29/06/2014 Sunday Politics West


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

Similar Content

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



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


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


Doctors want to ban smoking outright.


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


And goodbye to the man who loves the EU. So Graham Watson is givhng his


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


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


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


Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence


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


it big in the world of European politic.


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


He'll soon be President of the European Commission,


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


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


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


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


So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes


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


Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington


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


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


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


majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts


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


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


Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European


countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of


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


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


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


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


Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to


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


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


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


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


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


Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general


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


the single currency will want to press forward with closer


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things


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


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


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


countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election


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


parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are


the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms


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


current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The


Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?


We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at


the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on


whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you


think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest but


also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't


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


Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of


State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the


existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He


doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is


the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the


position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a


distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government


now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and


the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that


important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and


that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a


whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going


to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in


2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today For


one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press


ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done


in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain


outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,


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


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


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


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


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


stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was


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


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


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


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


he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would


leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


things to get through first in domestic politics before we even


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


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


are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is


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


of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see


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


ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had


about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it


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


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


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


about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people


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


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


whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything


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


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


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


passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are


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


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


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


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


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


the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the


choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the


Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional


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


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


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


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


federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate


but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains


national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it


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


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


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


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


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


disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has


improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.


Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on


those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the


introduction of plain packaging There is still those who take pride


in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.


We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson


from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban


on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark


They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are


bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in


our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as


children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start


smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for


you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we


totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make


that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol


eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is


totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes


which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping


children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops


shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so


you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a


36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you


will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the


younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily


addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this


becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you


would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have


no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if


we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 2


years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't


have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their


20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes


the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting


cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get


better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is


going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.


Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see


adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is


for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop


young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they


never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds


who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government


increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to


18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,


we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal


says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a


motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There


is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they


doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not


about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and


they have to get their act together because they are bringing the


medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about


things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,


but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes


altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s


not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to


smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would


be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So


even if I am born in the year 2 00, it would still be illegal to smoke,


just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the


habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so


that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so


important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes One


thing you will find is that throughout the world people is


looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and


different countries like Australia, they were the first with a


standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all


of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the


tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with


cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going


head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal


representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be "


So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So how's it going?


Well, you can judge the quality of the politics for yourself,


but we've been crunching the numbers to find out what


parliament might look like after the next year's general election.


Here's Giles. Politicians are elected to


Parliament to represent their constituents, but the make-up of


Parliament does not reflect society well at all the parties it. In 010


more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but


not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.


Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female


MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and


the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have


selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and


to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been


trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts


and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the


all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the


whole country. Despite the jibe the Labour Party know they have a long


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


way to go on the issue of being look at this particular area of lack


of women and ethnic minorities. Women first.


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


got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 1%


The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy


at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most


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


In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected


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


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


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


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


However all the indications are it could be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary


projection for gender, According to the last census


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


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


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


were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME


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


that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats


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


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


giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost


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


of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve


the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to


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


or Cambridge. Only a fifth


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


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


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


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


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


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


that is getting worse with single election.


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


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


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


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


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


First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.


and the rain has been falling, so it must be Glastonbury. We will be


asking young people which b`nd of politicians they want to he`r more


from next year and who they think should turn the volume down. Our


guests are two politicians who could grace the Pyramid stage any day


Graham Watson, outgoing Lib Dem MEP, and Aaron S Royle who leads Labour


in the House of Lords. First, let's talk about the appointment of the


European Commissioner. David Cameron opposes him. Did he mishandle it?


Yes, absolutely. He's done everything to alienate the council


and the Parliament. Mr Miliband was against him as well. So his views


were ignored as well. Well, Mr Miliband is not a prime minhster. Mr


Cameron later Lee mishandled it I think he will be perfectly good


That is faint praise. He will be better than the current leader. He


is capable of capturing the zeitgeist. I think he is capable of


recognising what is needed `nd delivering it. Does this mark the


point where British influence really does begin to wane? Sadly, ht has


been on the wane for a long time. In this case, Mr Cameron took Britain


outside. Had we stayed, we light have ended up with a differdnt


candidate. Also, we have constantly failed to participate in new


projects that the union has done. It started with the euro, then with


banking union. We have allowed ourselves to become semidet`ched.


You know him, don't you? Dods he like a drink? No, that is in rusty


story that has been put arotnd. I think he drinks averagely for a man


of his age. Now, it is not `lways easy being NME P. Yes, therd is a


large salary, but you can w`lk a long way throughout the corridors of


Brussels. Graham is saying goodbye to all of that. Even his crhtics


would admit Brussels is loshng one of its most urbane and profdssional


operators. He is saying fardwell and the new boys and girls are `rriving,


excited about the challenges ahead. Excuse me, could you help md? I m


looking for the roundabout. Finding your way in a foreign city hs never


easy. Even crossing the road can be confusing. But that this wolan,


everything is new. Hope I dhdn't get you into trouble crossing at a red


light, I apologise. The Southwest's first green Euro MP, she is finding


her way in Brussels. Are we on level three now? So we didn't need to come


through there. Let's go back this way. Now we're going to be late We


are heading to the group medting, so were coming with you. I keep getting


lost. These are Green MEPs `nd their staff. It is nice to be in ` big


group of greens. Someone who is spelt at home here for 20 ydars is


Graham Watson. He has led the liberal group. Yeah, he is chairing


the climate Parliament, thotgh not for much longer. Everywhere he goes,


old friends and colleagues offer up sympathy. I am sorry to hear you


were leaving. That's very khnd of you. You know, that is politics It


is time to move on. I've enjoyed the 20 years I've had here and H feel


I've done a good job to represent my constituents. I think changd is


generally a healthy thing. One thing nobody will miss is the kind of


modern art that is on the w`lls I'm not sure quite where it comds from,


but it is not always... If xou take this piece, for example, of the most


inspired design. What you sde here are sacks full of paper. With so


many people leaving parliamdnt, the officers have to be cleared. And


with members having to leavd their offices before the inaugural session


in Strasbourg, there is rather a lot of work for the shredding m`chines


and those who are responsible for clearing the mess. These ard my


officers. This is my assist`nt from Estonia. Good experience, it will be


gone now. I will be transferring it to the new member. This is where I


have generally work from. As you can see, it is full of packing cases. I


suppose this is one particular memento. This was my 50th bhrthday.


I was leader of the Liberal Democrat group and I was honoured to have the


president of the EU commisshon to celebrate my birthday with le. I've


had a few laughs as I come `cross papers, things I'd forgotten about


entirely. And inevitably a few regrets as well, as I've cole across


mementos of friends or colldagues who moved on. But I think the


one. It starts you thinking in one. It starts you thinking in


different ways. I take the view that you move on to new things and if you


have a setback, as I've had at the polls, you pick yourself up and


start all over again. Beford he dusts himself down, he is hdre for


one last go. Now you can absolutely spilled the beans and give ts all


the dirt on what happens in Brussels. Was it your dream to see a


United States of Europe with the president at the top replachng the


Queen? Know, good lord. I fdel very privileged to have represented


Britain in Parliament. I wotld not describe it in those terms. I do


believe there is a lot to bd gained from working together in more and


more areas. Europe is about dealing with the challenges of


globalisation. That requires closer union. But the end policy mtst


therefore be United States? Do you think Britain is on the long but


steady road to the exit door? No, I very much hope it's not. I really


think the people of this cotntry, when it comes to it, will not wish


to leave the EU at any time. Why is Mr Miliband toughening his stance on


Europe? He is being realisthc. He is saying we want reform, which we do


need, because we need to look at growth in the future. Is it


democratic? The EU? Yes, it has the European Parliament and the council


which is elected by people of the member states. Of course it is the


democracy. Unelected offici`ls make the decisions. They are the


equivalent of civil servants. The commissioners make the proposals but


they do not make the decisions in the end. That is up to the directly


elected European Parliament and the Council of ministers. Where do you


think you went wrong in your election campaign? I think we were


onto a hiding because voters wanted to punish the two parties of the


coalition who've had to raise taxes and cut public spending to bring


Britain out of the recession. Tories lost seats and we lost seats. UKIP


have identified this dissatisfaction, especially with


Europe, and have positioned themselves in a place you are not. I


think the attraction of UKIP, as it were, is not really about Etrope. It


is anti`politics. People ard fed up with politicians, they don't like


how people have overpromised and underdelivered. They want to see a


different sort of politician. I understand that, but UKIP is not the


answer. Is it galling that xou are going, you knew that place hnside


out, you know how it works, you speak several languages, and the


people coming in in considerable numbers just want the place to be


destroyed? I believe in democracy, and those are the people who devote


to send, they must be the pdople who represent us. So whether voters


right, do you think? The voters are always right in a democracy. And


Claire Moody is a fantastic young woman. It is great for Labotr to


have an MEP in the south`west. It is not surprising you would sax that. I


tell you, she will work has socks off for the south`west, reg`rdless


of the party she works for. She is a cracking woman. Thank you. Next


year, over 3 million young people will be entitled to vote in their


first general election. Thex will play a crucial part in deciding who


will form next government. Hf they do turn out, how will they vote


We've been finding out at Britain's biggest gathering of young people,


Glastonbury. It is 44 years since the first


festival. Michael Evers says politics gives Glastonbury soul He


himself is a Labour man and was a candidate in the 1997 gener`l


election. Now, you might expect a new generation of voters to be


flocking to his party. But what young people have been tellhng me


suggests otherwise. Given Glastonbury's green leanings,


perhaps it is not a surprisd many say they would vote that wax. Green


Party. Green Party. Labour. Green Party. Conservative. He's not the


only one. Polls reckon a qu`rter of youngsters may want David C`meron to


continue. Edging towards thd Conservatives. They were paxing


tribute to Tony Benn in Glastonbury 's political corner. We will never


forget what you gave to him. It was the most intense and great privilege


to be here with him. But wh`t was striking was attitudes towards


1`party which once attracted many youthful boats. Not one of xou would


vote Lib Dem? No. While thex are not getting the protest votes, they are


not going to UKIP, either. No, not UKIP, not BNP, no one like that


Politics does feature large at Glastonbury. This giant poster wall


highlights some of the issuds. One person who feels at home here is the


been to ask him who he thinks been to ask him who he thinks


first`time voters will go for. In 1979, the first chance I had, I


didn't vote. I couldn't see a difference between Jim Call`ghan and


Margaret Thatcher. You can hmagine what a face palm that is for me now.


When young people don't votd for the first time, I don't lose fahth. I


ended up rather politicised, so they are not without hope. It is


difficult. If I couldn't tell the difference back then when L`bour and


Conservatives were on opposhte sides of the spectrum, how diffictlt must


it be for Young people now, when the similarities between Cameron and


Miliband are sometimes diffhcult to see? You voted Lib Dem at the last


three. That was tactical voting I'm frustratingly the first past the


post system. You work on `` complimentary about the manhfesto. I


was, it was a good manifesto, but what happened to? It was put in the


rubbish bin. So feel betraydd. Young people are looking at the m`instream


parties and thinking, how c`n we believe what they are saying? Do you


feel the mainstream has movdd away from you? You went to join the


occupied protest, you went to Bristol and supported them. That


protest went nowhere, didn't it Idealism is about questioning the


system and looking at what the problems are. We're activists who


are here, young people who done great work focusing on corporations


who pay no tax in the UK. This is a high concern among all voters.


You've been singing protest songs for more than 30 years. Do xou ever


feel it is in vain? Now, I don't think music is the first pl`ce


people turn to for the voicd of their generation. It is mord likely


to be YouTube, Twitter. Mushc is no longer the vanguard medium ht was in


the 1980s. My job is to encourage people. Tony Benn was our p`trons


are so many years and is no longer with us, but he is here in spirit.


We ever poster at the front of the stage which has the epitaph he asked


for his help. We are here to encourage the audience to bdlieve


they can change the world. That is how it works. Only the audidnce can


change the world. Billy Bragg trying to stoke up some passion. What is


most striking is that young people have given up on political hssues.


Greenpeace is doing a roaring trade here. It is that so many ard


disillusioned with party politics and may simply not vote in the


election. Let's pick up on some of those


points Billy Bragg made. Do you agree young people can be brought


back into the political fold? Absolutely. I do lots of work with


young people. There are so lany these days who are not interested in


politics because they don't know enough about it. But becausd we are


not doing proper citizenship, proper politics teaching in our schools, it


is off the radar for most young people. They don't understand


everything that happens in our lives is determined by politics. When you


talk with young people, there is a great organisation which enthuses


young people. At the beginnhng sessions they are not infusdd, but


by the end, they are. I want them to vote. The truth is, this is a


difficult time to be young. No jobs for life, pensions are diffhcult,


zero hours contracts and all that sort of thing. But also, it is a


great time to be young. The world is at their feet. The country hs


stable, there are no wars for them to buy it. So perhaps there is


nothing to vote about. Well, when you think about the huge ch`llenges


we face, like climate changd, rapid world population growth,


internationally organised crime these are massive challenges. But


our newspapers dumbed down political debate and we do not hear about it.


Well, their lives are quite civilised. They go to Glastonbury


and have a fantastic weekend with their brands. If you pick up


newspapers or watch televishon in continental Europe, you will learn


about politics. Here, you ldarn about the lives of celebrithes.


There is a dumbing down of political debate. That is true, but young


people care passionately about these issues. They don't vote bec`use they


don't relate the issues to changing the world by the ballot box. So I


feel we have do somehow enthuse young people about the power of


politics, the power of putthng that cross on a piece of paper. Of course


I'm Labour, proud to be Labour, but I don't care how people votd. I just


want them to vote. Is it different in Europe? I think it is different


in many continental countrids. Do they vote at 18? In larger numbers?


They do vote at 18 and in l`rger numbers. We have one of the lower


youth turnouts. Is it a failure of politicians? Actually, it is their


responsibility. Yes, but I think there is a failure of polithcians.


They do not reach out enough. They are seen as we had people from a


different class. Sort of an alien species. The truth is, you could not


put a fag paper between your different policies. Oh, yes you


could. Like what? Really significant differences. Quality jobs for young


people. But everybody wants quality jobs for young people. Nobody is


campaigning saying, we do not want that. But they are in government and


they are not providing qualhty jobs for young people. You just lentioned


zero hours. Other policies different? Yes. Under Gordon Brown,


we saw a massive expansion of economy under casinos and alcohol


consumption. That is not wh`t we want. But it is a bit of `` a


percentage point in spending here, a degree of tweaking there. There are


not the differences they usdd to be. Our society at the moment is riven


with inequality and it is gdtting worse. We want fairer poliches that


deliver for all people in this country. Well, another week has


raised by. Here is the update in 60 seconds.


A children's charity in Bristol claimed young people were bding


failed social services enter a state of crisis. It believes the


government is falling short on its promise to end child povertx by


2020. A Gloucester MP resigned from his


job as aid to the Foreign Mhnister. Richard Graham says he is standing


down to focus on regeneration plans in his city. Gloucester is ` classic


marginal seat. I'm sure it will be a castle.


A ban on a drug came into force It is used by some people in Bristol.


Being caught with it once whll lead to a verbal warning and repdated use


could lead to step the sentdnces. And unions have described plans


before councils to share all their staff and services as scary. They


are exploring the idea to s`ve money.


You are from the Forest of Dean what do you think about councils


sharing staff? It is potenthally interesting, because of the


phenomenal cuts local counchls are having to deal with. Clearlx, they


want to ensure they say flyhng front line services. `` a safeguard. We


certainly do have to put thd emphasis on creating jobs in the


private sector. That is one area I am pleased that the governmdnt has


been hugely successful in. There are over a million private sector jobs


and we have lots of young pdople in apprenticeships. So there is hope.


Fancy a job on a local council? I don't know what I will do ndxt. I


want to take a holiday and have a good think of it. Will you be


earning lots of money? It ddpends what I want to do. That's all we


have time for. Thank you to our guests. Good luck with whatdver you


do. You can contact us on Twitter. Have a good week.


been problems elsewhere in Europe, but I take your point. Thanks to


both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.


Now, there have been some less-than-helpful remarks


about the way the Labour party makes policy, and they've come


from the man who is heading Labour's Policy Review, Jon Cruddas.


In a speech to party activists he was recorded saying that,


"instrumentalised, cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus


groups and our press strategies and our desire for a topline in terms of


the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any


He added that Labour's election strategy was being hampered by a


The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls was asked about what Mr Cruddas had


I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he's not frustrated, he is


excited about his policy agenda He is frustrated that one report of 250


pages gets reduced down. So it's our fault? That is the way we live in


the world in which we live, but we have big ideas about devolution


long term infrastructure spending and new manufacturing policy, new


investment in skills, big changes which, let's be honest, I'm really


on George Osborne's agenda. How serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so


let's call it an unforced error You go to the party speeches, and you


don't know who is in the audience. There is no need for something as


serious as this to happen. It's hugely serious because it speaks


about something people have felt for a long time, that they have doled


out little nuggets of policy but no overarching story. There was a quite


saying the Ed Miliband has given as a shopping list, not a narrative.


When people in the party say things that are true, it's very difficult


for people to explain it away. Not sure Mr Miliband can win here. He


was recently criticised for not having policies. Now he's being


criticised for having too many. I think this line of attack is


particularly wounding because he prides himself on being a politician


of ideas. That is his unique selling point, and the weight that David


Cameron's prime ministerial nature is his selling point. So it is


wounding. If I was the Labour Party, before announcing any policy, I


would ask can help fix us on the economy? It might be radicalised


immolating on its own terms, but it's politically useless. -- radical


and innovative on its own terms I don't think any member of the public


does not think they are not radical enough or creative enough. If


anything, it's the opposite. They are a bit nervous about what a


Labour government could do and nervous about the economic


reputation. Reassurance, caution, maybe a bit of timidity might be the


notions that inform their policies or should inform their policies in


night -- my view, not the opposite. I am worried for Jon Cruddas,


because anyone who questions the Labour Party are part of the nexus


of the banking industry who are terrified of a Labour victory. It's


interesting that this goes to the heart of the debate in the Labour


Party, at the highest levels, do they put a big offer to the British


people, or a little off, John Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander


offer? Ed Miliband says that his ideas about freezing energy prices


and rent controls are a big offer, but his policy chief clearly has


real concerns that they don't go far enough. How important a figure is


John Cruddas in the project? He is hell of the -- head of the policy


review and has a huge amount of power, and so him slagging off the


policy review is a bad moment. He is trusted in that inner circle and the


problem for Ed Miliband from the odd is that he has people with strong


opinions, Maurice clasping is another, big thinkers, but they


maybe don't have a precaution that a professional politician might have


in terms of giving bland answers. So, David Cameron had to apologise


after his former director of communications was convicted


of phone hacking. David Cameron's other former friend,


Rebekah Brooks, had a better day. At the same trial, she was cleared


of all the charges against her. I take full responsibility for


employing Andy Coulson. I did some on the basis of undertakings I was


given by him about phone hacking and those turned out not to be the case.


I always said that if they turned out to be wrong, I would make a full


and frank apology, and I do that today. I am extremely sorry that I


employed him. It was the wrong decision. I'm clear about that. When


I was arrested it was in the middle of a maelstrom of controversy,


politics and of comment. Some of that was there, but much of it was


not, so I'm grateful to the jury for coming to that decision. Not been a


great week for David Cameron. Andy Coulson found guilty, and another


person who had worked in Downing Street is also charged on an


unrelated issue. And he was 26- on the wrong end in Brussels, and there


is a poll this morning which no one seems to be talking about which puts


Labour nine points ahead. Before all that there was Dominic Cummings


criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr


Cameron's judgement becoming an issue? Yes, what often happens when


one leader is under pressure for long enough, as Ed Miliband has been


the six months, we get bored. We then switch the Gatling gun to the


other guy. So David Cameron going into the Conference season might be


the man under pressure. The whole Andy Coulson saga has raised


questions about his judgement and those around him, but any political


damage she was going to sustain over Andy Coulson and phone hacking was


sustained years ago -- he was going. It was Brother beyond the


date the News of the World was closed down three summers ago - it


was probably on the date. As the hacking trial cut through to the


general public? Or is it just as media and political obsessives? I am


sure it has cut through in some way but it didn't necessarily happen in


recent days, more likely in recent years. It was some time ago that


Andy Coulson resigned in high profile circumstances. It has had a


slow burning effect over a few years, and the Prime Minister fears


the Big Bang. But there is one theme and words that unites this week with


Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that is that the Prime Minister can be


lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical in not asking big question is when


there was a lot in the public domain about what had happened that the


News of the World. And he was lackadaisical with Juncker. He made


a calculation that Angela Merkel would support him and it turned out


she couldn't. Maybe he needs to change. He was late in understanding


what was happening in Germany when both the Christian Democrats, her


party, wanted Juncker, and when the actual Murdoch press of Germany said


that they wanted him as well. He never saw that. He only looks at one


person in Germany, Angela Merkel, and it is a grand coalition, and the


SDP felt strongly about it. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime


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


very good in an essay, and the SA gets a double first the essay. Is Ed


Miliband right to be angry? He has John Cruddas attacking him, and that


is the news leading in the Sunday Times, and has not been a good week


the Prime Minister and in which Mr Miliband has a bigger lead in the


polls than he has had some time so he must be wondering why they are


having a go at him. He made a tactical error in Prime Minister's


Questions by asking all the questions about Andy Coulson. The


one at the end about what Gus O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in


the extreme. Politicians can be out of touch on all sides of the house.


The problem is, and there is a great quote by William Hague, is that the


Tory party has two modes, panic and complacency. At the moment they are


complacent. They think Ed Miliband will lose Labour election but I


don't know if they have a positive plan about how to win it. -- lose


Labour the election. Now, we knew Prince Charles had


trouble keeping his views about the environment


and the countryside to himself, but that's not the only thing he's


passionate about according to a radio four documentary to be


broadcast this lunchtime. Here's former Education Secretary,


David Blunkett on how the Prince had once attempted to influence


his policy on schools. I would explain that our policy was


not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very


keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had


what he would've seen as the opportunity to escape from their


background, where as I wanted to change their background.


And you can hear that documentary - it's called The Royal Activist


Does it matter that Prince Charles is getting involved in this kind of


policy, released behind closed doors question mark on the issue of


grammar schools is not clear anybody listened to him. I think it is a


principal problem. I've spoken to form a government members, and


judging by what they say, if anything we underestimate how much


contacting makes with ministers And how many representations he makes on


the issue that interest him. There has been an attempt to keep it


hidden. It's almost a theological question about whether the future


monarch should be involved in the public realm. If he wants to


influence policy, shouldn't we know what policy he's trying to influence


and what position he is taking? Sewer speech is better than private


one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so a speech. Prince Charles's views are


interesting. He's not a straight down the light reactionary. He makes


a left-wing case for rammer schools. There is an interview with him in


the Financial Times in which his argument in favour for architectural


development takes into account affordable housing in the wake which


no one would have suspected. He has interesting views, but I'm not


convinced on the point of principle whether someone is dashing his


position should be speaking. Your former employer 's famously


described him as the SDP king. You slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66


and still an apprentice. He's in a difficult position. We know what the


powers of the monarch are. They are to advise in courage and warned the


Prime Minister of the day. These in the difficult position where the


problem for him is that there is a line that isn't really defined, but


you slightly feel he just gets a bit too close to it and possibly crosses


that line with the lobbying that goes on. I think the worrying thing


is that at some point he will become King and will he know that he has


got to work within that framework? He is somebody that cannot win


either. If he doesn't take an interest in public policy, he will


be thought to be a bit of a waster, going round opening town halls, and


when he does have an interest we think, hey, you are in the monarchy,


stay out. There's an interesting parallel with first ladies who are


encouraged to find a controversial charitable project. Michelle Obama


has bought childhood obesity, and that is the standard thing.


Everybody knows that that is a bad thing, but you are not offering


solutions that are party political. I feel there must be a middle way


with what he should be able to do about finding big causes he can


complain about without getting stuck into lobbying ministers. Which can


become a party political issue. He has had some influence on


architecture, because the buildings we are putting up to date are better


than the ones we used to put up The Daily Politics is on BBC 2


at 11:00am We'll be back here


at the same time next week. Remember if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


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

Download Subtitles