28/02/2016 Sunday Politics London

The Prime Minister rams home his claim that leaving

the European Union puts jobs, security, even the world

Many Tories don't like his arguments.

David Cameron's mentor and former Tory leader Michael Howard will be

here to tell us why he thinks it's safe for Britain to leave -

and Labour big beast Alan Johnson will make the case for staying in.

Labour's not exactly united when it comes to renewing Trident -

that didn't stop Jeremy Corbyn telling protestors yesterday

that he believes in a nuclear-free Britain.

Following the death of young Conservative activist

Elliott Johnson amid allegations of bullying within the party,

we've spoken to one of those close to the centre of the story

Who are these people that I bullied or threatens? Nobody has come

forward and there is plenty of evidence that I did not do any of

those things. In the capital, split over Europe at the front runners

take sides on the referendum. We assessed the impact on the male

race. -- may roll race. All that to come -

and with me for the duration, three journalists who show as much

consensus on the big political For balance I should say they fall

out as often as Jeremy Corbyn's It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakshott

and Janan Ganesh. And speaking of cabinet unity,

there's a distinct lack of it

in this morning's papers of campaigning since David Cameron

announced that a referendum on Britain's EU membership will take

place on the 23rd of June. The Fleet Street hounds have caught

the scent of a good old-fashioned Conservative feud over Europe,

and with the party and the cabinet divided over whether Britain should

stay or go, they're not The Sunday Times says

David Cameron has been warned that he'll face a leadership

challenge if he doesn't call a halt to so-called 'blue on blue' attacks

on fellow Conservatives. The Sunday Telegraph reports

on the 'battle of wills' between the two sides

with pieces by David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith,

who says 'they can sack me The Observer leads with

Number 10's main message, which is to say that a British

exit would spark decades And the Mail on Sunday says

the Tory feud turned really nasty after Foreign Secretary Philip

Hammond had what it called So it seems fair to say that

relations between David Cameron and eurosceptics in his party

aren't exactly cordial. The welfare secretary

Iain Duncan Smith, he's one of the cabinet ministers arguing

to leave, was asked about it You don't think the Prime Minister

is much of a patriot, do you? This is not about personalities. They in

campaign's whole strategy seems to be about, it is terrible, it is

about saying that we are too small, too inconsequential and we cannot do

what we want. I don't know why anybody would want to run a country

like this. This country is the greatest honour. I think probably

the first time a cabinet minister has been asked if the Prime Minister

is a patriot and he does not reply yes. Is Mr Cameron getting the tone

and the content of this right? I think he made a big mistake earlier

this week when he lashed out at Boris Johnson in the Commons. I

think there was a degree of over interpreting those comments, and I

understand that there was a fuss about whether or not he had slighted

Boris Johnson's personal life with a reference to knowing couples that

had divorced. Mr Cameron thought he had Boris in the bag. He was

certainly bruised by that. The comment on marriage went over

Doris's aired, so there was a bit of over interpreting by people on all

sides. -- over progress's aired. But if Cameron is being called to stop

these attacks, he is the one who started them. Europe is just another

word for division in the Tory Party but it almost seems like the manner

and the tone of what the prime ministers saying, he is almost going

out of his way to upset those opposed to him. I disagree. I think

the grievances in the papers today are spurious. It has not been a blue

on blue campaign so far, not a huge amount of animosity and poison so

far although it is early days. Do they expect him not to play the

economic risk card? Do they expect him to go through the next four mums

using the single most devastating line of attack he has against the

other side, which is the unknown economic has heard of taking a punt

on Brexit? But that argument would be true even if he had brought back

the store from Brussels or brought back nothing from Brussels. The

economic argument is that this could be a profound shock to the world

economy. That is either true or not true, regardless of the settlement.

But that is not the given reason for their frustration with him. At the

moment they are focusing on the tone and negativity. And you don't feel

like they have the right to be aggrieved? No. It would be bizarre

Prime Minister to lead a campaign in favour of staying in without

deploying his most effective weapon. And what Mr Osborne is doing with

this argument is have one very simple, crude argument in the

general election, that Labour was not credible, and in this campaign

that it is a leap in the dark. He needs to be careful. The idea that

the world economy is going to tank because Britain leaves the European

Union, that Britain leaving the union is up there with the Chinese

fall in growth, it is absurd. What did George Osborne do? Equalled the

G20 finance ministers to write that into their conclusions. Yes, it will

be a challenge for the British economy if we leave the European

Union, but the idea that it is up there as a global risk that will

lead to some great world economic depression, I think he needs to be

careful. He has to ensure that what he does has credibility and I am not

sure that passes the test. What annoys a lot of the Tories is that

they are using arguments about staying in which I've always been

true, regardless of whether or not the settlement makes any difference.

To say that if we came out, there would be a profound economic shock,

that is true regardless of the settlement. I think that is what

annoys the Eurosceptics. They are using arguments that were true six

months ago. And many of the arguments are very thin. David

Cameron has written for the Telegraph today saying that he can

describe exactly what people will be voting for if they vote to stay in.

It is the status quo, it is not very difficult to describe that. It is

very frustrating for Eurosceptics that there is this constant spurious

claim by the In campaign that they cannot describe what Out looks like.

They describe what it looks like everyday. The problem is that it is

under article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that exit people cannot

guarantee the deal. They can say it might be this or that but they

cannot guarantee it because we are out of the European Council the

moment we press the button. You wonder whether either side can

guarantee what the country will be like whether we stay in or come out.

We have a pretty good idea of who will be fighting on which site.

Both the Leave and the Remain camps have their own big figures,

and they wasted little time in putting aside old loyalties

Let's have a look at some of the big moments of the week.

I have known a number of couples who have begun divorce proceedings

but I do not know any who have begun divorce proceedings in order

This open border does not allow us to check and control people who may

come and we have seen what has happened in Paris where they spent

ages planning and plotting so who is to say it is not

beyond the wit of man that those might already be thinking about it?

Today almost 200 of Britain's biggest firms including 36

on the FTSE 100 index published a letter warning that so-called

Brexit would put the economy at risk.

We have a great opportunity now to strike new deals for Britain

to be the hub of new trading arrangements around the world

and to have a fantastic new future so that is what I am going for.

In my judgment as Chancellor leaving the EU would represent a profound

economic shock for our country, for all of us and I am going to do

everything I can to prevent that happening.

The European Court of Justice interprets the European Union

treaties and until this agreement is embodied in treaty change then

the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement.

You saw there a few of the Conservative allies

David Cameron has failed to persuade of the case for remaining in the EU,

and now I'm joined by another one - the former party leader,

Tory peer and leave campaign Michael Howard.

Welcome to the programme. Let's start on this idea of a second

referendum. You have indicated that a vote to leave could jolt the rest

of the EU into giving us a better and bigger and more compounds of

deal. That could trigger a second referendum. Mr Cameron says that is

fiction and Boris Johnson now says the same. Are you sticking to that?

Yes. I cannot guarantee that would happen but it is a possibility.

Everybody who wants us to vote Remain is going to say it is for the

birds, and I understand that. There want us to vote to remain. Mr

Johnson is saying that, too. And I don't agree with him. We have

reached the same conclusion by different routes. The European Union

has form on this. They have done it before in relation to Ireland and

Denmark. The very things that make it certain that we would thrive as

an independent country, the fact that we are the fifth biggest

economy in the world, the strongest military power in Europe, the fact

that we are the second-biggest contributor to the European Union

budget, those things would mean that we would be sorely missed if we left

and that is why I think the countries in Europe, the European

leaders would say that if we voted to leave, let's have some more talks

and let's think again. Would they? Brexit, I think, if it happens would

happen at a time of what is clearly crisis for the EU, perhaps the worst

crisis in its history. If it responded by giving us everything

that the Eurosceptics wanted, there could be a rush to the door by other

countries. Why would the EU risk that? The very fact they are in a

crisis means they need us all the more. I cannot guarantee that they

would. It is an unknown. There is a chance of that but if they don't

come back, if all we are left with is the current under formed European

Union, I think we are better out than in. OK. Turning to the

economics. Last week we saw some of Britain's biggest companies,

household names, warning against the dangers of leaving the EU for jobs

and investment. Why should the British people not listen to them?

First of all, they were a minority even of the bosses of the FTSE 100

companies. Moore did not sign them signed. Secondly, don't take it from

me, take it from someone with real authority, someone like Mervyn King,

the former governor of the Bank of England, who pointed out yesterday

that we ought to take what these people say with a pinch of salt.

Many of them were strong adherence of us joining the euro and predicted

economic disaster for us if we did not. But not all of them. How many

FTSE 100 chief executives are on your side? I don't know. But many

business people are, particularly small business people. And

particularly business people who do most of their business with

countries outside of the EU and who are very hampered in doing so by the

rules to which we are in thrall. The kind of people who signed this

letter saying we should stay in, they are also the same kind of

people who signed the same kind of letters backing the Tories come

election time. If you want us to listen to them, when it suits you,

but not when they don't agree with you? They can be right about one

thing without being right about another. He wants to pick them up

when it suits you and disparage them when it doesn't. Can I make a point

about this? I think we are in danger of looking at these issues through

the wrong end of the telescope. If we leave, there are some things that

I can absolutely guarantee. Number one, we will have our democracy

restored, our courts and our Parliament will no longer be

subservient to the European Union. Number two, as part of that, we will

recover control of our borders and we will have control over who comes

in and who doesn't. Number three, we will no longer have to contribute

billions of pounds a year to the EU's budget. Those are certainties,

indisputable. The onus is on those who wish us to remain 2.2 similar

indisputable arguments which outweigh those and so far I have not

seen them. But does it not worry you that all of our allies in the G20

want us to stay in. Only President Putin among world leaders once asked

to leave? Does that not cause you concerned? The British people are

the best people to decide what is in our interest. You could also site

the Attorney General of the United States, who said that of the

European Union was undermining the intelligence sharing that is so

crucial in our fight against terrorism and crime. So now, it is

the British people who are the best people to decide what is in our

interest. The Prime Minister says there are 3 million jobs that depend

in some way on our trade in the European Union. He says we would not

go training -- we would go on trading with the EU, if we left, but

would the trade be at the same level? How many of these jobs would

be truly safe? Can you answer that question? They want to continue

trading with us and we are the biggest export market for the rest

of the European Union. And we run a great deficit on trade with them so

it is very much in their interest to continue to trade with us. We could

do some jobs, couldn't wake Umax -- we could lose. I do not think the

Germans would not continue selling as BMWs, or the French wine. If they

want to continue to have access to our market, we need to make sure we

have access to theirs. It is in our mutual interest. You say that all 3

million jobs are guaranteed? I cannot offer you any guarantees and

neither can the banister. The great arts profit of integration as he did

very well, when he said that if the British do not want to sign up to

further integration in the European Union, we can have a very friendly

relationship with them, we can sign up to a free-trade agreement with

them and that would be the way forward.

Let me show you what the current Home Secretary who is the longest

serving Home Secretary says: I have great respect for her, I

don't quite know why she says that. I believe that we can continue to

have a very good and constructive working relationship with the member

states of the EU on security matters if we leave. The reason I say that

is simply this, we contribute a great deal to that relationship, our

intelligence services are the best in Europe. They want the help we can

give them and so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we should

not continue to have a close relationship with them on these

matters on an intergovernmental basis. The declaration of the

European Council, which I know you have read as carefully as I have,

says in terms, national security is our responsibility of the nation

states. One thing we would not have access to is the European arrest

warrant. We could come to an agreement on that. Let's say what

you said on that: it wouldn't be if we left. It could,

because we could easily reach an agreement with the Europeans that

the essentials of the European arrest warrant continued in force.

Not all my friends on the leading side with that that I think it would

be possible to reach such an agreement. No other non-EU member

has use of the arrest warrant. No other nonmember is in the same

relationship as we are. We don't know. It was used to bring back one

of the failed London bombers from Italy and it came back quickly and

the arrest warrant. He is now in jail, how would we do that? That is

why I was in favour of it at the time and I think because we offer so

much to our European neighbours in terms of the capacity which we bring

to these issues they would be keen to continue in that sort of

arrangement with us if we left the European Union. Let me show you what

Rob Wainwright, the head of Europe all -- Europol said. The head of

Europol, British, the longest serving Home Secretary, both think

that our security would be more at risk. And the Attorney General of

the United States accuses the European Union of undermining the

fight against terrorism and I think in all of these issues we need to

have some self confidence and self belief. We are a big country, an

important country and we have a huge amount to offer in terms of

cooperation with our neighbours. It is in the interest to continue to

cooperate with us and I have no doubt we could reach perfectly

satisfactory arrangements with them if we voted to leave. Finally, Mr

Cameron was once your special adviser, you were his mentor and you

told his mother one day that he would be Prime Minister, what did he

say when you told him you are joining the league side? We had a

difficult conversation, I find it difficult to be on the opposite side

of the argument to David Cameron. He was very disappointed I had come to

this conclusion and I understand and respect that. Michael Howard, thank

you for being with us. So that's the case for leaving put

by an elder statesman Let's turn now to an elder statesman

of the Labour Party - although he's a fresh-faced one -

it's Alan Johnson and he is leading the Labour In for Britain Group,

and he's in Hull. Your side of the argument stresses

the risks and uncertainties of leaving the EU, do you accept there

are risks and uncertainties with staying? No. Not in the sense that

Michael Howard was suggesting. I thought what he said was wrong, he

said he could guarantee we would not be contributing to the European

Union and could guarantee there would not be free movement but he

cannot. If we take the Norway option which many of those on the leading

site promote then we would indeed be paying them, Norway is the 10th

biggest contributor. They have free movement. Why would we have to

follow what Norway does? They are a small economy and we are the second

largest in Europe? I am just saying that there are other options, the

Swiss option once again. Michael cannot guarantee it. We are the

fifth biggest economy, we were the fourth when we were in government,

but people say that only leaving side but they do not equate it at

all with 41 years of membership of the EU. Part of that economic

strength, I am in Hull where there is the biggest investment any where

in the world by Siemens, billions of pounds and 1000 jobs. They are

building wind turbines for offshore Britain. It was fierce competition,

if you take... They are building stuff Britain, why would they not do

it here? If you take Britain outside the EU you have all kinds of

uncertainties and all kinds of possible barriers. The Society of

motor manufacturers point out that whilst sales to China and Russia

have declined their sales to Europe are up by 10% because we don't pay

any tariffs to export into Europe. The other point I wanted to mention

was that Michael was part of a government which opted out of

something called the social chapter, basic protection for workers. In

this huge market, the biggest commercial market, bigger than China

and America, there are protections for workers. Michael opted out of

those and I believe that he and many others think that is good to not

have those protections. We opted back in. For us those protections

for workers, to avoid this country becoming a race to the bottom,

anything goes kind of free-market experiment, are very important. Hold

on, why couldn't the British government, why wouldn't a British

government outside the EU replicate these rights if it was so minded,

what would stop us from doing that if the government got the democratic

will of the British people? The first point is as I have explained

that a British government chose not to do that. That was Alex Goode

British government. The British government that we were part of

opted into those arrangements. There is nothing to suggest in the history

of Conservative government that if we left the EU that they would opt

into all this. That would be a matter for the British people to

choose if they wanted that government. If we let the EU at the

next election Labour would promise four weeks paid leave, rights for

workers, paid maternity at the next election and if that is what the

British people want they will vote for you? The people who want us to

leave, the argument I am making, is that the people who want us to leave

consider all of that to be red tape. They consider all of that to be

bureaucracy. We believe in that kind of market that there has to be

protection for consumers, for the environment and for workers. That is

an important part of what Europe gives us. Non-EU countries, Norway,

Australia, Canada, Iceland, they all score highly even on the trade

unionist global workers rights index. Why wouldn't an independent

UK, if voters index. Why wouldn't an independent

so and I don't see any mainstream politician saying they would want to

take away four weeks paid leave, why does it need Europe to do it? That's

a very good question. In this country alone, it is a political

consensus in countries like Norway and Sweden that there should be

decent basic rights for workers. In this country it is an election

issue. Why shouldn't it be an election issue? I believe if you are

trading into this huge market and have got all those opportunities to

trade then one aspect of that must be that you don't undercut each

other on the basis of terms and conditions. I believe it's an

essential part of being in Europe and that is why it is an important

part of our campaign to maintain those rights and protections. Moving

on to immigration, people are concerned about the scale of it, is

there anything in the settlement of David Cameron that'll make a

material difference to immigration from the EU? Yes there is, it is

very underrated nice to. Two points which were negotiated by Theresa May

that were not in the package that we saw in the Donald Tusk exchange were

very important. First of all tackling sham marriages and secondly

to say that people coming into this country who we suspect might be

engaged in the future in activities we would find criminal or perhaps

terrorism, that we can stop them coming in. That is important, at the

moment it is based on what we know, not on what we predict. Sham

marriages with their largely to the subcontinent and is very little to

do with Europe. You asked me for two things... I don't know what

difference it would make to the numbers, it is about 100 is to 5000

per year net migration coming to this country and it will continue at

that level if we stay in want it? There is nothing we can do about net

EU migration at that level. Absolutely. I have said that before.

It was David Cameron's package. In fairness of people making

contributions before taking working-class tax credits but I

never thought this was a draw for people to come -- taking working tax

credits. We can do something to stop the expectation and we don't need

the rest of Europe to do that, I think David Cameron was right, you

are right about free movement within the European Union but people are

worried about movement coming from outside the European Union and

outside the European Union ourselves I think we would be weaker. Not just

because we'll would the protection of the Dublin accord -- not just

because we will lose. The most honourable point is Calais to Dover

and that operation of the Border Force moving to Calais, the mayor

comes over and says teacher border backed every couple of months. That

is between France and Britain, it is nothing to do with the European

Union. This is the point and I think this is what Michael missed, if we

wrench ourselves away from the European Union after 41 years of

membership, does anyone think there will be huge goodwill out there for

Britain? Here is another point about French politics, the French

presidential right wing campaigns who might well win next year are

saying they will get rid of it even if we stay in the European Union.

There you are. So what is the point? Nothing to do with the EU. I don't

think anybody doubt that if we left the EU it would seriously bring into

jeopardy that arrangement and that is the most vulnerable entry point.

Jeremy Corbyn believes we should not look upon immigration as a problem.

Do you agree in the context of this debate about Europe? Only in the

sense that it is not the driving force, people don't come here, they

come here to work by and large, they don't come here to claim benefits.

In that respect I do. I think as Jeremy accepts the exploitation

which comes with it needs to be addressed. So to be clear the scale

of immigration if we stay in the EU does not change. It might do. I will

tell you why it might do, I was Home Secretary before Theresa May, the

net migration figure was around 165,000, very low. Because we had

just gone through the collapse of Liman brothers and the economy was

doing badly. If we come out of the EU and are in such a state as far as

our economy is concerned it might stop people wanting to come here.

OK, you said we have the best lyrics, meaning your side, but we

are still struggling to put them to music, why can't you find the right

chin? What I meant by that is they have simplistic let's regain the

borders and regain our sovereign three and it's quite a complex

argument to say actually we have got the best of both worlds. Yes we have

some sovereign tree into Europe but that gives us influence over other

member states and gives us a louder voice and a more powerful voice in

the rest of the world. We will give you that, you love your music so we

will give you time to find a tune until we meet again. Alan Johnson,

thank you. Let's turn now to the bullying

allegations surrounding the death of young Conservative

activist Elliott Johnson. An inquest is due to open this week

after the 21-year-old was found dead It's thought he took his own life

weeks after raising allegations about the way he was being treated

in the Conservatives' youth wing. He left behind a suicide note naming

two other activists. Today, one of them, a man

called Andre Walker, speaks out about his relationship

with Elliott Johnson and the bullying allegations

for the first time. For nearly six months

a grieving family, friends, colleagues and the media have been

trying to fathom why a young conservative activist,

21-year-old Elliot Johnson, lay down on a railway line

and took his own life. The student vote

is really important. Just months before, he had been

an enthusiastic volunteer for Road We are going to be deciding

the general election. This was the brainchild of a former

Conservative candidate, Mark Clarke, that would bus young

conservatives around the country to campaign on doorsteps

during the 2015 general election. Are you going to help change

the future of our country? Since the death of Elliott,

lurid headlines have reported complaints

being made against Mr Clarke of bullying, sexual impropriety

and blackmail in relation All of which Mr Clarke

vigorously denies. Accusations of a Conservative

cover-up have led to the resignation of former party co-chairman

Grant Shapps, pressure on the current chairman

Lord Feldman, Mr Clarke banned from the party for life,

and an internal party investigation underway already widely criticised

by the Johnson family. Elliott left a note to be read

after his death directly accusing Mr Clarke of bullying him

and another person, The note was not all that Elliott

left, there was also a secret recording of a night at a pub

with all three of them in which Andre Walker appears

aggressive and threatening over an official complaint Elliott

was going to make about Mr Clarke. In the six months which have

followed, Andre Walker has been portrayed in the media

as Mr Clarke's henchmen, ready to strongarm those

who stood in his way. Now in his first interview Mr Walker

gives his side of events nature of his friendship

with Elliot Johnson. The Andre Walker that the public has

seen so far in relation to this story, is that an Andre

Walker you recognise? If I take you back to the day

that the covert recording took place, Elliott asked me to come

with him to meet with Mark Clarke which was a meeting that he wanted

to discuss the problems they had. I met Elliott beforehand and we went

to the pub together and met Mark. What you hear is me getting

frustrated partway through What you don't hear,

what wasn't released to most of the media was at the end Elliott

inviting me back to his place because I had missed the last train

and us leaving the pub together. If you look at that secret

recording, it sounds like you are some kind of hatchet

man for Mark Clarke. I think everyone who is fat

and from the North of England and involved in politics gets

accused of being a bruiser and it is something I never took

particularly seriously, I don't recognise the criticism

and I think the media has called almost everyone I have ever met

in politics and who are these people that I bullied

or threatened or harangued? Nobody has come forward,

in fact there is plenty of evidence that I didn't do any

of those things. What was the nature

of the relationship So, Mark Clarke introduced me

to Elliott because we both had We hit it off straightaway

and the relationship started It lasted until the day he died,

as far as I was concerned. The reason I have been coy

about that is I know that saying I'm very sorry about that

and it is not my intention to go out We have got to discuss this issue,

we have to discuss the issue of homophobia and why people,

even as close to him as me were not told about the mental

health problems. This is a reference

to a British Transport Police report prepared ahead of this weeks

inquest seen by Mr Walker. The Daily Mail has reported that it

suggests: But also that Elliot

Johnson had made previous health issues relating

to his being accepted as gay. Speaking to the BBC in response

to the story, his father denies It is not relevant, Elliott

took his life because he had been bullied and picked on generally

by certain persons and let down by other organisations around

the Conservative Party. He was treated badly,

that is why he took his life. He was treated appallingly by people

and organisations and we want to make sure that he receives

justice for what happened to him. Many of Andre Walker's old friends

have blamed him and shunned him. He says that has prevented him

from being able to grieve. I was not able to go

to the funeral service. Because of the things

which were said about me. That was very hurtful

because I would have liked Similarly I don't know where

Elliott's final resting place is, I would like to visit it,

whether that is going to be possible The one memorial service I was able

to go to somebody screamed at me and I was effectively thrown out

which has just made it impossible for me to pay my respects in the way

that I feel I ought to. How would you describe Elliott

as a person? He was great fun, we used to go out

and have a real laugh and I think that this sort of sad life

which people have characterised him as having in London where it was all

very depressing and he didn't have many friends and people

were bullying him on a day-to-day basis, to my mind is surely not him

at all and I think it is sad that It's just gone 11.35am,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now we'll be talking about

Jeremy Corbyn's appearance at a rally for CND, and a big week

in the race to the White House. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. In. Of a top 525%, one London Labour

MP asks if the capital's teenagers are paying the price for failure in

policy. Recognise them? Chuka Umunna is here in the studio. And Andrew

Rossendale is also joining us, Conservative MP for Romford. What

should we start with? Europe perhaps? Boris Johnson, he made

waves throughout the land with his decision this week and the outgoing

mayor was accused of potentially leaving a toxic legacy. Are you

really sacrificing London's economy and its future on the basis of your

personal ambition? I think it is illusory to think that London would

somehow wither away and die if it was not for our membership of the

European Union. On the contrary. What is his motivation? We believe

in our country, as I do. We need to decide our own laws and destiny. You

do not do that if you are in a political union with Europe. I think

the threat to business is control from Brussels. And our inability to

be able to even sign our own trade deals with the rest of the world.

Brussels has to do everything and that is not acceptable. Chuka

Umunna, him being part of this leave campaign makes it more difficult for

the remaining campaign. That is the message. Because he is the winner

twice in London? This referendum is about the future of our country and

our city and it is far bigger than any one individual. I think Boris

has damaged himself because it will probably come out anyway, and if he

had come out in the way that Michael Gove or some of the others he did,

instead of this flirtation with the Prime Minister, to try to get him

onside, I think he would have got more credit. And it is garbage. I

have just spent six years arguing against all the domestic things that

this guy's government has been doing, troubling tuition fees, the

bedroom tax, you name it. That has all been done by the Tory

government. Listed on the those issues. The main issue revealed the

clearest of choices in the contest to be the next mayor. Zac Goldsmith

is also for leaving. But Sadiq Khan wants to remain. What part to the

issue play in the race for City Hall? Dashboard part could the issue

play. In or out, the question is at the core of London's mayoral race.

This week, the two leading candidates started their own war of

worlds. There are 500 million customers in the European Union. The

rest of the world looks at envy at the European Union. At a time of

uncertainty, why would we leave? I value my relationship with the EU.

Half my family are European but this is about the future of London and

our economy and I think we would be better out. Both have opposing

positions, and will that influence how people vote in the election in

May? We canvassed opinion, asking for people to vote for a Eurosceptic

hot cross bun or a European croissant. Zac Goldsmith wants to

leave the EU. Does their position on the EU affect the way that you will

vote? Yes, it would. I will vote for Sadiq Khan. I will have a class on.

Thank you very much. Which do you want to take? Eight ultimate bundle?

Or a Sadiq Khan croissant? I am pro is conservative. But you might vote

for Labour? Labour? Why is that? I want to stay in Europe. They do very

much indeed. If I vote in the election, it will be about the hot

cross bun, but not Europe. I will have a croissant without committing

to a vote. Sadiq Khan's croissants proved more popular but will the two

rival views on Europe prove decisive in the outcome of the mayoral

election? Voters will receive a first and second preference vote in

May and in every mayoral election since 2000, second preference votes

have decided the victor. This political commentator believes that

the issue of Europe may influence how voters choose their second

preference vote. Ukip photos, on balance they are probably more

likely to be conservative as a second preference. Green the second

preference voters are more likely to be labour, particularly Jeremy

Corbyn, frankly. That is better for Sadiq Khan. But the European issue

might cloud that. It might still some of them towards Zac Goldsmith,

and after all he is himself very much associated with green causes.

And then you are down to other parties. The Lib Dems are likely to

do better this time than last time, and they are strongly pro EU. You

might expect them to tilt towards Sadiq Khan. But these are completed

political times and nothing is for sure. Not even, it seems, which way

business will fall on the debate. This week a joint letter in support

of staying in Europe raised more questions than it answered. With two

thirds of FTSE 100 companies declining to sign. We'll time works

for London First, representing some of the capital's leading employers.

-- will die. After the referendum, we will work with whoever is mayor,

and they will work with the situation delivered from the

referendum. That is fine. Are clear on the issues and housing, and we

are very clear that London will be better off in Europe. After all, it

is the business capital of Europe and it is a big thing to put at

risk. Londoners will vote for a new mayor seven weeks before they go to

the polls again for the EU referendum. We'll be two main

contenders win or lose because of their distant views on Europe? --

differing views. Do you think it will have an impact? How much will

it hang over the mayoral race? I think it will play a big role. We

have just had London First, one of the pre-eminent business

organisations in London, saying that we are at Europe is's capital and

that will be compromised if we are not in the European Union. Given its

importance to bridge the -- importance to business, it is

definitely going to play. Given its importance to the future of the City

of London, it will definitely play there. We also have a lot of people

with links to Europe, who have come here from other EU countries, who

will have a vote in this mayoral contest, who do not have a vote at

the referendum or in a general election scenario. I think it is

going to play a role and you would expect it to because I think staying

in is going to be good for our economy, good for our security and

keep London at the top table of global cities.

Andrew do you agree that polling suggests that London's population

seems more sympathetic, along with Scotland, for staying in?

It is not the case in my area, people are relishing the prospect

that we can be free and trade with Europe and cooperate with Europe but

not be part of a political union. But it is going to have an impact on

the election, but I would say that Zac Goldsmith is at least being

honest and truthful about what he believes. I think in the long term

if London is able to trade freely with Europe and the rest of the

world and be a global city, I would rather be the capital of the world

than just the capital of Europe and I think we can do that but only if

we are unchained ourselves from the European Union. This is such a load

of rubbish, that everyone to get anything done we are dictated to by

Brussels as it where. The fact is that in the overwhelming majority of

situations the UK by minister, Tory or Labour, have been on the majority

side for the position which is adopted. This idea that we can't get

what we want done is garbage. Secondly I don't know of any non-EU

country which is part of the free trade area that does not find itself

subject to the rules which come with being part of that free trade area.

What is the model you want? Norwegian? Swiss? And new

partnership between the United Kingdom and Europe. The fifth

largest trading nation in the world, we can do this, we don't need to be

strangled by Brussels. We are not, why are you talking down our

country? We are, we cannot decide our own laws, the European Court of

Justice is sovereign over our own courts and Parliament. I want

Britain to be an independent country cooperating and trading freely not

subjected to higher authorities. We are an independent country, there

are a acts of Harlem and passed over the last four years. What do you

feel about London, is it a tall order? This specific point Chuka

mentioned, is it a risk for Zac Goldsmith to take this position and

put himself apparently opposed to a lot of business here? I don't

believe it is a risk to stand up for what you believe in and he is a man

of integrity. He will stand up on this because he knows in his heart

that our future is global. We need to trade with the Commonwealth, the

English-speaking world, countries far and wide. Is it not made more

difficult because of how we perceive London? Absolutely, because as a

nation you cannot sign a free trade agreement with Canada. We have to

wait for Brussels to do it on our behalf. How crazy is it... Our

history, our heritage around the world yet we cannot do trade deals

with even the Commonwealth countries without Brussels giving it says so?

We do do trade deals and the point is it is a question of your

leveraged and bargaining power. I led a trade mission to Beijing in

2013 and the Chinese said to me why is it your country wants to leave,

some people in your country want to leave the European Union because

when you are negotiating with us with the European Union you are

sitting on one side of the table with half a billion people... They

have said we will trade with you anyway whether you are in or out. I

am not going to be disingenuous and say we will not be trading with

anyone suddenly but I am saying we are in a stronger position when we

are with other countries. Iceland has just done a trade deal with

China, Iceland, the idea that we can do it... I am not saying that I am

not saying that. But we asked our guest Chuka Umunna

to give the view from his south In 2007 serious youth violence in

our capital hit the headlines in a big way following the shooting in

broad daylight of a young man in my constituency. Since then between

2009 and 2012 the number of fatalities has abated. But the

simple fact is the problem never went away. Sadly I am getting

updates on an almost weekly basis from the police on incidents which

are happening around my constituency. People want to know

why what is happening is happening and the problem is that there is not

one cause and is not one solution. Pairing thing, families of course

are important and sometimes the perpetrators of these acts come from

Celtic families. But many come from quite stable families. -- chaotic

families. Two parents holding Chuka jobs to make ends meet so they don't

have enough time to spend with their young people. The government has

done some not bad things here, it created a network of experts, people

who have worked with young people who descend around the country to

advise on local appropriate solutions. They are disbanding that

and that is madness. My fear if we don't deal with this issue and

quickly is not only that we will see more fatalities but we will see this

culture of violence proliferate. I don't want any of my young

constituents growing up in that kind of environment when what they

deserve is a safe environment full of opportunity that actually gives

them the ability to realise their full potential and talent. That is

what we have got a duty to sort. Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime,

Stephen Greenhalgh, joins me now. The figures have come down in terms

of fatalities of teenagers killed, but they are beginning to go up

again, and the figures about injury in knife crime are going up, you

don't deny that presumably. Are you worried? I thought the film was very

thoughtful, this is a complex problem that requires a series of

solutions. The statistics of a quarter increase in gang crime is

wrong, in the last year gang crime is down about 5%. We are not at the

levels of 2008 or 2012 but there has been a rise in knife crime with

injury. A slight drop with teenagers. It's a complex picture

but no doubt it is a problem that needs addressing and it affects

certain parts of London, this is not London wide. The mayor 's office in

the last few years under the stewardship of Boris Johnson is

doing all it can around prevention. And a series of programmes dealing

with emotional trauma and problems young people suffer, pathways into

employment, intervention and how we help young people exit. Also those

who are victims of violence, working within trauma centres to try to get

a teachable moment to help them exit a life which is damaging. Are you

getting on top of the problem? No doubt the focus on enforcement has

suppressed the problem but you will not enforce your way out of this

problem, it requires a programme around prevention. The idea that

everything is ending and nothing is happening is disingenuous. There are

you centres opening up in Barking and Dagenham based on goal in Wigan

which saw youth crime dropped by 50%. We are seeing a number of

bodies helping us prevent this becoming a problem. Of course more

can be done but a lot is happening. Chuka do you recognise that? I don't

think anyone is saying that there are not things being done, and as I

said the government and the mayor have been doing things but the

figures I have taken are more packed figures for the last three years --

Mopac figures. It has gone up by 25% over the last three calendar years

and the second thing I would say is that it is not just about what the

mayor is doing, it is about central government and part of the challenge

is I think we need to elevate youth work to be regarded as the same as

teaching because youth workers often spend the same amount of time with

young people as teachers. Part of the problem with local government

cuts, 56% cut in the central government grant, a lot of youth

provision is non-statutory. I don't understand, I saw you announced the

appointment of Ray Lewis as the gang czar. I think if the mere meeting

with him or not is a sideshow. -- the mayor. Let's focus on the issue,

is it getting out of hand? It isn't, has it got worse in the last couple

of years? Yes it has. Is there a programme around prevention and

intervention, yes. Do you think you are not getting the support you

would like from central government? No, we are getting a lot of central

government support. Spending millions of pounds thanks to

programmes in partnership with health, looking at training people

to recognise mental health problems. Stuff in trauma centres because of

that. We are working with education on programmes which get into

referral units and alternative revision. That is with a couple of

million pounds of EU funding to do that. We are working to try and

solve this problem. You have the beginning of a problem, you had

problems recently? Romford has a town centre, we have had gang

problems, violence. But it's important to involve the voluntary

sector. But I think Zac Goldsmith has great ideas in terms of early

intervention, channelling the money to the local council to do more.

There is no doubt youth services in my borough and others have been cut

dramatically and that doesn't help. I think Chuka is making some good

points and we should work on a cross-party basis. Can I just ask

why you are here -- all you are here, you are very much for staying

in Europe and you have looked at the police and security situation and

you are in favour of staying in? I am a reluctant remainder, I have

decided I support the decision that we should, our future is stronger

and safer inside EU. For a number of reasons, three broad areas, this is

for the people of these countries to decide, but we were struck in 2014

when there was a life in -- once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to

opt out that you could opt out of all the security negotiations and

you could probably renegotiate that and it does not prove easy.

Extradition which you would hope could be secured by

intergovernmental agreement takes 18 months. With the system in Europe it

takes a matter of weeks. Having access to intelligent and data,

being able to extradite criminals is all easier with a collaborative

framework inside EU. Would London be less safe? You cannot say, but I

feel less secure being unable to stop criminals at the border. It is

a factor we need to consider. And what did the mayor say when you

share that view? This is a personal view. Boris has his view and has put

his colours on Sunday and this Sunday I put my view and each person

has to form their own opinion on this difficult issue. OK, now for

the rest of the news in 60 seconds. 13 climate change protesters who is

demonstrated in at Heathrow caused the cancellation of 25 flights have

avoided jail. Instead they have received suspended sentences. They

have been banned from Heathrow after being found guilty of aggravated

trespass in and entering a security restricted area. Westminster Council

has granted planning permission for a ?1.5 billion development on the

site of new Scotland Yard HQ. The plans include what has been

described as six architecture lay striking towers between 14 and 20

stories. The move aims to save more than ?6 million a year in running

costs and plans are subject to the approval of City Hall. Crossrail is

dead, long live the Elizabeth line. The new line was renamed this week

in honour of the Queen. Trains will travel under the centre of the city

linking parts of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire to Essex when it

opens in December 20 18. You masterminded the new Scotland

yard sell-off. What is the latest state of play? We have sold around

150 buildings and we have booked close to ?1 billion, ?950 million,

and that has been reinvested into front-line policing. It is one of

the reasons we have been able to make so many savings and keep police

officer numbers at around about 80,000. Is that the right strategy?

I'm worried that I would like to see more officers, I am worried about

the disintegration of the safer neighbourhood schemes. There are

more officers in your constituency than there have ever been. That is

wrong. Andrew, in the time we have left? There is no doubt that crime

has fallen in London under Boris and every public service including the

police as to make the best use of resources. If it means channelling

money away from buildings and into dealing with crime, of course it

makes sense to me. No doubt. On that note. Good to see you. Chuka Umunna

and Andrew Rossendale, thank you as well. Back to Andrew.

We were talking earlier about divisions in the Conservative Party

over Europe, but of course they're not the only party that's split over

Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn addressed thousands at a rally for

the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in London, where he condemned

Trident - a nuclear weapon that his party still

They reckon it is the biggest anti-nuclear weapons March for a

generation. Which means it is like the Oscars. For people with causes.

The civil service union, it is one of the few unions against Trident

instead of four Trident. We are giving free food for the people. We

are from Hare Krishna. Don't make weapons, make food. We are here to

draw attention to the links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

This country should not have gone in for either of them but now we have

the chance to get out of both of them. The only good bomb is a Yager

bomb. You might disagree this morning. We have had a better time

than anyone who has had to deal with Trident. Also there, Caroline Lucas

and Nicola Sturgeon. This lady had an amazing knitted Jeremy Corbyn but

the big draw was the man himself, who has devoted his adult life to

the staff. Many of us have marched for many years and met for many

years with the view that we bring about a peaceful world by arguing

peacefully for it, putting forward the logical alternatives and showing

two people the horror of war and the total horror of nuclear weapons,

should they ever be used by anybody. A lot of Jeremy Corbyn's party agree

with him. A survey of Labour members published this week showed that more

than two thirds of them want to scrap Trident. The issue is that

quite a lot of Labour MPs and trade unions do not think that way. I

think he would have something better to do than being there along with

the leaders of the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. There was a

conference just a couple of days ago with the GMB union who represent the

workers in the shipyards, and they are proud of their skills and

worried about their future. They want that sorted out quickly. That

is a strong message to David Cameron and to Jeremy Corbyn. This week, the

Labour branch of the campaign for nuclear disarmament was criticised

after publishing a fact file that appears to compare Trident with

World War II gas chambers. I think alluding to the gas chambers in this

context is utterly grotesque. The truth is that the gas chambers were

never a form of deterrent, they were never a method of war. They were not

legitimate. In the 40s or at any time. They were about genocide,

about wiping out a race of people. And to compare those things with the

discussion that we are having here about a nuclear deterrent, I think

it is utterly grotesque. The task of clearing it all up falls to the

Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornbury, reviewing party policy.

Although that might not be done before the Commons as to vote on new

in Trident submarines later this year. And reporting for the -- from

the CND demo. Yesterday was supposed to be Labour's day of campaigning

for the European Union. But Mr Corbyn went to this big rally and

that is what has been in the news. Discuss. Well, in his heart of

hearts, it is not so much that Jeremy Corbyn does not want Britain

to be in the European Union, he just does not want the European Union to

exist. He thinks it is part of the global liberal capitalist

conspiracy, and you heard him in the TV debates of the leadership

contest, he does not really like the ewe but he is boxed into a corner

and he has to pretend that he does. I was told at one stage she toyed

with coming out against Britain's membership. Another edition -- in

the leadership campaign he made some tortured remarks. I remember asking

him to clarify his thinking and then there was a slightly awkward

statement in which he said he would campaign for reform from within. And

then later in the TV debates he was very harsh against the European

Union. He does not really like it but he is boxed into a corner

because for Jeremy Corbyn, there are more important battles and the more

important battle is Trident. He has been a member of the CND since 1966

and that is what he thinks. He has been entirely consistent on this.

He's strike the Parliamentary Labour Party. He does not go to the

meetings. And he wants to get the membership, this new membership in

the country behind him, maybe even the party conference behind him, and

that is how he would get his way. The macro that is absolutely right.

If you talk to moderate figures in the Labour Party, privately they

will say that this is not actually about Trident although there is no

doubting Jeremy Corbyn's sincere beliefs. A lot of this is about

control of the Labour Party. I think the problem for Jeremy Corbyn and

the Labour Party as a whole is this reinforces the impression of a party

that is talking to itself. Of course, all parties in opposition

need to do that to some extent, but with a view to renewing and coming

out stronger. And that is not going to be the outcome of this very

divisive debate. What are your thoughts on this? It is a typically

caught the night thing to do, because it is more focused on

transforming the Labour Party than on policy outcome. He cannot

seriously believe that this country is not going to renew Trident. He

cannot seriously believe that the other nuclear powers would do

something similar. What matters most to those around him is redefining

what the Labour Party is permanently. It is a catastrophe for

the party because it is not as if the political problem only kicks in

if he successfully changes party policy. Just having the debate on

Trident is problematic in and of itself. It was barmy in the 80s and

to do it now when the number of nuclear powers is higher and the

number of people who are rational is lower, it will strike voters as

curious. Let's hope he goes to the DLP tomorrow because it is always

fun when he does. Speaking of that, the American presidential elections

went along with through in the process yesterday. Yesterday was the

Democratic primary in South Carolina and Mrs Clinton won against Bernie

Sanders and this is what she said after her landslide victory. Despite

what you hear, we do not need to make America a great again. America

has never stopped being great. CHEERING.

But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we

need to be tearing down the barriers. Hillary Clinton in South

Carolina. They move on super Tuesday, this coming Tuesday. I

would suggest that the significance of that is twofold. That is a woman

who thinks she has won the nomination and she probably has.

Secondly, she is turning her attention to Donald Trump because

make America great again is his campaign slogan. She thinks she is

up against Trump in the election. All the indications are that she has

won of the Democratic nomination. Marco Rubio could win the Republican

nomination but it would take quite a circuitous route, maybe going to the

convention floor. Which it has not done in my lifetime. And you can

imagine how poisonous that would be for the party. I think it will be

Hillary Clinton versus someone, probably versus Donald Trump. And I

think the thing I take away from it is that as farcical as Trump is, as

much of a blowhard as he is, and as crazy as this memory campaign is, it

shows that a country can succeed despite its politics. And America

has been doing this for decades. In the Texas debate, Mr Trump did not

do so well. He was attacked on both sides from Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz,

the junior senator for Texas. Although Trump must still be the

favourite, he is not yet at the unstoppable shoo-in that Mrs Clinton

has become. He is not unstoppable. Make no mistake, there are many

within the party machine who would like to stop them. There could well

be a very aggressive operation to stop them becoming the candidate. So

far, it has not worked. There is an important point to make about Trump

from a global point of view. We sit here and say, what a terrifying

prospect, but remember, he will not be a democratically elected dictator

if he ends up as president. Congress will have a lot of power to fetter

him, even if he wants to build that wall he will have to get a vote

through and that is very unlikely. He could still do a lot of damage as

president, even with Congress against you. You are a powerful

person. But Marco Rubio has finally got a good line of attack on him. If

you had not got that $200 million from your father, you would be

selling watches in Times Square. But it was only two weeks ago that he

was duffed up by Chris Christie, who has now endorsed Donald Trump. And

he does not like Marco Rubio. President Obama said the other day,

I am absolutely convinced that the American people will not vote for

Donald Trump as president. And you must assume he is right. We have

learned two things about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and this time

around, she will probably make an excellent president but she is a

deeply flawed candidate. You assume that she should beat Trump as the

nominee but we have seen some flaws in her as a candidate. And maybe he

would manage to beat. This could be the last opportunity for the

Republicans. There is no Democratic frontrunner since McGovern in 1972

with bigger negatives than Hillary Clinton. The White House is

convinced that this would be a victory if it was Trump against

Clinton. I wonder where grand and impressive reputation comes from

because from an outsider's perspective, the bullet points on

her CV were messing up Hillary care in 1993, which caused the Republican

clean sweep in the Congress, and the second was blowing a 20 point lead

over Barack Obama at the end of 2007 in the primary campaign. She was an

OK Secretary of State but nothing world is changing. To have the

reputation she does as a very grand, conquering figure on the basis of

that career seems overdone. We will leave it there. If Ted Cruz cannot

win on super Tuesday, he is finished. If Trump is at all in the

polls, Marco Rubio is finished. -- if Trump is ahead in the polls.

The Daily Politics is back on BBC2 at midday tomorrow,

and we'll be back here next Sunday at 11am.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

..and open our eyes to a smarter way to buy.

I am in the shop two, three times a week.

She's always like, "This is a nice dress. These are nice shoes."