22/01/2018 Newsnight

This programme contains scenes

of Repetitive Flashing Images.

For three decades, we've persuaded

ourselves we don't need

to fight other countries -

that war had changed,

it was all about insurgents.

Well, is it time

to change our minds?

Russia, I think, could initiate

hostilities sooner than we expect.

And a lot earlier than we would

in similar circumstances.

I don't think it will start

with little green men.

It will start with

something we don't expect.

Britain is set to have a new

Strategic Defence Review this year.

The Generals are making

the case for more money.

So tonight, we'll take a good look

at what our defence is for.

And we'll hear a view

from the US, too.

What do they think our

money should be buying?

Also tonight: They say attack

is the best form of defence,

which explains why the Ukip leader

is out to fight his

rebellious colleagues.

I shall respect the next steps

in the constitutional process,

and will therefore not be resigning

as party leader.

We tried the men in grey suits,

perhaps it's now time

for the men in white coats.

I don't know, he seems to me to have

lost all touch with reality.

We'll ask Ukip old-timer Suzanne

Evans whether the party is now over.

And, forget David Davis -

this is the man running Brexit

for Britain: Civil servant Olly

Robbins.

But Brexiteers worry that Whitehall

are not all with the programme.

The officials will do their best

to frustrate this process,

because as I say, it goes

against the grain so fundamentally.

And, should the tradition of African

women kneeling be scrapped?

Is it part of a proud heritage,

or an obstacle to social progress?

Hello.

What is our defence budget for?

It's about 2% of our national

income, going up to about £40

billion a year by the end

of the decade.

Unfortunately, £40 billion doesn't

buy you as much is it used to.

And the Head of the Army,

General Sir Nick Carter,

set out the arguments for spending

more today - mostly by reference

to the threat of a stronger Russia.

Former Defence Secretary Sir Michael

Fallon said tonight we should aim

to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence.

But, you can't decide

what the right level of spending

is until you know what it's for.

You have to give the military a big

budget or narrow priorities -

you can't expect them to do

everything with nothing.

So, is fighting Russia what we think

British defence is about these days?

Or any country?

Britain is set to have a major

review of priorities this year -

which actually explains why

Sir Nick Carter made his pitch

today, so we'll look at some

of the central questions.

First, here's our Defence

Editor, Mark Urban.

So, the defence review that dare not

speak its name is dead,

long live the Strategic Defence

and Security Review.

It's not a pretty story

from the Government's point of view.

Faced with higher costs for buying

equipment from abroad

and an overset programme,

the Cabinet Office started looking

for cuts late last summer.

People in Whitehall told me it

couldn't be called a review

because the then Defence Secretary,

Michael Fallon, had conducted one

of those in 2015 and didn't

like the optics of having to do one

again so soon.

But it went deeper than that.

As the Cabinet Office

conducted its capability refresh,

as some people called it,

it started to look at possible deep

cuts to Britain's Armed Forces.

Details then leaked,

and MPs became outraged.

Newsnight's learned

that the Royal Navy would lose its

ability to assault

enemy-held beaches.

Critically, when Newsnight broke

the news that there were plans

to get rid of the amphibious landing

fleet, it touched off angry scenes

in Parliament.

Why should thousands of soldiers,

sailors and airmen be

lost, elite units be merged,

or aircraft, frigates and vital

amphibious vessels be scrapped long

before their out of service

dates?

When Michael Fallon resigned

in November, his successor, Gavin

Williamson, got the Prime Minister's

backing to stop the original

cost-cutting exercise.

Now we can expect a full

Strategic Defence and

Security Review in

the spring and summer.

And today, the Army Chief

set the stage, warning that Britain

must do more to counter Russia's

enhanced military capabilities, and

willingness to use them.

I believe our ability

to pre-empt or respond

to these threats will be eroded

if we don't match up to them now.

They represent a clear

and present danger.

Critical to the exercise now is not

just an attempt to balance

the books, but to define the purpose

of the British Armed Forces

post-Brexit.

What hard power role does global

Britain expects to play,

and how much will that cost?

If Britain keeps on cutting.

An army of 60,000 was mooted

in the last exercise.

But what role can it

really play in helping

its friends, or making

any

realistic preparations for war

against another state?

And Mark Urban is with me now.

Ye used the word cutting, Mark. An

existing policy, is spending going

up?

Cutting of capability is what

was in visit in this exercise in the

last few months. The Gus MacPherson,

we are spending more and more. --

the Government says. It is more and

more each year, a guarantee to spend

more of the information on

equipment. It's not enough, though.

Critically, the appreciation of

sterling on big programmes like the

F-35 fighter, Trident replacement,

has bitten in far more deeply than

those rises can cope with. The

forces have done what they've been

doing constantly since the war,

they've overstepped the programme.

They've put into many things, they

cannot afford all of their

ambitions.

We are going to have the

Strategic Defence Review this year.

Let's suppose we are going to do one

now in our guests with what the

priorities are. What is the question

and white with you the most critical

question is, the average member of

the public

thinks the Armed Forces

are here to fight other countries if

that really has to happen. But the

truth is, since the end of the Cold

War, Britain simply doesn't have

that ability any more. And you can

park Russia and China. I mean, they

really mega- once, for a bit. Any

country or non-state actor, and

there are some, that can attack

warships with fast at supersonic and

shipping missiles, people with

submarines, that could be Iran,

North Korea, people with

sophisticated air defence networks,

all of these countries have

capabilities that the UK, really

either match, resist or take on.

Even the air defences of a country

like Syria were causing

consternation in the MoD when they

were asked seriously to look at 2013

at whether or not the UK could do

strikes. It is really about any

other country with sophisticated

weapons, fast jets, missiles,

submarines, and, critically, once it

starts, the stocks of things like

torpedoes, anti-aircraft missiles,

artillery shells, are so low that

Britain couldn't fight literally for

more than a day or two.

Mark, that's

a good question, thank you very

much. Let's raise that.

Joining me now is Conservative MP

and former British Army

Captain Johnny Mercer.

I'm also joined

by military historian

and commentator Max Hastings.

And Kishwer Falkner,

Liberal Democrat peer and former

National Security Strategy Committee

member.

Former Assistant US Secretary

of Defense, Graham Allison -

he's now Douglas Dillon Professor

of Government at the

Harvard Kennedy School.

He joins us from the US.

I will start with you if I may,

Graham Allison, thank you for

joining us. I want an American

perspective on a medium power,

medium-sized power, just off Europe,

across the Atlantic, watch it we be

spending on defence and what do you

think of our role is being so what

should we be spending?

It is a tough

set of questions and I know people

will struggle with it. But I think

Britain historically has played a

crucial role of leadership in

Europe. Britain will not be able to

defend its off against Russia. But

Britain as part of an alliance can

hope to create a stable Europe,

which in fact we've actually done

and seen in the period since World

War II, including after the Cold

War. So, Britain's military forces

are most of all about getting it a

seat at the table and a voice in

trying to shape sensible policy in

Europe.

Europe. And indeed in the

relationship with the US.

That's a

really clear answer. Let me put this

to you, I think we get a seat at the

table if we spent 2% of our national

income on defence, that is the

native target. Most other Nato

countries are not even spending

that. Should that be our aspiration,

or should we go further to attain

that medium power role for

ourselves?

I believe the 2% is

important symbolically, because

persuading Americans that we should

spend more of our taxpayers' money

to defend Europe than Europeans do

is not a long-term winning

proposition. Trump expresses the

scepticism, it has a widespread view

in the US. I don't agree with that,

but certainly the majority would do

so. I think that having, that

keeping the US significantly in the

game and having Europeans play their

part is very important. Secondly,

more important than how much money

is spent, I think it's crucial to

meet the 2% criteria, but more

important is what to buy. And I

think unfortunately, both in the

American defence budget and in the

British defence budget, we are way

too far in the legacy systems that

are hugely expensive, and too short

on new technologies that could make

a more significant difference.

That's the place where I would drill

down if I were part of the British

strategic review.

Graham Allison,

thank you so much, that's a really

clear start to this does the

Goschen. Let me turn to my other

guests. Max Hastings, I want you to

paint for me a scenario that we

couldn't deal with now but you think

we should be able to deal with,

because you

because you think we should be

spending more.

The Russians our

overtime trying to push the

frontiers, especially in the Baltic

states. We have a small contingent

in the Baltic states up in the

moment. What Nick Carter was saying,

this is intended as a wake-up call.

In recent years, we have been

looking overwhelmingly at a

terrorist threat to Britain and we

have been worrying most about what

terrorists can do on the streets.

Nick Carter says we are living in a

new World...

It is an old world,

isn't it?!

Not quite. The old idea

that you have a state of peace and a

state of war is off the agenda. What

Graham Allison among other people

have written a very vivid account of

in the last year or two is that we

have moved into a new world in which

we are never going to have,

hopefully, we may not have a big war

but we are very unlikely to have

absolute peace. And we are going to

be having to cope with all sorts of

threats of different levels.

Electronic threats, cyber threats,

and also perhaps low-level military

threats in places like the Baltic

states. Nick Carter said today, you

said one platoon of boots on the

ground is worth more than a squadron

of aircraft. At the moment, last

summer, an American general said to

me, very frankly and bluntly, he

said the British Armed Forces have

now become so small that they are

not taken seriously by either your

friends or your enemies. And I said,

I hope the next time that you see

our Prime Minister, you say that to

her. Americans are often too polite

to us, they don't tell us what they

are really thinking.

That's the

scenario, a Russian incursion into

Estonia or something like that where

we want to be players. Do you agree

we should be able to make a real

contribution on an occasion like

that was not absolutely. We are

committed to it through Nato

membership

apart from anything else.

But it also comes back to a

situation where we can't... The

public have got to use the wars of

choice. Was in far-away places where

we have informed debate, we have

debates in Parliament and then we

decide whether we want to intervene

or not. Wrongly, in my opinion, in

2013 on Syria, when we should have

intervened. But I don't think the

public understands that there is

such a thing as a potential European

theatre. And there is such a thing

as state to state warfare in a way

that they haven't seen in new

generations.

Quickly, Johnny Mercer,

do you agree that we need to be able

to deal with that kind of situation.

I just want to see if you all agree?

The only thing that should define

the size and strength of the Armed

Forces is the Afri Sarries we are

against. You could talk about 2%...

You could say, Estonia, we don't

have to care about it?

That is a

line on the ground, it's the whole

process of Russian aggression and

what they have done in Ukraine and

how it has

how it has manifested itself in

different types of what.

What I want

to get is how much extra we have to

spend in order to deliver that. We

are at 2% of GDP. 2.5%, 3%, what is

it?

The chap from America had it

spot on. That is a signal of intent.

The real question is, what is the

future of the British Armed Forces?

What do we want from them, what is

the threat we are up against?

If we

want to go into Estonia and make a

contribution...

It should be

welcomed that Nick Carter has come

forward with a light in point of

view that the character of conflict

has changed, we have to have a

national discussion, because

taxpayers pay for it ultimately.

I

will come back to you. What do you

think we need extra to spend?

The right way round to look at this

is not to say, should it be 1%, 2%,

we should be saying what can we do

in the New World. We have had

defence review after defence review,

and they are always a joke. We have

so many ring fenced areas. I believe

that the Trident nuclear deterrent

is no longer relevant to the

particular situation we are in. But

no British political party is

willing to talk about that. Nobody

is willing to talk about

is willing to talk about scrapping

the Gurkhas. Until we have a

realistic defence review in which we

look realistically at the threats

out there and what we want to

achieve, until we stop playing

political games, we are not going to

have credible Armed Forces.

Do you

have an idea? I buy everything USA

in, you need to work out what you're

going to do. And the Chancellor, you

are the Defence Secretary, how much

actually do you need, 2 billion, 20

billion?

You need a fairly

significant chunk extra. It is

impossible to put a figure, but

there are a couple of things you

could do. You could remove cyber

from the budget and have a corporate

levy or something like that, because

our cyber defence capabilities are

used across the board by public

institutions and things like that,

you could look at the defence review

and the capabilities that you need,

and then very carefully see where

you can get the maximum value added.

We have got two aircraft carriers.

We know that we will never be able

to have task force groups for both

of them, so we need to think how we

ended up having two. It is done for

political reasons.

The most

important point in this whole debate

is this is an attempt, rather brave

attempt, backed by the Defence

Secretary, to try to get the British

public to look at what is going on

out there in the world.

He is the

elected MP and has voted to deal

with. Extra money for the NHS

defence?

The NHS in some ways is

similar because the challenge

throughout the NHS is changing all

the time. With defence, it is the

same. The threat is changing. And as

politicians, we have to meet that.

There is no use having your...

You

want more money... You want more

money on defence, more money on the

NHS, you're not going to have extra

borrowing. You need taxes to go up.

It is not a grown-up question to say

it is got to be the NHS or defence.

In a grown-up world we have to look

at the whole range of issues facing

government, and it is what happening

at the moment is that government has

to become so fixated with the NHS

and social spending that we are not

thinking nearly hard enough about

security.

But if taxes have to go

up, they have to go up.

Thank you

all very much indeed.

Well, having talked about defence,

we can turn to war now -

as that is where Ukip

finds itself at.

The leader, Henry Bolton,

is not resigning.

He came out just after 4pm this

afternoon to tell us that.

But 14 or 15 of his

senior colleagues -

we've literally lost count -

have quit their roles

because they want him to go.

The party's National Executive

Committee had already voted

no confidence in him,

but Mr Bolton chose not

to bow to the pressure,

and instead promised to take

on the party apparatchiks.

He said he'd "drain the swamp".

John Sweeney has been

following today's Ukip developments.

This happy breed of men, this little

world, this precious stone, is now

banned in with shame, with inky

blocks and rotten parchment. That

Ukip, that was want to conquer

others,

others, hath made a shameful

conquest of itself. Four years ago,

Ukip won more votes than any other

party in the European elections.

Eventually forcing David Cameron's

hand to call the Brexit referendum.

I will go to Parliament and propose

that the British people decide our

future in Europe through and in/ out

referendum on Thursday the 23rd of

June.

That one, then Nigel Farage

quit, Diane James was queen of Ukip

to 18 days, then came Paul Nuttall,

who fell after the party got a

drubbing in the general election.

Next, Henry Bolton. The former Army

trooper made a splash when he said

he could kill a badger with his own

hands. When it came out that he had

left his Russian wife from model

half his age, that was bad. When she

was found to have tweeted racist

claptrap about Prince Harry's bride

to be, Meghan Markle, that was bad

bad. Today Mr Bolton put his foot

down.

I shall respect the next steps

in the constitutional process, and

will therefore not be resigning as

party leader. I shall repeat, I will

not be resigning as party leader. It

is now time to put an end to the

infighting that has been going on

within the party for some time. And

to remove those who have been part

of that. In a single phrase, it is

time to drain the swamp.

This swamp

dwelling disagrees.

I think it is a

foolish decision. I have no reason

to believe that the party will

support him. In fact, I think he

will go down to an overwhelming

defeat, which will add further

humiliation to his recent

experiences. I think it is all very

sad. We tried the men in grey suits,

perhaps now it is time for the men

in white coats. He seems to me to

have lost all touch with reality.

The troubled leader, when looking

for a shoulder to cry on, and

tonight found anything but.

You have

turned this into a soap opera, and

in doing so have brought the party

into disrepute.

I wouldn't agree

with that, Nigel. At the meeting

yesterday, there wasn't one charge

laid against me apart from that I

had left my wife.

What is Henry

Bolton do if it all goes wrong next

month?

I'll cross that bridge when I

come to it. I am still going to be

campaigning solidly. I am not going

to go away in that respect, no way.

Henry Bolton can't last long, so

focus returns to the party's once

and perhaps future king. Someone

once said of Nigel Farage he doesn't

just want to be the bride at the

wedding but also the corpse at the

funeral. With Ukip going the way it

is, he may well get his wish.

Now I'll speak to Suzanne Evans,

former Deputy Chairwoman of Ukip

and a former leadership candidate

for the party.

Good evening to you. What happens if

Henry Bolton doesn't go, do you

think?

I really wish he would, as I

think do the majority of members in

Ukip. He really has brought the

party into disrepute, and it's not

just about the fact he left his wife

and very young children, the fact

that he's taken up with a woman who

is younger than his eldest daughter.

There is actually a little bit more

to it than that. The membership

feels very strongly that they've

been misled from the start about the

nature of this relationship, and NEC

members, too, have pointed out that

it wasn't just about his personal

life and the chaos that is brought

to the party, but it is about other

things as well. One NEC member today

saying it was about his mishandling

of events, his political naivete,

negligence in his role, Mr deadlines

and political ineptitude. So I

really do wish he would go, as do

most other people, I think. This

whole farce that we are now going to

have an emergency general meeting

which is going to cost time and

money, at which I fear he is going

to be humiliated, just seems like a

pointless attempt to cling on to

what, really? He has lost the

support of a robbery.

Why don't you

leave Ukip has joined the

Conservatives, active interest?

I

think there is very much a role for

Ukip in public life. I think people

today have been very keen to try and

say that Ukip's finished, but this

is its 25th year, and there hasn't

been a single year in which someone

somewhere hasn't said, Ukip is

finished, it's all over, probably.

We are still polling above the Green

party. Just last week we had triple

the Lib Dem vote in a local election

by-election in Bolton. I don't think

anyone's talking about the demise of

the Lib Dems all the greens.

But you

don't seem to get on with each

other. I can't find any policy

difference between you all. It seems

to be totally personal. What is it

about Ukip people that has made this

party so dysfunctional over the last

couple of years, do you think?

My

first years in Ukip were actually,

it was a honeymoon period I suppose

if you like, and I really do trace

this back to 2015 when Nigel Farage

failed to get elected in Thanet

South as he desperately wanted to

do, seemed to throw all his toys out

of the pram. There was this

disastrous

disastrous resignation and

unresignation which again seemed to

bring disrepute to the party, and I

think from there it has been

downhill all the way. And I think it

is a bit rich of Henry to talk about

kicking and people who have been

involved in infighting, he could

probably be kicking out quite a few

people including Nigel Farage and

himself.

It will make a great

episode in the reunion one-day!

Suzanne, thank you very much indeed.

There is someone you really

need to know more about.

He is Olly Robbins, the Prime

Minister's Chief European Advisor.

Her sherpa, to use

the European language.

He is a public servant,

and his job is basically

to help deliver Brexit.

As far as that's concerned,

you might say he's the second most

important person in this country

after Theresa May -

although David Davis

and Boris Johnson might

beg to differ.

I suspect if you don't know

Olly Robbins' name already,

you'll get to hear it this year.

But don't wait.

Our Political Editor, Nick Watt,

has been scouting around looking

at what Mr Robbins is up to.

Brexit is the most radical change

of direction for this country.

The idea that any bureaucrat

could be in favour of radical

change is a nonsense.

The civil service may well

have its own agenda.

But ultimately, with

a strong government,

it should be the Goverment's

will that the civil

service implements.

I don't think that, watching him

with three Prime Ministers,

there'd ever be a moment

that he would be in any way be

patronising about the fact that he,

you know, has more information

at his fingertips.

He's one of the tallest men

in the British Establishment,

with one of the lowest profiles.

Yet he wields some of

the greatest powers.

He's never at the

centre of attention.

But he's always in the room,

by the Prime Minister's side.

Olly Robbins, Theresa May's

Chief Adviser on Europe,

is being dubbed 'the real Brexit

Secretary'.

Possibly eclipsing David Davis.

Beyond the world of Whitehall,

most people have no idea

who Olly Robbins is.

But, day by day, he is shaping

the nature of Britain's departure

from the European Union.

He has the Prime Minister's

ear in Downing Street,

and he's in the engine room

for the nitty-gritty of the Brexit

negotiations in Brussels.

Well, every European Prime Minister

or President has an Olly Robbins.

Has someone who works closely

with them, whom they trust,

who is in permanent contact

with all the others.

These are people who telephone

each other, e-mail each

other, text each other.

The actual formal meeting

where we all see people sitting

around a table for a split second,

that's the tip of the iceberg.

A recent adviser to Theresa May says

Olly Robbins has a knack of winning

the confidence of Prime Ministers

and senior mandarins.

Olly was somebody who really had

the full trust of that team.

Had the full trust

of the Prime Minister,

had the full trust of Jeremy Heywood

as well, and was able to really sort

of on meetings and run meetings

in a way that made the process very

smooth and very effective,

and probably one of just a few

officials who actually had that

level of trust and access, I think.

So, what are the instincts

of the man shepherding us

through this defining moment

in British history?

A good starting point

is the place where his worldview

began to take shape.

Olly Robbins embarked on the first

steps of what must have looked

like a classic journey

through the Establishment

when he studied politics,

philosophy and economics

here at Oxford in the 1990s.

But there's a twist.

He chose Hertford College, which,

despite the wooden panelling,

has pioneered a much more

inclusive admissions policy.

An Oxford contemporary who later

worked with Olly Robbins

in Downing Street had an inkling

he would go far.

Even at university, it was already

clear that this was a guy

who was going to make a success

of whatever he did.

I think it was fair to say he's

the sort of person you'd be more

likely to see in tweed

than in a football kit.

You know, but that phenomenal brain

was very much there.

But also that sense of humour.

The intellectual clout of this

modern college in an ancient setting

was shown when Olly Robbins

and three other graduates

of Hertford controlled intelligence

at the heart of Whitehall.

The Hertford Gang say it was

a conspiracy that never existed.

I've spoken to one Tory Brexiteer

who went to a grander Oxford

college, and is wary of Olly

Robbins.

"They're all commie geographers",

this Tory told me of

the Hertford College alumni.

Brexiteers were delighted when it

emerged that at Oxford,

the young Olly Robbins had written

that the Soviet Union

wasn't all bad.

I understand that David Davis,

the actual Brexit Secretary,

who has something of a prickly

relationship with Olly Robbins,

has a habit of opening meetings

with him by welcoming colleagues

to the Olly Robbins People's Soviet.

Everyone reportedly has a chuckle.

But some Leave ministers

are suspicious of him,

and regard him as a classic civil

servant who sees Brexit is a crisis

to be managed rather

than an opportunity to be seized.

I was, as you know, a member

of the Thatcher government.

We came in and introduced a radical

change in economic policy.

And all the officials were aghast.

They thought it would be a disaster.

But at that time we had a strong

Cabinet, led by an outstanding

Prime Minister, and they accepted

the leadership, the

political leadership,

as is constitutional duty.

If a soft Brexit is being

negotiated, it must be

the will of the Prime Minister

and her Cabinet.

How can we possibly be

in a position where the Cabinet

and the Prime Minister has a certain

direction and the Civil Service

is taking it a different way?

That surely is a sign

of a weak government.

Olly Robbins fears that

the Cabinet Brexiteers,

notably Michael Gove

and Boris Johnson, are on his case.

He worked hard to win

them over in the run-up

to the Prime Minister's EU speech

in Florence last September,

making changes on the way.

But in the tense week in December

when the phase one Brexit

negotiation deal appeared to be

on the verge of collapse,

there was some frustration

in the Cabinet Office that those

ministers were less supportive.

Well, I think, inevitably,

because of the role that Boris

and Michael played during the Leave

campaign, clearly they are big

figures who need to be part of this

process and brought into it.

And from what I've seen,

I think Olly deals with them

and their offices very effectively.

And again, brings a level

of diplomacy to the whole thing.

Deep in the basement of the Guardian

newspaper lies one final clue

to the character of Olly Robbins.

Ruthlessness tinged

with impeccable manners.

Angle grinders and drills

were wielded by senior Guardian

editors to destroy files which had

been leaked to them

by Edward Snowden.

Olly Robbins had issued a stern

warning to the Guardian

that its continued possession

of the files marked a threat

to national security.

He brokered a deal where the files

were sawn to bits in an operation

supervised by Government agents.

"Punctiliously polite"

was the Guardian verdict

on their Whitehall adversary.

So, a consummate Whitehall operator

with experience in the smoke

and mirrors world of intelligence

is guiding the Brexit process.

But in his mind, the painful

business of cutting deals and making

compromises lies in the hands

of his political controller.

Nick Wood what is with me. It was

interesting to hear Lord Lawson --

Nick Watt. He is so wary of the

civil service's role, their mindset

and ability to thwart all of this.

Civil servants were frustrated

because it goes against the grain,

but those remarks have clearly

struck a raw nerve in Whitehall,

because the Cabinet Secretary Sir

Jeremy Heywood has this evening

rally to the defence of the civil

service. He doesn't speak out that

much, but he issued a statement the

Newsnight after the comments by Lord

Lawson about the civil service in

general. Sir Jeremy says the civil

service take great pride in

supporting the elected government of

the day, and the mission is to

deliver Brexit. He says the civil

service is putting enormous effort,

and many of its very best people

into making a success of the

project, that is Brexit. He says,

interestingly, it is being tested on

a daily basis and I'm very proud of

what we have so far delivered.

OK,

it is a sensitive point, but the

civil service strikes back. Nick,

thank you very much.

Now, have a look at these images.

These show something pretty everyday

in parts of Africa: a woman kneeling

at the feet of an elder.

It is a traditional way in some

cultures of a woman showing respect.

In some, you might find men doing

the same, but it's not as common.

Now, of course, for years this kind

of greeting has been taken

for granted in certain African

cultures, just as curtseying

to the Queen is here.

But we now live in a globalised era,

where news, culture

and people travel.

And clearly, from a Western

perspective, kneeling can be seen

as an undignified reminder

of women's low social status imposed

by a male-run society.

So, it was just a matter

of time before the practice

came to be challenged.

And it was the Head

of Oxfam International,

Winnie Byanyima, who was born

in Uganda but lives in Britain,

who sparked a row about it,

tweeting, "How do we stop

this humiliating practice?"

Well, this may sound like just

another debate about gender

and identity politics,

but it cuts across the usual lines.

For some, Byanyima is

speaking up for women.

For others, she's disrespectful

of the cultural heritage

of the African societies

that practice kneeling.

I'm joined by Dami Olonisakin

and Nicky Olatubosun.

I am joined by two women from

cultures where kneeling is common.

Dami, tell us about the kneeling,

when do you kneel, or what form does

the kneeling cakes, why do you

kneel?

Kneeling is a form of

respect. When you greet someone who

is older than you, you do this to a

family, you do this to relatives. It

is a very popular part of Yoruba

culture within Nigeria. It is

something that both men and women

do. It is not just one-sided. It's

something that everybody does.

It is

actually your need touching the

ground, it is not just bending down.

It can be, depending on how old the

person is, the last time you saw

them, if it was someone quite close

to you.

The further down you go, the

more respect?

You could definitely

say that, yes.

I understand, Nicky,

that of course men and women do do

it. But it is a gender element or

not?

Personally I feel like it is to

do with both genders. Men are

supposed to prostrate, my done on

the ground, and women are supposed

in Neil Stubley but the men don't

always prostrate themselves. No,

they don't.

It is no different to

how women gently bend down

sometimes. I feel like as long as

you are signalling that type of

respect, you are still acknowledging

that somebody is older than you and

your store greeting them. Nobody is

asking you to plank on the floor!

The traditional serving your

husband's meal, how does that go,

Nicky?

You are meant to hold it out

to him like he is a king.

That

sounds like quite a gender thing.

Most definitely, especially within

Nigeria and culture, we believe that

the man is the head of the house,

but it is not necessarily something

that all cultures do.

It is

interesting and complicated. Nicky,

you are not keen on it and think it

is past its sell by date.

Well,

basically... I feel like I shouldn't

have the kneel down, like, I

understand, OK, it's about the

respect part of it. I'm respecting

my elders. I feel like you can be

verbally respectful. I can do a new

balance, a Coetzee, I shouldn't have

the kneel on the ground to greet

you. Especially when my parents

don't

don't require it. -- a curtsy. I

shouldn't have to kneel down to

someone else.

You know, I feel like

in different cultures all over the

world there are different ways that

we use nonverbal actions to display

a form of greeting, I don't feel it

should be scrapped. It has been done

for centuries. Just being able to

greet someone who is older than you.

In my culture...

I feel like it

should be more of a formal thing

rather than informal as well. Every

time you see someone, you are meant

to greet them that we.

You would

reserve it for state occasions,

weddings, things like that.

If you

came to a traditional wedding, if I

was marrying a you read the man, I

would kneel down for his parents as

required. -- eight you read the man.

We have changed lots of things in

the world...

That's the thing, you

can really compare other things the

kneeling down, that is problematic.

Tribal marking is automatic, and we

acknowledge that. Showing respect by

kneeling down to someone is showing

that you come from a good

background, when you are doing it,

we are thinking, your parents have

raised you write. It is a reflection

of your upbringing. That is how

Yoruba people see it.

If you don't

do it, do people think you are being

disrespectful?

I have never come

across that. I don't believe in

kneeling down, I honestly don't, my

mum doesn't require it of my friends

and people she meets, therefore I

don't feel that I should have two.

Thanks for giving us an insight into

the debate about it.

That's it for tonight.

We end with proof that Germans

are not after all a nation

of humourless engineers.

They are, it seems, a nation

of very silly engineers.

So we leave with the alleged

creation of Johannes

and Phillip Mickenbecker

- the bathcopter.

Goodnight.

WHIRRING SOUND.

MUSIC: Mars Theme by Nick Cave.

# We're coming in too fast and.

# Everyone is burning bright

# 182 seconds, baby

# And heaven is a trick of the light

# We're coming in too fast,

and

# Heaven is a trance unknown #.