31/05/2016 Newsnight


Featuring EU referendum debate; Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser; what Labour needs to do to regain power; an interview with the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Think you understand what it is to be in the EU? The league campaign


wants you to think again. -- the leave campaign. You cannot have a


single currency without political union. There has to be a United


States of the euro down. Chris Grayling argues for Vote Leave, Emma


Reynolds votes remain. I'm going to build a wall


and Mexico's going to I'm going to bomb the BLEEP out


of them. Foreign policy under a President


Trump - stability or stupidity? One of his advisers joins us live.


And when will things get better regain for Labour? The party has mac


-- the party's ideas man thinks he may have the answers.


For months, the Remain side in the referendum campaign has


challenged the Leave side to tell us "what does out look like?"


on its trading relationships, win friends and influence people


But it's also fair to ask "what does in look like?"


The EU won't stand still, there is the risk that it could pull


us in a direction we don't want to go.


That was the thrust of a speech by Chris Grayling today,


one of the leading Cabinet members arguing for us to leave.


We'll test his arguments shortly, but first here's David Grossman,


We are on a journey into the future but the Prime Minister tells us we


have a choice to make between the certainty of remaining in the EU and


the risk of leaving. The leave sides say the equation is the reverse, it


is staying inside a fast changing EU that is the biggest risk of all.


Chris Grayling, the leader of the House Commons was outlining those


risks in a speech today. He says one of the biggest is that Europe is


marching now towards increased integration and we will have no


choice but to follow. We have a new list of EU social policies which


will be an integration across the eurozone. These are going to be EU


laws passed in the normal way. There is no treaty change or another


option to create Eurozone- only laws. We have no opt out, we will be


affected. This deeper integration will happen even faster because of


what is going on in the Eurozone. There has to be a single Government


structure for the Eurozone. You cannot have a single currency


without political union. There has to be a United States of the


Eurozone. A key report sets out a vision to complete your's economic


and monetary union. That vision is for fiscal union within the


Eurozone, but the remain campaign says that while affect us as much


because we're not in the euro and we have an opt out. I don't think the


public believes that, because we build out our island and Portugal.


Despite assurances, we ended up bailing out Greece as well. --


bailed out Ireland. The more rich European countries bailing out the


Eurozone, the less they have to get involved. A further crisis could


push up the number of migrants coming to Britain from the EU, say


Vote Lead bust up and that will happen if more and poorer countries


join. Government policy supports Turkey joining the EU. David Cameron


has been clear on this in the past. I will remain your strongest


possible advocate for EU membership and greater influence at the top


table of European diplomacy. The remain campaign say this is not


remotely likely. They seek to play the immigration card and say that


Turkey will be joining the EU, look at all these immigrants who will


come here, which conveniently ignores the fact that Turkey will


not join any time soon, and the UK had a veto on it taking up


membership. However unlikely it may appear today, no one can rule out


that Turkey and the four other candidates for joining, Albania,


Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, will not end up in the EU.


Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Council, said last year


that such an army would help us to build a common foreign and national


security policy, and to collectively take on Europe's responsibilities in


the world. The more the EU purports to exert itself militarily, the more


it distracts from Nato, which has guaranteed security in Europe since


World War II. The EU is notoriously divided when it comes to foreign


policy, so we don't want them pretending and posturing in the area


of foreign policy, where it never delivers and distracts from Nato,


the real shield we have to protect our security in Europe. The truth


perhaps is that there is no truly safe road. Voters have to decide


which risks they have to accept and which they would prefer to turn away


from. David Grossman there. We are joined by Chris Grayling, Leader of


the House of Commons, and by Labour MP Emma Reynolds, a former Shadow


Europe Minister. Chris Grayling, in your speech, there is a slightly


long quote: If we go to remain in the EU, it would be EU rules that


determine minimum wage, that said how our pensions worked, to govern


our schools system and rules that would tell us how our health service


should work. Do you have any evidence that that will happen? Not


only that, it is on the European Commission website as a consultation


they are running, called The Social Pillar, it was in Jean-Claude


Juncker's speech last year, and it sets out in detail plans on all of


these areas and talks about this being a legal document it is the


next stage in the integration process of the Eurozone. It says,


for the Eurozone, voluntary, for outside the Eurozone, not optional.


We have no opt out and there is no mechanism for Eurozone- only


lawmaking. Unless there is a change to the E -- to how the EU works, and


there is none on the horizon, there is no opt out. The proposition I


read out is is a statement the -- is a statement that says we will not


have to do this. There is no option for us to opt out. It all applies to


us. Correct? This is a false premise of your speech today, with respect,


Chris. We already have, for example, the banking union which only affects


Eurozone countries. In fact, we have the euro, which only affects


Eurozone countries. We have opted to come out of Schengen, the open


borders system. There is a history of variable geometry and opt outs


from the UK and states such as Denmark on many policy areas, and it


seems odd to me that you should be suggesting that somehow the EU will


make laws to do with skills, the national minimum wage or the health


service, when there is absolutely no prospect of that. The reason is, the


risks of leaving, the economic risks, are so huge and well


documented that this is, frankly, a distraction technique. My point is


simple. We have no opt out from European social legislation. At the


moment, everything passed by the European Parliament applies to us.


So where is the opt out? Can they not pass a law saying, this applies


to Eurozone countries and not to the UK? Of course they can. They can do


that and it doesn't cover us. Not without treaty change. I am talking


about their passing a law and did not applying to the UK. They can


pass a law that doesn't apply to one state. If your country begins with


the U, you don't have to follow this law. Well the treaty is clear -


social legislation of this kind applies to every European Union


member, including the UK. Their wrist now operates -- there is no


opt out. Is it true that this will apply other than voluntarily? The


commission in Brussels is putting various things in the cupboard.


You're suggesting he knows that this law will apply to us and is lying


when he says it won't. I think the European Commission is playing down


what is going to be happening after our referendum. You are making a


very basic constitutional point and implying that Jean-Claude Juncker


does not understand it or is being mendacious. I think the European


Union is trying not to do anything controversial in the run-up to the


referendum, but there is no opt out. Emma Reynolds, it is true that we


have 13% of the vote in the Council of ministers. There are things the


EU can do that may apply to us whether we like it or not. It is


worth saying we have a veto in a number of areas, foreign policy


being one of them. What often happens at EU level, and Chris will


know this, is that at ministers meetings where a lot of important


decisions are made, there are votes, because these decisions are made in


a collaborative and cooperative way. In 97% of cases in which there are


votes, and it is not often, nine out of ten cases, we get our own way. On


that point, when we have opposed the European Commission in a vote in the


European Council, we have never been on the winning side. Right, but it


is only 13% of cases where we lose. These cross my desk all the time. We


say, we don't want to do this, but it is the best we can get and it


still needs ?80 million extra in costs. That crosses my desk every


week. In the modern, interconnected, global world, we have decided to


pool our sovereignty to be stronger, because many of the challenges with


which the EU helps us, climate change, cross-border time and


terrorism, trade with the rest of the world, we are strengthened in


our endeavour to do that by being a member of the EU. I think we


understand the geography of the Big Apple book. Another argument is that


you could have a lopsided European Union, because there will be a


country called the Eurozone, and Britain


will be a small country at the edge of that that will be outvoted and


essentially a passenger. Do you accept that that is unsatisfactory?


I don't accept that is going to happen. There are nine member states


outside the Eurozone. We are the biggest state outside the Eurozone.


Your party leader, Chris, the Prime Minister, when he came back in


February with his re-negotiation, got a guaranteed that any decisions


made about the single market which affect all 28 member states, we


would preserve the integrity of the single market, so anything the


Eurozone could do in the future that would affect that, we would have a


say. If we leave, we won't. It is the ability to say to everyone in


the Council, we don't like that, could you discuss it again? It gave


no more power than that. The whole point about this is, in the February


document, the nine member states that are not members of the


Eurozone, seven of them, not the United Kingdom or Denmark the other


seven all signed up to a commitment to the Eurozone. If that document


were worth something, that commitment is there, they have to


join. The incidentally, it does sound like Scotland and England,


what you would end up with. Is that a dysfunctional situation that you


would end up with? It would be like the EU next to the Eurozone,


Scotland next England. The British public needs to decide whether to


vote to stay in something that is going to take on the characteristics


of a United States. We will be bolted on to an emerging Eurozone


Federation that will dominate the decision making. Their decisions


will be what matters, our national interest will be of peripheral


importance. Why talk down our involvement in the European Union?


It was the Conservative Government in the 1980s that pushed the idea of


the sickle market, which has been hugely successful. The idea that


somehow we don't get our way in Europe and we are somehow a social


outcast is absolutely not true. We are one of the biggest member states


and we are powerful. I would like to leave it there. Emma Reynolds, thank


you very much. Chris Grayling, I would like to ask you more


questions, if I could. Your colleagues in the Leave campaign,


Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, will flesh out policy. They are


apparently going to visit that we would immediately end the


application to UK law of the European Charter of fundamental


rights. Is that right? US site has said that nothing would


change if we vote to leave. Voting to announce the European Charter of


fundamental human rights would take us in breach of current treaty


obligations. The Charter of fundamental rights is not supposed


to apply to the UK. It would be a change in our arrangement with the


EU. It is part of the process of disengagement. I do not want a


situation where the European Court of justice with a loosely worded


document, that is starting to write UK laws in areas such as asylum, we


should start that process of disengagement. You have got to make


your mind up as a campaign, is something going to change on the day


after we leave or is nothing going to change for two years, because we


have had both of those lines coming from your campaign. Others might


take it as a serious breach of our commitment to the EU to say


unilaterally, we are not going to respect the right of the European


court of justice to make provision for the Charter of fundamental human


rights. Of course the campaign is the government and these are things


that the team campaigning to leave believe that we should do. We cannot


make commitments for government. We can say what we think should happen.


So it is not the case if we voted to leave that the application to UK law


of the Charter... The Vote Leave team believe that is what should


happen but of course we are part of broader government as it is their


decision. Vote Leave is not the government, it is a campaign saying


this is what we should do to stop so tax or spending promises, these are


all things that people are just saying. There are things that we


could take back control of. Do you think it is likely that after we


vote to leave, do you think the UK would take the step, to announce the


right of European judges to preside over us in the way they currently


do? To start the process of limiting the ability of the European Court of


Justice to make new decisions for the UK as we negotiate our exit is


surely sensible. And with that leads to a happy divorce procedure or


annoy other nations and lead to a more dark and difficult period as at


Wii outside the EU represent 17% of exports so they will want to have a


sensible discussion about how we continued to collaborate in trade


and in terms of security where they depend on our security services for


many of the protections they provide to their citizens. Liam Fox


yesterday brought up the situation of Gibraltar, and said it would


remain sovereign whether or not the UK is in the EU. You think that


Spain might be required, just to close the border with Gibraltar? My


view on Gibraltar is that we've got to use all are diplomatic leverage


with Spain to make sure that does not happen. We have the issue of


Spain and Gibraltar long before we joined the EU. You will be engaging


with a complicated trade negotiation and if Spain says we do not like


this Gibraltar situation and will shut the border, just while we talk


about this, but could make our life more difficult. Legally they cannot


do that at that stage anyway. And with Gibraltar we have got to work


with the Spanish to make sure that Gibraltar is properly protected.


They cannot shut the border the day after we vote to leave and we have


got to make sure that in what happens beyond, we protect the


interests of Gibraltar and its people.


Five words: President Donald Trump's foreign policy.


What exactly would his foreign policy be?


He has helpfully spelt it out a little.


Somebody criticised me the other day because they asked me


what I'd do and I said, I'm going to bomb the shit out of them.


I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it, right?


We cannot continue to allow China to rape our country,


It is the greatest theft in the history of the world.


It is likely that there will be more to it than that.


But interestingly, North Korea appeared to endorse him today,


calling him a wise politician and a far-sighted candidate.


Well, to help us understand what it is a Trump


we are joined by one of his foreign policy advisors, Walid Phares.


You listen to that montage reselected. Do you really think that


man is that to be the leader of the United States in the Western world?


Of course and thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain a bit


more. You look at the montage and listen to it on one hand and then


listen to his foreign policy speech a few months ago and realised the


general guidelines, interpretations, are found more so in that piece on


foreign policy than in a montage. Of course many of the things he said


need explanation and we are trying to clarify as much as we can. Just a


quickfire round. You're not in favour of water boarding personally?


I am a defence lawyer, I am against torture in general but the debate is


not about that specific issue of torture. We had a debate in Congress


and still is water boarding considered to be torture and that


debate is not over. Mr Trump said later, that he would work within the


laws and that would mean going to Congress to debate not just this but


many other points. Just another, you agree that China, as I understand it


it has freely traded with the United States in a rules -based way, has


been engaged in the biggest theft in the history of the world? These are


statements made at rallies and of course the strong but we have seen


similar strong statements made by another president who was a


Hollywood actor and became one of the most famous president of the


United States, Ronald Reagan. Or perhaps from other candidate, the


language used is strong. He means that we have a major Rob, a


significant problem with China, but once selected he is willing to sit


down and try to resolve these issues. With American foreign


policy, and populist politicians, either they go the way of getting


the hell out of the world and save our own troops, keep them at home,


isolationism, and the other to go around the world beating up the bad


guys and showing how strong we are. Of those options, isolation or


intervention, which side does Donald Trump fall on? That is a good


question and we get this all the time because of the statements he


makes. This is a new phenomenon, he's not an isolationist, he likes


to cut deals with many countries and engage in building coalitions with


the right partners on the one hand. Of course on the other hand he wants


American interest to come first, as every leader does. I think you could


define him as being functional. One level is allies and partners and


another level, other countries in the world. A glorious way to not


answer a question! You can barely tell us if his instincts are


isolationist or interventionist, extraordinary. These concepts


basically our old concepts, look at liberal democracies across the


world, it is difficult to say if the country or presidency or


administration are fully interventionist fully isolationist.


There may be areas where a democracy may not decide to go and other


instances for example, President Obama said they would not intervene


any more after the war in Iraq and he has just intervened in Libya. So


it is the decision-making process in the country that will decide. That


will be the case with Donald Trump. Thank you very much for talking to


us. By the time the Soviet Union


disintegrated in the early '90s, it was so sclerotic and inefficient,


that it was a wonder it had To many of us in the West,


it's even more extraordinary that so many Russians


support President Putin, You know, cracking down


on the media at home and taking Well, if you want some insight


into the Russian mindset, try the works of Svetlana Alexievich,


who won the Nobel Prize Her new book, Second Hand Time,


has just been published in English. It's an exploration of the collapse


of the Soviet Union and the psychological


effects of that event She's been speaking


to Gabriel Gatehouse. Only a soggy can understand another


Soviet person. I would never talk to anyone else. -- only associate.


Svetlana Alexievich is a collector of other people's stories, a


chronicler of the life and death of the Soviet Union. Svetlana


Alexievich is from Belarus, one of the 15 states that emerged out of


the ashes of the USSR. She's very much a Soviet writer. Her lifelong


obsession has been to probe the psychological effect of the collapse


of the Soviet empire on its people. I do not know how I'm going to


survive, what should I hang onto a when I close my eyes I see him lying


there in the Coffin. But we were so happy. Why did he decide that death


was a beautiful thing? The Nobel committee called her work polyphonic


writing, her books are made up of hundreds of interviews, collected


and edited over a period of years. It is nonfiction, but in this


decision of the great Tolstoy novel. -- in the tradition.


Svetlana Alexievich, her work focuses on the events that preceded


and precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Chernobyl


and in her latest work, Second Hand Time, the trauma of the collapse


itself. We are the ones who went to the camps, who piled up the corpses


during the war, who dug through the nuclear waste in Chernobyl with our


bare hands. We sit atop the ruins of socialism like it is the aftermath


of war. We are run and defeated. Our language is the language of


suffering. Svetlana Alexievich is no apologist


for the Communist regime but her books are infused with a deep sense


of empathy for people who sold way of life suddenly disappeared. --


whose whole way of life. In five years everything can change


in Russia. In 200, nothing. The 1990s were turbulent times.


Russia ditched Communism and got capitalism instead, all the glitz of


the free market. But for most it was a time of economic catastrophe. It


was freedom but not the freedom they had hoped for, materially or


psychologically. We dream and meanwhile we lived our


Soviet lives by a unified set of rules that applied to everyone.


Someone stands on the podium, he is lying, everyone applauds. Everyone


knows that he is lying and he knows that they know that he is lying.


Still he says all that stuff and enjoys the applause.


For Svetlana Alexievich, perestroika was a once in a generation


opportunity that she says has now vanished.


There was a moment before Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency for


a third term where it looked like the spirit perestroika had returned.


Thousands came out into the streets in the biggest demonstrations since


the 1990s, but the protests fizzled out, and not just because of the


riot police. Do you really think the only thing holding all this together


is fear? The police with their clubs? You're wrong. The victim and


the executioner have an agreement. That's something left over from


Communist times. There is a silent pact, a contract, a great unspoken


agreement. The people understand everything, but they keep quiet. In


exchange, they want decent salaries, the ability to buy at least a used


Audi. Democracy - that's funny word in


Russian. Putin, the Democrat. That's our shortest joke.


Back to UK politics now. The old rule is that divided political


parties can't win elections. That adage will be sorely tested


at the next one as both main parties Conservative in-fighting is the more


engrossing right now, Is it at the start of a long march


back to Downing Street, Tomorrow the party launches


a new group, called Labour Together, that sees


itself as trying to plot At the helm is one of the party's


big thinkers, Jon Cruddas. He wants to find a way


for Labour to re-engage He'll tell us how, after we hear


from our Political Editor Nick Watt. As a new dawn was breaking over


London's Southbank half a generation ago, the Labour Party embarked on


its longest unbroken spell in Government. The weather is more grim


today, and the prospect of power seems further away than ever. After


a false start, a new group has been established to try and rekindle that


spirit. I had never seen a Labour Government in my lifetime. I was 17


before they came to power, and in that time, I watched the north-west,


where I was growing up, becoming increasingly angry and divided, with


huge problems of unemployment, derelict shops in the city centre,


and families really suffering. I don't want my baby to be 17 before


he sees a Labour Government, and that's why I think we need to stop


his long-term set of challenges and decline that the party has had. In


public, Labour has engaged in something of a civil war in recent


months, with endless plots to replace Jeremy Corbyn. Members of


Labour Together who have been pained by the inviting agree that he is


unlikely ever to be Prime Minister, but they believe that Jeremy Corbyn


is here to stay, which means that the work on charting a course back


to Government needs to begin now, with Labour members across the


country building confidence. We need to prove that we understand the


needs of managing budgets properly and working within the priorities


that are set to rise. Labour Together says it is not forming a


Tony Blair tribute band, but its values are from the new Labour era.


The group does say that Labour became so disconnected in office


that it now has its work cut out to win back the trust of voters. Labour


Party members wanted something different, that lost us to make


elections in a row. Jeremy has brought in hundreds of thousands of


new members who are on asset under resourced they are people we can use


to connect with people out there, but we don't do it by shouting at


the voters but by debating with him and campaigning. We will rebuild


credibility from the ground up in this party, that is how politics


works. They were called champagne socialist... Labour knows the party


will only secure a comfortable Commons majority if it wins back


voters from the Middle England parliamentary seats, such as


Stevenage. When new Labour's 1999 success was celebrated, eventually


it was done in some style. Jeremy Corbyn may be a harder sell in such


seats. We have a job to do to reshape the Labour Party so that it


speaks to everyone across the country. Jeremy's reading on that


process. You get the right person for the right moment, often, and I


think Jeremy's very open approach to things will help us to reshape our


party. Where we go to for the future, who knows? The new group is


wholly aware of the weaknesses of Jeremy Corbyn and his predecessor as


Labour leader, but it says that the period of sniping and plotting is


now over. We need to get back together and focus on the people of


this country and how the Labour Party makes life better for them.


Sadiq Khan's in recent victory in London has encouraged the party as


it works out how to chart a route back to power. David Cameron was


forced to pay tribute to the new Mayor when they appeared together on


the campaign trail. London is not Great Britain. Winning back the


country's cautious voters may be a far harder challenge.


I spoke to Jon Cruddas, who is leading the Labour Together group


that launches tomorrow. He is on the sunny West coast of Ireland, where


he is having a breakfast Jon Cruddas, does Labour need another


group to pontificate on the fate of the party? We have had various


groups. If you had as many votes as groups, you would be on your way to


victory. I don't look at it like that. I think it is healthy and a


positive contribution for the future of the party. We needed because we


have had two terrible election defeats, so all ideas need put into


the mix in a spirit of goodwill and pluralism. I think it will make a


positive contribution in the next few years. People are saying that


Jeremy Corbyn isn't going anywhere before the next election. Do you


agree with that? Is he potentially not going to be leader by the time


of the next election? I don't think he's going anywhere. The results of


a few weeks ago have put paid to some of the simplistic assumptions


of leadership challengers. I think we have to make contributions to the


future of the party. We are duty bound to do so, and we should


respect Jeremy's mandate and the office of the leader of the Labour


Party. There is a gap between the voters and Jeremy Corbyn.


Emigration, the economy, welfare, these are things were Jeremy Corbyn


and his supporters, who will keep him that, are in a very different


place to a lot of people thought of as corn Labour voters. I think that


is right. -- call Labour voters. We have a few years to work through a


positive policy programme. You can see of the last few months that they


are beginning to tighten their operation around the leadership of


the party. I think there are grounds for optimism. Your analysis is that


Jeremy Corbyn is 1 million miles from the people who need to vote for


you, if that is the case, tell me one reason why you will close that


gap and win the next election. I don't know if we will win the next


election, I just think that everyone in the party should make a positive


contribution to the future of the party. I know the difficulties we


face. Arguably, we have had the worst defeat in our history. I don't


think I am being overly optimistic. I am saying we need to positively


contribute to the future. We need to talk about Europe a little bit,


because there was an interesting poll this morning that indicated


that something like 45% of Labour voters were confused, really, as to


what the party's position was in the forthcoming referendum. Does that


surprise you, that people basically don't know where the party stands on


this issue? Not at all. If you come to my constituency in east London,


you would have a lot of conflicting views about where the party stands.


There is a long way to go. It will be a turbulent few weeks. I see from


the opinion polls that the Brexit case is growing, it seems, in terms


of the supported is getting in the country, so we will see how it all


shakes down. It doesn't surprise me. You are not surprised that people


don't know where the party stands on what is such an important issue?


That is a pretty poor state of affairs, isn't it, if people are


confused about that? I am not surprised about some of the opinion


polling we are seeing on the European question. It is not to say


that the Labour Party is not united in support of remaining in, it is


just to say that there is a lot of confusion out there about the Labour


position. Can I ask where you are on the EU? A lot of the public


confusion might be because a lot of Labour people seem confused. Are you


clear about your opinion on how to vote in the referendum? Yes. I will


be voting, I think, to stay in. I think we have heard enough about the


democratic reform of Europe. We haven't heard enough about


challenging the corporate stitch up, but to me, it is such a big bet to


leave that I will be voting in favour. You really don't sound


terribly sure, with respect. You said you think you will vote to


stay. Do you not know? Yes, I do know how I will vote. I will vote in


favour of remaining. If you could have the status quo or we leave,


you, Jon Cruddas, would vote to? It is a false choice. It is not a


politician's answer, but I want to see the positive case for staying on


with a much more aggressive reform agenda. That is what I think you


will see put out over the next few weeks by John McDonnell and Jeremy


Corbyn, and I think it will be welcome across the country and will


strengthen the case to remain. Jon Cruddas, nice to talk to you. That


interview, brought to you by the Irish tourist board! That is all for


Download Subtitles