Browse content similar to 19/03/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Tonight, a broadcast
exclusive with the CEO
of Cambridge Analytica.
Alexander Nix responds
to the allegations of dirty
tricks at his company -
and vast breaches of data security.
We see this as, er as a coordinated
attack by the media that's been
going on for very very
many months, in order
to damage the company
had some involvement
with the election of Donald Trump.
We put to him the accusations
of a whistleblower that he runs
a full scale propaganda service.
We get our biggest glimpse
yet of the Brexit deal.
Is it to be a full English
or a dog's dinner?
Now today was about
the steps we will take
next year when we leave the EU,
but before we fully relinquish our
legal ties with Brussels.
And there are signs of some cheeky
Continental interlopers sneaking
on to our plate.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is here
to sample the menu.
Look who's back in power.
If he completes this term he'll be
the longest serving leader
in Russia since Stalin.
We'll hear from one of those
who stood against him.
Tonight, the boss
at the centre of one
of the UK's most controversial
companies speaks exclusively
to Newsnight about allegations that
company has developed -
in the words of one whistleblower -
The Full Service Propaganda Machine.
Alexander Nix is the CEO
of Cambridge Analytica -
employed, by Donald Trump amongst
others - to help his
presidential election campaign.
The company uses the micro targeting
of individuals to work
out their behavioural patterns -
as consumers and voters.
After a report in the Observer
yesterday, they stand accused
of using data from Facebook users
without their consent - to change
minds of millions of Americans.
Facebook shares dropped 8%
today on the news.
Tonight, the company faced more
trouble in an undercover report,
Channel 4 filmed the company bosses
offering to entrap foreign
Politicians with dirty tricks.
Here's John Sweeney.
Tonight Cambridge data company
Cambridge Analytica stands accused
of taking part in one of the
greatest preachers of ordinary
people's data in history. Cambridge
Analytica's Boz Alexander Nix
tempted what he thought was a
wealthy client with a bag full of
dirty tricks. What we owed it only
did not know was that the client was
in fact an undercover reporter for
Cambridge analytic and Alexander Nix
deny any wrongdoing. The company,
which denies it a role in furthering
Brexit that did work for the Trump
campaign, is also facing an
investigation by the British
information Commissioner tonight as
the scandal grows. But the question
potentially affecting millions of
people around the world is whether
their personal data was mined, and
to what end. Imagine somebody knocks
on your door and enters and rummages
through all your staff and then
rummages through the bits and bobs
of 300 of your friends and family.
You would tell them to bugger off.
But that's exactly what Cambridge
Analytica is accused of doing to the
Facebook data of 50 million people.
At the heart of this story is a
Russian born digital genius Doctor
Aleksandr Kogan. Reports say he
scraped data from Facebook users who
took part in the coming personality
test he defied. Taking advantage of
Facebook's obscure privacy settings
and claiming he was doing research,
Dr Kogan reportedly was able to
access personal data not only of the
almost 300,000 users who took the
test but also of almost all of their
Facebook friends. That apparently
opened up access to some 50 million
user profiles. Dr Kogan has declined
to comment, except to maintain that
his programme was, quote, a very
standard vanilla Facebook app".
Facebook dumped its relationship
with Cambridge Analytica on Saturday
but today its share price tanked by
around $35 billion. Professor David
Carroll from the United States is
suing Cambridge Analytica in the
High Court in London.
It was a
reality check, you just get the data
and see it as accurate in terms of
my voter file some sort of accurate
in terms of my politics. But what
was really disturbing to me was that
it came from the United Kingdom. And
it came from the military
contractor. And I knew that, and
that was really distressing.
been -- there has been and is about
the activities of Cambridge
Analytica for months, the firm has
consistently denied helping Brexit
along or doing dirty tricks 4-team
Trump. Tonight 's revelations raise
a simple question. How reliable is
the word of Alexander Nix?
John Sweeney reporting,
I spoke to Alexander Nix, the CEO
of Cambridge Analytica this
afternoon, in an interview arranged
to discuss the data breach
and before details of the latest
Channel 4 accusations were aired -
I began by asking him was it
right Dr Kogan offerred
Cambridge Analytica access
to Facebook apps that were given
special permission to harvest data.
It is certainly right that he gave
us access to a dataset. I think we
would disagree with the veracity of
the claims concerning how powerful
this data was. We rang many models
over a period of time, to understand
if we could use this data in a
meaningful way and ultimately it
proved fruitless so we moved down a
Because he says
the data came not just from using
the apps but from a far wider circle
of friends, or their contacts gave
you status updates, like some
messages. So from touching 200,000
people you expanded into their
entire social networks which scathe
you to most of America.
think it's important to understand
what happened back in 2014 is, we
were approached by a very
respectable academic, who said that
he had the wherewithal, the
legitimate and legal wherewithal to
collect data on Facebook users that
we might be able to use an part of
our modelling. And we entered into a
contract with his individual to
undertake large-scale piece of
research for our company. And that
involved going out and seen close to
40,000 individuals to undertake
survey. A bit like an opinion
survey. And as part of that survey,
the individuals consented to give up
some of their data to this academic,
Dr Kogan, and also some data on some
of their friends. This work was
undertaken by Dr Kogan in its
entirety. He simply delivered to us
the model derivatives of the data he
collected. And we then looked at how
we could build models on top of
these models to understand whether
that would give us any insight or
signal into these audiences.
Chris Wylie says that Dr Kogan was
using apps from people who had no
idea on Facebook, is he wrong, is he
I think, my understanding is
that Dr Kogan sought permission from
the people who filled out the survey
and then they were giving update on
their friends. Let me point out that
this is no different to what Barack
Obama's campaign did in 2012. His
campaign produced a Facebook app
that requested their supporters to
give up their Facebook data and also
allowed them to give up data on
They knew they were doing
Exactly and it's exactly the
You are saying everyone you
asked knew they were giving up their
Everyone, let me clear up, we
didn't ask everyone. Everyone that
Dr Kogan engaged with, my
understanding is that they knew they
were giving up their data, and they
would have signed some sort of
permission for that.
Why do you
think Channel 4 then has been
filming an undercover sting to prove
that you had involvement in er and
unethical way of using people's most
intimate and personal data?
can't speak to Channel 4's motives.
I think they're undercover sting was
intended to embarrass us...
Again, look, we see this as a
coordinated attack by the media
that's been going on for very very
many months, in order to damage the
company that had some involvement
with the election of Donald Trump.
Do you know what they filmed? Do you
remember what you said? Do you know
what they will use?
I have a fair
Is it as bad as
You asked earlier if I
had regrets, yes, I have a huge
amount of regrets about the fact
that we maybe undertook this meeting
and spoke with a certain amount of
hyperbole about some of the things
we do. What we were trying to do was
to elicit from the undercover
reporter the true intentions of the
meeting. These meetings started out
as very bone fide philanthropic all
Facebook request to save this is
delivered services to help in the
country of Sri Lanka, to help make
it a better country and help spread
the wealth through projects of
information technology and health
care. By the time I joined the
meetings, the undercover reporter
pivoted them such that he was asking
us about entrapping political
officials, the use of honey traps,
and all sorts of other behaviour.
Cambridge Analytica has data on how
most of America thinks. You are
completely confident that Cambridge
Analytica has not in any way
influenced the outcome of the Brexit
vote or of the Trump click to rate?
Of the Brexit vote. Of the Trump
victory we were involved in the
Trump campaign as I've made clear
for many months now. We managed
everything from research to date to
analytics, to all the digital
marketing, to also the TV marketing
that was undertaken. We had a role
that was core to some of the
functions delivered to the campaign.
And do you feel you have skewed
democracy by playing a part in that?
By providing campaign services to a
candidate who had been fairly
nominated as the Republican
representative of the United States?
How is that possible? So you think
that Hillary Clinton is alleged to
have a campaign team and Donald
Do you feel there is
anything ethically that you would do
differently as a company now?
some regrets about the way that I
have represented what the company
does. I certainly feel that the air
of mystery and negativity that
surrounds the work of Cambridge is
Miss founded, and as the CEO I take
responsibility for that. I take
responsibility in light of the fact
that the staff have worked
incredibly hard to build this
business up. They are very driven
and finding you know, high-tech
solutions to very real problems that
face people in the world today, and
if I have, you know, failed to
convey what we do in the right way,
to viewers, and the public, then
that is a failing and yes I have
some regrets about that.
We did ask Alexander Nix
if he wanted to talk to us again
after the Channel 4 report
but he declined.
Channel 4 and the Observer have told
us they stick by their reporting.
Finally, you might say,
a cheer or two - but not three.
The long awaited transition deal
between London and Brussels marks
what now feels like a real milestone
in the Brexit negotiations.
The agreement sorts citizens' rights
and the transition deal and
continuity after Brexit takes
place on March 29th 2019, but it
came only after painful compromises
and a debate that pitted business
calls for certainty against Brexiter
demands for sovereignty.
Britain is now set to wait
until at least 2021 to take control
of laws, immigration and money.
In return, businesses
in the UK and EU are given
stronger assurances that
an abrupt cliff-edge
will be avoided next year.
EU negotiator Michel Barnier hailed
the deal as a "decisive step".
But the future of the Irish border
remains unresolved and some
Brexiteers have questioned
what wins the Government had
in the negotiations.
We've waited a long time, but now,
at last, we know the flavour
of the first stages of Brexit.
There's been a bit of give and take
on the road that is meant -
eventually - to deliver the full
Or should we say, a full UK Brexit?
So, finally we have
something to chew over.
Now today was about the steps
we will take next year
when we leave the EU,
but before we fully relinquish our
legal ties with Brussels.
And there are signs of some cheeky
sneaking onto our plate.
Britain has given ground in four
main areas in the hope that EU
leaders will sign up to a transition
period at their summit
later this week.
Not quite, perhaps,
the full English Brexit
supporters had hoped for.
Britain has agreed that...
The rights of EU citizens
will continue to be guaranteed
during the transition.
That transition will end on the last
day of 2020, slightly earlier
that the UK had hoped.
The UK will still be bound by EU
fishing rules until then,
though the UK will be consulted.
And Britain will stand by a back
stock agreement from last December
on Northern Ireland if no overall
deal is reached.
Downing Street points out
that there are wins: The UK will be
free to negotiate and sign trade
deals around the world
during the transition.
A special committee will make sure
that both sides act in good
faith during that period,
and Theresa May can say
that the UK will gain full
control of its borders,
money and courts at the end of 2020.
this morning to agree,
and after all those days and nights
of hard work, on a large part
of what will make up
an international agreement
for the ordered withdrawal
of the United Kingdom.
And there is a lot of work still
to be done on important subjects,
including Ireland and Northern
Our teams have worked hard
and at pace to secure the terms
of a time limited implementation
period that gives
the certainty demanded
by businesses and citizens
across the European Union
and United Kingdom.
But the 13 strong contingent
of Scottish Tory MPs are unhappy
that the UK will not have control
of its waters during the transition.
I don't think anyone should be under
any illusion that we can try
try and sell this as,
"Better than expected",
"It could have been a lot worse",
you know, "Take your medicine
and go away"...
A useful phrase, whether you agree
with it or not, it would be easier
to get someone to drink a pint
of cold sick than try and sell this
as a good deal for a fisherman
and it's clear from the reaction
from fishermen in Murray,
that they don't think this is a good
deal and they agree
with me on that point.
At the end of this year,
when the 2019 quotas
are in agreement, the UK
will still be at the table.
At the end of 2020, we will be
there as a third country,
so full control of our waters.
The question is, what happens
in middle year, just for 12 months,
where I understand we would not
actually be in the December council
but there is a process
by which we would be able
to feed into that.
I'm sure everyone will be looking
at what are the extra protections
we've got for that one year?
So, it's not quite the full English,
though a considerable amount
of work has gone into this.
It will be just under three years
before we can see what the full UK
Brexit really looks like.
Nick joins me now, with hot off
the press, a letter from the PM
That was the last meal he got today.
He joins me now, hot off the press
news. This letter from the Prime
Minister and that Ireland border
arrangement. What do you know now?
Theresa May wrote to Donald Tusk to
offer assurances the UK Government
will ensure there is no hard border
in Northern Ireland. Now, Donald
Tusk had a few weeks ago warned that
the UK was in danger of backsliding
from an agreement is reached with
the EU back in December. The Prime
Minister has said this evening that
the UK is committed to that
agreement in its entirety. So what
does that mean? It means the UK
will, as it said in December,
maintain full alignment with the
rules on the single market and the
customs union which support North
South cooperation. Now, it is
important to say that Downing Street
believes that this backstop
agreement will not be necessary
because there will be, they believe,
a comprehensive free trade agreement
between the UK and the EU and that
will be so closely aligned that you
won't need to worry about the Irish
What about this row over
As an aside, Scottish
Conservative MPs are very angry the
UK will not have control over its
waters during the transition.
Tonight they met the conservative
Chief Whip and Environment Secretary
Michael go. I'm told it was an
emotional and highly charged meeting
and there were passionate views.
There was frustration they were not
told, frustration and anger. But
what they have agreed is that they
cannot change what was agreed in the
transitional fishing because it is
an green, which means it cannot be
changed but they are saying there
must be very, very strong language
and fisheries for when the UK
definitively leads the European
Union. Interestingly, different
views on the cabin on this. On one
side, those same people who love to
buy into the betrayal myth. Others
are saying those Scottish Tory MPs,
they have a point.
Thank you very
Jacob Rees-Mogg is the Chair
of the European Research group
and a leading Brexiteer.
You and other Brexiteers worked very
hard to convince the fishermen they
would be better off out. They voted
for Brexit in their droves. Douglas
Ross tonight says that deal is a
bucket of cold sick. They must feel
The Secretary of
State for relevant department said
the other day that the UK would
leave the Common fisheries policy in
2019. I don't know what has happened
in this very short period,
You agree it has
gone badly wrong?
It is not for me
to admit, I don't like this report
at all. I make no bones about it, I
think this is a very bad agreement,
not just on fish. The only thing
that makes it acceptable is the hope
it is leading to a proper Brexit at
the end of 2020.
It is a well saying
This agreement gives oil
most everything and it is hard to
see what the government has got in
All that stuff now an green
that you can't take back you think
Nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed.
It has been
signed off, hasn't it?
There is a
process, nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed. There is an
important part of this because there
is a stage in the negotiations and
if the government isn't satisfied
with things at a later stage, then
it can pull back on things it has
previously agreed. That has been set
out very clearly throughout the
negotiations. Now, when you look at
the bits in green, so far it looks
like concessions from the British
government without counter
concessions in return.
That is all
you see? The UK giving up ground and
getting nothing back?
to me that government rolled over
but hadn't even had its tummy
tickled. The question then is what
is the end state? Many of us can
swallow a good deal that is
unsatisfactory in the transition, if
it leads to a proper Brexit in the
OK, let me look at the Northern
Ireland border question Nick just
raised. Theresa May is prepared to
stand by what you already didn't
like in December, in other words, if
there is no deal, then the UK will
remain fully aligned and those,
particularly on those three things,
in the EU's understanding on
everything, fully aligned with EU
rules supporting North-South
co-operation. In other words, if
there is no deal we all remain
aligned in the EU.
What that is
saying is we would stay in the EU,
still in the customs union and
single market at least those parts
that related to the Belfast
Does that make no deal
less attractive to you?
No, no deal
means no deal.
Not if she says it
goes back to what we signed in
In an earlier paragraph it
said nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed. Then in a
later paragraph, that if nothing was
agreed that and they would agree
this. What you have to ask, which
hasn't been made clear, is which of
those two paragraphs takes
precedence, the earlier one that
says nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed or the later
one? I would take the
interpretation, and when it comes to
votes in parliament would vote
accordingly, that the primary
paragraph is superior.
It does look
like you are being boxed in. It
looks like the PM has found a way of
making no deal look much less
attractive to you then let's call a
medium soft Brexit.
It's not a
question of being boxed in from my
point of view, it's a question of
whether the government is going to
deliver on the referendum result
that we leave the European Union.
The government has been very
generous, offering 35- £40 billion
and want in return a trade deal.
That is very beneficial to the
European Union. They're in mind,
without our money, for the final 21
months in the financial framework,
the EU is insolvent. People say what
plans have we made for no deal? What
plans have the EU made for no deal
question about what has it set to
remaining Bulgaru or Poland about
the funding it won't get if the UK's
deal doesn't come through.
of where your loyalties lie, at one
point you thought of no deal would
be a better way to proceed because
the WTO regulations were taken back
to zero tariffs.
I have no qualms
about no deal.
You would still
The Prime Minister said it has...
Could you vote for no deal?
Prime Minister said no deal is
better than a bad deal, in her
Mansion House speech just a week or
So the worst deal looks, the
happier you are to just walk away
and sites, we are better off?
like this transition Dilbert as I
said earlier, it is acceptable in
the event that the ends deal is
good. But on its own, this
transition deal is deeply
unsatisfactory and the government
has given way onto much.
Earlier this month, Chris Cook
and Lucinda Day brought
you an excluisve on bullying
and harassment of parliamentary
clerks at the hands of MPs
in the House of Commons.
Tonight, the House of Commons has
agreed to an inquiry
into their findings.
Chris is here now.
What has been going on today?
afternoon there was a meeting, the
House of Commons commission, the
governing body of the House of
Commons corporately. It's mostly MPs
and a few other people. They agreed
there should be an inquiry. They
also agreed it should be run
independently, and the terms of
reference that that inquiry are
going to be set by the two members
of the House of Commons commission
who are not parliamentarians, so
people have confidence in it. The
thing is, there is a big question
about what the remit is going to be
on the really big question comes
from what they will do if they
uncover a large body of evidence
about one MP in particular. Let's
say they get five people who come
forward and they have had problems
with this MP. They look into that
case and can understand the system
and how it does or doesn't work at
the moment and then they have to
come to a conclusion about what
should have been done. Will they
tell us they have gathered all this
information about the MP or will it
be kept secret? Last week in
Parliament Andrea Leadsom said there
wouldn't be individual
investigations into individual MPs,
which made it sound like they would
come to broad conclusions but not
name names. Frankly, that won't be
good enough for staff who are
worried this will be used to sweep
it under the carpet.
That has been
no response so far?
We need to know
what is going to happen at this
inquiry concluded an MP is a bad
person and needs to be dealt with,
will it be made public will it be
Chris Cook, thanks.
How does the world respond
to an election that Vladimir Putin
called, and won by a landslide,
and that no one else
really believes in.
Certainly there was no
And certainly the 70 plus percentage
share of the vote suggests the work
of a leader who never really doubted
he would remain Presidnet.
The big question perhaps is how
the world reacts to a man who has
continued to seize power
in a country that silenced dissent.
Should they congratulate him?
Should they freeze him out?
A muted reaction so far.
Mark Urban assess the options
for the West now.
Back in the 1870s when Britain and
Russia asked friend or foe about
their future relationship they did
so from a position of relative
equality. But as Vladimir Putin
celebrates an election victory that
propels him into a fourth 6- year
term he is consolidating his already
dominant position. One of his
cheerleaders, the editor of RT said
Russians would not now allow a
change of leaders.
In some ways he
has trapped himself, boxed himself
in. Because he is now very much seen
as the founder of modern Russia. He
certainly has been in power for the
majority of time Russia has been an
independent country after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. And at
this point it is not even clear how
to have a successor to someone seen
in this very Tsarist way.
common consensus he has grown and
how Manning on with sanctions would
be as one person put it like mud
wrestling a gorilla. Instead British
mandarins are resigned to the power
realities of the situation.
got Putin for another six years and
we can't deny he is popular with his
people. One can doubt how fair the
election was but he has a real
following in Russia, he won't change
his spots, we know how he operates,
this I win, you lose approach to
international affairs will go on. We
will have to continue to deal with
an aggressive Russia.
And if that
isn't tough enough to swallow one of
Putin 's campaign staff thanked
Britain saying its response to the
Sergei Skripal poisoning had got the
turnout up just when we needed it.
Putin seems like he's very much on a
trajectory to confront the West,
this is the defining foreign policy
and I don't see it changing any time
soon. I see the relationship between
the West, Europe the United States
and Russia, staying relatively the
same progressively worse.
are areas where it is hard for him
to hit back in kind or harder. There
are large amounts of Russian Private
cash in London which is why
tomorrow's National Security Council
meeting could spell at further
measures against those who cannot
explain this wealth.
My own strong
feeling is we have to show the
Russians as a result of this case
that they can't go on behaving like
this and expect to be treated as a
responsible country. One of the
opportunities we have to send that
message is the fact that the City of
London has an awful lot of Russian
money. Some of it no doubt entirely
legitimate, some of it no doubt
extremely doubtful, put there by
people around Putin. So let's use
that opportunity to send a very,
very strong message.
Phase two of
Britain's response to Russia made
then be more of a whimper than a
bank but on a day that international
investigators were heading for
Salisbury and the police said it was
likely the inquiry would go on for
months, none of this is going away
soon. That was Mark Bourbon.
Earlier I spoke to Ksenia Sobchak,
a Russian reality TV
who stood as liberal protest
candidate in Sunday's
I put it to her that -
should Putin complete this
next term in office -
he'd be Russia's longest-serving
leader since Stalin.
If he completes this term he will be
the longest serving leader since
Stalin in Russia.
That's true, that's very sad.
I'm actually, I'm in a very bad
mood from yesterday.
Today we're trying, you know,
to be a team together
and to discuss our campaign but,
you know, the mood is really
not good, to be honest.
You ran against him.
I wonder if you regret doing that?
You gave him, Navalny said,
credibility by doing that.
I mean, you can see how we discussed
things with Navalny yesterday
and actually I was very disappointed
by this talk with Alexei Navalny.
He invited me to debates
and I was there because I am not
afraid to meet with Navalny
or with Putin, but if Navalny
would be permitted, Putin
have the same kind of credibility,
even more, so...
You must respect, you must accept
that while Putin is in power
there is now no effective
opposition, is that true?
I will be trying to be
We are forming a party
with Dmitry Gudkov, he's
an opposition figure
from the protests of 2011.
He did a huge job on the deputies
voting in Moscow, so we're forming
a new power that I hope
will represent young, innovative
Russians who want change here.
Let me ask your question very
to British audiences'
hearts this evening.
Our Prime Minister, as you know,
has pointed the finger
at President Putin over
the poisoning of a Russian man
who is a former spy in Britain.
Do you believe Putin
was behind that?
Look, this is actually
a very interesting point,
because, you know, I really,
I very much respect,
I have very much respect
for the Justice in London,
and I know that many people,
from all over the world,
they come to Great Britain
because they know how
independent your court system is.
And I think that after 24 hours,
to make such conclusions,
is really something that breaks this
independence of all the system,
where you have to go to to make
a huge investigation and then come
to the court and then
do all those things,
so the answer, my answer is -
I don't know.
Maybe Theresa May is right.
Maybe she's wrong, but in any way
in such an old democracy
like Great Britain, Theresa May
should not behave herself
like Mr Putin does.
I mean, you can't answer
to our autocratic person by doing
the same kind of things.
You can't say in one day that it's
only Russia who is in charge,
because even if it's like this,
there should be a huge,
I'm really actually surprised
that this hasn't been done yet,
but already such accusations
appeared and already many people
maybe would lose their possibility
to go and study in Great Britain,
many Russians would lose
the possibility to get visas.
I mean, Russia is not
right in many cases,
but Great Britain should not behave
in the same kind of manner.
This would bring us
to end, to nothing.
I mean, someone should be wiser
and I hope that Great Britain can be
wise and can be really profound
on the investigation.
OK, Ksenia Sobchak,
thank you very much.
Joining me now Dr Javier Solana,
former Secretary general of Nato,
and formerly the EU's top
foreign policy chief.
Very nice to see you, you heard
there from the opposition candidate,
I wonder whether you agree that
Britain, has been, as an old
democracy, slightly too hasty to
point the finger directly at Russia?
It is very difficult to answer that,
not being a British citizen. But it
seems to me that it has two condemn
what has happened in this recent
period of time, it is not the first
time it happened on your territory
but it seems to me to use the
terminology of the use of force,
unlawful use of force has been the
terminology used by the United
Kingdom, is pretty close to... Use
of force... It's too heavy
formulation, I think.
Do you think
it is irresponsible to use that
I wouldn't say irresponsible
but it's too close to other
terminology applied which I don't
think anyone wants.
So how do you
react to something that looks like
not a one-off but part of a whole
I think you have to react to
who is making the definition of a
crime, a dramatic crime, terrible
A crime with no diplomatic
A crime with diplomatic
effects, which has to be dealt with
by appealing to the convention of
chemical weapons were investigating
can be done. Where Russia doesn't
have the power of veto, therefore
they have to go in and deal with the
situation. And at the same time, do
something that may be possible
against people that are very close
to President Putin...
So what would
You can use your
capabilities as a government to look
at current accounts from many
Frees rich Russians?
very damaging for Putin and Putin 's
friends. I think there is reaction
-- this reaction that we have had of
taking diplomats out and bringing
diplomats in etc, it is something
that hasn't been... It isn't going
to affect your country or the
We are one day after
a landslide election which no one
outside Russia or within Russia may
be recognises as an election. Putin
will soon have been in power as long
as Stalin and yet the West has
accepted him and invited him in as a
legitimate president. They too
frightened of him?
I don't think
anyone has congratulated him, that I
know of, by the European Union.
haven't frozen him out, he's still a
member of the G7 the G8. A meeting
of the G7 and the G8 is no longer
meeting, it doesn't exist any
longer, news a number of
international organisations, cannot
avoid that, it is an important
power. The fundamental question
behind that is, is the West too
scared? Look at nature which seems
to have failed time after time,
whether when it was a cyber attack
on Estonia or incursions into Crimea
or murders on British soil, as we
now think, doesn't there, point
where Nato is to stand up and be
I think Nato is counted,
and is counted today, counted
yesterday and will be counted
tomorrow. But counted doesn't mean
you have to act in a military
manner. I don't think we, anybody,
would like to have a confrontation
with Russia in a military front.
It's an absurd situation right now.
Therefore we have to do to be tough,
to take important decisions on
things which are not preventing us
from having some kind of
relationship with Russia. And at the
same time be very careful not to
step up attention which may lead
when nobody wants to go. The
situation today in the world is very
Let me ask you one
question before we speak about
Brexit, Jacob Rees-Mogg just said in
his eyes, with the Brexiteer so far
the UK has conceded everything and
the EU has conceded nothing, is that
how it seems to you?
No, on this
subject of course not. We have been
in great solidarity with the United
Kingdom. It has nothing to do with
Brexit, we will continue...
It's been a good
agreement. I honestly think what has
happened today is a good agreement
and has to be considered like that.
Time is ahead of us and we have to
see what may happen at a later
moment but for the moment it's the
first day that the step has been
taken and an agreement moving
Dr Javier Solana, thank you
for coming in.
That's it for tonight.
Quick message to whoever's
tweaking the road signs
on the A4130 in Oxford -
stop it at once.
We leave you with the originals,
AND how they look now.