30/01/2017 Newsnight

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.