29/06/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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.