05/12/2016 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. Europe takes another blow as Renzi resigns. Plus the government takes on the judiciary in the Supreme Court and why can't Britain's communities integrate?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good grief, does that leave HIM to be the one picking up the pieces?


It's been a difficult year for the EU, and it just got


Are the Brussels institutions capable of recognising


a crisis when it hits them, and then responding to it?


We'll hear the view from Vienna and Rome where votes


have just taken place And ask this commissioner how


Also tonight, you may have seen these aerial shots


We meet the Syrians in the city who are filming them.


And after the riots in 2001, we had reports into social


Are we moving forward, or going round in circles?


We'd all seen it coming, but the deed was done yesterday.


Italian voters chucked out their prime minister Matteo Renzi,


and threw out his plans to make the constitution more decisive.


Economically, it makes reform harder, making it more difficult


Politically it empowers the populist Five Star


Movement which wants a referendum on the euro.


And the political and economic uncertainty adds to the financial


pressure on Italy's damaged banking system.


The implications for Italy are huge, the ramifications


The only good news for the Brussels elite was the fact that Austria


turned away from the far right candidate and elected


We can join Gabriel Gatehouse in Vienna and Mark Urban in Rome.


Let's start with Austria and the Brussels elite is breathing a sigh


of relief. But the glasses only 54% full because 40s 6% of the


population voted for someone on the far right. -- 46%. It is not the end


of the road for the far right Freedom party because there are


likely to be elections next year and they could win the more powerful


Chancellor post instead. Austria really is not the most important


piece of this puzzle. There will be two elections in the first half of


next year that potentially will be fundamental to the future of the


European project. The first in the Netherlands where Goethe builders,


with his deeply Eurosceptic group, is leading in the polls and then of


course the French presidential election with Marine Le Pen almost


certain to reach the second round run-off. Couple that with what is


going on in Italy and some pretty Eurosceptic administration is


already in place in countries like Poland and Hungary and you have


something that is quite combustible. These groups do not all agree on


their critique of the EU, they do not want their own version of the


heart Brexit, they do not even all want to leave the euro but they do


want to reimagine their relationship with the union. I hesitate to make


the comparison but in the past few weeks I have been forcibly reminded


of something that Gorbachev once said about perestroika, but the


soviet union was like a big rusty piece of machinery and he said I


wanted just to tinker with it a bit and loosen the screws but then the


whole thing began to shatter and shake, the screws came loose and all


of a sudden the whole thing collapsed. A good metaphor! Let's go


to Rome. Matteo Renzi will stay on for a few days, what happens next?


What is clear from the referendum, which after all was on quite an


obscure package of constitutional reforms, is there is a huge


undercurrent of discontent with politics as usual here and in


particular with economics as usual. A 70% turnout on the referendum


vote. Once Matteo Renzi has gone through these next few days to put


the budget through, the question is how soon can there be an election in


this country. I have heard people saying between February and April,


but there is not the right legal machinery in place to do that yet


because it is all up in the air because of the package of reforms


that was going through. That means crisis for the next few weeks.


Pressure on the banks and then at the end of it, and election in which


two of the three parties losing in the polls say they want to take


Italy out of the euro. As this most unusual of political


years draws to a close Italy becomes another place where something


exceptional was happening. Government with a large majority


upended by a referendum. A leader routed, his friends argue by his own


sense of honour. There's a lesson that Matteo Renzi gave to the


political establishment in Italy no one resigns. And nobody really wins


elections or loses Rab referendum and everyone remains seated in his


chair. And Matteo Renzi took political responsibility,


accountability. That is an English word with no translation in Italian.


So Prime Minister gets flushed away but that is far from the end this.


Matteo Renzi was in the middle of remaking Italy's electoral Lawes and


help people are represented in their democratic institutions. And that


what has not been completed meaning that they cannot just have a fresh


general election tomorrow. Add to that the fact that the country has


got to pass a national budget before the year is out, and you have a deep


crisis with no one really in control.


People have gathered outside the Prime Minister ill Palace to watch


it play. Matteo Renzi was hoisted not just by constitutional arguments


say his opponents but the apparent inability of Italy to pull itself


out of the economic doldrums. TRANSLATION: The government in


recent years has not delivered on its promises to Italians. And so


turnout was very high, higher than at local elections six months ago.


That is because citizens wanted to say no, that is enough with this


government, that is enough of my terror Renfe, with Europe, the banks


and Angela Merkel. Tonight it emerged that Matteo Renzi has been


asked to stay on a few days longer to finalise Italy's budget for 2017.


Saha along with the new government had to put fresh electoral Lawes in


place, as the markets I upped the tottering Italian banks. Not so


long, I do believe there's usually a measurable financial markets take


the position a little bit before the event, as usual. And now they are in


some kind of stand-by position. But real answers must be given by Italy


as the country, starting with the president of the Republic trying to


arrange another government with specific tasks, the first


immediately to pass the budget law for 2017. That must be by December.


And to have a new electoral law secondly to go to new elections and


give Italy a little bit stronger political government, posted by


Italian citizens. And waiting in the wings is this


man. Beppe Grillo, leader of the Five Star Movement. They campaigned


against Matteo Renzi in the referendum and they are well placed


for any general election. They're complaining to take Italy out of the


euro. How real is that threat now? It is clear that the Five Star


Movement wants to get Italy out of the eurozone. And this is the


paradox of the coalition which supported a note to the


Constitutional reform, it was a real bunch of has-been, former Prime


Minister, a good part of the establishment which struck an


alliance between the neofascists of the extreme right and the populist


Five Star Movement. And this probably is the most, the biggest


paradox of this situation, it was a no without any reality.


For those who beat Matteo Renzi the referendum was a cause for


celebration. It may prove to have been just the appetiser for an


enormous change in politics here. One in which the main course in an


election expected this spring will be whether Italy should stay in the


euro. Well if you add in Brexit, Italy,


far right parties, does it add up to a crisis?


Laszlo Andor is the former European Commissioner for Employment,


Do you think the top brass in the EU recognise this is a manifest crisis


for the EU at the moment or are they hoping it will just go away? I think


there is enough understanding and has been for some time that the


monetary union in its current form is not entirely sustainable and they


will have to be reforms. This has been very slow, decision-making


making obviously should be faster. It does not mean however that people


do not realise that these reforms are needed. I think everyone thinks


it is an economic challenge. What about the political side, that


voters everywhere you give them the chance seem to be saying, whoever it


is up there, we do not really like you. It does not necessarily look as


though the top guard of the EU really get that. A lot of


frustration came up in the Italian referendum but it was not a


referendum about the EU or membership of the EU, any


interpretation would be a distortion in that fashion. This was a domestic


or constitutional question which was raised and there were many


pro-Europeans on both sides of the yes and the no camp yesterday. I


wonder whether that is a little complacent because you can disregard


one vote or another but everywhere, whether Austria, the UK or Italy or


indeed Greece, everywhere you go voters given the chance of voting


for change and when they see the EU it is an institution that moves that


one speed, very slowly. And just cannot change and absorb the


capacity for change that the public currently have? If you really watch


this, the voters voted against change, Matteo Renzi both dashed he


wanted change and the voters voted against that, this was quite a


different thing from what you describe. I think you're not getting


the kind of changed the voters are voting for, they're not writing


about constitutional change, they are voting for changing the guard,


changing the top brass. Do you think for example that Juncker is the


right man to lead the EU through this restaurant is a huge economic


crisis and paralysis in Italy, do you think with this happening on his


watch, he should just stay there and carry on as though nothing is


happening all would be better if he got out of the way and say, the


voters do not like the establishment and we new blood. You are connecting


entirely distinct issues. The leadership of the EU institutions is


organised in a way which is legitimate and based on the treaties


approved by all the member states including Italy, the UK and other


countries. This referendum in Italy was about how to reform the Italian


constitution especially the Senate, how to make decision-making faster,


how to make the political class more cost efficient inside Italy. People


were not asked about Juncker or the European leadership on this issue.


If you want to press this it is just very artificial and misleading I am


afraid. It is interesting that you say that because I'm not sure to the


average British person that it feels that remote, all over Europe people


seem to feel there is a disconnect between their lives and those of the


people governing them. A lot of that is coming out in frustration with


the EU and people watching this would say you're just a part of the


problem. In failing to recognise what is a huge and important


interaction with the voters and trying to dismiss that as a


technical vote on a constitution or a little internal affair. Do not


feel it is bigger than that? There has been a shift in


pro-European opinion because people realise that before the UK


referendum, a lot of politicians, especially in the Leave campaign


were telling lies about the European Union. Now there is a period of


reckoning, a period of understanding of what it means to destabilise the


European Union, what it means and what it costs to leave the European


Union. Of course, a period when people look into these details a lot


more than before and that makes people more pro-European, which we


have seen in the Austrian presidential election, where the


Green candidate winning with a greater margin than he did in the


spring. Thanks. The second, final and decisive


round of the contest between the government


and the judiciary kicked off today with arguments put


in the Supreme Court over whether Parliament has a right to


a say on the invoking of Article 50. We won't get a result for a while,


but TV viewers could watch It was quite heavy going,


and won't I suspect, Our political editor


Nick Watt was watching. Our starter for ten after a day at


the Supreme Court is, what links Freddie Laker, Greenland, the


Bahamas, and a grand hotel now demolished? Yes, these were legal


cases cited as the government sought to overturn a ruling by the High


Court that Brexit negotiations must be triggered by Parliament and not


ministers using ancient royal powers. The government's main QC,


James Eadie, argued ministers need not hold a parliamentary vote. He


said since the inception of Article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty, MPs have


not argued it is up to them to trigger the process. James Eadie was


saying where Parliament has not said, I am taking this power away,


it still rests with the prerogative. He was saying the Royal Prerogative


exists on a separate plane over and above the domestic sphere and unless


Parliament is saying it is taking it away. James Eadie was saying the


European Communities Act, which is at the heart of this case, is merely


a conduit for transposing those international law rights into


domestic law. James Eadie cited the case of a Tameside hotel from the


20s to underline his point. This was an elegant grand hotel on the


Victoria embankment that suddenly got requisitioned by the government


in World War I and there was a statute that said they had to pay a


certain amount of compensation. They said no, we used the Royal


Prerogative to requisition it, we do not have to pay. The Court of Appeal


and House of Lords found they did, because a statute restrained the


prerogative. Whatever the 11 justices decided, this is likely to


be a landmark case. It will not prevent the triggering of Article 50


but it could lead to major alterations in Britain's


constitutional settlement encompassing Royal Prerogative


powers and the role of devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales


and Northern Ireland in UK by decision-making will stop this is a


hugely important constitutional case that goes beyond the issues arising


out of Brexit, because it concerns a part of our Constitution, the Royal


Prerogative, and touches on devolved power to Scotland, Wales and


Northern Ireland. And we have a Supreme Court that... We do not have


a written constitution, but they have an important role in


interpreting the unwritten constitution. I come from... To this


as a traditional conservative. Historically I have always believed


this country manage well with an unwritten constitution. In recent


years I have begun to have doubts and those doubts do not centre on EU


membership, they centre on devolution and managing a system of


devolved power to different parts of the UK and maintaining an overall


framework. I am on record saying I think we need to give careful


thought to whether we shouldn't have some kind of written constitution.


It needn't be a detailed document, but one that sets out a framework


for those relationships. Emotions are running high as the Supreme


Court is asked to rule on how the Brexit negotiations should be


triggered. One You support is relax. The triggering of Article 50 is in


line to start next year and whether the Supreme Court disagrees with the


High Court and says you can crack on, or whether we have to bring a


short bill to the house, Parliament will not frustrate that. They are


acceptable solutions to get on with doing what is a major change to our


constitutional position. Just a stone's throw from Parliament there


is a new kid on the block. The Supreme Court has only sat the seven


years but it is now cementing its position in Britain's ever evolving


constitutional settlement. Rather than argue about how


our constitution works in the supreme court,


could we perhaps codify the rules, so that we know in advance


what the rules are and have Or do we prefer our slightly messy


unwritten rules that perhaps have the capacity to flex


when you need them? Dr Catherine Haddon is from


The Institute for Government. Thanks for coming in. The Dominic


Grieve point, he is coming around to the idea, he might need to codify


things around the Royal Prerogative, particularly devolution. Is that a


good idea? It is difficult to say in circumstances where we have things


in flux. It is almost as if you wanted to do it in advance. There is


so much going on where the constitution is in flux. We are


repatriating powers in the process of leaving the EU. There is a lot we


need to think about in terms of the Constitution, bringing in other


issues in terms of codify in, consolidating our Constitution might


be a step too far at the moment. A lot of people are deeply attracted


to the idea of having a proper written constitution so you know


what the rules are. Does that lead to more dispute because in the US


they seem to argue about nothing but constitutional rights, or does it


resolve disputes to write it down? It is difficult to know. What we are


seeing at the moment, the Supreme Court deciding on this issue, is in


effect what we could see more of. You have different issues. The


question about transparency, do we understand the constitution, should


it be consolidated? The issue of whose authority decides the


constitution? The Supreme Court Parliament, the government? And


prerogative powers, but they are Tom when they should adapt. The


complicated thing about the UK, Parliament is sovereign and reign


supreme so the parliament if it wants to can abolish the Supreme


Court, Kartik? Or you have a written constitution voted in by Parliament


and pine and can abolish the ring constitution. Parliament, isn't that


the principle that governs everything? It is, the


democratically elected... Dictatorship! Part of our government


so it can legislate for these things. There are checks and


balances in the system, similar to the US. The rule of law is obviously


one of those and we have seen judicial reviews since the 70s form


part of that. This is dramatic and more important but in a sense it is


a continuation of the travel we have seen. Parliament can legislate and


create a Bill of Rights which it has talked about many times. It could


legislate to change Royal prerogatives, put it on the statue


books. It did it with a fixed term parliaments acts that changed Royal


Prerogative into an act of Parliament. The ability to call an


election. The monarch's right to dissolve parliament. It caused


confusion in OK you might want to amend it further you cannot turn it


back into a Royal Prerogative. You could repeal the act. And give the


Prime Minister the power to call the election. Constitutional authorities


are divided on what you would do in replacing a Royal Prerogative. In


the long-term, would we be better off trying to write it down? I think


it is written and codified in a lot of places. There is value in


consolidating it, even in a guidance document, which we saw with the


Cabinet manual. Before the election, when we expected a hung parliament?


Exactly and the purpose was to make sure constitutional decisions would


not decided by people on Newsnight in the middle of the night to make


sure we have some sort of authority that could speak to it. I think you


are seeing awareness of constitutional issues and a desire


for more clarity, but you wouldn't have the debates we are having about


who is the authority and what is the process by which we challenge it.


Constitutions are not fixed, they have to change all the time. We


would still face those same issues. Thanks.


There's been more bloodshed in Aleppo today with the Syrian


regime barrel bombing a district in the east of the city -


and its forces advancing further into rebel territory.


Now if you've been watching us regularly, you'll know we've been


trying to keep in touch with citizens in Aleppo,


as the siege there enters its most intense and brutal phase.


That is not always easy, but today, we can show you what life


is like for some of the local journalists and cameramen


who are filming the destruction of their own home town.


The images can often be difficult to watch, let alone gather.


And news networks don't even broadcast the worst of it.


In this report, we've been speaking to two of the citizen-journalists


It was filmed by Milad Al Shehabi in eastern Aleppo and edited


this film has some disturbing images.


Filmed in high-definition, the tragedy in Aleppo


With the besieged rebel-controlled part of the city considered too


dangerous for Westerners, it's a network of local activists


and citizen journalists, called the Aleppo Media Centre,


who risk their lives to film these scenes that have been


The images of Aleppo by drones showing the miles and miles


of devastation are both breathtaking and heartbreaking.


Most of them are filmed by this man, Hasan Katan.


A law student when the conflict erupted, he's now a film-maker


Every shot he takes brings him a mix of emotions.


Mustafa al-Sarout used to be a tailor before the revolution.


He now also works as a cameraman for the Aleppo Media Centre.


His footage of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh sitting


dazed in the back of an ambulance went worldwide.


But there are many Omrans in Aleppo and each time there's an attack,


the journalists are torn about how to behave.


The group upload and share the videos they film.


Despite the lack of action by the international community


so far, they still hope their images can and will make a difference.


That's the question at the heart of the latest government inspired


report into integration - ethnic, religious and social.


It was produced by Dame Louise Casey.


She said she expected to find discrimination and disadvantage


feeding a sense of grievance and unfairness, and isolating


certain communities from the best opportunities.


But while she did find that, she was also aware of cultural


and religious practices that are holding back some citizens


in certain communities, particularly the Muslim ones.


Women and children are sometimes victims of regressive


Now this is not the first report into this issue -


but it is interesting to see how they've evolved.


Back in 1981 there were riots in Brixton.


Race was an issue and out of the wreckage came


At that stage, the concern was what British society was doing wrong.


Lord Scarman talked of inner-city decline, his most memorable finding


was to fault the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of police


And, he said, positive discrimination to tackle


racial disadvantage was a price worth paying.


Scroll forward to the year 2001, and there were riots


in Oldham and Burnley, prompting more than one report.


The Cantle report came out in 2006, now putting weight


on what the minority communities might do.


It said different communities lived parallel lives.


It warned that single faith schools might raise deeper divisions.


And it even suggested that immigrants could take an oath


Well, a decade of immigration on, with huge numbers of Poles coming


in and growth of over a million in the Muslim population too,


concerns over parallel lives have increased.


Today's report has tougher language on how minorities must fit in.


There's an emphasis on English language classes


And women's emancipation from "regressive cultural practices".


And the Casey report says schools should promote British


values to help build integration and tolerance.


Well, to some extent you might caricature the way the debate has


evolved over the years, as progression from a worry


about "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" to certain


groups saying "we don't want to go to your pub anyway".


I'm joined now by Sarah Hewitt, Headteacher at


Anderton Park Primary in Birmingham - she received death threats


after her school was inspected as part of the Trojan Horse scandal,


from Manchester Amina Lone, Co-director of the social


foundation which is an anti poverty think tank.


And Tadeusz Stenzel Chair of Trustees, Federation


First how do you respond to the idea that we seem to be asking migrants


to fit in more rather than working out what we do to help them. Perhaps


not as binary as I have suggested. How do you respond to that, is that


a fair thing for a society to start doing? I welcome the report and


think it has some interesting findings, not least saying we want


to have a new community investment programme and more English classes.


All a good thing. But you cannot say that without resources to back it,


and the last government significantly cut adult education


investment. I think the responsibility is on society and


individuals as we are all part of the same thing. We've got to work


together and live together, it is not about other people, Muslims or


immigrants or minority communities actually having to just change but


also about society saying what are British values, what do they mean


and how did they shape our future as a country. Some of this is addressed


at the Polish community as well, and that has been a conspicuous


immigration of the last decade. There have been problems obviously


but I agree it is a lack of education causing a lot of the


problems. I think we have reduced the amount of training for


immigrants and their living in a separate world which even in the


Polish community, which is widely distributed, and not so concentrated


on some of the others throughout the UK. The people live here, they eat


here but they live a life through the media, through Poland. They


watch Polish TV and Polish football games. But if the British Government


paid for English second language courses, do you think demand would


be there? It is always a problem, you can take the voice to the water


but cannot make it drink. It is a problem that I have come across.


This seems to be a reluctance to learn more than is absolutely


necessary to get by work. But there is an impending problem whether


children are now being educated in English schools and in the near


future the parents and children will not be able to communicate with


another. One was no English and the other was no Polish! I will ask you


all to give us three practical steps in a moment. Pressed to think that


it is OK to say we need you to try a bit harder in your communities, you


have to oppose regressive policies with women stuck at home. I think


that is fair to say, one of the things that we should be proud of in


the UK, sometimes I feel that we tell parents, we interviewed new


parents and we say this is a British school and we follow British law, we


have the equality act and we tell him -- tell them what that means.


And you get lower back from that? Sometimes. People sometimes say that


is your opinion and I say yes but that is the law as well, gay people


are also equal, disabled, able-bodied, the whole thing. You


cannot bit -- you cannot pick the bits of the equality act that you


like and leave the rest. I'm happy to say that, but I just wonder who


else should be saying that to families. Because this should be an


expectation for all British citizens and visitors to Britain that this is


what we expect and how we expect them to behave. And that gets you to


the idea of an oath, I do not know if you are in favour. I'm not a


great fan of that because I think any kind of declaration is only


effective if there is a sanction if you fall foul of it. You have not


respected British values, you get a ?50 ticket? And also a lot of the


British population is homophobic or misogynistic, so it should be an


oath for everyone. I would like a practical suggestion from each of


you, what would be the most important thing to do? We need to


reconstruct British values so they are reflective of the country as it


is changing and also provide support. That point about people in


schools or other institutions having British values and not


discriminating is right. But I know people who have been working in


schools when families have taken girls are the sports classes and the


school has allowed it. So we have got to be consistent. Support for


staff in public sector errors. Maybe we should just cut off Polish


television stations so they have to watch the BBC! We tried to influence


the Polish government to produce programmes aimed at the Polish


people living here in the UK. That they get politics from Poland but we


want to represent what is happening here. My suggestion is that we need


to teach people their responsibilities. They all know


their rights but very few, there's little emphasis put


responsibilities. That would be important to do that. We're going


right back to the thrust of the KC approach. Absolutely. Give me one


practical idea. I think it needs to come from the government, we need to


stop the fragmentation of schools. In what way? We are in an unusual


situation where we have all kinds of schools and this is a bit


fragmented. The government have lifted a cap on faith schools. This


report is about integration and the opposite to that is segregation and


you could argue that faith schools segregate. Anything that is about


segregation we need to rethink. We need to stop people being creamed


off to go to grammar schools, that is the opposite of integration. And


practical homes, be passionate about equality in the homes, speak about


that and be passionate about that. Children are brilliant at this and


in my school children are passionate about the quality. And the parents


tell me that their daughters have given them a hard time because for


example they said that their son should have the biggest bedroom and


the girls give them what for about that. So children are an amazing


tool for changing the mindset of parents. And that is huge, mindsets


change and behaviours, they change the world. Parallel lines is the


phrase people have been using, what is it that makes people want to sort


themselves into ethnic areas? I think people feel comfortable with


someone they identify with, whether culturally, with clothing or


language. When I go to my parents home in Birmingham, the local


supermarket is full of Muslims on Christmas Eve buying up all the


Christmas stock. So it is more complex. I am a Muslim woman, I have


children, I do not identify as needing to be emancipated, it is a


diverse community so we need to be cautious about labelling the whole


community. Thank you very much. That is all but we have time for this


evening. But before we go, Sotheby's


announced today that it was creating a brand new art forensics unit


to detect fakes, following its failure to spot


an ?8.4m forged painting. We thought we'd give it -


and you - its first big test. What follows is a series of 19th


century masterpieces - but mixed amongst them are a couple


of numbers our producers See if you can spot the fakes -


and then check the @BBCNewsnight twitter feed to find out


if you were right.


With Evan Davis. Europe takes another blow as Renzi resigns. Plus the government takes on the judiciary in the Supreme Court and why can't Britain's communities integrate?

Download Subtitles