30/10/2017 Newsnight

Are you turning yourself in to

federal authorities today?

Mr

Manafort has no comment.

Trumped-up charges?

Paul Manafort, the president's

former campaign chief,

faces multiple criminal

indictments.

President Donald Trump was correct,

there is no evidence that Mr

Manafort or the Trump campaign

colluded with the Russian

government.

Well, Mr Manafort's lawyer

there dismissed the charges,

but he and two other associates

of President Trump are now caught

up in criminal cases.

And that could just be the starter.

The inevitable question:

is the legal net closing

in on the president himself

and his campaign?

Make no mistake, there is a need for

change.

Also tonight - is this the standard

experience of female

researchers at Westminster -

male MPs feeling they can just lunge

at subservient women as of right.

Yeah absolutely, I think again lots

of the men who I've had experience

with this just thought it was their

right to, that it was an

entitlement. They didn't even show

any remorse afterwards or didn't

even, for a second, cross their mind

that they'd behaved inappropriately.

They govern us.

Can we trust MPs to

govern themselves?

I'm in Barcelona, where things are

getting a little surreal. Reports

the entire Catalan cabinet have fled

this city for another country, as

charges of treason are brought

against them by Spanish prosecutors.

Where is he?

I don't know. I cannot

confirm where is the president. I

think the president's office should

say where's Mr President.

Hello.

Another day of drama in Washington,

with news of the first charges

in the Trump Russia investigation.

Another day this US presidency

has been distracted

by substantial legal problems.

Is the law - represented by the

special prosecutor Robert Mueller -

now starting to drift dangerously

close to the President himself?

There were two bits of bad news

for the Mr Trump: one -

possibly the less serious -

is that his former campaign manager,

Paul Manafort and a colleague

of his were charged with tax fraud

and money laundering.

Not good, and watch that space.

But for now, the second bit of news

is perhaps more dangerous as it's

directly relevant to the thing that

really threatens Trump -

his campaign's potential collusion

with the Russians in trying to bend

the course of the US

election campaign.

A former Trump advisor, it emerged

today, George Papadopoulos has

pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI

about contacts with a Russian

professor, who he knew was connected

to the Russian government.

Paul Manafort is the best-known

of the characters in the news today.

He made himself rich by busying

himself in the Ukraine helping

the pro-Russian President

Yanukovich.

But he went on to help Trump.

In fact, to lead his campaign.

The charges today all relate

to activity before he was working

for Candidate Trump.

Money-laundering and

tax fraud, they are.

And all have been fiercely

challenged by his lawyer.

He was seeking to further democracy

and to help Ukraine come closer

to the United States and the EU.

Those activities ended in 2014.

Over two years before Mr Manafort

served in the Trump campaign.

The difficulty for the president

is that everyone expects

there to be more -

special prosecutors often

interpret their brief widely.

And these indictments show

Robert Mueller is no exception.

It's very unlikely that these

are the charges that they will face.

Prosecutors will often bring

a superseding indictment.

So they could face twice,

three times this number of counts

by the time they go to trial.

This is just the start,

not just for others, but for them.

Along with Mr Manafort,

a colleague called Richard

Gates was also charged.

But it is the third man that has

raised most eyebrows today.

30-year-old George Papadopoulos.

He is lower down the food

chain than Manafort.

But he was a foreign policy adviser

and has admitted lying to the FBI

about his Russian contacts.

It turns out he was arrested in July

and has now been "co-operating"

with the prosecutor.

The White House spokesperson tried

to dismiss him as having little

to do with the campaign.

It was extremely limited.

It was a volunteer position.

And again no activity was ever done

in an official capacity on behalf

of the campaign in that regard.

The president's spokesperson

shrugging the news today off,

his lawyer did the same.

And of course Mr Trump himself.

"Why aren't crooked Hillary

and the Dems the focus?"

He tweeted.

But as hew likes

to remind everybody,

she didn't win, and he did.

Which perhaps makes him a more

interesting subject.

Well, we've heard about the central

characters in today's drama.

Let's talk to the BBC World Affairs

correspondent Paul Wood who has been

looking at this for a year now,

and in particular Mr Manafort's

activities in Ukraine.

Start with the news today. What, for

you, stuck out as most significant?

There are three strands to the

Russia story - money, politics and

sex. The sex stuff concerns

allegations the Russians have

blackmail tapes of President Trump.

Didn't hear about that today. What

we did hear is allegation that's

Paul Manafort got paid a lot of

money when he was working as a

political consultant in Ukraine,

which he then did not declare to the

US tax authorities. This is the

overarching allegation that Russian

money in Ukrainian politics

influenced Mr Manafort and that

turned into influence with President

Trump when he was campaigning. This

intersects with the political

argument, we have a Mr Papadopoulos.

He has admitted to having contacts

with the Russians and lying to the

FBI about it. So these two things,

money and politics, are converging.

Did money lead to political

influence and did that lead to

collusion with the Russians in the

election.

You have spent some time

in Ukraine, you have been gathering

evidence of what Mr Manafort was up

to there, what have you learned?

The

bad news for Mr Manafort started in

April 2016, when a page from a

ledger belonging to the party of the

regions was leaked. Next to Mr

Manafort's name was an amount 12.

$12.5 million. He's always denied

that meant he got paid this money.

In Ukraine over the past week we

were able to meet with people who

dealt with the secret internal

investigation. They infiltrated an

agent in Mr Manafort's operation.

They found and other sources tell

them that he was paid $600,000 a

month over four years, 28. $28.8

million to be precise. That is the

funds detailed in one ledger. They

believe there are two further

ledgers. The sums really in the

words of one Ukrainian MP to me are

staggering. The allegation is you

don't just get this from being a

political conyouant. This is for

influence.

What do you make of the

Trump defence today?

Their defence

is that it's all a witch-hunt. In Mr

Manafort's case, I spoke to him

about this. He said he was trying to

bring Ukraine closer to the West,

closer to the EU. He was getting

paid as a political conthant. The

idea that he was a Russian agent is

nonsense. Mr Trump has trotted out

this witch-hunt line quite a lo. He

is right there is no evidence yet of

a treasonous conspiracy, no evidence

of collusion. That intersection

between money and politics, the

investigators are looking at whether

Russian money bought Trump real

estate and they are looking at

meetings that Mr Trump's own son had

with Russian officials. The same

problems that Mr Manafort is facing.

Behind-the-scenes that's where the

investigators are looking to. (

Let us assess the damage

a little more closely.

Joining me from Washington

is Susan Glasser -

founding Editor of the political

news magazine - Politico.

And from Los Angeles Charlotte Laws

- author and political commentator.

Charlotte, let's start with you -

how serious is this for the

president?

I don't think it's

president at all. Manafort, the

so-called or alleged financial

crimes, began a decade ago. Really

they have absolutely nothing to do

with President Trump. The

Papadopoulos situation is nothing as

well. He was a volunteer for the

campaign. There was a movie recently

with Richard Gere called the rise

and fall of the New York fixer, I

think this kid, and I say kid

because 30 years old, probably

naive. He probably wanted to be

indispensable to Trump. He wanted to

be a fixer, where he put together

Trump with Putin. He had an ego

about. It he was over the internet

talking about Trump liking him so

much. That's what it's really about.

He's trying to make himself seem

bigger than he was really was. It

just blew up on him because he

didn't realise there was something

illegal with having to do this

activity.

Susan, do you think this

is serious for the president? Which

of these two stories, the

Papadopoulos one or the other one,

which is the more important?

Well,

looking, the answers we don't know

yet. This is the first time since

1974 when the campaign manager for

Richard Nixon was dieted and

charged, that we've had something

like this in the United States. It

is certainly a big deal, when the

Guy who was the campaign chairman

for the man who then became the

president of the United States is

dieted on charges that have to do

with influence peddling and that

have to do with lying to the US

Federal Government about it, during

and after the presidential campaign

we had last year. That's one thing.

The Papadopoulos revelations are

really the big news in many ways in

Washington today. It's a total

surprise. This is a story nobody

knew anything about. It suggests how

tightly under wraps this

investigation is. It does bring the

Russia collusion story directly

inside the Trump campaign for the

first time.

One of the theories

about all of this is that this is

just the start and the Manifesto

Club story is going to turn out to

be much bigger because they've got

something on him. Now they can start

trying to plead with him and get him

to cooperate with them to avoid

serious jail sentences on the charge

that's are currently facing him. If

that happens, don't you go step by

step towards the White House itself?

Well, again...

Sorry, Susan first.

The history of prosecutions suggests

that it's a very common tactic to

bring charges on financial matters

or things like that and then to

build the bigger case slowly, some

of the testimony that's emerged

today, includes a lawyer for Mueller

saying at the plea hearing of George

Papadopoulos that this was a small

part of a very large investigation.

Many people here in Washington are

wondering very much how close to

President Trump it does go. I think

a lot of people feel it stretches

credibility to have the president

himself and also his White House

spokesperson making such claims from

the Government podium today about

the president having nothing to do

with any of this and making it seem

as though the campaign chairman was

barely involved with the campaign.

This is the kind of thing his

lawyers would never advise him to

do, the president, to get in the

middle of commenting on this now.

Don't you worry that this is just a

little step and there's going to be

more steps and they will eventually

lead to the White House?

I don't

think so. Because I don't think

there's any there there. It is

possible that Mueller who has the

authority to take this investigation

anywhere he wants, he might start

investigating the Democrats. There

was a dossier funded by the

Democrats and Hillary Clinton. It's

possible there could be indictments

across both aisles. This could be

the end of the investigation. We

don't really know. We will have to

wait and see.

We will, but Susan is

it the case that Trump supporters,

at least for the time being, will

say look, this is just more people

trying to obstruct the president

from getting on with what he wants

to get on with. Just get out of the

way and let him be president.

Clearly this is what they're saying.

Your other guests seems to have the

talking points hand out sheet. I

think you have to judge each piece

of this on its own. People make a

mistake to be pun doubts when it

comes to an investigation, which we

know little to nothing about. It's

clear that these are serious charges

that have been filed against Paul

Manafort. The scale of the funds

involved are eye popping. What he's

charged with here in the United

States is having $18 million in

alleged money laundering flowing

through accounts. An additional $75

million going through what amounted

to an effort to secretly lobby the

US government here in Washington on

behalf of Ukrainian president, and

then to cover it up. Those are

serious allegations. One of the

reasons this investigation started

with Paul Manafort, it should be

noted. This investigation was

already occurring. Then it was

wrapped up in the larger probe. So

there is a natural logic to it. We

should take it for what it's worth

right now.

Hard to believe that

the Harvey Weinstein scandal

erupted only 25 days ago,

with a piece in the New York Times.

It was perhaps inevitable

that it would quickly

find its way to Westminster.

Like Hollywood, Parliament

is a male-dominated,

status obsessed environment,

where socialising and work

blend into each other.

And where ambitious young

people offer their labour

to the more powerful.

It's clear that sexual harassment

and assault have been far from rare,

and shoved under the threadbare

carpets of the Palace

of Westminster.

Oddly, one revelation is that

parliament has not really offered

employees working within its walls,

much protection or support.

But news of "What's App" groups

and sex pest dossiers have led

to a rapid reaction.

Westminster does not want this to be

a new Expenses scandal

or a return to sleaze.

Here's our political

editor, Nick Watt.

Very overly sexual

banter in the office.

Comments about your

physical appearance.

Your breasts, your body shape,

all that type of thing.

Groping, lunging, harassment

in terms of people asking

you for dates and sort

of texting you nonstop.

Right up to things which probably

would cross into more

criminal activity as well.

Westminster, the Riverside Royal

Palace, which has a reputation

for protecting its own,

is being prised open.

Victims of sexual harassment now

feel able to speak out in the wake

of the Harvey Weinstein allegations.

And Parliament is responding.

Let me make it clear.

There must be zero tolerance

of sexual harassment or bullying

here at Westminster or elsewhere.

Whether that involves members

or their staff or Parliamentary

staff or those working

on or visiting the estate.

The government made clear that MPs

will have to change their ways.

I'm well aware that the public

rightly expect MPs to display

the highest standards.

And as the Prime Minister outlined

in her letter yesterday,

there can be no place

for harassment, abuse

or misconduct in politics.

Your age, gender or job title

should have no bearing

on the way you are treated

in a modern workplace.

And nobody is an exception to that.

Today did feel like

a significant moment.

As parliament finally caught up

with the 21st century.

MPs have traditionally guarded

their right to police Westminster.

The first challenge to that came

with the expenses scandal.

And now there is cross-party

consensus on the need

for an external process to support

victims of sexual harassment.

But some voices are wondering

whether today really

will be a seminal moment,

if MPs accused of inappropriate

behaviour are able to

remain in the shadows.

One Tory veteran does believes

change is on the way.

Ending the role of whips

policing complaints

about inappropriate behaviour.

One of the major roles of whips

is intelligence gathering.

To try and avoid problems

in the first place.

Not necessarily blackmail MPs,

but simply to avoid problems arising

if you know what their views

are on a number of subjects.

That is good whipping.

Whether the role of the whips to act

as some sort of quasi policeman,

particularly if a crime has not been

actually committed,

that is another question.

Every whip's office will have a big

black file on MPs and that

will include bad behaviour

including sexual harassment.

And sometimes there has been

a feeling that the whips office know

there are people doing bad

behaviour, whether it is drinking

too much or you know

being inappropriate.

But they're not actually

going to do anything in terms

of disciplining those people.

But they will use that information

to help them when it comes

to leveraging them to vote

in a certain way or other things.

But Michael Fabricant

fears a witchhunt.

It's not fair, actually,

to base things on rumour.

There has to be evidence.

And there mustn't be

witchhunts either.

I feel there is a growing witchhunt

mentality currently going on

-

we've got to ensure that

inappropriate behaviour

is stamped out, it is wrong,

it is unprofessional.

But at the same time we do not

want to see individuals who have

been blameless being accused

of things which maybe they have not

really done or maybe at the time

everyone was sloshed,

I don't know.

You sometimes get that and we've got

to be very careful we don't get

into that situation.

Aisha believes this

is a deeply serious moment.

I have known it from my own

experience as I started at the age

of 21 in Westminster.

I was lunged at myself

and this happened a number

of times through my career.

This is not a problem which is just

restricted to one political party.

It is happening in every single

political party right now.

And I think what people

in positions of power, MPs,

need to know is that actually a lot

of women and younger men as well

have had enough of it and they're

talking to each other.

I think these lists are being

compiled across every

single party right now.

Westminster is a notoriously

secretive culture.

Pressure from the outside world may

at last force change.

Assuming no return to

the old closed ways.

Joining me is Bernard

Jenkin - Chairman

of the Constitutional Affairs Select

Committee.

And here in the studio -

Stella Creasey -

Labour MP for Walthamstow

and the Daily Telegraph's

Laura Hughes.

And Nick Watt has some late news.

The Sun newspaper reporting that

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has

admitted in improperly touching a

female journalist, the radio

presenter Julia Hartley Brewer. This

happened 15 years ago it is

important to say and they both

considered the matter closed. A

spokesman for Michael Fallon said he

had apologised when the incident

happened 15 years ago and both he

and Julia now consider it close. A

friend of Michael Fallon says there

are good friends, he overstepped the

mark putting his hand on her knee

and she made clear it was unwelcome

and he immediately apologised 15

years ago. This came about because

Julia put out a lengthy statement

today and mentioned the incident,

did not mention who the minister

was. She did not think it was

serious enough. She said I regarded

it as mildly amusing.

Before getting

into the generalities, let's ask

about reaction to that particular

story. Bernard, we've heard some of

the context. What do you think?

Having read the comment from Julia,

making a distinction between what

might be proper harassment, she does

not consider that this was

harassment. She regards it as an

inappropriately flirtatious moment

and that is the end of it. And let

us be clear, the more serious issues

that are being discussed are where

people have wanted to complain, have

felt unable to complain or have

complained and legitimate complaints

have not been dealt with. That is

not in that category. It also tells

us that we are in a bit of a media

storm where anything is going to

generate a headline. However

trivial. I do not suggest that is

completely trivial but obviously

much less than this other stuff.

And

Stella Creasy, do you agree with

that on this specific case?

I'm not

the person we should be making a

judgment on this, we need processes

were professionals deal with

complaints. And the people involved

have the right to say what has

happened. This is one problem, this

kind of speculation.

But Julia was

not going to complain to anyone and

has made clear she would never have

done that. I agree that we need

professional systems for the we know

there are a series of complaints, a

series of concerns and we should

talk about how to address that

instead of individual cases.

Laura,

you have been working on this for

quite some time, before Harvey

Weinstein brought it into the public

domain. How big the problem is it in

Westminster and is it a bigger

problem in Westminster than anywhere

else in society customer you need to

look a parliament, 650 small

businesses as it were with no HR

department.

If you have that in the

real-world of course you would have

a handful of bad employers who acted

inappropriately. I've been looking

into MPs for a long time and talking

to a lot of staff it is a handful, a

large handful. 10%? I have worked

with some really good MPs who have

been determined to help expose this.

What I have been looking into, it is

a serious cases, I have spoken to

women who went to the Parliamentary

authorities and set them I have been

sexually assaulted by one of your

MPs. What are you going to do about

it and they were told there is

nothing we can do.

That is where the

scandal is in.

The scandal is

there's nothing to protect young

people. I myself am 25 and I started

to look into this because I got to

know a lot of researchers and staff

and it is not just sexual harassment

but also bullying, unreasonable

expectations because these are very

young people. Not just Tory men and

young females but every gender,

every party and in all different

angles. We need to be looking at the

cases where serious sexual assault

allegations have been made and not

acted upon. To me that is absolutely

extraordinary in 2017.

Let's turn to

MPs, Bernard Howell has Parliament

allowed this to persist? You don't

need Harvey Weinstein case to tell

you this is rubbish.

It is

particularly difficult to regulate

Parliament because as individuals

and as an institution we are

sovereign, we have to have

particular privileges and immunities

to fulfil our constitutional

function. And also to...

You don't

need to grow people.

I'm not

excusing that, I'm just saying why

it is difficult to regulate

Parliament. But Parliament tends to

be behind what is happening in other

corporations and public

institutions. Other public

institutions and dare I say the BBC

have had their difficulties with

this sort of thing and they are

catching up. And we had catching up

to do as well.

Why did you not raise

this?

You do not know that we had

not raised things. When you're

dealing with people who are in

positions of power and taking

powerful decisions, questions about

an imbalance of power, it is all

ultimately about professionalism.

Yup 650 small businesses with no HR

function, Laura is right. People

will not experience of managing

people. And not just Parliament, it

is about the political culture. Many

people who work in politics are

maybe those who want to go on to

positions, whether journalists,

researchers, working in think tanks

or whatever, the idea was speaking

out on someone, any woman or young

man who did that would know for the

rest of their career that would be

associated with them.

What is

important and what many young people

and any age in fact, working for an

MP, when you look at putting in a

new HR structure and must be

independent of Parliament.

Parliament is suffering.

Where you

have criminal matters they need to

be investigated. But were also

talking about a culture,

constructive dismissal essentially

because it is intolerable for anyone

to work in an environment where your

bullied or harassed, and actually...

I could be sacked for doing that but

the only people that can sack you

are the people who are appointed

you, the voters.

So can you sack an

MP? There are sanctions against MPs

which effectively would amount to

sacking. We have talked about

possibly having recall. That would

be an idea. But we have the code of

conduct, we would not be having this

conversation if that works. But when

you say health we called it out

before, the committee that I'd share

a submitted evidence to the review

of this thing we need a complete

rethink because there's a lot in

your buck lobbying and financial

interests and conflicts of interest.

A little bit about principles of

Public life at the beginning but

virtually nothing about how we

should discuss that, how we should

develop professional competencies as

employers. What kind of leaders we

should be seeking to develop.

But we

all know that groping is not

acceptable without reading the code

of conduct.

One worry I had today,

Andrea Leadsom talked about victims

but nothing about what could happen

to the perpetrators.

Would you

support recall, the voters being

told what was happening and given a

chance to do that.

That is one piece

of the armoury that we might deploy.

But it is the voters who will

appoint you. There's a huge amount

of confusion about values,

principles, rules and sanctions. It

needs a complete rethink. As there

has been a complete rethink in many

other walks of life but not in

Parliament.

I think if you're

confused about whether it is

appropriate to put your hand on

someone's knee... I think there is

an issue as well with constructive

dismissal and how to make sure it is

a professional working environment.

Belatedly sanctions as well and that

is what we did not hear today.

The

rules are confusing because looking

at the code of conduct and with

respect policy, it covers

relationships between house staff.

It does not deal with the

relationship between an MP and there

staff member. And it says that point

you might make about an MP might be

considered about their personal

life.

1 The whips have been the go to

people. You're assaulted by your

boss, you go to the whips, who are

the most cynical people, so

conflicting.

That's why there was

push back in our party against

so-called independent mediation

service because actually it was

proposed that the whips and party

volunteers should be the mediators,

including incidentally somebody from

Conservative future and look what

they turned out to be like. If we're

going to have an independent

mediation service -

The whips can't

do it can they?

No, the whips cannot

do it.

We need third party

reporting. I want it done by

professionals with experience with

sexual harassment or misogyny.

We

end on that note. Thank you.

Now - a lot has been

going in Westminster and the US,

but no-one is taking their eye off

Barcelona.

First day back at work in Catalonia

after the declaration

of independence on Friday,

and the decision of the Spanish

government to take more control over

what it sees as a renegade region.

Emily is there.

Thanks. A real sense of norm

al-Agassi in the square -- normalcy

in the square behind me. Madrid will

be breathing a huge sigh of relief

tonight. All eyes on how the central

government would act after its

incredibly heavy handed violent

approach with the voters last month

in the referendum that viewers will

remember well. Today, there was

little physical sign of

interference, but there was one very

large threat - charges of treason

brought against Carles Puigdemont,

the sacked Catalan president, by

Spanish prosecutors. Tonight it's

confirmed he has fled to Belgium to

seek political asylum. He's due o

give a press conference there

tomorrow. We don't know exactly

where. Some already fear a

diplomatic incident could be brewing

between Belgium and Spain. Here,

meanwhile, no-one's even attempting

to pretend they know what happens

now. We're going to be talking to a

key member of the independence

movement on the left in a moment.

First this is my attempt to make

sense of today.

In the silhouettes of Barcelona's

Gothic streets we find ourselves

checking every face, every corner,

the familiar figure of Carles

Puigdemont hasn't been seen for

days. The city's a strange twilight

zone. No-one's sure who's in charge

or how it's run. The shadowed wing

span of Madrid hovers over this

autonomous region. It may be about

to swoop. It hasn't yet. By

daylight, we're all at the central

square, looking for answers to the

simplest question: Who will turn up

to work. This is a quiet market

square, one huge political

conundrum. Behind me the government

of Catalonia now under the control

of the Madrid government after they

invoked article 155 and on this side

the City Hall, home to the Barcelona

male who resists article 155. At the

moment it's still hers. Who knows

how that will change over coming

days. The deposed president of

Catalonia set Instagram alight first

thing, posting this picture of his

office with a cheery "good day". He

tells me he thinks he's inside. "He

came in, he waved at the people," he

says. We find out it's not actually

true. I ask the Catalan police

guarding the building in the

ministers are inside. He tells me he

doesn't know. If they don't clear

their desks, I ask? We know nothing,

he repeats. We're just here to keep

the peace. Misinterpretation and

misinformation have been at the

heart of this whole story. Madrid

re-Kently declared it wanted to

"restore impartiality to the Catalan

air waves". So we head to TV 3.

Hi

Emily.

The Government funded

broadcaster to ask rack el, the main

news presenter, if anything has

changed.

We're under scrutiny but

that doesn't force me to do things

differently. I keep on being

critical, as I try to be everysingle

day, which is complicated under

these circumstances. But we don't

allow that to stop us to do the job

that we have to do.

Do you feel

there is pressure from Puigdemont,

from his team, to tell the story in

a certain way? Have you come under

that pressure politically as a

journalist?

No. Not my colleagues, I

bet this happens on like higher

levels I would say, but not here in

the newsroom. All politicians try to

influence. It would be naive not to

accept that.

As we talk, we hear

news from Madrid - Spain's

prosecutor has brought charges of

sedition and rebellion against the

deposed Catalan president. Now it's

up to Puigdemont's party to respond.

The hastily assembled press

conference is a messy affair. Will

he go jail? He's facing charges now?

The charges are there, but I think

that democracy should be the

reference and we cannot accept what

is the general attorney is saying.

We will face these charges. But of

course we will be always with the

president, with the members of the

Parliament and of course with the

president of the Parliament.

She

won't tell us where Puigdemont is.

It soon emerges he, perhaps his

entire government, have fled to

Belgium, where they've been offered

some form of political asylum. Just

when you thought things couldn't get

any weirder, imagine the

implications of this - one European

country, with its own separatist

issues, stepping in to save another

European leader from jail by his own

central government. Deep breaths

needed.

Mr Puigdemont won the heart of

separatists when he declared

Catalonia a state last Friday. Mass

demonstrations by unionists over the

weekend are a timely reminder he's

left many others furious.

What's

happening here is like Puigdemont is

a dictator, that's it. Catalonia we

were living fine, so why it's

happening that now? I don't really

know why people need to make this to

Catalonia.

I lost a lot of friends,

like we talk about politics, it's

impossible to talk about because

they turn aggressive and don't

respect the other's opinion.

Perhaps

it's only when the streets fall

silent again you realise the noise

on either side comes from a pretty

small minority. Most people, even

those proud to call themselves born

and bred Catalans, simply don't

understand why their leader chose

this fight right now, when the

economic crisis is finally at an

end, when Catalonia appears to be

doing so well. Make no mistake, this

may have begun here in Barcelona,

but its repercussions stretch across

the country and the continent

itself. Something's been unleashed,

no-one quite knows whether it will

go back in its cage or seek new

pastures to prowl.

I guess that's what we're going to

find out over the coming days,

whether that something will actually

take root, have momentum or whether

we'll see it quietly fade again to

nothing, at least until the upcoming

elections of December 21. With me

now Alfred Bosc from the Republican

pro-Independence Party, a key voice

on the left. Do you think this is a

day that Madrid can call a success,

because actually, no violence, it's

gone according to plan and the whole

Catalan government, as we

understand, is in Belgium?

For the

first time, we must admit that the

Spanish government instead of

resorting to violence and repression

have had the day in the sense that

they can argue that they have a

democratic solution or exit to the

conflict. Although, of course, as

you know, the Catalan government has

been sacked. It was a democratically

elected government. Hundreds of

people are being sacked. Of course,

the memory of the referendum where

people were brutalised by the

police. Now I think they've found,

probably because somebody pressed

them, democratic exit out of this

conflict.

So do you think that

Puigdemont has done the right thing

by leaving to go to Belgium? Or does

it seem to you cowardly - is he

running away from the fight here?

Please remind the whole world that

there's half of a government that's

in Belgium and the other half of the

Catalan government that's here in

Barcelona right now. We saw them

this morning going to their offices

-

That was one person here who

turned up to work. That's what we

understood.

No, the Vice President,

I was with the Vice President the

whole day. He's from my party. He

went to his office. He went to the

party executive. He went to

Parliament.

What is he doing here

now, though? There's nothing for him

to run. He's been sacked. He's not

in charge. What work is he doing?

He's not accepting as a whole. We're

not accepting the repressive

measures of the government. These

people were elected. They were

chosen by Parliament through these

Catalan elections. For us those are

the only legitimate rulers of

Catalonia.

Today we heard from

Puigdemont's own party that yes,

they will go and fight the elections

in December 21. This is a concession

to Madrid that that's going to be

the next step. These are elections

called by Madrid, right.

It's a

concession by everybody, because

obviously what you say is right. But

we also have to admit that Rajoy

said there would be no elections in

the near future. He said at least

six months or one year of direct

rule by Spain and finish whatever

was present here in terms of home

rule.

Do you feel the effects of

article 155 now on this city?

Yeah.

Of course. Like the whole government

has been kicked out. In theory, at

least, you find people working as

usual. But they've been kicked out.

The decareer has been -- decree has

been signed. It's a tricky

situation, where reality doesn't

really fit in with all the laws and

orders that Madrid is giving. We're

somewhere in between. We'll see how

things evolve.

Very good of you to

join us here. Thanks for your

thoughts. This is the building

behind me where Carles Puigdemont

would ideally be making his press

conference speeches from tomorrow.

Of course, he's not. The sacked

former Catalan president is now in

Belgium. He's going to be speaking

to what we assume will be the

world's press from there. It will be

an interesting week ahead. Back to

you.

Just time to look at the papers. The

Daily Telegraph, we heard from Laura

Hughes there. She was next to me

earlier, sex scandal could be worse

than expenses is their headline. A

picture of Manafort, no Kevin Spacey

on the front. And on the Times as

well. Ministers face being fired in

sex pests crack down.

Both papers leading on that.

That's all we have time for.

Kirsty's here tomorrow.

Till then, goodnight.