06/04/2016 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. The Dutch say no in their Europe referendum vote, will it affect the UK debate? Plus the latest on the Tata steel crisis and buying guns on Facebook.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



A referendum vote that goes against the EU.


What message are European voters trying to send?


It's was not a vote about Dutch membership, and two thirds


of the country stayed away from the polls,


but the No campaign here will still take


Should we have hope or fear for the future of the British steel


industry, with Sanjeev Gupta the front runner to buy it?


It was done on the back of an envelope because we didn't have


access. It started a week ago, so we don't have any access to the data.


So you have done a back of the envelope calculation? Yes.


Also tonight, how to buy a Kalashnikov on Facebook.


We found a number of portable defence systems, shoulder fired


anti-aircraft systems. These are basically a threat to civilian


aviation. And I'll show you mine,


if you'll show me yours. We'll discuss how far


is transparency the answer to the questions raised


by the Panama Papers. Well, a blow to the EU


tonight in a public vote. A Dutch vote on the EU


treaty with Ukraine. Normally it wouldn't


come to a referendum, of signatures can get


it on to the ballot, And according to exit polls


in the vote today, the Dutch have rejected that Ukraine Association


Agreement. But one can only suspect that wasn't


really what the voters It's being seen by those who want


Brexit as a key test of public Nigel Farage has been out


in the Netherlands campaigning. How does it play into the debate


around our referendum? Alex Forsyth is our correspondent


in Amsterdam and joins us now. Start by giving us the school, the


margin of victory for the rejection of people and the turnout. The


results are still coming in but we've had the exit poll and as the


results have come in they seem to confirm it, a turnout of 32% which


is significant because the threshold required to make the referendum


result valid was 30%. It has just snuck over that. In terms of the


result, the exit poll suggests 64% of voters who went to the polls have


rejected the idea of ratifying the deal between the EU and the Ukraine.


What that means in reality is still questionable because 27 other


countries in the EU have backed the deal, the European Parliament has


backed it. Now the Dutch Foreign Minister Mark Rutte has said that we


will have to look at this again, that the no vote cannot be ignored.


He will talk to the cabinet in the Netherlands and to the EU and decide


how to progress without -- the Dutch Prime Minister. Although this was


ostensibly about the Ukraine deal with the EU, there was a bigger


issue, a test of your scepticism in the Netherlands because this was


triggered by the Eurosceptic campaign, using a new Dutch law


which was designed to promote democracy to get a petition


signatures to get the referendum to happen and they say that the result


is a victory showing that people are frustrated about the EU and they are


not prepared to take it any more. Commenting on the Brexit debate here


and how much the Dutch Eurosceptics are aware of what's going on here


and how they are timing this against British events. And by being Anglo


centric in thinking that way? Is the British vote playing a role in Dutch


politics? Undoubtedly it is, I was at the campaign event in a town


north of Amsterdam a couple of days ago and Nigel Farage was there. It


was a Eurosceptic rally, organised by the people behind the reference


campaign but he was greeted with a very warm reception, people knew who


he was and the sentiment was that, we want a node in the referendum,


which they see as giving a bloody nose to Brussels, as giving a signal


to the UK that you can do the same -- a no vote. As you might expect,


the Brexit camps in the UK have left on the result of ready saying that


it shows that we aren't alone in our concerns about the EU in terms of


its expansion and what they see as its democratic shortcomings. By


trying to use this result to embolden the Eurosceptic campaign


and it might do that but this is a singular result, on paper to do with


the Ukraine. Although it plays into the Eurosceptic argument and will be


seen as a boost to the Brexit campaign in the UK, one might argue


that its impact on the public could be fairly limited in Britain. Thank


you for joining us. Daniel Hannan, the prominent


eurosceptic, is on the And Michael van Gaal ten is funded


at yes campaign joins us -- Michael van Halten. What do you make of


this? In every referendum, people have voted against Brussels, we had


one in Greece and in Denmark and now the Netherlands. People have had


enough of a remote and self-serving bureaucracy. A funny question but


wiped wouldn't people vote -- why wouldn't people vote against


muscles, given that this is an issue that people don't know much about?


-- against Brussels. Isn't it telling how you put the question? It


assumes that the European system lacks legitimacy and public support


and that of course we would want to kick it. Like in a by-election, the


incumbent government always loses them because people want to keep


them on their toes. But the idea of Europe is that we would all get


along better, that the Schengen group would soothe those animal


cities but in reality, Europe isn't working. I don't think that this


vote was really about the Ukraine agreement, which I voted for in the


European Parliament. On almost every metric the European Union has failed


to deliver what it promised, greater prosperity and national cohesion.


You have to agree that every time the voters are given a chance to


vote on anything European, they vote against it, don't they? Absolutely,


there is a big problem for Brussels and the EU in terms of how we


communicate with citizens on European issues. It has to be said


that in this election, the referendum today, only one third of


voters took the trouble to vote and actually much of the debates during


the referendum campaign has been about the referendum law itself.


This was the first time that we have had a referendum under this new law


and two thirds of voters stayed at home. Many people who support the


agreement stayed at home. The discussion will be about the EU, but


also about how we conduct politics. A lot of people supporting Britain


staying in the EU will say, goodness gracious, basically, if the Dutch,


one of the original six members, one of the original three, the Benelux


concept, the core of Europe, if they are showing such satisfaction with


the project, this is really a very serious problem -- such


dissatisfaction. It is clear that it is a problem for Dutch politics and


politics in the EU. Issues that ten, 20 years ago could be taken behind


closed doors and were self-evident now being questioned by people and


that is a healthy process, but one that politics has not become


accustomed to. Politicians do not know how to discuss and sell these


issues to the voters and that is something we have to address. Can


this be seen as a kind of anti-elite vote, as much as an anti-European


vote? Everywhere you see voters, like in the US, choosing outsiders,


and there is a bit of that? There is an element of that, people look at


the Brussels project, they see politicians and the big banks and


the big arms companies and the establishment and a feud diplomats


and civil servants and they say, what's in it for everybody else, a


valid question to ask. We have democracy because we have got away


from self-serving oligarchies. It is a should aim -- it is a pity that


people see Brussels going in the opposite direction. Is it going to


play much in the British debate? Only in the sense that we are not


alone, almost every referendum now, France, the Netherlands, Denmark,


goes against British integration, it is not a British eccentricity. If


the British were to vote to leave the EU, would there be pressure for


a membership referendum in another lens? No, there is still massive


support for membership of the EU in the Netherlands and people clearly


saw it as a separate issue. People voted because they felt that the


Ukraine was not the right country to do a deal with. The Dutch


overwhelmingly support membership of the EU. Thank you for joining us.


Now before we leave the subject of Europe, just time


will make its most important political decision for a generation,


whether to leave or remain in the European Union.


Some have made up their minds, but if you are struggling


through the quagmire of competing arguments,


Over the next two months, Newsnight will be devoting a series


of special programmes to some of the key issues,


like migration, security, the economy and sovereignty.


Only you can decide how you will vote but we can arm


you with some of the information you need to make a choice,


so join us for the first of these special shows this Monday.


The starting gun has now been fired on the future


Tata Steel said today the sales prospectus for its UK operations


will be released on Monday, and they are then looking


The Business Secretary Sajid Javid was in Mumbai today,


talking to Tata Steel, and stressing that he's


talking to other companies who are potential buyers.


The most prominent of those, some would say the only show


in town, in fact, is a company called Liberty Steel


It's a newish company which has recently acquired some other


But can this bid realistically herald a new era for British steel?


Our policy editor Chris Cook reports.


What links the Palm, this development in Dubai, and offers


above a sandwich shop on the Isle of Man, and the troubled Tartar


steelworks at Port Talbot? The answer is the man who hopes to turn


those steelworks around, Sanjeev Gupta, the head of Liberty. Today,


the Business Secretary was in Mumbai to talk to Tata about the prospects


of selling the steelworks on. One company that has come forward,


Liberty International, which has an interest in the British Steel


industry. I met with them, that is one example. What I would like to


see is many more coming forward and I hope that is what happens. Sanjeev


Gupta's company recently took over part of Scotland and before that, a


plant in Newport. For a spell that thought the plant was running, he


paid the staff for three months and gave them half pay for 15 months. We


have had a good experience, our members were there over the


transition period, short time workers and they were supported


through the process and we've been able to work constructively with him


and with the company which I think bodes well for any future


arrangement. What does Sanjeev Gupta plan to do? A brief the local MP


earlier today. In the end he would like to close down the blast


furnaces because he believes they are high cost. And replace them with


an electric arc furnace, which he would build from scratch on the


site, which uses scrap steel and import slab steel from elsewhere in


the world, potentially Brazil for example. They are the key elements


of his proposal. He also talks about keeping one blast furnace open


through the transitional period, and possibly even for longer. There are


some issues, the plan is hardly complete. The analysis has been done


on the back of the envelope because we haven't had access. This started


a week ago, we haven't had access to the data. So what you have done is a


back of the envelope calculation? Yes. The fact that he does not seem


across the details now may come back to hurt him, he has two conveys the


Treasury to help him and there is another reason why it Whitehall


might not want to give him assistance, this is the week that


the Panama Papers came out and offshore businessmen are not the


flavour of the month. That is a category that Sanjeev Gupta falls


into. I'm not referring to the fact that his registered address is at


the Palm in Dubai. He also has a holding company on the Isle of Man,


liberty is UK is registered here in the rooms above Tasty Bite on the


north of the island. That is not his main holding company, that is in


Singapore, and that is where Liberty Steel's ownership leads. Sanjeev


Gupta will have to answer questions about what is onshore and what is


offshore pretty quickly. There are more simple questions. 60% of the


workforce in Port Talbot is employed in the heavy end, managing the blast


furnaces and parts of the process that are closest to that. And of


course, a model that possibly looks at closing down the blast furnaces


causes concern because of the impact on jobs. There are not many other


takers for the Port Talbot works although a management buyout is


quietly being worked on. Right now, saving our steel is far from


straightforward. While we are on the subject


of business, here is remarkable story about the trade


in weapons, trade online. And I'm talking real weapons


here like Kalashnikovs or even surface-to-air missiles and above.


Traded via Facebook, of all places. Not here, you'll be relieved


to hear, we are talking about a market in Libya, a country


already awash with weapons. Colonel Gaddafi was an obsessive


buyer of weapons. During his 40 years in power he spent an estimated


$30 billion on arms, like a compulsive shopaholic, he bought up


anything he could get his hands on from the humble Kalashnikov to tanks


and mortars, missiles and minds. When rebel forces toppled his regime


five years ago, Qaddafi's tightly controlled stockpiles were thrown


open. Today these weapons are largely concentrated in the hands of


rival militia groups but in this lawless and divided country, it's


getting easier for anyone to get their hands on a gun or even


something bigger. Newsnight has been given access to data that shows how


arms are being traded openly on the Internet. Researchers have been


tracking weapons sales on a number of different online platforms. A


rocket propelled grenade launcher, offered for sale on Facebook.


Another seller comment on the picture that he has more missiles


for sale. Over a period of the year, the researchers monitored more than


1300 weapons sales, on just a handful of pages, most of them


closed the secret Facebook groups. The research was commissioned by the


small arms survey, a group that tracks weapons proliferation around


the world. We spoke to one of the investigators in Libya who wanted to


remain anonymous for his own safety. Basically the dealer comes with the


gun in the trunk of his car, and other phone calls, they meet at a


certain place, usually a public place, and they do the transaction


not so public, it's quite discreet, 100% cash. Much of the trade is in


small arms, pistols, rifles, the kind of thing an individual might


want to buy for personal protection, especially in a country as lawless


as Libya. But not all of it. More worryingly, the researchers also


found evidence of bigger weapons being bought and sold online. They


trekked nearly 100 separate trades in what are known as light weapons,


that is light as opposed to heavy artillery, but make the mistake,


this is serious stuff. Traditionally they were small arms, rifles,


machine guns, there were significant systems that could have impact,


terrorist use, including anti-tank weapons. One seller offered this


anti-aircraft gun for 85,000 Libyan dinar, about ?45,000, truck


included. These are the kinds of weapons the rebels used to overthrow


Colonel Gaddafi, the kinds of weapons you would buy if you want to


wage an insurgent campaign. These man portable air defence systems up


perhaps the most worrying, hand-held surface-to-air missiles that can


take a passenger plane out of the sky. The researchers found two


systems for sale, this reusable shoulder head launcher, on offer for


between 4000 and 8000 Libyan dinar, or about 2000 to ?4000. We found a


number of shoulder mounted anti air missiles, they are basically a


threat to civilian aviation. Researchers believe that people


wanting to buy these weapons are a number of the militia but they are


also more worrying implications. Can see that the weapons are leaking out


and given the flow we already see of human trafficking, and other illicit


flows across the water into Europe, it's not beyond the realm of


possibility we could see some of these weapons going across the water


into Europe. Most of the weapons tracked by the researchers came from


Colonel Gaddafi's Arsenal although some had been shipped to Libya


before or after the revolution. In this country it is difficult to


define this trade in legal terms, it is certainly unregistered and it's


definitely against Facebook policy. In a statement, they told us:


at the moment this appears to be largely internal trade, that is to


say the weapons are being bought and sold by Libyans, most likely for use


in Libya. But the ease-of-use and anonymity the Internet offers


suggests threat of these weapons is spreading beyond Libya's borders.


While we talk about what the leaked Panama Papers tell


us about tax avoidance and evasion, there is another angle.


If I'm evil or if I'm a tax evader or even just imagine I'm


the Prime Minister of Iceland, I tend to prefer my private


And our society has been complicit in allowing the rich and


powerful to have their secrets because we allow


everybody to keep their finances to themselves.


Well all of a sudden the culture of privacy or


secrecy, call it what you will, that culture is under threat.


Really because of the data stick, the


technology of data storage and data search, has made it easier than ever


before to dump terabytes of secrets into the public domain.


And now we have seen it done, you wouldn't want


your life to depend on data that had been leaked.


So do we welcome this new world of transparency?


The Prime Minister certainly says he does.


You're going to have so much information about what we do,


how much of your money was spent doing it and what the


This cloak of secrecy has fuelled all manners of


questionable practice and downright legality.


And work with us to spread this abridged transparency around


Is it fair to say the Panama whistle-blower has done more


to prise open the murky world of offshore companies than the Prime


But let's ask why would we want for transparency, why not and how could


we achieve it? There is enforcing the tax rules,


the difference between legal appointment and illegal evasion is


you should have no reason to hide the legal ploys. But we also like


transparency in order to know where people's money comes from. We can


all ask the question had that person get to be so rich. President Putin's


cellist friend, we can see just how good a cellist he must been to gain


his wealth. So is there and I commit against transparency? He is one


offered by the Chief Executive of HSBC to MPs went emerged he was


hiding his fortune offshore. My question was why you felt the need


is a Hong Kong domiciled person to create a Panamanian company. There


was no tax purpose, it was... It was purely to give me privacy within my


own company. Is that a good enough reason? I suppose you might say that


as well as the bankers, kidnappers and crooks would be interested in


his private wealth data. But let me ask, do you think everyone who wins


the lottery should have to take the publicity box? Using your own salary


should be published so I can look it up, like I can look up your house on


the land Registry but the site to find out who owns it and at what


price they bought it? If all that sounds bonkers, it is exactly what


those crazy Scandinavians do already. Sweden, Norway and Finland,


everyone's income and tax details are published online. But that


Scandinavian example does give us a clue into how we get more openness


if we wanted. We would need a wholesale change of culture we from


the principle that my business belongs to me, and that's a pretty


big shift. Think of all the concern around procedure and encryption and


how we want the government to stop finding out staff to stop that is


what we want to do as well as distributing data sticks to


whistle-blowers. Earlier I spoke to Tom Macan,


the former governor of the British Virgin Islands,


who thinks we need more I began by asking him


what legislation he would seek The legislation has to be passed


by the Virgin Islands House of Assembly and I think it needs


to involve a public register, so that anyone can gain access


and find out just who owns what. Because that is rather


difficult at the moment. In your experience, did the British


government push very hard The British Virgin Islands,


the clue is in the name, isn't it? Did the British government tell


them, look, we want a bit There was pressure throughout my


time towards the running of an efficient and legitimate


financial services sector. But I can't say that it enjoyed


ministers' sustained attention And indeed the system, as it runs,


is indeed reasonably well monitored. The weakness comes at the end stage,


knowing exactly who owns what. The fact that this information


is only available to the agent, probably the legal firm,


in the Virgin Islands. Could the British government,


and I haven't really managed to hear a clear answer on this,


could the British government told the richest Virgin Islands,


you are going to do this, because we tell you you have


to do it? It would be possible for the British


government to obtain an order in Council, which is the basis


on which the BVI constitution exists and the order in Council


could give an instruction. This would be the nuclear option, it


has only been done twice recently. That was to abolish


capital punishment, and to abolish discrimination,


legislation forbidding But I can't say that it enjoyed


ministers' sustained attention There was an extent to which this


was rather meaningless because there had been no capital


punishment for half a century, and the laws making homosexuality


is a criminal offence had So this would be a very major


departure from current practice. Let's discuss this issue


of transparency versus secrecy with the Guardian's Polly Toynbee,


and the tax lawyer James Quarmby who leads the private wealth team


at Stephenson Harwood LLP, James, first of all, things have


changed. Even today as we speak, the law here has changed about who owns


companies. How significant is the change? Extremely, because we are


the first country to introduce a fully public register of companies.


That's not just who owns the companies but the people behind


those companies. And the one behind the one behind that? It will trace


all the way through, they have come up with a concept called persons of


significant control. Because it gets ridiculous after a while, if


somebody has a 2% interest in the company, there is no point reporting


that. Say you have persons of significant control, whoever they


are, wherever they are, whatever they are hiding behind, they are


going to be reported. And that works for companies. The FT are reporting


that David Cameron, in 2013, obstructed a similar idea as regards


the trusts. And I think the Cameron defence is that they wanted to make


sure it worked on companies they thought trusts different.


This comes from the money-laundering directive in the EU. What the EU was


saying is, let's extend this to trusts. Most of the EU don't have


trusts, so it is England that invented them. They are saying that


there are hundreds of thousands of trusts and most of them are so


mundane that requiring the trustees to report them becomes a complete


intrusion into your life. Before we go on to the general principle, the


British government's commitment to openness, Cameron has talked about


it all the time, do you buy it? He has talked a wonderful talk, he has


been lyrical about the corruption and how he's going to have sunlight


everywhere. We'll wait and see. What is coming in today is more minor


than it looks because there is nobody to check it, companies put in


their own reports, companies house do nothing with it. Banks who know


who the owners are are not required to tell companies house who are the


beneficial owners. I think there is a lot of wriggle room. What's more,


Cameron at this moment in Europe is blocking the blacklisting a lot of


these treasure Island is that we administer, these tax havens --


Islands. He is telling his MEPs to block these things. Let's talk about


the principle, James, give us a legitimate reason why people should


have financial secrets, why they should be disguising their ownership


of assets at all? I want to challenge your use of the word


secrets and talk about privacy. There is a point at which


transparency becomes intrusive and a bad thing. You want some good


reasons? Let's look at all of the publicity we've had about online


identity theft. We're all told, be careful how much information you


give away, right? But that's not what is causing the super-rich to


have these companies in the Channel Islands? It is more complicated,


people are advocating that details of your wealth, if you want to take


the Scandinavian model, in Sweden they publish your tax returns, so


they know how much you learn, how much you give to charity. That's


going to provide criminals, conmen, opportunists of the worst possible


kind the leveraged to have a go at you. Polly, you are laughing? I'm


sorry! Criminals, they are the people sorting their money away,


there is no good reason why anybody should have offshore accounts. It is


easy to set up a company here, it is much more expensive and complicated


to do it there. You are hiding things, almost by definition, apart


from a fewer cases. You believe that all of it should be available for us


all to see? As you say, it would be a monstrous culture shock and people


would feel that they have had their clothes ripped off them, but once we


have got used to the idea and took up the Scandinavian idea, I think


people would realise, knowing what the person next to you earn is, are


you owning the same, especially women who often paid less... We


talked about asking what somebody's salary is. The whole point about it,


I have published it before, so has George Mumby in the Guardian, the


point about it is, what is my salary, I will come if you will! --


Monbiot. Let's be open. The point is, like paying your taxes, you do


it because everybody else does and if somebody doesn't, they stop


paying their taxes, everybody else starts to say, I know these


billionaires who have their money salted away in tax havens, why


should I pay? Why are we focusing on billionaires? Ordinary people would


be impacted. Because they have the tax havens. Hold on, we're obsessing


over the rich and famous and notorious, I want to talk about the


60 million people who would be affected by the intrusion of having


their financial affairs posted on the Internet. Let me ask you, would


you nail your bank account on your front door for the public to see? If


everybody else will, absolutely. You are happy to do it, but do you want


to force that on other people, who wants to keep their affairs secret


and that isn't fair. What is happening now, most people pay their


tax and they feel that there are fears that smack their affairs are


not very secret but it is the mega rich offend people, and increasing


the late -- increasingly they are getting away with it. The Panama


Papers frightens people, people with a reputation to lose know that it


can be hacked and they had better not do it any more.


It's been distressing to read about the murder of Angela Wrightson


in recent days, mocked, tortured and killed at her own home


in 2014, by two girls, one aged 13, one 14.


The two are both 15 now, both have had lives appropriately


described as chaotic, both spending time in care, and it seems


the pair of them together, were far more unpleasant


They will be sentenced tomorrow, but what is the best way


You obviously can't call them victims in this case,


but can you treat them like ordinary murderers?


Let's discuss this with Laurence Lee, the solicitor


who represented John Venebles during the James Bulger case


in 1993, and Amanda Holt, a criminologist at the University


If I can start with you, Lawrence, first of all, is our system is


well-designed to deal with these kinds of cases, do you think? Let me


say from the outset, good evening, let me say from the outset that most


young people in society are well bought up and we are dealing with a


very small minority. This is a debate that has raged for years


about whether they are victims of society. There was a case of the


police officer who was killed, the guy who did it, Clayton Williams,


was found guilty of manslaughter and his solicitor said he was a victim


of society, which hasn't gone down very well. But as far as these young


girls are concerned, they are in the minority but I wish I knew the


answer to the problem. Let me put it to Amanda. How do you think or do


you think a 13-year-old should be treated the same as an 18-year-old


for committing the same crime? I don't think they should, we should


take into account the kind of vulnerabilities that children have.


They don't have the cognitive immaturity as an adult, which is why


we don't let anybody vote who is under 18 or buy cigarettes and


alcohol, or consent to sex. The age of criminal responsibility is


incredibly low in England and Wales, anomalous compared to the other


rights that we get. Answer that point, would you treat a 13-year-old


the same as an 18-year-old,? You can't treat them in the same way. I


have banged on about the age of criminal responsibility for years.


Maybe my views are slightly different from others'. The age of


common responsibility is in my view correct for grave crimes there may


be a two tier system. I think New Zealand has a two tier system for


the grave crimes, ten, but for minor crimes, maybe 13, 14. The courts


shouldn't be cluttered but it would be wrong to increase the age of


criminal responsibility. The Bulger killers could never have been


prosecuted. What kind of sentence, how do you decide to sentence


someone who is 13, and does it make a difference that they have had a


difficult background? You have to take their background into account,


and different disadvantages. That isn't suggesting that we should let


them off the hook. The other thing I'm concerned about, these debates


emerge when we have a case of such extreme horror, even young people


who are engaged in criminal activity, all of them, 99% of them


would be appalled at the horrendous crime but it is always these crimes


that are at the forefront of people's minds when we have these


debates and I think that is worrying because we have this idea of a young


people committing crime rather than the other crimes that people commit


and often grow out of. In a sentence, what kind of discount,


what kind of sentence are you talking about for such a crime? You


have to take each case and look at the context, I can't comment on this


particular case. I don't think I can gladly say, this is for this and


this for that. With adults as well, we have to look at the


circumstances. Redemption, do you believe in redemption, for evil


children? Yes, because if you look at the Bulger killers, at the time


it appeared that Thompson, who was the other lad, would reoffend more


likely than Venables, but Venables did. But it seems that Thompson has


redeemed himself. It's impossible to say at ten how you will turn out.


Those two boys pressed the self-destruct button. It appears


that Thompson has come out better, as it were. Thank you for joining


us. We leave you with the burning


question in the tech world - who is going to be top dog


in the emerging world Last week we saw the best known


contender, Facebook's Oculus Rift. Now it's the turn of


their big rival, the HTC Vive. The Vive's big sell is that you're


not confined to the sofa, you can walk around


and even touch things. Here it is with the help of some


old fashioned green screen, so that we can see what the people


with the headset see. Any questions? Can I go first? Go


crazy. Go and get it! He actually gets it! It makes you feel you are


pulling the strings back. Turn left! No way! My goodness, so cool. O!


Look at this thing. Ooh!


With Evan Davis. The Dutch say no in their Europe referendum vote, will it affect the UK debate? Plus the latest on the Tata steel crisis and buying guns on Facebook.

Download Subtitles