09/02/2016 Newsnight


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.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles