06/03/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

The leave campaign deploys Boris Johnson to defeat

what they call Project Fear, but are the remain campaign

George Osborne hoped taxing pensions would help him fill the black hole

in the public finances, so why has he abandoned his plans

And four more states have voted - is Trump a step closer

Alan Johnson tells us why it wasn't fair to expect EU money

to solve Wales' problems, and should we stick or twist?

What do the Unions make of the EU debate?

What do the Unions if this development could be the

answer to London's housing problems. And talking of Project Fear,

with us for the duration this morning, a terrifying political

panel whose incisive insights strike fear into the hearts

of politicians everywhere. Toby Young, Helen Lewis

and Janan Ganesh. So, he took a while to make his mind

up which way to swing, but those campaigning for the UK

to leave the European Union will hope the deployment

of their most charismatic performer - Boris Johnson -

on the Marr Show this morning The Mayor of London took a swing

at the deal the David Cameron the stated Government policy

was that we should have a reformed EU, fundamentally reformed,

wholesale change in Britain's relationship with

the EU was promised. That has obviously

not been delivered. We were told at the time that

Britain would be perfectly safe to walk away, by the Government,

by the Prime Minister. That has now, that rhetoric has now

very much been changed, I think, by the way,

the policy was right then. We should be absolutely confident

about the future of this country. What do you make of his performance?

David Lloyd George said negotiating with devil are was like trying to

pick up mercury with a fog, and I imagine Andrew Marr feels similarly

after trying to pin down Boris Johnson over questions of the

Brexit. If these leaves campaign don't have

an agreement on something that fundamental, you can see them

struggling with the real harsh light of scrutiny getting applied in the

later weeks of this referendum campaign, I think what will end up

happening is there will be a division of Labour whereby Michael

Gove leads on the hard detail and interviews such as this, Boris

Johnson does what he's good at such is the retail politics, and we don't

have incidents like that worrying level of confusion. Was it an

assured level of performance? I think the way that interview will be

seen is as Boris not being able to get a wording edgeways, being

constantly interrupted, not being allowed to develop his points, and

that will add to a sense of grievance which is emerging as one

of the features of this campaign. The leaves campaign already

complaining about George Osborne lining up the G20, David Cameron

getting these European leaders to weigh in on the remaining side. That

grievance narrative will probably be powerful when it comes to mobilising

the debate. Wasn't he being interrupted because Andrew Marr was

trying to get him to address the point? When you interview Boris, you

have got to come not just Boris, but when you interview him you have got

to interrupt because quite often politicians just play for time in

these interviews. Often he was developing a particular point, and

while he was trying to develop a point and answer what Andrew Marr

had asked him, he got interrupted, but I think the general sense of

grievance emerging on the leave site will help mobilise the levers when

it comes to the actual referendum. The fact the levers feel more

passionately than the remainders do about remaining will help the leave

cause. I think that is the best defence you can give Boris this

morning, it is worrying. There is a moment of extreme danger for Boris.

What happens after the referendum, particularly if we stay in? Should

he take a Cabinet job, in which he affects people's lives, or does he

stay on the backbenches not making his move? He is in real danger. A

lot of his popularity comes from the fact he doesn't do politics. He

hasn't got an enormous track record to his name as London mayor, and

people don't have a huge amount of tolerance for that hail fellow well

met act. Is there a lot of grievance, as Toby says? Yes, you

can imagine how much worse it will be later on. Things like Scheuble's

interview, where he said Britain would have to pay in to have access

to the EU market, that could be seen as bullying. If you are on the other

side of the argument, of course you will see it as provocative. My worry

is the campaign will get poisonous, and the opening two weeks is

reflective of something much worse. If this grievance narrative begins

to gain traction over the course of that campaign, won't it help

mobilise the leave side? We have seen how it can motivate voters in

America with Donald Trump. But there was grievance in the Scottish

referendum, I think it helps, but to win plurality you need to go beyond

grievance. That partly depends on turnout and if the public are turned

off by the negative tone of the debate, you will have a low turnout

and that will probably favour leaving rather than remaining. We

will see. It is a long time until July the 23rd.

It's been branded Project Fear by opponents and in a moment I'll be

talking to one of the remain campaign's chief protagonists.

First, here's a reminder of how they've been making their case over

Tell us what the model is that they believe

the European Union would negotiate with Britain.

Remember, this is going to be a divorce if we

decide to leave, and as with any divorce it is likely to get messy.

In many ways, I am a Eurosceptic, absolutely, and I'm still a Brussels

basher in many ways and will always remain so.

I think the answer to the concerns that people have, and these

concerns of course are not completely absent in Scotland,

isn't to clamp down on free movement.

If we leave, the people who are advising us to leave,

they cannot at the moment answer the question about what arrangements

So Project Fact is about saying stay and you know what we get.

And I'm joined now by Nick Herbert who is leading the Conservatives'

Let's go through a number of things your site has been saying. Firstly

let's take the Calais camp, the Prime Minister 's office has said if

we move the camp -- if we leave the camp will move to the south-east of

England. They would be little interest in remaining the agreement

we have that people stay on the French side. That will result in

people coming over to this side, and we having to deal with them rather

than the French, which means they can claim asylum in this country.

And what was interesting about this claim, which I think is about a

common-sense that is how the French would respond if we were outside of

the EU and they no longer have the same set of incentives to cooperate,

is that it was dismissed as scaremongering and now we have the

most senior politicians in France confirming that this would probably

be the case so this isn't scaremongering at all. What I'm

wondering is why you would move the camp overnight to the south of

England. Explain why they would form a camp if they have made it to

Britain. The point is that we would have to deal with them on the

British side. That would require us to send them back. One of the things

we have in this debate that many to do is to remind ourselves that we

have border controls in Britain, we are not part of the passport free

area, the Schengen Agreement in the rest of Europe, and we can and do

check EU citizens when they come in. We indeed turn them away. Thousands

of EU citizens are turned away from our borders and it is too are

advantage that the controls that prevent people from coming in are on

the French side. Let's assume the French do what you are claiming. If

they come here, if they make it here, either they will apply for

asylum, in which case they will don't to official reception centres

until it is sorted out, or they will disappear into the labour market.

Neither involves creation of a camp in England. I don't know what was

meant about a camp, what I do know is that at the moment we have

arrangements where people can be stopped on the French side, the

French would have little incentive to keep that if we walk out of the

EU. It was initially dismissed on this site by Brexit campaigners as

scaremongering, I think it is a very good example of an issue that we

will have to deal with if we leave. You keep on mentioning these French

politicians, only one has said this, that the economics minister. Would

you like to tell our viewers what the interior minister has said?

Right up to President Hollande... He didn't say anything about that.

President Hollande and his ministers have said this will be on the

agenda. There is a raft of French politicians who have made this

clear. Name one. Common sense would tell us that if there is an

arrangement, because it is a part of the cooperation and partnership we

have with the French that they would no longer have that same arrangement

if we were out of the EU. I will tell you what the French interior

minister says, he says ending the treaties which govern the Calais

camp would not be responsible solution, we will not do it, we

would like to go on building a good immigration policy with the UK,

especially at Calais. Other French ministers have said different

things. One. Let's just look at what governs the Calais camp. The 1991

protocol governs the tunnel, another treaty... Wires are EU membership

critical factor? I have already made that point, that this a separate

issue legally to our EU membership of the question is what incentive

would the French have to continue with those arrangements if we were

outside of the EU, and it is as I say senior French politicians

themselves and local French politicians who are raising these

questions. What I think is a reminder of... But these are EU

treaties, Anglo-French treaties, the French could stop them tomorrow

whether we are in or out. I said that before you did that it is

legally a separate matter, but politically I think there is little

doubt that the French would not have the same set of incentives to stand

by this issue. That was made clear at the highest level last year. All

of this is a reminder that Britain is in a different position than the

rest of our EU partners. We are not in the Schengen arrangement, we do

have border controls. It is in our interests that some of those border

controls operate on the other side of the Channel Tunnel, and in our

interest that we continue to remain outside of the Schengen area. It is

one of the things that gives Britain the best of both worlds, we are able

to access the market but outside of the passport free area. The protocol

that governs the tunnel is a protocol to the Treaty of Canterbury

which sets up the tunnel, there is no way you can change it without

reneging on the treaty. To close down the existing situation would

effectively close the tunnel. The French government owns 55% of the

operation of the tunnel, why would they do that in or out of the EU?

Ask the French politicians. You confirmed it was the senior French

minister. He said he was implicitly confirmed by the President. He hopes

to be running for President next year. None of this has come out of

thin air. It has come because it would very obviously be one of the

ways in which we would lose out, potentially, from withdrawing from

the EU. That is because the same sort of arrangements that means that

we cooperate with our partners would no longer exist. Let's move onto the

benefits of membership. Your side of the campaign has said that we

benefit ?3000 per household has accumulated over our time in the EU.

Do you stand by that figure? It was a CBI figure and it was not actually

their own calculation. What they did was look at a range of studies that

show the economic benefits of the single market. They range from some

saying that there was not a benefit, to some saying there was a very

substantial benefit. They have updated this research just last

month and they said that the majority of the studies showed there

was a substantial benefit. About 10% of JD chilly GDP. They calculate it

as ?10,000 per head. You are using it, Britain is stronger in Europe,

do you stand by it? It is the CBI's figure. Do you stand by it? It is a

average figure that has been done by the studies that have been done, not

just the CBI's own studies. It shows there is a net benefit to us being

in the single market. Do you stand by the ?3000 figure? It is not a

figure I have used. Your campaign has used it, look down there,

Britain Is Stronger In Europe. It is a perfectly reasonable figure for

them to use because it is a study that has been done, not their

studies. The majority of those studies that have been done, they

show that there is a benefit to being in the single market. The CBI

stays of its study of 12 research papers, originally beginning with

five, all of which were pro-EU, it has widened that to 12, some of

which are more hostile. It there is an and avoidable degree of

uncertainty. But you have to caveat that? We need to weigh up the costs

and benefits. The majority of the studies showed that there would be a

benefit. That could be more substantial. In terms of the

increase in GDP, the domestic product, that has been gained as a

result of being in the single market. It comes back to the single

market, because it gives us easier trade and facilitates business,

because it benefits the huge number of companies that trade with the

European Union, there is a benefit to the whole economy. The big

question is, if we were to leave the European Union, what alternative

arrangement would we have? That is the question the opponents will not

answer. They will not say if we would be in the single market or

not. The risk is that we would lose those benefits. As a consequence,

there would be an impact on businesses and, therefore, on the

economic benefit coming to the country. On the research paper, you

are right that the CBI did not do its own research, the latest one was

12 research papers with 14 estimates. Out of those, it took

seven. It did not include some of them. It happens that the seven they

took out showed far fewer benefits. So we are right to be sceptical. The

sample is down to a largely pro-EU sample. To be fair, I think you need

to ask the CBI about its calculation. But what was striking

was that the range of benefit and the majority of studies that they

tuck it down to, the seven... Took it down to. Yes, was up to 10% of

GDP. Most serious economic analysis shows there was a benefit to being

in the single market for the economy. That is why businesses

themselves, the majority of members of the British chamber of commerce,

the majority of members of the Institute of Directors, the FTSE 100

companies, a full third of the FTSE 100 companies said it would be

damaging to leave the EU. The other two thirds were not saying the

opposite. This claim of a decade of uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU

would be the start, not the end of the process and could lead to a

decade or more of uncertainty. Why would it take twice as long to

withdraw from Europe as it took to win the Second World War? Because of

the length of time it takes to do trade deals and make alternative

arrangements. If you look at the average trade deal that is done,

they take years. Canada's trade is still not fully signed off. It took

seven years. We would have had to negotiate alternative arrangements,

not just with the EU, that would be problematic enough, and the other

side has not told us what arrangement that would be, but the

one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that it would

not give us the benefits of the single market we currently have.

With the 35 other trade deals that the EU has done, those arrangements

would fall as well. Would we not just say, put the need to negotiate

a single market agreement to one side, why would we not say to other

countries, Morocco, South Korea and so on, we will continue with

existing trading relationships. Why would they not agree? Because,

automatically, all of these deals fall. But why would Morocco not

continue to trade with us on the same basis as it does at the moment?

The question is not whether people would continue to trade, it is what

it terms the trade would be. On the same basis? We would have to

renegotiate with the EU, which would be hugely problematic and we would

be disadvantaged by the process that would be triggered. Stick with

non-EU countries, why would a country that happily trades with us

under the EU rules, why would they not continue to trade on the same

basis out of the EU? It depends on the kind of deal that we are doing

with the EU. If we are unable to do a deal with the EU, we would fall

out altogether and then into the World Trade Organisation rules,

meaning we trade with tariffs, which would be immensely damaging to

British business and to jobs. Hold on, you mentioned tariffs. In your

Project Fear scenario, sterling is down by 20%. The average tariff on

cars would be ten. Overall we would be more competitive, we would face a

tariff wall of 10%, but we would be 20% more competitive? What is wrong

with that? What is wrong with all of this is that we have, at the moment,

a situation of certainty, where businesses know they have access not

just to the single market, but also to the 50 or more countries that

have done deals with the EU, and more in the pipeline. That gives

certainty. We face the prospect of huge uncertainty because the other

side will not say what kind of deal would be on offer. They don't know

whether it would be like Norway, like Switzerland, these are

countries that have the benefits, some benefits of access to the

market. It is essentially an open market from Iceland through to

Turkey. There is not a single arrangement. But essentially open.

Why would the European Union pick on us and not include us in that

largely open market from Iceland to Turkey? Because, as the German

finance minister said today, we cannot have access to the single

market without accepting certain things. Those include freedom of

movement and paying in. Overall, the single market gives us much greater

benefits to the businesses than alternative arrangements. That is

why it would be economically damaging to leave, in the view of

most businesses. The important point is this. It is not just a question

of the deals we would do, have to do with the EU, it would also be with

the 35 other countries, more than 50 other deals, leading to a period of

huge uncertainty that is damaging for British businesses and jobs. We

have discussed that already. The director-general of the British

chamber of commerce, suspended for coming out in favour of Leave. Did

anybody involved in Downing Street have something to do with this? I

think that is a ridiculous suggestion. I am not surprised there

is unhappiness in the British chamber of commerce. They were meant

to have a neutral position. The majority of their businesses, in a

recent survey, said they wanted to remain. So, no Downing Street hand?

Absolutely not. Why would they? Thank you very much.

Now, the scenes of hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants

that fill our TV screens provide powerful images for those arguing

that we should turn our backs on the crisis-hit European Union.

In a moment I'll be asking Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell,

First let's have a look at what Leave campaigners have

They need a free-trade deal with us and it will be a central part

of the negotiations when we leave the European Union, an important

part, but one where they have a commercial imperative

Once we have control of our own borders, we can send back

whoever we want so if somebody comes in and they are not appropriate,

they shouldn't be here, they should've stopped in France

or Germany or wherever, we will send them back.

So the threat is both wrong, inappropriate, and won't work.

Come on, donnez-moi un break, as we say in Brussels.

It's sad but perhaps unsurprising that those who want

the British people to be kept in the European Union have launched

This is designed to make the British people afraid of change.

Douglas Carswell joins me now. Let's look at some of the things your side

have been complaining about. The cost of membership. We will stop

sending ?350 million every week to Brussels. Do you stand by that

figure? Absolutely. The reason I do is because every year we make a

gross contribution of 19.2 billion, if you divide that by the weeks in a

year, 350. We're talking about what we send to Brussels. Let's look in

little more detail. This is from Office for Budget Responsibility.

These are the 2014 figures. The column on the left-hand side, we

have 18.3 billion. It is 19.2 now, but I will let that go. It gives you

350 million. But before we send that, we deduct the rebate of 5

billion. We don't send the rebate, we take the ?5 billion off. The

contribution we send is ?13.5 billion and that is 260 billion --

million per week. The figure is very vulnerable to the machinations of

ministers. Look at what Tony Blair did with the rebate. They were fast

and loose with it at the blink of an eye. What I am trying to point out,

because the phrase here was we are sending ?350 million, we don't send

the rebate and we send it back. We take the rebate off and then we send

them 13.5. The rebate is very vulnerable, as we discovered when

Tony Blair gave away a large section of it. It is very vulnerable to

change. I think it's fair that we include a figure. But we don't send

it. In addition to that, having not sent the rebate and sent 13.5, we

then get 4.4, almost ?4.5 billion back to spend in ways that will be

guided, sometimes dictated by the EU, but it is money that comes back.

Our net contribution, as you can see from the table, is 9 billion. That

is ?175 million each week. It is not 350 million. The reason I think it

is vertical about the gross contribution of ?19.3 billion a

year, you don't deduct the services you get from the government, you

don't say your tax bill is zero because of the mended potholes and

the streetlights and things you get. It is appropriate that we talk about

the 19.2 billion we send every year. But I just explained that we don't

send that. The actual saving, because the original quote was about

saving to spend elsewhere, is 175 million each week. You can say it is

too much, not enough, I don't want to stay in, but it's not 350 million

a week. 350 million on the table, some of that is highly vulnerable

because it is part of the rebate. I think it is right and proper we talk

about that. It is enough money to build a new hospital every week. It

would not be a saving, even out of the EU we would continue to have

some form of farm subsidies and forms of regional aid? We would

spend some of the money we currently send to Brussels for ourselves. I

think instead of sending 350 million each week to Brussels, we would be

better spending that money improving the NHS, giving a better deal to

farmers, maybe even tax cuts. I think it is fair we talk about ?350

million we have to send every week to Brussels. People will make their

minds up on that. Let's move onto another issue. Nigel

Farage has said 75% of UK law is made in Brussels. Do you with that?

I asked the Parliamentary authorities when I first became an

MP and they were not able to tell me. Some claim it is as little as

15%, on our side some claim 70%. The German legislature in Berlin have a

figure of 80%. Do you agree with the 75% figure? It is probably about

right. What is the source? The question was talking about the

amount of legislation that is emanating from member state versus

that coming from Brussels. What is the source of the 75% figure? You

just cited Nigel. He is not a source, he is a messenger. We have

looked carefully at the research, we can find no credible study. Even by

pro-Brexit groups that puts the figure at 75%. I have seen studies

that show 25%, but I can find nothing that gives me 75%. I don't

think this morning you can help on that. I have raised questions in

Parliament and I am happy to forward on the answers I have got, but there

is a question raised... The German parliament has produced a figure of

80 something. For the German parliament. Talking about the ratio

coming from Brussels. Vote Leave says if we Vote Leave we can take

back control of our immigration policy. No country has full access

to the single market without first agreeing to the free movement of

people. As you demonstrated earlier this week when you quizzed Matthew

Hancock, you can have free trade from Iceland to Ireland to Russia,

so you can leave the EU and have tariff free access. Canada have

recently negotiated a deal to give them free market access. The

Canadian deal includes tariffs, even tariffs on some manufacture

products, it includes tariffs on products and does not include

anything to do with services and we are 80% service economy. But we

would benefit, as a service economy. But we would benefit, as every

country in Europe does apart from Belarus, for tariff free access. But

how do you know that? The Council of the European Union is unequivocal.

Two years ago, the internal market and its freedoms, one of which is

freedom of movement, are indivisible, you cannot have one

without the other. We know that last year we had a trade deficit with the

other EU member states, about 60 billion. The idea they would

introduce tariffs seems to me absurd. On the point of regulation,

sometimes it is said we need to be part of the single market for

regulatory reasons, but in many ways it is possible to have market access

from a regulatory perspective without being part of the single

market. If you are selling into Europe you have got to meet Europe's

regulations... But do I take it that you are indicating that if we leave,

we would not seek total access to the single market as we have at the

moment? We would seek instead of free trade agreement which is less

than a single market? We would see access to the single market but we

would not want to be bound up. We would not initially seek full access

to the single market? I think if we had tariff free access and wouldn't

have regulatory obstacles put in our way, it would be free access. But

the trade agreements you have specified, particularly the one with

Canada, it is not a single market agreement, it includes tariffs, it

includes... It does not include services. Look at Switzerland for

example. Switzerland at the moment has 4.5 times trade ahead the EU

from outside of the single market than we manage from within. But it

does not have full access for its services. You accept that a free

trade agreement... They have also moved huge chunks of their financial

services to London so that they are inside the EU and can trade. Another

confidence within the City of London. On Friday Suzanne Evans and

your fellow Vote Leave supporters were sacked from their roles as UK

speakers. Miss Evans has now been sacked twice, are you next for the

job? Suzanne Evans is brilliant at this sort of stuff, we will hear a

lot more from her. Are you next for the chop? Nigel described me as

irrelevant, I have been called far worse in the elections I have

stored, but in four of those five Parliamentary elections are won.

That is the beauty of democracy. There is being a member of Vote

Leave, and being a Ukip MP, are these things becoming mutually

exclusive? Absolutely not, Vote Leave is now garnering support from

the political left, the political centre right, and people... So why

doesn't Nigel Farage? You need to address that question to him. He is

your leader. There are differences of opinion. There is a strategic

difference, I'm the think we need to win this election with an upbeat,

positive campaign. Your leader says you are relevant, could you not

resign the whip and become an independent? It is the voters who

decide who is and who isn't relevant. Thank you for joining us.

If you want more facts about the EU referendum, you can check the BBC

News website. It is excellent. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes -

will Donald Trump win the Republican Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. Alan Johnson makes the case for us

to remain in the EU but admits And ahead of that crucial referendum

we'll find out why many unions still haven't decided

if they'll stick or twist. But first, the leader of Labour's

campaign to stay in the EU has told this programme it was "unfair"

to expect European money to solve the problems of Wales'

poorest areas. In an exclusive TV interview,

Alan Johnson said it wasn't realistic to expect EU funding

would create "a land He was speaking during a visit

to a new research facility Our correspondent, Arwyn Jones,

began by asking the former Home Secretary what the EU has

to offer the higher education You can always desire cooperation

between different universities You can desire that and it's a nice

thing to talk about. But you can't actually do it

unless you've got a framework and structure in place

to do it through. That's what the European Union

provides, and European structural funds provide the money

to draw down to help, as well, ?5 million

in relation to this project. What I've learned is

that countries that are separate compete

against each other on these kind Countries that are united

through the European Union collaborate, and because they can

bring much more expertise, much more money in,

and they can go for much We saw a piece of equipment

that doesn't exist anywhere else in Europe,

apart from here. How difficult would it be

were the UK to leave I mean, if you think

of British universities, 11 of the top 20 in Europe

of universities are in the UK. You would just think that reasonable

people acting through common-sense would still work out

a way of cooperating. You would think that,

and you can think it with trade. There's lots of different capacity

for trade, but could you managed to struggle your way back

to what you've got already? I don't think so, but if you did,

why have you gone through all this They were telling me

here that the European Union referendum has put a big question

mark over all of this. They've got the building

up and running. Would they be able to use it

effectively if outside Something you'll undoubtedly

know of is Tata Steel, Port Talbot, recently announcing

the loss of 750 jobs within the steel

industry within Wales, which is generally

accepted it's on its knees The Assembly Committee

in Cardiff Bay last week took evidence from UK steel,

the umbrella body, that the EU is doing nothing to stop

Chinese dumping their They said in America they had

a 266% tariff on imports It's 16% here.

They are killing it. The way the European Union works

is a little slow in this regard. You've got have a

complaint lodged, then they have to investigated to prove

that it's happening. All of that is taking

time, but at the end of that the European

Union can stand up to China much better

than Britain could. It's too late for those

750 workers, isn't it? I hear from steel workers,

including Steelworkers in Scunthorpe, very need

to my constituency. They kind of blame Europe for it,

which is I suppose mantra from people in certain

political parties. It's a much more complex

issue than that. You say that the people making

the complaints tend to be One of them is Edwina

Hart, the economic development Minister

for the Labour Party, She says Europe's got to wake up --

and smell the coffee. We've got to have an industry

in Europe that produces for Europe, but they

are not doing enough. I mean this is your

own party's stance. That is part of the

point I was making. No one in the remains side is saying

that the European Union is perfect. Assembly, including

the Houses of Parliament. Including the United Nations,

including Nato, all the organisations

that we are part of. But the answer to that is not

to leave and lose all those advantages of working

together with other countries that we are seeing

an example of here. You'll know that parts of Wales

have been in receipt of these EU structural

funds, state aid funds. Wales is a net beneficiary

of the European Union. There's a debate to be

had on that one, but this certainly more money coming

in from the EU than from other parts of the UK, and yet

West Wales and the valleys have only just been able

to apply and receive a third The money doesn't seem to be

making all that much Well, there's two things

to be said about that. How it's spent is down

to national governments, So it's the fault of

the Labour Welsh Government? No, but I'll make the point

that this argument... There's this strange argument

about the Leave side argument is where they

say Brussels dictates everything to us, and then they say,

but Britain is a strong country and has the fifth strongest

economy in the world. Well, may be it's got nothing to do

with us being members But, as the Yes pamphlet said

incidentally in 1975, probably before you were born

when we took the last referendum on this, it said,

and these words are as effective now, Europe's not

going to solve all our problems. Europe's not going to

take away the necessity for us to work towards our own

destiny, whether that's But it's the best framework

for success on our continent. But as recent as 1999-

2000, I was born there , as the then First Minister of Wales

said there an opportunity All these billions

of pounds going into the valleys, into West Wales

and they will rejuvenate them and we will see prosperity

coming to those parts of Wales and it hasn't

happened, though even its failure of the way the money

was used, or that it was tied to much in red tape,

but it hasn't done what everyone I look at parts of Wales and I've

been coming here for a long time, I've seen parts

of Wales transformed. In terms of investment,

there's more investment They are still as poor

as they were, but they are still Would they have been better

off without that money? The way it's used, the overarching

governance of this country. But I think to argue

that, yes, Europe has this ambition that all parts

of Europe should come up to the same level of prosperity,

and that you've seen that money comes you in Wales,

but to somehow grudgingly say, oh, but it hasn't

created a land of milk I think the way that money

is allocated, particularly for facilities like

this, would be sadly Are there other factors

that contribute Now, the leader of Plaid Cymru,

Leanne Wood, has ruled out any kind of coalition deal with Labour

if Carwyn Jones' party continues to push ahead with plans

for a billion pound relief It's the first so-called red line

set out by Plaid ahead of any possible

post-election negotiations. Leanne Wood's comments came

as she spoke to us from her party's In a wide-ranging interview,

our political editor Nick Servini began

with the NHS, and put it of reorganising health services

was the last thing it needed We have several of

them at the moment. There are seven chief executives,

seven finance officers and if organisation organising

all of the hospitals in Wales, we could cut the cost

of the bureaucracy in our health line services which people

are crying out for. We've been up this route

for a number of years Restructuring is expensive as well

and it's hugely disruptive for people working

in the organisation. Well, there was a health

reorganisation and number of years ago, and I don't recall

at that time a big debate But there's not the pressure

there is now, is there? The point of reorganising

is to create and shape services We don't have a service

that is responding to people It needs to change and we are going

to crack on and do that job. Let's face it, all the parties have

talked about the need to merge We are the only ones

with a plan to do it. You have talked about how you're

going to pay for it. One interesting area was that

you were going to have a look at is the anti-poverty agenda

and what is spent on that, which is interesting coming

from you coming from the left of the parties when it

comes to politics. What we want to do is tackle

poverty through education. The best way, the route out

of poverty is to help people to increase their skills,

up their education and get to the point where they are able

to earn more money, and when people We want to focus our anti-poverty

strategies through the education For people who don't know

what that is, it's one of the central schemes of this

government which looks at trying to help families

in economically deprived What that program does is intervene

in those early years, and enables those families

who are having difficulties to ensure that those children

have the best possible So if they can start school at three

where they've had some input We want to look at all the existing

programmes and we want to make sure our policies are evidence-based

and that the outcomes for these programmes are actually

achieving something. I don't think that can be said

for every single one of the existing We want to look at them

all and invest in the ones that have the outcomes

that we want to see. And just to be clear,

in terms of saving money and making cuts, it's the anti-poverty

agenda which is top Look, there's a budget

of ?15 billion that the assembly Look, there's a budget

of ?15 billion that the Assembly has, and our spending limits come

to under 5% of that entire budget I don't accept that

all of that ?15 billion that is being spent currently

is being spent to the best effect. A Plaid Cymru Government

would spend that money better, and we would prioritise

the nine politics that Health has to be the top

priority in that. That's what people have

told us is their chief So much is wrong in the health

service at the moment, and that's not the

fault of the staff, because they are working under very

difficult conditions, and of course we know many

staff are being forced to leave the service altogether,

which puts more pressure on the staff that

are left, which is why this investment in staff in our NHS

such an important policy. Moving on, much of

the weekend has been appealing to disillusioned

Labour voters. Let's take a scenario that I'm

a disillusioned Labour supporter living in North Wales and I'm

considering a vote for light can living in North Wales and I'm

considering a vote for Plaid because I fundamentally disagree

with Labour's planned to spend ?1 billion on the new

motorway at Newport. Can you give me an assurance that

you will not support any Government that

wants to introduce that? And I'll give you some

examples, a reason, because when we had an opportunity

to influence the budget, last year, we opted not to support

the Government to get their budget through because there was money

allocated in that budget for the improvement

in the M4, and I've said, and I've been very clear

since I've been leader of this party, that we have

two spread wealth and prosperity throughout the nation,

and and focusing spending like that on one small corner of the nation

is completely unacceptable to Plaid that wanted to go ahead

with that project. So, this is important,

so I can understand exactly Do I take it from that that

you will not support any Labour Government, be it formally

or informally, on any kind of arrangement so long

as they are going ahead with plans Now, the Labour-bashing

elements of this weekend has been right

the way through it. Are we reading this correctly

when we come to the conclusion that it is you basically saying

that this party is not interested in a formal

coalition with Labour? What I want is for there to be

a Plaid Cymru Government after the election in May

and so we put together an excellent You're going to have to do a deal

with someone, aren't you? I accept that it's difficult for one party to

get a majority, but a minority Government could be possible, but

not a single person has voted yet. Let's have the election. Let's get

the people voting. I want to get our party's policies into operation. But

it's up to the people to decide there's talk of a political

earthquake in terms of Plaid Cymru. Let's be honest, we haven't seen so

much as a tremor from you in recent years in terms of the electoral

gains, or lack of those games. What do you know that we don't? I'm not

sure that I know anything that you don't. We've got 61 days. I believe

we've convince most people that we can't carry on as we are. 17 years

of a Labour Government and we are where we are. Things are great in

Wales, and it we carry on doing what we've always done there were going

to get the same results. We got 61 days to speak to as many people as

possible. We got the policies, the personnel and what we need now is

the boats and I'll be going all-out to get as many as we can so we

implement our programme. I want to see our full manifesto implemented

with eight Plaid Cymru Government but let's give people that chance to

vote. Will have two lead it there will stop thank you very much. -- we

will have to leave it there. Now where do the trade unions stand

on the EU referendum debate? Many of our biggest unions

still haven't said one way or the other how

they'll be campaigning. James Williams has been looking

at how the cards may fall. Our economic future. The security of

the nation. Fundamental questions about the UK's role in the world.

The stakes couldn't be higher. While some of the biggest political

players have shown their cards, others are keeping them close to

their chests. In 1975, the last time we were asked to decide on the UK's

relationship with Europe, the trade union movement were hostile to the

European economic community as it was then. It was seen by them as no

more than a capitalist club, and their opposition would continue long

after the UK resounded Lee voted 41 years ago to remain a member of the

E EEC. But things changed as the 80s progressed and Margaret Thatcher's

Conservatives landed devastating blows on the Labour Party. Labour

and the European Ashraf unions turned to Brussels. And this man's

proposals to place a social dimension at the heart of Europe in

order to advance workers' writes. The president at the time, the

villain of the peaceful so long far as the unions were concerned, all of

a sudden became their night in shining armour. The only card game

in town as -- at the moment is in a town called Brussels and it's a game

of poker where we got to learn the rules learn fast. Another referendum

on the horizon, where did the unions now stand? Well, Unite has an

established pro-European policy but has yet to decide how it will

campaign. Unison is currently consulting its members. The PCS

union will debate in May but could remain neutral as it did in a

Scottish Referendum. Community have decided to support the remain

campaign. It gave us access to paid holidays for the first time in the

UK's history, so there are lots of positives. Workers have benefited --

benefited from being members of the EU, and it's difficult to get that

message in a positive way, because if you give any slump that seems

that you are using an element of fear -- supplant. I believe that

being honest with people. The trance bought unions are backing wrecks it.

Grassroots members are concerned. I believe our rights are being

overlooked by these people. I think if we want to show solidarity with

anybody then we do it with the working classes across Europe, and I

think the only way we can do it now is by us coming out of the EU and

with the fifth strongest economy in the world, I'm sure we can

strengthen the working classes across Europe by showing there is

life outside of these political super states. Do you think you are

outside? At the end of the day, minorities have a voice and I

believe my argument should be listened to. If we'd just decided we

couldn't change anything then there is no role for trade unions in the

first place. With the British steel industry reeling and hundreds of

jobs to go in Wales, people believe the cheap dumping of Chinese steel

in Europe is part of the problem. The very thought that the UK, Wales

as part of the UK could just shut up shop and deal with the steel crisis

on their own would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. The reality is

that these are massive issues. We need to be part of the EU to

influence these issues going forward. It's been called the

biggest gamble of David Cameron's political life. With many members in

Wales, unions will play a part in how the chips will fall.

Now as part of our coverage of the Assembly election and the run

up to polling day, BBC Wales has recruited 50 young people

to give their opinions on what they've seen and heard.

Marc Tilley is one of Generation 2016 and he joins me now...

So Mark, with less than 2 months to go now until the Assembly

election, what do you make of the debate so far...

I'm personally excited. Unfortunately, I think the election

is suffering from timing and it's been dwarfed by the EU referendum

and the post-general election as well, so the views you as is a

little bit lacking. -- the interviews he has.

Only 35% of 18-24 year olds voted at the last Assembly election -

do you think enough's being done to address that this time around

and get younger voters interested in what's going.

We know that health and education are key battlegrounds heading

What in particular are the important issues for young voters?

This is an issue that can be and all levels. In 2012 is we saw there was

a 15 cents turnout, so I'd like to... I think it's important for

politicians to work on communication strategies so they can appeal to

young people in a fair and democratic society. Do you think

they aren't doing that at the moment? Not at all. But I think they

are accountable to young people and to really engage and make them feel

valued, it's important to show that you are doing things to represent

their interests, and until you do, you will struggle to infuse that

demographic. What can they do? How can they show they are interested in

getting young people involved? There should be a landmark policy to

really kind of open up the conversation to young people. But if

we are seeing that 18-24 year olds aren't voting, how is lowering the

voting age game to get the 16-18 -year-olds interested? I don't think

18-year-olds need to answer for motivating stats -- low voting

turnout. I think it's indicative of a system that doesn't engage people.

I think in order for those people to buy, you need to get them something

to vote for. In a democratic society, 18-year-old had the right

to withhold their boat, feel disengaged and disenfranchised. I

think it's a reflection of society I think it's the parties' issue to

address that. Don't forget you can follow

all the latest on Twitter. We're @walespolitics,

but for now that's all from me. We're @walespolitics,

happening on our doorstep. Thanks very much for joining's.

Welcome back - and with the Budget coming up in just 10 days time,

George Osborne was hoping taxing pensions would help him fill

the black hole in the public finances.

Tax relief on pensions costs the Treasury ?34 billion a year,

but yesterday an ally of the Chancellor let it be known

that there would be no changes to the way retirement savings

So why has the George Osborne abandoned the idea?

Here's Ellie - and I should warn you that her report contains

For lots of people, retirement looks a little bit like this.

The Government's drive to encourage us to save for ourselves,

but is the current way we save for our pensions

an effective and fair way of doing things?

Well, in last year's Budget, the Chancellor seemed to tee up yet

Pensions could be treated like ISAs, you pay in from taxed income

and it's tax-free when you take it out, and in-between it receives

This idea and others like it need careful and public consideration.

At the moment, pensions contributions are tax-exempt

because earners get tax relief on what they put in.

As the fund grows they aren't taxed, so again exempt, but you pay income

tax when you come to take the money out.

It's a principle known as exempt exempt taxed.

One of the proposals was to turn that on its head by stopping all tax

relief on the way in, so taxing contributions,

but exempting the fund as it grows, and allowing pensioners to take out

That was described as a pensions ISA.

The other option was to introduce a flat rate of tax relief

That would have meant higher-rate taxpayers would lose out.

The pensions industry estimate the changes could earn the Treasury

an extra ?10 billion a year, essentially bringing forward tax

But ?10 billion is, you know, a lot of money but money

that the Chancellor himself could do with.

It is, but it's needed for people's pension savings and really this

is just a short-term tax raid on people's pension funds.

They didn't go down terribly well with the Pensions Minister either,

who made clear the pensions ISA idea would be a big mistake.

And when I spoke on Friday to a Tory backbencher opposed to the single

rate of tax relief idea, he said his Chancellor's of politics

It seems to me it is unreasonable, bordering on socialism,

to give people tax relief from other people's tax, and it undermines

the certainty which people have had with their pension saving.

Tricky political territory for the Chancellor.

At a time when he really needs your support.

At a point when he is otherwise so popular because of his stance

So, was it because of concern of a backlash from Tory voters -

the people the Government needs on-side ahead of the EU referendum?

The Treasury says it was nothing so cynical.

The Chancellor's eyes are on the prize one

day of being leader, and he's keen to avoid a repeat

of a raft of unpopular measures in 2012.

Even people within Downing Street are calling

He's no stranger to climb-downs either, remember tax

I've listened to the concerns, I hear and understand them.

The simplest thing to do is not to phase these changes

The Chancellor is unlikely to avoid altogether any further

rows with his own party, but dumping these pension proposals

Of course, supporters of the changes say he has missed an opportunity.

He may have read the lay of the land for now,

but one Tory MP told me he doubted this would be the end of it.

Helen, there is a lot of politics in this. The Chancellor has been under

pressure from Tory MPs, his changes he suggested will run popular, I

would also suggest the referendum plays into this. It would mainly

affect older people, who are likely to vote no to leaving the European

Union, and who doesn't want to give them another reason to do so. I

think you will also be looking at this through the prism of tax

credits where he did a U-turn. Voters simply don't remember things

that didn't happen in the way they do remember things did happen.

Pensions is particularly tricky territory. Labour and the SNP

together have managed to get an interesting coalition opposition,

it's one of the few times Labour have looks like an effective

opposition. Pensioners who are close to retirement age vote and this was

potentially a huge landmine for him. There were reasons for unifying the

tax relief, making it lower for those who were better off, he would

have saved money by doing so, but has he bottled it because he has

realised it could get in the way of his leadership ambitions? At the

very least it would make the next four months before the referendum

more tricky than they need to be. It is interesting that when he

capitulates, he capitulates entirely. With tax credits he ended

up doing none of them. He has pretty much abandoned all of it. Were you

to tax people going into the pension rather than when they come out, all

of the political losers are in the here and now rather than in 20

years. The political cost outweighs the benefit in revenue. All of the

obvious tax increases and all of the obvious spending cuts happen in the

first parliament. What he's left now with is a list of equally

provocative options. If you try to do tax credits it is unpopular,

pensions is unpopular, logically he should be putting more on petrol

duty given where the oil price is but you can imagine how provocative

that would be among Tory voters. If his deficit reduction plans are in a

bit of trouble and he may not hit this year's financial target, where

does he get the money from? One possibility is cutting the top rate

of tax. He said in the House of Commons it had raised 8 billion in

the financial year 13/14 so maybe he is preparing the case for that. The

figure is pretty suspect because people knew the tax rate was falling

so in the year 12/13, they held back. We won't know until we get the

14/15 to know if the cut generated extra tax rather than displacing tax

year from year. That's right but his already claiming it. It doesn't mean

he is right. No, but he needs to throw some red meat to

Conservatives. At the moment George Osborne makes it look as though the

only point in winning general elections is to put yourself in a

stronger position to win the next general election, even if that means

embracing Labour policies. He wants to give the impression there is some

vision there, some substance. If he has got serious ambitions, doesn't

he have to do something more for Middle Britain? That's why it is

interesting to see Labour's response on this, which hasn't been on the

why are they letting rich people off vibe. He won't achieve his targets,

he has consistently done that and faced almost zero political come

back for doing so. It is an artificial target he has created.

And he still gets to borrow at record low interest rates.

So, five more states voted last night in the race for the Democrat

On the Republican side Donald Trump and Ted Cruz won two states each.

Before voting Trump asked his supporters at a rally in Florida

to pledge their primary votes to him.

That I, no matter how I feel, no matter what

the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever...

..Will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J Trump for president!

He then went on to give a three-hour lecture on health reform. Trump is

still the clear front runner. Mr Rubio is almost out of it, will be

if he loses his home state on March 15 and Ted Cruz is probably hated

even more by the Republican establishment than Mr Trump.

Discuss. Rubio isn't even number two any more. As shocking as all of this

is, I find Rubio's failure in many ways more interesting than Trump's

success. He has all of the raw materials of a top-level politician.

He is young and attractive, sensible enough, with a compelling life

story. To fail to translate any of that into any degree of momentum at

all during this primary campaign, to the point where the only people who

think he should be the nominee are people in my profession really... He

won the Minister of caucuses, let's not forget that. Jeb Bush went into

this having raised the most amount of money and completely tanked.

There is one argument which is that money controls politics, that is

proving quite challenging in this election. The second thing is that

media controls politics, but people say Jeremy Corbyn would do better if

only the media stopped attacking them, but the media has relentlessly

attacked Donald Trump. It is a nightmare for the mainstream

Republicans now. Their choice is down to Trump and Cruz, but not a

single senator has come out and endorsed Cruz. Trump's popularity is

a disaster for Conservatives around the world because he is associated

with the Conservative brand, and in particular it is a disaster for

those who want Western democracy to triumph in the battle of ideas.

Trump is like a villain in a Marvel superhero Hollywood blockbuster

written by the Islamic State's propaganda mastermind. What better

recruiting Sergeant could you have for the Islamic State than a parody

of a kind of capitalist billionaire, sexist, racist, Islamophobic ogre?

But other than that, he is very good! The establishment are not

hoping for a broken convention, we haven't had one for 60 years, it is

a pretty long shot. Yes, I think their nightmare must be that Trump

is elected as the candidate, and you think fine, the worst comes to the

worst, Hillary Clinton winds, but what if something happens to her

between now and November? She gets indicted or is forced to withdraw?

That is why Joe Biden is vice president, still tarnishing his

credentials. Or Bloomberg. It should be fun.

We're back same time next week here on BBC One.

The Daily Politics is back on BBC Two at midday

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