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