27/10/2017 Politics Europe

Now on BBC News, it is time

for Politics Europe.

Hello, welcome to Politics Europe,

your regular guide the top stories

in Brussels and Strasbourg. On the

day's programme, the EU is preparing

the ground work for a new trade

deal. Not with Britain, but with

Australia and New Zealand. So could

the plans be a template for a future

deal with the UK? The European

Parliament has been debating what

can be done to halt sexual

harassment, with many staff in

Brussels saying they have been

victims themselves. And, as the EU

votes to bring in tougher border

controls, we will look at whether

they will be enough to deter illegal

emigration. So all that to come, and

more, in the next half hour. And

joining me for all of it, we have

Jenni Murray from the Times, and the

Telegraph's Tim Stanley. Thank you

for coming. Here is our guide to the

latest in Europe in just 60 seconds.

The European Commission outlined

plans that would reduce the veto

power of member states in the number

of sensitive areas like taxation,

and replace it with qualified

majority voting. No solution in the

crisis in Catalonia this week. While

the Central government decided

whether to impose direct rule, the

regional government said that would

make declaring independence more

likely. One of Europe's richest men

is to become the next prime Minister

of the Czech Republic. The tycoon

turned populist, who has been

compared with Donald Trump, must now

form a coalition. MEPs debated

sexual harassment, with several

holding up metoo placards, in

solidarity with the Thames, and

saying they also have had negative

experiences.

This to make enough is

enough, we refuse to be silent.

And

levels of fungicide in the Indian

crop are argued to be too high. It

stick to naan, then. And of course,

the crisis in Catalonia, as we saw

there, is coming to the EU. It is

going to get worse before it gets

better, isn't it?

This is really

disastrous. This is like two people

in a pub who start insulting each

other and they both get to the

position where they have each

threatened to throw their beer in

one another's faces and no one can

stop them. The central government

says Catalonia must not declare

independence and you have a weak

leader in the Spanish president, who

doesn't want Catalonia to leave. He

doesn't, I think, what this crisis

but he is quite weak politically, he

has been accused of giving the

Catalans too much of their own way,

and equally you have a weak leader

in Catalonia who has been saying he

wants independence for years,

clearly would like to pull back from

the brink now, said he wants

negotiations with Madrid, but the

right internal pressures within

Catalonia saying the go-ahead. And

this cannot and well. If the

Catalans declare their independence,

which they are likely to do today,

and the Spaniards declare that they

are going to suspend the

Constitution and they are going to

suspend the powers of the Catalans,

they are going to build such mutual

hatred. There will be violence on

the streets, the EU says it won't

recognise Catalonia, businesses are

already fleeing Catalonia, and you

just think this is like two trains

heading for one another, and they

are going to smash. They need to

talk.

And the chances of it turning

ugly were pretty high, weren't they?

It was always a crisis waiting to

happen, from the moment the Catalan

government decided to have its

unlawful referendum, which those in

favour of unity with Spain boycotted

that, but then we saw the violence.

Unlawful, but Madrid's overreaction,

in most people's opinion, has given

moral impetus to the unlawful act. I

see it as a contest between two

different kinds of nationalism. You

have the nationalism of Catalonia,

which is struggling to become a new

country, and on the other hand you

have Spain, which says that if

Catalonia lives in our nation state

cannot hold together. All of that

taking place in the context of a

constitution which does empower

Madrid to do something about it, but

if Madrid does do what was the

logical thing to do, it is obviously

going to be so morally objectionable

that Catalonia arguably has the

right than to walk away.

And all the

while Brussels, the European Union,

outside, looking in, letting them

get on with it.

It is difficult to

know they will do, because on the

one hand people that the EU lacks

the idea of a Europe of regions it

depends on strong nation states

putting money into its budget, if

nothing else, and Juncker has said

Europe would be far harder to govern

as a Europe of regions. On balance,

they have more to lose.

It is a

developing story. Trade between --

trade talks between Britain and the

EU are not happening. It won't

happen until the EU side backs down

on theirs, or Britain on theirs. The

EU has started to talk among

themselves about trade with Britain.

They are always the iMac also

looking down under to forge closer

ties with Australia and New Zealand.

And EU trade deal with New Zealand

and Australia will be in place by

the end of his term in 2019, and

this week, the EU side said talks

are ready to move on to the next

stage. The UK won't be able to open

talks with Australia and New Zealand

until it leaves the EU in March

2019, but the Prime Minister remains

optimistic about reaching a deal,

because these countries are part of

the Commonwealth, and they have

historic ties to Britain. The final

EU trade deal with Australia and New

Zealand will be carefully

scrutinised by EU and UK

representatives, because it could be

viewed as a litmus test for the type

of deal the EU could eventually

signed with Britain. At such

comparisons are perhaps unwise, as

Theresa May has always maintained

she is looking for a bespoke trade

deal, and not an off-the-shelf

model. Joining me now is the

Conservative MEP and international

trade spokesman David Campbell

Bannerman. Thank you for coming in.

A bit of context first about the

importance of all this. Australia in

the league table of countries are

important trading partners with the

UK, somewhere around 20.

Or 19th,

depending on how you measure it.

Yes, but these are important

markets. We should have done these

trade deals way before this,

actually. But yesterday we had a

vote in the European Parliament. We

have agreed negotiating guidelines

of the Council, and negotiation will

be the next stage. So I welcome

that. I am off to New Zealand

tonight, it is a long flight, but we

are moving ahead. And as you rightly

say, the New Zealand deal, 80% of it

is based on Canada, the CETA deal,

which is very relevant.

We have done

that deal, and it doesn't

necessarily give encouragement to

those who say we can do these deals

in the blink of an eye, but Canada

deal, it does nothing for trade in

services.

Well, it does have...

Very

little. And the economy depends very

crucially on services.

As does the

EU economy.

So again, we should keep

these outside trade deals in

perspective. They are not

necessarily the pot of gold at the

end of the Brexit rainbow. Well, the

tariffs are important. New Zealand

Lamb, for example, is subject to

quotas, obviously half of that comes

to Britain. These things are

relevant, and we sell a lot of land

Rovers and mechanical goods to New

Zealand and Australia. It is worth

getting rid of the tariffs, and that

is very key, because they are still

operating World Trade Organization

rules. And so there are quite heavy

tariffs on certain areas. So that is

worth having, but you are right,

services has to be a big bolt on. It

is very important to New Zealand as

well. And New Zealand is not just

agriculture. A lot of it is now

services and that is very relevant

to the UK. And we want to protect

the city of London, but that is very

doable. I believe the super Canada

deal, which is taking CETA and

bolting on a lot more in services.

You mentioned Lamb, if you want to

talk about Lamb, you are an eastern

England MEP, with a lot of farmers

on your branch. How do they feel

about agricultural produce,

including lamb, flooding into the

market cheap from countries like

Australia?

There will be some

concern, and British lamb producers

have shown concern about the New

Zealand deal in particular.

The

Welsh First Minister says it will be

the end of farming in Wales.

Well,

it depends what our agricultural

regime is going to be post- wreck

sits, to be honest. We signed up to

the single farm payments and I think

we can look after our farmers but

open up our markets -- Brexit. The

quota is pretty restrictive on New

Zealand lamb, for example, and what

about the consumer? We have to look

after British consumers. We can

drive down food prices post Brexit

by being outside the customs union.

You are a great Brexiteer who

believes passionately in York cause,

but there is a fair chance you will

be dealing with angry farmers, I

don't know if they will be burning

tyres on the M20, but you could also

be looking at prices in the

supermarket going up and up and up.

I think we can look at the whole

area of driving a quality in shops

and supermarkets, opening up markets

for our farmers as well as New

Zealand and Australian farmers. I

don't think it is a zero-sum game,

nor should it be looked at that

weight. Hopefully not. That isn't

the case. But you know, we do

believe in free markets and

liberalised trade. The EU is very

resistant, by the way, because of

particular French producers. They

are already saying they will exclude

sensitive products from Australia

and New Zealand in that trade deal,

but the British trade deal which

follows Brexit may not do so, but we

will look after our farmers,

absolutely.

When you look at the

debate going on this week on the

subject of trade policy, European

Union and getting to Brexit day with

a trade deal done and dusted, with

every other deal done and dusted,

not just in March 2019 but months

and months before that, how much of

that are you convinced by?

This is

like being asked to clap your hands

if you believe in fairies, and I am

sorry, I can't clap my hands. We

know perfectly well we are not going

to get...

She does believe in

fairies!

Everytime you say that, one

dies.

Relatively simple Canada deal

should have taken seven years, and

it is not resolved. These trade

deals will not happen and even if

they were to happen, they will not

be to our advantage. At the moment

there has been research saying that

we are going to lose a quarter of

the value of our trade in services

and one fifth of our trade in goods

with the EU if we leave. And if we

make fantastic trade deals with the

ten other biggest economies in the

world, including the United States,

including India, we will make up one

tenth of the value of what we are

going to lose. And the other point

is that that will take years, and at

the moment we are entirely ignoring

the thing which matters a great deal

more than tariffs, which is whether

we stick to EU regulations. It is at

the moment the Canada deal has

nothing to say to that, which means

that if we say we are trying to

export iron to France in the future

and we are not sticking to the EU

regulations on irons, they. Us at

the border and search them, which is

why our customs are not going to be

able to keep up with all the demands

that Brexit is going to be bringing

in.

Explain why she is wrong, why

there is a Tinkerbell.

I am

open-minded. I am rather excited

about this discussion about trade,

because the us via Brexit has been

talked about in political terms too

much. It is about people punishing

each other. Britain has done this

terrible, silly thing, and you are

going to get hurt for it. Trade

doesn't work by those rules, does

it? Beneath the politicians are

spokesmen and businessmen who want

trade, because it enriches everyone,

and that is what the next stage is

going to be. Once we leave the EU,

that is what is going to be

exciting. The fact we will be able

to make money with other people.

Among the great things we have

working to advantage is EU regular

to rate compliance. We have exactly

the same regulations as the EU. --

regulatory.

Those rules and

standards could change over time,

and we are going to have to change

along with them or we lose the

market.

You can have flexibility.

When Britain is in charge of its own

regulations, when it is outside the

EU, it has exactly that flexibility

to adapt to developing markets.

I

will say the Canada deal took three

years to negotiate. We start from a

different place. We have no tariffs

and quotas, we are starting from a

different place, and all our laws

are convergent. Hence the repeal

act. You know, all the EU laws will

be UK laws.

The minute we...

It is one of the

benefits.

The EU will have to check

the imports of everything we send

them in case we no longer stick to

their regulations. It is all

agreeable.

No, it isn't. You are

only talking about 20% of the

economy as international trade. 80%

is within the UK. The rest of the

world, well, 90% of growth will come

outside of Europe.

Your confidence

is infectious.

Thank you.

Maybe that

is a good thing.

Let's come back in

two years.

The most powerful debate

in the EU parliament was sexual

harassment and whether the EU should

do more to combat it. During the

discussion the focus shifted onto

the parliament itself with many

stories emerging of staff being the

victims of harassment and abuse.

Here is what the EU Commissioner had

to say when she opened the debate.

Women that have been in some form or

another harassed by their boss,

colleague, their teacher, their

neighbour or a stranger in the

street, these stories shocked us. It

is a feminist outcry from across the

world from women who have said

enough, this is enough. We refuse to

be silent, we refuse to accept it.

We have set aside 6 million euros

last year and 12.7 for this year,

million, and projects across the EU

has been a lifeline for many

organisations who would otherwise

not be able to do the work.

There

was concern about this wherever you

look and joining me now is

macro-labor MEP leader. -- Labour

MEP leader. We know the problem,

what can the EU do?

Firstly we have

to put our own house in order and

that's what we have been trying to

do. Clearly we need to make sure

there is a safe place for victims to

be able to come through and raise

these issues. But beyond that we're

looking at having a committee where

MEPs who, like many people in this

situation, have disproportionate

power against very many let's say

young women, because it is

disproportionately women who are

affected, so what we are doing is

asking the bureau of parliament to

make sure.

OK. I want to come to the

parliament.

Beyond that.

I want to

come to that in a second. There is a

lot to be said. The union, the

commission, Brussels, what can they

do about this problem across Europe?

We need to make sure it is actually

- it is already illegal. But all

member states have to implement it,

implement laws properly, that there

is a legal let's say Polish meant or

procedure in countries in member

states.

That is up to member states

and national governments.

The EU can

pass regulation to that effect. And,

also, we need to propose that there

is a new regulation about violence

against women. And there is

something the EU can do. And the UN

is talking about it. It is not just

a problem that faces Europe. It is a

global problem. The UN and the EU

and other regional bodies which we

are working with, we could make it

unacceptable that it's not OK, like

we've made smoking in this country,

that it is not acceptable to

trivialise sexual harassment.

Smoking and sexual harassment are

rather different things. But we take

your point. You mentioned the

parliament itself and what is said

to have been going on there. With

women not safe inside the parliament

of the EU. What sort of examples are

we talking about here?

Well, we

have, you know, majority of the

people in power are still men, both

in terms of the officials and

parliamentarians. You have very many

young women who come to work in

parliament or can't for work

experience and, of course, you have

this imbalance of power and, often,

somehow, there is a feeling a bit

like in the film industry, in

politics you as well, that its OK,

young women are expected to do more

than the job they are there to do.

Someone has said there is a cultural

silence around the parliament.

People felt unable to raise

concerns, or telling stories of what

they have been through.

Exactly.

This is the same scenario, same

situation elsewhere, in Westminster,

if you are in a big corporation, you

know that your job is at risk. And

so that is the problem. The reason

there is silence is because most

people are too afraid and they don't

know the mechanisms. Now, two years

ago the parliament set up a body to

say, we know some of this harassment

exists and we want to set up an

organisation where the assistants

can go to. But really it is not well

known and it hasn't operated as well

as it should have been. But now with

the Brussels-based paper setting up

a confidential forum, more people

have come out and more women have

come out and made these allegations.

And I think it is totally

unacceptable that it's going on.

What do you think, is there a role

for politics on the European level

to make a difference?

The problem

is, as someone who has lived through

30 years of all of this, as every

single woman I know has done, the

sheer practicality of it. I know a

young woman at the moment who is

working in an organisation with

Absolutely Fabulous will policies.

Her married male bosses are not

answering her queries during the

day. They are hitting on her every

night with text messages telling

them how much they want to and I

won't use colloquial language go to

bed with her. What he/she to do in

that situation? If she reports them

they are not going to lose their

jobs. They are going to hate her and

she will get a reputation as a

troublemaker and her career in the

industry where she is just icing out

- it will never go anywhere. If she

goes public, other employers, other

men, will think, I don't want her in

my office and that is the problem.

It is right down to the basic power

in balance. And it doesn't matter

how many confidential helplines you

have. If that woman reports that

abuse than those bosses know who is

talking about them.

We have to move

on. Thank you for coming on the show

this morning. Who is coming in, who

is going out, this week MEPs voted

to introduce entry and exit checks

for people visiting the borderless

Schengen area outside of Europe. It

is to plug a gap in the EU border

security and Europol will use a

database to identify terrorist and

track criminal suspects. Adam

Fleming reports from Strasbourg.

Comings and goings at the

parliament, this is all about entry

and exit to the EU by nationals from

non-EU countries. In the analogue

era all you needed was a passport

with a visa and some stamps in it.

Under the digital entry - exit

system, there will be a joined-up

database of biometric information

which will tell border guards if

someone has stayed in the EU for

longer than the 90 days that they

are allowed.

It is essential that we

effectively manage, protect and

secure our external borders. That we

have full knowledge of who comes in.

It is in this spirit that we have

proposed the entry - exit system.

It

is designed to help stop terrorists

like the perpetrator of the Berlin

attack last Christmas. He travelled

using 15 different identities. But

some MEPs have been formed between

security and human rights.

It is a

balance compromise in the first

place. I was against this might

borders. The latest development

shows us the Gill that European

security is a problem and we have to

strengthen our borders. On the other

hand it has to go hand-in-hand with

fundamental rights.

The time that

personal data will be held has been

a big deal. It has been reduced

during the passage of legislation

but it has been too long.

My main

concern is that here there is a huge

collection of travellers' data from

all travellers coming to the

European Union and going outside and

the retention for up to three years

of this date no matter if that

person is suspicious or risky and

that is something which I think is

in proportionate. We need to focus

on those persons who are risky and

who are suspicious and collect more

data on those rather than having a

general suspicion towards

travellers.

Trust UKIP's Gerard

Batten to find a Brexit angle. He

has even written a book about it.

We

will be affected after we leave the

EU because we will be a third

country so biometric data will be

shared with all countries of the EU.

It is not unreasonable for European

countries to want the system. The

USA and UK has a system. They need a

system. My concern is we are sharing

this information across the board

with the EU and this will be shared

with countries cannot trust, they

are deeply corrupted,

institutionally corrupted.

Another

country that comes up is Canada.

Yes, it is not in the EU. It has

signed a deal with the EU to share

airline passenger data which has

been held up with a ruling in the

European Court of Justice. Some MEPs

think the same thing could happen

with this legislation. If he did it

might mean the entry and exit system

isn't ready to go in 2020 as

planned.

Adam Fleming with that report. We

are back again right in the middle

of the argument about the balance

between security and privacy.

Yes.

Has the balance shifted?

It is

perfectly reasonable for the EU to

say it wants to better monitor who

is coming in and out and the context

of this after all is that huge march

of refugees across the continent,

the contents is that those setting

borders within the Schengen area

which they shouldn't have to do. The

contest is terrorism. It is

perfectly reasonable. Batten is

right, as an emerging country

outside the EU it is reasonable for

the UK to say we don't want you

holding our citizens' data for three

years so what would want till might

want to have been a EU discussion is

between the EU and nationstate which

seems inevitable. Let the EU deal

with it and let Britain deal with

its citizens' privacy.

We heard in

the report that the worry about

information, background on

individuals harvested and held, but

when you look at the threat faced by

the world, including countries in

Europe, can we simply not be

squeamish about this?

I think you

have to wonder what government

powers have because not of us want

to end up in a situation where some

right-wing government, or some very

left-wing government then starts to

misuse information in a way we don't

anticipate. It is important that we

worry about what they do. Tim is

right. The world's preoccupation has

shifted. We don't know who is

members of ISIS or Al-Qaeda among

the million refugees who came into

Europe last year. And it is

absolutely right systems would

demand that the EU should be

intelligent about following this

data.

And there is an element of

hypocrisy that on the one hand

Britain wants open borders...

It is

a trade-off, isn't it. There is no

way to get a position happy for

everyone. That's all for now. Thank

you to all of my guests, in

particular Tim and Jenny through the

programme. Goodbye.