07/02/2018 Newsnight

It's Brexit decision time folks.

Scarecrows don't talk.

It's pleasant

tone that we too. Of course people

do go both ways.

Are you doing that

on purpose or can you not make up

your mind?

That is the trouble, I

cannot make up my mind!

We've been pondering

on it for 19 months,

but now a crucial cabinet committee

is trying to argue out

what kind of Brexit we want.

It'll take some wizardry

for them to reach agreement.

But here in the studio,

we'll hear some of the arguments.

Easier trade with the EU,

or more independence from it?

What kind of customs

border do we want?

Also tonight, the other great

debate - Internet reform.

Are tech companies

platforms or publishers -

should they take responsibility

for what gets posted on their sites?

The companies are realising they

have two act and if they do not the

danger is for them that governments

will start to legislate.

And, Black Panther the movie.

The first black Marvel

comic superhero film -

it's wowing critics.

What's its significance?

We'll discuss with the guy who wrote

the comic and a film critic.

Hello.

Well, we've been debating

and dithering for over a year,

perhaps more dithering

than debating, but one thing

everybody agrees on now,

is that we can't go

on delaying a choice.

We have to tell the EU

"this is our vision

of a new relationship",

and annoyingly, it has to be

a realistic vision at that.

So it is crunch time -

and this could be the biggest two

days of Theresa May's premiership,

because the Brexit cabinet

sub-committee is thrashing

out the arguments.

Call it soft or hard

Brexit, Norway, or Canada.

How do we finesse that stark choice?

We'll rehearse some of the arguments

they have undoubtedly been having

but a little briefing first.

Here's Nick Watt.

From wars to peacetime,

it's grand corridors and gilded

rooms have witnessed some

of the great decisions

in British history.

Theresa May had assumed

she would stamp her mark

on our history by shaping Brexit

within the walls of Downing Street.

And so today, ministers

on the Cabinet's Brexit subcommittee

gathered to discuss the nature

of the UK's future

relationship with the EU.

Progress was said to be slow today.

One source close to a Cabinet

minister complained to me that it

all had the feel of kicking

decisions into the long grass.

Another source expressed confidence

that the Cabinet as a whole

would reach agreement

by the end of the month.

But today's meeting was held

as senior Tories acknowledge

that the Cabinet is not the only

source of power in shaping Brexit.

Beyond Downing Street there are two

other centres of power.

Parliament may well

have a significant say.

Brexiteer Tories are already

making their presence felt.

But a combination of an evolving

Labour Party and the House of Lords

could force the government's

hand in other ways.

And then, of course,

there is the EU, which

appears to be playing

hardball at the moment.

Until recently, it had been assumed

that Parliament could,

at best, take potshots

at the government on Brexit.

Now pro-European MPs and peers have

far grander ambitions.

These parliamentarians want to amend

the EU withdrawal bill in the House

of Lords on access to the single

market and on a customs relationship

with the EU in a way that would be

acceptable to the Labour Party

and pro-European Tories

when the bill returns

to the House of Commons.

One source close to a Cabinet

minister told me there are Remain

ministers who want Parliament

to do their work for them.

These pro-Europeans believe

they have been vindicated

by a government assessment

of the economic

consequences of Brexit.

A breakdown of the UK regions shows

that, under a no-deal scenario,

the size of the economy in the Leave

heartland of the north-east

of England would be 16% smaller

in 15 years compared

with current forecasts.

In the West Midlands,

another Leave area,

the figure would be 13%.

London, a Remain stronghold,

would be the least

effected by slower growth.

The government says these

are provisional findings.

And of course the EU

will have its say.

The European Commission is proposing

sanctions to punish the UK

during the transition period if it

breaches EU rules.

One Cabinet minister told me

it was a deliberately

provocative negotiating ploy.

The power to shape Brexit may well

be spreading beyond Downing Street.

For the moment, though, the ball

sits with its current inhabitants.

Nick is with me.

You must have more Intel on what

inside the crucial meeting today?

Interesting speech this evening by

the Prime Minister to the

conservative black-and-white ball,

she said ever since the British

people delivered board and the

referendum I have had no doubt about

what our new relationship with the

EU must mean, control of our money,

control of our borders and control

of our laws. She's knocking on the

head the idea that she does not have

a for Brecon. -- Brexit. I have to

say I am hearing some pretty gloomy

accounts, one source close to a

cabinet minister said to me there

was a dreary reading out of

preprepared scripts. Another source

said the only thing they could agree

on was that they disagree but I have

to say Theresa May loyalists are

saying they do not recognise those

accounts and they are absolutely

confident there will be agreement.

What is the choreography and timing?

What is the process?

Today was a

norther Ireland and immigration,

tomorrow is the future relationship

with the EU and the trade

relationship with the EU and there

is to be a third meeting later this

month and the idea then is that the

full Cabinet will look and agree

with what they have come up with and

that is to do two things. By the

time you have EU Council at the end

of March there would be agreement

between the UK and EU on the

implementation period. There are

difficulties on that at the moment.

And the other thing is for the UK to

tell the EU what it once for a

future trade relationship so the UK

can influence the council guidelines

which are then due to go to the

European Commission.

Thank you very

much.

So, the key decisions

are about borders and regulation.

Do we rebuild our own customs

border with the EU?

A border that allows us and the EU

to monitor or tax our trade and thus

have separate trade policies?

How do we solve the Irish

problem if we do?

On regulation, we won't be

in the single market,

but should we agree to align our

product regulations with theirs,

so that border checks are minimal?

We have a panel of two commentators

and two politicians,

from different perspectives.

Jill Rutter is Programme Director

for the Institute for Government.

Dr Andrew Lilico is Executive

Director of Europe Economics

I'm also joined by DUP

MP Ian Paisley Jr -

his party supported Brexit -

and Conservative MP and former

Attorney General Dominic Grieve,

who supported Remain.

Good evening to you all. We will

have a less dreary discussion than

what they had on the subcommittee.

Ian Paisley if you were in there

today, 40 seconds, what would be

your opening gambit on the trade

relationship?

I think they missed

the mac -- the Prime Minister a

spell that out tonight, this is

about the British people being in

control of their own destiny. We

want to make sure we have a free

trade relationship going forward

with the EU. Given that they have as

much to lose any bad deal as we have

to lose this is about getting a good

deal for all of the British people

and we need to stop being so

negative about this and pessimistic.

I am sorry. I just want to hear. I

don't want to be political, I want

to hear your practical suggestion

for a customs union and regulatory

alignment, what is your pitch not to

Theresa May, what are you telling

her to take to the Europeans?

We

want a really good fisheries deal,

that is key for us.

The key thing

is, trade and...

Money makes the

world go round and trade here will

determine the drive and politicians

like us and everyone else want to

have a good trading deal and a good

relationship.

relationship.

Is Canada OK, Canada

take deal?

I think it's daft to say

it must be like Canada or

Switzerland, we need a good bespoke

deal for the next kingdom.

From

watching of Herod, how will the

Europeans react and does it make

sense, Andrew?

There is sympathy at

the European level for having a free

trade agreement, probably one that

includes some services, they are not

sure how much financial services

they would want to include, but

there is some pushback about exactly

what will happen on the Irish

border.

We will come to that!

I

think the EU...

He is talking about

Canada take deal, they would

interpret that as Canada?

Yeah, or

Canada plus a few extras. It will

not be just like a Canada deal so

politically would not want to say it

is a Canada deal but it is broadly

in that realm.

Negatives and

positives of that deal?

The EU has

lots of trade agreements with lots

of countries, there is no reason not

to have one with the UK but what it

does mean is there will be there

quite up panoply of things at the

border. It means we can run a

different trade policy and have

different tariffs, we are not

applying the common external tariff

is a potential Bert Harris at that

border which is an issue for Ireland

we need to work out. It would also

enable us to do trade deals with

other countries but that means we

might commit of regulatory alignment

so for example a lot of talk in the

summer about a trade deal with the

US. We know some of the things they

want like letting in agriculture

regulation under their terms which

are different from the EU approach

to regulation. The EU would want to

make sure the UK border and

particularly the border in Ireland

does not become a back door into the

single market with different

standards.

It does not sound like

you have solved the Irish problem

with that.

The Irish problem is a

particle at the core problem in the

south of Ireland. -- a party but her

problem in the south of Ireland. It

is not in the Republic of Ireland's

interest to have a troublesome

border.

But they need to enforce...

If they start putting up enforcement

tariffs that is a matter for them

given most of the trade is with

ourselves and the united states of

America I think they would be

foolish to do that.

They might see

it differently.

They want to have a

bad relationship of us? Come on.

Dominic Grieve, where would you

start the meeting like this one

today?

If the Prime Minister can

achieve what she set out in her

Lancaster House and Florence

speeches why should I complain? We

would effectively have our cake and

eat it. Complete access to the

single market is if we were still in

it, there would be no tariffs

because we would have succeeded in

finding the magic we are dealing

with it and at the same time we

would not be bound by those EU

regulations which are clearly

objectionable to some of my

colleagues. That's not the problem.

The problem is logically its most

unlikely we are going to get that.

Because the EU will not give it to

us because it undermines their

integrity.

So what would you

suggest?

You have to do a cost

benefit analysis of where the best

benefit for the next kingdom lies

and the best benefit lies in our

ability to trade to the maximum

possible in providing goods and

services, free of regulatory

inhibition with our European

partners because they are our

closest trading partners and no

other trading partners elsewhere in

the world are ever likely to

substitute themselves for it.

So in

the customs union, or a customs

union, I'm sorry I get stuck on

them...

It would have to be a

customs union and all I would say

about that and here I think I

disagree is if we are honouring the

agreement we reached in December and

outlines with the EU on the terms of

withdrawal I find it difficult to

see how we will not be in a customs

union because unless somebody comes

up with some extraordinary technical

way of avoiding the checks which

would have to go with it we will end

up with a hard border. I know we

don't want that but it's not

completely an issue for the Irish

Republic, it's actually an issue for

the EU and the Irish Republic will

be forced to have that border even

if they don't want it.

By the EU.

THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER

They

cannot escape that.

Plusses and

minuses of what Dominic Grieve

outlined Andrew?

OK so a key plus is

you would not have rules of origin

or other kinds of things, less

bureaucracy as you deal internally

with trade within the European Union

but she would have an ability to do

trade deals externally severely

impaired so that might raise the

question of if you have taken back

control over trade policy which

might be one of the things people

thought they were voting for. I

don't think it addresses the Irish

border question because if you have,

if you have different issues...

Different regulations...

You still

need to check things so it just

takes away the tariff question.

Necessary but not efficient?

I think

whatever would be your solution to

the regulatory difference would

allow you to check the tariffs so I

don't think it solves the question

or is a requirement for solving the

question.

The Dominic Grieve option, is that

an option? They keep saying you can

have Norway or Canada and nothing in

between.

Norway is not in the

customs union, it is a member of the

single market, and that is why the

Norway Swedish border has been

visited by almost every

Parliamentary select committee

Lakra. There are checks at that

border, at the US and Canada border

and they have a free-trade

agreement. None of those countries

you get a refund if you go and buy

something expensive in Iceland, you

get your VAT back at the border

because it is not in the customs

union said the question is do we

want to be both in the single market

and the customs union and that is

what we are in now. Obviously still

being part of the single market

comes with ECJ jurisdiction...

And

you're just advocating some...

I

have the sake as a lawyer and

contours of the fact that whatever

trade agreement you get into,

somebody is around to arbitrate it

and the session we have with the

European Court of Justice seems to

slightly missed the point although I

do understand that direct effect is

a particular problem.

We have little

time, it sounds like we are miles

apart... Can I offer a solution?

That you have a customs union for

goods and things that crossed the

border, physical products, and

complete freedom to negotiate new

trade deals?

If we are outside these

in the market I don't think were

going to get a customs union for

services anyway so I think we

talking about one for goods in the

context of Ireland and therefore the

Holebas. These are very complex

issues of detail. I'm not saying

they are insoluble but they are, get

the -- and therefore the whole of

us. But do we simple by them and

thence Ah Mau gets up right when

they are difficult to fix?

There are

deals all over the world, this is

not a major issue that should stop

is doing trade. My fear is that

unfortunately what you see appears

to be that we have given up on

Britain and the British people

getting on with it and making a

great trade deal going forward,

that's the downside.

Can your

parties about this? That matter your

party survive this?

I very much hope

so but I do recognise that there are

deep divisions.

Anna Soubry said on

this programme but she could not

serve under Jacob Rees-Mogg and you

couldn't...

That is a hypothetical.

But these are held together not

necessarily by people agreeing on

everything but by ties of loyalty

and affection. Clearly there can

come a point in a process of party

with the ties of loyalty and

affection get so stressed that it

snaps and that is when the party

starts to fall apart. The difficulty

is that we are a party which

historically has been very pragmatic

in its approach to problems and we

have just introduced, by a

revolutionary means they recommend,

a deep ideological division. And for

a pragmatic party to get over that

and absorb the ideological division

and come together to deliver

pragmatic government is clearly an

immense challenge but then look at

Labour. They are as equally divided,

they are all over the place and they

cannot answer any of the similar

questions about what they want.

But

yet but the country first and not

the party, the interests of our

traders and people come and we will

get over this and you have too.

Thank you very much indeed.

Viewed with western eyes,

the Chinese system of justice has

not exactly lived up to the word

justice, in its pursuit of one case,

relating to five booksellers.

It's a fascinating story this,

going back a few years.

They operated from a business based

in Hong Kong, called

Causeway Bay Books which published

and sold political gossip among

other titles, clearly not

to the liking of the authorities

in mainland China.

In response, the authorities have

dealt with the five men harshly,

appearing to cross all sorts

of lines in the process.

It all started when the men

mysteriously disappeared

from different locations

in late 2015.

Tonight we'll focus on one of them,

Gui Minhai, Chinese born,

but a Swedish national,

and whose daughter is with me.

Here's a brief chronology.

On October 17th, 2015,

Gui left his holiday

apartment in Pattaya,

Thailand, with a man in a striped

shirt who was speaking

Chinese on his phone.

He wasn't seen again

for three months.

Then, in January 2016,

he turned up in China,

claiming on state media

that he voluntarily turned himself

into answer to a drunk

driving incident from 2003,

that had reportedly resulted

in the death of a student.

For the best part of two years

he was held in detention in mainland

China without legal assistance

or consular access.

Then, in October last year, having

apparently served his sentence

for a traffic offence,

he was released and began

living under surveillance

in a police-managed flat

in the eastern city of Ningbo.

Until January 20th this year,

when he was travelling with Swedish

consular officials to get some

medical attention in Beijing.

He was picked up and detained

again by Chinese police.

The Swedes say there were as many

as ten officers waiting for him

at the train station.

Well, I'm joined by Gui Minhai's

daughter, Angela Gui.

Good evening to you. Tell us what

contact you have had with your

father.

From the very beginning, in

2015, when he first disappeared, I

did not have very much contact at

all for those two years he was in

custody. I had a couple of written

messages on Skype in which he mostly

told me to keep quiet because it was

going to hurt his case if I didn't.

I chose not to and I was not about

to speak to him any more, I had a

few phone calls in which he was

trying to persuade me to not speak

to media.

And what do you know about

his current condition? He was

apparently seeking medical help when

he was arrested this time.

Yes. I

was allowed to speak to him after he

was nominally released in October

last year.

Three months then.

Yes,

when he was in lured and I was

allowed to Skype with him almost

every day. -- when he was in Ningbo.

I found out a lot about his health

condition. He has been diagnosed

with a less by eight knowledges to

in Ningbo. -- by a neurologist.

Motor neurone disease.

Yes, although

they said that because of the lack

of specialism in ALS in China, they

suggested he travelled abroad for

medical care.

The most remarkable

thing about this case surely has to

be what looks like an abduction by

the Chinese from a property in

Thailand.

Yes.

Thailand.

Yes.

We just didn't think

that went on very often or am I

being naive? That is very surprising

in 2015. Are we sure that is what

happened? He came out and said that

is not what happened but nobody

believed his confession.

There is a

Chinese official version of what

happened in which he is supposed to

have travelled on his own, for some

reason leaving behind his passport

and not entering the country legally

in order to turn himself in for this

alleged traffic accident that he is

supposed to have caused back in

2003, for which we have not seen any

evidence yet. But of course there

are a lot of questions to be asked

about that narrative.

Of course. Can

I give you the Chinese state would

question the embassy said, " Cobra

has piloted the law in China,

criminal enforcement measures have

been taken, China Bob McNair

judicial sovereignty must be respect

and the legal case in Berlin, though

a Swedish citizen, must be dealt

with in accordance with the law in

China. " And that must be right,

even if you are Swedish, if you

break the law in China the Chinese

are entitled to do whatever in the

country.

Yes. I think it is great

that they have promised to act in

accordance with the law in China but

I would like to ask them how they

have acted according to the law in

China, especially because they did

not seize him in China, they seized

him in Thailand, which breaks

several international laws,

presumably breaks Thai law.

Is it a

dilemma, you can see making a fuss

and highlighting the case can make

them digging their heels? And some

would say maybe it is better to do

this under the radar, you must have

that dilemma?

Yes, I have been

feeling that for over two years now.

I don't think one has to choose one

way or another. I think there are

different ways of doing advocacy and

I think that in this case, and of

course I might be wrong, because

this case is unprecedented in so

many ways as you mentioned, but I

think that in this case it is very

important to also be public about

it.

it. Because of the encouragement

that I had from my dad when he was

in custody and he told me to not

speak to the media and other

governments, I thought that that

must surely reflect fear and people

telling you what to say.

Angela Gui,

thank you very much.

YouTube or Facebook:

publisher or platform?

It is the defining

debate of our time -

those concerned about polluted

public discourse want

the social media giants

to be seen as publishers,

taking responsibility

for what appears on their screens.

The companies - keen not to take

responsibility for everything posted

and reposted on their sites -

like to think of themselves not

as publishers, but as a mere

shelf on to which others

put their publications.

But there's an interesting history

to this distinction -

a legal position deriving

from a different country

and a different era,

that has somehow found itself

dictating the treatment

of the tech giants.

All that may, however, be changing,

as our technology editor,

David Grossman, reports.

DIAL-UP MODEM SOUNDS.

The internet...

It's strange to think that we don't

even really know when it

started but it used to fit

on a single computer...

Would we have been nearly so excited

in the mid-90s when we unboxed

the consumer internet given

all the bad stuff that we now

know also lurked inside?

Like Pandora, we must

all make our own balance sheet

of its contents of the good

and the harm.

It is a complete accident

that the internet looks

and feels the way it does,

a sort of lawless Wild West

where people can say and do more

or less anything they want.

It is certainly not

what the politicians had in mind.

However, a tiny clause in one law

passed in the United States 20 years

ago more or less props up

the whole thing.

Internet freedom has always been

controversial but now there is more

pressure than ever to reform this

law, with profound, perhaps even

chilling consequences for all of us.

I think we are at a really dangerous

moment for free expression online.

There are politicians

responding to public concern,

saying we must do something

and what they do is not clear.

The tech companies are realising

they have to act and if they don't

act, the danger is for them that

governments will start to legislate.

In the early 90s, the reaction

of many lawmakers to the internet

was pretty much this...

It's not exactly homework.

It's the internet.

What?

Turn it off!

Turn it off!

I've heard about this internet,

it is a corrupting influence,

I saw a programme about it.

In the United States,

Congress passed the Communications

Decency Act in 1996 which,

as it name suggests,

was all about keeping this

new online world clean.

But the US Supreme Court struck down

most of its restrictions.

One clause, uncontroversial

at the time, Section 230, remained.

It says no provider or user

of an interactive computer service

shall be treated as the publisher

or speaker of any information

provided by another

information content provider.

This is unique.

No other jurisdiction in the world

has such a sweeping immunity

for online services.

The US is home to some

of the largest interactive computer

services in the world and I don't

think that's a coincidence.

Section 230 has played a very

active role in fostering

the growth of social media,

search engines, consumer review

sites, because there is sort of this

almost laissez faire attitude

towards user content

because of Section 230.

At the time, hardly anyone

understood the implications of 230.

It was actually just

an adaptation of a law that

protected book shop owners.

It was argued they could not be

expected to read every book

they stocked so it would be unfair

to prosecute them for

something written in one.

But in the case of books of course,

there are publishers

who can be sued and they,

therefore, act as gatekeepers.

What the framers of 230 completely

failed to appreciate is that

on the internet the barriers

to publication would disappear.

There would not only

be no gatekeepers,

there would be no gates.

Everything from eBay to Facebook

to Airbnb to Twitter

to TripAdvisor to Google,

they all rely on Section 230.

It is the ultimate backstop that

protects them from prosecution.

And it's the ultimate reason why,

seemingly, independent sovereign

countries like the UK cannot pass

laws on that than to rein

in the tech giants.

We can certainly try to do it.

I mean, Facebook and Twitter,

they have offices in London

providing services related

the provision of the Facebook

service and the Twitter service

so we can certainly put pressure

on these companies but ultimately,

were they to want to continue

to provide services and avoid UK

regulation, there is the potential

they could simply withdraw back

to the United States.

As if to demonstrate this

legislative weakness,

tomorrow a committee of MPs

will hold an evidence

session in Washington.

This is something that has

never been done before,

to have a live select committee

hearing in another country.

What it meant is because the tech

companies themselves

are headquartered in America,

it's giving us access to people

who are involved in the global

policy decisions these companies

make, not just the people

from the UK that represent them.

The committee is looking

specifically at fake news.

Like many of the big internet

problems we struggle with,

it has its origins in Section 230

which treats online companies

as platforms, not publishers.

The select committee chair says

regulatory reform is long overdue.

I think we need to come up

with a new definition

that is somewhat between a social

media company being a pure

publisher and simply

being a platform, to recognise

that they have a responsibility

to police and manage their platform

in a way that restricts

the harm that some users

can cause and create.

And I think it is our job to say,

to identify what we think the social

problems are that the social media

companies need to act against.

In the US, many politicians

are in a similar place

but the difference is that they can

be legislatively effected.

Do you acknowledge today

for the record that child sex

trafficking is a serious

problem on Backpage?

After consultation with counsel,

I decline to answer your question.

What has triggered the debate

there is the case of Backpage,

an online classified adverts site

that was found by a Senate

investigation to have knowingly run

ads for children who had been

trafficked for sex.

But the law apparently

couldn't touch Backpage

because of Section 230.

Legislation is currently going

through Congress to change that.

I think if we don't address this

issue with a targeted exception,

I think that Section 230 could be

in jeopardy down

the road altogether.

What I would rather see

is a targeted exception that

actually prevents sex trafficking,

and still preserves the enormous

free-speech and innovation that

Section 230 promotes,

and I think that is possible.

I think if we don't address this

issue, I would be very worried that

that could cause more sweeping

changes to Section 230 which I think

would be very dangerous.

But there is a worry that once

Section 230 is chipped away at,

it won't end there.

They might start with laws

to restrict sex trafficking,

but the politicians would soon come

back for more.

There is already an appetite

to restrict the right to publish

what is known as fake news.

People have the right

to speak their mind,

and no one can get into the business

of censoring opinion.

People can have wildly different

opinions on the same event

but as long as that event is true

and based on fact, that's fine.

I think we have to take a stand

where people are spreading harmful

content that is based on lies.

So the social media companies

are increasingly under pressure

to decide what is true

and what is false, what is legal

and what is illegal,

and the algorithms they will use

will, of necessity, be blunt,

sweeping and cautious.

If you think about the sheer volume

of content being uploaded

onto the internet on a daily basis,

it is just impossible for internet

providers to be able to effectively

decide what is illegal and legal

content, and I think

we are just going to end up

in a situation where jokes,

where perfectly legitimate content,

even controversial content

that we might find distasteful that

ought to be there as part of a free

and open internet,

is simply removed.

So the barriers to ordinary people

publishing might go up again

and the internet become more

like TV or newspapers

with one way communication.

It may be that we will see this

chaotic free for all of the last

couple of decades as a mere blip

in human history.

It's had brilliant reviews,

has a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes,

and has been called the first

adult superhero movie.

And it's coming to a screen

near you next week.

The Black Panther.

We are home.

My son, it is your time.

# Show me my respect and bow down #.

You get to decide what kind of King

you are going to be.

Don't freeze.

I never freeze.

# The revolution will

not be televised #.

It is the first Marvel

comic film production

featuring a black superhero,

and the fact that is has been

well-executed at every level means

it has generated far more

than the usual excitement

of a new action movie release.

As one critic said, it's

a "story about black lives,

which matter and are not defined

by their pain but instead

by their glory".

Well, Evan Narcisse is the writer

of 'Rise of Black Panther'

for Marvel Comics and joins us

from Austin in Texas.

Film journalist Nola Ojomu

is with me in the studio.

Good evening to you, Evan, a lot of

people say this is a moment and do

you agree?

It is for sure a moment.

I want to correct a little bit,

technically Blade featuring Wesley

Snipes was a marvel superhero

Snipes was a marvel superhero movie,

but Black Panther, this is a moment

like I have never seen before in my

career. I am a pop culture critic as

well as writing comics and nothing

like this has ever happened, it is

utterly astounding, the excitement

around this movie.

A lot of this is

around a black movie not being about

victims, it is bigger than that.

Right. It's not about trauma, it's

not about economic

disenfranchisement, it's not about

the legacy of slavery or Jim Crowe

or any of that stuff. Don't get me

wrong, the Black Panther character

concept very much has to do with

colonialism and its effects but it

is shown in a way that is not

central to the conflict. This is

more about the preservation of

culture, a way of life, celebrating

black excellence and achievement and

making black characters on screen

for more complex in a fictional

sense than we've seen maybe ever.

Are you excited by it?

Very, very

excited.

Tried to put into words, I

am not an action hero sort of

person, what is it that makes this

so different? Moonlight won the best

locks rueda Oscar, a black theme

song, why is this important?

Because

it's going to be fun, it's a

superhero movie. Like Evan was

saying, it's not to do with Savary,

he's cool, he kicks butt, he has all

this technology, it is just fun.

Mike -- might I suggest you do not

want the black community to judge

their worst by the prestige

Hollywood restores them in their

movies because that would be a

terrible metric by which you would

the community, the Hollywood eyes

edition of its values.

It would be

horrible but this is not that, this

is a fictional country in Africa but

it is Africa, it is Africans being

shown as strong and smart and clever

and there is not enough of that in

mainstream media and that is what is

exciting. These guys are cool and

strong,

strong, they are lit, as the hashtag

says.

Black Panther goes back to

1966, a black superhero in comic

form back in the 1960s, why did it

take so long for this movie to come

out?

I think there are a lot of

perceptions in Hollywood's and

beyond, people who fund movies that

a black lead piece like this would

not perform internationally,

globally. That it would not do the

kind of business that these

blockbuster movies need to do in

order to justify their existence so

I think there is a lot of that.

There is also, the talent pull in

Hollywood, the decision makers to

sign off on these still think the

very white. There are not a lot of

producers who have the pull to make

something like cabin. The gentleman

at Marvel who made this happen is

black. He is a relative minority in

terms of numbers in Hollywood. This

was clearly a passion project for

him.

I suppose, we don't have this

conversation, when its normalised

and see more of these kind of films,

probably not quite as black theme

does this, this was almost entirely

black crew and cast, you would not

have to be so racially segmented,

but is that which you would like to

see?

I feel this is the start of

where things are going. Again, like

Evan said, we had Blade and then

there has been such a long gap. I

think this is going to do well and

it will inspire so many new script

and stories.

And show black

characters can sell movies.

Yes,

they can make money and the old

Hollywood fears are not correct.

Thank you both very much.

That's nearly it for tonight.

Kirsty will be here tomorrow.

But before we go, it's

the centenary of the death

of the Austrian symbolist painter,

Gustav Klimt.

To mark the occasion,

virtual reality artist

Frederick Baker has teamed up

with Vienna's Museum of Applied Arts

to take you on an interactive

journey through Klimt's work.

The exhibition opens today so we

leave you with a little taster.

Good night.