14/12/2015 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Make or break on migration: EU nations are saying no


to the Prime Minister's plan to cut the numbers coming to Britain.


How does he get out of that one? This evening an ICM poll puts


It's immigration that the public wants to see movement on. Tonight an


ICM poll puts support for Britain leaving the EU


neck and neck with staying in, and it suggests the Government


must get substantial Where are they now? We talk


to the family in the first of our series on those who've


endured the most perilous of journeys this year. We don't


understand the darchingers of the sea. We just put our foot and there


on the boat. And the lady with the iron shoulder


pads. Steve Smith looks ahead


to tomorrow's sale of some Do you have your eye on anything? I


do have my eye, in fact I've put in a bid. I'm certainly not going to


tell you what it is. Would I be right thinking it's this kind of


shape, maybe with a handle on the top. You swine. You swine.


We're in the countdown to the crunch.


Thursday is the day when David Cameron gets


the attention of EU leaders sitting down in one room together.


A few hours only, some of that over dinner.


But a chance to present his case for a different relationship


Now most of it is not going to be difficult.


Some of it verges on the banal - a clear commitment to boost


competitiveness and productivity, for example.


I doubt anyone will argue with that as an objective.


But we have to keep coming back to one item causing a headache -


the four-year rule: Mr Cameron's idea for getting immigration down


is to stop migrants getting in-work benefits for their first


The answer from much the EU has been "no".


Archive: They carry no arms, but hack saws and destroy no enemies but


the artificial barriers. A 50s protest aimed at getting rid of


European borders. Today these frolics have given way to something


more like fury. David Cameron has had to renegotiate Britain's


relationship with the EU. Behind the scenes, the Prime Minister's


officials talk about the four EU negotiation demands as four baskets.


You may even be able to repeat these off by heart now - an opt out from


ever closer union with the rest of the EU. That the EU is a


multicurrency union and a group national veto for parliaments. It's


the fourth basket that's most empty, immigration. The Prime Minister has


acknowledged that other European countries don't support the


four-year ban on tax credits. He's openly asking for something else


inside. What to put in the fourth and final basket? There are two


ideas doing the rounds. The first is the idea an emergency brake and that


does what it says on the tin. If levels of immigration to Britain


from Europe got to unsustainably high levels, then a brake would be


pulled and it would stop. The other idea more aggressively pursued by


Downing Street is the idea of a residency test. This would see the


four-year ban on tax credits that's proved so hard to get, flipped on


its head. Instead both EU migrants and British citizens would have to


prove they've been in the country for more than four years before they


got their tax credits. There are problems with both these ideas.


The problem with the emergency brake is that the commission would decide


what constitutes a surge of immigration and the brake could be


pulled. So the UK Government isn't super happy with that. The residency


test idea, the problem is that Brits returning home from elsewhere in the


EU would also have to wait for four years before they could get


benefits. Brits who hadn't been anywhere would get a leg up from the


benefits system. The last idea is that Brits from the ages of 18 to 22


years old would also have to wait four years just like EU migrants.


Ways around these problems are being explored inside Government.


18-year-olds who stand to lose out, at the moment, could inherit their


parents national insurance numbers and to avoid hitting people who live


abroad, like armed service personnel, it could be that you'd


only need to show you had lived in the UK for four out of every ten


years. This afternoon, at an event in Westminster, Tory MPs de-- Tory


MPs debated what reforms David Cameron must bring back from Europe.


I don't mind in-work benefits for people who are working. It's out of


work benefits that concern people. Undoubtedly immigration as such is


the biggest issue on the doorstep. I don't equate the in-work benefits


with immigration. I don't think that stops immigrants coming in, if they


know that they're going to get in-work benefits. I don't think


that's the draw. The fact that we have one of the fastest growing


economies in the West, there are plenty of jobs around, that's


drawing immigrants in, not the benefits. But for others the tax


credit demand doesn't go far enough The renegotiation will not provide


the fundamental change that the Prime Minister promised. It's not


going to bring powers back. It's certainly not going to take back


control. This evening an ICM poll, conducted by the vote leave


campaign, suggests support for leaving Europe is rising, asking


people if they will vote to stay or leave should freedom of movement


rules stay the same, 40% said they would vote to stay, but 45% said


rules stay the same, 40% said they they'll vote to leave. 40 years


after signing up, we're now negotiating a different deal,


controlling immigration, not trade, has become the biggest issue. David


Cameron's job is to get as much into that fourth basket as other EU


leaders will let him. We were commenting on that Thatcher


sweater. More on her clothes later. In a moment, we'll hear two views


from within the Tory Party but first, let's get a perspective


from one of the countries he has to Sven Miksa is the chair of that


country's foreign affairs We believe equal treatment of EU


citizens irrespective of which passport


they carry, is a very important, I would say,


fundamental and to pull Just as free movement of people


and free movement of labour. So I think that while we are


interested in the UK staying a member of the European Union,


this is an extremely If you had to choose


Britain out of the EU or, Reneging on this


important principle, would you renege on the principle


or would you see Britain It is only fair that taxpayers,


people who work and pay taxes would also be eligible


to all the benefits. If the UK benefit system is overly


generous, then the UK Government should very seriously


consider reforming it. But I think workers,


irrespective of whether they have been born in the UK


or carry other EU member states passports, should be eligible


to similar benefits. Now, it's clear


the PM has a problem. Let's imagine we are sitting


round a table advising him. There would be different


pieces of advice coming from within his own party,


and we've a range of two Tory MPs Here in the studio, eurosceptic


Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is on the European Scrutiny Committee,


and from Westminster, the more pro-European MP


Neil Carmichael, who is the chair Good evening to you both. Imagine


the Prime Minister was sitting here, he's got this problem, what would


your advice be on this migration issue? I would certainly talk about


the residency test as a key part of this. I'd acknowledge we need to


control immigration. But actually, it's about Britain taking control


itself of its own borders by making the necessary changes through


modifying our welfare payment system, as Allan Johnson was


referring to yesterday, very sensibly and looking at the


residency test in a serious way. When you say residency test, do you


mean, look, no-one who's been living here, whether a British passport or


Estonian passport gets tax credits until they've been here four years?


That doesn't cross this principle that Estonians and British passport


holders get different treatment? It does mean that essentially. I think


that brings us to the point, there are quite a lot of Britons who live


outside Britain and in the European Union. They would have to qualify


for a residency test in those terms. We would have to negotiate a way


around dealing with, for example, members of the armed forces and


others. The key point is to make sure that we are focussed on what we


want to acheer, which is a sense -- achieve, which is a sensible


reduction of those coming in simply to benefit from welfare payments.


What about the idea of converting the plan for the four-year plan into


a residency test so that some Brits wouldn't actually get the benefits,


do you think that works? I think it's superficially attractive. The


problem is that it takes away fundamental rights from people who


might have lived here and worked here for 30 years, go abroad for a


couple of years because of a posting with their company, you might go off


to the BBC's correspondent in Washington and now you're not


entitled to benefits having paid if for decades. There isn't a


fundamental equality between a British citizen and a foreign


citizen. They're a different nature. You're accepting that citizens


across Europe should be equal? No, I'm not. I'm saying they're


different. We've dealt with that proposal. We're sitting round the


table, David Cameron is there, what is your advice? My proposal to him


would be to go further and to say that the free movement of people


does not work in the British interest, that the European Union is


incapable of dealing with a migration crisis across Europe. We


took in 183,000 economic migrants from the European Union last year.


And that is too many. Therefore we should have the same controls on


Europe as on the rest of the world. I see no reason why it's easier to


come here from Bulgaria than from India. There should be equality


across the world of immigration to the United Kingdom. We're in the


meeting with the PM, what do you say to that one? I think the problem


with Jacob's proposals is that they affect the activity of business. Of


course, business really does need to make sure that labour can move from


one place to another. We need expertise. The best way of dealing


with that movement is recognising that we ourselves have


responsibilities to make sure our skills and education systems provide


the labour that we need. That's the remit that I have as chairman of the


education Select Committee. It's relevant to this debate because it's


critical that we have the kind of labour that we need. I think the


other big problem with Jacob's proposal is that it effectively does


mean that people who are not here, but who've left Britain and are


living in the European Union would actually be badly affected too. Can


I not give another problem with the proposal, which is that the


Europeans would tell us to get lost. Oh, would they? Would they? The


European Union is suffering from a collapse in confidence in the euro


and has had to bail out lots of countries. It's suffering from


absolute crisis of migration across the European Union and has managed


to relocate 184 out of 160,000 people. Then the UK says we're going


to leave, we give them ?12 billion a year. We're crucially important to


the EU, we just don't want to be signed up to everything. We're not


in the euro. We shouldn't be in free movement. We can get labourerers


from all over the world. They don't need to be from Europe. Do you think


the rest of Europe would go along with that plan if we called their


bluff on it? I do think we have to bear in mind there are another 27


nation states involved in this. We do have some issues not least, what


are we going to do if we left the European Union? And Jacob's looked


at the Norwegian solution, almost - I've never looked at the Norwegian


solution. He's talking about the 10 billion or so that we pay. The


Norwegians pay the equivalent for not being in the European Union at


all. That's something we have got to think about. If we wanted to trade


with the European Union we would effectively have to pay but have


little or no influence of the way the European Union worked. 20


seconds each on a third idea, which is David Cameron says OK, I can't


get the agreement with the Europeans on the migration issue, I'll give in


on that one. How bad would that be? He went into the negotiation asking


for nothing, if he got less than nothing, the negotiation will be a


complete waste of time. Do you think he can come back and say I'm getting


three out of four, my other things will probably be given, I can't get


this one, but it's enough. He has got three out of four and that's


very secure. He needs to make sure that we do actually get some sort of


arrangement about immigration and that is about making changes


domestically and encouraging European partners to accept that we


need to change. Thank you both very much.


Aside from featuring in the UK's EU renegotiation,


migration has been THE issue of 2015.


Every country in Europe has been affected by it.


Whatever opinion we might have of the appropriate response,


we have all undoubtedly been affected by some of the pictures


of migrants making their hazardous journeys to this continent,


Well, this week, as we head to Christmas, we are going to visit


some of the characters who feature in three famous photos of the year.


Katie Razzall meets the faces of the migrant crisis.


I mean, that face, so much agony and emotion in that face.


So many migrants have made the treacherous journey by sea from


Turkey to Greece. As individuals, most pass almost unnoticed, but one


came to symbolise the agony of many. His family survived the journey,


just, as people in boats around them drowned.


We begin to cry. The water is into the boat and up this moment we feel


it is dangerous of death. Death of the sea. But God with us, we begin


to cry and pray to God to save us and save our kids.


Until now, we cannot sleep, and also the kids cannot sleep alone. They


say Timmy, mummy I am frightened and I want to sleep with you. This fear


is very terrible and it is hard. They now live in Germany. One family


to a room, waiting to find out if their asylum claims succeeds. A


million refugees have moved to the country this year. When the picture


went round the world, because others on their dinky Assyrian, it was


assumed they were. They are Iraqis, teacher and a mechanic who had lived


a comfortable life in Baghdad. What happened, why did you have to leave


Iraq? Nobody helped me. I am crying all


night. Please, anyone help me, they want to kill... When I remember,


this moment is destroying me and destroying my life. For that, I sell


everything to save my children. For that, I am here. To save my kids and


to save my life. After the trials of the last months, the children love


going to school. Germany is recruiting thousands more teachers


to provide intense language classes for migrants. It is very difficult,


it is a grudge. We want to complete education for their kids and they


must learn German and it is a new culture, new people, I knew


everything. I took the family to their first


Christmas market, the German tradition. But attitudes to refugees


apparently hardening here, I wanted to know if they had felt any


backlash? We are happy now, we are safe from


the sea and from the fear. But everything is new for us. Hopes of a


new life are tinged with fear that their claim will be refused and they


will be sent back to Iraq. And always in the background, the memory


of their journey and that photo. We will have two more stories of


migrant experiences this year, during the week.


The Paris climate change talks - COP21 to give them their technical


name - came to a conclusion over the weekend.


A big moment obviously, that there was an agreement.


Remember, being a UN forum, agreement means everybody


Think of the range of quarrelsome countries there, from the US


The very big nations to Pacific islands that you didn't even


So, yes, it was an achievement, but did Paris meet the Flash Gordon


Countries agreed on the objective of keeping temperatures rising by no


more than 1.5 or two degrees, but their combined promises


on actions to reduce emissions will probably not


This is not even a case of constructive ambiguity,


which is often necessary to get people together.


This was a constructive contradiction.


So having had a chance to sleep on it, what view should those


who worry about climate change take - glass half full,


of the Labour government's Climate Change Act, and the writer


and environmental campaigner George Monbiot.


Good evening. We asked you to bring something to show and tell which


give you grounds for optimism and something to show and tell which


perhaps less optimism. What did you want to show others?


a chart. And the chart shows that share price of Peabody. There it is.


This is showing the steady decline of the share price of Peabody. Also,


just today it dropped a further 10% in its share price. The reason I


chose this, Paris was all about the message it sends out to the rest of


the world, that we are serious about tackling climate change and coal is


going to go. Doesn't it show commodity collapse? It is


significant because it reduces their lobbying power and reduces their


hold over politicians. The politics of Parishad change from Copenhagen


and we should have hope because politics is changing. How will it


look in a couple of years? There are a load of reasons why it might be


falling. I am delighted. I want to see the coal companies go down.


Whether they will stay down and it will come up again. George, what are


you going to show others? This is a more systemic view, when it comes.


This comes from the Paris .org website. It is the black line which


is what we have been doing. Carbon emissions from 1990, going up. They


have been growing. Then the green line, which is what happens if


everybody who brought their promise to Paris, fulfils it and doing it.


Then they carry on going up. Then the red line is what would be


required if we were to get down to 22 degrees. It is falling off a


cliff. If we were 1.5 degrees, which is what they said they wanted, go


halfway along the green line and you will see a white line intercepting


it. That is the cliff edge with which it would have to fall on a


vertical drop. It has done nothing, basically? That is a legitimate


chart to put up. It is challenging. It is not impossible to decarbonise


the economy. It is easier because of the technologies we will rely on


coming down in price. If we had taken the attitude of it is too


difficult is so let's not have made any progress. That would have been a


downward spiral. We have all these countries coming together to say,


this is what we can do and we will put effort into it. We will come


back to it year after year. Those are the words crucial to you? Yes,


the coming back which is built into the legal text. I would love to


believe this. I so want it to be true. But the problem is it is so


unambitious, what has been agreed. There is so much hype about it,


somebody saying it is a great global deal and they are all applauding


themselves and slapping each other on the back. The problem is, if we


go round telling ourselves, we have sorted it out, it could undermine


the ambition. No difficult decisions were taken, it was promises of


difficult decisions? 31 pages of text. The worst-case scenario is we


got a page with no text in it. 30 articles of legal text. 2018, we


will seek the first review. The first review, but what about the


percentage cut by then? A single international piece of paper will


not solve climate change, but this is a massive step forward because it


signals everyone is on the same page and taking it seriously for the


first time and that is worth celebrating. Is there a way


international progress is achieved, and that is you get together and


agree nothing but it looks like you have agreed. Nixon goes to China and


they have agreed there is one China, Taiwan is part of China but they


cannot agree if it is Taiwan or China which is the proper China. But


having something to agree on, then you move on with the momentum? That


was the appropriate approach in 1995 at the first UN climate summit. We


are now in a state of emergency. We have a climate crisis which has


begun. 1 degrees of global warming already. Things are going to custard


left, right and centre because of climate change. We need drastic


action. It has got past the time of creating the right framework where


we cannot actually do very much, but creates a momentum towards maybe


doing something in the future. We have DC drastic action taking place


now. We do, but let's not percent Raqqa pretend it will happen right


now. It took generations to get rid of slavery. We have technology cost


cuts coming down and the demise of the fossil fuel happening. We don't


have the time. Remember the words of JFK, we do this not because it is


easy, but it is difficult. There are things were using to get the graph


down and that is what I'm looking forward to, human ingenuity and


politics aligned, we will get there. I hope you are right, I wish I could


believe it. Thank you very much. It was about 18 months ago,


that an obscure French economist suddenly exploded into


global consciousness. Thomas Piketty had written a lengthy


book called Capital. It sold millions, arguing that


people who have wealth are getting ever wealthier, their capital


accumulating yet more capital more quickly than that


of ordinary mortals. It struck a nerve and in certain


circles, conversation about inequality became


a dinner party staple. Well, since then the spotlight


on Professor Piketty has faded a little, but he is on the panel


of advisors to John McDonnell As he was speaking at UCL in London


today, I took the chance to meet up and asked whether his argument


still stood after criticisms made First of all I would really


like to thank the Financial Times for all the free


publicity they have given They seem to be very confused


because they started to criticise the book very strongly and then


gave me the Best Business Book That being said, it's pretty clear


if you look at any billionaire rankings in the world


including those published by the Financial Times,


that people at the top of the list have been doing


better than the middle class and the bottom, including


in this country, In a way, if your case was right


that capital keeps you rich and allows you to kind


of govern the world, it's interesting that


there's so much change It's interesting, Forbes


have studied their own In 1984, less than half


of people were self-made. So people are coming


from nowhere into Which is basically


a contradiction of the book? In the 19th century,


if you made a fortune in a business during the French revolution,


the parents were rich, so you always have


mobility at the top. A more objective way


to look at this is, it's OK to have rich people,


people in the middle and people at the bottom, as long as all these


groups with the mobility between them are rising,


more or less at the same speed. The problem is, this


isn't what you see But the average wealth at the very


top, taking into account the fact some people have come down,


some people have gone up, the average wealth at the top has


been rising three to four times faster than the size


of the world economy. I thought your case was that this


rich lot, they managed to entrench their position


because they've But the mobility


is really important. If there's mobility


about who is in that top league, then your case is much less


interesting than the book suggested, Let's take the case


of the early billionaires, They have mobility,


but then their position can be more entrenched in the sense


of their ability to Why is it there is no


progressive taxation I think part of the explanation,


is the influence of Mark Zuckerberg gives 99%


of his shares to a foundation. If you want to call it


philanthropy giving, I think it's important that


you don't keep control. He might be controlling


it to give away. I control which charities


I give my money to, I don't have a foundation,


but I would like to think I make the decision rather


than just giving it to someone. We have to be serious


about what is public interest In many countries in order to call


this giving to a public interest and charities,


then you must lose any control If you are chairman of the board,


if your wife is on the board, if your family is


on the board, is this Bill Gates, not


philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, trying to


cure polio, malaria? I think it would be much more


convincing if he gave away power. I think we are being very naive


about the ideas that we don't need taxation, we just need to wait


for billionaires to give some Philanthropy is fine,


it's very useful. If it came instead of


taxation, if you have people who don't pay tax,


like Facebook, it's basically pays no tax, then you say, it's not


a problem because I will set up my own system, my


own education system and you will see it


will work very well. I think this is


the end of democracy. I need to ask you about


Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, because you are on the Council


of economic advisers to John Have you met him, have you actually


sat as a council and spoken to him? Would you vote for Jeremy Corbyn


and John McDonnell? If I had voting rights in Britain,


yes, certainly I would vote The history of the Labour Party


in Britain, of course has been marked by the huge failure


of Tony Blair, in particular with the Iraq war,


which has been a disaster. Tony Blair to care a lot more


about social policy, trying to be something


with the rest of Europe. It would have been much more


clever than go to war. What advice do you give him


on income tax and wealth You would put a wealth tax


here obviously, that is central What sort of income tax


rates would you like? It's not to create some


brand-new tax, it is to start from the existing tax and make


it more progressive. I see what is important


is to reduce the tax rate for the lower property owners


and this has to be financed by an increase in higher


property values. A lot of people think


that would be sensible to change the council tax


because it is capped. That's not the end


of your view so is it? Come on, you want


a much higher income I think making real,


progressive tax net wealth and moderate net wealth starting


from the existing tax would be This is something for


which you don't need the UN or the European Union


to agree with this. I'm told the full 25-minute version


of that interview will be up on you cube.


-- YouTube. She was the Iron Lady,


but under those shoulder pads of steel, Mrs Thatcher


was a woman who took Her frocks have been at the centre


of an unseemly tug of war of late, with reports that the V was too


snooty to put them on show - And it's claimed that


Lady Thatcher's own family has been divided over what should become


of her effects. But some 150 of her outfits


and accessories are going on sale Our man scratching his head


and inadvertently buying a handbag For Mrs Thatcher, like Oscar Wilde


before her, nothing stole Going under the hammer,


several of Mrs Thatcher's clutches and pocketbooks,


plus all this... # Bobbles, bangles, hear


how they jing-a-ling #. Right from the beginning


she understood the power of an amazing suit and also


of really bright colour. What we've got here is a number


of examples of those things. She really did provide a template


for the modern political You look at some of the suits


and you can imagine Hillary Clinton, dare I say it, or Nicola Sturgeon


working a similar look. The Lady's old ministerial


red box is perhaps conservatively estimated


at up to ?5,000. Her bits of luggage contain


multitudes, for some. She would have a copy


of the 1944 Employment Act, for example, which she would


take out at regular She would have books


by Milton Freedman and Adam Smith and people like that


which she'd quote from. After the Brighton bomb,


she always kept a torch in her handbag, because


she remembered how all the lights had gone out


at that terrible moment. If it ever happened again,


she wanted to be able to see These are little things


that one doesn't automatically equate with a normal


woman and her handbag. I think here you really see


Thatcher's sense of theatre She wore this when she


was meeting Gorbachev. She's really dressing for the stage,


wearing a Russian-style hat and Russian echoes


there on the collar Funny enough, one of the things


she always made me think about was the dichotomy that


Queen Elizabeth I would play with, herself as a woman


and use her feminine wiles, on the other


hand, she would refer to herself as a Prince and in a way,


what Margaret Thatcher was doing sartorially was what she was doing


politically, to have her cake To use her powers as a woman,


but also to co-opt the powers More shoulder pads


than the Super Bowl. And it's all very


historic, in its way. But who'd want a piece


of this in the house? I do have my eye, in fact,


I've put in a bid. I'm certainly not going to tell


you what it is, otherwise other people might bid for it and think


it's an attractive thing Would I be right in thinking it's


this kind of shape We might bid it up by a few


bob, but you're OK. Steve Smith. There I wonder how much


a pair of Tony Blair's shoes would get.


Tomorrow is not only the big Thatcher sale at Christies,


look out for British astronaut, Tim Peake, who'll be taking off


Download Subtitles