19/03/2018 Beyond 100 Days

You're watching

Beyond One Hundred Days.

A significant moment

in the Brexit negotiation.

The UK and EU have agreed

terms for a transition,

pending a satisfactory divorce.

Under the terms of the deal Britain

will be allowed to sign new trade

deals with the rest of the world

that will come into force in 2021.

But here's the hitch -

the two sides still have a lot

of tricky issues to figure out,

not least the Irish border question.

Businesses need not delay investment

decisions all rushed through

contingency plans based on guesses

about the future deal. Instead, they

now have certainty about the terms

that will apply immediately after

our withdrawal.

How safe is our personal

information on Facebook?

The company's share price falls

on news millions of profiles

being used for political purposes.

Also on the programme:

Donald Trump takes aim

at Robert Mueller.

At the moment it's just on Twitter

but is the President loosing

patience with the Prosecutor?

Uber suspends all tests

of its driverless cars,

after one of them hit and killed

a woman crossing a road in Arizona.

Get in touch with us.

Hello and welcome -

I'm Katty Kay in Washington

and Christian Fraser is in London.

British business are welcoming

a moment of certainty

in the otherwise uncertain

Brexit negotiations.

Sterling rose today

after the UK and the EU

agreed a deal on the terms

of the transition period.

TRANSLATION:

What we

of the transition period.

TRANSLATION:

What we are

of the transition period.

TRANSLATION:

What we are presenting

of the transition period.

TRANSLATION:

What we are presenting

to you today here with David is a

legal text, a joint legal text,

which constitutes in my mind a

decisive step because we were able

this morning to agree, and after all

those days and nights of hard work,

on a large part of what will make up

an international agreement for the

ordered withdrawal of the United

Kingdom.

In the colour-coded chart published

by the two sides today,

75% of the Withdrawal

document is now in green,

meaning "agreed in principle".

That applies to the

financial settlement -

the divorce payment -

and the rights of 4m citizens

in the UK and the EU

affected by Brexit.

Also in green,

the terms of the transition.

It will last until Dec 2020.

During that time London will abide

by EU rules but will lose any say

in the decision making process.

But the UK has got one concession.

It will be able to sign trade deals

with other countries

during the transition;

although they'll only come

into effect after the transition.

The UK won't have any say in EU

rules during the transition

but the two sides agreed a good

faith clause, under which the UK

will be consulted a range of issues.

Let's cross to Brussels

and our Europe

correspondent Damian Grammaticus.

So lots of green, Damian,

but 25% of this document

is in white, not agreed,

and they represent some of the most

difficult obstacles to overcome.

Yes, because the important thing to

remember is that this is a

conditional agreement and you were

saying at the beginning businesses

are welcoming certainty. There is a

big question mark at the heart of

that, so it's not really certain.

And that is because of those white

areas, as you say, and key to that

is the issue about Ireland and the

border between Northern Ireland and

the Republic of Ireland, still that

question bedevilling the

negotiations and how to avoid it.

The agreement today says that in the

legal text there will be the EU's

preferred or option that it has on

the table at the minute, which is

keeping Northern Ireland part of the

UK still in the EU's Customs and

regulatory sort of sphere, so

there's no need for a border. That

is meant to go into the deal and the

agreement today says it will but

that -- but that is still

politically a very difficult thing

for the UK Government, and if that

falls apart this whole deal falls

apart, so still that question to be

resolved.

So why should we have any

more confidence that they can agree

issues that seem impossible to agree

on today after the magic date of

March of next year, when we go into

the transition period?

Well, that's

a good question. This issue of the

Irish border has to be agreed before

March next year and it has to be

agreed in the coming six months or

so, because it has to be in the

withdrawal text. That's what the EU

is saying at the minute. If it isn't

in that text, then the EU has a huge

stumbling block to get over. I think

the positive thing to take from this

is that the overall picture from the

UK's point of view is that one year

to go until transition, that is in

just nine days, that is when the

countdown starts, businesses have

been sent to the UK Government, we

need a year's notice of what will

happen or we will start can --

triggering contingency plans, so

that is where they need to get the

agreement saying, yes, in principle

a transition will happen as long as

the other things can be agreed, but

there are a lot of difficult things

the UK has already agreed to and

most of the EU's big demands, they

UK being a payer and allowing free

movement to continue for EU

citizens, UK has signed up to all of

those.

Thank you.

Let's speak now to Henry Newman,

Director at Open Europe.

Baseball have to take a leap of

faith that there will be a political

leap of faith -- they still say they

have to take a leap of faith. How

much movement or they have?

I think

they have some movement. There was

good achievement on both sides and

now, I am assuming the European

Council signs this off, they should

have got agreement on the

transition. That is what businesses

have been asking for. This is a

gentleman's agreement from the heads

of government, if you like, that

they will keep things exactly the

same for the period of roughly 21

months until the end of 2020, as

though we were an EU member but

without voting rights. It is

possible things will fall apart in

the later stages of the deal but I

find that hard to imagine. This is

now overwhelming like --

overwhelmingly likely that we will

exit with this transition.

It was

said last week the idea that you put

the order somewhere in the Irish Sea

was not something that was possible.

She would never get that through

Parliament so you wonder why you

would put in the document. Because

if she brought that back the

government would collapse and there

would be no deal. It seems a bit of

a moot point.

What they have done

rather cleverly is parked some of

the most difficult issues, the

governments of the trading agreement

and the questions of the Irish

border, until later in the

negotiations. And that is good

practice. You don't want to do with

the most difficult issue in the

beginning. Some of this comes down

to the problem that the UK has

agreed to things which are

contradictory back in December. Both

sides fudged the December text to

make sure they could get over the

line and we've seen more of that

today. We don't know what the answer

is Northern Ireland and Ireland and

we will have to wait and see, so

that's a key area where there will

need to be lots of discussion.

Henry, in any negotiation there is

give and take. Who has taken more

and has given more?

Probably the UK

has moved further but the EU has

also moved. That's sensible because

it is something primarily the UK was

asking for. We could spend a lot of

capital trying to design bespoke

transition periods or we could focus

the capital of working at the future

agreement, so I think it was quite

sensible for the UK to broadly

accept the EU terms for the

transition.

Good to see you. Thank

you for coming in.

Facebook's share price fell sharply

today as the company came

under scrutiny for failing

to protect information on millions

of American voters that may have

been used to influence

the 2016 election.

A joint report by the New York Times

and the Observer newspapers found

that 50 million Facebook profiles

were accessed, without

users' knowledge, to help

Donald Trump's campaign.

The data was used by the UK

firm Cambridge Analytica

to gain information about voters

so they could be influenced

to support the Trump campaign.

Alexander Nix, the chief executive

of Cambridge Analytica,

told BBC Newsnight the allegations

were completely untrue.

A lot of the allegations that have

been put to Cambridge are entirely

unfounded and unfair. We weren't

involved with Brexit. We've been

crystal clear about this. At every

single opportunity. And at last we

are beginning to see in the media

reporting that reflects this. Only

yesterday Aaron Banks came out with

a statement for the first time

clarifying we had absolutely no

involvement. The Guardian, who's

been propagating a lot of this

misinformation or fake news, printed

that, and two days ago another

statement saying we weren't

involved.

Do you think The Guardian

is in the business of fake news?

I

think that there has been some...

Some fairly slipshod journalism in

regards to our involvement in some

of these things, where we presented

unequivocally the fact of the matter

to these newspapers and they've

chosen to paint their own picture,

which is now proving to be false.

Plenty in the weekend newspapers

about this. Cambridge analytical

boasted had 4000-5000 datapoints on

Americans who were voting but they

did tell Facebook reportedly that

they deleted the information they

had harvested. Did they delete that

information and have they been

forthcoming and honest in these

Parliamentary inquiries about the

information they hold? That's speak

to the chair of the Parliamentary

committee in the UK, who is looking

into this. You put out a statement

last night saying you want Mark

Zuckerberg to come back to really

give evidence on what happened. Are

you concerned that Facebook doesn't

have control of what third parties

are doing with its information?

That's right, because they gave us

assurances that they could track

what people were doing with their

data, that if somebody was breaching

their rules they would get that data

back and take action against the

company that was doing that. And

here we have a case with Cambridge

analytical who knew there was an

issue two years ago with data they

had taken and that Facebook had

asked them to destroy. They did

nothing to check they had and they

only suspended them when it was

about to hit the newspapers.

Facebook has been quite aggressive

about this story. First they are

saying there wasn't a breach because

these user profiles were taken for

academic purposes. Then they

threatened to sue The Observer, they

banned them from having a Facebook

account. Do you think the Facebook

response is in any way, and we have

not hard from Mark Zuckerberg

himself, is their response in any

way adequate? -- heard from Mark

Zuckerberg.

No. It just shows you

they can take down accounts really

quickly when they have the grounds

to do it so they are punishing the

whistle-blower for bringing very

important information into the

public domain. They knew what was

going on and they didn't act on it.

They can call it what they want but

as far as members of the public are

concerned, an academic at Cambridge

University managed to access data of

50 million Facebook users and

themselves act to a commercial

entity for them to use in their

campaigns. I think that is a data

breach and I think many will be

concerned about actually how much

data Facebook has on them and that

Facebook cannot keep it safe.

What

about the chief executive? Keeper

Parliament last month his company

had never obtained or used Facebook

data. Now we know they did and they

did not delete face -- they did not

delete the data they told Facebook

they had.

Exactly. We asked him

whether he had acquired data

directly and he said they hadn't.

And that's why we want him to come

back and explain to Parliament his

answers, because I don't think his

answers are in any way consistent

with what we now know and therefore

if Parliament and the committee

believe we have been misled, we will

report back to the Committee on

Standards here in Parliament.

It is

not entirely clear what you or US

investigators can do about Facebook

or Mark Zuckerberg but billions of

our viewers around the world have

Facebook accounts. What would you

say to those viewers?

I think they

should speak up and let Facebook

know how angry they are. I think

it's terrible that Mark Zuckerberg

or an equally senior person in the

company is not prepared to answer

questions to discuss these concerns.

Ultimately this is about data

Facebook others on its users and how

it sells that data to advertisers

and whether it can keep it safe.

This is fundamental to the way

Facebook work some people have a

right to know if their data is being

used properly. There is a bigger

concern is well about the way in

which consumer data gathered through

surveys on consumer issues is being

used in political campaigns, when

nobody really gave their consent for

that to take place. But in terms of

what we can do, we can hold

inquiries to take people to account

but we have also been debating in

the House of Commons today whether

the government could change the law

to give the Information Commissioner

even more powers for tech companies

not to disclose data to a request

for in that nation to make sure data

laws are properly being adhered to.

-- request for information. On the

whole we have to take it on trust

that the big tech companies are

abiding by the data protection laws

that exist in our country and other

countries and I think we need the

right to go behind the curtain and

see for ourselves that is the case.

I can understand why that shouldn't

be Parliament but an independent

investigator could do that.

Thank

you. I didn't understand until this

morning the fact that American to

have their data held on harvested

might have stronger legal grounds

here in the UK because the

information was stored in the UK, so

there are Americans now making

representations over here, and

apparently, according to the America

I saw this morning, he said the

safeguards here in the UK are much

stronger than the United States, so

they are more confident in the

system here in the UK. I think the

question will be a commercial one.

There has been so much bad publicity

surrounding the story on Facebook

and so much pressure on Facebook's

executives to come forward and

explain how they have this

information and did nothing about

it, because we saw the share price

falling by something like 7%. If all

of those people with accounts start

speaking up about this and

protesting, I would suspect you

would see Facebook moving a bit more

quickly. Do you know how much Mark

Zuckerberg loss today in one-day?

According to that share for? More

than you or I will ever have in our

lives! $5 billion! Talking, by the

way, of big Internet companies who

have not had a good day, one of

Uber's vehicles, self driving

vehicles, has hit and killed a woman

in Arizona. The car was an

autonomous mode with an operator

behind the wheel when the woman was

struck. Uber has not confirmed the

vehicle within autonomous mode but

it does say it is suspending self

driving car tests in all cities. I

think people will pay a lot of

attention to this, don't you?

I

think so. We chatted about this

earlier and you said you think the

technology is already there but I

suppose the point is that you have

an incident there will be a public

inquiry and people will have less

confidence in it. And when I sort of

reflect on whether I would be happy

to get into one of these cars, how

long would it take you as a driver

to actually let go of the wheel to

put your faith in the car and trust

in the system? I think that's the

problem a lot of people will have,

particularly when they see a story

like this.

Look at those pictures.

That is just brutal. The poor woman

on her bicycle who was knocked over

by this driverless car. People I

speak to in the tech world say that

technology is there, you are right,

and ultimately these cars will be

safer than those driven by people

because robots don't drink and they

are. Texting and driving and they

don't get distracted, they don't

speed, they know what they are

doing, but the human appetite for

trusting driverless cars is still

something like 5-10 years off, and

it would take me something a very

long time -- it would take somebody

like me a very long time to trust a

driverless car. That sets that

public confidence.

But we don't know

who was to blame there. It just

takes me back to that incident

involving a driver being killed and

it became clear after the

investigation he had ignored six

audible warnings and seven visual

warnings on his dashboard.

I think

he was watching Harry Potter, wasn't

he?

That's it. You hear the story

but not the follow-up.

OK, American

politics.

On Saturday, Donald Trump said there

was no collusion and no crime and

the probe should not have been

trusted. This is the first time Mr

Trump mentioned him by name, and

then again today came a total

witchhunt.

For the most part there

has been a deafening silence from

the Republican Party protest at the

President's attacks on the

investigation but a couple of

Republican leaders were prompted to

speak out on TV this weekend.

If you

look at the jurisdiction, first and

foremost, what did Russia do to this

country in 2016? That is supremely

important and it has nothing to do

with collusion. So to suggest that

mullah should shut down and all he

is looking at is collusion, if you

have an innocent client, act like

it.

Are you worried that the

president is ordering the fire of

him? It looks like that from his

tweets.

That would be the beginning

and end of his presidency because...

We are joined by Ron Christie from

New York, who used to working the

Bush administration. -- Ron Christie

in New York. What would the steps be

word Donald Trump to decide to act

on what his tweet seemed to be

suggesting he would like to do and

shut down the Russia probe?

It would be very simple, actually.

He would be within his legal

authority to fire him if he thought

it the appropriate action to do so.

But all that does, as we've seen, is

bring very bad press and attention

to the president, so while it is

within his legal rights to do so, we

have heard so many people talk about

a constitutional crisis, I think the

president would have more people

against him in his own party than he

would be -- than would be

supportive.

We played a couple there

but so far, the Republican Party has

been pretty forgiving of Donald

Trump. Do you think this would be

the straw that would break the

Repubblica... On getting lost in

that one! With this be a bridge too

far?

It would be a bridge too far.

What little audience I have on

Twitter, I've taken to Twitter

myself this weekend and have said

the president is not acting

presidential. It's an honour for him

to hold that office and he demeaned

by some of his tweets and outlandish

comments that he makes. Let the

special counsel do its work. If your

client is innocent and they have

nothing to find, then let the

investigation go. And you heard one

of the current members of Congress

say, stop acting guilty, Mr

President.

Aside from the fact that

there would be all these

repercussions if he sacked Mueller,

the important point, and that what

his lawyers keep saying to him, is

the obstruction of a non-crime is a

crime, and that is the real danger.

It's good to see you, Christian.

Obstruction of justice here with

United States is a very simple crime

to prove. What you're looking at

here is, has an individual taken

steps to a legal proceeding? To

impede an investigation? And one

could certainly make the argument

that, yes, the president is well

within his legal power to dismiss

the special counsel but it does

bring into question, is that

obstructing an investigation? That

is certainly not a road he wants to

go down. It's a bridge too far. The

question remains, what does Mr Trump

thing and will he act on it?

I know

you've got your into the ground.

What is going on? He's got rid of

Gary Coen, among others. He has an

ambiguous relationship with his

chief of staff. These are the people

who rent him in. The shackles off

now and is this real Trump we're

starting to see? -- these are the

people who rein him in.

I can tell

you the times I've been in the White

House, I wouldn't call it disarray

but it's certainly been very

chaotic. The president likes chaos

and pitting his staff against each

other, and what you've seen, the

so-called adult supervision the

president has, those figures are

largely gone. He likes these folks

being at each other's throats and

running around because that's how

he's always operated. The question

is, it might be good for the

president but is it good for our

country? And of course it is not.

I'm not sure it is for us either

because it's exhausting. He has

often a real spin because there is

so much news!

Thank you for joining us. This is

interesting - the idea of the

president being unshackled. Because

he is also facing the weight of the

Mueller investigation. His business

has been subpoenaed for business

documents. And I wonder where -- I

wonder whether the two aren't

related. He feels he can do things

the way he wants to do. He fired

people and the markets didn't crash.

He lodged a trade war and the

markets didn't crash. He had Korean

trade talks and everything was fine.

And he's saying, hey, I could fire

Bob Mueller and everything will be

fine.

Yes, maybe. He's got a year

into the job and thinks he can do it

his own way. Maybe he doesn't

believe the accounts of those

closest to him. Anyway, we will

watch this with interest.

Anyway,

over to my favourite story of the

day. Andy Murray getting woken up by

the comedian Michael McIntyre. The

rude awakening was in aid of Sports

Relief. Let's have a look at the

tennis star getting prank.

Andy!

Welcome!

Holy BLEEP!

..To the Sport Relief

midnight game-show.

BLEEP morning, and the!

From your favourite TV show, please

tell us who is this person?

That's,

erm... That's Daddy Pig.

That's it!

Brilliant! He gets a high five!

He

walks in on an unsuspecting member

of the public in that show. And

plays a game show. I love the

cameramen in the tennis gear, Bjorn

Lomborg style! This is Beyond 100

Days.

Coming up, as President Trump

unveils his strategy to tackle the

US opioid crisis, we pay a visit to

the country's first opioid court,

getting users into treatment within

hours rather than weeks of their

arrest.

Plus the Facebook data scandal and

why one author claims it's as much

our fault as it is theirs. All to

come.

Good evening. It is the Equinox and

after a weekend of heavy snowfall,

no signs of spring out there. --

sums lines -- some signs of spring.

Temperatures are on the rise for the

rest of this week as the wind goes

from an easterly direction to a more

westerly one. Still north-easterly

wind across the country and that's

going to fade. More cloud across

England and Wales overnight and that

means the temperatures will be up

and down a bit. Clearer skies in

Scotland and Northern Ireland and

temperatures will drop the furthest

here. Glasgow down to -6 and some

places -7 or minus eight. Occasional

cloud breaks with a frost across

England and Wales. But signs of

change and that's because high

pressure to the north of us is

drifting southwards, and that will

allow wind coming off the Atlantic.

Not for England and Wales to begin

with. A brisk wind coming in for the

north-east. But temperatures up on

what we have seen. -- from the

north-east. The odd spot of light

rain and sleet but most staying dry.

Cloud increases into the north-west

later but temperatures way up on

what we've seen recently. Back up to

nine or ten in one or two spots.

High pressure continues to drift

down towards the south-west, the

Atlantic air will gradually flood

in. That process starts in earnest

on Wednesday. A brighter day over

England and Wales but westerly winds

for Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Occasional rain and drizzle further

west, the odd shower further north,

but temperatures climbing.

Aberdeenshire, 11 or 12. And a few

spots in England and Wales getting

closer to double figures. That

continues into Thursday. At the same

time, the Atlantic weather front

will be gathering towards the West

so the cloud thickening up and some

rain into the West of Northern

Ireland. A dry day on Thursday,

increasing cloud with the best of

the breaks in Eastern counties. It

could hit 13 degrees in parts of

Aberdeenshire on Thursday. 12 or 13.

Also possible across parts of the

south-east, spring will be with us.

This is Beyond One Hundred Days,

with me Katty Kay in Washington.

Christian Fraser's in London.

Our top stories:

A big step on the road to Brexit,

as agreement is reached

on the UK's transition period,

but there are still issues to be

resolved, notably the Irish border.

Facebook's share price

has fallen sharply on news

of millions of profiles were used

for political purposes.

Coming up in the next half hour...

President Trump has continued his

Twitter attack on special

counsel Robert Mueller,

calling the ongoing investigation

into Russia's interference

in the 2016 election a "witch hunt."

Uber suspends all tests

of its driverless cars,

after one of them hit and killed

a woman crossing a road in Arizona.

Let us know your thoughts

by using the hashtag...

'Beyond-One-Hundred-Days'.

International chemical weapons

experts have arrived in Salisbury

to examine the nerve agent used

to poison the former Russian spy

Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

The team from the Organisation

for the Prohibition

of Chemical Weapons will also visit

the military research base

at Porton Down in Wiltshire.

It comes as police say

the investigation will take months

and EU foreign ministers

meeting in Brussels

have expressed today "unqualified

solidarity" with Britain.

Here's our Diplomatic

Correspondent James Landale.

Though the focus of the

investigation today shifted ten

miles of Salisbury.

to the village of

Durrington.

Here, officers examined and then

removed a car that was used to pick

up Yulia Skripal from the airport

the day before she and her father,

Sergei, were attacked

with nerve agent.

Nearby, at the military research

complex of Porton Down,

inspectors from the global chemical

weapons watchdog the OPCW were due

to start analysing the nerve agent

that British experts believe came

from Russia, a process that

officials say could take some weeks.

In Brussels, the Foreign Secretary

was talking to Nato and European

allies, trying to maintain

the diplomatic pressure on Russia -

looking not just for

statements of support,

but tangible, joined-up action.

There are things we can

and must do together,

tackling disinformation from Russia,

and the UK has been helping to fund

that at an EU level.

Tackling cyber together.

Sharing intelligence

about what Russia is up to.

And for now, at least, allies

standing shoulder to shoulder.

All 29 Nato allies stand united.

We stand in solidarity

with the United Kingdom.

And the UK is not alone.

Earlier, EU foreign ministers

gathered to discuss the attack

and issued a joint statement

expressing unqualified

solidarity with the UK,

saying they took its assessment that

Russia was to blame

extremely seriously.

What is absolutely clear is that

solidarity with the United Kingdom

and our extreme concern

about what has happened,

that is really unacceptable.

But in Moscow,

the defiance continued.

As President Putin began his fourth

term of office, his spokesman said

the UK must prove Russia's role

in the poisoning of Mr

Skripal or apologise.

As for Russia's diplomats in London,

well, some of these officials

and their families will be heading

home tomorrow - 23 in all,

with a similar number of British

diplomats leaving Moscow shortly.

Tomorrow, the National Security

Council will meet to decide

Britain's next steps

and there is a live debate

within government -

should they retaliate and escalate,

or simply do nothing?

Should they kick more Russian

diplomats out of the Embassy

here or should they find new ways

of penalising Russia?

The question is, what

further diplomatic price

is the Government prepared to pay?

James Langdale, BBC News.

Global reaction to Vladimir Putin's

re-election tells you a lot

about the state of the world today.

The President's victory in this

weekend's poll prompted effusive

praise from among others China,

Venezuela and Cuba and a rather

frosty response from the West.

Election monitoring groups pointed

to a lack of real choice

in the election in which Mr Putin

won three quarters of the vote.

The main opposition

leader, Alexei Navalny,

was barred from standing.

There have also been accounts of

ballot stuffing and forced voting.

For more we are joined

now by Angela Stent,

an expert in Russian politics

who teaches at

Georgetown University.

I want to get to the real election

of President Putin in a second but

first the spy story in the UK and

the latest developments. It doesn't

look like the Russian government has

any intention of giving anything on

this one.

Of course not, they never

do, they didn't do it with Alexander

Litvinenko and they won't now.

That's how they respond to these

things, with denial, which makes it

more difficult to hold people to

account.

You have written recently

that institutions in Russia have

rarely been as insignificant as they

are today over the course of the

last 100 years. Does that mean

Vladimir Putin is therefore much

more powerful?

Certainly at the

moment. He appears to be very

powerful now. He has just won 76% of

the vote and even if there was some

cheating he's definitely popular.

But I think going forward we will

have to see whether this is indeed

his last term, you start to get

people manoeuvring for succession,

you start to get people questioning

what's happening but right now and I

would say that the next year or two

he will be very powerful.

I want to

pick up on that because their risk

term limit in Russia, and by the end

of this he will have served 24

years. Will his priority shift

because of that jostling for power?

His priority should shift to

economic reform, to strengthening

the economy, and to make sure

people's standard of living don't

fall and people around him don't

start grumbling more. It's not clear

who really will do anything. The

other possibility is more assertive

foreign policy. Going back to the

pre-election speech he made, it had

two parts to it, one was economic

reform and the other was showing off

nuclear weapons and basically

telling the United States, we can

evade any weapons you have and don't

mess with us.

But I wonder if

history and his worldview ensures

that he really does like the way

things are drifting at the moment,

going back to a Cold War and nearer

really where Russia and the Soviet

bloc was all powerful. If you think

back to where he was as an FSB

agent, there was chaos. There was

not a strong economy although there

was more democracy.

His goal has

been to get the outside world to

treat Russia as if it were the

Soviet Union, a great superpower,

people should respect and fear it,

and is on his way to achieving that

despite an economy that is not

functioning that well, despite

crumbling infrastructure and bad

demographics. He has been able to

project Russian power into its

neighbourhood and beyond.

So to what

extent does interfering in elections

around the world, in the west in

particular, and the spy story in the

UK constitute part of Vladimir

Putin's C?

It will be part of his

legacy because it is exacerbating

the polarisation that exists in the

west, making people question their

own societies. This will be part of

his legacy, then deploying these

tactics, poisoning, and these tough

tactics which were deployed in the

Soviet times too, but with greater

intensity now.

Thank you for coming

in. Angela Merkel has been in Poland

today.

and top of her agenda

was North Stream two -

the gas pipeline that would ship

Russian gas to Germany.

Mrs Merkel's government has given

it the green light -

but Poland is urging Western

sanctions be imposed on it.

It's not the only topic that the two

countries fail to see eye to eye on.

Berlin is less than impressed with

Warsaw's sweeping judicial reforms.

Poland's Minister of Investment

and Economic Development

and is in London

today to talk trade.

We spoke to him a little earlier

and I asked him for Poland's

response to the alleged Russian

poisoning of a former

Russian Spy here in the UK

and whether he believed the EU

was ready to take strong action?

The United Kingdom can count on

Polish support and I think not only

the Government but especially

European Society and the media

should say very clearly what do they

think about actions like that

because that was not only be action

against the former spy but it was

also the action against his family

up against common citizens who

unfortunately suffered from that.

I

know that Poland is supporting --

has supported in the past British

sanctions on Russia, and Angela

Merkel is in Warsaw today talking

about the gas pipeline that will

bring gas from Russia into Europe. I

know this is something you seek as a

potential for sanctions, if Russia

were to continue misbehaving.

For us

it's important the dialogue between

Poland and Germany continues, and at

a very high level. At the level of

our Prime ministers. But you're

right, north stream two is something

we do not accept at all in Poland

and we do not concede that

commercial economic undertaking.

That is an investment which could

monopolise the transfer of gas from

Russia to Europe. We think that it

could make not only Poland but

especially Ukraine in a very, very

comfortable situation.

I wanted to

ask, the German government

spokesperson ahead of Angela

Merkel's visit today said European

Democrats must stand together

against Trump and Putin. Is that how

you see it from Poland's point of

view?

The United States are very

close ally of Poland. You know,

these days. We received strong

support from Nato especially on our

eastern border, and that was

extremely important for us that we

have got now the Nato troops led by

American soldiers of Poland. We have

very good relations in the area of

defence cooperation and now we want

to foster our economic relations

with the United States. So I think

that comparison of Trump and Putin

is not really relevant.

I must ask

you finally about the relationship

between Britain and Poland, 1

million Polish people live in the

UK, you must be encouraged by the

agreement signed in Brussels today

that will assure their rights post

Brexit.

It is very good news for

both Polish citizens in the UK but

also British citizens.

Do you think

Brexit deal can be done?

Yes, I'm

much more optimistic after the end

of the last year, when the

compromise was made and also by

today's agreement, so I'm much more

optimistic than I was a year ago.

A

significant moment. Minister, thank

you for coming.

My pleasure.

Today President Trump rolled

out his long awaited plan to tackle

the nation's growing opioid crises.

Drug overdoses have become leading

cause of death for Americans

under the age of 50,

a problem fuelled by

a spike in opioids.

The President said that drug

companies must be held accountable

and added there would be stiffer

penalties for high

intensity drug traffickers.

We can have all of the blue riband

committees we want but if we don't

get tough on the drug dealers, we

are wasting our time, just remember

that, we are wasting our time. That

toughness includes the death

penalty.

Well it is not just first responders

and treatment centres

which are being taxed

by the opioid crisis,

the nation's criminal

justice system is also

struggling to keep up.

In Buffalo, New York they are trying

an innovative approach

which could prove a model

for the rest of the nation.

The BBC's Nada Tawfik has gone

to see the country's first

opioid court in action.

This unremarkable courtroom in New

York might be America's best new

defence against its deadliest drug

crisis. The goal here in the nation

's first opioid court is basic yet

ambitious, to keep people alive.

When offenders who appear in court

are addicts, the judge immediately

puts their case on hold.

I'm going

to release you today but I need you

to report here tomorrow so we can go

over everything about your

treatment.

No longer viewed as

criminals, they are given help and

have a chance to get their sentence

reduced.

We are not going to make

the same mistake as we did in the

1990s because we have the research

and data to show you cannot lock up

an addiction is the second they walk

out of jail they will have the same

need for that substance.

Participants are given treatment

within hours. They agreed to drug

tests, a curfew and daily court

appearances. The judge knows often

this court can be the only support

system some people have, so having

them checked in daily and trying to

form a personal bond is a way to

keep them on track. Carly has been

clean for two months since starting

the programme. She was arrested for

drug possession and says she has

used prescription pills and heroin

for over a decade. In one week alone

she was arrived -- revived three

times after overdoses.

You are a dog

to drug dealers, you don't have any

self-worth at all so when somebody

looks at you and actually cares

about what you are going through in

your life, what your problems are,

how we can help, it reminds you that

deep inside there is a person that

needs and deserves love.

Carly is

trying to develop a plan for the day

she no longer has to check in with

the courts. She hopes to have a

career in criminal justice, just

like judge Hannah, himself a

recovering addict.

The only

difference between me and

individuals you saw today is time.

Once they have spent enough time is

clean as I have, they can accomplish

anything in life.

In Buffalo they

already think it is a success, the

number of overdose deaths has

significantly increased and that has

other cities taking notice.

This is such a huge problem in the

United States, but that proposition

of giving the death penalty to some

drug traffickers will be

controversial.

This is Beyond One Hundred Days.

Still to come - the actress

Cynthia Nixon announces her

candidacy for governor of New York.

Recognise her?

The TV presenter, Ant McPartlin,

says he will seek further treatment

after he was arrested

on suspicion of drink-driving.

He was detained yesterday afternoon

following a collision involving

three cars in south west London.

ITV says his Saturday night

programme broadcast with his partner

Declan Donnelly will not be

broadcast this weekend.

Mr McPartlin spent time in rehab

last year and will take time off

for the foreseeable future according

to his publicist.

Lizo Mzimba has more.

Moments after the Mini

he was driving was involved

in a collision with two cars,

Ant McPartlin at the

scene of the crash.

When police arrived,

he was taken away under arrest,

after failing a breath test.

A number of people were treated

for minor injuries and a child

passenger taken to hospital

for a precautionary checkup.

The evening before,

Ant McPartlin had presented ITV's

Saturday Night Takeaway.

He returned to TV last year,

after going into rehab

visitation to treat addiction

to alcohol and painkillers.

This afternoon,

the broadcaster said...

From Britain's Got Talent

through to I'm A Celebrity,

so much of ITV's output is built

on Ant McPartlin, as well as his

co-host, Declan Donnelly.

They will be trying to work out

what all this will mean

for the long-term future of one

of its biggest stars.

Police say inquiries

into the collision are continuing.

ITV said they hoped the presenter

will get the help he needs, police

say inquiries are continuing.

Here is a strange, alarming story.

Police in Austin, Texas,

are warning of a new bomb

threat after the city

was hit by a fourth explosion

in just one month.

Two people were injured

by a device that may have been

triggered by a trip wire.

The previous bombs were stuffed

inside packages and left

on residents' doorsteps.

Authorities have little

understanding of who could be

setting off these devices and why.

Police gave this

update earlier today.

We are clearly dealing with what we

expect to be a serial bomber at this

point based on the similarities

between now what is the fourth

device and again as we look at this

individual and the pattern, and what

we are looking at here, we will have

to determine whether we see a

specific ideology behind this or

something that will lead us to make

that decision along with our federal

partners.

Two people died in the

previous attacks.

For the latest we can speak

to our correspondent Gary O'Donoghue

who joins us from Austin.

What more do the police know about

this?

They don't know a great deal

and I think that was pretty clear

from what they said this morning.

They don't have a suspect, they are

following up a few final leads but

they haven't lighted on any person

or more importantly perhaps any

motive. There was speculation after

the first three bombings that seemed

to target black people and someone

from an Hispanic background as well,

but last night's attack here was

indiscriminate. It actually affected

two young white men but it was a

trip wire so it could have affected

anyone including children as the

police pointed out this morning.

They sound pretty baffled. They are

offering not just money for advice

and information about who might be

doing this, $115,000, but they are

also trying to reach out to the

bomber himself or themselves to say,

look, we can listen to you and take

on board what you want to say. But

they don't know if this is a hate

crime or domestic terrorism case or

any of the other possibilities.

Thank you, Gary

any of the other possibilities.

Thank you, Gary.

What's the last thing

you did on the internet?

Did it involve handing over

great dollops of private

information about yourself?

It is something most of us do

everyday, as we 'share',

'post', 'like', 'tweet'.

But how much time do we spend

thinking about where all that

information ends up?

The allegations surrounding the use

of personal Facebook data

by Cambridge Analytica offers

another reminder of how much we've

all been willing to hand over.

So should we be concerned?

We're joined in the studio now

by Julia Hobsbawm author

of 'Fully Connected: Social Health

in an Age of Overload'.

We talk about this a lot on this

programme, about how we are deluged

by social media and things on the

internet, so we are really to blame,

aren't we?

We are, yes. I like the

Freudian slip of overlord, it is

actually overload. But we have

reached the point where we feel out

of control and yet we have given the

control away. Research has shown

that less than one in 1000 people

ever read the small print. How many

times have you clicked, yes yes yes,

sign me up. It's a great story, a

fantastic piece of investigative

reporting, but I think there is

another story behind it which is

that we, the public, that down --

download apps, we know they give

data away. It is a well stated

precondition very often so my point

about this story is of course we

should be up in arms about not

knowing that Facebook has lost

control of its data but data loss of

control is everywhere. That's why

the GDPR is coming in in Europe.

We

will talk about that in a second but

I want to talk about a tweet from

Ian, says funny how everyone is in

uproar about data issues but people

use chrome, android, nobody ever

complains about those companies so

they have been harvesting

information for years.

They do,

there is an enormous tech lash, it

is just that Facebook is getting it

in the neck now. The truth is we are

all waking up to something we have

slightly brought upon ourselves

which is for free social media for

the last ten years, we have given

away our privacy and our data. That

is now being harvested, terrible

word to use really, it is being

harvested and sold. We have a choice

in society, what are we going to do

about that and I believe we have to

take our social health, our

behaviours around how we connect as

seriously as we take our physical

and mental health.

I totally agree,

I thought Christian was doing one of

his terrible puns with overlord!

This hasn't been around for long, so

we as a species have to get smarter

about the way we use the internet

and social media. What will it take

to trigger the learning process and

the revolution where we say that is

enough?

You are completely right it

is down to the human and not the

machine. A bit like you see people

in the gym and they are reading but

not really engaging, we have got to

engage with what we are doing online

and on the internet. Our data goes

somewhere. Unless we obsessively set

high privacy settings, and even if

we do, there is a back door. Back in

1999 and very prominent net person

said there is zero privacy, get over

it. So the choice is do you want to

be online, in which case why because

really about 20% of our time is now

lost, and if you do, what are you

sharing and why. So we have to take

responsibility.

Yulia, we have to

leave it there. Very quickly before

we go, here is a blast from the

past.

The actress

Cynthia Nixon has announced her

candidacy for governor of New York.

Ms Nixon - who's most

famous for playing

the character of Miranda in Sex

and the City - will challenge Andrew

Cuomo for the Democratic nomination.

Who else do we know who did this?

Was he a success?