Not just violent extremism. I said this in my speech in 2011, i have driven it forward through my task force. Its included of stopping banning hate preachers and ensuring every part of government at the state from schools and universities to prisons are focussed on beating the streechlism. And this task force will continue to meet regularly. Britain is and open, tolerant, and free nation. Were a country that backs people in every community, who wants to work hard, make a contribution, and build a life for themselves and their families. We cannot standby and allow our openness to be confused with a tolerance of extremism. Or one that encourages different cultures to live separate lives and allows people to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values. Adhering to british value is not an option or choice. Its a duty for those who live in these islands. In the end, it is only by standing up for these values that we will defeat the streechlism, protect our way of life, and keep our people safe. Thank you. Very happy to take some questions from the forecasters and one or two from the print media. Lets start. Reporter Prime Minister, do you feel that this increase in the threat level changes the equation at all with regards combat or military response and from the syria folks. Do you reflect the vote could have ended up, in fact, helping the very people who you say posed a severe threat. Let me answer as co comprehensively as i can. First of all, the change in the threat level is that is determined by the joint Terrorism Assessment Center. Its done independently of government, both substance of their decision and the timing of when they make the announceme announcements. I understand and i agree with the assessment they made. Theres a greater threat we face from syria and iraq, theres a greater problem of returning foreign fighters, and worth remembering, as i said in my statement, youre dealing not just with isil. Youre dealing with other Al Qaedalinked franchises in syria and potentially in iraq. Thats the reason for the threat level change. I think what it should trigger, first of all, is a comprehensive assessment. Thats the prism through which i look at these problems. My First Priority are we safe at home in the u. K. . What more can we do . Thats the prism through which we should look at first of all. In terms of what were doing with others to deal with the problem of that source, we have been focussed on the humanitarian aid drops. Were playing a leading role. Weve been focussed on intelligence gathering and working with our partners to help with the work theyre doing, and the americans have taken the lead on the kinetic action in terms of the air strikes against isil. Thats the situation, i think thats the right approach to take. To be clear, i would always do what i believe is necessary to keep the british people safe. Thats the way i make the judgments about what we should do. In terms of linking back to the syria vote, i wouldnt overanalyze that. The syria bill in the house of commons was about a proposal to take limited military action in response to the use of chemical weapons in syria. They made the determination that it made. Actually, there has been since then a wide spread dislocation of syrias chemical weapons. Have a lot of those have been removed. That work needs to be completed. I wouldnt overanalyze a connection between that vote, which was about chemical weapons and what we face today, which is a terrorist tate state in the heart of iraq. Reporter abc news. Can you tell us the higher threat level is likely to mean for people going about their ordinary lives. Will they see more strepolice i airports and public buildings. Can i follow up the question. Youre saying the threat comes from abroad, it comes from syria and iraq and yet you appear to be saying that there will be no British Military action against isil forces in that region. If not, why not . Okay. Well, first of all, what does this threat level mean . To be clear about the terms of the joint Terrorism Assessment Center uses. We were under a threat level which was substantial, which is an attack being a strong possibility. They have moved it to severe. Ab attack being highly likely. Its a stage back from the most intense threat which is critical. When an attack is expected. What it means for the british people, i would say we should continue to go about our daily lives in our normal way. Britain faced terrorist threats before and overcome them. We have showed a resolve and perseverance. Thats what we should do on this occasion. The purpose of moving the threat level is that it does trigger a series of actions by the police and indeed by others in other parts to make sure they put in place all the extra security they can. So you might see some changes in terms of policing and the numbers of police and things like that. But that is the point of having a center of threat levels independently judged, independently announced. So the authorities in the private and public sectors know the level of threat that we face. Taking your second question, you say this threat comes from iraq and syria. And of course, the threat we face today. A large part of the threat we face today comes from iraq and syria. My argument is we need to go a big deeper than. The threat we face today comes from the poisonous narrative of slammist extremism. Wherever there is a broken state, whenever there is a civil war, wherever theres grievance, ungovern states you see the extremism being pushed further and faster. Thats why we have problems in somalia, nigerh ye nigeria, and. The right approach is identify the problem you face. The poisonous narrative. You center to take it on everywhere including at home. When you take it on at home. Its not just about target those who want to do worse but those that put forward the extremism narrative which provides a background for recruiting people into the violence. As i said, thats the approach very much that we take. Do we need with allies to make sure that isil cannot succeed in iraq and syria . Yes, of course, we do. We should be clear about the cause of what has brought this about. One of the principle causes that brought it about is the ungoverned space in iraq caused by the fact that too long iraq had a government that was not governing on behalf of the whole country. It was only governing on behalf of one part of the country. Our strategy for combatting isil every single one of the functions i outlined. We should be working with the kurds, and we are. Helping to make sure they the arms they need. We should be helping our allies, the americans with the intelligence gathering they want. We should be working to ensure an Iraqi Government that can govern for the people of iraq and we are. We should be playing our role in delivering aid supplies to those desperately in need. All the time while we do that recognizing that even if you solve the problems of isil and iraq and syria. You have a problem of poisonous extremist. You see the problem, you know, in our country, even before that problem came about. Identifying correctly dealing with the sources would be key. Reporter weve known about the threat of returning foreign fighters for some time. Why is it taking all summer to raise the threat level . Thats a question for the joint Terrorism Assessment Center and not for me. Im satisfied they look at this in a comprehensive, independent, and rigorous way. They base their judgments on an the intelligence they see and all of the assessments that they make. Clearly, as you say we have a problem isil in iraq. We have a problem with foreign fighters traveling from britain and iraq. Weve had the problem, as i said, not just of isil but also other al qaeda franchises in the area. But clearly joint terrorism centers view is that the problem has become more intense and syria. Its right to lift from substantial to severe. Its their decision, its their assessment. Its important. Politicians dont make the assessment. Its independently made and given. And we have the responsibility working with all the agencies, security, intelligence, police, british transport police. How do we make sure we put everything in place to keep our country safe. Prime minister, is the decision to raise the threat level in response to a specific threat. Is this any evidence that any part of the isil organization would actually want to target the u. K. Is there anything to suggest that . And its been a difficult couple of days for you after the even s yesterday. There is unrest in your party over europe and duncan smith called on you to step up the gas. Do you agree with him. Can you reassure your party you will not be campaigning to stay in the European Union and particular unrest over migration given the states horrible figures. Can you do anything to reassure those who want more action on borders . Okay. First of all, it looks at all the intelligence that is available before making the judgment. We have an comment on individual specific threats. Thats the way they work. Im satisfied. They have looked at this rigorously. They have been looking at the threats from the region and their judgment is that this is sufficient seriousness to raise the threat level. In terms of targeting the u. K. , theres no doubt in my mind that isil is targeting all western europe. Weve already seen perhaps people didnt focus on it sufficiently, the attack in the Jewish Museum in brussels was perhaps the clearest indication that this is an organization that wants to kill entirely innocent people on other part of the world in per suit of the agenda. I wouldnt want to comment on as said specific threats, absolu absoluteabsolut absolutely satisfied that isil is a specific threat to the has specific threats, would make specific threats to the u. K. As well. In terms of the issue of europe. Said what i think is the right strategy for britain. To renegotiate our relationship to put that relationship to referendum and give the british people a proper choice between a reformed place in europe and leaving the e. U. Together. Those are those in the party who want to leave and people who vote for the conservative party who want to leave the e. U. Together. Some want to leave the iu all together in respective to the negotiation i manage to complete. Indeed, before his defection i was pretty confident that douglas was one of those people. He wanted the opportunity to vote to leave. That is why i think his decision is slightly bizarre. He fought as a conservative in 2010 when we didnt have a commitment to the referendum. He left the conservative party when we have a commitment to the refer did umm. Thats question for him to explain rather than me. What is clear is with what you get with me is a renegotiation to address the issues that most matter to britain to make sure that we have a European Union you can be in the Single Market but not in the single currency. To deliver the objectives. And come may whatever you think about the renegotiation. It will be the choice of the british people. Whether to stay in the reformed European Union or leave. And that will be the real choice at the next election. Indeed, voting for is only likely to help deliver a labor government that would give you a renegotiation and wont give you a referendum. I think those arguments will become very clear in the months ahead. As i said now, most important issue to face in the country is the Terror Threat. And a statement i made is response to what they have said. I think its important for people to hear directly from the Prime Minister. Not about individual measures. Important, though they may well be, but how the overall comprehensive approach we will take at home and abroad to tackle this threat. Its very important. Im assisted by a National Security council, for the first time, looks at how our action and work impacts us here at home as well as overseas. Thank you very much. Good morning. Im jose diazbalart. We begin with breaking news this morning. Youve been watching the british Prime Minister announcing the escalation of the Terror Threat level from substantial to severe. That means attack is, quote, highly likely. Authorities stress theres no intelligence on any specific attack, but a reminder authorities believe the isis militants who killed american journalist james foley is of british dissent. Lets go to chuck todd. Good morning. The big question is how closely is the Obama Administration watching what is going on in london . Obviously very closely. You have to remember what this is. He has a domestic political problem on his hands. Prime minister cameron, that is, this issue of muslim immigration. What is happening the home grown terrorism issue. Its something a lot of american lawmakers worry about and talk about in this country. Weve had a couple of examples. Its a more of greater concern to David Cameron, to british citizens. Thats why you saw what you saw. This is i remind people in the midst of an International Crises sometimes you have World Leaders and the same way we do in america. Theyre responding to their own domestic political issues. In this case, this, you know, when it was a british citizens that was found out it was a british citizens responsible for the beheading of american journalist james foley, this became a domestic political problem. This is something, the issue of growing is bum community and some extremism that was born there. We have the astonishing round table with some british muslim citizens who were basically not app gettic at all for the killing of james foley. And, chuck, im thinking the Prime Minister did talk about the issue of returning fighters, which he justalluded to going b to Great Britain. Is there anything you see as far as what the Prime Minister called an overall comprehensive approach that could include maybe joining with the United States in dealing with isis in syria . I think he seemed to make it almost perfectly clear we know one member of the coalition. The last time one year ago at this time, you had a British Parliament reject David Camerons choice, essentially, to join the United States in a possible strike and assad and the chemical weapons. Of course, that essentially unraveled any coalition the United States of the trying to build at that time. This time you heard David Cameron essentially use this moment with the explain the decision to raise the Terror Threat level in his country. To use the moment to make it abundantly clear the u. K. Is going with the United States on any decision. In many ways he, he sounded much more hawkish and ready to go and deal with it and maybe go into syria in a much quicker pace than president obama did yesterday. But of course, again, i go back to theyve got two different issues here. This is a near concern domestic political issue. Of course, domestic terrorist problem that cameron is dealing with on his bordersed in his own country. So it is a more acute, if anything, not to say its not an acute concern to western nations. More acute for the u. K. And David Cameron. Chuck todd, and chuck, thanks. And congratulations on your new meet the press assignment. Thank you. I a longer farewell for friends and viewers on daily run down. The news all comes out. Ill throw a video out on twitter. Theres a lot of internal people that are thanked. We cant get on the air without some great people behind them. I felt like i owed them a note of thanks. News comes first. So jose, take it away. For more on this severe Terror Threat i want to bring in simmons. Good morning. Lets talk about this escalation of the threat level, about the fear of foreign fighters returning back to the u. K. What does it mean . What do you know . I dont think its surprising, jose, what they announced here. When you add up the various factors. You can talk about the james foley killing they put out the video. You can talk about the attack in brussels on the jewish nmuseum and you can talk about what the extremist jihadists have been saying to the media about what they might plan to do. And the Intelligence Services listen to the communications. They have other ways of gaining information about what is being talked about. What they are saying, by the way, is this increase in threat does not mean a threat is imminent, but they clearly believe that there is a higher risk. Here is the point, i think, jose, its important to understand, as with all organizations and isis is no different, this is a grouping of people and some of them will not always be thinking necessarily in exactly the same way. They clearly have a strong leadership in al baghdad i did. Its conceivable that the group might come back to the u. K. , even back to the United States and decide to do something on their own of their own initiative. Semibacked by isis. Perhaps not directed by them. You cant just think about this as will eisis launch an attack . Its about who are the people, what are they learning while theyre in iraq and syria, and what might happen if theyre returning home. In the case of the u. K. , as chuck was saying, theyre worried about a number of people who have come back to the u. K. And the Prime Minister was talking about yanking their citizensh citizenship. Taking away their passport. A lot of people here in the United States that travel to Great Britain is the escalation of a Terror Threat going to affect the people that have relationships with the u. K. And maybe are going to go to the u. K. . Is