17/04/2016 The Papers

Treasury claims it could cost households the equivalent of more

than ?4000 if we vote to leave in June.

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

With me are the former Sunday Express Editor,

Eve Pollard and columnist for The Telegraph, Tim Stanley.

The Daily Telegraph headlines a warning from

the Chancellor that public services including the NHS would suffer if

The FT says there's evidence of a slowdown in hiring

and investment because of uncertainty over whether the UK

The Metro reports on the 14-year-olds charged with

The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is to take a U-turn in

the dispute with Junior Doctors says the Guardian. The i

leads with a fierce condemnation of Europe's policy towards Syrian

The Daily Express headlines a survey on migration into

the UK - 71% of those asked thought migration has been too high.

The news that a drone hit a plane on its approach to

Heathrow is on the front of the Daily Mail.

And it's back to the EU referendum

Chancellor saying households will be over four thousand pounds worse

Wright we will start with the Times, and that story we have just been

mentioned. George Osborne estimating the cost of Brexit will be ?4300 per

person. That is the cost they have estimated because they say we will

lose trade deals and allsorts of things. If you want to go on holiday

abroad you will lose a lot more. I have just come back from America,

and the pound and the dollar is not a happy place it used to be, you get

$1.40 for the pound, much worse than you used to get. These are the sort

of things I think will decide it for people. Currency fluctuates anyway,

doesn't it? It has been going down ever since the Brexit thing, and I

suppose it will until it is sorted out once and for all. ?4300 per

house. It is not a big surprise that the government report issued by the

government, when the government is arguing for remain, should come out

in favour of remain. I think the public will rightly be sceptical

about its claims. The public might also be sceptical about the claims

of a Chancellor who said he would reduce the deficit much more than he

has done. He has a record. That is true of all political parties, isn't

it? It is, and there is risk about leaving the EU. But it is not just

our government, it is the governments in the EU. Why do they

want to sustain it if it is a hopeless case? Dehra governments

outside the EU who are doing perfectly well, and whose economies

have flourished. But they are not Great Britain, they are not

comparable. No, they are not, we are bigger and better than them. Our

clout on the global stage and the ability to negotiate with the EU if

we left could be even stronger. There is the possibility that we

would vote out and end up going back in a completely different terms. We

are straying from what The Times is suggesting. According to the

Treasury, investment on hold. This is a survey of 370 European groups,

and more than a fifth said they were discouraged from investing, and they

are waiting until after the decision in June. I think you can understand,

people would wait, everything is sort of on hold. While things are on

hold they are not growing. There is no denying, I can only repeat, there

is an element of risk whenever you hold any kind of election. There is

a threat of a Labour government being elected. Likewise, people are

concerned and investors make lots of decisions based on not being able to

predict future or being able to predict that. But they also make

decisions and think it is a risk to stay in because of the week economic

performance of the EU. Some say they don't mind the risk because they

want to regain control. Do you think the papers are wearying of it?

Definitely, if you do any research, people make their decisions much

closer to the date. Some people have already made their minds up the

various reasons, but many people consider it seriously about two

weeks before. I think the campaign is far too long, and I have always

thought it was a plot to bore people off the subject so they would end up

voting to stay in. Moving on to the Express. You could argue this is to

do with Brexit, but this is the headline. 71% of British people

believe net migration has been too high over the past decade. This

conflicts with what Jeremy Corbyn said last week in his speech about

the EU, where he said in his judgement, too many people have not

come to the UK in the last ten years. This is claiming 71% of

people think it is the other way around. The government promised to

reduce the numbers to the tens of thousands, the net migration rate is

around 350,000 per year. This issue bleeds into the EU, and I think a

lot of people will vote not so much on the basis of financial risk, they

will vote on the basis of what they believe the EU means for

immigration. This survey holds? I do think people think Britain is

overcrowded because of problems with schools, with the NHS and all the

rest of it. I do think though that as far as I know if we leave the EU

it won't be as easy for people from the EU to come here, but a lot of

people who come here from the EU work. Every waiter, every bartender,

does come from the EU. The problem is people who don't want to

integrate and become part of Britain. I think that is what people

are worried about. And they are also worried about people getting

something for nothing. 58% think that citizens of other EU nations

should only come if they have the definite job offer. Other countries

do this, Australia, America, and I think it is fair to say you want the

people who are qualified and will help the country, rather than just

anyone who turns up. That is something that I think will happen

to this country and has to happen to this country, in a fair way. I want

to move on to the Guardian and get off the Brexit. This is claims that

Jeremy Hunt may, allegedly, have misled Parliament, and that he won't

be able to impose the contract, he will have to introduce it. This is a

U-turn on behalf of the Health Secretary on the basis of a letter

seen by the Guardian and confirmed by the Department of Health, in

which he switches his language and says he will impose a contract, to

him introducing the contract. That would suggest Jeremy Hunt does not

have the authority claims to have publicly, and that may mean he has

misled Parliament. What this means for the strike is that Jeremy Hunt

was going to impose a contract and that is why the doctors were taking

militant action. If it turns out he couldn't do that, people will ask

themselves why the government has held out, and also why the doctors

are resisting if a contract cannot be imposed on them. This is

government lawyers. What have they been doing for the past two or three

months while this has been ratcheting up and up? I do think it

seems crazy that he has been saying to the government, or to Parliament,

to the country, I am going to impose this, we now it turns out he legally

can't. If this is true, do you blame the government lawyers or Jeremy

Hunt or both for what looks like a bit of a mess? It does look like a

mess, it seems extraordinary to government lawyers didn't say, hang

on, I think you should look at this wording will carefully. What have

they been doing? It seems strange. This is not a pro-government paper,

it will be interesting to look at it tomorrow. 50% of the story is the

Guardian's interpretation of the letter and the language being used.

It may well be that the Department of Health has an answer to this, and

the wording of the letter is correct. Let's move on to the drone

story, covered heavily by a couple of papers. Thankfully the plane was

able to land safely and could take off later on. Ricky Gervais saying

that was all fine. -- British airways. This sounds quite scary,

and if they can do this sort of damage, imagine if it got into the

hands of extremists. It is dangerous enough when you hear birds have got

caught up. The ID you can send up a drone that goes that high and can

inflict death on the whole planeload of people, not acceptable. It

shouldn't be something you can fly in and around an airport, obviously

that should be banned. Not only in and around an airport, what about

all the private planes? I think there should be banned, it is a bad

idea. And costing as little as ?25. In America you have two register

where they are. There have been more and more of these incidents, and

they are looking at legislation on what to do. I would have thought the

airline companies would get on to the government and say you have to

do something fast. For a start, I think you should have to register.

That would put a lot of people off and might alert a lot of parents and

grandparents, because I did via Little wants my grandson, to say

that this is a dangerous toy and you shouldn't be playing with it. There

is testing on what happens to an engine is a drone grows into one.

What if it gets into the cockpit, smashes the glass or gets in the way

of a pilot looking out. You know I am terrified of flying... It is

difficult conversation for me to have, it is like discussing

tarantulas. This is one more reason for me not to fly. In the Daily

Telegraph has Boaty McBoatface. This vessel cost about ?2 million or

something, and they voted to name the boat. It is unlikely it is going

to be called that, because it seems the minister is unlikely to endorse

the result of the poll. What happens when you open the things to public,

we had a similar one when we had the national census and people

describing themselves as Jedi. It then had to be taken seriously, and

from that has grown a Church of Jedi. It has become a

self-fulfilling prophecy. Why are we spending 2 million on a boat, and

what is it going to do for us? If it is for environment and science they

should have asked children, who are going to study such subject, and

maybe they might have gone with Horatio Nelson was something. 200

million! Now, it is time for The Film Review.