With Evan Davis. A key leader of so-called Islamic State is reported killed, and is the era of the unrestrained multinational company coming to a close?
Browse content similar to 30/08/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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