rebel groups. every four years the turn from politics to humor at the al smith foundation to raise money for catholics charities. >> i must say that i have travelled the circuit for many years and i have never understood the logistics of dinners like this and how the absence can cause the three of us to not have the seats. >> vice president, i'm glad to see you here to want. you have said that you want to give america back to the little guy. mr. vice president, i am that man. >> it's an honor and al, you're great grandfather was my favorite kind of governor. the kind who ran for president and lost. >> now, it can require a lot of wardrobe changes. blue jeans in the morning perhaps, suits for a fundraiser and sport coat for dirn. it's nice to relax and wear what anne and i wear around the house. . >> next a hearing on what the affects the brexit can have on the union. johnson testified before the house of excepts. this is ant an hour and 45 minutes. >> order order. the first session with the new secretary of the state. congratulations on your appointments. >> thank you. >> obviously this first formal session with the committee. and it's 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 get the opportunity and 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. >> thank you. >> lay out things for about ten minutes, and then i'll 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 healy's 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 i'm sure members of your committee know. our trade with the gulf is booming. it's one of the fastest growing 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 didn't think gordon brown ever made an additional visit to the country i'm speaking of. our prime minister will this year become the first female guest of honor at the gulf cooperation council summit, or so i'm told. the reason for this growing engagement by the uk is at least partly that it's 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 it's 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 london's role and the uk's 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, i've been struck by how little i am asked about brexit and how swiftly the conversation moves on to some other aspect of the uk's 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 no-fly 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 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. i've 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 moderate we're 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 it's 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 that's 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 that's been deprived of leadership. and the values that we try to project, whether through our embassies or through british consul or through the british companies or 5 million or 6 million brits who live abroad which is a bigger diaspara 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. they're good in themselves. their ideals. but they're 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 it's 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. it's 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 haven't 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 we're 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 you're going to pay for these splendid aspirations given the fact that half your budget now appears to be constrained to areas most expensive. 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 we're to meet these aspirations post-brexit, which i think the committee would no doubt share. but what comfort can you give us that you're going to actually be able to spend money in places like in europe, reinforcing our bilateral relations in the wake of brexit. because it doesn't 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. we do. we have a bigger network. we're doing extremely well. we can be very proud of what we're -- excuse me. the budget of the overall budget is rising from $1.1 billion to 1.24 billion by '19, '20. where you're 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 that's something the government at all levels -- >> secretary, just to pick that point up, that's fine but that only applies to those countries that are subject to development assistance. you can't spend that money elsewhere. so it's 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 can't do this on fresh air. and what you have is fresh air to do this on to meet these aspirations. >> i know that you gave my predecessor quite a grilling about this when he last appeared before you, and he made a good point that he couldn't imagine bidding for more funds himself, since he's now the chancellor. i'm inclined to camp out as they say in the front office on what he had to say. >> all right. john byron. >> foreign 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 we're leaving. the government's position is very clear on this. we're going to take back control on immigration. we're going to introduce a fairer immigration policy that no longer discriminates against the rest of the world outside the eu and we're going to obtain the best deal in accessing eu markets. it's a nonsense that there is so much noise about this, one could argue, given that 170 other odd countries. no reason this economy can't as well. what do you say to the alarmists? some would perhaps, unfairly perhaps, call them ramoners who believe that we're 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 they'll continue to be proved wrong. i think, obviously, it will take time before the full benefits of brexit appear because after all, we haven't 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 that's a deal that's going to be -- that's going to promote the growth and prosperity of the uk and the eu. and i'm sure that's what's we'll produce. that's how we'll -- that's how it will end up. >> perhaps we should take comfort from the fact that the very deem predicting doom and gloom if he didn't join the euro, or left the ern, many are predicting doom and gloom now. perhaps that's 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 of this play, it's difficult to think that can take place. the government has made clear that won't take place. there will be scrutiny perhaps but no roving commentary. but the eu's 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 it's one before founding principles if you like. it's nonnegotiable. you've described that approach as baloney. something i -- say again? >> mei wi. >> absolutely. there's a disconnect, how are we going to get around this, do you think? >> thank you very much for that question. i genuinely think there's 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 couldn't produce what was then called a [ speaking in foreign language ] 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 you'll 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 that's what we'll do. it doesn't 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. it's 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 we've got to face and we haven't quite faced up to it or perhaps we have behind closed doors? and that is opposition ostensibly is access to the single market. and one can understand that. at the same time, we're going to be repealing the european community's act. it's that act that gave force to the eu court of justice which has jurisprudence with regard to single market. there's 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, we'll be leaving the number of the european court of justice. we'll no longer be subject to european community, european union law. and that's 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 us and 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 tariffs are as low as 3% to 5%, the most favored nation status, et cetera, et cetera, i'm picking up here that it certainly holds no fears for you. >> you're tempting to get me into running commentary about negotiations. i'm 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 wouldn't disagree with your fellow secretaries of state in saying wto holds no fears? >> as i said, i think it will be getting into the minutia of the negotiations. >> let's move on very quickly. >> i think there will be a great deal done. >> eu divisions, something we're not picking up on. i've raised it on the floor of the house before. but what's your take. quite understandably, the spotlight is on the negotiating position. as you look across at the eu, it's quite an interesting situation. you have an emerging split, a growing split, in fact, between the ideologists 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 i've heard it quite a lot. i think it's important not to -- i haven't 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 that's where they'll 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 spelled out his vision for a federal system with very defined boundaries. i'm 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. i'm so glad to hear you speak in those terms. i think europe is at its best when it's positive about the work it's 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 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 the logical conclusion of that 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 don't want to be part of such a construct. and we've always made it clear. it's always been very tense. we said we don't agree with this. we don't 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 it's 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. it's going to be -- many of us believe that actually the fc is unresourced as it is. we've 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, i'm 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. we'll 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, i'm 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. >> let's be clear that we are going to get a -- i think the prime minister said, the term single market is increasingly useless. we'll 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 we're the single biggest consumers of french champagne and italian prosecco. we're 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 don't think as the former governor of the bank of england said this morning -- it doesn't make economic sense for europe. in the end, as i -- >> that's not quite the question i asked. and also, as you'll be aware, forgive me for mentioning the french drink more whiskey in a month than cognac in a year. and i suspect that's 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? that's 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 can't 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 -- >> i presume you understand? >> there are many countries, as mr. baron pointed out that sell very effectively into the single market, and that's what we'll do. >> so we'll be outside the single market? >> we'll get the best possible deal for trade of goods and services. >> so you don't know if we'll be in the single market? that's what i take. nobody appears to have a scooby about what's going to happen. i'll tell you -- i'll do it one last time. is it even your objective to retain membership of the single market? >> we are leaving the european union. >> that's not quite what i asked. >> you seem to think the single market is sort of like, you know, the groucho club or something. we are leaving the european union. we will continue to have access for trade and goods and services to the eu. it will be to the benefit of both sides. >> you don't know, don't care, don't give a scooby. this is something i am pushing for as well. which commissioners have you met with since you took office? >> i've principally had dealings 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 it's an important relationship to have over the coming months and two years and once you've triggered article 50. he said he can't tell because that's part of the negotiating strategy. will ministers be open to tell us which commissioners they're talking to? >> i'm sure they'll 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. we've 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, i'm asking you questions. i'm not sure i'm get anything answers. we've 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. they'll be consulted. but this is a united kingdom. competence is something decided by the people of the uk. you'd expect them, you'd 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 run-up to the climax of those negotiations has there been any attempt to pre-agree 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. they'll 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 can't 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 wouldn't 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 it's an area we disagree on as well. having a common set of human rights across this continent is a good thing. because i'm nearly out of time, i want to ask you briefly about syria. i'm 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 you've done of political factions in syria and any options you're exploring at the moment for political agreement? >> well, you'll 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 on, the uk has led on is building up a broad-based 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 cease-fire, 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 i'm out of time. maybe the foreign secretary, it's a bigger question. you can write to the committees with some of the details about the work that's being conducted on mapping. >> good morning, foreign secretary. delighted to see you in your new role. there's one word that's been missing from this morning's discussion that i've not heard from your lips, and that is the word commonwealth. lord haig said there was going the seo back to 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 long-term planning and thinking for trade, cooperation and friendship? >> the commonwealth -- thank you, mr. rosindell. i know you've long been a champion of the commonwealth and indeed of britain's relations with the commonwealth. thanks for what you do. the commonwealth is a wonderful asset for the world. it's -- and it's 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. we're having in 2018 and probably coming to this city, there's still discussion about that. we are using the common wealth and our networks to principally, if you think about it, this is the growth of the countries over the world, this has been one of the staggering developments over the last 24 years. while the eu has been mired in low growth, it is these commonwealth countries bounding ahead and yet we haven't been able, because of our constriction under the eu treaties for 43 years, we haven't been able to do free trade agreements with them. many of them now stepping up, volunteering to do these deals and it's 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 commonwealth office. and i walk around, this great daily state of wonder. it has many, many mansions and it's 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 i'm not saying i want to 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 embassies and high commissions from around the world as you remove the european flag. >> okay. mr. rosindell, you're testing my sigillography here. the flag of the commonwealth -- i don't think i'm going to make any xhisments by the flag of the commonwealth -- >> you're happy for it to fly from embassies and high commissions. >> as soon as someone can identify it to me. i'm going to have to own up. i'm unaware of the exact configuration of the commonwealth flag. there you go. >> okay, moving on. >> what does it look like? >> there's my drawing. >> that's a very good drawing. okay, that's effective. a lovely flag. it looks like -- wait, wait, wait, it looks like a lovely flag, mr. rosindell, but i'm not going to commit to flying it everywhere now -- >> can you check back up and come back to this? >> would you -- >> right. thank you. >> but if you could come back on that particular point, if that's 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. they are, of course, 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 tackling the way spain has treated gibraltar or are we going to continue with the front office effectively 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. >> you're 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, i'm sorry, my answer is no. >> and if they do get difficult and they have become difficult, they've done some things that have made the lives pretty bad over the years. can we expect a thorough and robust response from now on rather than effectively diplomatically pushing the issue into the lawn grass? >> i think we've 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 support the status quo and the status quo is going to remain. >> would you welcome a possibility of a visit to gibraltar by her majesty, the queen. she hasn't been for over 50 years. people of gibraltar have asked repeatedly over the last five to six decades that their queen visit gibraltar. that for some reason foreign offices never seem to recommend that to her majesty. would you make a change of policy on that issue? >> well, i'm more than happy to consult the foreign office and indeed the palace. i did the thinking behind her majesty's 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 careful about issuing promises. >> commend you 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 falkland 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 determination? >> of course. that is our view and if you look at what's happening in the falklands and in argentina and we have to be careful but i think that those -- the relationship with buenos aires is improving. >> the self-determination is the principle. it's the people themselves. >> the people. >> so that is gibraltar, and does that include norfolk island as well? >> i can't remember the views of the people of knorr folk island are. >> would their views be equally as respected as the people of of the falkland islands, to give an example? >> we have no intention of changing government policy of norfolk island or its people. and their rights will be protected. >> self-determination you support foreknorr folk island? >> i support self-determination generally as a principle. >> how about the shaker islands, of course that's british overseas territory. their people should have the same rights as other embassy's territories. would you agree with that foreign secretary? >> last question. >> well, that is a difficult question because there are, as you know, those who have been moved from that area and we're conscious of their concerns. and i've 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. >> it will have to be brief. >> will the government consider the possibility of restoring a royal yacht? and if so, will you give your full support to that policy? >> it is not a government priority i must tell you, and i must also inform you alas, is incapable of being refloated. hole is being carved in its side to make it into a museum. so you can't 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 that's not something that i would impede. >> thank you. >> there is a bit of good news . syria over the last 24 hours, in that the united states and -- united states, and -- are meeting in switzerland to discuss what may happen in future. and given that that meeting is taking place with russia, 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 doesn't 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. we've 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 today's 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 that's an oddity that has been noticed. and i remark upon it again. >> the point i'm making is given the number of players in this horrible situation, that perhaps if this weekend, if you don't 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 defuse 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 mysterious figures -- >> in result -- i assume you meant the conflict as a whole? >> in the conflict as a whole. >> i've had data that 700,000 fatalities in the course of this conflict. i just think it's missed -- the point that i'm -- >> i'm deferring to you. the figures i've been told is that the assad regime is responsible of the 400,000 fatalities that are regularly quoted 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 don't see it that way. >> can i ask what policy options you think are open to the uk to respond to the event in aleppo? >> well, as i said in my remarks, i think it's very important not to get hopes up too high because you're 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 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 key 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 can't do anything without a coalition, without doing it with the americans. and i think we are still at a pretty long day's 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 yazidis. and how do we protect the kurds. i wonner it how we're going to attempt to protect the kurds, having used them and praised them, how do we then protect them? >> there's 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 distinction 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 so northern driving daesh out of their bits of iraq, they have the confidence of the turkish leadership, and that's been very 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 i'm 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 lib grated from daesh. 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? who is going in be to charge? 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, i'm calling a meeting about fellow foreign ministers, john kerry is coming over. and others too to discuss exactly how we're going to proceed. not just in, in syria, but in iraq as well. and i think that the general feeling is that i'm going to obviously it's 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 i'm not going to pretend that there is any easy answer here, because there isn't. but i think most people, and i'm 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 can't let this go on forever. we can't 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 prophesize, but certainly people want to see a new set of options. >> we'll come back to there -- >> may i ask 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 sights, 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. in sanaa. it was extremely worrying. we have to encourage, and we do encourage our saudi friends to go for a cease-fire to sort this out, and to investigate thoroughly what has taken place and they are investing their -- >> let's come back to that. we have a very substantial subject which obviously deserves significant time of its own. let's see if we can create that time at the end. secretary, we may be in your hands at that point. >> thank you very much. secretary, can i go back to your initial remarks where you said you wanted to forge a new identity as a global britain. you controversially drew attention to the part kenyan heritage of the united states president, and you, yourself, 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? >> like you, it used to say on the back of the honey in saint "produced in more than one country" it used to say. yes, i certainly am in that sense and i think we all are. the human race probably emerged from africa. we're all -- i'm -- i -- that's why, by the way, i was so oechbded by toechbd offended by the french prime minister's article in the "ft" today. >> are you offended by the prime minister's attack on the people who see themselves as citizens of the world? end of speech? at the conference? >> well i'm a citizen of the uk and proud to be of the uk. so are we all, and that's our primary identity. i also think that we're 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 two-way thing. britain is the biggest exporter of its own people. of all the rich countries. we send brits abroad and it is a fantastic thing we do. the world, in my view, is better for it. but britain is also better for having some brilliant people working here. >> good. including, perhaps on our plans for how we deal with the european union people working at the lsc and elsewhere. >> that was complete, mr. gates, i'm so glad you mentioned that, because i am able to knock that one totally on the head. because that was absolute nonsense. that someone rang up the foreign office and there was a phone conversation in which it 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. that's 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. >> nothing's changed. >> and the so it is inaccurate report of the conversation, and remainor, post as post referendum changing policy and it wasn't 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 or to the fco. and he said there would be a in -- or i don't know. can you clarify? do they report as well as the department of leaving the eu? >> i've 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 we've got to get on with it. >> okay. in 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 or so, is it wise for us to obstruct what other eu countries wish to do to increase their defense cooperation? wouldn't 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 any eu defense pack that undermines nato 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 friends 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 you've indicated, i didn't think post brexit we could reasonably stand in their way. i think what we might suggest is given we are the biggest military player in the area, second biggest in the other nuclear power, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they do propose it, that you genuinely go ahead with such things, a way in which brittain can be supported, 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, i'm not sure how much time i've got left, jim. right. thank you. that's good ultimately. your predecessor one william hague in november 2012 said that the uk recognized the national coalition of syrian revolution or opposition forces as the quote sole legitimate representative of the syrian people. now there was some questions about that. i myself queried 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 sole legitimate representative of the syrian people? >> no, i think what we're saying is that the -- the negotiations committee, which is as broadly-based body -- >> which is wider than the -- >> which is wider. >> yes. >> i think has a great deal of credibility. they should be at the center of the geneva negotiations. but i don't 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, you're confirming that the government no longer regards the national coalition as the sole legitimate representative? >> well, what i'm 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, parallels were drawn with what russia is doing in aleppo with what the nazis did. given that the history of what russia has done in ukraine, what it did in georgia, what it did in its own country, isn't it time for us to fundamentally reassess our attitude to russia and link to that given the threats to the baltic states, the positioning of nuclear missiles which can potentially hit budweis hit berlin as well as poland and the rev vae lagelations of the of the democratic national committee and attempts to interfere with 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 don't believe that russia is as, for all its -- it is doing many, many terrible things as you rightly say. but i didn't think that russia today could be compared with the soviet union members and i didn't think that it was as much of a threat to the stability of the world as the former soviet union. i don't 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 correctly 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 it's the uk that is in the lead both in the u.n. security council, in drafting and passing resolutionio resolutions on russia's 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 that's in the lead of making sure we keep the sanctions tight on russia because of what's 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 to syria, then he will deserve credit and the thanks of the people of this world, that if he continues on the present path of barbarism then i'm 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 don't want us to get back into a logic of endless confrontation with russia or every part of the world. that would be crazy. we have so much. there are things we have to do together. we have to fight terror together. russian people. russian holiday makers, british holiday makers, threatened to be blown out of the air by terrorists. we have common interests. but at the 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 having on russia with regard to ukraine? 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 it's not controversial with our european friends. there are plenty of my fellow foreign ministers in the eu who have told me privately that they feel their economies are feeling the pressure of these sanctions. because after all they may have considerable trade with russia. our own trade with russia, as you know, has fallen dramatically following these sanctions. they have an effect on both sides. but at present there is no -- >> so a difficult conundrum you face is we are now examining presumably the course of the action over the weekend that's coming, about what to do about russian action in syria, is that so far the levers available to us over the ukraine have no policy effect? >> i wouldn't go so far as to say that. >> they are not questioning their efficacy or their effect on their own economy. >> i wouldn't 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 i'm 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 cul-de-sac it's placed itself. >> i'm 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 mustn't talk, you mustn't underestimate the psychological effect of people on the ukraine, of this war. they have lots of people. and they feel very, very -- >> we're going next week. >> i'm delighted to hear that. 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. yet at the same time you're talking about russia becoming a pariah state and the terms under which our ambassador and the 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. baron next to you, obviously something of an authority in this area. >> yes, kiev and moscow. look. it's very important as we get back to what i was saying to mr. gapes. russia is a great country. i went there when i was 16. it is an extraordinary culture and civilization from which we can learn. we should be friends 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 i think the route forward and knowledge that russian importance and on the world stage. let's be clear, that recognition is only possible if they will cease from what i'm afraid of barbaric acts in aleppo and in syria and if they would help find a way forward in ukraine. i think you've got a -- we can see what's 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 let's hope that john kerry and has success on saturday and let's 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, i'm afraid, valid. and we need to think about them. but the answer is not to -- is to engage, sorry. >> moving back to syria. we're 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%. >> 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 between ---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. i can't give you the figures i'm afraid by the casualties. >> 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 that's 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. i'm not going to give you a particular figure. i'm 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 don't think there's any controversy 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 never to get that. >> syria's strategy is now under reassessment as it is with all these meetings we're having over the -- having over the weekend. i've seen reports that these meetings might include a foreign minister meeting between turkey, iran, saudi arabia, qatar, 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 doing sunday is bringing together like-minded 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 russians and 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 like-minded group, i can't give you the exact at the moment because it is in the process of being assembled, but it will be like-minded 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 said its face against no-fly zones presumably because of the difficulties you're 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 i've had discussions with some people in washington who may or may not be close to any future administration. but i think that just we're, hillary clinton has taken a tougher line on syria than perhaps the current white house. but i really think it would be -- it's 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 tragedy is they might achieve what their military objectives are, but that wouldn't be a victory and they've 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. there's 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. six-month period of continuity. and 18 months of condominium between the assad regime and -- the assad regime and the new one. but don't forget, only a few years ago in 2012 the russians were on the verge of dumping it themselves. so this thing is possible. and people should not lose hope. >> we had a discussion at the beginning of this about sanctions on russia vis-a-vis ukraine. what measures could we, short of kinetic engagement -- >> 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? >> clearly the big anomaly in the 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 that say that's where the sanctions should go next. that would be difficult because i think 50% of german gas supplies come from russia. that's 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? it's perfectly possible there might be no deal. because we can't 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 it may get vetoed by the european parliament. and we can't control that parliament. >> which is why i think it's 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. it's 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 -- >> however, the first phase of that might be a two-year negotiation which does not end in a deal. >> well, you know, let's see where we get to. i think it is profoundly -- >> well it is about -- what i'm inviting you to do is assist this committee in identifying all of the consequences of no deal would be. because business and commerce and industry could deal with a bit of certainty. if the worst case scenario is no deal, how bad is that? what does it mean? 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 committee's charge that it is grossly negligent in failing to do any contingency planning and 9 the electorate might vote for brexit and i think you should be doing some -- we should be making it clear to business, industry and commerce what 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 don't 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 it'll be a great deal. if, you know, and i don't want this to be the case, it can't be done in two years, then there are mechanisms for extending the period of discussion. i don't 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 time zone 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. i'm 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, that's what this is all about. and in the end, this isn't about theology or about the ideology of the european union, that's 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 union sanctions and we, as you've said, we are at the forefront of pressing for those. when we leave the eu will we still be in the sections? >> i'm asking you questions. it's the government. we're coming after the treaty? >> i think it's going to be a strong interest. we're there. >> we can do the cheapest ranks. >> in the time question to be very brief. then it will be in your hands how long to take. let me press you a little bit on syria. in the sense that i would urge you to be careful what you wish for and urge you when it comes to contemplating additional military force. we are the first to recognize syria represents a multi-layer conflict. the old persian gulf rivalry around saudi arabia, russia in the west, then you have in the mix jihadist extremists, et cetera. if history is anything to go by, our involvement in libya, the fact that we almost changed sides on syria between 2013 and 15, intention or not, we have got to progress with caution because force in the end has not always been positive. there are many in these places so far remain silent on this issue. perhaps they will raise their heads if it looks like they're going down repeating previous errors when it comes to military intervention. >> i absolutely accept that and understand that. by the way, i understand i think completely what you mean about the voices of caution is that weren't raised the other day in parliament. we did have lots of passionate voices raised in favor of no fly zones and so on. as i say, we consider them and we will do that now. but the point that you make certainly about it. >> just for the record, thank you. earlier on i asked you about that. not being a purist. you said you were unhappy that david cameron had signed up for the lisbon treaty. it's always been tricky. just for the record, are there any other -- would you like to answer that question? >> they pledged that we were going to have a referendum on the lisbon treaty which we don't in my view regrettably carry flew. that was what i was referring to. we are keeping this. >> you're making this and disseptembered from that report. >> there is a requirement about getting proper investigations, independent investigations underway in the coalitions conduct. >> thank you. one issue that's unresolved in europe, nothing to do with the european union, is the issue of cypress. will the foreign secretary undertake to work with the republic of sicypress to work wh a fair and amicable solution or at the same time not conceding sovereignty over the british sovereign basis? >> look, we're potentially on the verge of some great progress in cypress. i pay tribute to both leaders on both sides, i met them both and conceded it in new york. the turks are playing their role. the britts are playing their role. we obviously have a role, too, and our basis is huge in cypress. we're willing to cede some of that territory that we don't need to move it forward and it's a good thing. it really is. you know, i think cypress is one of the examples, few examples in the world of two leaders who are willing to -- talking about lack of leadership. these two guys are trying to make a difference for peace and being willing to take a risk with the electorate behind them rather than solely obeying the narrow party policy of the group. they are already reaching out to peace. they're doing a great thing. >> i think that was said a year ago. let's hope -- >> yeah, i think i said it was too early. >> continuing to bring it home on cypress. thank you very much for your efforts. >> thank you. >> so, tim, i fear i may have referred to you as mr. baron. my apologies. thank you to you for kpg the secretary of state. the meeting is now adjourned. with reports of increased u.s. participation in the battle for mosul, we expect lots of questions of that at today's white house briefing. josh earnest will answer questions at 12:45 eastern. we will take you there live when he starts here on cspan 3. cspan brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate races. tonight three debates starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan. first from pennsylvania incumbent republican pat toomey faces democrat katie mcginty. then florida senator marco rubio seeking re-election challenged by democratic congressman patrick murphy and from ohio senator rob portman debates former dem kralt particular governor ted strickland at 10:00 p.m. eastern on cspan. tuesday a debate from indiana to succeed dan coats who's not seeking re-election. republican representative todd young faces evan baye. that's live at 7:00 eastern. after that another debate to succeed a retiring member of the senate, louisiana republican david vitter. several dants will take the stage including republican state treasurer john kennedy, charles discany and caroline fayard. that's live at 8:00 eastern on cspan 2. on thursday the candidates in ohio senate race meet in another debate, rob portman and ted strickland live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on cspan. from now follow key debates from house, senate and governor's races on cspan, cspan.org and the cspan app. where history unfolds daily. president obama is preparing to host a final state dinner for this presidency. the guest of honor is the italian prime minister. we'll have complete coverage of that event tomorrow starting at 6:30 eastern starting on our companion network, cspan. we spoke about michelle obama's fashion throughout the year. >> describe michelle obama's style. >> her state dinner style? >> yes, apply it to state dinners. >> i think mrs. obama dresses for these occasions, the thing that really distinguishes her sensibility from that of first ladies who have come before her, i feel like it is much more rooted in contemporary hollywood idea of what is glamorous. she's not wearing anything particularly revealing, high slits, anything like that, that there is a certain kind of modern edge to it that really taps into what we're used to seeing coming down the red carpet. less regal and more glamorous. >> has it changed over the past eight years, her approach to the state dinners? >> i think her look has gotten to be in some ways a little more relaxed, if that makes sense. in that framework of glamor. i think -- when i think back to her first state dinner which was for india, the dress was gorgeous. her hair was up. she had bracelets, the whole shebang. she looks wonderful, but then i think some of the later dinners where she wore a dress by carolyn herrera. even though it was still quite a grand dress, there was i think an informality to it. it felt more like glamor sports wear as opposed to a full sort of head to toe look. >> what do you think the impact has been of her choices for these state dinners on the role of first lady but also on some have called them diplomatic art, on diplomacy? >> well, you know, i think the first thing is we all want to be proud of the people who are in the white house, and we want to be proud of their hospitality, we want to -- you know, we want them to put their best foot forward. now i think very simply she's presented herself in a way that i think makes most people feel like, yeah, you know, we can stand up on the world stage alongside of, you know, folks from france and italy where the notion of fashion is really something that's embedded into their culture. the other part of it is that, you know, these are really momentous moments that, you know, the photographs are going to go into the history books and for any design house that is enormous. not only puts them into the public vernacular in a way that red carpets don't but it also puts them in the history books. so it brings a certain gravity for what they do. it's the idea that the american fashion industry is just as important of an industry as the food, the auto industry, all the other things that go into creating that state dinner. >> how does she go about choosing her dress and choosing the designer? >> well, when we paint each other's fingernails and brush each other's hair she tells me. my sense is that the first thing is that she wears what she loves, and she wears what she feels comfortable in. that said, i do think there is some attention paid to the country that's being honored, a desire to acknowledge that either directly by working with the designer who perhaps has, you know, that sort of ethnicity in their background and sometimes it's just a matter of paying tribute to a particular color or flower or something that is important to that country. >> last fall you wrote when you were covering the state dinner for the chinese premiere that she chose a vieira wang dress. you said by choosing that it wasn't an apology, it wasn't a mia culpa but it was a diplomatic clarification. can you explain? >> now i'm trying to remember what the dress looked like. >> the black dress that she wore, the vieira wang dress, black mermaid style dress as opposed to the one she chose for the first chinese state dinner. >> right. well, the first chinese state dinner, it was a beautiful dress, it was red. it was designed by sarah burton from alexandra mcqueen, which was a british fashion house. and vieira wang is a very well-known chinese-american designer, and the first go round mrs. obama had gotten criticism from particularly the american fashion industry, particularly oscar de larenta who felt that this is one of those occasions when she had the opportunity to elevate american design and to wear a dress by an american designer and he felt -- many in the fashion industry felt that she had missed an opportunity. and i think in many ways he felt hurt that she looked outside of 7th avenue for a dress for the occasion. so this is a bit of a do over and i think there was a little bit of a -- you know, an acknowledgment that perhaps the first time was a misstep. >> do you have a favorite dress from these past eight years, state dinners? >> you know, i thought the carolyn herrera dress was particularly elegant. it in many ways was rather traditional, but i'm also really fopd of the last one she wore by brandon maxwell and in part because it was simply such a surprise. i think one of the things that she does quite well, one of the reasons why people are sort of eager to see what she's going to wear is because she doesn't just go with design house that is have been around for decades. she doesn't go with the tried and true, the vetted designers. brandon markwell hadn't been in business for more than a year. her inaugural gown designer had not been in business very long when she first reached out to him. that's really nice to see because she really is supporting small businesses in the true sense of the word. >> robin govan, thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. and a reminder that you can watch that state dinner for the italian prime minister tomorrow starting at 6:30 eastern on our companion network, cspan. now to take us to the start of today's white house briefing here's agriculture secretary tom vilsack and michael botocelli. they're talking about combatting the opioid epidemic. >> that's an easy act to follow. >> he got all the hard questions. >> i want to talk to both of you about drug policy but also about largely the opioid problem, the abuse of opioids, prescription opioids. i want to start on a personal level. secretary vilsack, most people don't think of the agriculture department necessarily as the place where you would work on drug control policies. can you talk a little bit about why you've invested so much of your final year on that topic? >> i think there are two reasons. one, because this epidemic is ravaging rural areas that i care deeply about, and it is most difficult in rural areas because we have such a lack of treatment capacity in rural areas. so it's the people i care a

Related Keywords

Qatar , Australia , Memorial Rock , Tasmania , Madrid , Spain , Turkey , China , Syria , Aleppo , Lab , Russia , Ukraine , India , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Hollywood , California , United States , Libya , Belgium , Poland , Switzerland , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Malaysia , Georgia , Lisbon , Lisboa , Portugal , Germany , Iran , Argentina , Kiev , Ukraine General , Washington , Florida , Indiana , Norfolk Island , Colombia , New Zealand , Kremlin , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Sanaa , San A , Yemen , Kenya , Iraq , Geneva , Genè , Saudi Arabia , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Somalia , France , Buenos Aires , Distrito Federal , Gibraltar , Italian , Americans , America , Saudi , Turkish , Scotland , Iranians , Turks , French , British , Russians , American , Chinese , Russian , Britain , Belgian , Spanish , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Syrian , Kenyan , Marco Rubio , William Hague , Michael Fallon , David Cameron , Ted Strickland , Marlon Brando , Vladimir Putin , Andrea Mitchell , David Davis , Gordon Brown , John Kerry , Baltic States , Philip Hammond , Brandon Maxwell , Diego Garcia , Carolyn Herrera , Ivan Rogers , Tom Vilsack , William Haig , Alexandra Mcqueen , Johannes Harn , John Byron , Robin Govan , John Baron , Sarah Burton , Evan Baye , Patrick Murphy , Al Smith , Michelle Obama , Katie Mcginty , Vieira Wang , Pat Toomey , John Kennedy , Dennis Healy , Hillary Clinton ,