21/02/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by Hilary Benn MP and Tim Farron to discuss the EU referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Andrew is joined by Hilary Benn MP and Tim Farron to discuss the EU referendum, and Melanie Phillips, Tom Newton Dunn and Nick Watt make up the political panel.

Download Subtitles