :17:05.weapons are being used in Yemen, as war crimes, then that carries
:17:06. > :17:12.criminal sanctions for the government? You made a huge leap of
:17:13. > :17:17.logic there. Which part of the do not agree with M those weapons are
:17:18. > :17:22.being used, some of them, in Yemen. The important thing is they're being
:17:23. > :17:29.used legally in an international armed conflict. There have been
:17:30. > :17:33.accusations of breaches of international humanitarian law, we
:17:34. > :17:36.regularly intervened with the Saudis to encourage them to be transparent
:17:37. > :17:42.with us. Have you intervened here with their use in Yemen? Yes, I was
:17:43. > :17:47.in Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago and we discussed this issue.
:17:48. > :17:51.What did they tell you? The Saudis deny they have been any breaches of
:17:52. > :17:56.international Unitarian law. That denial alone is not enough, we need
:17:57. > :18:01.proper investigations. We need to work with the Saudis to establish
:18:02. > :18:06.that international humanitarian law has been complied with. And we have
:18:07. > :18:14.an export licence system that responds if we find that it has not.
:18:15. > :18:20.We then find we cannot licence additional shipments of weapons. We
:18:21. > :18:24.all understand there is pragmatism involved in foreign policy, but do
:18:25. > :18:28.you worry that the ethical dimension, the moral dimension, what
:18:29. > :18:37.you came into the job to do, is being lost? I do not. I do draw a
:18:38. > :18:41.distinction between appropriate approach simply preaching of people,
:18:42. > :18:46.and engagement approach. If you want to be able to influence the way
:18:47. > :18:50.people behave you have to be engaged with them, you have to have some
:18:51. > :18:56.leveraged in your discussions with them. Countries like Saudi Arabia
:18:57. > :19:01.where we have strong collaboration, we work together in many areas and
:19:02. > :19:04.not just trade but security as well, we collaborate on security with
:19:05. > :19:10.Saudi Arabia in a way which saves British lives. But that gives us an
:19:11. > :19:12.ability to discuss with them more difficult issues as well and to get
:19:13. > :19:16.results. Philip Hammond there on Britain's
:19:17. > :19:19.wider strategy for dealing with Isis and on whether our foreign policy
:19:20. > :19:22.could still be said to have Later in the programme - as the
:19:23. > :19:26.Prime Minister lays out his plans to restrict EU migration by restricting
:19:27. > :19:29.benefits for four years to those coming in, we ask the Foreign
:19:30. > :19:32.secretary if that's even legal, and if he believes the measure could be
:19:33. > :19:41.accepted by the EU member states. And tomorrow
:19:42. > :19:43.we'll be hot on the trail of Donald Trump, the Republican Party
:19:44. > :19:46.candidate who now says this election This is a strange election,
:19:47. > :19:49.isn't it? You stab somebody and the
:19:50. > :19:52.newspapers say you didn't do it. And you say, "Yes, I did.
:19:53. > :20:06.I did it." A Prime Minister writes quite a
:20:07. > :20:09.few letters - or has them written. But none will be as important
:20:10. > :20:11.for David Cameron Six pages to Donald Tusk,
:20:12. > :20:15.President of the European Council. It had more than you might have
:20:16. > :20:21.expected, but far less than the radical
:20:22. > :20:23.programme sceptics had hoped. First, Economic Governance -
:20:24. > :20:31.all about euro and non-euro members, The second heading is
:20:32. > :20:34.called Competitiveness. This one is what some specialists
:20:35. > :20:48.call retail politics. Here, for example, the euro members
:20:49. > :20:54.should not be able to stitch up Competitiveness mainly concerns
:20:55. > :21:06.cutting red tape Britain opting out of
:21:07. > :21:15."ever closer union". And this also proposal
:21:16. > :21:17.that if a group of national parliaments
:21:18. > :21:20.don't like an EU proposal, they This is the one that has
:21:21. > :21:24.the well-publicised four-year rule - that migrants can't claim in-work
:21:25. > :21:28.benefits in their first four years. A mix of some familiar British
:21:29. > :21:55.themes, plus some extras. And what about tax credits?
:21:56. > :22:01.Today that her minister set out his demands for EU reform in a letter to
:22:02. > :22:04.the European Council. We proposed the people coming to Britain from
:22:05. > :22:08.the EU are to live here and contribute for four years before
:22:09. > :22:11.qualifying for in what benefits were social housing. And we should end
:22:12. > :22:17.the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The UK is
:22:18. > :22:22.re-negotiated arrangements with Europe and has done it before. In
:22:23. > :22:25.the 1970s and 1980s under Margaret Thatcher. She secured a much
:22:26. > :22:35.heralded rebate to date with millions of pounds annually.
:22:36. > :22:39.Times change. This building is no longer Conservative headquarters.
:22:40. > :22:43.Ironically it is now Europe house. And this renegotiation is not about
:22:44. > :22:48.the money, the Prime Minister says the change will save half ?1 billion
:22:49. > :22:52.per year, a number disputed by others, but it is not about the
:22:53. > :22:56.saving at making the UK are less attractive place for people to move
:22:57. > :23:01.from Europe to work here. Fundamentally this is about
:23:02. > :23:08.immigration. For much of the public immigration is the key issue. But
:23:09. > :23:12.the Prime Minister has retreated from any fundamental change in the
:23:13. > :23:15.nature of free movement. Blunt instruments like quotas and caps on
:23:16. > :23:19.numbers are out and now the approach is to restrict benefits. That means
:23:20. > :23:24.discriminating against EU citizens in the welfare state and will be
:23:25. > :23:29.tricky to get other leaders to agree to that. This is the toughest part
:23:30. > :23:33.of his negotiation proposals. It will be tough to reach agreement but
:23:34. > :23:37.this is the one area he really needs to get something. Immigration is
:23:38. > :23:41.such a hot topic in this country. I think there will be opposition from
:23:42. > :23:46.East European states and Poland in particular, but are they willing to
:23:47. > :23:53.risk the UK leaving the EU on this issue? If a deal on restricting
:23:54. > :23:57.benefits cannot be found at EU level another option is restricting access
:23:58. > :24:00.to in work benefits for everyone, British or European. No
:24:01. > :24:04.discrimination there. Stop anyone getting anything out until they have
:24:05. > :24:10.paid in. But reforming British social security system is seems a
:24:11. > :24:14.radical step. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it would be a
:24:15. > :24:19.complex undertaking to re-engineer the already troubled universal
:24:20. > :24:23.credit system so it is a contributory system. It seems the
:24:24. > :24:26.disproportionate response to a fairly small problem after all. Even
:24:27. > :24:30.if a deal can be done with Europe around the UK to discriminate
:24:31. > :24:37.against recent EU migrants when it comes to benefits, or if we offer
:24:38. > :24:40.our own welfare system to make it contributory, there was reason to
:24:41. > :24:43.believe that might not even bring down immigration from Europe. One
:24:44. > :24:46.centrepiece of George Osborne 's economic policy is the national
:24:47. > :24:51.living wage. The leave campaign are keen to point out that that will
:24:52. > :24:57.mean that even with benefit changes, any EU migrants would still be
:24:58. > :25:00.better off in 2020. The proposal is not likely to bring down
:25:01. > :25:04.immigration, or be enough to satisfy those who want more fundamental
:25:05. > :25:14.change in our relationship with the EU. Duncan Weldon.
:25:15. > :25:17.Well, as you saw earlier, Emily was talking to the Foreign Secretary
:25:18. > :25:20.Did you think she'd forgotten to ask about Europe?
:25:21. > :25:33.The Prime Minister would like to restrict benefits to new EU
:25:34. > :25:36.migrants. I know the European Commission today made the point that
:25:37. > :25:40.under current European law it would not illegal. We know that and that
:25:41. > :25:45.is why we said clearly there will need to be treaty change to
:25:46. > :25:49.accommodate our demands. We believe there is a growing concern across
:25:50. > :25:55.Europe about abuse of welfare benefits, await welfare benefits are
:25:56. > :26:02.themselves distorting the labour market. As you know one way to stop
:26:03. > :26:06.this being discriminatory is if UK residents were to go through the
:26:07. > :26:10.same process. Is that something you are considering question mark we
:26:11. > :26:15.have the benefit system designed Amerli to deliver our object is
:26:16. > :26:21.domestically. And this part of the benefit system is specifically
:26:22. > :26:26.designed to create incentives for people on low wages to be in work.
:26:27. > :26:31.So that would not change to bring down migration? We do not want to do
:26:32. > :26:35.anything that would undermine the principal purposes of our domestic
:26:36. > :26:40.benefits system. So how are you going to bring down net migration
:26:41. > :26:45.which is at the root of this, if as you know the practice will not be
:26:46. > :26:50.agreed by other EU member states and you're not going to narrow our
:26:51. > :26:56.benefit system? With respect we do not know that. We know what the
:26:57. > :27:00.commissioner said and we agree with the commission that under current EU
:27:01. > :27:03.law introducing a 4 years waiting time for access to in what benefits
:27:04. > :27:08.would not be legal. We know that. We're asking the EU to change the
:27:09. > :27:14.law to allow us to do this. And we know we're not the only country in
:27:15. > :27:17.the EU that believes there needs to be action taken on access to
:27:18. > :27:22.benefits. Nigel Farage pointed out the living wage and says when it is
:27:23. > :27:32.ten times that of Romania that in its own right is an uncensored. --
:27:33. > :27:38.is an incentive. The average migrant claiming in what benefits are
:27:39. > :27:42.squirming around ?6,000 per family. That is a significant addition to
:27:43. > :27:45.wages. So if the measure got through, you think you would
:27:46. > :27:49.dramatically reduce net migration figures? Yes because we would change
:27:50. > :27:54.the calculus. People travelling across Europe who have got to get up
:27:55. > :27:59.and go to leave the country in Eastern Europe and come and find a
:28:00. > :28:02.job in the UK have certainly got the savvy to be able to understand
:28:03. > :28:08.whether they would be better off in net terms in Germany or Sweden
:28:09. > :28:12.rather than the UK. If we take ?6,000 per year out of their
:28:13. > :28:17.pockets, they will make different calculations about whether what the
:28:18. > :28:22.to seek work. It sounds from what you said and David Cameron
:28:23. > :28:27.suggested, it is about reducing incentives but does not have to be
:28:28. > :28:34.tied to benefits or the welfare system. There are other ways on the
:28:35. > :28:38.table? We have set out our concern, that there is an excess of EU low
:28:39. > :28:43.skilled migration into the UK. We have set out a proposal that we
:28:44. > :28:48.think will tackle that by limiting access to welfare benefits. That is
:28:49. > :28:53.not the only way to tackle that, there are other ways to do that. If
:28:54. > :28:58.someone has a better suggestion... Quantitative controls for example on
:28:59. > :29:01.inward migration would be one way. We believe that would be a more
:29:02. > :29:07.difficult thing for European partners to accept limits on access
:29:08. > :29:12.to benefits. If our European partners come back to us with other
:29:13. > :29:16.ways of reducing migratory flows into the UK, of course we will talk
:29:17. > :29:21.to them because that is what we are trying to achieve. What if they just
:29:22. > :29:24.say no to that? As the Prime Minister said more broadly on the
:29:25. > :29:30.whole package, if they turn a deaf ear to what our reasonable demand of
:29:31. > :29:35.the British people, we will have to think again about how we want to go
:29:36. > :29:40.forward. With the UK relationship with the EU. We expect we will get a
:29:41. > :29:45.fair hearing and that our partners in Europe will want to find a way of
:29:46. > :29:49.delivering a package that meets are legitimate concerns and enables us
:29:50. > :29:56.to go to the British people and say to them, this package represents a
:29:57. > :30:01.reform of the European Union which then allows us to be in a union that
:30:02. > :30:02.works for the UK, that is to our advantage and will make Britain
:30:03. > :30:11.stronger in the future. Here to dissect the political day
:30:12. > :30:16.are Danny Finkelstein, Times Columnist and Conservative peer,
:30:17. > :30:25.the Guardian's Zoe Williams, and Look, the renegotiation plan is on
:30:26. > :30:30.the table. Melanie, you were around when Harold Wilson pulled off this
:30:31. > :30:34.trick in the 1970s. Is the this a repeat of that? People say they
:30:35. > :30:40.didn't renegotiate, he had a fig leaf. I think it is a repeat. I
:30:41. > :30:45.voted no then as I thought we were being sold a pup, and again now.
:30:46. > :30:49.Getting rid of the words ever closer union doesn't alter the fact that
:30:50. > :30:55.union is becoming ever closer in the EU. Stating that we have our own
:30:56. > :31:01.currency, bit of a statement of obvious? It seems risible.
:31:02. > :31:06.Correlation is not causation. Hello? The fact that all these EU migrants
:31:07. > :31:11.here are claiming inwork benefits doesn't mean that's what draws them
:31:12. > :31:15.here. What's drawing hem here is the availability of jobs. A different
:31:16. > :31:21.problem altogether. This is selling us pup. We were promised by Mr
:31:22. > :31:23.Cameron in another era now a renegotiation, a treaty
:31:24. > :31:29.renegotiation which would redefine our relationship with Europe. We
:31:30. > :31:33.would repatriate various laws, give ourselves back self government, in
:31:34. > :31:38.exchange for what I think very many people want, which is a close and
:31:39. > :31:44.harmonious economic union, no more, no less. Danny? Well, I think it is
:31:45. > :31:47.somewhere between a massive renegotiation of the type that I
:31:48. > :31:53.think David Cameron believed was possible at a time when he thought
:31:54. > :31:57.this would coincide with the eurozone. Needing to renegotiate its
:31:58. > :32:02.own new treaties and that hasn't happened, so Britain is having its
:32:03. > :32:06.own renegotiation at a different time, but it is much more than
:32:07. > :32:10.Wilson's. It does involve some fundamental aspects of our
:32:11. > :32:13.relationship. It will be difficult to renegotiate the benefit part. The
:32:14. > :32:17.question whether the single market will be insulated of the chemical
:32:18. > :32:20.weaponses of the eurozone integration, that's raised by the
:32:21. > :32:25.first section of Mr Cameron's letter. For me personally I think
:32:26. > :32:27.ever closer union language was very important and it is important to
:32:28. > :32:33.learn whether we are able to negotiate to remove that. It would
:32:34. > :32:35.be a big signal to me as someone who's been sceptical about the
:32:36. > :32:39.European Union if it was not possible to negotiate that, so I
:32:40. > :32:45.will learn a lot from that. The process of that is partly to learn,
:32:46. > :32:49.what is the European Union's attitude to Britain making
:32:50. > :32:54.middle-sized changes? It will be more changes when the eurozone
:32:55. > :33:01.further changes itself. Zoe, you are pro EU by and large. No Europe, not
:33:02. > :33:07.pro the EU as it is at the moment. Right, do you see this as a
:33:08. > :33:11.fundamental renegotiation? No. Look, the idea that the benefits was a
:33:12. > :33:15.kind of make or break issue, I think they've laid a trap for the EU. They
:33:16. > :33:18.think they have said something really clever and the EU is going to
:33:19. > :33:23.have to come back with something sells, because the initial idea is
:33:24. > :33:31.just an opening salvo and it is not legal, so they have to give them a
:33:32. > :33:35.smorgasbord of of courses. The FT tomorrow is saying that David
:33:36. > :33:38.Cameron isn't wedded to that and is willing to discuss other ways of
:33:39. > :33:42.reducing migration. He knows that it is not going to be on the table and
:33:43. > :33:49.that benefits curtailment is illegal. Danny you are in a
:33:50. > :33:54.different... Different... Does anybody here thinks David Cameron is
:33:55. > :33:59.in doubt about how he will vote in the referendum? What out can see is
:34:00. > :34:03.the contortion obvious a man trying to inhabit out and in at the same
:34:04. > :34:08.time. The way he's talking, the way he says we don't want closer union,
:34:09. > :34:12.we want further apart union. I think the truth is he does want to remain
:34:13. > :34:15.inside the European Union. He strongly wants to do that, but I
:34:16. > :34:20.don't think it's certain he'll be able to achieve what's necessary for
:34:21. > :34:24.him to be able to with conscience say that. I don't think it is not
:34:25. > :34:31.absolutely certain that he will do that. Which way will he vote in the
:34:32. > :34:34.By the way, that's my own position, that these negotiations are
:34:35. > :34:39.extremely important to me. They will make a difference to my outlook. On
:34:40. > :34:43.the whole I think we'd be better off inside the European Union but I am
:34:44. > :34:47.absolutely not saying if we fail to negotiate for example on ever closer
:34:48. > :34:53.union I couldn't see myself voting to leave. I think Mr Cameron has
:34:54. > :35:03.made himself a real problem. He collect went into this referendum,
:35:04. > :35:10.renegotiation lark, he didn't want to be the Prime Minister held
:35:11. > :35:15.hostage by hadures, but he has held himself hostage. He can't get out of
:35:16. > :35:21.the bag Velcro fastened he's put himself in. The rogues of success,
:35:22. > :35:25.and I'm going to vote, in he says. Nobody will believe him, because it
:35:26. > :35:30.is falling apart as we speak. He's a leader of a broad swathe of the
:35:31. > :35:33.right, large parts of which are extremely sceptical about membership
:35:34. > :35:38.of the European Union. It is perfectly ethical for him to take
:35:39. > :35:44.the position where the whole of the right can have a negotiation over..
:35:45. > :35:48.What he is effectively doing is destroying the in-case by presenting
:35:49. > :35:53.it so weakly and in such a compromised way. If you look at the
:35:54. > :35:57.in-case at the moment it is all safer, stronger, more prosperous.
:35:58. > :36:00.Very like the Scottish referendum actually, don't do anything to rock
:36:01. > :36:08.the boat, the status quo is the way forward. That's not going to be
:36:09. > :36:12.convincing. You talk about Harold Wilson and Edward Heath. I think Mr
:36:13. > :36:16.Cameron is relying on the tried and tested weapon of sheer naked terror.
:36:17. > :36:22.If we come out, it will be catastrophic. That would be a lie as
:36:23. > :36:26.well. That may be correct. That's the last consideration. Secondly it
:36:27. > :36:30.is quite pertinent, if it does turn out to be the chase it is extremely
:36:31. > :36:36.risky I would hope the Prime Minister might point that out. But
:36:37. > :36:41.the outs are presenting a vision of a nas aggic England or a
:36:42. > :36:46.pre-muscular entrepreneurial England without the EU. We'll have plenty of
:36:47. > :36:48.time to debate this, don't worry. Thank you very much.
:36:49. > :36:52.Finally tonight - just before we came on air we managed to reach
:36:53. > :36:54.a senior figure in Russian Athletics - Mikhail Butov, the Secretary
:36:55. > :36:59.General of the All-Russia Athletic Federation - to get his response to
:37:00. > :37:05.the extraordinarily damning report into doping in Russian Athletics
:37:06. > :37:08.that was published by Dick Pound yesterday.
:37:09. > :37:16.I began by asking him for his response to the report.
:37:17. > :37:24.It seems this information yesterday after the press conference and of
:37:25. > :37:36.course immediately started to research it. According to IAAF
:37:37. > :37:43.rules, we'll start to prepare an explanation about this document. Of
:37:44. > :37:48.course, we'll send our explanation and our arguments in two days. Are
:37:49. > :37:52.you saying that you accept that the doping has been occurring? Because
:37:53. > :37:56.the Dick Pound report says everybody knew. Are you accepting that it did
:37:57. > :38:02.happen? Or are you saying that it didn't happen? I think 75 periods of
:38:03. > :38:09.this document is not new for everybody, for everybody from
:38:10. > :38:14.athletics, because we already started to investigate many, many
:38:15. > :38:21.processes that presented in this document. The report said that
:38:22. > :38:25.doping was continuing up until June this year. So, well after the
:38:26. > :38:29.investigation had be-Gunther still finding doping. Are you accepting
:38:30. > :38:39.that that was happening in June this year? I can tell you, what has been
:38:40. > :38:46.continue? We know our problem with the doping. Of course, we should
:38:47. > :38:50.change the mentality of many coaches, especially coaches in the
:38:51. > :38:55.regions. We started to do it very hard. We started in April. We
:38:56. > :39:06.organised some educational programme. What's most important, me
:39:07. > :39:12.and the head coach and the internal President, we met with a lot of
:39:13. > :39:19.coaches and athletes. It is very important to direct every athlete
:39:20. > :39:28.with this explanation, with our vision of anti-doping intention in
:39:29. > :39:30.Russia. It is absolutely real steps. But Dick Pound found that your
:39:31. > :39:34.organisation was not co-operative with his investigation. Many people
:39:35. > :39:39.in it were obstructing his investigation. That doesn't imply
:39:40. > :39:46.you've learned the let's sons of being exposed for cheating. I cannot
:39:47. > :39:53.accept it, because firstly nobody from the commission contacted
:39:54. > :39:57.federation during last month. Nobody contacted a the President or myself.
:39:58. > :40:02.Never contacted us. Of course, they contacted the local people in Russia
:40:03. > :40:09.but never the chief of the fed races. If you are kicked out of the
:40:10. > :40:15.Olympics next year, what will your reaction to that be, what will you
:40:16. > :40:23.do? You know, firstly, I'm absolutely sure that we should be
:40:24. > :40:29.against any limitation of athletics participation in the highest level
:40:30. > :40:36.competitions. We have new generation, very successful new
:40:37. > :40:43.athletes, we are absolutely sure that it is absolutely clean
:40:44. > :40:49.athletics. I think if such decision will be done against our team it
:40:50. > :40:55.will be against clean athletes, not against problem athletes. Then
:40:56. > :40:58.please, I am absolutely against isolation of any federation, not
:40:59. > :41:03.only ours, but any federation. You know the problem with doping is not
:41:04. > :41:07.only in Russia. You know the situation in Kenya, in India and
:41:08. > :41:11.other countries. You are saying they dope as well, those other countries?
:41:12. > :41:18.Kenya and India, you are saying they are dopers as well like Russia? The
:41:19. > :41:23.number of doping cases, it is open information. It is the number of
:41:24. > :41:29.cases, there's a lot of cases. It is nothing else. I'm not a specialist
:41:30. > :41:32.in any other country's situation, but what I know well is that the
:41:33. > :41:37.doping problem is not only in Russia. It is also the problem of
:41:38. > :41:41.our sports, unfortunately. We should fight against it and I'm sure that
:41:42. > :41:45.isolation of any federation is not a good way. Thank you very much for
:41:46. > :41:48.talking to us. Much appreciated. Thank you very much.
:41:49. > :42:10.Good evening. Another mild night to come. Fresher conditions in Scotland
:42:11. > :42:12.and Northern Ireland. Ireland. Clear