:00:00. > :00:09.knee injury. We'll tell League, and Shaun Murphy may have lost his place
:00:10. > :00:15.in world Snooker. -- we will tell you all about the Champions League.
:00:16. > :00:18.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers
:00:19. > :00:22.With me are Cassell Bryan-Low from the Wall Street Journal and
:00:23. > :00:30.Ben Chu, the economics editor at the Independent.
:00:31. > :00:34."Europe: Deal or No Deal" is the Telegraph's headline.
:00:35. > :00:37.The paper says there is no guarantee EU leaders will back David Cameron
:00:38. > :00:40.over his renegotiation plans at crucial talks in Brussels.
:00:41. > :00:46.The Guardian says the Prime Minister is set for a battle
:00:47. > :00:48.of brinkmanship in Brussels over the next couple of days.
:00:49. > :00:51.The Times says the number of EU migrants working here has increased
:00:52. > :00:55.That's also the lead for the Mail with the paper describing
:00:56. > :00:58.the figures as a hammer blow for the Prime Minister.
:00:59. > :01:02."Higher education access gap grows" is the Independent's top story with
:01:03. > :01:04.news that the proportion of students from poor backgrounds
:01:05. > :01:10.going to leading universities has fallen in the past decade.
:01:11. > :01:13.The i says 30,000 people have backed a campaign for meningitis vaccines
:01:14. > :01:16.to be given to all children, after a mother shared an image
:01:17. > :01:23.According to the Metro, so-called Islamic State is feared to
:01:24. > :01:26.have secured the materials to make a dirty bomb after thieves stole
:01:27. > :01:34.And the FT has further warnings from the Federal Reserve
:01:35. > :01:55.Europe, no escaping it, especially in the next 48 hours or so. The
:01:56. > :02:04.Daily Telegraph steals our title from a television programme,
:02:05. > :02:10.Europe: Deal or no Deal. This is a story about David Cameron heading to
:02:11. > :02:15.Brussels for 48 hours of intense discussions during which he hopes to
:02:16. > :02:20.reach a deal on demands Britain has made. I think the chances are
:02:21. > :02:28.generally looking good, but he is getting warnings today that there is
:02:29. > :02:35.no guarantee they will reach a deal. The picture is of Angela Merkel, who
:02:36. > :02:41.was addressing the Bundestag today. Her views matter enormously. She has
:02:42. > :02:49.done David Cameron a big favour, coming out and saying, we want
:02:50. > :02:53.Britain in the EU. It is a crucial time, and the assumption is that she
:02:54. > :02:57.will throw her weight behind the demands that he is pushing for, and
:02:58. > :03:06.that will swing a lot of the other EU members. As you say, Germany is
:03:07. > :03:09.the dominant force and to have her on side is crucial for David
:03:10. > :03:14.Cameron. We had a report earlier about who is lining up on which
:03:15. > :03:18.side, and Northern Europe basically thinks we are OK on all of these
:03:19. > :03:22.things, but there are a lot of countries, particularly on the
:03:23. > :03:27.fringes, Greece and others, who are not at all happy with some of the
:03:28. > :03:33.things we are asking for. Some Eastern Europe countries have
:03:34. > :03:39.expressed concern about the measures, in terms of curbing access
:03:40. > :03:45.to benefits for migrants, some others have expressed concern about
:03:46. > :03:50.some of the wording of giving exception for the ever closer union,
:03:51. > :03:57.feeling this is undermining the whole political rationale they have.
:03:58. > :04:00.Of course, if we look at the Guardian, this has a very familiar,
:04:01. > :04:07.rather bulky figure, who got off his bike. He was very circumspect, to
:04:08. > :04:16.put it mildly, when he came out, about what he thinks at the moment.
:04:17. > :04:22.This seemed like a bit of ritual humiliation, he was locked out. This
:04:23. > :04:25.is a battle on two fronts. Of course David Cameron is in Brussels, he has
:04:26. > :04:30.to persuade the member state to back him, and at home he has two persuade
:04:31. > :04:35.his party to back him. Boris Johnson is seen as a key figure in all of
:04:36. > :04:37.this because lots of Eurosceptics hope that he will decide that the
:04:38. > :04:45.deal is not that great, and that he will campaign against it. That is
:04:46. > :04:52.what the purpose was of him being in Downing Street, with David Cameron
:04:53. > :04:56.leaning on him. It is tricky politics, because one assumes he has
:04:57. > :04:59.leadership ambitions, but with him you never know which direction he is
:05:00. > :05:07.going in. He has been playing FTSE on both sides, both sides want to
:05:08. > :05:11.land him and he would be a key asset in either campaign. As you say, he
:05:12. > :05:15.is believed to have leadership ambitions himself and he will be
:05:16. > :05:19.weighing up the consequences of backing the wrong side in the
:05:20. > :05:26.referendum, and his hopes for potential leader of the party. There
:05:27. > :05:30.is talk of a plan B in case things do go wrong David Cameron. That we
:05:31. > :05:35.could be in for another fortnight of this stuff. I think all sides want
:05:36. > :05:38.to get this wrapped up, David Cameron wants to get its yield so he
:05:39. > :05:43.can move on to a referendum. The Europeans want to turn back to the
:05:44. > :05:50.big issues they have. If they can't reach a deal by Friday or possibly
:05:51. > :05:56.even Saturday, this could be kicked down the road to the next scheduled
:05:57. > :05:58.meeting in March. Officials are saying that they are unlikely to
:05:59. > :06:04.want to attend an emergency meeting before that. Now, we might not quite
:06:05. > :06:11.know what Boris thinks that we know what one newspaper thinks, the Daily
:06:12. > :06:19.Mail. This is a classic story for the Daily Mail, looking at the
:06:20. > :06:27.number of foreign workers in the UK, and it ties into the Europe debate.
:06:28. > :06:29.A lot of this will be about immigration, and this particular
:06:30. > :06:38.story is talking about the increase in foreign workers in the UK, 2
:06:39. > :06:42.million of the 3 million foreign workers are from the EU, and that is
:06:43. > :06:46.where pressure has been put on David Cameron to bring those figures
:06:47. > :06:51.down. He has been unable to keep his pledge of reducing net migration. We
:06:52. > :06:54.would expect them to go on about this, but they have quite a lot of
:06:55. > :06:59.interesting facts and figures at their command. They do, because the
:07:00. > :07:04.labour market statistics have come out today, and I was looking through
:07:05. > :07:07.that. What has happened to wages, to overall employment and part-time
:07:08. > :07:10.employment. Some newspapers go straight to the bit where it tells
:07:11. > :07:16.you how many foreigners are working in the UK, and they have these
:07:17. > :07:22.figures. Apparently it is a big issue that the number has tipped
:07:23. > :07:26.over 2 million for EU workers, and crept over the 3 million mark for
:07:27. > :07:34.foreign workers in general. As is their won't, they will use this as a
:07:35. > :07:41.bludgeon to say that it is terrible, and that he British PM
:07:42. > :07:50.should get some action on this -- wont. An interesting figure is the
:07:51. > :07:52.employment numbers that are at record levels, unemployment is
:07:53. > :07:56.falling, so that is good news for the PM and the Chancellor, although
:07:57. > :08:03.the one caveat is wages, which seems to have weak growth. That might be
:08:04. > :08:09.an interesting... I don't think the Daily Mail in its theory about this
:08:10. > :08:13.has got into this. It has often been said that the reason why wage growth
:08:14. > :08:21.is slow is because of foreign workers taking lower salaries, and
:08:22. > :08:24.so on. Does that hold water? It is a Ukip line, and it may get some
:08:25. > :08:29.credence, but I think immigration actually doesn't have that dampening
:08:30. > :08:33.effect. It fills gaps in the workforce rather than... There may
:08:34. > :08:38.be some element of the lower end, but in general it is positive. The
:08:39. > :08:41.proponents are saying that foreign workers also contribute to the tax
:08:42. > :08:50.coffers, it is many are coming here to work. I saw somewhere that over
:08:51. > :08:59.Europe as a whole, amongst them anything said today, the figures are
:09:00. > :09:06.positive rather than negative in terms of the positive impact rather
:09:07. > :09:13.than negative. The front page of the Financial Times, the Federal Reserve
:09:14. > :09:20.frets over the growing risks to US economy amid market turmoil. This is
:09:21. > :09:29.not terribly new, is it? What is new today is the fact that minutes were
:09:30. > :09:35.released of this meeting, and we get some insight into the thinking of
:09:36. > :09:39.Federal Reserve officials, and it tells us that they are struggling to
:09:40. > :09:43.make sense of uncertainty over the outlook for inflation in the
:09:44. > :09:50.economy. Bearing in mind that we have our own debate among Bank of
:09:51. > :09:57.England officials about when to raise rates, and officials here have
:09:58. > :10:00.tiptoed away from expected increases themselves, and Governor Mark Carney
:10:01. > :10:04.earlier this month said the global environment remains very
:10:05. > :10:09.unforgiving. Ben, what did you make of it when you read what the Fed has
:10:10. > :10:12.been up to? There has been a huge sell-off in stock markets, the oil
:10:13. > :10:17.price has crashed, although it came back a bit today. The Fed raised
:10:18. > :10:22.rates since timbre, the first time it had done that in about a decade.
:10:23. > :10:26.Everyone thought the cycle was turning, everything would go up, and
:10:27. > :10:32.low and behold it has changed plans in less than a month. Nobody expects
:10:33. > :10:37.them to rise all year in America. This has been a significant change,
:10:38. > :10:40.and this is reflecting that mood. The headlines we are seeing is what
:10:41. > :10:45.has been happening with share prices and stocks, and so on, and there has
:10:46. > :10:49.been quite a big rebound in the past few days. Is this the sort of thing
:10:50. > :10:53.that will turn out on its head and we shall see prices crashing down
:10:54. > :11:00.again? Do they have a lot further to fall? This will send mixed messages,
:11:01. > :11:02.I don't think shares will go into freefall, I think there are plenty
:11:03. > :11:06.of other things making investors jittery, but clearly this reinforces
:11:07. > :11:14.what the markets are already at end upon. I don't think the central
:11:15. > :11:20.banks putting out minutes tends to change market views. Nobody really
:11:21. > :11:23.knows what is driving the big market sell-off, there is nothing
:11:24. > :11:27.disastrous in the data that would reflect this, in America all China,
:11:28. > :11:33.so it is a bit of a conundrum. Fear seems to be feeding on itself.
:11:34. > :11:38.Staying with the Financial Times, they have this story about Apple and
:11:39. > :11:44.an iPhone that the FBI would like to crack or hack or whatever the right
:11:45. > :11:51.term is. Why is there such a big argument? This story is rooted in
:11:52. > :11:56.the suspected terrorist attacks that we saw in San Bernardino California
:11:57. > :12:02.last year, and the FBI is continuing to investigate this and one of their
:12:03. > :12:05.key pieces of evidence is an iPhone that belonged to the suspected
:12:06. > :12:08.couple behind the attacks but they are having trouble getting into it
:12:09. > :12:12.because iPhones are encrypted. The authorities have gone to the courts
:12:13. > :12:18.to try to force Apple to unlock the phone. The authorities argue it
:12:19. > :12:24.would be key to their investigation to find out who was behind this
:12:25. > :12:33.terror attack. Apple is digging in its heels and saying it won't comply
:12:34. > :12:40.with the order. Its argument is that it would undermine the security it
:12:41. > :12:43.offers all its uses, because if you unlock one it would set a precedent,
:12:44. > :12:50.and anyone who uses an iPhone could potentially be vulnerable, whether
:12:51. > :12:55.it be hackers or cyber criminals. What you think of that argument? As
:12:56. > :12:58.Apple have a case? They certainly have a case, but it will be
:12:59. > :13:02.interesting to see how this plays in public opinion. Tech companies like
:13:03. > :13:07.Apple have had a lot of bad publicity lately, avoiding tax et
:13:08. > :13:10.cetera. This is one where they are saying they are standing up the
:13:11. > :13:15.rights of the users, and that may play well. People may think,
:13:16. > :13:18.obviously the US government has a case as well because it is trying to
:13:19. > :13:23.stop terrorist networks, but there are civil liberties invocations.
:13:24. > :13:29.Remember the Snowden revelations, they seem to suggest that these tech
:13:30. > :13:34.companies were giving all sorts of rights of access to people's private
:13:35. > :13:38.data that people didn't know about, and tech companies were stunned by
:13:39. > :13:41.that. I think we are seeing a reaction to that, realising how
:13:42. > :13:48.toxic it is in trying to change the perception. The reason encryption
:13:49. > :13:49.and making things more secure is because there are criminals out
:13:50. > :13:53.there desperate to hack into everything we have. It will be
:13:54. > :13:56.interesting to see how this plays out, because authorities on both
:13:57. > :14:01.sides of the Atlantic want to be able to compel tech companies to
:14:02. > :14:04.give them the key, and we have not yet seen a mechanism legally for
:14:05. > :14:07.them to do that here, so it will be interesting to see if the US does
:14:08. > :14:18.that. Big companies throwing their weight around close to other
:14:19. > :14:21.matters. Then, the Independent, the figures go up and down, but
:14:22. > :14:30.something a bit definite. Explain this headline. This is about people
:14:31. > :14:34.from poor backgrounds going to university, and since they
:14:35. > :14:42.introduced tuition fees there has been a big focus on this. One of the
:14:43. > :14:45.big fears was that this would stop people from poor backgrounds from
:14:46. > :14:50.going through. That doesn't seem to have happened up until now, which
:14:51. > :14:56.suggests a more worrying picture. It says that in the elite
:14:57. > :15:02.universities, Oxford and Cambridge, etc, many of them have seen the
:15:03. > :15:10.proportion of poor people getting through fall. Overall it is not
:15:11. > :15:15.disastrous, but these very elite ones, they are having not such a
:15:16. > :15:18.good picture. People are wondering whether we are seeing what we
:15:19. > :15:26.expected happen, but it is definitely a worrying trend. It is
:15:27. > :15:30.all about social mobility, isn't it? Is it a trend through other
:15:31. > :15:34.universities and more universities, it would suggest that social
:15:35. > :15:37.mobility is not doing too well. There is another element of this
:15:38. > :15:43.story, which is that people from poor backgrounds tend to find places
:15:44. > :15:49.at middle and lower ranked institutions, so they tend to go to
:15:50. > :15:55.the lower ranked ones. We don't have a lot of time to talk about this,
:15:56. > :15:59.families give up meat over health fears. More statistics being thrown
:16:00. > :16:04.around. This is close to my heart, this story. I am 20 year-long
:16:05. > :16:11.vegetarian and I have recently eating meat. This is a story about
:16:12. > :16:18.how increasing numbers of people in Britain are giving up meat on health
:16:19. > :16:23.fears. This is the latest of a string of stories about scares of
:16:24. > :16:29.food, in the last few days it has been about sugar. In recent history
:16:30. > :16:35.it has been fat and salt, but now it is meat. This comes on the heels of
:16:36. > :16:39.warnings by the World Health Organization recently that processed
:16:40. > :16:44.meats are definitely cancer-causing, and red meat is probably
:16:45. > :16:52.carcinogenic. Are you going to go back to vegetarianism? I have never
:16:53. > :16:56.been a veggie, what is interesting about this is that 29% have tried to
:16:57. > :17:00.give up in the last year, which is astonishingly high. People I know
:17:01. > :17:09.there is nowhere near that many. I wonder if the people they have
:17:10. > :17:14.surveyed for this are faddy types of people. Thank you very much, that is
:17:15. > :17:26.it. Up next, Sportsday. Welcome to Sportsday,
:17:27. > :17:30.with me, Ore Oduba. On the way tonight: A tale
:17:31. > :17:33.of three strikers.