22/02/2016 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



I think it's absolutely vital that earn should turn out in this


referendum and vote yes, so that the question is over once and for all,


we are really in Europe and ready to go ahead.


That didn't quite work. This is a vital decision for the future of our


country and I believe we should also be clear that it is a final


decision. The campaign has barely started, yet


the debate in the Conservative Party We'll hear from both


sides of the divide. I've been speaking


to Iain Duncan Smith. And we'll hear from veteran


inner, Ken Clarke. Michael Cockerell will take


us through the lessons I made a number of films about the


referendum then, which have many pre-echos of what's happening today,


as well as a number of startling differences.


And the people of Peterborough have their say.


We've always been famous for being an independent country. Now we're so


much into Europe, we don't seem to have a mind of our own any more.


Novice marathon runners are always warned not to start the race at too


brisk a pace if they want to make it to the end.


Westminster has not taken that advice with the respect


It's barely commenced, and it's already off


In the Commons, David Cameron got surprisingly close to mocking


the suggestion of Boris Johnson that there could be


a new negotiation, if we vote to leave.


Or is it getting closer to civil war?


Our political editor, David Grossman, has been


Politics sometimes feels like a nursery dispute. It's about to get


very messy. Boris Johnson and David Cameron have been the best of


frenemies since they were at school. I love Boris. That's certainly not a


phrase the Prime Minister was using today. There's a sense of betrayal


in Downing Street after the Mayor of London said he would campaign for


Britain to leave the EU. THE SPEAKER: Statement, the Prime


Minister. In the Commons, the Prime Minister had his chance to respond.


I'm not standing for re-election. I have no other agenda than what is


best for our country. I'm standing here telling you what I think.


Interpreted by all as a swipe at Boris Johnson's supposed Prime


Ministerial ambition. The mayor's view that we can get better terms


with the EU by leaving was dismissed by Mr Cameron as fanciful. Sadly, Mr


Speaker, I have known a number of couples who've begun divorce


proceedings, but I do not know of any who've begun divorce proceedings


in order to renew their marriage vows. The jeering there was on the


Labour side, but it continued amongst some on the Conservative


side when the mayor at last got to his feet to ask a question. Tuck


your shirt in Boris. ... The Prime Minister, to explain to the House


and to the country in exactly what way this deal returns sovereignty


over any field of law making to these Houses of Parliament? This


deal brings back some welfare powers, it brings back some


immigration powers, it brings some bail out powers, but more than that,


because it carves us forever out of ever closer union, it means that the


ratchet of the European Court taking power away... The mayor appears to


reply "rubbish". It is, of course, absurd to reduce this debate into a


battle between two old school mates. That battle is emblem attic of a


schism at the heart of the Parliamentary Conservative Party.


The danger is the more that's said over the next four months, the


harder it will be for the party to come back together again. Liam Fox


is a former Defence Secretary, campaigning to leave the EU. It's


unwise to make attacks, however amusic they are, on members of your


own side. I think the Prime Minister's to Boris Johnson wasn't


the wisest thing. How easy it will be to come back together after the


referendum will be largely dependent on how well we treat one another in


the run up to the referendum. You know, if you smash humpty to pieces,


it will be hard to put him together again. The one time the


Conservatives seemed truly united today was when they enjoyed this


heckle of Jeremy Corbyn. I was in Brussels meeting with heads of


government and leaders of European socialist parties, one of whom said


to me... "Who are you? The comment, watch as Andy Burnham fails to keep


a straight face. Perhaps the Conservatives should contain their


amusement, given the state of their party on Europe. A lot of people,


including myself, would have guessed a couple of months ago that the


floor was 50 Conservative MPs supporting leave. As it is, it looks


like they're on track to hit 100, which is a huge amount more. It's


interesting to see how that divides within different roles in the party.


If you're a Cabinet minister, your majority more likely to remain. If


you're a junior minister the leave percentage creeps up. The


backbenchers, perhaps a majority will support the leave campaign.


There are five ministers in the Cabinet now opposing the Prime


Minister. It is another MP who seems to have sparked Mr Cameron's anger.


Iain Duncan Smith is one of the gang of six -


the Cabinet ministers opposing the Prime Minister.


He made a comment over the weekend about how staying in would make us


more vulnerable to a Paris-style attack.


Well, I spoke to him earlier this evening in his office


I began by asking him where he stands on the issue


After another negotiation, the suggestion associated with Boris


Johnson. There is no plan for a second referendum. Governments can


change things if they wish, but to be honest, I would say to anyone


watching this, the choice is simply - are we going to leave or stay in


on that date. Then we're bound by that. Just how does it feel, I mean


as a loyal Cabinet minister, who's been in the Cabinet since 2010, how


does it feel to suddenly find yourself completely at odds with the


leader of your party and the Prime Minister? It's not easy. It's never


going to be easy when you take a decision to not to back your


Government. It's particularly difficult if you're in Cabinet,


where collective responsibility is ultimately the thing. This is


unusual. Then it's unusual times. You're responsible for benefits.


Yeah. Benefits have played a big part in the re-negotiation. You've


been pretty clear, you don't think what the Prime Minister negotiate


issed going to make a big difference, correct? It depends


whether you believe that actually this is the main reason why people


are coming here. My general view is there is a limited effect. There's


always been a limited effect. Some migrants come here for the benefits,


I'm sure. But the bigger effect is the fact that anyone can come here,


who is a member of the European Union, and then look for a job. The


majority come looking for work and it's the problems of the scale of


Tha'it displaces -- of that, which displaces communities. This is not


against migration, it's against the scale of migration and limiting it.


Controlled migration is the issue, which we can't do under the European


Union. You were disappointed with what the Prime Minister achieved?


Look, I don't think that the agreement as it stands actually


reverses or changes anything dramatically. That's not to be


churlish about there were some successes. It is a success, to a


degree, to get any change from the European Union. Let's not get this,


it's being sold as a great moment of change, I don't think I believe


that. My main concern is - whatever is on the table now may not yet be


what we finally use, because of course, we'll only get this after we


say we're staying in. The problem there is that we don't know that the


European Parliament won't modify it, no longer having a threat of Britain


leaving. We don't know what the commission will do or the council.


There are big issues and question marks but notwithstanding that, the


big issue is migration generally. Can I ask if you stand by remarks


over the weekend, in which you brought up the subject of


Paris-style attacks. I suppose I'm interested in what changes, if we


leave the EU, and why we would be safer from a Paris-style attack? You


stand by what you said? I am deeply concerned about potential threats to


this country. I think of all the capital cities of Europe, I think


London is probably the most significant target, other than


Washington. It's literally on that scale. I stand by my remarks. The


reason I stand by them is simple in answer to your question, we don't


know in the next two years or so, those who have actually been brought


in as migrants under this present chaotic system, we have to say it's


utterly chaotic, where half the checks aren't being properly done,


we don't know they won't be soon with passports or leave to remain,


fast tracked to some countries like Germany. We heard some countries


actually sold passports, my point is, in this chaos, it is feasible, I


believe, for some people to have basically become eligible within the


rules of the European Union and thus be able to come here even through


the European rules to our borders. That is just a fact. So, that simply


means to me that there is still therefore a threat and that door is


not closed. I simply say having our on control of the borders, doesn't


mean to say we'd stop everybody, but we could do more of the checks. So


I'm interested, this is really important, because it's central to


the argument. What will we be able to do when a German passport holder


comes to the border that we can't do now? We would be able to create, as


we had in the past, a system whereby if we felt that somebody, we felt


suspicious about an individual and we wanted therefore not to allow


them in, that is our right to say no to them at that point. We may be


able to demand further background, background checks done, we may be


able to intear gait... We're not going to require visas, are we? My


point is, anybodying control allows us to make that check. What are we


stopped from doing now that you'd like us to do? If we feel somebody


is not what we consider to be a reasonable individual we can refuse


entry, we can't do that at the moment. How would we gain


information about them other than what we would have now? There are


lots of ways to get information. This is part of the exchange of


information that we have, with bi-lateral arrangements, like with


the United States. We know lots of people, we saw at the Paris attacks


were about, people not checked. If you talk of a Paris attack, people


picture bombers in Brussels coming through by car, driving straight to


Paris because it's a borderless zone. We do explosives checks when


you come on the tunnel. Two people check the cars at Dover when they


come through. It's completely different. We talked about the


intelligence systems between France and Belgium, but they weren't enough


to stop the attack. You were up against a lot of senior security,


let's call them the establishment, who have taken a very different


line. The head of Europol takes a very different line. We've had


comments from a former MI5 director, who takes a very different line. I


suppose this is an impertinent question, but who should the public


believe - should they believe you or should they believe... They don't


have to believe anybody, they just have to make their own judgment on


this. Do they think, what I'm saying, if we condition troll our


borders, on balance we will be more secure. I think it's impossible to


argue we won't be. It is bound to be that we would have an added element


of security. What they're arguing on a wider case, I'm saying now, if we


want a bit more security, controlling our own borders and most


people watching would agree with me, I think, means we would have a


greater likelihood of being more secure. I leave it at that. Iain


Duncan Smith, thank you very much. That's one side of the Conservative


schism, if you like. Ken Clarke is arguably the best


known Tory europhile. He has been arguing the merits


of Britain's membership of the EU He joins us from our Westminster


studio. Good evening to you. Just on the


narrow point that Iain Duncan Smith was raising there, about security


and control people coming in, you're a former Minister of Justice, on


that narrow point, certainly you're not going to be worse off if you


have better control over who comes into the country. I don't think he


could explain why on earth he said there would be more danger. We're


targeted by jihadists, it's a serious problem, because we're one


of the alliance fighting Isis in the Middle East. We've had terrorist


attacks here, which have been carried out by British people born


here. But obviously, this has to be tackled internationally. Within the


EU we're made stronger. The intelligence services believe, that


the chief constables believe that. We need the sharing of information.


We need the Europol set up and that is how we protect ourselves. The


idea that we cease to strive to maintain a system that makes sure


everybody cooperates in dealing with terrorists and on our own, we can


protect ourselves better, we're more at risk by being involved with other


people who might tell us if they come from Germany that they have


information that the person coming from Germany is a jihadist, I just


don't understand that. The idea that we're going to be introducing a


range of border checks, immigration checks, on everybody flying here


from Germany and that makes us safer than the present arrangements, which


are very much supported by the people who have the job of


protecting us day by day is, I think, a slightly fringe argument. I


don't think you'll find many Euro-sceptics pursue that.


Do you think, as I listen to you arguing with Iain Duncan Smith on a


very basic factual point, do you think your party can hold it


together, basically, for the next four months? I hope we do better


than when we had the Maastricht rebellion. We were divided then, the


Conservative Party. It was the old Imperial right who were against our


joining in the first place. Iain was the Chief Whip of the Maastricht


rebels and the tensions inside the party that were caused by the


Maastricht rebellion, I'm afraid, damaged the political integrity of


the Major Government. The fact is, since that time, the party's


operated well. It's a very successful Government. Iain has been


a very successful Minister inside the Government. Iain and I, and the


other Eurosceptics of capable of conducting this argument in


reasonable and sensible terms. I'm not remotely surprised that Iain has


insisted on being able to argue against this. I don't think anything


David Cameron could have negotiated would have stopped Iain Duncan Smith


being one of the most consistent, hardline Euro-sceptics. What did you


make of the taunting of Boris by the Prime Minister in the Commons today?


It did seem like that was coming dangerously close to beyond the


civil debate that he himself had suggested. He did it very lightly.


Everyone is looking for conflict - and there is a lot of conflict, I'm


not denying the party is divided on Europe, it has been throughout my


entire political career. The fact is, Boris had made a performance in


the first place, of which side he might be on. He has somehow hedged


his bets by saying, he might still be next time on the side of staying


in, it's an entirely individual position, which I suppose is rather


typical of Boris. I don't think what the Prime Minister said was said


with malice. I think Boris could have slayed himself. He doesn't have


any strong views or convictions and he's obviously opened suspicion that


he's worked out that the right-wing activists in our party are more


likely to vote no, so he's come down on his own in order to get more


publicity at the weekend. In fact, I have tried to do that fairly lightly


myself. I think the Prime Minister was quite kind today and you are


bound to have in four months some fairly vigorous debate and Boris put


himself in a peculiar position using an argument that nobody else uses.


Let me take his argument seriously if we could? People have said that


you have another negotiation after this one. But it is true, is it not,


that after this referendum, if we voted to leave, a negotiation would


then ensue? In fact, we would negotiate ourselves back in to some


degree to quite a bit of what the EU package is, right? No, the Treaty is


clear. You can leave if you want. Actually, what happens if you vote


no, and you are leaving, you become an ex-member. No, but the Treaty...


You start a negotiation with the other 27, the European Commission


negotiates on behalf of the 27 remaining member states and what


they are negotiating is the basis of you leaving and that involves, given


you are not going to have the existing relationships with Europe,


what trade access do you want, what will they give you, what are the


terms going to be, what are you going to do if you are going to


continue to operate... What makes you think there isn't going to be a


political stitch-up, if you like, a negotiation in which they say, guys


you voted out, why don't you - let's see if we can do something here that


salvages a bit of your membership? That is what half the country and


Boris Johnson wants, isn't it? There is no basis upon which they can


negotiate. They can do whatever they want. They won't give anybody free


access to the market, which is our biggest single market, on the basis


we are free not to follow any of the rules, all of which have been signed


up to by British Governments in the past. The standards of which you


sell goods, consumer protection, environmental rules, they won't say,


we will negotiate with you but because you are Britain you can


still come in on the basis you don't have to comply with any of the rules


anymore. Or oh, we will negotiate with you, but... You won't pay your


contribution to the budget of running the market and helping the


poorer countries. It is not conceivable. All that will be


negotiated - and it is very difficult - is the best arrangement


that the 27 other governments will agree to to allow you some continued


access, collaboration, work with the European Union. The negotiations


will make the present air of uncertainty about exactly where you


are even worse. Time up, I'm afraid. Thank you very much.


Our last referendum on the issue of Europe was on June 5, 1975.


Spoiler alert: the result was in favour of staying.


Almost exactly two-thirds voted in favour of staying, in fact.


And interestingly, of the four nations of the UK, England


was the most enthusiastic for the EEC, far more


Well, lots has changed since then, but there are also


So it's worth spending a few minutes to look back on that experience.


Veteran film maker Michael Cockerell, who has made


documentaries on the 1975 referendum before, has been doing just that.


# Let's stay in the Common Market... # The choice was whether we should


stay in or get out of the Common Market. The referendum campaign was


a tragic economic tale that put together the strangest of bed


fellows. It was like tiptoeing into a brothel. You felt you might be


doing something that was daring. I have made many films since then.


I looked a bit different myself then.


Whether Britain stays in the Common Market or not depends on what the 21


members of the Labour Cabinet understand by the term


"renegotiation". The Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, faced with


an increasingly Euro-sceptic party, had come up with the idea of


renegotiations followed by an in-out referendum as a device for holding


his party together. The Cabinet was deeply divided. Roy Jenkins led the


majority of centrist pro-Market Ministers. Of the seven left-wingers


who wanted out, they were led by Barbara Castle and Tony Benn. Wilson


allowed his Ministers to campaign publicly against each other. On the


day the decision was taken by the Cabinet, the Ministers got together


and launched the "No" campaign. Wilson was very angry with us, but,


still, we took that position and we did have that right to do it. But


behind-the-scenes, the Labour Europhiles had, for months, been


organising for the referendum campaign with the help of the


businessman, who was to become Treasurer of the Conservative Party.


My family owned this hotel at that time. So I had some sway with the


management. Politicians from the left and right, who were normally


sworn political enemies, would be discreetly summoned to the


Dorchester. Somebody would telephone, say, could you come to


breakfast on Tuesday morning? You never knew who was going to turn up.


It was a group of people who wouldn't have wanted to sit down


together in a public restaurant. If this is what politics was going to


be like, this was a very attractive way of doing things. I lived so much


in the politics of the Labour Party. You had cold rooms and soft


biscuits. What was the point of the breakfast? It was planning the


strategy about who they were going to influence and how they were going


to fight this campaign. In the ballroom of the Dorchester, the Yes


campaign was launched by Roy Jenkins, who shared the platform


with fellow big cheeses from the Tory and Liberal Parties. Jenkins


repeated his pledge to resign from the Government the the people voted


to come out of Europe. I stand by that statement. I do not believe it


is good for British politics that people should stay in Government and


carry out policies which they believe to be profoundly mistaken.


At the Dorchester, I asked Roy Jenkins, the miner's son, how


damaging he thought a referendum campaign would be to the unity of


the Labour Cabinet. He said, I really do hope this whole referendum


campaign can be conducted without any rancour on either side.


The campaign to get Britain out of the Common Market was led by the


Industry Secretary Tony Benn. The public school-educated man of the


people, who had come up with the idea of the referendum. I cannot


believe that we shall not win on Independence Day a huge vote...


Unlike Roy Jenkins, Tony Benn refused to share a platform with


members of other parties. Other leading anti-Marketeers


included Enoch Powell. This mixed bag played into the hands of the


pro-European strategy. Unreliable people, dangerous people don't take


their advice, they will lead you down the wrong path. The whole


thrust of this campaign wasn't so much that it was sensible to stay


in, but that it was complete madness to come out. And anybody who


proposed that we came out was off their rocker, or virtually Marxist.


As the opinion polls start to turn against the anti-Marketeers, Tony


Benn decides to up the ante. He uses his authority as Industry Minister


to make a headline-grabbing claim about the effects of our membership


on the economy. Is 500,000 jobs lost and a huge increase in food prices


at a stroke, caused by the Common Market... I find it increasingly


difficult to take Mr Benn seriously as an economic minister. In which


this technique in which you just think of a number and double it, and


if challenged, you pretend you haven't been challenged and you


react by thinking up some new claim. Fleet Street was united in depicting


Benn as the bogey man of the No campaign. You became this demon


figure in the campaign and was... Who did that? The media did it.


Nothing to do with the personal - it was all the party leaders and the


newspaper proprietors were determined to destroy anyone who


took a contrary view. The cartoonists were in no doubt that


Benn's motivation was to replace Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. The


media was very strongly in favour of staying in. There were only three


papers that were in favour of coming out - one was The Spectator, one the


Daily Worker and one the Dundee Herald. In 1975 John Mills was one


of the organisers of the "No" campaign, setting up meetings across


the country. The campaign we ran was run on a shoestring compared with


the Rolls-Royce effort on the other side. Money rolled in. The banks put


in very large sums of money. It was very exciting. The big industrial


companies? Yes, they came in with very big sums of money. They raised


about twice as much money as we spent. How easy was it? Terribly


easy. Alastair McAlpine was working for Margaret Thatcher, who had


beaten Ted Heath, the man who had taken us into Europe. As the


Conservatives for Europe launched their campaign, the old and new


leader appeared together in public for the first time. Naturally, it is


with some temerity that the pupil speaks before the master because you


know more about it than any of the rest of us. Margaret Thatcher's view


about Britain's place in Europe then could be summed up in three words -


yes, yes, yes. I think it is absolutely vital that


everyone should turn out in this referendum and vote yes so that the


question is over once and for all, we are really in Europe and ready to


go ahead. Passionately opposed to Margaret


Thatcher over Europe was the Labour fire brand Barbara Castle, long


tipped to become Britain's first woman Prime Minister. As the


campaign neared the climax, with the debate at the Oxford union, Mrs


Castle was up against Ted Heath and the liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe.


They lured us into the market with the mirage of the market miracle.


Holding these views and passionately and sincerely as she can yous, may


we assume if the vote was yes, she will not stay on to administer those


policies as a minister. If the vote goes yes, my country will need me to


save it. Tonight, for the first time in this referendum campaign, Labour


minister meets Labour minister to discuss the arguments for and


against Britain's continued membership of the common market. In


a sense, we must give up some of our political liberty in order - No some


of our political sovereignty, which is a different matter. No question


of giving up liberty at all. Cut the umbilical cord that links the law


makers with the people and you destroy the stability of this


country. You are asking the British people now... To destroy democracy.


To destroy Parliamentary democracy. And to subject themselves to great


dangers in the future. Come on... On the eve of the referendum, Mrs T's


jumper features the flags of the nine common market countries. I


light this torch. She was lighting a torch for peace in Europe, with the


yes campaigning claiming after two world wars that only a unified


Europe with Britain as a member could prevent further wars. One of


our posters was precisely this, it's better to lose a little sovereignty


than to lose a son and a daughter. This was hard-hitting argument,


based, looking backwards, on all the casualties. Reassert the right to


rule ourselves, vote no. The votes were counted in vast arenas in 67


regions of the UK. It's beginning to look as if we may not have a single


no counting area in Britain itself. On a high turnout, the people voted


by two to one for Britain to stay in the common market. The only area


that's come veneer... Roy Jenkins was later to say he had so enjoyed


working with like minded Conservatives and liberals on the


campaign that he decided to form a new breakaway social democratic


party, the SDP. It helped keep the Tories in power for nearly two


decades. Tony Benn was demoted in the Cabinet, but over the following


40 years, his continued stoking of public disillusion with Brussels,


along with the spread of Tory Euro-scepticism led to a fresh


in-out referendum. So for me, it's deja vu all over again.


I could watch that archive all evening.


So what does 1975 teach us about the experience we are now


Joining me to discuss this is Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee,


a Labour member who voted to remain in the EEC,


as it was in 1975, and still wants to remain in the EU today.


She subsequently left the Labour Party over the issue


Also here is the former Telegraph editor, Charles Moore,


who voted to remain in 1975 but now thinks that was a mistake.


I did. My first vote, I was 18. I knew no better. But you're not going


to now? I think it's unlikely. Was it the wrong call to make? I do,


yeah. You've never had any doubts? No, I've never had any doubts. It


was The 1975 split within Labour, that's where it began. It led to the


SDP split. Let's talk about party dynamics and what the lessons are.


You can see it, there them arguing. Are you worried by what you've seen


today that the Conservative Party will struggle to... Yeah, it's bound


to be pretty tense, yeah. The fact that Boris and Michael Gove as well


as what people would unkindly call the usual suspects have come out,


means it's a very big division. It directly bears on David Cameron's


leadership, possibly even more than it did on Harold Wilson's. Going


back to '75, is there anything they should do? Should they try to avoid


two Cabinet ministers head to head in a pan trauma studio? -- pan


trauma studio? -- panorama studio? I think that's the idea. They can't


have a proper debate unless they are allowed to, because this is so


dependent on the Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor being able


to have the heft to swing the vote their way against the main


opposition. So if they don't debate each other, it will look very odd.


Labour people will be very well advised to keep off platforms with


Conservatives, it will do nothing to help bring Labour voters in. You


have the unusual spectacle of nobody being on a platform. Tory can't be


against Tory, Labour can't be... One of the reasons this is happening is


the amazing vacuum of Labour on this subject. Labour hope that the only


thing they can do about this is shut up. You can understand why they


think that. It is very odd. They're not really talkling on the most


important subject. The other thing that came out of that period was the


party re-alignment really. That must be something in the minds of folks.


You talk something like Chukka umunna and David Cameron agreeing


with each other four months, every day, in and out, in, and disagreeing


with some in their party. How will they go back? They are agreeing on


just one thing and on different grounds. You heard Corbyn, who made


a rather good speech, the things that we like about Europe, what we


support are the social guarantees, the working rights, the guarantees


for human rights, all those things that are prime motivations for the


Brexit people, those are the things they most want to sweep away. They


regard them as red tape. As obstacles. There is a deep


difference. When you try and find unity on a campaign together, it's


just harder. Isn't it harder to go back and fighting David Cameron,


say? No they'll be perfectly happy to get back to fighting. The


difference here is that what you had in 1975 was a clear split in which


the common market seemed like the future and its opponents seemed like


the past. The fact that you've got Gove and Boris coming in, they are


arguing for the future. They're saying the EU is out of date. This


is all something that is Twentieth Century. Now we're moving, they are


in the modernising wing of the party. I don't think it seems like


that really. I think that is definitely how they think. I think


that's definitely what they're saying. Everybody always thinking


they represent the future. Nobody ever says, "I represent the past."


What you've got this time is the same sense they're a bunch of


mavericks. There are quite a lot of them. Michael Gove is an interesting


man, but fairly maverick. Boris is off the scale for mar Rickness, you


look -- maverickness, you look around, then you look at the very


few Labour people, Kate Hoey, pro-handguns, antismoking... What


you're saying in fact is that these people are not members of the


establishment. As a member of the establishment you would be against


them. One of them is the Lord Chancellor. You can't get much more


establishment. No, character. Oh, establishment is character? It's


partly was going on in your head. What's clear about the 75 referendum


and this one, is that the establishments and the elites,


including the one that you're a member. Are you establishment?


Others will judge. I do. It's all the people who are not in the elites


who are challenging it. The difference between then and now, the


elites are weaker now. People are more dissatisfied with them. You're


just deciding to call them elites. They are. I'm afraid we have to hold


it there. We could carry on arguing, when the show finishes.


The great thing about a referendum is, of course,


Or maybe you think that's the worst thing about it -


but it is true, Boris Johnson and David Cameron have two votes,


the same number as any other dysfunctional couple up


So let's get a flavour of what the people think in one


It has a Conservative MP, one who is campaigning to leave.


Katie Razzall has spent the day there.


45 minutes by train from London, Peterborough's got one of the


fastest rates of population growth in the UK. This town of 185,000 or


so saw an extra 25,000 arrivals in ten years, more than half of them


from eastern and Central Europe. For this place, and many others like it,


immigration will loom large as people decide how to vote in June.


The local Conservative MP here is a renowned Euro-sceptic. Today Stuart


Jackson told me he believeds Peterborough will vote to leave the


EU, having experienced first hand the consequences of Europe's free


movement of labour. This afternoon he put out a statement to his


constituents explaining why he'll be voting no. He called the EU an


anachronism, and said Britain will thrive outside it. The school gates


are an example. 30 rang wadges are spoken by kids here. The local


council has created places, primary school numbers are up by a quarter


in five years. Peterborough has always welcomed different


nationalities. It's just a numbers game, is how many and I don't know


that anybody can quauntify or -- quantify or decide how many people


can you add to a city before the pressure builds and builds. There


has to be a ceiling somewhere. Do you think you've reached the ceiling


yet? It's difficult to say. From my perspective, in this school here,


it's been very well done in terms of it's been a year group at a time.


Suddenly we didn't get 100 extra pupils, it was 30 at a time, one


year after the other. It's been manageable. In June, whether our


relationship with the EU is manageable, will be decided by


people here. Get out. We need to get out. When you decide how to vote,


what are the main drivers for you - immigration, movement of people?


What is it? I think it's overall. Immigration is part of it.


Generally, I think for us it would be better to stay with the EU than


come out of it. I'm all for mixed culture. It's fantastic. If you're


going to let lots of people in, you have to be organised and know where


you're going to put them, what they're going to do for a living.


They can't just come in and stick them somewhere and hope they fend


for themselves. You need a plan of action. We don't have one at the


moment. While some point to overstretched services, others argue


that Peterborough's economy is thriving. Unemployment is down.


7,000 new jobs have been created here in three years. This small


business opened two years ago, supplying retailers by lights


imported from both inside and outside the eewe. -- EU. I am


undecided. I am worried about the future of the UK outside of Europe,


in terms of the huge amount of change that might occur with all


those trade agreements having to be renegotiated. I don't believe


immigration is a wholly bad thing, though I have great sympathy with


people who are in the worst part of immigration. I am waiting to be


convinced. Already convinced is the warehouse manager, a cheerleader for


all things EU, he's scathing about Boris Johnson's decision to join the


leave side. I think it's foolhardy. It's more about him becoming leader


of the party? I think so, without a doubt. It's actually, that yeah. He


just wants to mark his card that he's the man for the job, basically.


But at the expense of the British electorate. I don't want anyone to


misinform us and take us down the wrong road for the wrong reasons.


Which way will Peterborough go? Inside the famed cathedral, a


reminder of our country's historical connection with Europe. Cathryn of


air gone, a -- aragon is buried here, a totem perhaps for the


complexity of separation. Will we keep up this Europe thing


for all of the next four months? I'm back again tomorrow, we'll see then.


That's all for tonight. Good night.


Download Subtitles