19/01/2018 Politics Europe

Now on BBC News,

it's Politics Europe.

Hello and welcome to politics

Europe, your regular guide to the

top stories in Brussels and

Strasbourg. Ensay's programme senior

figures in the EU say Britain can

always change its mind about Brexit.

The UK government said it isn't

going to happen. So what is the EU

playing at? Irish Prime Minister Leo

Varadkar throws his weight behind

deeper EU integration after Brexit

and spells out his vision for the

future of the block. We speak to one

of his key allies. And the EU gets

tough on plastic but it shies away

from the plastics tax, so will its

strategy work? All that to come, and

more in the next 30 minutes since

joining me for all of it is Kate

Andrews of the London-based

Institute of economic affairs and

Alex Barker, Brussels bureau chief

of the Financial Times. Welcome.

First it is our guide to the latest

from Europe in just 60 seconds. Big

news this week as the EU declared

war on plastic. The commission's new

strategy aims to outlaw the use

plastic by 2030 but there was no

mention of a previous tax. The

Bulgarian Prime Minister has entered

his plan to presidency to MEPs in

Strasbourg, if he is the first time

Bulgarian has joined the EU has

taken charge of the rotating post.

The EU Council President Donald Tusk

tweeted about Brexit, a harbour

still open for you. Let's face it,

we have all sent a text like that

late at night. Jean-Claude Junker

wondered if Brexit would be

reversed, using article 40 nine.

Romania has a new Prime Minister.

The third in seven months. He will

become the country's first female PM

if her nomination is approved. And

after marathon talks, a breakthrough

German coalition negotiations at the

Barton shall call the initial deal

an excellent result. We will see.

But let's talk about Donald Tusk,

Jean-Claude Junker, in their minds,

do they think Brexit is reversible

then?

Donald was definitely does,

and he wants to make that clear to

the British public. I don't think he

thinks it will happen but it is

important that he says it could

happen.

Why? What is he getting at?

The ideal outcome of these is to

Donald Tusk, I would say, is that

the UK to stay in the model that

they built over 50 years to the

continent to co-operate so that

quite happy for it to happen and

they see a small window where it

could happen easily.

Between now and

October? Yes. What about Jean-Claude

Junker are true? Is he talking about

the UK changing the Pyrmont once

they have left and then rejoining?

He mentioned articles 49, the

process that Moldova would be...

Indeed. And it is a pretty rough

road. You are looking at except in

the euro, accept in things like not

having a rebate, I don't think it is

necessarily the past that the

British public would want to go

down.

What is your reaction hearing

these two important people within

the EU, the commission president,

saying that yes, our hearts are

still open and Council President,

you can come back, or not sleep at

all?

A few things are going on and

Alex is right that it isn't in their

interest to see the system they have

built and have invested in so very

much to lose one of their most

important members and so I think

there is still the sense that they

don't want to give other countries

the assumption that it is an easy

process and something they could do

but to the sweet talk, I think this

is getting closer to when the

negotiations are really going to get

nitty-gritty and both sides want to

be seen to play nice. It was a

hardball game in the beginning but

now I think you want to paint

yourself as if he were open-minded

to getting a deal because you don't,

it will be catastrophic for many

countries involved.

As a sound as

though they are not accepting the

decision by the Briton made with the

referendum?

No, I don't think so,

certainly some people you could talk

to in Brussels who think the idea of

reversing shouldn't happen and hope

it doesn't. But if it came to it,

and the UK for whatever kind of

circumstances and the changing its

mind, 27 would think what better

validation for a project in the

country trying to live and then

deciding it cannot, so I think the

road back would probably be quite

smooth.

Also the person saying this

and where you are saying it from

matters and the second referendum in

the UK, it could have pumped more

political weight because politicians

in Westminster have been instructed

by their people and the public to

carry forth something and when

people from other countries to which

it has a slightly different angle,

you can say they are not respecting

the result of the referendum are

actually I think we should be

slightly more generous as they are

saying we are here, let's get the

conversation going.

To do that. Leo

Varadkar leather debate on the

future of Europe with MEPs in

Strasbourg this week. That is the

future of calls without the UK. So

were there any shots across the bow

regarding Brexit? Adam Fleming gives

us his take on the Irish PM's

speech. The new year means new

thinking and the European Parliament

is holding a series of debates about

the future of the EU with EU

leaders. First up is the Taoiseach,

Leo Varadkar. He went to the

Parliament with references to your's

big figures past and present and

threw his support behind a pet

project of many MEPs - European

white candidates for the

parliamentary elections.

I support a

Europewide list of the European

Parliament. I would like to get

people in cafes in Naples and

restaurants in Galway talking about

the same election choices. Perhaps

that is an ambitious idea but I

think it is one we should strive

for.

The EU needed to be ambitious

too about security, cutting the cost

of medicine, helping the rest of the

world.

But there were limits to

integration. All future holds,

Europe needs to be competitive

economically. And one of the ways to

ensure this is by allowing

competition among member states. And

I think this is particularly

important for peripheral and less

developed countries. Whose domestic

market are small and need

investment. My strong view is that

national taxes that fund national

budget should be determined by

national parliament and government.

That led to raised eyebrows because

Ireland is notorious for low rates

of corporation tax. And it has been

taken to court over a deal with

apple.

As you would say that Ireland

should be allowed to find ways to

make geographical advantage, I

agree, but surely the alternative

cannot be between a one size fits

all taxation system, but would work

through the central, big, core

countries to the detriment of

everyone else and a no holds barred

tax competition that we have right

now.

Of course, there was an

enormous elephant in the room.

Brexit. As the negotiations move

forward into phase two, we will

continue to rely on your support and

solidarity as we work to ensure that

what has been promised in theory is

delivered in practice. And there can

be no backsliding on this. So it is

important that these commitments are

fully reflected in the legal text of

the withdrawal agreement and firmly

embedded in the UK's future

relationship with the EU, whatever

shape is ultimately takes. And from

my part, I hope that the

relationship that exists between the

UK and the EU is as close and as

deep as is possible.

But how closer

relationship with the UK?

When you

think that nearly 50% of exports

from Irish owned companies go to the

United Kingdom within agriculture in

some sectors is as high as 90%, you

potentially have quite a lot to

lose. And yet, and yet, despite the

fact that no one should be fighting

hard for a genuine branded trade

deal they knew, that doesn't appear

to be the case.

His name in the

visitors book, Leo Varadkar's

Eurovision on the record. The other

leaders who have signed up to give

fares include the Prime ministers of

Portugal and Croatia and the BD,

President Macron of France, chew

here in April. Adam Fleming. I

joined by the Irish MP Mairead

McGuinness. Welcome. The DUP MP

Sammy Wilson said Leo Varadkar was

naive, arrogant and inexperienced

for siding with the EU over the UK

and the Brexit negotiations. What do

you say?

Indeed, he gives another

term which he apologised for later

on, but I disagree with all of that

because I think the performance of

the Teesside's speech which was

about the future of Europe, he was

anything but, he was clear, focused

on and he didn't dodge the hard

questions. You play the piece around

taxation, he was able to respond by

saying the other member states who

perhaps have a prop to go for higher

rate of tax but when it comes to

exemptions are actually collect less

tax and the effective rate is lower

so he delved very comprehensively

with a range of issues I'm not sure

how Mr Wilson came to the viewpoint

but perhaps he had it anyway and

just felt he had to reflect it but I

think the word has moved on from the

type of politics I would hope

because what happened this week in

Strasbourg was very significant and

hugely important for Europe. Leo

Varadkar was the first leader of the

country of the EU 27 to put his case

forward and he had a set piece of a

speech which was well-received but I

think more importantly his responses

and the humanity of his responses

and in particular how he articulated

to the special relationship between

the UK and Ireland where as he said

his mother and father met in the UK,

fell in love, got married and indeed

one of his sisters lives there and

her children are UK citizens but

clearly, Irish as well, they have

that pirate go for possibility,

though I think that many reasons his

speech was profound and their

reaction has been positive.

Except

Samuelson was pointing to the fact

that in his mind, Ireland was used

by the EU as a stick to beat the UK

in phase one of the negotiations.

The issue of the Irish border was a

red line during the first phase. And

for a moment it looked as though the

EU was going to play hardball on it

but was the financial offer was

made, upped by the UK government, it

seemed the EU settled the matter

very quickly so were you really used

in the first phase?

Gosh, I think

that is a very cynical and incorrect

interpretation of the work we all

did going up to the end of last

year.

But it wasn't resolved, the

Irish border issue wasn't resolved,

that was the point.

Well actually, I

think you're wrong in that. What was

agreed is very clear that there will

be no return to a heart border and,

look, I spent all his light with the

Irish medical Organisation talking

about cross-border health

collaboration post-Brexit. It is a

really serious issue not the

politics but the people on the

ground. And when we come to look for

the future, it is around issues like

healthcare, access to medicine,

medical devices, which UK citizens

should be really concerned about

because it has been quite

astonishing the number of

pharmaceutical companies that have

been in my office in Brussels

pleading with me to understand their

situation and they are worried about

being able to continue if there is a

clean or rather, not clean is the

wrong word, a severe deal and no

good relationship at the end of all

of this process.

Right.

And if we

bear in mind the consequences of

that, the politics has to work so

absolutely disagree with your

interpretation. Except it wasn't

resolved. I must finish this point.

Anyone who uses the border in island

politically acting correctly would

certainly be no friend of Ireland

and we had enormous support in the

European Parliament and elsewhere

around the border question because

Europe is that this project.

Sure,

and I said there was a lot of

support from the EU but it seemed to

dissolve in terms of it in issue and

you see it has been dissolved, in

what way have the Irish border issue

being resolved? Yes, there is a

guarantee of a heart border, let me

finish the question, because the

questions about what will happen in

terms of the trade deal and in terms

of public relations and customs are

going to be looked at in the future.

Because in the draft agreement it

says the UK will propose specific

solutions to address the unique

circumstances of the island of

Ireland so it wasn't resolved, it

was kicked down the road.

Well, I would interpret it very

differently and I would disagree,

absolutely and vigorously

with your interpretation that once

the money was sorted

that the Irish question

was practically dismissed.

I think that is an

appalling interpretation

of what happened.

The text of what is agreed,

the bottomline in the text

and we will not return

to a hard border on Ireland,

arrangements will have to be made.

We don't know how to trade

relationship talks will develop.

There is no transition

agreement reached yet,

that is the next phase,

in order that there

is none of that difficulty

around the border.

If the United Kingdom continues

on the path of wanting divergence

then the United Kingdom has

a problem in meeting its commitment

which it made in the withdrawal

agreement which must be written

into legal text.

So you do want a written legal

text...

May I finish? I must go to

my other guest as well, map one

Mack.

Briefly, you were right in

saying that it is written and sealed

but the context and the support and

the commitment is there.

Many people

would disagree with the A2 that it

has been completely resolved. Alex,

do you think the issue has been

resolved? In many peoples mind that

the UK and are on a collision

course. Ireland's place in the

customs union and market.

Can it

happen? There are all sorts of

contradictions in the paper. It must

be read quite carefully. There is no

solution at the moment but they have

set out a framework of the steps we

need to go through in trying to find

a solution. The parts that are

contradictory promises that the UK

was making to itself about the

integrity of the UK. The parts that

Ireland is interested in were

bilateral promises about what

happens in the circumstances were

you cannot find a solution. There we

have alignment, it will be in an

mortify.

Is whether battleline will

be drawn because if these solutions

that have been written into this

agreement and even Kabul says we are

not at the final end point of

disagreement Patches Mairead says we

are not at the final point. -- Kabul

says.

Mairead says. Nobody has

agreed on the definition so it is

impossible to know if it has been

agreed or in many peoples minds,

that is not what the term was meant

to be used for. The idea that there

would be no higher border means that

it has been sold, that is not the

case. Neither side wanted a hard

border. That is not new information.

I think it was also used as a

scaremongering tactic. That was

always ridiculous to think that the

issue could be solved.

Well,

Mairead, on that basis, if

everything related to the Irish

border was in full alignment, would

you agree to the UK diverging in

other areas?

It depends on what you

mean by divergences and there is

dispute about that. And what other

areas you are talking about. I

mentioned health. This has not been

discussed in the UK because there is

a lack of awareness around

pharmaceuticals and the fact that

the European success story around

registration and control and

management of drugs and supply of

these things. If the UK were to

divert on those issues they would be

real problems. I think the UK, when

it looks at certain sectors and

perhaps all sectors will understand

better the divergences does not mean

something is improved. In fact it

means it is much more difficult for

us to continue. Remember, we are

close neighbours. We do not want

divergences of the relationship, we

want that to be strong. We are in a

difficult position that the United

Kingdom decision is being respected

and with our E U colleagues and our

leadership said that the support of

our colleagues will be required as

we move into more difficult phases.

So we are a lot more to do?

There is

an enormous amount. Work we did last

year was the toughest part. The

hardest stuff is yet to come. The

transition arrangement, I think

politically in the UK this may be

problematic because after March

2019, as I see it, the UK will leave

yet remain until 2020 were at that

point there will be the shape of the

new relationship. Last year was

passed, batten down the hatches,

this year will be far more

difficult.

Thank you for that happy

new Year message.

It is not

something that I want to say that

sometimes you do need to speak the

truth.

This week, the European

Commission declared itself a leader

on the war on plastic by launching a

drive to clean up the plastic

choking oceans and filling landfill.

What is in their self described

holistic plastic strategy? The EU

wants to ensure that every piece of

packaging on the continent is

reusable or recyclable by 2030. That

is also the target for their aim of

recycling half of all plastic waste

generated in Europe. To do this,

£881,000 will be invested every year

until 2020 in the search to

modernise production and make

recycling processes more efficient.

The commission Vice President said

the strategy hopes to eliminate

nondegradable single use items such

as coffee cups, cutlery, stir is and

drinking straws. One commissioner

last week floated the idea of a tax

on single use plastic to fill Brexit

shaped holes in the EU budget after

2020. While the plastic strategy

does not commit to a plastic packs

it says it will explore the

feasibility of introducing measures

of a fiscal nature at the EU level.

I'm joined now by an environmental

lawyer. welcome.

Do you welcome this

strategy? It is a landmark moment in

tackling plastic pollution. What we

think is also that may be it did not

go far enough. Plastic is a

pollutant. It is a pollutant for the

environment and also for health.

Many people understood the

seriousness of the pollution of

plastic and what it has called for

the planet.

Everybody has watched

blue planet, it seems to think but

the visible aspect of the pollution.

How far should they have gone with

their strategy. What would you to

have been. They did quite well and

they did a good job to do today, it

is not tomorrow and they did promise

that something we are big or from

other sorts of plastic may need to

be banned. The commission promised

that micro- plastic will be banned

and also other sorts. That is good

news and we look forward to that. We

think that more could be done to

phase out single use plastic. We all

need to take responsibility for

single use plastic.

Less than £1

million a year or roundabout that

for improving the recyclability of

plastic. In the scheme of things it

is not that big a figure. Is this

virtue signalling or will it achieve

something?

Often they can be a level

of virtue signalling that given the

fact that comprehensive strategy is

to tackle recycling and make

recycling easier and plastic easier

to recycle, this is quite a good

step. I am happy that they have not

gone straight for attacks because

once that happens, people are going

to feel the brunt. What they are

doing is being practical. Likely,

and I don't know how soon, in our

future plastic will be phased out

anyway. To tackle it now and to look

at how to make it more easily

recyclable is a good thing.

Should

there be a Europe wide plastics tax

on single use items.

Tax has an

advantage. It is quite good. What

you need to understand with tax if

that it focuses on the consumer. We

all have to take responsibility for

plastic pollution. For example, if

you want to cook with some

courgette, you need to buy them free

by free and you need to buy them

wrapped in plastic. Why is that?

Supermarkets have a responsibility

on the tax will not impact that.

So

you do not promote the idea of

attacks at this stage?

I think it

can be useful but I think would be

better to at the industry.

One

commissioner thought it might feel

the whole, the money raised from a

plastic tax Europe wide could fill

the hole that Britain will leave

when it leaves -- leaves the EU.

The

commission... They are just

endlessly creative about trying to

find new ways to raise money and it

is normally knocked back by member

states. You pick on things that are

not popular, plastic, pollution,

bankers, foreigners... Ultimately,

something like plastic taxation, I

think it needs to be done

nationally. It is a political

sensitivity and it will work in some

countries but in others, no.

No, not

across the 27, or the 28. Briefly,

on the target that you mentioned,

Kate, is that achievable by 2030?

For all plastic to be recyclable?

I

don't know if it is achievable, I

don't know enough about the industry

to say so. We talk about going to

supermarkets. If you force them to

use something that will be more

expensive than plastic, that will

again be pushed to consumers. Doing

this at a national level was more

helpful because they can gauge what

the response will be. Much will

happen in the next ten years, in the

next decade and who knows?

If that

target achievable? The first step

would be to ban dangerous plastics

from Cannock -- dangerous chemicals

from plastic in order to make them

recyclable. That is the first step.

The commission is aware of that and

the strategy shows the quick action

is needed.

At this point do you

think the EU will push ahead all

drop the idea?

Sometimes

policymakers are leading the public

in an area. Here I think they have

teenage gap open in public opinion

and think they need to fill it.

China made an important decision

about not buying in foreign plastic

and taking the plastic we were

sending for recycling. That will

change things and in terms of policy

making they will need to move fast.

Thank you very much for coming in.

That is all for now. Thank you to my

guess.