20/04/2017 The Papers


No need to wait 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 20/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



deliberate a targeted. TRANSLATION: The two officers they


were wounded and other nearby at officers returned fire, and the


attacker was killed. Hello and welcome to a look ahead at the


papers for tomorrow. Some have managed to get the Paris shootings


on to their front pages. Thank you for stay with us to do a second


review of the papers the night will stop will be looking at the various


lies coming in from the news agencies as we are talking. Writers


are in particular dropping lines every few minutes about the attack


in Paris. Let's start with Daily Telegraph


which has the Paris attack quoting the French Interior Ministry


saying police had been deliberately The paper also reports


from Brussels, saying that EU that the UK retains European laws


regarding the rights of EU citizens living here after Brexit,


as part of any deal. "New Terrorist Attack


in Paris" is the headline The paper also reports


on government's plans to abandon the planned rise in probate charges


payable on the death of a loved one. The Metro reports on a major


study which suggests artificially sweetened drinks may


increase the likelihood of developing dementia


or suffering from stroke. Let me with a couple of the papers


that are reporting on the Paris shooting tonight. The Daily Mail is


of them. One policeman dad, too critical, it says, after a


government goes on a rampage on the Champs-Elysees is just before the


election. -- Champs-Elysees just before. All too often, we have had


to report seems like this in Paris in the past two years, haven't we?


Yes. These freezers will be very familiar to a lot of people. --


phrases. There is in use in having perspective and saying these are


small-scale attacks which may not have huge amounts of co-ordination


and made not ring cities to a halt. This also shows that once again,


people in the emergency services, police in particular, are out on the


streets every time they go to work on a potentially putting their lives


at risk? Yes. That Italy when you have here a police officer killed


again doing his duty. And you have this iconic landscape in the


background. You have the Arc de Triomphe, and the Big Ben clock


tower in London. These big tourist sites are the target of attacks.


Just a couple of lines from Reuters. The Paris prosecutors are saying


that they have identified the gunmen, but they are still assessing


if he had compasses or not. -- gunman. There was a report that an


arrest warrant was issued because they thought that somebody else


could be out there to speak to. But they said that police raids are


ongoing. They are looking at addresses in the follow-up is part


of their investigation. But the timing of this, of cause, is also


significant. Just three days before the first round of the French


presidential election. We have sunny similar in this country. Last July,


the referendum, the EU referendum, Wenger -- when Jo Cox was murdered.


I don't get really affected in the end. I think people accepted that


that was a horrific, murderous attack by a deranged individual. And


hopefully, the people of France will put this aside and not allow it to


affect their elections. The Daily Telegraph also has this on their


front page. A gunman with a Kalashnikov was known to security


services, they say. This will be the information will be looking for in


the next few days. Who this person was, and my connection they might


have with other groups. Somebody who might be on a watchlist. I think is


important to say that just because somebody was known to security


services does not mean that there was a failing. People can also be


known without being suspicious. Yes, a lot more information to come. A


lot of leaders will say it is depressingly regular. And very


different tiers and levels of extremism among some of the


suspects. I guess the security services had to categorise them into


how dangerous they think they are and how much information they have.


Manpower is not limitless. They need to decide who is the priority. I was


reading that there are potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands


of, people on watch lists, potentially. How can even a well


resourced security service keep track of all of them? There is also


the suggestion that either the accomplice or the gunmen had come


from Belgian, which is Brussels, and that is regarded as somewhat of a


centre for terrorist activity. If that is the case, we are looking at


is open border situation in continental Europe, where people can


move freely from one country to the next, and that brings the downside,


in terms of moving guns across the continent, which, luckily, we are


not in the Schengen area and we do have the channel between us and


France, which makes us a little more guarded from gun crime. Let's move


on and look at the Times. A story about the EU. Britain told to keep


EU laws on workers and security, says Brussels.


Plus the jurisdiction from the European court of justice. This will


be a surprise to many. You have a deal to protect the rights of EU


nationals in the UK and British nationals elsewhere in the EU. What


is now being suggested is that would involve the European court still


having power over what the British government does to the European


citizens in the UK. Even if they give them the right, which seems


easy to do, you can stay here for the rest of your lives, we have to


accept court rulings with regard to benefits, child benefit with Jo for


example to those overseas -- child benefit for example. You would need


a new body to preside over issues like this, a country like us not in


the EU and a country that will? If I'm being too simple then please


tell me, but if Britain leaves the European Union, we are out of the


jurisdiction of the European Union so I can't see how the courts of the


European Union can affect people who live here, be them Europeans or


British or EU nationals or not. Surely that is if they retain the


rights are stowed upon them by being a citizen of the EU because they're


not a British scissors, they haven't relinquished those rights, there has


to be a supranational body that can preside -- British citizen. If it's


affecting the way Britain operates as an independent, sovereign nation,


then it becomes a bit more complicated. The fact we are having


this conversation shows how difficult the whole business of


Brexit is. Untangling ourselves from 40 years of joint regulation and how


it happens is very conjugated. This is a proposal from Michel Barnier,


and has the backing of the European Parliament. -- complicated. We were


told it was only Germany standing in the way of a deal between British


nationals in the EU and EU nationals here, it seems that they're asked


him the minds on this. It is square one and a difficult one to move on


from -- there are demands. If we outside the framework there has to


be a court that can adjudicate between us and the EU. It is


plausible you could have European citizens living in Britain who were


subject to British courts and British interpretations of what it


means to protect your rights of residence, family life and those


kind of things. If they are as good as you got when we were part of the


EU. It doesn't seem like this is... They're saying it's a red line, it


doesn't seem the only way of going about things. If they're worried


about their rights to claim benefits after a post-Brexit, we would write


that into law and it would be agreed and our courts would uphold that.


There would be no need for the ECJ to make a judgement. This is very


complicated. I don't remember any of it in the referendum campaign! I


wonder why. Doesn't make for a snappy headline!


Let's look at the Guardian, something else we thought couldn't


be un-pick but perhaps it can be. Not too late to avert Brexit, says


EU leader. The president of the European Parliament, an Italian, who


is generously saying Theresa May is wrong, you can turn back if you


change your mind, we will keep you in. You don't have to leave.


Exactly. I think a lot of people are actually looking at European law as


it is written, they would say there is so much ambiguity, enough of a


grey area that if Britain decides it wants to stay in the EU, it's a


political will question. The people who believe in the European project


see this as damaging that Britain has left and of course they would


want to keep Britain on board in those circumstances. I think he is


saying something many have thought for a long time. Can we turn the


clock back to July when we were having the referendum? I remember


the levers saying, look, if we vote to Leave, it will send a shock to


the European Union and they will up the offer to stay and then we can


have a second referendum. They would have thought they were losing at


that stage and they were going to hold out to those who weren't sure


that if we hold a referendum we will get a better offer from Europe and


the Leave campaign said don't be ridiculous, leave means leave. Now


we have voted to leave, the European Union are saying... It would make it


easier for them if we did? They aren't saying we are going to get a


better deal, cutting budget contributions for example, they're


saying it's not too late to stay together. They aren't offering any


reform? To be fair we haven't asked for anything in particular...


Theresa May is so keen to get out. What would be required for this is a


Lib Dem victory in the general election, it doesn't look likely in


the next two years Theresa May will turn around and stay -- say let's


stay in. Article 50 is such a small clause, it has to be open to


interpretation. I was always told it wasn't reversible. Even when you


change your mind you are out, that is a vicious thing to say so he has


said the logical more generous thing. Looking at the Telegraph and


another EU related story, Theresa May commits to cutting migration to


the tens of thousands. Some people think it is impossible to get it


under 100,000. The reason it was impossible and why David Cameron


promised that in 2010 was because we were in the EU. There's more


immigration from non-EU countries. They can control that. But they


haven't. Exactly. What they are saying is when we leave the EU the


Prime Minister will do more to crack down on immigration and get it into


the tens of thousands. Let's see if she can do it. She should have wiped


the slate clean, she wants a new mandate, she could have had a


different mandate. Lots of people are urging her to do that, why make


a promise that has been proved to be hard to keep. You could fudge this


promise, you could take out student numbers, those who contribute to the


economy, you could give it an impossibly long time frame. There is


some wiggle room, she said to wants to cut it to sustainable levels but


it doesn't say to 2019. It is hard to hold her to account on this. She


can say the line of below 100,000 until the end of the next parliament


if she wants. It was below 100,000, net migration, in the 1990s. It is


plausible there are a lot more EU member states at the moment who have


sent a lot of people here. What's curious about this is having voted


for Brexit, most people believe immigration will be certainly cut,


especially from East Europe. There's no great need for her to say this


but she has. They can't help but make pledges, but they are asked to


make them! Let's look at the Mail again, Theresa May taxes plan for


rise in death tax. This will be a sliding scale increase in fees when


people die, their wills and estates have to be disposed of. Is this a


casualty of the fact there isn't any parliamentary time between now and


June the eighth to see bills like this through the house? Yes, the


government want to introduce higher charges without having to go through


Parliament. Liz Truss, the Justice Minister, has the power to increase


your death tax in some cases. A parliamentary committee took a look


and said actually this isn't really a fee because it bears no relation


to the cost of dying and having an estate process, so actually it's a


tax and you can't do that without Parliamentary emission. Business


ends in Parliament next week before the election so they don't have the


necessary resources to put this through -- permission. They could


bring this back in the next session. Will it be in the manifesto one


asked is? It is the second slight U-turn from the budget -- one asks.


We had the NICs, swiftly ditched, and now this, a good excuse to do


it. It takes it off the agenda for the election, unless of course she


decides to put it in the manifesto. It was going to be quite a good


earner for the Treasury? ?1.5 billion a year, taxing rich, dead


people, it doesn't seem like voters are going to punish you. Good


arguments in favour of this moneymaking scheme. Philip Hammond


needs the money. Let's finish with the Metro, I think it is the Express


looking at this, diet cola linked to dementia and strokes. If you drink a


diet drink every day it more or less triples your risk. A lot of people


are drinking these thinking they are being healthy. I know friends who


won't drink the fall flat Coke, the normal Coca-Cola, but they buy Diet


Coke and it has been the norm recently -- full fat. What you are


giving up in the sugar you are replacing with chemicals which


sweeten the drink for you. Artificial sweeteners. This story


doesn't seem to say, we can only see the front page, it doesn't say where


but it says drinking diet drinks can increase the links by three times


for dementia and strokes. It's all about moderation. If you're drinking


a lot of these everyday then you must be doing yourself some harm, so


cut down. I'm sticking to the water but I want to see the full study,


I'm not convinced entirely from the front page. There will be something


that contradicts it. Go back to alcohol! Let me finish by telling


you something else I have read from Reuters from the French prosecutor,


he is saying they know the identity of the attacker involved in the


shootings this evening in Paris. The identity is known, it has been


checked, but he said he won't be giving the name until we have


determined whether any more accomplices are around. These are


life pictures looking down the Champs Elysee towards the Arc de


Triomphe. We are still investigating and raids are ongoing, he said.


Investigators want to know whether or not he had accomplices. The


wounded police officers' lives are no longer in danger, said the


Interior Ministry, no word yet about the passerby also injured. That's it


for the papers tonight. Thank you to Henry and Dave for staying for our


second review this evening. Thank you very much.


Download Subtitles