To win this fundamental democracy reform. Thank you very much. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies and brought to you as a Public Service by your cable or satellite provider. Tonight on cspan3, British Foreign secretary Boris Johnson appears before the committee on Foreign Affairs. A discussion on food safety and biological terrorism. And a new survey out finds dissatisfaction with american political culture. But first, an update from the road to the white house. The Time Magazine cover story out today, total meltdown and a caricature of donald trump cowritten by philip elliott, washington correspondent for Time Magazine. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate it. Of course. Lets begin withior piece in which you mention that donald trump is consumed by petty grudges, angry over leaked recordings and now free of the Republican Party shackles. What has been going on . Well, it has been nothing short of an epic meltdown inside trump tower. Weve talked at length with several people trying to advise mr. Trump off his ledge to get him back into a more traditional mode. He is just not going there. He is going to leave everything on the field, to use a tortured sports analogy, and just use this in the last remaining days of his campaign to settle scores and to basically relitigate every wrong that he feels he has been suffering. This is a candidate who has, as we, quote one official, just taken the party and has forced it to the darkest places possible. Nurturing the worst instincts of some of the conservative members of his party and torturing and that is not an exaggeration torturing the establishment minded republicans who have devoted their entire lives to building up a conservative party in this country that can debate ideas and can talk about its history and this is about as far from a party of george h. W. Bush as you can imagine. So where does that put House Speaker paul ryan, the Senate Republican leader Mitch Mcconnell and the socalled mainstream republicans as they try to maintain control of the house and the senate and figure out where the gop is going next . Paul ryan is an interesting character here that he always had an uncomfortable, an uneasy marriage with mr. Trump. Okay, this is the guy who is the nominee of the party. It behooves the republican brand to not have to not lose a third consecutive president ial race. It would be good for down ballot candidates if mr. Trumps supporters decided to show up and vote for republican candidates for senate and house. That is no longer the mindset inside speaker ryans orbit or leader mcconnells that they see mr. Trump as a toxic figure inside the party that is that could very much drag down candidates like kelly ayotte in new hampshire. One of the perhaps most endangered republican senators facing reelection. Democrats only need to capture four more seats and the vice presidency to capture the majority for the First Time Since its a very real thing. Republicans are defending 24 seats. Thats a very large vulnerability for them. Paul ryan over the weekend said that enough had been enough. He uninvited mr. Trump to appear in mr. Ryans own congressional district. Instead invited mike pence, the running mate, to fill the spot. Mike pence was, no, im good. He took the weekend off the trail to figure out where this race goes. Appearing with mr. Trump has now become it will become a liability for republican candidates because they will be forced to defend the indefensible that mr. Trump has said about women. And the accusations he is facing on a nearly daily basis of past wrong actions, not just words. Yet donald trump is turning his attention to the media, the New York Times saying that based on these wikileaks, the Clinton Campaign in collusion with the mainstream media. How effective do you think that strategy has been or will be for donald trump . Well, mr. Trumps most loyal supporters have never been a fan of what we would call the mainstream media. Attacking the media is always a good tactic for the most conservative parts of the base. But hes not running against the New York Times. Hes running against Hillary Clinton. And every hour he spends trying to fight with reporters and journalists and anyone in that orbit is a minute hes not litigating his case against mrs. Clinton. The Clinton Campaign says you can do whatever you if mr. Trump wants to spend the next three weeks talking about the media, it will only focus on what the media is reporting about him, which are very damning stories about mr. Trumps previous actions and words. As you point out in your story, this is going to force the Republican Party to rethink its own identity for the First Time Since the 1960s during the height of the civil rights movement. Based on that, why are some republicans, including the chairman of the party, Reince Priebus, still with donald trump, in light of everything thats been happening over the last week and a half . Where speaker ryan says this is a bridge too far, we cant go there, Reince Priebus is in a difficult position where this is a party that he has overseen. He is the longserving chairman, relatively, in a job that is not known for durability. But this is a party that hes overseen. This is a party that he has shepherded to where it is. And at no point did they step in and say donald trump is not reflective of what it means to be a republican. And i think that is a true statement. But Reince Priebus is now no one in his party stepped in and said no to mr. Trump. They allowed this to happen. They have to own it. At this point theres no remaking the Republican Party in the little time we have left. There is only a managed collapse of mr. Trump in the hopes that he does not take down with him everyone else who has an r after their name. But its worth remembering that a lot of Americans Still dont like Hillary Clinton and cant bring themselves to vote for her. They might find mr. Trumps behavior abhorrent, but they still hate Hillary Clinton. That this has been a decadeslong indoctrination of conservatives to hate and hate is the right word here hate Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for. And thats, while the polling shows mr. Trump is heading towards a loss, there is still a part of this country that can never bring themselves to vote for that woman in particular. And finally, philip elliott, the cover story, a 2. 0 version of what we talked about in august, the cover story of Time Magazine, explain your approach. Well, we, in august, it was a moment where trump was coming out of the convention and having a very bad stretch. He was attacking muslim americans, parents of veterans. Things looked to be going off the rails at that point. This moment is more damaging for mr. Trump. Hes quickly approaching the point of no return, and hes not going to take down just his own campaign. He may take down the entire Republican Party with him. The Time Magazine cover story on newsstands today and Available Online at time. Com. Philip elliott, washington correspondent. Thank you for being with us. Of course. Thank you. Watch cspans live coverage of the third debate between Hillary Clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. Our live debate preview from the university of nevada las vegas starts at 7 30 p. M. Eastern. The briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8 30 p. M. And the 90minute debate is at 9 00 p. M. Eastern. Stay with us for viewer reaction, including your calls, tweets and facebook postings. And watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at cspan. Org. Listen to live coverage on your phone with the cspan app. Download it from the google play or app store. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up friday morning, david brody, chief Political Correspondent for cbn news will discuss the split in the evangelical community over voting for donald trump. Then celeste katz will talk about the role millennial voters are playing in campaign 2016 and what issues are motivating them this election cycle. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on friday. Join the discussion. British foreign secretary Boris Johnson testified before the Foreign Affairs committee of the british house of commons today. It was his first in front of the committee since becoming the uks top diplomat in july. He took questions on the uks Foreign Policy strategy as the nation begins to extract itself from the European Union and continues its part in the fight against the Islamic State militant group in iraq and syria. This is about an hour and 45 minutes. Order, order. Welcome to this session of the Foreign Affairs committee. And our first session with the new secretary. Welcome to the committee and congratulations on your appointment. Thank you. Obviously this first formal session with the committee. And its a desire in that sense to be more open session than it might usually be, inquiring into particular subjects, obviously associated with everything that is going on. And, of course, we are rather limited in the time you have available for the committee, so that is going to limit the subject coverage to a degree. And we will also then want to come back. This is going to be a long game relationship. Hopefully for both our sakes for some time. But i thought it would be appropriate to invite you to give us an opening statement. Not for too long so we can get into the interrogative session. Lay out things for about ten minutes, and then ill ask my colleagues to begin questions. Thank you very much, mr. Blunt. A few years ago, i was traveling in the gulf region on a trade trip, and i was having lunch. And a sheikh who was my host turned to me and he said, what happened to you guys . You used to run this place, he said. Actually, he was quite right because the british flag had only come down in that particular country in living memory. And yet we had faded from the scene. Whether it was because of the loss of confidence or dennis healys despairing decision to chop uk influence east of suez, we somehow became less present in that country, politically, culturally, commercially and others had moved in. And as my host put it to me, with slight mystification, you left us to the french. And mr. Blunt, members of the Foreign Affairs committee, i am here to tell you this morning, insofar as that was ever true of the uk, that neglect is being reversed with astonishing speed, as im sure members of your committee know. Our trade with the gulf is booming. Its one of the faste esest gro areas of trade for the uk now. Our relations in that area are better than ever. And after a period in which the labor government all but ignored that region, i didnt think gordon brown ever made an additional visit to the country im speaking of. Our Prime Minister will this year become the first female guest of honor at the Gulf Cooperation Council summit, or so im told. The reason for this growing engagement by the uk is at least partly that its under william haig, my predecessor, Philip Hammond and under this administration with the strong support of the Prime Minister. We have a Foreign Commonwealth Office that is more energetic and outward looking and more engaged with the world than at any time in decades. And that outward looking spirit is present not just in the gulf but across the world. And i think its going to intensify as we extricate ourselves from the eu treaty and we forge a new identity as the Prime Minister has said as a Global Britain. And i mean global because it is vital to understand what brexit is and what it is not. Yes, it means restoring our democracy and control of our laws and our borders and a fair bit of cash. But brexit is emphatically not any kind of mandate for this country to turn in on itself to haul up the drawbridge or to detach itself from the international community. And i know as a former mayor of this city how vastly our capital and our whole economy has profited from londons role and the uks role as a lone star and a magnet for talent. And i believe there is no inconsistency whatever between the desire to take back control of our borders and the need to be open to skills from around the world. There is absolutely no inconsistency between ending the supremacy of eu law in this country as we will and being a major contributor to the security and Economic Prosperity of the whole european region. We are leaving the eu. We are not leaving europe. And over the last three months, ive been struck by how little i am asked about brexit and how swiftly the conversation moves on to some other aspect of the uks global role. And in an age of uncertainty with democracy in retreat in some parts of the world, large parts of the middle east in chaos, the demand is for more britain, not less. And we can see that demand now almost tragically and effectively in syria where the people of aleppo are hoping desperately that we and our allies may be able to do something to alleviate their suffering in the face of the barbaric assaults of the assad regime with the of russia and iran. And i must tell you at this stage it is vital that we do not raise false hopes. We know the difficulties and the implications of a nofly zone or no bombing zone, and no matter how easy those concepts may sometimes be made to sound, but if there is more that we can reasonably and practically do together with our allies, then, of course, we should consider those measures and, believe me, that work is now going on. But we should also take pride in what we are already doing. The second biggest donor of human taure humanitarian aid to the region, we fund the White Helmets who dragged people from the rubble after the air strikes and who have themselves suffered terrible casualties. Ive seen the work of British Police training local Syrian Police so that they are able to build public trust in the areas occupied by the mod rap opposition. Were helping to clear mines and shells and we should never forget that it is thanks at least partly to the raf crews flying repeated missions over iraq and syria. That we have helped reduce by 50 the territory of daesh in iraq and 20 their footprint in syria. So whether its through hard power in that way or through soft power, i think we sometimes forget in this country how much britain is contributing around the world. Helping to bring peace in colombia. Helping to get rid of the pirates off the coast of somalia. Leading the campaign to save the African Elephant now perilously endangered. From the same bands of gangsters, by the way, involved in the people trafficking thats is helping to fuel the migration crisis. You look around though world and you see that this country is a Massive Force for good. An increasingly uncertain world, a world thats been deprived of leadership. And the values that we try to project, whether through our embassies or through british cons ul or through the British Companies or 5 million or 6 million brits who live abroad which is bigger than any other diaspora than any other rich country in the world. I think those values are not just good in themselves. When i speak of british values, i mean democracy, free speech, independent judiciary, qualities, rule of law, anticorruption support for the Civil Society. Theyre good in themselves. Theyreu de their ideals. But theyre also economically advantageous for the areas in which the countries in which we try to protect them. You look around this city and this economy, i think its pretty obvious that it provides the proof that political and social liberty are essential for sustainable Economic Prosperity. And that is one of the missions of Global Britain. But i think an outward looking britain is, above all, good for us. Its good for britain because we are about, in the next few years, to be liberated to go across the world and do a new set of free trade deals. An extremely exciting prospect. And to get back to the beginning of my remarks, we will be going out again to places where perhaps people havent seen so much of us in the past in places where they thought we had forgotten about them. And we have a superb fco network to help make it happen. We have more reach than our friends in france. More Bigger Network of embassies at only 17 of the cost. And, finally, one of the biggest privileges of my job in the last few months to meet our people who represent the uk to the world. They seem to me in my advanced years, they seem amazingly young, idealistic, very often intellectually brilliant like the two people on either side of me, and i believe they are excited about the challenge of projecting Global Britain and they have a they have a confidence, a real confidence, an optimism that i think comes with the knowledge that they are speaking for a soft power superpower. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Just before i invite colleagues to put questions to you, how were going to manage this is colleagues will have the opportunity to interrogate you on whatever subject they wish for. Ten minutes or so and then i will come in and ask my questions at the end. I want to pick up one point out of your opening remarks. Where i think i would recognize that the renewed focus on the gulf started under lord haig, but all of that optimistic view about the reach of the Foreign Office and how energetic and active it is is completely contradicted by the utterly dire resources position your Department Finds itself in. Perhaps you can explain how on earth youre going to pay for these splendit aspirations given the fact that half your budget now appears to be constrained to areas that 0. 7 of Development Expenditure that the British Council budget has been cut from your department. It is the view of this committee that you were going to need to double or triple the Resources Available if were to meet these aspirations postbrexit, which i think the committee would no doubt share. But what comfort can you give us that youre going to actually be able to spend money in places like in europe, reinforcing our bilateral relations in the wake of brexit. Because it doesnt appear to be any money kicking around. I think i would make a few points. Obviously, in certain circumstances we have to make our money go further than before. Were doing extremely well. We can very proud of what were excuse me. The budget of the overall budget is rising from 1. 1 billion to 1. 24 billion by 19, 20. Where youre spot on, if i may say, mr. Blunt, is in pointing to the very considerable sums that are available to for oda for dividend spending. We obviously have quite a lot of oda spend that we do ourselves, but the game now is to make sure that uk oda funds are used in such a way, not just to serve Development Goals as they undoubtedly must, but also to make sure they mesh and chime with our diplomatic and political objectives. I find no contradiction in that approach. And thats something the government at all levels secretary, just to pick that point up, thats fine but that only applies to those countries that are subject to development assistance. You cant spend that money elsewhere. So its all very well having money there but where our game needs to be raised is with the rest of the world where our principle existing markets are getting to be, obviously reinforcing the work of the International Trade department. But you cant do this on fresh air. And what you have is fresh air to do this on to meet these aspirations. I go thknow that you gave my predecessor quite a grilling about this when he last appeared. He made a good point that he couldnt imagine bidding for more funds. Now since hes the chancellor, im trying to camp out on what he had to say. All right. Secretary, in welcoming you to your post, can we kick off, it may not surprise you, with brexit. To many of us, the referendum gave a very clear message, and that is were leaving. The governments position is very clear on this. Were going to take back control on immigration. Were going to introduce a fairer immigration policy that no longer discriminates against the rest of the world outside the eu and were going to obtain the best deal in accessing eu markets. Its a nonsense that there is so much noise about this, one could argue, given that 170 other odd count countries. No reason this economy cant as well. What do you say to the alarmists . Some would perhaps, unfairly perhaps, call them ramoners who believe that were heading to hell in a hand basket, and what would you say to those who are genuinely concerned about developments and the uncertainty this is creating . I think that those who prophesy doom before the referendum have been proved wrong, and theyll continue to be proved wrong. I think, obviously, it will take time before the full benefits of brexit appear because after all, we havent even begun the process of leaving. So the whole thing is really very artificial and speculative. I do think that businesses investing in the uk can have the maximum possible certainty and assurance that our partners, our friends across the channel have a huge interest in doing the best possible deal in goods and services for the sake of their companies and our friends in the political world across the channel have a symmetrical interest in doing a deal that will be for the benefit of their constituents and the people who elect them. And thats a deal thats going to be thats going to promote the growth and prosperity of the uk and the eu. And im insure thatsure thats l produce. Thats how well thats how it will end up. Perhaps we should take comfort from the fact that the very deem predicting doom and gloom if he didnt join the euroer left the ern, many are predicting doom and gloom now. Perhaps thats comfort we can take. Can i drill down on negotiations. One fully understands that a roving commentary makes for poor outcomes. And despite the silent calls of certain members ever this plaof play, its difficult to think that can take place. The government has made clear that wont take place. There will be scrutiny perhaps but no roving commentary. But the eus position itself is quite interesting. They are very much, and have been put it on record, that they are linking immigration with access to Single Market. They say its one before founding principles if you like. Its nonnegotiable. Youve described that approach as baloney. Say again . [ inaudible ]. Absolutely. Theres a disconnect, how are we going to get around this, do you think . Thank you very much for that question. I genuinely think theres a false connection, an unnecessary linkage in all these concepts. I vividly remember being ordered by the belgian interior minister in 1989 to leave the country. They tried to deport me when i went to work abroad because i couldnt produce what was then called a i had to show i was economically viable in belgium and i have to go to the commune with a letter proving that i had a job. Now this was, as youll all appreciate, many years after the treaty of rome and after the european act. So the idea that the Brownian Movement of individuals, of citizens across the surface of europe is somehow there on tablets of stone in brussels is complete nonsense. It is a fiction. We are taking back control of our borders, as we said we would, and thats what well do. It doesnt mean, as i said in my opening remarks, that we are get tock hostile to people of talent who want to come live and work. Its very important that we continue to send out a signal of openness and welcome to the many brilliant people who helped to drive the london economy and the uk economy. Is there one, though, naughty problem that weve got to face and we havent quite faced up to it or perhaps we have behind closed doors . And that is opposition obstensibly is access to the Single Market. And one can understand that. At the same time, were going to be repealing the european communitys act. Its that act that gave force to the eu court of justice which has jurisprudence with regard to Single Market. Theres a little bit of a disconnect there. How your going to square that circle . The Prime Minister made it clear a couple of weeks ago when she said the uk will be leaving the eu and thereby, well be leaving the number of the European Court of justice. Well no longer be subject to european community, European Union law. And thats the key point. We will get the best possible deal for goods and services for the uk and the rest of the eu. Okay. Following on from that then, then it sounds to many of uand this holds no fear from many of our points of view, that we would be prepared if all else fails in negotiations to fall back on wto rules and tariffs. Now your fellow secretary of state for leaving the eu said that holds no fears. You know, if 170 countries can trade on such a basis and taurives are as low as 3 to 5 , the most favored nation status, et cetera, et cetera, im picking up here that it certainly hold nose feas no fea you. Youre trying to get me into running commentary about negotiations. Im not going to i think we can do a great deal that will deliver a result of both goods and services for our businesses and for our friends you wouldnt disagree with your fellow sskts state in saying wto holds no fears . As i said, i think it will be getting into the minutia of the negotiations. Lets move on very quickly. I think there will be a great deal done. Eu divisions, something were not picking up on. Ive raised it on the floor of the house before. But whats your take. Quite understandably, the spotlight is on the negotiating position. As you look across at the eu, its quite an interesting situation. You have an emerging split, a growing split, in fact, between the ideaologists within the Eu Commission and elected politicians who realize that courtesy of the balance of trade in their favor, playing hardball may not be in their best interest. What can you tell us with that situation as you see it . I understand that point, and ive heard it quite a lot. I think its important not to i havent actually tested that proposition yet with some of the Key Commission people. But my impression is they are faithful servants of europe and the eu, and they will ultimately do what they consider to be in the best interest of the entire union, and i think that will be a deal that is beneficial to the electorates, people of europe. And thats where theyll end up. Of course, a certain amount of plaster has come off the ceiling in brussels since the vote. Of course people feel they have a project. A fascinating article in the ft this morning by the french Prime Minister in which he spelled out this. Why the vote to leave . And he very emphatically specialspelled out his vision for a federal system with very defined boundaries. Im afraid, not an ideal to which i think the british people really aspire. And i think we did the right thing, and i think we can make it work. Do you think relations a few years out can improve in the eu . No longer will they have to contend with those awkward brits, the thorn in their side as they merge toward a closer Political Union . It could make for a closer relationship . Of course. Im so glad to hear you speak in those terms. I think europe is at its best when its positive about the work its engaged on. Sets itself a deadline. I think we should view the whole Brexit Process as a positive thing. We are sorting out the uk problem. And after all, there has been a problem for derad decades. We decided to stay out of state street and monetary union. That was the basic moment of divergent. All else really flowed from that. What we saw on june the 23rd was theological c logical conclusio divergence, that basic drift by the british people away from that ideal which is articulated by the Prime Minister in the paper this morning. We dont want to be part of such a construct. And weve always made it clear. Its always been very tense. We said we dont agree with this. We dont agree with the jurisdiction of the European Court of justice over this or that. And to a certain extent, some other countries have shielded their own apprehensions behind us. But its up to them now to get on and take the thing forward. Finally on brexit, can i just reinforce what christian said earlier, our chairman, about resources. Its going to be many of us believe that actually the fc is unresources as it is. Weve been poorly cited in many of our interventions. Some of us have a particular view of those interventions. Put that to one side. The resources are going to be even more needed now as we become truly globalist as we look outward facing. Not just to the eu but outside the eu. An increase in the budget of, what, 140 million pounds. You know very well, foreign secretary, is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required. How forceful are you going to be in lobbying for more funds within from where you sit . First of all, im grateful to the tenor of your arguments because they are most welcome to us and, clearly, we want to be arguing that Global Britain needs to be properly represented overseas. I think we can make that go a long way. Very thrifty types in the Foreign Office. Well make good use of that. But, clearly, we have a big network, or a Robust Network that needs to be properly funded. Thank you for joining us and thank you to your colleagues for coming along. Sorry to interrupt you, but the ones that i far be it to criticize bureaucrats. The unelected ones are the ones who shortly cease to have control all right. Okay. These are the ones who will survive. All right. Okay. So these bureaucrats are okay as are the ones [ inaudible ], of course. In terms of your analogy on you guys going off and running the play, im going to take you at face value that was about trade than any other Foreign Policy. And one of the great attractions, obviously, to our partners overseas is access and membership of the Single Market. Do you still believe we should retain membership . Just a yes or no, foreign secretary. Lets be clear that we are going to get a i think the Prime Minister said, the term Single Market is increasingly useless. Well get a deal that will be of huge value and possibly greater value if you look at what is still unachieved in services, for instance, in goods and services for our friends on the continent and for business investing in i make these wearisome points but were the single biggest consumers of french champagne and italian prosecco. Were indiscriminate. We drink both more than anybody else. We import more german cars than any other country. There is this is a wonderful fact. And we are going to continue to do that. And any attempt to, as it were, to punish Uk Financial Services or i dont think as the former governor of the bank of england said this morning it doesnt make economic sense for europe. In the end, as i thats not quite the question i asked. And also, as youll be aware, forgive me for mentioning the french drink more whiskey in a month than cognac in a year. And i suspect thats not going to stop either. And the question i asked was, is it do you think we should retain membership of the Single Market, or is it your negotiating objective to retain membership for Single Market . Thats a simple question without getting into so much for buying and selling i think we are going to get the best possible deal for you cant tell me i think that, as i said, i think the most useful thing i can say to you is that the phrase Single Market probably is one that not many people really understand. And i think that presume you understand . There are many countries, as mr. Baron pointed out that sell very effective l ivively into te market, and thats what well do. So well be outside the Single Market . Well get the best possible deal for trade of goods and services. So you dont know if well be in the Single Market . Thats what i take. Nobody appears to have a scooby about whats going to happen. Ill tell you ill do it one last time. Is it even your objective to retain membership of the Single Market . We are levering the European Union. Thats not quite what i asked. You seem to think the Single Market is sort of like, you know, the groucho club or something. Were leaving the European Union. We will continue to have access for trade and goods and services to leave the eu. It will be to the benefit of both sides. You dont know, dont care, dont give a scooby. This is something i am pushing for as well. Which commissioners have you met with since you took office . Principally with Johannes Harn and commissioner mogarini. They deal with the Foreign Affairs. And i appreciate your candor on that. Yesterday there was a question to the secretary of state for i am allowed to meet these people. About which commissioners he met with. I suspect its an important relationship to have over the coming months and two years and once youve triggered article 50. He said he cant tell because thats part of the negotiating strategy. Will they be open to tell us which commissioners . Im sure theyll have no inhibitions about meeting. They are very open and, in my view, charming people. They want to engage with us. And my relations with them is really good. Weve had some very good conversations. Okay. Look, as part of this, do you still adhere to what the Prime Minister said when she met with first minister of scotland that there should be an agreed position with devolved administrations before any agreement is signed . It is certainly the case that the devolved administrations, the overseas territories, they will all be, of course, properly consulted in the course of the negotiations. Right. But will there be an agreed position . Again, foreign secretary, im asking you questions. Im not sure im get anything answers. Weve had a week of that in the chamber. Will there be an agreed position with the devolved administrations . Well, i can tell you that the devolved administrations will certainly play a role. Theyll be consulted. But this is a United Kingdom. Competence is something decided by the people of the uk. Youd expect them, youd expect the government of the United Kingdom to be the lead in the negotiations. Just one interesting reflection on all of this sort of consultation of parliament and consultation with the devolved administrations and so on. I have seen plenty of european negotiations and treaty negotiations. And at no stage in the runup to the climax of those negotiations has there been any attempt to preagree a position with parliament, let alone with the regions or their administrations. Sure. But there is on the point of process you are saying there will not be an agreed position. Theyll merely be consulted which goes against what the Prime Minister told the first minister at the very start of this. I think i have answered the question. Right, okay. Let me ask you one further question on this if you cant answer that question. You talked about entering this eu law. Is there any law that the cabinet signed up to with his European Partners that you wouldnt have signed up to . As a full member of the council of ministers . I think the treaty of lisbon was a step too far. And i think it was a great mistake. And i think that we should have rejected it. I think he unnecessarily expanded eu competence and what it got wrong was the extension of eu competence to the field of human rights. And the notion that this great european charter of fundamental rights should not be that sets up a great deal of confusion with the court of human rights. And it, in my view, leads to all sorts of extensions of eu judicial activism in areas that i think are totally wrong. So that would be an example of the kind of area where i might have disagreed with the previous administration. I think its an area we disagree on as well. Having a common set of human rights across this continent is a good thing. Because im nearly out of time, i want to ask you briefly about syria. Im mindful of that, chairman. In terms of syria, can you outline for me i mean, obviously, i think the uk has a responsibility to protect civilians. But a part of that is trying to get broader and political agreement. Can you tell me of any mapping that youve done of political factions in syria and any options youre exploring at the moment for political agreement . Well, youll be familiar with the various maps that currently exist of the divisions of syria and the sorry, when i say mapping. I mean of the wide variety of different groups that exist. One of the bits of work that we led otn, the uk has led on i building up a broadbased Opposition Group called the high negotiations committee, which is led by a gentleman called dr. Ria hijab who came on the 7th of september with his team. They were pretty widely drawn from syrian Opposition Groupings. Military, Civil Society and so on. And they laid out a case for the transition away from assad and the kind of syria they wanted to see. And it was very compelling. Democratic, pluralistic, i think higher quota for female representation than there currently exists in the torry party today. And it was very certainly it was very progressive. And our ambition is to try to get the russians and the assad regime to desist from their violence in aleppo, to get back to a ceasefire, and to renew the negotiations in geneva. And in that context, those Opposition Groups, i believe, do carry a lot of credibility. And when they speak, you can see a future for syria that does not include assad. Because that is the question that the that is constantly put to us. Who can replace assad . Well, there are answers. I did ask about mapping. I know im out of time. Maybe the foreign secretary, its a bigger question. You can write to the committees with some of the details about the work thats being conducted on mapping. Good morning, foreign secretary. Delighted to see you in your new role. Theres one word thats been missing from this mornings discussion that ive not heard from your lips, and that is the word there was going to be a c back into the fco. Not much happened after that. What is the new foreign secretary intending to do to ensure the Common Wealth is paramount in our longterm planning and thinking for trade, cooperation and friendship . The Common Wealth thank you, mr. Rosindell. I know youve long been a champion of the Common Wealth and indeed for britain and the Common Wealth. And it is yet another forum in which britain is able, our country, is able to express our values to get things done and to get things moving. And yes, we see it as a vital for our future overseas. Were having in 2018 and probably coming to this city, theres still discussion about that. We are using the Common Wealth and our networks to principally, if you think about it, this is one of the staggering developments over the last 24 years. While the eu has been mired in low growth, it is these Common Wealth countries bounding ahead and yet we havent been able, because of our constriction under the eu treaties, we vpt been able to do Free Trade Agreements with them. Many of them now stepping up, volunteering to do these deals and its a very, very exciting prospect. And one of of the other. Australia, malaysia, new zealand, standing up and saying they want to increase trade with the uk. So brexit is an opportunity, in your view, for the United Kingdom to do a whole lot more with the Common Wealth and perhaps rekindle those relationships that we neglected since we joined the Common Market . Absolutely. And i yield to no one in my admiration in the Common Wealth office. And i walk around, this great daily state of wonder. It has many, many mannings and its a fantastic thing. But i when i used to go around the world doing trade missions for london, one thing that some of the fco wallows used to tell me is actually they thought a huge operation dedicated to the eu. But perhaps not quite enough when he went into some of the other areas. And im not saying i want to b subtract a commitment and other european work because that is obviously vital and 44 of our trade is with the eu and it is a colossally important. But there are opportunities. And i meant what i said earlier about the enthusiasm of the people of the fco. I think they really see this. They want to do it. And they see an opportunity here. So you agree with me that the Common Wealth flag should fly from embassy answers high commissions from around the world as you remove the european flag. Okay. Mr. Rosindell, youre testing my significant u log ra if i heriu. The flag of the Common Wealth highing from embassies and high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Fhighing from high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Lhighing from high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Yhighing fromd high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Ighing from e high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Ghing from em high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Hing from emb high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. Ing from emba high commissions. As soon as someone can identify it to me. I will have to own up. I dont know the exact configuration of the Common Wealth flag. Okay, moving on. What does it look like . Thats my drawing. Thats a very good drawing. Okay, thats effective. A lovely flag. It looks like wait, wait, wait, it looks like a lovely flag, mr. Rosindell, but im not going to commit to flying it everywhere okay. Thank you. But if you could come back on that particular point, if thats okay, foreign secretary. Could i move on now to the next item . Apart from the Common Wealth, United Kingdom actually has sovereign power over 21 territories and of of which your department is responsible for. One of which is gibraltar. Particularly affected by us leaving the European Union. Can we expect more bulldog spirit now in dealing with madrid . Can we have the more robust stance in trackeling the way spain has treated gibraltar or the line of pussyfooting which allows spain to continue to think that one day they may achieve their wish of claiming the rock under the spanish flag. Youre going to see a completely plaquable Memorial Rock like resistance on the part of this government to any such claim. And obviously we see no particular reason to be in any way difficult with our friends in madrid. If they can raise it with us and we simply make our point politely but firmly. And i think that i remember when i think the Spanish Foreign minister raised it with me and i felt that, you remember, Marlon Brando and the godfather and i must tell you, im sorry, my answer is no. And if they do get difficult and they have become difficult, theyve done some things that have made the lives pretty bad over the years. Can we expect a thuro and robust response from now on rather than effectively diplomatically pushing the issue into the lawn grass . I think weve been clear that we see no whatever for any change to the sovereignty of gibraltar and people of gibraltar i think by 98. 5 state the status quo. Would you welcome a possibility of a visit to gibraltar by her majesty, the queen. She hasnt been for over 50 years. Theyve been asked repeatedly over the last five to six decades that their queen visit gibraltar. That for some reason Foreign Offices never seenl to recommend that to her majesty. Would you make a change of policy on that issue . Well, im more than happy to consult the Foreign Office and indeed the palace. I did the thinking behind her majestys itinerary. But obviously, you know, a lot of people want her majesty to go to a lot of places at the moment. And as she is a much in demand across the world as you can imagine and i think you have to be a cat about issuing promises. Classic secretary on your well known robust stance in terms of supporting Self Determination for all the peoples of former british colonies. British overseas territory and the faulkland islands and you have spoken up in favor of Self Determination. Can i just confirm that that is your view today, the view of the British Government and that all people, of all former british colonies should have the absolute right of self dedetermination . Of course. Determination . Of course. Etermination . Of course. That is our view and if you look at whats happening in the faulklands and in argentina and we have to be careful but i think that those the relationship with bain bennis ares is improving. Its the people themselves. The people. So that is gibraltar, and does that include Norfolk Island as well . I cant remember the views of the people of would their views be equally as respected as the people of the faulkland islands to be responsible . We have no intention of changing government policy of Norfolk Island or its people. And their rights will be protected. Self determination you support i support Self Determination principally. And of course thats british overseas territory. Their people should have the same right as other embassys territories. Would you agree with that foreign secretary . Well, that is a difficult question because there are, as you know, those who have been loof in that area and were conscious of that concern. And ive met some of them and we are in a state of negotiations and with them at the moment but discussions at the moment. But the position of diego garcia and the rest remains unchanged. And one final very last question, if i may. Will the government consider the possibility of restoring a royal yacht . And if so, will you give your force to that policy . If its not a government pri priority and i must inform you that the last that former roy royal britania, its propeller is being sawed off and a hole carved into the side to make it into a museum, so you cant do that. What i have said is that if a consortium of philanthropists wish to give her majesty a yacht and pay for it, then obviously thats not something that i would impede. There is a bit of good news over the last 24 hours. In that the United States and United States and United States are meeting in switzerland to discuss what may happen in the future. And give the and with russia and that must be a hopeful development. And in that case, as one speaking of myself who advocated, marching outside the embassies, and would you agree that in this case, it would be advisable to wait to see what comes out of this museum over the weekend and if it doesnt come out the way we wanted it to come out, we should involve marching on all the embassies involved in the Current Situation in syria. Thank you. I think that the obviously we must all hope that the contact between the russians and the americans does produce something on saturday. Weve been here before. And i think everyone would agree many times, whole carrying process ran for quite a while. It does not actually interrupt the bombing and you will have seen through the front pages of todays papers that that continues. People are continuing to die in aleppo far more civilians being killed than militia men. This is a gross, gross crime against humanity. And you spoke very powerful in the house the other day about that and i agreed with every word that you said and i also thought you were right, by the way, to point out the particularity to stop the War Coalition and do not think it suitable to protest against this particular war against an innocent civilian population. And i think thats an oddity that has been noticed. And i remark upon it again. The point im making is given the number of players in this horrible situation, that perhaps if this weekend, if you dont come to some agreement, we can also focus attention on the embassy and other countries involved. Okay. Let me be very direct then. I think it important not to let a general sort of blame game diskaes the central responsibility for what is taking place. This is the assad regime of the 400,000 people who have died in syria. 95 of them have been killed by the assad regime. They are being backed up by the russians. And the iranians. Those are the culprits. How many have been taken my information is from the this is that vast majority of the casualties that have been sustained, according to stephan in result is this i assume you meant in the conflict as a whole . In the conflict as a whole. Ive had data that 17,000 fatality in the conflict point im the thing is, the thing is ive been told that the assad regime is responsible of the 400,000 fatalities that are are regularly counted by the u. N. And special representative. Overwhelming majority, to the best of my knowledge, by the assad regime. And my point is that that should be the focus of our outrage and as i said, peculiar that they dont see it that way. Can i ask what policy openings you think are to the uk to respond to event in aleppo . Well, as i said in my remarks, i think its very important not to get hopes up too high because youre you remember what point the department got to in 2013. When this house took the step backwards. I thought that was regrettable at time that i know you did too. And we left, vacated the space, which has been occupied by the russians. And our options now are are to try on the humanitarian front to try to find extra ways of getting help into aleppo. To do what we can to help warn the people of aleppo, to support White Helmets, to support all kind of humanitarian relief to intensify sanctions on some of the kwee players in the assad regime and russians as well and it is right now that we should be looking again at the more kinetic options and military options. But we must be realistic about how these in fact work and what is deliverable and certainly you cant do anything without a coalition, without doing it with the americans. And i think we are still at a pretty long days march from getting there. The situation with the kurds, so much emphasis with the peshmerga and of course the peshmerga were useful in liberating people like the yi zeetys. And how do we protect the kurds. Use them and praise them, how do we protect them . Theres no doubt that there are difficulties with the turkish kurdish relations in syria and the turks have concerns about some groups of kurds and they make no difference between the pkk and why do americans see things differently . I think one thing everybody agrees, including the turks, is that the and they have been taking their bits out of iraq and they have the confidence out of the leadership and thats been encouraging. Mosul is very much on the agenda at the moment. And some people are, the public seem to be very concerned about how we protect the civilians in mosul. Once the liberation of mosul is under way and im not quite clear how that is going to happen. I think that is, going to be a huge question for all of us in the course of the months ahead. Mosul must be from die esh. It is a city of least 1. 5 Million People and very largely sunni. They are not going to want to be deliberated, to put it mildly, by shia militias. It is going to be a very, very difficult and delicate operation. But the needle has to be grasped and it requires a great deal of thought and it also requires us collectively to think about mosul post liberation. How is it going to be ordered . How is it going to be run . These are questions we need to be answering now. What is, in mosul, what is the uk doing . Our role in mosul at the moment is to help prepare for the liberation of mosul. And to think about how we were ordered. You may be interested to know that on sunday, im calling a meeting about fellow foreign ministers, jop keri is coming over. And others too to discuss exactly how were going to proceed. Not just in, in syria, but in iraq as well. And i think that the general feeling is that im going to obviously its good but things are happening again in geneva. But most people, and i think including john kerry, feel that the process of argument is basically out of road and on sunday we will be talking about all of the options that we think are available to us and to the west. And im not going to pretend that there is any easy answer here, because there isnt. But i think most people, and im interested in what you say about polls from the uk public, most people i think, and are now changing their mind about this and thinking we cant let this go on forever. We cant just see aleppo pulverized in this way. We have to do something. I think the movie at the house of commons is very telling. I think it has changed from 2013. Whether that means we can get the, again, a coalition together for more kinetic action now, i cannot prophesy that what certainly most people want to see is a new set of options. Quickly i can take it. Yes. Briefly. Can i ask you about the yemen. Yes, of course. Are you satisfied about the protection of civilians is something in our given the horrible stories coming out of there, given the role of saudi arabia, given the role, our role, in sending arms to saudi arabia. Obviously we had a very elaborate, probably the most elaborate of any arms expecting company, elaborate system of trying to check that, our and look, we take all the allegations, all the news from yemen incredibly seriously. We saw what happened on saturday. It was extremely worrying. We have to encourage and we encourage our saudi friends to go for a ceasefire to sort this out, and to investigate thoroughly what has taken place and they are investing and a very substantial subject which deserves significant time, but lets see if we can create that time at end. And we may be in your hand, that one. Thank you very much. Secretary, can i go back to your initial remarks where you said you wanted to forth a new identity as a bloeb global brit. You draw attention to the park kenyan heritage of the United States president and you of course have part american and part turkish heritage. Are you part of what the Prime Minister would refer to as a citizen of the world . T used to say that honey is produced in more than one country. And i am in that sense and i think we all are. The human race emerged from africa. Thats why, by the way, i was so offended by the Prime Ministers answer in the are you offended by the Prime Ministers attack on the people who see themselves as citizens of the world . End of speech . At the conference . Well, so we are and thats our primary identity. I also think that, were all, you know, part of the same great species and we should, you know i get back to my point. We should be open to people from other countries. We really should. And it is something of an immense value and it is a twoway thing. Britain is the biggest exporter ofity own people. Of all the rich countries. We send brits abroad and it is a fantastic thing we do. The world is better for it. But britain is also better for having some brilliant people working here. Including, perhaps our plans for how we deal with the European Union people working at noc and elsewhere. Im so glad you mentioned that. Im able to knock that one totally on the head. Because that was absolutely nonsense. That someone rang up the Foreign Office and there was a phone conversation in which he was made clear, which is standard procedure and anyone working for the Foreign Office for for fco and as a member of staff, has to get security clearance. Thats always been the case. But there is absolutely no reason for anyone supplying Research Data or whatever or analysis to the effort, to us, to have security. And the so it is inaccurate report of the conversation, and presented it, somebody did, some remainor, post as post referendum changing policy and it wasnt true. And it is like, everything is now attributed to brexit. Total nonsense. Nothing changed . Nothing has changed. Right. Thank you. Can i ask you about this relationship between your department and the department for leaving the European Union . The secretary of state, your colleague, david davis, came before us a few weeks ago and i asked him questions about that. And he said, i asked him whether albrecht would be reporting to him on fco. And he said there would be a in or i dont know. Can you report, do they report to the Common Wealth office or eu ive had contact with ivan rogers. He is our rep. And all european embassies obviously we run a network. But i want to stress, this has been of all the sort of fictions in the media, this is the most the idea that these three competing polls, it is complete nonsense, where we are working together and the fco hold the network where support is being done by both and weve got to get on with it. Okay. That context, since the referendum vote calls by ministers in france and italy and germany for a revitalization of the acceleration towards an eu defense policy. Now your colleague, secretary of state of defense, has said that we would block such a development. But given that we are intending to be out of the eu within around two years are a so, is it wise for us to obstruct what other eu countries wish to do to increase their defense cooperation . Wouldnt it actually damage the possibility of us getting a good deal in negotiations if we take that attitude . Well, i mean, a couple of points. First of all, i think it is perfectly right to point out as Michael Fallon has done, that pack that undermines is a bad idea. And we have to make sure that defense architecture of europe and this probably well continues to have the americans very much in it. I think that is something widely understood across other european capitals. If our friend want to go ahead with new Security Architecture as they have pledged to do by the way, many times, in the last four decades. I remember it quite well. As youve indicated, i didnt think post brexit we could reasonably stand in their way. I think what we might suggest is given we are the biggest military in the area. Second biggest in the other nuclear power, it wouldnt be a bad idea if they do pro poed, do genuinely go ahead with such things, a way in which britain could be supportive, involved in the enterprise. That might be something that would lend itself to commissioner high representative and others currently involved this this venture. Okay. Finally, im not sure how much time ive got left, jim. Right. Thank you. Thats good ultimately. Your predecessor one William Hague in november 2012 said that the uk recognized the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution or Opposition Forces add to the quote solely jit mat representative of the Syrian People. Now there was some questions about that. I myself queerried it in terms of did it really rep dent all the Opposition Forces. Is that still the position of the government that National Coalition of the solely legitimate representative of the Syrian People . No, i think what were saying is that the the negotiations committee, which is as broadlybased body which is wider than the which is wider. Yes. I think has a great deal of credibility. They should be at center of the gentlemen neef gentleman negotiations. But i dont exclude that there might be others who could also have a claim and we should not be so artesian about it. If there are others that want to be useful to syria then of course their claims should be if they are democratic and to be clear, youre confirming that the government no longer regards the National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative . Well, what im saying is that we think that the hnc is a path and incredible voice for those Opposition Groups. Okay. We need to explore that. Finally, during the urgent statement that we had on the debate which Andrea Mitchell introduced a couple of days ago, pa parallels were drawn with what germany is doing in aleppo to what theyve did it and with what aleppo did in ukraine, what it did in georgia and in its own country, isnt it time for us to fund limt reassess our attitumet country, isnt it time for us to fund limt reassess our attitum t country, isnt it time for us to fund limt reassess our attitumet country, isnt it time for us to fund limt reassess our attituli thoughts to russia and the Baltic States and which could potentially hit berlin as well as poland and the revelations about the hacking of the Democratic National committee and attempts to interfere in the American Election process. Do we not need to have a fundamental reassessment of our attitude to russia. Well, i heard your powerful speech the other day in the commons about the russian bombing and i think your feelings are shared by millions of people in this country. I think two points. It is very important to stress that we have no quarrel with the russian people. We are not hostile to russia. As a country. Far from it. And i look at it further and say i dont believe that russia is as, for allity it is doing many, many terrible things as you rightly say. But i didnt think that russia today could be compared with the soviet Union Members and i didnt think that it was as much of a threat to the stability of the world as the former soviet union. I dont think it is entirely right to talk i think it is right to talk about a new cold war but it is obvious and you quickly list the ways in which russia is being reckless and aggressive. It is obvious that we have a serious problem. And our sanctions are biting. The russian economy shrank by i think almost 3. 5 more last year. It is tough for people in russia but the regime seems determined to remain on its present course. I think we have to remain very, very tough. And its the uk that is in the lead both in the u. N. Security council, in drafting passion resolutions on rush whys behavior. It is the uk that has escalated the question of whether the bombing of aleppo may amount it a war crime. And it is the uk thats in the lead of making sure we keep the sanks tight on russia because of whats happening in ukraine. And there is another terrible conflict. 9,200 lives claimed in eastern ukraine. Mr. Gapes, i cannot disagree with your analysis. We have a very serious problem. But we have to engage with russia. We have to persuade the russian government. You have to persuade vladimir putin. There is another path for him and his government. If he will lead the way and bring peace it syria, then he will deserve credit and the thanks of the people of this world that if he continues on the present path of barberism then im afraid as i said in the house, russia is in danger of being reduced to the status of a rogue nation. And i think that would be a tragedy. If you consider where we were 25 years ago when we had such hopes at the end of the cold world. We really thought that it could all be so different. I dont want us to get back into a logic of endless confrontation with russia or every part of the world. That would be krasy. We have so much. There are things we have to do together. We have to fight terror together. Russian people. Russian poholiday, british holiy makers, threatened to be blown out of the air by terrorists. We have common interests. But at the is a moment, the behavior of the russian government is making it very, very difficult to make it possible for us to ensure those together. Before i get on to syria, what effect do you think the sanctions are on russia with regard to ukraine. And the specifically, are they changing russian policy . No. Sanctions are biting. As i said, russian economy is, the effect of the sanctions is hard to distinguish from the result of the collapse and the price of hydrocarbons. But no doubt that the sanctions have hurt the russians, their ability to raise finance. We must continue that pressure and its not controversial with our european friends. Prime minister in the eu have told me privately that they feel their economies are feeding the pressure of the sanctions. Because after all they may have considerable trade with russia. Our own trade with russia, as you know, has fallen dramatically following these sanctiones. They have an effect on both sides. But at present there is no so a difficult conundrum you face as we are now examining presumably the course of the ak over the weekend thats coming, about what to do about russian action in syria, is that so far the relievers available to us over the ukraine have no policy effect . Lievers available to us over the ukraine have no policy effect . Lievers available to us r the ukraine have no policy effect . I wouldnt go so far as to say that. I think the balance is in effect, they are biting. I think that strategy of the russians, with the kremlin, seems to be basically to keep the region in the state of turmoil. And to make ukraine very difficult politically to govern as a united whole. And im afraid that we are, we could be in for a long haul here. I think it would be a mistake. Chart a route as to how we get to russia out of the culdesac its place itself. Im afraid it need both sides in ukraine to make progress. And i do think the minx i would like to see for myself what was going on. You mustnt talk, you mustnt underestimate the psychological effect of people on the ukraine, of this war. They have lots of people. And they feel very, very were going next week. They feel deeply and very bitterly about what russia is doing. But it is also true and incredibly difficult as a result for ukrainian politicians but also true that they have to try and take the thing forward. The need at some stage to be a democratic process and the minx process has got to get going. That means that there must be reform in ukraine. And progress, progress is as fast as ukrainian leadership would like. My question was picking up your wider Strategic Point about the need to have a constructive relationship with russia and all that we have in common. And a at the same time you are talking about russia becoming a pariah state and the terms of the ambassador and u. N. Spoke about russia and u. N. Where it is extremely severe. And how do we get russia into a place where we can begin to have that kind of constructive relation you have mr. Burrow next to you, obviously something of an authority. Aurrow next to you, obviously something of an authority. Barurrow next t something of an authority. Ourroy something of an authority. Nurro obviously something of an authority. Rrow next to you, obvy something of an authority. Obvio authority. Omething of an authority. Something of an authority. Obviously something of an authority. Ow ne something of an authority. Baronw next to you, obviously something of an authority. W next to you, obviously something of an authority. Next to you, obviously something of an authority. Russia, i went there when ways 16, it is an extraordinary culture and we should befriend with the russians. We should be building relations. We should be keeping channels open. We should be constantly talking to them. We must not get into a logic of being, of a new cold war. That would be totally wrong. But you think the route forward and knowledge that russian importance and on the world stage. So these barbaric acts in aleppo and in syria and if they would help find a way forward in ukraine. I think youve got a we can see whats happened with the former soviet union over the last 25 years. And everybody can see the reasons why the russians might collectively feel that they were they had been squeezed. And they lost huge amounts of territory that they once conceived of as belonging to them and they see nato and seeing things from a certain to a certain extent from the Russian Point of view. But the russians have got to understand that the way forward for them is to do the right thing. And doing the right thing means doing a deal in syria. And lets hope that john kerry and has success on saturday and lets see where we get and did a deal in ukraine. But the point that mr. Gapes makes about russian cyber activity and all that, those are, im afraid, valid. And we need to think about them. But the answer is not to is to engage, sorry. Moving back to syria. Were doing an inquiry into russia and to take evidence from you responsible and hopefully mr. Baron, before we conclude this inquiry, returning back to syria and our understanding of the syrian position, which is behind my question by the challenge with casualties, how well do we understand the reasons for the resilience of the assad regime . And i wonder if there is anything that we have and taken 70,000 fatalities and something which is obviously significantly more than 5 . 5 . And is the carnage on both sides here and are we is there a misappreciation of why people in syria, we might not like it, as to why they are looking to the regime for security because they are fearful of the threat. In it, clearly, one of the things that assad did almost immediately in 2011, as you know, was the infamous and to create this false equivalent. So betweent to create this scenario and choosing to be himself and a bunch of jihadis. And that is not true. There is a significant moderate opposition. And im afraid the casualties to turning then to the if i can write to you about that. I would be grateful. Turn together moderate opposition and the hard power that the hnc and the Free Syrian Army have on the ground, give us your assessment of exactly what hard power they have in this conflict . The evidence that this committee has taken is suggesting that thats not particularly great. Yeah. This has been a subject of a great deal of control and i remember the Prime Minister used a figure of 70,000 as i recall in the house for the number of, as it were moderate opposition fighters. Im not going to give you a particular figure. Im told that they are their numbers are very substantial. They are obviously one of the disasters of what been happening. The as a result of the behavior of the assad regime and taking up and some of them have become more radicalized. I dont think theres any particular control about that but still large numbers, large areas and in aleppo and in many part of syria which are basically run by a moderate opposition and we should neverer to get that. Syrias strategy is now under reassessment as it is with all these meetings were having over the having over the weekend. Ive seen reports that these meetings might include a foreign minister meeting between turkey, iran, saudi arabia, qattar, United States, russia, can you give us a look at what diplomatic activity is, is this weekend. And how it comes together on sunday . Well what we are couldidoingy is bringing together likemind id countries to see what everyone will know that syrian diplomacy is being conducted basically through the International Area and that wrought together 25 countries. Very big forum with the russian answers americans as it were sitting with the joint chairs and everyone else around the table. In the end, has not worked the last session was extremely acrimonious as speaker after speaker affectively denounced the russian position and turned into sort after slinging match in which the iranians came to the assistance of the russians and the conversation really got nowhere. We need to think about what our options are. So on sunday, we will be getting the john kerry and others, a likeminded group, i cant give you the exact at the moment because it is in the process of being assembled, but it will be likeminded countries who wish to canvas all the options. And i just, you know, repeat my caution to the committee. Those options of course include more kinetic action and they are greatly involved as the Prime Minister said yesterday. Take us through the prime difficulties, the courage of the American Administration has saidity face against nofly zones presumely because of the difficulties youre alluding to. What change do you think might come with a new administration under the stated policies of Hillary Clinton . I think that it is really too early to say. And ive had discussions with some people in washington who may or may not be close to any future administration. But i think that just were, Hillary Clinton has taken a tougher line on syria than perhaps the current white house. But i really think it would be its too early to prophesy. How close to you think russians are to achieving their military objectives . Again, i would like to not speculate. I think the strategy is that they might achieve but they wouldnt be a victory and theyve got to understand that whatever happens, that they will not have conquered, will not have recaptured syria. And even if he has done too much damage, murdered too many people, ever to have a claim to be the ruler of the united syria again and we are right to say he cannot be part of the solution. Theres got to be a transition away from assad. We do not say that has to happen immediately. But it must happen. And resolution 2254 sketches out the route map. Sixmonth period of continuity. And 18 months of couldnt mndom between the assad regime and a but a dont forget only a few years ago in 2012 the russians were, they were on the verge of dumping it themselves. So this thing is possible. And people should not lose hope. We add discussion at the beginning of this about sanctions on russia visavis ukraine. What measures could we, sort of kinetic, engaged in ukraine . No. With regard to syria. Or sanctions would be available to give russian action in syria. And how do you differentiate the destruction with russia and ukraine. Whole idea of sanctions against russia is much of western europe continues to take huge amounts of russian gas and there is some European Countries who say thats where the sanctions should go next. That would be difficult because i think 50 of german gas supplies come from russia. Thats big stuff. And that would be damaging to those economies as well as to russia. I got to allow my colleagues, i hope we can continue this until 11 00. I just want to return briefly to europe. On brexit you said we will get the best possible deal for trade and services. Not our gift, is it . Perfectly possible there might be no deal. Because we cant command the other side of the table and difficulty we face is that i think you may have had my question to the brexit secretary, that better the deal looks for the United Kingdom the more difficult it is to deliver march 27. And we cant control that parliament. Which is why i think its so important to recast this whole conversation. And to look at brexit as an evolution in the development of the eu. And as a solution to the british problem and to stop thinking of it as this, this acrimonious divorce. Its not going to be like that. There is going to be a development after new European Partnership between britain and the eu and beneficial for both sides and that the way the first phase of that might be a twoyear negotiation which does not end in a deal. Well, you know, lets see where we get to. I think it is profoundly well it is about what im inviting you to do is assist this committee in identifying all of the consequences of no deal would be. Because business and industry, would deal with a deal of sutton, if the worst Case Scenario is no deal, how does it mean that . What does it mean for wto . This commission was very critical of the last government and i notice in your response to our report on the implications of brexit and your rather brief letter we might ask for substantial more reply. And you offered no defense to this committees charge that it is grossly negligent in failing to do any Contingency Planning and might actually vote for brexit and i think you should be doing some we should be making it clear to business industry and commerce what the implications of no deal would be because no deal is perfectly possible and we cannot control the outcome of these negotiations. Well, a couple of points. I dont obviously take any responsibility for the failure of the government to produce a plan for that was evident in your letter. For brexit since after all it was the charges i was making in the run, june 23. But seriously, on the deal no deal question, i think there will be a deal. I think itll be a great deal. If, you know, and i dont want this to be the case, it cant be done in two years, then there are mechanisms for extending the period of discussion. I dont think that that will be necessary. I think we can do it, and we can produce i think the characterization of it is correct. First stage of the new relationships for uk and eu and it may be that we will move towards and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and in the usual time scale for the eu doing these things. But we need to give some to the industry and commerce. And taking over the next 2 1 2 years and is there anything in that process. Yes. I think they can be certain that britain is the number one place to invest in this region simply because of times and language and skills base are incredible diversity of our economy in the 21st century and sectors in the economy and we are the place to come and that is going to be a giant factor of life. And even if we and our partners are so foolish and not to do a great deal i think we will. Im absolutely confident we will. So profoundly in the interest of elected politicians like ourselves, over the channel, to do it for the good of their constituents, thats what this is all about. And in the end, this isnt about theology or about the ideology of the European Union, thats entirely secondary to the imperative of taking forward the european economy, strong european economy and strong uk. I look forward to the assistance of the office and what will be our inquiry into the consequences of no deal. Mike gapes and john baron briefly. We currently implement european implement union sanctis and we, as you said, we all at the forefront been pressing for those. When we leave the eu, will we still be implementing the eu sanctions or will because we have a more robust move towards a position like the United States and perhaps move towards magnetic or something similar. I think thats an extremely good kwquestion. They woke with them to stick within a broadway when they come to the Foreign Policy questions. If you do it, you have to do it within you dont have to be around the table in the eu council or other intergovernmental mechanisms that were going to produce to reflect the new European Partnership between britain and the eu and we can do it in a way. Either way, i think out of the treaties, whatever we do, and i think its going to be a strong interest and instead of the approach, what the interest is, you know, it might be there will be scope for the uk, sometimes to do things to go further. It might also be that we would want to keep grants much more together. Thats a discussion whats going to have the course of the negotiation. My final question to be very brief in your hands. Can i just press you a little in the sense that i would urge many of us here to be careful what you wish for and add caution when it comes to contemplating additional military force. Youll be the first to recognize that. The rivalry, saudi arabia, russia in the west. Youve got the lesser extremist, et cetera. If history is anything to go by, our involvement the fact that weve almost changed sides on syria, intentional or not. Weve got to progress with caution because force in the end has not always been held positive and there are many in this place who so far remain silence, if it looks, as though, were going down maybe repeating previous errors when it comes to military. I absolutely accept that and understand that. And by the way, i understand completely what you need about the voices of caution that werent raised the other day in parliament. I think, you know, we did have kind of passionate voices raised in favor, as i say, its part of what we consider them and we will do that. And the points that you make are certainly about it. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just for the record, thank you for staying so long for your evidence and earlier on i asked you about which just after i accused you of not being you said you were unhappy that David Cameron had sang up for the treaty. Just for the record, would you like to answer that question in terms of what David Cameron. Let me just clarify. If you remember there was a class that we were going to have a referendum, which we then, in my view, regrettably did not carry through. Thats what i was referring to. Okay. And i refer to modern fighters, i should say north homes. Do you think we should suspend saudi arabia that there not be used against well, i repeat what i said about our deep concern about what is happening in yemen and on the licensing, we have one of the most robust systems in the world and we do consider each one against the each license application against the criteria and meet those criteria are not licensed. We are keeping this and very careful with you. And decent from it. I did notice that. But there is a view of this committee about getting proper investigations, independent investigations of the operations there. Ne