Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest on the EU referendum campaigns. Andrew is joined by John Prescott and Conservative MP David Davis.
Browse content similar to 05/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Just over a fortnight to go and the referendum
debate is getting serious, with John Major launching a
We'll be discussing the week's big developments
campaigns, and we've got two big hitters for the price of one -
I'll be joined by Labour's John Prescott,
I'll be joined by Labour's John Prescott
And if you haven't decided how to vote yet you're not the only one -
one MP who's only now finally reached a decision will reveal
live on air if he's backing Leave or Remain.
Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:
We're taking the temperature on the EU with Scotland Stronger
in Europe, and in the Western Isles which voted no to the EEC
And, in a week in which one poll showed the public are three times
more likely to trust the word of a random stranger
And, in a week in which one poll showed the public are three times
I'm joined by a political panel with the full authority
It's Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott, and Janan Ganesh.
We'll try and find some random strangers to replace
them next week, and see if you notice the difference!
So, in case you weren't sure just how high the stakes were in this
referendum campaign, you only have to look at this
morning's papers, and listen to former Prime Minister John Major
taking aim at his fellow Tories in the Leave campaign.
The current Prime Minister David Cameron tried to get his party
to avoid so-called blue-on-blue attacks, in the hope of keeping
It seems like John Major didn't get the message,
as he accused the Leave campaign of squalid deceit,
and called Boris Johnson a court jester.
Here he is, talking to Andrew Marr earlier.
This is going to affect people, their livelihoods, their future,
for a very long time to come, and if they are given honest,
straightforward facts and they decide to leave,
then that is the decision the British people take.
But if they decide to leave on the basis of inaccurate
information, inaccurate information known to be inaccurate,
Now, I may be wrong, but that is how I see their campaign.
And this is so important, for once, I'm not prepared to give the benefit
of the doubt to other people, I'm going to say
And I think this is a deceitful campaign, and in terms
of what they are saying about immigration, a really
They are misleading people to an extraordinary extent.
So, that was former Prime Minister John Major, but,
when Boris Johnson took to the same sofa, he studiously declined
to return fire when asked if those words were part of an attempt
by the Remain campaign to "take him out".
Whether it is or not, this morning I think that...
I'm rather with John McDonnell this morning...
He says that there's too much of this sort of blue-on-blue action,
and what he wants to hear is the arguments,
Boris failing to take the bait. As I said, John major hadn't got the
memo from down the street, that was a joke.
The fact was John Major was sent into the show by Downing Street to
beat up on Boris. Is that an example, a testament to have rattled
they are? My own evidence is they are very
rattled, they got extremely twitchy about something I tweeted on Friday
night where I suggested a prominent Remain person was appearing on sky.
This shows the level of nerves in Downing Street. The kind of language
being exchanged between senior figures in the party raises very
serious questions about how the party comes together.
We had Michael Gove this morning saying he thinks the party can come
together on June the 24th. Of course they can, but I doubt it will be on
June the 24th. It is quite remarkable for a
Conservative Downing Street to get a former Conservative prime ministers
to come onto the BBC, the main Sunday morning news show, Andrew
Maher, and to beat up on the man who is currently favourite to be the
Tory leader. That is almost unprecedented.
John Major put his credibility on the line with phrases like squalid,
depressing. He was going for Boris Johnson.
There is a clear, strategic imperative behind what John Major
was saying, he is trying to reduce Boris Johnson's credibility,
currently the most popular and trusted figure in the EU debate.
They are worried and trying to harm that.
So, they are going for the man. The Big Questions this morning for
Downing Street, and it is right to point fingers at Downing Street for
pushing this kind of intervention, stiffening John Major's spines when
it turned out Boris was going to be on the programme I think he had a
bubble. That is my understanding. The danger
is that Downing Street are encouraging this, to send this
debate into a Tory blue-on-blue battle.
The effect may well be to deter Labour voters.
The people who want Britain to stay inside you need to do two things, to
make sure Tory voters vote for Remain, and turn out the Remain vote
against Labour and SNB voters. The question is whether having all
the headlines dominated by this blue-on-blue fight -- SNP.
It means people shrug and give up. It is more than just blue-on-blue.
From what John Major said this morning, it seems Downing Street is
prepared to trash the Tory brand, their own brand, in desperation to
win on June the 23rd. John Major describing one of the
likely people to be the ex-Tory leader -- next Tory leader as a
court jester. Saying, if you put Michael Gove,
Boris Johnson comic Iain Duncan Smith in charge of the NHS, is like
giving your pet hamster to a buy them. A second Tory poster. How can
you not conclude they are so desperate about June the 23rd they
are prepared to trash their own party's brand.
Short of using the B word when he thought the Microsoft when talking
to Michael Brunson, it was very vociferous.
It is true Boris Johnson did not retaliate in the interview. John
Major and number ten would argue that retaliation was made very
early, over the past few weeks, the Prime Minister's integrity on some
questions had been brought into doubt by people in his own party.
Without defending number ten's instructions to John Major if they
exist, they feel aggrieved because of attacks during the campaign.
Looking at the footage of John Major, I detect sincere emotion on
his part, rather than being a mouthpiece.
I did argue that he didn't mean what he said.
As Sam was saying, he didn't want to come on.
This is such an important development, it tells us about the
remain camped. Now, staying with the EU referendum,
today we're going to try Two well-informed campaigners,
the Conservative MEP Dan Hannan and the Labour MP Emma Reynolds,
will be interrogating each other I'll mostly just be sitting
back to watch. A short while ago in our green room,
they tossed a coin to see Emma is the winner, or loser,
depending on your point of view, so they'll be the first
to be cross-examined. They took a break in campaigning
to make their pitch I'm Daniel Hannan, Conservative
Member of the European Parliament, and I'm inviting you to fire me
on the 23rd of June. First, because leaving
is the modern choice. The European Union
is a relic of the 1950s, when regional blocs
looked like the future, but that world has been overtaken
by technological change. Second, because it's
the cheaper choice. Instead of handing Brussels
?20 billion a year gross, 10 billion net, we'll have our money
to spend on our priorities. We will take back the sublime right
to hire and fire our own lawmakers. In a necessarily uncertain world,
we will have taken back control to mitigate any risks ourselves
instead of passing power to people who may not
have our interests at heart. And fifth, because it's
the confident choice. We are a merchant,
maritime, global nation, the fifth largest economy
on the planet, one of five permanent seat-holders
on the UN Security Council. We have the world's most
widely studied language, before we are able to run our own
affairs in our own interests? Trading and cooperating with friends
and allies on every continent, including Europe,
but living under our own laws. So, here are Dan Hannan
and Emma Reynolds. And, just to explain the rules,
you've just five You can only ask questions,
or only give answers. Nine out of ten economists and a
string of organisations say leaving the EU would damage the economy,
make families worse off, cause a recession, could you name an
independent economic force -- economic forecaster who has said the
opposite? Five former chancellors are
campaigning to leave, plenty of economists, ...
Gerard Lyons has said, although in favour of leaving, if we were to
vote to leave, the two years, it would cause great uncertainty and
depress the economy. He hasn't said that. He said that in
a report. He hasn't. You will have to do
better than that. He is strongly of the view leaving means walking away
from a declining trade bloc and being able to leap up... And the
uncertainty? All these international bodies...
Hang on. The IMF, these are people who shared the outlook,
international bureaucrats, they share the lifestyle, the tax-free
lifestyle, they shared the basic outlook. Through euros, because that
is the kind of circles they live in. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is
widely respected, they have said by leaving we could blow a black hole
of up to ?40 billion in our public finances, meaning less money for
public services. They were feeding in the same basic
data they got from these IMF, OECD organisations.
They are independent. If I didn't think we would be better off as a
whole, I would not be inviting viewers to make me redundant. The
reason I am confident I will have a job in the private sector doing
something more productive than regulating everyone else is we
shouldn't be linked to the world is Oates only collapsing trade bloc.
There are huge opportunity -- the world's. We are the only one that
hasn't grown. Another question, you have described
the NHS as the biggest 60 year mistake, why can the public trust
the Leave campaign when they don't want the NHS to be in public hands?
I said the mistake was having a nationalised system rather than a
pluralist one as they have in almost every other industrialised country.
The referendum is an instruction to the Government to get us out.
It does not mean you are electing the boat Leave campaign, but giving
a mandate to get us out on terms and in a timescale said to our allies
across the control -- the channel but in our interests.
We are really looking at a decision to leave and asking people not to
trust any other politician but the British electorate.
The weight of economic evidence is on the remain camped, you would
admit that at least. Can you name a country that has
access to the single market but does not accept free movement?
The EU side free trade agreements with Colombia...
You said access to the single market, every country in Europe has
access to the single market. There is a free trade area from
non-EU Iceland... Why therefore does Ireland and
Norway faced agricultural tariffs of over 13%?
Ireland and Norway? Icelands and Norway.
Yes, they have wisely chosen to stay out of the Common Agricultural
Policy. Their farmers are strongly in favour of staying out of the CIP.
If we did the same thing, instead of being doubly penalised as a net food
importer with efficient farms, paying more in, getting less out, we
can have a British farming policy tailored to suit our needs.
In Northern Ireland, you suggested the border would remain open between
the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. How can you therefore
guarantee that if you want to stop free movement, that European
migrants would not come through that border? You are leaving the back
door open. Illegal migrants could come through that border today but
do not. They could come through legally. We have an agreement which
includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in
the, it long predates the EU. The point is it is possible now, don't
take anyone's word for it, we have a common travel area with EU and
non-EU states, no-one in Dublin or Westminster is suggesting that is a
problem. We have only three seconds to go, tough and time in the
interests of fairness! It is the dunnock Emma to be cross-examined,
let's look at her pitch to undecided voters.
We are stronger, safer and better off in Europe.
Families benefit from lower prices, more jobs,
Businesses benefit from a European single market
Workers benefit from employment protection.
We trade more with the EU than any other country.
from companies like Jaguar Land Rover here in the West Midlands.
And by staying in the EU, we will attract even more investment
and create more jobs for the next generation.
In the 21st century, the challenges that our country face
no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover.
Cross-border crime and terrorism, climate change -
by working with our European partners,
we can meet these challenges successfully.
predicts that damage will be done to our economy if we leave.
And the Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney,
It would create a black hole in our public finances,
meaning less money for our public services, like schools and the NHS.
for more jobs, prosperity and security.
As before, Dan, you now have five minutes
to put your questions. Off you go.
Thank you. As you know, the EU is not a settled dispensation, it is
undergoing the Euro crisis, the Schengen crisis, migration problems,
and it is evolving - what are the greatest risks of Remain? Well, you
would keep your job! You seem to want to lose your job. I don't think
that there are great risks of as remaining, because we have the best
of both worlds. We are not in the eurozone, we have the pound as our
currency, like eight other member states retain their currency, but we
have unfettered access to the single market, and no other country... What
can you tell us about budget contributions in ten or 15 years'
time? I know what our budget contributions are today, not what is
on the side of your bus. How many migrants might be resettled here?
More came from outside of the EU than inside. Can you tell us how
many bailouts we might be dragged into? Zero. So if we vote to stay
in, even though we had a written guarantee in 2014 that which would
not be dragged into a bailout, you trust them this time? You say that
but you are a MEP. I am asking the questions. I think the ministers go
to the Council of Ministers meetings, 97% of the votes won, we
are not run by Eurocrats. You cannot answer any of the questions about
how it might look if we stay in, so there are risks both ways. Is it
safer to take back control to mitigate risks ourselves, or save a
passing control to people who may not have our interests at heart? I
do not know why you mistrust our European partners to such a great
extent, because the challenges we face in the 21st century, climate
change, cross-border crime, terrorism, those are challenges we
share with our partners. Let me ask another question, in our country we
have an example of a very high-minded, radical tradition that
has been very good at dispersing power from oligarchs to the general
population. As an heiress to the suffragettes and the chartists, do
you feel comfortable backing an elitist, anti-democratic project
where supreme power is wielded by people immune to the ballot box,
where we pay more to wealthy French farmers than poor African farmers,
and where we have inflicted joblessness and misery on tens of
millions of people around the Mediterranean while Eurocrats like
around in private jets? Does that seem comfortable as a person on the
centre-left? I feel comfortable because I feel the EU has been a
force for good in terms of employment protection, in a way a
Conservative governments never has, comfortable because we elect our
MEPs, and we elect a government that sends ministers to Brussels to have
the final say on European regulations, and I feel comfortable
as a British MP that over the vast majority of policy areas, whether
health, housing, education, policing, we have confidence in
those areas. So Lord Rose, the leader of the remainder campaign
says Vote Leave for higher wages, Paddy Ashdown says we will get
cheaper food, don't you think there are benefits to the majority of low
and medium income people from having that boosting household income? On
the contrary. So they are wrong? I think they are wrong, people in my
constituency, low and middle incomes, they will suffer the most
if manufacturing is eliminated, according to the Brexit Economist,
the Bank of England governor has predicted a recession, and it will
be people I reserve present who will be worse after macro, not people
earning high income jobs. -- worse off. What is the strongest argument
for voting Leave? I don't think there is one. None at all? This is
one of the things that puzzles a lot of people trying to make up their
mind. You do not think there are any benefits of staying in the EU. It is
not my job to tell you them, but I can see them! People make an issue
out of being so broad-minded and reasonable, but they struggle to see
the other point of view at all. They cannot put themselves in the shoes
of the people that the EU is not benefiting, which is the vast
majority. There is a lot of scaremongering on your side about
what might happen, because if we stay in, we will pretty much have
the status quo, access to a market where we trade more than with the
rest of the world, 44% of our exports go to the rest of the EU.
Our trade unions represent four million people who think we should
stay. I would rather this on to them than you. Do you think the European
Union is a growing, successful scheme that people would join today
if we were not already a member? Yes no? Yes. We ended there, I thank you
both for that. So, this week both sides of this
referendum have really The big set-piece TV
grillings have begun. Senior Conservatives have been
knocking lumps out of each other. And the Labour machine seems finally
to have creaked into life. We'll be talking about
all of that today. But, first, our Adam's been
on the buses to see where this
campaign is heading. There's livestock,
there's Boris Johnson, and there's a man
with a stuffed animal. Well, I suppose I could have
accidentally bought the cow This was the week the referendum
started to feel a bit more like a general election
campaign, and not just because of
the photo op. Vote Leave unveiled
a spending commitment, cutting the VAT on domestic fuel,
and a whole new immigration system - And here Boris told farmers
that their subsidies would be safe, even if the UK left the EU -
not everyone was convinced. There's no authority, no power,
he's just a person that's walked in here
and said what he's got to say. You could say it, I could
say it, I can promise. First of all,
where are your wellies? Are you getting a bit
of grief from the farmers? No, there's a lot of
support, a lot of support, and a lot of people
coming up to me and saying, "We are with you,
we want to come out." Some people, obviously, need
reassurance about the subsidies, He left - without offering me
a lift, so I caught the train, to Birmingham,
and the Labour in campaign. But this week Jeremy Corbyn
made a big speech after it emerged many Labour supporters didn't know
the party was in favour of the EU. Do you think that was
a great speech from JC? Jeremy's journey, if you like,
which mirrors the journeys that many have made on this,
he was a Eurosceptic in '75, and I think he's more powerful
for that. Our journey took us to a building
site to see investment from abroad that the Remain campaign claim
is linked to our EU membership. Of course, with foreign
money comes foreigners. How are you going to vote?
No, come out. Why's that? Because of all the immigrants
and things like that. Too many of them now
coming into this country. Well, inevitably,
I've ended up in one of these This week, the Remain campaign
got some high visibility backing from foreign leaders -
in Spain, the Netherlands, the former Foreign Secretary
David Miliband. Some people might say
that you live in America now, you are one of these high-profile
foreigners coming over and lecturing us on what to do,
what do you say to that? I'm a British voter,
and I'm able to speak with passion about my own country,
this is my home country, and although it's not where I live
and work at the moment, I still feel that there is
a real obligation to speak not just to the economic issues
and the security issues, but also the foreign-policy
issues, frankly. to ride on Britain Stronger
in Europe's luxury coach, or hop onto Nigel Farage's
double-decker. You wait ages for a referendum
battle bus to come along, So, you heard Alan Johnson there
defending Jeremy Corbyn's latest intervention in the referendum
campaign, despite critics claiming that Labour hasn't exactly been
full-throated in its campaign Well, the former Deputy Prime
Minister and veteran Labour campaigner John Prescott
seems to agree. He says in his newspaper column
today that his party's message
hasn't been getting through. John Prescott, good morning to you.
Good morning. You say in your column that the Conservatives have hijacked
the campaign, why has Labour allowed that to happen? It is a good point,
I suggested in the paper that it seems almost to have been the
strategy, blue on blue destroying the Tory party, hopefully, we will
have to wait and see! We saw that in the broadcasts this morning, but
where is Labour? It seems as if we are just enjoying the fight between
them, but that is not putting our position. Labour maybe in the
European Union, I support being in it, but we're not putting the
arguments, and so when you see on a bus there, for example, on Boris's
bus, ?350 million a week to put into the health service, this is from a
government that reduced from 9% of GDP the average in Europe to 7%, and
when they go on with a Labour politician in this way, Gisela, the
Tories get the publicity, and they are in the background. We are not
putting down the record of the Tories, they cannot do it because
they are in a joint agreement on a bus about Europe. Let me just get
another question in, as a result of everything you say, are you worried
that you are failing to galvanise the Labour vote, do get it out to
vote for Remain on the 23rd? Absolutely! Labour people want to
hear Labour people talking about this government's record, whether
they are four in or out, they carried out a record that is
basically destroying our health service, housing was halved in
billions, and now they say they will bring it. Michael Gove says all
these terrible bankers, why didn't the vote with Labour to stop the
bonuses for them? He didn't, he doesn't, they are hypocritical, we
must show that Labour has strong values, we believe in social
justice. When you have heard Tories talking about being social justice?!
Look Labour, at Labour. Maybe Labour voters are confused, when you look
at Jeremy Corbyn's pro EU speech, he spent as much time attacking the
Tories and EU policies. Good on Jeremy! By Sea said the bad things
predicted by Vote Leave work addicted by those who say we should
remain, that all the scare stories were just myth-making and prophecies
of doom. Is it any surprise that Labour voters are confused? Yes, but
I do not think we should talk too much about what we should do, Jeremy
is not a passionate man, he does not scream and shout like me, does he?!
But to that extent, our people want to see, and this is what has
happened to politics, people speak and do believe what they are saying!
On both sides, Cameron's side, Boris Johnson, they are saying things that
they did not do in government, which Labour oppose, and they are against
social justice. We want a Labour Europe, different to them, not, we
all believe in Europe, let's travel on the same bus! No wonder people
are confused, get a strong Labour voice, and glad Jeremy said what he
said, but point out what these beggars did in government!
What about the confusion, even Damian McBride caught on Twitter
offering policy tips to the Brexit campaign.
Labour voters seem to be confused. I don't say that the Europe they
want is the one I want. I took part in the last referendum. Despite the
Tories not giving us a referendum and taking us in 1975 into the
common market. I do believe, I was against a political Europe. In fact,
I turned down a job with Jim Callaghan to be commissioner. On
that ground, I thought that is where they were heading.
I can't say it has stopped. What we argued then was for a wider Europe
so we didn't move along the federal Europe case. That is still an
argument to be fought for, I feel strongly, Labour does. I'm not sure
the Tories pursued it. Sadiq Khan, tested Jarrell, Harriet
Harman, they have appeared with Tories, including the Prime
Minister. You refused, but last night you were appearing on Russia
Today, a Putin propaganda channel, with Ken Livingstone, he has been
suspended from your party, have you thought this through?
Of course. I don't go in joint party operations, I never have. I didn't
when I fought the Labour in 1975. I am the same. I am not saying they
can't or shouldn't. We are saying the Labour vote is crucial and there
is confusion as to the Labour position.
Standing alongside Tory politicians, the survey has recently shown most
of the speeches that come out of that are Tory spokesmen. 48% Tory,
8% Labour. Why are we confused? Like in Scotland, if you appear alongside
them bring on Europe, you better start telling people what you
disagree about. Jeremy is trying to do that. I
wouldn't do it, it adds to the confusion. If you can't get the
Labour vote out in big numbers, are you worried you could lose this
referendum? Yes. I want every Labour person in
to vote. I fought on the last one thinking we would win on the
referendum, and we lost, mainly it was particularly women, they get
concerned about the long-term, their children, security, I think that is
what defeated as in 1975. Seriously, I think it will go the other way. We
need to be talking about the big powers. It is not Britain on its
own, it is global powers, America, India, China, who will decide the
issue about crime, immigration, security. We will be a little island
shouting out, don't you recognise we are a big power. But we will have no
say in a global decision. Jeremy Corbyn has hinted he might
bring Ed Miliband into the Shadow Cabinet. What about you, are you
available? I have done my bit for the Labour
Party, except shouting on the side as I do. That is his decision. I
want to see a united party. One of the things is people are confused
because of these changes. Where does Labour stand? Start talking about it
and be clearer on immigration. We have been cowards, the whole
political establishment has avoided the argument. That is a global
solution. There will be more migration coming from African
countries which have no water or food because of climate change. This
is not a temporary problem but a global problem and needs a global
solution and not a little country on the side shouting and staying out of
it. Thank you.
Now, even if plenty folks are still undecided,
you might think most Mps will have made their mind up as to how they'll
It's only two-and-a-half weeks to go, after all.
But, according to our research, there at still 26 undecided Tory
Well, we're going to reduce that number by one today,
as the Conservative MP Johnny Mercer is here to reveal for the first time
What is your decision? The first thing to say is, like a lot of
people, being out on the doors of Plymouth, we are disappointed by the
level of debate. Even today.
What is your decision? It is important to get this across.
But tell me, leave or remain? Two Government ministers saying the
Government is not telling the truth about the economy which has upset
people. In terms of this referendum, it is
clear we should remain, not a single economic expert has come out and
said this will do things for our economy, our jobs.
If you look at what this garment has delivered in places like Plymouth
around jobs, the single biggest factor in improving people's life
chances, it has done good things. It is the economic case.
And a security case. Why do the people of Plymouth seem not
convinced quite a recent polls say they were largely for Leave.
A poll I have been running has come out and said that.
When this debate started, I said this was an issue, not the issue. It
has become clear. I did not think we would vote to leave the EU. This is
a vote of singular importance to this country. People have begun to
forget we need to get on with Government on June 24.
That may be the case. But do you think you can win on the economic
arguments? With the economic arguments, there are single clear
points. On the economy, the people who
always feel the worst affected, it is always the most vulnerable.
Always those who file like a desperate struggle. My area of
Plymouth is still categorised by the EU as a deprived area in parts. They
cannot take that shock. It is OK for others to say we can go to this
nirvana. The truth is the same people are affected.
Why do 74% in your constituency say...
That is a very small poll. But it is indicative of the mood,
74%. People will feel more passionate
about leaving because for some people this is a single issue. They
have been looking for a reason to come out and leave the EU. I think
the vast majority do not want to leave. You are looking at where we
are now it is not perfect. We are on this trajectory. Do we throw it away
for a nirvana no one can quite lay their hands on. Could the most
vulnerable in the UK who rely on a job, on the NHS, public service
funding, could they withstand that shock? I can look them in the eye
and say, I went this based on something that sounded like a great
idea but I could not go for it. It has loads of problems.
Why take so long? Thinking about Europe is not something I got into
politics today about. I have spoken to a lot of people. It
would be naive to suggest there are reasons why people want to leave. On
balance, it is a clear case. Society is judged by how it looks after its
vulnerable. We have to remain part of the EU to continue to do that. It
isn't perfect. Thank you for coming on and telling
us how you will vote on June 23. We say goodbye to viewers
in Scotland who leave us now Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland. the Western Isles voted no
in the referendum on the EEC. As we approach the next vote
on Europe, we've been back to find Former Labour leaders
urge members to turn out We'll be asking John Edward,
spokesperson for Scotland After the tragic death of Liam Fee -
the children's commissioner says questions about
the Named Persons Act But is there a genuine public
interest at stake? When the UK last held
a referendum on Europe - 41 years ago today -
the Western Isles was one of only two regions to reject continued
membership of what was then In other words, the Western Isles
have never formally endorsed So what will they do
on June the 23rd - Our political correspondent,
Glenn Campbell, has been travelling Remote and rugged. These islands are
on the very edge of the European Union. The Western Isles are a world
away from the governments in Edinburgh and London, never mind the
bureaucracy in Brussels. Here on the Atlantic coast, its next stop
America. But that is not to see EU membership doesn't matter year. It
really does. Traditional island industries like Harris to read,
export worldwide, including too many countries across the EU. And at this
mill they worry that a vote to leave could disrupt the single market. We
have concerns about it. It is easy for us to trade with Europe and any
constrictions are issues that might affect that is a concern for us as
business and major employer in the Hebrides. How do you hope the vote
business and major employer in the will go? We hope the vote will go
over staying in Europe and staying in terms of what we have in terms of
trade and the ability to trade with our partners neighbours in Europe.
Phishing also depends on free trade across the EU, selling much of its
catch to France and Spain. But in this harbour the fleet is smaller
than it once was and to many here blame the EU's Common fisheries
policy. This processor wants local fishermen freed from EU rules on
when and where they can finish, what they can catch and what can be
brought ashore. I think it would be better because the boats here would
be allowed to land what the catch, as sensible phishing, rather than
this EU regulation. There are people in Europe who do not know where we
are, don't understand phishing, the same way we do not understand the
phishing in the Mediterranean. How frustrating is that? Very
frustrating when you see boats catching by catch and they have to
dump it. You are on the key and you have to go to Peterhead to buy
phishing get back to the islands. It does not add up but we have to do
it. Euro scepticism is nothing new on these islands. It is almost a
tradition. In the last referendum in 1975, Shetland and the Western Isles
were the only two parts of the UK to say no to continued membership of
what was then the European economic community. The vote here were 70 -
30 against, so this is one of only two places in the country never to
have endorsed the idea of European integration. While some things have
hardly changed in the Hebrides, in the 41 years since that Fort, a
great deal has moved on. You would struggle to find anywhere in the UK
that has benefited more from EU investment than transport
infrastructure. That is where much of the money to build the bridge
connecting the island of Scalby to Harris came from. Even yet even in
this tiny community, unease with the European Union is not hard to find.
It is so alien to me. Things happening in Brussels. A whole lot
of people in Germany and France and these sorts of placing deciding what
is good to happen here. Is there a feeling in the Western Isles that
people here do not like being told what to do by people from beyond the
Western Isles? I think that is right. I think people don't
generally. Independent mindedness is part of the character here. For folk
-- Kumble says of the EU debate. Travelling through the islands,
there is hard-headed calculation to. At the boat yard, this young man who
makes his living from both fishing and crofting is weighing up what is
best for him. I am torn on that at the moment. I have seen on social
media fishermen like myself I was planning on voting out. But I come
from a crofting heritage. You get a lot of EU subsidies which we might
be losing out on. You cannot do that without getting your subsidies, how
little or how big, they do help people. If this vote was tomorrow
and you had to make up your mind, which we would you go? I would vote
to stay in the European Union. The safer option, really. We have heard
a lot on our travels down through the Western Isles about the roads,
bridges, peers that have been built partly through European Union
funding, that have made these islands so much more accessible and
perhaps there is no better example than this, the Causeway, linking
South Uist with the island of men escape. -- Eriskay. Investment will
be harder to come by in future because it means the Highlands and
Islands are competing for cash with more disadvantaged regions in
Eastern Europe. On the Isle of Barra, this crofter and oyster
Farmer believes the benefits of being in the EU, including subsidies
under the Common agricultural caps that right policy cap, will I weigh
any disadvantages. There is a lot more to be said of being in the EU
than being out. In what way, the crofting side of me says, that is
the cap, the benefits that come through that to be in -- me and the
broader community. And the Oyster farming point of view which is more
important, is a huge market, France, 200,000 oysters a year. It is
important we have access to that market. The other side of is that
there is a lot of benefit that comes to argument to through rural
development which comes through EU funding. It is better for us because
it comes back through there. This factory is the largest employer on
this island and even though even -- much of the langoustine and scallops
are sold to other EU countries, bosses here would prefer the UK to
leave the union. From the fishermen's perspective, about. Why?
They are not listening to the fisher men and what their needs are. There
is someone in Brussels making decisions which impact on this
fragile livelihood on this island and the islands around. They are
confident new trading arrangements will be agreed without damage to
their business. With the European market, what is stopping us selling
to Europe? Who is going to say you cannot buy it? If a company in Spain
says we can buy your product and would like to, who says we cannot
sell that anyway? Why should we be governed by Europe dictating when it
goes, how it goes. Whichever way the vote goes, it is clear as these
Atlantic waters that the decision to stay in or to leave really matters
here. The outcome will make a material difference to the way of
life in this room or region of the EU, just as is it dead after the
last referendum for decades ago. -- it did.
Joining me now is John Edward, who is campaign spokesperson
John Edward, if I am a supporter of Independence for Scotland, as many
people are, almost half the population, and I want a second EU
Referendum Bill Nicola Sturgeon intermittently and Alex Salmond
incessantly telling you that if Scotland votes to Remain, but the UK
votes to leave, surely I am dying for Britain to leave? I am not here
to and search any political party. If you encourage Scottish people to
leave with a vote of a second kind at some point, means we leave. If I
am a supporter of independence, I might think Remain might win anyway.
I might vote for relief because I want Britain to leave and I want
Scotland to see. I want to help the grand total of leave. I do not want
anyone to think that we will vote to leave anyway. Scotland has a big
influence in the sport. The figures are close enough to tell us but
Scotland votes Remain, that will make a significant impact to the
vote. I asked you people who are saying I am not bothered. I want a
second independence referendum. The vest vote from me is that Scotland
votes to stay. There is no other question until June the 23rd. The
only way you will get past it and get into a situation where Scotland
is in a different case, is if you vote remain. During the first
independence referendum, everyone from the president from the European
Commission downwards said that Scotland would not be, an
independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted into the
EU. Some of the Nordic leaders said they do not want Scotland to become
independent. Why should I want to vote for that lot? You are voting
for the United Kingdom to stay as part of this voting block. What we
have got to remember is that it is our voice in Europe that is
involved. The vast majority of all trading partners within the EU and
whether it would like us to stay part of the system, that seems to be
a consensus that is building by the day. Is there a democratic deficit
in the UK? There is to a certain extent because there is a perceived
democratic deficits. If people do not think it is closer, then that is
a deficit. No law, and that is something I have had to tackle
across Holland, no law can be passed without your elected, British
elected minister and UK elected MEPs passing it. In terms of democracy,
bills are drafted, bills are put out to public consultation, they go
through Parliamentary committees. After the last European elections,
it was said that in fact we had been voting on whether John Claude Yunker
or his opponent should become president of the European
Commission. Can you just remind us of which party won that election?
There is not one political party. There are 303 political parties. The
centre-right party won, but that is as narrow definition as it gets. Not
many Scottish people care about that and that is my point. If people
many Scottish people care about that perceive it to be far-away... We
were told boss to mislead, as it were that we were voting for her
president of the European Commission and John Claude Yunker became
president... The member states said we will respect the majority vote in
the European union elections in terms of appointing a president and
they took that and that is why he became president. I am sure some
people in Scotland followed the events of Mr Yunker as things carry
but... He is only a head of civil service. He is not a president or a
Prime Minister. Let's not told European Parliament to a stronger
standing. But it is not just in Britain. No one identifies with the
European Union as a democratic entity. Surely much better to go
back to having the British Parliament and Scottish Parliament
as our democracy? They are our sovereign bodies and will always be.
The European Union is not and never will be. It is an entirely different
system in world politics, I will admit, but we have political control
United Nations. Have decided to save United Nations. Have decided to save
-- share our power into it to get the best out of it. Let's take an
example. You make the point, correctly, that the commission can
initiate legislation but it has to be approved by member states. Take
the working Time directive. I know a lot of people in Scotland would be
in favour of this because they think it gives them protection but whether
you are in favour of it or not, it was passed despite the protest of
British government, the European Commission then said it was health
and safety legislation, meaning that the European Court of Justice could
impose it on Britain, even though the elected government of Britain at
that time did not want anything to do with it. In what even tortured
European sense cannot be said to be democratic? Two things. One, the
European Court of justice can only act when it's given me the -- given
the possibility of doing so. Take, you can opt out of the working Time
directive and I know that because I did sign one a view months ago. But
that is an individual opt out. This was about opting out of the whole
thing and it was imposed upon us. It was not imposed. It was challenged
in court just as the Scottish whiskey industry challenged in
court. This was opposed by British government and yet it became law.
Nonetheless, individuals can opt out as I have. That is not the point. We
could not opt out as a country. It went through the procedures of
Parliamentary scrutiny, two sets of votes. It is exactly as laws go
through Holyrood and Parliament. Not everyone agrees with those evil but
to suggest that they have total power, it can only act when we allow
them to. We can still opt out. You are an individual -- you are
An opt out if they opt out will stop An opt out if they opt out will stop
-- an opt out is an opt out. Let's leave it there. Politicians have
said for a long time, we will not leave it there. Politicians have
have anything to do with Schengen, with the new refugees act, when it
comes to a referendum and they say, you know this thing we've been
standing up to four decades is terrific and we want you to vote for
it, don't they have a problem? Absolutely and it has been a
perennial problem and that is why leave is able to go out and say
things about migration and the NHS which simply bear no relation to
reality because we, the country which have signed the treaty is, we
the one with the sovereign power in the EU, have refused to make the
case to our people as to why we are in their in the first place. That is
a problem we have to overcome. I have spent as much time over the
last four months explaining what the European union doesn't do as saying
what it does do. We have to believe that it has powers that are way
beyond what it actually has... British governments have not helped
you? No, but you will find other British governments have not helped
European country's government explaining the same thing. It is not
Brussels. Brussels is 28 member states and the power is within
those, not in Brussels. Had he been helped with some of the rhetoric by
the remaining side? -- have you been helped? You would think the world
was going to end if we left the European Union. It is perfectly
feasible for an independent Britain to negotiate traders with other
European countries. It would not be catastrophic. You could argue that
it may be stronger one way or the other but the alarmist rhetoric is
out of control, isn't it? I think the scale of it and expecting people
to judge whether an enormous figure from the IMF is one thing but we are
making a case on what we know to be true. We know there are risks in
leaving. The other side are making cases based on we don't know what.
There is no white Paper. We still have a veto over things in Europe
and discovering pots of money like bumblebees go round flowers is...
There is a reasonable economic case to say Britain could do well. I have
never said there is not some case but I genuinely believe we have
become healthier, wealthier, better educated as being part of the
European Union and we would be crazy to get rid of that. We will have
European Union and we would be crazy leave it there. Thank you.
The government's flagship Named Persons policy came under
fire again this week, following the conviction of Rachel
and Nyomi Fee for the murder of Rachel's two-year-old son Liam.
He was killed at the family's home in Fife, one of the areas
in Scotland which is piloting a similar initiative.
A serious case review has been announced to look into the exact
circumstances surrounding the toddler's death,
but questions about whether he had a single-point-of-contact worker
have been met with accusations of political posturing.
A short while ago, I spoke to the Children's Commissioner
Tam Baillie, who has written to a newspaper about this issue.
The Liam Fee case, obviously a very tragic case. You wrote an article in
the Sunday Times about it today. The third sentence of that article says,
Liam's death has been used by some as the furthering a campaign about
the Named Persons Act and it is unforgivable because the tragic loss
of a child should be above the political posturing. What do you
mean? There are two reasons. First of all, Liam Fee's death is an
absolute tragedy and it affects the individuals involved, the
communities and, indeed, the whole workforce that is involved in that.
The sad fact is, no child protection services in the world can offer
The sad fact is, no child protection assurances that it will be
fail-safe. That is the first thing. This is a real tragedy. The second
thing is the Named Persons Act service and that is a low-level,
early warning system for when things are at an early stage of going wrong
in a child's life and I can't contact up -- comment on the details
of the Liam Fee's case but we do know this was a Charlton known to
social workers. That puts that incident way beyond normal case... I
do take your point but what about the facts of this case? Fife was a
pilot area for the scheme, wasn't it? Regardless of whether Liam Fee
had a named person or not, I would say this was a child who was in a
system where it was obvious to people that he was way beyond that
early warning, early intervention. I get the point, but why don't you
know? I can't comment on the details get the point, but why don't you
of the case. You could have contacted Fife Council and asked
what the arrangements were in place? It was not my job to look into that.
There is a significant case review and I said in the article, we have
to leave the people in the significant case review to look at
the totality of actions taken to identify where the errors were made
in terms of the case. Don't you think before you wrote an article in
a national newspaper saying people were indulging in political
posturing and that their behaviour was unforgivable, as the Children's
Commissioner for Scotland, it might have been a good idea for you to
contact Fife Council and the Scottish Government and ascertain
the facts of the case? Even if there is a named person for Liam Fee, that
really is not the point in terms of that child being known to social
workers. That means they should have been systems in place to ensure the
safety of that child rather than the named person. I understand that.
John Sweeney the other day said there was a person, a point of
contact, but not in terms of the legislation. That is what he said.
Do you know what that means? I presume that he is saying there was
a person who was a point of contact somewhere with regard to the
handling of the child protection case. I can't comment on whether or
not... Again, I would put it to you, many people watching this would say,
hang on a minute. This guy is the Children's Commissioner for
Scotland. He is writing articles in national newspapers condemning
people for asking questions apropos of this case about the Named Persons
Act and he hasn't even bothered to find out what the facts are. I am
saying that it is wrong for us to link the named person with instances
of children who are within the system and whether there are
failings there or not. That is quite separate from those children who are
already identified with serious concerns and we will find from the
significant case review as to where those failings -- whether those
failings took place in this instance. The main point is that
this scheme is being piloted in places like the Highlands, it is
being piloted in Fife will stop if there was a named person in this
case, even a named person but not in terms of the legislation, as John
Sweeney put it, quite clearly it has not worked. A named person, as I
said earlier, is not supposed to be dealing with those children already
identified as being of serious concern, where they should be a plan
around it, where a number of different agencies should be around
it. Again, I accept your point that it might not be sticky relevant in
terms of this case, because this child was known to do that -- to
children services, but what's at stake here is a flagship policy of
children services, but what's at the Scottish Government and I fail
to understand why, first of all, you haven't tried to find out what is
actually happening here and secondly why it is simply not relevant to
talk about the named person. He why it is simply not relevant to
described people who have been talking about this is behaving
unforgivably. What on earth do you mean? In the first instance, it has
to be left to the serious case review to establish the facts of the
case. I make that point in the article. The second one is that we
know, and I repeat, the named person is not designed to try to assist
those children where we are ready now there is another very serious
concerns. There should be vigilant in terms of protecting those
children or that child. If you had contacted Fife Council and said, I
want to know exactly what happened here, quite rightly they would
want to know exactly what happened said, no, there is a significant
case review, and you would have agreed with them, but if at the --
but if as the Children's Commissioner you had said, can you
just tell me what the situation was with the named person, because I am
not prejudging the review. Was there with the named person, because I am
a named person in this case? Was it the full service or was it a limited
version of it, whatever that means? But you don't seem to have done
either of those things. As I have already said, in this instance, the
circumstances, the level of protection that is required, the
level of service that this child required, is way beyond that which
would be made available under the Named Persons Act. The point I'm
getting at is lack of transparency. If this is a flagship scheme, why
can't the government say, this is what the situation was and that is
that? There has been a lot of expectation
placed on and they named personally able to deal with all the instances
of concerns around children. The reason I have written the article is
that is not the case. I still do not understand who is behaving
unforgivably? I think people have been linking the named person
somehow with the terrible tragedy of... It is reasonable. There has
been no direct link made with named person and Liam Fee. The named
person is an early intervention, it is picking up children at an early
stage when there are concerns around children, rather than those children
we have to be intervening in the terms of child intervention. Some
charities have claimed that the Named Persons Act has been a success
in their region. Given this case, how are the public men to judge how
these pilot schemes are a success or not? There is an expectation about
what the named person's service is meant to do. It is an early pick-up,
we are concerned about children... How can we as a public know it is a
success or not? The government need to present the expectations of Named
Persons Act, what it will do. We have concerns about children who we
do not pick up early enough and problems that exacerbate. If we get
an early enough, we can support children and families at that stage.
Thank you very much, Tam Baillie. It's time to review the week
and to look ahead to what's coming I'm joined by Lynsey Bewes,
political reporter for the Press Association,
and by Kevin McKenna, Europe. Lindsay, are you getting
excited? We have seemed to have reached levels of massive stadium
over the European question this morning, everyone is wading in, from
Boris Johnson and John Major. It is claimed with mixed with counterclaim
as we saw and the Scottish referendum. I think the public are
going to be pretty fed up of hearing these claims from either side and
not getting facts, which we keep hearing they are looking for, shades
of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill? Kevin, are you
excited about this? I am trying to be. I was listening very closely to
John Prescott earlier in the first part of the programme. Speaking
about the widespread perception, perhaps in the Labour Party, that
this is a blue on blue debate and struggle. The passion and fervour
and the mudslinging and the civil war that is going inside the
Conservative Party makes you think that Will they recover from this?
Will David Cameron be a casualty? But what is the debate for the rest
of us. John Prescott is right to say that Labour people need to get in
because we need people in the Labour Party to have a leg in this fight
and people in the SNP. If you are a big supporter of Scottish
independence, it is not clear what side... What side your dog should be
barking on. I will be interested to see the debate between Nicola
Sturgeon and Michael. The first question should be why you using the
same questions to stay in Europe when you were opposing the
independence referendum. That is why I wonder why the SNP are choosing to
get so involved. If I was them I would be distancing myself, let them
get on with it. I am not saying the SNP are playing a double game. I
think they would say they are not. But there is a double game here. If
you really want and India reft two, according to what the leadership of
the SNP is in, your best result would be Britain out of the European
Union and Scotland footing to stay. Union and Scotland footing to stay.
-- independence referendum two. Nicola Sturgeon has said that if we
have this dragging Scotland out of the EU in this Ford, there will be
she is saying a second vote on independence. She is kind of keeping
the party supporters happy there. But she is also sing she does not
want to see that happen. I think in a lot of ways Nicola Sturgeon does
not want to see that happen because the prospect of fighting for another
referendum, and vote for Scottish independence is made harder in some
ways by the UK leaving the EU. There are a whole host of other questions
which have not been addressed about that, currency, EU membership is
putting a whole different context. My main issue with independence for
Scotland, if I want, IndyRef two, how do I vote? Is that second
referendum going to be an easy referendum to win when all those
issues come back and they are within a different context. You could say
that that will be a tricky vote for Nicola Sturgeon to secure. My
hypothetical person is good to say, forget that, I want a second
independence referendum, which way should I vote? I am hearing this
from everybody who has got an nationalist heart. Their instincts
are saying I want to stay in because this will guarantee our employment
rights, a rates of equality, or protections at work. But I am also
passionate about having Scottish independence. Nicola Sturgeon and
Alex Salmond have said that Scotland footing to stay in and the rest of
the UK voting to stay out is a valid trigger. So tactically, maybe I
should be voting to come out of Europe. However, if the vote overall
is very, very close, then SNP supporters who are thinking of that,
may have to wonder what their wish, be fearful of what they are wishing
for. We will have to leave it there. I'll be back at the
same time next week.
Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest on the EU referendum campaigns. Andrew is joined by John Prescott and Conservative MP David Davis. There is also commentary from political journalists Janan Ganesh, Sam Coates and Isabel Oakeshott.