Does the EU Work For Us? Newsnight

Too few of us understand how the EU works.

The EU is meant to be a family of nations, a large,

sprawling family speaking different languages, often unable to take

decisions and frequently arguing over money.

We've a packed studio of politicians, experts,

and the public, to work out whether the EU is effective

We ride the gravy train with John Sweeney.

Each month the entire European Parliament moves from Brussels to

Strasbourg, is here for a week, and then moves back to Brussels, in

boxes like this. People say it's a fantastic waste of time and money.

And does the EU spend money to suit other countries much

The good French go and set fire to motorways and spread muck in the

middle of Brussels, things if I did, I would be put away probably for

life. Welcome to the fifth

of our special programmes, aimed at helping you come

to a decision on how to vote Tonight, we getting

into the nitty-gritty. We won't be talking

about the Third World War, or Hitler, we shall be focussing

on some detail. We'll look at the money

of ours that it spends, I wonder if anybody would

argue the EU works well. Or will the Remain side simply argue

that it doesn't work As usual, we have a politician

on each side of debate. We have a supporting cast of experts

and professionals who keep And we have our regular group

of undecided voters. Well, they were undecided

when we started but they're Voters, let's start with you. We're

talking about the EU and Brussels. Do you feel you understand it? Any

of you feel you know your way round? No. Detached. That's the word I

would say. Any other words that come to mind? Fragmented. Inaccessible. I

thought those might be some of the words.

Grur Ireland originally -- you're from Ireland originally. Got quite a

lot out of it, that's one of the places where all the money went.

Yes, during the 80s we became the agricultural side of things. We did

quite well. Arguably started the boom back then and became prosperous

after that. It has been a good thing for us. Anding la, I know you're a

para-- Angela, I know you're a parallel, do you see Brussels laws,

are they sensible, well drafted? I find there's an influx of directives

and of regulations, so I think we're overdosed with it frankly. Really?

Yeah. What word Sian would you use? I would say gravy train. I would go

along those lines. This sounds like the Remain side has persuading to do

in the debate. There have been others that were more even handed.

We'll see whether you change your views by the time we come to the end

of the tea bait. -- debate.

Now, let's start with the money side of things -

Throughout the campaign, we have heard one figure oft repeated.

It is that we spend ?350 million a week on it -

there it is, you can see Boris Johnson attempting to angle

grind it into oblivion at a Vote Leave media event.

Actually, it's not the best measure of the cost,

so what are the facts on the EU budget?

Start with that famous figure, ?350 million a week. What does that mean?

Here's this week's 350 million. Merci. First get it into a

comprehensible scale, 5. ?5.30 a week for each person in the country.

Here's this week's 5. ?5.30. Thank you. Ignore that, it's the notional

full price of EU membership, we though get mates' rates, a deal

called the rebate. Take that off and the cost is ?4 per week for each of

us. Actually you only owe us ?4. That's our money the EU controls.

We'd get that back if we left. But the EU spends a third of that here.

Most of it goes on farmers and to some poorer regions. 1. 30 back for

farmers and the poor parts of the country. Thank you. It's not clear

how we would choose to spend that, but if you take it off, the net cost

of the EU to Britain is ?2.70 per person, per week. What it is is not

350 million a week, it's half that, 175. The EU budget overall primarily

exists to take money from rich countries and give it to poor

countries and to farmers. We're not poor and don't have so many farmers,

so we end up putting in more than most. If you look at what we all put

in, net per head, Britain makes the seventh biggest contribution, less

than the Germans, more than the French. We're in the half of EU

countries that pay in, half or just over take out.

It would be nice to have ?5 billion to ?10 billion more

per year to spend here - no doubt about it.

But remember that most economists think we're

If they're right, and if the economy grows faster IN the EU than out

of it, then it's worth spending a few billion to get

Let me just see if we can get our politicians

to agree on the basic facts of the budget.

For Remain, we have the Secretary of State for Energy

And for Leave, the Ukip MP, Douglas Carswell.

Good evening both. Kate Hoey said if we vote to leave we have 350 million

we send to Brussels each week that can be spent on the NHS. It can't,

can it? It's fair to talk about 350 million a week, let me explain why.

If you look at the Office of National Statistics figures, last

year we spent 19. 1 billion on money that we handed over control to

Brussels. There are 52 weeks in a year, divide that per week and you

get a figure slightly over the 350 million. It's money over which we've

creeded control. -- ceded control. We get a rebate... We have a veto.

It's up for grabs every few years. In 2020 it's up for grabs again.

What Tony Blair was in charge, he handed half the rebate away. We

don't have to, though, it's negotiated It's not just the rebate.

The money is spent at the discretion of the EU not us. We would not have

the rebate, we're not sending the rebate over. We don't even send it.

Hang on, you know the rebate is paid a year in arrears. We are handing it

over. We get it back the following year. It's quite legitimate to say

we hand over control 350 million... Britain sends 350 million a we're to

the EU. We don't send that because we don't send the rebate. Why did

the Statistics Commission say it was potentially problematic to use that

figure. It's 19. $1 billion... That doesn't confirm that figure. It puts

that figure in for illustration. I brought this letter because it's

over then cited and spun. The facts reinforce everything - Before the

rebate, it would be 18 billion. It makes it clear that actually when we

give all this money to Brussels, about 9 billion of it we never see

it again. It subsidises Mr Juncker's jet or pay for tobacco farmers in

Greece. Should we attach the same credibility to all the claims your

campaign is making that you want us to attach to that one. It's factual.

Every week we hand over - We get a rebate. We don't control that. What

do you mean? We don't pay it. We couldn't spend that money on the NHS

because we don't send it to Brussels. We're highly vulnerable

because the rebate is not in control, no British Government can

guarantee that. I was hoping we could get agreement on that one. It

isn't 350 million by any normal view of it, it may not be a hospital

every week or whatever the thing is, but it is a hospital every two

weeks. Can I just comment on Douglas and his campaign's use of the 350

million. It is misleading. I would urge you and your team to stop using

it. The fact is we do spend money sending over to the EU, but it's not

350 million. I think it's probably, after we account for the rebate and

take into account what we receive back, it's more like about 17

million a day. There is a cost, though. I wouldn't look at it in

terms a hospital or schools. What really counts for strong public

service ises a strong economy. If we're going to have a strong

economy, we need to be in the single market. It's wholly misleading to

look at this in terms of trying to net off the costs we pay into the EU

against spending money here. A strong economy will deliver strong

public services. I made that point for you. I don't want to pay much

time on that debate. To help us drill down a little more,

we thought we'd look at how Cumbria has been receiving

European investment Hadrian's Wall runs through it

into Northumberland. These days Cumbria gets a fair

amount of cash, thanks to the EU. So would it, if we left

the European Union? The EU budget is divided broadly

into two big chunks. One big chunk that goes to farmers,

through the common agricultural policy, and the other big chunk that

goes to poorer regions and nations There's about ?4

billion all together. A large chunk of which goes

to farmers and the rest goes to poorer regions of the UK,

for example, Cornwall, There's no question

about whether we could afford to keep funding those

sorts of projects. The question is whether we would

choose to keep funding them once Let's start with the ?3

billion or so we spend Lots of farmers have

a very clear view. For me, for this farm,

for where I am halfway up a hillside in Cumbria,

it frightens me to death the thought The support I get from the European

CAP keeps me farming here, keeps me producing food and keeps

the countryside That's what we're paid for apart

from producing food. A post Brexit Britain could afford

to keep that going. I have absolutely no

confidence that they will do. Every time there's been a CAP

reform, no matter whether it's been Labour or Conservative Government,

they've gone to Brussels to get The fact that French farmers

are better lobbyists Absolutely, yes, the good French,

they go and set fire to motorways and spread muck

in the middle of Brussels, things if I did, I would probably

be put away for life. Vote Leave have said,

"We would not cut agricultural subsidies if we leave

the EU," but they're arguing against a consensus that

includes most of Whitehall The UK has been, over the last

decade, one of the main countries in the EU trying to reduce

the common agricultural policy. My expectation would be that over

the medium run we would reduce somewhat the amount of subsidies

that farmers get. Maryport in Cumbria has won grants

in the ?1 billion a year EU This fund is distributed by local

British decision makers, but the cash must be handed out

following EU rules. West Wales and Cornwall get special

attention as our poorest regions, but Cumbria as a so-called

transition region Recently with EU funding

Love Maryport, a local group, trying to help promote the town,

has received money. We've managed to do more finger

posts, more maps and signage around The EU also put money

into basic infrastructure like this dock bridge,

the marina and even At initial set up in 1996,

something called the European Development Fund provided me

with about 30% of capital costs and more recently, the flag

fisheries local action group provided me with nearly 50% grant

on this new extension we're in now. But this EU regional funding

is dwarfed by flows of UK public We transfer vast sums

of money from richer parts of our country to poorer,

sometimes subtly via welfare and public services,

sometimes explicitly It's not fair to say that we left

the European Union you would get For us in Maryport we receive

funding from different streams. It's hard to say what

the effect leaving Do you think we would have a similar

grant structure if we were to leave? Maybe not similar, but I think

the money could probably be Certainly there would be less

bureaucracy involved. The effects of Brexit on regional

funding might be very small, but lots of farmers are not sanguine

about their subsidies. The critical selling point of Brexit

for most people is that Britain That is precisely what

worries most farmers. So let's focus on the budget

and what we get back. Amber Rudd, you do have to admit it

seems more sensible for us to spend money in the UK than for us to give

it to Brussels for them to spend? I would say this is part of a package,

part of the deal of being in the club is that we do send over a

larger sum than we receive back and then part of the decision-making is

made in the EU. The UK has a major role in deciding how that is spent.

Sometimes people underestimate the role of the UK in influencing the

shape of the EU decision-making. Presumably, we could administer all

those things ourselves, there would be no great loss because we would

save money? That is certainly true. There is a compromise position which

is if you are a member of a club and you have decided the club has

benefits for you, there will be additional bureaucracy. Overall, is

it a good thing? Is it adding to the strength of the economy? The answer

is yes. Do you, would you spend as much on farmers as the EU does if we

had the choice over that money ourselves? As was said earlier, we

have been explicit, the UK, that we would like to see the amount

reduced. That is across the EU, that is not just for the UK. That would

be a good reason, you are saying it would be a good reason to leave

because we would be able to cut our farmers' subsidies in a way that we

can't when we are in the EU? No, because I'm saying I want to have a

level playing field for everybody. Farming is incredibly important for

the UK. I don't want us to have a different subsidy to the rest of the

EU. Having a level playing field makes sure our farmers remain

competitive. Douglas Carswell, we vote for Brexit, we get the money

back, how would you use the power, the freedom you have got? Some great

projects receive funding from the EU. If we were outside, if we had

control over the money ourself, we could spend more. I think it is

wonderful that we have put money towards farmers. Because they are so

efficient they are discriminated against by the Common Agricultural

Policy. Our farmers are way down the league table in terms of the per

acreage payment. You would give farmers more money or less money? I

would want to see us use the capacity to put more money into

farming, perhaps to do slightly more environmentally protective things,

but that would be my own personal choice. We certainly can't spend

?350 million a week on the NHS because you have spent it on farm

subsidies? I'm not writing a future budget... You can't double-count it.

You asked me for my personal view. If, for every ?1 we put in, we get

less than 50p back. If we had control of our own money, we could

spend it better than we are spending it now. Your feeling is, because we

heard the farmers says the French are better at lobbying than we are,

so we like being in the EU because that keeps subsidy levels up. Every

year we give the Common Agricultural Policy ?4.6 billion. We get ?2.9

billion back. We could do better. Our panel tonight consists

of Sir Stephen Wall, our former Permanent Representative

to the EU. Minette Batters, Deputy President

of the National Farmers' Union. We also have Dia Chakravarty,

Political Director of Her organisation is not taking

a political position, Our final panellist is Tara Palmeri,

a Brussels-based journalist Because we are on agriculture, I

should bring you in, Minette Batters. What is your fear of

leaving, what happens to farmers and the budget that goes to them? I

think you have to look at it in the wider context. It all remains in

politicians' hands, we have to look at the fact we do not have a

ringfenced department. We have never had in the last 20 years any form of

robust food policy. We have 65 million people in this country to

feed so a robust food policy, farmers produce 62% of UK food

supplies, but it's got to be a Common Agricultural Policy. We

cannot be disadvantaged in the marketplace. Most of our farmers

would much prefer to farm without subsidy. It is there to protect them

from market failure. We have an ongoing retail price war so huge

challenges for farmers that are producing food. What is curious

about this conversation is, for the last 30 years I thought I had been

brought up, almost fed a diet on the CAP is a waste of money and getting

rid of it was one of the reasons to get out of the EU. I'm hearing all

of you, Douglas, Minette, Amber, you are in favour of money going to

farmers? I think it is important to emphasise that if we vote to leave,

we will continue to support our farmers. The CAP has been reformed,

it has been reformed a lot over the past years. There's been much more

focus on environmental strength within farming. Your average dairy

farmer - we have talked a lot about milk - your average dairy farmer is

receiving a support payment of ?25,000. Your average dairy farm

costs ?40,000 per month to run that business, without taking any wages

out so that puts it into context that you have a small amount of

money. Dia Chakravarty, you are from the Taxpayers' Alliance, you are

meant to be arguing against all forms of public spending? The few

things I have heard so far is Amber saying whatever the amount is that

we are sending out, we are sending out more, look at the gross number

or the net, we are sending out more than we are receiving. By coming

out, that means we have a bigger pot of money to play with. I have also

heard Minette put a passionate argument for the farmers. I don't

understand why we can't put that argument to our Westminster

politicians such as Amber and Douglas, so if you were to come out

of the EU, why couldn't we make those arguments to the Westminster

Government and make sure our farmers have what they need? Why does the

decision have to be made in Brussels? We will be doing that. We

would be making the case to Westminster... You fear the money

wouldn't come to you if you had to argue it to the Westminster

politicians? We haven't got a ringfenced department. We haven't

had a food policy. Amber has said there has been a Government policy

to look at lowering supportive payments. Would we have that

mechanism to back us? I have also heard that it's been a mechanism

EU-wide, the idea is to bring CAP down EU-wide so you will have to

make the argument at the Brussels level. Why not make those arguments

here? Douglas? In the clip there was some talk about the importance of

regional funds. Surely, if Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, Serbia all join

the EU in the next few years, is there going to be scope in the

budget for continued regional funding? I think that is a real

cause of concern. You have gone on to where I wanted to go, which is we

have looked at agriculture. Most people here are in favour of

agricultural subsidies. The money that we get back is spent on our

agriculture. All the money we give effectively is spent on helping

poorer nations? That is not necessarily always the case. 70% of

the budget goes on helping other countries? 1.4 million went to the

Swedish King's farm. 1.5 million is a lot of money. Amber Rudd, what is

the right amount for Britain to give in overseas aid, development aid to

Eastern and Central Europe? The UK has its own target. This is on top

of that. It is done by negotiation. The EU together put in a ?1 billion

fund to stop the Ebola virus... I'm talking about the the development

aid we give to Eastern Europe, to the countries in the EU, we are

chucking money basically... I don't think we are chucking it. I would

take issue with the point that we had a certain amount to play with.

There is a cost to being in the EU. We think it is about, I would say,

not the ?350 million, but that delivers us to membership which

makes sure our economy is stronger so we don't have ?5.8 billion to

play with, we have a much more successful and stronger economy. We

can't look at the cost here. OK. Give me the benefits of us giving

money to Poland and to Lithuania and Estonia, they are getting a lot of

money out. We are putting in. Explain to our panel of voters what

is the benefit of us putting money in on top of the development budget

that we have for poorer countries to give to them? The benefit is about

being in the single market. By being in the single market we have access

to 500 million other people, we have access to an enormous amount of

trade potential. Food... This is like a subscription that you have to

pay to get some other benefits. It is good to be part of the single

market and what I object to in terms of the Leave campaign is it is

unclear what the alternative is. It is perfectly possible to have market

access to the single market to trade with the single market without

subsidising the free jet travel of Jean-Claude Juncker, Greek tobacco

farmers. It is money we never see again and it is spent on things that

are not a priority for us. I don't want to get into an argument - we

did the single market one a few weeks back. I'm trying to work out

whether there are benefits to us from Poland developing and from the

Czech Republic and Lithuania. You are not trying to make that case,

Amber Rudd. You are saying that is the price you have to pay. I can

make the case in terms of my own department. We want to make sure

that we support Poland for instance and making sure that they make some

changes for moving away from coal. We want to make sure we address our

climate change commitments within the EU. This is in the UK's

interest. Having additional influence within the EU, which we

can use by being part of this group and being a net donor is helpful to

the UK. Sir Stephen Wall? When Portugal emerged from dictatorship

in the 1970s, it was almost taken over by communism. Thanks to the

offer of membership of the EU, proper democracy, liberal democracy

was established in Portugal. The same thing happened in Spain. The

same thing has happen in the countries of Eastern and Central

Europe who weren't guaranteed after the fall of communism to become

stable democracies. Are we... It is a decision that everybody has to

make. One aspect of this debate is, do we think it is worthwhile in our

national interests supporting the stability and democracy of those

countries? That was the case I thought you were going to give,

Amber. Douglas Carswell... Are we seriously suggesting we are giving

?350 million every week to Brussels to stop communism in Portugal? We

are not giving ?350 million a week and on your point about the rebate

being vulnerable, Margaret Thatcher, your leader of the party you used to

belong to, when she negotiated it, she ensured it can only be changed

if we want it to be changed. Sometimes it is really funny how the

Remain side has come across as inward-looking. Amber talks about

how we need to have a level playing field for other people to be able to

take part, poorer countries, et cetera. You have said how it can be

a benevolent thing encouraging democracy abroad. If you look at

countries outside the EU, Bangladesh, that side of the world,

the EU doesn't look like a level playing field advocating nice clubs.

It likes like a cartel of rich countries. For years, the EU has

kept farmers completely out of this nice little club that we have here.

I don't really like hearing the Remain side saying, we are also

benevolent. For a lot of countries who are not part of the EU...

Commonwealth countries have privileged access to the EU market

and the EU is the world's largest overseas aid donor so we are

doing... Why can't we have trade rather than aid? We have 50 free

trade agreements around the world. I will give Minette a right of reply

on the specific allegation that we don't have much trade in agriculture

because it is true, farmers are an important lobby in the EU, and the

idea of free trade is like extracting teeth to get through...

Trade, whether we like it or not, is negotiated in blocks. That is a

fact. The South America countries, a deal has been on the table for 15

years and what has held a lot of that back is the potential for

80,000 tonnes of beef to come on to our marketplace which the EU is

protecting and we will be doing the same in the UK. There is an element

of saying we can do it here well enough. We want to protect that. You

look at other trading blocks, the Pacific trading blocks you have USA,

Canada, New Zealand, all working together as a block. The Canadian

trade deal could seven years and there are still sensitive

agricultural products in there. Trade takes a long time to

negotiate. We've covered agriculture, there are

arguments to be had on that. Stephen gave us an interesting point about

stability in Europe. That's what we get by putting money in and

developing those eastern and Central European economies. Do you recognise

that or not? If you look at the growth rates in the eurozone they

have stability. I'm not sure that's the stability you want. That would

still be there if we weren't in the EU, the euro would still exist. Do

you think it's a good use of British public money to help economies in

Europe that are coming from fascism or Communism? No, I never think that

government to government subsidy is a good way of developing countries.

In you want to encourage development you have to encourage people to take

part in a network of specialisation and exchange called globalisation.

What the EU tends to do is subsidise the growth of big regulatory

restrict of bureaucracy. That's why the single market countries happen

to be the countries not growing particularly fast. Do you not think

that the EU has been good for the likes of Spain, Portugal, let's

leave Greece out of it for the time being. Indeed. Spain, Portugal and

the countries of eastern and Central Europe? If you're a young Spaniard

growing up today unemployment is sky high. Yes maybe 30 years ago, there

was a lot in it. But it's ultimately a question for Spanish people to

decide. I'm not sure that it's the benevolent force that many eurocrats

like to think of it as. Is that because of the euro specifically?

Everything from monetary policy to subsidies tend to go wrong. In not

one S size fits all. You look at the UK. Not in the eurozone. Out of the

Schengen zone. We can have the best of both worlds. The less Europe the

better. No, within the confines of the club each country can engage

with it as they choose to do so. It's difficult balance. But it's one

that protects our peace and prosperity. Audience, you've heard

the first half of this discussion about the budget, how the money is

spent. A lot on agriculture. A lot on poorer countries. Any thoughts?

Any responses to what we've heard? Let me ask you a question to warm

you up, how many feel it is good that British taxpayers, through the

EU give money to the development of countries in eastern and Central

Europe? You do basically. You were looking hesitant there. Don't be

pressured bit others. No, I had to think about it. I know you work for

a charity. Do you get money from the EU? Yes, we get donations from the

European social fund. That's helped us carry out our work in Britain.

Without that money, we would not be able to support as many vulnerable

people that we do. But you're only in the UK, as a charity? Yes. Why do

you get it from the European social fund? That's how it's distributed.

Wouldn't it be better if you just got it from the UK Government? I

guess the EU's made the social fund, it's made a priority. We support

vulnerable older people. The EU has made that a priority with the

Government, if the money wasn't there, would the Government make

older people the priority? The reason that regions and local

authorities compete for this money is because it includes counterpart

funding from the national Government. They don't believe,

probably rightly, they would get that funding were it not for the

framework of those projects. The fact that they have behind them, as

it were, the power of the European Union, gives them bargaining

strength of central Government. That's why they fight to keep this

money. I wonder how much of that funding will be available once

Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia and Turkey join the EU. They can't join.

We spent ?2 billion preparing them to join. So I think they will. They

can't until they fill the cons, A, the ebbing no ammic conditions of

membership and democratic conditions of membership. Every member state

has to agree they will join. Let's call a halt to future expansion.

Let's move on. If the EU wants to be

thought of as well run, it doesn't just need

to spend money wisely. It needs institutions that

are effective, rational and efficient that focus

on the right things. Now here's the problem: often big

organisations are more bureaucratic They find it harder to be lean

and mean and on the case. They have to take account

of more competing interests. And let's face it, the EU is pretty

big, with its 508 million Well, we wanted to send John Sweeney

to Brussels to find out - but he chose to go to Strasbourg

instead. Bienvenue a la train

de sauce European. Or, in English, welcome

to the European gravy train. What's happening is so crazy it's

worth making the point again. Each month, the entire

European Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg,

it is here for a week, and then moves all the way back

to Brussels in boxes like this. People say it is a fantastic

waste of time and money. This is the labrynth

where the elected representatives of half a billion people and 28 nation

states meet to talk euro shop. There's a simple problem, I don't

know what any of the MEPs look like. I don't know who they are. But we've

heard a tip-off that they wear their badges like this and they're blue.

What are we doing here and why aren't we in Brussels? Oh, that's a

good question. We should be in one place. Of course, it is a waste ever

money. Now that the European Union we have financial problems. The

Parliament has moved to Strasbourg for a week. Yes, yes. Is that a good

use of European taxpayers money. Not at all. The Strasbourg shuffle costs

the European taxpayer ?130 million a year. The euro MPs have voted

against the move, but they're blocked by a French veto. Hard wired

into the rule book of the EU. I track down a French MEP to challenge

him. - as best I can. For the critics Strasbourg is a

handy metaphor for the entire European project - over the top,

needlessly expensive and ever so very disconnected. Ukip's Mike

Hookham is one such. Here he is in the chamber, denouncing the folly,

as he sees it, of Europe's open-border policy. On the other

hand, you could argue this empire lets its critics have their say.

Afterwards, I track him down. Hi, John Sweeney from Newsnight. Mike

thinks the EU is a monster and so... At the moment, I'm campaigning to

make myself redundant on the 24th. There's a para-Dom there. How's --

paradox there. How's it going? It's looking favourable at the moment.

Then I will slip back into obscurity, where I came from. Mike

takes me to his office, a room he barely inhabits. Oh, wow. This is

your empire. This is it. I've got another office in Brussels,

basically the same as this. If Britain must choose between Europe

and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea. Do you agree

with that? Yes, I do actually. But for people like Mike, who think

that real clout lies with the European Union, not the nation

state, consider this paradox, that the only reason Europe goes to

Strasbourg every month is because of the power of one state to override

the wishes of Europe as a whole

John Sweeney in the European quarter of Brussels.

No-one accusing him of going native, I suspect.

Right, for the next part of the discussion -

does the EU work or not - a union so unwieldy that it can't

You were actually, because you report on these affairs, you were in

Strasbourg yourself last week, it? -- was it? Yes, the regular track to

Strasbourg, five-hour train ride, with all the trunks. I find it to be

fascinating the entire system, just because I come from the United

States and we're 50 states, but we're a federalist system. It takes

eight-and-a-half months to pass legislation through the House and

Senate. Whereas in the European Parliament with eight different

political parties, 28 different member states, it takes about 22

months to get legislation to pass. It's a lot slower. It is more

bureaucratic in that sense. In a way, some will say that's great

because it means that you're not forced legislation that hasn't been

fully communicated, talked about, passed from the council to the

Parliament, but at the same time, I can see where there's a lot of

frustration when you're trying to be forward looking and entrepreneurial

and a forward-looking Europe, it seems like it's holding it back a

bit, because of all the compromise. What lesson do you take from the

fact that Europe can't sort out such a basic peace of -- piece of house

keeping as this ridiculous Strasbourg move, no-one supports it.

We certainly don't. It's about the political decision that's were made

at the time. That's why the French object to it now. It reflects the

fact that it's a compromise, the European Union. We have to look at

whether it works for the UK or not. It's right that we're doing that

now. There are elements of it that are imperfect to say the least. It's

interesting because one thing you might take from it is you just don't

want to create or be in such an unwieldy organisation. We don't have

to be in it. It is very unwieldy. We don't have to be in it. Don't we

have to weigh up what the benefits are? Why throw the baby out with the

bath water? This is imperfect, the business of going from Strasbourg to

Brussels, absolutely. Then you have to look at the report that treasure

gave us today -- treasury gave us today if we're out of the EU we

could have a 36 billion black hole. It's pros and cons. The UK doesn't

have a strong role in the European Parliament. The Tories are no longer

part of the largest political group. So they don't have the same sort of

power when they're trying to negotiate for these kind of, you

know, government wastes going on. The last Strasbourg I was at, they

spent time talking about how to create a gym inside the Parliament.

They're concerned with having their chauffeurs. The whole Parliament or

the Tories? I'm talking about the entire Parliament. If there was more

UK influence inside the Parliament, maybe some of this waste could be

effectively cut out. That's down to us. Dare I say it, it was David

Cameron who decided to take the Conservatives out of the largest

centre-right group. It's up to the electorate, who voted 24 Ukip MEPs

who take little part in the proceedings, and therefore aren't

representing the interests of their constituents. As a large member

state, we have 10% of the membership of the European Parliament. They

directly elected have co-responsibility in passing the

laws of the European Union. On those laws, the single market runs and we

have the social protections which are controversial, but nonetheless,

I would argue those protections are important for workers in Britain as

around the urine. What lesson do you take from this? This ridiculous need

to move to and fro illustrates how the European project is beholden to

vested interests. You know, Britain is only a very small minority voice

in these institutions. We've got less than 10% of the votes in the

European Parliament. We have 8% to 12%, depends on how you measure it,

of a say in the Council of ministers decisions. This is why we're

constantly outvoted. We don't have much of a say. We're a minority

voice in the ibs -- institutions. S no the the only organisation that --

it's not the only organisation that wastes money and has these responses

to individual interests. I guess the question is - is it worse than

others? Tara, we come back to you. The United States know what's they

call pork barrel politics, which is you just waste a lot of money

because a senator can be persuaded to vote for a bill if he gets a

bridge in his town. You get many international organisations that are

wasteful, some might say the UN S the European Union is unique in

being an international institution that insists upon making

legislation, insists upon compulsion. It's not just about

cooperation. Is it worse and more wasteful than other large

institutions of the same type? I happen to represent an

organisation which thinks that the UK Government is pretty wasteful,

would like to cut out a lot more of the waste that is inherent in the

system. National Audit Office says the UK Government loses 0.02% of its

annual budget to fraud. For the EU, it is ten times than what it is in

the UK Government. That is one example that I have plucked out. I'm

not going into the... Your group believe the UK is wasting ?100

billion a year? I don't think that is necessarily true. We do think

there is... It is ten times more, ten times more. It is 0.02% compared

to 0.2%. It is atrocious. The error rate in European spending is about

the same as the American federal budget, which is still too high.

Douglas says laws are forced on us. These are laws which are made by

elected ministers and directly-elected politicians. It

wasn't the European Parliament that had the duck house scandal. As for

this idea... Let's focus on that one. People do say that is because

there is less scrutiny and that is a rather good example. The scrutiny

comes from the European Court of Auditors, who have, since 2007,

signed off the accounts, always with qualification and the European

Commission takes action where mistakes have been made, or if there

is evidence of fraud. We have been on the side of getting what we want

in about 85% of legislation. You have been outvoted 72 times. Let's

take that figure, 85%. I thought it was 87%. Do you agree with that

figure that we were outvoted 12-15% of the time? We are easily the most

outvoted country in the EU. Do you buy what Stephen said? 72 times we

have been outvoted. Is it 85% or not? I don't know the answer to

that. The figure has gone up over time. Now, it is 12%. They are not

as politically strong... How can you quibble with the figure if you don't

know what the real figure is? I do know 72 times we have been outvoted.

Germany is outvoted 5% of the times. How often does it never go to a

vote? All because we persuaded other people that our way is the right

way. We are one of the most influenceal players on the EU. Tara,

sometimes we look at the US and think they can't even pass a budget.

You have lived in both. You look at both. Compare and contrast US

effectiveness to EU effectiveness? It is a lot of political bickering

back-and-forth. That is the US. It is all about politics. Here, it is

also about national interests and about politics and it's a lot about

money as well. There are eight political groups and there used to

be, the EPP and the SND, so those two groups used to be the strongest.

They are losing their power, so now it's a coalition. That is their only

way to push through legislation. They have to pre-cook everything.

They have this dinner once a week and they talk about what can we get

through the House because you have Ukip and the Euro-sceptic groups and

you also have the Liberals and the Tories so it is harder for them to

get a majority vote to push things through. So in a way it's become

like Washington in the sense that it's a lot of back-door dealings to

push things through. Is that not an inevitability of a large

organisation, do you buy that? I certainly buy that. Lobbyists love

it. Not sure it is a good thing, though. We have 28 different

countries trying to pull this off. No wonder it takes time. This is a

very ambitious project. But it does work. It does deliver benefits for

everybody involved. If you look at the things the European Union is now

focussed on, completing the single market in services that is an agenda

written in London. Everything that has been done on the environment,

absolutely supported and encouraged and led by successive British

Governments. Amber may correct me, but it looks as if the European

Union is developing an energy policy, building up our independence

from Russia, that is what Britain has been campaigning for. This

idea... I spent five years doing this stuff and we are in there every

single day pushing for our interests. If you make a good

argument and you work the system, then you can represent your national

interest in a really effective way. The UK and German co-author the most

legislation. The UK and German. Does that not suggest we are being rather

influenceal? Let's not take the word of diplomats who have spent their

lives immersing ourselves in the system. We have 10% of the votes in

the European Parliament. We have less than 12% of a share in the

votes of the European Council. We are continually finding key things

imposed on us, despite the fact that we find objectionable. If we vote to

remain, we have to put up with everything that comes our way. Your

campaign rubbishes people who are experts. The example that Stephen

gave, it will be able to deliver us lower prices and more secure energy.

Isn't that what British consumers want? UK energy costs are higher...

No! You are thinking of the climate change regulation, which is very

worrying... I'm not attacking the climate change agenda... The energy

union is a good example... Can I raise another point about the

democratic effectiveness. Amber Rudd, it must worry you, for

whatever money is spent, and however well the British argue their case,

the truth is, people don't really connect, do they, to the EU? The

vote in the European Parliament has diminished every election there's

been since 1979. I don't think most people will be able to name the

European political forces that Tara was talking about, the EPP, these

are completely remote. I suspect if I asked you to explain the

co-determination system for passing legislation... I'm obviously loving

to answer that question(!) If I told you the House of Lords prayed

against an SI one morning, not everybody would follow that. One of

the benefits that will come out of this campaign might be more

information for people who are involved in the EU and need to

understand more about it. I hope perhaps after this, after I hope we

all vote to remain, we can have a stronger involvement in the EU and

more clarity. The European Parliament is directly-elected by

the citizens. It doesn't have a Second Chamber unelected as we have

the House of Lords passing laws. The Commission is the unelected... The

European Commission propose legislation, they don't adopt

legislation. The legislation is adopted by elected ministers... The

only people in the system who can propose legislation, they are people

who were unelected at the ballot box. How can that be right? They are

appointed by governments who are elected. It is like the American

system... I'm sure Charles I would approve! The Americans elect

Presidents... No, they appoint their executive... The one body that

initiates legislation is unaccountable, that could be the

problem. The whole point of this construct was to balance the

interests of large and small, to ensure there was a body that would

look at the interests across-the-board. And to ensure the

small countries weren't bullied by the larger countries. You are right,

as somebody who wants to hold politicians to account, I know

working in Westminster that it is difficult enough to hold people like

Douglas and Amber to account. Nothing personal. Our system is bad

enough. All I'm hearing is, we have things that we need to correct in

our system. That doesn't mean I go and get yet another even more

complicated and more remote system into the equation and give up that

much control that I might or might not have over it. It doesn't make

sense to me. Sometimes I think they are purposefully obscure and opaque

and some of the language that they use is, like, not exactly... It is

difficult to understand. For anyone to understand. Douglas? Look

objectively at how the European project has failed to respond, it's

failed to respond to the economic challenges. It is a failing project

by any objective criteria. Do you think 28 disparate countries with no

Parliament, no Commission and no Council would have responded to

those shocks better than the system we have got at the moment? If you

look at what happened with monetary policy, having the ability to make

your own policy works better. If we want to take back control, that

would be much safer than if we remain part of this failing project.

Are you hoping the whole thing dismantles in the end? Are you

hoping there will be no EU? If I was Austrian or German, I might have a

different perspective. The safe thing to do is to take back control.

This is a failing project and it is failing because of these cumbersome

institutions. Can I come in there? We have talked about the

complexities of keeping all the EU member states together. You cannot -

the single market, we are the largest, most powerful trading bloc

in the world. If you trade... It is crucial to this argument. If you

take us out and we are negotiating that trade on our own, as a single

unit, it will be enormously challenging... We have a couple of

minutes. Essentially, the Remain side does come back to put up with a

lot of the imperfections. But, as ever, let's give the final

word to our undecided panel - some thoughts from you on what

you've been hearing this evening. We have talked about democratic

remoteness and decision-making effectiveness. Any feelings? To make

everything seem a little less complicated, things are coming down

to whether we want to focus our own power within our shores or to

leverage the power we have across Europe. I don't know if that is a

bad thing. Which side are you tipping towards? I'm tipping towards

being able to leverage across the EU. It will influence what happens

in our shores as well as around them. Yes? There is a way to get the

best of both worlds. That is what Lewis was saying. Leverage the power

of the EU, allow legislation to be done centrally but allow autonomy to

customise that for the local regions. We all use mobile phones.

Samsung develops them centrally and we configure them locally. So you

should be able to make legislation, laws, standards centrally within

configuration parameters where each of the 28 states can configure it.

Any others who have heard anything today who started out as a panel

rather cynical about Brussels and what it stood for. Any of you come

out of this discussion feeling more positive about the way Brussels... ?

What I have come to understand is, it is better to be in a stronger

union and be part of a union that can save Europe over a long time and

basically on the economy and try to do it that way rather than exiting

and going into unknown and not knowing what is going on in the

future. We are coming to the end. The mechanics of

the EU in discussion. It's amazing how little most people

understand about it - for the Remain side,

that means we have to get For the Leave side, it simply

tells us why the things But I'm afraid that's

all we have time for tonight. But you may have been wondering how

they reacted in Brussels when they heard that Boris Johnson

was comparing the European Union By pure good fortune,

the exact moment the news broke in the Commission Offices

WAS caught on camera. Hello. Time to get a check on the

weather for the next few days. The morning on Tuesday is not looking

bad at all. Plenty of sunshine there. The cloud will increase and

by the last part of the morning, into the afternoon, we are in for

some rain. So, after a wet start in Northern Ireland, the rain will come