tv Prime Minister David Cameron to Testify on U.K. Membership of EU CSPAN May 4, 2016 10:41pm-12:17am EDT
he talked about the possible effects of that vote. this is an hour and a half. >> order, order. thank you very much for coming to give evidence, prime minister. you are initially reluctant but like you changed your mind. [laughter] we are always pleased to see you. you can come more often if you particularly want to. i do value the opportunity on this subject, we all do. we have a referendum coming. i would like to begin by quoting what you said in your cap now speech. you said if we cannot reach an agreement, the agreement you negotiated, if britain's
concerns are met with deaf ears, you'll have to think again about whether this european union is right for us. is the current eu without a renegotiated package right for us? mr. cameron: that is not the choice we have. that was the choice i was determined to avoid. i thought that would've been a bad choice. would we rather stay this organization that we think has failings that need to be addressed? i was determined to avoid a choice by having a negotiation -- >> in the absence of the renegotiation, we do have argued for leaving? mr. cameron: i never argued for leaving. i have spent my political life arguing -- i think were better off in a reformed europe. as prime minister i have a chance to deliver a reformed europe. i'm not saying that we have achieved solves all of your cozy
-- europe's problems. on many occasions it doesn't solve written problems of europe. it does address some of the key problems. it was a successful negotiation. when i said if this organization had rebuffed one of its leading members and contributors and was not going to address these things, with that point we would have to say, is this really goes organization -- really an organization for us that his death to its members? >> i'm just asking what you meant by that, prime minister. i'm asking whether you would be arguing for withdrawal. mr. cameron: i haven't. in my political career i have not argued for leaving the eu. >> i am asking seeing that this is not a hypothetical question -- mr. cameron: it is but we don't have a choice. we don't have a choice of leaving the eu.
>> the current eu, this is something we have to imagine we are in. the hypothetical question is what it will look like after renegotiation. i'm asking you a real question, not a hypothetical. which is would the current arrangements in the eu be so in his factory you would be arguing to leave? mr. cameron: that is a hypothetical question. your question begins with the word "if." would you stay in the eu? that is a hypothetical question and i never wanted the british people have to answer that question. that's what i said we should have renegotiation and then a referendum. if you're asking about my view -- >> i have not asked you that question. what i'm trying to do is elicit from you whether the decision it -- on whether we should vote yes or no in this referendum is based on what you have delivered in this renegotiation.
mr. cameron: i think some people will say whatever you negotiated i would want to stay. i think other people will say no matter what i renegotiated they want to leave. some people will say -- >> i'm asking what you would say. mr. cameron: i will be voting to stay in a reformed european union based on the choice in front of us. >> back to where we were, we are in a current eu. the one we have got now. do you think we should vote to stay in that? mr. cameron: status of the question of front of us. >> that's the question i asked. mr. cameron: i don't know where you are going with this. i stood for parliament in 2001, 1997 unsuccessfully. i said in 1997 we should not join the single currency but i do not oppose membership in the eu. all my political life i've been favor of staying in the getting reforms. as prime minister of had a
chance to deliver that reform. from a standing start, we have delivered more reforms the people of done in the past were expected. i recommend people stay. >> those people will be asking you questions about your renegotiation in one way or another. i think the public quite reasonably wants to know how much they should set on its importance for the decision. i've been asking you for several minutes. mr. cameron: i think the renegotiation is an additional reason to stay because it has addressed some areas were people of real concern. too much of a single currency club, too much of a union, too much emphasis on our welfare system drawing people to the eu. not enough emphasis on growth. i've corrected those four things. it makes a difference for me. we are asking a bigger question
which is should we stay in this organization or should we leave ? mr. cameron: i don't overemphasize the achievement of renegotiation. from all my speeches in the campaign i talked about the biggest issue of all. >> i will bring in more colleagues. >> thank you very much. on the renegotiation package that he said was so successful, in fact your promise of treaty changed failed. you promised fundamental change in the relationship with we have of the european union. what we actually have got his discussions in the council and no change in the eu institutions. you claim the passages are reversible, but given international agreements it is not eu treaty change and cannot be described as eu law.
the danish and irish are not precedents. no one, including the council can control future decisions. a recent u.k. opinion poll, 57% said they did not trust your package. only 22% did. when they vote on the 23rd of june it will be historic vote. as you cannot guarantee or even offer a treaty change before they get to the polling stations and cast their votes, are you there by cheating the voters?
mr. cameron: no, you and i have a long-standing, mutually understood disagreement about this. let me run through some of those points. we have achieved treaty change. in the international legal agreement we have negotiated, the commitment to treaty change. >> you have not. mr. cameron: ask a shorter question and i'll give a shorter answer. treaty change in those two areas is very important. you asked about whether it was irreversible. that is not my view. alan -- would -- dashwood said it is you reversible in practice. i don't agree with you about that. how fundamental is the change that we are achieving? i think it is quite fundamental. getting written out of the union reinforces the special status we have at of the eurozone, and now
out of -- an ever closer union. i think this change with respect to our currency and not being discriminated against inside his organization -- that is quite fundamental too. the eu is a unit of countries, some of who share currency in some who don't. we have is proper legal status saying if you are in the eu and have your own currency, you cannot be discriminated against. i have mentioned the fact we are cutting the welfare payments that eu citizens receive when they come to britain. that has never been achieved before. i fundamentally disagree with you. when people go to the polls they should think about the issue. the eu as it's going to be or leaving. i think the renegotiation was successful and achieved some fundamental goals. >> i made it clear that on all
the best legal advice, it made it absolutely clear if we leave for those proposals. frankly, what you are saying is you want us to stay in the european union, but at the same time you're presenting voters with a decision on the 23rd of june based on a false perspective. it is not irreversible. you cannot predict, prime minister, whether or not there will be any decisions following that agreement that are not part of eu law. you can't say they will be a change in government. you cannot say they will not be outcomes of the reform referendum. mr. cameron: i got the attorney general of the united kingdom suggesting the agreement does not have legal force is not correct. it has affected a point at which
the u.k. notifies the european union who wanted to stay. a summary of the legal analysis it says the renegotiation package is based on an international agreement which is binding in international law. it is irreversible. what i would say is let's not argue that we are doing all these things on false perspective. that is an honest disagreement. you want to leave the eu and i want to stay in. we have a referendum because we have a conservative government and a conservative prime minister. there are lots of things to talk about, but accusing each other of false perspectives under the legal opinion is very clear i think it's a waste of time. >> i'm sorry, but you quoted those opinions. as far as jacobs, one of the most preeminent qc's in the
country and vice president of the european court, he himself has made exactly the same point as i have. i really think if i may say so you are just trying to get away with something. mr. cameron: i think that is wrong on all grounds. to be fair you always wanted, i think, something unattainable. you wanted to find a way of not being subject the european court or subject to the common rules of the market. somehow to find an associate status within the eu. that is something we have delivered and we can deliver more of. in making that choice we cannot accuse each other of false perspective. that is what the choice is and
what the british people are going to make. one more point. when i think back to all the things we talked about in the 1990's and the single currency and all the rest of it, there were people that said these uptights for the eu will not work. for the last 40 european councils i used that whole time. it is very successful. it has protected us in a very effective way. i don't accept this idea that you get an agreement in europe and it doesn't work. the danish agreements worked for them. our agreements has worked for us. let's have a referendum on that basis. >> they look to eu budget management and we were really disturbed to see how much goes back to europe in penalty.
you are profoundly pro-europe of the competency of your government is the brexit argument. it should be going to the pocket of farmers and -- mr. cameron: we need to do better in the way money is spent in the way systems are established. this dates back to the first on the rule payments agency was set up in the problems with that agency. >> your officials. said it would get worse before it gets better mr. cameron: i think it is going to get better. i think we should stand back and ask why we have these rules. they are there to make sure the money is spent properly and there is not fraud or misappropriation. i totally accept if where making sure systems are in place, we absorb the money that is there available for us from the eu. i agree with that. >> lithuania has a much better record than we do. if we can get some of that back up at some point.
in the event of brexit, one of the concerns i have is that the u.k. would not be of the continue to share air passenger information given the new directive. it is really vital to the security of our citizens. have you thought about the consequences would be in that? mr. cameron: yes, i think this is very serious. i was talking earlier about how i had a clear view of europe and reform over the past 15-20 years. one area where i'm definitely changed my opinion is i used to believe nato, partnership with america, police, intelligence services, that is how we deliver security. europe has nothing to do with security. i would argue that five or 10 years ago. there is no doubt in my mind that has changed. they're the most important things. there is no doubt in my mind that passenger name records,
criminal records, data, fingerprints, dna, terrorist information, border checks, border information, those things are incredibly powerful and important in protecting our security. what will we do if we left? i think there are some things. it would be difficult if not impossible to get back into the european arrest zone. i think there are some things that theoretically you can negotiate your way back into but it would take a lot of time. and a lot of time at a moment will be facing great danger in terms of terrorism. there are some days i suspect he could get that into but you would never have as much europol is a good example of that. we would never get back in the same way. my argument would be the safer part of the stronger, safer, stronger, better off, safer argument is very important.
i think it's had enough attention. if you listen to intelligence chiefs and police chiefs and others, they are giving a strong message about how valuable it is. it is something we fought for very hard and are finally getting that done. i think it would be a great mistake to leave these arrangements and have to work out how to get back in after. >> this might surprise you, i would agree with you on that. that brings it ask why as such a pro-european, you have chosen to put the u.k. security at such risk? mr. cameron: i think there is a big issue with a referendum. it's time for britain to have another choice. we made this choice -- let me finish. this organization has changed and quite a lot. i think you cannot hold the country and organization against its choice. there is a very wide support for
holding referendum and i think we should not be frightened of that. we should make the arguments as we are. i think the argument about safety and fighting terrorism and fighting crime and cross-border drugs and weapons and the rest of it is strongly arguing for staying in the eu. >> it is a huge risk we leave. the real concern is of the infighting in your party over that. the final point about tax. the public account committee has been watching this very closely. the committee has a unanimous call for greater transparency for corporate tax in the u.k. the government is keen to act in concert with european partners rather than go it alone. if britain were to leave the eu, would you want to follow your or -- europe or take a lead in trying to set the agenda from outside the eu? mr. cameron: we've argued when it comes to tax transparency there is a role for the eu but we should try to do as much as we can on a global basis. you can set standards even more widely.
>> what about within the european union? mr. cameron: we support the move towards country by country -- if we were outside again, this is one of the big arguments for you to make. there are frustrations within the eu. i feel that as prime minister. there are parts of it that are not right and things we need to change and our frustrations of limitations. this is a good example of something we want to achieve that is in our national interest. if we were not in, these discussions will be going on and we would knocking at the door -- we would be knocking at the door. if you take something like tax transparency, this is a british-driven initiative. i can point to the last six years against russia, sanctions against iran, raising money for fighting and west africa, it's a totally british-led initiative.
>> would you go it alone? mr. cameron: i could try but it would be more difficult. i think because you don't know whether other countries are going with you, you would find it's harder to make progress on an agenda like this. >> thank you. >> i want to speak about trains. -- trade. cabinet haveur own said u.k. trade has been held back by membership in the eu. mr. cameron: i think the argument here is do we sign trade deals faster inside or outside the eu? i think the evidence is that we sign better trade deals and increasingly more quickly from inside the eu because we have the -- not only is this very much and eu agenda where perhaps it was not in the past, but we are inclined to get good deals. the evidence for that is things like the korea deal. we made huge progress on an eu-u.s. trade deal.
a british initiative started in the g-8 summit in northern ireland. the argument that even be easy to sign trade deals outside the eu, i don't think it stands up to scrutiny. i think if you look at countries signing trade deals and set up trade blocs, they are less good deals. much of the best deals have been done between different blocks. if you think about it from britain's point of view, trade deals need to be good trade deals. particularly for britain because our economy is so services based. it's much more difficult to get the access to services than it is to have a simple agreement about tariffs on goods. i think it's particularly in our interests to use the eu as the battering ram to get that done. >> britain by leaving could we negotiate more favorable terms?
for the eu and the global markets that we currently don't enjoy? mr. cameron: i don't think if we left we would have to try, but i think we would have major disadvantages. the first thing we would have to do is to work at our trading relationship with the eu. 44% of our exports go to the eu. it is our most important market. the first thing the government would have to do is ask what the arrangement is going to be. i think this is where the campaign faces real difficulties. either you say we want access to single markets, but if you're like norway you are still paying into the eu and accepting free movement of people between you and the eu. you've got the access of the single market of the rules or regulations are. that's why the norwegian prime minister says don't do the norway deal. therefore you don't do that.
you start looking at the canada-style trade deals. it's a good deal for canada. it's taken seven years to negotiate and they haven't completed it. it will be quite difficult to work out what your trade arrangements are until you have sorted out the eu deal. i think we would be looking at potentially a decade of uncertainty as we tried to fix the eu trading arrangement. at the same time and afterwards. the campaign has not thought this through sufficiently. >> you don't think the arrangement or a model that we should think to any late in a -- emulate in a brexit. what about switzerland? norway and switzerland are very successful, very prosperous trading nations within the eu. wouldn't that work for us? mr. cameron: i think they both have the same problem. in the case of norway, if you take that as an example, they pay into the eu. they accept people. they are objectives of the lead campaign. -- leave. campaign
for a country like britain, the fifth biggest economy in the world, do we really want our trading relationship with this very important -- the most important trading partner we have on the basis of a rule taken? yet is paying into the system, as norway does and accepting the , freedom -- free movement of people. why would we want that? i think that argument by the leave campaign has dropped to that now. and they are talking about canada. canada is a good trade deal for canada, thousands of miles away from europe. it's not a good deal for britain because it doesn't have full access to services. it doesn't have full access for ffswithout terrorists --tari for farming and food. it's taken seven years to
achieve. i think this is why in my view the leave campaign is not sufficiently thought through how you get these trading arrangements in place. that's why i think the argument is not collapsing into talking about migration and money. this idea that britain was going to rush off and signed deals with the rest of the world, they dropped that because it's -- that does not work. this idea that you either trade with europe or you trade with the rest the world is obviously nonsense. they want to do both and there's nothing to stop us and doing both. >> in the event of us voting to remain, with the member states want to get back to business as usual immediately? is business as usual good enough for you? mr. cameron: it is absolutely not >> you will fight to make sure we get a better deal it comes to trade for britain? what steps you planning to take on that? mr. cameron: in the renegotiation documents which are legally binding and irreversible there is a lot of material about signing trade
deals more rapidly with the rest of the world. the deregulation agenda to make sure europe is more competitive. that is business as usual for the eu post-referendum. we should be focusing on that agenda. i would also make the point that some people say if we vote to remain, business as usual will be a barrage of regulations. i think we have got very good objections against that. we are out of a closer union. it affects the way the european court will work. we have this guarantee that any power proposed being parsed -- passed from britain results in a referendum in our own country. there are risks to every course you take in life, but in terms of reducing the risks of staying, i think it's been done very effectively. >> you think negotiations are dead? mr. cameron: not at all.
i think there will be a successful conclusion. i think there have been 13 rounds of discussions. a lot of what needs to be agreed on has been agreed on. it will take a bit on both sides. it's a very big deal for britain that could result in hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit for our economy. >> final question. do you think we could if done more for the industry if we had not been more in the eu? mr. cameron: i don't. a, a lot of the output of the steel industry goes europe. it's our biggest market. as much as 40% of the output. b, if we were outside the eu, we could be subject to the same anti-dumping tariffs with respect to china. i don't think it would've been a good future for steel. when i talked give it a i was struck whether i was talking to the unions or management or anybody else, they seemed to think the same thing. >> prime minister, my committee,
education, has little to deal with europe at all. i want to start off with the observation that the president of the united states set in 1975 executive obama said recently. no american president would ever question the need for us to be powers of the european union. that has been endorsed by the prime minister of new zealand and australia. is it any surprise when we think about albania as an alternative source of economic trade and political strength? mr. cameron: one of the arguments i have become very aware of over the last few years is our friends in the world, countries from the commonwealth or partners like united states,
it's difficult to find a prime minister or president that things britain would be better off leaving the eu. this discussion about albania has come up because one of the leave campaign's was saying our free-trade zone across europe, including countries albania or iceland, actually it's a bit of a misnomer. of all those states, they have separate agreements with the eu. the ones in the balkans, the countries that want to join the eu and they at some reference on trade that they -- i will make the bigger point. what on earth are we doing thinking that a model for britain is somehow to try to have the same deals romania has with the eu? i think the answer is, no we can't. what we ought to deliver the special status we have in the
eu. going back to the chair's original question. put it alongside previous things that british governments have done to demonstrate special status. britain is different. i'm not arguing we should accept italian membership or german membership in this organization. we are different. we have not been invaded in 1000 years. we have institutions that we revere and care about. we have this extraordinary role in european history. s churchill said we are not of europe but we are with europe. let's have a statement reflects that. we will not get that from the inside with a special status that we should build on. >> eight economists have joined the brexit campaign on reasons why we should leave. how does it stack up with the observations of oacd, which
makes very plain that a month's salary per year would be lost for each person if we do leave the european union? have you contest that with the widespread agreement from businesses that are best interest in terms of investment and jobs ought to remain in the european union? mr. cameron: i am sure the committee would examine all these arguments in great detail. you have a weight of evidence, the bank of england,, the imf report from treasury, cpi and other organizations looking at the economic arguments. they are all finding that when you look at the economics, the case for staying is very strong. the ones that came up for brexit, i think they make some fairly odd assumptions like the rest of the world taking down trade barriers of this automatically. they don't seem to mind that if it led to a wipeout manufacturing that is something that we have to take on the chin.
i look carefully at what they are saying. i think that the arguments made by those other organizations are very persuasive. from the treasury particularly, it was quite straightforward. it was making an argument about the benefit of the openness of our economy to trade with europe and the other countries we have trade deals with. and basically explaining if you go for something less or more restrictive, the canada model, you will suffer economically. i think the most important opinions would agree with that. >> it would have about 6060 free-trade agreements to replicate what we are leaving -- 66 free-trade agreements to replicate what we are leaving. we would lose contact with european union to other markets. do we have the capacity to quickly and effectively conclude those agreements so less damage is being done to our economy? do you think it will take some time?
mr. cameron: currently our eu trade deals cover that 60%, if we do the u.s. and japan deals a -- it could be up to 83%. so huge percentage will be covered by these deals. if the british people vote to leave, we will have to vote -- work hard to get these deals back in place as soon as we can. the difficulty will be working at your trading arrangements with eu quickly. it's been quite difficult the -- to do trade deals elsewhere. i think all the evidence is that it will take some time. particularly when you look at the canada deal that is taken seven years and is still not in place. the former head of the debbie t -- wto said swapping our participation in the single market, he described it as a terrible replacement. wto rules today, we would have
10% duty on our close, 30% on our close. 70% on our beef. these are very real consequences if you don't get a good and fast you with his single market -- the single markets. >> if you're not worried about in or out, in a leadership role across europe and are allies and partners we've been quite successful. if you look in the single market, that was a product of lord hirschfield -- kerfield. when we are active we can bring about real significant change. do you see the possibilities of that happening if we do decide to remain in the european union beyond the referendum? mr. cameron: i would just highlight a couple of things. i think because the economic problems of the eurozone members
of and having, i think there is a recognition that when interest rates are close to zero, when government budgets are stretched, one of the best things you can do to grow your economy is have sensible deregulation and side trade deals with the rest of the world. the british agenda of doing this is something we can push very hard, which is why the part of my renegotiation have the most widespread support. i think we can very much lead on that issue which will be good for us. it's true that it is let some of the british frustrations. obviously common rule can be -- there are other areas renting we could lead on. one is this issue of how we fight extremism and terrorism. in our country we have a lot of expertise because what happened in 2005 and because of tooling up earlier in our capabilities to fight terrorism i think we are ahead of others in europe. that's an issue if we remain in
the eu i would like to give as much leadership on if i could. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] can i commend you prime minister on this report which was unanimously agreed by committee split down the middle on the issue. it might help you by not having issues to money and sally's -- so many aut sally's. we would probably go to the world trade organization within two years and negotiate the deal within two years. that's an agreed position across the committee. mr. cameron: frankly i -- >> i want to challenge your assumption. if the atmosphere of the eu is towards a brexit, quite can't we negotiate a free-trade deal with anyone we choose?
mr. cameron: my direct answer is that 44% of our exports go to the eu. it is such a crucial market for us. our businesses are integrated with it and i think it would be damaging for our economy if the left that for a long time and decided -- >> that's why the canadians and the americans take a long time. they are negotiating with 27 nations a complex deal. we would be faster getting agreement with other countries, would we? country to country negotiations? often completed in two years. mr. cameron: you might be able to do that but he had not secured the market -- >>. you don't have a choice mr. cameron: just think that means. if you are excepting wto rules coming in rather than it -- >> you know that. mr. cameron: the bottom line is you have 10% tariffs on your cars, 70% on your be. --beef. >> the mutual interest in the deal --
mr. cameron: i want to make two quick points. the deal is mutual interest. i think we would negotiate very hard. the figures are 44% of all the export goes to them. 8% of their exports come to us. the second point is never forget the importance of services in our economy and financial services. if you lose the -- let me give you one example. >> but the prime minister finish. mr. cameron: a fellow said he thought we would lose 100,000 jobs a month because the passport issue. you lose that aspect of any bank or financial services country instantly set its services. if you say leave our relationship and we will get to wto rules and negotiate with
the rest of the world, you face massive terrorists -- tariffs. they could make your economy much worse than the norway deal. >> i think massive tariff is something of an exaggeration. if i can ask you, your handling of the government. outside of the special circumstances of renegotiation how much of your times giving to advancing or protecting britain's position in the eu? outside of the special circumstance and renegotiation? how much time this eu business take up of your day? mr. cameron: i could probably write to you. it somewhere between 10 and 15 i guess. >> how often do you -- mr. cameron: it's a very good question. there are a set number of european summit every year. a certain number of extra ones for emergencies. a certain amount of european diplomacy.
there are domestic relations -- issues relating to europe. i would say 15%. the negotiation to go long time because i have visited every country, sometimes more than once. i reckon 15% that i will get back to you. >> how often are you speaking to the french president and german chancellor? mr. cameron: i would say probably the german chancellor fortnightly, every two or three weeks probably. >> and the others? mr. cameron: i would speak to the french, german and italian prime ministers probably more than others. it depends. it really does depend. you take recent weeks for we had this intensive action the -- over the migration crisis. i have been talking a lot because we've been playing a part. these people cannot come across
our borders and we have played a big role in getting that deal with turkey to send people back to the greek islands. the germans and the french in particular with their investigation with the dutch. >> i want to try to explore the evolution of your views and how you changed since you became the leader of the party. you took us out of the epped with some other colleagues. yet now you say your view has changed we see the value of the eu with security. if that's the direction of travel, why defend this? mr. cameron: first of all -- there are things that have not changed. i think we need european reform. we are better with reform. i think he was right to come out of the european people's party. it is now the third-largest in
the european union. and there is a party reform. it has real influence. in terms of what i said about security, i think the argument i'm trying to make us i think 10, 15 or 20 years ago a lot of people said europe is about trading cooperation and political cooperation. security doesn't really come into it. in recent years i have seen how important that is. in terms of defense, nato is the cornerstone of our defense. but where our eu operations are the best way to get something done, we should not object to that. for instance, the operation in somalia to rid the seas of pirates. that was a british-that eu mission. -- british-led eu mission. >> the core debate of what the eu will look like in 2040. there are two good things. one is the direction of travel
on defense and security, is it there for people to see? and britain's position is starting to stop the development of an eu defense identity. it is starting to mean that 450 million europeans and about 25 million americans. that is something we should be assisting in tracing that identity in the defense output. more importantly is the direction of travel in the euro zone countries -- is the travel in the eurozone countries, those interests are going to be so close and our interests will be so different that it is inevitable even with their protection you secured in the renegotiation which is quite specific that they will be focusing about their interests. and the direction of travel and european union will inevitably be away from the direction of
united kingdom unless we're outside the eurozone. >> please hurry. >> if you arrive late for dinner with your mate, you will find they have decided we were going and there's nothing you can do. you can only decide whether to join them or not. mr. cameron: that was a very clear expression. i think the key to this renegotiation is it accepts we are not all heading -- not only going a different speeds but a different destinations. i think the europe of -- eurozone countries will integrate further but written well not be a part of that. we have to build on our special status. is it in our national interest to remain in the single market with protections against the pound being discriminated against by the euro? my opinion is yes. if we leave -- if you think it's going to integrate, let's get out because we cannot maintain special status.
we would be discriminated against because we are in there with this special status. they cannot dictate that euros have to be cleared only in euros -- eurozone countries. we know we can maintain london is a great financial center of europe because we have the protection. a brief question. you got my e-mail. it is clear from britain's answer on the 14th of april is the government's intention to keep all websites and webpages that the government runs on the gov.uk website up during the 28 day period. i would advise this is against the law. i now have advice from the speaker's counsel. it is clear that it is a publication is under section
215." what is your response to this? mr. cameron: i wanted to hear directly from you about your views. my approach to this is we must abide by the law and never way. we are taking legal advice as you would expect. it seems to me the right thing to do is to make sure if there is a website, a government website, it is not refreshed were updated during the period. i would just ask if it's necessary to take something down. that's an extreme position. i want to understand your concern about that. >> in the case of -- the court ruled leaving a notice on it golf club noticeboard is a continuing active publication.
another more recent rulings, every time the server is hit by another request for page that constitutes republication of the material. i think you will find you cannot keep up that website. mr. cameron: we will look at our legal advice. >> expect a letter of action. mr. cameron: there we are. [laughter] mr. cameron: it seems to me if taking that a website is a bit like saying you have to remove publications that people might already have from the government. >> that is correct. we will move on. on the trade union bill, he used to say and i quote there is a very simple principle here. giving money to a party should be active free will. money should be not taken out of people's pay package without being told about it properly. we have mccluskey quoted as
saying "they needed to support of the left within the u.k. to sustain the remaining vote. that played a part in the considerations and discussions that have taken place by the vote." how sure are you that the referendum played a part in the trade union vote? mr. cameron: these are separate issues. what happened with the trade union bill, which i'm proud getting to parliament and delivering of the manifesto promises, is in the house of lords. >> mr. mccluskey is wrong? mr. cameron: i have not seen his remarks. >> i just read it to you. he said passage of the bill because of the considerations and discussions that of taken place and the need to sustain the support of the left is in the broadest context on the
challenge of the remaining vote. mr. cameron: what i would say is the two issues are separate. we lost in the house of lords. >> they thought they were going to get that through. mr. cameron: it was a pretty large majority. >> no discussion of the trade union. was there any discussion between government and the trade union about the labor campaign about on thediscussions passage of the trade agreement bill? mr. cameron: the better off campaign has been talking with trade unions as you'd expect. >> i think the prime minister's answer is needed on that point. mr. cameron: we've been speaking with them for months and with -- wanting them do wholeheartedly support the campaign which they do. that is happening. that is good.
the trade union bill is a separate issue. i think that will be a success we get the bill through. >> he used to say the u.k. needed "a charter of fundamental rights. our country has fundamental rights for the eu charter for fundamental rights was invented." why did this formed a part of the negotiation? mr. cameron: it did. we got a restate in reference at the charter of fundamental rights created no new rights in british law. which of think is important i think we can address this even further when we are on the issue of the bill of rights, which we want to see enacted during this parliament.
>> when the treaty was going through we described the lisbon treaty portico -- protocols need -- it was described as a fig leaf and worthless. it makes it clear that it has the rights much broader than those set out in the european convention apply for the european court of justice. how can anyone have confidence if it will respect any legally binding agreements, even if they work within the treaties? mr. cameron: i want to address the renegotiation. the charter of fundamental rights has not extended the ability of the european courts into the united kingdom to rule on rules and practices of the rights it reaffirms. we oppose the lisbon treaty.
one of the reasons we are having this referendum is it was not possible to have a referendum on the lisbon treaty, even though it was a postscript to the document, the constitution a that tony blair said stand and deliver, at sign have earned run -- it's time to have a referendum. >> last year the ecg stated that legislation permitting the public authorities have access on the generalized basis of electronic indications is incompatible with the eu charter on fundamental rights. the u.s. attorney general clearly saw this as also the transatlantic information sharing which he described this as particularly disappointing. which is more important for national security? the agreement with the closest allies or outside the u.k. eu membership? mr. cameron: the five eyes
agreement, eight altogether everything about it, they want britain to stay in the european union because of in britain will be stronger, and more capable partner, able to get more things done for the we are fighting daesh for putin. they believe britain will be stronger, safer, and an even stronger partner for them. it relates to commercial bases rather than national security. national security reaffirmed which is a national responsibility. i would listen to the five eyes partners about what they think is going to be creating a safer world for all of us. >> there is very little desire in scotland for an eu referendum.
the majority of scottish people want to remain in the european union. given that we do not want this referendum, and only a minority of scots want to leave, and our nation is eventually forced out against this collective national will? mr. cameron: i would challenger statistics. -- challenge your statistics. when we look at opinion polls that was are markedly little difference between scotland, england wales and northern ireland. the only way to improve the scottish people want to referendum is of the support candidates supporting referendum. that would have to be to conservatives, which is a very partial way to get the information. opinion polls are pretty clear. the scottish people wanted a referendum and that is what is happening. >> you are seeing that in the opinion polling.
it's clearly stating overwhelmingly this got -- the scots would only be part of the u.k. those security eu membership. that was the best tenuous given what opinion polls are showing. do you feel the scottish people were perhaps misled by some of these characterizations about the eu? mr. cameron: there are two questions there. somehow or people misled about what happened to scotland with respect to the eu? i think the truth there is it would've had a very difficult time getting back into the european union. not just in my view. the spanish friend minister threatened a veto in view of the head of the commission that was
-- and also scotland had joined the eu and the circumstances, it would have to join the single currency. it would not have a special status that we've united kingdom have within the eu. >> my position is that it is a united kingdom position. you will make your argument in uruguay. >>ould argue to anyone that we just have to lump it and get on with it.
are witnessing our part of these referendums? what impact are they having? accept that i don't there are exaggerated stories. >> the 100,000 jobs would be lost to the city. that is not mine estimate. i asked him to confirm it. >> that is when you started all of these stories. leeway. little my intervention was positive. what we would achieve.
i'm very clear with the agenda we have. i profoundly believe that the better choice. do you- is a wish you had never thought of this whole referendum business at all? i believe in democracy. i had a choice as prime minister. i could've tried to palm off the parliament. i did not. let's have a fair, legal and
us doesould you tell that include you as prime minister? this referendum is about britain's future in europe. it is not about one team of politicians. i do not want anyone to try out their decision-making. we are either a reformed europe or out. i will accept the verdict and do what i can to put it in place. >> you seriously think that if the vote goes against, you can remain as prime minister. yes.ameron: achieved a majority a year ago and parliament. that is the mandate that i have. i would argue that we have achieved an overwhelming amounts
in our majority. i am being very correct about having a mandates. having a referendum. i think that is the right thing to do. >> can i bring you back to those renegotiations which have occurred here. when doour commitments, you will achieve it? mr. cameron: in the general election, i said that i wanted , you have to leave.
a lot of europeans coming here. at that stage, the net migration was almost exclusively from outside the eu where i believe we should do a lot to reduce it. , we need to dome more. this is a realistic ambition. i want to make progress towards it. >> you are a long-standing supporter of turkey. think that it will be another. mr. cameron: i do not think the
succession of turkey to the eu is in the cards. forn't think it will happen decades. the french that they will have a referendum on it. it is not remotely in the cards and and is not an issue. i said in the house of commons. i used those words. >> thank you prime minister. at the heart of your economic , you did not want to
cut. just under a fifth of the funds. is not even take into account the value of collaboration. think it is reasonable for researchers, input innovators and investors to have an understanding of what the government is planning for brexit. i was not really clear. mr. cameron: the point i was is that somee people have hankered on. britain.gger deal for
that to me is not possible. maybe there is more special status that we can build. i think that is the real choice. the point i was making is that i read his support -- rp in detail. coming out of the eu and going off and trying to look for other that is about idea. >> what would the picture look like? there are a number of negotiations. a good example would be switzerland's. had they found is when they a referendum, and the government
had to institute an emergency, a stop.ogram mr. cameron: when it comes to science and research, the case for staying in is very strong. a lot of our constituents work in our universities. it almost sounds like a dictatorship. the -- in eu membership is beneficial to science and universities. you asked a very important question. how would that work?
lose influence. we are in this crucial meetings. norway was not there. that was one of the things we were able to secure. when it comes to science and research, the argument is very clear. universities are almost uniformly against it. >> do you think it is necessary for us to maintain free movement of people in order to act and if you don't think that, how are you going for replace that 8.8 billion which has been going to our science and innovation over the last decade. if we stay in the single market, they insist on goods and services.
the research that they conduct. in two eu paid collaborations, we would not be able to exploit that research. on there been any impact what would happen if we came out and became that? mr. cameron: i was not entirely aware of that. that is very serious. i have not examined it. that is a very powerful point. the argument on science and are towards the amended quote. >> it would be better for them but in terms of the brexit plan, we do not quite know what they are. i think a lot of
these questions are for people who want to leave. for science and research, that is a very good thing. leave, i want to make sure that we support science. in auld be doing so situation where if our economy took the hit that the forecast we could be billions of pounds down on our tax receipts. is, when voted to restrict freedom of movement, iny were instantly suspended 2020. propose to the government that there are contingency plans in place. mr. cameron: i don't think the swiss model is a good one to
follow for the reasons that you give. if you listen to the leave campaign, they started off thinking about switzerland and norway and moving on to something else. that would mean not being in science. that is something we need to focus on. >> prime minister, i took a look at the migrations for the part of this deal. i also took a look at a speech he made discussing this 18 "nths ago and where you said, what we don't need is some arcane mechanism in the uae you -- eu that would be triggered by the european commission, not by --"ill
that a section be for those of you who want to follow. this is triggered in fact not just by the commission but also by the council. support.equire is that not correct? mr. cameron: the point is this. it is quite an arcane mechanism. thated to make sure britain qualified instantly and that it lasted along this possible timeline. that is what i achieved in the negotiations. britain qualifies for this and the mechanism will last seven years. in, it mechanism came
would still be an operation for 2024. it would not be in full receipt of benefits until 2028. that is quite an achievement in thetiating terms to agree reduction benefits of other european systems for a. starting in 2017 all the way to 2028. that is a very powerful mechanism. >> order, order. you are agreeing this is an arcane mechanism? i remember the speech. agreeing that it requires an agreement of the commission? agreeing that it
requires from the council. you are agreed that it also -- parliament. this deal will be done on regulations. regulations will acquire their agreement. annex six in the legally binding document that we the kind ofays that information provided by the united kingdom in particular does not make use, it shows the type of exceptions it is intended to cover and exist in the united kingdom. the u.k. will be justified in triggering the mechanism in full expectation of a obtaining approval. that was agreed to by the minister. that means is, if we vote to stay in, a mechanism with
>> i took a good look at annex six. not on some other day. those conditions may change in the future. prime minister: third up going to change by june the 23rd. as soon as the referendum is over if we vote to stay in this then needs to be put in place. as farce i am concerned, the sooner the better. it goes all the way until 2028. >> that brings me to my second point. this does require the approval of the european parliament. they may decide to prevaricate or do whatever they want. minister: i was so concerned about this than a major the president of the parliament was in these negotiations. he said i will give you
guarantee that the european parliament will immediately after the referendum vote to stay in and legislate on the proposal of the commission. it does not have a veto. ont is what martin scholz the opposite side of the political divide from me, he was in these discussions. has he got all these european parliamentarians in his pocket? minister: the point was that all of them have accepted these negotiations. i think we should go ahead and vote on june 23 in the expectation, the confident expectation that this will be put in place. the mechanism plus the decision was so important to get this negotiation right. going to bring in meg who has a question.
meg: the money is being sent back because of poor departmental actions. can you tell us what should be done and promise us that you will keep an eye on this so that we are not actually losing this cash? got penalties: we on agricultural funds by 2035. putting a lot of money into the land mapping systems. thate confident we can get money down. good practice and procurement will recognize by court orders. i think we are making progress. meg: this is complete incompetence. welithuania has one rated have another we have another way of big problem. prime minister: it is taken long
time to get over that. argument that we need to do better, yes. but there is a case for having some sort of mechanism to make sure the european countries spend the money effectively that they get. we sat around the european taxpayer a lot of the time to spend money effectively it's a massive problem. meg: they are performing poorly. getting the most out of the money whether it is european investment funds of the infrastructure money that the labor brought in for innovation and research. i want to come back to
something that i put you privately about a year ago. part of which have been published as a proposal. a proposal to reverse this inexorable eu ratchet of ever greater regulations. you weren't initially very interested in this proposal by think you became more interested. some inkling of it has appeared in the agreement in annex four. this means we might be able to roll back this inexorable growth the bodys known as the of rules at the eu level. but there's a problem. a fundamental problem it seems to me. this proposal you have negotiated is to be run by the commission. which is scarcely independent. the commission itself will be
taking an exam question that it is bound to pass. lorde to read you what carney, the governor of the bank of england, said about this. effectiveness, this mechanism should be completely independent as a check on the legislative process. separate from the institutions involved in that process. that is a central flaw in this otherwise quite attractive proposal isn't it prime minister? minister: i really conversations about this. i can see the merit of having a separate body do this. if you want to bureaucracy to deregulate this. you've got to make the bureaucracy deregulate rather than create someone else to do the job for them. targets set department and you only introduce one
regulation may scrap another one that ashley changes the culture and changes the amount of regulation. that's what we have to do with the european commission. >> did you press for independence? itme minister: i discussed with them but i thought that this was a better answer. my senses this is a very different commission from previous commissions when you look at people like andrus and set up who was prime minister of estonia. the prime minister of finland. they've got strong pro-business deregulatory atlanticist free traders and are very involved in the european commission. you see an 80% decline in the proposals coming forward. it does make a difference. address this fundamental problem at the heart
of the eu, we're going to continue to have disagreements even if the referendum comes out your way. this is crucial to our relationship with this institution. prime minister: i agree with that. demonstrate that the european common roles are proportionate and not a necessary they don't get into the looks and crannies of life. they don't take unnecessary pass. which ishe challenge that we want the benefits of a single market. that does mean some common roles. on too many occasions europe has regulated areas that are unnecessary. andnt to reverse ratchet this starts to create that because you have targets for deregulation. you've been answering questions for us exactly 90 minutes now. goodnk you have had a
chance to answer quite a number of questions. it would be helpful now if you were able to give your explanation of why in a nutshell we should stay in the eu given a number of the reservations you've been hearing this afternoon. minister: it is a huge choice for the country. this is a choice for a generation, potentially a lifetime. i would never say the eu is perfect. i think my changes have created some very worthwhile reforms. i would say on that basis of hardheaded calculations of what is best for our country whether it is being stronger economically, being able to get things done in the world. ourselves safe against terrorism. i have no hesitation to say we are better off to remain in the
eu. if we do that the reform doesn't end. we need to press forward. let's just calculate the economics of safety and security. there is also a big argument about britain. britainnt a big bold getting out and helping to tackle climate change or problems in africa or standing up to russia are making sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon fighting with our allies to confront terrorism, being in the european union doesn't restrain or restrict our power to get things done. it increases it. there's a very strong patriotic case to stay in the eu which is imperfect. you don't walk away from it. you try to change it for what you want for your people and your country. >> slowly our sense of identity is being eroded by continued
membership. it is weakening our sense of identity and our self-respect is a country is in decline. prime minister: i don't feel any less british for being in the european union. we are a different country. we are special. we don't believe in having some ever closer clinical union. we don't even want to join the single currency. we are independently are strong we get things done. we are an amazing country. we don't give up our national identity by being part of this organization just as we didn't give up our national identity by being part of nato or the g7. we should walk away from institutions that help us win in the world. as a big bold british case to and i'm going to use a lot of the next 50 days to make it.
>> we are very grateful for you coming here in answering these questions. thank you. not everyone has agreed with what you have said today. but i thank you for giving direct answers to the questions. minister: thank you. >> i helped both iraq and afghanistan with their constitutions. you q&a. night on khalilizad.
we see the extremists exploiting the situation. the surge. reaching out to the sunnis. improving the iraqi forces. establishing the unity government. helping to bring about the security and violence that was way down. unfortunately when we left the vacuum was filled by rival regional powers. pulling iraq apart. we have isis now. this week to san bernardino california.
we will talk with congressman p aguilar about the attack. his district includes the inland regional center. aguil e and aguilar: we have a big city here that was attacked. we talk about the fight against terrorism. establishing a permanent memorial to the victims of the attack. it provides a sense of theirrance and highlights lives and what they contributed to our local community.
we will learn about the family of wyatt earp. it talks about the family's notoriety and their connection to san bernardino. the family goes back to about 1852 where the father of wyatt nicholas.e was he left his family temporarily and went to monmouth illinois. he turned about the gold rush in northern california. he went back to the midwest and venture down to southern california. he passed through the san bernardino valley. we will visit the san bernardino railroad history museum.
52.5% of the vote. the math still doesn't add up for the vermont independent senator. she has got super delegates almost to the number that she needs of 23 guest: -- who will be the democrat nominee? guest: we don't know what scandals will the fall hillary clinton. you have the e-mail situation. so that is still up in the air. the big story in the campaign is bernie sanders. he has proved you can raise a lot of money with small denominations. that is a big breakthrough. it challenges the myth that you have to go to multimillionaire funding parties and super pac's.