tv Prime Minister David Cameron to Testify on U.K. Membership of EU CSPAN May 5, 2016 3:43am-5:17am EDT
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 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 with 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 say in that stay in the eu? -- would you stay in the eu? that is a hypothetical question and i never one of 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 the decision it 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. the 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. 2001,in parliament in 1997 unsuccessfully. i said 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. 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 drawn people to the eu. not enough emphasis on growth. four corrected those 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. packageenegotiation 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. are notsh and irish .resident best precedents no one, including the council .an 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 is the reversible. -- irreversible. that is not my view. said-- would -- dashwood 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. the unionitten out of reinforces the special status we have at of the eurozone, and now out of -- i think this change with respect and not beingy discriminated against inside his organization -- that is quite fundamental too. countries, unit of
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 in achieve some fundamental goals. clear that on all , it madelegal advice it absolutely clear if we leave for those proposals. is you want saying 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. --is not the reversible. 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 cannot saying 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 european unit in -- union notifies united kingdom who wanted to stay. 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 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. quotedsorry, but you those opinions. as far as jacobs, one of the most eminent qc's in the country and vice president of the haspean court, he himself 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. my view after six years of prime minister, that sort of statement is not available. the option really is a special status within the eu which is what we have delivered and i think we can probably deliver more of over the years. the choice between that or leaving altogether. 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. that't accept this idea you get an agreement in europe and it doesn't work. the danish agreements worked for them. our agreement to work 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.
first on the 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. where makingept if 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. 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. about howing earlier 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 , partnership with america, police, intelligence services without 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 you 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 influence as you do now. 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. it's 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. >> the real concern is of the
infighting in your party over that. the final point about tax. the public account committee has in watching this very closely. the committee has a unanimous -- greatereatest 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 take a lead in trying to set the agenda from outside the eu? 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 argument 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. it's 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. member of's desk numbers of your
own cabinet have 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? wehink the evidence is that 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. -- atish initiative british initiative started in the g-8 summit in northern ireland. be easyment that even 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. what's the best ones of 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. >> 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 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 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. december 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 with your training -- trade arrangements are until you have sorted out the eu deal. i think we would be looking at potentially a decade of
uncertainty as a 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 brexit. what about switzerland? norway and switzerland are very successful, very prosperous trading nations within the eu. with network for us? mr. cameron: i think they both have the same problem. if youcase of norway, take that as an example, they pay into the eu. they accept people. they are objectives of the lead campaign. . 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?
system,aying into the as nowhere 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 you 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. foroesn't have full access terrorists or 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 is 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? his business as usual good enough for you? mr. cameron: it is absolutely 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 r 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. >> d think we could if done more for the industry if we had not been more in the eu? mr. cameron: i don't. output of thee 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. when we thinkrise 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, well for 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 any has come up because one of the lead campaigns -- 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. theones in the balkans, countries that want to join the reference ont some trade that they -- i will make the bigger point. what on earth are we doing thinking that a model for totain is somehow to try 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. 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 thinking we should accept italian membership or german membership in this organization. we're 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 can get it on 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 contrast that with the widespread agreement from businesses that are best interest in terms of investment and jobs ought to remain in the european union? 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 on 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. madenk that the arguments 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 60%, ifals cover that we do the u.s. and japan deals a three of 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. workingiculty will be at your trading arrangements with eu quickly. it's been quite difficult the 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. we would havey, 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 -- 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 kerfield.hfield -- while we are actively 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. --iously 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 -- 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 for minister on this support -- report which was unanimously agreed by committee split down the middle
on the issue. help you by not having issues to money and sally's -- s. many aut sally' we would probably go to the world trade organization within two years and negotiate the deal within two years. that's an agreed commission -- decision across the committee. mr. cameron: frankly i -- >> i want to challenge your assumption. eu is atmosphere of the 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? 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. of all the are 44% export goes to them. 8% of their exports come to us.
the second point is never forget the important -- importance of services in our economy and financial services. if you lose the -- let me give you one example. >> but the prime minister finish. said heron: a fellow thought we would lose 100,000 jobs a month because the passport issue. of any bank aspect or financial services country instantly set its services. if you say leave our relationship and we will get to wto rules and negotiate with there's 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. handlingask you, your
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. 10 and 15 i between 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 for ministers probably more than others. it depends. it really does depend. you take recent weeks for we had this intensive action the migration crisis. i have been talking a lot because we've been playing a part. the siebel 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. in germans and the french particular with their investigation with the dutch. to explore they evolution of your views and how you changed since you became the leader of the party.
eppedok us out of the with some other colleagues. 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? -- 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. there another third-largest in the european union. and there is a party reform. 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 ofalia to read the seas pirates. that was a british-that eu mission. british-led eu mission. >> the core debate of what the eu will look like in 2040. once the direction of travel on defense and security, is it there for people to see? thathat is your position it is starting to stop the development of an eu defense identity. that 450rting to mean million europeans and about 25
million americans. that is something we should be assisting in tracing that identity in the defense output. more importantly isidore said 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 security 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 the -- 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. --hink the europe of eurozone countries will integrate further preferred and will 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 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 can dictate that euros have to be cleared only in euros and countries. we know we can maintain london is a great financial center of europe because we have the protection.
upgrade question. -- 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 would now advises because counsel. clearmentally care -- ist it is a publication under section 215." 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. -- the courte of 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 he 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 a crusty quoted as -- "theykey quoted as saying 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 reformation -- 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 rented 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. discussion between government and a train unions -- trade union about the labor campaign about the 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 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 will be get the bill through. >> he used to say the u.k. needed "a charter of fundamental
rights. our country had fund of all rights london 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 described was as a fig leaf and worship -- worthless.
that it hasclear 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. 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 tiny 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 fun of the rights. -- 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 the u.k. eu membership? mr. cameron: the five eyes agreement, eight altogether wantthing about it, they 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. 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 and our want to leave,
nation is eventually forced out against this collective national will? mr. cameron: i would challenger statistics. -- challenge your statistics. -- 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 henry 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 the second part of your question is what about the future.
this is a united kingdom decision. as one united kingdom and except the result, whatever it is. accept the result in whatever it is. kingdom whoe united cares about keeping the united kingdom together, the safe and sensible choices to stay in the european union. >> your message to the people of -- what do you say to your colleagues who say those of us want to leave the european union, there will be another independence referendum for scotland? prime minister cameron: it is a united kingdom decision. you will make your arguments.
them isur message to taking a route to stay in this -- surely you have a message to the scottish people. prime minister cameron: we are safer, stronger and better off in. you and i are veterans of these referendums. i wonder if you learned anything in particular from the referendum for dependents. -- independence referendum. are these exaggerated stories we are witnessing once again? do you think those are having on people of scotland? prime minister cameron: there are exaggerated stories.
it depends on what sort. 100,000 jobs lost -- prime minister cameron: that is not my estimate. that is what was said to me. itsked him to confirm because i was concerned about the scale of the figure. little --got very with nonsensical -- prime minister cameron: my interventions were overwhelmingly positive. we have worked together all these years. we will have a very bright and exciting future, not restrained by the european union, but we will be a better off country, etter able to get things
done in the world because we are a member of this organization. natolike being a member of or the g20. are we right to warn people of the consequences if we were to leave? yes, i think we are. i don't want to wake up on june 24 and people not say you did not set out all the concerns and worries. it is right to have this referendum, we should not be frightened of having a sovereign decision. the people will decide this. i've got no other agenda. i profoundly believe the better choice is to stay in the european union . >> why don't we hear more of
that? the risks you've exposed to this country, the you wish you never thought of this whole referendum business at all? prime minister cameron: i believe in democracy. thennot hold the people of scottish kingdom. not on myve said watch, i will not take that risk. said come on then, let's have a decisive referendum. that's what we did. there are divisions in our country. it is time to make that choice. we should not be frightened of sovereignty or this debate.
we should not be afraid of discussing the upsides and downsides. >> there are currently 4217 centers,ational costing the taxpayers won her six 9 million pounds a year. should we have done better in removing these eu nationals? -- 169 million pounds a year. prime minister cameron: yes, we should have done better. to speed uponths the exit from the u.k. it has been difficult. even when you have signed agreements. it ought to be easier in europe.
we had this directive on for national desk foreign nationals. -- on foreign nationals. we would take several steps back. it has not been good enough. it needs to go further. at least we have a mechanism through the eu to do it. activateabled us to criminalsabyte 7000 -- extradite 7000 criminals. >> will you address the possibility that the country -- we will need to do so and so. "we" include you? prime minister cameron: yes. this referendum is about britain's future in europe. not one team of politicians or another team of politicians.
i don't want anyone to trouser the decision-making. it is in or out. i will accept the verdict and do everything i can to put it in place. it heyou seriously think f they run against you, you will be prime minister? prime minister cameron: is yes. we achieved a majority in parliament. that is the mandate i have. to hold a referendum. the majority of our manifesto programs delivering that, having referendum, abiding by the result, that is the right thing to do. we have not heard much since
the renegotiations. one of your commitment is to reduce the immigration to the tens of thousands. when do you think, if europe votes, you will reach that? prime minister cameron: in the general election, i said i wanted us to say to people coming from the eu, if you don't have a job after six months, you have to leave. if you do get work, you don't get access to all where her system -- our welfare system. the first two are now in place. you will get job benefits but only at your rate.
at theorth looking international agreement that we did achieve. aboutis a lot in there stopping criminals, stopping people who cannot support themselves. all of this needs to be taken into account. going back to the immigration issue, when i made that commitment, at that stage come immigration meant migration between britain and the rest of the eu. stage, the next migration coming into the u.k. was almost exclusively from outside the eu where we should do a lot to reduce it. we have done some, but we need to do more. i don't believe this is an
unachievable ambition. it is tough and challenging, but a combination of what we are doing in europe, combined with the recovery of other european with tougher measures , we do all these things, this is a realistic ambition. i have not set a date on it, but i want us to make progress towards it. your stance on turkey becoming a full member of the european union -- will that help you achieve your goal of tens of thousands? remotelyt think it is in the cards. i don't think it will happen for decades. , itou look at the facts requires unanimity of all european members, the french will have a referendum on it.
if your boat is being influenced by consideration of turkish membership to the eu, don't think about it. -- if your vote is being influenced. i said it in the house of commons. questions -- i used exactly those words. it is just a fact. >> you put innovation at the we have to cut other budgets to make difficult decisions. just under if it of the funds that does not-- take into account the value of collaboration for science and research.
i think it is reasonable for research investors to have an understanding of what you are planning in terms of brexit. i was not really clear what your response was when he put forward to you the proposal for the arrangements specific to britain. thee minister cameron: point i was trying to make to -- some people have hankered after a much bigger deal for britain that would be outside the rulemaking powers of europe. to me, that is not possible. we can have our special status enhanced by negotiation. or, we leave. the point i was making, i was
reading his report in detail. to me, the idea of coming out of the eu, pausing your negotiations with your biggest trading partner, going after other deals while tariffs kick in against your trading status with europe is a really bad idea. tell me what the picture would look like. there are a number of countries you do pay into access eu funds. a good example would be switzerland. when they had a referendum which restricted free movement, they were cut out from horizon 2020. the government had to institute a new program to stop the detrimental fact -- effect on science and innovation. prime minister cameron: the case
for stay in is very strong because we out of the eu budget -- get more out of the eu budget then we put in. like ast sounds dictatorship thing, but 93% of is beneficialch well is money that is spent and well targeted and it benefits our economy. if we were to come out and do the norway status, but maintain ourselves in the science program, how would that work? we would inevitably lose influence because we are not around the table all the time. we would not yet meetings where we cut the budget of the eu. norway was not there. they were not around the table. i was. that was one thing we were able to secure.
when it comes to science and research, the argument is very clear. that is why universities are almost uniformly against. >> do you think it is necessary for estimating free me from an -- free movement of people to access those funds? how will you replace that 8.8 billion going into our science and innovation background over the last decade. >> the single market consists of free movement of goods, services , capital and people. it is not free movement of terrorists or murderers or people who cannot support themselves. it is free movement to people who want to work. that is what the single market involves and it is hugely appearedl to britain
and involves us in this science and research that is very good for us. like norway,uted that is not a good outcome because you don't have a say of how much is spent. i think it is a bad outcome and you would be at risk. out of we do if we come funding science? >> how does that impact your sciencent of our sector? companies do not own the i.t. that they gather from the research which they conduct an eu funded projects. even if we paid into eu collaboration, we would not be able to exploit that research. has there been any impact assessment on what would happen if we came out of those countries?
prime minister cameron: that is a very good point. i was not entirely aware of that. that proves it is rather serious. a canadaplications of or norway style model. i will look into that. loaded.ments are very isthe message to researchers it would be better for them to stay campaigning for that, but in terms of the brexit plan, we --'t know what they are prime minister cameron: a lot of these questions are for people who want to leave. i'm setting up the case for why we should stay. science and research is a very good thing if we vote to leave my want to make sure we continue to support science. we've been doing so in a
situation where, if our economy took a hit like the forecast suggests, we could be 36 billion pounds down. voted towitzerland restrict freedom of movement, they were instantly suspended from access to the horizon 2020. if i could gently propose, it might be a good idea to have a contingency plan in place in case such events haven't -- happen. prime minister cameron: i don't think this with model is a good one to follow. for exactly the reasons you give. -- this was model. model is a good one to follow. that would mean not being involved in the horizon science program.
the thing for researchers and scientists and universities to impose on. >> i took a look at the and took part of this a look at a speech he made 18 whats ago in which you say we don't need is some arcane mechanism in the you that the eu that would be triggered by the european commission and not by us. this has been struck. it is a rather arcane deal triggered in fact not just by the commission, but also by the council and even requires
support of the european parliament. is that correct? prime minister cameron: the point is this. yes, it is quite an arcane mechanism. negotiatingg in this one thing was to make sure you're qualified instantly and that it lasts for the longest possible time. written qualifies for this mechanism. it is the phasing in of well. -- britain qualifies for this mechanism. in this ithasing will still be operational in 2024. that is quite -- to agree the
of benefits for other eu citizens for 2017-all the way to 2028. that is a pretty powerful mechanism. for 2017 all the way to 2028. >> you are agreeing this is an arcane mechanism. i have not asked the question yet. agreement from the commission. prime minister cameron: they've already given it. that is the point. you are agreeing that it also requires the european parliament. this deal will be done on the basis of a regulation and regulations will require their agreement. on annexister cameron:
six in the legally binding thement, it says this -- european commission considers the information provided to it by the united kingdom and particular does not make full use of the transitional periods of free movement of workers and is intended to cover -- u.k. will be justified in triggering the mechanism." that was agreed to by the council of ministers. today on a mechanism that lasts until 2028 -- annexook a good look at six. it applies to definitions today, not some other day. those conditions may change in the future. prime minister cameron: they are not going to change by june 23.
as soon as the referendum is over come if we vote a income of in place.e put the sooner it can be put in place, the better. >> my second point, this does require the agreement of the european parliament. they may decide to do what they want . prime minister cameron: the president of the parliament was in these negotiations he has said i can give you a guarantee that the european parliament will come immediately after the -- thedum to stay european parliament does not have a veto. he was in these discussions. >> and view that all these
european parliamentarians copied? prime minister cameron: i met the head of the ecr, the head of the labor group -- the point , all of them have accepted the outcome of this negotiation. i think we should go ahead and boot on june 23 in the expectation that this will be put in place. -- go ahead and vote on june 23 in the expectation that this will be put in place. >> this is going back to brussels. can you be a bit more precise and what should be done and promise that you will personally -- so that farmers are not
moving this cash? prime minister cameron: it has million -- from million to about 50 million. we are confident we can get that done. the uk's good practice has been recognized. in our gooderence practice in procurement -- prime minister cameron: we had a the procurement agency as it was set up in 2005 and it has taken a long time to get over that. the argument that we need to do better, yes, but there is a case for having some sort of mechanism to make sure that european countries spend the money effectively.
a lot of the times, the capacity of states to spend money effectively is a massive problem. >> farmers and others -- prime minister cameron: i have a lot of farmers in my community. >> may be your focus is not yet achieving action. prime minister cameron: when it comes to getting the most out of our money, whether it is european investment funds or money available for innovation, research and the rest, we have a good record. >> i want to come back to something i put to you privately many months ago. about a year ago. i then published it as a proposal to reverse this eu racket of ever greater regulation.
interested --e some inkling of it has appeared in the agreement. quite an important step. we might be able to roll back body of rules at the eu level. there is a problem with it, a fundamental problem. this proposal you have negotiated is to be run by the commission, which is scarcely independent. pass.bound to others have commented on this. i would like to read you what the governor of the bank of england is saying about this publicly. its effectiveness,
this mechanism should be a completely independent check on the process, the legislative process and separate from the institutions involved in that process. that is an essential flaw to this otherwise quite attractive proposal, isn't it? prime minister cameron: i remember our conversations about it. i can see merits and having a separate body trying to do this. a my experience, if you want bureaucracy to deregulate, you have to make the bureaucracy createate rather than someone else to do it. you introduce one regulation, now it is two more, that changes the culture and the amount of regulation. of the legally binding document. >> did you press for independence? prime minister cameron: i
discussed it with them, but i felt this was a better answer. my sense is this is a very different commission than the previous two commissions when you look at people like the prime minister of estonia, the prime minister of finland, they've got strong pro-business traders in theee commission. you see an 80% decline -- this does make a difference. >> unless we address this fundamental problem at the heart of the eu, we will continue to --e discontent, even if prime minister cameron: we have to demonstrate that european ,ommon rules are proportionate
they don't go into the nixon crannies of life -- nokes and crannies of life. that is the challenge. we want the benefits of the single market. that does mean some common rules. on too many occasions, europe has regulated areas that are unnecessary. this starts to create a reverse ratchet because you have targets for deregulation and the rest of it. >> you've been answering questions for 90 minutes now. i think you've got to go. you've been answering quite a number of questions -- it would be helpful now if you were given an opportunity to explain why, in a nutshell, you think we should remain in the eu, given
the reasons you've heard this afternoon. prime minister cameron: this is a choice for a generation, potentially for a lifetime. say the european union is perfect. it needs reform. by changes have created some very worthwhile reforms. of hardheaded calculation of what is best for our country, whether it is the stronger economics, being able to get things done in the world, keeping ourselves safe against tororists, got no hesitation say we are better off voting to remain in. does do that, the reform not end. i'm not saying let's just simply calculate the economics and safety and security. there is a big argument about britain. britainnt a big, bold
getting out to tackle climate standing up to russia or making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon or fighting to confront terrorism, being in the european union does not restrict our power to get things done, it increases it. there is a strong patriotic case to be made to stay in institution that is imperfect , justme in my view because the institution is not perfect, you don't walk away from it. >> what is your answer to the that slowly, our sense of identity is being weekakened? i don'tnister cameron: feel any less british for being in the european union.
we are a different country, we are special. -- we don'tieve in even want to join the single currency. we are strong, we get things done. we are an amazing country. we don't give up our national thisity by being part of organization, just as we don't give up our identity by being part of nato or the g20. away fromnot walk institutions that help us win in the world. it is a positive case and i will use the next 50 days to make it. >> thank you for giving us the evidence this afternoon. i know you have an important .ngagement to get to pick there have been some direct answers to our questions. prime minister cameron: thank you very much.
government officials credit card companies and consumers discuss how the technology is designed to prevent fraud and identity theft. >> good afternoon and welcome. thank you for being here. thank you for taking part of this conversation today. we will follow up on the event we had last year. that me start again. just in case anyone missed it,
i want to welcome you today to take part in this great conversation we are having on the chip card transition six onths later. i am deborah lynn with attacked my data. thank you for being here. we had a great event last year that i hope some of you were able to make it too. we will have time to answer any questions you have. it's been over six months since the october 1 liability shift deadline and we are here to explore the progress the industry has made to protect consumers by deploying and implementing chip enabled credit cards, also need is emd cards and terminals. some of you i'm sure have all received your chipped cards. we won't hold them up to avoid any security issues. the challenges and roadblocks that have delayed this progress, the difference between the technology, we will alk about an update on the white house's effort to protect americans from credit card fraud and identity theft.
here is where we are. in the months leading up to the october 1 deadline, retailers across the country were responsible for upgrading their payment terminals to accept new chip enabled cards. on october 1, 2015, retailers and credit card issuers underwent a liability shift. now in the event of fraudulent activity, the financial burden falls on which ever party was using the old payment echnology. the new chip cards are considerably better than the old magnetic stripe cards from the 1970's, we had to enter those longer than we should have, they rely on a signature as a secondary form of verification. that feature has little worth since signatures are often a board or easily forged. consumers are still vulnerable to comment forms of credit card
fraud. i believe the chip enabled cards must be coupled with personal identification numbers or pins. there is a two factor authentication system and that has been used around the world to effectively combat fraud for years. along with the chip, each card requires a unique pin that must be entered when making a transaction. should a thief steal a card, it would be useless without knowing the pen. we could extend those protections even further if we had more robust mechanisms available to consumers to securely use pins during online transactions. the technology exists to securely use them online. it's just not widely used. evidence of benefits and a heightened security protections were highlighted in president obama's executive order that
required technology for government issued credit cards and in a pride of the old terminals at federal buildings. others have recognized that security benefits of combining chip cards with pins. in the last two weeks, discover, one of the largest card brands, embraced the willingness to use pins. new york had a consumer alert stating in part that chip cards that require a personal identification number could be entered at a point-of-sale to make a purchase and they are the most secure. over the last year, the payment industry has rebutted arguments in favor of this by saying one day we will move beyond the pen. even if that's true, there will always be a better technology