11/06/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, Iraq in chaos, another city seized by insurgents as the national


army flees the scene. Why were warnings irregular in order and what


can save the region from more of the same. Was it a problem of


intervention or disengagment. A long way from this. We won, it's over,


America, we brought to democracy to Iraq. As Iraqi rule clapses across a


swathe of the north, worries grow that Turkey or Iran might want to


intervene. The former secretary-general said he warned it


would happen. When I was enjoy for Syria I did indicate that unless we


find ways of resolving the Syrian crisis or containing it would spread


through the region. Also tonight: Desperately seeking Juncker, we are


in search of one of the most talked about men in Europe. No really.


Excuse me, can you tell me where Mr Juncker is? Mr Juncker? And... .


Snatching defeat from the jaws of, well, why is the English nation so


cynical about its chances of victory in the World Cup, we will kick about


a few ideas. It is hard to overestimate the


danger Iraq is in tonight. A country on the verge of disintegration.


Today Tikrit became the second city to fall into the hands of insurgents


in two says. Isis a group once rejected by Al-Qaeda for its


ferocity assaulted Government buildings and captured military


hardware as security forces fled. No-one knows how many have been


killed in Tikrit and Mosul, but more than half a million have fled. Why


were warnings ignored, what is the ultimate aim of Isis, and how much


is western intervention and disengagment to blame for where the


country is today. We will be getting reaction from inside Iraq tonight,


but first our diplomatic editor on the events.


The fortunes of Iraq's Government have gone from bad to worse, with


Jihadists taking over major centres, hundreds of thousands of people are


fleeing. And more reports today of huge piles of cash seized, enemies


beheaded and prisoners freed. There is a lot of concern that Prime


Minister Al-Maliki has not led effectively, that he has in effect


not had a good relationship as all with the Sunni leadership, he has


driven the communities apart. That he needs to rally the army to make a


stand and he needs to have a more sensible policy towards the Sunni


leadership and the Sunni population of Iraq. Punch drunk at the collapse


of security forces in Mosul, Prime Minister Al-Maliki said today it


must have been a conspiracy, there was no other way he could explain


why some army units had just pulled out. TRANSLATION: I can sincerely


say what happened in the province was a conspiracy because Al-Qaeda


and Isis forces were outfull inned by our army and the police there.


But I wonder what happened and how it happened and why some units


collapsed. I know the reasons but today we are not here to apportion


blame, but there are questions about who took part and how the operation


was carried out, who started the rumours and who ordered it and who


caused confusion. Yesterday they circumstanced Kirkuk, and there are


reports of fighters in Bayji and Tikrit. They are poised for a move


on the Baghdad belt, into places like Abu Ghraib, Taji, and Yusfiyah.


In terms of fighting back Government troops have shown themselves


incapable, so there could be more reliance on Shia militias raised in


Baghdad and Kurdish fighters in the north. The key to resolving this


current short-term security problem will be with the Kurds, far more


cohesive military, they are fighting on home soil, they trust each other


and proven in combat. I think they will be in the forefront of the


solution. The Iraqi army are fighting on foreign soil,


effectively. They don't have local loyalties, they don't know who the


enemy are and who the friendly forces are, they are fighting on


alien country I would have little confidence in the Iraqi army's


confidence to sort this problem. These pictures show what happened as


the Iraqi army fled Mosul. Local people, full of contempt, started


stoning them. In recent months, many Sunni Arabs have come to see the


Shia-dominated army as an oppressive force. The Jihadist of Isis and


other Sunni groups reaped this resentment. They built on resentment


about security forces' policies, heavihanded policies, like the


tendency to engage in mass arrests when trying to clear out Isis hot


spots and we have seen that before all this broke out, with the take


over of Mosul, we saw it in south of Baghdad where there have been hot


spots of Isis in its predecessor form for at least four years. So


they certainly are a constituent in the broader opposition and they have


to be taken seriously. Privately policy makers in the capitals of


Iraq's former occupiers, the US and UK are furious with Nouri Al-Maliki.


They believe he has brought the situation on himself by years of


alienating the Sunni community through sectarian politics.


Publicly, though, they have no choice but to back him. Many Iraqis


blame America's occupation for upsetting the ethnic balance and


empowering Prime Minister Al-Maliki. But equally it was the sacrifice of


ordinary coalition soldiers that helped reduce the violence almost to


zero by the time they withdrew. Washington now watches in alarm. We


have seen Al-Qaeda core mat it is a at this size into -- mataicise into


core local groups in west and East Africa, and especially mostly in


Syria and Iraq, and this group Isis, flooding both the Syrian and Iraqi


Government is terrorising the local population. It is making rapidly


expanding its influence on the ground, it poses a real threat to


Europe and America and the Arab world, so we do have to have, I


think, international support for the Iraqi Government, however misguided


the Prime Minister of Iraq has been. Militant fighters in Mosul have been


celebrating their victory. And they have taken four dozen Turk,


including consular officials prisoner. The sudden shift in power


towards Isis could trigger Turkish or Iranian intervention and that is


creating tension across the Middle East. A little earlier I was joined


from Baghdad by an Iraqi associate fellow of Chatham House, and Patrick


Osgood a journalist based there. I asked if the Isis insurgence could


have been anticipated? What couldn't be anticipated is the Iraqi army


fleeing en masse. Many of the fighters belonging to the extremist


groups were able to out the forces and they fled in the tens of


thousands. The Iraqi army did not attempt to fight back, right?


Absolutely, no. For many of the soldiers this simply was a city not


worth dying for. They had a hostile relationship with the population,


the population saw them more as occupiers, and as enemies, more than


the national army. So they didn't want to put up a fight and decided


not to die. They left armoured vehicles, they left military


hardware, weapons, clearly, do you think that would happen in the case


of Baghdad? It is going to be very difficult to see this being repeated


in Baghdad, mainly because that is where the central Government's


forces are concentrated, and also the central Government in Baghdad is


relying more and more on Shia militia, they are Iranian-backed,


ideolgical low-driven forces, acting as auxiliary forces for the Iraqi


Government. You make Baghdad sound like a very different place to


Mosul, I'm wondering what the level of fear is on the ground where you


are now? Well, there is a lot of confusion on the ground. I mean the


checkpoints here in Baghdad, some tell you there is a curfew imposed


at 10.00, a few minutes ago, others saying 12.00. Official Iraqi forces


who themselves have no idea what is going on. Do you think they could


topple the Government there? Isis don't want to necessarily topple the


Government. What they are trying to do is provoke the Shia militias and


even ordinary Shias from taking up arms. Why this becomes dangerous is


because the Government is calling for this. The Government is opening


up recruitment centres in the capital and across the south, it is


calling for citizens to arm themselves and it is telling them


that they will provide arms. This is exactly what the Jihadists want. If


they can industryinger out an all-out Civil War between Sunnis and


Shias it will make their lives much easier and give them more room to


manoeuvre across the country. We go over to our other guest. Do you feel


it is a very different place tonight? Yeah, very much so. Here


life goes on, more or less as normal. But it is only 40 minutes


away that checkpoints with Mosul are seeing thousands of refugees coming


over. It feels very, very different indeed. Increasingly like a


different country. You have got the Kurdistan regional Government here


in a strange situation where it has found itself having had its Armed


Forces derided for some time now having the only functions army by a


sanctioned actor in the country. When you say functioning army, you


think this would be an army that would stand up and fight if push


came to shove? To defend Kurdish territory, to defend Kurdistan,


absolutely. I would be surprised to see them at this behest of either


the central Government or under international pressure, making any


kind of sortie into Mosul. What the dud here from the Kurdistan


leadership is they have been warning about something like this for a very


long time, and it is falling on deaf ears, both in Baghdad and


internationally. They now feel vindicated and they want to get on


with the business of building a kind of quasi-nation state, which they


are already on the way to doing. If I could go back to you, when you


look at Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit, they are saying what is gone is


gone? Yeah, the central Government and Prime Minister Al-Maliki


yesterday said Mosul will be retaken in 24 hours, which is laughable


given he said initially the campaign is only going to last one week. The


Iraqi forces may try to retake the cities, but Mosul is a lot bigger


than Fallujah. And what we see there is the city is being besieged from


the outside by the central Government forces and they are


shelling often indiscriminately and there are many, many civilian


casualties. If the Iraqi army does try to do the same thing in Mosul,


we will see a much bigger and wider humanitarian crisis. And sources in


Mosul tell me that the people of Mosul, and this speaks to how


hostile the relationship with the army was, when the army fled and


Jihadists entered the city, the people of Mosul were more afraid of


Iraqi army retaliations, in terms of air strikes, than they were of the


extremist Jihadists themselves. We are looking at dark days ahead of us


at least. Some views from inside Iraq, and joining me now from


Pittsburgh is Karen Skinner an adviser to George W Bush on the Iraq


and Afghan wars, she's now a research fellow at Stamford's Hoover


Institution. And we have a former British ambassador to Iraq and


Afghanistan. A warm welcome. I wonder how much the west needs to


take responsibility for what is happening in Iraq now? Sadly the


west bears quite a bit of responsibility and in particular the


United States, the country which under George W Bush pushed into Iraq


to bring peace and democracy to that country. But also Obama


administration, there is enormous immediate responsibility for what is


happening on the ground. Because it was senator Barack Obama who


campaigned on the promise to get out of Iraq and leave that country whole


and free as a democracy, declared it early in his presidency and by the


end of 2011 the US left. Nonetheless, sectarian division


still existed in that country and then Syria was on its way to Civil


War. The US has no serious Middle East policy to speak of beyond


exiting wars and repositioning itself towards Asia. It sends a bad


message to the Jihadists that are now in power in Mosul. Would you


agree with that, it has been said this evening that Bush shouldn't


have gone in, Obama shouldn't have come out, that is where the


responsibility ultimate low lies? You know reopening the debate about


whether or not we should have gone in or not is not very helpful in


this context. It is a bit harsh to blame the west, because you have had


a full term of a Al-Maliki Government in Baghdad. What we're


seeing now is an ailation of Sunni -- alienation of Sunni, I don't


think Isis could have had enough force to take Mosul or Tikrit if the


Sunnis hadn't been alienated. Why has Al-Maliki been allowed to fail,


he was hand-picked by America, billions behind him, the


constitution which you helped draft was drawn up for and with him. That


is a mistake? Allowed to fail, in a sense, I think we overestimate our


power. Iraq was set on a course and it was up to the Iraqis to deliver


on their promise, I think there were various opportunities that Al-Maliki


failed to bring the Sunnis in. You know when he drove Al-Hashimi out of


the country and he alienated the tribes of Ambar and Ramadi. In a


sense, it is an Iraqi failure, I don't think you can blame this on


Bush or Obama. Yet the relevance of the west is surely when you ask


whether Obama should go back in? Whether there should be intervention


once more to sort this out? I just disagree some what with your guest


and agree with him in part in other ways. Of course this is not fully


the failure of the United States and the west, but once we made the


commitment to go into Iraq to declare that we were exiting with


not a clear pathway for the country forward, I think that was a grave


mistake, and it sent a bad message to those who wanted to destroy the


country. Also on the Mall side, of course it is a weak Government and


power, Mosul's indictment of his ability to control the security


force, the national army and just overall run the country. He has


slanted in a sectarian way as the leader of the country. But the


United States is the most powerful nation on earth. It is nearly 50% of


world defence spending, if we don't help our allies often they can't do


it alone. That is my core point. What does that mean, help them? Is


this a situation that is spelling out to you boots on the ground


needed? Well, I think that is a far jump given how the administration


has really pulled back in Iraq, that it would go in as it is exiting


Afghanistan and facing a crisis around the Taliban, and just a


disorientated foreign policy. To ask of the administration a return to


Iraq, I think it is a tall order. But a more responsible regional


policy that is clearly articulated, that bolsters our allies, like the


Turk, I think it makes a big difference in a region that is full


of strife and multiple wars going on in several countries all at the same


time. This is the question isn't it, from what you have seen and you have


served in both countries, does this look regional enough to happen in


Afghanistan, are we starting to see this arc? I think it is very


different. I think there is an absence of an Obama doctrine, if you


like. There is a sense in which there is no clear American policy.


There is some indecision. Which is a legacy of the history of our


intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think those who are


advocating do we have to go in, that would be a big mistake. I don't


think our military can always solve these problems. I think the problem


is it has to be solved by Iraqis. Do you think this is a joined-up


problem. When the west is looking on this region now, do you see this as


dangerous? I think this is a very dangerous moment for Iraq, and


dangerous moment for us, I think we could see the emergence of a Jihadi


extremist eptity in Iraq and Syria. What does eptity mean, a control of


a -- eptity mean? A control of a territory where they could plot


against the west. There could come a point where we have no choice


because our national security is threatenedecause our national


security is threatened. Do you see Iran in this entry. I think Iran


will provide whatever support they think the Iraqis need. I wonder, in


a way it is disenginous to say -- disingenious to say there was a time


of peace and it was safe to step back, it has got worse? I think it


is an ahistorical point to say democracy and peace had spread


through Iraq, because the sectarian violence has historical roots and


had nothing to do with what was going on at any one time. The United


States und President Obama declared that terrorism represents one of the


highest threats to the nation. If that's the case then Iraq becomes a


high priority for the administration. It has to explain to


the American public and the rest of the world what we are actually going


to do, given that in the past two weeks at west point, the President


outlined his foreign policy as best he could, where he said that


terrorism is something that we will focus on, often unilaterally if


necessary. I think it is still an important role for the US to play.


Thank you very much. The United Nations has seemed to look on


helplessly as events in Iraq spiral out of control, its secretary, Ban


Ki-Moon, expressing grave concern about the situation. Earlier on


today I spoke to his predecessor, Kofi Anan. We must all feel this is


a sad day for the United Nations and international community. He was the


man charged with the unenviable job of leading the UN, during one of the


most tumultuous periods in modern times. Arguments raged over the


invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He served as the United Nations


envoy to Syria during 2012, but resigned, calling it "mission


impossible" because of proxy wars being fought during regional powers.


More recently he has been working on a report looking at the drug trade,


narcotics are produced in South America but traffiked through to


reach the US and Europe. The Ugandan Foreign Minister was voted in as the


cermonial President. He's a support of the strict antigay law, that


authorises life imprisonment for those convicts of having gay sex. I


started the interview by asking Kofi Annan what he thought about today's


events in Iraq? I have been quite involved in the Middle East for a


while. For quite a long time. When I was the enjoy for Syria, I did


indicate that unless we found ways of resolving the Syrian crisis, or


containing it, it would spread through the region. And now we see a


movement that is likely to operate across borders openly, linking Syria


and Iraq. With the extremist element trying to establish their own state.


You think that could be the beginning of an Islamic kalafait? It


depends how we come together to deal with the crisis in the region. The


situation cannot be handled by the Iraqis alone, they have asked for


help. Just as the Syrians alone cannot handle their crisis. And I


believe we need a very effective core group made up of permanent


members of the Security Council, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and


possibly Egypt. So you need to bring the regional powers together. In


other words they would need to work together. I'm not sure there is a


stomach for troops on the ground. I don't see any country that will put


boots on the ground. What they can do is agree a common approach, make


a common purpose and work together to implement the agreement they


reach. And undertake not to fund or arm either side. The west came close


to military intervention in Syria, are you disappointed that didn't


happen? I'm not sure military intervention would have made that


much difference. As I said earlier we need to think through these


interventions very carefully, in some situations it can make the


situation worse. We have seen it in several countries, where military


action has not, like Iraq, like Libya. Can I just briefly ask you


your thoughts on the possible President of the UN General


Assembly? I see why you are asking that question, we really have no


right to discriminate the way it is happening in some countries,


including Uganda, to the extent of threatening people with death. And


so indeed have died. It is something that, which cannot be condoned,


should not be accepted and of course I do not expect him to promote those


kinds of policies in the General Assembly. He's not going to get


anywhere. I see the point you are making, if the UN is going to preach


and tell people about human rights and all this, we have to lead by


example. Your report from the foundation suggests a real reform is


needed on the ways you tackle the west African drug problem,


particularly in how you criminalise most aspects of it? That is


absolutely correct. We believe that the war on drugs has not worked and


we should have the courage to ask the right questions and do something


about it. The commission's report believes that we should approach it


more from a health point of view, see how we can help the users, but


at the same time be very firm and very hard on the big drug barons. Do


you believe that the Governments that you are talking to support


this, do you believe that the US and the EU would support this level of


decriminalisation? Well, initially perhaps not, but at least they


should discuss it, and I know that discussion is taking place in the


US, it is taking place in Latin America, and it is taking place in


some parts of Europe and some countries in Europe have indeed


taken action. We are at the beginning so I don't expect


overnight changes. But the changes have to come. Waughs Because I


really believe that drugs have destroyed many lives, but


wrong-headed Governmental policies have destroyed many more.


Kofi Annan talking to me from Senegal earlier.


To matters here, another big rise in employment, unfall in unemployment


and the jobs appear to be well spread across the country. The bad


news is average earnings growth has again fallen below inflation. With


all the caveats to how we preyed it, here is the -- we break it down. We


will come to the caveats in a moment, exceptional growth in


employment and the people in work and another big fall in


unemployment. That is down to 6. 6%. Put that in context, if you go back


to last summer the Bank of England said we won't even consider raising


interest rates until unemployment is below 7%. They said we won't expect


that to happen until mid-2016. Here we are two years earlier and t down


to 6. 6%. It raises a lot of questions. What about average


earnings? This is what is seen as the bad news in today's numbers.


Since 2009, in general, inflation, price rises, have been ahead of wage


growth. Real wage, wages after price rises have been falling for six


years. Historically long squeeze in real incomes. Last month for the


first time in a few years earnings got back above inflation, much


celebration at the time. Today, I'm afraid, they fell back below. This


is where we bring in the caveat, we have to be careful. The first rule


of looking at any economic theory is don't get too excited by one data


point. We all got excited last month and people are getting excited


today. Not usually a good idea. Secondly, there are technical issues


about pulling down bonus payments. If you dig into the numbers today,


if you are the average worker in somewhere like retail, hotels,


restaurant, manufacturing, you are seeing real wages rise at the


moment. You mentioned interest rates before, what's the impact that


today's news will have, will people feel better off or worse off, where


is this going? If you look at the forecast, and maybe shouldn't pay


too much tension and I tension to them, most forecasts say this year,


2014, we should see wage growth of about 2. 5% and inflation a little


bit below 2%. We will see real wages rise this year, people feeling


better off. 2. 5% wage growth is still historically weak. Ten years


before 200 # you expected more like 4%. After the few years we have had,


that is good news. Looking at the forecast, barring some unexpected


disaster, people will feel better off. But barring a miracle they will


still be worse off than 2008, that is an interesting question heading


into the election. Do people look at the last year or do they think they


are worse off than a few years back. It is an issue that has united right


and left, euro-sceptic and file, Labour and the Conservatives, the


unsuitable offup Jean-Claude Juncker -- of one Jean-Claude Juncker as


head of the European Commission. Today the right-hand man side he was


quitting his post and take up a post in London. Where does that leave


Juncker's bid and where he is. We were on the trail of the most talked


about man in Europe. Where do begin the search for the most illusive man


in European politics. Land locked Luxembourg, of course, no I wasn't


sure where it is either, but I know now. And Jean-Claude Juncker is the


country's best known export, if you are into that sort of thing. Let's


locate Mr Juncker, Luxembourg has half a million people in it, it


shouldn't be too tricky. Come to think of it, where are all those


people? Perhaps it was a mistake to come during a public holiday. Could


you tell me where Mr Juncker is? Mr Juncker? Mr Juncker was Prime


Minister here for nearly two decades and is still an MP. But no luck at


the parliament. Mr Juncker? What about Mr Juncker. Do you know where


he is? Where, yeah I know. Where is he? I can't tell you. Why not? We


are not allowed to tell you that. Only weeks ago Mr Juncker was happy


to be found. I joined his tour bus in Athens as he campaigned for


Europe's top job. He's the centre right choice to be President of the


European Commission, and since the centre right won the European


elections he's theoretically in pole position. But EU leaders have a big


say, the Greek Prime Minister likes him as does the German Chancellor,


Angela Merkel, David Cameron isn't keen, viewing Mr Juncker as an


obstacle to his attempt to reform Europe. I do think that Europe is


stronger with our British friends on board. I do think that Britain in


the world can play a major role. Because being a member of the


European Union. So I'm far away from being anti-British. I have come to


Luxembourg, because now what was supposed to be about democracy has


shifted to back room deals, and Mr Juncker is not doing interviews. I


haven't found him yet, but I have come to the next best thing, the man


who will replace Mr Juncker in the Luxembourg parliament if he becomes


commission President. I think he would be the ideal man to build the


bridge between the south and north again and to make sure that Europe


comes together again, and to hold it together, the union. All the states,


including Britain. You think so? I think so, it is one of his


priorities. More crucially for us, does he know where Mr Juncker is?


(Laughs) We are looking for him. Well look harder! Look heard we did.


In Mr Juncker's home town we get a lead. Do you ever see him around? I


know's eating a lot of time -- I know he's eating a lot of time in


the tennis courts. Not if today is anything to go by. What is this? It


is a photo, because I like him and yeah. This is the closest we have


got to Mr Juncker so far today. And now we have found Mr Juncker's


favourite local, where better to test insinations made in parts of


the British press that he's fond of a tipple. I drink more than Mr


Juncker, it is the grant -- grappa. Not a big drinker? No, no. It has


taken a little while but we have found Mr Juncker's house, but nobody


is home at the moment. We were wrong. We have been at Mr Juncker's


house, we didn't stay long, the police arrived almost immediately.


They asked for our documents, they told us we couldn't film at a


private house and shoed us away, clearly someone doesn't want


journalists here. Our arrival prompted a different reaction down


the road. Newsnight understands Mr Juncker is still confident he will


be the next commission President. Here in Luxembourg they wouldn't


have it any other way. The latest cover of Private Eye seems to


capture the England mood very well. The World Cup arriving in Brazil.


And the pilot of the play offering to keep the engine running while


they play their first games. The point is not that England will be


easily defeated, rather than we as a nation anticipate they will. A poll


suggests the English are the most pessimistic of any footballing power


in the world. Only 4% of us expect our country to win.


# It's coming home # Football's coming home.


Oh for the 1990, look at that, songs about England winning football


trophies, it seems a long time ago. Where did that confidence go? People


are gearing up for the World Cup, our colleagues at the One Show were


really getting into it, and even let us have a go. England fans are


approaching this tournament with a lot of resignation, there is more


enthusiasm about the football than confidence in their team.


International polls and bookies' odds both imply that fans are not


sure that England will do very well. Across 19 different countries we


asked people who they thought would win the World Cup, and Brazil were


the strong favourites. Interestingly in England the optimisim that


usually accompanies a big tournament wasn't there. In 2010 when we asked


a similar question a third of people thought England stood a good chance


of winning the World Cup. Now it is 1 in 20, a big change. The YouGov


poll found only 4% of the English people thought the team would win.


That is not just low for a top team, but lower than countries like the US


and Japan. Who will win the World Cup? Brazil. Despite the flag on


your roof? We won't be in it. We are not going to win it. I have a good


feeling Brazil will win it. Not England? Not England. Why is that?


From past experience. Looking at how people bet on the competition,


Ladbrokes' odds imply that the public thought England have a 14%


chance of winning the World Cup. This year it is 3%, perhaps that is


because they think England is worse, afterall its FIFA ranking has been


drifting out of the top ten. Maybe it is because people just aren't


that inspired. Most importantly we are here and in one piece and the


mood and attitude our optimisim hasn't been dented at all. Or maybe,


after 48 years of hurt, England's getting a bit more like Scotland.


# Just don't come home too soon # Don't come home too soon


This was their last World Cup song. We have our guests. With us now.


Very nice to have you both chap, if YouGov called you up, as I'm sure


they have, who would you say you thought would win the World Cup? I


would say Brazil, but it is who I want to win the World Cup, it is


obviously England. The problem I have, England football fans have


been fairly realistic, but you start to dream and you think if we could


get out of the group we could get to the quarter final, if we get there


we can do the semis and then the final and then it is anybody's game.


Once you start thinking irrationally you get excited. Does it surprise


the number of 4%, with Costa Rico on this one? I'm proud, we have got it


right. 42% of the time I would have said Brazil. We have simulated the


tournament, tens of thousands of times, and 3% of the time England


win the tournament when you do that, based on our class. Therefore if 4%


of people think we are going to win the World Cup that is about right.


It was absurd when 13% of people thought we could win or people


thought we had a 33% chance. There are a lot of countries in the world,


if England had a 33% chance what about Argentina and brill still and


France. Do you -- Brazil and France. Do you admire our statistics or is


it the Roy Hodgson approach to dampen everything down, what do you


put it down to? I do think that successive defeats have made people


more realistic. If England were a team that had a 5% chance of winning


the World Cup, you could imagine that basically they win once in my


lifetime n my 80ersy. We have won once in my lifetime. People have


probably just cottoned on to it and not massively overestimating it. As


Brazil are many, many more times likely to win the World Cup, you


would say Brazil then. I wouldn't put it as pessimism, but on the


moment on Saturday at 10. 30 people are at home or in the pubs watching


it and the commentary starts and you say look at the leading line,


Sturridge and Lambert up front. Okonedo and others go we are going.


Only do think we will get knocked out by the knock-out line. There is


a 77% we will be out of the group. The Italians, 20% of who think they


will win the World Cup, have a 0. 3% chance of winning. Hopefully our


pessimism will take us through. My editor says it doesn't feel the


same, can you remember the song? Nobody has seen the flags? The flags


are out. Have you seen flags? No so many in Pinner. This is interesting,


because four years ago it felt it was a slightly more visible,


tangible, is it because we have written it off because it is Brazil


or do we know how the Brazilians play now, we are so much more used


to it. It knocked the stuffing out of us when we didn't qualify for the


euros. We don't do badly and it is not bad result to be in the quarter


finals. We are not the biggest country in the world and to be


between 4-8th, when you are there you get knocked out. When Argentina


is going through a military coup and is down it pulls off a World Cup


win. Spain did the same. In the middle of an economic crisis it


pulls it out of a hat. When we are starting to feel better and there is


more growth coming in? More or less likely? I wonder if you think we


don't concentrate, the escapism isn't so relevant? I'm not so sure,


it is more to do, my generation is 1966, we got to the semifinals was


great. When we hosts it was huge for the country. It felt like Britain


was changing and emerging from hooliganism, the economy growing and


Britpop. For my generation it felt it all came together. It has taken a


long time for the hangover. Before you go, how far are we going to get,


out of the group stages? 77. 7% we will get out of the group. That is


the best I can do. If If we goat get to the semis we will win it! He's


wrong! Thank you very much. Let's stick with the World Cup, over the


next week we will bring you a series of profiles of some of the most


important and interesting players at the tournament. We start tonight


with Da Silva from Croatia. It is the day Eduardo Da Silva would


have dreamt of growing up. Tens of thousands of fans cheering from the


stands and him the centre of attention in Brazil's opening game


against Croatia. This Brazilian boy became a Croatian man, on the 10th


of June it will be his job not to make the Brazilian dream, but


destroy it in the name of his new country. His is a remarkable Johnny


began when aged 15 it was Tsar grebe, rather than Rio -- Zagreb,


rather than Rio where his footballing future. Home was a


football store room and food was what the restaurant had going spare.


Citizenship was granted and Arsenal snapped him up in 2007. Nothing


seemed beyond the man dubbed "the Brazilian". He won praise for the


dignity of his reaction to a broken leg. But there was a real


uncertainty about whether he would ever play again, let alone brace a


World Cup. This year he helped steer his current club to a National


League title. But in keeping with an unconventional career, the backdrop


for that triumph was anything but normal. He was playing for the


Ukrainian Premier League. But even that will seem normal when Brazil


and Croatia take the field. That was John Motson talking there. We will


have more over the coming nights. Now the papers before we go:


Let's have a look at the Daily Mail, Cameron, what housing crisis, and


JKRowlings donation to the no campaign. And Twitter abuse. An


exclusive where fewer checks on overseas applicants have been


revealed in a briefing note. That is all we have time for. Good night all


of you. Discussion The weather is set fair for the bulk


of the UK tomorrow, England and Wales will