12/06/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

With just 11 days to go until the EU referendum,

we get two campaigners to interrogate each other.

Tory Chris Grayling for Leave and Labour's Mary Creagh for Remain.

We'll hear from two Labour MPs who have recently

declared their positions on In or Out.

And is the EU putting controversial legislation on ice and pushing it

off the agenda until after the referendum is out of the way?

Everything difficult, everything contentious has

been put in the fridge until the 24th of June.

If we vote to stay in, it will all come tumbling out.

Coming up in Sunday Politics Scotland:

The Prime Minister warns spending on pensions will be reduced

We'll be putting that to Vote Leave's

So, all the highs and the lows, the ups and downs.

The European Football Championships started this weekend and I'm

joined by the France, Germany and Spain of political

commentary, Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley Brewer

and Anushka Asthana, who'll be tweeting

So a series of stark economic warnings from David Cameron who says

he might not be able to protect spending on pensions,

the NHS and defence if the UK votes to leave the EU.

The Prime Minister said the strain on public finances caused by Brexit

would even threaten the "triple lock" which guarantees

Here is David Cameron talking to Andrew Marr earlier.

The fact is, if we did face a 20-40 billion black hole

in our public finances, we would have to make

Our pensions promise is based on a growing and succeeding economy,

and all of the experts, and I agree with them,

most people in business agree, if we leave the single market,

if we cut ourselves off from the most important market,

our economy will be smaller and that has consequences.

Cabinet minister, Leader of the House Chris Grayling

If the Prime Minister is saying we voted to leave, he cannot, in fact,

implement key parts of the 2015 manifesto, what legitimacy would

your government have to continue? Well, I don't buy the argument. I

have to completely disagree with him on this, it's only six months since

he was telling us if we chose to leave the European Union we would do

fine and well. This figure, 20 billion or 40 billion, it is based

on analysis by the National Institute Of Economic And Social

Research, it assumes the pound goes down, making exports cheaper, but

people buy fewer, which makes no sense, and it assumes we lose the

ability to sell within Europe, when the reality is that we buy far more

from Europe than they do from us. It would cost French, German, Spanish

and Italian jobs if they don't continue trading normally. He might

be right or wrong, but is it not remarkable that he should say, if

you vote to leave, all the things I promised I would do if you elected

me, the key things, defence, the NHS, the triple lock on pensions,

that is all of the agenda? I'm very surprised he has chosen to use those

examples. I don't believe that is right, I don't believe we would back

away from manifesto promises and I don't believe we would need to. I

think the economic statistics behind the figures he has quoted do not

hold up. They include some inherent contradictions and assumptions of

doom and gloom. We buy more from the rest of Europe than they do from us,

they are going to want to continue trading in the UK market. If we do

leave, there was a downturn, because of uncertainty, it might not be long

or deep, but if there was, it would hit public finances? It would mean

tax rises, more public spending because of the extra welfare due to

unemployment, or a, nation or both and more borrowing? Well, the

question is if. If you look at what some of the international bodies

have been saying, we heard from the IMF, that got the figures so wrong

to matter years ago it had to apologise to the Chancellor. The

chief economist at the World Bank says he thinks our trade situation

would improve if we left the European Union. What you make of the

Prime Minister's strategy? There is a certain level of sheer panic in

his eyes, if you look very closely. Amid the tiredness, because we

learned today he did 357 media appearances as part of this

referendum campaign. I think what he is trying to do is to take on the

argument that Chris and the Leave campaign are making around

migration, saying, we know you are really worried about your borders

and you want to close them, you want to do it because it is affecting

your livelihood. The Prime Minister is saying, actually, there is

something else here that might affect your livelihood and are

really trying to get into the idea that it is going to affect people's

lives. Even to the extent of saying all the things I promised you, key

things on defence spending, extra money for the NHS, the triple lock

on pensions, all of these things that probably got him elected, or

were a key part, he is prepared to say I can't do any of that? He's

just breaching even more of the trust of the British people. Another

key pledge he made was that he was going to get immigration down to

tens of thousands. He knows he has broken that because of the EU and

other failings in immigration policy. The reality is that they are

so desperate in Downing Street now because they thought they would be

ten points ahead at this point. It is still very close, if you would

still say that Remain would edge it on the day. He has even deployed his

own wife, she was never that Keane at even turning up at party

conferences and kissing on stage. He has got someone at Downing Street to

write an article from some Cameron. That is how desperate they are,

which is telling. When I spoke to the Chancellor on Wednesday night in

the interview and I raised the issue of pensions, I said, why would the

state pension be hit either way, in or out, because we have the triple

lock. By definition, it cannot fall in real terms, in or out. He didn't

really dispute that. He went along with that. Today, we have the Prime

Minister, only a few days later, saying we might not even be able to

afford the triple lock if you voted to leave. What is happening? What

makes it doubly confusing is that it was Cameron, above anybody else,

that was incredibly possessive over the pension commitment and the

pension benefit commitment in the previous parliament. Even when he

came under internal lobbying to soft in the policy, to create fiscal room

to maybe soft and cuts elsewhere, he resisted it. So he deserves

criticism now for seemingly weakening the position. In many

ways, Cameron himself is the least important Remain politician for the

next 11 days. They need Labour voters to vote by a margin of 2-1,

if not 3-1, four Remain to win the referendum. You don't do that with a

Prime Minister they do not like and voted against. For the remaining 11

days, I think that Remain need to push Cameron less and Jeremy Corbyn

more, if he is willing to do it. It's not that, Gordon Brown, who we

saw do a video, Harriet Harman, a few other Labour figures. I think

that is where it hinges, the Labour voters, especially in the north of

England. If it is down to Labour to Pollitt off, some of the leave

campaign should be opening the champagne early? -- pull it off. The

vast majority of Labour MPs want people to vote to Remain. Some

people were apparently in tears when they saw the latest poll. The Labour

problem in heartlands goes deeper than this. I don't think it is

whether or not David Cameron is campaigning or Jeremy Corbyn. In

some of those seats, there are the biggest fears about immigration, and

they wanted to see Labour talking their language. For all that said, I

think Chris and his colleagues also have questions to answer. You can't

just dismiss all of these reports like the IFS report, saying there

might be a ?40 billion black hole. I think only 15 Labour MPs have come

out for Leave, but 40% of Labour voters are Eurosceptic, and they

will be switching straight to Ukip, the next set of elections. They are

already the second party in the north of the country. If you are a

sensible Labour MP, you should be keeping quiet about Remain. Is the

biggest danger, in most referendums there are swings to the status quo

in the final days, it has a built-in advantage. The Scottish referendum,

the alternative micro referendum. Don't you risk that? We have to make

sure that doesn't happen and campaign relentlessly over the last

ten days. We have to keep getting messages across. We have new

revelations about the discussions taking place between the European

Union and Turkey. You will be dealing later in the programme with

this wave of more Europe due to come. There are all kind's of

different things that are going to hit the airwaves the moment we voted

to remain, if we do. I hope people realise that more Europe is on the

way and they have to votes to leave. You are not going away yet.

Last week we had campaigners for In and Out interrogate each other.

And we're going to repeat that today.

The Conservative Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling,

who wants to Leave and the Labour MP Mary Creagh, who's

They will put each other on the spot.

I'll mostly just be sitting back to watch.

Maybe I'll have a cup of tea. A short while ago they tossed a coin

to see who goes first. Mary was the winner, or loser, depending on your

point of view. She has chosen to cross-examine Chris. So, before we

start, let's see Chris's pitch to undecided voters as to why they

should vote to leave. In ten days' time, we are going to

be taking the biggest decision of this country has taken for a

generation. Should we remain or leave? What would be our future

relationship with Europe, given the fact we are already the biggest

customer for European products like these ones? When you take your

decision, I want you to ask yourself one simple question. Do I want to

live in a country that is free to take its own decisions in the

interests of its people? Or am I happy to be in a country that has

given up control over key decisions that affect all of our futures? We

have already given up control over a whole variety of areas of crucial

importance to us. We are not allowed to forge our own free-trade

agreements with Commonwealth partners, we are not allowed to set

limits on the number of people that come and work here and is

immigration pressures. All of that has happened already. There is more

to come. At the same time, we are spending a fortune on being part of

the EU. Our contribution is ?350 million overall every week. We only

see half of that money back, money that could be spent on our

priorities like the National Health Service and cutting fuel bills. If

you have any worries that if you vote to leave on the 23rd of June,

the Germans are still going to sell these cars, the French will still

sell us our wines and cheeses. What we will have done is taken back

control of our country. We will be in charge of the key decisions that

matter to all our futures. We will be a properly independent country

again and that is what I want for all our children and grandchildren.

Here are risk Grayling and Mary Cray. Mary has seven minutes to

interrogate Chris. Vote Leave have claimed that EU

regulations cost businesses ?600 million a week. It doesn't take into

account the benefits of the regulations, does it? The key issue

for most businesses in this country, you have to remember that most

businesses do no trade at all within the European Union, most operate

just in the United Kingdom. They are all subject to the regulations that

international businesses have to deal with. Typically, they are small

businesses, they don't have the staff, the compliance to do it. It

places a huge extra cost on small business. I've talked to small

businesses up and down the country. Again and again, they tell me they

have to do box ticking and form filling. It is nothing to do with

the environment they are operating in, it takes a huge amount of time

and money that could be spent on hiring more people. The same report

shows that these measures have a net benefit to the UK, so we will not

save ?600 million a week if we leave? There is not a cash saving of

?600 million a week. What you do is free of business to do new things,

to take advantage of new opportunities. On day one, you don't

just save ?600 million on the spot. As we gain the freedom to reduce the

regulation on small business, not to reduce worker rights, not to make

workplaces more dangerous, but to end some of the box ticking and form

filling that comes from Brussels, those businesses have more time to

sell... The figure includes the cost of rights at work, the rights of

four weeks paid holiday, paid maternity leave and equal pay for

fixed term and agency workers. Which would you scrap? We've always been

better than the rest of the European Union on workers' rights. One of the

things I would not do, after the gulf of Mexico oil disaster, even

though we have the best safety standards in the North Sea, they

decided to rewrite them. No benefit to safety or businesses, at a time

when jobs are being lost in the North Sea, companies have had to

deal with extra costs, to no benefit at all except to keep bureaucrats

happy. You've been clear we would not save ?600 million from leaving

the EU. Hundreds of thousands of women lost tens of thousands of

pounds when you changed the state qualifying age for the pension. Why

should they rely on you to protect their rights? You changed the

goalposts. It was the Labour Party that started changing the retirement

age, we've both chosen to do that because the life expectancy of

people in this country is rising. Inevitably, as retirement years

become longer, it becomes more of a challenge, and both we and the

Labour Party have said because of that we need to raise the state

retirement age. You would surely agree as a champion of equality it

is sensible for men and women to retire at the same age. I want to

move on to what you said about the Commonwealth. We do more trade with

Ireland than 53, Love countries put together. Europe puzzles would mean

we'd need to have a land border between Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I will that help? I don't buy that. We had the Common travel

area since 1923, before the European Union was streamed off. There's no

reason for that to change. -- dreams. The issue is about living

and working in the UK, getting a national insurance number,

registering for state support. That creates a back door for EU migrants

to coming to Northern Ireland and Ahern has decided Theresa Villiers,

because he says we are talking about EU citizens and non-EU nations

seeking a way into Britain. He says smuggling would undergo a revival,

endless profit-making opportunities for criminals. You're talking about

illegal immigration, I'm talking about a situation where we have

77,000 people a year arriving just looking for a job. I'm talking about

Northern Ireland. We've got 200 roads between the countries. Are you

going to have an army of bureaucrats checking passports? We never have

and we will not. If you are a European citizen crossing the border

and seeking to get a job, if you don't have the right to work year,

there will be set rules in place so you demonstrate you have a job

before you come to the UK. You will not be able to work legally. What is

your alternative economic plan? Do you want the UK to be like

Switzerland? I want the UK to be like the UK. The reason we will do

trade deals with the EU, Carry On trading freely, is because we buy

more from them than they buy from us. I buy more from Lidl than they

buy from me but I would say the economic power in that relationship

is on Lidl. They sent 8% of exports to us. Where is the power in that

relationship? I think the power is with you, the consumer, because you

can go to another supermarket. In what world would the French say to

their farmers, we are going to endanger your livelihood by taking

away your ability to sell your products to the UK? We represent 17%

of exports. Why would they put that in danger? Millions of EU jobs

depend on British consumers. One of your economists have said about to

leave would mostly eliminate Britain's manufacturing centre and

Michael Gove cannot guarantee people would not lose their jobs. Are you

happy with 18% of the British economy is stopping happening? He is

one of your economists. I don't accept that. So your saying he is

wrong? On this, I think he is. Is Michael Gove wrong when he says he

cannot guarantee jobs? Look at Patrick Bamford. Your colleague,

Michael Gove, said he cannot guarantee jobs. He said he could not

Darren T the jobs of the British members of the European Parliament

-- could not guarantee. On manufacturing, look at James Dyson,

these are people who are captains of industry, saying we should leave.

Have you ever join the gym? I never have. I see from your register of

interests you are an honorary member of the RSC club. If a member

cancelled their membership on Monday and turned up expecting to use the

swimming pool, what with the other members say? What would they say? We

will need to leave it there. It is now the turn of Mary to be cross

examined. Let's look at her pitch as to why voters should vote to remain?

In 1940, Churchill urged towns and cities to fund raise for the war

effort. These towns outside Wakefield he did that call and

raised enough money to buy a Spitfire. This Polish pilot flew

that plane in the Royal air force. He shot down four German planes

before losing his life over France. His bravery and that of thousands of

other service men is commemorated at this memorial. In 1000 years of

European history we've had 70 years of peace, largely because of the

European Union. Billions of pounds of British exports and millions of

jobs and on our membership of the EU. The pressure on the NHS, schools

and housing is not caused by European immigration but I had right

Tory Government failing to and staff the NHS, cutting budgets for schools

and overseeing the lowest house building since the 1920s. When you

thought on June 23, remember this pilot, Polish immigrant, shot down

over France, for the freedoms we enjoy today. Remember as well that

the people that want us to leave are not friends and allies in the USA,

but right wing politicians, Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir

Putin. Ask yourself, is that a risk you are willing to take with your

children's futures in this battle for Britain? As before, you've got

seven minutes to question merely. The trade figures show we have the

biggest ever trade deficit in the EU. Why do you think are trading

position has become so much worse in the single market? I think it is

important we stay in the EU, it gives us the largest domestic market

in the world, a market of 500 million people, and as I said to

you, it is important that we stay because 80% of the economy depends

on services freely traded and 20% of the economy is manufacturing. Those

sectors will be put at risk if we leave. You did not answer my

question. Why do you think the trading position has got worse over

the years? I think our economy is changing, we've had a big recession,

and we've had six years of Conservative government. I think

Britain is better off, safer and more secure as part of the European

Union. The issue around trading figures, do we create more jobs and

growth by remaining or should we take this leap in the dark with

security and prosperity? The trade position was getting worse even in

the Labour years. Why is that? The trade position is that we do more

trade with Ireland than with 53 members of the Commonwealth. That is

something your campaign wants to put at risk and I don't think that is a

risk we can take. It is important we stay in, we work on closing that

deficit, but we must not wreck the economy and have a new recession by

voting to leave. That is what every single economic forecaster has said

will happen. We will check recession, the economy will shrink,

and the trade deficit will get worse. We would be outside the club

and they would tell us what rules we would abide by. Why did they help

make the position worse by moving the production of Ford transit vans

from Southampton to Turkey. I don't know about that, but what is

clear... They gave grants to Turkey to move production from Southampton

to Turkey. It helped contribute to making it worse. I don't accept they

did that, I don't know about the details, but in a globalised world,

big companies are looking at this referendum, making decisions, we got

investment in the north-west, they think, if we are no longer the

Gateway to the European market we will not receive foreign direct

investment into the economy, harming jobs, growth, and the economy of the

UK. In that market, why do you think unemployment fell and is 50% in

Spain? Unemployment in those countries is unacceptably high and

in some cases that is because of structural factors at work. When I

was working in Brussels, the unemployment rate was always double

and there has been structurally higher levels of unemployment. There

is also the austerity policies that have been pursued by the European

Union. There have been imbalances in those markets, Spain had a market

based on selling houses, Greece had an economy where nobody collected

taxes properly. These have been shown up by the recession, leading

to consequences. Are you in favour of the UK having the ability to set

limits on the number of EU citizens who come and work here? What I want

us to do is have access to the single market. We are outside of the

passport free Schengen zone, we are not part of the asylum policy. We

choose the number of asylum seekers that come to this country. Your

government has control over who comes here from outside the EU.

There is more migration from outside the EU than from within the U. The

question is, that free movement of people is one of the factors that

gives us access. People have concerns. Do we throw the baby out

with the bath water and wreck the economy with a vote to leave? You

did not answer my question. Are you in favour of having any ability to

set limits on the number of people from the EU who live and work here?

Your Prime Minister has negotiated an opt out so that people who come

here have to contribute to the economy for four years before they

can access housing, social benefits, except try. -- etc. I think that is

welcome and it is important that your government starts making

investment in the NHS, housing, and in schools, the investment we need

for those coming here. There are more people coming here from outside

than from inside. You have control of that. Why are you not stopping

it? Do you think people should be able to come from elsewhere in the

EU to look for a job? There are 77,000 people who turn up at

Victoria Coach Station or to near Port. Do you think that is OK? I

think we have over a million people living in Spain have chosen to

retire there, live and work there. We have 2 million British citizens

who have chosen to live, work and invest in other European Union

countries. When people come here to look for work, they look for work

and generally find it, and we know that they generally put more into

the economy than they take out. You are happy for people to come in

unlimited numbers to look for work here. I've said there are more

people coming from outside the EU, given visas from your government,

and people make a contribution. What we don't want to do is throw the

baby out with the bath water, wrecked the economy. That would mean

less money for public sector services, and a weaker economy.

You're happy that there should be no limits. More people come from

outside the EU than come from inside.

One of the main arguments of the Leave campaign is that the EU

But are there signs that several EU initiatives have been put on ice

or pushed off the agenda in an effort to avoid

stirring up controversy until after the referendum?

Critics have suggested that the Budget and proposals paving

the way for a so-called EU army are being kept secret.

Others suggest some awkward legislation like new eco-friendly

regulations banning some kitchen appliances like toasters could be

The familiar sights, things people expect to see in this

great European city, the administrative home of the EU.

But, underneath it all, there's something else.

A place only a few people know about.

The Musee des Egouts - The Sewer Museum.

Do you get to see them on a daily basis?

So, there are still some surprises lurking here in Brussels.

The EU's critics say it is doing the same thing, that there

is some nasty business still in the pipeline.

They are keeping everything back until after the 24th,

and then there's going to be a deluge, a tsunami.

There's going to be all sorts of problems that

on others, regulations they've held back, especially on things

This is things like the Port Services Directive, which is ruinous

Things like the licensing for art imports, which is a disaster

The banning of high-power electrical appliances.

And then, a little bit further down the line,

more bailouts, higher budget contributions and, ultimately,

the harmonisation of military capacity, what the European

Commission describes as the strategic necessity

Is the commission holding back on certain legislation that would be

The commission is not saving up proposals.

We are continuing to work on the basis of our

Now, as to the question about the EU army, yes,

I can also say very clearly that we have no plans

But there are those in the European Parliament who think

Britain's referendum is playing a role in delaying EU business.

That's exactly what happened to the EU budget, according

to the vice chair of the European Parliament's

We would normally have the budget by now.

It is being delayed, yes.

I think everyone knows that Brexit and the vote, the referendum,

There is certainly the migration reason for delaying it.

But then, on the other hand, in politics commuting to say

that this is the reason, then there are other things.

The Green MEP that works on regulation to make kitchen

appliances more eco-friendly says toasters were never

Is there a sense here that there is much business in the EU

being held up before the British referendum?

Of course, the EU commission is very cautious, some legislative proposals

We do that because we do not want to create negative stories,

which often are completely out of the blue and without any proof,

because that is the reality of the British media.

The Toaster Unit is somewhere, hidden in a secret, locked corridor.

The Toaster Unit is what some journalists have called a special

task force set up within the EU commission to deal with issues

So called because of those stories in the British press that the EU had

decided to shelve plans to change our toasters.

It's led by the father of British Eurocrats,

He has been here since the 70s, plays cricket, drinks tea,

kind of understands some of what may explode in the UK.

But we do know there is a British task force that has been dubbed

Is that not evidence that you are at least prepared to hold

I appreciate the effort to introduce into the commission pressroom

tabloid terminology, there are issues to be addressed,

Parliamentary questions to be answered.

There is a whole internal work of coordination

between the services, advice to the commission.

So there is nothing special, extraordinary or toaster

related aspects in the work of our colleagues.

With less than two weeks to go until the referendum,

it's maybe not surprising those in Brussels are keen

the British public see the EU's best side.

But, for others, it belies a "selfie-interest" -

exactly what those wanting to leave say is wrong with the EU.

We are joined from Shipley by the Labour MEP Richard Corbett.

He is a former advisor to the President of the European

Council so knows the workings of the EU very well.

To your knowledge, is The Financial Times right to report that the EU

Commission has delayed a second eco-friendly assault on household

goods such as hairdryers and hostess trolleys until after the referendum?

You know, in general, it is one of those scare stories, isn't it? They

are about to spring proposals on us and they are holding them back. The

nastier and worse they are, the better it is for the story. When you

look into it, it is something as banal as the design of household

appliances, to save people money and make them more efficient, not

limiting their power but making them more efficient. Why were The

Financial Times, probably the most pro-EU paper in the United Kingdom

run a scare story? The Financial Times is also keen to ensure

balance, it gives a say to each side. This is a news story, not an

opinion piece? The question is, surely, so what? The European

Commission only proposes, it is not the side. The proposals have to come

to the Council of ministers, with a British minister around the table,

answer to the European Parliament, for a decision. We are part of the

decision taking process. It is not them telling us what to do, it is

sitting around the table with our neighbouring countries to work out

common rules for the common market to protect consumers, protect the

environment or whatever the subject might be. What is wrong with that?

What about the report in the Sunday Times this morning from diplomatic

cable traffic that it looks like the deal between the EU and Turkey on

controlling migration isn't going so well, and they are worried that

Turkey might just open the floodgates again, but they are

keeping it under wraps until after the vote on June the 23rd? Is that

another scare story? I think the ongoing negotiations with Turkey

have had their ups and downs for several months now. That is a very

difficult situation. It would be no easier if we were outside the

European Union or in. The flood of refugees coming out of Syria, going

through Turkey and other countries, some in, some outside the EU like

Macedonia and Serbia, that needs a cooperative effort at European level

to try to reach agreement to handle that better. It is far better that

we are in those negotiations than peripheral to them. It is in our

interest to our say. What about moves to an EU army? It's the,

quote, the framing of a progressive defence policy that might lead to a

common defence. Why would there not be moves to having a EU army? The

operational word is might. If you look at the procedure, it needs the

unanimous consent of every single member state. By the way, in law, in

Britain now, such a transfer of responsibilities to the European

Union would require another referendum. Nothing like that can

possibly happen without the British people agreeing with it. What I'm

trying to find out, is the idea... The idea has been around since the

early 1950s, the French national parliament rejected it in 1954.

Various people come out and say, wouldn't it be a good idea? And it

has never happened. It may never happen, but it doesn't mean it

won't. Many things have happened that you would think would never

have happened 40 years ago. Jean-Claude Juncker wants a EU army,

that is one powerful voice in favour? So do various people, but

the commission can't decide it, it can only make suggestions. It is the

member states. Every single member state has to agree, so it's not

going to happen. Well, we don't know, do we? There are many things

we were told would not happen, but they do. I'm trying to work out why

people are not talking about these things at the moment. Not without

our agreement, Andrew. The German defence minister says that the

future belongs to a European army, it would strengthen Europe's

security. We are told a German white Paper on this has been postponed

until after the referendum. There is a second powerful voice in favour of

it? Maybe it would, maybe it would not be a strengthening of European

defence. The point is, for that to happen you would need a British

government to agree it and it is enshrined in our national law that

the decision, itself, would need a new referendum. Of course lots of

people think X, Y, Z would happen, but they could not happen without

our agreement. Officials in Brussels are talking about or preparing

papers on a new treaty, higher budget, a EU intelligence service, a

European army, more economic integration, new powers over health

policy, scrapping zero rate VAT, mandatory sharing of gas, even a

common position on the IMF. We know that in the years ahead, some of

that, by no means all, some of that will happen, won't it? It is the job

of the European Commission to think of ideas, where it thinks it might

be a good idea for the whole of Europe to work together on those

subjects. But the commission does not decide. It puts that to the

subjects. But the commission does member states, the Council of

ministers, a minister from every country around the table. Some of

the things you have mentioned would even need a treaty change. All of

that needs the agreement of the member states. The commission will

come up with all kind of ideas, weird and wonderful, or sensible.

That is its job. It is up to our ministers to accept or reject them.

In many cases, it needs the approval of parliament, or even a referendum,

according to British law. We are told this by people like you time

and time again, it's not going to happen, if it does it will need our

approval and the rest of it. We were told by a Labour minister... It

might happen, if we were to agree to it. We were told by a Labour

minister that the Charter of fundamental rights would have no

more legal status than the Beano. Now it turns out it is written into

the European Court of Justice and applies to Britain. It turned out to

be a bit more important than the Beano, didn't it? If you look into

that, actually, what the charter does is restrict what the European

Union institutions can do. It more or less binds them to follow the

same rules that we apply in Britain about human rights, which we

negotiated in the separate deal on the European Convention of human

rights. It applies to Britain? The fact is, it applies to Britain and

we were told it didn't? What applies to Britain is very different, it's

nothing to do with the EU, the European Convention On Human Rights.

Churchill was a great champion not of that. I'm not talking about that,

I'm talking about the Charter of fundamental rights and it is written

into the European Court of justice? We were told it wouldn't be? Yes.

What it says very clearly, that was clear when Britain ratified it, is

that it binds the European institutions and the field of

European Union law, even when we are applying it, to recognise and

respect those fundamental rights that we would expect everybody to

follow, and now that is also binding on the European institutions. It

restricts them in what they can propose and what they can do to make

sure they respect the same rights that we would want them to respect.

Thank you for joining us today. At this late stage in the EU

referendum campaign, the majority of MPs have

announced their voting intentions. But there are a few who are still

making up their minds and some This week, John Mann

and Dennis Skinner put the number of Labour MPs declaring they'd vote

to leave the EU into double figures And Labour MP Khalid Mahmood

announced he's joining the campaign to keep Britain

in the European Union - after previously backing

the campaign to leave. Khalid joins us from the Birmingham

studio and John Mann John Conner let me come to you

first. You said you are going to vote to leave. You told us that on

Friday. Why did you leave it so late to declare? I had to weigh up all of

Friday. Why did you leave it so late the issues, these are not

straightforward decisions. The big question for me is, the EU is

broken, fundamentally broken. Can it be reformed from the inside or not?

My conclusion is that it can't be. One of the reasons is that David

Cameron's negotiations, even on the absurdity of child benefits being

paid to children that have never been in this country, he could not

get agreement on that. It is because the structures of the European Union

do not allow that kind of common-sense change to take place.

It is there, in the rules, and it can't be changed. Khalid Mahmood,

you previously backed the campaign to leave, you now think we should

remain. You say you are worried about the threat to workers' rights

if we leave the EU. How have you only realise that now?

I wanted to look at the wider agenda and work to resolve that. A lot of

the debate has focused on issues that have frightened people,

particularly on the Leave side, and people trying to contextualise it

about immigration. The whole thing is about how we deal to it -- with

it. If you don't doctor Europe, it makes immigration far worse. We need

to look at how you to restrict borders,

stop people coming in. We've done that with an agreement with France

to put up fences to stop people coming onto the trains through the

tunnel. We've worked together to do that. What do you say to that? The

European Union has failed. Angela Merkel unilaterally decided on

behalf of Germany to have 1 million Syrians come to Germany. What was

less noticed was she a load huge numbers of Kosovans to come to

Germany. -- she allowed. The German economists said they needed 3

million workers. That has a huge impact on the rest of the European

Union. This concept of the European citizen rather than the British

citizen, the German citizen, is the fundamental fault line in the

European Union, that it cannot fix. If that was fixed it would be a

different proposition but it cannot be. That is why the issue of

immigration is so toxic. We don't know what will happen in ten, 20, 30

years. We have no control over it. The only way we will know is if we

engage with it and make the decisions from inside. We are the

final destination. If we don't cooperate with Europe and France,

and the Borders are open, and the French have no incentive not to let

people come through, we have to work together to resolve these issues.

We've only got a couple of minutes. We are being told by a number of

Labour politicians on both sides of the argument that it is proving a

struggle to get the Labour vote out for remain. Have you found that? The

reason I joined is we want to get the vote out more effectively. If it

is struggle? We are working hard to make sure we get people out. Yes,

that is why I wanted to join, push people forward. You think it's a

struggle. Most people are making up people forward. You think it's a

their own minds. The Westminster bubble debate and the Leave campaign

against the Remain campaign is not the same as the debate going on in

workplaces and households. There is an entirely different debate going

on. It is quite clear the Labour Party is not entirely in touch with

Labour voters on this issue. I thank you both for joining us.

It's coming up to 11.50, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Party leaders here all favour remaining in the EU,

but does that mean there's unanimity in their ranks?

We'll be asking who are the Brexiteers in Scotland

The former Labour cabinet minister Tom Harris now leads the Vote Leave

We'll be speaking to him live this morning.

The EIS is the biggest teaching union in the country -

yesterday, members heard from the new Education Secretary.

you David Cameron is claiming that the government would be forced to

scrap the government would be forced to scrap a triple lock and pensions

if voters back Brexit. The Prime Minister argues that the vote to

leave would leave a blank when the government has macro finances that

would force tough choices, to use his words. Meanwhile, senior Labour

figures say this week that they do not know Labour backs remaining in

the EU. Former party leader Ed Miliband suggested the referendum

result was in question, and urged Labour supporters not to use it as a

protest vote against the Tories. Labour voters, he stressed, would be

hardest hit by Brexit. His comments come as a recent poll suggests that

a ten point lead for those wanting to leave Europe. A short while ago,

spoke to Professor John Curtice. This poll the other day showing a

10% lead for Leave, that everyone is getting very exercised about. As a

credible? Well, it is not the first poultice

adjust that Leave have been doing relatively well. -- not the first

poll to suggest. We saw polls from ICM and YouGov the suggested that

Leave's lead was higher than that poll had recorded, either in the

recent past, or in one case, at all. That said, plenty of other polls

basically say, and given that the Aral internet polls, it is around

50-50. We have two out this morning. One puts Remain ahead by two points,

50-50. We have two out this morning. one puts Leave ahead by two points,

so therefore, we are probably still in a position where the internet

polls have been all the time, which is that it is roughly 50-50,

although maybe just with leave ahead. What we have not had much of

during the course of the last week or two weeks or so is much in the

way of polls from company to do it by phone. One persistent feature of

this referendum is that polls done by phone and have always put Remain

in a stronger position than those done over the internet. We will have

to wait and see whether they have detected any movement. This still

leaves us with the basic uncertainty that we have yet to resolve, which

is which of those sets of polls is right. At the position of the polls

remains more or less as it has been during the next ten days or so, we

will be bantering June 23 with quite considerable uncertainty about what

the result is going to be, albeit with a balance of evidence in

favour. Why is there that balance? The consensus is, the challenge to

the status quo, they Leave campaign, as with the Scottish people during

the referendum, need to be a good bit ahead in the referendum to win

on the day. But things are 50-50, is there an inertia towards Remain as

is going to benefit them? Certainly, Remain can hope for a

couple of things. One is that those people who say to pollsters, when

asked what they are going to do, which direction they were going,

they are rather more inclined to say Remain, so that will help Remain to

pick something up. It is true that in general, opinion polls tend to

overestimate the appetite for change on major constitutional questions,

and we saw a bit of that in the Scottish independence referendum.

and we saw a bit of that in the And of course, in particular, one

voters who in the end just decided voters who in the end just decided

-- decide it is just too much of a risk to Leave switched to Remain.

Polls suggest the voters are rather more likely to suggest that leaving

is risky than his remaining. That said, we should bear in mind that

the Leave side have won absolutely crucial issue going in their

direction, which is the question of immigration. So long as that

continues to be prominent in many voters' minds, they may still decide

to stick with the Leave side. The second consideration, of course, is

that given the tomography of this referendum, particularly the fact

that given the tomography of this that younger voters are keener on

remaining, and although voters want to Leave, and it is basically one of

the basic rules of politics that younger voters are going to be less

likely to make it to the polls. On that, there is one that of

conventional wisdom you want a challenge, as in there? The view is

that they low turnout benefits Leave, but that is not quite as

straightforward, is it? The level of turnout in the

referendum is frankly almost irrelevant. It is the extent to

which there are differences in turnout between different social

groups and between Remain and Leave supporters that is crucial. The

reason why the level of turnout doesn't matter is that the

differences in turnout between different social groups, such as

younger and older people, can be exactly the same on a 40% turnout as

they are in a 65% turnout. If you look at the differences in turnout

in the AV referendum in 2011, those differences looked very similar to

those in turnout in last year's general election, even though the

general election turnout was around 65% and the AV referendum was only

40%. The crucial point here is, you

believe the driver of turnout will be the normal demographic, not which

side you are committed to? Analysing the polls in greater

depth, they say what is more likely to explain who is going to turnout

and who is not. Once you know someone's age, that seems to pretty

much unable you to forecast a relatively weird as soon it will

turn out and vote, and whether or not they are Remain or Leave

supporters, beyond that, does not seem to matter. So yes, Remain

voters are less likely to go to the polls, but it seems to be

essentially because they are younger, rather than because they

are Remain voters who are perhaps not so particularly convinced that

their side is right. Supporters of all parties, apart

from Ukip, split on this issue. This week, you have said that this

is true of the SNP as much as an Arab as much as any other party.

The Conservative Party is split virtually 50-50 in which direction

they're going on. Labour is about two to one in favour of Remain. Lots

of the Conservatives this week have said their conservatism about no,

of the Conservatives this week have but the truth is, that has been the

position for a long time, and it is also true that SNP supporters, those

who voted for the SNP 12 months ago, also look as though they are roaming

around two to one in favour of Remain. Given that they constitute

around half of the voters in Scotland, that does give the Remain

tied a very considerable advantage, but it is a reminder that although

the SNP now very strongly insists that their vision of independence in

Scotland is one inside the European Union, and I think that is crucial

in understanding why Scotland is much more keen on remaining and the

rest of the UK, but it is the case that there is a minority, not

inconsiderable, those who are willing to vote for the SNP, who

will turn out for Leave. Balancing that out to some extent,

there is less of a division, or other, more propensity to vote

Remain amongst Conservative supporters?

It looks as though in Scotland, the evidence here is, of course much

thinner than across the rest of the UK, but it looks as though it is

probably true that Conservative supporters in Scotland, probably a

majority of them are going to vote Remain, whereas probably south of

the border, a majority will vote to Leave. In both cases, the figure is

pretty close to 50-50. This is a very important question I

want to get to the bottom of. In the last paper you wrote about what

groups of people are likely to vote, and how they do it by party, in the

polls that you list, at least three of them have about 12 to 40 -- Ukip

supporters wanting to Remain. Have they just not understood?

There probably are some people out there who vote of the Ukip in 2015

because they liked Nigel Farage, maybe they are not that keen on

immigration, or gay marriage, but at the end of the day, they are not

necessarily convinced that the UK should be in Europe, but they are

very decided minority. Opinion polls find around 90% of people who voted

for Ukip last year saying they're going to vote, and no figure in an

opinion poll ever get higher than 90%.

Last point, you seem to suggest a moment ago that immigration could to

some extent trumped the conventional wisdom about the status quo winning.

Why? Well, the truth is, although a plurality of us think that the

economy will be worse if we Leave the EU, it is also true that a

majority of us think that immigration will be higher if we

Remain. It is also true, by the way, that

whereas people think that if we Leave the European Union,

immigration will be lower, they are not necessarily convinced that the

economy will be better if we Remain. So the truth is, our views on

immigration are much more clearly tied to the opinion. People are

pretty clear, if we stay in, including many Remain voters, we

will get higher immigration, more than we won. If we Leave, we will

get lower immigration. On the economy, we think maybe things will

get worse if we Leave, but we're not convinced they will get better. So

to that extent, at least, the pull on the economic issue is potentially

weaker than immigration. But the last few days are really going to be

about people's attention. Leave will one be able to focus on the

immigration question, because they know if they do, they are more

inclined to vote for Leave. Contrary league, they Remain Seibel will want

a dog about the economy, and it will be a battle between these two is.

That is likely to determine the outcome of the referendum. -- these

two issues. Thank you very much indeed.

Tom Harris is the Scottish director for the Vote Leave campaign

Can I firstly get your reaction to the comments David Cameron made this

morning? He suggested the triple lock in pensions might have to go if

we left the European Union. It is a bizarre thing for him to say. Just

12 weeks ago he said he was keeping his options open. Last year he

12 weeks ago he said he was keeping Britain had survived quite easily

outside the EU and now he has swung so far to the opposite direction I

just do not think we can believe anything he says. OK, what do you

want if we leave? For me personally I think the opportunity to trade

with the whole world using bilateral trade agreements is a prize worth

fighting for. Most people don't realise that as members of the EU we

are not allowed legally to forge our own trade links with other

countries. All negotiations must be done by the commission which

represent 28 different interests all conflicting. So for me the ability

to trade worldwide and, crucially, I know it sounds like a Vichy because

we have to incorporate about this for so long, to get control of our

orders and control of our own legislation. To allow the Scottish

Parliament not just more powers but to allow those its elected on to

implement without the European Court of Justice over ruling them. The

view it set out in the Treasury document says that should there be a

league vote the best option for Britain would be too for Britain to

join the economic area, you would reject that? Not necessarily. Let's

remember. The only question we are asking people on June 23 is whether

or not we want to remain members of the EU. After that it is entirely up

to members of the negotiating teams. All of these politicians who are

campaigning for remain, every single one of them if we vote leave will

be. Behind our negotiations campaigning and go seating for the

be. Behind our negotiations best possible deal. It will

certainly be in the European free trade Association at it is up to

politicians to negotiate, not up to Vote Leave to negotiate. It has to

be up for negotiation. Even is the crucial thing about freedom of

movement. At the moment the defining characteristic of aid Chris Eakin is

that we can hold to account the people who make the lows that affect

our lives. Inside the EU we cannot do that because the rules about

freedom of movement have been made by the EU. Outside the EU our

politicians will take responsibility by the EU. Outside the EU our

for whatever deal in the negotiate and it will be up to the people...

You cannot join the EEA unless you have free movement of labour? Yes, I

believe that is the situation but that is why it has to be up to

negotiation. Not everyone outside Europe is part of the E EEA.

Switzerland is not. If freedom of movement comes in bilateral

agreements. We should be entering bilateral agreements with the EU and

with destinations outside the EU and then our politicians are held to

account for those decisions. then our politicians are held to

hang on a second, the problem here is that the main issue for leave is

immigration and you're getting a lot of support because people think we

do not want free movement of labour and yet now you are telling me we

do not want free movement of labour could very well now go seating

arrangement with the European union weather like Switzerland or whether

like normally which would in fact allow free movement of labour? Look

at it this week, at the moment there are negotiations going on at the

American trade deal, the learned negotiations going on with India. I

guarantee you that those trades gales whenever the emerge at the

ever do will not include freedom of movement between the EU and those

other countries. You do not have to have freedom of movement to trade

with the single market. Neither America nor India will be part of

the single market in the way that both Norway and Switzerland are some

there would be disadvantages particularly in services to Britain,

financial services and other services, by not being part of the

single market. The comparison you make is not valid. I think it is

valid. I think the idea there is no such thing as life for control of

your borders outside the EU is at fallacy propagated by the Remain

camp. The key thing is we hope to attend the people who make these

decisions. It abysmal access to the single market particularly in

financial services where Britain is particularly strong without being

part of the single market. What Switzerland does and what normally

does is simply not compatible to the levels of access that Canada or

India or the United States even want to negotiate. Remember firstly that

the single market in services is not even complete yet so that is

slightly different from the single market and other goods. There's no

doubt that in negotiations would have a very strong negotiating

position if our directly elected representatives wanted to negotiate

a deal that allowed the level of freedom of union of labour and

workers. That is something he would be able to do but they would be held

to account by the British people. And on a second. People who are

thinking of voting leave because of immigration are going to vote leave

because they do not want free movement of labour. They are not

voting because they think I do not find that mind free movement of

Labour's long as Britain controls it. Now you're telling them they

might still have free movement of labour. I do not know what the

negotiations well conclude when it comes to freedom of movement of

labour. You will have to convince people better than that. What we

have at the moment is complete unlimited freedom of movement of

anyone who lives in the EU choosing if they wish to come to live in the

UK. I don't think most people think that is unacceptable or fair

arrangement and I don't think we should go into the host nations that

is one of the red lines. If you side wins and the majority of people who

vote leave do it because of freedom of movement of labour and then there

is a decision to join the EEA and given that some people who vote

leave would want a normally situation, there would certainly be

a majority in the British Parliament for it, all the remain people in the

Tories, Labour, SMP, Ulster Unionists, Liberal Democrats, it

would have democratic validity so there is a strong argument to say

even if you are thinking of voting leave because you do not want

unlimited unquantifiable immigration you will get it no matter which way

you vote? That is the remain argument, it doesn't matter which

way you vote, nothing can ever change, I reject that. They would be

a majority in the country in Parliament for joining the EEA. The

only question is do you want to be a member of the European Union. You're

missing my point. There would be a majority of voters and a substantial

majority in parliament for joining the EEA which would involve free

movement of labour? I think that is a silly assumption. There is no

polling evidence and no logic in seeing that if the vote one way or

another on the 23rd of June that they have strong views on joining

the EEA. You guys in the leave campaign cannot even agree on what

you want. The only question in the referendum is do you want to be a

member of the EU. After that negotiations. . The question is do

you want to join the European economic union. There would be a

democratic mandate and it would be an option in parliament. It is an

option but when the remain camp says we have to follow the template

provided by Norway, Switzerland or icelands what they misunderstand as

there will be a new precedent and it will be the UK precedent. So, the

argument is that while what I'm saying about the EEA is correct

Britain can somehow unilaterally change the whole arrangement? I

think the UK probably good but the point is whatever negotiations we go

into it will be an arrangement which has never been agreed before because

there has never been a situation where a major developed rich country

has left the EU. The bottom line is that as the head of the Leave

campaign in Scotland you cannot sit here and tell voters that if you

vote leave the will be no free labour movement across the UK

including Britain. The post-war consensus on immigration which was

that there was a reassuring is from government throughout those 70 years

at immigration was managed and limited and people accepted

immigration and it benefited culturally and economically, April

accepted our politician's advice that do not worry, if it gets too

much we can turn off the tap. We cannot do that in the EU. Some will

think I thought leave work in favour of immigration controls but no Tom

Harris is just giving us a lecturer in history. You cannot sit there and

guaranteed that should people vote leave there will be immigration

controls in place to stop migrant workers coming from the European

Union, you simply cannot do that? The prize and levers that British

politicians were once again have control over our borders and those

politicians can then, for the first time in 40 odd years he held to

account for the decisions they make. Democratic deficit, one of your

favourite subjects. If we were to join the EEA we would contribute to

the European Union budget. Norway contributes per capita 80% of what

we do. We cut a bit but not that contributes per capita 80% of what

much. We would have no control over what the European Union and North

Leave in what the European Union decides but we would be bound by the

decisions at least when it comes to treating outside areas like

fisheries. You seem to have a lot of details of this deal that has not

been negotiated yet. That is what happens with the EEA. Let's assume

your prediction is right. It is not my prediction I am just telling you

what the situation is with the EEA. Norway contribute their freedom of

movement and still have two beat every EU regulation. Barely 20% of

people in normally want to join the EU so there is something in for

them. The advantages, an advantage Norway have that other EU countries

don't have is an ability to forge bilateral trade agreements which,

for us, is illegal. Norway benefits from that. That is the big prize if

we vote leave. It is also the argument they have a double

democratic deficit. You complain about the other elected European

Commission but with a Norway system we would be paying in and subject to

the rules of the EU and we would not have any say at also we would not be

able to lobby to have a say with these people at all? The EU

regulations you're talking about apply to every single company in

Scotland. Only one in 20 companies in Scotland actually export. We

would want a deal with only that 5% of companies would have to implement

the legislation. Thank you very much indeed.

The new Education Secretary has barely been a month in the job,

and already he's faced jeering from members of the country's

Speaking at the Educational Institute of Scotland's AGM

in Dundee, John Swinney re-affirmed his commitment

to standardised national assessments.

But teachers are angry about what they see as extra

workload, and a system which will result in league

24 days into the job and if the new Education Secretary was hoping for

an extended honeymoon, his hopes were dashed this weekend. He said he

was in listening mode and teachers make sure he heard their concerns

loud and clear. On stage he made his number one priority crystal clear,

to improve the chances of those from the poorest backgrounds. The First

Minister has said very publicly and very privately to me that her

objective over a 10-year period is to eliminate the attainment gap

within Scottish education and within the next five years to make

discernible progress on closing that gap and that is exactly what my

mandate is to do and that will be my overriding mission. Key to achieving

that mission, he said, was the introduction of standardised

national testing at every time he broached the subject he was met with

booze and jeers. That is my view, OK? We will have a blether about it

over a cup of tea. We were delighted when one of the first things you

said was that you were going to be a listening minister. I am sure you

will listen very carefully to the love in the room when you referred

to standardised testing. Teachers view the tests in reading, writing

and new Morrissey at Key stages of the Child's education will create

extra workload and result in league tables by the back door but the

Education Secretary is not for backing down. I know the EIS has

concerns about this approach but it will not replace teacher workload

because it is a replacement for existing assessment which undertaken

within the school system. We will have vigorous debates about these

points because we will not be able to agree with everything the AIS has

two say to us. The union general secretary urged a

yes vote to send a strong message to the Scottish Government.

yes vote to send a strong message to But later, they voted in favour of

another ballot on industrial action, this time including the possibility

of strikes. People are completely stressed. You

can see it in their faces in the staff room. You can by tell the

number of days of absence which are increasing. People's own well-being

has been compromised. I would say it is the worse it has

ever been. There are teachers who are staying in their school

ever been. There are teachers who establishment until they are thrown

out by the janitor at night, and then they're going home and doing

even more work. So it is pretty grim.

Mr Swinney says he is absolutely committed to reducing teacher

workloads, but even if he can keep teachers on board, eliminating the

attainment gap may not be wholly in the gift of teachers, or indeed, the

Education Secretary himself. It isn't just about what schools do.

It is also about the home lives, the support for young people outside of

the school gates, and until you can connect those two things together,

until you can address poverty, then we will have limited success closing

the attainment gap. Of course, this we will have limited success closing

Education Secretary also happens to be the Deputy First Minister, and

perhaps it is the extra clout of that role which will be key to

transforming the life chances of Scotland's children.

It's time to look back at the events of the past week and see what's

I'm joined by former SNP special advisor Ewan Crawford

and the journalist and author Katie Grant.

Let's talk about Europe. Less what side you are wrong, I'm just

interested in what you make of the campaign. -- what side you are on.

Well, I think it is Project Fear against Project Fear. Certainly, in

Scotland, I feel a limited by both campaigns. I was thinking last week

that if you are trying to persuade people I meet, yes-macro supporters,

what would you not do? You would probably not get John Major, Tony

Blair and George Osborne to come up and say, it will be a disaster for

the union if you come out of the European Union.

George Osborne again producing a Treasury document. A very odd way to

persuade this big bulk of SNP supporters to vote Remain. On the

other hand, I think the Leave campaign now is Project Fear, as

John Major says, on stilts. It is an incredibly unattractive,

and I'm trying to take my words quite carefully, because I think it

is boiling down to basically,", immigrants are coming at your

country, taking your jobs and reducing your wages". The really big

thing for me in Scotland is, we need to have a population debate, but it

is not the one having at the moment. We do have a population as you, --

issue, population that is not rising enough.

What have you made of it? I think there is far too much hyperbole on

both side? It is as if you vote one way or

another, the world will suddenly be a marvellous place.

Plague and malaria... Exactly, whereas we know that none

of these things will happen, because the bureaucracies will continue. The

idea that if we Leave EU, suddenly our borders will be those that life

will suddenly be rosy and some outback into the 1950s is fictional.

The idea that if we Remain in the EU, this is going to be an entirely

positive experience is also fictional. And so there needs to be

a bit more realism. I think the real difficulty is that the main

arguments need to be very detailed. We need to understand things which

we currently do not really think about. For example, the European

Courts, except in a negative way, when something appears to be a bit

peculiar. So we don't really know enough. I am slightly with Richard

Dawkins, who wrote a great piece in Prospect magazine this week, saying

we should never have been asked in the first place, because we just do

not know. I think it will boil down to emotions and the one side and

bake practicalities on the other, bit like the independence referendum

campaign. Let's not make comparisons with that

campaign here, but there is an element of people want to fire a

shot at the elites, or feel that they are not being taught to. --

talked to. Let's take the question of immigration, which is said is

becoming ugly. But the other side of that is, the Bank of England that

recent study which found that immigration was having an effect,

particularly for unskilled workers at the lower end. You may not say

this is a determining thing, what I'm getting at is, people who feel

they are fed up with immigration and not benefiting from this system, and

when they raise this issue, all they get from the elites are lectures

about relative contributions to GDP and all the rest of it, and it

doesn't mean anything to me. Absolutely. That Bank of England

study, which I was reading about this morning, saying it was not the

way the Leave campaign are portraying it, but I agree with you.

In terms of the sheer numbers. I'm not saying we are more liberal than

other places, I'm saying the situation is different. But you are

absolutely right, there are people who have not seen wages go on for

10-15 years. They do see Westminster as being very remote, so when people

like David Cameron and George Osborne, long, and clearly to me, it

is an expression for some people that the system is not fair and has

the change, but I'm not quite sure... What concerns me at the

moment is why there has been coalesced into what is a pretty ugly

anti-immigration sentiment. But it is not just here. You could

argue we are seeing the same thing as has happened with Donald Trump in

America. He is against the elites, he is a billionaire. Marine Le Pen

in France, you have left wing versions with scire is an per day

Mars, right across the board. -- Syriza and put them us.

Look at what the elites told us about the financial crisis. They

wrecked the economy, they are saying, and whatever it is that they

are saying is good is not working for me as an individual.

And that is one of the problems. All the arguments have become abstract

it from real people. So when you ask about individual people who have

contributed, for example, then you get statistics about what immigrants

in general contribute or don't contribute to the GDP. So we're not

thinking about the new as a bunch of people now. We are thinking of it as

a sort of on Java abstracted thoughts about immigration, not

individual people, and I think when you start to do that, and that is

why we get these lectures from the elites, we say, what is going to

happen to me? And they answer with a whole lot of general Art is which,

on the whole, sound very alarming. Left in still a bit a fuss about

what's going to happen to you personally, especially if you've

seen your wages drop, but neither side really answers your question

because they want to take everything into the rounds of the abstract. I

think that is why so many people are still undecided.

I will not ask what views are, but I will ask you who you think, standing

back from it, which side you think will win?

I think it looks really tight at the moment.

I think they Remain are going to swing it, but only just, and I think

that that is not a very comfortable result.

OK. Running out of time. Football violence. The euro is going on. I

know Scotland is not taking part. England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We have seen these quite horrible scenes in Marseille. Why have you

made of it? Incredibly depressing. It seems to

be English elegance, and Russian hooligans played a big part. --

English hooligans. And some French.

Indeed, if you are just an ordinary citizen in Marseille, looking

forward to this festival of football coming to your city, and seeing a

torn apart and then last few days, that is incredibly depressing.

Also, there were horrendous riots involving England fans in 1998,

sparked off by the burning of Tunisian flag. You wonder what

bright spark thought it was a good idea to bring the England fans back.

Well, I know, and I think there would find the whole thing really,

really depressing, because in a world that is full of turmoil, where

this was going to help to lift France out of the doldrums, and here

we are, it just looks awful. I can hardly bear it. I am not really into

football anyway, but I can't bear to look at it, because it seems to be

human nature at its worst, and I know that is not the majority of the

human nature at its worst, and I fans, who go to have a good time,

but the minority I will be see on our screens, and that is what we are

going to come away with. Euro 2016 already sort of damage. We

will have to Leave it there. Thank you both very much.

I'll be back at the same time next week.