05/01/2017 Newsnight


With Kirsty Wark. Is Britain heading for a train-crash brexit? Plus remembering rape campaigner Jill Saward, Obama's legacy and turning off work email after hours.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It could have been a disaster but Downing Street sees its quick


replacement of our ambassador to the EU as a sign that the Brexit


But, is there a bigger problem down the line?


As European capitals talk up the danger of this kind of Brexit,


Britain's most senior EU official tells Newsnight he has strong doubts


Can you buy access to the single market?


It's not something that's on sale in that way.


You're a foreign country outside it and you conclude agreements


with the European Union if you want to and it wants to.


Also tonight, Jill Saward who died today made history


when she waved her anonymity as a rape victim so she could


Leading lawyer Helena Kennedy talks about the difference


We mustn't be late for the six o'clock whistle.


Remember when a day's work actually came to an end?


Would you, too, like the right to disconnect your e-mail


after hours and just relax, just like in the good old days.


That's what the French have decided to do.


The appointment of Sir Tim Barrow as Britain's EU ambassador


was designed to calm the waters after the turmoil of his


predecessor's abrupt resignation and harsh words


about the government's muddled thinking over


But what about the other side of the negotiating table?


Until last week, Jonathan Faull was Britain's top man


in the European commission, who worked closely with the EU's


chief negotiator Michel Barnier - he's been speaking to our political


Jonathan Faull has been an EU life and he has put some questions over


the negotiations. As we were hearing, he has said he doesn't


believe UK can buy privileged access to the single market. We reported a


few months ago that senior Whitehall officials were eyeing this idea


because the UK cannot accept the core principles of the single market


which is accept Inc free movement of people and the jurisdiction of the


European court of justice. What Jonathan Faull is saying, you are


either a member of the single market, in which case you accept its


rules, or URS foreign country and you negotiate an agreement. -- you


are a foreign country. He's also casting doubt over the UK can place


and that the Brexit negotiations will begin with hardball tactics


from Brussels -- casting doubt over the UK assumption that the Brexit


negotiations. He says David Cameron made that calculation and at what


happened. But he says that Michel Barnier believes in defence


cooperation and he will want to have some sort of in brace with the UK.


You have been following the appointment of Michel Barnier, what


have you learned? Interestingly, Michel Barnier is quite relaxed


about what is going to be a nine-month delay by the UK in


triggering Article 50 and his view is thanks very much, plenty of time


for the EU to get their ducks in a row, and I also get a sense from


Brussels have mixed views on this idea of having a transitional deal


to tide the UK over when the divorce negotiations are over. So Ivan


Rogers resigned this week, of course. There is an appetite for a


transitional deal in Brussels, but massive strings attached, you would


have to abide by those core rules of the EU in that transitional period.


I've been talking to friends and former colleagues of Michel Barnier


and this is my film. A venerable tradition is enjoying


something of a renaissance in Europe. The grand tour has been


revived as the EU's chief negotiator on Brexit journeys from capital to


capital to agree a common front. In contrast to the agonising in Britain


which lost its EU and this week, Michel Barnier has so far achieved


rare unity on his travels amongst the remaining member states -- lost


its EU ambassador this week. He will want to be constructive no doubt,


but he will want to secure the best possible deal for the 27 member


states of the European Union. A deal which maintains their integrity and


their fundamental principles governing their internal market. But


who is pitching up in those EU capitals? Is Michel Barnier a


European federalist out to punish Britain or a deal-maker who will


work hard to avoid a train crash Brexit in which the UK falls out of


the EU in a disorderly fashion? Well-dressed, utterly charming,


speaks beautiful English, everything is right about him, apart from his


views on the European Union, but I think Jean-Claude Juncker picked him


deliberately to not see sense and to play hardball with the United


Kingdom. Newsnight has embarked on its own more modest grand tour of


Europe to find out who the real Michel Barnier is. His story begins


in his backyard in the French Alps where he organised the 1992 Winter


Olympic Games, one of his proudest achievements. To the Paris a late


the Olympics marked him out as a mere provincial politician -- elite.


He was not a traditional French politician and he had not been to


the right schools and even at times they were a bit sniffy about him.


And said things, he's a ski instructor or something, as if he


didn't merit these high-level jobs. Perfectly plausible, given our


national differences, in a British Cabinet, in a job like a Ministry of


transport. I'm not being condescending, but you know what I


mean, he would not be Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, although these


days... Within a few years of his triumph at the Olympics he made his


first mark the European stage as the Europe minister. He made some useful


acquaintances. Michel Barnier hails from the Gaullist tradition in


France which is suspicious of what it regards as the Anglo-Saxon world


view. But he is no die-hard Gaullist.


His Brussels breakthrough came in 2010 when Michel Barnier landed one


of the biggest jobs in the European Commission as internal market


Commissioner. This gave him oversight in the City of London,


prompting howls of outrage. Frenchman, City of London, he will


be out to turn it into rubble, but of course he didn't. Dealing with


him, in the aftermath of the crisis, very keen to talk about the failure


of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, because he knew that played well in


continental Europe. Two years later when I was leaving the Treasury, he


was more aware of jobs and growth, and when you started but arguments


about regulation and the impact on jobs and growth, he got that. So


very sharp politician. To some, the silver haired and suave Frenchman


had a rather high opinion of himself. Some British ministers or


people who have dealt with him thought he was rather vain and I


remember someone comparing him to David Miller. -- David Mellor. St


walking down the corridor in the Treasury he was stopped and looked


at himself in the mirror and comb his hair -- saying, walking down.


His track record in Brussels and is a leading French politician made in


the natural choice as the European Commission's chief Brexit negotiator


but his appointment prompted fears that Britain would have to negotiate


its way out of the EU in French. Ever the diplomat Michel Barnier


addressed this in his first public outing. English or French? Since


that appearance, Jean-Claude Juncker has embarked on a nifty bit of


Brussels footwork to have Michel Barnier upgraded to become the EU's


overall chief negotiator on Brexit. Crucially he is of the project, he


is a true believer in the religion of building a United States of


Europe. He is the man Babel trust. I wonder, is he looking to get the


best possible deal for German, and factors, French wine producers, who


so badly need the British market -- German car manufacturers. Is he


going to say, we are not worried about exports were we just don't


want to be seen to be giving the British a good deal because if we do


that other countries will follow? One of the most senior Brits to have


served in the European Commission questions the idea that Theresa May


will eventually be able to sideline Michel Barnier tank at a political


deal with Angela Merkel if she is re-elected -- and cut a political


deal. We should look at the negotiations which took place before


the referendum where some similar thoughts were expressed and turned


out not to be fully realised. The fact is, they will decide. They will


decide. We must hope that we can get as decent a deal as possible but it


is ultimately going to be decided in Paris and Berlin and the other


member states. Jonathan Faull is doubtful about one idea doing the


rounds in Whitehall. Can you buy access to the single market? It is


not something which is on sale in that way and I find that rather


extraordinary. You remember the single market -- you are a member of


the single market as a member of the European Union or Europe foreign


country outside it and you conclude agreements with the European Union


if you want to and it wants to regarding the way in which your


goods and services and capital and people move around. Or you don't and


you have a few international rules which apply and that is it, that is


the choice to be made by both sides. But the veteran Brussels official


who has just retired after 38 years service believes the UK does have


one card. Michel Barnier, you should remember, has done a lot of work in


recent years on defence and strategy issues and he believes the UK is


absolutely crucial to the defence and security of Europe, the


continent. And Franco British cooperation in defence and security


matters is extremely important and he will want an all Europeans will


want away to be found for that to continue. -- will want a way to be


found for that to continue. The Michel Barnier grantor will come to


an end this spring when Theresa May triggers the formal start of the


Brexit negotiations and at that point he will find himself across


the table in Brussels from his former Europe minister can spot


David Davis. In private David Davis believes there are double Michel


Barniers, the hardliner who frustrated the British approaching a


meeting last year, but they are expecting him to be a flexible


deal-maker when the negotiations are underway. One of his oldest


political allies warns Britons work hard on building a political


relationship with him. -- to work hard.


Our own little grantor is now at an end but Britain will soon move on


from five decades of history when it embarked on the process of leaving


the EU and the nature of its Depardieu will depend on large part


on a French outsider -- of its departure will depend on large part


of a French outsider who bears no ill will to the UK, but who will do


nothing to undermine his cherished European project.


Over the past 30 years, many women who have been raped


and particularly those whose ordeal made it to trial, have one women


to thank for improvements in the way that sexual violence is dealt


with by the police and judicial system.


Jill Saward who died today as the result of a stroke,


was the first rape victim to waive her anonymity.


Aged 21, she suffered terrible sexual violence at the hands


of two men who broke into her home, a vicarage in Ealing, West London.


She had no problem being described as a rape victim saying that it


enabled her to challenge politicians to work for change.


Her case was also infamous for the remarks of the judge


Mr Justice Leonard who opined that the trauma suffered by


This after repeated rape and anal rape.


In a moment, I'll be speaking to the QC Helena Kennedy


about Jill Saward but first here she is speaking to Jenni Murray


I'm not sure whether it was a carving knife or not


but it was a relatively big knife, held it on my chin.


And said that he was going to cut my throat.


I mean, I was trying to calm the situation down by reacting


the way I thought they wanted me to react, not arguing


But it wasn't the blade edge of the knife that he had.


And it was on my chin and I thought, if you're going to cut my throat


you're not going to get very far with a knife on my chin.


And I could be that flippant because it didn't really


It wasn't very nice to be burgled but we'd live,


It began to be serious when man two took me upstairs


and bought me into this room, the spare room, basically.


He called me a slut, slag, bitch, cow, things like that.


Because I knew that was the only way I could get through it.


Just let my body takeover and function as a machine.


I don't know how you create a barrier, but I did


create a barrier where everything turned off.


There are a couple of times when there must have been emotions


still there because I could pray that I wanted to get


And pray that I would still be able to have kids.


You're being forced into a situation where it should be loving


You just have nothing, absolutely nothing, you are stripped


of everything you've got and you are forced into


the situations and to do things that are totally alien to you.


And to do things that you have no control over.


And because it's a power struggle, really, more than anything.


How shocking was it for people to hear Jill Saward give her own


testimony. Because the men ten hear Jill Saward give her own


testimony. Because the men pled guilty. At that time, we were still


having trouble getting this taken seriously as we wanted and this was


an example of that. Why Jill Saward was so important was that she really


nailed this thing, the chap that only committed burglary got a much


higher sentence than those who had committed burglary and had raped


her. As she was presented as having survived this trauma intact and


presented a good face to the world, somehow it was something that should


benefit those who committed the crime. That was extraordinary. The


idea that property offences carried heavy sentences than the rape of a


woman. The idea of waving anonymity. That was incredibly courageous. In


one way, you could say that her life was not taken over by the rape but


it was defined in some degree by it. It couldn't ever be less traumatic


for other women but she meant that there was more support for other


women. Some survivors of rape who do talk about it, they feel that it


becomes the defining thing and they don't want it. In a way, she


accepted it as in some ways what made her the person she was. It was


important that she gave voice to what she had experienced. She


actually phoned me at the time I was interviewed because I was one of the


voices that was heard on this subject at the time because I was


very unhappy with the way the court was dealing with women in the


criminal justice system, she heard me speaking on the radio about it,


or television, she phoned my chambers and I called her back. She


wanted to know what she could do to help with the campaign. The thing I


was very keen on was that we should have proper judicial training.


Judges did not understand this. It was clear that Justice Leonard did


not understand the level of trauma. Probably ten years later, in the


1990s, after I had become a Queens Counsel I did a murder trial in


front of John Leonard. Sometimes as does happen when judges are on the


circuit, he invited as in to have lunch with him and his wife at the


end of the trial and he said to me, you gave me a hard time over the


vicarage rape case. I said, well, Justice Leonard, it was because I


really did feel that the judiciary were not understanding this at the


time. He said, I got it wrong. He should have said that in public. I


wonder about the question of anonymity. We go backwards and


forwards. Is there a sense if women spoke out more it wouldn't feel like


a different crime. Something that has stigma around it. Just a


straightforward act of violence. It is more horrific because it abuse is


something that we keep precious in our lives. That is why it has that


other dimension to it. For those who are raped, mainly women, I know


there are male experiences and children, of course but it is mainly


women, they feel it is partly about humiliation. Jill wanted to campaign


about the level of sexual assault because she was forced to do other


things. Other things were done to her. It wasn't just rape in the


traditional sense. She was forced to have oral and anal sex. She wanted


that changing definition. It was about her being so vocal on it. The


idea that rape is only shameful for the rapist and not the victim.


Absolutely. We are still not getting it. Part of it was that Jill in many


ways was able to get the public support because she was the daughter


of a vicar, it happened in the cause of a burglary and so on, for many


women it happens in privacy. They may have been drinking. So all the


other things around militate against the woman getting justice and we


have to do something about this business of saying that some women


are worthy and others are not. We have to get justice for all. Thank


you. How does President Obama leave


America on the world stage? In the run up to the inauguration


of his successor, he's been trying Today, he sent a letter


to the American people. In it, he highlights some


of his foreign policy achievements, including the withdrawal


of most US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, the building


of a counter-terrorism capability to take on IS and preventing


foreign attacks on US soil. So, how strong is America's military


power and influence after eight Here is our Diplomatic


Editor Mark Urban. This was what Obama's surge


in Afghanistan looked like up close in 2009 -


but it, like the drone operations he ramped up


in neighbouring Pakistan, claimed lives, but hardly turned


the security situation around. This week, though, a chance for him


to point up his own achievements as Commander-in-Chief -


and thank those The core al Qaeda


leadership that attacked us Countless terrorist leaders,


including Osama bin Laden, are gone. Ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan


was a key part of Obama's platform. Whereas once there were 180,000


US troops in those countries, that was cut down to as low as


a few thousand at one point, but it's now back up at 15,000


because of the Islamic State group So, the president leaves office


with Americans still fighting You just doubled the number


of forward militarily advertisers in Iraq,


you're flying a major combat air war in both Iraq


and Syria And that is quite a large military contribution and it


certainly doesn't have any clear end While gearing the US military


to fight insurgents, its ability to take on another state


has declined significantly The Army shrunk from 48 to 32


brigade combat teams, the average age of a US air force


plane has grown to 27 years, and, critically, readiness


has dropped to the point where, for example, the US Navy


may have 10 aircraft carriers, but it only has enough


combat-ready jets to deploy We have large forces deployed


for 15 years around the world. Sometimes doing, even not dangerous


or really demanding flying missions, in some cases,


you do start losing your edge. When sequestration was first


implemented in 2013, the US Air Force, for example,


which I'm more familiar with had almost half of its aircraft grounded


for a Now, that is very dangerous


for our countries. Some blame for hollowing out


of American capability can be put on 'sequestration' the tactic


used by a Republican-controlled But as a matter of policy,


President Obama has cut military spending as a proportion of GDP


from 4.6% in 2009 to 3.3% today. And while the Pentagon


still spends huge sums, wayward projects like


the trillion dollar F35 fighter, or the $7 billion


a ship Zumwalt destroyer have absorbed large amounts with little


capability, so far, to show. Stephen Rademaker was


Assistant Secretary of State for International Security under


George W Bush and Julianne Smith was Deputy National Security Advisor


to Obama's Vice President Joe Biden. Good evening to you both. First of


all, Stephen, George Bush left office with 180,000 troops still in


Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama pledged to bring them home and


brought home all but 20,000. That was a job well done, wasn't it? I


think everybody is happy to have a smaller foreign deployment than we


did a decade ago. But I think it is pretty clear, particularly looking


at the situation in Iraq, that Obama's withdrawal of those forces


in time to be able to declare while running for re-election in 2012 that


he had pulled out every US soldier was premature. He gave a speech


yesterday celebrating the fact that he had reclaimed half of the


territory conquered by Isis but they had no territory when President


Obama took office. To reclaim half of what they had taken is small


accomplishment in that perspective. They had, Obama allowed -- had Obama


allowed a more robust presence to remain in Iraq, they wouldn't have


gained so much. So it was politically expedient to remove so


many troops from Iraq but it didn't make military sense. So the chances


of going into a foreign conflict again are minimal? First, let me say


that the president feels that he was elected and I think this is


legitimate, he was elected to withdraw troops from Iraq and


Afghanistan. Many of our military commanders did not want troops


there. It was his key priority. Specifically talking about Iraq, I


would say that the president made an effort to get the status of forces


agreement with Iraq to ensure that we could keep at least 10,000 troops


on the ground in Iraq and we were not successful in brokering that


agreement. Therefore, the president decided for the safety of those


troops to pull them out of Iraq. Moving on to Syria, we have a


situation where you were part of drawing that redline on chemical


weapons and then, of course, nothing actually happened. It gave a very


clear signal that America isn't prepared to re-engage and is


withdrawing from the world stage. The specific decision on the Syrian


red line created concerns amongst our allies and partners around the


world, about American credibility and leadership, but that said, many


allies and our partners looked at the President's decision that came


after that to seize on the opportunity to work with countries


around the world, to rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile and


they look at that with admiration and are grateful to see those


chemical weapons gone. Regarding the red line, do you think troops should


have gone in when the red line was crossed by Assad? I don't think any


president should draw a red line if he doesn't have the intention to


enforce it which proved to be the case in Syria which has seriously


because she was for the credibility of the United States. -- has serious


repercussions for the credibility. The Iranians, the Russians, they


have stepped into Syria, there was an attempted diplomatic settlement


in Syria just a week ago, the United States doesn't even have a seat at


the table. Nearly 500,000 Syrians have died. Enormous humanitarian


catastrophe and a bar President Obama looked the other way. In a


way, he has attempted a different kind of engagement, for example,


more easily with Cuba, but much more difficulty with the Iran nuclear


deal, and in the end he has bought at least time with Iran. The Iran


nuclear deal was a huge mistake, and in nine years from now we will


recognise what a disaster it was when Iran begins to exercise the


rights that President Obama has agreed that they will have two


advance their nuclear weapons programme in the future. In Syria,


there were options other than the deployment of US military forces and


President Obama declared that the US would seriously support moderate


opposition forces at one stage, over $500 million was spent on this


effort according to news reports, and in the end it was not deployed,


that was not a serious effort. On the question of where this leaves


America's position as a result of that policy, we have Assad


emboldened and Russia emboldened, Libya is a mess and you could say


ten years down the road there will be a difficult conversation with


Iran. Coupled with the reduction on military spending, and you wonder


whether America has the same influence it had on the world stage


eight years ago. First of all, regarding the Iran deal, let's think


back to a couple of years ago when Iran was weeks away from acquiring a


nuclear bomb and we now have more time. Is it perfect? No, it isn't,


and Iran could cheat and we will have to deal with this question ten


years from now. I will take the ten years over the months and weeks that


we were facing earlier just a few years ago. In terms of where we are


today versus when he came into office, let's think about where we


work with almost 200,000 troops deployed overseas -- where we were.


The image of the United States in tatters based on the war in rack and


the global war on terror and questions about torture and our


values -- the war in rack. Not much of a focus on the Pacific where a


lot of our interests lie. Open ended questions about US counterterrorist


actresses and how we were carrying on with counterterrorism operations


around the world -- US counterterrorist. Thanks for joining


us. For most people,


the working day used to have a beginning,


and an end. Workers clocked on, and off,


and when they came home, their time was, more


or less, their own. But, over the years,


as communications technology developed, the boundaries


began to blur. Mobile phones meant that people


could receive work calls wherever they went and e-mail,


the Internet, and smartphones allowed employees to do most things


remotely that previously could only Video calling has now


made face-to-face The revolution has allowed firms


to cut back on physical infrastructure and enabled workers


who'd previously struggled to get to the office


to enter the workforce. But the breakdown of boundaries


between office and home has allowed work to encroach evermore


into people's nonwork life. Some firms are fighting back


by enforcing a strict curfew after which no work is allowed and,


in France, a new law obliges companies to draw up


guidelines to protect workers So, do the negatives


outweigh the positives, or do we need to learn to live


with blurry distinctions Well, here to discuss


are Matthew Gwyther, the editor of Management Today,


and Julia Hobsbawm, a Visiting Professor


at London's Cass Business School and the author of a forthcoming book


- Fully Connected: Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Overload -


about 21st century connectedness Good evening to both of you. Let's


look at the French law, 35 hour week and now the idea that you have the


right to disconnect. Could it work here? When I first heard this story


about France, you think, it's another one in the series of things,


35 hour week, ten weeks holiday, they must be a nation of shirkers,


but they are more productive than we are. The idea is a good and


civilised one, because there will be people watching this programme who


will then lean back and send a fewer e-mails to their staff to keep them


on their toes and that is not a very civilised way of carrying on. Can


you disconnect? You can. You have got to find what makes you relaxed


and happy, there are many people who want to have time off between five


and eight in the evening if they want to spend time with children,


and then work in the evening, nothing wrong with that. Is that not


being enslaved? We are in slave, there's an epidemic of overload and


a blurring of boundaries between work and home life and we are all a


blended self now. Technology is meant to make life more flexible. It


hasn't, it is a complete myth, have the evidence of the academic studies


of the last ten years shows nine years ago the... There was a study


published which said e-mail had brought about a 46% increase in the


matter what people had to do, technology doesn't set you free, but


it might mean you can work from the checkout or from the bathroom. This


French study doesn't seem to hit the spot. Rather the change in the


French law. Productivity is stagnant around the world, that is the issue,


and so you can say is enshrined that you don't have to do is e-mail but


why do people not do very well at work, that is what interests me. I


wonder if you think that there are mental health issues to being


Salmond about this idea of being on all the time. -- to be summoned. We


don't know much about social health, about how we connect and when we


connect and how much time we have to be on or offline, there are only 160


hours in the week. We sold enormity and complexity, we are sold a vision


of limitless nurse and we don't have much time. Who dictates


connectedness? The employer or the employee? Is it the import who sets


the culture? -- the employer. 120 billion work e-mails are sent around


the globe every day, Andy Reid think they all have a purpose and they are


all necessary? -- and do you think. Stack chat, messaging, so many ways


of getting in touch, sometimes you can't escape -- snap chat. This


impacts on decision-making, people don't have time to think and walk


away from it and come back? Absolutely. The worst thing you can


do is to have your digital assistant, your iPhone, plug it in


last thing at night and it is their first thing in the morning. You


should leave it downstairs and get away from it, otherwise you simply


don't have time. Do you think companies now, because this is just


the start of this connectedness in a way? This is the start of


recognising connectedness and its discontents because we have been in


thrall to it and we have been in love with it. To be always on is a


good thing, we have thought, so I welcome the cultural signifier of


the French saying it is not that great. Ipsos MORI gave me some data


which suggests the British are more worried about being digitally


connected than the French. What should we do? Have a set of


strategies around who we connect with and when we connect and what we


do around information in exactly the same way we do around our physical


and mental health. The World Health Organisation used the phrase social


health 70 years ago and we have never in fact done anything about


it. Thanks for joining us. We leave you with the sad news


that the last remaining ABC cinema closed its doors for the final time


this week in Bournemouth. The company Associated British


Cinemas launched in 1927 and became a familiar


sight around the country. The closure is in sharp contrast


to the glamour of the '60s when the brand attracted major stars


to its screens. I never know what to


get for presents. Can't remember the size


of women's legs, feet. Don't know the sort


of things they read. Now, why didn't I think


of that before? If there's one thing that pleases


everybody, it's this. A gift and a greeting


card all in one. Buy an ABC seat token


from the young lady at the pay box and give your friends the best


Christmas or birthday gift they've ever had,


namely happy movies. A bitterly cold start for everyone


this morning, and parts of rural Oxfordshire woke