08/03/2016 Newsnight


Is Europe giving Turkey control of the migrant crisis? The Bank of England stance on the EU referendum and Donald Trump's Scottish mum. With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Slovenia restricts its borders from midnight tonight.


A plan is hatched to stop the migrant flow, but it's messy,


morally complicated - possibly illegal.


We are outsourcing problems to Turkey. They will decide who is a


refugee, that is now the Turkish government who will decide and no


longer the European Union. Would Europe solve the migrant


crisis better without the EU? And what place would Britain


want to play in it? The plan is to let more than one


train company run a local franchise. Will they just cherry pick


the most profitable routes? A lot of competition sounds great


but where is the public interest, who will run services that do not


make a profit, and who will allocate the use of an already congested


line, which trains will get permission to run?


We visit the Isle of Lewis - now better known as Donald Trump's


What light can locals shed on the Republican frontrunner?


He does not behave as people up here would behave. He is extremely full


of himself. And will three-quid lobster


be the new spag bol? We talk democratisation


of the elite crustaceon. From midnight tonight,


the main Balkan migration route into Europe


will effectively be closed down Slovenia will enforce the demand


for valid EU visas at its borders. The move will have


a knock-on effect. Serbia will shut down its borders


with Macedonia and Bulgaria, which means the thosuands


of migrants currently stranded EU leaders talking long


into the night to find a solution to this flow have come up


with an improbable sounding one. The Turkish Prime Minister has


agreed to readmit all those leaving his country -


if the EU agrees to take refiugees -- refugees from Turkish


camps in exchange. The practicalities sound fraught,


messy, even illegal. But the underlying message


is becoming clearer. The days of irregular migration -


as Donald Tusk remarked - are over. Tonight, we look at the refugee


crisis not just through the prism of Brexit, but through questions


about what the European Union Our first report comes


from Gabriel Gatehouse. If the announcement of the deal


was designed to send a message, then it hasn't reached


its target audience, They continued to arrive


on Greece's eastern islands. More than 700 of them today,


adding to the tens of thousands already in the country,


hoping to make their The agreement has yet to be


finalised, but if it is, Turkey will take back


all irregular migrants. That means people like these,


making cold perilous journeys in rubber dinghies without


the proper documentation. In return, Turkey, already home to


2.7 million Syrian refugees, gets a mass resettlement programme under


the principle of one in, one out. Here is where things get


controversial. Here is how it is supposed to work. Let's say a boat


with 18 people aboard is intercepted in the Aegean and half of them are


Syrians, under the agreement all will be returned to Turkey but in


exchange nine of the Syrians living in refugee camps in Turkey will be


flown to the EU for resettlement. No doubt with more than half an eye on


the EU referendum, David Cameron made it clear Britain will not take


part in resettlement programmes. We have a rock-solid, he tweeted last


night. The Danish have a similar get out clause, but other EU nation


state. It does not mean they will throw open their doors. This is the


only country where refugees are considered a rock-solid vote loser.


Slovakia and Poland are hostile to the idea. If this is to work, it


will be Germany, putting together an ad hoc coalition of the willing. The


Czech republic and Greeks are in and the Dutch would like to join and


probably others, but that leaves questions, especially over numbers.


By way of precedent the EU last year agreed a quota system for 160,000


refugees already in Europe. To date, fewer than 700 have been rehoused.


Critics of the agreement say it is pointless doing deals in Brussels


without getting individual member states on board. We see member


states are not capable, not in the capacity to find a common European


response. It is not the first time. We saw it with previous crises. Why


is this? Because they think is a European Council and con federation,


deciding by unanimity, they can solve the problem. That is not true.


We need a common European response. We need a European coastguard,


asylum system and migration system to tackle this. If the countries are


not willing to establish common policies, European policies, we will


have more problems in the future and more crises to come. If the deal


does not run into political difficulty it is likely to face


legal obstacles. The UN says the arrangement could contravene


international law. It only talks about refugees from Syria, that


account for less than half arriving in Greece. What about people from


Iraq, Afghanistan? It is difficult to do blanket -based returns of


people on nationality without looking at individual claims. I


think it is inevitable the returns will be challenged. Individuals in


Greece will be able to access Greek courts and make applications to the


European Court of Human Rights and there are basic principles of


international law, which means the consequences of return in each case


must be examined. Meanwhile migrants and refugees keep on coming, piling


up on Greece's closed northern border. Turkey will receive the


lives of euros, visa free travel, it has called it an important victory


for its citizens. In Europe they could soon be asking if they have


paid too high a price for something that might not work.


So does a union of 29 European countries look like the best way


And would Britain find it easier to work out its own response


to immigration from the inside or the outside?


Joining me is Labour MP Gisela Stuart and the Conservative


You are an inner. You have seen this for yourself and visited the


islands. When you look at the proposal the Turkish PM is putting


forward, does it sound workable? It does provided some of the week


processing eyesore is corrected. The islands are in utter chaos, with


nobody doing processing of paperwork or human beings, yet they were


promised money. I think the theory of this deal, putting aside legal


debate, is potentially great, but it must be complemented by processes on


the ground and somebody needs to organise it. The idea it is a


blanket ban, returning people without questioning where they have


come from, it sounds on workable and illegal. I am not an expert on


asylum law. It seems Europe is trying to find a solution and if


that means parking the rule book for a moment to better the life chances


of this people, it must be worth looking at. They have come up with


something, a plan that is potentially workable. Do you commend


them? Do you see the importance of the EU at a time like this? Part of


the reason we have the problem is of their own creation. If you go back


when we had the crisis in Libya and the Italians tries to control


borders and it was not financed by the EU. It failed in Malta, Italy,


it goes on failing. We have this situation where in your PC said we


need to find a common answer. There comes a point where you say you are


failing to find a common answer. Because they are wedded to the


single currency and free movement of labour, they are refusing to accept


there was a problem with Schengen when you did not have internal


borders, this isn't working. Are you suggesting Europe has created this


problem? He was right when he said the countries are outsourcing


controls of the Borders. Large European countries, Germany and


France, have for many years outsourced the responsibility to


Greece, Italy, southern borders of Spain, without accepting the


consequences. This is what is happening, the consequences of that


failure. Outsourcing, it sounds like it comes at a price, the concessions


Turkey is asking for that Turks would have visa free travel. And we


are putting membership of the EU for Turkey on the table. It is massive?


It feels a massive price to pay. I do not disagree with anything you


have said. I think Britain feels like that, we have received between


us, we are all right, Jack, but it is now coming to everybody's doors,


which means an opportunity for Europe to work together. 90% of the


1 million who came in in the past year are people who came through


that route. Nothing of this is addressing it. Turkey, which is


behaving in liberally, more than it has for a long time, we would not


grant membership. We are suddenly saying it is fine. We have a


sequence of short-term solutions that rather than solving down the


line problems, aggravates them. If the politicians who made those


decisions would pay the price, I would say OK. It is the thousands of


people and children paying the price for political failure. Would you


concede membership of the EU for Turkey is worth it? That they will


help solve this. It is not a perfect and instance acceptance. There are


hurdles to be accepted and I do not think it should circumvent those,


but do I think we have to put ourselves in a Brave new world of


finding a deal that helps everyone, because it is so large now. Turkey


in the EU? If it means we have to get around a table that feels


unpalatable to start with... Do you think David Cameron, George Osborne,


arguing to remain in, would be comfortable with an enlarged EU


including Turkey? I think they feel reasonably confident because despite


the potential deal with Turkey, we are not obliged to take any


migrants. I think morally we should take more. There is no necessity for


us to do, so in some ways we have the special relationship. I find it


extraordinary. As it happens, it has been our failure to deal with Turkey


properly. And their membership applications which has been part of


the problem, but now it is behaving in liberally added time but it has a


population equal to Germany, and we are being told Britain will have a


say, the voting weight with either same as Germany, probably larger


than the UK, this requires thinking through. It is not a short-term


response to a deep crisis. I would rather go back and say, look at


Schengen, look at the Freedom of movement and when it serves a


purpose, strength in dealing with smugglers. Strengthen what Nato is


doing. Then we might get somewhere, but not like this. A combined


strategy. How many should be take? You say you are not on the same


level as the government. Where should the UK obligation go? I think


it is a moving feast and we need to say 20,000 might not be enough, but


if this plan works and we stem the flow and stopped a separate between


economic migrants and those who need asylum. 50, 100? You must have a


sense of how far this reach would go. I sense it could double. I am


interested in the orphaned children. People say I'm accompanied, but


these are children who genuinely have nobody in the world. Those


children, I think we have an obligation to take. Thanks.


Meanwhile, the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has


come under fire from Brexiters for his remarks


He stopped short of advising the UK to stay in, but he said an exit


could hurt Britain's economy and prompt some banks to abandon


London as a global financial powerhouse.


Lord Lawson called the intervention entirely political


Or is it unrealistic to ask our business and financial


leaders not to get involved in such a crucial debate?


The issue is the biggest domestic risk to financial stability.


Because, in part, of the issues around uncertainty, but also, if I


may just finished quickly, because it has the potential, depending on


how it is prosecuted and how these issues can be addressed, to amplify


risks around accounts, potential risks around housing and market


function, which we will try to mitigate, and also associated risks


with respects to the euro area. The reason I am asking is that example


in themselves. You say it is more than a little extra volatility, this


departure? It would represent more than that? Or are you saying that is


all it is? I'm saying it is a risk, the biggest domestic risk to


financial stability. The European Union regulation achieves the


highest international standard. There are some exceptions but in the


name, that is the case. If we were to be outside, the question is how


much influence would we have? One would expect some activity to move,


certainly there is a logic to that. And there is a view that has been


expressed publicly and privately by a number of institutions that they


would look at it and I would say that a number of institutions are


contingency planning for that possibility, major institutions


headquartered here, so there would be an impact.


Richard Tice is co-founder of the Leave.EU group.


Also from the perspective of a property developer, is that right?


Do you really think we should be gagging those who might help the


public understand these incredibly competitions? No, definitely not. It


is actually the prime minister who has been trying to gag people,


initially ministers, cabinet members, and recently John Waller.


So you have no problem with Mark Carney today? I do not and let's be


clear, he has not made any recommendation either way. They also


said that no conference of assessment has been made. He


mentioned risks and risks everyday in our lives in business and


domestic life. I do happy with him coming out and saying that there


will be risks involved? -- are you happy. There are permanent risks in


business, as I have said, and life is full of risks. But he also said


today that the bigger risk, the global risks, China, and other


things that he inferred, for example possibly the American economy. So


actually, to refer to this as a domestic risk, we could argue it is


good news for the leave campaign. Does it make you embarrassed when


people on your side, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Treasury Select Committee,


or Lord Lawson, when they say he has been wrong to come out, that he has


been a political animal to get involved. You seem more relaxed. I


am relaxed. At the end of the day, the government governor of the Bank


of England has a role to play but he has said clearly he is not making a


recommendation. Equally, the bank of a bond is part of the establishment


and they will not go against the government. Ultimately, the people


have a view of what the establishment is saying, and we are


relaxed about it. -- the bank of England. He has referred to the


domestic issues, the bigger global risks. The proof is in the pudding.


Take HSBC. They have recently decided to keep their global


headquarters in London after a two or three year review. That could


easily have been deferred until after the Brexit vote. But they


didn't, they made the commitment to stay in London because it is the


best global financial centre. That is a huge statement of intent. What


you do with all that weight on the other side, whether it is the CEO of


BA, or has there, Marks Spencer is, Heathrow and Gatwick airports,


if people are saying, I recognise and trust that brand, and I believe


in that CEO, and they are all, overwhelmingly on the side of


remaining. What does that tell you? We have had companies like Nissan


and Toyota, JCB, huge companies saying it would not affect


investment plans and plans for UK jobs. Take a throw. They want a


third runway and that is a government decisions open Number Ten


says, please sign this letter, are you going to deny that? Of course


not. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You think they are all


politically pocketed by the government? They are all being


pushed into this? That is a very good example. The government


admitted to organising the letter of the team leaders. A lot of them


declined to sign it. Then the military letter, Number Ten got that


wrong. Would you say that BA is being pressurised, Asda, Marks


Spencer? Vodafone? I wonder how far you think the tentacles of


government reach. The leaders of those businesses are generally


corporate managers who have risen through corporate life.


Entrepreneurs, Peter Hargreavess of this world, people in the city like


Oliver Hemsley, people like Peter Cruddas and Terry Smith, the


entrepreneurs in the city are almost exclusively, by and large for out.


That tells you a lot about the real risk takers and where they see


opportunities. I don't know what you would call her an entrepreneur or a


risk taker but we have the front page of the Sun, which says that the


Queen backs Brexit. The EU is going the wrong direction, she says. She


is hailed as a backer of Brexit after details emerged about an


alleged bust up between her and Nick Clegg over Europe. Is that an


overwhelmingly political intervention. I think that seals it.


I am a royalist and the Queen is always right. Let's vote tomorrow.


And you think that will shut up everyone on the no campaign, on the


Brexit campaign, saying that we cannot let big figures, the Mark


Carneys of this world get involved? I have to say, this is from the sun


and we have not had Palace confirmation, but does that stop


anyone moaning about big figures getting involved? Anyone can get


involved. Publicly. You are proud to see her come out and say that? Yes.


I am proud to see people stand up and get counted but when people like


John Longworth stand up and be counted, they make clear it is a


personal view, to then be forced to resign... Can the Queen not have a


personal view? She is as entitled as anybody. The real point is that all


of us should stand up and be counted, rather than being shamed


into silence. Thank you for coming in.


How to run railways, though, is a problem we've


Over the past two centuries, we've tried more or less every


conceivable system of financing and regulation


of appointing the Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine.


The question is a live rail in politics once again,


with Labour promising to renationalise


While last year, the government launched a review into the future


Into this mix today the public body charged with giving power


to consumers called for far more competition on the rails.


Turning the monolith of British rail into an overlapping network of


competing companies was not an easy job. British rail may have been the


nation's aunt Sally but at least it is a single entity. Tomorrow becomes


art group of 25... Like designing the French republic, we have tried


quite a few different systems on our railways. Revolution has never been


far away. Rail privatisation was supposed to introduce competition


into the system at the bidding phase. The companies would compete


for the franchise. But once the franchise was won, passengers will


get little choice of which company they travelled with to a given


destination. This is the system at the moment. East franchise -- each


franchise controls its own route. But the competition in markets


authority today recommended allowing different companies to compete for


passengers along the same routes. Their logic, in a more competitive


environment, companies will push to be more efficient, and for there to


be better use of existing capacity, so there are benefits for the


network and the tax payer who help to subsidise the railways. The


current franchise system is not competitive. 12 of the last 16


awards have not been subject to open competition. Competition sounds good


but would it be like the buses, where there are lots of companies


that want to run the profitable routes but nobody wants to run the


other routes? So where is the public interest in all of this? There is


already some competition in the system. This train is about to leave


for Birmingham out of London Marylebone. The operating company


that runs it is in direct competition on that route for


passengers and their business with companies that run out of Euston.


Passengers heading to Birmingham might prefer the free Wi-Fi here, or


one of the other companies out of Euston. One promising faster journey


times and the other cheaper fares. If you look at the routes that we


serve, London to Birmingham is one of the fastest-growing rail markets


in the country. There are eight trains every hour between London and


Birmingham, competing on price, quality and speed. Passengers get


great results from that. But critics say it is far easier to get train


companies competing when there are lots of passengers to play for. On


less popular routes, even one company may struggle to break even.


The loss of competition sounds great and it could work. -- lots of


competition. But we have to delve deeper. Webb is the public interest?


Who will run the services that do not make a profit and who will


allocate the use of an already congested line? Which trains get


permission to run? Last year we opened the first new rail route for


100 years. That was designed to directly compete with the government


train company. Oxford is not the biggest city in Britain but there is


enough competition to make it work. For the railways, the move ahead is


unclear. The report on Network Rail is expected imminently. Network Rail


is the state owned company which manages and maintains our


infrastructure. There has been spec elation that the report will


recommend it should be broken up and we privatised. Meanwhile, the Labour


Party's policy is for the entire system to be renationalised. There


is certainly no shortage of edition between ideas. -- no shortage of


competition. The billionaire who makes


Donald Trump look hard up - Michael Bloomberg -


ruled himself out of This as Trump and Clinton lead


the polls going into the next round of American primary races


in Michigan and Mississippi. Donald Trump's mother,


as he was happy to tell anyone Scottish when he was trying


to build his Aberdeen golf course, comes from a simple crofter's


cottage in the Outer Hebrides. Trump's cousins still live


there and the billionaire himself in Trump 1 to get in


touch with his roots. A sentimental journey


lasting almost three hours. Whilst so many of us have thrown


ourselves around America on the desperate trail of the US


presidential hopeful, one man, a little bit


older, a little bit wiser, believed he could find out


more from staying closer to home. That man, none other


than my colleague, Stephen Smith, headed to the wind-lashed island


of Lewis to find out things about Donald Trump that America can


only dream of. A windblown, God-fearing island,


rich in peat and Gaelic heritage No wonder Donald Trump likes


to boast of his links to Lewis. Did it help to make him


the man he is today? And how have the values


of these hard-working, plain-speaking


folks shaped the They are not for blowing


their own trumpets here. They are not ones for


fanfaring themselves. No matter what your position


in life, you are treated There are brilliant people,


very warm-hearted people. We are very proud of people


who make such a great impact And I mean the hairdo,


let's be honest, it could be I am on a whistle-stop tour


of the island in search of answers Donald's mother, Mary MacLeod,


came from the tiny She left for New York


when she was 18 and ran into a builder called


Trump, and the rest, The Trumps told US


TV viewers they saw # If you go, will you send back


a letter from America... The tycoon visited


his mother's old home in 2008, spending as much


as a minute and a half inside the pebble-dashed


croft house. All in all he clocked up almost


three hours on the peaty Lewis It seems the women come back


and the men go out and try I have been busy building


jobs all over the world, and it is tough to find


the time to come back but this seemed an appropriate time


because I had the plane, Trump's cousins still


live in Tong, but they The Western Isles, including Lewis,


rejected the Yes campaign in the Scottish


independence referendum. And Trump has had his ups and downs


with the nationalists over his golf course, a solid two-iron


away on the mainland. # I don't mind the politicians,


I don't mind the rain... Putting the folk into focus group,


this bunch in Stornoway were among the few willing to share


their thoughts about Mr Trump. Do you know anyone who says,


don't quote me, but I am dead I've not heard it, I've never


heard his name mentioned. I think he doesn't


behave as people up here He is extremely full of himself,


which people here aren't. Do you know about


the family, what are The stereotype is all Lewis


stories are gloomy. The definition of a happy ending


of a Lewis story is if you get There is another seam


of Lewis stories - the clever peasant girl


who gets one over the laird. Isn't the story of Mary MacLeod


a brilliant real-life Lewis Here she is, a girl


from the country, who goes away to New York, and her son could be


president of the United States, that is going to be


part of Lewis folklore. You are the first


person who says so! In Lewis, our main


passion is blood sport. I know it is not fashionable


in the rest of Britain, but we like blood sport


but our blood sport is genealogy - The qualities I would


hope he would take from these islands is


the qualities of kindness. Being accepting of others,


regardless of religious beliefs, regardless


of what country they are from. Donald Trump is a chip


off the old block. He can trace his ancestry


to these ancient He is from Lewis, up


to a point, but it would be stretching things to


say he is of Lewis. But just as we were leaving,


a sign - a pot of gold attended What does the price of lobster tell


you about the state of the economy? It's the kind of question regular


viewers of Newsnight wont be And its prompted by the the arrival


of the ?2.99 lobster Lobster, although blue-blooded


itself, was not always the preserve Until the mid-19th century,


it was known as a food Even servants would stipulate


a contractual refusal to eat it more So how did it rise -


and what is helping it now fall - Joining me is food


historian Dr Polly Russell. And Adam Leyland, editor


of The Grocer website. And our lobster is centre stage.


This is a great thing, isn't it, to have a lobster that costs ?2 99? It


is certainly great that food is made available to large numbers of


people, especially food that has been the preserve of the wealthy.


That is exciting, it is good news, but not a wholly good news story


because part of the reason the cost of the lobster is so inexpensive is


because there has been a rise in the amount of lobster in the North


American area, and that is a result of climate change, which has meant


they are breeding more rapidly because the temperature of the Seas


is rising and also because we have decimated cod stocks and that is


their natural predator and they are no longer eating them. Something


good about it, but not wholly good. The cod and lobster have swapped


over because cod was always readily available and cheap. Cod stocks are


at risk, although being managed in different oceans, but there was a


time when cod and lobster, particularly on the coast, were


flourishing and were cheap and that has changed. Should it put people


off, anyone reaching for a cheap lobster, do you have to say, I am


devastating the world when you do this? I don't think you do because


lobster has always been freely available. Huge volumes over there.


Stop is at the highest level for 100 years. That therefore serves 100


years ago, before global warming had been mentioned as a concept, there


was a huge amount of lobster available. It used to stack up six


feet high on the seashore. It used to be fed to chickens and pigs and


so one. The marketing people took over with lobster and turned it into


a luxury, but it never was a luxury, particularly in the Northwest


Atlantic, it was saved freely available. It is about the


democratisation of the product. ?2 99 is a low price that this


particular discounter has made available for a limited period for


vouchers people have received. You cannot walk in there, a restaurant


cannot go in and buy it and serve it in their restaurant. Would you say


it changes the way we think about lobster? I call it the new spaghetti


Bolognese, perhaps that is overdoing it, but perhaps it changes the


perception of lobster. There have been products that were very


expensive and have become cheap. One last point, this is a Marine


stewardship Council certified lobster. Therefore it is not the


case we are raping the Seas, it has been carefully monitored. The


artificiality was the rising of the price.


There are two points. They might be sustainably fished, I am not


bringing up that is an issue, but there is a broader story, about


rising sea temperatures, and about climate change, in which the food


industry play some part. I'm not saying these in particular. The


climate change argument that makes people stop in their tracks, but a


lot of foodstuffs have changed hands, whether it is the oyster...


What is significant is where you have seen significant shifts in the


consumption of food, say chicken, where it was very expensive in much


of the 20th century, until the 50s, and you see the rise of intensive


farming and refrigeration and the cost is driven down and it is


cheaper, the same with pineapples. 18th century, expensive, by the late


19th century they are farmed and coming over and they are cheaper.


These changes are driven through, changes in farming, production


techniques and transport. What we are seeing here is different.


Something that has changed because of climate change. Not something we


are controlling. So this comes from a slightly less comfortable


perspective? The climate is changing and that is worrying. The fishing


industry, if the sea is changing, is not because of the fisheries. If it


is getting warmer it is because it is getting warm. Arguably there is


all sorts of foodstuffs that will be affected by climate change. In this


case, it is not the case it is only there, this printer., it is not only


there because of global warming. -- this stock. This is the case it is


plentiful, but in five years it could potentially not be the case.


Thanks. That is it tonight. For those who feel that life has


become cluttered by very simple things made too complicated,


we leave you with this, Swedish musician Martin Molin -


who's built a Rube Goldberg machine - defined as a contraption,


invention, device or apparatus that is deliberately over-engineered


to perform a simple task This Marble Machine


definitely qualifies. The weather looks like settling down


but we have got to get there and it is not a pretty picture. Tomorrow a


lot of brain around. Strong winds. Unpleasant in England and Wales. In


Northern Ireland, it will be bright and dry and a nice afternoon to come


here. In Scotland, brighter conditions easing in from the west.


Rain towards the eastern coast. Rain for much of the day across the heart


of Central and eastern England and it will feel cold and bleak. A cold


northerly wind. Some drier spells at times. Not to be relied upon and


further wet weather across southern and eastern areas of England. In the


south-west, after a wet and windy start, things should brighten up and


dry up. The wind will slowly die down but


Is Europe giving Turkey control of the migrant crisis? The Bank of England stance on the EU referendum and Donald Trump's Scottish mum. With Emily Maitlis.

Download Subtitles