17/01/2017 Newsnight


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



But we are hoping to hang on to the good bits.


Will Europe give us a cake and eat it deal?


This club would benefit - and all th members of this club -


would benefit from a strategic partnership


You cannot simply pick and choose what you like and leave aside


The idea all this is going to be efficient, clean and done and dusted


in two years, I think, is a bit of a pipe dream.


We'll ask if Theresa May can carry her party,


business and the country with her Brexit vision.


China's President Xi is in Davos and looking like the only world


leader not stuck in a permanent domestic melodrama of


When did China become the grown-up in the room?


What does Conservative America want the Donald to do on day one?


He should sit down at his desk the afternoon of January 20th


and rescind every executive order issued by President


Theresa May said a lot today - I think as much as everything


She gave us the principles, the specific objectives,


a threat and her hopes, including her hope that Britain


will unite and put the divisions of the referendum behind it.


Underlying her pitch was a statement that Britain is different to most


of the other European countries and wants to be more global.


It wishes Europe well, but the Prime Minister


couldn't have been clearer - we are leaving the EU in full.


Frankly, it's the remainer nightmare.


But the Prime Minister also offered Europe a new relationship,


based on free trade, a customs agreement and lots


of co-operation on science, security and the like.


At a first glance, many would look at it and say -


if we get all that on trade, without paying big membership fees,


while controlling immigration, then we have the best bits of the EU


The question that matters of course, for us all, is whether the other EU


Let's start with our political editor, Nick Watt, on the speech


Today, we finally had a clear vision from Theresa May about how she hopes


to reframe the UK's relationship with the EU.


What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.


European leaders have said many times that membership means


accepting the four freedoms of goods, capital,


And being out of the EU, but a member of the single market,


would mean complying with the EU's rules and regulations that


implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those


It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice


that would see it still having direct legal authority


It would, to all intents and purposes, mean not


By announcing that she will withdraw from one of the proudest


achievements of the Thatcher government, Theresa May was sending


fundamental messages to two core audiences.


To Britain she was saying - I'm fulfilling the instruction


from voters, who said take back control of immigration and take back


control of full lawmaking powers, and also there'll be a benefit too,


no more vast contributions to the EU budget.


And to Brussels, she was saying - you didn't think I would dare


But see now, I am really serious about a clean Brexit.


I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside


Europe has led to questions about whether Britain


seeks to remain a member of the EU's customs union.


The Prime Minister signalled that the UK will opt out of two key


elements of the customs union - the setting of quotas,


and of tariffs for EU trade with outside countries.


But she wants to hold the door ajar to the customs union


to give her options on her prize goal of the closest possible


tariff-free trading relationship with the EU.


I want us to have reached an agreement about our future


partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded.


From that point onwards, we believed a phased


process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU


institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements


that will exist between us, will be in our mutual self-interest.


The Chancellor has led calls for a transitional deal to avoid


business uncertainties if the UK fails to agree the terms


of its future relationship with the EU during the two-year


The Prime Minister sought to turn a weakness into a strength on this


one today by saying that both sides would benefit from the phasing


in of the implementation of elements on that deal, ranging


from co-operation on fighting terrorism, to immigration controls.


While I am sure a positive agreement can be reached,


I'm equally clear that no deal for Britain is better


There was a sharp intake of breath amongst the ambassadors assembled


at Lancaster House when Theresa May showed she has been listening


to David Davis, who said rule number one of negotiations is,


your opponents will only take you seriously if you show


One minister told me, "Theresa May has called the EU's bluff,


we have many more cards to play than people had thought."


And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way


in which I would like to provide certainty.


I can confirm today that the Government will put


the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote


in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force.


The Prime Minister wanted to answer critics who've


accused her of failing to deliver on the traditional demand


of Eurosceptics, the restoration of full Parliamentary sovereignty.


But she also had a message for the EU.


Watch out, Parliament will have a chance to reject


a flawed deal in favour of a unilateral move


We will hear more from Nicking shortly. -- Nick shortly.


Well, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Damian Green,


is one of the Cabinet's most committed europhiles,


he's long been in the Ken Clarke wing of the party and was dispatched


today to face the cameras and defend the hard Brexit


I spoke to him this afternoon and asked if he had been


persuaded to change his mind since the referendum campaign.


I was a remainor, but I'm not a remoaner. I'm a democrat. I accept


that the British people voted to get out of the European Union. I argued


against that, but, as I say, I'm a democrat. Therefore, it's the job of


the British Government to say - OK, that is what the British people


want. How can we do the best possible deal that will set us up


for decades to come? That's what today's speech was about. Customs


union, I mean, as I understand it, we are leaving the customs union,


but trying to negotiate our way back into some aspects of it, is that it?


Do you think we are potentially still in the customs union? We are


not in the customs union. We are leaving the EU. I'm tempted to say


Brexit means Brexit at this point! The customs union is not binary.


There are parts of the customs union that stop us negotiating trade deals


with the rest of the world. One of them is the common external tariff


and the other is the commercial co-operation policy. We will not be


part of those. However, the EU, the customs union itself, has customs


deals with other countries. So there is clearly a deal to be done. What


we seek is a deal that gives us a fribgless transmission across


borders of goods and services. Which is clearly good for a trading nation


like Britain and other EU countries, but we won't be part of the common


external tariff, for example. The Czech Secretary of State for EU


affairs tweeted out after the speech, "the UK's plan seems


ambitious, trade as free as possible, full control on


immigration, where is the give for all the take?" Can you answer the


question to him. What are we actually offering them that will be


attractive? Which, if you like, offsets some of the disSATs factions


we will have from p with us leaving the EU? We are offering them free


access to unwith of the world's biggest - Us. They have that


already. Presumably if they want to not have a free trade deal they


wouldn't have that. That's why I say, free trade deal is good for


both sides. It's not to take from us. We are not saying - we will have


is a free trade deal, you can't. It's free trade both ways. Also,


very importantly, there will be companies in the Czech Republic that


are part of or perhaps the end of a supply chain which may well use


companies in different European countries, including the UK. Keeping


those companies prosperous allowing them to continue to create jobs in


the Czech Republic is good for the people of the Czech Republic. If you


like, we are offering that. It's - That's thin gruel given that they


have all of that already... They are losing everything, aren't they? We


want the scientific co-operation and the security co-operation. We are


going to be - we want to be in the customs union for the good bits, we


want freedom to negotiate other treaties. We are Baghdad - the only


thing we are saying - we will give you the free deal, which you already


have, if you don't give us this, we are going to blackmail you because


we will become a tax haven and a place where all the multinationals


want to go. What is wrong with that characterisation of what we are


saying to them? What is wrong is your basic premise that lies behind


it, it's a zero sum gain. That everything Britain gains the Czech


Republic or the European Union, the other 27 will lose. It's not that.


Successful negotiations of this kind give benefits to both sides. It's


not one side taking the other side giving. Psychologically, the pitch


we are making to them, which is - veiled blackmail at the end we will


become the kind of tax haven if you don't give it to us. Essentially


saying, we take away everything we don't like about the EU and, but we


will give you the free trade bit, which is the bit we have always


liked and always said we wanted. Is that - And other things. Is that


really going to be attractive to them? No. It's cake and eat it,


isn't it? It's the best deal for Britain and a good deal for the


European Union. The Prime Minister made clear that, for example, on


issues like money, you know, we will not contribute - We will not pay, we


don't like paying. That is caked and eat it, again? There will be


programmes we want to take part in that will be beneficial. The model


we are proposing is utter, utter... Isn't it, we will do it a la carte.


We will leave owl the bits we don't like, isn't the case they have a


more holistic view of this. They like the idea of there being


give-and-take. They like the idea of auto people being members of a club.


Being in the room, discussing, negotiating, sorting things out,


giving, like things on free movement, for example, which


something... Or giving in the form of budget contributions, and being


part of a big free trade area as a benefit to compensate for some of


those. Even if if you are a member of a club you might want to say -


this club will benefit, all the ebbs m of this club would benefit from a


strategic partnership with the big people next door. What is the active


ingredient in the Brexit process that will improve be a better deal


for ordinary working people at home? How are ordinary people at home


going to feel better off as a result of it? In that part of the speech


the Prime Minister specifically talked about immigration. One of the


things people have clearly been anxious about, in some cases angry


about over the past 10, 15 years has been the feeling that


straight-forwardly the numbers of immigration are too high. Is that


Government policy, people have been worse off as a result of


immigration, they would be better off when we control it? Some people


have not benefitted. Some people feel and indeed in actual terms may


well not have benefitted. Is it a perception thing that we are


addressing it or a reality thing we are addressing? Worse off as a


result of immigration or they are better off, but feel worse off? All


the academic research I've seen, we can have a discussion about whether


we listen to experts or not these days, shows whereas in the aggregate


immigration makes the economy Iing abouter. It benefits the economy,


there are people whose wages are depressed they may not be. There is


a degree of reality. It's not just perception. In the campaign the


referendum campaign, one of the things that had a certain resonance


with people was this idea that we would spend more on the NHS if we


left the EU. We would be paying less to the EU, we could put it into the


NHS. Nit nit is it your view, we actually see if anything the NHS has


had taken a hit in the next few weeks. Is it your view we will next


see over the next five years, as a result of us leaving the EU,


significantly larger amounts of money, a Brexit dividend being put


into the National Health We will be paying less when we leave


so that amount of money will be available to the Chancellor. But


overall clearly the most important thing in terms of a dividend,


whether you want to spend it on a particular public servers or


anything else will depend on the underlying economy. People are


concerned that we are picking the wrong guy, no longer quite as close


to Angela Merkel and closer to Donald Trump who does not believe


any of the stuff that you just said. You comfortable that were not


mollycoddling Donald Trump to be close to him. The key is not to over


personalised anything. Britain and America as countries have a lot in


common with top historically. But also in our attitude to the world.


And therefore it is sensible for the UK and America to continue to be


close friends and that will be true lover the British Prime Minister or


American president is. That is a sensible posture for the British


Government to take. One of the main remaining fissures


in this great Brexit debate here is membership


of the customs union. Labour are inclined to keep


us in it, Theresa May Chris Cook gives us a brief guide


to what the implications are of one? Theresa May, in effect,


announced today that Britain will not be in a so-called customs


union with the EU after Brexit. Here was the critical segment,


which we'll unpack. I do not want Britain to be part


of the common commercial policy and I do not want us to be bound


by the common external tariff. These are the elements


of the customs union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive


trade agreements A customs union is an agreement


to integrate country's customs policies, so no tariffs


between them, good don't get stopped much at borders and it cuts down


on onerous customs paperwork, Turkey has a customs union


on goods with the EU, What if the EU were to set a tariff


of 10% on imported cars, Companies could use Turkey to evade


higher European tariffs. So the EU demands that


Turkey has the same rules When the Prime Minister said


we would be out of the common commercial policy and the common


external tariff, she was basically So, realistically, we are out


of the customs union because the Prime Minister wants


to be able to cut trade deals around the world and that means being able


to change tariffs and rules. This might mean tariffs,


admin and EU border hassle for lots of UK goods


entering the EU. For sectors that are very reliant


on cross-border traffic, like aerospace and cars,


we're likely to aim for an agreement which will ease their


burden in particular. Those sectors might get


particularly low tariffs, particularly few border checks


and less form-filling. A much harder issue though


is Northern Ireland, an open border with the Republic


is regarded as important Officials have been considering


the Norway-Sweden border solution - a hard border, but where clever use


of technology allows goods to move back-and-forth


without hitting too much red tape. Being out of the customs


union lets us pursue an independent trade policy,


but it doesn't come We are going to focus


on reaction for a bit now. Nick Watt is with me,


our political editor. A lot to focus on. What have you


picked up from Brussels. Theresa May briefed EU leaders after his speech


today and on the surface the response was reasonably friendly.


Donald Tusk said the UK is being more realistic now although he


described the Brexit process as sad. But dig deeper and there are


concerns. I spoke to one well-placed EU Swiss who raise questions about


what Chris Crook was talking about, the idea that you opt out of court


elements of the customs union and then have some kind special status.


The source said to me the UK is prioritising trade deals with


countries outside the EU and that means one thing. That customs union


is gone for the UK. And on the call for an implementation phase, this is


the idea that you would phase in some elements of the UK future


relationship with the EU if you do not get them agreed during the


two-year divorce negotiations, the source said two things. One that


that sounds like the UK is trying to hold onto some benefits of the EU


but not others, and one red line on that, the source said, the


fundamental rules of the EU would apply during that implementation


phase. Theresa May, this kind of no deal is better than a bad deal, how


has that gone down. I heard a simple description of that, it is seen as a


threat and counter-productive threat at that. My source said in a


negotiation you should never say what you do not want to happen. What


they're saying is that that language does not well with the strength with


which Theresa May said she wanted to secure the best possible trading


relationship with the EU. Well, the key British


argument in all this is that although we are exiting the EU,


it is in the interests of the other members themselves to yield


to our request for free It would be against their own


interest to punish or refuse us. Our implicit vision of Europe


is very a la carte and we assume there is no reason why a nation


should not be able to pick areas of co-operation,


as long as it is not free-riding on the costs or getting


in the way of the others. But, those others may


take a different view. Some may want to punish us


or they may just say, you're in or out and we don't


like nations picking the best bits. A little earlier, I spoke to the man


responsible for European affairs in the Italian government,


Sandro Gozi. I SDP was happy with what he heard


today from Theresa May. I think it was very clear, and clarity was much


needed from the British Government. Now we have a clear framework as a


basis for negotiation. So we like the clarity. Just take an example of


something, the customs union. We are going to come out of it. But we want


to get back into the bits of it that we like. Not having bureaucratic


controls, being able to sign our own trade agreements around the world.


Is that a realistic objective. What I found rather odd from the speech


is that Theresa May said the UK should not be huffing and out. The


UK has always been half in and half out in the European Union because we


have given the British people so many exceptions since you joined the


economic community in 1973. Things like opting out. Talking now about


the customs union today is premature, we need to start


negotiations and we will see if this is the solution in actual terms


which is going to be in our mutual interests. Mutual interest is key


because the British are saying it is in your interests to come to a free


trade deal and have lots of corporation. When you think about


it, it does seem it is in your interests so how can you refuse? I


am able to think of my interests are my own. The interests are to keep a


solid European Union which we want to deepen. I do not need London to


tell me what is in my interests, I'm very willing to open a very loyal


negotiation with the British Government, with the government who


is a friend of ours. Do you think the agenda that she set out today on


free trade and cooperation on Security and science and other


areas, do you think that list of demands is achievable? Certainly it


is important to keep very close corporation with Britain on


security. I think whilst the UK, once they've left the EU we have an


interest in negotiating a trade agreement and even a strong trade


agreement but on the model we have with other non-European member


states. And on the customs union, the devil is in the detail. What do


you think of the implied threat that Britain could become a tax haven? As


I see it there is not a spirit of revenge anywhere, no one wants to


have revenge, revenge on what. So I do not think it is necessary to


evoke any kind of threats. And I think evoking a threat is totally


useless and will not affect in any way the negotiation which must be


based on mutual trust and loyal Corporation but not on threats of


any kind. Who is going to lose more at the end of this, do you think the


British will be worse off or the rest of the EU? The British will be


worst off. In any case it is a damage limitation process, it is a


loss for you to have the UK out, it will be a big loss for the UK to


leave the EU. But we are friends and we need to handle negotiations to


limit the damage. Both for us and for you but for you the damage can


be big. A lot of British people if we -- say if we can stay in all the


bits that we want to stay in, it sounds like a good deal. Would it


not be tempting for the people of Italy or other countries in Europe?


I agree with you when you say we must reform the European Union.


Since I was in government with Matteo Renzi and now, we are very


convinced that we must reform the European Union. But to stay in the


community you cannot simply pick and choose what you like and neither


aside what you do not like. If everyone thinks only of the


advantages we would not have a community any more, we would not


have the EU any more and that would not be an interest. Thank you for


us. So much for the reaction


on the continent. In a moment, we'll think


about the politics of it here, but first, Jeremy Corbyn,


Labour leader. What did he make of


Theresa May's clarity? Well, she set out the plan,


of a sort, in Lancaster house and then presumably at some point


she is going to take questions in Parliament about it


other than just at In the plan that she put forward,


there seemed to be an implied threat, basically to say to Europe,


this is the deal we want. We want access to the market,


we want partial or no access to the customs union,


we want to get on with you on everything and


agree on everything. And by the way, if you don't,


we are going to adopt a totally different economic model of a low


corporate taxation haven on the shores of Europe that


will undermine everything Europe It seems a very odd way


of approaching a constructive relationship with the whole


continent. And it's not the vision you would


want as a British economic model, but you probably do need some kind


of threat, don't you? You're going to be dealing


with 27 other countries and you want to focus their minds


on giving us all the things that we kind of want,


like trade and access. As we go into these negotiations,


surely we should recognise a couple of perhaps unwelcome facts,


that nearly half of our trade is with the European Union,


an awful lot of manufacturing industry in Britain relies directly


on partial manufacturing Britain And then she threw into the middle


of it, oh, by the way, Donald Trump says we are at the head


of the queue for future trade deals. Well, Donald Trump's idea of trade


deals seems to be to promote the power of corporations over


nation states, or a tariff I think it's a bit risky to bank


anything on Donald Trump. You mentioned the vote


at the end of the process. One of the things that I know


is confusing some of us is, what happens if Parliament


at the end of the process, Do we have a second referendum,


do we stay in the EU, do we ask the Prime Minister to go


back and negotiate another deal? Well, we are quite a long way away


from that situation, but as of now, Parliament will implement Article


50, we'll put a view up on market access,


the points we have always been making, we will be putting up a view


on parliamentary scrutiny. And then eventually all the member


states' Parliaments will get a view ahead of that of the European


Parliament. The idea all this is going to be


efficient, clean and done and dusted in two years,


I think is a bit But what happens at the end


if we don't like it, or if you don't like it,


because if your MPs vote Well, our line is we want


to protect jobs and living We want to ensure that our


manufacturing industry We do not want to go


in the direction of a race to the bottom competition


where we lower corporate rates of taxation because doing


that would obviously If we model ourselves


on the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin islands,


or tax havens around the world, where is the money going to be


for education, for health, for housing, all the things that


actually matter in people's lives? Are you excited by Brexit


by the next two years? Do you think maybe you would


advocate going back to the blue black British passports,


or getting away from Just the sort of emotional feel


about Brexit, is it one I do not want us to be


an isolated country, I do not want us to say


to our children, sorry, you will not have a chance to go


and study at a European University. They will not have a


chance to come here. I do not want us


to cut ourselves off. Either from Europe or from


the rest of the world. We have to have a foreign policy


where we promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy


around the world. We have to have a trade relationship


with people that is fair All those things I see


as a huge opportunity. It is going to be


a fascinating next two years. We are very clear, our priorities


are living standards, Let's discuss the Prime Minister's


speech now with broadcaster and Brexit supporter,


Julia Hartley-Brewer Evening. Julia were you happy with


what you heard in I was. I was waiting for the "but" it did tick


every box. Your side very happy. Got our cake and eating it. Nothing


about compromising. People voted to leave. We are going to leave.


Nothing about compromise. What about your side, Polly? I think everybody


who voted remain is, basically, grieving today. People have held on


for six months to this idea that there might be some kind of soft


Brexit. Might have a Norwegian model or Swiss model. It's gone. Theresa


May made the decision, it's about immigration at any cost. That means


we can't be part of the single market or the customs union. She had


a big passage on the country must unify, we are going to unify. It's


OK we are a united people. We can put the referendum behind us. Do you


think your side will buy into that vision? I think it's galling to be


told to unify with somebody you fundamentally disagree with and get


in line because, sorry, you lost. The rhetoric - What are the other


options, you lost. That's true. We should say, we won't leave the EU


even though more people wanted to leave the EU than wanted to stay in


a binary vote. I don't understand what compromise you think there is.


The soft Brexit type options. It's not Brexit. It is. The more people


thought about it, when you think about the offers you are going to


get, you basically stay in or virtually in or... Absolutely. Lots


of people have been clinging to the hope we will stay partly in. I don't


think lots of people have. Most of the remainers I know, many wanted us


to get on with it. They are happy and accept the democratic vote. I


wonder... You are describing your set, Polly. Is it 80% of the country


will say - that is what we voted for, you know, it sounds perfectly


straight-forward and Theresa May has got a clarity about it and a


simplicity about it? When you look at the polling there is a big group


of people who would say they prioritise single market access and


economic access over immigration. People like Theresa May decided


immigration comes first. A substantial part of the population,


40%, will be dancing on top of the table. We all have access to the


single market. With he have to stop using the term - everybody does. You


will acknowledge there is a chance the deal will be less pleasant than


the one? I accept that we may end up with no deal. I'm willing - I like


most levers are willing to accept that. Worst-case scenario. No blame


will be attached to the Europeans? Like David Cameron with his


negotiations. We dediscovered before hand it was a fake negotiation. To


no pretence. Had he asked for less than he said he would ask and less


than theure leaders thaw thought they would ask for. If people feel


that Theresa May means what she says and goes in, be confident and strong


and lay it on the table I don't think they will blame her. I think


they will blame the other EU laiders. If we talk about the


politics. Good for the Liberal Democrats, it polarises it around if


you are a grieving remainor you know where to go, basically. There is


only one party that has a clear let's stay in the single market and


maintain a close relationship with Europe, that is the Liberal


Democrats. The SNP in Scotland. The Labour Party is falling to pieces


over this. I think the person who came out of today is worst is Jeremy


Corbyn. What about Ukip, Julia? Does it kill Ukip? I have to say you can


see on Twitter and online Ukip were being, oh, God, she is stealing all


our clothes. It depends what happens in these upcoming by-elections,


particularly what happens in Stoke-on-Trent Central. If Ukip are


going to win any seat, they will win Stoke. Who will vote for Ukip rather


than the Tories? That is the Irish issue. Theresa May is offering what


they are are offering. How much do people trust Theresa May. People do


trust Theresa May. It's an opportunity for the Lib Dems. Apart


from the whole - we don't believe in democratic votes thing. It might put


off quite a lot of voters. Julia, Polly, thank you very much indeed.


Now, the irony was not lost on anyone today.


Britain is aiming to become more global -


in the words of Theresa May - just as the US is arguably


Donald Trump is talking about protection and, in doing so,


disrupting the normal rules based system of world trade.


So guess who stepped up to the plate today to defend the system


It was Xi Jinping, the President of China,


over at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that's the annual


conference that the grown-ups of globalisation go to and where


Xi's speech was a defence of that globalised order.


TRANSLATION: It's true that economic globalisation has


created new problems, but this is no justification to


Rather we should guide and adapt to globalisation,


cushion its negative impact and deliver its benefits


That was in a translation, obviously.


Is Xi's appearance there now some kind of global leadership bid?


The author and China watcher, Isabel Hilton, thinks it might be.


In February 1972, the then President of the United States,


Richard Nixon, visited Beijing, the capital of a country the US


didn't recognise and whose economy was smaller than Belgium's.


Its leader, Mao Zedong, had left China only twice,


both times to visit the Soviet Union.


This morning, his successor, Xi Jinping, was the headline act


We got here because the US built a global trading


system and a liberal rules -based international order.


China didn't buy the values, but profited from the globalisation.


So as Donald Trump talks of dismantling the system,


China's communist leader is now its biggest deffender.


Americanism, not globalism, will be our new credo.


It's the new moment in the complex relationship between two global


giants, one rising and one established power.


Each measures itself against the other, both argue


Both have super rich elites and both leaders promote


Tensions between them have rarely been higher.


Two years ago, Beijing's required reading wasn't the thoughts of Mao,


but the Thucydides trap, the theory that conflict


between a rising and an established power is as inevitable today


as it was when Athens and Sparta went to war 2,500 years ago.


Donald Trump 's advisers seem to agree.


He does want to rewrite the global rules in China's


favour, but he argues that everybody would benefit.


Donald Trump is more of a zero-sum thinker - if he wins,


Making America great again doesn't seem to come with global benefits.


Thucydides argued that war was inevitable because of


# You can't always get what you want...


#. Donald Trump's mood swings


are alarmingly familiar by now and Xi Jinping stands to gain


by presenting himself Until now, China's bid for global


leadership has been constrained With President Trump,


that may come to matter rather less. Well, I suppose the question


is whether China really can be a global leader and free trade


champion, or whether it just talks Isabel Hilton is with me,


and from Washington, Dan Blumenthal, the director of Asian Studies


at the American Do you think China is a serious


grownup player with potential leadership potential? I think it's a


very serious player, but I don't think it can lead or wants to lead


on issues of open markets and globalisation. It lacks the rule of


law. It carries a massive trade surplus, market reforms within China


itself have gone away since about 2003-2004. It's highly indebted. It


doesn't allow individual freedoms or freedoms that help markets work, in


terms of information and access. So I think it's certainly a serious


player, but it's not going to lead the world in further liberalisation.


What do you think Xi was trying to go then, in the weeks of Trump


inAugustation and laying out the manifesto, the Davos manifesto. What


was going on there then? -- inaugration. I think he's current


that President-elect Trump might take actions with respect to China


that he wouldn't want to happen. He does want to avoid what people call


a trade war with respect to the US and China. China is not in a good


economic position. It's stagnating. It's not in a terrific political


situation. Xi certainly has a lot of enemies. He cannot really afford a


relationship with the United States or with anyone really that gets too


contentious. So I think he's... I think that's what he is speaking to.


I think he certainly does still need access to the US market. I do think


he's, in some ways, trying to persuade and convince through Davos


and the globalised elites of President Trump not to take tough


action on traded vis-a-vis China. China is not the great global


player, is it? Not such a great citizen? It's the second largest


economy in the world. That's true. It achieved that within 40 years


because of globalisation. China will do what it takes to defend


globalisation. President-elect Trump has insulted every major ally the


United States has. He said you can depend on us not to walk away from


commitments, defend the systems we signed and the system that supported


all of us it's extremely unclear what the United States is going to


do. It's a message, coming out of a certain vulnerability. They stand to


lose - Absolutely. Who isn't vulnerable. Who doesn't stand to


lose if the global system descends into chaos? I can't see what the


United States stands to gain either. Dan, how much disruption to the


world rules-based system is Donald Trump going to be? He has said a lot


of tough. I will slap tariffs on BMW cars from Mexico. That would breach


the rules-based system. Is he going to go through with it? We are at a


point where we have to wait and see what his Cabinet and what his


economic team and what his State Department wants to do. Because just


today, for example, he came out against the border adjustment


tariff. He came out against labelling China currency


manipulator. Certainly, his Secretary of Defence and Secretary


of State talked about the importance of American leadership and the


importance of human rights and democracy and free, ma. We will have


to wait and see. It's something entirely new. The United States has


never elected an outsider before. Certainly not one with a career


outside of politics. So we are really going to have to wait and see


what the team decides to do once it's in place. Is that what really


hinges it for China is whether Trump turns out to be the more


conventional Trump or outlandish Trump? I haven't seen the more


conventional Trump, perhaps you have. China bashing in an elections


campaign is standard practice in the United States. What is different


here is the behaviour of the transition of the President-elect


and Mr Tillerson who threatens to stop China accessing islands in the


South China Sea without apparently any means of doing it. I think we


are in for some interesting We certainly are times. . Thank you


very much indeed. The inauguration of President Trump


is on Friday. Tomorrow we have the view of blogger Andrew Sullivan. But


tonight we start with Mr Kimball. Next to the election


of Donald J Trump, the most remarkable thing about the US


presidential election of 2016 has to be the reaction


to the election of Donald J Trump. I cannot recall a greater outpouring


of rage, angst, paranoia, At universities across the country,


professors, deans and college presidents have circulated


community wide memoranda registering their shock, confusion,


and fear at the prospect Colleges are offering


special safe places, replete with grief counsellors,


puppies, and Play-Doh Meanwhile, Donald Trump has


assembled a cabinet of astonishing General James "Mad Dog" Mattis


for Secretary of Defence. Senator Jeff Sessions


for Attorney General. Exxon's Rex Tillerson


for Secretary of State. But given the yeasty


and histrionic environment that Mr Trump is entering,


he would be well advised to take a page from the Prince Machiavelli's


"how to" handbook for aspiring I'm thinking in particular


of Machiavelli's astute observation that if you have to do unpleasant


things, do them all at one stroke so as not to have


to repeat them daily. The success of Mr Trump's


administration will But all will be for


naught if he tarries. It's not just the first 100


days that will matter. He should sit down at his desk


the afternoon of January 20 and rescind every executive order


issued by President Obama. On day one, Trump should also order


that America's immigration He should endorse the Keystone


pipeline, embrace fracking, and rescind the punitive


regulation on coal. Obamacare, he said a few days back,


has been a catastrophic event that must be repealed,


probably sometime next week. And replaced very quickly,


or simultaneously. All of this should be


announced in the course of his inauguration speech,


or immediately afterwards. The media will howl, the political


establishment will squeal. But they will have been rendered


impotent and irrelevant Now, a little over an hour ago,


news came from the US that Chelsea Manning,


who had been imprisoned for 35 years for leaking a cache of classified


diplomatic files to Wikileaks - has had her sentence


commuted by President Obama, Born Bradley Manning,


she will be freed on 17 May instead The leak was one of the largest


breaches of classified I'm joined via Skype


now by Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and campaigner


who has met Chelsea Manning What state was she in when you saw?


I solve it in 2014 and her spirits were quite good. She was building a


life in prison and in the process of transitioning to a woman which is


what she had wanted for a long time. I was struck by how good she was but


I spent probably hundreds of hours since with her on the telephone and


in the past 12 or 16 months her mental state and condition had


deteriorated significantly. She became depressed and tried twice to


commit suicide and was punished for it by prison authorities. Clearly


there was a risk to her well-being if not her life if she remained in


this prison. It is a commutation and not a pardon and there is a


difference. If you're pardoned the crime is written off and if you are


commuted it is the sentence that is written. It bother you, that


distinction and the fact that it was not a pardon. If I had my wish I


would have wished she had been pardoned, I do not think she should


have spent a single day in prison. But when someone you admire and has


inspired millions around the world faces another 30 years in prison,


and instead you find out she will be there just for four months, your is


not to complain or think about how things could be better but to be


happy for her that she will be liberated. Where does she stand in


the pantheon of great whistle-blowers in your opinion.


Well Daniel Ellsberg, widely regarded as probably the pioneer of


this, a hero for showing the American people how the US


Government was lying to them about the Vietnam War, he said that


Chelsea Manning was who he was waiting for for 40 years. So I agree


that there was a similar motive and an extreme amount of courage. Either


implications for Julian Assange? I do not think so, he said on Twitter


a couple of days ago that if a banner would commute the sentence of


Chelsea Manning he would be willing to come to the US. -- Obama. I think


it - is and reminds us that with WikiLeaks they have performed


important journalistic services. But I do not think it will affect the


current situation of Julian Assange. Thank you very much.


Wednesday begins with a frost across much of East Anglia and south-east


England, a hard frost in the countryside but some sunny spells to


follow. There will be a lot of cloud around but dry across Northern


Ireland. Some patchy drizzle into the West of Scotland into the


Download Subtitles