15/06/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Well, this is the closest I'll get to Rio.

The advance of the Islamist army on Baghdad has been slowed.

The Iraqi army claims the fightback has begun.

But the country now faces a de facto partition.

What should Britain, Europe, or the US be doing - if anything?

It's been a big week in the Scottish referendum.

But has the tone of the debate become too downright nasty?

Both sides join us to go head to head.

I will swap Ed Miliband for Tim Farren. What is the significance of

that? And coming up here:

even Westminster, we'll be asking As police promise a crackdown

on loyalist flags I'll be hearing reaction from

Mike Nesbitt, Alasdair McDonnell Join me in half an hour.

support amongst people is bigger than assumed.

The Sunni Islamist army known as ISIS is now in control

of huge swathes of northern and western Iraq, including

Until the weekend they looked like advancing relentlessly

on Baghdad but that offensive has now been slowed or even halted

The Iraqi army and its Shia milita allies vow that

Baghdad will not be taken and that a counter-attack will soon begin.

Iraq's Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has to do something to

reverse the humiliation of recent days, which saw

his US-trained and equipped Iraqi army, which outnumbered

the Islamists 15 to 1 melt away or surrender when confronted by ISIS.

The conflict has already created a humanitarian crisis, with hundreds

The Kurds have used the conflict to consolidate their hold on their

autonomous area in the north, parts of the west and the north are in the

grip of ISIS control and the Shias are hunkering down in the east.

All of which makes a three-way partition a real possibility with

The US is moving another of its massive aircraft carrier

battlefleets to the Gulf, though the White House shows no

While Iran says it's ready to help its Shia allies

and there are unconfoirmed reports that its revolutionary guard has

Well, I'm joined now by Newsnight's diplomatic editor Mark Urban.

Let's start with some basics. Who are ISIS and why are they

controlling big chunks of Iraq? ISIS is an extremist militant jihad

organisation and they have a pure Islamic concept based on 14th

century history and jurisprudence. What they want to do is correct --

create this caliphate that do not recognise colonial boundaries so it

involves Syria and Iraq, and they could go down to Lebanon and

Palestine, that is all fair game as far as they are concerned. And they

have this strict interpretation of Islam. The more interesting question

is why have semi-Sunni Muslims, along with them, these are precisely

the sort of people who in 2006, 2007, tribal leaders in the west of

the country rose up against. It was called the Awakening and the

Americans in power did and bankrolled it. These people turned

against them and admired them in large numbers, so why do they have

so many Sunni Muslims on their side? We hear about people going

back to Mosul. I think the answer is a perception

back to Mosul. I think the answer that the current government is

ruling in sectarian interests, Shia Muslim interest, and the Sunni

Muslims want self-determination and this is their best bet.

Muslims want self-determination and this is their Let me put up this map

to find out where we are going. We can see Mosul in the north, they

took that, and then they started, South, reports that the crit was

involved -- to grit -- to grit. What is the situation on the ground now?

We are in what you might call a consolidation or strategic pause as

American called it in 2003. ISIS are trying to consolidate their power in

Mosul, and now they have this major city and they are trying to show

they can run the city and get the power going, etc. Their southernmost

forces, that is a gorilla army, guys in pick-up trucks. They cannot deal

with serious opposition. They would like to get the tanks and other

things into action but that could take weeks for them to be able to do

it. The government side is that they have counter-attacked, but it will

take a little while before these newly raised militia and other task

forces, call them what you will, can effectively counter-attacked. But

that is what will happen in the next week or two. We will see

increasingly large and serious government counter-attacked trying

to retake those places, and I fear a really difficult, bloody Syrian

style street by street battle for some of these urban centres. I would

like to have a look at this map, because the Kurds, as I mentioned,

they are consolidating their position in the autonomous region in

the north. The Islamist are taking over huge chunks of the Sunni Muslim

West. And of course the Shia Muslim are still dominant in control of

Baghdad and in parts of the south and east. Back to me looks like the

beginnings of the partition of Iraq. -- back to me. Well, it is, but we

have to caveat it in a few ways. Firstly, there are millions of

people in Iraq, so-called sushi, combined families, who do not fit

easily into the pattern. Do we see millions of people becoming refugees

under this scheme? There would be a lot of human tragedies if people

really did try to enforce this type partition. Secondly, there are Sunni

Muslim communities in the south of Baghdad, those places, once again, a

lot of misery and fighting will occur if people try to enforce a de

facto partition. There are still an awakening of forces. They are on the

side of the government. We heard about one group in Samarra of Sunni

Muslims fighting on the same side. It's a complex picture. They factor,

it does look like a partition, and if it goes further in that direction

it will. And partition will always be messy because people end up on

the wrong side of the lies. Finally, the big thing on that map,

Iran, a huge place, a huge border with Shia Muslim Iraq. Iran now

becomes a key factor. It is becoming a proxy war for Iran. Yes, when I

was in Baghdad a few months ago, I did actually see Iranians

revolutionary guards in uniform. They were protecting a senior

Iranians official, so some numbers have been never some time and they

are also said to protect the political leaders and -- in his

compound. They are there. We think more of them are trying to organise

the defence of Baghdad to galvanise the Iraqi army, and they will not

allow the Iraqi government to fall. Mark, thank you for marking archive

this morning. -- marking our card. Tony Blair took Britain

into the Iraq conflict in 2003. He's now, among other things, envoy

to the Middle East representing That's the UN, the EU,

the US and Russia. This morning he entered

the debate about what should be My point is simple. If you left

Saddam in place in 2003, when 2011 happened and you have the Arab

revolutions going through Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt and

Syria, you would still have had a major problem in Iraq. You can see

what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened

with Bashar al-Assad. The problem doesn't go away. What I'm trying to

say is, we can rerun the debates about 2003, and there are perfectly

legitimate points on either side, but where we are in 2014, we have do

understand that this is a regional problem, but a problem that will

affect us. And I'm joined by the former Foreign

Office minister Mark Malloch-Brown, Here in London are James Rubin,

he was chief spokesman for the State Department under

Bill Clinton, and Bayan Rahman, she represents the Kurdistan

Regional government in the UK. Intervened in Iraq, it's a shambles,

we don't intervene in Syria, it's a shambles. What lessons should we

draw? That is a well framed question, because that is the

problem. Tony Blair is half right. Iraq, like Syria, would probably

have been a problem even without an intervention. But one wishes someone

would tell him to stay quiet during moments like this, because it does

drive a great surge of people in the other direction. The fact is, what

has been missing in western politics towards the Middle East throughout

both episodes, Syria and Iraq, is a drive to build an inclusive,

democratic centre which is secular and nonsectarian. That has been

missing amongst the threats of invasion Manon invasion, we have

just constantly neglected the diplomatic nation-building

dimensional this. I want to come onto what is happening on the

ground. I want to begin with what the Western response by me, and by

that we mean the United States, because of it doesn't do anything,

nobody will do anything. All of the signals I see coming out of the

White is that Barack Obama has no appetite for intervention -- out of

the White House. I don't think he does have an appetite. He would be

very unlikely to do anything very large. He might feel pressured to

act because of the fact that this particular group, this Al-Qaeda

inspired group, fits into the strategy he has pursued in Yemen and

Afghanistan and Pakistan, to use drone strikes against individual

terrorists. So it is possible that the threat of ISIS in the region and

the West in general might inspire him to act, but the idea he will do

enough, militarily, to transform Iraq from its current state of civil

War into something along the lines that Mark was talking about,

nation-building diplomacy, a big operation, I don't see President

Obama sees his historic mission as having got the United States as out

of it. Leave it to the Pacific, perhaps. What would the Kurds like

the West to do? First of all, in Kurdistan we face a huge

humanitarian crisis. We already have had bought a quarter of a million

Syrian refugees and we were struggling to cope with that. And

now we have at least double that number of refugees coming from

Mosul. First and foremost, we are calling on the international

community to help us with that. So we need humanitarian aid? Let's

assume we do that in some way, maybe not enough, but what else if

anything? I think it is an incumbent on the west and other powers to

assist Iraq to get rid of ISIS. I think the Sunni Arab community, some

of whom have joined ISIS and may be supported the uprising, have

justified complaints against the federal government. But we need the

terrorists out of Iraq. That is first and foremost. And what the

West can do is not necessarily intervene with boots on the ground,

but provide technical assistance, provide intelligence and help the

Iraqi army and air force to be more targeted. Can you defend yourselves?

In Kurdistan, we can in terms of the disciplined troops. In this

situation, I hope they won't be abandoning their post, that is for

sure. It is a national cause fires. But we are not armed in the way that

the Iraqi army is -- cause for us. We are not armed in the way that

ISIS seems to be now they have seized some of the American kit. We

are not asking for weapons, but we ask for assistance for all of Iraq

to deal with the situation. Mark, this is not just an Iraqi problem.

This is a regional conflict, and from the Levant on the shores of the

Mediterranean, all the way through to the Gulf, the region is gripped

with what is essentially a Sunni and Shia Muslim sectarian war. Yes, with

the caveats that Mark bourbon made earlier, it's not quite that

straightforward, but the basic divide is exactly that -- Mark

Urban. People have been looking for this to begin in Lebanon or Jordan

and have been taken by surprise although with hindsight I'm not sure

why, that it has begun in Iraq instead. At its most extreme, it

risks redrawing the 20th century boundaries of the region in a way

which would be highly unstable because it would pit a Shia Muslim

bloc against the Sunni Muslim bloc and would undo all of the sort of

social and economic advance of the last century, so the stakes are

suddenly very, very high indeed. Are we seeing the redrawing? The lines

were drawn secretly, not far from here, about a mile away, and may

have survived through thick and thin. They now look pretty fragile.

The map is being redrawn. I think it is true that there is a key factor

partition going on -- des facto. Woodrow Wilson probably gave a bit

of a hand to the promotion of the idea of self-determination, and in a

way, there is a self determination going on, particularly in the

Kurdish region, and perhaps they may end up the big winners in all of

this, because they have proceeded with a relatively moderate,

reconcilable government. The key thing that the Kurdish region has

done. They used to fight the two groups, and now they fight together.

What the Sunni Muslims have not done is figure out how to let politics

let the side things instead of guns. We need to look clearly and in Syria

and Iraq, if there is a Sunni extremist with ISIS that carves out

a place for itself, it will be the great irony of the modern era.

President Bush said he wanted to go into Iraq to fight terrorism. There

was no terrorist. There are now. If in Iraq and Syria together thereat a

thousand strong Al-Qaeda capability that threatens the region, the

West, the world, we are all going to have to do something about it.

The danger is that power will spread. This could grow in power.

You would not want it on your southern border. Absolutely, we

would not. The point we are all making indirectly is that things

have changed in Iraq and will never be the same again. Whether Iraq

completely disintegrates into three countries, or whether it stays

together as one country, but a countries, or whether it stays

together as one country, but loose federation, either way, Iraq has

changed. It will not go back to what it was. I hope it will change for

the better. I think we're at the make or break point for Iraq. Either

the political readers -- the political leaders of a right wake up

and smell the coffee and put aside their differences or there will be

problems. This provides that opportunity, in a very nasty way. If

we take it? Yes, and if not, I think this is the end of a rack as we know

it. If anything resembling a caliphate emerges, that is very

destabilising for the region itself. More so I would suggest than even

the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. At some stage, you have

to assume that they will be coming for us. That is correct. This is

extremely dangerous. The only way forward is for these political

groups to talk to each other and find a compromise that allows the

rates of cinemas and minorities in Iraq to be protected within or the

rates of cinemas and minorities in Iraq to be protected with an

autonomous federal-state. Any support for the government must be

premised on that. There is no military solution for this which is

in during -- there is no military solution for this. There must be

serious political negotiation, not with ISIS, but with Sunni Muslim

moderates, to form a more representative government. This is

the last chance for Iraq. I think we are all saying that that is going to

need to be some major western leadership to make some big

decisions here for the future of the region. I am concerned that after

Afghanistan and Iraq, my country is quite world-weary, quite

world-weary. It does not seem to be giving leadership. Certainly we are

not seeing that in Europe. I am deeply concerned that we are not

going to take the leadership role that needs to be taken. These are

big issues. When Britain and France carved up the Middle East, they were

world powers, operating as global powers, and without that global

leadership by somebody, this is just going to get worse and worse. I

think we will leave it there, thank you very much.

The danger is that power will spread. This could grow in power.

It is just under 100 days until the referendum on Scottish independence.

So, for once, it'll be a long hot-summer

But the campaign isn't just getting heated.

In places it's also down-right nasty. When

Scotland's best-selling author announced she was giving

the unionist cause a million pounds this week, she received

Independence supporters online, so-called cybernats,

called JK Rowling a traitor and much worse, using a variety of

For its part, the Better Together campaign has been accused

Even Gordon Brown seems to think so, and this week he criticised

Conservative ministers for relying on "threats

With the Edinburgh Festival approaching, reports suggest even

comedians are now reluctant to engage in the subject because

I'm joined by Blair Jenkins from Yes Scotland and Jackie Baillie

They're both in our Glasgow studio, and they're going head to head.

Blair Jenkins, let me come to you first. Why have you and the Better

Together campaign and Alex Salmond not done more to slap down the cyber

nationalists who are poisoning the debate? Good morning. I think both

sides tried to stop the tiny number of people on both sides who are

incapable of controlling themselves. We should not get this

out of proportion. We are having a fantastic, decent and democratic

debate. The people who probably total no more than 100 on both sides

who post offensive material or not to be allowed to deflect from that

fact. Of course there are nasty people on the Better Together side

as well, but are you saying there are as many of those as the cyber

nationalists? I have not done the Kent. Lots of people are certainly

posting nasty in defensive things to people in the yes campaigners well.

I imagine that people do what I do, and block them. You stop them from

sending anything further. There is a democratic and in gauging progress

going on throughout Scotland. It is characterised by good humour and

good debate. We should not get out of proportion and the activities of

the number of people. I want to get to Jackie Baillie. The debate is

actually pretty good-humoured and you should be doing more about the

nasties on your side as well? I think we have reached a new low this

week. Despite many people engaging in the politics of the decision and

the debate about that, whether we want to retain the best of both

worlds are separate from the United Kingdom, what we have seen is the

most abusive and vitriolic attack, particularly on women, JK Rowling

and a Labour supporter who dared to support the no campaign. When you

look at the number of people on social media, there are more from

the yes campaign than the no site. We should all be condemning attacks,

from whatever quarter they come. This seemed to be connected to the

office of the First Minister. What is the evidence for that? There was

an e-mail from one of the... I understand about that, but it did

not use vile words. It did not, but it repeated the same mistake as on

the website. We should be clear that we need to condemn these attacks,

but it is not just the water works, it is taking action. There was an

IpsosMORI poll this week which was varying testing. It showed the

population as a whole, farmer people think that Yes Scotland is running

an effective campaign as against Better Together. It is a undecided

voters think this by a majority of four 21. Some people are worried

about of the campaign. JK Rowling, Scotland's most successful author of

all time. She gives ?1 million to the Better Together campaign. She

then faces some of the most incredible abuse. I know what it is

like because I have had some myself. Traitor, Quisling. I cannot use some

of the words, it is Sunday morning. Why does Scottish Nationalists

culture have such a revolting fringe? JK Rowling is entitled to

our views and it is unacceptable if people say offensive things about

her or anyone else who voices and opinion in this debate. Who are

obese people? When you look at the accounts of some of the people who

were posting these things about JK Rowling, they were using the same

sort of language about film stars and football stars. This was just

part of their language on Twitter. How often has Alex Salmond condemned

the cyber nationalists? Very often. Everyone in the campaign hands. By

common consent, Yes Scotland is running a thoroughly positive

campaign, much more positive than Better Together. Jackie Baillie, it

hardly helps matters when Alistair Darling, who runs your campaign,

compares Alex Salmond to Kim Jong Il and North Korea. That hardly

elevates the debate? I think we need to elevate the debate. There are

less than a hundred days to go. It is a massive decision. We need to

elevate the debate beyond attacks. I think there is much more that Yes

Scotland and the SNP can do. You have made that point. Why are you

running a campaign based on fear? The codename of your campaign is

even project fear. It is threats. You cannot have the pound, there

will be no shipbuilding. You will be flooded by immigrants. Why are you

so negative? I am not negative at all and neither is the campaign. The

campaign has asked questions and I think it is legitimate to ask

questions of the people proposing such a fundamental change. People

care about the economy, their jobs, their families. What would happen to

them if they leave the rest of the United Kingdom. I think it is

legitimate to ask questions. I refuse to be asked of

scaremongering. People deserve answers. The yes campaign is equally

guilty of some of the most outrageous scaremongering. Maybe you

are both scaremongering. Blair Jenkins, the First Minister said of

the cyber nationalists, that they are just Daft folk, as if they were

mischievous little children. It is worse than that. When you look at

what they say, they are twisted, perhaps even evil minds. I would not

disagree with his comments, but they are directed at just a small number

of people. The story of this campaign is not the story of what

people are saying on Twitter. Around Scotland, lots of people are getting

engaged in debate to have been tuned out of the political process. Today,

we have 47% support for the yes campaign. The movement in the

campaign is towards yes. People know we have a better campaign, a vision

for Scotland. The latest poll of polls does not show that. Both

sides, you always take the opinion polls that show you in the best

light. All politicians do that. Jackie Baillie, your campaign is not

just negative, it is patronising. You make dubious claims that Scots

would be ?1400 better off by staying in the union, and then you say that

the kids use the money to scoff 280 hotdogs at the Edinburgh Festival.

The fate of the nation is in your hands and that is the best you can

do? I think you will find that the campaign is something that we are

taking the message to people. Then why are you talking about hotdogs? I

do not. The campaign did. We are taking a positive message to people

across Scotland about the benefits of the United Kingdom. We believe we

are stronger and more secure and more stable, being part of that

family of nations that is the United Kingdom. At the same time, we have

the strange and power over things like education and transport. I

understand that. I am not doing the issues today, I am talking about the

tone of the campaign. I have one very important question. Who would

you supporting last night in the England-Italy match? I was not

watching the game. I would be delighted to see England do well in

this tournament. I have Argentina in the office sweepstake. I have to

keep some attention on them, but I would be delighted to seeing Clint

do well. That is because you think it will help your campaign. It will

annoy the Scots. Jackie Baillie? I was supporting England. I was also

supporting Portugal. Now most of you probably missed last

night's football match between England and Italy because

you wanted to get an early night and England lost

despite a plucky effort, I'm told. But even Westminster is

in the grip of World Cup fever and with speculation

about the fitness of each political party's team we sent Adam out to

tackle some of the big players. Well, this is

the closest I'll get to Rio. This year everybody seems to have

gone a bit mad Belize, football stickers. Let's see who I will get.

Oh, the suspense -- a bit mad for these. George Osborne? That is

because we leapt on the bandwagon and made Alan political stickers.

They're hotter than a Brazilian barbecue.

And at Westminster they're turning into collector?s items.

Sunday politics political stickers. We have one of you, Norman. Would

you like it? Do you want to start collecting, Bob? Would you like a

packet? collecting, Bob? Would you like a

Thank you. No album, I'm afraid. collecting, Bob? Would you like a

Thank you. No album, I've got Michael Gove, next to to Reza, and

two of the Prime Minister. -- next to Theresa. I am sure Michael has

Theresa in her stick around, and vice versa.

These Tory ones are proving very popular

since she fell out with him out how to handle extremism in schools.

And there's been open speculation about him taking on him in

Then there are rumours of a reshuffle of the whole Tory album.

Do you think there will be any swapping in the Tory leadership

soon? Who knows? David Cameron has also got to replace the EU

commissioner, Cathy Ashton, who is standing down.

Does he go with the favourite the former health secretary

Or the grassroots choice, Martin Callanan, the Tories old

Or does he rehabilitate Andrew Mitchell after Plebgate?

Do you fancy being European Commissioner? I would rather be

spending the money on the world's poor and spending it well. Glad to

hear it. Happy collecting. Right, there must be some Labour

stickers out there. You don't want to swap Ed Balls any

of the others? Can't I keep them all? This is almost the perfect

team. There have been grumblings

about the fitness of the Shadow And Ed Miliband's got a kicking

in Liverpool after posing I'm told grown men are meeting up

in pubs for sticker swaps - With Danny Finkelstein -

Tory peer and Times columnist, He would be the card I would not

want to trade. Do people want to trade him in? I don't think anybody

wants to trade him in at the moment. He is the best person to lead the

Labour party and will lead us into the next election. There's been a

lot about Michael Gove, and he's very combative. That's been a huge

strength as an education Secretary, despite the fact it's brought in

trouble. I would think the prime minister would tell him not to get

himself into peripheral battles at the moment but stick to what has

been successful. I haven't got Nick Clegg, but I got me. Controversy

amongst collectors of Lib Dems. I need to give away me in return for

Nick Clegg. That would be far better. There you are.

Some local parties are holding meetings about his leadership,

but at one in Cambridge this week they voted to stick with him.

You have got a Euro Commissioner. Why don't I swap, I will swap Ed

Miliband for Tim Farren. Can I do that? What is the significance of

that? Very significant. Happy collecting.

These beauties are popping up everywhere, but sadly they won't

Adam is still doing the samba around Westminster as I speak.

I'm joined by three journalists who've been

furiously swapping stickers throughout the show, they certainly

weren't allowed to stay up to watch the football, it's Nick Watt,

We will talk about Labour after the break, and I want to concentrate on

the Tories, but the moment, Nick, senior Tories are saying privately

that they might win next May. They are beginning to dream the dream. So

why are they doing all this jockeying? I think the jockeying for

the leadership is about a year old. What stoped it up was when Theresa

gave a speech to the conference, and people said she was doing it just in

case, when things were not looking too good. She is not on manoeuvres.

I think it was a policy row that drove the differences with Michael

Gove. But Michael Gove is on manoeuvres, and he is trying to

protect George Osborne from, he believes, a serious threat from

Boris Johnson and possibly Theresa. It is quite self-indulgent when you

are a couple of points behind, the economy is going your way, to be

involved in this sort of stuff. Extraordinary. It shows the toxic

disease that gnaws at the entrails of the Tory party, and Cameron is

their great asset. He is more popular than the party, he bridges

the gap is, and he has an extraordinary dissemble and some

pretending to be this moderate while never the lens -- nevertheless

leading the most far right wing government we have had since the

war, and that has been a brilliant piece of political Charente and they

would be crazy to get rid of it -- political Charente.

piece of political Charente and they would be crazy to get rid of it --

charades. Does this rumble on? I have an unfashionable view as there

aren't half as many leadership plots taking place in Westminster as we

assume, and the willingness to read strategic calculation into anything

that takes place comes from people watching I Claudius or house of

cards. That hasn't been off -- on for years. I needed a reference from

your time. I needed something. Maybe brief encounter? It's a stylised

view of how politics works, and so much more in life is about

randomness and mistakes. Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Michael Gove

as George Osborne's man on earth, they are positioning themselves. --

Janan wrote an eloquent comment this week about this, but there are

certain realities that. Michael Gove had that famous dinner with Rupert

Murdoch a few weeks ago in which he said that you must not make Boris

Johnson leader of the Conservative party, George Osborne is my man.

Theresa May set out her credo two years ago and people on her team

were saying that she was doing it just in case. People are out there

and are thinking of the future, but I do think Janan is right. In the

village, in the thick of it mindset, you can get a bit carried away and

you can be a bit in the famous. That is before your era. He died. What

did he mean by it. You can get a bit carried away by it. I will have

words with you during the break. It's just gone 11.35, you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll

be talking about Ed Miliband's Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. The police say they'll take a harder

line on loyalist flags in one mixed area of Belfast but what are

the chances of brokering a lasting We're joined by three party leaders

to discuss this perennial problem. And with a draft document on racial

equality here raising possible We ask the former Home Secretary,

Alan Johnson, about how Westminster And here with their thoughts on that

and more are commentators Cathy It's been dubbed the most

significant development in years The police

in south Belfast have said they'll be treating the erection of any more

loyalist flags in one mixed area The SDLP has demanded

the policy be extended across Northern Ireland, while

loyalists call it an unworkable decision, and say action must now be

taken against Irish tricolours. Joining me now to discuss

the development are the Ulster Unionist leader, Mike Nesbitt, the

SDLP leader, Alasdair McDonnell, and Do you accept that it's unreasonable

for the Ormeau Road, which is 57% Catholic, to have 3 or 3 flags

on virtually every lamp post? What is unreasonable is that Sinn

Fein continues the decision. I think they need to describe what they mean

by Loyalist flacks. The coverage I've seen on BBC was. Flags and the

flag of the nation. I think we need to be careful about the tone. From

my point of view, until questions are answered, we have a lot of

questions to ask. What is unreasonable about the police

thinking very carefully about the flying of Loyalist flags, Ulster

flags, union flags in an area where people may be uncomfortable about

that? What is unreasonable is that Sinn Fein had a meeting on their

own, no other elected representatives is to any political

party is entitled to do that. They should have consulted people.

Considering people are going to get involved about discussions with

flags and everything else, we have one party running off now. My

problem with this is, date tricolour removed from his

office. The IRA put up thousands of flights. Let's not get into this

debate about how many flags there are. It doesn't matter if there is

one or 100. There are flags flying fair. Republicans will put flags up

in the next few months. What is your advice to loyalists watching this?

Is it put up more flags or think seriously about taking them down? My

advice to the police... What is your advice to the loyalists? Is this

part of the rule of law? You have made that point. I'm asking you a

question. I am responding to your question. What I'm saying to you is

that we already, in this society, live in a two tiered justice system

and I want to make sure that doesn't happen. That we ask you again. What

is your advice to loyalists about flags? But more up or taken down?

You can't answer that question. I will answer the question once get

answers from the PS of I. I am relieved and pleased that the police

have taken this small step because flags have been contentious and

annoying and irritating to ordinary people for a long time. People are

threatened and intimidated, and bullied in their own homes by folks

going around putting up flags. The flags issue needs to be dealt with.

As far as I'm concerned, the less flags the better. Sinn Fein did

everybody a by lobbying to get the statement on Thursday night. I think

it was the right thing to do and I think that quite simply, we have

been pressing the police for the last 15 years to take some action

around the illegal and inappropriate flying flags. This is no respect to

the union flag, or, the Irish tricolour where it has been flown in

reciprocal circumstances. Do you also have reservations? Sovereign

flags should be flown with respect at appropriate places. They should

not be used to poke people in the eye. They should not be used as an

instrument of sectarian division. I cringed and some of the

circumstances. My loyalties to the Irish tricolour. In some places, it

is used and abused. Flags should not be used to disturb people living in

their homes. Every year at this time, for the last 15 years, I have

had since agitation from people, many of them from a unionist

background, who just don't want flags flown in their face stop do

you have reservations about the flying of these many flags in this

area of south Belfast? The first thing is, I am clear that where we

are is a long way from where we need to be. I think I know the steps we

should take and the sequence they go in. We don't all agree on that. You

can look around and see if there is a law you can use to try and

restrict the flying flags in contested areas. That may change

behaviour. It will not address the mindset. It's a bit like saying we

empower the headmaster to issue six of the best. It might change a

child's behaviour but it will not change mindsets. It is mindset is we

need to get to. If loyalists are using the union flag as a

provocation, they are making a fundamental mistake, confusing

sovereignty with identity. I would say the flag is not about being

provocative. It is about offering a symbol of protection, about being

British, tolerance, of a pluralist, progressive society. Is that what

the display suggests to you? Is that about pluralism and tolerance, or

something else? Some people on the ground seemed to be considered. It

is pulling the union flag down into a debate about identity. The union

flag should fly well above that debate. Would you rather see these

flags removed? If there is a lesson of the last 18 months, if you bring

one union flag down, thousands more will go up. That sounds of the

justification. What I want to do is take a practical approach to this.

If you want to change behaviours, addressed the mindsets that inform

those behaviours. In the meantime, what do you do about it? What do you

say to loyalists? Should they put more flags up or should they bring

these flags down? Enough is enough. We need to have a debate on the

political leadership. That is why I have asked the party leaders to

decouple the issues and taken in a sequence, so we have some degree of

hope of success, in terms of parades, flags of the past. Billy

Hutchinson, Mike Nesbitt is clear. He answered the question which is

dead but more flags. US students the opportunity to do that and that is

your right. How do you take this debate forward from here? It is

clear listening to this debate that I'm not even clear who we are

talking about. The word loyalist have been used. It seems to be that

the loyalist Tim is used in a derogatory sense. I don't know what

your description is. I heard you on the radio on Friday saying you were

not a loyalist leader which is news to me. I am not a loyalist leader.

What the problem is, there are more loyalist leaders than there are

leaders of the Communist Party. What does it say in the title of the

Progressive Unionist party? Are you disassociating yourself? What I am

not to allow you to do is to say I am a loyalist and use it as a double

treat him. It is when it comes to be media. If I use it, is to rob a true

but if you use it it's not? What you have just done is you have said

loyalists have put these flags up. How sure are you that they were not

Unionists that personal? - that put them up. Stop trying to be clever. I

am not trying to be clever. It is a fair assumption that loyalists put

the flags up. Let's get the argument right. You saying it that it was

protestants? I do. Is this what we want to get into, a game? I have

said to you that I won't PSNI go to Republicans to tell them not to put

the tricolour is up. You have said that loyalists have been warned. I

would like to know who these loyalists are who have been warned.

I don't know who they are. You will have two ask the peace. - police.

The police said they spoke to individuals and they made it clear

that if there was a repeat performance, they would regard that

as a breach of the police. There is no mystery. The police monitor flags

going up and they have accompanied... Again, we go back to

the point. They have been present as the flags have been put up. They

have been there to ensure that there was no social unrest, let's say.

They were there. This has been a subject of contention with local

people. A final thought from you, Mike Nesbitt. It's dancing on the

head of a pin about who it was. Let me say, I need a political party,

not a religious organisation. I get what Billy is saying. Sometimes,

people who are from working-class areas think that people in

middle-class areas look at them as loyalists. I don't like that. Beyond

that, we are in a situation here which is potentially pretty

volatile. The police are in an extremely difficult position, where,

as always, they are going to have to make a decision between upholding

the letter of the law and maintaining the peace. It is

incumbent upon all political leaders to do their best to support the

police and we need to have conversations with the people

putting those flags up because I don't know whether they are using

them to say this is the sovereign State of Northern Ireland or whether

they are using them as a weapon. The latter is a mistake. We will leave

it there for now. It's here from our guest commentators.

Joining me is the University of Ulster academic,

Dr Cathy Gormley-Heenan, and the former Victims'

Where are we? We are getting somewhere in terms of establishing

the difference between principles and practice. I was heartened to

hear some of the language of those principles used by party leaders

today. There was discussion of consultation, tolerance and respect

and they are very important principles. What we are witnessing

is an undermining of those principles in practice. I go back to

the point about consultation. The question is this: Was the local

community consulted about whether they wanted to have flags in their

area corrected or not? As taxpayers in Belfast, is that something they

are entitled to, to have a say in how their community is represented?

The council will put up hanging baskets to make the area look nice

and so on. Why is the community not have a say in how their area is

represented? Patricia, do you think it matters? Maybe it is important

whether these flags were put up by loyalists, Unionists or

Protestants. It doesn't matter. What matters is what it was designed to

do is mark out territory which can intimidate people. What I am more

concerned about is the way the decision was made by the PSNI two

treaties future putting up - to treat these putting up flags as a...

Not without political leadership, without any sort of legislative

framework to work against, what is going to happen is they will be left

open to accusations of political policing. We are going to move back

in the political process if that happens. What we need from the

political parties and from the leadership is to move these

discussions on around flags, parades and dealing with the past. We

mustn't have that political vacuum, so that the PSNI is operating on a

legislative framework as they should do. Thanks to our pit leaders for

joining us this morning. Could the proposals be revived? I

have been saying for some time that I believe there is a window of

opportunity between the local and European elections and the start of

the summer. Flags still appeared to be a major hurdle. People have been

saying we don't want these flags up. Let this not turn into, they are

away every flag in the law. They are not neighbourly. Details of the

long-awaited policy... The first and deputy first ministers are invited

to the World Cup. Martin McGuinness finds out just how cut-throat show

business can be. The Guardian describes him as a rare

human among the aliens on planet Westminster.

Alan Johnson, the former Labour Home Secretary,

trade union leader, postman and now award-winning author,

is taking part in the Belfast Book Festival this weekend but first,

You continue as an active politician. But I suppose it is a

different kind of involvement to the involvement you had over a long

period of time. Your first ministerial post was

in 1999 at the DTI, just a year How much were you aware

of events here impacting Watching with appreciation for the

time being spent on it. John Major started the process. I was a union

leader over here. I was coming up here when postal workers were being

used for proxy bombings. 21 of our members were killed in the course of

action. I knew from our members over here just what a difficult situation

they were in and the real groundswell for peace and

politicians to dedicate more time to actual achieving that piece. The

Good Friday agreement and all the stuff that arises from it, and all

the problems that were there for the very brave people over here who were

trying to show that you can achieve things through politics, which is a

very important lesson I think for younger people in particular. We've

just witnessed another studio discussion in which political

leaders didn't agree. Does it surprise you? Is it disappoints you

that they are still talking about key outstanding issues which they

cannot get around? It doesn't surprise me it doesn't disappoint me

in the sense that you are having a discussion. I was walking around

Belfast just a day. I came over here throughout the late 70s and 80s.

This is a transformed society. But you're not going to get rid of all

those strong feelings about symbols like flags for instance very

quickly. There are lots of debates which go on elsewhere. They are

similar. Your former leader, Tony Blair, has been doing the rounds of

the television and radio studios today talking about to go to war

with Iraq, in the context of what has been happening with ISIS. He

says it was still the right decision. Do you still think it was

the right decision? Yes. It was the first time we had never been to war

with the decision of Parliament. There was a debate in Parliament in

2003. I voted in favour. I think the problem with looking with things

with hindsight and saying this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't

got into Iraq in 2003, is that you forget to things. Number one, you

had Saddam Hussein, who was the subject of eight Article seven

resolutions from United Nations. He committed genocide, not once but

twice, against his own people. He had invaded invading countries. The

two biggest crimes and international law. He had invaded invading

countries. The two biggest crimes and international law. We have been

the subject of years of UN resolutions that he ignored. We

cannot ignore the fact somewhat if we had let him get away after the

resolution? What would that have done to Saddam? He was a despot. The

beheaded trade unionist. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

Everyone thought there were mass dash there were weapons. It wasn't

the main reason. We went to war because he had ignored the UN

resolutions. It was a major part of the justification. We know he had

weapons of mass destruction. He had used them previously, twice. It

wasn't just as, France and Germany, who decided not to be part of the

invasion, thought he had weapons of mass destruction. You are here to

take part in the book Festival. Did you regret the fact you are now

writing your memoirs instead of being the leader of the party? No, I

don't regret. I don't regret anything whatsoever. I'm glad I

stood for deputy leader. Harriet Harman won it. I said at the time, I

was the best man in the race but there was a better woman, as is

often the case. I have loved the process of writing about my

childhood and trying to recreate my mother who died when I was very

young, and telling a story of two incredible women, my sister and

mother. That has been great. I might have been able to do that if I was

debited leader, who knows, but it's still to be involved in politics as

a backbencher and to be able to write and attend festivals exist. If

anyone thinks the political meeting is dead and finish, come to a book

Festival. They are alive and well. You are in for a roasting this

afternoon. Thanks for joining us. If you final thoughts. - a feud final

thoughts. A quick word on Iraq. Does it concern you, what is happening at

the moment? It is usually concerning and it is a legacy of imperial

interference. It's about going into Iraq, based on an erroneous decision

about weapons of mass destruction. The legacy of that has been to

galvanise and politicise the population of that country. I think

that is why we are seeing the grossing - growth in ISIS. To me

Blair is putting forward the line of denial is not just a river in Egypt.

It needs to be taken responsibility for, how the British and American

intervention has an influence. We had a leaked draft racial... A

regional immigration policy. Is that workable? Immigration policy is

reserved matter. It's not the responsibility of the devolved

administration. Scotland has talked that recently. There are examples in

Canada for example. The work ability of a differentiated immigration

policy I don't think that is at the top of the political agenda.

Interesting to hear your thoughts. Another busy programme. Goodbye.

There are big changes afoot in the EU following last month's

European elections, not least who'll get the top job

But behind the scenes the parties have

also been jockeying for position as they try to form the big groups that

And UKIP seems to have been struggling to keep its influence

Here's Adam to explain how it all works.

If you want your party to be a big cheese in the European Parliament,

you need to form a political group. By doing this, the party gets more

money, more positions on committees and even more speaking rights in the

chamber. But the parliament's rules are strict. And to form a group you

need a group of 25 MPs from at least seven different countries. For UKIP,

the number of MEPs will not be a problem because they already have 24

of their own, but the different nationalities are more of a

challenge. Nigel Farage was not helped by the Tories stealing --

stealing his former Danish and Finnish allies, and the pen pinching

his Italian charms. Nigel needs a new charm and fast. He has already

signed up Lithuania's order and justice, a free citizen from Prague,

and the Dutchman from the reformed political party. The big signing was

the 17 members of the Italian Beppe Griego's 5-star movement, but it

leaves UKIP short of two more international powers, and with the

clock ticking, it looks like his hopes resting on the Swedish

Democrats and the Polish new right Congress. They both make their

decisions next week. What is the latest? UKIP have enough

MEPs with their pals, but they need seven countries, as I understand it.

They are not there yet. They are wrapped five countries and need

another two. UKIP are being quite buoyant and say they will be meeting

MEPs from five countries next week and are pretty confident they will

get those countries, but as Adam was saying, the problem UKIP have had is

that the Conservatives have nicked two of the parties. That is why they

have been struggling, but they say they are confident they will do it.

Meanwhile, the Tories new best friends are the German Eurosceptic

party, which has put Mrs Merkel's nose out of joint, but we don't

quite know whether she really cares or not. I think Cameron has played

his hand badly since he committed to pulling out of the EBP. And he

should be in there with Angela Merkel and if he needs to make a

major renegotiation, he needs to have the Germans onside. Instead

there is a breakaway party and its like supporting UKIP. His party are

supporting her worst enemy. It certainly causing him a lot of

problems, and undermines his negotiating position, but isn't

there an honesty that the centre-right group is explicitly

Federalist, and the Tories are anything but, so they came out, and

Labour are in the Socialist group, which is explicitly Federalist, and

they are not Federalist either. If you want support and influence in

Europe, you have to trade, and he hasn't done this well. The whole

business with who will be the next president, he needs Angela Merkel's

support. Without that, it won't happen. He should have been trading

behind-the-scenes, but he has exposed himself in public, and if he

doesn't win it looks uncertain, and he will be in a position where he

has to go back to his own party and say they are not getting anywhere.

That is dangerous and takes us closer to the Exeter, which I don't

think would want. The danger for Mr Cameron is if it is the president of

the commission, he will save you cannot stop a federalist becoming

head of the European commission, what chance do you have of

repatriating lots of powers back to London. There are lots of Tory MPs

dying to make the argument. My hunch is that he won't make it. There are

too many countries opposed to his presidency and even the country

notionally in favour of it, Germany, is failing in youth -- enthusiasm.

Angela Merkel cannot be seen to give in to the Brits this. Her own side

once it as well, though some reason the German media says it. When she

tried to reach out and said to look at the other candidates, she got

such abuse on the right wing press from her own country and party she

had to retreat. Janan is right that there is opposition to Juncker, but

as long as Cameron turns it into an argument about Britain and Europe,

he will strengthen the hand of Juncker. Angela Merkel thinks

Juncker is inappropriate. She did not like the process, which was a

power grab by the European Parliament, but when David Cameron

went to the council and said that if I don't get my way, we could leave

the EU, that led to the backlash, most significantly from the SPD in

Germany. As Tony Blair says, if only David Cameron had made the argument

that Juncker is bad for Europe, then he would have found his natural

allies would have felt more comfortable following behind. Enough

Europe. I want to show you a picture. See what you think of this.

When I saw that picture, I thought it was so ludicrous that it had to

have been photo shop. Discuss. He is holding it with a certain disdain,

looking a bit hangdog. A disastrous picture for Ed Miliband. His

strength is authenticity, sincerity and cleverness. And he blows all of

that. He was the one who took on Murdoch, very bravely and

dangerously, and one, really. Now there he is supporting Murdoch's

son. It's a big mistake, not just in Liverpool, where obviously they are

particularly incensed. And then he apologises. Sort of apologises and

understands why Liverpool feels upset. But it is a fundamental error

and I hope he learns from this, that he must absolutely stay true to

himself. That's all he's got going for him. Who do we blame? His

advisers or himself? In the end, himself. Nobody forced him to do it.

On this one, he called it wrong. It's a sign of the rather the bridal

state of the Labour Party is that his candidates were vocal in

attacking him doing this. It's a sign of how readable Ed Miliband is

at Parliamentary level. I don't think you should have apologised.

The mistake he made was associating himself with that newspaper. The

mistake was the prior three years when he went too far as portraying

the Murdoch empire beyond the pale. He made a case against phone hacking

and offences in that regard without going as far as he did with the

rhetoric. To do that, and then pose with the Sun newspaper, the

juxtaposition is what did for him, not the mere fact of posing with it.

Maybe he did not know what he was doing because we were told he

doesn't read the British newspapers. It was football, and he

has posed with the Sun newspaper before. Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg

posed as well. But with the Sun newspaper and football, you tread

carefully. That was the mistake. You get the impression from the picture

that he looks so uncomfortable that you wonder whether there was a full

process of consultation that went on within his media operation, within

his political operation. Was he fully aware of what would happen

question what he looks so incredibly uncomfortable. But at the end of the

day, leaders have to take responsibility. It is cultural as

well. That picture says, I am down there with the football blokes and

you think, you are not. That is not what people will vote for. Be

yourself and don't pretend to be something else because it never

works. But the polls suggest that the British voters don't yet see Ed

Miliband as prime ministerial. The worst thing you can then do is get

involved in stunts that are more likely to reinforce that idea than

counter it. There was a precedent for it in the last parliament which

was Gordon Brown's attempts to feign a populist touch. He did it by

telling the contents of his iPod. The Arctic monkeys. It always jarred

because he was trying too hard. Not uniquely guilty of, Ed Miliband, all

the other leaders have done it. At the moment he more vulnerable. Yes,

and he is less popular than his party. Labour has quite a popular

brand, in a resilient way, in a way they don't with the Tories, yet

their leader is a personal problem. The pressure is on him to do stunts

like this. Will there be a shadow cabinet reshuffle? Yes, we have to

get the cabinet reshuffle out of the way first, and that might come next

week, maybe by the time of the summer recess, but the first thing

that the prime Minister do is work out who is the UK candidate for the

European Commissioner. Is it not the case probably that Ed Balls is

becoming semi-detached from the Ed Miliband project? I don't think

entirely. Nothing gets agreed without both of the end are green.

Ed Balls is controversial. He has great pluses and minuses and is a

big figure. Labour doesn't have that many big figures. It's quite hard to

think who would be a heavy hitter as a possible Chancellor. He is a

convincing chancellor to the future, Love him. He has the heft -- love

him or hate him. Any possibility Ed Balls could be moved as shadow

chancellor? The timing is convenient because the Scottish referendum ends

in the autumn and Alistair Darling becomes a free man, win or lose. I

don't think Ed Balls will be removed because moving him would be an

admission that everything the Labour Party said about the economy to the

preceding four years has been a mistake. And you can't do that nine

months before a general election. You invite ridicule. But relations

between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are not great at the moment. The Ed

Miliband team are very, very suspicious of this new love in

between Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson. Mandelson likes to say

that he spotted the Ed Balls talents in the original place and appointed

him to the Gordon Brown team after the disaster of 1992. But things

obviously went awry, and now Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson Avenue

Rappaport, and that is with enormous suspicion -- they have a new

Rappaport. With good reason because it's about policy. It's about the

attitude towards business. Should they be out there saying they will

get the tax dodgers, Starbucks, Vodafone, are we going to take on

business in a big way? In a way that Ed Miliband has quite bravely said.

On the other hand, Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson are saying, hang on,

we only won in 1997 by being business friendly. Sorry to rush

you. We are running out of time. The Daily Politics will be back

every day this week at midday, and I'll be back here next Sunday

when I'll be joined by the shadow work and pensions

secretary Rachel Reeves.Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. Magnificent. The power base

of medieval England.