18/04/2016 The Papers


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With me are the broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer


and the political commentator Lance Price.


The FT leads with the Treasury analysis about the possible impact


The paper says the Justice Secretary Michael Gove will launch a "stinging


The i newspaper says Mr Gove will claim the Chancellor


is "treating the public like children with scare stories".


The Mail focuses on one part of the Treasury document


which claimed migration will bring 3 million people to the UK.


-- which suggests millions more people will migrate to the UK.


The Guardian leads on the same story - saying the Tory faultlines


The picture is shows a nun from Northern Ireland who was killed


The Metro has the latest on the celebrity injunction battle.


It reports that the individual concerned has spent ?1


According to the Telegraph Britain is preparing to send troops to Libya


to help in the battle against so-called Islamic State


without asking for Parliament's permission.


According to the Express a cure for Alzheimer's with daily


injections of a new drug could be just five years away.


The picture shows the Ronnie Corbett's widow


And the Mirror says the detective leading the hunt


for Madeleine McCann has insisted she may still be found alive.


Julia, will we start with the Guardian? Michael Gove, pro-EU camp


treats us Lake children. Tory fault lines are widening. It is getting


nasty, isn't it -- like children. Yes, it is getting nasty. I think


George Osborne overpaid his hand when he announced the 200 page


document with these bogus figures, ?4300 per household, given that the


prediction in his budget reports do not even get the figure is right for


the next three months. Unlikely we would know what would happen in


2030. His figures are made up, utterly meaningless. No Economist


ever uses these terms, GDP per household, and I agree with Michael


Gove, that actually treating people like children like this, creating


these bogeyman and scare stories, it is undermining that actually


democratic debate. I am a Eurosceptic and I know how I will


vote and you are Europhile and you know how you will board but when you


look at all the undecided voters, they are crying out for the facts.


If the Argent could be one for either side on the facts, let's stop


playing around with silly nonsense and scaremongering and speak about


facts, what we actually know. There was nothing in that treasury


document. Mac the public being treated like children, Lance? No, I


don't think they are. -- Lance, I the public being treated like


children. What is interesting about this is that this was not a party


political or Remain document. This was a Government document, Treasury


figures. Yet you have members of the same Government saying you cannot


believe the figures the Treasury putting out so in the longer term,


in terms of trying to put the Tory party and the Government back


together again after all of this, the way in which it has become


personal like this and you have ministers, serving ministers in the


Cabinet, are -- arguing about whether official Government


statistics can be trusted, I think the Tories have got themselves into


trouble. Absolutely. Interestingly they have not asked the budget for


-- OBR to give predictions for Brexit, and that is because they are


independent. These Treasury ministers were not chosen for their


independence, they were chosen because that would fit the


Government line. Went back as far as you are aware, is anyone from the


Leave camp going to be going to the OBR for their own figures... Go the


not allowed to. Isn't that part of the problem, you have a vacuum here


of information and that vacuum of information is being filled by the


Treasury, by the In camp. Berger independent bodies like the London


School of economics and others have come up with their own surveys who


are independent, you would agree. They have come broadly to the same


conclusion as the Treasury that there will be a cost. I completely


accept... There would be a cost if there is a Labour Government in 2020


there are costs to any change that happens at the national Government.


Samak let's look at the cost of pulling out and staying in and we


can have a proper comparison. # Let's look at the cost. You cannot


compare like with like. The point is we cannot predict... But how can you


have a campaign to get the UK to vote to leave the European Union


when you are saying there aren't any facts... We're not saying that. We


are seeing you cannot predict what will happen in 2030 or even 2020 if


we voted to leave on the 23rd of June. The point is we do not know


what the deal will be. We do know what the strength in our argument


about how good the deal can be if actually we negotiate well. David


Cameron, of the last year, said Britain will prosper whether we


leave the EU or whether we stay in the EU. Nicola Sturgeon, herself,


who wants to stay in the European Union. She came out and said this


kind of thing is not helping, it is not helping at all, it is just scare


Michael Gove, then you should not Michael Gove, then you should not


read it here could before bedtime -- if you believe Michael Gove. There


is a real question about whether or not people will make up their minds


on the basis of these documents. Ordinary and sensible people will


not read them. Samak then they will say, hang on, OK, we have gone


through the figures and these are the figures were Coltishall might


well have some impact on people's thinking and I hope it does but we


have to decide on the basis of figures, on the basis of fact, not


just raw emotion. It is not raw emotion! The problem with the Leave


campaign is that they know what they are up against, the EU, but they do


not know what they are for. Do not tell people like me, part of the


Brexit campaigners, do not tell people like me that I do not know


with them for. I am for democracy, sovereignty... No, we don't have to


have... Norway is a tiny little country with little negotiating


power, Canada, beggar, but not an economy like ours. We have far more


power. If you see is living the Germans and the French are going to


say, we don't want to sell to Britain any more, you are


certifiably insane. There is nothing negative about her belief in your


country being able to make its own laws and control its own borders.


There is nothing negative about that at all. It is positive. My point


again is it is a belief. It is not believe... You just said it was.


Believing the EU should control how we run our country is a belief. 200


page document. Mac that is my point. Facts and figures, black and white,


call the hard stuff -- that my point. There are plenty of figures


about how many of our laws... Lets get exact figures. What the Daily


Mail has alighted on, Lance, is the suggestion that it do 2030, there


will be a hell of a lot more immigrants coming to this country as


a result of us being in the European Union, and this is the kind of thing


that scares people. It does and it goes back to the point I was making


earlier that this is an official Government document that shows the


Government is going to miss its own targets on migration because the


basis of the calculations drawn up is that whether we stay in or leave


there will be more immigrants coming into the country than the Government


is aiming to... Many more. Once again, can you trust Government


predictions? And at the end of all this will close Government


productions be even less credible than they were at the beginning?


Julia, the cold hard facts. According to... Our own figures,


they are predicated on the idea there will be 3 million more


immigrants in the population and given one of the biggest issues


people are concerned about, not the biggest, the economy being the


biggest, but emigration is one of the key issues and controlling our


border in the EU referendum... This just shows part of the deal if we


stay in the EU is that we will have open borders and as things go more


and more wrong in the EU economies, not just southern economies but in


countries like France and Italy, where they are facing crisis


imminently, we will see more people coming to Britain. Unless we are


going to create an extra 3 million jobs then that is British people's


jobs that are going. OK, let's go to the Metro, Julia. The inner bed


stars ?1 million bid to keep his gag. The Court of Appeal has said


that so many people know the name of this person and his family that


there is no point keeping this injunction -- three in a bed. But we


cannot see the name now because he has been given leave to appeal. Does


that mean the end pretty much of this kind of celebrity injunction --


we cannot fight back. I thought they had ended some time ago. Once we had


the Internet and people were free to search on things like Twitter. I am


very much a believer in people's right to privacy, if they are not


doing anything criminally wrong or against anyone's consent. If this


couple want an open marriage, that is entirely up to them and, frankly,


I would rather not know about it. But for them to go to court when


they claim they have rights to privacy when they are known for


parading their family life, their children, to an extent I think


personally appalling for any celebrity, basically selling their


children's visit, I just do not think they have a leg to stand on.


Sign of what is clear is that the decision they went through, at least


one of them, perhaps both -- and what is clear. The route they were


due to seek this injunction, and we can think who the story is about


because it is not that difficult to find out if you can use the


intranet. But, you know, had the story appeared, probably it would


have come and gone -- the intranet. You would think, yes, big deal, so


what, up to them. But what they have done is create this massive interest


that would not otherwise have been there. They have people speaking


about it and when the time comes, presumably, I mean, it is very hard


to believe... But did they do that or did the press do that? The press


have done it as a punishment for them getting an injunction but as a


general rule if you do not want people to find out you are having


threesomes I would say, don't have threesomes. What is to stop a media


paper on instructing or making clear to his or her offshoot in the United


States or Australia, publish. The already have, that is the thing. In


Scotland, it is already... People are watching this right now who can


read it in the paper. When they are fundamentally undermining the


injunction. It is not just that the intranet is there, this baseless


thing suddenly putting this story out there, it is the press whipping


this up, -- faceless thing. The press are encouraging that because


they could not get published. And encouraging people to search on the


Internet. In a sense, yes, but these people are world-famous


entertainment figures, public figures. Apparently. Apparently, if


they are those people, and perhaps they might be! Therefore, you know,


if it is a news story of any interest at all, and the American


National Enquirer or whatever, it will be a story, a story in America,


so how do they possibly say taking out an injunction just in Britain,


which does not even cover Scotland, would possibly ever worked? Giving a


key thing to point out is we do believe in the freedom of the press


and that is the trade-off between the right to privacy and the freedom


of the press and the national interest, and I personally do not


think there is any public interest in the story. You're right. If you


live your life in the media, it is very hard... Yes, tough, quite


frankly. The Daily Telegraph. Lance, what is going on in Libya? The


Foreign Secretary was there today, meeting the new go Prime Minister,


belatedly and desperately trying to prop up this new administration in


the hope that -- the new go Prime Minister. In the hope it can


gradually build up some authority and push back so-called Islamic


State and so on. As part of that, the government has said it will or


is prepared to send his troops out to help train the Libyan forces


which is not unusual. That happened in other countries before but there


is a bit of an art of whether they can should do that without going to


Parliament first. -- bit of an argument about whether. The


Government is saying that quite rightly the rules are fairly clear,


they can do that, it is not a combat mission. There are questions over


whether there are security would still be at risk, because they would


be identified as a sort of foreign incursion, and also whether, you


know mission creep. We have seen in other theatres, it starts off is


training the local forces, then it, they find themselves... I have never


been of the view the prime ministers should give up his prerogative to


send our troops to war, that he is the leader of the Armed Forces --


that the prime ministers should give up. I think that was wrong for Prime


Ministers to hand up her over. And for Cameron to do that in Syria last


time around. We will have to ended there. Unbelievable. Many thanks. To


Lance and Julia. Before you go these front pages have


come in while we've been on air: The end of celebrity injunction is,


in the Times. Well the Daily Telegraph to back claims Britain is


good to send troops to Libya without Parliament permission. The Sun says


let 3 million more in to the UK. That is of course according to the


Treasury documents released today. Much more coming up.


Don't forget all the front pages are online on the BBC News website


where you can read a detailed review of the papers.


It's all there for you - seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers -


and you can see us there too, with each night's edition


of the Papers being posted on the page shortly after we've


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

Download Subtitles