27/01/2016 Newsnight


Including the future of nuclear power in the UK; the Google tax row; the mysterious case of the unidentified man found dead on a remote hillside; Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight we throw some light on Britain's electricity problem


and the latest delay in the long-awaited nuclear solution.


For a modern industrialised economy, which claims to be one of the


leading economies in the world, to have any doubt about whether there


is enough electricity to keep the lights on is a serious place to be.


We'll ask if the nuclear option is either viable or desirable.


Also tonight - the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn,


on war in Yemen and the Saudis and the British role.


The mystery of a plane crash on Saddleworth Moor in 1949,


and an elderly, well dressed man found dead in the same spot in 2015.


Turns out he's not who everyone thought.


Professor Evans, it's not you? No, it's definitely not me.


You're almost certainly the last living survivor of this crash?


I think it's very likely that I'm the last living survivor.


The former Swedish prime minister tells us


whether Britain can leave the EU, enjoy the single market


and stop the free movement of European citizens into the country.


Sometimes, important news consists of things that don't happen,


rather than things that do - today is one of those occasions.


The building of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point


The board of the French electricity giant EDF was originally scheduled


to sign off the ?18 billion construction of Hinkley Point C,


It could still happen next month - or after.


But clearly there are lingering nerves that it is a project


of such a scale that if EDF bungles it, it could destroy the company,


notwithstanding all the support the British Government has offered.


Now here's the thing - if Hinkley Point is in trouble,


We'll be getting perilously short of capacity as it is,


and Hinkley is meant to build in 7% of our electricity,


but its potential absence leaves a giant hole.


has been looking at what's holding it up.


Can Britain keep the lights on without it costing a fortune? That


concern about a so-called energy gap is a major worry, so it is important


that plans for a massive new power plant, Hinkley Point C, now look a


bit shakily. You might remember Hinkley, a proposed new nuclear


station in Somerset to be built by EDF, the French electricity group.


It is supposed to supply 7% of our electricity needs, but a


confirmation announcement has been delayed. Welcome to Downing


Street... This might prove a serious embarrassment for the Government.


Signing a deal with China on Hinkley was a centrepiece of the state visit


last year. It is also a major policy. British energy policy


currently has three sometimes competing objectives. The first of


these is pretty simple, make sure there is enough energy to go round,


even as demand increases, as it is expected to do in the coming


decades. The second is to reduce carbon in the energy sector, and the


third is to achieve the first two objectives without increasing bills


for the taxpayer or the electricity consumer. The supply position in


Britain is not crisis level in the sense of there being power cuts any


day soon. But it is a serious problem in the sense that it costs


more to keep the system balanced, prices are higher than they


otherwise would have been, and for manufacturing, households, they are


paying a price for as sailing so close to the wind. And for any


modern economy, you know, there are things you should take for granted.


You shouldn't have to question whether there is enough electricity


supply. That is why delays to Hinkley are a worry, so what is


going on? Hinkley would use a new type of reactor, an EPR, so new that


it is not yet running anywhere, and not for want of trying. An EPR


project in France is six years late and 7 billion euros over budget, and


that is having a huge ramifications for Hinkley. In France, a union with


a seat on the EDF board is concerned about whether they can afford a


project of this size and the riskiness. The union says Hinkley


Point represents a huge investment in terms of the market


capitalisation of the group and its financial position. They see


financial, industrial and legal risks to the project. There is


another reason why foreign progress really matters. If you look through


the small print of the deal offered to investors, there are sweeteners


from the Government, but they only take full effect if and when those


foreign reactors can show that the design for Hinkley Point works. You


can see why new delays in France in the past week might make investors


nervous, and nuclear is a tough sell for them anyway. Nuclear power


stations are difficult to finance for several different reasons, but


one of the core ones is that they cost an enormous amount to build,


and building is always risky, but key issue for investors is you do


not get any cash flow out until you have spent every single penny of the


construction business. If you spend a similar amount building or


developing a new oil and gas field, you might only spend 20% before you


get some oil and gas out, some cash flow. The cost to EDF of raising


capital has also risen. This is the changing cost for EDF of borrowing


for 15 years since last spring. It used to get debt at 1.5% a year. It


does not quite doubled but nearly, 2.75% now. So could we finance


Hinkley in any other way? We could have added British component to this


project, it could have been an Anglo-French project, it could have


been financed by nuclear bonds, financed by the Treasury, and the


cost of the capital would have been substantially lower. Unfortunately,


that argument has been lost, but we will live with the consequence of


choosing the more expensive route for perhaps 60 years as a


consequence. But we are where we are, and problems in a French


company's work on a French reactor have led to murmurs among investors


about the next generation of the British energy infrastructure as


well. If the finances of Hinkley Point


are challenged right now, remember that the economics


of renewable energy also struggle when oil is as cheap


as it is right now. We're joined by Jenny Jones


of the Green Party and Ed Davey, who was Secretary of State


for Energy and Climate Change You were negotiating with EDF on


this very project for ages. It was painful, actually, it went on and


on, are you surprised that day, after all of that, have stepped back


and said, let's think about this at little more? Not really, it is a


very congregated deal, a huge decision for them to make, and it is


a delay of weeks, rather than months. -- very complicated deal. It


is not just about Hinkley Point C, it is linked to what will happen at


Sizewell C, it is also linked to Bradwell, the other site in Essex,


the Chinese link there. It is a highly complicated deal. I am not


surprised that it has been kicked down the road a month or two. They


have not got it running in Flamenville or in Finland, massively


over budget, massively delayed. Have they bitten off more than they can


chew? Hinkley Point C is actually two of these reactors, and they have


not got one working yet. The key thing for me was making sure the


British consumer was protected, so the British consumer pays nothing


until these things start generating, nothing at all. We have also said


the contract is not going to happen until Flamenville works. So we have


protected the UK. But George Osborne, what he has done since the


election, he has got rid of support for renewables, completely abandoned


carbon capture and storage. These are low carbon technologies that we


put in place to compete, to make sure we were not putting all our


eggs in the nuclear basket, and he has played a very irresponsible card


with British energy policy. George Osborne is the real villain of this


piece. Jenny Jones, you tweeted today, this makes me very happy, the


news of the delay. Why did it make you happy? It is a deal that should


never have been struck, and it must not go ahead. If this gets built, we


will have the most expensive nuclear power plant on earth, and we will


also have the most expensive electricity being produced from any


technology. It is madness. You mentioned earlier the nuclear


solution. It is not a solution, it is the start of a lot more problems.


Is that right? I disagree. What is different with this deal from any


other nuclear deal in the world is that the decommissioning costs are


in the price. The cost of managing the waste are in the price. We will


be paying more for decades ahead. It is cheaper than some of the


renewables, and, moreover, if you compare it with gas and coal, plus


their pollution costs, not just the wholesale price of coal and gas but


a carbon price on top, that would be a fair way of doing it, it is


completely linked to those prices. He was against nuclear, he came


around when he had a job in government and had to work it out.


Climate change, if you care about climate change, you should not be


taking a low carbon technology off the table. The whole point about


nuclear for me is that it has never been cost-effective. It has not


stood on its own feet without public subsidy in 60 years, and it is not


going to in the future either. The strike price at this power station


is going to beat ?92.50 per megawatt. That means, you know, you


say the consumer is not paying, but the taxpayer is paying huge amounts


of money to subsidise this. This brings us to an interesting


question, if you do not want nuclear, you do not want heating to


be run by gas, because that is carbon. You do not want cars to run


on petrol, what do you want them to run on? When we are looking at how


to construct a future that is going to be viable in terms of climate


change and the needs of humans, you have to think about renewables,


heavily investing. But be clear, you have to replace the nuclear power


stations that are falling by the wayside, the Coral, the gas power


stations, you have to do that and introduce a enough new power


stations to run cars, heat homes, how? Gas is going to be part of the


make up for some time, but if we had combined heat and power stations,


when we want to down scale gas, we can start bringing in green gas from


food waste and so on. Food waste is going to run all the automobiles in


the United Kingdom? Let's think about reducing the number of


automobiles. You have to remember that our energy needs have gone down


in the past few years. That is quite unexpected, when you think the


population has gone up, but people are understanding you can save money


and save energy, and people are doing it. This government, including


the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, is not invested in installation or


reducing people's need. You make a good point. Very kind of you! And


you. I am a huge fan of renewables, I commissioned more than any other


British politician in history, I am a huge fan of energy at but I am not


a clairvoyant, I cannot tell the future. Lots of people think they


can, and given climate change is such a threat to humanity, we should


have all the low carbon options on the table, including nuclear,


including renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture and


storage. What George Osborne is doing, by cutting back on energy


efficient renewables, he is bling fast and loose with the climate and


fast and loose with energy security. -- he is playing. I am so sorry, we


have to stop. Well, Westminster is less gripped


by an impending electricity shortage - it's a few years away, after all -


it is dominated this week by the tax row that won't go away,


Google's tax bill. It came up again at PMQs today.


Here's Jeremy Corbyn. I've got a question here,


Mr Speaker, Now, you might well laugh,


but Geoff actually speaks for millions of people


when he says to me, "Can you ask the Prime Minister if


as a working man of over 30 years, whether there is a scheme


which I can join that pays the same rate of tax as Google


and other large corporations?" What does the Prime Minister say


to Geoff? Sitting behind David Cameron there,


the Chancellor who had called Broadly speaking, the commentariat


beg to differ Two representatives of that


commentariat are here. Rachel Sylvester from the Times


newspaper and Tim Stanley Rachel Sylvester, is this


potentially the first issue where Corbyn is going to have something to


go with and it will last quite a while? That's right. It is one of


the first time it is Corbyn standing up for ordinary people against the


elite. George Osborne has got himself on the wrong side of this


argument. I think Corbyn is striking a populist note in the way he hasn't


on all the issues of national security, defence, and all of the


things where he has been alienating Middle England and people will be


saying yes, someone saying what we feel. Tim Stanley, there have been


lots of people who wouldn't ally themselves with Corbyn, like Rupert


Murdoch tweeting today, lining up on the same side. Where is the


Telegraph on this taxish yoo u? I don't know you were going to ask me


that! If you have a very complicated tax system n the way we do for


international taxes, this kind of complication can emerge. We would


rather people paid as much tax as they should. This is why this has


happened. George Osborne wants to keep businesses in this country.


That is why he's cut this deal. Sorry, that is why the HMRC has cut


this deal. This is why he described it as a victory. You keep a major


company in the country. The problem is, the rest of us pay 20% or 40%


when it comes to tax. We don't understand why a company should pay


3% when it makes such an extraordinary amount of money. This


isn't the first mistake. We discovered that George was mortal


when the tax credit issue came up and when the Government was defeated


in the Lords. Also, we have seen a reversal through the courts possibly


on bedroom tax, too. So all these big welfare changes, which George


saw as being real vote winners and clever things to force Labour to the


left and make the Government look populist, they could end up haunting


him. The Ed Miliband phrase about the Tories are strong when it comes


to standing up to the weak and weak when it comes to standing up to the


strong. The optics of simultaneously a bedroom tax court case coming in,


disabled children and women with domestic violence problems, and the


Government says we will appeal against this today. They are


declaring, they are trying to defend this tax settlement with Google, it


is not good? The Tories underlying fundamental brand problem is they


are seen as the party of the rich and they are on the side of the


wealthy elite, big business, large international corporations, rather


than on the side of the hard-working, ordinary person. They


have tried to position themselves as the party of the strivers. Every


time this happens, it looks like they are back to that party of the


rich image. There are two mistakes in a way. One is, if you want to


take the Labour narrative, one is you gave into Google and you had


?130 million. The other is, George Osborne thought that was a victory.


That is the bit where he is out of touch with everyone else. That is


not a victory... That is the tone deafness, isn't it? Osborne is


working on an intellectual level which means he is thinking about the


economic long-term. He does care passionately about people making


money. He is big on entrepreneurs and the Northern Powerhouse. He


likes the thought of ordinary people getting ahead. The problem is, it is


a cliche, but we have to keep coming back to it. When you haven't worked


for a living and relied on welfare, when you haven't done what a lot of


ordinary working middle-class people do, you don't connect the dots


between welfare charges and what effect they have people's individual


lives. That is the piece that is missing with George Osborne. There


are people within the Tory Party who support Boris Johnson who are very


keen to exploit that. Come on, talk about how this impacts the


leadership race. That is what everyone talks about now. It is


another example of George Osborne's big flaw which is a lack of


emotional intelligence. He is very clever, lots of tactical schemes,


but he lacks the empathy for how ordinary people live and an ability


to articulate and understanding of that. That is the difference between


a leader and a Chancellor. Boris Johnson is the absolute opposite.


He's got all the emotional, whatever you want in the world, but he lacks


a consistency and discipline. What I find interesting, Osborne seems to


exist in cycles, boom-and-bust, there are periods when his stock is


so high, and periods when his stock goes down. Before the 2010 election,


they were saying is Cameron going to have to dump him? He's changing more


than almost any other member of the Cabinet. It is not just the haircut


and the diet. And the image makeover. He's gone from being a


tactical, hard economic person to being a more Heseltine protege.


There is a lack of emotional intelligence underlying that. Is


there a split at the party? Some people have said there is such a


difference between the Cameron narrative and the Osborne narrative.


There is an emerging split. Is that true, Tim? It could be that Cameron


had the advantage of an extra day of headlines to see I'm not going to


hold the line that Osborne tried holding on Saturday? There is a


split of where we go next, what the party is going to look like. The


choices between Cameron, which is driven by the search for consensus,


and the search for social peace in Britain. There is the libertarian


politics of George Osborne which is supported by the creation of a


fantastic political machine within Parliament. Osborne will have a lot


of supporters because he's put them in important positions of power.


There is a challenge coming forward. I'm starting to buy into the


narrative that the next leader of the Tory Party will be someone who


we have never heard of, but someone who surprises us and hasn't been


inside Parliament for a long time. Thank you.


This programme has made quite an effort to draw attention


to the war in Yemen - to most it probably feels remote,


and overshadowed by the cruelty in Syria.


But it clearly is something to do with us, as Saudi Arabia is leading


the effort to reinstall the old government of Yemen,


and Saudi Arabia is using British arms and getting British


Today, a major report on the conflict from a UN Panel


of Experts was leaked, so we have their view.


Gabriel Gatehouse has been reporting on the conflcit -


You have a leaked copy of the report. It is quite balanced, isn't


it? It is even-handed, it points out the Saudis are supporting the


internationally recognised government of Yemen. It blames its


opponents for bringing about the crisis and paints a bleak picture.


Human rights violations by both sides, proliferation of groups, the


use of starvation as a method of warfare. It's the issue of air


strikes that critics of UK Government policy have focussed on.


They go into some detail. 60% of civilian deaths, 2,682 deaths were


caused by air strikes. The Saudis and their allies are the only ones


with any air power. When you dig into the detail, you see things like


the targeting of refugee camps, schools, buses, markets, mosques,


factories and three alleged cases of civilians fleeing residential


bombings being chased and shot at by helicopters. It doesn't specifically


mention the UK record here. But it is very relevant? It doesn't mention


the UK. It calls on the international community to support


independent investigations into violations by both sides. The UK


sells arms to Saudi Arabia, it doesn't sell arms to the other


group. And lawyers said they have given the government until the end


of next week to suspend arms exports to Saudi Arabia or else they will


issue legal proceedings. Thank you. The Labour Party is particularly


concerned at the British role in this war - Jeremy Corbyn raised


it at Prime Minister's Questions today, and a little earlier I spoke


to the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, who along


with Mr Corbyn has today called for a suspension of UK arms


sales to Saudi Arabia. I began my asking him what he wants


Britain to do now in light Now, other organisations


Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,


Medecins Sans Frontieres have been reporting what they regard


as violations of international humanitarian law, but now we have


this expert panel on Yemen, set up by the UN Security Council,


saying that they have documented air strikes targeting civilians


in breach of international In the light of that,


given the weapons that we sell as a country to Saudi Arabia,


given the rules that the Government is meant to apply, Jeremy Corbyn


and I have today written to the Prime Minister to say


you should now carry out an urgent investigation and should suspend any


further weapon sales pending The Saudis - and by extension us -


are backing the right side in this conflict, in the report,


the UN report, it is called Do you support the objective of that


government getting back in? I do because that is


what the United Nations does. But, in conducting this conflict,


and over 7,000 Yemenis have been killed, 2.5 million have had


to flee from their homes, there is a grave humanitarian


catastrophe, that is what the UN It is really important


that the campaign is conducted within international law


and there is, of course, an impact on the UK because we have


the arms control criteria. That could have a very damaging


effect on the long-term British arms trade because people


to whom we supply arms may say we can't rely on these people not


to be applying strings and terms and conditions after the fact


when we want to use them. You have to be honest


about that, haven't you? This could be costly in monetary


terms even though it might be the right thing to do,


in your view? If you have got the criteria that


say if there is a clear risk that this may result


in the commission of serious breaches of international


humanitarian law, the Government's put the rules in place,


previous governments have done that as well, they should be applied,


you should look at what's happened British Governments have tended


to believe the Saudi relationship David Cameron has talked


about security, at least one incident he says, terrorist incident


here, that has been thwarted I accept the argument


that the security co-operation that we have with Saudi Arabia


is extremely important. We both face a terrorist threat,


lots of countries face a terrorist threat, and therefore effective


exchange of information about the nature of that threat,


individuals who might be responsible for attacks,


of course that is important. What do you do if the Saudis say


there is no more defence Well, I hope very much


that they would not do that because if breaches of international


humanitarian law are proven, and the committee on experts has


said today this is what we found, the answer to that is to change


what you are doing so you do comply But I hope genuinely that that


would not get in the way of the security co-operation


which is important to protect our citizens,


as well as the citizens of Saudi Arabia, and people right


around the world given the nature It brings us to your relationship


with Jeremy Corbyn, who is a very principled man on foreign policy,


and quite uncompromising The impending issue facing


you all is Trident. Is Labour going to have one policy


on Trident when it comes to a vote Different members of


the Parliamentary Labour Party and different members


of the Labour Party hold My view is as follows: I want


a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, and


so does Jeremy Corbyn. You get there by multi-lateral


negotiation, not Not one of the other nuclear states


in the world would say if you are giving yours up,


we will chuck ours in the bin and, secondly, it's a different world out


there and the threat that I grew up with, and many people did,


fear of the Soviet Union, that has changed, although we have


seen Russia doing certain things that have given rise to concern,


but who can say with any certainty what the threats will be in 10, 20,


30 or 40 years' time? Would you want a world


in which North Korea was the only nation that had nuclear weapons


and everyone else has This gets us to the heart


of the problem. You have exchanged and espoused


the beliefs you have The policy review may come up


with the opposite policy which is to get rid of them


straightaway, British weapons, Would you be able,


as Shadow Foreign Secretary, to stay in the Shadow Cabinet,


in that post at least, with such a big difference


between you on that issue? Look, I won't answer that now


because we don't know what the outcome of


the review is going to be. Let us see what the outcome of that


review is going to be. It is important that


everybody argues their case Are you comfortable now that


you have found a working arrangement in the party between independent


thought and collective Look, all political parties


are coalitions of interest And one of the reasons I think why


Jeremy won the election is that people saw someone who was willing


to say what he thought, He appointed people


to the Shadow Cabinet knowing that on one or two issues they had


different views to him. That is a strength of our politics


and the most important task we have got at the moment actually


is to hold this rotten Government to account because we need


a strong opposition, and there is a lot of people out


there who are suffering because of what Government is doing


and they want to see an effective opposition and that is


what we are seeking to do under Hilary Benn,


thank you very much. People said when I introduced that


item I said Hilary Big Ben. I don't remember doing that, but he is a


very tall guy! A sad and intriguing story


now from the Pennines. Greater Manchester Police


are investigating the mystery of the body of a smartly-dressed


elderly man which was found


on Saddleworth Moor in December. or the circumstances


around his death. But one theory on the man's presence


there is that he may have some connection to a plane crash


at the site, that was back in 1949. Nick Hopkins has been


looking into it. This is one of the last


images of him alive. The next day, his body was found


lying face up on Saddleworth Moor. The man, apparently around 70 years


old, travelled more than 200 miles to get there with no wallet,


no phone and no ID. Six weeks on, the police


still have no idea who he is. August 1949, a plane travelling


from Belfast to Manchester crashes on the edge of


the Peak District. We are considering whether


the gentleman was a relative Alternatively, there were


a few children who survived from the plane crash, and maybe


he was one of those people. He would match the age,


but there are inquiries ongoing to see if we


can discount that. He looked at peace


when a passing cyclist found him. Could this possibly have been


some kind of pilgrimage? He began his journey at Ealing


Broadway Station in west London. He travelled to the


capital's Euston Station. He asked for directions


to the top of a nearby hill He was seen walking on the path


two hours later. The next morning,


his body was discovered. This is where the plane


came down in 1949. Among the survivors,


two were boys back in 1949. One is now dead,


the other is Stephen Evans. But it could be - I could understand


why people would think But it's not me, and I have no


idea who it could be. Newsnight tracked down


Professor Evans last night. He rang police to say


he is alive and well. Almost certainly, he's the last


remaining survivor from the flight. I remember my mother saying to me,


as we looked out, that it is cloud outside,


when I had suggested it was fog. She said, "No, it is cloud,"


and the next thing I remember was waking up, and most of the plane


seemed to be over there, and my mother was in the seat


beside me, unconscious but praying. Stephen Evans's younger brother


Roger died in the crash. Yes, he refused to leave the scene


until he was sure that everybody who remained there


had no hope of being rescued. He insisted on being


the last living person to leave. But he had a broken kneecap,


and he was crawling round, and immediately after the plane


crash, I recall him saying, "We must get out of here


before the tanks go up, we must get out of here


before the tanks go up." So the man on the hill


was not on that flight, though someone close


to him could have been. The tragedy is that somebody


should be so alone in life that they go off


and nobody misses them. Police have had dozens of leads


- theories abound. But the truth is


they still don't know the identity


of the man on Saddleworth Moor. Newsnight has caused


quite a stir in Belgium today. All to do with our interview


last night with the Greek migration minister, who accused his Belgian


counterpart of suggesting migrants should be pushed back into the sea


to stop them coming. The Belgian minister concerned,


a Flemish nationalist, issued a statement


denying he'd said that - But he said he did think migrants


who didn't claim asylum should be pushed back


to their country of origin. That row shows how sensitive


the issue is and fraught for governments


across Europe. And it's completely displacing


discussion about Britain's possible exit


from the EU. Well, earlier today,


I sat down with Carl Bildt, former prime minister and foreign


secretary of Sweden, a man who's been at the top table


of European discussions for decades about both where we are


and where are going. I asked him about the tone of


debate. I'm disappointed with some


of the things that we are seeing, but clearly we have, I think,


in the Western electorate, when we look at the American debate,


Mr Trump, for example, or Madame Le Pen in France


or whatever, we have sort of an angry coterie of our


electorate which is dissatisfied with the way our societies


have been developing, globalisation, immigration,


whatever, and has led to a certain brutalisation of the politics


on these issues as well, that other politicians


move off in that direction. That is unfortunate,


when that happens. One response to this migrant crisis


has been for countries to say, let's build fences


around our country. There is another response,


isn't there? Which says the problem with Schengen


was we didn't go far enough, we didn't have a common asylum


policy, a common immigration policy, a common passport,


a common right to residency. I just wonder whether you think,


actually, maybe that is the way the whole thing in the end


is going to have to go. I think, over time, it will have


to move in that direction, because at the moment, when we


have the common Schengen zone, and and we have the principle of asylum


policy is supposed to be the same, but the application


is very different. Sweden has been extremely


generous, others might be That leads to the streams


being sort of distorted, so over time we need to move to a


truly common European asylum system. Otherwise it's going


to be very difficult. I don't think it's going to happen


next week, to put it in those terms, We've spoken a lot here


about how leaving the EU, Tell us what you think


the consequence of a Brexit would be for the rest of Europe -


would it be damaging? I think it would be seriously


damaging to all of us. Because we are living,


as I think we agree, in a more dangerous world,


it is more challenging, it is more demanding,


it is more dangerous. That means that friends must work


together, and if we suddenly see a Europe that starts to fracture,


with a significant country leaving, that is going to be


a weakened Europe, and in my opinion


a more dangerous Europe. The separation negotiations


are going to be very, very messy, for the UK to sort out what's going


to be the alternative arrangement, and I know there's virtually


no debate about that subject, which I think it's vital


for the future, if there's


going to be anything. This is going to consume a lot


of the political energies all over Europe.


I mean, take Russia, Ukraine. What we have seen as a consequence,


there is no question that the United Kingdom,


which is a significant diplomatic and foreign-policy actor,


always has been, should be in my opinion, has been otherwise


engaged during this particular period, because it is dragged down


by this particular debate. Has that been a good thing


or a bad thing? In my opinion,


it's been a bad thing. We are losing in power


and credibility when the UK sort of disappears


from the scene and gets bogged down


in its own contradictions. Do you think it is possible


we would have full access to the single market


without free movement of people? And the border issue,


to me, is somewhat bizarre, I arrived here on the train


from Brussels, and when you go past Calais and enter into the tunnel


there, I mean, there is barbed wire, there is barriers,


there is police, there is military. The French are controlling


the external border and preventing people


from coming in. but I had to pass two different


checks with passports. I mean, it looks like


you have control Right, but we can't stop


any number of people, citizens, passport holders of the EU


who choose to settle and work here. That is true, that is true,


but that is very, very different from the Calais or the Syrian


or the refugee crisis. I mean, you have 2.25 million


citizens of the EU living and working and contributing


to the UK economy, there is in the order


of two million UK citizens I am on the board of a think tank,


and we have done a study, and they make significant


about these things, and they showed I can understand some


of the concerns about the refugees We are marking it with a song


from British composer of drawings and poems


made by the children of Terezin that Pook saw at the


Jewish Museum in Prague. was a holding camp for Jews


before they were sent east And the words of Birdsong,


here performed by the Zemel Choir, # Then if your tears


obscure your way


Including the future of nuclear power in the UK; the Google tax row; the mysterious case of the unidentified man found dead on a remote hillside; Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Presented by Evan Davis.

Download Subtitles