30/01/2017 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Thousands have come out in protest tonight,


as the world works out how to respond to America's


What I want to be clear about is that since becoming President, he's


continued to take steps through executive order and otherwise to


make sure this country is as safe as it can be and we're ahead of every


threat. The President is kind


of doing what he promised, but it's causing trouble and anger


at home and abroad. We'll hear from the most


senior Muslim diplomat The Government here has been


expanding on its view. This is not an approach that this


Government would take. But let me conclude by reminding the House of


the vital importance of this country's alliance with the United


States. We'll discuss how well it's been


handled and what that says Leading the Brexit negotiations


for the European Parliament. Demonstrations outside


the US and inside. A judicial challenge


to the Trump immigration curbs. Businesses complaining


at the policy, and a fall in the dollar and the Dow


at the fear it is all destabilising. And the public opposition


of former President Obama. No, things didn't quieten down after


the Trump Presidential inauguration. Now, no-one knows where the real


balance of opinion lies. Is there a quiet majority in favour


of tough immigration restrictions? What we do know is that there


is noisy opposition to the specific measures adopted by Donald Trump,


and it includes many Conservatives The whole idea of a Trump state


visit is dividing opinion here, but let's start in the US,


and go over to Yalda Hakim, We arrived at JFK airport a few


hours ago and there seems to be things have really quietened down


here. There weren't the scenes of chaos we saw over the weekend. What


does remain is confusion. We spoke it a group of lawyers who have


create aid make shift office at one of the terminals at the airport.


They've told us that they're aware of at least 42 people who were


detained here over the weekend. That number could be much higher. We're


also hearing unverified reports that at least nine nationals from Saudi


Arabia have been detained. We're not quite sure if that is actually


correct. That remains unverified. We're being told by these lawyers


that they're not getting any more information from the authorities.


President Trump's supporters have welcomed the ban. They're saying


this is exactly what he said he would do during the election


campaign. His critics, which include immigration experts and security


analysts, say this won't make America safer. Tonight President


Obama has issued a statement in support of the protesters and says


he's concerned about the ban. This remains a deeply divided nation.


A weekend that made America think about what the country stood for.


The President of a nation of immigrants taking unprecedented


steps to stop refugees from entering the country to, as he says, make


America safer. Today, things are quieter and there are fewer


protesters around. We've just arrived at JFK. I've been quite


nervous the entire flight over. I was born in Afghanistan but I travel


on an Australian passport. I wasn't sure if the policy had changed


mid-air between London and New York. Trump and his team remain defiant


today saying that the government did a phenomenal job and that the


majority agree with the President. I think this has been blown way out of


proportion and exaggerated. Again, you talk in a 24-hour period,


325,000 people from other countries flew in from our airports and we're


talking about 109 people from seven countries that the Obama


administration identified and these bureaucrats have a problem with it.


They can either get with the programme or either go. Hold on.


This is about the safety of America. Regardless of the comments from the


White House, there is still anger about the measures. The order


appears on the face of it to be clear - it suspends entry for


citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for


90 days. It places a ban on all refugee arrivals for 120 days. It


decrees an indefinite ban for Syrian refugees and it places a cap of


50,000 refugees in 2017, roughly the same as President Obama accepted at


the start of his presidency. Part of the problem has been the rollout of


the policy. Confusion reigned over the weekend, when passengers were


detained at airports around the country. There was also confusion


about the exact status of green card holders and dual citizens. Today


Washington state launched a legal appeal against the ban and former


President Obama made his first public statement since stepping


down, saying he was heartened by protests against the policy. Despite


the mounting pressure and criticism, President Trump is not backing down.


He criticised the tears of Chuck Schumer and asked where the lefty


outrage was from the Democrats when the jobs were fleeing the country.


He reminded protesters that a crack down on Muslims was a big part of


his campaign. But others are seriously concerned. You're seeing


people talk about this idea not just on the refugee side, which is


extremely serious, but also on the idea that we're giving preference to


one religion over another. That isn't who we are as Americans. It is


not who we stand for and unless we can retake the narrative and talk


more positively about who we are rather than putting this optic of an


us and them forward, we're going to have a really big problem both in


the United States and around the world. The President says he will


review the ban in the next few months. But that's little comfort


for those who dreamt of a future in America.


Zalmay Khalilzad served as US ambassador to


He was the most senior Muslim US diplomat ever.


Thank you very much for joining us. You were born in Afghanistan. You


made your life in the United States. What do you think about this, these


restrictions? We are in the age of terrorism and terrorists do use


visas and immigration as a way to infiltrate, so I can understand that


President Trump would like to see whether our immigration policy and


refugee policies need to be tightened so that we can protect


ourselves against this threat. His executive orders that started the


debate and this temporary ban can lead, in my hope, to a debate, to an


assessment. Then we can come to a judicious policy that balances


security concerns with our values and factor what we do on our


friends, on terrorists. I hope that emotional period is going to be soon


over and that we can have a reasoned debate. You were tipped to serve as


a potential cabinet member for a Trump office. You weren't a natural


supporter for him. Do you think you could imagine still serving for a


President who had what is, I think everyone would agree, quite a crude


ban on certain countries and certain types of people? I love the United


States. The US has been very good to me, given my personal history. I


have said to the administration, as I have said to previous


administrations that if I am needed, if I can help my adopted country,


I'll be happy to do so. I'm not looking for a job at this point


myself however. Some people, a lot of people just hate Trump and don't


want him there. Some people were willing to give President Trump a


chance and I'm detecting from you, because I would put you in that


category, that it hasn't put you off him, that you basically think this


is not irredeemable, this is not the worst thing any President could do,


this is probably not exact lip as you would have -- exactly as you


would have done it, but it may lead somewhere good in the end? That is


my hope. That's my expectation. I believe it's a responsibility to


help, to get to a judicious place where the various considerations


that should inform the policy are brought together in a balanced way.


I hope that this will happen. Do you as someone with experience in Iraq,


for example, think this is going to work, it's going to make America


safer? Or is it just, as many have said, it's completely irrelevant to


the safety of the United States given that no terror attacks have


occurred from any of the seven countries in the last X decades? If


we balance the various considerations that I have


suggested, it should help, because, as I said before, the terrorists are


trying to infiltrate. Not only the United States, but our allies in


Europe and elsewhere. And we need to have a strategy, a policy that


reduces the opportunity, if not eliminates that opportunity for


them. But we have other considerations as well, oftening. --


of course. What was wrong with the previous policy and why did it have


to be done on a Friday evening with no warning, various departments who


it affects apparently didn't know about it. What is it that makes you


want, if you like, to forgive this policy, given that everything you


stand for and everything you're really saying suggest it's not


actually a policy that's fit for purpose? Well, it's a new


administration. It has been focussed on domestic circumstances, meeting


campaign promises. There could be criticism of the process by which


this decision was made and the way it was announced. It does


discriminate against Muslims, it does. Basically they're all Muslim


majority countries and it allows for exceptions that are minority


religions in the countries specificed. He might as well have


just said Muslims in those countries. Unfortunately, much of


the terrorism that we experience in the world today comes out of Islamic


majority countries, because they're going through a terrible crisis,


part of the response to that crisis has been this extremism and terror.


But there are more than 40 other Muslim countries that are not on the


list. Has started a necessary debate. -- this has started a


necessary debate. Maybe it should have been done differently. But I


hope in the end it will come to a judicious point on what needs to be


done to protect us, but also, to be attentive to other concerns that we


have, including what we stand for, there cannot be a religious test for


visitors and immigrants to the United States. You've steered a


very, very fine balanced line in everything you've said. Thank you


very much for joining us. It's great to be with you.


Well, the issue is obviously a tricky one for the UK.


On Friday, we were meant to be proud of our friendship


By Saturday morning, it was a potential embarrassment.


Most British politicians have no truck with the Trump


immigration ban at all but the issue here is how far


we should criticise, given that we are in the market


The timing of the President's Executive Order on Friday makes it


The ban came within hours of the Prime Minister sitting


Here's the Shadow Foreign Secretary in the Commons today.


The order was signed barely an hour or two after the Prime Minister had


left the White House. Can he tell us, in their discussions about


terrorism and security, was this imminent order mentioned? Because I


don't know, Mr Speaker, what's worse - that the President would have such


little respect for the Prime Minister that he wouldn't think of


telling her or that he did and that she didn't think it sounded wrong.


It would be odd if she didn't have some foreknowledge,


as Reuters knew about the ban and were reporting that was poised


to happen while she was sitting in the White House with the President.


Well, with me is our political editor, Nick Watt.


Let's talk about the state visit. We have this lovely back drop of a


carriage there. Any hint of a U-turn at all. We are not in U-turn


territory. Downing Street is making clear this visit will go ahead. I


was speaking to one senior Tory this evening who says that this could put


the Queen in an embarrassing position. The Government is saying


during his 65 year reign she has met heads of state that are not angels.


I am told that Number Ten is being advised it would be risky -- and


that there could be protests by Opposition parties. Some are


wondering whether it's wise to go ahead with the visit so soon. Trump


supporters saying it will be in the first week of June. The ministers


say if only we could wait until the Autumn, perhaps tempers would cool


by then. The feeling in Whitehall is that Downing Street are in the


driving seat for this visit. The formal procedures have been followed


and the right people have been consulted, but one well placed


source said to me, this was our ace card to play and we played it early


How well generally has Theresa May handled this whole weekend? Theresa


May was praised quite widely for performing a delicate balancing act


at the White House. The following day she felt less certain when she


was unable to offer an opinion on the Donald Trump presidential order


on travel. This evening, on Channel 4 News, it was reported that Theresa


May was alerted to elements of this executive order in the White House


on Friday. Downing Street will not comment on the content of private


conversations. I understand Theresa May was alerted to the fact there


would be a ban on refugees but not alerted to the seven countries, and


she was not told that initially it would apply to dual citizens


therefore apply to some British citizens. There is a feeling in


Whitehall this evening amongst ministerial circles that, if the


Prime Minister has such a wonderful rapport with the president, why


didn't she pick up the phone to him? Why didn't she asked ministers to do


it? There have been sizeable


demonstrations this You can see the pictures


from London. And that petition to cancel


the state visit is at about one and a half million,


or it was the last time I looked. There is one going now,


in favour of a state visit I am joined now by Oliver Letwin and


Stella Crecy. If Donald Trump was invited to go to the house of


parliament, would you go cracker -- go? I would like to speak to him


face to face. There is a big difference between engaging with


America and indulging him. Rolling out the red carpet, giving him the


same treatment we gave people like Nelson Mandela, it would basically


be a way of saying, what you did, we are fine with it. I do not think the


British public is fine with it. They are horrified by the idea the Prime


Minister herself knew about this, was face-to-face with the man, had


an opportunity to say, are you sure this is a good idea? Look at the


damage it will do. She did not say anything. Does it matter if Theresa


May knew and did not think to lobby against it or mention, when she came


out, or have a prepared statement? On Saturday she seemed to be taken


aback when she was asked about on Saturday evening. Imagine the other


way around. Suppose this was actually a question of the UK's


immigration policy about which Stella might agree or disagree.


Suppose we asked the question, do we think that Mr Trump, or the American


public or American politicians should be deciding our policy, there


would be outrage. It is the same this way around stop this and I have


a new president. It might not have been a president I would


particularly have voted for, had I been American. But I am not and I do


not get to decide the policies. We have a relationship with America.


Oliver, he is banning refugees. There are some things in life that


are so wrong, you have to say, this is wrong. It does not take much


thought. It is about the values you stand for. Let alone the seven


countries involved and the fact it is focusing on Muslims. She should


have said, Mr President, this is not the right thing to do that you do


not pull punches on something as basic and principled as that. Are


you an opponent of the death penalty? Yes, I am. Do think a large


number of people in China are put to death every year? Yes. She was in


the room with him she had an opportunity to discuss this. Putting


him on a platform with Nelson Mandela. Absolutely. We have called


for an ethical foreign policy. It is not just about holding their hands


but holding our tongues as well. What she has done is not speak up


for the values of tolerance we are so proud of in Britain. That is why


there are thousands of people on the streets tonight. I disagree. I think


the reason we have the relationships we have is to try to manage the


world in a peaceful and stable way in the interests of our people and


also the interests of people in the world. You do not get that by


lecturing and hectoring other countries about what their policy


should be. Do you think banning Muslims from America or make the


world more safe? The only people promoting this policy is Isis. We


have just heard a Muslim ambassador explaining that he hoped at the end


of this temporary ban there would be a better policy. I do not know if


there will be or not. It is not my business and it is not your


business. This is very interesting. If it is about a small domestic


matter in United States policy, we would not want to interfere. Do you


think there is anything that America can do in its role as biggest free


country in the modern world, that would mean legitimacy? If there are


things that I personally affect our interests... If it is immoral and


crosses a certain line... We should not try to tell the Russians, or the


Chinese... We have had a view on Russia invading Crimea. Crimea is a


different thing. That puts the stability of Eastern Europe at risk


and that puts the stability of western Europe at risk. If Mr Trump


word to invade the Crimea, I would take the same view. What about


Muslims who are fearful about the rise in Islamophobia. I want to know


how much worse it has to get? It is only his second week in office


before this government recognises the merit. We can stand up and say,


this is not right. That is a concern people have. Because we have less to


be used, the Brexit foreign policy is Trump and Erdogan. I do not think


it is that way. Over the past 30, 40 years, under the Blair


administration certainly, we took too much of an imperialist view we


can manage other people's is for them. It did not work well. We


should try to have sensible relationships with great powers,


small powers, trading relationships, and except we no longer run the


world. That does not mean we should adopt causes we do not believe him.


We should believe on our policies and stick to it. We very much


disagree on whether it has an impact either on our communities, because


it spreads division and hate, or an impact on our world. Future


generations will ask, did you get a great trade deal? No, they will ask,


what did you do to stop the hate? With so much going on,


what better time to launch a new Newsnight slot,


which we are calling Viewsnight. The clue is in the title -


a two minute chance for someone to make an argument


on our programme. We'll do one each day this week -


a big idea pertaining to the year - but we won't keep that


pace up forever. He used to edit the Radio 4 Today


programme, then went rogue and now he writes


for the Spectator, among others. Sooner or later, the howling


at the moon must die down. The caterwauling and shrieking from


the affluent, well mannered, but tragically gained said liberal


middle classes here and across the They will surely realise


that the democratic will cannot be subverted simply by screaming


or indeed setting fire to their own And when the penny finally drops,


they will realise the The Brexit and the election


of Donald Trump and the huge growth of populist


movements across Europe. It's not simply a case


of the uneducated, bigoted Untermensch, sticking it


to the liberal elite out of Now it passages a huge paradigms


shift, away from the vapid liberalism which has kept


the poorest of us poor and with less pleasant lives, and which has caused


misery and mayhem in the Middle East And, yes, sure, it was


in part a socially conservative reaction


against the identity politics and the infantile leftism


of the last three decades. But it was also a reaction


against the devil take the hindmost The desire for change


then does not simply come from the right,


it also comes from the left. However, if you're a liberal,


sorry, your safe space Certainly a greater belief


in the nation state and in patriotism and a concomitant


disdain for meddling in the affairs of other


independent countries. Less immigration, I suspect,


and therefore less exploitation of And a certain acerbity towards abuse


of the welfare state. In future, maybe, it will be


a case of if you don't Also, within each country,


a refusal to accept the widening inequalities in our


society, and to make sure that the Believe me, this paradigm shift has


been a long time coming. We are not trying to court favour


with any particular viewpoint We will be bringing


you a range of opinions. And they'll all be on our Facebook


page as well as on TV. When the Brexit negotiation gets


going, we may hear more about a man He's a member of the European


parliament, and has been picked as that parliament's


Brexit front man. He's a former Belgian


Prime Minister as well, and has just written a book


about the EU called Now you need to hand it to him -


he doesn't mince his words Here he is attacking one


of our MEPs in the European Nigel barrage has the whole morning


talked about salaries and biggest waste of money. You know,


colleagues, what I think is the biggest waste of money in European


Union today, there is a salary we up paying to Nigel barrage. That is a


big waste of money. -- Farage. You are never there in meetings about


the fishing policy. In 2012 but no attendance. It is fantastic what


you're doing. You're coming here saying it is a scandal and you pay


yourself a salary without doing any Labour in your own committee. That


is the reality of your own opinion today.


Now his book is everything that eurosceptics have


It is an unembarrassed call for a proper US-like federal


It's almost counter cultural these days,


partly because many are thinking the nation state is reasserting


itself as the unit people feel and allegiance to.


And also because, his call to make the EU more like the US is coming


at a time when many think the US is far from a perfect model.


A very good evening to you. What is it when you see Theresa May and


Trump? What did you think when they were standing together? Does Britain


have good choices out of the EU? What was in anyway depressing from


my point of view was what Trump said about the European Union. He said,


oh, yeah, I think other countries will go out the European Union, the


European Union will disintegrate. I think that Europe, for the moment,


is squeezed between a populist president in America who want a


disintegration of the union and an autocrat on the other side, Vladimir


Putin, who once also to defy Europe. On top of that we have the political


radical Islam. I think that Europe, for the moment, has an excess ten...


We live in an existential moment for Europeans. You mentioned Putin and


Trump but you did not talk about the threat that the public in Europe are


voting all over the place, people who, if not fascists, are flirting


with it. In Austria, 46% are on the far right. It is inside your abuse


should be worrying about, not Trump. I think we can face this, find a


solution by that, by coming forward with a vision for the future, for


the European Union. The reason people are falling into this trap is


because boticker leaders in Europe are showing the way forward. Saying,


if you want to really solve the problem of the migration crisis, the


economic bailout of the financial crisis. We need a more united Europe


and not disintegrated Europe. How should nationalism solve the


problems we are facing today in Europe? Climate change? Should it be


sold by nationalism. All the migration flow? This is a very basic


issue. When people in Germany say, do they mean Europeans or Germans?


Certainly in the UK, probably only in Belgium, where you come from.


I think it's already thousands of mails from Britain, British citizens


telling me, I want to be an EU citizens, I don't want to break up


the link with Europe. Because Europe that belongs to my civilisation, my


culture, my literature, my architecture. It's true that people


are feeling German or Italian or British but also European, an


identity is not one identity. No. An identity are different layers and


every person has his own identity. Don't give it to the politicians to


discuss and define what identity is. You propose defence unity, banking


unity, fiscal unity, political union. Basically it's the full


works. That is what Euro-sceptics said people were plotting and wanted


inside the continent of Europe. That's, they said, why we should


leave the project. In a way, they were right. Britain, you agree,


Britain would never sign up ever, ever sign up to the manifesto you're


proposing, a United States of Europe. Winston Churchill for the


first time said a United States of Europe. The problem of Europe, let's


be honest, is not that this is a big European Union because the budget of


the European Union is only 1% of the European GDP. The problem is that it


is still a loose confederation of nation states based on the unanimity


rule. We know that an organisation based on the unanimity rule where 28


heads of state and government have to agree, it acts always too little


too late. That is the problem of the union today. Not fit for purpose,


not effective, always too little too late. Therefore we need to reform


it. Yeah, and that is the, this book is the manifesto for that direction.


Let's talk about Brexit. You have a Brexit job. You heard Theresa May's


speech a couple of weeks back, where she outlined her vision of what


we're aiming for. Some said that was a British wanting their cake and


eating it, they wanted to be in, then not to be in, but in all the


good bits and not the bad bits. Was that your perception. I think it's a


good summary. You don't think you can work with what she said? What


she said was we are out of the European Union, out of the single


market, out of the customs union, out of the European Court of


Justice. And then maybe we could have this European programme that


interest us - that will not work naturally. Why doesn't it work? Why


not? It is in your interest to let us cooperate with you. Why wouldn't


you? My idea was totally different was against Brexit. I thought that


even the best solution should be that Britain is still part of the


single market. Not only for us, but in the main interests of the British


industry, British economy and the British workers. Let's take a very


specific one, the customs union, she said we'll leave the customs union


but we would like to have, for example, a particular deal for the


car industry, so that supply chains - Sorry - Will that work or not? I


don't think that you can do that. Why not? That is what I call pick


and choose policy, they're saying OK we go out of every European


corporation and then I take the very interesting parts for us, without


taking also the obligations, without also the payments that are necessary


for that. I don't think that will work. We need a fair partnership.


You cannot create a status for countries outside the European Union


where it's even more favourable than for the countries who are members of


the European Union. It's more favourable whichever way you do it.


No taxpayer in Europe would accept that. I think that a fair


partnership is possible. And I think also that Europe has to be generous


in a certain way towards not specific country, towards this


individual citizens in the UK, who want to retake their citizenship.


You'll let me get an EU passport? No, no. Not a passport, we know what


passport means today. No, no, what I'm thinking about is that maybe


some vaengs of the European citizenship could be kept for those


people in the UK who want to have them, in the future. That is a


generous offer. It's my personal opinion, not the opinion of the


European Parliament or the negotiators, but I think we should


offer that to those individuals who want it, who are still thinking why


Britain has taken that decision. Let's go through some of the other


specifics. Financial services, if there's no special deal for the car


industry, I mean the financial services industry regulation is


equivalent to yours - I will not start here with saying yeah, what we


need for the financial service, for the car industry. The basic


principle is we don't, cherry-picking will not be allowed.


This is an important one, a technical point in a way, not much


talked about, but very important. Can we negotiate a trade deal for


Britain and the EU, can we negotiate that with you bhiel we're still --


while we're talking about the divorce and the amount of money we


have to pay or do we have to settle the details of the divorce first and


then talk trade? The treaty is clear on this. The take Article 50 of the


treaty and it indicates what needs to be done. First of all, withdrawal


agreement needs to be agreed and that in the light of the future


relationship and partnership with the UK. So you need also to have


already at that moment a broad idea of what will be the future


relationship. That's exactly what it says. Informal talks can go on both


tracks during the two years? You cannot even conclude even on a


framework on the future relationship if first of all you don't have the


withdrawal agreement. Article 50 is very clear. For the moment, we are


not in that stage. We are waiting in fact for the triggering of Article


50, by the end of March. Then only I think by the end of May, beginning


of June, we can start the negotiations. People have been


saying from the European side, Britain has to pay 60 billion euros


for payments to pensions of existing staff or commitments made while


Britain is a member. Is that serious? The only thing that I know


is that the outstanding commitments now and the future outstanding


commitments before Britain will leave the European Union in total


will be around 600 billion of euros. That's the reality. You can find


that in the accounts of the European Union. We will have a lot to talk


about. Thanks very much indeed. How have you been getting


on with 'Dry January', One minute you're promising yourself


you'll get fit and spend more time The next, you're slumped


on the sofa watching this show. But vegans have been urging us


all to do without meat and dairy this month in an experiment they're


calling "veganuary". And what lengths will some vegans go


to to make carnivores think again? As the month comes to end, here's


own guilty pleasure, Stephen Smith. In her new series, telly


chef Nigella Lawson puts on a mouth-watering buffet


of vegan sweet meats. That's all well and good,


but we wanted to go deeper into this We are approaching the climax


of a month-long campaign to get people to go vegan,


it's called janu-vegan. It doesn't always


roll off the tongue. We like to say it's the hardest part


of the month - just saying it! One of the inspirations


was Movember. We wanted a month with the name that


could become a part of tje annual calendar to encourage people to try


vegan for the month of January. At this vegan Expo et


Alexandra Palace in London, people are sampling food free


of meat and dairy. We marinate it, it's


my uncle's recipe. Everybody else that works


here is pretty much vegan. I did once try to be a vegetarian


when I was about 30. Then I got so depressed about never


eating sausages again, that I had I was very young when I first became


vegetarian, I thought, "Oh, Veganism is a much more


political argument. One of the things about living


with Dolly, I've really intelectually come down to the idea


that it is correct that we should be vegetarian and probably vegan,


but I just don't have the willpower Away from Ally Pally,


another, more assertive side In this action outside a fast food


restaurant in the West End, campaigners show footage


of what they say is mistreatment They can honestly move on,


if they find it too upsetting At the same time, people


have a natural curiosity We have the masks on to draw


attention to ourselves and dehumanise us as well and make


it about the footage we're showing. Our aim is for total


animal liberation. We want to end all animal


exploitation for food, clothing, animal testing


or animals in entertainment. I hear what they're saying,


OK animals are treated cruelly in these environments,


but I love chicken too much. I was going to go to Burger King,


but I'm going to skip that now. Because, come on man,


they're not out here for no reason. Back to Veganuary and veggie


burgers, how many of us could go a month or more without red meat


or an egg, come to that? How many people backslide


into toad in the hole From the 2016 participants, 63%


were still vegan six months later. The BBC is scratching around


for a follow up to Bake Off, what about your dad some


vegan cake experience. Is that what it's going to be


called, some vegan cake experience? Last day for a tax return, if you


need to do one. In the meantime, very good night.


Download Subtitles