21/02/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

So after protracted negotiations, David Cameron has finally named

the day when voters will decide whether or not the United Kingdom

The Prime Minister said the country would be "safer,

stronger and better off" by staying in a reformed European Union -

on the terms he agreed with EU leaders in Brussels late

But about a quarter of the ministers who sit with Mr Cameron

They've said they'll campaign for the UK to leave.

We'll be talking to one of those wanting out, Leader of the House

We'll be deliberating over which way this man will swing.

The Mayor of London has apparently been "agonising" over his decision,

although apparently all the smart money's on him supporting

The party wants to stay in the EU, arguing it will be better for jobs,

We'll be joined by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hillary Benn.

And with me, three of Fleet Street's finest, who've survived

Nick Watt, Melanie Phillips and Tom Newton Dunn.

So David Cameron's done a deal and named the date.

Not everyone's convinced, even one of the Prime Minister's

best Cabinet buddies, Michael Gove, has decided to campaign

Both camps, those who want to stay in the EU and those who want

to leave have come out all guns blazing this morning.

Let's hear what David Cameron had to say on the Marr show

If we remain in a reformed EU, you know what you will get communal how

to do business, create jobs, continue with our economic recovery.

If we leave, seven years potentially of uncertainty and at the end of

that process you still cannot be certain that our businesses will

have full access to the market. So it could cost jobs, mean overseas

companies not investing in Britain. It would be a step into the dark, a

real risk of uncertainty. And that is the last thing we need in our

country now. Let's talk now to the BBC's

Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg. The town and the language has

changed, it was fighting talk from Mr Cameron yesterday, all the other

comments were about a friendly cabinet meeting, convivial, honest,

now the gloves are off. It was described by Theresa Villiers, one

of the ministers for Out, as emotional. I think today is the

first time we will see those emotions spilling into the public

domain. As you say the Prime Minister has moved into campaigning

language, that fighting talk, because the stakes are so high for

him. He knows fine well that he's taking a huge gamble with own

leadership. Is taking a huge gamble with the country's membership of the

European Union, and she always said he might in the end argued to leave,

very few people who believe that come also taking a gamble with his

own party unity and that fighting talk we heard from him on that is

still in part a last-minute plea to those waverers to get on his side

rather than going to the other. This is something we will see play out,

perhaps Tom at Italy, this kind of blue on blue action. Cameron isn't

going to stand up and debate directly with those opposing him. He

will do it through another way. Another thing he said to Andrew Marr

today was quite strong, and a bit sharp, he suggested that those come

including perhaps Boris Johnson, want to campaign for Out, were

linking arms with George Galloway and Nigel Farage. For most people in

the Conservative Party, hardly a compliment. What about the waverers,

Boris Johnson for example, he wasn't able to be swayed with Michael Gove,

George Osborne, a close friend, and that will have been a big blow, how

big a blow will it be Boris Johnson campaigns for Out? One thing about

this, some people wonder why the media seem obsessed with one

politician. The reason is this. It is not often that politicians have

single name recognition. It's not often as, if we do from time to time

you go out campaigning in action with politicians, if it is Boris

Johnson people come out of their houses and their businesses and

shops, to see him and talk to him. They want to have pictures taken

with him. He's a rare politician, the kind who can actually add a real

fizz to a campaign and cut through to the public. Some people love him,

some despise. But the point is, his addition to the Out campaign, if

that's the way he goes which is what we expect, it would change the

dynamics of the campaign. Particularly for the Out side, who

have not landed on one obvious leader, it would be a significant

boost for them, real shot in the arm. We are finally going to cure

from Boris Johnson at 10pm this evening. He will lay out his

arguments in his regular Telegraph column. The surprise would be if he

decided to stay in. But of course you never know with him, he is

unpredictable, and instinctively many who know him well say that at

heart he is a YouGov file, not naturally a sceptic. Theatrical to

the end! Briefly, how will it play out between Cabinet ministers on

either side? Will they really be able to hold it together over the

weeks of campaigning? One extraordinary thing about this is

that they have an officially divided Cabinet, and the normal way of

politics working is that they have to stick together come hell or high

water. I think most people will do their best to be polite but

friendships and loyalties will be tested. Clearly what it means is

that there won't be much going on here apart from this. The focus will

be Europe. The Challenger David Cameron, whatever the result, is

whether he can keep the party together after the vote. Thank you.

So after a near sleepless night on Friday, European leaders

were meant to agree a deal over a civilised English breakfast.

They didn't bother with afternoon tea.

In the end they came up trumps over dinner.

History starts with a lot of waiting around, as I discovered on Friday.

Waiting for news from the EU summit, Westminster had ground to a halt.

Over there, European leaders were on their second

The French president was worried about the city of London getting

a special deal, the Polish Prime Minister feared her citizens living

in the UK would lose their benefits, and the Greek PM was

David Cameron said he was battling for a better deal for Britain,

which involved lots of talk, quite a few croissants,

Suddenly, back at Westminster, a thing happened.

One of the Leave campaigns, Grassroots Out, held a rally

where it was rumoured they would reveal a surprise supporter.

Who would be your dream Eurosceptic special guest?

Sorry, it was actually George Galloway.

When he turned up, a bunch of people left.

They were people who were waiting for Nigel and had

The only thing more exciting was happening back in Brussels,

where finally, a deal designed to keep Britain in the EU

The hacks were briefed by a clearly knackered Prime Minister.

Within the last hour, I have negotiated a deal to give

the United Kingdom special status inside the European Union.

In the midst of it all, Angela Merkel was snapped

That is what I call a working dinner.

Now, it's Saturday morning in Downing Street.

More waiting, this time for the first Cabinet meeting

on a weekend since the Falklands, and David Cameron's chance

to brief his colleagues on that deal.

This is the deal and here is what it amounts to.

In a future EU treaty, the EU will exempt the UK

from the idea of ever-closer union, there will be safeguards

for the City of London, when it comes to in-work benefits,

the UK will be able to apply the emergency brake,

which means EU migrants will not get the same level

as the rest of us until they have been here for a few years,

and from 2020, they will only get child benefit paid at the rate

they would get in their home country.

Time for ministers to give their verdict.

Home Secretary, are you a remain-ian?

Chancellor, I am guessing you are an inner, aren't you?

Each gave their answer during a two hour meeting in Number 10.

Then the PM appeared to press the button marked "Referendum".

The choice is in your hands, but my recommendation is clear.

I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off

And apparently it is now totally fine for members of the Cabinet

What was it like when Michael Gove spoke, was he a bit sad?

Of course, because he and the Prime Minister, he and the rest of us,

One of the interesting and remarkable things about this

government is we all know each other and we like each other,

We have each other's mobile phones and we text and talk to each other.

Please join me in welcoming Vote Leave's...

But the six ministerial Tory outers headed straight to the HQ

It is Iain Duncan Smith, I am a member of the Cabinet.

I will be voting to leave the EU because I am profoundly

optimistic about the UK, I believe we can flourish

outside the European Union, so I think the better option

is to take back control, and restore the ability

to make our own laws and control our own

Happy, happy, here we go, big smiles.

Now the referendum campaign will be brought to a street near you,

like the Britain Stronger In Europe team did in rainy Bath this weekend.

There is one more thing we are waiting for, which side

The Mayor of London will reveal his intentions tonight.

Exciting. Let's pick up on that. Tom Newton Dunn, will he campaign to

come out? It looks very much like it. People close to him this morning

that I've spoken to, some pro-European MPs who hoped he would

go their way, have now resigned themselves to Boris going from Vote

Leave. Apparently it was down to this big dinner he had with Michael

Gove on Tuesday night as revealed by the Mail on Sunday today. Horace was

really given an argument he found hard to refuse. It would certainly

appear that they have done a deal to do this together. Is it not more

about leadership ambitions than about his true feelings to do with

the EU? Everyone will presume that now is not simply because Boris

Johnson is known for being inside Europe, he is an internationalist,

born in New York, he's lived in Brussels, he has always been in

favour of reform but not leaving. He was telling people openly one month

ago that he would campaign to stay in. He has clearly worked out that

the electorate that matters for him other grassroots Tories and the MPs

who ask up to Cork and who will therefore hopefully propel him

towards being Prime Minister. The thought he will have is, does he

look sincere in doing this? He will have to have a very good argument

tonight to make it look why he has done this apparent turnaround. Let's

look at some of the substance, Melanie Phillips. Some will say that

not many people in the public will look at the details, they will do it

on gut instinct and emotion. Do you think that is true, or are there

salient issues that could capture the imagination? I think the two are

not necessarily in contradiction of each other, gut instinct and

emotional part of it and fear will have a lot to do with this campaign.

The fear, we must cling on for fear of something worse which is what the

Prime Minister has played on and will continue to do so

significantly. I was struck by the interview with the Prime Minister

this morning in which he addressed the most important issue,

sovereignty. And he redefined it. He was so keen to slip away from it

because it is so dangerous him. The odd comment is that Britain will

still have no control over its own stash might be argued is that

Britain will still have no control over its own laws, they will be

dictated in significant measure. Users they are looking at a

mechanism... He is clinging to his apparent concession that he has run

from them not to sign up to ever closer union. That is a meaningless

thing. The thing is that we in Britain will continue to be bad but

the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Although the Prime

Minister is floated some kind of constitutional settlement, this is a

nonsense because nothing can override that superiority. While we

continue to be signed at the EU. Opponents are vexed that we appear

not to have the ability to make her own laws, but we do not seem to be

vexed whether we have the ability to decide whether to go to war not. You

could have a situation in the next few months where Turkey and Syria,

sorry, Russia and Turkey could find themselves at war. What happens

then? We are bound to go to war on Turkey's behalf, the cause Turkey is

a member of Nato. Opponents of the European Union do not seem to be too

vexed about that. Do you think security will be the overriding

thing that will convince people? It is simple who is clicked to win this

campaign. The winners will be the safest option and the losers will be

the riskiest option. That is why the Prime Minister is talking about risk

and uncertainty. He's saying what can you, the outers, what is your

vision for what Britain would be like outside the European Union. We

will hear more from you later in the programme.

Well, as we've been hearing, as soon as David Cameron announced

the date of the referendum, members of the Cabinet were given

free rein to campaign on either side of the argument.

So who'll be campaigning to stay in and who'll be

It is time for ministers to pick a side.

No surprises that David Cameron, George Osborne and Philip Hammond

And they will be pleased that potential outers Theresa May,

Liz Truss and Sajid Javid have also all opted for the remain team.

Chris Grayling, Priti Patel, John Whittingdale, Theresa Villiers

and Iain Duncan Smith will be campaigning to leave.

They will be cheered that Michael Gove, after much

soul-searching, has also plumped for the leave campaign.

However, there is one big name waiting on the sidelines.

Pollsters claim his support could sway a lot of voters.

Surely it cannot be long to wait now.

And the Leader of the House of Commons, Chris Grayling,

Welcome. Hello. Why do you not think the deal that the Prime Minister

secured was enough? The Prime Minister has made some progress in

his discussions in Brussels, and we give him credit for that, but does

this represent a transformation that says to me, we should stay within

the European Union? It does not. Our membership of the European Union

holds us back. There are decisions that we should be taking for the

benefit of her country that we cannot take when wearing the EU,

like how many people, and live and work your, like forming free-trade

deals around the world, and we are spending millions of pounds a week

in subscriptions to the EU that should be spent on the National

Health Service are bringing their beds. Some of that does not take

into account the rebate that the UK gets. In your mind, the prime and it

has failed in his ambition to secure fundamental reform? The Prime

Minister has worked hard at this. He has failed, in your mind? What he

has brought back is a deal that he and others believe it is

sufficient for us to stay in the European Union. I do not think that,

I think we should leave. That is the essence of the debate. What did they

have secured to get your support? You're talking about risk. All the

National statisticians are saying that our population is on the way to

rising from 75 to 80 million people. I do not think we can cope with

that. We do not have the houses, the school places, the hospitals. Your

government has failed to do anything about net migration figures? Letting

that happen is a huge risk. We cannot do anything about it because

of the free movement you -- rules in the European Union. If we did not

have free movement, what level of movement would be acceptable? We

should bring it down to the tens of thousands. If the UK pulled out of

the EU, you would get the level down to the tens of thousands? We would

have the ability to set limits. We would look at the reality of the

migration pressures we face. We could take decisions in the

interests of Britain. At the moment we cannot do that. So there is not

anything that David Cameron could have secured to get your support,

because you always wanted to come out of the EU? I believed for a long

time it was likely I would decide to come out of the EU. I have

sat through European meetings for five years. We are not able to look

after our national interest properly, our citizens are business

interests. Too many decisions have been passed to Brussels. Michael

Gove spoke yesterday about the decisions that cross the desks of

ministers. Give me one example of something that has come across your

desk that you could not in act because of the EU? When I was

Minister for health and safety, there were changes being brought in

that would cost British business money. Which ones to G1 to bring --

want to not bring in. You always talk about regulations. Which

specific bills were you not able to pass, which laws were foisted on you

by the EU? I would not have imposed massive change to the North Sea oil

industry, which is the best safety record in the world. It took three

years of intense negotiations to reduce a package which would have

been damaging to one that simply cost extra money for the industry.

You want to strip away health and safety regulations? We have the best

resume in the world. Across the board you would like to get rid of

health and safety regulations that are brought in as a result of not

just our government but the EU? I want us as a nation to decide what

health and safety rules we get in the UK, not have been imposed. I

want the right regulation. I want proper safety in the workplace but

not massive burdens put on business. What was the atmosphere like in

Cabinet yesterday. It was cordial. It was constructive and friendly.

The Prime Minister accepted we had different views around the table. We

are all committed to working in the next few months for the cause we

believe in. We will do it in a constructive and friendly way. You

will not be able to do that. We do not have to attack each other

personally insult each other. It is already happening. You have said the

Prime Minister is your mongering, it will be project fear. That is not

friendly? I have not said the prime and is to is scaremongering. You

have implied it will be -- it was Ron Prentice ate was too risky to

leave. That is nonsense, the airlines thing, we have cheap

airfares all around the world. There are airports in continental Europe

that would go bust if it was not for low-cost aviation from United

Kingdom. You can guarantee that to the British people, can you? All

these things will be there the day after Britain votes to leave the EU?

Why would people in continental Europe cost themselves money? You

cannot guarantee it? Aske yourself the question. Do you think the day

after Britain leaves the European Union, the Germans will say, we will

no longer sell BMWs to the British? It will not happen. There will be a

trade deal. Countries will want to trade with the UK. The issue is,

will it be the same deal, will there be full access for the UK to the

same markets? For goods and services? Are you saying this will

be a utopia where the same deal will be struck, we will not have to be

part of freedom of movement rules, and we will not have to pay a penny

towards the EU? We are the most important customer of the European

Union. Can you guarantee that we will have full access to trade and

services in the way that exist now, without freedom of movement and

without paying into a EU fund? Aske the question the other way around,

why would they take a risk with jobs in Germany, France and other

European countries, by not agreeing a proper modern free-trade agreement

in goods and services? They run a massive trade surplus with us. They

sell more to us than we sell to them. They lose out financially of

those arrangements do not continue. I am not seeing the arrangements

would not continue, they would continue. I am talking about the

Thames. Everyone says we do not know what out would look like. I am

trying to see how long it would take, would it look like Canada, and

would it be on the same terms we have no? Why would it not be on a

free-trade basis? It costs them money if it is not. It is not ours

who loses money, it is Germany and France and other European countries.

That is why there would be a free-trade agreement that would

allow all businesses to trade. How long would that take? A relatively

short period of time in my view, because they lose financially. If it

took Canada seven years, how long would it take the UK? There is a

process of negotiation set out in the treaty that is estimated to take

two years. I would not expect those countries to take a risk. They would

lose out financially, not us. Even over the negotiations, President

Hollington said that he will not give special treatment to Great

Britain. Why would these countries who have been pulled through the

ringer over these negotiations suddenly want to immediately, on

your timescale, set up favourable terms of trade with the UK? Does

anybody seriously think that President Hollande will say to the

French farmers, who we know are fairly lively bunch when they want

to be, you will no longer have free-trade agreements to sell your

wine, cheese and other agricultural products to British supermarkets?

Why would you take that political risk? We do not know the terms, that

you admit. We know what you would like. We know you're saying you

cannot believe there would be another option, but it is a risk.

The Prime Minister is right? It is a risk for the French not to have an

agreement with us. Otherwise their businesses lose out. Sajid Javid

does not agree with you and use the Business Secretary. Is he wrong when

he says, my head says it is too risky for business? I think the risk

is on the other side. Inside you jab the drum? I have a different view.

-- is Sajid Javid. Continental Europe are the ones who would lose

if we do not have a free-trade agreement with them. He is the

Business Secretary. What do you know that he does not? We have different

views around the Cabinet table. We set them out yesterday. Some of us

are in Yahn Sommer out. We will have that debate over the next few

months. The Business Secretary is very good at his job. He is also

clear in his article that he is deeply unhappy about the European

Union. But he is being loyal to the Prime Minister. We are taking

different views. We are both loyal to the Prime Minister. Not on this

issue. The Prime Minister has been clear that government ministers are

free to take different sides. It is a bold decision, the right decision.

If you lose the argument, are you worried about your job? I think that

is relevant. While? It will only happen on June 23rd? Wanted easily

see a situation where David Cameron feels strongly about this. He will

say to you and your colleagues or canning for out, that is it, it is

over? David Cameron will do what he believes is right. This is a matter

of principle for me. It is not about my career, my job. I am doing what I

believe is the right thing for the country. What happens to me is

neither here nor there. I believe it is the right thing for the country

and I also believe it is the low-risk option. Is it right for a

Conservative majority government, for the first time in many years,

fighting and divided over this issue? People expect mature

democracy, the expect is as politicians to debate and discuss.

They do not expect us to agree all the time, we are not robots. We will

have a constructive debate but we will stay friends, we will stay

respectful of the Prime Minister, and work to make sure that we carry

on gather -- governing the country well. If you win, does the Prime

Minister have to go? Absolutely not. So you trust him to renegotiate

bilateral trade agreements with the EU as the Prime Minister the

campaign to stay in the EU? I trust him as the Prime Minister that was

bold enough to give the country the choice. If the country decides to

stay, he will lead us in government in 2020. He would really be your

favourite person to lead these negotiations? You would still trust

and? I would still trust them. In terms of your colleagues, do you

think it would be possible for him to stay either way? Absolutely. The

last thing we need at the end of all this, regardless of the result, is a

political bloodbath. We have a good team and the team needs to carry on.

How big boost would Boris Johnson be to your campaign? It would be great

if he joined our campaign. I know no more than anybody else, but I hope

you will join. If you lose, will this issue be settled? The people

will have decided, so we will not be able to return. We will not be

urging for another referendum. Is that it for a generation? The people

of this country will have decided that if we vote to stay, we stay, if

we are to leave, we leave. Chris Grayling, thank you.

Its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been sceptical

He voted to leave the European Economic Community in 1975.

The party will campaign to stay in the EU.

The Labour leader says it brings investment, jobs and protection

In a moment we'll be talking to the Shadow Foreign Secretary,

Hillary Benn, but first let's hear what Jeremy Corbyn had to say,

We will be campaigning to keep Britain in Europe in the coming

referendum, regardless of David Cameron's tinkering,

because it brings investment, jobs and protection for British

Labour believes the European Union is a vital framework for European

trade and co-operation in the 21st century,

and that a vote to remain is in the best interests

of our people, but we want a progressive change in Europe,

to make the EU work for working people.

workers' rights, putting jobs and sustainable growth at the heart

of EU economic policy, democratisation and greater

accountability of institutions, and a halt, an absolute halt,

to the pressure to privatise public services by some elements

The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, joins me. Welcome. Did David

Cameron secure a good deal? He went through this whole process because

of the splits in the Conservative Party. It has not changed our view,

Labour are in favour of remaining in the European Union, will be 40

announced a referendum and negotiation and we still are in

favour. So it hasn't made any difference. Some changes, like the

red card, we complain about at the general election, I think that's

good for Britain. A red card on laws that the UK

doesn't like. If you have is a efficient number of national

parliaments in the EU states saying we don't fancy this, as a good

thing. Changes in child benefit, we believe in fair contribution but

this referendum won't be about to David Cameron's deal, in the end. It

will be about whether we are better off in or out. I thought it was

striking listening to Chris Grayling that he wasn't able to answer your

perfectly fair questions about what trade relationships will replace the

free access we have got to the largest single market in the world

because we are members of the European Union. Let's go back to the

deal. You say it will make no difference yet to concede that

introducing a red card, a challenge to EU laws that the UK doesn't like,

and restrictions on child benefit, even if they were not quite what the

prime and stir promised, they good things, you support that. -- the

Prime Minister promised. They are changes we ourselves called for. Yet

this decision is about much much more than that. It has not changed

Labour's view of the case of Britain remaining in the EU because it's

good for jobs and investment. Let's take a practical example. Everyday

we export just under 2000 cars to Europe with no tariff. When Japan

and America export cars they pay a 10% tariff. That's what access to

the single market means and where investment has come to Britain in

the last decade, investing in the car industry which is now growing

and expanding that, people thought it was on its way out, it isn't. No

need to presume that would disappear, as Chris Grayling

need to presume that would disappear, as Chris Grayling said...

None of those campaigning for Leave can guarantee the terms of access to

that single market, what those terms would be. A lot of well-paid

Manufacturing high skilled jobs depend on that. Those jobs might not

go, it is Project Fear, saying that. Nick Clegg said repeatedly that 2

million jobs would disappear and that isn't based in fact. I'm not

saying that 3 million would disappear. What's the alternative? A

good example is Norway. In order to get access to the single market

Norway has to pay a contribution which is the same per capita as I

was. They have to accept almost all the rules and free movement of

workers. It's because the Norwegian establishment wanted that. They

don't have any say over the rules in Europe. How is that an improvement

on what we've got now? It isn't. It is a worse deal. Even at the

Norwegians don't recommend we do that. That is why the Leave

campaigners as we have just seen with Chris Grayling 's inability to

answer your question, is that they cannot tell us what Out would look

like, so why take the risk? Are you saying Britain can't survive outside

the EU? You are implying this country could not do well on its

own, could not survive. You are scaremongering in a sense. Jo, I am

not saying that. The implication is that Britain could not secure a

similar deal, that this country is not capable of being able to run its

affairs effectively. I'm making a different argument, this one. We've

already got a lot of good trade deals with other countries precisely

because we are part of the European Union, which gives us tariff free

access. We are part of the largest single market in the world. Why

would we trade what we have the moment, which is good deals, for the

promise of deals that are just as good when those campaigning for

cannot actually answer the questions. What about control of

your own borders, are you happy with current levels of migration? Free

movement in the European Union is part of the rules. So you want

limitless migration in that sense because that is what it will be over

the next five or ten years, bearing in mind what is happening in the

world at the moment? It will be impossible to lower those levels.

What is happening in the world is a separate argument. If you're talking

about outside of the European Union... Once those people get

citizenship of Europe they will be able to come to Britain. Rightly or

wrongly, it is something people are concerned about. Being part of the

EU means this country cannot control its own borders, can't control

levels of migration. If you look at the number of people Germany has

taken in because of the crisis in Syria it will be a number of years

before they can get German citizenship. Then I don't think they

will choose in large numbers to move from Germany to the UK. Look at

living standards and economic opportunities in Germany. The other

part of the German equation is that many British people are living and

working in other European countries, and EU migrants who have come to

Britain are working as nurses, lecturers, in manufacturing. They

are paying into the British economy, they are net contributors, as you

know, because they work and they pay taxes, and that gives us more

revenue, as a country. To do agree with Jeremy Corbyn attacking the

deal particularly because of the brake on benefits to EU migrants?

Our view is that we agree in fair contribution. Jeremy Corbyn said the

deal was tinkering around the edges especially when the focus was on a

break in benefits for EU migrants. He doesn't like it. We agree that

their contribution is the right approach... Are you sure Mr Corbyn

signed up to that? We are sure that their contribution is the right

approach. He was making a different argument. His argument was that it

is irrelevant to the view that Labour has taken about the benefits

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

We've one topic this week - Europe - and in today's programme we'll hear

the arguments for and against Northern Ireland remaining in the EU

as part of June's UK-wide referendum.

We'll hear from politicians and business leaders on opposing

And my first guests this morning are the deputy leader

of the DUP, Nigel Dodds, and Sinn Fein's Mairtin O Muilleoir.

Nigel Dodds, you've made no secret of your Euro-sceptic

Is June's referendum your great opportunity?

First of all we welcome the fact there is a referendum in June. We

have been pressing for this for a long time, even when David Cameron

was opposed to it. I give him credit for the fact he is calling the

referendum. It is too long since people have had their say. An

opportunity arises for everyone to have a debate and discussion about

what is the best decision for the United Kingdom, this is a national

referendum, so do we want this political superstructure or do we

want a trading relationship? That is what it comes down to. The deal the

Prime Minister has done is recognised by many people as

tinkering with the issues that does not get to the root of some of the

problems about sovereignty, the control of borders, control of law

making decisions, control of finances. And I think people are

concerned about some of those issues and want to have their say. Your

leader has said, CAPNEXT... You're not electing the

DUP, the SDLP, Sinn Fein. Your vote is equal to the Prime Minister's

adult. It is a referendum on one specific issue. We are making a

recommendation as a party, but we recognise people will make up their

own mind across all parties. I suspect within every political

party, no matter how strong the leadership, that within those

parties and outside those parties, people will have a range of opinions

and there will be people who vote on the 23rd of June who may not even

vote normally in elections, that's what tends to happen in referendums.

I think the opportunity for a positive debate is they are. We will

recommend strongly under half of our party that the circumstances that

the United Kingdom -- on behalf of other party that the United Kingdom

is stronger as part How come you are an advocate of the

UK remaining? My first election was the first EU election, Sinn Fein

were... This island has benefited hugely full. The people of Ireland

want consulted. If we look at what is in the interest of our citizens

here, in the six counties in the north, I think you have to admit

that for the pocket, we benefit hugely from the EU, and for peace.

It has been of enormous benefit, we have benefited on all fronts. I know

that the DUP will go in for a strong No vote, but I wonder if in their

heart of hearts, they also do not accept that membership of the

European Union has been good for our neighbours, and for both

communities. On the issue of consultation, on the issue of the

date of referendum, there was an issue in terms of Scotland, Wales

and Northern Ireland, devolved regions, the First Minister is all

made it clear they did not want the referendum as close to the local

elections, and the same with the London Mayor collections. David

Cameron ignored you? He has pressed ahead because he said it is in the

national interest. I disagree with the date, but nevertheless. On the

wider issues about the benefits and all the rest of it, there will be

came after the assembly elections to go into it in more detail, but the

idea that our safety and security depends on the EU is nonsense, it is

about being part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and

those alliances we make. People talk about safety and security want to

seem to want to take a vote of Nato, but stay in the EU. David Cameron

does not. He says that if, stronger, better offer inside, you said it for

outside. He is wrong, because we will be worse off. We're paying

millions of pounds into the European Union. It has been recommended by

many economists that families will be ?1000 better off. The money we

get out of Europe for Northern Ireland, for every pound we pay in,

we pay in ?1 how can you assure us that will be better off to stay in

the UK, when others are pretty sure it could not get much worse? We will

probably get our teeth into it, but look at the reality on the ground. I

just left Belfast City Hall in late 2014, and they got ?4 million from

Europe for the renewables ground. Nigel's constituency also got ?14

million for a centre. None of these pivoting projects would happen

without the EU, and it is true with other projects. Theresa Villiers was

asked, if you're up backs out, will you repay the money? She did not

answer. Every landmark in the city has been made possible because of

the EU. For me at is about looking to the future. Just to pick up on

that, outside the European Union, you have no idea what kind of

obstacles and trade barriers would be put in place to make it much more

difficult for the UK to trade with our existing EU partners. You cannot

quantify that. If you look at the other models and relationships that

exist with countries outside the EU, it would be expensive. I do not

accept it. You don't want to accept it, but you cannot prove it. I do

not accept it, and I think a lot of serious economic commentators do not

accept it either. That is a lot of scaremongering. We're hearing about

how terrible this would be, it was the same argument used by those who

said we should go into the euro in terms of the Irish Republic. Look at

the trade implications of all of that. None of that came to pass. In

fact, it is better off outside. Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic traded in terms of the currency on an equal basis, but the

point is that now we have a situation where people are using all

sorts of skier arguments, but the reality is that trade imbalances we

have currently, where they sell far more to the United Kingdom, of

course they would be mad not to want to do a trade deal on good terms

with the United Kingdom since they want to sell to us, but on the issue

that was raised about all of these things that the EU does for Northern

Ireland and would not happen otherwise, I find a slight irony,

because we are part of the United Kingdom, and things would not happen

in the Northern Ireland without the money coming from the London

Treasury. He wants out of that union, but wants to stay in a union

that cost us money. It is spurious. You're very concerned about what is

good for London and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I

appreciate that, but I am more concerned about the Shankill Road,

and for those areas we're in that beneficiary, but let me say this, in

2018, the pivotal strategy is to lower corporation tax to the same

level as the rest of the island, and that has worked down south and

brought in investment. It worked because it reduces tax and it is the

gateway to the EU. This proposal was sabotaged entirely because of the

executive. You have mentioned Theresa Villiers, she has committed

herself to the Vote Leave campaign. Are you content it is appropriate

former to remain as Secretary of State in Northern Ireland having

adopted that position? The Tory party did here do not cost me any

concern. Theresa Villiers will undoubtedly be against EU

membership. Those who are concerned about building trust and confidence,

let us argue on the merits, in terms of what is good for local people.

One of the things, something that the Northern Ireland Executive is

delivering, we fought for that very strongly and delivered it, but the

interesting thing is because we are part of the European Union, we have

to lose money for the blog rant over that. If we were not part of the

European Union will be be better off and have the corporation tax. I

accept that. Yes, we would better. It is a critical time for the

company on Badia, but no one will accept the corporation tax from

North America if you see, by the way we are not part of... -- Bombardier.

Many American companies have said they would refer if there was a

looser connection to the EU. You have got to look at the facts. S see

if we can get facts. I spoke to Alistair Hamilton, Chief

Executive... He said there are three things we need to have clarity on if

the UK leads the European Union. 60% of exports go to European markets,

most of the Republic of Ireland. Companies want to know what those

markets will be like if the UK is outside the EU. Foreign direct

investment, we pitch that we offer access to European markets, so how

will that look in future? The funding we get from Europe goes to

companies like Bombardier, will we get the same distribution in future?

We get a lot of money because of our past. Bullseye the three issues you

need to address. Reality is a there will be more money because even if

we continued with all of the subventions that come from Europe

and had to compensate people for tariffs, we would still be ?4

billion a year better off. There will be a lot of issues to be

discussed. The idea that being in Europe is risk-free and being

outside is full of risks, remember when we joined the Common market,

liquidity is now compare to put it was then. -- look where it is now.

Look what happened in the Eurozone, look at the crisis. It is difficult

for other people to take a strong... Briefly. It is good for peace. There

is an equilibria and here, Unionists have always been quite reticent, but

for me it is important for peace to remain in the union. It is important

that in terms of the elections on May the 5th for the assembly,

whatever opinions about the referendum, that we have a strong

devolved government. I suspect we will return to all of this is a

great deal. Now for a look at the week in 60

seconds, with Stephen Walker. The row over MLA's expensive shows

-- expenses shows no sign of going away. That is contrary to the

termination, and the commission if it thinks this is OK, is quite

wrong. I am extremely disappointed that the publicity that has been

generated. Apparently at the behest of the two senior members of the

independent panel. The health minister urged people to put

patients first. This is not one week, one one year problem. Jobs

could go at Bombardier, but it is insisted that all is not lost. We

are committed to manufacture and keeping jobs. And the EU referendum

debate hotted up. It is not part of the world economy. The growth is

elsewhere. Of course it is. It is not!

And the Brexit conversation continues - the main business

organisations here have been pushing the economic importance

of Northern Ireland staying in a reformed EU.

But not everyone sees a June vote to leave as a recipe

I'm joined by David Gavaghan, the Chair of the CBI here,

What's the clincher in David Cameron's deal that

I think the position is really very clear from previously, but in terms

of what has happened in the last few days, what we're looking at is a

European Union recognising the special position of the United

Kingdom in the European Union. There is a good deal for the United

Kingdom in terms of generation of jobs and stability of the future of

United Kingdom in the European Union. , CBI point of view, there is

a strong feeling amongst our members here in Northern Ireland, by no

means a significant majority, there are people who want to leave. We

will work through that with all facts and details. How do you

respond to that, while there may be individuals who do think that Brexit

is a good idea, there are people who want to stay. The majority of the

members of the CBI might want to stay, but it does not mean the

majority of small business owners do. Northern Ireland has thousands

of small businesses that derive zero benefit from the European Union. The

CBI is an organisation partially funded by the European Union, and

gets a huge amount. You survey your members, often paid for by the

European Union. We can take a lot of what the CBI says with a pinch of

salt. It represents business establishment, and organ nations

that can often paid lobbyists. The CBI is a voice in the wider debate.

You have another voice so what do you say to those individuals and

organisations who are concerned it is a much riskier road to go down,

to leave the European Union, with some any unquantifiable things to

stay where we are? It is very imperfect. It is ?50 million a day

to be a member of the European Union for the UK. The equivalent of a

construction of a General Hospital of the week. That is the magnitude

of the cost of this. And in your view is there no benefit? I see very

little benefit. I see nothing but regulation, the British Government

having no sovereignty. Look at Michael Gove's statement on the

issue. This is the important point, we need to get away from this and

the -- get to the details. There are 23,000 civil servants in the

European Union. It is smaller in terms of the bureaucracy than

Birmingham City Council. It is 25. The key point is that for

people in Northern Ireland, it is about the future of jobs. Good jobs

in a stable environment. There is a key issue for the business community

in relation to the massive win we have had regarding the corporation

tax, and the opportunity we now have... But that was by the UK

Government, the European Union have done nothing but try to get the

Irish Republic to give up on its beneficial rate of corporation tax.

Last week it was bailing out the Irish government over Apple's tax

payment. Let us see the response. You only have to see the

transformation since we joined the European Union, and the Republic

Ireland has adopted and and practised all the things the

European Union gets. It is a huge market for the United Kingdom,

representing 45% of exports. A declining percentage. Yes because

the world is changing. With respect, let David answer. Then come back to

you. The European Union is a place where, across the world,

organisations and trading blocs want to do business with China. Bike in

Switzerland do this, but we cannot? Because the World Trade

Organisation... Would you like to hold all of this interview or can I

respond? I really just want David to have an opportunity to respond. It

is generating between 2700 and 3700 per person of value every year for

citizens in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, as the chief

invests her said last week, there is a huge issue in Northern Ireland

should we leave the European Union. What we need is to focus on the

creation of good jobs, be part of a global trading block that has access

to 500 million people on our doorstep. There are huge

opportunities for us to engage with the rest of Europe and make it the

success we have achieved. We trade with the world, and that is the

challenge, we want to trade with the world and the European Union is not

the world. We will be that they are. No meeting of minds, which I

suspected. I'll be back with Stormont Today -

that's Monday on BBC Two at 11:20am.