With James O'Brien. EU president Jose Manuel Barroso on migrants, economics and Europe's squabbles. Plus US primaries, the state's power to snoop and London's high-rise craze.
Browse content similar to 09/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
The great European project bogged down in a migration crisis,
with economic stagnation leaving north and south at one anothers'
throats and Britain threatening to walk out.
We'll get the insider's take from former EU President,
This is an existential crisis of the project, probably the largest crisis
in the history of European integration. We will be hearing if
Jose Manuel Barroso knows how to sort out the mess.
Tonight, the voters of New Hampshire head to the polls.
We are with the undecideds, who are making their minds up
Kenneth Branagh's theatre company brings us the story of the first
The audience for Red Velvet are on the edge of their seats,
as if this thing was unfolding on the streets
of London right now, and given in a way how little has
If the staunchest of Eurosceptics had got to script the circumstances
best suited to their cause as referendum day approaches,
they'd have struggled to do a better job than reality.
Unprecedented numbers of people entering the European Union,
the concessions David Cameron is straining to secure from fellow
leaders apparently failing to butter many parsnips at home and economic
difficulties and disparities growing by the day.
In a moment we'll hear from the former President
of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso,
but first, just how bad might this backdrop prove
We sought the views of three prominent Europe watchers.
This is the next system shall crisis of the whole European project,
probably the largest crisis in the history of European integration. I
think you could think of it as potentially a perfect storm. The
migration crisis, that's a very big one. The summer will bring a huge
peak of refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean. There will be huge
pressure on the refugee system. You have the prospect of Brexit, you
have Russia and Ukraine, you have the growing strength of Eurosceptic
often xenophobic parties of left and right. At the same time in July this
year, Greece has got to repay the European Central Bank 3.5 billion
euros, it is not clear how Greece will do that. Many of these crises
reinforce each other, so the chances of Brexit are reinforced both by the
bad performances of the eurozone and the refugee crisis. Putin bombing
Syria increases the chances of another refugee crisis, which would
destabilise the European Union and divert attention from Ukraine, as he
well knows. Each reinforces the other. This is a pretty critical
time in geopolitical terms because the US has been accused and is seen
as not having shown sufficient leadership in the last few years.
You are going now into an election. You have Russia resurgent and very
assertive on the other hand, so the role that Europe should be playing
is simply not there right now. Even in the core countries of the
European Union, even in Germany and France, the reaction that we must
say yes whatever it costs is not as strong as it used to be. Europe is
being weakened because of its lack of unity at a time when European
unity and European leadership is most needed. It takes away from
European Union the one great strength it has got which is
standing together, offering a credible voice to a belligerent
Russia or a troubled Middle East, or uncertain capital markets, one
voice. But if Britain votes to leave or votes to stay but with a large
percentage wanting to leave, it puts a crack in the credibility of the
European Union. A pretty bleak picture for the Prime Minister.
Earlier I spoke to the former President of the European
I asked him how impressed he was so far by David Cameron's management of
the campaign to stay in the EU. I think so far Prime Minister Cameron
has done the right thing. He has got to fight for his position. He knows
it is a very difficult issue in the European Union and he tried to get a
consensus of all the member states so I think the issue is now well
prepared and I hope there will be an agreement during the European
summit. How optimistic are you? How realistic is full consensus on the
brake off in work benefits for migrant workers? From what I know
from European Union countries, they are all willing Britain to remain in
the European Union. This issue of benefits and freedom of movement is
very sensible for some of the countries of European union. We have
got to understand that, but in the end everybody wants Britain remain.
I think compromise is on the table, it is creative, it is always these
legal compromises are difficult to build but it is a creative and
intelligent one, so I hope at the end there will be a consensus
because the main issue is how to express a position that will enable
Prime Minister Cameron to go to the British people and say we have a
good deal. If the issue was about benefits, and the abuse of social
benefits, because it is true different countries have different
levels of social benefits, I think this can work as a compromise.
Acceptable to fellow leaders. Do you honestly believe it will have the
slightest bearing upon the ambitions of Polish, or French workers to
come? Do you think it would put anybody off exercising their freedom
of movement? Of course the other countries can do the same, it is not
only for Britain. The idea is also that it can also exist for the
others, so in terms of the general principle of fairness, I think we
can defend it. Do you think it would put off anybody from coming here to
work? No, frankly not. It depends on the conditions of the Labour market.
It depends what will happen in the future. We have seen different
situations. There are many British people living outside, but I think
people that want to go to Britain, if of course the basic rights of the
people are insured, they will be willing to go. But of course with
slightly different conditions. Do you understand David Cameron's, the
importance he places on the issue of British sovereignty, the desire he
holds to somehow safeguard sovereignty in the context of
legislation? Does it make sense to you as a former European leader
yourself? Former European and national leader so I understand the
issues of sovereignty, I was 12 years in my national governments
including as Prime Minister, so we should think it is not only Britain
that cares about sovereignty. We all want to have the rights of our
country respected. The question is how to do it. Frankly, I believe
that in the 21st century, in the age of globalisation, we are better
protecting our sovereignty, our de facto power in the world, if you are
together. A country of 60 or even 80 million people cannot defend its
rights and values in front of countries with 1.3 billion or 1.5
billion as could happen soon in some countries in the world, if we are
alone, so we share sovereignty. At the same time I understand that in
the British culture, it is not only Prime Minister Cameron, it has been
different governments and parties, there is some kind of
exceptionalism. The way the British look at Europe is different from the
way the French, German or Spanish and Portuguese look at Europe. This
is a common project where Britain is one of the most important
shareholders, and from Tony Blair with General climate change to
Margaret Thatcher for enlargement and the internal market, and David
Cameron, Britain has been leading Europe, and I believe that is where
Britain should be. There was nothing incremental about Angela Merkel's
decision to welcome 1 million people into Germany, and if they become
naturalised that is 1 million people who could set out for any other
member state a couple of years down the line. That was not a decision
based on consensus, do you think she overreached herself? No, she took
the decision and she was entitled to do it. Let's imagine for a second
that the first message coming from Germany would be the opposite one.
How do you react? Germany closing the doors? Then I would be more
concerned, if I saw a nationalistic Germany. I think what Angela Merkel
has done was extremely important for Germany. Now they are trying to
adapt and they will do it. But you understand why many British voters
worry about the arrival in Germany and EU citizenship making them
possible arrivals here imminently? It is a huge issue. No, but I
understand the point and it has been exaggerated to some extent. It
hasn't been exaggerated, there are 1 million people. It does not mean
citizenship. What would the European Union looked like without Britain in
it? It can happen, I hope it will not because it will be weaker. The
United Kingdom is one of the most important countries in the world,
but everyone from Berlin to Warsaw and Madrid understands it to be
negative. Jose Manuel Barroso, many thanks. How much of our privacy
should we be prepared to surrender to agencies
charged with protecting us? Benjamin Franklin was addressing it
directly in the 18th Century. Today, though, Parliament's
Intelligence and Security Committee reported that Home Secretary
Theresa May's draft Investigatory Powers Bill does not
do enough to protect the privacy of ordinary citizens or address
concerns about spying raised by Edward Snowden's
recent revelations. Setting and nets to catch the guilty
often snares the innocent too. In this hit TV show, the police tap the
calls made from phone boxes, lots of data gathered, most of it useless,
but with the technology that existed at that time, there was an absolute
limit to how many targets the police could track. The ability of security
agencies like MI5 to eavesdrop on people is now infinitely greater
than putting a few devices in phone boxes. We are now most people
spewing out vast amounts of electronic data without even knowing
it, on large numbers of databases and registers, so how can the
agencies keep people safe without turning us into some sort of
surveillance data? That is the problem parliament is wrestling
with. In November the Government set out what it thinks is going on here
and at other agencies as well as the police should be regulated. The
legislation we are proposing is unprecedented, it will provide
transparency about our investigatory Powers, it will provide the
strongest safeguards and world leading oversight arrangements.
Today the Parliamentary committee gave its verdict, broadly supportive
but with some important criticisms. The committee says the draft bill
seems unclear on what it is trying to do. It has, says the committee,
perhaps suffered from a lack of sufficient time and preparation. The
committee says the report doesn't go far enough in protecting privacy,
which it says should form the backbone of the draft legislation
around which the exceptional powers are built, whilst recent terrorist
attacks, it goes on, have shown the importance of the work the agencies
do in protecting us, this cannot be used as an excuse to ignore
underlying principles. It is to reconcile privacy with
national security. We hoped there would be a general statement about
privacy and a demonstration as to how that that might be properly
intrude into and how the authorisation process would work in
each of the activities of agencies. Instead there are different types of
protections and authorisations needed for different categories of
information. But in some cases the same information can be gathered in
different ways. Sometimes I needs authorises, sometimes not. The
commission questioned the power for what you or I would call hacking.
There are two types - targeted and bulk. But the definition of targeted
is so wide that the committee said bulk powers are not needed. That
means everybody and targeted powers could mean everybody. Without
clarity, how can we feel safe if we are going about our day-to-day
business and not involved any criminal activity that we can be
left alone to live to be a good citizen? You swear that the
affidavit is true. In The Wire the cops get a judge to sign off the
wire taps, but with security and intelligence work is not that
straight forward. So much has to remain secret. Even from our elected
representatives. It is official. You're up.
It may feel as though we've already gorged on hyperbole,
shock tactics and unprecedented challenges to the political status
quo, but the story of November's American presidential
Just the second page will be turned later tonight when the ballot closes
in the New Hampshire Primary and self-styled mavericks
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders discover whether they've translated
impressive poll leads into votes that could take them closer
to becoming, respectively, the Republican and Democrat
Emily's live in Manchester, New Hampshire, reading the runes.
Good evening from New Hampshire, where they have reported record
turnout for this first US presidential primary.
More than half a million people are expected to vote today -
many beating a path through heavy snow to do so.
This is a famously late deciding state -
a third of Republican voters still trying to decide.
And it's a state which lives by its own motto -
They like to surprise people here - none more so than pollsters.
All of which adds last minute volatility to a wild campaign.
This is the state where Barack Obama seemed a safe bet in 2008 -
until Hillary went from ten points behind to beating him.
This is the race that landed John Maccain a landslide victory
in 2000, but he lost the nomination to George Bush.
This state is overwhemlingly white and overwhelmingly secular -
for that reason it doesn't represent the constituecies that make up
the Democrats or Republicans as a whole.
But here's an early snapshot of polling day so far.
They take their role seriously here in New Hampshire.
As early indicators of the electoral race, and they start
Catherine has come here to vote, but she still doesn't know who for.
I guess we'll figure out once we get into the booth where my pencil
It's the Catherines of New Hampshire that make this
30% of likely Republican voters say they go to the polls
But some tell me their decision has been easy.
I want to bring the United States back to where it used to be
We found the man himself almost by accident when he walked
into a diner this morning and my cameraman threw
Are you done with being in second place?
Trump has led here in New Hampshire in the last 75 polls,
it would be astonishing - in polling terms -
But this is a state that thrives on surprise.
Famously independent-minded, new voters can
Those unregistered with either party can still vote for them today.
On the Democratic side, momentum may be
with Bernie Sanders, but all those we found
And was that an easy choice for you?
I think she is going to do the best in a general election
Throughout the day more than half a million people
But if there's one thing you need to know about the result tonight
it's this - the polls got Iowa wrong, historically they get
New Hampshire wrong too and indeed the two new ones that emerged
If you're waiting for a result that makes any sort of sense,
We get the results about 9 o'clock tonight. But let's unpick the race
with Caitlin Collins. She has been following the Trump campaign. You
were last night at the event behind us and it was an extraordinary sort
of thing. Yes if there is one thing about New Hampshire, they love
Donald Trump. He held a rally here and although it was snowing like
crazy, 5,000 people came to see Donald Trump. Was loud and insane
and it is obvious they love Donald Trump. What is it about this place
or him? They like how outspoken he is and refreshing and they have had
eight years of same thing and they're ready for a change and
candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have done so well
here. There was expectation on him ahead of Iowa, do you think it might
be over hyped here? I don't think so, because innist wo, it was
tougher for Donald Trump to win, it is a state of conservatives and a
lot of his supporters are not registered with the Republican Party
or don't decide until the last minute. He needs those voters. It
makes him easier to win here. When you hear record turn out, do you
think that will favour people like Trump and Sanders, the less
conventional candidates? Yes, these are people who have never voted
before and every where you turn you find a Donald Trump supporters, a
way tress told me she voted for him. Everyone loves Donald Trump. I think
he is going to sweep the state. You're suggesting that he will
eventually be the nominee? Without a doubt. He has a good chance. If he
wins New Hampshire, he will take the south, because they love him there.
We have two guys from Florida and in Florida, Trump is polling so well
and beating them. One of the guys is Marco Rubio, who seemed to be on a
high before the debate on Saturday, when he got as it were verbally
knifed by Chris Christie. We have no idea of third or fourth place. Now,
what Trump should be worried about is who he will be his opponent in
the Republican Party. It could be Rubio or Cruz or Carson. You don't
dmoe. -- know. People need to see who is going to be in second. Thank
you. They say that New Hampshire doesn't always get the whippers
right, but it tends to get out the losers. That is still not clear, the
list of Republican candidates is very long and we don't have a clue
where second and third and fourth will take us. On the democratic side
there are two candidates, but that win could be just as complicated
going forward. Back to you. Thank you.
This seems to be the credo of developers determined
But what of the 'starchitects' and foreign billionaires behind
many of the mooted 250-odd tower blocks -
each with 20 or more storeys - set to rise
in the nation's capital in the next few years.
Are they compelling proof of a thriving economy,
or bankrolling sky-high vanity projects set
to become follies of the future while permanently polluting a vista
once dominated, even defined, by the dome
of Sir Christopher Wren's St Paul's.
Or, to borrow Prince Charles's description of another London
development, so many monstrous carbuncles?
Speaking of which, here's Stephen Smith.
Are we looking at the bright new face of nation's thriving capital?
Are could this be the uncle of all carbuncles? We have taken data of
more than 250 new high rises, either under construction or awaiting
approval, to reveal how some of London's best known and most
expensive views could change. If you're going to change the skyline,
you have to consider what the buildings are for. It is not enough
simply to have maximum construction activity and we are not making land.
London doesn't have enough land for homes. It would be fine if you're
building office towers that people will work in and boost the economy.
I take exception them building safety deposit boxes for rich
Russians and China to stash their cash. Up here on the cable car it is
positively alpine. The air is fresh and him pied. You can almost smell
the flowers. But what about the visual environment. How will it look
on the old industrial units in a few years if the go ahead is given for
all the planned skyscrapers developers want to build? Greenwich
is practically the home of time and time is money to developers keen on
a slice of it. Barbara Vice is part of a resistance movement. Much as
people think that these towers deliver housing and contribute to
making the housing shortage less severe, in fact they're only flats
for the very wealthy 1% and the average Londoner will never be in a
position to be able to afford to buy or rent in them. So we are
sacrificing our skyline and some of our best monuments and views, views
from parks, from conservation areas, for a result that does not benefit
London as a whole. No, it is not Newsnight's range of gifts for
Valentine's Day, but an ID parade of London's tallest towers. They have
their admirers. Well designed tower blocks are wonderful, I love them. I
love The Shard and the Gherkin and I think the 11 Hall building is one of
my favourites. I have come back from New York where there are some
spectacular tall buildings that enhance the skyline. We have to look
at the quality of the architecture and look at the location and also
how they hit the ground is important. The new blocks going up
in London right now light up the path of the Thames, spelling out a
welcome to foreign investment - for better or worse. This maybe be the
first unburstable housing bubble. Think of it this way if you live in
Russia and you're rich and you could wake up tomorrow and finds yourself
in prison. In Hong Kong it could be re-nationalised. To have half of
your capital secure in London or New York is a good deal. The more
expensive the better the investment opportunity and the more like old
bricks it becomes and hence these flats are people are leaving empty
or buying an an investment for buy-to-let. It is a commodity and no
longer linked with supply and demand. On a clear day, you can see
the work on London's high rises going like gang busters. But as to
exactly what it all means, and writ might ends, must of us gaze through
a bubble darkly. I'm joined now by the architect
Eric Parry, who has designed 1 Undershaft, what is set
to be the tallest buiding And Simon Jenkins, the former
chairman of the National Trust. Why do they have to be so big? In
the city of London it is obviously a response to a demand and to a
limited area that can be built on. So naturally, there has been I think
it is fair to say over the last 20 years a carefully thought through
topography that won't disturb those key views, that it is within what is
called the eastern cluster. It is one that has be consulted over and
thought through and it is coming towards a conclusion. Because there
isn't that much more space. So the critical element is what these
buildings give back in that limited territory. This is the city of
London, as opposed to Westminster and the other areas. And the key
ingredient there is the public realm, in a diminishing set of
circumstances. So I think the architects' responsibility in that
particular circumstance is to make great public space. As an urbanist,
that is what I feel, the buildings that rise out of that have to be as
good as they possibly can be. We can see some of your projections
for the next project. You paint a professional and responsible
picture, there must be some bragging rights involved. You must, when you
get together, boast about who has got the biggest building. There is
maybe a frisson of interest but it is much more the composition of the
whole, and I'm keen, given the density of the cluster, that this
and other buildings are able to be identified within that grouping. I
think they are buildings that identified within that grouping. I
speak for the civic rather than simply for the developer or the
individual. Simon Jenkins, do these buildings speak for the Civic for
you? No, they don't. Why not? The city cluster is no longer a policy
because they are building them everywhere. The important thing is
that it is just anarchy at the moment. There are 250 towers going
up... Not all in the Square Mile. No, but most of them are empty
residential, there is no planning concept at all. Nobody says we want
this sort of high building, there is no concept of the civic space around
them, they are just being crammed in as dense as they can possibly make
it to make money, for people most of whom don't live here. Would you be
comfortable with the scale of the development if people were moving
into them? If people living here already were moving in? There is no
need to build high. The Paddington shard, one of the most absurd vanity
projects of all time which Boris Johnson wanted, it had 330 flats in
it. You would get more flat in a ten story terraced house than that
tower, it was a total vanity project. I see with reference to
residential projects the wisdom of what you are saying, but you are
comfortable then with the 1 Undershaft? Their resistance of how
big do you want to go. How big do you want to go, Eric? I object to
the accusation that architects want to build as high as they can, that
is nonsense. We are between a planning system and the developers'
will, and it is important we take that role responsibly. Bigger isn't
best, it is dependent entirely where the development occurs. Are there
any in London you don't think should have been built? Yes, particularly a
number of the gated residential towers that don't know what they are
doing when they get to the ground, I therefore concur completely that
what we should be doing is building in this European city in a sense
street and lower rise buildings for residential use that create
interiors and amenities. I think there is a place for high-rise, but
there is also a need to plan better what happens on the ground. I should
ask you in the interest of balance whether you like any skyscrapers? I
like the Shard, but I would like to see it in the cluster. The policy
was a good one, broken by one government minister. You break the
rule once, you have broken the rules. The Shard was going to be a
one-off, there is now a second one. Each one of them wants to be bigger.
You have got to have a bigger one in the city, at Canary Wharf. You might
not agree, but they generate kudos from the size of their skyscraper. I
think that is a reality but there are equal and opposite forces in
this business. What I do think is the Shard is an interesting example.
When I think of great city skyline is like Lubeck for instance, they
speak of tall buildings in that gritty juxtaposition that lends
itself, it creates a historic moment. I think that's where we are
here. The Shard is an odd one. The Lubeck is nothing to do with these
colossal... We are going to have to continue this after the programme, I
look forward to it. Thank you very much indeed.
The row over the lack of nominations for actors and directors of colour
in this year's Oscars has sounded loudly on both sides
The ceremony on February 28th is being boycotted by actors such
The night before, the leading British actor Adrian Lester
will have taken his final bow in a production of Red Velvet
The play, written by the actress and writer Lolita Chakrabarti,
imagines the life of Ira Aldridge, the black American actor who rose
to fame all over Europe in the early 1830s,
but whose story has all but been forgotten.
Kirsty Wark spoke to the writer and to Kenneth Branagh,
in whose season at the Garrick Red Velvet is playing.
How did you actually find Ira Aldridge?
It was 1998 and Adrian Lester had done reading about him at a theatre
festival in Brighton, and he came back and told me a few
facts about Ira Aldridge and I couldn't believe I haven't
Once you actually researched him, what kind of character did
He's a construct of my own imagination really,
so I've taken all the facts I have found out about him over the years
and there are diary entries and reviews and information
about him, and I've infused him with my own experience as an actor.
Why did you want to involve it in your season?
We've got two or three plays in this season as well as the Shakespeare
plays themselves, which comment often on the theatre as a kind
of metaphor for human existence that's very illuminating.
Mostly it's because I felt the writing itself was multilayered
and very strong, the production is excellent, and at the centre
of it is a really remarkable performance by Adrian Lester as Ira.
You have talked about it being not about race but about being different
I think the central thing about being the outsider is prejudice.
There are lots of characters throughout it.
You've got the black actor in the white acting society,
into a male-dominated career when her country is being denied.
You've got a French gay theatre manager.
The plays that are going to be written, presumably,
over the next 20, 30 years are going to be about Syrians coming
here, going to be about Somalians coming here,
Do you think we're going to become more receptive to their story?
Gosh, you know, doing the research for Red Velvet,
I thought it's just the same old stuff recycled again.
It used to be blacks and moors, then it was the Asians,
then the Irish, then it turns into eastern Europeans.
It's the same argument that's had about immigration again and again.
The audience for Red Velvet are on the edge of their seats
as if this thing was unfolding in the streets of London right now,
and given in a way how little has changed, frankly it could be.
It's also the most diverse audience I have ever sat in.
But by and large audiences in London in the West End are white
For what it's worth, I'd throw a few statistics your way.
We have this ticket lottery for the first couple of rows,
the tickets are 15 quid, it goes on sale at midnight,
30,000 people have joined up for that.
40% of them got into it through social media,
which tends to be a younger demographic, a more diverse
demographic, and in terms of cinema screenings,
which are a fairly new phenomena, our Winter's Tale has now been seen
I think it's also about diverse voices really.
That's why the audience for Red Velvet is so diverse,
because it's a story for all of us about British history
A man that all this time had founded his good fortunes
on your love, shared dangers with you!
I grew up on a staple of period drama on TV and film,
as we all did, and there was never anyone of colour in any of them,
But when I was researching Red Velvet, there were so much
Now I look at it and I think of course there was,
we were the centre of international trading.
I found a huge diverse culture within London in my research,
but I did history O-level, history A-level, and I never see it
on TV and film and I think that's where the problem is because Ira
was written out of history, for whatever reason.
Actually we need to look back at history.
So I think it's a wider discussion of how we portray
Can we just talk a little bit about the Oscars.
I think the issue about the Oscars is not so much about prizes in art,
which are always prone to subjectivity and opinion
and contention, and I think really it's about inclusion and equal
opportunity at the grass-roots level, to be for consideration.
I think that that's what this issue is really about.
This debate, this very noisy debate right now,
Because the desire of the Academy is to double the representation
of women and ethnic minorities by 2020.
If the Oscars are the pinnacle, allegedly, of film achievement -
as you say, it's very subjective who gets a prize -
but it has to reflect the whole of society that it's serving
and that's what art and culture is about, about
So, when it comes to the Oscars and Clint Eastwood is telling
everyone to stop whining, what do you say to Clint Eastwood?
Come see Red Velvet, it is on right now.
You might want to make a film about it and hope that people jump
We leave you in Guangzhou City in China, where they've been
celebrating the Chinese Spring Festival in the traditional style
Happy Chinese new year to them and to you.
It is a fairly chilly wintry prospect for the next few days, a
cold start of the day. A few showers around, particularly across southern
and eastern areas initially. Many other
With James O'Brien. EU president Jose Manuel Barroso on migrants, economics and Europe's squabbles. Plus US primaries, the state's power to snoop, London's high-rise craze and Kenneth Branagh's new play.