22/02/2016 Newsnight

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.