:00:40. > :00:45.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron's in
:00:46. > :00:49.Brussels for an emergency summit on the Ukraine crisis but what chance
:00:50. > :00:59.is there of the EU showing a united front to Russian aggression? British
:01:00. > :01:04.leaders talked tough at PMQs yesterday but the Germans are
:01:05. > :01:07.against sanctions. Will President Putin end up with no more than a
:01:08. > :01:11.Meanwhile, back at Westminster, more coalition skirmishes over
:01:12. > :01:14.immigration. Slap on the wrist? The Lib Dems say they're intensely
:01:15. > :01:17.relaxed about people coming to the UK. The Tories aren't exactly
:01:18. > :01:27.relaxed, so have the stage-managed rows gone too far? Everyone agrees
:01:28. > :01:31.there are not enough affordable homes. We will speak to the Housing
:01:32. > :01:40.Minister and an academic who thinks he has the ants are -- he has the
:01:41. > :01:50.answer. We will test your knowledge of the Lib Dems. All that is coming
:01:51. > :01:54.up in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is Olly
:01:55. > :01:57.Grender. She's a former head of communications for the Lib Dems and
:01:58. > :02:00.these days shelters in the relative obscurity of the House of Lords.
:02:01. > :02:04.She's the 35th most influential Lib Dem in the land, according to the
:02:05. > :02:08.Telegraph, which of course is the party's in-house newspaper. And, in
:02:09. > :02:14.fact, they've moved her down the list by 13 places since she joined
:02:15. > :02:27.the Lords. But, tough luck, Matthew Oakshott, she's still one ahead of
:02:28. > :02:33.you. First, a statement from the Home Secretary following publication
:02:34. > :02:37.of the review into the original Stephen Lawrence murder
:02:38. > :02:42.investigation. The review found, reasonable grounds to suspect
:02:43. > :02:47.corruption by the police. Here is the Home Secretary. I do not say
:02:48. > :02:52.this lightly but I think the greatest possible scrutiny is now
:02:53. > :02:58.needed into what has taken place. And so, given the gravity of what
:02:59. > :03:03.has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public enquiry, led
:03:04. > :03:10.by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and
:03:11. > :03:19.the fruition -- the operation of the STS. Only a public enquiry will get
:03:20. > :03:25.to the full truth. To amazed speaking on that developing story.
:03:26. > :03:30.We are joined now by Norman Smith, who is in the Central Lobby of the
:03:31. > :03:35.House of Commons. Bring us up to date. What we heard from the Home
:03:36. > :03:41.Secretary was a political bombshell. It is a real body blow to the
:03:42. > :03:46.standing, the credibility, of the police. You basically have a
:03:47. > :03:52.Conservative Home Secretary saying we have a problem with our police.
:03:53. > :03:57.It is all based on this review into the conduct of the police, not just
:03:58. > :04:00.into the original enquiry their response to next person. This
:04:01. > :04:03.details instances of the police delivered it is all based on this
:04:04. > :04:05.review into the conduct of the police, not just into the original
:04:06. > :04:08.in quiet but their response to next person. This details instances of
:04:09. > :04:13.the police delivered information, possible miscarriages of justice by
:04:14. > :04:16.the use of undercover officers. It is the response by the Home
:04:17. > :04:23.Secretary which frankly is a moment, not just a public enquiry
:04:24. > :04:27.into the conduct of the police, a judge led public enquiry over
:04:28. > :04:32.Lawrence but she is also going to introduce a new legal offence of
:04:33. > :04:36.police corruption. That, I think, gives you some appreciation of how
:04:37. > :04:40.concerned the Home Secretary is about the problem of police
:04:41. > :04:45.corruption that she feels it necessary now to introduce such a
:04:46. > :04:49.specific offence as a lease corruption. She also said she will
:04:50. > :04:54.introduce measures to in Courage whistle-blowers to come forward. The
:04:55. > :04:59.National Crime Agency were arrested gate whether further instances of
:05:00. > :05:08.corruption into the handling of the whole Steven Lawrence Naga existed.
:05:09. > :05:15.-- Steven Lawrence saga existed. We know there where we writing of
:05:16. > :05:21.witness statements and the plebs gate saga, police officers coming to
:05:22. > :05:29.the House of Commons to apologise for their conduct and now this. It
:05:30. > :05:34.is a profoundly and serious -- it is a profoundly serious moment for the
:05:35. > :05:39.police. It is about how they are seen by the public and how they are
:05:40. > :05:44.viewed by politicians here. Thank you fray much of putting all that
:05:45. > :05:53.into context. This is a crisis for the police. Yes, it is. There has
:05:54. > :05:58.been a drip drip of it. Some of the cases that are now taking place,
:05:59. > :06:01.like the hacking trials. It is extraordinary. It sounds like
:06:02. > :06:07.Theresa May is doing the right thing. In the House of Lords, Doreen
:06:08. > :06:14.Lawrence is one of the members of the House of Lords. I spoke to her
:06:15. > :06:19.the other day. The continual upset. Not only to go through that thing
:06:20. > :06:26.from which you never recover of losing your son. To find out time
:06:27. > :06:32.and again what the institutions who are supposed to help her do behind
:06:33. > :06:36.the scenes. It is shocking. It seems it is much worse than anyone
:06:37. > :06:43.thought, or at least as bad as the worst critics of the police have
:06:44. > :06:47.claimed. We have to believe it. It needs credibility. It gets tougher
:06:48. > :06:55.after that announcement from the Home Secretary. It will be running
:06:56. > :07:02.story all day today. We know that the Lib Dems and Tories allow each
:07:03. > :07:06.other license disunity. It shows the voters and their parties what they
:07:07. > :07:11.are really made of. The gloves have come off this morning with the
:07:12. > :07:14.latest partly-manufactured row between the coalition partners over
:07:15. > :07:17.immigration. The Conservatives are already struggling to reach their
:07:18. > :07:22.target of cutting net migration to the tens of thousands. And, in a
:07:23. > :07:26.display of support for his Cabinet colleagues that warms the heart,
:07:27. > :07:32.Nick Clegg's had this to say on LBC radio. I have always said to them,
:07:33. > :07:37.the problem is it is a target over which they do not have full control.
:07:38. > :07:41.It depends partly how many Brits lead this country. Actually, the
:07:42. > :07:45.number of Brits leaving the country is at its lowest level for many
:07:46. > :07:51.years. You cannot tell the number of Brits leaving the country in order
:07:52. > :07:53.to meet targets. It is absurd. I think they have become very
:07:54. > :07:59.preoccupied with that. There are certain things we have to do, they
:08:00. > :08:09.are down on illegal immigration, unscrupulous employers, reintroduced
:08:10. > :08:13.exit checks. It is about tatters and battered public confidence in the
:08:14. > :08:17.way the immigration system is run. So, that's the Deputy Prime Minister
:08:18. > :08:27.on LBC radio this morning. Later on, the Business Secretary Vince Cable's
:08:28. > :08:35.going to express a similar view. The new Immigration Minister will be
:08:36. > :08:41.taking a different view. He has said net migration is still much too
:08:42. > :08:48.high. What is the difference between you and the Tories on immigration?
:08:49. > :08:55.We talk about having a net figure. The tens of thousands figures. It is
:08:56. > :08:59.not in the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats do not want net
:09:00. > :09:07.immigration to fall to the tens of thousands? The Liberal Democrats
:09:08. > :09:11.want to make sure there are proper instigation is of checks. You will
:09:12. > :09:19.have heard Nick Clegg talking about exit controls. It is not going to
:09:20. > :09:25.happen but the Tories want net migration to fall to the tens of
:09:26. > :09:32.thousands. They want proof of the figure. It is a full Sig. If loads
:09:33. > :09:41.of UK citizens day, then you cannot improve that figure. -- this day.
:09:42. > :09:47.Lib Dems want to control things like illegal immigration. You both agree
:09:48. > :09:53.with that. How we deal with it, there is a bigger disagreement. I
:09:54. > :09:59.cannot understand whether Tories of pro or anti immigration and will not
:10:00. > :10:06.introduce X checks in order to have a proper debate about what is going
:10:07. > :10:10.on. I cannot decide what you think is an appropriate number of
:10:11. > :10:16.immigrants to come to this country every year. Making sure there is a
:10:17. > :10:23.controlled number coming in. You need to have a ballpark figure.
:10:24. > :10:29.Putting a target on it of tens of thousands is not achievable. I do
:10:30. > :10:37.not personally have a target. How can you control it? You need to know
:10:38. > :10:43.the numbers. If I control the heat on the cooker, I have a thermostat.
:10:44. > :10:50.We're in a position where we do not know. Asking me for target after
:10:51. > :10:56.target after target... Just one would be fine. I do not have a
:10:57. > :11:00.target. I am at a loss to work out how you can control anything if you
:11:01. > :11:05.do not even have a single target. What you do is understand who is
:11:06. > :11:13.leading a how many people are leaving. If there are economic
:11:14. > :11:15.migrants coming in and are paying their taxes and that is what Vince
:11:16. > :11:19.Cable is talking about, she is intensely relaxed about it will stop
:11:20. > :11:26.if students are here, they are intensely relaxed about that. If I
:11:27. > :11:32.said to you 3 million people or 3.5 people you would be satisfied with
:11:33. > :11:41.an answer like that? Exit checks is a very clear policy. Would we have
:11:42. > :11:46.to put up with this allowing for the next 14 months? Will there be
:11:47. > :11:54.endless, manufactured batters between the two of you? It is like
:11:55. > :12:04.Wall of the Roses. We have to watch this for 14 months! You could have a
:12:05. > :12:07.Blair/ Brown scenario. In their leaders debate at the last general
:12:08. > :12:12.election, what everyone wanted to know was what the immigration policy
:12:13. > :12:18.was at what people were saying about immigration. Having a good of
:12:19. > :12:25.national debate about this but without the rhetoric which is
:12:26. > :12:31.dangerous in terms of attitude and society. It is a good thing. We have
:12:32. > :12:36.seen a lot of rhetoric from the Lib Dems and Tories. So, that's the view
:12:37. > :12:39.from the Lib Dems. But what do the Tories make of how coalition
:12:40. > :12:43.government is working? We're joined now by another former Number ten
:12:44. > :12:47.insider, Sean Worth. He used to work for the Prime Minister and now works
:12:48. > :12:52.for the lobbying firm, Quiller. In your mind, are these manufactured
:12:53. > :12:58.rows are is this a liberation of the two parties in the run-up to the
:12:59. > :13:03.general election? There are quite a lot of differences. It is natural
:13:04. > :13:06.they will voice differences. The point I would make and this is not a
:13:07. > :13:11.party political point am trying to make, there is a greater difficulty
:13:12. > :13:17.for the Liberal Democrats because of the kind of coalition we have in
:13:18. > :13:22.this country. On the continent, minority parties own separate chunks
:13:23. > :13:24.of policy often. They build a political platform on the back of
:13:25. > :13:35.that. They are trying to share power, not just on spending, which
:13:36. > :13:42.is right. On the issues they do not agree on, there is a bit of disunity
:13:43. > :13:47.and lack of clarity over what they stand for. I do not think we will
:13:48. > :13:54.see this power-sharing arrangement in the future. How would you have
:13:55. > :13:58.split the departments? Could you imagine energy going purely to the
:13:59. > :14:05.Liberal Democrats with no Tory ministers in that department? My
:14:06. > :14:08.observation, having worked in the coalition and looking at it now, and
:14:09. > :14:16.looking around the world at how it works, absolutely. A minority party.
:14:17. > :14:21.If you think about the position of the Lib Dems, they are not in a good
:14:22. > :14:26.place. They do not have territory in government on which they can convey
:14:27. > :14:30.a platform. I am not suggesting they go to single issues. On the
:14:31. > :14:35.continent you do see more power-sharing based on areas, when
:14:36. > :14:40.you go into a coalition new demand territorial control effectively of
:14:41. > :14:49.say odysseys which are relevant to consumers or social policies.
:14:50. > :14:53.Without that electoral platform, we are seeing a disintegration within
:14:54. > :15:01.certain departments, like parts of the Home Office on immigration. It
:15:02. > :15:05.looks more and more difficult as you approach an election. If you did
:15:06. > :15:10.have that model and I imagine this is what will happen next time. If
:15:11. > :15:14.you have a model where you share more distinctly, it will be
:15:15. > :15:17.perfectly legitimate for the Liberal Democrats to be briefing against the
:15:18. > :15:21.Home Secretary because they disagree. At the moment they are
:15:22. > :15:25.personally responsible for every single policy that comes up after
:15:26. > :15:32.the tax spending limits were agreed. You are saying the Lib Dems are
:15:33. > :15:37.releasing this report on immigration in order to undermine what Theresa
:15:38. > :15:43.May and the Tories are doing? The same with stop and search? There
:15:44. > :15:51.have been issues where the Liberal Democrats are good -- disagree with
:15:52. > :15:53.the majority part of government. That is perfectly acceptable.
:15:54. > :15:58.Everyone knows the two parties have to rub along and they have done well
:15:59. > :16:02.in the coalition. It is a function of the kind of coalition we have
:16:03. > :16:09.got, I am suggesting, which is a bitter for the Liberal Democrats.
:16:10. > :16:17.Lib Dems have got a problem? The only way they can get points across
:16:18. > :16:20.is briefing against the other party? No, academics are going to write
:16:21. > :16:24.about this forever, whether they should have controlled one
:16:25. > :16:31.department as they do in some parts of continental Europe, but the
:16:32. > :16:34.judgement was taken to be across all government policy, so the Deputy
:16:35. > :16:39.Prime Minister, only time will tell and history books, I believe it was
:16:40. > :16:43.the right way to do it. Others even in my party believe that maybe if
:16:44. > :16:50.one controlled one department, I think that is a sideline. The
:16:51. > :16:56.question you asking me is, is their counter briefing, is that going on?
:16:57. > :16:59.I see as much counter briefing about George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith
:17:00. > :17:03.that I do about any that is legitimate policy debate. I think
:17:04. > :17:08.legitimate policy debate is a good aim. When I first worked in number
:17:09. > :17:12.ten, I thought, the debates are pretty rough. I said that in the
:17:13. > :17:21.click and he said, that's how it should be. You should have heated
:17:22. > :17:29.debates. Let's see if we can help with that heated debate! We will
:17:30. > :17:34.talk a bit more about immigration And we're joined now by Conservative
:17:35. > :17:37.MP Nadhim Zahawi. Now. The Home Secretary was saying that for every
:17:38. > :17:42.100 immigrants, 23 Brits lost their jobs, now the government has
:17:43. > :17:46.published a report saying that there is little evidence that it has
:17:47. > :17:54.caused statistically significant displacement from the labour market.
:17:55. > :17:59.If you read the report, read on, I am sure you have, the report that
:18:00. > :18:06.the Home Secretary was quoting on has not been contradicted as a
:18:07. > :18:12.different period, 1995 until 2008, that was the period. 2010, I
:18:13. > :18:22.apologise. What they are saying is that it was important data from that
:18:23. > :18:27.report. So the robustness of 100 immigrants, non-EU, would result in
:18:28. > :18:33.23 displaced jobs... That's not true, is it? It is contradicting the
:18:34. > :18:39.data. And by the way, the original report also said statistics were not
:18:40. > :18:45.robust and it depended on the time period you chose and if you took out
:18:46. > :18:48.statistics that looked a bit dodgy, there was no statistical
:18:49. > :18:54.significance. So this report is only backing up the previous one. The
:18:55. > :19:00.previous one had caveats. But there is no contradiction. If you read
:19:01. > :19:03.carefully, it's not contradiction. But there is between what the Home
:19:04. > :19:07.Secretary said a couple of years ago and what this report as saying. We
:19:08. > :19:13.lose 23 for every hundred that come in, that figure is just not true. On
:19:14. > :19:18.the period the report is looking at... This is a new period, that's
:19:19. > :19:24.what you need to tell your viewers. The real issue here is the rate at
:19:25. > :19:28.which immigration comes into this country, and the problem was the
:19:29. > :19:33.rate was too high. We have succeeded in bringing it down for non-EU
:19:34. > :19:38.migrants, down by a third. That rate puts massive pressure on public
:19:39. > :19:42.services, schools, hospital and social cohesion and may lead to
:19:43. > :19:46.displacement of low-paid jobs. The Lib Dems took about people on low
:19:47. > :19:49.pay and how they championed them, they should be championing them if
:19:50. > :19:56.they are losing their jobs. You asked about why they is a target,
:19:57. > :20:01.you set your organisation a target, so it has a focus to make sure that
:20:02. > :20:11.it moves in the direction of meeting the target. We are, on the non-EU
:20:12. > :20:16.target... But your target was overall immigration to be in the
:20:17. > :20:19.tens of thousands and it is not. Ultimately the real issue is the
:20:20. > :20:23.difference in wages between different European countries. We
:20:24. > :20:29.have grown larger from the days of having six EU countries, to now
:20:30. > :20:35.having 28. The difference now has to be looked at, and the idea that we
:20:36. > :20:40.need, as a European family, to look at what measures we need to put in
:20:41. > :20:45.place to stop that movement, those countries need to raise their wages
:20:46. > :20:52.or the GDP per capita needs to increase. This is not a monologue.
:20:53. > :20:57.The real question is, you made a promise that you can't keep. That's
:20:58. > :21:00.the real problem. He promised that net migration would go down to the
:21:01. > :21:07.tens of thousands, it did go down a bit, it's just risen again to
:21:08. > :21:10.212,000. Can we just be honest here, there is no possibility by May of
:21:11. > :21:16.next year that it will be in the tens of thousands, agreed? I was
:21:17. > :21:19.about to say to you before you wanted to ask that question that the
:21:20. > :21:25.poor factor of people coming over is being addressed through legislation,
:21:26. > :21:34.from Europe... I think the target can still be met. By May 2015? In
:21:35. > :21:39.any organisation, you set targets for the direction of travel of that
:21:40. > :21:45.organisation. I would say wait and see. But I would say, the important
:21:46. > :21:51.thing is to have targets. Do you want a bit? If we can negotiate a
:21:52. > :22:00.settlement in terms of those countries... You cannot do that this
:22:01. > :22:05.side of the election. That may be true, but it is important that we
:22:06. > :22:08.address these issues. It also matters that politicians, when they
:22:09. > :22:11.tell us these things, they are either true to their word or they
:22:12. > :22:15.admit they got it wrong, and you have to have a new policy. I was
:22:16. > :22:19.suggested the honest thing you to do is admit you are not going to hit
:22:20. > :22:26.your target and come out with a new policy or target. I would say to
:22:27. > :22:30.you, targets in any organisation are important, it is important to stick
:22:31. > :22:39.to them and try and deliver on them. You tried and failed. We haven't, we
:22:40. > :22:47.have legislation... What is it like, being in denial? We're not in
:22:48. > :22:55.denial. You do things to try and hit the target. The point was, you made
:22:56. > :23:00.a target with a part of immigration you have no control over. I cannot
:23:01. > :23:04.have the life of me understand, if you are talking about bottom lines
:23:05. > :23:07.and business imperatives, if someone walks into your business, you want
:23:08. > :23:13.to know if they have walked out again. What is holding it up in the
:23:14. > :23:18.Home Office? Tell me! I don't understand. Even from your point of
:23:19. > :23:24.view, what is wrong with an exit control? While the Tories stalling
:23:25. > :23:28.that? You are creating a false document between the Lib Dems, and
:23:29. > :23:33.it will be delivered, my understanding is that, once the
:23:34. > :23:37.technology and everything else is in place, it will be delivered because
:23:38. > :23:46.we count people in now. We will be counting them out. Can I just bring
:23:47. > :23:53.you back, because your party has dined out on this figure of 100
:23:54. > :24:00.people coming, 23 British jobs are lost. The most of this new report,
:24:01. > :24:04.which has been peer reviewed, with civil servants and academics, says
:24:05. > :24:09.there is evidence that some labour market displacement in recent years,
:24:10. > :24:15.when the economy was in recession. That's as far as it goes, it doesn't
:24:16. > :24:20.say 23. It then also says that this is likely to dissipate over time,
:24:21. > :24:29.and any displacement from one set of new arrivals will gradually decline.
:24:30. > :24:35.From the higher earner. So the figure is a nonsense. What it
:24:36. > :24:40.actually says is the previous report offered valuable evidence, so there
:24:41. > :24:46.isn't this disagreement that you are trying to pretend exists between the
:24:47. > :24:49.reports. The reality is, if we take a step back, it is about the rate of
:24:50. > :24:56.people come to this country, about pressure on public services and how
:24:57. > :24:59.pressure can be easily as it on the displacement of low-paid workers. If
:25:00. > :25:06.the Lib Dems are serious about the people on the lowest wages... I'm
:25:07. > :25:10.sorry, we have run out of time. Now to the crisis in Ukraine, and EU
:25:11. > :25:13.leaders are meeting in Brussels today to see if they can agree on
:25:14. > :25:17.sanctions against Russia following the occupation of Crimea. So can
:25:18. > :25:23.they pull a rabbit out of the hat? Our correspondent Matthew Price is
:25:24. > :25:27.in Brussels. How realistic is agreement on tough sanctions against
:25:28. > :25:31.Russia when we already hearing that MPs from Angela Merkel's party in
:25:32. > :25:35.Germany are extremely worried about anything that would harm their
:25:36. > :25:41.economic interests? I think it's unrealistic to expect tough
:25:42. > :25:46.sanctions. I think it's probably unrealistic to expect any sanctions.
:25:47. > :25:52.It is more realistic to expect the possible threat of sanctions,
:25:53. > :25:56.although one early leaked draft of the conclusions, and I reiterate
:25:57. > :26:00.that it is early in the day on this, and it could change, but one early
:26:01. > :26:05.leaked draft to our colleagues here at the Financial Times seems to have
:26:06. > :26:09.stripped away even the threat of sanctions. It talks about possible
:26:10. > :26:15.consequences, but that language could change. The EU risks looking
:26:16. > :26:21.week at the end of this summit, the end of the day, when it seemed
:26:22. > :26:24.leaders couldn't reach 10pm this evening without having something
:26:25. > :26:31.substantive to say in response to Moscow? The way that sources here
:26:32. > :26:36.answer that is to say that what they are trying to do is find it a
:26:37. > :26:38.dramatic way through this, there can only be a political solution, it
:26:39. > :26:43.will involve Russia and Ukraine talking. They are not about to put
:26:44. > :26:50.troops on the ground, NATO is not about to send forces in, or the US.
:26:51. > :26:54.So in the end they are left with the diplomatic push and threats that
:26:55. > :26:59.might be made against Russia. Germany is crucial in this. It is
:27:00. > :27:02.Angela Merkel's opinion that if you push Russia, it will push back, so
:27:03. > :27:07.she doesn't want to see that happen. There are also economic and
:27:08. > :27:12.energy reasons why the Germans might not want to see that happening, and
:27:13. > :27:17.another couple of nations as well. Britain is more on the side of the
:27:18. > :27:20.Eastern European states, notably Poland, who are pretty keen for
:27:21. > :27:27.there to be a strong message to Moscow from this summit. David
:27:28. > :27:33.Cameron said, Russia need to know there are consequences. But it is
:27:34. > :27:39.Germany's arguments who are winning out. That means there is going to be
:27:40. > :27:43.a divide and you will have groups of countries: The different things stop
:27:44. > :27:52.in public, the bubbly one, because they realise these are high-stakes
:27:53. > :27:56.-- in public, there probably won't. There is a big difference of opinion
:27:57. > :28:00.between Poland and Germany, for instance, and yet he said, of course
:28:01. > :28:07.we have different perspectives on this but we are united in our
:28:08. > :28:09.belief... Ukraine must maintain territorial integrity, Russian
:28:10. > :28:16.forces should withdraw back to their bases, etc. So I don't think in
:28:17. > :28:19.public you are then to see any open division but behind-the-scenes, in
:28:20. > :28:28.the room behind me, the divisions of being expressed. Yesterday, I was
:28:29. > :28:33.telling the Tory guest that the Germans are going to stop this from
:28:34. > :28:37.happening. They are very reticent about this.
:28:38. > :28:41.With us now on the line from Kiev is Sergei Sobolev, he's an MP from the
:28:42. > :28:45.Fatherland Party - that's the group that makes up most of the interim
:28:46. > :28:47.government - and used to advise the former president Viktor Yuschenko
:28:48. > :28:55.who came to power after the Orange revolution. Welcome to the Daily
:28:56. > :29:00.Politics. It doesn't look like you are going to get much out of the
:29:01. > :29:08.European summit. What does that mean for Ukraine's future? You see, just
:29:09. > :29:12.now we have an answer on the main question. Whether all countries
:29:13. > :29:20.guarantee for us sovereignty, independence, will support that, so
:29:21. > :29:24.first of all, it's nuclear power states such as the US, Great
:29:25. > :29:29.Britain, France, China, because if you will not protect our
:29:30. > :29:36.independence, it means for all other nations, such as Iran, Pakistan,
:29:37. > :29:41.India and others, who we need to withdraw the nuclear weapons, we
:29:42. > :29:44.will never protect them also. So now we have two onto the main question.
:29:45. > :29:53.Whether the nuclear power states will save peace in the world. And
:29:54. > :29:55.this piece now is on the Black Sea, where we need real support from
:29:56. > :30:04.these countries in order to protect our southern border from the war
:30:05. > :30:10.that Russian invaders started. Is it not a hard fact of realpolitik that
:30:11. > :30:23.Crimea has in effect already been annexed by Russia? It is now to all
:30:24. > :30:38.intents and purposes Russian? Really, about the population, we
:30:39. > :30:42.have one third of the population is Crimean and one third of the
:30:43. > :30:47.population more is Ukrainians which will never be in the Russian
:30:48. > :30:52.Empire. Just now, only one third of the population who are Russians,
:30:53. > :30:57.even not all Russians, want to support the so-called referendum. If
:30:58. > :31:02.you know just now the Parliament of Crimea announced this referendum
:31:03. > :31:07.could not on the 25th of May, not on 30th of March, now they announce the
:31:08. > :31:14.15th of March as the new date for the referendum. That means the
:31:15. > :31:18.Russian invader has already fallen down. This referendum will need to
:31:19. > :31:22.be in several days. I think the answer on the referendum will not be
:31:23. > :31:27.illegal because we do not have such a law. In another case there will be
:31:28. > :31:40.a referendum under their weapon that Russian invaders want to use the
:31:41. > :31:44.main argument on this referendum together they export 130 billion
:31:45. > :31:52.euros of exports to Russia every year. It seems they have put that as
:31:53. > :31:59.being more important than the freedom of Ukraine from Russian
:32:00. > :32:05.control. What do you say? I do not think so. Which is a problem of
:32:06. > :32:13.Russia how to solve their gas and oil. -- it is a problem. Without the
:32:14. > :32:19.solving of the problem, how to solve the gas and oil, they will never
:32:20. > :32:25.have the economy. 87% of the Russian economy is based on oil and gas
:32:26. > :32:30.dollars. We must understand our world is so close together that it
:32:31. > :32:36.is not only a problem of Europe where to buy gas and oil, it is a
:32:37. > :32:43.problem of Russians Festival. One day, of real sanctions against
:32:44. > :32:48.Russia, it means millions of Russians will be on the streets and
:32:49. > :32:59.they will protest against the regime of Putin, who wants to provide Third
:33:00. > :33:03.World War. That may be true. The Russians need that foreign
:33:04. > :33:07.currency. To do what you have just said they should do, the Germans
:33:08. > :33:12.would need to have a stomach for the fight, the economic sanctions
:33:13. > :33:20.fight. There is no evidence that the Merckle government has any stomach
:33:21. > :33:26.for that fight. -- angular Merckle government. In the same position,
:33:27. > :33:30.German supported our independence and our sovereignty in this period
:33:31. > :33:39.of time. They must understand it is not only a question of Crimea. After
:33:40. > :33:45.Crimea, they want to be invaders in another areas which is just on the
:33:46. > :33:50.borders of NATO. It is only the start of the Russian Empire. I think
:33:51. > :33:57.the whole world must understand, Crimea is not the end of this war,
:33:58. > :34:02.it is only the beginning. When, for example, some years ago everyone
:34:03. > :34:08.watched the events in Georgia. They thought it is not our country, it is
:34:09. > :34:14.not our territory. Now it is Crimea. It must be the main
:34:15. > :34:21.question, in order to protect real peace in Europe and the world.
:34:22. > :34:26.Crimea seems to be gone, at least for now. How big is at risk is East
:34:27. > :34:34.Ukraine from some sort of Russian incursion? I am from eastern
:34:35. > :34:46.Ukraine. It is a serious industrial centre. Everybody provides to
:34:47. > :34:53.support the central government in Kiev. The only way they want to
:34:54. > :34:59.divide Ukraine, they want to have a support in the Donetsk region. You
:35:00. > :35:09.can compare. More than 10,000 people gave support of one united Ukraine
:35:10. > :35:15.yesterday. Near 1000 people, who had Russian flags were from Russia. They
:35:16. > :35:20.supported the Russian Empire. I think that now it is not even a
:35:21. > :35:21.question of eastern Ukraine. Now it is