Investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis. Including sexual harassment in Parliament and the Catalan president flees to Brussels.
Browse content similar to 30/10/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Are you turning yourself in to
federal authorities today?
Manafort has no comment.
Paul Manafort, the president's
former campaign chief,
faces multiple criminal
President Donald Trump was correct,
there is no evidence that Mr
Manafort or the Trump campaign
colluded with the Russian
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?"
But as hew likes
to remind everybody,
she didn't win, and he did.
Which perhaps makes him a more
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
You have spent some time
in Ukraine, you have been gathering
evidence of what Mr Manafort was up
to there, what have you learned?
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
What do you make of the
Trump defence today?
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
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
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?
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
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I feel there is a growing witchhunt
mentality currently going on
we've got to ensure that
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
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
And here in the studio -
Stella Creasey -
Labour MP for Walthamstow
and the Daily Telegraph's
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.
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.
Stella Creasy, do you agree with
that on this specific case?
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.
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
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.
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...
need to grow people.
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
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.
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.
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.
all know that groping is not
acceptable without reading the code
One worry I had today,
Andrea Leadsom talked about victims
but nothing about what could happen
to the perpetrators.
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
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.
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
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
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
We need third party
reporting. I want it done by
professionals with experience with
sexual harassment or misogyny.
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
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.
The Government funded
broadcaster to ask rack el, the main
news presenter, if anything has
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Do you feel the effects of
article 155 now on this city?
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
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
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.
Is the FBI investigation getting closer to the president? Sexual harassment in Parliament. The Catalan president flees to Brussels.