Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business  CSPAN  June 23, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT

4:00 pm
spot where normal legislating doesn't happen and you have to resort to things? senator schumer: this isn't aimed at elections but getting it done. if we were aimed at elections, we wouldn't have tried to compromise. but you if we're quiet we will never get it done. reporter: [inaudible] -- talking about the possibility of the democrats taking the -- [inaudible] -- if that's the case, there's a lot of issues, climate change one of them, that's a big agenda for democrats. why have any confidence that democrats can move some of the priorities after the fall, when you have a citizens united decision? is human is human one of the things we hope to do -- mr. schumer: one of the things we hope to do should we take back the majority and get a democratic president is get a full supreme court of nine and hopefully that supreme court
4:01 pm
would hear the citizens united case. by most of the legal authorities that i've heard, it was a stretch to come up with t to begin with. there's a very good possibility that citizens united could be overturned. >> can i mention one thing? you just heard donald trump give his best impression of izabeth warren in his speech attacking secretary clinton. mr. whitehouse: talking about how the game is rigged and politics is rigged and everything needs to be unrigged. he's the last person in the world likely to do that. but the fact that he felt as the presumptive republican nominee that he had to model himself on elizabeth warren and
4:02 pm
bernie sanders in order to try to put a little bit of wind into his flagging campaign is, i think, a really strong indication of the public sentiment that is out there. and i think if we can force votes on things like disclosure and drive that point home, that will actually have an effect. there are too many republicans who know that this is a rack et and who know that -- racket and who know that this is wrong. one of them said to me, would you guys please catch up and start getting as much dark money as we do so we can fix this damn thing? it's disgraceful. so people get it. and i think the american public is tired of not being listened to and they get that the dark money is an absolute mess. and if we pick this fight and force this battle, whether we have the leadership and the
4:03 pm
majority or not, the republicans are going to have to ultimately give way to what he american people want. >> the state of oregon is an organ where citizens greatly love their guns. target practice, recreation, hunting. when i was a youngster, the n.r.a. was all about gun safety and promoting opportunities to enjoy guns in a safe way. in 199 , when i was running -- 1998, when i was running for the first time for the oregon house, a young man went into a high school and he shot dead two students after having killed his parents a short time before. mr. merkley: and he carried with him 1,127 rounds of ammunition and three arms, three guns. he could have killed far more, but fortunately, blessedly, he was tackled early in his rampage by a wounded student.
4:04 pm
we attempted to pull this up in the legislature in oregon in 1999. and were unable to do so. because of the influence of the n.r.a. having become a lobbyist for gun merchants rather than an advocate for hunters and gun safety. they've gone through that transition. the citizens of oregon then said, enough is enough. we will take it directly to the ballot. and in a citizen initiative, they closed the gun show loophole. this is what we're talking about. this is about changing policy in america. it's about changing policy in the direction that millions of americans believe, that 80% to 90% of americans support. instead of having our process frozen by a powerful special interest that has become the lobbyist for the gun merchants. that's what we're fighting for. the citizens of the united states are with us. and it's why we need to restore our we the people republic. mr. schumer: last one.
4:05 pm
reporter: can i ask you about zika? mr. schumer: you can ask about zika. reporter: i think -- it honestly looks like senator mcconnell was trying to come up with something that you guys ight support, -- [inaudible] are you confident that you will be able to sustain or that you will be able to successfully filibuster, first of all, and are you confident that a better deal can get through in a short time? before the convention? mr. schumer: i believe, you know, i don't know if they've said it officially, but it's extremely likely, given what came out last night, that the white house would veto it. have they said anything yet? there's not enough to override the veto in the house. so if we're going to get this done, we ought to do things that can pass. preventing funding going to planned parenthood, that's a poison pill. we know that. it was put in, i guess, because they didn't have enough votes to do it otherwise.
4:06 pm
underfunding veterans, rolling back environmental protections. it became sort of a hard right wish list. not related to zika to get it passed. they know it's not going to pass. they're just once again trying to get it off their back. of course it further raids the ebola money. it really -- and i think it deals with contraception and birth control as well. or it had last night. i haven't seen the new language. so to get zika funding, we're going to have to have a good faith effort. not something that just says, get this issue off our back, which is what the house did. reporter: this is the kind of bill that i think obama would sign in 2011, don't you i -- don't you? mr. schumer: no. not with not funding planned parenthood, i don't think, so not with what it does to contraception. last one. reporter: on -- are you afraid that -- [inaudible] -- is not going to use this to jam democrats on the puerto rico bill, given the july 1
4:07 pm
deadline, and how crucial it is -- mr. schumer: well, what we're trying to do with puerto rico is get amendments. there's a large -- a lot of democrats are undecided but certainly want amendments because some of the provisions, particularly some of the labor and control board provisions we object to. and we hope mcconnell will give us amendments. because i think there are a good number of democrats who would not vote for a bill if they didn't have a chance to amend it. once they had a chance to amend it, they might reluctantly vote for it. so it's in mcconnell's hands. reporter: how serious is the july 1 deadline? mr. schumer: it's pretty serious. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] host: senate democrats on guns. the day that the house democrats wrapped up their sit-in, after almost 26 hours
4:08 pm
on the house floor. house democrats demanding a vote on gun legislation. specifically the no fly, no buy bill, as it's been called. house democrats began their sit-in about 11:25 yesterday morning. and wrapped up shortly after 1:00 eastern time today. about 25 1/2, almost 26 hours on the floor of the house. during that sit-in. we've been taking your calls this afternoon. we're going to do that again in moment. first, do want to remind you that in about 50 minutes from now, at 5:00 eastern time, we're going to join the i.t.v. network in the u.k. for coverage of today's referendum. citizens in the united kingdom voting on whether britain should remain a part of the european union. and that referendum vote coverage starts live today at 5:00 eastern time right here on c-span. we'll continue with it and find
4:09 pm
ut which way it goes in that break brexit vote as it's been called. get more of your calls and your take on the democrats, the house democrats' sit-in. overnight. and their demand for the no fly, no buy gun legislation. scarlet is in arizona on the democrats line. what do you think? caller: good afternoon. thank you for c-span. and as a democrat, as a native american, i really believe the democrats were sitting in to the that they do respect life and safety of all those . at were killed young adults, elderlies across
4:10 pm
the united states. , it really ricans frightens me to know that we cannot as a nation, as the united states, can't work together. and that the e.p.a., the global warming, the guns, the health care, it's frightening to see all this. i'd like to say to senator and all , senator cruz the republicans, money is not something that we should absolute. we should absolute -- salute. of ould salute the people no color, caucasian, the minorities, we should respect rselves to work together, to
4:11 pm
make these loopholes closed for the benefit of all the people of the united states. that's really what i think as a native american. host: all right. thank you very much for calling in. jarrett in akron, ohio. you're up next on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you for take my call. all the gun control measures they're trying to get passed, i do think there should be some moderate legislation passed. mainly on background checks and the no fly list. i'm a huge supporter of the second amendment. and i think there should be some kind of -- there needs to be a counterbalance. the fifth amendment must be pheld. there has to be a way instilled
4:12 pm
or people to challenge this. if they're wrongfully on the list, i mean, you look at steve hayes, a journalist, who was put on the list just because he flew to, i believe, turkey. and it took him it said seven months to get off the list. that's a big problem. that's another issue. some of your callers have talked about assault weapons, ow they're so scary. they're just cosmetic features. one of the callers said, some weapons that would be banned are ..22 caliber rifles that are a lot less dangerous than some of the .30 caliber 556 that would not be because of cosmetic features. as far as these moderate measures that need to get passed, i think a good way for the democrats and the republicans to compromise would
4:13 pm
e an exchange for supporting their legislation to have unconstitutional things already in place repealed. such as amendments passed in 1986 by representative william hughes, i believe. what it did was it banned the civilian ownership of machine guns that are not registered -- or that are not registered before may 19, 1986. as of right now, there are 240,000 registered automatic weapons in america. since the national firearms act that was passed in 1934 that regulated them, there have only been a few deaths that were caused by registered automatic weapons. in 1986, the reason he gave -- the reason he gave for supporting this amendment to
4:14 pm
ban them were basically because they looked scary. there was really no basis to pass this law. it's very -- there was no basis. host: all right, thank you for those thoughts, jarrett. appreciate your call. we'll go next to tennessee. tanya joining us from bell buckle, tennessee. love the name of your town. on the independents line. caller: we do too. thanks. host: your thoughts today. caller: i really want to make .ust a few points first of all, this is not new. you know, ted cruz stood on the senate floor and performed a filibuster, ok? everybody thought that that was ridiculous. now instead of a filibuster the democrats on the other side pull a sit-in. ok, we get that they don't get along. the point is, we are the people and there are a lot of questions that need to be
4:15 pm
answered before they attempt any gun legislation. they talk about this no fly list. so obviously we have one. we have a nix list, we have a terror watch list. who makes these lists? how do people get on them? and then once they get on, without notification, without due process, how do you get off? so we want to pass legislation about something that we're already doing, first of all, and second of all, that the people don't know anything about. we don't know anything about these lists. i bought a gun, i had a background check. my husband bought a gun, he got a background check. it didn't matter where we bought it, we had a background check. the orlando shooter had a background check. he was a registered security guard. he easily passed. this isn't going to stop terrorists from getting guns. criminals don't care about laws.
4:16 pm
we, ordinary, everyday, law-abiding people, we care about the laws. and we're the ones that get hurt by them. lot of the re a points that republicans have continued to make when they argue against this no fly, no buy legislation that the democrats were protesting, asking for a vote on. what's the answer then? if that's not it, how do you fight the terrorists, as you say? caller: let's look at the second amendment. let's look what it really says. let's look at the intent, the original intent, when the second amendment was written. then let's find out who made these lists of people. there are hundreds of thousands of people, ordinary american citizen, on lists. they're not notified that they're put on lists. you don't find out until you go to buy a gun and you try to get on a plane. and then you find out, like reporters and -- there are members of congress on the stupid no fly list. they don't even know that they're on there.
4:17 pm
we need to find out who originates the list, who controls the list, and what purpose are they putting people on? what's the criteria that you have to meet to get on one of these lists? let's start at the beginning. find out the basics. host: all right, thanks for calling. jeb hensarling is our guest this week on news makers. congressman hensarling, the republican of texas, chairs the house financial services committee. and that interview airs on sunday. he spoke a bit about the house democrats' sit-in that lasted nearly 26 hours. we'll show you a bit of that interview now. hen mr. hensarling: personally i think the a little disturbing en i see members of congress holding up names of the deceased. i think it's a huge disrespect to the american people.
4:18 pm
and democracy. i used to see so many democrats acting in such an undemocratic fashion. just because barack obama became president and i didn't support him, i would not counsel those trying to occupy his office and shut down business. so this was an attempt by the democrats to frankly shut down the government. we managed to get needed funding for the zika virus done. notwithstanding their particular protest. i guess last i find it swla ironic they're calling for votes, they've had votes. the senate voted down one of their provisions. on the house side, an appropriations committee, it's been voted down. there's a procedure, it's kind of inside baseball, but it's known as a motion to recommit. any time they want to. the one vote that the minority in the house is always guaranteed. i've been in the minority, i've been in the majority. frankly it's a little bit more satisfying to be in the majority. but at any time they could have brought up this provision. instead i wish they would come
4:19 pm
together and work with us to maine make sure that we can more effectively -- to make sure that we can more effectively conduct this war against terror. but so far they're just trying to change the subject. host: you can see that full interview with congressman hensarling sunday on "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. and it airs again at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also on c-span radio and cspan.org. going to go back to your calls for a few minutes now. more comments that you may have on the democratic sit-in on the house floor that began yesterday morning. and ended early this afternoon. vicky is in nashville, tennessee, on the line for democrats. hi. caller: hi. how are you? host: good, thank you. what do you think? ller: i'm sort of struck speechless by this jeb person that you had on. that he's saying that it's
4:20 pm
ridiculous what the democrats id yesterday, led by congressman john lewis. the hero of all people, black or white. republican, democrat. i'll have to take republican off that. but anyway, i can't believe that he's saying that the sit-in, the peaceful sit-in yesterday that got the whole world watching, as they say, didn't even compare that to the government shutdown that his .arty did last year and caused millions of dollars to this country. and people who had planned vacations to national parks and to washington, d.c., anyway.
4:21 pm
we all know that. host: what do you think the sit-in did accomplish? caller: i think it got the attention of everybody. everybody who did not -- like our caller said earlier, for people who do not watch c-span -- in my case, msnbc, and fau tch nothing but fox or entertainment -- faux entertainment, i think it got their attention. hopefully it got the attention f people who are sit-on-my-hands type people. and hopefully, again, hopefully, it got the attention , people who are apolitical another way of saying they sit
4:22 pm
on their hands. .ut people who are apolitical because they're sick and tired of the fighting. now, as nancy pelosi said, this esn't have to be, as well as immigration law, bill, does not have to be politicized. it should not be. it's a human rights law. it should -- or it should be a human rights law. but because we can't get the house -- the people's house an't get a vote on it, because the senate won't let the house vote. he also -- paul ryan, that's -- this is -- i know i'm going from thing to thing, but i'm on a tear. [laughter] when he dn't mention
4:23 pm
was spanking the democrats for their, as he called it, their t or however he put it, that -- let's see. the bill last -- the bill that did not make it out of the senate was not voted on because an republicans put in amendment, i guess you'd say, to the -- what was being voted -- going to be voted on, that left -- that president obama d wanted put in, about the lgbt community's companies who were to be included in federal contracts.
4:24 pm
people banning -- i think i'm right on that. and they took that out. that's why the democrats and the senate didn't vote for it. because they talk to it out -- took it out. he didn't mention that. he just mentions, you know, the republican side of things. he came in less than a year ago, he promised, as a gentleman said earlier from memphis, i think -- or, no, it was a reporter there in the c-span interview, and he said ryan had promised a clearer, more visible house. host: did we lose you? still there? think maybe we lost vicky. thank you for calling, though. appreciate that. we'll go next to simi valley,
4:25 pm
california. jason is with us on the independent line. hi, jason. caller: how are you doing, sir? i would like to step back a little bit and really look at how we conduct ourselves as individuals. during these discussions i've been asking people, well, what is it that you've actually done, as they say, i'm not happy with this or i'm not happy with that. i'm finding very few people who have called their local representatives, their attended a even local meeting in their own hometown. i think we've gotten so far away from a basic principle about how we treat each other and to think that, you know, we're not so disillusioned as to believe one bill or one course of action is going to solve anything. we've been having this debate since the federalists, anti-federalists, and we're going to have this debate in another 250 years with whatever weaponry becomes available to the general public. this is something that is going to continue and we have to continue ourselves a certain
4:26 pm
sense of discord, that we need to realize is not how we treat the people we agree with. that's the easiest thing we ever do in our lives. it's about how we treat the people we disagree with. if we continue to invest in a single political, you know, solution, we lose a piece of ourselves. i would encourage anyone, if you have an idea, go and post it on wethepeople site. if you have enough votes, something will come up in congress, we need to take a personal responsibility for what's happening in our nation and not just subject it to the local politics and the local news clip and see this happen once every couple of years. host: thanks for calling, jason. we've been taking a number of your calls today as we continue to look back on the democrats in the house, staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun legislation that started at 11:25 yesterday morning, when congressman john lewis took the
4:27 pm
floor and ended also with congressman john lewis of georgia about 1:00 east coast time this afternoon. after the event or the sit-in wrapped up earlier this afternoon, after going nearly 26 hours, house democrats went outside to the east front of the capitol and addressed supporters for a short while. we'll show you that now. reporter: what do you say to the folks on the other side who called this a stunt? mr. lewis: you know, for someone to say this is a stunt, it is unfortunate. but it reminds me of another period, during the sit-ins and during the freedom riots, there were southern governors like the senator of georgia, george llace of alabama, that said,
4:28 pm
-- [inaudible] -- when you see something is that -- that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to do something about it. in a nonviolent fashion. that's what we did. reporter: what kind of message do you feel like you've sent over the past 24 hours? mr. lewis: i think we sent a very strong message to our colleagues in the congress. but to the american people and people around the world. that we are sick and tired of violence. seeing our babies, our little children, our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers and others, young people, going out to a club to dance, to have some fun, murdered. we have to do something about it. reporter: they still didn't hold these show thes that you asked for. what happens when you come back after july 4? mr. lewis: we'll continue to insist, to demand action. whether it's on the floor or around america. we're not giving up. we're not giving in. we will continue to work.
4:29 pm
thank you. >> they have forced tough votes upon us. i don't know how tough a vote this is for them because they seem to be unanimously opposed to it. why don't they just demonstrate that on the floor? no fly, no buy, and on background checks, to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. reporter: do you think they maybe need more time to adjust to the new world? mr. crowley: i hope that's the case. at the end, as abraham lincoln said, the public matters. the public sentiment i think is not only there, it's rapidly changing. as bob dylan says, don't stand in the hallways, don't stand in the doorways, don't block the halls. for he who gets moved, --
4:30 pm
[inaudible] -- there's a battle outside and it's raging. it will soon shake these windows to the times that are changing. i killed on that. dropped the mike. reporter: just the larger strategy that democrats have been employing, not just this issue, you have spoken out on the floor on the maloney amendment, you've been more vocal in general. is this a shift in the minority party's strategy for being heard? mr. crowley: i think it's a hift, i think, in the -- our perception of where the american public are at. they're frustrated with politics as usual. when they look at washington and see what's not working, we try to make washington work again for the american people. it's not about the politics. quite frankly, for me personally, i'll be here next year. i'll be here in a couple years ago after that.
4:31 pm
for me this issue's very clear. we have better gun laws in new york city. this is about the right thing for the american people. too many people have died. how many more people have to be slaughtered before people come around to try to do something to change the picture? we're not asking for a panacea, we're not asking for the end-all, a bill that will fix every problem. we know there are many problems out there. but the american people are looking for their congress and the republican-led congress to demonstrate to them that they understand that something needs to change, that they have to law in order to start to address this issue of slaughter in the united states. reporter: looking forward to kind of the election and beyond, if hillary clinton is elected president but democrats remain in the minority, i mean, does this kinds of frustration still exist kind of frustration still exist with house republicans in charge and do you think that will empower democrats who continue to speak up, especially request if --
4:32 pm
[inaudible] -- mr. crowley: i think what secretary clinton -- once secretary clinton gets past con man don who we saw working on the -- and start working on the issues that the american people care about, we'll see change here in washington. hillary clinton knows how to work with the other side iflet to get things accomplished. i think it will be a whole new day. i suspect we may very well be in the majority, working with our new president, hillary clinton, at that time. so i look forward to selection. i think it's on issues like this and others that we're going to win back the house. thank you all. reporter: how tired are you? mr. crowley: i love texas. >> i'm not that tired right now considering i haven't slept in the last 24 hours. i've eaten two pop tarts and two chocolate doughnuts. mr. o'rourke: and a couple of cups of water. i feel incredibly invigorated by all of this and all the people who are involved and the people that i met this morning at 6:00 a.m. when it was spitting rain out here. it was ugly outside.
4:33 pm
and yet these beautiful people had seen the facebook feed, jumped on a bus, and just came out here to see if there was some way they could help and be supportive. the tens of thousands of people who were on the facebook feed, who commented, who supported what we're doing, even people who were opposed but were engaged, that kind of thing has not happened here in i don't know how long. that's kind of my dream of how congress is going to be in 3 1/2 years -- going to be. and 3 1/2 years in it's finally coming true. reporter: do you think there will be a legislative impact or political impact in november orneather? mr. o'rourke: i certainly hope both. i think this proves something that we've been seeing develop over the last year, which is that the hierarchy of the parties, of our government, of the status quo matters less and less when people are able to connect directly with each other. like they did in kind of an ad
4:34 pm
hoc sit-in that didn't have a defined plan, that organically through the leadership of some amazing people like john lewis and the connections of tens of thousands of americans became something much bigger than anyone expected. and it has created a momentum and a force that now has to go somewhere. i think that has to go somewhere legislatively and i think that will express itself politically. exactly how, i don't know. i think that's a very positive thing. reporter: how did you keep your phone charged? that's the biggest question. mr. o'rourke: john right here had tons of spare batteries and was constantly coming in and changing out batteries. we were on facebook live stream and it only allows for a 90-minute window and then i have to reset the screen, so the 90-minute window would pop up, he'd give me a fresh battery, plug it in, and i'd assume this position for another 90 minutes. reporter: are you bracing for car pell tunnel syndrome?
4:35 pm
mr. o'rourke: my hand wants to do this now. i have to force it to go back. reporter: you're on a sugar high and car pell tunnel. mr. o'rourke: i'm really happy about our country and the people i work with, the people who turned out physically and then on the internet. really a beautiful moment. you don't take my word for it, i've only been here for 3 1/2 years, but somebody like john conyers, who has been here a really long time, i think longer than any other member of congress, he called this the most profound moment in his congressional career. which is really saying something. jim clyburn, who has been here for a really long time, highly respected person, he said this was his proudest moment. that really means something. for someone like john lewis to give this his all, to stay up ll night with all of us, yeah, words can't describe how significant a change this represents.
4:36 pm
and that makes me really happy. that we're capable of doing this. reporter: were you worried about any legislative retribution from the republicans, being cut out further from amendments or anything like that? mr. o'rourke: no. i'm not. i may be overly optimistic or too positive about all of this. but i think the democrats and republicans and independents, all of us i think heard the american people really loud and really clear. i mean, what happened last night and yesterday and this morning and even right now was not a bunch of democratic members of congress, it was the country. i mean, there's no way we would have stayed that long and had this kind of impact if people were not urging us to do it or demanding us to do it. saying, you better stay on that floor. i want you to be there. fight this thing. do something for us. this is something that i think is going to be -- we're going to look back and remember this
4:37 pm
as a really big moment. thanks. reporter: you said that -- inaudible] -- mr. o'rourke: so, some of the bills that -- some of the specific proposed legislation like removing the block on c.d.c. investigating gun deaths of -- [inaudible] -- provide information to congress so we can make more informed policy and decisions and legislation, removing all loopholes to universal background checks. something that may not be universally supported in our caucus, but certainly in the majority feels we should take a -- [inaudible] -- and then this, like most simple, direct one, i think, which is, if you're on a no fly list, you should be on a no buy list. you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. those are four specific legislative proposals that i
4:38 pm
would like to see -- i can't remember if you wrote the story on this, but i talked to david, a republican, and he said, i'm with you in terms of where you want to get on some of these, specifically the no fly, no buy. i think there's a way we can bridge the gap. reporter: he's retiring. mr. o'rourke: easy for david jolly to say, he's a relatively new member of congress, he's retiring, and yet he represents a republican and there's not a single republican with us yesterday, last night and this morning. so i'll take hope where i can finds it. i think that represents something. and i think politically speaker ryan and his conference has to figure out how they're going to respond, not to our demands, i mean, they haven't acted on any democratic caucus demands for the last 3 1/2 years. but the demands of the electorate, which really came out last night loud and clear. i don't think they can ignore that. i really think that the
4:39 pm
challenge and the ball is in his court right now. and i for one, and i know many others in the caucus feel the same way, are very happy to work with him. the way i just described is legislation isn't going to work exactly the way i described and there's a compromise at which we can arrive, i will do my best to get behind that. reporter: thanks. mr. o'rourke: thank you. thank you all for coming out. appreciate it. reporter: keep it going. mr. o'rourke: will do. appreciate you all for coming out. host: and c-span's coverage of the house sit-in and the events that followed for about another 20 minutes or so and then it's on to our simulcast of i.t.v.'s coverage of the brexit vote. citizens in the u.k. voting today on whether or not to stay in the european union. our live coverage starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern time, just about 20 minutes from now. and american stock market
4:40 pm
investors seem to be inclined to vote in with their buying on wall street today as the dow jones industrial average is up about 230 points. so at least american investors are betting that the british voters will vote to stay in the e.u. but our live coverage at any rate starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern time today. as we simulcast i.t.v.'s referendum vote coverage. let's go back to the phone lines and get a call from jim who joins us from fairland, oklahoma, on the line for democrats. caller: good afternoon, sir. i live in a maroon state, i guess you'd call it. reddest of the red. i've been a republican for some time. well, my father was a republican, my grandfather was a republican, and it just hit
4:41 pm
me like a ton of bricks, this father's day. my children were over. i have six children, not all of them could make it, of course. but i have eight grandchildren. we were in here talking late at night about what's been going on and it just hit me like a ton of bricks. what have i been doing? funding these people that refuse to listen to the american people and the n.r.a. is -- they talk about terrorism. the republicans talk about terrorism. and how they're going to stop it. and the leadership is stupid. i know how to fix it. we're going to take care of this. funding n.r.a. is terrorism.
4:42 pm
and the n.r.a. to republicans, the n.r.a. is their allah. all r.a. is all knowing, seeing. whatever the n.r.a. says, yes, yes, n.r.a. allah, yes. we're behind you 100%, yes. nd you will not dare dispute anything the n.r.a. has to say or if you even bring that up, ryan, if you even bring up guns on the floor, you'll lose your seat. host: all right. thanks for the call. 're going to show you paul ryan now. the house speaker held his weekly briefing, spoke to reporters and as you might expect, many of the questions focused on the house democrats' sit-in. et's watch that now. mr. ryan: good morning, everybody.
4:43 pm
you know, one of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. no matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy. we can disagree on policy but we do so within the pounds -- bounds of order and respect for the system. otherwise it all fall apart. i'm not going to dwell on the decorum of the house today other than to say, we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business.
4:44 pm
why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is one. let's just be honest here. here are some facts. yesterday, the house appropriations committee considered its bill for homeland security spending. at the committee, democrats offered in committee an amendment offering the gun measure they say they want. that amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. so just yesterday, the democrats offered this gun measure they claim they want and failed on a bipartisan basis in committee. there was a vote, it was in the committee through regular order and the vote failed. that's a fact they didn't want to talk about. here's another one. if democrats want to vote for a bill on the floor, there's a way to get one. it just takes 218 signatures on a petition and then they can have a vote. it is that simple. that's how the house works and well known process. but they're not doing that. they are not trying to get this done through regular order. instead, they are staging process and trying to get on tv. they are sending fundraising solicitations like this one, house democrats on the house floor, your contribution will
4:45 pm
go to the dccc, $15. this one says 25 bucks, if you want, you can send us, $100, $500, 1,000. -- $500, $1,000. because look at what we're doing on the house floor. send us money. if this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off f a tragedy? what they called for failed in the committee of the house. the reason i call this a stunt because they know this isn't going anywhere. it already failed in the senate. may not like this fact, but this bill couldn't get 50 votes in the united states senate, et alone 60.
4:46 pm
why is that? why is it that this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in committee and this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the senate? because in this country, we do not take away people's constitutional rights without due process. this is not just republicans saying this. it's groups like the aclu who are saying this. but more to the point. our focus needs to be on confronting radical extremism. terrorism is the issue. let me say it again, terrorism is the issue and defeating terrorism is our focus here in the house. let me be really clear. we are not going to take away the constitutional rights of law--abiding americans. we're not going to allow pub policity stunts to stop us from doing our job. that's why the house powered ahead last night to provide important resources in the fight against the zika virus. one of the must-do things we
4:47 pm
had to respond to the zika ist. and in the face of this distraction, we passed a responsible bill that provides the level of funding that was in the senate bill, that received a big bipartisan vote with the mix of offsets that in the house were very important. this is a good compromise and meets an urgent need and i urge the senate to take it up and pass it. democrats can talk all they want. i'm not sure what their plan or end game is here, but the bottom line is despite these istractions we did our job and we did the people's business and we will continue to do so. one more point i want to bring up. i want to say a word about the supreme court ruling that halts the president's executive amnesty. this is a win for the constitution. it's a win for congress and in our fight to restore the separation of powers.
4:48 pm
president doesn't write laws, the congress writes law. t is fundamental to our system of checks and balance. congress, not the president, writes our laws and the supreme court validated that very fundamental principle. reporter: speaker ryan, what were your personal feelings when you were being screamed at and yelled shame, not even a ear in your speakership. you have a lot of spirited members in your own conference. are you worried that this sets a precedent for the shoe be on the other foot that if you are minority point? . ryan: i do worry about the precedent here. i have an obligation to protect this institution. we are the oldest democracy in the world. we are free people. when we see our democracy descend in this way, it is not a good sign.
4:49 pm
yes, i do worry. look, i have been around -- i have done the iowa state fair, the soap box. i have done wisconsin recalls. so that i am used to. but on the house floor? no. on the house floor where we have rules, where we have order, where we have a system, where a democracy is supposed to work its way up in a eliberative way, no, i did not expect that because i think hat we did, we watched a publicity stunt to descend an nstitution that we care deeply about. reporter: you pledged when you came in to run a more open house. last night, bills passed without sufficient time to review it, according to your own rules.
4:50 pm
the rules on amendments for appropriation bills are much more structured now and on this gun vote you are not going to bring it forward. mr. ryan: it failed in the committee. reporter: aren't you not giving an open process? -- promises for a more open house? mr. ryan: what we learned democrats weren't interested in advancing the process but topping the process. our members want congress to function. our members want us to do the people's business and do our jobs and when the democrats are trying to stop congress from doing anything, that is not an open process. that's a no process. that's a halting process. to the point of last night. you think we are going to have a civilized conversation about the zika virus? you think they were interested this coming to the mike and debating zika? of course not. they were screaming and shouting over each other. we were going to get our job
4:51 pm
done. going to get our job done and our job is to make sure we were giving the authorities to the c.d.c. and vaccination and getting prepared for the zika virus. we're going into summer. people are going be grilling out on the 4th of july and we -- the fourth of july and we want want to make sure we have the proper response and did our job and passed this bill. reporter: why not hold the vote, it would have taken 15 minutes. mr. ryan: we have a process. this a bill that isn't supported by a bipartisan majority. this amendment was brought up in the appropriations committee and failed there. that's point number one. point number two, if you want to bring a bill, do a discharge petition with 218 signatures . they're not bothering with these things, they're looking for pub policity stunts -- publicity stunts. by the way, this isn't about making law because the senate already defeated, so they know it isn't going to law and this is a publicity stunt and fundraising scheme. reporter: the senate is looking at a compromise. mr. ryan: let me back on that.
4:52 pm
what did i say yesterday or the day before? we want to see what the senate produces. we're looking at this issue. what did i say over the weekend? we know there is an issue with respect to terrorist watch list and people attempting to buy gun. we are looking into it. we aren't doing publicity stunts but looking at this issue so we get it right. remember what the f.b.i. told us, you get this wrong you will screw up investigations. you overreact and do in the , you're going to screw up our ability to go after terrorists. we want to get it right while protecting people's constitutional rights. reporter: if the protest is continuing, do you continue to punish those who broke the rules? mr. ryan: we are reviewing everything and bring order to this chaos. this is the people's house, this is congress, the house of representatives, oldest democracy on the world and escending it into chaos. this isn't a proud moment for democracy.
4:53 pm
reporter: on appropriations, you won't be able to finish the process before the end of july. how long you want the c.r. to o for? mr. ryan: i don't want to get into how long a c.r. because i want to get our job done and i want to move as much appropriation product through the house floor as much as possible and i don't want to talk about c.r.'s because that means we are short changing the process. we'll see. reporter: why not shut off the lights -- republicans have pointed out that is what nancy pelosi did in 2008 in order to nd debate. mr. ryan: we are following the rules as always have been in place. when you recess subject to the call of the chair, that's one process. when you adjourn, that's another process. we are following the rules as they have always been written and the rules as they were in
4:54 pm
008 as well. reporter: your homeland security committee ordered an investigation as to what happened at the department of homeland security headquarters and investigating whether an mployee was plotting to attack senior first there. has your office been briefed? mr. ryan: we want more information and we are awaiting investigation. but i am familiar. my staff was briefed. reporter: have a trump question. [laughter] mr. ryan: i have been a little busy. reporter: you have been extremely clear on your thought process about supporting the nominee and you don't want a hillary clinton presidency and you have been very clear about that. i'm wondering if there is something larger at stake
4:55 pm
here. you mentioned this is about free people. you are the head of this institution. and everything this country has been through, civil rights, racial discrimation, fair play, voting rights, you have a nominee as you know and had to rebuke him, attacking a judge based on ethnicity, have you ever thought about whether somebody in your position, egardless of party, needs to reject this -- somebody in your position needs to reject it for the health of the country? is there anything bigger here? mr. ryan: let's make it clear, yes i'm the head of the egislative branch as speaker of the house and i'm the high ranking republican official. if i lead a schism in our party i'm guaranteeing that a liberal emocrat becomes president. and continue these policies
4:56 pm
which i think are extremely detrimental to the country. i think losing the supreme court for a generation is detrimental and we want to see the campaign improve in tone and approach and every respect. he gave a good speech. i haven't seen it or read it, but when i see and hear things that i don't agree with that i hink are contrary to our principles as conservatives and americans, i'm going to be speak out and be clear. you know that. at the same time, the last thing i want to do is help hillary clinton become president of the united states. i think that would be bad for the country. reporter: citizens of great britain are voting on whether to stay or leave the european union. they're about to finish voting. do you have hopes as to the outcome? mr. ryan: i'm going to do exactly what the president did not do and not weigh in on this and send the signal to our great friends and allies in britain that we stand with them
4:57 pm
regardless of what decision they make. reporter: are you fearful of the consequences economically in the united states? mr. ryan: no, i'm not fearful. i'm not going to weigh in and they are an ally and stand with them regardless of what decision they make in great britain. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] host: speaker paul ryan earlier today. house minority leader nancy pelosi's office meanwhile released this information today to c-span. that virtually every house democrat spoke during the democrats' sit-in on the house floor and some 40 democratic senators came over to the house chamber to express their support at the sit-in. we have time for one more call before we join coverage of the british referendum today. so, nancy, you'll get the last word. you're in washington on the republican line. go ahead. caller: hi. first, i would just like to say thank you for taking my call
4:58 pm
and allowing me, an average, ordinary, unknown citizen of america, to, you know, take part in the making of history. i'm very thankful that i live in a country where this is possible. i do have some issues with the democrat sit-in. but before i get into that, i would like to say that i do think the one great thing that is sit-in accomplished was that it got all of us talking to each other. it gave us the voters a chance to just put in our two cents worth. i think that we need to see and of that, more open
4:59 pm
transparent discussion between the parties. am very disappointed in the democratic party. i have spent yesterday and today listening and the rhetoric was, you know, much the same over and over. yes, we're all angry about the shooting in orlando. we're all angry about people walking into our schools and killing our children. that's something that everyone can agree on. but what i'm afraid the democratic party is doing is just -- i really don't think that they're playing fair with the republicans. think that they are causing sort of -- not hysteria, but they're causing an uproar --
5:00 pm
host: we're going to have to end it there, nancy. thank you very much. thanks to all our callers. we'll take you live now to i.t.v. and our simulcast of their coverage of the british referendum today. >> it is 10:00, polls are closed across the united kingdom, we have made a decision and there is no going back. normally we'd give you the results of our exit poll conducted with other broadcasters. there will be no exit polls tonight because it's too unpredictable. we do have a unique probability calculator, i'll explain it in a moment, but it should give us the first indication of which ay this vote is going.
5:01 pm
tom: in the end there are two questions bf all tonight, who has won and what does that victory mean? to help answer that, we have two of the finest political scientists in the u.k., professors colin rowelling and jane green. we also have allegra stratton. leaders from both camp voted today, giant, julie is with the remain campaign, not just to convey their mood but to assess how they'd respond to a leave vote. reporter: what next for the country, the government and the prime minister himself? tom: and with the leave camp, about lose there, what
5:02 pm
the different parts of the u.k.? we have correspondents in the l the nations and regions to account when they do declare. reporter: i'm here in the city where the markets are betting on a remain victory. if they're wrong, it may get nasty. this could affect everything from the price you pay for your mortgage to the value of the pound in your pocket and ultimately the performance of the british economy. tom: we have correspondents in berlin and paris and our europe editor in brussels to help us assess european action. will they punish us if we live or was that campaign rhetoric? back here, what will we, or better to say, you, make of it all? >> i'm in plymouth for reactions
5:03 pm
on this desicei night. years clashes with europe over fishing have put this place on the front line of big arguments that shaped this referendum. >> the final call has been and gone. the gate is now closed. but where are we heading? i'll be here in manchester, talking to passengers and staff as britain tries to work out where in the world we belong. >> while immigration into the u.k. has been one of the key issues of the campaign, there are more than a million british migrants living in europe waiting nervously for tonight's results. i'm here with some british ex-pats to talk about the country's future. tom: we have eassembled some of the best for our panel. >> and i'm providing unique insight into how this referendum
5:04 pm
is being shared and talked about across the world. tom: plus, reaction from political layers itself. welcome to itv's, referendum night special. tom we do stand tonight at an extraordinary crossroads. we'll find out whether the economic tire predictions were true. what about the politics, we'd know what we were against but not what we were for? what kind of deal would we accept? and the other option, remain, the status quo, of course, but would it be? almost half the country does want to love, some desperately. can politics ever be the same again? you might say there's never been a night quite like it. and we will do our level best to make sense of it for you. the race is already on to give us the first hint as to which way the wind is blowing.
5:05 pm
ballot boxes are being emptied at centers up and down the country. we won't have our first results for at least an hour and perhaps not until after midnight. let's just get some reaction from robert and allegra to begin what we expect will be a long night. wherever the prime minister thought he'd be at 10:00 tonight, it wouldn't be on a knife edge and emotion running quite so high everywhere. >> he took a huge fwammable calling this referendum and it's been even hairier than he could have thought. i asked him if he regretted having it, he told me no. but his friends say he's been finding it traordinaryly stressful, even to the extent of having difficulty sleeping at night. we can all see why, this has been the most decisive -- divisive issue in our country since margaret thatcher's great reforms of the 1980's.
5:06 pm
we see parts of the u.k. pitted against each other. we all think scotland will vote to remain, london will vote to remain, northern ireland probably voting to remain. but huge swaths of england will vote to leave. we'll feel like a divided nation, communities split down the middle. i talk to people every day about this, families split down the middle, children arguing with parents and grandparents. when i talk to people, they say they have found it profoundly upsetting because they do recognize it is absolutely fundamental about who we are, but many people have found the argument incredibly difficult to weigh. this is a moment of destiny. >> the facts are difficult to establish, people talked about that. families often divided, communities, too. can we go back to normal, whichever way the result is? >> the jeannie is out of the
5:07 pm
bottle. i think -- the genie is out of the bottle. i think at least 45% will have voted to leave the e.u., that's my sense, anyway, i may be wrong but that's my sense. the problem then becomes the leaders at the top of the big problems, david cameron doesn't speak for that constituency. more importantly, the politics of it, there are different bits of the country and it sounds like you agree that don't understand each other. essex won't understand edingburg. -- edin burr rah -- edinburgh. people are enthusiastic around the country for very different causes. the problem seems to be this isn't the deft and right of a yen election. it's a much more profound poll about your attitude, whether or not you want the world out of the economy and out of the globalization and there isn't an easy answer.
5:08 pm
m turnout is a key -- tom: turnout is a key. earlier, david cameron thought huge lost but there are numbers of people out, do they have any hint which way it's gone. these are nervous times for the prime minister. do you have any sense of what may have happened? >> no. these are great times indeed. you can see over my shoulder, there's quite a crowd gathering here. over my left shoulder you may be able to see she shadows, we saw lord ashdown arrival -- arrive earlier. there's a real tension in the air here tonight. everyone scanning screens, phones, to see if there are any hints or indications at this stage. of course enormous questions for the key players, many of whom we hope to speak to at this party
5:09 pm
this evening. questions of course for david cameron as he's lost the vote. questions too if he's won it. where does he go to unite the party and bring people back together? big questions for labor as i know you've already touched on. did jeremy corbin get out campaigning fast and hard enough? there will be a lot of things to chew over tonight, not least of course the prospect if we are voted out about what happens next for the country. we'll keep a close eye on what's happening here. and bring you as much as we can as fast as we can. tom: thank you very much indeed. as allegra was saying, 45% or more of the country has voted to leave where does that vote go? one of many interesting political questions to chew over, whatever happens. e.u. s at the leave party. i know i'm sorry to do this to you so notoriously typical at this point in the evening when we haven't had a single result,
5:10 pm
but do you get any sense from the leave camp as to whether they're optimistic or not? >> they are optimistic, based in part on some of their own private polling but they admit it's not completely scientific. but here the bar is open, the polls close, and the mood is anything but reflective. in fact, this is the very start of an all-night carnival of ewe ow skepticism organized by the group leave.eu. it is not just the end of a long campaign but the end for some people of a life mission to first get a referendum and then to get the u.k. out of the european union. nigel farrage is the big speaker here, we expect him to arrive in around an hour or so, tom.
5:11 pm
tom: thank you. i said at the start there's no exit poll. why not, you might ask. so why no exit poll? >> i usually come along with a secret. tom: yes, you do >> the exit poll is designed to preticket seats because the share of the vote doesn't have much correlation with the number of seats they get. we tend to go back to the same places in each general election and measure change and now we've got no historical comparison unless you go back more than 40 years so we could have had a very expensive exit poll which would have been effectively the same as an opinion poll and no guarantee that that would have been right and of course no benchmarks against which to compare it. tom: so colin and jane, you do have huge amounts of data to help us analyze what results we
5:12 pm
do get in might tell us about the overall result. >> we interviewed 30,000 people over the last few weeks, that gives us the most up to date data and also enough data to cover the counting areas. we added information about how those counting areas have voted in the past and key demographic information about how people are likely to vote. using the day tark we have built a model. that gives us a ranking of all the 382 counting areas from those most likely, we think, to vote leave and those areas we think most likely to vote remain. we come into the studio tonight with this model and what we're going to be doing throughout the night as every result comes in is update that model. what that is going to do, that is going to tell us who has won at the earliest possible opportunity. tom: this is all leading somewhere as you might have guessed. we have a probability graph.
5:13 pm
what's going to happen as colin and jane look at all the tai ta and they're happy that the data is settling down into the trend, we'll put on screen the probability of one side or the other winning. that's much earlier than we would normally do so and i think a lot of're people will do so tonight. in short, put in plain english, what it means is we should be able to give you the earliest indication of the trend over the course of the evening. not definitive, but illustrative, we hope. one place where they are used to making early bets is the city. bankers, traders and analysts are preparing for a busy night in the office. many city companies have done their own polling today. we don't know if these are likely to be any more reliable than polls in the campaign. but joe is there, the city is betting remain. do we put any store in that do you think? >> well, look, they've had some success in past occasions, haven't they? the scottish referendum, the opinion polls were tied but the
5:14 pm
market bet the way money was being placed. guessed the outcome of that referendum quite clearly. the opinion poll in this one suggests it's going to go right down thth wire. the markets, the collective wisdom of the markets, is betting on a remain victory. we have had no exit poll, but another poll has been published since 10:00. it gave remain 62% of the vote and it has already had an effect. we've seen the pound trade up against the dollar and slightly against the euro. the markets forming a view, to a large degree on instinct. although people indicated to pollsters how they were planning to vote, in the quiet of the polling booth, the marks believe it's the economy stupid, actually in the polling booth work a pencil in your hand, people behave slightly differently.
5:15 pm
the market, of course, may be wrong. i think as we go through the night, the probability shifts if it shifts in the direction and becomes clear there's a strong chance that britain will vote to leave, i think you'll see a flurry of activity as people desperately try to move around and cover their losses. it may not be particularly ordinary. tom: thank you very much indeed. this does feel rather like a general election but there are no m.p.'s. how is the counting going to work? >> rather than constituencies, votes will be counted at 380 centers broadly based on local authority. the first figure announced will be turnout. the numb of people who voted. we expect those to start being declared in the next hour. after turnout, the real counting begins. the first full result could come before midnight and as in a general election, sunday lynn is oping to -- sunederland is
5:16 pm
hoping to be first. only after those regional cent verse declared will the final referendum result be announced at the national count center of manchester town hall. we're told that will be around breakfast time. but remember the closer the vote, the later this eresult so when we'll be having breakfast is anyone's guess. sunderaland ion, is first to declare and are proud of that so these people rushing ballot boxes in there is no surprise. wandsworth is also expected to be among the first to declare. gibraltar is an hour ahead,
5:17 pm
polls closed a while ago, but had to wait to start counting. they announced turnout is 84%. one final point, we'll get the rest of the turnout figures for each count relatively soon before counting proper begins. colin and jane will help us chew over those and what if anything we can read into them. it is worth saying at this stage, we don't necessarily think a high turnout benefit once side or the other for sure. whatever the outcome, there's no doubt where it will all finish tonight. the final result, as i said from manchester town hall. romilee weeks is there, how do you expect things to pan out over the course of the snevpk >> the near gothic center of manchester's town hall has seen plenty of history but nothing that touches on this. they've had the e.u. referendum sign specially made in neon because here, 2 1/2 months after the referendum campaign started, 43 years since britain first
5:18 pm
joined what became the european union, on this stage, in this room behind me here, the final results will be declared and britain's destiny in or out of europe will be known. we've already had the first announcement here from jenny watson, the chief counting officer. this is what she had to say earlier. >> since 7:00 a.m. today, people across the u.k. and gibraltar having voting in this historic polyand the polling stations have now closed. anyone still in a queue at a polling station is waiting to cast their vote in the usual way. >> the next time we hear from jenny watson, she'll tell us the national turnout figure. we know that a record number of people have been eligible to vote in this referendum. how many of them will have turned out will give us a clue as to how long a night we're in for. but the main event here, of course, is the national declaration. we're told that will be at
5:19 pm
breakfast time but not whether that will be an up with the lark breakfast or a lazy sunday lie-in sort of breakfast. but there could be interim results, there might be a point at which it becomes mathematically impossible for one side or the other to have won. at this point, both will be given the option to appear on stage and make a statement. we could have a much earlier idea of what's going to happen from here in manchester. tom: thank you very much indeed. we don't want a sunday lie-in kind of breakfast. even if there's no exit poll, we've had more polls generally than you can shake a stick in. do they tell us anything? one had remain 5 % and leave 48%. there's also the poller poll, the last of the -- poll of polls
5:20 pm
of the last six, remain, 52%, leave 48%. and betting markets, gave remain 84%. remember some bookies offered 40-1 on toreys winning the majority. -- on torie winning the majority. now how much faith do we put in the polls and more interestingly, why do polls sometimes get it wrong? is it in the gap between how people like to think they view themselves and how they actually are? how they think they will vote and how they do? >> there are all sorts of reasons. sometimes that happensing but the crucial thing of polls is they have to get their sampling right. they have to approach the right people. that doesn't mean people of the correct age or correct gender balance, also people with the same age and gender balance having a different opinion. if they miss a particular segofment the population, they can go badly wrong. quite clearly in 2016 they couldn't find enough people who were always going to vote
5:21 pm
conservative and who voted conservative on the day and took them by surprise and if for example remain were to win by a large margin or if leave were to win by a large margin, that would suggest something similar has happened, they vnt talked to the right people. tom: jane, off this mass of data you study on an ongoing basis, did what you see tally with the polls or not quite? >> last year, we conducted a big, random probability survey, face to face in people's homes that survey did really, really well. but those surveys are really expensive which is why we haven't seen apart from one exception we haven't seen another kind of random probability survey conducted over the campaign. so tonight it's a really big test for the industry. you can bet your bottom dollar there are going to be people watching the polls, the pollsters will be there with as much riding on their rep station as there are on some politicians' shoileders this evening.
5:22 pm
tom: i love nights like this. so much money is riding, so much angst -- >> and here we are, we don't know anything. >> we know even less than on a general election night. the particular problem for polling at the moment is about your skepticism in britain. there's so little academic or otherwise historical data. so one of the reasons i get worried, trying to look at polls and interpret them, you have the problem about the general election last year but b, you've got this particular problem, we haven't had many specific polling questions about the e.u. it's not something that people frequently put in their top three concerns. there's a whole host of worries. we see different things happen over the campaign. you've had phone polls show one sort of lead to remain and online polls show it much tighter. people think it might be that we don't -- but we don't know, that online you get the se will thes, the anti-e.u. enthusiasts who go
5:23 pm
on and vent their fury. tom: one bit of breaking news m.p.'ss 2/3 of the leave have already pledged -- pledged their support to the prime minister. >> whatever the outcome of the referendum. those m.p.'s include as we've been led to expect it would, we have now got confirmation, my gal goh and boris johnsonton. the letter said they call on the prime minister to continue in office to put in place the measures in the 2015 conservative manner. the referendum which has divided the nation system of they're oing their best to avoid total turmoil in the tory party. there are many people who think if the result is close, in either direction, there will be turmoil. so when i talk to people at the
5:24 pm
top of the tory party, many say what they're most desperate for is a decisive result that at least puts this issue to bed for a number of years because this is a row, not only dividing the torey party but dividing the nation, terribly damaging. tom: you won't have missed the many apock litchtic predixes of the prime minister and chancor -- chancellor and others. leing may mean recession, may even mean war one day. i'm joined by deputy prime minister, i know you probably hate these kinds of questions because it's one of those momentest -- moments whether it's impossible to read. you've been involved in many, many campaigns. do you have any sense at all of how it's gone for your side?
5:25 pm
statistical a nonsense to say what i'm going to say but of the three people i've come across today who were doubtful, they all vote red main. the bobbingies take the same view. but i've got no idea. tom: we're still at the point in the evening where we're at a crossroads. we could leave, we could stay. all the way through the campaign we had these sort of pretty apocalyptic predictions about what leaving would mean. i think most people thought that was campaign rhetoric. now you look down that lane tonight, it's clearly a possibility we could go there. do you think it really would be bad? begin with the economics. communing we'd be looking at a short, sharp recession, potentially? >> you've already seen the significant collapse in the value of people's savings and the security of their pensions as a result of the fall in the stock exchange and that's as
5:26 pm
clear an indication as you can get as to what would be likely to happen if we were to vote to leave. there's a very sharp difference the n the suggestions by leave campaign tooze what would happen because they're all based on wild conjecture, no fact no, authority backing. but all the remain campaign forecasts have come from people who are in positions of great responsibility. quite independent. and who have think traditional respect of experts in this field. so there's a quite different credibility about the arguments that have been used. it just takes -- just take the most obvious problem. suppose that there were to be a vote to leave tonight.
5:27 pm
five sixths of the members of the house hoff commons don't want to leave. so how would you -- who would go to try and get a deal which you could get through parliament? how do you cope with the uncertainty? and what -- all over the world there are huge industrialists and commercial people deciding to invest billions of pounds every year. what would britain have to say to them, oh, look, we're having talks in europe, we've sent some people to try to explore the opportunities, to which they'd all say, well, fine. you let us know how you get on. we'll decide whether to invest. in the mentime we've had thiermans and french on the phone saying, there's no uncertainty here. you put your money and rely on the government itself. tom: let's look the other way and assume your statistical survey is correct and remain have it tonight. for as long as i've been covering politics, the tory party has been arguing about europe.
5:28 pm
we've got the situation, as robert and allegra were talking about, where the country is pretty much, or appears to be, divided down the middle. is this it? can this be it? the issue is put to bed if remain win? or are we destinned to go on hearing the arguments with greater force regardless of the results tonight? >> that's a very sensible and straight question and i hope, and i actually believe, that in the end, the conservative party, the most successful political party in the history of democracy, been in power longer than any other political party in a democratic country, the conservative party understands that to win you have to have the confidence of the electorate and you have to have a unity of purpose and a unity of voice. frankly, that's become rather more difficult and david cameron, in my view, has been very badly treated by people
5:29 pm
senior in the party who know the damage that they've caused. david cameron put this party back into power. it wasn't the conservative party who won the last election, it was david cameron. he's more popular and more widely regarded than the conservative party. so the party is going to have to make a very simple decision. are they going to set out to be the -- to remain the governing party, to speak of the voice which is clear and articulate an serves british best interests, or are they going to lapse into a sort of endless civil war in which there's a license to vote against your party in repeated foreas in which the -- to rays in which the national press, and there are some questions about the national press in this campaign, in which the national press seeks to exploit any division, headline it to the damage of the party? i believe that remain will win. i believe that david cameron will pursue a generous approach
5:30 pm
to those who he has created the opportunity to have this debate. i hope that they will respond to he generosity of his approach. tom: i feel like this is something we could be discussing for many, many years, thank you very much for joining us tonight. across the country, many are working through the night. as they do, each and every evening. we're live at two places that never sleep. manchester airport and plymouth docks to examine the issues. let's go to chris in plymouth, he's gathered some of the southwest's brightest minds. >> as you can see behind me, the evening e.u. regulated catches coming in, they'll be busy through the night. but they're locked on to every result, every announcement because this is an area where
5:31 pm
the referendum seems very close to home. things may look smooth on the surface but in referendum terms these are choppy waters. in fact, the says all around us are no longer even our own according to many in the fishing industry. the signs point toward europe but some see this region's future in the opposite direction. what happens on the site here has become a battle cry. the e.u. leaves an open door for french and spanish trawlers while catches like this landed by u.k. boats have dwindled along with the work force. but like local tides this is a two-way flow. britain exports 2/3 of its fish to the e.u. so like it or not, plymouth will be linked with europe whatever happens tonight and as yet, neither side in this debate is ruly home and dry.
5:32 pm
some of the boths -- boats out at see have been asked to keep in contact. but it's not just about fishing. it's a split community. we have jim from the fishing industry and mary and james from farming. james, from fish, a big leave battler, have you won the night in the swevt do you think? >> i certainly think so. i'm not heap, i'm believing that we will have won. >> did it get anywhere when it came to fishing, it was all stumps and slogans, wasn't it? >> we've been campaigning in the fishing industry for more than 20 years. i can assure you the publicity was good. >> so you've won no matter what the outcome you got it on the agenda. >> i believe so. >> mary from farm, very firm remain believer. despite all the e.u. bureaucracy we hear about when it comes to farming. why are you so firm -- firmly in the staying in camp?
5:33 pm
>> if you look at the bureaucracy, the regulations, everyone thinks we can be like norway an switzerland. they have to do that regulation and they don't have a say in it. that's the price of access to the single market. >> what would happen if we leave tonight? >> i think most farmers in dairy, arable and sheep will be a lot worse off. >> james, you've been undecided for much of this campaign. what do you think is the downside of e.u. membership for farmers who after all get 55% of their income through subsidies. >> indeed, but we're a strong economy inside that single market which has a disported -- distorted balance on what we produce. we can produce some of the best foods in the world in the u.k. but we're one of the most expensive places to do that and people feel that. >> it's a close knit community around here. you can feel it. are they going -- there are -- are there going to be lasting divisions. you're not saying which way you
5:34 pm
timely voted, is that partly because you fear there could be tension even afterwards? >> no, i don't think so. the whole point of the vote is that it can be a secret ballot. that's way it should be. that's fine within a democracy. i think what's important now is, we look to the future of what's going to happen tomorrow when we get the results and we the what's going to happen and the future for farming, it's a huge part of this economy. we need to know what the future is going to be. >> all right, james. thanks to all three of you. talking results, we're not expecting the big ones from devon and cornwall until about 5:00 or 6:00. join us for more reaction here at the plymouth fishery. tom: thank you very much indeed. it's probably worth saying that since we came on air, there's been rumors that nigel farrage was preparing to concede defeat, we didn't tell you because it seemed early in the evening to be hearing that. so remember that he did concede defeat early in the general
5:35 pm
election. is there anything in this at all? >> well i've just spoken to two people who were sitting, having dinner with nigel and they're sure he has not yet conceded defeat. in fact, a third source said he made that mistake last time, referring to his resignation just after last may's election, but another source said to me it is early days but added cautiously we're not optimistic. that's based in part on the polling that we saw earlier in the day derek spite the fact they're own private polling appeared to support their case and showed they had just edged this referendum. they're also not optimistic because of the turnout. it's their belief that a high turnout like the one we appear to have seen today actually
5:36 pm
helps the remain side of this argument. but nigel will be here in around an hour o so and will be able to answer those questions directly on cam rafment tom: thank you very much. probably worth saying at this point that optimism and pessimism from either side doesn't always turn out to be the best indication of what's happened. the clock is slowly ticking down to our first result. sunderland, , in they're still count, trying to be the first to declare. but they're not alone. we will have more than one result in before midnight to chew over. whatever else you say about this campaign, it created some new stars. -- i shouldn't say the campaign made you a star, but -- you were a political star before that. i don't know if you heard what
5:37 pm
we were discussing, the ggestion of nigel farrag's conceding defeat, do you know about that? >> absolutely nothing to shed on that, i'm sorry. but i think today for me, i was in northhamptonshire, and we're rumored to be strongly out but i don't take particular comfort from that. i think it's going to be a long night. i think we're all on tenterhooks at the moment. >> tom: is it any consolation that david cameron thought he lost and it didn't turn out to be the case at all. do you have any sense of how things have gone nationwide? the remain camp seem buoyant at this point. >> i think it's too difficult to tell. there were lots of anecdotes, lots of tweets saying the armed forces have been really fed up by this whole thing they've think we should definitely get out of the e.u.
5:38 pm
i've seen anecdotely some young people saying i'm not going to be called racist for voting out, i'm going to vote out because i want to have a future in the world, not the e.u. but that's just anecdotes. i think it's just impossible to say at this point. tom: we were talking a short while ago, we have seen them come out trying to draw a wall around the prime minister. say remain have a narrow victory, do you think he'll survive? >> absolutely. i always through this campaign, i've been completely clear. he did an amazing thing in giving us this referendum. it's been 43 long years. and he not only called the referendum but he also said to his -- om: not regretted is a debatable point. >> but he also said to his ministers, don't listen to anyone, go with what you believe. in that's an extremely brave
5:39 pm
thing to do. he didn't just give us permission but encouraged us to campaign with all our hearts for what we believe in. i think we do owe him a lot for that i think now, whatever the result, we absolutely need to listen to the people, do exactly as the people tell us, and just et on with it. tom: let's suppose you won and we're leaving, you see the kind of nervousness in the city, are you not worried about the potential impag of leaving, i heard what you said in the campaign but now it's all over, would you acknowledge there's a significant risk? >> i think we have a superb future. we can rehearse the whole -- tpwh tom: we don't have to go through that again. >> genuinely, obviously what we've seen is a remain campaign that really has wound up the volatility stakes. and there's an old saying in the city, why on rumors, sell on fact. people have been positioning
5:40 pm
their portfolios like crazy. they've been affected by all of that enormous scare mongering. there will be a lot of unwinding to be done of positions, regardless of whether we stay or go. but nevertheless when you look at the fundamentals of our economy, when you look at the po ento -- potential for trade deals we can't do because we're in the e.u. when you look at the strength of our economy, low unemployment, low interest rates. our growth figures and so on. we have everything going for us. tom: let's say you don't win tonight and it's remain. theoretically, the status quo, as an investment manager would you be buying or selling stock? >> you know, i think we have a very good prime minister. i think i've just made very clear -- and that's true. then there'll be another debate. tom: let me ask it another way. do you think this passion having been generated, it's possible to put it back in the box?
5:41 pm
or are we going to be talking about in europe or out, regardless of what the result is tonight for the next five years? >> i mean that's -- that's a difficult question. obviously there will be some people who will keep talking about it. but then there always have been. it's a very important issue. it is one of sovereignty, democracy, it's who governs you. and so on. it's a very important issue. what i do certainly hope is that in the conservative party we get on with the business of government and certainly, as of now, i'm energy minister and getting back to the job. in fact, just last night, we kind of -- with kind of matchsticks in my eyes, i was trying to catch up on energy submissions from officials so i don't get behind. there's a job of work to be done and the government will be pulling together tomorrow. tom: one way or another you'll finally get sop sleep. thank you very much for coming in. we're expecting one of the earliest results tonight from gibraltar. the rock may be a long way from
5:42 pm
these shores but they regard themselves as british and very much so. they also regard e.u. as a safeguard against our tricky relationship with spain. juliette is there, this is something they feel very, very strongly about in gibraltar, isn't it? >> it's hard to overestimate just how strongly. you've joined us just as the ball et boxes are being brought out to start the count but i think it is a bit of a foregone conclusion. we've already had the turnout here, nearly 84%. they thought that was disappointing. they've been campaigning strongly to remain but i think there's a lot of worry about it really. most people here think it would be economic suicide if they voted to leave europe. the rock may be physically linked to spain but it's home to 32,000 people who see their passports and british identity as nonnegotiable.
5:43 pm
after frequent spats with spain, you might think they'd be keen to get out of the e.u. but this turning. finitely not they may not love the european project but they want the e.u. right to free movement. gibraltar relies on 12,000 workers who live in spain crossing the border every day. most people here fear brexit would place them at the mercy of madrid. as part of a deal on any single market, spain could demand joint sovereignty over this british overseas territory. tom: is there any sense at all of how the count is going there? >> yeah, we do expect to be one of the earliest counts. of course we're an hour ahead of you. but we're thinking it probably won't be much more than an hour before we have a result for you here. there are just 24,000 eligible to vote. more than 20,000 did.
5:44 pm
those in favor say aye confident it won't take long for them to tally that up. like i said work a threat from spain, with that feeling that the e.u. gives them all these economic benefits, i don't think the result here is any doubt. it just might be one of the first to fall. -- to call. tom: let's not forget the feature of the -- future of the union itself hangs in the balance. how will european presidents and prime ministers react? germany will still want its facilities, true but on the other hand it will be desperate to make sure no one else is tempted to leave the union. as for the french that perhaps is another story. s is in e editor james brussels, emma murphy is in paris, james i've lost track of the amount of european countries you've been to over the last few months, your airline miles must be quite something. what do you sense is at stake
5:45 pm
for the whole of europe tonight? >> there's absolute agreement across europe that things will not be the same, whatever the result. they are battening down for stormy weather ahead, not just talking about the thunderstorm which has come in. whichever way it go, they know there are very difficult months ahead. let's say it's leave. well, we would expect, and they do expect, carnage in the market tomorrow. there is talk of an emergency e.u. summit over the weekend in order to get some firm statement of policy out before the markets reopen on monday morning. there's talk of a g- statement being rushed out as well to try to reduce volatility. the german parliament is already penciled in an emergency session for monday morning. that's how serious and unsettling and destabilizing a leave vote would be tonight. but even if it's remain, there's going to be a summit here next week, tuesday, wednesday, there
5:46 pm
is an absolute feeling that something is going to have to change. what there isn't is agreement on what. you'll get this northern bloc of denmark and the netherland and jerny saying, lock, we can't carry on with more europe recipe every single time. thuff efrench say, this is a big moment but we have to drive on the european project. that is going to be a huge battle next week as well. tom: ok, james, for now at least, thank you very much. john in berlin. one of the biggest arguments in this whole campaign has been about what the real attitude of the german leadership here is. or would be if we left. what do you sense she mood in the german leadership tonight? >> good evening, tom. i think both the german establishment, the leadership, the german leadership are watching the referendum with a mixture of fear and incredulity. this is a massive story in germany. the referendum has been on all
5:47 pm
the front pages. i'll show you the biggest selling paper here. its front page is the most entertaining, it's a jocular prom story note, they pledge that if britain stays in, they'll finally acknowledge the goal in the 1966 cup final did go. in the germans promise not to use a goalie in the next penalty shootout with england. and they say that from now on germans will use their towels to reserve loungers for british holidaymakers but setting jokes aside, germany is taking this seriously. particularly at an emotional level. there's a great sense of ongoing gratitude for the role great britain played in rebuilding this country out of the ashes of the second world war. germany views the e.u. experiment as the greatest post-war achievement.
5:48 pm
germans see the e.u. as a guarantor of peace and prosperity. they like having britain as a heavyweight ally at the top table of the e.u. and they don't quite understand why we are, in their view, putting that peace and prosperity at risk. tom: john, the germans really do have a sense of humor. thank you very much. let's go to paris and emma murphy. it's been said all the way through the french can't wait for us to get out and they're sharpening their knives, true or false? >> well, they're certainly not showing the same sort of sense of humor the germans are showing in terms of that paper. it's a lot more serious here this evening. i suppose the thing with the french is there's a kind of love-hate relationship that's gone on for so long. in many ways, yes, they're absolutely fed up with what they see as the cherry picking of the u.k., the fact that we'll go along with certain things in europe when it sulets us and when it doesn't, we say, we want
5:49 pm
different rule well, want to lee. uh but fundamentally they are concerned about what the decision made in the u.k. tonight will do to the whole 60-year european bloc project and they don't want to see the con de-construction of that they're also extremely concerned that there seems to be a degree of push, that would leave the way open for that debate to begin in a real ferocious manner here in france especially with the national. there's been no comment from the senior french politicians here today. i think they're just hoping if they stay quiet, they will be able to wait and see exactly what the situation is. but we do know that they are going to make some comments in the coming day about where europe gos from here because he accepts that there is no way that after a vote like we've seen in the u.k. and the debate that's going on here in france that things can stay exactly the
5:50 pm
ame. tom: thank you very much indeed. we've been on air 15 minutes or so. any mood music from people you've been talking to? >> i can't be on the phone and talk at the same time. >> conversations going on, so definitely the mood in the remain camp is buoyant. they are looking at the private polls, one of the polls been conducted today, which is saying to them that they've won, possibly by as much as 10 percentage points. but let's be clear, it is very, very early in the night. i think it would be a foolish person who put their name to an outcome. when we have talked to the nigel farrage side of the campaign, they are not confirming thattest he's -- that he's conceded
5:51 pm
defeat. one of his close colleagues, patrick o'flynn, said ethe hi -- he thinks they can still get it. the polls probably indicate that they haven't done that. i mean, i suspect that's what happened, as frequently happened is he was having a private chat with somebody and he may well have said that, you know he, thinks he may not quite have done it. but they have not formally conceded defeat, i think one should make that clear. >> we need to talk turnout. >> we do let's talk turnout. tom: is it as high easas we thought? >> it's a suggestion it may be way higher. turnout at the election about 66%. turnout in the scottish referendum over 80%. we'd all rather sadly been thinking that this referendum wouldn't peak as high as it did in scotland but there are suggestions it might be going up above 0%, above 80%. s no not something anybody was predicting.
5:52 pm
tom: in the context -- >> in the context of what's been happening to turnouts in general elections, it shows you, if the turnout is around 80%, that's astonishing. t shows people worked on this. >> there was a massive downpour. it was pretty wet. and just to talk it through, people thought the leave camp thought at one stable probably one of their best bets was going to be people were distracted by football and the turnout wunts high. >> if it is a turnout of about 0%, the prime minister, whatever the result, will then say, come off it. this is real democracy in action. and if he's won he, will say, that's it. end of argument. and i think it will be quite hard in those circumstances, for the leave side to say it's all terribly unfair and we want another one next week.
5:53 pm
tom: doing -- i want to bring in colin here. does a big turnout mean, as some people thought that young people went out, registered and went out to vote? is it as simple as that? it's a horrible question. >> it's fine. it's not as simple as that. kerfluffle this big when the government website went down, many people trying to register were already registered or they were e.u. citizens who were registered but weren't allowed to vote in this because it's a general election. that was one of the problems. you could also put together an argument to say that high turnout is because perhaps the leave side have encouraged many of those who have been so disillusioned of politicians of all parties dating back to tony blair and onwards have said at least somebody wants to listen to our point of view. people, for example, who are labor supporters living in surrey. what's the point of them voting
5:54 pm
in general elections? conservative supporters in other places. this referendum, one person, one vote, gives everyone an equal chance. tom: let's head back to sunderland. i don't want to sound desperate as i say this, but any news? >> i can tell you all the ballot boxes are in, at least. for a while it did feel a little bit like a workout in itself, this whole counting process. they were rushing through the red door at the back there sprinting with the ballot boxes. they finished that about 20 minutes ago. now here they are separating the ballot pages into lee or remain already. by now normally we'd have a result in the general election. that takes about 45 minutes. but this time it's taking a bit longer because they're counting three constituencies in one go plus they think turnout is higher than normal. as allegra was say , in this part of the country, we don't think it's astronomical turnout,
5:55 pm
perhaps high 50's, low 60's, so turnout here is generally pretty low. hopefully we get a proper turnout figure in five minutes time, and full results about half past 12:00. tom: that turnout figure may be interesting. on the continent there are 1.2 million british ex-pats living in europe. some 319,000 of them live in spain. our correspondent is on the costa del sol tonight. >> good fretching the port of decatur, this port probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for e british expatriate population. we've met quite a few of them over the last couple of days. everyone we have spoken to voted using the postal vote system. referendums -- this referendum will have a difficult, personal
5:56 pm
result for them. there are around 1. million brits living outside the u.k. but somewhere inside the european union. most of them enjoy the ex-pat lifestyle in sunny spain. all of them can work and own property in their adopted country and enjoy access to health care and pensions. if we vote to stay in the e.u., those rights remain. if we vote to leave, they'd no longer be guaranteed. according to international law, british ex-pats will be able to stay put but only those who began ex-pat life before this. after a vote to leave, it would depend on new arrangements made between the u.k. and its neighbors. depending on the nature of those relationships, new agreements might be easily reached or e.u. countries may enforce other conditions on their british neighbors like higher taxes. tom: let's have a look at now,
5:57 pm
we talked about turnover. no, that's a different thing. turnout with allegra amongst ores. let's take a look at previous figures to give us a sense of perspective. the last referendum in this country in 2011 for the alternative vote system. 42.2% of people cast their vote at last year's general election, turnout was higher at 66.1%. contrast that with the scottish referendum where 84.6% of people had their say in 2014. if you had to bet, any sense of what the turnout would be tonight? it seems to me there was a lot of, everyone rolling their years felt like it was going on for a thousand years. then in the last week or two, it really, you know, as robert was say, it came home to people how much it mattered and one has the sense that the turnout is going to be higher tonight, perhaps than we might have expected only a week ago. >> i think that's right, tom.
5:58 pm
on the other hand, i spent a bit of time in scotland before the scottish referendum. i didn't quite get the impression across britain that the engagement is quite as big and as high. the scotts were getting emotional. there were some divisive rows between political leaders but i think voters have been looking with their usual skeptical eye with what's going on. but i wouldn't be surprised if turnout was higher than the eneral election level. tom: we've had a lot of talk about sunderland. i guess when it comes to them, you're going to be looking primarily for whether -- this is a labor area -- whether labor was able to turn out its vote for stated party position which is to remain in the union. >> but that kind of thrires result rather than simply the turnout.
5:59 pm
especially if the turnout is similar to general election levels. so it will be the same people in most parties that are voting. because it's a labor city, labor got 50% of the vote last time, if hay boar votes for what labor leadership told them, that should be good for remain in sunderland. >> jane, do you have any sense of whether we'll get turnout of scottish referendum levels or below that? >> for years we've said there's. when people get given a choice or when that choice is important, they may be turning out to vote now. if turnout isn't loads higher, if as colin says probably not at the scottish level, we might on the other side say, well even with a clear choice, even with a really important decision, why
6:00 pm
was turnout not higher and perhaps that will reflect on the campaigns being highly divisive and turning people off. tom: it's just hit 11:00. polls closed one hour ago and counting under way. it is of course too early to call. but tonight a source has told i.t.v. news that cautiously they are not optimistic about a win for leave. meanwhile, more than 80 conservative m.p.'s, including cabinet members campaigning to leave, have signed a letter urging david cameron to remain as prime minister no matter what tonight's outcome is. they wrote -- we who are supporters of vote leave and tom: and tonight, former deputy prime minister told us that the prime minister deserves their full support.

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on