:00:00. > :00:14.are under instruction from the court...
:00:15. > :00:19.It's clear from the shenanigans over the last few days that the European
:00:20. > :00:25.Union believes this government can be pushed around. They also believe
:00:26. > :00:30.that the British people should be punished for Brexit and forced to
:00:31. > :00:38.pay a ridiculous divorce Bill. This Bill has risen from 50 billion to
:00:39. > :00:42.100 billion in just a few days. We heard the Brexit secretary say this
:00:43. > :00:47.morning that we won't be paying the latter figure. But what we want to
:00:48. > :00:53.know in Ukip is how much is the government willing to pay? As far as
:00:54. > :01:02.Ukip is concerned, we should not be paying anything at all. We believe
:01:03. > :01:05.the Prime Minister must make it clear to the bureaucrats that she is
:01:06. > :01:10.prepared to walk away. Because if she does not, they will walk all
:01:11. > :01:19.over her, and Britain will get a rotten deal. If the Prime Minister
:01:20. > :01:27.wants to be seen as a custodian of the cars Ukip has fought for all its
:01:28. > :01:32.political life, she must show more resolve, more confidence in our
:01:33. > :01:40.great country. And she must make it perfectly clear to the EU, Britain
:01:41. > :01:46.is prepared to walk away. Because as it has been said before, no deal is
:01:47. > :01:53.better than a bad deal. And what the EU is offering at this present
:01:54. > :01:59.moment in time is a terrible deal. Let me speak briefly about foreign
:02:00. > :02:02.aid before my colleague takes to the podium. Polls show that the majority
:02:03. > :02:09.of British people want to see foreign aid cut, 78% back in January
:02:10. > :02:15.this year. Ukip is the only political party going into this
:02:16. > :02:21.election with a clear commitment to cut the foreign aid budget. Ukip is
:02:22. > :02:27.on the side of the majority of the British people on this issue. And we
:02:28. > :02:34.have been so since we took up this cause as far back as 2011. We
:02:35. > :02:41.believe British taxpayer money should be spent here in our own
:02:42. > :02:50.country and on our Roman people. It cannot be right that we are handing
:02:51. > :03:00.over about ?30 million -- on our own people. We have an underfunded NHS,
:03:01. > :03:03.veterans sleeping rough and schools bursting to maximum capacity. We are
:03:04. > :03:10.not afraid to say in our party, a charity begins at home. And on that
:03:11. > :03:21.note, I want to hand over to our economic spokesman Patrick O'Flynn.
:03:22. > :03:27.Good morning and thank you for coming along. I want to set out
:03:28. > :03:32.early in this election campaign one or two of the ideas that Ukip will
:03:33. > :03:39.be advancing that distinguish us from the establishment political
:03:40. > :03:43.parties. When making the case for Brexit and immigration control, Ukip
:03:44. > :03:48.will fight this election unafraid of standing up the common sense, and
:03:49. > :03:51.practical policies to put the British people first, even in the
:03:52. > :03:53.face of a politically correct establishment that is likely to
:03:54. > :04:08.hyperventilate in response. We want to take advantage of Britain
:04:09. > :04:13.gaining freedom over indirect taxation when it leaves the EU by
:04:14. > :04:18.removing VAT from domestic energy bills, from hot takeaway food, and
:04:19. > :04:23.from women's sanitary products. The last of these is a cause that Ukip
:04:24. > :04:26.has championed for many years, and which I am pleased to say has become
:04:27. > :04:31.a lot more fashionable at Westminster. But the two biggest
:04:32. > :04:36.items in our cost of living package are liable to face strong resistance
:04:37. > :04:44.from the establishment. The first is grabbing the green levies and taxes,
:04:45. > :04:49.that already add hundreds of pounds on two family tax bills. That
:04:50. > :04:56.amount, by the way, increases every single year. Ukip would end such
:04:57. > :04:59.subsidies as we do not believe they are justifiable or proportionate
:05:00. > :05:04.given that Britain is responsible for less than 2% of global
:05:05. > :05:07.greenhouse gas emissions. And given the long-term squeeze on their
:05:08. > :05:12.living standards that millions of families have suffered. One of the
:05:13. > :05:16.best things about this policy is that it will put money back in the
:05:17. > :05:20.pockets of ordinary people without costing the Exchequer a penny. The
:05:21. > :05:26.last item in our cost of living package is exciting parts of the
:05:27. > :05:34.media, the proposal to scrap the television licence. It really is
:05:35. > :05:47.time to act is the TV tax. -- axe the TV tax.
:05:48. > :05:50.I think the idea would be laughed out of court and felt to have more
:05:51. > :05:56.in common with the politics of North Korea than a modern, liberal
:05:57. > :06:01.democracy. In the rot of online streaming of Amazon and net flicks,
:06:02. > :06:05.of satellite and cable, of multipurpose devices that can be
:06:06. > :06:11.telephones one minute and televisions another. The licence fee
:06:12. > :06:15.has come to broadcasting what the horse and cart is to transport.
:06:16. > :06:22.Obsolete. It is beyond ridiculous as well that so much my District Court
:06:23. > :06:25.time is spent on low income families, including single mothers
:06:26. > :06:30.doing their best to raise families in difficult circumstances, and they
:06:31. > :06:34.are criminalised by the attempt to enforce a fee that is losing
:06:35. > :06:41.legitimacy every year, as well as requiring an even greater degree of
:06:42. > :06:44.intrusion to collect. Just seven years ago when I was a political
:06:45. > :06:49.journalist, I became the first one to steer a national newspaper to a
:06:50. > :06:54.pro-Brexit position, and many thought that was away with the
:06:55. > :06:58.fairies. So today, I am joining the campaign to abolish the licence fee.
:06:59. > :07:02.No doubt, just as with the case the leaving the EU, our friends at the
:07:03. > :07:09.BBC may be slow to give this cause serious coverage. The failure of the
:07:10. > :07:14.BBC to adapt to our polarised political era, to be self-critical,
:07:15. > :07:18.or to guard against the group think that can occur when too many people
:07:19. > :07:22.in an organisation come from a similar background and live in
:07:23. > :07:26.geographic proximity that is the clinching argument here for me.
:07:27. > :07:33.Looking at the research of the excellent News Watch Group is an
:07:34. > :07:37.eye-opener. A devastating indictment of the BBC's unbalanced approach to
:07:38. > :07:41.covering many issues from climate change to the case for Brexit. Let
:07:42. > :07:49.me give you a statistic, which let out at me. Between 2005 and 2015,
:07:50. > :07:56.only 3.2% of guests on the title actor Dave programme, talking on the
:07:57. > :08:11.EU, were pro-Brexit. In my view, it is indefensible to
:08:12. > :08:14.make millions of people pay for a dominant national news broadcaster
:08:15. > :08:18.that has a deep-seated bias against their own views on a wide range of
:08:19. > :08:25.issues, from immigration control to penal policy, climate change policy
:08:26. > :08:31.to the future prospects of their country as an independence of
:08:32. > :08:34.governing democracy. So what I propose is that the licence fee
:08:35. > :08:38.should be phased out over three years, during which time, the many
:08:39. > :08:45.talented administrators at the BBC could agree with the government and
:08:46. > :08:48.all eternity of funding package, based on subscription, but with an
:08:49. > :08:53.element of advertising potentially, too. -- alternative of funding
:08:54. > :08:59.package. I expect the BBC to undertake this to offer eight core
:09:00. > :09:03.offering on free view, including regional TV news, and also to
:09:04. > :09:08.continue to support the local radio network as a free to our offering.
:09:09. > :09:12.There would also be a new public service broadcast fund financed from
:09:13. > :09:17.within current DC MS resources to which any broadcaster could apply
:09:18. > :09:22.for grants. I am not standing here pretending Ukip will be the
:09:23. > :09:25.government on June, the ninth, able to increment the straightaway, but I
:09:26. > :09:29.have to remind you that Ukip has been stunningly effective that
:09:30. > :09:32.changing the terms of British politics by connecting with a
:09:33. > :09:37.section of the public on issues ranging from immigration control to
:09:38. > :09:42.Brexit. And another one of these issues forms the main subject of
:09:43. > :09:52.today, and that's written's current approach to foreign aid. This is, to
:09:53. > :09:58.spend 0.7% of national income on foreign aid, and it is going up year
:09:59. > :10:03.after year in an era when pupil funding per head in schools is being
:10:04. > :10:07.slashed, when the NHS is under President did pressure, and when our
:10:08. > :10:12.Armed Forces have been cut to the extent that you could fit the entire
:10:13. > :10:18.regular British Army inside Wembley Stadium with nearly 10,000 empty
:10:19. > :10:22.seats. Yet the foreign aid policy has what's known in Westminster as
:10:23. > :10:27.cross-party support. Among MPs, this is taken to be a virtuous thing as
:10:28. > :10:30.it stops the debate about aid becoming what they referred to as a
:10:31. > :10:35.political football. But what they really mean here is that it allows
:10:36. > :10:40.them to disenfranchise the views of the British public by offering only
:10:41. > :10:46.one choice when it comes to aid funding. Ukip is going to break up
:10:47. > :10:51.that political monopoly and offer a different choice to the millions of
:10:52. > :10:57.voters, a clear majority according to most polling, who want to see
:10:58. > :11:00.less spent on aid, and more on our key domestic, public services. In
:11:01. > :11:04.our party, we believe the prime responsibly to you of a British
:11:05. > :11:07.Government is to fight to advance the interests and improve the
:11:08. > :11:16.condition of the British people. The politically correct text trotted out
:11:17. > :11:20.in the Commons is often unchallenged. We at Ukip will be the
:11:21. > :11:29.party that challenges it at every turn. High foreign aid, some say, is
:11:30. > :11:35.justified because its densely migrate reflow is on the masses.
:11:36. > :11:43.There is no evidence for that. The aid bonanza of the last decade or so
:11:44. > :11:48.has come and sided with a massive increase in migrate reflow is. --
:11:49. > :11:51.coincided. If people can leave one society and join another where
:11:52. > :11:55.living standards are typically 20 times higher, and there is an
:11:56. > :11:59.extensive welfare system available to all, how on earth will any
:12:00. > :12:03.conceivable amount of foreign aid make a significant difference to
:12:04. > :12:08.that choice? Furthermore, there is very little evidence that foreign
:12:09. > :12:14.aid helps economic growth in recipient countries anyway. For
:12:15. > :12:18.instance, a World Economic Forum study in 2015 conducted by
:12:19. > :12:22.impeccably liberal academics at Heidelberg University found no
:12:23. > :12:26.effect of aid on growth, and gave an overall assessment as follows: we
:12:27. > :12:32.conclude that there is no robust evidence that aid affects growth.
:12:33. > :12:36.And again, common sense should leave us an surprise. There is obviously a
:12:37. > :12:41.substantial risk that sending money to the political authorities in
:12:42. > :12:43.failing countries will merely reinforce failure. Instead of
:12:44. > :12:49.allowing impetus to build for beneficial change, corrupt regimes
:12:50. > :12:54.which cannot be entrusted to enforce property rights, and which wage wars
:12:55. > :13:00.as a first resort rather than a last resort, are permitted to continue on
:13:01. > :13:05.their destructive course. Massively undermining incentives for both
:13:06. > :13:09.direct investment from abroad, and entrepreneurship among the domestic
:13:10. > :13:12.population. Such countries continue to be run on destructive tribal
:13:13. > :13:16.lines, often, and social traditions which view it to be legitimate to
:13:17. > :13:22.plunder state funds for private gain go unchallenged. It is time to
:13:23. > :13:28.consign the idea that pouring ever greater sums into the foreign aid
:13:29. > :13:32.budget is a signal of our virtue, to the erupts celebrity driven politics
:13:33. > :13:36.that had hopefully ended with the downfall of David Cameron. From my
:13:37. > :13:42.vantage point, Britain then seemed to be in the grip under Blair and
:13:43. > :13:45.Cameron of a generation of gap year politicians who were more engaged in
:13:46. > :13:50.the fortunes of places they had visited between school and
:13:51. > :13:54.university than in living standards in working class communities in
:13:55. > :13:59.their own country. And the greatest joy of all for such politicians
:14:00. > :14:03.seemed to be when they were name checked approvingly by rock stars or
:14:04. > :14:08.film stars, and told how virtuous they were for being so generous with
:14:09. > :14:16.other people's money. We can no longer afford to contract out our
:14:17. > :14:27.aid policies to the likes of Bono and Bob Geldof. The amount we spend
:14:28. > :14:31.is not a trifling sum. It is getting on the 2% of public and income ?1 in
:14:32. > :14:37.every ?50 that the government spends. At about ?14 billion total
:14:38. > :14:41.aid spending, it is more than the Home Office spends on policing,
:14:42. > :14:46.border control and anti-terrorist is combined. We are borrowing money in
:14:47. > :14:50.the name of British taxpayers and sending it to countries with their
:14:51. > :14:55.own space programmes and countries that have failed to create proper
:14:56. > :15:00.systems for collecting taxation from their own citizens. In India, for
:15:01. > :15:04.example, only 1% of the population pays income tax, despite that
:15:05. > :15:09.country now having an enormous prosperous middle class. What an
:15:10. > :15:12.insult to British taxpayers whose hard earned money is sent to a
:15:13. > :15:18.nation with more millionaires than we have. And at a time when the NHS
:15:19. > :15:22.is struggling to cope, adult social care is on the brink of collapse,
:15:23. > :15:27.and food banks have spreads of almost every town in Britain.
:15:28. > :15:34.Where there's almost no evidence to suggest aid spending boost economic
:15:35. > :15:38.growth in developing countries, there is plenty to show that
:15:39. > :15:43.improving their trade access to developed countries certainly does.
:15:44. > :15:47.In this context, Ukip will be arguing for a transition away from
:15:48. > :15:54.aid and towards trade, as life outside the EU allows us to open up
:15:55. > :15:59.our enormous consumer market to goods from a wider range of nations.
:16:00. > :16:04.And instead of making 0.7% of gross national income the benchmark for
:16:05. > :16:13.the aid budget, we will be calling for that number to be cut to 0.2%.
:16:14. > :16:18.That incidentally, is the level of the United States of America's aid
:16:19. > :16:24.programme during the Barack Obama years. This will represent a massive
:16:25. > :16:29.financial saving of ?10 billion a year and rising, but still leave the
:16:30. > :16:33.UK spending at least ?4 billion a year on foreign aid, enough to
:16:34. > :16:39.deliver in the areas that do make a difference. Clean water programmes,
:16:40. > :16:44.childhood inoculations and emergency famine and disaster relief, but not
:16:45. > :16:49.enough to finance open-ended bilateral programmes, that pour into
:16:50. > :16:53.corrupt regimes overseas as at present.
:16:54. > :16:58.At the moment some ?4.5 billion a year of our aid spending is actually
:16:59. > :17:03.distributed via international organisations, such as International
:17:04. > :17:07.rescue, the group that pays David Miliband a salary of ?425,000 a
:17:08. > :17:13.year. Even the Department for International Development admits
:17:14. > :17:18.spending distributed by such bodies is difficult to effectively track.
:17:19. > :17:21.It is simply not a sensible way to spend taxpayers money.
:17:22. > :17:27.A little later in the campaign we will set out how we propose to
:17:28. > :17:31.distribute the savings we identify in public spending, the savings we
:17:32. > :17:37.identify an item is not just foreign aid but the HS2 vanity project, the
:17:38. > :17:41.relative overspending Scotland caused by the Barnett formula and
:17:42. > :17:46.the ending of financial contributions into the EU budget.
:17:47. > :17:50.But the message today is clear- the foreign aid bonanza has got to stop
:17:51. > :18:02.and Ukip is the only party that will be making the case for that in this
:18:03. > :18:08.election. Thank you. Questions? You mentioned earlier about part
:18:09. > :18:16.subscription and par advertising for the BBC. How much do you think
:18:17. > :18:23.people should pay for programmes like EastEnders and strictly and
:18:24. > :18:25.what would you miss if the BBC went out of business?
:18:26. > :18:28.I don't think there is any prospect of the BBC going out of business at
:18:29. > :18:33.all. What I believe would happen is that there would be a core
:18:34. > :18:37.subscription level at about the current level of the licence fee,
:18:38. > :18:44.with perhaps an extra premium level for certain high demand programmes.
:18:45. > :18:50.But as I say, the BBC has many, many talented administrators. Some might
:18:51. > :18:54.say too many. We are proposing a three-year transmission to allow, if
:18:55. > :18:59.our scheme came to pass, to allow the Government and the BBC to work
:19:00. > :19:05.out a plan for a stable transition away from the licence fee. Thank
:19:06. > :19:16.you. Yes? ITV News. Two questions. Michel Barnier, the question of the
:19:17. > :19:20.Brexit Bill, is it... If the UK want a decent trade deal, how can I
:19:21. > :19:29.refuse to pay anything? Secondly, now we're having Brexit, and Avenue
:19:30. > :19:31.lost... INAUDIBLE The first question.
:19:32. > :19:42.I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of who has leverage
:19:43. > :19:45.in this situation. We buy from other EU countries in ballpark numbers
:19:46. > :19:50.about ?300 billion worth of stuff every year and we sell to them a
:19:51. > :19:54.little over 200 billion. So if we were moved to World Trade
:19:55. > :20:00.Organisation rules, for instance, we would be talking about, from our
:20:01. > :20:05.point of view, 4% tariffs applying to the products of about 12% of our
:20:06. > :20:08.economy. If you think that the actual exchange rate between the
:20:09. > :20:12.pound on the euro has changed by much greater amount than that
:20:13. > :20:17.anyway, that would barely be noticeable. Sometimes I think that
:20:18. > :20:23.the Brexit hysteria is a bit like the millennium bug for posh people.
:20:24. > :20:28.In return, the Treasury would make about ?12 billion a year in tariff
:20:29. > :20:33.revenue on EU imports. That would be more than enough to compensate
:20:34. > :20:36.consumers for any price rises on imported goods, buy for instance
:20:37. > :20:42.cutting the rate of VAT, which we would then be at liberty to do. I
:20:43. > :20:48.suggest also we would see a substitution effect towards home
:20:49. > :20:51.products, which we would mildly expanded the British market. I think
:20:52. > :20:58.if the crunch really came, you would see a further Patrick erotic --
:20:59. > :21:02.patriotic effect where people will buy British produce. Theresa May
:21:03. > :21:05.said she would rather walk away then sign a bad deal but I don't think
:21:06. > :21:10.anyone in Brussels believes that. The cold hard facts are on Britain's
:21:11. > :21:16.side. So yes, I think we will do absolutely fine and the Government
:21:17. > :21:20.must start believing we hold the cards and mustn't be bluffing
:21:21. > :21:24.because the British people weren't bluffing on the 23rd of June. The
:21:25. > :21:33.other thing about Ukip you say, losing its raison d'etre for to risk
:21:34. > :21:37.a continental phrase. It will certainly be a great moment for Ukip
:21:38. > :21:41.if and when Britain has left the European Union on decent terms,
:21:42. > :21:46.securing a full and proper Brexit. I think it will make Ukip the most
:21:47. > :21:50.influential political party of the 21st century of that is achieved.
:21:51. > :21:55.But I think we have already shown in this campaign that there are other
:21:56. > :22:01.priorities which Ukip can argue for. The nature of the foreign aid Bill
:22:02. > :22:07.being one of those, the ideas on our integration agenda is another. The
:22:08. > :22:10.final point to you, I don't want to ramble too long, it is I think it is
:22:11. > :22:16.a challenge to all the smaller parties that we had what we thought
:22:17. > :22:21.was a fixed term electoral cycle, and that everyone was preparing for
:22:22. > :22:26.2020. It's almost like an athlete preparing for the 2020 Olympic spend
:22:27. > :22:30.to be rung up and told that the actual Olympics is in seven weeks'
:22:31. > :22:35.time. It is certainly true parties need to accelerate thinking and
:22:36. > :22:41.producing venue agenda. But that is certainly what we are doing. It is
:22:42. > :22:45.not going to be in our 2020 edition but at 2017 edition. I think you
:22:46. > :22:48.will find over the next few weeks we are the party producing fresh ideas
:22:49. > :22:54.all the way through the campaign. Thanks. Harry?
:22:55. > :23:10.One of the major complaints from critics is arbitrary figures, 0.7,
:23:11. > :23:21.0.2%... INAUDIBLE Wire Ukip brings an reduce it to
:23:22. > :23:29.0.2% when we know... Scrap it. Is it because you want to make out your
:23:30. > :23:32.not as bad as the Lib Dems make out? INAUDIBLE
:23:33. > :23:37.. We won't allow our thinking to be influenced by the Liberal Democrats,
:23:38. > :23:41.that is special. 0.2%, I mentioned in my speech, is about what the
:23:42. > :23:47.United States of America spend the Barack Obama years. It's enough, we
:23:48. > :23:53.think, to finance a good commitment on those items people do support.
:23:54. > :23:59.Like childhood inoculation, the emergency relief funding that helps
:24:00. > :24:03.people in their hour of their most acute need. It's also, as it
:24:04. > :24:07.happens, given the current state of play economies, more than Italy and
:24:08. > :24:14.Spain Spain spend together on foreign aid. I think it would help
:24:15. > :24:19.to have a new benchmark to come down to, a more reasonable sum. I don't
:24:20. > :24:26.think if we reached 0.2% of gross national income you would find the
:24:27. > :24:29.absurd spectacle of people running round the International office of
:24:30. > :24:32.development trying to work out new ways of spending money that they
:24:33. > :24:43.found they still have in the bottom of the draw. Yes? On the 0% Brexit
:24:44. > :24:50.divorce Bill, is that a red line for you? If there was a trade deal that
:24:51. > :24:54.had some merit, would you accept a smaller deal from the EU or would it
:24:55. > :25:00.have to be zero? We set out a few weeks ago six key
:25:01. > :25:04.tests of Brexit, as far as Ukip was concerned. One of them was the money
:25:05. > :25:11.test. In there we made clear we don't see the need for a financial
:25:12. > :25:17.donation from Britain to the EU as a divorce Bill. We also think Britain
:25:18. > :25:20.should get back some of the resources we have invested in the
:25:21. > :25:25.European investment bank, I think about ?9 billion. But we will judge
:25:26. > :25:31.the final parting of the ways, we will judge it in the rounds. I don't
:25:32. > :25:34.expect we will be giving, say if we give ten points per test, I don't
:25:35. > :25:38.expect Theresa May will be getting 60 out of 60 on the Ukip gauge but
:25:39. > :25:45.we will give you an idea of whether we think, in reasonable layman 's
:25:46. > :25:50.terms, this is a Brexit that holds true to the vote of the British
:25:51. > :25:57.people from June 23 last year. So you would accept some other level of
:25:58. > :26:01.payment? Well, we aren't the Government. I
:26:02. > :26:04.don't think there will be much dispute in the room, where unlikely
:26:05. > :26:07.to be the Government on the 9th of June. We have set out our benchmark
:26:08. > :26:11.for what we think the Government should be trying to achieve. It's
:26:12. > :26:16.difficult to do a commentary on that until we see what they have
:26:17. > :26:19.achieved. Is that a yes or no? Would you accept something other than zero
:26:20. > :26:30.if it's a good deal? I don't know what you mean by wood Ukip accent?
:26:31. > :26:41.In terms of getting rid of the Greenlee of the -- green levy, do
:26:42. > :26:48.you think there should be some other mitigating levels put in place?
:26:49. > :26:55.I think there are varying views across our party about the actual
:26:56. > :27:00.science behind climate change. As I speak, personally, I think it's fair
:27:01. > :27:05.to say the majority of scientists are still saying that man-made
:27:06. > :27:08.emissions is the biggest factor in climate change. I am not a
:27:09. > :27:13.scientist, so I am not going to second-guess them or say they are
:27:14. > :27:16.wrong. What I am focusing on is the proportionality of our responses.
:27:17. > :27:20.You take a country that is responsible for less than 2% of
:27:21. > :27:27.global emissions, it's really loading on very own arrests costs on
:27:28. > :27:29.to consumers and families which have had stagnant living standards for
:27:30. > :27:36.many years. That's something I don't think the environmental lobby takes
:27:37. > :27:41.enough weight, doesn't give enough weight to. Also I think there's a
:27:42. > :27:46.very big danger that if we increase our levees and the cost of energy to
:27:47. > :27:51.our heavy industry, you lose a lot of skill to industrial jobs, which
:27:52. > :27:55.causes great damage to the social fabric, particular in old
:27:56. > :27:59.working-class communities. The danger is those jobs are exported to
:28:00. > :28:02.countries with lower environmental standards and you get a perverse
:28:03. > :28:07.outcome where the greenhouse emissions goes up. We are a common
:28:08. > :28:16.sense party, that doesn't strike me as common sense at all. You referred
:28:17. > :28:24.in your speech to opening up our enormous consumer markets. Can you
:28:25. > :28:31.confirm opening up our consumer markets would mean less protection
:28:32. > :28:34.for British farmers and other British institutes? We would have to
:28:35. > :28:37.look at these issues, but I think in general, particularly the countries
:28:38. > :28:43.in Africa, it certainly true that the best thing we could do for them
:28:44. > :28:47.is to treat them as grown-up countries and grown-up economies and
:28:48. > :28:52.seek to lower the remaining tariffs on liberalised trade over the long
:28:53. > :28:55.term. Of course, we would have to pay attention to short-term impact
:28:56. > :29:03.on our own employment and industries. INAUDIBLE
:29:04. > :29:07.I haven't particularly looked at the steel-making capacity of the country
:29:08. > :29:13.is in receipt of foreign aid, so I won't try and laugh it.
:29:14. > :29:19.-- bluff it. Do you accept some kind of EU trade deal has the potential
:29:20. > :29:25.to be better than the WTO terms, and if so, how is that consistent with
:29:26. > :29:27.ruling out any price that the Government might be able to
:29:28. > :29:32.negotiate? I think there is a conceivable deal
:29:33. > :29:37.that would be a bit better than WTO, which is the one I think a few weeks
:29:38. > :29:42.ago David Davis publicly spoke of and then hasn't spoken of again.
:29:43. > :29:47.That is the desire to get precisely the same degree of access to the
:29:48. > :29:50.single market we have at the moment, without the obligations of freedom
:29:51. > :29:59.of movement. That would be the very best thing achievable, but what my
:30:00. > :30:04.argument here is is Britain has absolutely nothing to fear from the
:30:05. > :30:11.switch to WTO terms. In fact, those terms would be much more problematic
:30:12. > :30:15.to the EU economies, particularly the EU Eurozone economies, which are
:30:16. > :30:17.always teetering on the brink of recession or worse, and for whom
:30:18. > :30:24.they would in effect be cutting up wrath against their top export
:30:25. > :30:28.market, or certainly in some other language that spin around in recent
:30:29. > :30:33.days. So there is potentially an even better deal, but I'm warning
:30:34. > :30:38.against this hysteria that seems to be swirling around parts of my
:30:39. > :30:42.friends, the BBC and the Financial Times, that there is some kind of
:30:43. > :30:48.economic meltdown approaching. There just isn't.
:30:49. > :30:53.This week we had the extraordinary leap from Theresa May's dinner with
:30:54. > :31:06.Jean-Claude Juncker, in which she allegedly said... How have you found
:31:07. > :31:09.dealing with him and what advice do you have for the Prime Minister in
:31:10. > :31:12.her wranglings with Jean-Claude Juncker?
:31:13. > :31:21.Did you ask how we found dealing with Mr Juncker? Yes. My dealings
:31:22. > :31:27.with Mr Juncker as a bog-standard MEP have been limited, but I have
:31:28. > :31:33.witnessed a few of his speeches in European Parliament and the general
:31:34. > :31:38.rule seems to be, at the day they take place, the more interesting
:31:39. > :31:42.speeches are. One key dynamic here that we have
:31:43. > :31:46.got is that the institutions and people at the core of the
:31:47. > :31:50.institutions of the EU, whether that's the commission or the
:31:51. > :31:56.European Parliament, I do think places a premium on the idea of
:31:57. > :32:00.let's punish the country that is leaving to scare the reluctant
:32:01. > :32:04.members that remain behind. More important will be Theresa May and
:32:05. > :32:09.the government getting around the individual nation states and their
:32:10. > :32:15.governments. For instance, in Germany, the most powerful economic
:32:16. > :32:19.lobby by far is the car industry, and that's true. There are various
:32:20. > :32:23.powerful lobbies within the nation states that I think will shake a bit
:32:24. > :32:29.of common sense into our European partners. I think in the end, it
:32:30. > :32:34.will be the nation states and national parliaments that will prove
:32:35. > :32:35.a more amenable shadow negotiating partner than the likes of Mr
:32:36. > :32:51.Juncker. On the current level of the licence
:32:52. > :32:57.fee, how will it save householders money? Secondly, you are going to
:32:58. > :33:00.give out a public service broadcasting controlled by the DC
:33:01. > :33:09.MS, argue in danger of creating a North Korean style? No. The idea
:33:10. > :33:15.would be a relatively small sum of money, compared to the tens of
:33:16. > :33:17.millions which anyone would apply in creating a public service
:33:18. > :33:21.broadcaster. And how will it save people money? The point is not
:33:22. > :33:26.particularly saving money, the point is it will no longer be compulsory.
:33:27. > :33:34.The individual consumers will decide if they want to spend 140 is a or
:33:35. > :33:49.thereabouts a year on the BBC, -- ?147.
:33:50. > :33:56.The 2017 general election is upon us. Every day, BBC Parliament will
:33:57. > :34:00.have key speeches from the main players in full and uncut. As well
:34:01. > :34:07.as all the big campaign events. Don't miss a single moment on BBC
:34:08. > :34:09.Parliament and BBC iPlayer Kids pure politics on the UK's only dedicated