0:00:35 > 0:00:38Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:38 > 0:00:41As Jeremy Corbyn casts doubt on whether the poisoning of a former
0:00:41 > 0:00:43Russian double agent and his daughter was carried out
0:00:43 > 0:00:47by the Kremlin, are the Labour party split once again on matters
0:00:47 > 0:00:51of defence of the realm?
0:00:51 > 0:00:53Is Brexit going really rather well?
0:00:53 > 0:00:55After a tumultuous year for Theresa May, does
0:00:55 > 0:00:58the Prime Minister have reasons to be cheerful about the state
0:00:58 > 0:01:01of the Brexit negotiations?
0:01:01 > 0:01:03During the general election, the Conservatives promised
0:01:03 > 0:01:06to abolish the cap on the number of children from one religion
0:01:06 > 0:01:08attending Faith schools.
0:01:08 > 0:01:12The idea was to allow more children of faith to take up the places.
0:01:12 > 0:01:12It hasn't happened yet.
0:01:12 > 0:01:18Will it?
0:01:18 > 0:01:23And will the Kremlin be trembling at the first big speech from Defence
0:01:23 > 0:01:29Secretary Gavin Williamson? Judge for yourself.Frankly, Russia should
0:01:29 > 0:01:35go away and should shut up.
0:01:37 > 0:01:38More on that speech later in the programme.
0:01:38 > 0:01:41All that in the next hour and with us for the first half
0:01:41 > 0:01:46of the programme today Rachel Sylvester from the Times
0:01:46 > 0:01:47and we hope, LBC's Iain Dale.
0:01:47 > 0:01:50First today, the Labour party are split on Jeremy Corbyn's
0:01:50 > 0:01:52response to the Russia spy poisoning in Salisbury.
0:01:52 > 0:01:53Yesterday the Labour leader said "the evidence
0:01:53 > 0:01:56points towards Russia" - but in the Guardian newspaper today
0:01:56 > 0:01:59he warns we should not "rush way ahead of the evidence" and suggests
0:01:59 > 0:02:04the poisoning could have been down to "russian mafia-like groups".
0:02:04 > 0:02:11He also questioned whether we should trust international intelligence -
0:02:11 > 0:02:13stating, in his words - "flawed intelligence and dodgy
0:02:13 > 0:02:19dossiers led to the calamity of the Iraq invasion".
0:02:19 > 0:02:22Mr Corbyn was a vocal critic of the Iraq war and the intelligence
0:02:22 > 0:02:25gathered at the time - here he is speaking in 2003.
0:02:30 > 0:02:34Kia Starmer was asked about this on question Time last night.Wishes
0:02:34 > 0:02:38were after Russia earlier this week based on investigations carried out
0:02:38 > 0:02:43by security and intelligence services, and no answers have been
0:02:43 > 0:02:47given, no answers have been given, and that led her to the conclusion
0:02:47 > 0:02:50that there was no alternative explanation other than that
0:02:50 > 0:02:53responsibility lies with Russia. As you will have seen, Germany, France
0:02:53 > 0:02:57and the US have joined her in that conclusion, and that is the right
0:02:57 > 0:03:02conclusion will stop and for that reason, I think it's very important
0:03:02 > 0:03:07that we support the action the Prime Minister laid out on Wednesday.Kia
0:03:07 > 0:03:08Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary.
0:03:08 > 0:03:10We're joined now by Nick Thomas-Symonds who is
0:03:10 > 0:03:17Labour's Shadow Security Minister.
0:03:17 > 0:03:22Who do you think was responsible for the nerve agent attack?I agree with
0:03:22 > 0:03:25the assessment we have seen during the week that the evidence
0:03:25 > 0:03:30absolutely is pointing towards Russia. It seems that there are two
0:03:30 > 0:03:33possibilities within that - either the Russian state deliberately
0:03:33 > 0:03:38ordered it, or it is that it happened negligently, where the
0:03:38 > 0:03:43Russian state lost control in some way of the nerve agent.Either way,
0:03:43 > 0:03:47it is the Russian state, even if they were negligent, as you say, in
0:03:47 > 0:03:51terms of losing hold of that gas. It is they who are responsible?It was
0:03:51 > 0:03:57made clear in Jeremy Corbyn's article published yesterday in the
0:03:57 > 0:04:02Guardian, which sets out those two possibilities. Of course, the second
0:04:02 > 0:04:05possibility, losing control, Jeremy Wright east, and I think you pointed
0:04:05 > 0:04:10out, Jo, at the top of the programme about the involvement of Russian
0:04:10 > 0:04:15Mafia and organisations -- other organisations, which is consistent
0:04:15 > 0:04:18with the Prime Minister's with the possibilities, and the evidence is
0:04:18 > 0:04:25pointing to Russia.Why is Jeremy Corbyn equivocating in his argument,
0:04:25 > 0:04:29saying we need to hold back before we do categorically state it is the
0:04:29 > 0:04:33Russian state, despite the fact that there is now a coordinated response
0:04:33 > 0:04:39from France, Germany, from Nato, America, who all say the pattern is
0:04:39 > 0:04:42clear and there is no plausible alternative to it being the Russian
0:04:42 > 0:04:47state?First, in terms of the joint statement, that is obviously very
0:04:47 > 0:04:50welcome and we want to build the widest possible international
0:04:50 > 0:04:55coalition. The statement's language is clear in terms of accepting the
0:04:55 > 0:04:58highly likely position that the Prime Minister set out in the House
0:04:58 > 0:05:02of Commons on Monday. I don't accept this characterisation of
0:05:02 > 0:05:06equivocation. I was there in the House of Commons on Monday to hear
0:05:06 > 0:05:10Jeremy's statement, and he quoted verbatim what the Prime Minister
0:05:10 > 0:05:13said, and then said afterwards that we have to have a decisive,
0:05:13 > 0:05:20proportionate response based on the
0:05:29 > 0:05:32evidence. To me, that is an entirely common sense way to proceed.He
0:05:32 > 0:05:34highlighted flawed intelligence and dodgy dossiers led to the calamity
0:05:34 > 0:05:37of the Iraqi invasion. Why is he highlighting that at a time of
0:05:37 > 0:05:39national security when there has been an attack with a Cold War nerve
0:05:39 > 0:05:42agent on British soil?First, we condemn the events in Salisbury. We
0:05:42 > 0:05:46back the work going on from security services, counterterrorism and
0:05:46 > 0:05:50others, and it is important to do so. If I may say so, all that is
0:05:50 > 0:05:53happening is, the Leader of the Opposition is raising some
0:05:53 > 0:05:57reasonable questions. We always have to look at the lessons of the past,
0:05:57 > 0:06:01and they are to be considered, thoughtful in how we move forward,
0:06:01 > 0:06:05absolutely, and that is what we should be giving as the evidence
0:06:05 > 0:06:08emerges. The evidence at the moment supports the measures the Government
0:06:08 > 0:06:13has already taken. Let's see how the investigation proceeds and act
0:06:13 > 0:06:17proportionately too. Nothing wrong with a considered approach.Is it a
0:06:17 > 0:06:21considered approach? Labour has said it supports the sanctions and the
0:06:21 > 0:06:25expulsions. If you support the expulsions and the sanctions, the
0:06:25 > 0:06:30punishment, and yet, you are not completely clear as to who that is
0:06:30 > 0:06:33going to be directed at, or you don't completely trust the evidence
0:06:33 > 0:06:37from the security services, why are you supporting the sanctions and
0:06:37 > 0:06:45expulsions?There is no suggestion we do not support the position of
0:06:45 > 0:06:48the security services.You are bringing up the Iraq war in saying
0:06:48 > 0:06:53these things cannot be trusted because it led to a calamity in
0:06:53 > 0:06:56foreign policy 15 years ago. He is making the point, Jeremy Corbyn,
0:06:56 > 0:07:00that that might have happened in this case.There is a distinction
0:07:00 > 0:07:03between the evidence from the security services, and we support
0:07:03 > 0:07:09them in doing that and they do an excellent job, and help politicians
0:07:09 > 0:07:12seek to interpret and act upon them. There is nothing wrong with being
0:07:12 > 0:07:17reasonable and consider. Of course, we need to respond as the evidence
0:07:17 > 0:07:26emerges. It is a reasonable thing to do.Is there consistency in what
0:07:26 > 0:07:30Jeremy Corbyn wrote in the article and what he said in the House in
0:07:30 > 0:07:34terms of shoving supporters Theresa May?There is. He is trying to say
0:07:34 > 0:07:37that we can't be sure the Russian state is to blame. As you point out,
0:07:37 > 0:07:42he is also saying that we back Theresa May in expelling the
0:07:42 > 0:07:47diplomats. The only way that we can do that is if you support the idea
0:07:47 > 0:07:51that the Russian state is to blame. It leaves the questions of whose
0:07:51 > 0:07:54side is he on, and there is a history of association between the
0:07:54 > 0:08:01hard left and Russia, the Communist Party. And I think these moments of
0:08:01 > 0:08:05big national security crises are tests of leadership, and at the
0:08:05 > 0:08:08moment, Jeremy Corbyn is failing that. A lot of his Labour MPs agree
0:08:08 > 0:08:12that he is failing that.What do you say to MPs who have questioned it?
0:08:12 > 0:08:16We have had a number on this programme this week. There are MPs
0:08:16 > 0:08:20who feel he is not giving his full support by some of the comments he
0:08:20 > 0:08:26has made, and that actually, people like Keir Starmer, Emily Thornbury,
0:08:26 > 0:08:29near gritters, on the front bench, have been much more explicit. Is
0:08:29 > 0:08:35there a divide now emerging in labour?I don't accept that
0:08:35 > 0:08:37characterisation. Of course, politicians can use different
0:08:37 > 0:08:44language, but there is absolute unity around the evidence pointing
0:08:44 > 0:08:47towards Russia. Secondly, let's build the widest possible
0:08:47 > 0:08:52international coalition to deal with this. Absolutely. Third, let's act
0:08:52 > 0:08:57proportionately on the evidence - three entirely reasonable decisions.
0:08:57 > 0:09:01Did Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the US President's support for Theresa
0:09:01 > 0:09:06May's position?
0:09:07 > 0:09:11May's position?Is absolutely. It accepts the position of the
0:09:11 > 0:09:15Government.They do say there is no plausible alternative, serve in
0:09:15 > 0:09:21other words, it must be the Russian state.Sorry to cut across, but
0:09:21 > 0:09:24certainly how the Russians have responded is one of the things we
0:09:24 > 0:09:27absolutely have to take into account. That is one of the reasons
0:09:27 > 0:09:30why it is proportionate at this stage to be backing the steps the
0:09:30 > 0:09:35Government has taken.One of the things Jeremy Corbyn raised earlier
0:09:35 > 0:09:39in the week was money, and Russian money and the fact that London and
0:09:39 > 0:09:42the south-east is being used as a bit of a playground for the Russian
0:09:42 > 0:09:48navy. He was right to question that even then, wasn't he, in the
0:09:48 > 0:09:52immediate aftermath of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter?
0:09:52 > 0:09:56There is an issue of dodgy money coming into London and laundering
0:09:56 > 0:09:59going on, particularly through the property market. It is right for
0:09:59 > 0:10:04that to be clamped down on. The Government has said it will do that
0:10:04 > 0:10:07with amendments. Actually, that is one thing that would hurt Vladimir
0:10:07 > 0:10:10Putin and his associates as much as anything else.Nick, thank you very
0:10:10 > 0:10:13much.
0:10:13 > 0:10:15Now, nearly 48 hours after Theresa May announced
0:10:15 > 0:10:17retaliation against Russia - by expelling 23 diplomats
0:10:17 > 0:10:19among other measures, so far we've had no official
0:10:19 > 0:10:21reprisals from Putin, but speaking yesterday the Russian
0:10:21 > 0:10:29Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov promised a swift response.
0:10:30 > 0:10:32TRANSLATION:As we already did some days ago,
0:10:32 > 0:10:34we asked them to provide us
0:10:34 > 0:10:35with proof.
0:10:35 > 0:10:36They replied, proof is not needed.
0:10:36 > 0:10:39We asked them to send an official request, as required by the
0:10:39 > 0:10:40procedures of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
0:10:40 > 0:10:43They told us, you know the official request is included
0:10:43 > 0:10:44within Theresa May's speech in Parliament.
0:10:44 > 0:10:46So, you understand the level of seriousness when
0:10:46 > 0:10:48communicating such things, but the response will come very
0:10:48 > 0:10:56soon, I can assure you.
0:10:56 > 0:10:59That was Sergei lav wrath.
0:10:59 > 0:11:01Oksana Antonenko is an expert on Russian foreign policy
0:11:01 > 0:11:09from the Institute of Global Affairs - and she's with us now.
0:11:12 > 0:11:19Russia has threatened a response, and yet we have is not had one -
0:11:19 > 0:11:24why?It is convenient to have that crisis playing out a day before
0:11:24 > 0:11:28elections, so we are likely to have a response right after the election,
0:11:28 > 0:11:31probably Monday or Tuesday.Really? You don't think it will come before
0:11:31 > 0:11:36them? It sounds from a timing point of view from Sergei Lavrov and
0:11:36 > 0:11:39others that it would come immediately.At the moment, I think
0:11:39 > 0:11:42if they wanted to respond immediately, they would have
0:11:42 > 0:11:50responded yesterday. Clearly, I think there if one looks at Russian
0:11:50 > 0:11:53politics today the key thing for the elections is to have a turn up, and
0:11:53 > 0:11:58that will not increase if the more liberal, middle-class Russians
0:11:58 > 0:12:03really feel that we are entering a period of new isolation and a new
0:12:03 > 0:12:06crisis with the West, so I think they want to downplay that for the
0:12:06 > 0:12:12time being. I think the response will follow next week.Do you think
0:12:12 > 0:12:15there are voices, then, around Putin, trying to moderate him and
0:12:15 > 0:12:19what he does in terms of a response to Britain?It is very difficult to
0:12:19 > 0:12:25say who are the voices around Putin now, because the Kremlin walls are
0:12:25 > 0:12:28high, and today it is very difficult to really understand how the
0:12:28 > 0:12:33decision-making is being made, but we really know that there are voices
0:12:33 > 0:12:37in Russian society, opinion polls showing that in the last year alone,
0:12:37 > 0:12:43is a number of Russians will -- the number of Russian supporting
0:12:43 > 0:12:47improvement in relations with the West has increased. There is more
0:12:47 > 0:12:58demanding to normalise relations, especially from young people. Any
0:12:58 > 0:13:00modernisation and technological development needs relations with the
0:13:00 > 0:13:04most developed in democratic countries of the world. These are
0:13:04 > 0:13:09the people Putin needs to mobilise to get out to 70% of turnout.What
0:13:09 > 0:13:13do you make of that claim that we won't see any retaliation until
0:13:13 > 0:13:17after the election?It is entirely possible. We might hear it in the
0:13:17 > 0:13:21next five minutes as well, you can tell? The key thing is the scale of
0:13:21 > 0:13:28the response. If the Russians, say, expel five or ten British diplomat
0:13:28 > 0:13:33is...I had been told they are going to be expelling British diplomats.
0:13:33 > 0:13:37They have not said a number but the news is breaking that they will
0:13:37 > 0:13:41expel British diplomats. We knew that would happen.If it is five or
0:13:41 > 0:13:46ten, that is different to 30 or 40. Some of the language from Sergei
0:13:46 > 0:13:49Lavrov has been interesting, where he is saying that Gavin Williamson
0:13:49 > 0:13:57is a young boy, insignificant, swatting him away. It could be
0:13:59 > 0:14:00swatting him away. It could be that it is not that serious, but as I
0:14:00 > 0:14:03understand it, Theresa May has a second round of sanctions to
0:14:03 > 0:14:05announce immediately after the tit-for-tat now. I think that will
0:14:05 > 0:14:08depend on how serious the tit-for-tat is.There has been
0:14:08 > 0:14:13criticism of Theresa May, saying she could have gone further with her
0:14:13 > 0:14:16initial round of sanctions and expulsions, and tougher on Russian
0:14:16 > 0:14:21money in London - do you agree?I don't at the moment see what being
0:14:21 > 0:14:25tough on Russian money in London would do to actually put pressure on
0:14:25 > 0:14:29President Putin himself. He has been working very hard to repatriate all
0:14:29 > 0:14:37the Russian money, and in fact, most of his inner circle people already
0:14:37 > 0:14:41have their money back. The type of oligarchs we are talking about, most
0:14:41 > 0:14:48of them either had been escaping from Russia or they have a secondary
0:14:48 > 0:14:52association. If their money is targeted, for Putin, it will be just
0:14:52 > 0:14:57a victory because it will make him feel that he can have more
0:14:57 > 0:15:01influence, and the money is coming back.Tit-for-tat will just escalate
0:15:01 > 0:15:04tensions - is that really what Britain wants to achieve?I think it
0:15:04 > 0:15:08has got to show that it is strong, you cannot let yourself be pushed
0:15:08 > 0:15:12around by a bully and this is the end of a long path which has
0:15:12 > 0:15:15included interference in, you know, the American presidential elections,
0:15:15 > 0:15:21the "Brexit" referendum, there has been a low-level, under the wire
0:15:21 > 0:15:24interference in western democracy and I think that we have got to say
0:15:24 > 0:15:28enough is enough.All right, thank you very much, and we have to say
0:15:28 > 0:15:31enough is enough on this discussion, thank you for joining us.
0:15:32 > 0:15:34Now, is Brexit going really rather well?
0:15:34 > 0:15:36Theresa May's Mansion House speech calling for compromise
0:15:36 > 0:15:39between the EU and UK was viewed broadly as a success at home
0:15:39 > 0:15:42and abroad, EU leaders meet next week to finalise the terms
0:15:42 > 0:15:45of the transition period and there's whispers that the UK will be allowed
0:15:45 > 0:15:47to sign free trade deals during that time.
0:15:47 > 0:15:54So, is there a renewed optimism around Brexit?
0:15:55 > 0:16:00Have you changed your mind?I haven't, no, and I think also the
0:16:00 > 0:16:06renewed optimism is slightly. Is an idea, this
0:16:06 > 0:16:07renewed optimism is slightly. Is an idea, this, because we are talking
0:16:07 > 0:16:11only about the transition period, there is a long way to go on this
0:16:11 > 0:16:16tricky path, wrote to Brexit is full of potholes and roundabouts.What
0:16:16 > 0:16:19about this victory as the government will see it if they are allowed to
0:16:19 > 0:16:23sign free trade deals during the increment Asian period, this was
0:16:23 > 0:16:28seen as another bone of contention between the UK and the EU. -- during
0:16:28 > 0:16:35the implementation period.It would be a good deal, but who with.What
0:16:35 > 0:16:40trade deals? Gloom and doom!Gloom and doom, or a reality check?I
0:16:40 > 0:16:45don't know if this is a victory, they cannot be fermented until we
0:16:45 > 0:16:48leave, these trade deals, that is the point.-- they cannot be
0:16:48 > 0:16:54implemented.Couldn't punishments be levied? I cannot stop as having
0:16:54 > 0:16:58negotiations, you can have a deal ready to go, Day 1, and it would be
0:16:58 > 0:17:02with all sorts of countries.Who would it be with?Liam Fox said that
0:17:02 > 0:17:05they are in discussion with 12 of the major countries the EU does not
0:17:05 > 0:17:10have a track free-trade deal with, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,
0:17:10 > 0:17:13South Korea, etc, etc, that is a good thing, why would anybody think
0:17:13 > 0:17:18that is not a good thing? I think the thought that, as the fifth or
0:17:18 > 0:17:21sixth largest economy in the world, people don't want to do free-trade
0:17:21 > 0:17:25deals with us, is for the birds. There maybe some people who would
0:17:25 > 0:17:28argue they will not sign free-trade deals until they know and see the
0:17:28 > 0:17:33shape of the deal being done with the EU, you access that?That would
0:17:33 > 0:17:37be by October, the free-trade deal with the EU may take longer but in a
0:17:37 > 0:17:42sense, that is really up to the EU, to determine that, because we have
0:17:42 > 0:17:45two also remember that we are their second largest trading partner,
0:17:45 > 0:17:49after the United States, so it is in both our interests to come to a deal
0:17:49 > 0:17:54and come to it quickly.You'd considerations on the economics and
0:17:54 > 0:17:57politics, on the politics, do you think there has been an achievement
0:17:57 > 0:18:03in terms of holding the party together? -- huge consideration. The
0:18:03 > 0:18:06Tory party, reaching the end of the first phase, getting a headline
0:18:06 > 0:18:09agreement, even though there are discussions about Ireland, and
0:18:09 > 0:18:13possibly getting the transition deal, is that not success?They have
0:18:13 > 0:18:17held the party together but by blurring the lines, and as soon as
0:18:17 > 0:18:22you put more detail on to the table and it becomes clearer and clearer
0:18:22 > 0:18:25what exactly the negotiation is agreeing, you will get more
0:18:25 > 0:18:30differences between the Brexiteers and the former Remainers, and I have
0:18:30 > 0:18:33spoken with a cabinet minister recently who said, on the Brexit
0:18:33 > 0:18:38side, there is a spit between pragmatists and the idealists.
0:18:38 > 0:18:44Saying we must lot the perfect be the enemy of the good, but quite a
0:18:44 > 0:18:48lot of Brexiteers on backbenchers who want to go in all guns blazing,
0:18:48 > 0:18:52for a hard Brexit. And I think it is going to be incredible hard for
0:18:52 > 0:18:58Theresa May to get a deal on that basis?It is true that it has not
0:18:58 > 0:19:01been resolved, the differences have not been resolved. And do you agree
0:19:01 > 0:19:06that it needs to be resolved? The priority is what we call the Tory
0:19:06 > 0:19:10rebels, siding with Labour, for the customs union, or whether it is the
0:19:10 > 0:19:14Brexiteers who do not feel it is going far enough?This sound like a
0:19:14 > 0:19:23discussion from three months ago. Are we in the same position? The
0:19:23 > 0:19:28prime Mr Speaker, people wrote in behind that, I accept...It was
0:19:28 > 0:19:34conditional support from Jacob Rees-Mogg.I interviewed him, he
0:19:34 > 0:19:37could not have been more enthusiastic, you come from the
0:19:37 > 0:19:41remain side of the argument, you are always going to try to find
0:19:41 > 0:19:43different, and there are differences, of course, the
0:19:43 > 0:19:48Conservative Party has the coalition, I think we have got past
0:19:48 > 0:19:53the danger point with Theresa May, if Theresa May suddenly turns on the
0:19:53 > 0:19:58customs union single, believe me, Jacob Rees-Mogg would pull the
0:19:58 > 0:20:06trigger and she would be toppled, I'm absolutely sure of that.
0:20:06 > 0:20:09I'm absolutely sure of that. But I think the events of the last seven
0:20:09 > 0:20:14days, they have cemented her position over Brexit, she has shown
0:20:14 > 0:20:17true leadership, possibly a leadership people did not think she
0:20:17 > 0:20:21was capable of.It has strengthened her position, for sure, but what is
0:20:21 > 0:20:25still unresolved is how the racing chip with the EU should be in the
0:20:25 > 0:20:28longer term, how closely we should be aligned to the regulations, how
0:20:28 > 0:20:32much we should diverged...She has put much more detail on it. That
0:20:32 > 0:20:37speech, and at Chequers, the agreement, it was likely over
0:20:37 > 0:20:41reported, if you like.I think the cabinet may be signed up, I'm not
0:20:41 > 0:20:45sure the Tory party as a whole is signed up to that.What about the
0:20:45 > 0:20:48issue of the Northern Ireland border, you say that this is a
0:20:48 > 0:20:52discussion that we could have had three months ago, these things have
0:20:52 > 0:20:55not been completely resolved, and your point about the customs union,
0:20:55 > 0:21:00slightly hangs on this idea of what happens between Northern Ireland and
0:21:00 > 0:21:05Ireland.Well, it does, and people on the remain side of the argument
0:21:05 > 0:21:08are clearly looking at Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland deal
0:21:08 > 0:21:11to scupper the whole thing and reverse Brexit, I am absolutely
0:21:11 > 0:21:15convinced of that. The Dublin government, the EU, and ourselves
0:21:15 > 0:21:19saying that we want a frictionless border. If all sides agree with
0:21:19 > 0:21:22that, that is what will happen in the end, it doesn't matter that
0:21:22 > 0:21:26there is no precedent for that and the rest of the world. -- in the
0:21:26 > 0:21:29rest of the world. There will be some agreement even if it is at the
0:21:29 > 0:21:34last minute.
0:21:34 > 0:21:39Since 2010 new faith schools have had to abide by an admissions cap
0:21:39 > 0:21:41which prevents them selecting more than 50% of their pupils
0:21:41 > 0:21:43on the basis of faith.
0:21:43 > 0:21:45Last week a group of senior religious and humanist figures
0:21:45 > 0:21:48published an open letter encouraging the government not to drop the cap,
0:21:48 > 0:21:50as was promised in the 2017 Conservative manifesto.
0:21:50 > 0:21:52But has the 50% limit worked to integrate children
0:21:52 > 0:21:53of different faiths,
0:21:53 > 0:21:55or does it lead to discrimination of a different kind?
0:21:55 > 0:21:58Our Ellie's gone back to school to find out just how one Catholic
0:21:58 > 0:22:01community has been affected.
0:22:09 > 0:22:10Year 6 are learning about jazz
0:22:10 > 0:22:12at St Albans Catholic primary School in Cambridge.
0:22:12 > 0:22:14Blissfully unaware of the noise being made about faith schools,
0:22:14 > 0:22:18although massively oversubscribed in East Anglia in particular,
0:22:18 > 0:22:22the Catholic church won't open any more schools
0:22:22 > 0:22:25until the Government removes the cap
0:22:25 > 0:22:28which stops them selecting more than half their pupils by religion.
0:22:28 > 0:22:36For the church, it's a key religious principle.
0:22:36 > 0:22:38We want to ensure that every Catholic,
0:22:38 > 0:22:43canon law says every Catholic should be entitled to a Catholic place.
0:22:43 > 0:22:46The 50% cap could possibly put us in a dilemma where we would be
0:22:46 > 0:22:52turning away Catholics, and that is not acceptable.
0:22:52 > 0:22:56In place of non-Catholics?
0:22:56 > 0:22:58In place of non-Catholics, and that is not acceptable.
0:22:58 > 0:23:00St Albans doesn't need to adhere to the cap,
0:23:00 > 0:23:02that only applies to new faith schools.
0:23:02 > 0:23:04But with only two Catholic Schools out of 210 primaries
0:23:04 > 0:23:07in Cambridgeshire, it means a lot of Catholics being turned away.
0:23:07 > 0:23:13Much to the frustration of Angela Bennett,
0:23:13 > 0:23:15a devout Catholic whose first four kids went to St Albans,
0:23:15 > 0:23:17but the youngest couldn't get in.
0:23:17 > 0:23:20So what does it mean to you to not be able to send your remaining two
0:23:20 > 0:23:22children to a Catholic school?
0:23:22 > 0:23:24Well, it is disappointing because I feel like our
0:23:24 > 0:23:25choices being taken away.
0:23:25 > 0:23:27It's not just for Sunday mornings, it's about living it.
0:23:27 > 0:23:30So, you know, I think about my faith when I'm at work.
0:23:30 > 0:23:32The children, I think, would benefit from thinking
0:23:32 > 0:23:35about their faith when they're at school, and talking about it
0:23:35 > 0:23:37with their friends, learning about it from their teachers
0:23:37 > 0:23:42as well as just from me.
0:23:42 > 0:23:46Catholic schools make up almost 10% of all primaries.
0:23:46 > 0:23:47They educate 416,000 pupils.
0:23:47 > 0:23:51The Catholic education service says a third are non-Catholic.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54We have almost 30 parents who want to come to our school
0:23:54 > 0:23:56who are not Catholic, so that speaks volumes as well,
0:23:56 > 0:23:59and we would like to meet their needs as well.
0:23:59 > 0:24:01Earlier this month, 70 politicians, academics and faith leaders,
0:24:01 > 0:24:02including a former Archbishop of Canterbury,
0:24:02 > 0:24:04wrote an open letter warning that lifting the cap
0:24:04 > 0:24:11would have a damaging effect on social cohesion.
0:24:11 > 0:24:13It's going to create almost an educational apartheid system.
0:24:13 > 0:24:16We wouldn't dream of dividing the children by colour of skin.
0:24:16 > 0:24:17It would be laughable, illegal.
0:24:17 > 0:24:18And yet, we're doing it by religion.
0:24:18 > 0:24:21But this does disproportionately affect Catholic schools, doesn't it?
0:24:21 > 0:24:24You know, I'm arguing from a faith perspective against faith
0:24:24 > 0:24:26schools because I believe,
0:24:26 > 0:24:28as do others, love your neighbour as yourself.
0:24:28 > 0:24:36And you can't love your neighbour unless you know him.
0:24:36 > 0:24:40The Conservative manifesto in last year's election
0:24:40 > 0:24:43pledged to repeal what it called
0:24:43 > 0:24:45the unfair and ineffective 50% rule.
0:24:45 > 0:24:47But this week, the Department for Education tell us there's
0:24:47 > 0:24:48no date in the diary.
0:24:48 > 0:24:56That's presumably because they are expecting a ding-dong either way.
0:25:03 > 0:25:07We are joined by the director of the Catholic education service. Do you
0:25:07 > 0:25:11accept what the rabbi said, that lifting the cap will affect social
0:25:11 > 0:25:17cohesion?No, this is not about segregation, this is about choice,
0:25:17 > 0:25:22and as we know from the primaries call, they have enough places to
0:25:22 > 0:25:27supply the demand... -- they don't have enough places to supply the
0:25:27 > 0:25:30demand not just from Catholic parents but others as well, a third
0:25:30 > 0:25:33of pupils from outside the Catholic faith and in most parts of the
0:25:33 > 0:25:37country we are able to respond to that demand.You say it is not about
0:25:37 > 0:25:42segregation but it will lead to more segregation, to increase numbers, if
0:25:42 > 0:25:45one third are not Catholic, lifting the cap will ensure that number goes
0:25:45 > 0:25:50down.No, it will not, that is in existing schools, where the cap does
0:25:50 > 0:25:53not operate, the problem we have is in areas where there is pressure on
0:25:53 > 0:25:58places, and we need new places, we cannot do it by expanding existing
0:25:58 > 0:26:01schools. What is happening in those places is those schools are coming
0:26:01 > 0:26:06sadly less diverse because we are not able to open new schools to
0:26:06 > 0:26:10cater to all the parental demand.I take your point about existing new
0:26:10 > 0:26:13schools but there is a fundamental principle raised in that film, that
0:26:13 > 0:26:19you are wanting to extend the right to divide children up on the basis
0:26:19 > 0:26:23of religion and label them that way. It is not about that, it is about
0:26:23 > 0:26:26the ability to cope with parental choice, we only want to build
0:26:26 > 0:26:31schools where there is a demand from parents for places, that comes from
0:26:31 > 0:26:33the Catholic community and come from outside the Catholic community, we
0:26:33 > 0:26:38want to be able to respond to the demand. The 50% cap would mean we
0:26:38 > 0:26:42have two build a school which we would then turn away the very
0:26:42 > 0:26:45children that the school was founded to serve, that does not seem to make
0:26:45 > 0:26:50any logical sense.Does it make sense to you, that actually, lifting
0:26:50 > 0:26:53this cap will then give parents particularly in this case Catholic
0:26:53 > 0:26:56parents the chance to get the school that they would
0:26:56 > 0:27:02like for their child, a school of faith? I think it is a false
0:27:02 > 0:27:05argument, you should not have parental choice to allow an
0:27:05 > 0:27:08apartheid system to develop.One of the biggest problems in society at
0:27:08 > 0:27:13the moment is a growing segregation between faiths, rowing sense of
0:27:13 > 0:27:16volition, it seems completely crazy, in that case, to separate children
0:27:16 > 0:27:21out on the basis of their faith. This is not just about Catholic
0:27:21 > 0:27:25schools, it is about Muslim schools, Church of England schools, Hindu
0:27:25 > 0:27:29schools, as soon as you divide on the basis of faith, you are bound to
0:27:29 > 0:27:37increase division. You want to increase a cohesive society, we are
0:27:37 > 0:27:43blowing it by dividing children, we want children to mix.Would you say
0:27:43 > 0:27:46ban any further faith schools?I think you cannot ban the existing
0:27:46 > 0:27:50ones, as you say, but you should have a moratorium on new faith
0:27:50 > 0:27:54schools, I did a piece a couple of months ago based on Ofsted
0:27:54 > 0:27:57inspections of Muslim schools, absolutely appalling literature in
0:27:57 > 0:28:02the libraries, being taught to children, women go to hell... This
0:28:02 > 0:28:06included women with tall ambitions, showing in gratitude to their
0:28:06 > 0:28:09husbands, they were told that those were the women that go to hell!
0:28:09 > 0:28:12These values are not being inculcated in schools at the moment,
0:28:12 > 0:28:17we should not have any more until that is enforced.Do you recognise
0:28:17 > 0:28:21the risk of dog of a particular religion being foisted on children,
0:28:21 > 0:28:25in the way that has just been described by Rachel?Let's be clear,
0:28:25 > 0:28:30a third of the schools in this country are schools with a religious
0:28:30 > 0:28:33character, 99% of those are checked schools, almost all of them provided
0:28:33 > 0:28:36by us and the Church of England, when you talk about how to tackle a
0:28:36 > 0:28:43problem, you need to identify what is the problem. There is a problem
0:28:43 > 0:28:46with monocultural school but that is not a problem we have in our sector.
0:28:46 > 0:28:49I know that you are at the beginning, but won't it become more
0:28:49 > 0:28:54like that if there is not a cap?No, in some areas, the cap is preventing
0:28:54 > 0:28:57us from keeping the diversity that is already in the system.Can I
0:28:57 > 0:29:03just...Our schools are among the most diverse in the educational
0:29:03 > 0:29:07system.When you say schools provided by us, who is paying for
0:29:07 > 0:29:11these schools, who is paying for the upkeep, the education, taxpayer or
0:29:11 > 0:29:16the Catholic Church?It is a partnership with the state, whereby
0:29:16 > 0:29:22the church makes a contribution... How much?Well, it depends, most of
0:29:22 > 0:29:28the schools...10%? 80%?It depends, most of the schools were divided
0:29:28 > 0:29:33with land and buildings by...Day today, 10%, 80%.In terms of revenue
0:29:33 > 0:29:38funding, it is funded by the taxpayer.Exactly, exactly!
0:29:38 > 0:29:42Catholics are taxpayers.Why should taxpayers who cannot send their
0:29:42 > 0:29:44children to certain schools, why should they be funding Catholic
0:29:44 > 0:29:47schools or any faith schools?It seems reasonable that taxpayers
0:29:47 > 0:29:53should fund a range of schools, to allow taxpayers to choose from a
0:29:53 > 0:29:56range of schools.I range of schools, not dominated by one
0:29:56 > 0:30:02religion...
0:30:02 > 0:30:05I agree with everything Rachel said, so you won't get much of a debate
0:30:05 > 0:30:09between us. In this day and age, to say that we should have religious
0:30:09 > 0:30:13schools which are funded by the taxpayer, I don't see how we can
0:30:13 > 0:30:17sustain that any longer. I'm not in favour of closing down good schools.
0:30:17 > 0:30:22I'm quite in favour of closing down bad schools that have the kind of
0:30:22 > 0:30:26things that Rachel has told us about.Many faith schools are very
0:30:26 > 0:30:30good.I am not saying they should be shut down, but I think we have to in
0:30:30 > 0:30:33the future minimise them.Do you think the lifting of the cap will
0:30:33 > 0:30:37happen? It looks like the Department may be more lukewarm than they have
0:30:37 > 0:30:42been.It was a manifesto commitment. Others have been dropped.We very
0:30:42 > 0:30:45much hope that is one the Government will stick to.Thank you for joining
0:30:45 > 0:30:47us.
0:30:47 > 0:30:50It was billed as Gavin Williamson's first major speech
0:30:50 > 0:30:51as Defence Secretary,
0:30:51 > 0:30:52and the stakes were high,
0:30:52 > 0:30:54given the government's stand-off with the Kremlin.
0:30:54 > 0:30:56Was it a chance to show a Churchillian spirit?
0:30:56 > 0:30:58A show of strength to Britain's global enemies?
0:30:58 > 0:30:59So how did he do?
0:30:59 > 0:31:01Let's take a look.
0:31:01 > 0:31:05What we will do is, we will look at what Russia...
0:31:05 > 0:31:09How Russia response to what we have done.
0:31:09 > 0:31:13It is absolutely atrocious and outrageous
0:31:13 > 0:31:15what Russia did in Salisbury.
0:31:15 > 0:31:16We have responded to that.
0:31:16 > 0:31:21Frankly, Russia should go away, should shut
0:31:21 > 0:31:24up, but if they do respond to what we...
0:31:24 > 0:31:27The action we have taken, we will consider it carefully, and
0:31:27 > 0:31:28we'll look at our options.
0:31:28 > 0:31:30But it would be wrong to prejudge their
0:31:30 > 0:31:35response.
0:31:35 > 0:31:38Welcomer joining us now is Patrick Kidd, political sketch writer for
0:31:38 > 0:31:42the times. What did you make of it, Patrick is MikeI was surprised that
0:31:42 > 0:31:52school has broken up this early.It is a few more weeks. -- Patrick?I
0:31:52 > 0:31:55put a tenner on Gavin Williamson to be Prime Minister last summer before
0:31:55 > 0:32:00I had seen him in action. There was all this talk of him being Frances
0:32:00 > 0:32:04Burkert, the Chief Whip knifing his rivals. This wasn't good, it wasn't
0:32:04 > 0:32:08diplomacy. They talk about Winston Churchill marshalling the English
0:32:08 > 0:32:11language and sending it out into battle, but this was Gavin Williams
0:32:11 > 0:32:16asking for a fight behind the bike sheds.Your colleagues are Britain
0:32:16 > 0:32:19excoriating articles and sketches about Tim - do you think that is
0:32:19 > 0:32:24fair? One person said he sounded like a not very bright sixth form
0:32:24 > 0:32:28student being asked to read out his unfinished history essay in front of
0:32:28 > 0:32:33the class.It is there. You need gravitas, and at times of national
0:32:33 > 0:32:39crisis, you have to give a sensual in command of the situation. It was
0:32:39 > 0:32:43worrying, and it was delivered in that squeaky Alan Bennett voice, and
0:32:43 > 0:32:48he looks like a young Albert Steptoe as well, not a reassuring...Don't
0:32:48 > 0:32:55hold back, Patrick!The response from the Russian embassy was to call
0:32:55 > 0:33:02him a vulgar old tart.A fishwife. Maybe there was a whole list.He's a
0:33:02 > 0:33:06good-looking young man.Good old Gavin Williamson, obviously in
0:33:06 > 0:33:12favour with Sergei Lavrov, who also said all, the Foreign Ministry said,
0:33:12 > 0:33:18it was political impotence. How does this look?Gavin Williamson since he
0:33:18 > 0:33:21has been Defence Secretary has a talent for attracting headlines, not
0:33:21 > 0:33:24all of them positive, it has to be said. I think this has been jumped
0:33:24 > 0:33:28on by people for obvious reasons, because it wasn't a very
0:33:28 > 0:33:31statesman-like thing to say. You are right, it wasn't part of the speech
0:33:31 > 0:33:35but was an answer to a question, but when you look at what he said, he
0:33:35 > 0:33:39did not have the say it. He could have stopped at the end of the
0:33:39 > 0:33:42previous sentence, and I think a lot of his colleagues will have had
0:33:42 > 0:33:46their heads in their hands.Nerves, inexperienced? And perhaps we're
0:33:46 > 0:33:53looking at it through a particular prism.To make Boris Johnson look
0:33:53 > 0:33:56statesman-like is quite...Do you think there was a strategy behind
0:33:56 > 0:34:01it?For the Defence Secretary, at a time of tension with Russia, he has
0:34:01 > 0:34:06to look serious and like a grown-up. He has been a bit of a man in a
0:34:06 > 0:34:15hurry, has had his ambition is on his sleeve, as it were. All that
0:34:15 > 0:34:19business... He played on his own political genius, if you like, and
0:34:19 > 0:34:24played that up. He is like becoming a cropper under the pressure of a
0:34:24 > 0:34:29big, important job.Do you think he will see the funny side of it?I
0:34:29 > 0:34:33hope so. I think you need to if you are going to survive in politics,
0:34:33 > 0:34:37but I just wonder... We are all saying this isn't Churchill, but we
0:34:37 > 0:34:40live in the age of Donald Trump, where politicians do well if they
0:34:40 > 0:34:46don't play by the rules, may be people will say he sell stuff. He
0:34:46 > 0:34:51doesn't look tough.He does take the Mickey out of himself from time to
0:34:51 > 0:34:54time, so I'm sure we will see some references in the future.We all
0:34:54 > 0:35:00need a sense of humour, don't we? For the next half an
0:35:00 > 0:35:03hour, we will focus on Europe, discussing the EU reaction to the
0:35:03 > 0:35:13Russian double double agent poisoning.
0:35:13 > 0:35:14- social media,
0:35:14 > 0:35:16and we'll talk about the man
0:35:16 > 0:35:17they call 'rasputin' in the European Commission.
0:35:17 > 0:35:20First though here's our guide to the latest from Europe -
0:35:20 > 0:35:21in just sixty seconds.
0:35:21 > 0:35:23This week, MEPs voted in favour of setting up recommendations
0:35:23 > 0:35:26for a future relationship with the UK, the draft text has now
0:35:26 > 0:35:33been sent to London.
0:35:33 > 0:35:35Meanwhile, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker told
0:35:35 > 0:35:37parliament that the UK would regret Brexit, to the amusement
0:35:37 > 0:35:39of Eurosceptics.
0:35:39 > 0:35:41You will regret the decision.
0:35:41 > 0:35:42LAUGHTER
0:35:42 > 0:35:44It's emerged a European Parliament delegation has been conducting
0:35:44 > 0:35:46secret talks with North Korea to try to persuade
0:35:46 > 0:35:49them to end their nuclear programme.
0:35:49 > 0:35:52Elsewhere, Slovak PM Robert Fico resigned after weeks of turmoil
0:35:52 > 0:35:55sparked by the murder of an investigative journalist
0:35:55 > 0:36:03who had raised questions about his judgment after it was alleged
0:36:05 > 0:36:07a close aide had links to the Mafia.
0:36:07 > 0:36:10And millions of Europeans may have been running late since mid-January
0:36:10 > 0:36:12following an electrical dispute between Kosovo and Serbia,
0:36:12 > 0:36:20causing clocks to lag behind by up to six minutes across 25 countries.
0:36:21 > 0:36:26Let's picked up after that. Ian, Jean-Claude Juncker says we will
0:36:26 > 0:36:29regret Brexit. What do you say? Yellow McKee has to say that because
0:36:29 > 0:36:33the EU has now we do otherwise there might be other member states that
0:36:33 > 0:36:37might want to follow suit, so of course he will say that. Some of the
0:36:37 > 0:36:44reaction has been slightly over the top.He has to say that because...
0:36:44 > 0:36:49We would expect him to say that. Should he not give that line a rest?
0:36:49 > 0:36:56It is true, we do expect it to some extent, and this idea that we don't
0:36:56 > 0:37:00want to see others go the way of Britain, as the European Commission
0:37:00 > 0:37:04would put it, but otherwise we should drop it?He is probably
0:37:04 > 0:37:09right.
0:37:09 > 0:37:12right. It is already proving much more complicated. The economic
0:37:12 > 0:37:15implications are becoming clear, all of that, but I think he is the worst
0:37:15 > 0:37:21possible person to say it. It sounds so arrogant, exactly what everyone
0:37:21 > 0:37:28voted against is being told what to do by the EU and some bureaucrat.
0:37:28 > 0:37:33Maybe he is right, but he should shut up, as Gavin Williamson might
0:37:33 > 0:37:38say.And go away, to finish the phrase. The think it stiffens the
0:37:38 > 0:37:41resolve every time he said something like that, or do you think people
0:37:41 > 0:37:48have priced it in?I think people factor in. I think that guy the
0:37:48 > 0:37:55hostel at -- diva horse that is... Some of his statements over the past
0:37:55 > 0:37:58few weeks are different to what he was saying six months ago. Much more
0:37:58 > 0:38:03interested in getting the right deal, more positive, more
0:38:03 > 0:38:09constructive than he has been he was one of the first people to come to
0:38:09 > 0:38:12Britain's support over Russia as well. I think the people on my side
0:38:12 > 0:38:15of the argument need to recognise that there is a bit of a change
0:38:15 > 0:38:20among some people in this, and I think we should also be very open in
0:38:20 > 0:38:25thanking European countries for their support over Russia, because
0:38:25 > 0:38:29that wasn't necessarily a given. If France and Germany had not come out
0:38:29 > 0:38:32so strongly, and Denmark there was another one, then of course, Rachel
0:38:32 > 0:38:38would be writing very learned columns
0:38:38 > 0:38:42on it.Let's discuss the EU reaction to Russia and UK's relations with
0:38:42 > 0:38:48them. There has only been one big story in town this week, that of the
0:38:48 > 0:38:51poisoning...
0:38:51 > 0:38:52of Sergei Skirpal in Salisbury.
0:38:52 > 0:38:55The British government has responded by expelling diplomats and we await
0:38:55 > 0:38:56the Russian retaliation.
0:38:56 > 0:39:04But, what will the EU do?
0:39:08 > 0:39:17What do you make of the EU response to the Sergei Skripal poisoning?We
0:39:17 > 0:39:22are going to see very different approaches, because some of the
0:39:22 > 0:39:29countries would be criticising Russia very severely, and at the
0:39:29 > 0:39:36same time, I think almost a clear majority will feel themselves very
0:39:36 > 0:39:44much pushed in a direction where they have to stand up for the values
0:39:44 > 0:39:47and four member states, even if it is a member state who is about to
0:39:47 > 0:39:51leave. So I think we are going to discuss this in the Parliament in
0:39:51 > 0:39:58the next session, and I think the verdict will be pretty harsh.Pretty
0:39:58 > 0:40:07harsh in terms of the stance against Russia?
0:40:07 > 0:40:13Russia?Well, we have a lot of indications in this case. Russian
0:40:13 > 0:40:25security agencies have killed their former agents earlier. That's almost
0:40:25 > 0:40:31a question of honour for them. So the only one who could actually be
0:40:31 > 0:40:37interested in getting rid of Skripal is the Russians. We won't find a
0:40:37 > 0:40:41person with a smoking gun going in or out from the Russian Embassy in
0:40:41 > 0:40:49London. We would find that, I'm pretty sure. When you kill persons
0:40:49 > 0:40:54like this, this is a very cynical killing, because they didn't even
0:40:54 > 0:40:59care about Sergei's daughter. My guess would be that there will be
0:40:59 > 0:41:04middlemen, and there can be a lot of them, in between. From my point of
0:41:04 > 0:41:18view, I think Russia should be very interested in clearing this,
0:41:18 > 0:41:21interested in clearing this, because the Novichok poison, the only source
0:41:21 > 0:41:28for it could be Russia. In the 90s, there were weapons depots in Russia
0:41:28 > 0:41:33that were taken apart because the state could not pay the wages, and
0:41:33 > 0:41:39the military to what they could, almost all the AK-47s in Europe come
0:41:39 > 0:41:47from these depots. There is a possibility that this also had this
0:41:47 > 0:41:53background.Because of your proximity to Russia in Finland, are
0:41:53 > 0:42:01you afraid of Russia and Russian retaliation in general?
0:42:01 > 0:42:07retaliation in general?No, we're probably the only country in Europe
0:42:07 > 0:42:12having had a war with Russia and still staying an independent nation,
0:42:12 > 0:42:17so I think we have... Our credentials in this respect are
0:42:17 > 0:42:23pretty good, and I don't think we are afraid of them. What we should
0:42:23 > 0:42:28be slightly scared of in Europe in general is not very rational
0:42:28 > 0:42:34behaviour in Russia, because it's an unstable system for the moment. You
0:42:34 > 0:42:39have somebody up there, Vladimir Putin, and you don't actually have a
0:42:39 > 0:42:48machinery on which you can put any much trust. The system as such is
0:42:48 > 0:42:52unstable, and that's the problem. What about concrete help from the
0:42:52 > 0:42:59European Union? What concrete help can Britain expect?
0:43:02 > 0:43:05can Britain expect?It depends what you need. As I said, we have a lot
0:43:05 > 0:43:12of indications about the source of this murder, but as I also said, we
0:43:12 > 0:43:18won't find a smoking gun, so what would Great Britain need in these
0:43:18 > 0:43:24times from us? I think, if you go back to what we could offer, we
0:43:24 > 0:43:35could offer all the knowledge that our services could find. And if
0:43:35 > 0:43:41Russia is retaliating even more in regard of Great Britain, then of
0:43:41 > 0:43:45course, we have to follow suit. We have to do something just to show
0:43:45 > 0:43:51our solidarity. This might go further.Do you think that there
0:43:51 > 0:43:57would have been any difference... Nils, I will come back to you in a
0:43:57 > 0:44:01moment. Do you think there would be any different in the EU response if
0:44:01 > 0:44:05Brexit wasn't happening?No, I don't know what other response that could
0:44:05 > 0:44:09have been. They have been as supportive as they can be. The fact
0:44:09 > 0:44:15that France, Germany and the US signed this strong letter, this
0:44:15 > 0:44:18strong statement, I imagine that a lot of the other countries would be
0:44:18 > 0:44:22happy to sign up to it too, so I don't know what else we could
0:44:22 > 0:44:30expect.Tony Britton said after the lip in Janko incident, Europe showed
0:44:30 > 0:44:35solidarity but there wasn't much in terms of concrete members. Are we
0:44:35 > 0:44:38expecting EU nations to expel Russian diplomats and put further
0:44:38 > 0:44:42sanctions in place? Should we expect these things from the EU and the
0:44:42 > 0:44:46United States?I think there could be more economic sanctions, but I
0:44:46 > 0:44:48think the show of solidarity and strength is in itself very
0:44:48 > 0:44:53important. That is a statement that a multilateral approach is important
0:44:53 > 0:44:58and does work. Even as Brexit is going along, we are not ever going
0:44:58 > 0:45:02to be able to live and operate in splendid isolation. We will always
0:45:02 > 0:45:08have to rely on allies in Europe, in America, and I think that's
0:45:08 > 0:45:12incredibly important as a reminder at this very critical moment in the
0:45:12 > 0:45:16negotiations to both sides. Read hi and this is a big story in European
0:45:16 > 0:45:20countries. I did an interview on Danish television yesterday, and it
0:45:20 > 0:45:24is the number one story week. Some people are thinking this is a story
0:45:24 > 0:45:30in a small town in England, but it's not.Finally, the Neils, it is a big
0:45:30 > 0:45:34story in European countries? countries, is at the case, and is it
0:45:34 > 0:45:42a big story in the European Parliament?It is a big story, yes,
0:45:42 > 0:45:46indeed! White, well, because it is a very cynical murder, and, all the
0:45:46 > 0:45:53indications we have are pointing at Russia. We should demand of them
0:45:53 > 0:45:58some very honest and some very clear answers, and if they are not able to
0:45:58 > 0:46:02deliver those answers, then we have to think about further measures, and
0:46:02 > 0:46:11those measures should be European measures, not just UK measures,
0:46:11 > 0:46:15Finnish measures, Belgian measures, they should be European measures.He
0:46:15 > 0:46:21has described it as a murder, Nils, but we should say that they are
0:46:21 > 0:46:28critically ill in hospital, Sergei and Yulia Skripal., they are not
0:46:28 > 0:46:29dead.
0:46:32 > 0:46:34It's been described as a coup and the European Union's
0:46:34 > 0:46:35very own House of Cards.
0:46:35 > 0:46:38Brussels beaurocrat Marton Selmayr, who used to be Jean Claude
0:46:38 > 0:46:40Juncker's Chief of Staff, has been promoted to be the head
0:46:40 > 0:46:41of the EU's civil service.
0:46:41 > 0:46:43The EU Commission has argued Mr Selmayr's appointment
0:46:43 > 0:46:45as Secretary General was all above board
0:46:45 > 0:46:46but some MEPs are furious.
0:46:46 > 0:46:54Here's Adam Fleming with more.
0:46:56 > 0:47:02There's something about Martin. He has found himself in the front row,
0:47:02 > 0:47:05either for his slightly scary reputation or accused of leaking
0:47:05 > 0:47:08details of a "Brexit" dinner in Downing Street, now, it is because
0:47:08 > 0:47:13of his promotion. Martin Selmayr has been going up in the world, he
0:47:13 > 0:47:16applied for and got the job of Deputy Secretary-General, then, in
0:47:16 > 0:47:20the same meeting, Secretary-General announced he was replying --
0:47:20 > 0:47:26retiring, and Martin Selmayr I was transferred into his job. Summoned
0:47:26 > 0:47:31by M EPs to blame, the Commissioner for HR, Gunther Oettinger, said it
0:47:31 > 0:47:37was all above board.
0:47:37 > 0:47:39was all above board. -- MEPs.
0:47:40 > 0:47:42TRANSLATION:Martin Selmayr has all the necessary
0:47:42 > 0:47:50altercation to take on the task of Secretary-General
0:47:52 > 0:47:55of the commission, he has lengthy experience in key positions
0:47:55 > 0:47:57within the commission, he is an excellent legal expert,
0:47:57 > 0:47:59he is excellent at communication and 100% suitable for this position.
0:47:59 > 0:48:02But, members from across the political spectrum lined up
0:48:02 > 0:48:07to criticise the appointment.
0:48:07 > 0:48:09Selmayr-gate denies all the credibility
0:48:09 > 0:48:11of the European Union as a champion of integrity and transparency
0:48:11 > 0:48:14in public administration, at times, when public trust in the European
0:48:14 > 0:48:16is low, this is devastating, Mr Oettinger, and the fact
0:48:16 > 0:48:19that the commission remains deaf until the day of today
0:48:19 > 0:48:21to criticism shows just how disconnected it is from reality.
0:48:21 > 0:48:24You should do your best to come out with something which is trustworthy,
0:48:24 > 0:48:26and you should avoid any feeling or any impression that
0:48:26 > 0:48:28it was a preprepared, allegedly motivated nomination,
0:48:28 > 0:48:30and unfortunately, I don't think that in this case
0:48:30 > 0:48:32you did your job perfectly.
0:48:32 > 0:48:34You can see the defeat etched in their faces,
0:48:34 > 0:48:35this is the morning after,
0:48:35 > 0:48:40and these were the European Union's commissioners.
0:48:40 > 0:48:43TRANSLATION:To some,
0:48:43 > 0:48:51it brings back memories of 1999,
0:48:52 > 0:48:54when a report accused one of Jacques Santer's
0:48:54 > 0:48:58commission of cronyism and they all resigned en masse.
0:48:58 > 0:49:05Back
0:49:09 > 0:49:12I arrived here just after the fall of that commission,
0:49:12 > 0:49:15and I would say this to you, Ukip would never have won any seats
0:49:15 > 0:49:18in the European Parliament had it not been for the nepotism
0:49:18 > 0:49:20of the Santer Commission and so I've always been very
0:49:20 > 0:49:22grateful to Jacques Santer.
0:49:22 > 0:49:23Does this at all feel like that period?
0:49:23 > 0:49:25Could this be the start of that sort of thing.
0:49:25 > 0:49:27Nearly.
0:49:27 > 0:49:28What's interesting is, you would have thought
0:49:28 > 0:49:32the appointment of an official to a big job would be a story that
0:49:32 > 0:49:34would have stayed within Brussels and Strasbourg but actually,
0:49:34 > 0:49:37it is out there, it has been talked about in the French media,
0:49:37 > 0:49:38it is trending on Twitter.
0:49:38 > 0:49:40There's a lot going on in this Martin Selmayr story,
0:49:40 > 0:49:42some score settling, some anti-German sentiment, some
0:49:42 > 0:49:43opportunism, some genuine concern.
0:49:43 > 0:49:46And now his promotion will be the subject of a Parliamentary
0:49:46 > 0:49:49enquiry, with the vote in Strasbourg at some point in the future.
0:49:49 > 0:49:57Good luck in the new job, Martin!
0:50:01 > 0:50:07Alex Barker, all this fuss about Martin Selmayr, is it overplayed,
0:50:07 > 0:50:13this is politics, so, Celts appraise Saga is awhat makes it special is
0:50:13 > 0:50:17that he was a political appointment and politics is moving against him
0:50:17 > 0:50:22and so, it has brought him into the limelight in a way that for once,
0:50:22 > 0:50:26he's not particularly comfortable with.-- quelle surprise. EU
0:50:26 > 0:50:30Jean-Claude Junker's man, how powerful is see in this new role?I
0:50:30 > 0:50:34don't think his new role makes much difference, is it ordinary powerful
0:50:34 > 0:50:43in terms of the Chief of staff or top aide to a European Commission
0:50:43 > 0:50:46president, you have to go back to the days of the law and his team to
0:50:46 > 0:50:54have anything equivalent to this. -- De Lors. And he micromanage is, his
0:50:54 > 0:51:00cursive is over every document that emerges from this place, what Sting
0:51:00 > 0:51:03wishes him is his willingness to take on a public profile, I asked
0:51:03 > 0:51:10him once his method was so tough on things, he said, I cannot run the
0:51:10 > 0:51:15commission like a Montessori school and his methods, is micromanagement,
0:51:15 > 0:51:18his energy, has really made him stand out in terms of a bureaucrat
0:51:18 > 0:51:26here.You have met him, what is he like?Is good company, news quite
0:51:26 > 0:51:30funny, is absolutely determined, he can turn against you quite easily,
0:51:30 > 0:51:36and, he runs the place like a tight ship, he surrounds himself by people
0:51:36 > 0:51:41who are loyal to him. His top appointments in the commission have
0:51:41 > 0:51:46been people who are loyal to him. I think the pressure he is facing is
0:51:46 > 0:51:51partly a function of unease about his boss, really, Jean-Claude
0:51:51 > 0:51:55Juncker hasn't got the energy that some MEPs would hope European
0:51:55 > 0:52:00Commission president would have, and yet the commission is powerful at
0:52:00 > 0:52:06the same time so attention is turning to his aid, and he is
0:52:06 > 0:52:11absorbing some of the criticism. Described as anything from a monster
0:52:11 > 0:52:16to Rasputin, in the UK press, their discussions?I ask them that, he
0:52:16 > 0:52:20said, Jean-Claude Juncker is the good guy, and I am the bad guy, he
0:52:20 > 0:52:25is in., and for some member states, they are pleased he is paying the
0:52:25 > 0:52:31role, this is a big unwieldy place, 30,000 bureaucrats here, and he
0:52:31 > 0:52:36delivers for them, at times, when they have a special favour to ask
0:52:36 > 0:52:39when they are in a particularly politically difficult problem, but
0:52:39 > 0:52:44it also means that he upsets a lot of people, and so, there are people
0:52:44 > 0:52:47upset that there are too many Germans into top positions, the
0:52:47 > 0:52:51Germans are upset that Martin is not German enough!LAUGHTER
0:52:51 > 0:52:58There are those that would prefer this to be a civil service, and not
0:52:58 > 0:53:02run by, effectively, a political appointees. The coalition of the
0:53:02 > 0:53:06upset(!) is growing, and he is under pressure.You cannot please all
0:53:06 > 0:53:10people all of the time, or even any of the time, Alex Barker, thank you
0:53:10 > 0:53:12very much for joining us.
0:53:15 > 0:53:17While Russian-British relations have fallen
0:53:17 > 0:53:20to their lowest level in decades, a very new type of diplomacy has
0:53:20 > 0:53:21been playing out on Twitter.
0:53:21 > 0:53:24The official account of the Russian embassy in London have frequently
0:53:24 > 0:53:26goaded the British government, so much so that they've been called
0:53:26 > 0:53:27professional trolls by some.
0:53:27 > 0:53:29When Theresa May called Russia's reaction to the Skripal
0:53:29 > 0:53:31affair one of "sarcasm, contempt, and defiance,"
0:53:31 > 0:53:34she could well have had their social media output in mind.
0:53:34 > 0:53:36After the expulsion of 23 of their own diplomats this week
0:53:36 > 0:53:41they posted:
0:53:41 > 0:53:47"the temperature of Russian-British relations drops
0:53:47 > 0:53:52to minus 23 but we are not afraid of cold weather."
0:53:52 > 0:53:56On Tuesday they said:
0:53:56 > 0:53:58"Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia
0:53:58 > 0:53:59will meet with a response.
0:53:59 > 0:54:01The British side should be aware of that."
0:54:01 > 0:54:06With a handy diagram to explain their point.
0:54:06 > 0:54:09This post asked,
0:54:09 > 0:54:11a week after Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned,
0:54:11 > 0:54:14"Does Russia's dialing code 007 make James Bond a "Russian spy"?
0:54:14 > 0:54:16And last month when the UK was battling the beast
0:54:16 > 0:54:18from the east, their poll asked,
0:54:18 > 0:54:23"What Russian customs should Brits adopt with this snow blizzard?"
0:54:23 > 0:54:26The most popular answer: Drink more vodka.
0:54:26 > 0:54:28And joining us now is journalist and Twitter meme expert
0:54:28 > 0:54:33Mollie Goodfellow and Russian comedian Konstantin Kisin.
0:54:33 > 0:54:37Welcome to the both of you, to a British audience, these tweets are
0:54:37 > 0:54:42pretty bizarre, even offensive, given the current context, are we
0:54:42 > 0:54:46missing the joke?I don't think so, these are cheesy and slightly
0:54:46 > 0:54:52unoriginal, I would say, but that is where Russia finds itself, trying to
0:54:52 > 0:54:56fight a war of words, and one of the interesting things in terms of
0:54:56 > 0:54:59difference, we don't have the concept of banter, in Russia, the
0:54:59 > 0:55:02idea that you would say horrible things to your friends as a sign of
0:55:02 > 0:55:05affection does not exist, so when you see these attempts, they are an
0:55:05 > 0:55:10attempt to undermine the West's message, that Russia is doing this
0:55:10 > 0:55:14through humour. How effective this is, I don't think we really know,
0:55:14 > 0:55:17but that is what is happening.You think it represents a Russian sense
0:55:17 > 0:55:21of humour, even if it is not very good and clumsily done.These are
0:55:21 > 0:55:24the kind of jokes that you write when you have not heard jokes
0:55:24 > 0:55:29before.LAUGHTER He says, crushingly! Are they funny?
0:55:29 > 0:55:33I think some people find humour in them, look at the Job tweets they
0:55:33 > 0:55:36do, against the straight ambassadorial tweets they do, I
0:55:36 > 0:55:42think you get far more sense of engagement. -- look at the joke
0:55:42 > 0:55:45tweets. So people are finding it funny, and that kind of disconnect
0:55:45 > 0:55:53between this is a very serious political unit, against, being like
0:55:53 > 0:55:57a troll, and they are tweeting in the way that tweeters tweet, which
0:55:57 > 0:56:01is, looking at a political account is quite rare!Using the medium and
0:56:01 > 0:56:06the current context, very serious, but actually, the king at what has
0:56:06 > 0:56:12been written, they are not bad, in an attempt to dare I say, break the
0:56:12 > 0:56:18ice... -- looking at what has been written. But, really...
0:56:18 > 0:56:21Unbelievably, unbelievably, that came off the top of my head(!) I
0:56:21 > 0:56:25think it is such a serious situation, three people in hospital
0:56:25 > 0:56:29having been poisoned with a nerve agent.It is not a time for silly
0:56:29 > 0:56:35jokes on Twitter, and again, this is, there has also been Russian bots
0:56:35 > 0:56:41interfering in western democracy around the world, I think it is not
0:56:41 > 0:56:45a laughing matter.Tasteless and inappropriate?No, it is a
0:56:45 > 0:56:48deflection tactic, that is what it is, I think they are quite funny in
0:56:48 > 0:56:51some ways, but we all pay attention to them, we are discussing them here
0:56:51 > 0:56:55now, we would not be doing that if they had not done that, it's like
0:56:55 > 0:56:58when the Liberal Democrats press office did similar tweets, we all
0:56:58 > 0:57:02followed the press office, which we would never have done before!What
0:57:02 > 0:57:06with the Russian reaction be to these kind of tweets from an
0:57:06 > 0:57:10official British account? Well, I wouldn't know, but in terms of the
0:57:10 > 0:57:14Russian reaction to these tweets. The Russians will be quite enjoying
0:57:14 > 0:57:19this trolling, and in terms of seriousness, Russian people tend to
0:57:19 > 0:57:23be a lot less squeamish and a less politically correct on these issues,
0:57:23 > 0:57:26so when most Russian people see these tweets, they would be enjoying
0:57:26 > 0:57:31it and saying, well...We should offer them your services!I think
0:57:31 > 0:57:36this works in their favour, because, it is that dichotomy between the
0:57:36 > 0:57:40strict parent, telling Russia to stop it, and the child pointing
0:57:40 > 0:57:44their tongue out and blowing raspberries. It works in their
0:57:44 > 0:57:54favour.
0:57:54 > 0:57:58favour.Plane to cultural norms, like the Russia, and the Russian
0:57:58 > 0:58:03weather, and vodka, is that an attempt to reach out?It is a stable
0:58:03 > 0:58:06of my comedy, absolutely(!) you have to play with this but it is a
0:58:06 > 0:58:10question of what you are trying to achieve, and in this case, in terms
0:58:10 > 0:58:13of rushing humour, we are not quite as self-deprecating as British
0:58:13 > 0:58:18people, when we make fun of someone else, it is to undermine and
0:58:18 > 0:58:22question what they are saying to make a point, this is a continuation
0:58:22 > 0:58:28of politics by other means. One-upmanship, then?Yes.So British
0:58:28 > 0:58:31and Russian comedy differs completely, there is no meeting of
0:58:31 > 0:58:34minds?I do think that there is.You are the meeting of the minds!
0:58:34 > 0:58:38LAUGHTER Isn't this what Twitter is for, to
0:58:38 > 0:58:43do this sort of thing?Absolutely, yes, absolutely, and politically,
0:58:43 > 0:58:46the Russian Embassy is probably the account that is doing the best in
0:58:46 > 0:58:53terms of in terms of understanding the Twitter trolling hive mind.The
0:58:53 > 0:58:56Minister of defence Twitter account, when it starts doing that, then it
0:58:56 > 0:59:00really does become a war of words! On that, we will have a different
0:59:00 > 0:59:02war of words.