16/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

As Jeremy Corbyn casts doubt

on whether the poisoning of a former

Russian double agent

and his daughter was carried out

by the Kremlin, are the Labour party

split once again on matters

of defence of the realm?

Is Brexit going really rather well?

After a tumultuous year

for Theresa May, does

the Prime Minister have reasons

to be cheerful about the state

of the Brexit negotiations?

During the general election,

the Conservatives promised

to abolish the cap on the number

of children from one religion

attending Faith schools.

The idea was to allow more children

of faith to take up the places.

It hasn't happened yet.

Will it?

And will the Kremlin be trembling at

the first big speech from Defence

Secretary Gavin Williamson? Judge

for yourself.

Frankly, Russia should

go away and should shut up.

More on that speech later in the

programme.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the first half

of the programme today

Rachel Sylvester from the Times

and we hope, LBC's Iain Dale.

First today, the Labour party

are split on Jeremy Corbyn's

response to the Russia spy

poisoning in Salisbury.

Yesterday the Labour

leader said "the evidence

points towards Russia" -

but in the Guardian newspaper today

he warns we should not "rush way

ahead of the evidence" and suggests

the poisoning could have been down

to "russian mafia-like groups".

He also questioned whether we should

trust international intelligence -

stating, in his words -

"flawed intelligence and dodgy

dossiers led to the calamity

of the Iraq invasion".

Mr Corbyn was a vocal critic

of the Iraq war and the intelligence

gathered at the time -

here he is speaking in 2003.

Kia Starmer was asked about this on

question Time last night.

Wishes

were after Russia earlier this week

based on investigations carried out

by security and intelligence

services, and no answers have been

given, no answers have been given,

and that led her to the conclusion

that there was no alternative

explanation other than that

responsibility lies with Russia. As

you will have seen, Germany, France

and the US have joined her in that

conclusion, and that is the right

conclusion will stop and for that

reason, I think it's very important

that we support the action the Prime

Minister laid out on Wednesday.

Kia

Starmer, the shadow Brexit

secretary.

We're joined now by Nick

Thomas-Symonds who is

Labour's Shadow Security Minister.

Who do you think was responsible for

the nerve agent attack?

I agree with

the assessment we have seen during

the week that the evidence

absolutely is pointing towards

Russia. It seems that there are two

possibilities within that - either

the Russian state deliberately

ordered it, or it is that it

happened negligently, where the

Russian state lost control in some

way of the nerve agent.

Either way,

it is the Russian state, even if

they were negligent, as you say, in

terms of losing hold of that gas. It

is they who are responsible?

It was

made clear in Jeremy Corbyn's

article published yesterday in the

Guardian, which sets out those two

possibilities. Of course, the second

possibility, losing control, Jeremy

Wright east, and I think you pointed

out, Jo, at the top of the programme

about the involvement of Russian

Mafia and organisations -- other

organisations, which is consistent

with the Prime Minister's with the

possibilities, and the evidence is

pointing to Russia.

Why is Jeremy

Corbyn equivocating in his argument,

saying we need to hold back before

we do categorically state it is the

Russian state, despite the fact that

there is now a coordinated response

from France, Germany, from Nato,

America, who all say the pattern is

clear and there is no plausible

alternative to it being the Russian

state?

First, in terms of the joint

statement, that is obviously very

welcome and we want to build the

widest possible international

coalition. The statement's language

is clear in terms of accepting the

highly likely position that the

Prime Minister set out in the House

of Commons on Monday. I don't accept

this characterisation of

equivocation. I was there in the

House of Commons on Monday to hear

Jeremy's statement, and he quoted

verbatim what the Prime Minister

said, and then said afterwards that

we have to have a decisive,

proportionate response based on the

evidence. To me, that is an entirely

common sense way to proceed.

He

highlighted flawed intelligence and

dodgy dossiers led to the calamity

of the Iraqi invasion. Why is he

highlighting that at a time of

national security when there has

been an attack with a Cold War nerve

agent on British soil?

First, we

condemn the events in Salisbury. We

back the work going on from security

services, counterterrorism and

others, and it is important to do

so. If I may say so, all that is

happening is, the Leader of the

Opposition is raising some

reasonable questions. We always have

to look at the lessons of the past,

and they are to be considered,

thoughtful in how we move forward,

absolutely, and that is what we

should be giving as the evidence

emerges. The evidence at the moment

supports the measures the Government

has already taken. Let's see how the

investigation proceeds and act

proportionately too. Nothing wrong

with a considered approach.

Is it a

considered approach? Labour has said

it supports the sanctions and the

expulsions. If you support the

expulsions and the sanctions, the

punishment, and yet, you are not

completely clear as to who that is

going to be directed at, or you

don't completely trust the evidence

from the security services, why are

you supporting the sanctions and

expulsions?

There is no suggestion

we do not support the position of

the security services.

You are

bringing up the Iraq war in saying

these things cannot be trusted

because it led to a calamity in

foreign policy 15 years ago. He is

making the point, Jeremy Corbyn,

that that might have happened in

this case.

There is a distinction

between the evidence from the

security services, and we support

them in doing that and they do an

excellent job, and help politicians

seek to interpret and act upon them.

There is nothing wrong with being

reasonable and consider. Of course,

we need to respond as the evidence

emerges. It is a reasonable thing to

do.

Is there consistency in what

Jeremy Corbyn wrote in the article

and what he said in the House in

terms of shoving supporters Theresa

May?

There is. He is trying to say

that we can't be sure the Russian

state is to blame. As you point out,

he is also saying that we back

Theresa May in expelling the

diplomats. The only way that we can

do that is if you support the idea

that the Russian state is to blame.

It leaves the questions of whose

side is he on, and there is a

history of association between the

hard left and Russia, the Communist

Party. And I think these moments of

big national security crises are

tests of leadership, and at the

moment, Jeremy Corbyn is failing

that. A lot of his Labour MPs agree

that he is failing that.

What do you

say to MPs who have questioned it?

We have had a number on this

programme this week. There are MPs

who feel he is not giving his full

support by some of the comments he

has made, and that actually, people

like Keir Starmer, Emily Thornbury,

near gritters, on the front bench,

have been much more explicit. Is

there a divide now emerging in

labour?

I don't accept that

characterisation. Of course,

politicians can use different

language, but there is absolute

unity around the evidence pointing

towards Russia. Secondly, let's

build the widest possible

international coalition to deal with

this. Absolutely. Third, let's act

proportionately on the evidence -

three entirely reasonable decisions.

Did Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the US

President's support for Theresa

May's position?

May's position?

Is absolutely. It

accepts the position of the

Government.

They do say there is no

plausible alternative, serve in

other words, it must be the Russian

state.

Sorry to cut across, but

certainly how the Russians have

responded is one of the things we

absolutely have to take into

account. That is one of the reasons

why it is proportionate at this

stage to be backing the steps the

Government has taken.

One of the

things Jeremy Corbyn raised earlier

in the week was money, and Russian

money and the fact that London and

the south-east is being used as a

bit of a playground for the Russian

navy. He was right to question that

even then, wasn't he, in the

immediate aftermath of the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal and his daughter?

There is an issue of dodgy money

coming into London and laundering

going on, particularly through the

property market. It is right for

that to be clamped down on. The

Government has said it will do that

with amendments. Actually, that is

one thing that would hurt Vladimir

Putin and his associates as much as

anything else.

Nick, thank you very

much.

Now, nearly 48 hours

after Theresa May announced

retaliation against Russia -

by expelling 23 diplomats

among other measures,

so far we've had no official

reprisals from Putin,

but speaking yesterday the Russian

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

promised a swift response.

TRANSLATION:

As we already

did some days ago,

we asked them to provide us

with proof.

They replied, proof is not needed.

We asked them to send an official

request, as required by the

procedures of the Chemical

Weapons Convention.

They told us, you know

the official request is included

within Theresa May's

speech in Parliament.

So, you understand the level

of seriousness when

communicating such things,

but the response will come very

soon, I can assure you.

That was Sergei lav wrath.

Oksana Antonenko is an expert

on Russian foreign policy

from the Institute of Global Affairs

- and she's with us now.

Russia has threatened a response,

and yet we have is not had one -

why?

It is convenient to have that

crisis playing out a day before

elections, so we are likely to have

a response right after the election,

probably Monday or Tuesday.

Really?

You don't think it will come before

them? It sounds from a timing point

of view from Sergei Lavrov and

others that it would come

immediately.

At the moment, I think

if they wanted to respond

immediately, they would have

responded yesterday. Clearly, I

think there if one looks at Russian

politics today the key thing for the

elections is to have a turn up, and

that will not increase if the more

liberal, middle-class Russians

really feel that we are entering a

period of new isolation and a new

crisis with the West, so I think

they want to downplay that for the

time being. I think the response

will follow next week.

Do you think

there are voices, then, around

Putin, trying to moderate him and

what he does in terms of a response

to Britain?

It is very difficult to

say who are the voices around Putin

now, because the Kremlin walls are

high, and today it is very difficult

to really understand how the

decision-making is being made, but

we really know that there are voices

in Russian society, opinion polls

showing that in the last year alone,

is a number of Russians will -- the

number of Russian supporting

improvement in relations with the

West has increased. There is more

demanding to normalise relations,

especially from young people. Any

modernisation and technological

development needs relations with the

most developed in democratic

countries of the world. These are

the people Putin needs to mobilise

to get out to 70% of turnout.

What

do you make of that claim that we

won't see any retaliation until

after the election?

It is entirely

possible. We might hear it in the

next five minutes as well, you can

tell? The key thing is the scale of

the response. If the Russians, say,

expel five or ten British diplomat

is...

I had been told they are going

to be expelling British diplomats.

They have not said a number but the

news is breaking that they will

expel British diplomats. We knew

that would happen.

If it is five or

ten, that is different to 30 or 40.

Some of the language from Sergei

Lavrov has been interesting, where

he is saying that Gavin Williamson

is a young boy, insignificant,

swatting him away. It could be

swatting him away. It could be that

it is not that serious, but as I

understand it, Theresa May has a

second round of sanctions to

announce immediately after the

tit-for-tat now. I think that will

depend on how serious the

tit-for-tat is.

There has been

criticism of Theresa May, saying she

could have gone further with her

initial round of sanctions and

expulsions, and tougher on Russian

money in London - do you agree?

I

don't at the moment see what being

tough on Russian money in London

would do to actually put pressure on

President Putin himself. He has been

working very hard to repatriate all

the Russian money, and in fact, most

of his inner circle people already

have their money back. The type of

oligarchs we are talking about, most

of them either had been escaping

from Russia or they have a secondary

association. If their money is

targeted, for Putin, it will be just

a victory because it will make him

feel that he can have more

influence, and the money is coming

back.

Tit-for-tat will just escalate

tensions - is that really what

Britain wants to achieve?

I think it

has got to show that it is strong,

you cannot let yourself be pushed

around by a bully and this is the

end of a long path which has

included interference in, you know,

the American presidential elections,

the "Brexit" referendum, there has

been a low-level, under the wire

interference in western democracy

and I think that we have got to say

enough is enough.

All right, thank

you very much, and we have to say

enough is enough on this discussion,

thank you for joining us.

Now, is Brexit going

really rather well?

Theresa May's Mansion House speech

calling for compromise

between the EU and UK was viewed

broadly as a success at home

and abroad, EU leaders meet next

week to finalise the terms

of the transition period and there's

whispers that the UK will be allowed

to sign free trade deals

during that time.

So, is there a renewed

optimism around Brexit?

Have you changed your mind?

I

haven't, no, and I think also the

renewed optimism is slightly. Is an

idea, this

renewed optimism is slightly. Is an

idea, this, because we are talking

only about the transition period,

there is a long way to go on this

tricky path, wrote to Brexit is full

of potholes and roundabouts.

What

about this victory as the government

will see it if they are allowed to

sign free trade deals during the

increment Asian period, this was

seen as another bone of contention

between the UK and the EU. -- during

the implementation period.

It would

be a good deal, but who with.

What

trade deals? Gloom and doom!

Gloom

and doom, or a reality check?

I

don't know if this is a victory,

they cannot be fermented until we

leave, these trade deals, that is

the point.

-- they cannot be

implemented.

Couldn't punishments be

levied? I cannot stop as having

negotiations, you can have a deal

ready to go, Day 1, and it would be

with all sorts of countries.

Who

would it be with?

Liam Fox said that

they are in discussion with 12 of

the major countries the EU does not

have a track free-trade deal with,

Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,

South Korea, etc, etc, that is a

good thing, why would anybody think

that is not a good thing? I think

the thought that, as the fifth or

sixth largest economy in the world,

people don't want to do free-trade

deals with us, is for the birds.

There maybe some people who would

argue they will not sign free-trade

deals until they know and see the

shape of the deal being done with

the EU, you access that?

That would

be by October, the free-trade deal

with the EU may take longer but in a

sense, that is really up to the EU,

to determine that, because we have

two also remember that we are their

second largest trading partner,

after the United States, so it is in

both our interests to come to a deal

and come to it quickly.

You'd

considerations on the economics and

politics, on the politics, do you

think there has been an achievement

in terms of holding the party

together? -- huge consideration. The

Tory party, reaching the end of the

first phase, getting a headline

agreement, even though there are

discussions about Ireland, and

possibly getting the transition

deal, is that not success?

They have

held the party together but by

blurring the lines, and as soon as

you put more detail on to the table

and it becomes clearer and clearer

what exactly the negotiation is

agreeing, you will get more

differences between the Brexiteers

and the former Remainers, and I have

spoken with a cabinet minister

recently who said, on the Brexit

side, there is a spit between

pragmatists and the idealists.

Saying we must lot the perfect be

the enemy of the good, but quite a

lot of Brexiteers on backbenchers

who want to go in all guns blazing,

for a hard Brexit. And I think it is

going to be incredible hard for

Theresa May to get a deal on that

basis?

It is true that it has not

been resolved, the differences have

not been resolved. And do you agree

that it needs to be resolved? The

priority is what we call the Tory

rebels, siding with Labour, for the

customs union, or whether it is the

Brexiteers who do not feel it is

going far enough?

This sound like a

discussion from three months ago.

Are we in the same position? The

prime Mr Speaker, people wrote in

behind that, I accept...

It was

conditional support from Jacob

Rees-Mogg.

I interviewed him, he

could not have been more

enthusiastic, you come from the

remain side of the argument, you are

always going to try to find

different, and there are

differences, of course, the

Conservative Party has the

coalition, I think we have got past

the danger point with Theresa May,

if Theresa May suddenly turns on the

customs union single, believe me,

Jacob Rees-Mogg would pull the

trigger and she would be toppled,

I'm absolutely sure of that.

I'm absolutely sure of that. But I

think the events of the last seven

days, they have cemented her

position over Brexit, she has shown

true leadership, possibly a

leadership people did not think she

was capable of.

It has strengthened

her position, for sure, but what is

still unresolved is how the racing

chip with the EU should be in the

longer term, how closely we should

be aligned to the regulations, how

much we should diverged...

She has

put much more detail on it. That

speech, and at Chequers, the

agreement, it was likely over

reported, if you like.

I think the

cabinet may be signed up, I'm not

sure the Tory party as a whole is

signed up to that.

What about the

issue of the Northern Ireland

border, you say that this is a

discussion that we could have had

three months ago, these things have

not been completely resolved, and

your point about the customs union,

slightly hangs on this idea of what

happens between Northern Ireland and

Ireland.

Well, it does, and people

on the remain side of the argument

are clearly looking at Northern

Ireland, the Northern Ireland deal

to scupper the whole thing and

reverse Brexit, I am absolutely

convinced of that. The Dublin

government, the EU, and ourselves

saying that we want a frictionless

border. If all sides agree with

that, that is what will happen in

the end, it doesn't matter that

there is no precedent for that and

the rest of the world. -- in the

rest of the world. There will be

some agreement even if it is at the

last minute.

Since 2010 new faith schools have

had to abide by an admissions cap

which prevents them selecting more

than 50% of their pupils

on the basis of faith.

Last week a group of senior

religious and humanist figures

published an open letter encouraging

the government not to drop the cap,

as was promised in the 2017

Conservative manifesto.

But has the 50% limit worked

to integrate children

of different faiths,

or does it lead to discrimination

of a different kind?

Our Ellie's gone back to school

to find out just how one Catholic

community has been affected.

Year 6 are learning about jazz

at St Albans Catholic primary

School in Cambridge.

Blissfully unaware of the noise

being made about faith schools,

although massively oversubscribed

in East Anglia in particular,

the Catholic church won't open any

more schools

until the Government removes the cap

which stops them selecting more

than half their pupils by religion.

For the church, it's a key

religious principle.

We want to ensure

that every Catholic,

canon law says every Catholic should

be entitled to a Catholic place.

The 50% cap could possibly put us

in a dilemma where we would be

turning away Catholics,

and that is not acceptable.

In place of non-Catholics?

In place of non-Catholics,

and that is not acceptable.

St Albans doesn't need

to adhere to the cap,

that only applies to

new faith schools.

But with only two Catholic Schools

out of 210 primaries

in Cambridgeshire, it means a lot

of Catholics being turned away.

Much to the frustration

of Angela Bennett,

a devout Catholic whose first four

kids went to St Albans,

but the youngest couldn't get in.

So what does it mean to you to not

be able to send your remaining two

children to a Catholic school?

Well, it is disappointing

because I feel like our

choices being taken away.

It's not just for Sunday mornings,

it's about living it.

So, you know, I think

about my faith when I'm at work.

The children, I think,

would benefit from thinking

about their faith when they're

at school, and talking about it

with their friends, learning

about it from their teachers

as well as just from me.

Catholic schools make up almost

10% of all primaries.

They educate 416,000 pupils.

The Catholic education service says

a third are non-Catholic.

We have almost 30 parents

who want to come to our school

who are not Catholic,

so that speaks volumes as well,

and we would like to meet

their needs as well.

Earlier this month, 70 politicians,

academics and faith leaders,

including a former Archbishop

of Canterbury,

wrote an open letter warning

that lifting the cap

would have a damaging effect

on social cohesion.

It's going to create almost

an educational apartheid system.

We wouldn't dream of dividing

the children by colour of skin.

It would be laughable, illegal.

And yet, we're doing it by religion.

But this does disproportionately

affect Catholic schools, doesn't it?

You know, I'm arguing from a faith

perspective against faith

schools because I believe,

as do others, love your

neighbour as yourself.

And you can't love your neighbour

unless you know him.

The Conservative manifesto in last

year's election

pledged to repeal what it called

the unfair and ineffective 50% rule.

But this week, the Department

for Education tell us there's

no date in the diary.

That's presumably because they are

expecting a ding-dong either way.

We are joined by the director of the

Catholic education service. Do you

accept what the rabbi said, that

lifting the cap will affect social

cohesion?

No, this is not about

segregation, this is about choice,

and as we know from the primaries

call, they have enough places to

supply the demand... -- they don't

have enough places to supply the

demand not just from Catholic

parents but others as well, a third

of pupils from outside the Catholic

faith and in most parts of the

country we are able to respond to

that demand.

You say it is not about

segregation but it will lead to more

segregation, to increase numbers, if

one third are not Catholic, lifting

the cap will ensure that number goes

down.

No, it will not, that is in

existing schools, where the cap does

not operate, the problem we have is

in areas where there is pressure on

places, and we need new places, we

cannot do it by expanding existing

schools. What is happening in those

places is those schools are coming

sadly less diverse because we are

not able to open new schools to

cater to all the parental demand.

I

take your point about existing new

schools but there is a fundamental

principle raised in that film, that

you are wanting to extend the right

to divide children up on the basis

of religion and label them that way.

It is not about that, it is about

the ability to cope with parental

choice, we only want to build

schools where there is a demand from

parents for places, that comes from

the Catholic community and come from

outside the Catholic community, we

want to be able to respond to the

demand. The 50% cap would mean we

have two build a school which we

would then turn away the very

children that the school was founded

to serve, that does not seem to make

any logical sense.

Does it make

sense to you, that actually, lifting

this cap will then give parents

particularly in this case Catholic

parents the chance to get the school

that they would

like for their child, a school of

faith? I think it is a false

argument, you should not have

parental choice to allow an

apartheid system to develop.

One of

the biggest problems in society at

the moment is a growing segregation

between faiths, rowing sense of

volition, it seems completely crazy,

in that case, to separate children

out on the basis of their faith.

This is not just about Catholic

schools, it is about Muslim schools,

Church of England schools, Hindu

schools, as soon as you divide on

the basis of faith, you are bound to

increase division. You want to

increase a cohesive society, we are

blowing it by dividing children, we

want children to mix.

Would you say

ban any further faith schools?

I

think you cannot ban the existing

ones, as you say, but you should

have a moratorium on new faith

schools, I did a piece a couple of

months ago based on Ofsted

inspections of Muslim schools,

absolutely appalling literature in

the libraries, being taught to

children, women go to hell... This

included women with tall ambitions,

showing in gratitude to their

husbands, they were told that those

were the women that go to hell!

These values are not being

inculcated in schools at the moment,

we should not have any more until

that is enforced.

Do you recognise

the risk of dog of a particular

religion being foisted on children,

in the way that has just been

described by Rachel?

Let's be clear,

a third of the schools in this

country are schools with a religious

character, 99% of those are checked

schools, almost all of them provided

by us and the Church of England,

when you talk about how to tackle a

problem, you need to identify what

is the problem. There is a problem

with monocultural school but that is

not a problem we have in our sector.

I know that you are at the

beginning, but won't it become more

like that if there is not a cap?

No,

in some areas, the cap is preventing

us from keeping the diversity that

is already in the system.

Can I

just...

Our schools are among the

most diverse in the educational

system.

When you say schools

provided by us, who is paying for

these schools, who is paying for the

upkeep, the education, taxpayer or

the Catholic Church?

It is a

partnership with the state, whereby

the church makes a contribution...

How much?

Well, it depends, most of

the schools...

10%? 80%?

It depends,

most of the schools were divided

with land and buildings by...

Day

today, 10%, 80%.

In terms of revenue

funding, it is funded by the

taxpayer.

Exactly, exactly!

Catholics are taxpayers.

Why should

taxpayers who cannot send their

children to certain schools, why

should they be funding Catholic

schools or any faith schools?

It

seems reasonable that taxpayers

should fund a range of schools, to

allow taxpayers to choose from a

range of schools.

I range of

schools, not dominated by one

religion...

I agree with everything Rachel said,

so you won't get much of a debate

between us. In this day and age, to

say that we should have religious

schools which are funded by the

taxpayer, I don't see how we can

sustain that any longer. I'm not in

favour of closing down good schools.

I'm quite in favour of closing down

bad schools that have the kind of

things that Rachel has told us

about.

Many faith schools are very

good.

I am not saying they should be

shut down, but I think we have to in

the future minimise them.

Do you

think the lifting of the cap will

happen? It looks like the Department

may be more lukewarm than they have

been.

It was a manifesto commitment.

Others have been dropped.

We very

much hope that is one the Government

will stick to.

Thank you for joining

us.

It was billed as Gavin Williamson's

first major speech

as Defence Secretary,

and the stakes were high,

given the government's

stand-off with the Kremlin.

Was it a chance to show

a Churchillian spirit?

A show of strength to

Britain's global enemies?

So how did he do?

Let's take a look.

What we will do is,

we will look at what Russia...

How Russia response

to what we have done.

It is absolutely

atrocious and outrageous

what Russia did in Salisbury.

We have responded to that.

Frankly, Russia should

go away, should shut

up, but if they do

respond to what we...

The action we have taken,

we will consider it carefully, and

we'll look at our options.

But it would be wrong

to prejudge their

response.

Welcomer joining us now is Patrick

Kidd, political sketch writer for

the times. What did you make of it,

Patrick is Mike

I was surprised that

school has broken up this early.

It

is a few more weeks. -- Patrick?

I

put a tenner on Gavin Williamson to

be Prime Minister last summer before

I had seen him in action. There was

all this talk of him being Frances

Burkert, the Chief Whip knifing his

rivals. This wasn't good, it wasn't

diplomacy. They talk about Winston

Churchill marshalling the English

language and sending it out into

battle, but this was Gavin Williams

asking for a fight behind the bike

sheds.

Your colleagues are Britain

excoriating articles and sketches

about Tim - do you think that is

fair? One person said he sounded

like a not very bright sixth form

student being asked to read out his

unfinished history essay in front of

the class.

It is there. You need

gravitas, and at times of national

crisis, you have to give a sensual

in command of the situation. It was

worrying, and it was delivered in

that squeaky Alan Bennett voice, and

he looks like a young Albert Steptoe

as well, not a reassuring...

Don't

hold back, Patrick!

The response

from the Russian embassy was to call

him a vulgar old tart.

A fishwife.

Maybe there was a whole list.

He's a

good-looking young man.

Good old

Gavin Williamson, obviously in

favour with Sergei Lavrov, who also

said all, the Foreign Ministry said,

it was political impotence. How does

this look?

Gavin Williamson since he

has been Defence Secretary has a

talent for attracting headlines, not

all of them positive, it has to be

said. I think this has been jumped

on by people for obvious reasons,

because it wasn't a very

statesman-like thing to say. You are

right, it wasn't part of the speech

but was an answer to a question, but

when you look at what he said, he

did not have the say it. He could

have stopped at the end of the

previous sentence, and I think a lot

of his colleagues will have had

their heads in their hands.

Nerves,

inexperienced? And perhaps we're

looking at it through a particular

prism.

To make Boris Johnson look

statesman-like is quite...

Do you

think there was a strategy behind

it?

For the Defence Secretary, at a

time of tension with Russia, he has

to look serious and like a grown-up.

He has been a bit of a man in a

hurry, has had his ambition is on

his sleeve, as it were. All that

business... He played on his own

political genius, if you like, and

played that up. He is like becoming

a cropper under the pressure of a

big, important job.

Do you think he

will see the funny side of it?

I

hope so. I think you need to if you

are going to survive in politics,

but I just wonder... We are all

saying this isn't Churchill, but we

live in the age of Donald Trump,

where politicians do well if they

don't play by the rules, may be

people will say he sell stuff. He

doesn't look tough.

He does take the

Mickey out of himself from time to

time, so I'm sure we will see some

references in the future.

We all

need a sense of humour, don't we?

For the next half an

hour, we will focus on Europe,

discussing the EU reaction to the

Russian double double agent

poisoning.

- social media,

and we'll talk about the man

they call 'rasputin'

in the European Commission.

First though here's our guide

to the latest from Europe -

in just sixty seconds.

This week, MEPs voted in favour

of setting up recommendations

for a future relationship

with the UK, the draft text has now

been sent to London.

Meanwhile, European Commission

president Jean-Claude Juncker told

parliament that the UK would regret

Brexit, to the amusement

of Eurosceptics.

You will regret the decision.

LAUGHTER

It's emerged a European Parliament

delegation has been conducting

secret talks with North Korea

to try to persuade

them to end their nuclear programme.

Elsewhere, Slovak PM Robert Fico

resigned after weeks of turmoil

sparked by the murder

of an investigative journalist

who had raised questions about his

judgment after it was alleged

a close aide had links to the Mafia.

And millions of Europeans may have

been running late since mid-January

following an electrical dispute

between Kosovo and Serbia,

causing clocks to lag behind by up

to six minutes across 25 countries.

Let's picked up after that. Ian,

Jean-Claude Juncker says we will

regret Brexit. What do you say?

Yellow McKee has to say that because

the EU has now we do otherwise there

might be other member states that

might want to follow suit, so of

course he will say that. Some of the

reaction has been slightly over the

top.

He has to say that because...

We would expect him to say that.

Should he not give that line a rest?

It is true, we do expect it to some

extent, and this idea that we don't

want to see others go the way of

Britain, as the European Commission

would put it, but otherwise we

should drop it?

He is probably

right.

right. It is already proving much

more complicated. The economic

implications are becoming clear, all

of that, but I think he is the worst

possible person to say it. It sounds

so arrogant, exactly what everyone

voted against is being told what to

do by the EU and some bureaucrat.

Maybe he is right, but he should

shut up, as Gavin Williamson might

say.

And go away, to finish the

phrase. The think it stiffens the

resolve every time he said something

like that, or do you think people

have priced it in?

I think people

factor in. I think that guy the

hostel at -- diva horse that is...

Some of his statements over the past

few weeks are different to what he

was saying six months ago. Much more

interested in getting the right

deal, more positive, more

constructive than he has been he was

one of the first people to come to

Britain's support over Russia as

well. I think the people on my side

of the argument need to recognise

that there is a bit of a change

among some people in this, and I

think we should also be very open in

thanking European countries for

their support over Russia, because

that wasn't necessarily a given. If

France and Germany had not come out

so strongly, and Denmark there was

another one, then of course, Rachel

would be writing very learned

columns

on it.

Let's discuss the EU reaction

to Russia and UK's relations with

them. There has only been one big

story in town this week, that of the

poisoning...

of Sergei Skirpal in Salisbury.

The British government has responded

by expelling diplomats and we await

the Russian retaliation.

But, what will the EU do?

What do you make of the EU response

to the Sergei Skripal poisoning?

We

are going to see very different

approaches, because some of the

countries would be criticising

Russia very severely, and at the

same time, I think almost a clear

majority will feel themselves very

much pushed in a direction where

they have to stand up for the values

and four member states, even if it

is a member state who is about to

leave. So I think we are going to

discuss this in the Parliament in

the next session, and I think the

verdict will be pretty harsh.

Pretty

harsh in terms of the stance against

Russia?

Russia?

Well, we have a lot of

indications in this case. Russian

security agencies have killed their

former agents earlier. That's almost

a question of honour for them. So

the only one who could actually be

interested in getting rid of Skripal

is the Russians. We won't find a

person with a smoking gun going in

or out from the Russian Embassy in

London. We would find that, I'm

pretty sure. When you kill persons

like this, this is a very cynical

killing, because they didn't even

care about Sergei's daughter. My

guess would be that there will be

middlemen, and there can be a lot of

them, in between. From my point of

view, I think Russia should be very

interested in clearing this,

interested in clearing this, because

the Novichok poison, the only source

for it could be Russia. In the 90s,

there were weapons depots in Russia

that were taken apart because the

state could not pay the wages, and

the military to what they could,

almost all the AK-47s in Europe come

from these depots. There is a

possibility that this also had this

background.

Because of your

proximity to Russia in Finland, are

you afraid of Russia and Russian

retaliation in general?

retaliation in general?

No, we're

probably the only country in Europe

having had a war with Russia and

still staying an independent nation,

so I think we have... Our

credentials in this respect are

pretty good, and I don't think we

are afraid of them. What we should

be slightly scared of in Europe in

general is not very rational

behaviour in Russia, because it's an

unstable system for the moment. You

have somebody up there, Vladimir

Putin, and you don't actually have a

machinery on which you can put any

much trust. The system as such is

unstable, and that's the problem.

What about concrete help from the

European Union? What concrete help

can Britain expect?

can Britain expect?

It depends what

you need. As I said, we have a lot

of indications about the source of

this murder, but as I also said, we

won't find a smoking gun, so what

would Great Britain need in these

times from us? I think, if you go

back to what we could offer, we

could offer all the knowledge that

our services could find. And if

Russia is retaliating even more in

regard of Great Britain, then of

course, we have to follow suit. We

have to do something just to show

our solidarity. This might go

further.

Do you think that there

would have been any difference...

Nils, I will come back to you in a

moment. Do you think there would be

any different in the EU response if

Brexit wasn't happening?

No, I don't

know what other response that could

have been. They have been as

supportive as they can be. The fact

that France, Germany and the US

signed this strong letter, this

strong statement, I imagine that a

lot of the other countries would be

happy to sign up to it too, so I

don't know what else we could

expect.

Tony Britton said after the

lip in Janko incident, Europe showed

solidarity but there wasn't much in

terms of concrete members. Are we

expecting EU nations to expel

Russian diplomats and put further

sanctions in place? Should we expect

these things from the EU and the

United States?

I think there could

be more economic sanctions, but I

think the show of solidarity and

strength is in itself very

important. That is a statement that

a multilateral approach is important

and does work. Even as Brexit is

going along, we are not ever going

to be able to live and operate in

splendid isolation. We will always

have to rely on allies in Europe, in

America, and I think that's

incredibly important as a reminder

at this very critical moment in the

negotiations to both sides. Read hi

and this is a big story in European

countries. I did an interview on

Danish television yesterday, and it

is the number one story week. Some

people are thinking this is a story

in a small town in England, but it's

not.

Finally, the Neils, it is a big

story in European countries?

countries, is at the case, and is it

a big story in the European

Parliament?

It is a big story, yes,

indeed! White, well, because it is a

very cynical murder, and, all the

indications we have are pointing at

Russia. We should demand of them

some very honest and some very clear

answers, and if they are not able to

deliver those answers, then we have

to think about further measures, and

those measures should be European

measures, not just UK measures,

Finnish measures, Belgian measures,

they should be European measures.

He

has described it as a murder, Nils,

but we should say that they are

critically ill in hospital, Sergei

and Yulia Skripal., they are not

dead.

It's been described as a coup

and the European Union's

very own House of Cards.

Brussels beaurocrat Marton Selmayr,

who used to be Jean Claude

Juncker's Chief of Staff,

has been promoted to be the head

of the EU's civil service.

The EU Commission has argued

Mr Selmayr's appointment

as Secretary General

was all above board

but some MEPs are furious.

Here's Adam Fleming with more.

There's something about Martin. He

has found himself in the front row,

either for his slightly scary

reputation or accused of leaking

details of a "Brexit" dinner in

Downing Street, now, it is because

of his promotion. Martin Selmayr has

been going up in the world, he

applied for and got the job of

Deputy Secretary-General, then, in

the same meeting, Secretary-General

announced he was replying --

retiring, and Martin Selmayr I was

transferred into his job. Summoned

by M EPs to blame, the Commissioner

for HR, Gunther Oettinger, said it

was all above board.

was all above board. -- MEPs.

TRANSLATION:

Martin Selmayr

has all the necessary

altercation to take on the task

of Secretary-General

of the commission, he has lengthy

experience in key positions

within the commission,

he is an excellent legal expert,

he is excellent at communication

and 100% suitable for this position.

But, members from across

the political spectrum lined up

to criticise the appointment.

Selmayr-gate denies

all the credibility

of the European Union as a champion

of integrity and transparency

in public administration, at times,

when public trust in the European

is low, this is devastating,

Mr Oettinger, and the fact

that the commission remains deaf

until the day of today

to criticism shows just how

disconnected it is from reality.

You should do your best to come out

with something which is trustworthy,

and you should avoid any feeling

or any impression that

it was a preprepared,

allegedly motivated nomination,

and unfortunately, I don't

think that in this case

you did your job perfectly.

You can see the defeat

etched in their faces,

this is the morning after,

and these were the European

Union's commissioners.

TRANSLATION:

To some,

it brings back memories of 1999,

when a report accused

one of Jacques Santer's

commission of cronyism

and they all resigned en masse.

Back

I arrived here just after the fall

of that commission,

and I would say this to you,

Ukip would never have won any seats

in the European Parliament had it

not been for the nepotism

of the Santer Commission

and so I've always been very

grateful to Jacques Santer.

Does this at all feel

like that period?

Could this be the start

of that sort of thing.

Nearly.

What's interesting is,

you would have thought

the appointment of an official

to a big job would be a story that

would have stayed within Brussels

and Strasbourg but actually,

it is out there, it has been talked

about in the French media,

it is trending on Twitter.

There's a lot going on in this

Martin Selmayr story,

some score settling,

some anti-German sentiment, some

opportunism, some genuine concern.

And now his promotion will be

the subject of a Parliamentary

enquiry, with the vote in Strasbourg

at some point in the future.

Good luck in the new job, Martin!

Alex Barker, all this fuss about

Martin Selmayr, is it overplayed,

this is politics, so, Celts appraise

Saga is a

what makes it special is

that he was a political appointment

and politics is moving against him

and so, it has brought him into the

limelight in a way that for once,

he's not particularly comfortable

with.

-- quelle surprise. EU

Jean-Claude Junker's man, how

powerful is see in this new role?

I

don't think his new role makes much

difference, is it ordinary powerful

in terms of the Chief of staff or

top aide to a European Commission

president, you have to go back to

the days of the law and his team to

have anything equivalent to this. --

De Lors. And he micromanage is, his

cursive is over every document that

emerges from this place, what Sting

wishes him is his willingness to

take on a public profile, I asked

him once his method was so tough on

things, he said, I cannot run the

commission like a Montessori school

and his methods, is micromanagement,

his energy, has really made him

stand out in terms of a bureaucrat

here.

You have met him, what is he

like?

Is good company, news quite

funny, is absolutely determined, he

can turn against you quite easily,

and, he runs the place like a tight

ship, he surrounds himself by people

who are loyal to him. His top

appointments in the commission have

been people who are loyal to him. I

think the pressure he is facing is

partly a function of unease about

his boss, really, Jean-Claude

Juncker hasn't got the energy that

some MEPs would hope European

Commission president would have, and

yet the commission is powerful at

the same time so attention is

turning to his aid, and he is

absorbing some of the criticism.

Described as anything from a monster

to Rasputin, in the UK press, their

discussions?

I ask them that, he

said, Jean-Claude Juncker is the

good guy, and I am the bad guy, he

is in., and for some member states,

they are pleased he is paying the

role, this is a big unwieldy place,

30,000 bureaucrats here, and he

delivers for them, at times, when

they have a special favour to ask

when they are in a particularly

politically difficult problem, but

it also means that he upsets a lot

of people, and so, there are people

upset that there are too many

Germans into top positions, the

Germans are upset that Martin is not

German enough!

LAUGHTER

There are those that would prefer

this to be a civil service, and not

run by, effectively, a political

appointees. The coalition of the

upset(!) is growing, and he is under

pressure.

You cannot please all

people all of the time, or even any

of the time, Alex Barker, thank you

very much for joining us.

While Russian-British

relations have fallen

to their lowest level in decades,

a very new type of diplomacy has

been playing out on Twitter.

The official account of the Russian

embassy in London have frequently

goaded the British government,

so much so that they've been called

professional trolls by some.

When Theresa May called Russia's

reaction to the Skripal

affair one of "sarcasm,

contempt, and defiance,"

she could well have had their social

media output in mind.

After the expulsion of 23

of their own diplomats this week

they posted:

"the temperature of

Russian-British relations drops

to minus 23 but we are not

afraid of cold weather."

On Tuesday they said:

"Any threat to take 'punitive'

measures against Russia

will meet with a response.

The British side should

be aware of that."

With a handy diagram

to explain their point.

This post asked,

a week after Sergei Skripal

and his daughter were poisoned,

"Does Russia's dialing code 007 make

James Bond a "Russian spy"?

And last month when the UK

was battling the beast

from the east, their poll asked,

"What Russian customs should Brits

adopt with this snow blizzard?"

The most popular answer:

Drink more vodka.

And joining us now is journalist

and Twitter meme expert

Mollie Goodfellow and Russian

comedian Konstantin Kisin.

Welcome to the both of you, to a

British audience, these tweets are

pretty bizarre, even offensive,

given the current context, are we

missing the joke?

I don't think so,

these are cheesy and slightly

unoriginal, I would say, but that is

where Russia finds itself, trying to

fight a war of words, and one of the

interesting things in terms of

difference, we don't have the

concept of banter, in Russia, the

idea that you would say horrible

things to your friends as a sign of

affection does not exist, so when

you see these attempts, they are an

attempt to undermine the West's

message, that Russia is doing this

through humour. How effective this

is, I don't think we really know,

but that is what is happening.

You

think it represents a Russian sense

of humour, even if it is not very

good and clumsily done.

These are

the kind of jokes that you write

when you have not heard jokes

before.

LAUGHTER

He says, crushingly! Are they funny?

I think some people find humour in

them, look at the Job tweets they

do, against the straight

ambassadorial tweets they do, I

think you get far more sense of

engagement. -- look at the joke

tweets. So people are finding it

funny, and that kind of disconnect

between this is a very serious

political unit, against, being like

a troll, and they are tweeting in

the way that tweeters tweet, which

is, looking at a political account

is quite rare!

Using the medium and

the current context, very serious,

but actually, the king at what has

been written, they are not bad, in

an attempt to dare I say, break the

ice... -- looking at what has been

written. But, really...

Unbelievably, unbelievably, that

came off the top of my head(!) I

think it is such a serious

situation, three people in hospital

having been poisoned with a nerve

agent.

It is not a time for silly

jokes on Twitter, and again, this

is, there has also been Russian bots

interfering in western democracy

around the world, I think it is not

a laughing matter.

Tasteless and

inappropriate?

No, it is a

deflection tactic, that is what it

is, I think they are quite funny in

some ways, but we all pay attention

to them, we are discussing them here

now, we would not be doing that if

they had not done that, it's like

when the Liberal Democrats press

office did similar tweets, we all

followed the press office, which we

would never have done before!

What

with the Russian reaction be to

these kind of tweets from an

official British account? Well, I

wouldn't know, but in terms of the

Russian reaction to these tweets.

The Russians will be quite enjoying

this trolling, and in terms of

seriousness, Russian people tend to

be a lot less squeamish and a less

politically correct on these issues,

so when most Russian people see

these tweets, they would be enjoying

it and saying, well...

We should

offer them your services!

I think

this works in their favour, because,

it is that dichotomy between the

strict parent, telling Russia to

stop it, and the child pointing

their tongue out and blowing

raspberries. It works in their

favour.

favour.

Plane to cultural norms,

like the Russia, and the Russian

weather, and vodka, is that an

attempt to reach out?

It is a stable

of my comedy, absolutely(!) you have

to play with this but it is a

question of what you are trying to

achieve, and in this case, in terms

of rushing humour, we are not quite

as self-deprecating as British

people, when we make fun of someone

else, it is to undermine and

question what they are saying to

make a point, this is a continuation

of politics by other means.

One-upmanship, then?

Yes.

So British

and Russian comedy differs

completely, there is no meeting of

minds?

I do think that there is.

You

are the meeting of the minds!

LAUGHTER

Isn't this what Twitter is for, to

do this sort of thing?

Absolutely,

yes, absolutely, and politically,

the Russian Embassy is probably the

account that is doing the best in

terms of in terms of understanding

the Twitter trolling hive mind.

The

Minister of defence Twitter account,

when it starts doing that, then it

really does become a war of words!

On that, we will have a different

war of words.