24/02/2016 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in to a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



latest on Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini. And an injury blow for


British cycling for the track Championships in London. That will


be coming up in Sportsday. First it is time for the Papers.


Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be


With me are the senior political correspondent at the Telegraph,


Kate McCann, and the political correspondent at the


Let's look at some of the front pages. We will start with the i


which looks at what life is like for people living under the rule of


so-called Islamic State in Syria. The International Monetary Fund is


urging the world's top economies to work together to boost growth,


according to the Financial Times. The Telegraph claims Michael Gove


could be facing the sack after he challenged the legality of David


Cameron's EU deal. The metro says the Internet giant Google is facing


a ?1.3 billion tax bill in France, ten times the amount repaid in the


UK. And investigations into how police failed victims of sexual


abuse in Rotherham are the Guardian's main story. Kate,


starting with the Daily Telegraph. Michael Gove facing the sack over


the EU right. -- row. This is not because he has disagreed with the


Prime Minister because the by Mr said that is fine, but he is the


Justice Secretary. Yes, this massive row and the possible the of one of


David Cameron's most senior allies in the Cabinet losing his position,


so you are right. David Cameron said ministers would be able to take


sides in this debate but I don't think he expected Michael Gove to


use his position to make quite such a claim. Michael Gove is saying the


reforms the Prime Minister has renegotiated our not actually


legally binding and therefore will not mean anything at all. And he


should because he is the Justice Secretary? Correct. So there is a


problem for the primaries to. How does he deal with one of his closest


allies and friends speaking out against him in such a way that makes


it legitimate, very difficult thing to deal with. They are legitimate. A


trade union in Poland could, and a half of its workers, see part of


this deal is discriminative. They could go to the European Court of


Justice? Michael Gove is right here? It seems to be legally it for


dispute, anyway. The class in Downing Street operation today, to


relieve but Michael Gove's claims. They got the Attorney General out,


saying the deal was in fact what type, they got the former Attorney


General to see the same thing, and the European Council president as


well tonight, all gathering together on the other side to see Michael


Gove is wrong. But, coming back to what Kate said, he is the Justice


Secretary, and therefore his position does carry some weight,


when it comes to interpreting the law. If Iain Duncan Smith came out,


for the sake of argument, and said, the deal you have struck as regards


the in work payments to migrant workers, I know, because I am the


Work and Pensions Secretary, that is not going to work. That would be a


similar kind of problem? Exactly and this is the problem camera now has


to deal with. Does he do something and city people and you can't use


your title when you campaign, does he ask people nicely to stop making


decks from their position? He has already said ministers will not have


access to EU documents in the department any more, part of the


referendum. But using his title? As you say, he has a standing as the


justice minister, like Iain Duncan Smith would have as the work in


benefits -- he did not say, as the justice minister... But he has been


informed as his work as a minister so he has seen lots of EU


directives, lots of situations in which the UK has been hamstrung. The


problem here, the real crux of this problem, is that neither side can


actually prove this, because until it has been tested, like lots of


things to do with the EU, there is no proof. Well David Cameron is


saying one thing and Michael Gove is seeing the other, they could in fact


both be correct. David Cameron can say this is legally binding and has


been ratified by the EU and is now part of their international law


documentation, but Michael Gove is correct to say another state could


challenge it and they may well win, so that is the problem. While this


reaction may seem overblown it is probably really important to David


Cameron, that he gets a hold on this. Rowena, let's go to the


Guardian. The PM is wrong on migration, Iain Duncan Smith. This


is very similar, actually, to the situation we were just speaking


about with Michael Gove. Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions


Secretary, he ought to know about benefits for migrants and he is


coming up and saying, actually, the emergency brake negotiated by


Cameron may actually be counter-productive and allow more


migrants to come into the UK ahead of the brake which will not comment


until 2017. Another interesting aspect of this story is that it is a


move by the Leave campaign to turn the campaign on the immigration


which denotes a weak point for David Cameron. The remaining people really


want to keep talking about the economy and the risks and the leap


in the dark of exiting that you -- which they know is a weak point for


David Cameron. This is the point for the Leave campaign to start talking


about David Cameron's personal... He is essentially saying, Kate, the


deal struck will not work? Yes and this is something David Cameron has


no defence of. He has negotiated this but actually, you know, like


Rowena says, it will not come in for a number of years so if you are


thinking about coming to this country, you will try to do it for


that brake comes in because of course as part of his renegotiation,


the prime ministers set out to make those things apply to people already


living in this country, and that has not happened. It was one step too


far for the EU, so while in future this may deter some people from


staying longer in the country and it may deter people after 2017 or 2020


when it comes in, what it will not do is change anybody's mind who is


here already intending to come to this country, if they were intending


to come here to claim benefits. Is Michael Gove saying, go on, fire me?


More than 100 Tory MPs, more than 100 of my colleagues want to leave


as well and they will not let you fire me? Mr Cameron?


LAUGHTER That is a very good point. Where Mr


Cameron and his allies in the Cabinet want to keep Britain in the


EU and they will be very angry now, especially Michael Gove, a very


close ally of Cameron, as he is openly defying him on this. When it


actually comes to after the referendum, if David Cameron does


win and Britain fought to stay in the EU, she will have to make a lot


of concessions to the people in his party who wanted to leave, and it is


very difficult to see that he could put Michael of out into the cold


altogether, you know, in a similar position as Boris Johnson, you will


have to find him a big job -- Michael Gove out into the cold. OK,


let's stick with the Guardian, Kate. Six convicted of abuse of girls in


South Yorkshire. An incredibly. And a lot of focus now on the


authorities, particularly the police, who knew, as far back as ten


years ago, that all this was going on. 16 years ago? South Yorkshire


Police are under incredible pressure and is a part of this story that


says more than 50 officers are being investigated. 26 so far have already


been given misconduct notices. That is, you know, huge honour of people,


working in one force in one area of the country. I suppose you have to


start asking questions about whether this is happening in other areas of


the country or an incredibly unfortunate one off. 1400 children


in Rotherham town alone could have been affected by this. That is a


huge amount of children who are living with the aftermath of


something that is so awful, to think the police could have known it was


going on and did nothing to stop it, it is quite frightening. I spoke to


the police and crime commission for this area this evening, Rowena, and


he said as far as he is concerned the public can have confidence in


his police force in dealing with this kind of story in the future.


There will be people out there are still sceptical? I think that is


true, given we have learned today the independent complaints


commission is investigating 55 separate different incidents in


South Yorkshire Police. So there have got to be some people still in


that force who are feeling very uncomfortable about their role in


what happened, and this is just a story that gets worse and worse. It


touches so many different authorities, not just the police,


but also local government, local politicians as well. For the people


living in Rotherham it must be, it must give a real blow to the


confidence in their authorities. Yes, indeed. Read, OK. Kate, the


Metro. The French demand ?1.3 million in tax from Google while we


go on what, ?100 million or something? -- one 3p. Why is that?


They have not got it yet, remember -- ?1.3 billion. They are asking for


ten times what the UK managed to get out of Google for back taxes over


ten years, remember. Not just one year. It is a huge amount more


money, but whether the French authorities will actually succeed in


their ambition is yet to be seen, but I think what is particularly


interesting about this is this demand has come on the same day as a


report from the Public Accounts Committee which is a really in the


little group of MPs in Parliament and the saying, look, some of the


money Google paid to the UK is disproportionately small and they


have really big questions about why HMRC did not levy a penalty notice


on Google for not paying enough tax over ten years. If any of us were to


forget to send in her tax return or be late, we would get a fine of


?100, possibly more than that, so businesses should get a much bigger


fine, and Google has got away with none at all, paying ?130 million


over ten years, which lots of people including MPs think is nowhere near


enough... The Chancellor would say and has said, that is ?130 million


more than was taken by the previously the Government after


1997. He certainly did say that but I think he must be regretting those


first initial comments he gave straight after. I think he described


it as a victory at one point, even. You know, his face, here on this


story on the front page of the Metro, he must be feeling very


unhappy that he has somehow managed to get yorked to this deal that HMRC


struck and on it as his own political triumph, it doesn't look


very good for him. -- own it as his own. You will both be back in an


hour's time. Stay with us here on BBC News. Much more coming up. For


now it is


Download Subtitles