18/04/2016 The Papers

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