29/06/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


With Mark Carruthers. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.


But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?


A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all


A new round of talks ahead of this summer's twelfth get underway this


week, but can anything be achieved when time is so tight and the past


And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political


panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.


They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in


Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.


He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made


it big in the world of European politic.


I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg


He'll soon be President of the European Commission,


He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.


But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up


on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.


-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist


So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes


of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?


Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.


Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr


Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got


harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The


majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts


power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right


cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European


Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European


countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of


Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on


how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the


mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming


European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The


Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to


integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.


What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at


different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.


Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the


approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime


Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general


acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to


the single currency will want to press forward with closer


integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country


in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern


that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with


28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the


extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and


integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable


geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is


that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the


slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which


backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that


there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to


seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the


election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the


British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the


British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will


take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron


secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,


not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with


Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't


think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of


reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do


put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission


to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers


around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things


cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger


of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of


work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of


countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election


results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing


parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing


real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch


decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the


condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would


have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.


Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role


in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed


up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from


that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I


think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and


it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament


to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.


to tell us what they do. He said, I They have to make the opposition


clear that go on with reform. Are the current terms of membership


clear that go on with reform. Are us unacceptable? The current terms


of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The


current terms perfect. Are they unacceptable? The


that I feel comfortable with. The Prime Minister described them as


unacceptable. Do you think they are? We look at the views of the British


people at the moment. If you look at the polling at the moment, the


evidence is that people are split on whether they think membership is a


good thing. I'm asking what you think. David Cameron wants to in --


endorse changes in our interest, but also


endorse changes in our interest, but going to suffer if they don't


challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.


Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of


State said to me that even if the choice was


State said to me that even if the existing terms, he would vote to


stay in on the existing terms. He doesn't necessarily like them, but


he would vote to stay in. That is the authentic voice of the Foreign


Office, isn't it? That is the position of your department. Is it


your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a distinguished and independent minded


backbencher. He's not in government now. But that is your position.


backbencher. He's not in government the position of the government and


the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that


important changes, both economic and political reforms, are


important changes, both economic and whole. Would you vote to stay in on


the existing terms? That's not going to be a question that the


referendum. Really? I know that in 2017 Europe is going to look rather


different to how it looks today. For one thing our colleagues in the


Eurozone will want and need to press ahead with closer integration.


That, in our view, needs to be done in a way that fully respects the


rights of those of us who remain outside.


rights of those of us who remain things like the abuse of freedom of


migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this


week and we should welcome that. Very briefly, finally, when will


you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the


government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the


election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg


speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,


more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is


all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's


not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in


the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries,


those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories


and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as we get towards the general election,


will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and


perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank


you for joining us this morning. The harsh reality of this is that there


is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring


back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I


think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,


those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay


regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on


renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would


vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20


years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only


stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be


re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the


referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single


biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not


what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure


to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against


Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr


Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only


because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these


changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that


would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the


biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of


coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of


benefits, and he might get that. He wants to restrict freedom of


movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is


a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is


also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was


encouraged because it said, let's look at closer union, but it did not


say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted


in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The


fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when


he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling


to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela


Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the


European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,


he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this


basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was


presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there


was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I


understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.


I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that


he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his


backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They


don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to


draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that


sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to


Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people


will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on


Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for


immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who


John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is


replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by


arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by


staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would


leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common


foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims


which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change


anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of


these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants


to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the


chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,


doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big


things to get through first in domestic politics before we even


reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom


this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,


are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to


be in a position to pursue a negotiation? In other words are they


going to be a majority government or even a minority government? For the


sake of this morning let's assume the answer to both is yes, the UK


stays intact and against the polls they were saying this morning, David


Cameron forms an overall majority after the election. There is a


danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes,


correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press


comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold


Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to


say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is


different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it


cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government


to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land


will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on


the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European


Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the


line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting


dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will


not get away with this, will he? It will be an acceptable to his party.


If it is an acceptable will be an acceptable to his party.


backbenchers it is because it is working and they are reflecting what


their constituents say. A majority working and they are reflecting what


of people in the country are unhappy working and they are reflecting what


with the present terms. They can see working and they are reflecting what


there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have


there is a huge wide world beyond There is


better outside. It is not danger, it better outside. It is not danger, it


is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a


referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious


consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking


about. I am very party, that's what I'm talking


of the party that is trusting people to offer this. If he only gets


cosmetic changes he cannot to offer this. If he only gets


party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate


party. But ultimately it will not be whole that has to decide whether the


party. But ultimately it will not be changes are substantive. Everything


we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future


integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are


upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being


passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are


prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in


charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into


which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence.


Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib


Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what


the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the


choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political


leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we


went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the


individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I


mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his


views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a


small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of


America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is


really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we


closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the


idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers


back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly


been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that


has taken shape on our doorstep. Are we going to be part of that or are


we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship


with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or


another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on


and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can


remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the


referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it


sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is


a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we


will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to


ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I


thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the


Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional


implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to


established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we


mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the


institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by


federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate


but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains


national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it


makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the


Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU


wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you


liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to


you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be


disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only


had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,


France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of


menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the


North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an


army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms


of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you


can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having


the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the


United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,


Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is


an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want


to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a


referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he


was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and


restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw


everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born


after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those


plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British


was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men


smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a


political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in


those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,


more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that


thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in


enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately


we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think


it is good, it is calm and you can Government tells us to do. I think


breathe. Research suggests it has improved the health of bar workers


no end and reduced childhood asthma. Now just one in five adults is a


smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on those newfangled e-cigarettes,


smoking in cars and possibly the introduction of plain packaging.


There is still those who take pride in smoking and see it as a war on


freedom. We're joined now by


Dr Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association


who voted for a graduated ban on smoking at their conference last


week, and Simon Clark They're here to go head-to-head.


There are plenty of things which are bad for our health, why single out


cigarettes? We need some sugar in our diets but the fact is that we


need to stop people smoking as children because if we can do that,


the likelihood that they will start smoking is very small. In no


circumstances is smoking good for you. There are lots of smokers who


live long, healthy lives but we totally accept smoking is a risk to


your health and adults have to make that decision, just as you make the


decision about drinking alcohol, eating fatty foods and drinking


sugary drinks. This proposal is totally impractical. It will create


a huge black market in cigarettes which will get bigger every year.


They say this is about stopping children smoking but there is


already a law in place that stops shopkeepers from selling cigarettes


to children. This target adults so you could have the bizarre situation


in the year 3035 for example where a 36-year-old can go into shops to buy


cigarettes but if you are 35 you will be denied that, which is


ludicrous. The point is that the younger you start smoking the more


likely you will become heavily addicted. I take the point, but the


point he is saying is that if this becomes law, down the road, if you


go into shops to buy cigarettes you would have to take your birth


certificate, wouldn't you? We have no idea how the legislation would be


written but the key point is that if we can stop young people from


starting to smoke, we will in 20 years have a whole group of people


who have never smoked so you won't have that problem of people who are


smokers and they are now in their 20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot


of younger people who get cigarettes the way they currently get illegal


drugs now. They are already getting cigarettes illegally and we have to


deal with that. We have got to get better. The Government has not been


able to stop it. We know this is going to kill 50%... When you are 15


you think you will live for ever. Indeed but they also do it as


rebellion and because they see adults and it is remarkably easy to


buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is for individual choice, won't most


people agree that if you could stop young people smoking, so that


through the rest of their lives they never smoked, that would be worth


doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds who already do that. Is it worth


trying? When the government increased the age at which


shopkeepers could sell from 16 to 18, we supported it. We don't


support a ban on proxy purchasing, we support reasonable measures, but


this is unreasonable. This proposal says a lot about the BMA, because


this week the BMA also passed a motion to ban the use of E


cigarettes in public places. There is no evidence that they are


dangerous to health, so why are they doing that? They are becoming a


temperance society. This is not about public health, it's an


old-fashioned temperance society and they have to get their act together


because they are bringing the medical profession into disrepute.


We were having argument is about things that people buy large accept,


smoking in bars or public places, but the real aim of the BMA was the


total banning of cigarettes altogether. This would suggest that


that was true to claim that. It's not about a ban, it's about a move


to a country where nobody wants to smoke and no one is a smoker. But it


would be illegal to smoke. It would be illegal to buy, not smoke, and


there's a difference between two. So even if I am born in the year 2000,


it would still be illegal to smoke, just illegal to buy the cigarettes?


Indeed. The point being that the habit of smoking is very strongly


linked to your ability to buy, so that is why things like Price and


availability and marketing are so important. People will flood across


the Channel with the cigarettes. One thing you will find is that


throughout the world people is looking at -- people are looking at


the same kind of measures, and different countries like Australia,


they were the first with a standardised packaging. Other


countries will follow, because all of us are facing the fact that we


can't afford to pay for the tragedy. There will be people


waiting to flood the market with cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks


for both coming and going head-to-head.


"Unless we have more equal representation, our politics won't


be half as good as it should be." So said David Cameron back in 2009.


So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality


of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching


the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after


the next year's general election. Here's Giles.


Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their


constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society


well at all the parties it. In 2010 more women and ethnic minority


candidates entered Westminster but not significantly more inner chamber


still dominated by white males. Looking at the current make-up of


the Commons, Labour has 83 female MPs, the Conservative have 47 women


MPs, which is just over 47% -- and the Lib Dems have 12% of the


parties. All of the parties have selected parliaments in those seats


where existing MPs are retiring and to fight seats at the next


election, and they've all been trying to up the number of women and


ethnic minorities because discounts and can be capitalised on. A picture


tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male front bench before us. And


he says he wants to represent the whole country. Despite the jibe, the


Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being


representative. So we way to go on the issue of being


look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.


In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they


got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%


The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy


at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most


marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn


In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected


If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones,


they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.


The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won


at the last election, if they manage that, they would have


However all the indications are it could be


a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform


swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.


One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all


options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is


The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at


evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life


experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.


They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be


represented here at Westminster. So that's the Parliamentary


projection for gender, According to the last census


in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from


black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they


get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party


were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME


candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,


that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats


don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling


on to their current number of seats they would have two,


giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost


their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix


of gender and ethnicity Only 10% of us have gone to


a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford


or Cambridge. Only a fifth


of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with


the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like


us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they


cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the


turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20


points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and


that is getting worse with single election.


And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a


Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get


It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


With a new series of talks on contentious issues this week,


what chance is there of meaningful progress when there


And can the politicians do it without outside help?


I do believe it is now time to appoint a person who will head up


its contribution to the peace process.


We hear from three of the parties that'll be there.


And with their thoughts, I'm joined today by Professor


It's been yet another remarkable week in politics here with


a visit from the Queen that saw her tour the Crumlin Road Gaol in the


presence of two former inmates - our first and deputy First Ministers.


Let us talk about the visit from the Queen. When he was surprised to see


the Queen there being shown around by those two individuals with their


personal connections to the place? It was a very carefully


choreographed visit and everything was on a positive note, it's showing


Northern Ireland in a positive note. Gamer flumes, the Titanic, it was


trying to sell Northern Ireland plc. Of course it was ironic that she was


being shown around by two former inmates, you couldn't make it of!


But the jail is a success story and a huge tourist attraction. So I


think it was all about being -- showing the positive side of


Northern Ireland and investment, foreign investment, economic


investments. I think it worked very well. The fact that we knew where


she was going to be was a sea change in terms of a Queen's visits. People


could come along and participate. There was a real sense of joy and


elation that she had chosen to come. People came out in their hundreds to


see her. It is completely different, a sign of optimism and


confidence. What about the content and the optics of the visit? She


made a short speech at Belfast City Hall. What struck you? The overall


tone was quite positive and consulates rev. Even the


choreography was a reminder for what of the kind of tension that are in


place at the moment. She was almost making the move for unionism in a


sense, taking steps that we are not seeing Unionism make at this point.


I think at the City Hall, given the fractious nature of the relationship


as a result of the flight, it has been very, I suppose, important to


see her there. Briefly Deirdre, but the Queen have said more? It is


interesting that the number of commentators said if only she had


been more explicit. I don't think it is the role of the Queen to be


explicit in terms of operational policy in Northern Ireland. She is


above that. Can you really see her saying I would like you to take down


the flags? The bottom line is the Queen will be saying she supports


the peace process she also said we have made the impossible possible.


She has shown her support. I don't think it would be appropriate for


her to say we should take the flags down from the lamp post. Dishing as


far as she could go? It is not the role of the monitor, over and said


those sorts of things. We should be leading from the ground as opposed


to expect in the Queen to do it for us. We both speak more to you later.


The White House has always kept a close eye on the political


process here and done its bit to push the process forward.


So it was timely then that a senior US diplomat was at Stormont


on Friday to meet the party leaders and community representatives just


days before a round of intensive talks between the parties begin.


Our Political Editor, Mark Devenport, spoke to the Assistant


It is good news they have agreed to continue the talks in July. That was


not an easy decision for all of them to make. They do have decisions to


make together, both in terms of the summer season, but also in terms of


how they take the work forward, how they take the agenda forward and


what process they want to use. Do they see themselves doing it in


sequence, what kind of help do they need from their partners, from


London, from Dublin, from Washington? How can we be


supportive? One thing I would say, having listened to everybody, was to


listen -- its really is a moment for leadership. It is a moment for


leadership on all sides and from all politicians. Having spoke to some of


the civil society leaders this morning, I think it is what the


people of Northern Ireland are expecting from all of our


politicians and is difficult moment. Do you believe this is the basis for


moving forward? I think I think this is that the bomb Northern Ireland


and the elected leaders to decide. We do believe the process is helpful


in clarifying the issues in creating structure that the partys' can take


forward and the people of Northern Ireland can take forward. That some


of the ideas that emerged there can be built on. This is the work that


people of Northern Ireland and the officials need to take forward. We


will support any process and any structure that can gain traction and


can bring people together and take Northern Ireland forward.


There's been a lot of confusion in recent days about the format


for the talks and what precisely will be the agenda.


The Deputy First Minister says Sinn Fein is committed to finding


a successful outcome and he's called for more support


We are taking this very seriously indeed. We want to approach this in


a positive and constructive frame of mind. I do believe we should work


right through July and August to try and find a way forward. I will have


a team in position to do just that. Officially, after the party is here


alone, we will find a way forward. The danger is that a way forward may


not be found. So, you know, essentially, I believe, and I said


this to Victoria in the course of our conversation today, but I do


believe it is now time for that ministration to appoint a person who


will head up its contribution to this peace process.


Joining me now to look ahead to these latest discussions are


Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly, Stephen Farry from the Alliance


Party, and, in our Foyle Studio, Gregory Campbell of the DUP.


Jerry, what hope steel have that these talks will be meaningful? I


think we have been having these for a considerable amount of time. It is


quite a long time, it is nearly six months, we should follow these talks


before now. But we haven't. I think there is an opportunity there, on


the talk of July, we have to be not negative about these things. So I


think all the issues are known, we need to address -- address these


things together because everybody is expecting us to do that. Gregory


Campbell, is the DPA going into these talks with a genuine desire


and determination to make real progress? yes, progress needs to be


made. We have been trying to make progress in recent years and recent


months. But we have to be realistic when they are trying to do that, the


importers, for example is that we realise we are in the mouth of the


breeding season. When you have the likes of Portadown those areas are


places where small numbers of unrepresented groups in those


communities are whipping up tensions. Unnecessarily so. Issues


that should be low-key, that should be non-contentious, with small


groups of people trying to make them contentious. Instead Sinn Fein


opposing that and exposing those who are doing that, they seem to be


onside with the protest is. So the Porton is not good. Whatever the


difficulties, we must and shall try and make progress. If you speak to


nationalists in Portadown they would say that there you have got orange


men who are necessarily, to use at your word, asking for new parades


which are clearly going to be controversial? Well they weren't


controversial. They went controversial until some Republicans


in the area decided to feed what was supposedly new information in, when


it wasn't. The parades commission was then exposed for being a good


organisation. It is redundant. So, it is quite clearly not fit for


purpose. All of those were things we already knew, so let's get down to


the hard graft of trying to make progress, however long or short it


takes, we must do that. In the context of what we have just heard


on this programme on what we have witnessed on other programmes in the


last four or five days, how optimistic are you Stephen Farry?


People are rightly cynical about the prospects of progress in the short


run. Alterman, it is inescapable, we have tapped an agreement about how


we deal with parades and the past in Northern Ireland. Also flags. There


is a wider problem of what is still a deeply divided society. In terms


of the immediacy mark, there are difficulties at present. We need


leadership on both sides to back away from confrontation. We are


seeing that you are saying words and attempts to wind -- wind the


situation up. In the absence of anything on the ground, they are the


only show in town. Politicians will stand up for the rule of law.


Everybody says we need progress, the parties agree then eased to be


progress. What they don't agree on is how that ought to happen. These


talks are taking place at a difficult time in the immediate


run-up to the marching season. You said we need an agreement on the


past, but is it even on the agenda? Unionists said a lot of talk about


it is all after the Hallett reports. we can't discuss about at this


stage, the talks should address all three issues. There is no realistic


prospect of an outcome unless we look at them all in turn. The issue


is inescapable that we have tapped agreement on all three. All issues


are linked fundamentally. Has the agenda been agreed Gerry Kelly, is


the past part of the discussions? Will be issued before urged? We are


prepared to talk throughout the summer. My understanding is that we


will deal with all three issues. When I said deal with them, we will


certainly discuss them. Coming to a conclusion is the big question, but,


yes, we will deal with all three issues. There is no point in doing


it unless we deal with all three issues. In the past on the agenda


Gregory for next Wednesday? Are you trying to be back until after the


17th of July? we must know what Lady Justice Hallett says because the UTI


issue was, as everybody knows, it was a bolt from the blue, it was one


of those issues that comes up now and then which reveals what


particularly Republicans were doing behind the backs of people and no


one knows about it, then suddenly there is an announcement, then


people say others should have known about it. Let us get that issue


cleared before we start to talk about what we do about the past,


because we need to have people except in their role in the past.


Gregory Campbell is representing them. They have made it clear they


want to know what Lady Hallett comes out with in the report that is due


in the next few weeks. The Gregory is saying that they are not then to


talk about it, but that is not our understanding at all. Let us not get


caught dancing on the head of a pin. It is interesting that there are


different nuances shall we say between the parties already. Is the


DUP committed to talking all summer if that's what it takes? You heard


Martin McGuinness saying he is available in July and August. Gerry


Kelly has just underscore that. What a job party's position? he said he


had a team ready but is not the same thing as him saying he is ready to


talk about it. We are prepared... Are you ready? yes. We have been


ready to talk for a long time. The problem always in Northern Ireland


has always been the ground on which talks will be held. That has been a


problem. We are cleared the decks on those issues so let us not get tied


up and mired in that. The decks are clear let us see if we commit


progress because progress needs to made. Stephen Farry, do we need


outside help? These talks will be chaired by a senior civil servant,


but, we heard Martin McGuinness saying that the Americans can help


us? This has to be an issue cracked by the local parties. We must have


ownership of the process and ownership of the outcome. Ultimately


though, we need input from the two governments, particularly around the


past. Obviously the US has been a constant friend and ally in the


peace process over the last two decades, and their


peace process over the last two terms of encouraging people is


critical. terms of encouraging people is


discussions to take on terms of encouraging people is


Gerry Kelly? Do you know who will be in the hot seat? The issues are


fairly small, but I do agree with Stephen and of course, Mark has


already said that we have had very positive input from different


Americans. It is up to us in the positive input from different


to come to a conclusion, but there is the ability for outsiders, those


who have no axe to grind, to help. Is it your understanding that the


talks will form the basis of why you picked the discussion up from order


you start with a blank sheet? From our point of view there is already a


bit of work -- a lot of work that has already been done. They may said


it wanted up an agenda in some parties, but everybody knows


it wanted up an agenda in some are three key issues. These are the


three toxic areas that we must deal with and if we don't deal with them


soon, they will impact more and more. Is this a busted flush or does


it provide a useful template to begin discussions on Wednesday?


There was no point in going over old ground. What I do think, and I think


most people across the divide do, is that what needs to happen is that


consensus, agreement has to be reached, individually, winning


groups of people in Northern Ireland. That is the important


thing. Whoever they come in from outside, whatever limited help they


may offer, they do not bring to bear the very substance of what the


problem is. The problem is division in Northern Ireland. I think


everybody agrees that is what the problem is. The difficulty is how


you move things forward. All Unionists, is the DUP prepared to


comprise to reach agreement? we have always been prepared to try and


reach a consensus. Reaching consensus means give and take. It


cannot always begin on the part of Unionists -- give on the part of


Unionists. Nationalists say that is never the case. Look at the


restrictions on parades and when people don't use flags or banners,


they still have objections levelled at them. Are you saying there should


be no restrictions on parades? no, there should be a pragmatic


approach. If people do not give offence non-should be taken. People


should not be bussed in to take offence. Some people have come all


the way from Spain to take offence at a parade. Sinn Fein do not stand


up and oppose that. That creates a problem. The bottom line today


Gregory Campbell is that you up for compromise, is that right? We are up


for reaching a consensus. A consensus means a two-way street on


give-and-take. Will you made that Gerry Kelly, halfway? Yes. We have


compromised on many things. We have showed leadership. But, when Gregory


says that, it is a fact that a lot have -- parades have increased year


on year. That is disputed. It is not. I don't know where the dispute


has come from. They have disputed it. It has increased year on year.


That is a fax. Gregory denies all sorts of things. He's talking about


people being bossed -- bussed in. Final word from you Stephen, is it


hard to be an optimist in the circumstances? There can't be a


win-win for everybody in terms of finding a agreed wage forward. Thank


you gentlemen. I think the timing is bad. Given the heated mess around


the D-Day marching issues and the parades, things have come back


again. It is problematic. Even the language the politicians use is very


conservative in terms of its cautious nurse. I will be cautiously


optimistic. I think have laid the foundation and say you could go


where I wipe the slate clean is ridiculous because it does happen,


the discussions are in place. So I think they will go to the bare bones


of it now. Deirdre, cautiously optimistic? Would you agree? Yes we


must welcome the talks. You may say too little too late at the last


July, I don't think we can set aside this. There is a window of


opportunity that is diminishing by the day. What we need is people who


are willing to sit down, talks of each other, listen, but also, to


hear. Thank you. Let's pause for a moment for


a look back at the political week The education minister revealed a


hold-up saying that he did not have enough money for planned teacher


redundancies. The charity blamed the executive for losing money for youth


projects. Please sort this out because we need you. The parades


commission restricted an Orange parade. a short parade to dedicate


to an individual who died of cancer. The police ombudsman said the RUC


could prevent the member of one of its officers 37 years ago. The


police service in Northern Ireland should no longer be accountable for


dealing with issues that predate the Good Friday Agreement. Martin


McGuinness got familiar with the Queen.


A final thought from Deirdre Heenan and Orna Young.


Do you think you will shed any tears over the weekend? Absolutely not. He


thought he was coming to a brave new world and suddenly realise we had


not moved on in the way he thought. His community policing model did not


work and when he leaves he will be shaking the dust of his sandals are


not looking back. The big issue though will be how the new Chief


Constable, George Hamilton, deals with the loyalists. I think civil


society have got to assist him in his new, particularly challenging


role. How does George Hamilton demonstrate he is in charge? I think


on the back of the flag protests in which he was seen as toothless,


on the back of the flag protests in is important it comes in hard in


on the back of the flag protests in terms of that policing model, in


terms of putting that on the ground and ensuring the rule of law is


adhered to. Now back to Andrew in London.


but I take your point. Thanks to both of you today. Back to you,


Andrew. Now, there have been some


less-than-helpful remarks about the way the Labour party makes


policy, and they've come from the man who is heading Labour's


Policy Review, Jon Cruddas. In a speech to party activists he


was recorded saying that, "instrumentalised, cynical nuggets


of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies, and


our desire for a topline in terms of the 24 hour media cycle,


dominate and crowd out any He added that Labour's election


strategy was being hampered by a The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls,


was asked about what Mr Cruddas had I talked to him a couple of days


ago, and he's not frustrated, he is excited about his policy agenda. He


is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our


fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we


have big ideas about devolution, long term infrastructure spending


and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes


which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How


serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error. You


go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.


There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's


hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for


a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no


overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as


a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things


that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not


sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not


having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I


think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he


prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling


point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature


is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,


before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the


economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but


it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms. I


don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical


enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They


are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and


nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,


maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies


or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.


I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the


Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are


terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the


heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do


they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John


Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his


ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,


but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far


enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is


hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of


power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is


trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd


is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is


another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a


professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.


So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director


of communications was convicted of phone hacking.


David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.


At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.


I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some


on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and


those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned


out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that


today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong


decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle


of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of


that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for


coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy


Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing


Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26-2 on


the wrong end in Brussels, and there is a poll this morning which no one


seems to be talking about which puts Labour nine points ahead. Before all


that there was Dominic Cummings criticising the Downing Street


operation is being shambolic. Is Mr Cameron's judgement becoming an


issue? Yes, what often happens when one leader is under pressure for


long enough, as Ed Miliband has been the six months, we get bored. We


then switch the Gatling gun to the other guy. So David Cameron going


into the Conference season might be the man under pressure. The whole


Andy Coulson saga has raised questions about his judgement and


those around him, but any political damage she was going to sustain over


Andy Coulson and phone hacking was sustained years ago -- he was


going. It was Brother beyond the date the News of the World was


closed down three summers ago -- it was probably on the date. As the


hacking trial cut through to the general public? Or is it just as


media and political obsessives? I am sure it has cut through in some way


but it didn't necessarily happen in recent days, more likely in recent


years. It was some time ago that Andy Coulson resigned in high


profile circumstances. It has had a slow burning effect over a few


years, and the Prime Minister fears the Big Bang. But there is one theme


and words that unites this week with Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that


is that the Prime Minister can be lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical


in not asking big question is when there was a lot in the public domain


about what had happened that the News of the World. And he was


lackadaisical with Juncker. He made a calculation that Angela Merkel


would support him and it turned out she couldn't. Maybe he needs to


change. He was late in understanding what was happening in Germany when


both the Christian Democrats, her party, wanted Juncker, and when the


actual Murdoch press of Germany said that they wanted him as well. He


never saw that. He only looks at one person in Germany, Angela Merkel,


and it is a grand coalition, and the SDP felt strongly about it. He is,


in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He is, in a sense, an


essay crisis Prime Minister. He's very good in an essay, and the SA


gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has


John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday


Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr


Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time, so


he must be wondering why they are having a go at him. He made a


tactical error in Prime Minister's Questions by asking all the


questions about Andy Coulson. The one at the end about what Gus


O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in the extreme. Politicians can be out


of touch on all sides of the house. The problem is, and there is a great


quote by William Hague, is that the Tory party has two modes, panic and


complacency. At the moment they are complacent. They think Ed Miliband


will lose Labour election but I don't know if they have a positive


plan about how to win it. -- lose Labour the election.


Now, we knew Prince Charles had trouble keeping his views


about the environment and the countryside to himself,


but that's not the only thing he's passionate about according to


a radio four documentary to be broadcast this lunchtime.


Here's former Education Secretary, David Blunkett on how the Prince


had once attempted to influence his policy on schools.


I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and


he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a


different era where youngsters had what he would've seen as the


opportunity to escape from their background, where as I wanted to


change their background. And you can hear that documentary -


it's called The Royal Activist - Does it matter that Prince Charles


is getting involved in this kind of policy, released behind closed doors


question mark on the issue of grammar schools is not clear anybody


listened to him. I think it is a principal problem. I've spoken to


form a government members, and judging by what they say, if


anything we underestimate how much contacting makes with ministers. And


how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There


has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological


question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the


public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know


what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?


Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly -- so


a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight


down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.


There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his


argument in favour for architectural development takes into account


affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has


interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle


whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your


former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You


slightly feel sorry for him. He's 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a


difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are


to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in


the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a


line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit


too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that


goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become


King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?


He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an


interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,


going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we


think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting


parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial


charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and


that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad


thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.


I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do


about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck


into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He


has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings


we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up.


The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am


We'll be back here at the same time next week.


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


With Mark Carruthers. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat. Also should there be a complete ban on smoking?

Download Subtitles