30/08/2016 Newsnight

Mighty beasts bestriding the earth...

Hungry, sometimes brutal, without regard for nation or border...

But is the era of the unrestrained multinational company

Apple is told to pay billions of euros in back tax.

A huge bill for one company, but potentially a sign

of a backlash against the rules of the world economy.

Apple is just one example of companies that flourish because

But politicians appear to be tiring of the tax avoidance and trade

We'll ask this Nobel Prize winning economist

if the old rules should change, and what they should change to?

One of IS's most senior commanders is reportedly killed.

A man who had been instrumental in plotting attacks in Europe.

We'll ask how serious that is for so-called Islamic State.

What should the new Prime Minister prioritise as she gets stuck

Our panel of political pros will offer their advice.

Believe it when you see it actually happen -

but yes, Ireland really has been told to collect

Money like that makes it worth hiring some lawyers,

But the mere fact the EU Commission saw fit to make

the determination it did today, is a pretty extraordinary statement.

Altogether, it's been a bad few days for those who want more

globalisation and more of that benign political environment

It's not clear who's to blame for the Apple tax problem -

Apple, which paid little tax on the profits from its European

sales, or Ireland, which allowed Apple to avoid that tax.

It agreed the company could book most of those sales to a barely

existent head office that was registered nowhere,

But the EU Commission was clear - it's not fair on the rest of us.

This decision sends a clear message: Member states cannot give unfair tax

No matter if they are European or foreign, large or small,

It does send a message, a message that is scary for the big

for the big corporates - be wary about taking big gifts,

because if you're given too much, it will be taken away.

There is a sense that too much has been given away to big

The EU Commission says it's simply enforcing a state aid rule that's

been around since 1958, but it does look like politics.

Politics responding to recent public disquiet, and there's another timely

Three years in discussion, a European trade and investment

deal with the US called TTIP is in trouble.

If not ominously close to the rubbish tip, it

appears trapped in the land of never-ending negotiation.

TRANSLATION: There will not be an agreement by the end of the year.

We should accept it, rather than prolonging

discussions that on this basis cannot be concluded.

In my opinion the talks with the United States

have de facto failed, even though nobody

That is because they held 14 negotiation rounds,

based on 27 chapters - not one agreement was made

If the French and Germans don't want it, it isn't going to happen

and their reluctance is down to that sense.

Now, back in the 1980s, there was a widespread perception

in Britain that the trade unions were too powerful and too selfish.

The unions want a guaranteed weekly wage.

Over the course of a decade, that power was cut back.

So are we on the cusp of a long era in which corporate

A quick note on the weirdness of what looks like an anti-global,

anti-multinational tilt in sentiment.

It is itself a global, multinational phenomenon -

one that covers the United States and most of Europe.

And there's another thing: The Apple decision by the EU kind

of demonstrates that if you want to take

on a multination, the typical nation state is too small

It was by taking control away from Ireland, that the EU

So we're in a kind of muddle over who's fighting

One other issue - consumers are not going to want

to give up the benefits of the multinational era.

Smart products, at affordable prices.

We may push back but were not about to let go of the whole thing.

Joining me now is the nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz,

who you might say foresaw the backlash against globalisation

way back, even before the financial crisis when his book,

Globalisation And Its Discontents, was published back in 2002.

He has another one now on the Euro called the euro and its threat to

the future of Europe forced up thank you for coming in. Do you think we

are on a kind of come a long cycle against the multinationals? They

have had a good couple of decades, maybe it is time? I wouldn't say

against them, it's trying to rebalance. The fact is they have

been bad actors. They talk about social responsibility. Their first

social responsibility is paying the taxes that you make on the profits

that are garnered from the activities you carry out in a

country. What Apple has done, and it's only one of many examples, it

has avoided the taxes. They might say, oh we just obey the law, but

they did sweetheart deals and they used their influence to shape the

law, so they do have to pay taxes. While the rest of us have to pay

taxes. We know when you have a backlash against someone pendulum

swings one way and then the other. Do you see any danger that we will

throw babies out with bath water here? If -- not in this particular

case. It's like, did we swing too far in banking regulation? I don't

think so. The general sense in the United States, at least, is we had

compromise after the crisis in 2008. It was 350 million Americans who

wanted more regulation. Banks said no and we got a compromise halfway

between the power of ten versus 350 million. It was roughly balanced. It

is very easy, isn't it, to look at the losers from globalisation and

thence dismiss the whole thing? And actually not talk, and you're a

progressive, liberal guy, talk about the hundreds of millions of huge

gain that are not appearing on our talk shows and news programmes,

China, and middle income country now, with running water which they

didn't have 30 years ago, DVD players, and see their lives

transformed through this thing we call globalisation. Apple building

these products and selling them to us? They're big benefits. But you

noticed they said escaping in one country, one company, 13 billion

euros. If you take 13 billion dollars and spent on retraining

workers in the north of England or in the United States, you would have

had less discontented people. You would have had a more productive

economy. Your clip talked about TTIP and we're having a big debate about

TPT. The other one. They have done analysis on what is the impact on

economic growth. The most optimistic, this comes out of the

government itself, is after about 15 or 20 years, 0.1.5% GDP. Other more

reliable estimates are negative. This is not about growth, this is

about shaping the economy and it's a power grab from the Power

corporations, to make sure they're not regulated, that they are not

taxed, that they can destroy the environment... Your clip put it very

well. Clearly excess power, there has to be a check at some point. You

would be against the Pacific partnership, TPT, TTIP, you would

stop them all for now? I am not against trade but it's trying to get

the right balance. It is very interesting, big Democratic platform

that all the presidential candidates in the United States have come out

against TPT. It has set principles that are inconsistent with the

administration's position on TTIP. So that's why these negotiations...

We have to talk about politics, you are American and visiting here. This

is a very interesting time. Is there a connection between Donald Trump

and what we're talking about today? Very much so. It's a more

complicated issue, obviously but it is the connection you saw in the

Brexit vote. Discontented people, people who were told there is a new

world out there, globalisation is going to bring new benefit. It

didn't do that. They the people left behind. The basic idea is, if

globalisation had brought the benefits we were promised and if

some of that extra growth had been shared, there wouldn't be this kind

of discontent. That was one of the main point. You're not a Donald

Trump supporter I'm guessing? No. What has gone wrong that we have had

a problem in the world economy, a balance that has gone too far one

way, the political support hasn't been for your kind of candidates but

for those who are completely the opposite of weight you are? It is

interesting. In the primary is in the United States it was enormous

support for somebody like Bernie Sanders. It was a statement that the

traditional centrist party candidates have not delivered on

what they promised. It is a message, and I think it's a message Hillary

Clinton has got, that you need a different agenda, and that means we

have to do a better job of protecting the people who have not

been the winners. When you look back at Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Tony

Blair's name on the left is marred. When you look back at him is up

Prime Minister, do you think it was a disaster or do you think he was a

Prime Minister who did his best kind obtained this beast? I think you

need to look at it in historical context. I think it was a mistake in

the United States the deregulation of the financial sector... But you

have to look at it in historical context. That was the spirit of the

time. These are not economists. I was very strongly opposed to the

financial deregulation but I was coming at it from economics. These

are people who were politicians, they were listening to the voices in

the air and the campaign contributors. Does it bother you

that the left... Post financial crash, the left's story has been,

the centre-left, not the further left, the centre-left has had

trouble getting its ducks in a row, hasn't had much of the story? In

each country it is a different story. In the United States

President Obama was not brave enough, if you want to think of it

like that. He was afraid, I think, to take on the financial markets. We

had just been through from and he said, let's try to walk on

carefully. I think it was a very big mistake. He brought on as his

economic advisers the same people who had brought on the deregulation

that cause the problem and it was not a surprise that it didn't work,

and it's not surprised there is such an dead now. I think those mistakes,

in not dealing adequately with the global financial crisis, are part of

the anger we are seeing today. Talk a little about Europe. Sceptical of

the euro, you think is a disaster, that is one of the messages of your

new book. You do say you think Britain might, might get better

outside the European Union. You are in a big minority in the economic

profession in that. Give us the scenario. The idea here is you are

still part of the global community. There is the WTO. It goes back to

what I said about TTP and TTIP. Already lots of trade going on. The

last bit doesn't get you what you thought and you're paying the price

for that. And so... The issue here is what are going to be the terms of

the negotiation, the settlement? And if you get a reasonable deal,

consistent with what is in your interests, remember Europe also says

global integration is a good thing, if you get one consistent with their

interests, I think there is no reason why this should be traumatic.

The market view right now is there is an act from. Markets have not

collapsed as if it was doomsday. More on the Brexit deal later in the

programme. Thank you very much. Now, before we move on, let's just

get a little more on Apple, the Irish and that 13 billion euro

late tax bill. Our business editor

Helen Thomas is with me. Where next for Apple? First the

lawyers swing into action, both Apple and Ireland have said they

planned to challenge the decision in the European courts. Realistically

we could be three or five years away from getting an eventual settled

outcome. They have got to put the cash aside in the meantime. But the

fallout could be interesting, I have spoken to tax advisers and expect to

be busy from multinationals with questions wanting to review their

tax arrangements. The government has said, this was not of course

necessary a question of but these tax rulings allowing Apple to

allocate profit in a certain way. The commission has said they will

look at Amazon and McDonald's and Luxembourg, their tax arrangements,

and it is a similar issue. But those dates back to an original

investigation from 2013. Since then the commission has expanded its

work, reviewing over 1000 tax rulings. The expectation is that we

could see more cases along these lines. The United States professes

not to be happy with this particular decision today. No one seems

terribly happy. The US Treasury has raised various concerns relating to

the EU trampling over national sovereignty, potentially undermining

efforts to harmonise tax rules globally. But even in the US there

are people that concede that the EU is acting where governments either

cannot or will not because they worry about jobs and investment or

in the US there has been gridlock on efforts to reform its tax system for

years. And the US tax system creates some of these incentives for

companies to organise themselves in these weird and wonderful ways.

You may well not have heard of him, but he has been one of the most

important figures in the so-called Islamic State.

And we've been hearing tonight that he has reportedly

You might call him the Goebbels of the group -

he was sometimes called the spokesman for IS.

Propaganda was his field, he was one who was reportedly

involved in selecting videos to push.

He was also a commander who played a big role in the

overseas operations - in Europe in particular.

Well, I'm joined by our correspondent, Gabriel Gatehouse

and also Shiraz Maher, deputy director of the International

Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College

Gabriel, tell us a little about who this man is. Abu Mohammad al-Adnani,

he is a Syrian, thought to be in his late 30s. 39 by some accounts. He

joined Al-Qaeda in Iraq shortly after the US invasion and became a

founder member of Isis, he is one of the people who articulated the

founding of their so-called caliphate and became their chief

spokesman. In September 2014 he made this by now infamous fatwa calling

on believers to attack people in the West wherever they might find them.

Worth quoting perhaps a little of that, he said if you can kill a

disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy

French, he said, kill them in any manner you can. That call became

Paris and Brussels attacks, it has been cited in several British terror

plot cases as an inspiration. So in that sense he was the spokesman. As

you said he was a propagandist, there are reports that he held

monthly meetings where they would go through the grisly videos that I S

filmed and then he chose which to disseminate. He was also strategist.

And we're hearing fascinating accounts from former Isis members,

or European and who have come back, about this department that he

headed. In charge of plotting and coordinating attacks in the West.

The Bataclan, Brussels. In one sentence, do we know what has

happened to him, do we know he is dead? No although it has been

announced on the IIS Twitter account. The United States said it

carried out an air strike against a senior Isis official north-west of

Aleppo, where they say he died. They have not confirmed that it was

al-Adnani. They say they're still looking into it. But all kinds of

people are active in area. How big a blow is that to Islamic State? I

think quite significant. It is going after the number two of the

organisation in terms of someone who is very important, he was directing

these plots that were hitting Europe. Number two, is that what you

think he was? In many respects he even eclipsed by daddy in terms of

profile and prominence. But Eddie of course being de facto head of the

so-called caliphate. To what extent is Isis and system that carries on

operating even when you take out key individuals? Or is it reliant on

some charismatic figures who run the show? IIS is dependent on these

important leaders who carry charisma and standing, of the most important

things about al-Adnani Izzy had pedigree and have been fighting

since 2003 with Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He had a long period to become a very

skilled fighter and so on. That also gave him credibility amongst

comrades. In that sense it is important and we've seen in the past

with Al-Qaeda, with the removal of Osama bin Ladin, in a way Al-Qaeda

never recovered. I do not expect this to be quite so significant with

IES with the loss of al-Adnani but it does have an effect. In Europe

one interest will be that this is a man who inspired lots of people to

carry out the atrocities in this confidence. To think it will make a

difference to that, is that, have Isis been benefiting from people

with mental health difficulties in Europe who latched onto them?

Someone like al-Adnani clearly did inspire people but in a sense he got

the ball rolling, he has inspired people who have never been to Syria

and Iraq to carry out attacks in the name of the group. In that sense he

has done what he had to do. It will be interesting to see who replaces

him and the nature of his successor. But the types of people in essence

likely to have been inspired by him will look at these events today and

take inspiration from that in and of itself. Thank you.

Jeremy Corbyn released his manifesto for digital democracy today..

He's proposing a digital bill of rights, and high speed broadband

and mobile connectivity for every household.

He was mocked for suggesting that there might be some kind

of free-to-use on-line hub of learning resources -

given that Wikipedia has been doing that rather well for 15 years.

But aside from the policies, one critique of Mr Corbyn is not

that he is stuck in the analogue age, but that he has been

so seduced by digital hype, he thinks you can win elections

He talked today of "harnessing the advances of new technology

to organise political campaigning like we've never seen before".

A 67-year-old MP might seem an unlikely social media star,

but Jeremy Corbyn is the centre of a surprisingly fertile

online mass movement, and today he set out his vision

As part of Labour's plans for a universally accessible

national education service, we will create a free to use

online hub we are calling an open knowledge library,

a digital repository of lessons, lectures and curricula...

He's not the most charismatic of speakers but his supporters

who gathered online don't really seem to mind.

Britain's most important social medium.

A poll last year found 55% of women had lately used Facebook,

The equivalent figures for Twitter are 16% of all women and 2%

Around 800,000 people have shown enough interest in Jeremy Corbyn

to get regular Facebook updates from his team.

As well as an alternative broadcast tool, it's also been an organising

So we've seen lots of people engaging and participating

through social media, and it's actually something that's

facilitated off-line activity as well, so that's how we've been

able to get huge numbers at meetings and rallies.

We've mobilised lots of volunteers to join

The official campaign is just a small part of the Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has a massive presence on Facebook with hundreds

of thousands of followers, which is run by his campaign,

but separately, run just by activists or by individuals,

who make images and then share them, all these smaller groups,

and essentially an image might take hold on Facebook and within 24 hours

be seen by far more people than the official Facebook page,

without the official campaign ever organising it.

And even if the campaign went away tomorrow, those sorts of images

Here's an example, and like lots, it's a bit

It compares expenses of an MP who can cycle to Westminster from

Team Corbyn has already found itself having

to answer for the views and

The fact that a lot of the content created in the name of the Corbyn

campaign is not actually controlled by them can

For example, at the moment the campaign

has tried to distance itself from the work of the Canary, a

publication that is online and pushes often

This expert thinks it might have its roots in Labour's unfocused

You see Labour were very effective at whipping up conversations among

the politically engaged, a lot of anti-government

While that's not effective when you have an electorate of

essentially 45 million people, it's incredibly

effective when you have a

much smaller electorate, if you like the membership

of the Labour Party, and affiliated organisations who are

going to decide this particular election.

You can see that that kind of method of operating, while it

doesn't particularly work in electoral politics, with the wider

public being incredibly effective in smaller and politically engaged

So can Labour turn this big group of keyed up activists into

From my experience of the Obama campaigns, an organisation that won

a primary and two general elections, you need to both

have the grassroots energy, but also the organisation and data

and context to make it meaningful in an electoral contest.

And so, to be able to create the space for

energy is one thing, but to be able to marshal

where you can produce an electoral outcome is something else, and it

remains to be seen if the scale and capacity of the Corbyn side is going

The Corbynasphere utterly dominates Labour's internal elections.

So far, though, it had no visible success peeling off swing

Theresa May is back at work now, having taken a nice Swiss holiday.

Tomorrow is an important one - the cabinet will sit

Nick Watt is also back from his holiday.

Great to have you back. It feels a bit like things are settling in.

What did we learn today? Theresa May is saying no to a second referendum,

no Tonelli General election after the Brexit boat but yes to beginning

the process early next year of taking the UK out of the EU by

triggering Article 50 of the Ms Bond Treaty. But without a vote in

parliament and assuming that she wins a legal challenge against that.

Had we been paying attention when Theresa May launched a leadership

contest in the early summer, we would not have been surprised. She

said it would be wrong to add to the uncertainty by holding an election

and she said that Brexit means Brexit. As one and I said, she needs

to trigger it early next year so she can take in the UK out of the EU by

2019 and go into a general election in 2020 and say, you voted to leave

and I delivered it, can I have the reward? We learned some things today

but if we had paid attention we would have known that. What about

tomorrow? The Cabinet awayday at Chequers, beginning with the formal

cabinet. And then the officials will gently be shown the door and the

real business in the political Cabinet begins. And the three

Brexiteers, David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson will do

presentations on how things are going. There has been some signs of

tension between those three and Theresa May was not amused by that.

And she needs them to get their ducks in a row so there is an agreed

UK position by the time that she triggers Article 50 early in the New

Year. Ayew any clearer about what that position could be cursed at the

grand bargain is that the UK needs to take back control of immigration

and if you're doing that then you're going to limit your access to the

single market. I spoke to one senior Whitehall source today who said that

the key thing is the UK has got to be a rule maker and not a rule

taker. And this person said I think that means we will have limited

access to the single market and interestingly, perhaps no passports.

This is the process allowing us to sell our financial services around

the EU and this person is saying the process that we might move towards

is equivalent, we as the UK said the rules and regulations and then we

say, they are the equivalent of the EU. But who would arbitrate? But

Theresa May has been visiting five European capitals and she has been

struck about how UK -- EU leaders are worried, and are sounding

flexible on free movement of workers and not people. That could be

encouraging for her. Well, as the new political

term is almost upon us, we've invited along a panel

of friendly experts to offer some We've asked each of you to tell us

what her priority should be. Here with us: Anne McElvoy

from the Economist, Polly Toynbee from the Guardian,

and Fraser Nelson - If she has to pick one priority,

what should it be at this point? I think a big priority for Theresa May

is people outside London, outside the urban centres who may be voted

for Brexit but not die-hard Eurosceptics. Just people who have

become a bit divorced from what goes on at Westminster, who feel the

system doesn't work very well for them. She sees quite small

irrational people, a lot of Brexit is blamed on people being

dispossessed. She knows a lot of people voted for this and it is a

symbol, if you like, if this dislocation. She wants to put this

back together and rebuild small sweet conservativism. Particularly

outside London but the previous government had a big idea, Northern

powerhouse. We've been a bit all over the place? She doesn't like

that, it sounds to top down, too many banker friends of George

Osborne doing the right things for Manchester. Very nice for Manchester

and Leeds, but it left a lot of holes in between thinking, what

about us? I think we will see less of that big headlining, the grand

ideas, and more as a now reached a lots of places who can feel they

have a stake. How she will deliver that will be difficult and

interesting. That is one. What do you think a priority should be? She

has to explain who she is and what her agenda is. People have known as

the Home Secretary for ages but she's not one who would tell you

about her vision of politics and how it differs from David Cameron's and

what direction she would take the country in. It wasn't long ago we

were watching television debates of three leaders, which seems

ridiculous we have people who are entirely different. She hasn't had a

leadership contest to explain this. Right now she should be going up and

down the country, trying to explain what she intends to do. She has been

very quiet, partly because she has been on holiday, but she hasn't been

putting herself about? Even her own Cabinet don't know what her agenda

is and some don't know why they were appointed. She needs to get her

agenda across to them first and then to the rest of the country. There is

no such thing as Mayism right now. She needs to find out, tell her

colleagues and then the rest of us. Polly? The big discussion starts

tomorrow, the honeymoon is over and she is confronted with a Cabinet

that is riven over the big issue of Brexit. Even the three Brexiteers

don't really agree. She said Brexit means Brexit, that is meaningless,

nobody knows what it means. A delightfully helpful get out clause.

She has to say what she means by it. In my view that should be supporting

Philip Hammond and saying we have to stay in the single market. She has

to set the parameters and not allow them to all run away with a great

squabble amongst themselves. She has to establish her authority and

sakes, this is what I mean by Brexit. Interested to hear your

views, we will have as many as we can accommodate, but she has to say

what Brexit is. It is a nightmare. I don't think any Prime Minister in

living memory has stepped into such an appalling situation. Rishi has

more had Brexit is in her party. -- she has more. It is not easy. She

does, but she has a huge majority in the House of Commons who are

Remainers and it will come back to the House of Commons. The

communities act has to be repealed, every element of this will end up

being discussed in parliament. It may drive the rest of the country to

desperation with its complexities, but it's important. What do you say?

She is also a Remainer, but a quiet one. Fraser was interesting saying

there's no such thing as Mayism, but apart from that she has a blank

sheet on which to write. She has been very good in not boxing herself

in, in her position as Home Secretary. And even fair on the Bill

of Rights and things, she created some space for herself. My worry is,

does she know, does she have the team, does she have the planning

order quickly to put into that space? I think she has been very

clever at getting where she got to. She has come through as apes

Remainer in charge of a Brexit cabinet. Polly says it is

unmanageable but she is chairing these committees. She knows how to

run the organisational chart of government. Fraser, if she was so

minded, can she basically say we are going to stay in the single market

and have a minimal change on free movement best or does she have to

say, free movement is ended? I think she has to. The way the referendum

campaign was fought, there was an unwritten understanding that freedom

of movement was a problem. The idea you can control the ever rising EU

migration turned out to be one of the central issues of the referendum

campaign. Technically she could do a Norway. When she says Brexit means

Brexit she means we're not going to do a Norway, it does actually mean

coming out of it. We are drifting towards probably no passport in

front biggest export industry? Absolutely. I think it was fairly

widely discussed in the campaign. Something Phil Hammond is concerned

about. Absolutely. She has other huge problems on her plate, the NHS

is on its knees. People voted Brexit and they were promised, ?350 million

that the NHS, social care is in a state of absolute collapse. Where is

the money going to come from? We don't know what her economic

policies are. Is she willing to borrow or let the deficit slip?

Would you call an election if you were her not right now. But if she's

going to be so much different from David Cameron, and it looks as if

she is so far, then I think she has to. If her agenda is significantly

different to the one the country voted for last year, then she ought

to. Spring next year? Spring or summer next year. Hopefully Labour

will reckon resemble an opposition by then. Is it the best thing to say

you're not going to do it until you actually do it? I don't think why

she needs to. I think she is in such a commanding position, the Labour is

in a state of shambolic collapse. I don't see why she doesn't simply

plan her course, do what she wants to do. She's pretty much mistress of

all she surveys. She will only do when she has a deal, a reliable

deal... Do you think we need to be clear about Brexit before the

election? Yes, otherwise it becomes referendum two, the horror story

continues. What is in it for her? She is not under massive pressure

from the Labour Party for the foreseeable future. I think she can

largely control the terms. It may be 2020 is a long way away, but she

does know she has got control, because nobody else, as it turned

out, in her party, could do it better. We will leave it there.

Thank you all very much. That's about it tonight,

but before we go a little tribute to one of America's most loved comic

actors Gene Wilder Millions of children grew up

with his classic "Willy Wonka He also provided the magic

for the box office juggernauts Bonnie and Clyde, Stir Crazy

and The Producers, which won him In his later years he found most

comfort in his writing but we'll leave you with this

family favourite. # Anything you want to,

do it Good evening, a stunning day across

most of the UK today. Tomorrow, a change coming our way. This weather

front will be crossing the country bringing a spell of cloud and some

rain. Not a lot of rain but at times you might need an umbrella. This is

what it looks like in the afternoon across Northern Ireland. Most of the

day will be quite bright with a few showers, the showers will also get

into Scotland, through the lowlands