02/02/2016 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. The PM tries to close the deal on Europe. The fallout from the Iowa vote. Zika passed by sex in the US.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This is really not anywhere near what I had hoped. Even if the full


baskets at the UN were res lurkts clear, and what we were asking for


it might be a step in the right direction, but it isn't that.


Mr Cameron talks up his renegotiation while his party


Perhaps it was never going to change people's minds


We'll work out what has and what has not been achieved.


And the Europe Minister does his best to sell


After a tie to the last percentage point between Hillary Clinton and


Bernie Sanders we look at what's happening on the left of American


politics Up till now it's been


spread by mosquitoes. Tonight, reports of the first


confirmed US case transmitted So, a draft deal with the EU


has been published. We've spent a long time


getting here, but have about getting this


relationship right. I don't believe leaving the EU


would be best for Britain, but nor do I believe that voting


to preserve the exact status quo We will give the British people


a referendum with a very simple To stay in the European Union


on these new terms or to We are saying the Conservatives


are the largest party. There will be ups and downs,


you will hear one day this is possible, the next day


something else is impossible. But one thing throughout


all of this will be constant EU migrants should have a job offer


before they come here. UK taxpayers will not


support them if they don't. And once they are in work,


they won't get benefits or social housing from Britain


unless they have been I think strong, determined,


patient negotiation has achieved Well, it is today that we saw


the outline of the result Mr Cameron has certainly


lowered his aspirations since 2013, when he embarked on the path


to a referendum and made some lavish promises about what


he might achieve. Predictably, people involved


in officially campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU


are enthusiastic about the package. A sign, they say, of how


far our partners will bend Those against our membership


dismiss it as derisory. But the funny thing is that even


many EU supporters - people on Cameron's side -


also dismiss it as far Do you want to make


up your own mind? Today we got the skeleton


of a deal from Brussels. So we know roughly what


renegotiation will look like and that the referendum looks


increasingly likely to fall on June Sometimes people say


to me, if you weren't in the European Union,


would you opt to join And today I can give


a very clear answer. If I could get these terms


for British membership, I sure would opt in to be a member


of the European Union because these And they're different


to what other countries have. Now the Prime Minister


wants to campaign to remain within the European Union


and so for him the renegotiation First of all it is


changing the EU into For example through changes


to migration rules. Secondly, though, it is


demonstrating that Britain has influence that it can


use to change the EU, that Europe isn't something


that is just done to us. The problem for him,


though, is that these changes have to be big enough


to sell both of those ideas. The draft proposes that the Eurozone


nations shouldn't be able So it has a mechanism


to respect the competences, rights and obligations of member


states whose currency They also say that treaty references


to an ever closer union should not be used to support an extensive


interpretation of the competences be used to support an extensive


interpretation of the competencies If a bit more than half of EU


Parliaments, in the jargon, 55% of the votes allocated


to national parliaments, pass a vote against the measure,


they can block European This expert from


a think tank close to the Prime Minister thinks those


provisions are significant, I think when it comes


to the red card for national parliaments,


that is more of a symbolic victory It is the first time that national


parliaments have a binding assay It is the first time that national


parliaments have a binding say But the threshold of 55% of national


parliaments to activate the red card Now of course some people


said to me, don't... So can the Prime Minister


sell this to his Just kick over the table,


stormed out of the room, and wait until they


call you back in. Well, the PM has asked for something


which to me was critical. Which is no ever closer


union for Great Britain. The response in the


document is pretty It says they understand


that that is what we are asking for and when they get


to any future treaty whoever is running the member states then,


so not the people who were there today, will be deciding this,


will have a look at it and see if they can include it


in a future treaty. On immigration, they propose


allowing bans of EU citizens who represent a genuine


and serious threat. Even in the absence


of a criminal conviction. They also propose an emergency brake


on migration, to be used when there is an inflow of workers


from other member states of an exceptional magnitude over


an extended period of time. That would not be a ban on coming


here, but new EU workers would not get full access to


benefits for a bit. They would start with an initial,


complete exclusion from them, but then get gradually increasing


access to full benefit entitlements The paper also proposes trimming


the children's benefits paid out to families where the


child lives abroad. These migration proposals


caused a bit of a problem Last year at the election


he pledged that people who had been working here for fewer


than four years shouldn't be He also pledged that people whose


children are abroad shouldn't get So you can understand why some


people will feel their expectations I think that is slightly


unfair and people should recognise how


far we have come. First of all the ability


to distinguish between UK nationals and EU nationals who are first


arriving and denied access to the welfare system


for a period of time. And I think when it comes


to the UK universal system, although it may not be a ban


for four years outright, denying benefits for a certain


period of time could change people's attitudes to whether they take


the decision to come to the UK. The emergency brake


in of itself is a It is the EU telling us


when we might be allowed So you're driving a car,


you can see a car crash at the head. You're not allowed to put


your foot on the brake. But you're not allowed to hold


the steering wheel either. So there are substantive


changes in there but it is not what the Tory manifesto


promised and it is not going to be in the bag until an EU meeting that


ends on February the 19th. Earlier this evening I spoke


to the Europe Minister, Now, the Prime Mininster said


earlier, "hand on heart", he'd achieved what he said


he would in the Tory party So, could Mr Lidington


help clarify that? I asked whether the draft deal met


the manifesto's commitment to require EU migrants to leave Britain


if they hadn't found a job here in six months. It is already the


position under European law that you are allowed to travel freely to work


but you are not allowed to hang on if you have no prospect of work. So


that's already a provision. If this is about making sure that we are


able to deliver on that. But they'll be required to leave. So even if


they've got their own resources, because they won't be Gesting


benefits. They will be deported or give a notice... This is a matters


for the Immigration Service's arrangements for dealing with people


who've, who are here without a legal right to be here. Obviously if


somebody has their own resources it is conceivable that they might


qualify for residence under other aspects of the UK's immigration


rules. It will have to be looked at case by case. We'll call that a


score draw. The manifesto said if an EU migrant child is living abroad,


then they should reach no child benefit. Has that been achieved? On


the particular issue of child benefit the proposal that's in the


papers is that child benefit should be paid indexed to the living


standards of the country where the child is residing. It is a


compromise. But on the other hand if one simply ended all child benefit


payments, where the parent is living here child living abroad, there


height be an incentive for them to bring their children with them. We


think if that would be nailed down. It would restore fairness to the


benefits system. And I think will make a difference in terms of


welfare spend. I'm asking this, because the Prime Minister said hand


on heart he had achieved the manifesto goal. He said, if you go


back to look at what he said in its entirety, he said what we have is


the basis for a good settlement. Burr there's a lot of work still to


be done. He implied, in fact he said directly, if he got this deal, as


long as this was delivered, he would be happy to join an EU if he weren't


a member. So his position is he's happy with the deal or he isn't


happy with the deal on the table? His position is this is a very good


basis for a deal that delivers answers to things about which the


British people have been most concerned. But as you will see, if


you've gone through the text, there are elements in it still in square


brackets and so on. There is still negotiation to be done. This is a


deal that will require the agreement of all 27 Governments. I don't want


to take, will the Prime Minister be happy if they gets this deal on


child benefit? If we get that as part of the whole package, we think


that would represent a reasonable compromise. We are looking at every


aspect of this negotiation, because the different parts all hang


together. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I think you


will find every Government in Europe is saying that. The manifesto said,


we will insist that EU migrants to want to claim child benefit and tax


credits must have lived here for a minimum of four years. Has that been


achieved? Where we've got to today is a big advance on where we were.


What we've got today is explicit recognition by the European


institutions, first that in-work welfare systems can act as an


artificial pull factor for migration into a particular country. Secondly,


that individual countries should be entitled to do something about it,


and there are drafts of a legal mechanism that would enable action


to be taken. And third, the commission says, as part of today's


set of document, that they believe that the United Kingdom would


qualify to pull that so-called emergency brake now. And that, which


is now on offer, written down in this Tusk memo, would be


satisfactory for the British Government? You haven't achieved it


yet... It is a working draft in a live negotiation. I understand


you've got something, but I want to quote the manifesto. It says, this


will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation. Again I come back


to the fact the Prime Minister said he's achieved what was written in


the manifesto. Patently they choose whether we apply the emergency


brake. If you look at what the Prime Minister said today, he said all


along, this is a very good important step forward, but this is also a


live negotiation. But you are hovering between that we are going


to get more and that you are happy with what we've got. Which is it?


Are we going to get more? Or is this a satisfactory deal? This is a good


basis on which to move towards a deal at the next summit, but we are


not there yet. So why did the Prime Minister today say, if I could get a


deal like this, I would be enthusiastically campaigning to join


the European Union if we weren't in it. If we do get a deal with all the


Ts crossed and Is dotted, there are important elements in the draft


which require further negotiation. But there's a difference between


crossing a T and trying to renegotiate a point that's appeared


to have been conceded, that ants Madge brake, but we are not going to


get the requirement, which was there'll be no in-work benefits. The


PM has been clear, go back to 204, when he addressed the issue of


welfare and migration in detail. He said consistently that what he is


about is getting the right outcome. What research has been done about


the numbers coming in for the EU benefits system. We know from the


Department of Work and Pensions figures that something like 40% of


recently arrived migrants... I do not want to know how many claim


benefits but how many come here as a result of those benefits being


claimed. That is a different matter. Steve Nickell of the Office for


Budget Responsibility used the phrase, not much, when asked by a


parliamentary committee. I think we were speaking in a personal


capacity, but when you look at the fact that somebody who comes to the


UK by claiming in work benefits, is able to be better off taking a


minimum wage unskilled job in this country, than by taking even a


skilled job in some of the countries people are coming from, you can see


that that system of access from day one to in work and of it makes us a


more attractive location. Can you hand on heart, to coin a phrase,


said that as a result of this migration from the European Union


will go down? I'm very confident that if a deal of this kind goes


through, and I repeat a lot of the detail has yet to be negotiated,


then the incentives that are welfare system provides will be reduced and


therefore people have less incentive to come to the UK. So it will go


down. It will depend in part on what happens in their home countries, how


good they are at creating jobs, how desperate people feel. So yes or no,


we'll migration from the EU go down if we get away, that depends


question what I'm saying it will reduce the pull factors


significantly off the welfare system. But there's more than one


motivating force when people choose both whether to leave their home


country and which other country then they want to move to. They're


looking at job prospects at home and they compare what we can offer. Even


last month, December, the Prime Minister talked about this package


as fundamental change. Do you as you stand and look at this now, really


think this is a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU? It


is pretty fundamental change not just in our relationship with the EU


but the way the EU things about itself and intends to operate in the


future. Are you now ready to vote to stay in? I'm very hopeful that after


a successful deal I will campaign alongside the Prime Minister for


continued membership of a reformed EU. David Cameron has got to remain


open-minded because he is told, he told his ministers that they cannot


campaign yet either because he wants to hold the Eurosceptics back until


as close as possible to the referendum. Is that what is really


going on? People like Chris Grayling would love to be let out of the


traps. The entire government took office on a shared collective


commitment to re-negotiate and then have a referendum. That is something


that everyone signed up to. There are long-standing honourable


differences of view in all political parties about whether ultimately


membership of the EU for the UK is a good bad thing and that is why the


Prime Ministers said in these exceptional circumstances when it


comes referendum campaigning, and listers who had a long-standing


position against EU membership would be free to campaign for that in


their personal capacity. I'm guessing that the people


who are not interested probably never made it past the first two


minutes, to be frank. At times like this it's worth asking


what the Tories' election-winning Focus on the important issues,


and remember that emotion normally Is the renegotiation


important, or emotional? We sent Lewis Goodall to test out


the views of the public Clacton on Sea, the most Eurosceptic


corner of England. If Donald Tusk letter can convince people hear it


will convince them anywhere. So I got on my bike to bring this letter


to the people. What will they make of David Cameron and his red cards,


baskets and emergency brakes? Have you heard of the Prime Minister, he


said he has a new deal in Europe? No. You have not heard about the


emergency brake? Or the red card? No. So unlikely to make any


difference to how you vote? We do not want more people over here.


They're getting these people around and there is no work for them. As


soon as they come here they will rock 'n' roll. We need to fully


respect the current treaties including the principles of free


movement and non-discrimination. So the proposal complies with the


current rules. And in English? Your guess is as good as mine. I heard


there is an emergency brake on workers and stuff like that. But in


the EU we will get flooding people into the country anyway, more than


are leaving. You have not heard about the Prime Minister and the new


deal in Europe? But you will vote to leave anyway? Yes, sorry. What do


you think about the EU, would you vote to stay or leave? To leave. No,


to stay. Which? To stay? Oh, to leave!


With this re-negotiation, David Cameron hoped to finally vanquished


Tory Euro scepticism for a generation. He is convinced many of


his MPs to come with them, getting him out of a very tight spot.


Amongst the public for whom the details of sovereignty and emergency


brakes are more obscure, his task is much harder. It may well be that


their minds are made up one way or another, long ago.


In the upper echelons of the Conservative Party there has


Boris Johnson said he did not yet know the "quivering magnitude"


of the deal, but sounded sceptical that it had achieved enough.


Perhaps more significant were the words of Home Secretary Theresa


She said the deal was "encouraging", which is very discouraging for those


hoping she would lead the Leave campaign.


If you're a Conservative MP, the best thing has been to pretend


you're open minded about the EU, so that when you finally


declare your view, you sound like you've been swayed by argument


We have a Conservative MP with us now, who was open minded and now


Good evening. What is your view as of now? I have been traditionally


Eurosceptic said I would wait for the re-negotiation to make the


decision. The deal I have seen today is not enough to convince me to vote


to stay in the EU so I will be voting to leave. And you were kind


of holding out until today so you have been swayed today. I think it


is just not enough. The issue about migration has not been dealt with


because we know that less than 30% of people who come from the EU are


here to claim benefits, must come to work. With the living wage being


introduced in the next few months that will encourage more people to


come. We should welcome those skills that we need absolutely, I say that


as a daughter of Irish immigrants who came to work, we need clear


boundaries so the skills that we have too many off, we need to be


able to say no. It has been obvious for quite a while but this was not


going to get you what you wanted. I wonder why you held out until today.


I was disappointed with the original requests in the letter to Donald


Tusk but I said if anyone could get as a good deal it will be the Prime


Minister. And it is this Conservative government and this


Prime Ministers who got the referendum in the first place. I was


optimistic if anyone could do it it would be the Prime Minister. But


what I've seen today has not convinced me. He has let you down a


bit. I think Europe has let us down. I have got to go back and face my


constituents, by fishermen in New Haven, whether fisheries policy is


decimating their business. I've got to go back and see my hairdressers


when new EU regulations mean they have to have clients in the chair


for longer because hairdryers are less powerful than they were.


Furniture producers, copyright changes mean they will be out of


business. You said you were always a sceptic but we will not find someone


saying they saw you saying you were going to vote for our three weeks


ago. I was Eurosceptic, I have been honest, but this is not the deal to


convince me. You spoke about your voters but what about your


colleagues on the backbenches of the Conservative Party, what has been


their reaction today? Most of us have been keen to wait and see what


the response is, people are nervous about what this means. Still some


people want to wait and see the response from other EU nations


before making a decision. I think this is a significant number of the


new intake, we have just bought a general election and got our seats,


we know what voters think in our constituency. We are going to go


into referendum, you will now be on the opposite side of your party


leader. Is that going to rip things apart or with you all be friendly


other -- afterwards? I'm sure it will not do my long-term medical


career any good but I have got to face my constituents at the end of


the day and do what I feel is best for the country. My vote and your


vote is no less important than every man and woman in this country. I do


not get a bigger say in what will happen in our relationship with the


EU, the referendum will decide that and the vote of the British public


will count. Well, Britain is more


important to Europe than Iowa Usually, except in an American


election year, and the day Some pretty interesting


results there. It is groundhog day today and for a


while last night I imagine Hillary Clinton thought it was going to be


2008 all over again when she lost the state that time to Barack Obama.


The larger-than-life character of Donald Trump has dominated so much


of the campaign Trail that for a time the Democrats did not seem to


get a look in. But last night the drama was definitely all with them.


A nail-biting finish with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and it


came down to just three tenths of one percentage point, the closest


ever in Democrat Caucus history. The caucus is a strange beast, this


extraordinary result achieved not with voting booth or buttons but


with paper and pens and the mobilisation of thousands of people


right across the state who left their home on a freezing night to go


and properly argue with their neighbours. We were lucky enough to


watch history in the making. Get some coffee or something.


Precinct three, Boone County, Mary and her husband Gary


have opened up their farmhouse in rural Iowa for the night.


There's camaraderie and occasionally, marital tension.


Roxanne and Steve Gunderson arrived together, he went one way


to the Clinton corner and she went to


You have chats, arguments about this over the dinner table?


Wait a minute, are you not listening to what the Democrat party


They're already looking for somebody else.


If he is the candidate, they're going to look


This is done with pencil, paper and bodies that


physically cross the floor when a mind is changed.


So they are either uncommitted or O'Malley.


The uncommitted, Dale, crosses the room


I like a lot of what Bernie has to say, but I remember him from way


back and I think that's probably why I may decide to go to Hillary more


29 times the number of delegates, which is three...


What they are choosing here is how many delegates


The maths is complicated but the ratio is weighted in favour


This ends with Hillary on two, Bernie on one.


The highest number yes, the delegates.


Oh my gosh, it is great to be here with all of you.


I am so thrilled that I'm coming to New Hampshire after winning Iowa!


What Iowa has begun tonight is a political revolution.


The Clinton-Sanders contest was the closest in the history


of the Democrat caucus in Iowa, a cigarette paper-thin margin


which will make many see Bernie Sanders in a new light.


The Vermont Senator who grew up in Brooklyn and calls himself


socialist is now the unlikely hero of the left across America.


Anti-big business, pro environment, and passionate


Think Jeremy Corbyn with a New York absent.


I think it is the sense of pulling apart that's happening on both sides


of the political spectrum in America, where it feels


like people are increasingly gravitating towards the extreme


polls of the right and the left and the centre is hollowing out.


For Democrats it is a return to the '60s and '70s-style


radicalism, a rejection of the centrism and triangulation


that both Clintons have always represented.


And a desire to really be more muscular in their liberal socialist


What he's doing is opening up a race that many felt had become


Hillary Clinton seems unassailable, unstoppable.


There are those in the party even who liked here who worried


about a path to the nomination that looked unchallenged.


The Clinton machine has been spooked by this.


White vote, the activist vote and the young vote on the left. He


won... This morning Clinton admitted she had to do better with new and


younger voters. Bernie Sanders now calling for a release of the raw


vote count in Iowa says his rise is a sign that voters want change. But


they might be flirting with him at this stage, confident that Hillary


will get the nomination, and seeings what it feels like to dip their toes


into the icy waters of real radicalism. Let's examine some of


those issues more deeply. Would you see that a.3% finish as a


win for Bernie Sanders? A tie is as good as a win when you are the


underdog the way he's been. This was Hillary Clinton's state to lose.


Even though she didn't technically lose it


He calls himself a socialist. What does that mean for people in


America? Well, it is much more of an epithet than your viewers are


accustomed to. He's been an independent Senator, not


traditionally a part of the Democratic Party in Congress. Iowa


Democrats are much more progressive, much more rebel than Democrats in


the United States. This was a good state for him. A poll showed 43% of


the Democratic voters here did use the term socialist. But historically


that's been a fight word. You spent a lot of time in Des Moines gearing


up for this. You suggested this was going to be like the Hunger Games.


Yes, there were 10 republicans in the field, as the vote got close ter


gloves came off, the attack ads were saturated on television. Candidates


who had never engaged like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump started going after


each other in very insulting ways. Last night showed how that came out.


If you step back from the last month and asked people what they thought


would happen in Iowa, they would probably have said Hillary would win


and Ted Cruz would win. Does that mean all the fury and the polling


has been for nothing? Ted Cruz got the evangelicals and Hillary the


Democratic vote. Most of the money yesterday before the voting was on


Donald Trump, who was having a surge in the polls, and on Hillary, who


seemed to have a three or 4 point advantage. The results showed the


vulnerability and the unpredictability and unreliability,


excuse me, of polls these days. Dramatic results on both sides. If


we take this forward now, looking at the Democrats race first of all,


this idea that Bernie Sanders is fresh blood in the race, if you


like. He is somebody that people haven't really seen before. I


described it as people dipping their toes into radicalism for the first


time. Do you think there is any chance he will see this through to


the end? Or do you think the next primaries will end that? He has


unleashed a rush of donations. He said the average donation he he has


had is $27, and he has had is $27, and he's raised $27 million a


quarter. He has the money, unless he loses anywhere. This is a very


hospitable playing field, idealogically New Hampshire he will


do well at. It is next door to his home state of Vermont, where he is


ahead in the polls. The Democratic vote will move to the south.


African-American voters support Hillary Clinton now strongly and


he'll have to deal with that. If you looking to the republican race, many


are saying the real winner is Marco Rubio. Explain why? Iowa was an


expectation game. Rubin was stuck in the polls. He came in 23% last


night. Anybody who is looking nor a real alternative to Trump or a Ted


Cruz, a less Conservative alternative, wants to rally around


or coalesce around alternative, wants to rally around


Rubin is in a position to take that role. Thank you very much indeed.


Rubin is in a position to take that The next race, the


Rubin is in a position to take that test will be in


Rubin is in a position to take that that, it is next to Vermont. He has


a home state advantage there. Perhaps the eyes will be back on to


the republican race then. If Donald Trump doesn't win in New Hampshire,


people will start to ask whether he becomes that 2016 footnote too.


Emily. Thank you. As if to remind us why Zika


was declared a world health emergency yesterday,


two pieces of news as to its spread A likely case of sexual


transmission in Texas - a Dallas County resident who had


sexual contact with someone who acquired the Zika infection


while travelling abroad. And then, in Ireland,


two cases have been in found in people who've had a history


of travelling in affected areas. From Oxford, I'm joined


by Professor Trudie Lang, principal investigator


for the Nuffield Research Centre for prevention and treatment


of diseases like Ebola. It is literally a week ago on this


programme we were talking about a case of apparent transmission in


2008. It seemed outlandish. What do we now know or don't know about


sexual transmission? I don't think we are too much further forward than


last week really. So this isn't unexamined. It is not particularly


surprising. All we know is that there is this apparent transmission


between somebody's returned from an infected country and has passed this


on through sexual contact. It is not completely confirmed, as I


understand, but for us it raises more questions than it answers. We


are just adding to the list of research questions we need to tackle


within this rapidly emerging and quiet


research questions we need to tackle within this rapidly emerging and --


quiet worrying suggestion. We got into bodily fluids last week, but


there's a suggestion that saliva could be a route to transmission.


We've had no reports of that and we need to make it really clear that as


far as... With all the information we've got and evidence that we can


draw together so far, it suggests that most of the transmission occurs


from mosquito bites. We know it is present in semen but remember that


most people don't have any symptoms. So presumably the person who came


back from the affected country was unwell, which is why he went to be


tested, presumably, for Zika, and he has passed it on. We don't know if


you are not symptomatic, do you have virus in your fluids? And the


question of whether it is in other fluids, it's unlikely. We were


fairly confident that the route of transmission is on mosquito bites.


That's where the burden of disease is in the region. Right, these cases


this evening put the focus on transmission outside what we call


the affected areas. Are we quite sure that mosquitoes that exist in,


say, in Britain or the British Isles, are we quite sure they would


not transmit the virus? We are fairly sure. This is an emerging


situation and we need research. This is, as we are saying over and over


again, we know that the Aedes mosquito that carries dengue and


other diseases occurs in tropical climate. There is no suggestion that


it can be transmitted by mosquitoes in the UK or colder climate. There


is no evidence to support that. Do we have any knowledge as to how long


it lurks in the body? If somebody travelled to Brazil, they come back,


they don't want sexual contact with a partner who may potentially be


becoming pregnant. How long do they need to wait? We simply don't know.


This is why we need a co-operative international research effort to


address all these questions. Because there's so many unknowns, still to


prove the link with microcephaly and to work on vaccines and drugs to


cure this disease. Briefly, the Olympics. It is hard to think this


wouldn't have an affect on the willingness of people to travel


there. I suppose there's two hopeful elements. One, the climate in Brazil


is less favourable toll the Aedes mosquito at that time of year. And


also that efforts to reduce the mosquito population might have


kicked in. And we may have, the best case scenario is that the epidemic


works its way through. But we just need to wait and see. All the travel


advice out there already is very sensible. It should help guide


people. Professor, thank you very much indeed.


Before we move on - a quick look at the papers' reaction


It is not going to make great reading for the Prime Minister. The


great delusion, says the Daily Mail. The Times says Brussels will have


right to reject benefit curbs. And backlash against watered down


referendum deal. Financial Times, Cameron faces battle to sell EU deal


to sceptical Tory MPs. The Daily Telegraph, Ministers to defy PM on


Europe. None of these are looking good for him. The Guardian has one


more encouraging for the Prime Minister. Cameron wins May's


backing. And Dad's Army deal turns to farce. Who do EU think you are


kidding Mr Cameron? Caves in over benefits, brake on laws.


We leave you with some rather sinister social media cartoons


created by the All-Russia People's Front, the ONF.


The cartoons are allegedly part of an anti-corruption drive,


and show various Russian public figures being killed


by the Russian President in ways befitting their supposed offences.


What makes it so disturbing is that the founder


of the All Russia People's Front IS President Putin.


Download Subtitles