of day after the party. i think the speech itself, while not made here by theresa may, went down pretty well. there is this idea at least we had some certainty all the nods and winks about being in or out of the single market were over. theresa may made it clear britain was coming out of the european union, but today, a bit of the hand over, the day after. we have had news today from banks here, hsbc based in london and the swiss bank ubs they will be moving jobs or are looking at moving them from london, on to the european continent, because britain would be out of the single market and that would mean that some of their service, they provide from london, would have to be provided from within the european union, and as you say, kirstie, noises off from the foreign secretary, some negative reactions from france, to the comments by borisjohnson and really a negative thought today, from davos. don't forget here, most businesses supported britain remaining
in the european union. so it is a particular type of cohort you get in britain, which doesn't mean they speak for the whole of british business. earlier today i interviewed the head of the international monetary fund, christine lagarde, who has been negative about brexit in the past, and i started by asking her if the uk leaving the single market would be bad for britain. you have to look at all the parameters. you have to look at the monetary policy, the exchange rate, the interest that would be charged. you have to look at the engines for growth, whether that very solid uk consumption which has held the economy together, and better than we had thought, will last. whether investment, both domestic and from the rest of the world, will persist, or whether there will be a significant reduction, and under what terms the exports
will eventually take place between the uk and the rest of the world. what i know for sure is that there's a lot of work to be done in the coming weeks, months and possibly years. risks to economic growth, then, for britain and for the european union through this process? uncertainty is always a risk, and we know where we are at the moment. as you pointed out, the uk is still in the european union, and trade and movement of capitals and operations of banks are still being conducted under the same pattern and under the same rules. what it is two years after the trigger has been pulled — to be defined. before the referendum, the imf was very clear that the results of a brexit vote, you said yourself, would go from pretty bad to very, very bad. the uk economy has defied expectations, is growing relatively strongly. you've upgraded growth now for 2017. were you wrong when you said that before the referendum 7
i think what has been extraordinary is firstly the action of the bank of england, which has sort of instantly taken hold of the situation, decided remedies, and supported the economy in a very, very vigorous and efficient way. what has also been quite remarkable is the behaviour of the british consumers. the way in which, with confidence, they've continued to consume and consume and consume. now, we are still of the view that, particularly on the investment front, and on the export or trade front, there is still yet to come. and by that i mean, once uncertainty clears, and if people feel that their ability to set up shop in the uk and operate throughout the geographical area that is the european union is not working as well as it did, their investment
decision will change. in the same vein, if exports are subject to significant tariffs, restrictions and so on, the ability of the uk to activate that trade engine is going to be reduced. so while we have upgraded our forecast for 2017, we have downgraded for 2018. so pain delayed rather than avoided? we are still of the view that it will not be positive all along, and without pain. can ijust put a quote to you by the maltese prime minister, joseph muscat, who said that any uk—eu deal necessarily needs to be inferior to membership of the european union. do you agree with that? you know, when you belong to a club, whatever that is, either sports or intellectual, whatever, the members of the club have a degree of affinity, and particular terms under which they operate.
somebody outside the club, sports or intellectual or whatever, have a different access, and i think he's referring to that. so it would be a less good deal for britain? it would certainly be different, and if being part of a club is optimising and leveraging your membership, it would not be as good, yes. let's just talk finally about... we're here at davos, a big debate that you've been very closely involved in for many years about equality, about elites, about the way the world operates and economies operate. does it give you a sense that it's all a little bit ridiculous? that we are speaking here in this resort, where you can look out there at business people doing deals, highly rich people... this is just totally out of touch, is it not, with the real world? everyone is talking here about inequality, but actually, it's just completely out of touch, and it's slightly ridiculous. the world looks at this and thinks, you just don't get it. i think it was your former
prime minister, winston churchill, who said that it is better to chat—chat than to war—war, and whether you talk economics or whether you talk military, people have a tendency to confront, to have adversarial debates, and if they are here to talk, to have a dialogue, to confront their views to other people's views, who don't necessarily look like them. you have a lot of ngos present here, you have a lot of young leaders, a lot of global shapers, who are not the ones that you've just portrayed, and there is huge value in that. so, easy to criticise, and value to be had from people actually confronting their views and trying to make sense of the negative and positive narratives that abound at the moment. 0ur prime minister, theresa may, has criticised what she calls "the citizens of nowhere". do you think of yourself as a citizen of nowhere? 0h, absolutely not. you know, what defines your citizenship is your language, your culture, your background, your education, your family roots, where you were born,
the smell of the trees in the morning. all those things. they stay with you forever. you spend your whole life with it. but can you see the critics might say, for someone like you, the head of the international monetary fund, you live a different life, a different world? i have to care for far more people than my community, and what i'm trying to do is to help the entire community, as difficult as it is. we have 189 members. some of them have rock bottom gdp per capita. others are 50 times better off, but we have to care for all of them, because our mission is stability, and without stability, whether it's in defence terms or economic terms, you don't build anything. but what if all the diplomacy and negotiating skills the uk can muster don't get us a trade deal with the eu, and we have to fall back on membership of the world trade organisation?
how would that work? in a moment, i'll be talking to pascal lamy, the former director of the wto. but first here's our policy editor chris cook. this week there has been renewed talk of the prospect that britain will end up relying on its membership of the world trade organisation and no other special deals as the basis of its trading relationships with the world. theresa may's speech yesterday contained one very big strategic decision, she wants a comprehensive free trade deal between the eu and the uk unlike anything like anyone else has. she doesn't want a an off the shelf model, like the norway model. that means that puts more pressure on that two—year negotiation process. it's more likely we won't reach a deal, or, in her terms, we will take no deal rather than a bad deal. and no deal means operating on wto terms. that is usually presented pretty blea kly.
the wto would for example force the eu to place 4% tariffs —— 10% tariffs on british car importers, customs checks on sales to the eu and difficulty for say british pharma companies selling drugs into europe. so, why? to understand the wto it may help to know where it came from. it was a body that was only set up in the 1990s, but its roots are in talks that took place in the 1940s. and those talks were themselves aimed at preventing repetition of problems that occurred in the 1930s. before the second world war, there was a trade war. in 1930, the us passed the tariffs named after the legislators who proposed them and other countries replied in kind. the wto's predecessor emerged from talks aiming to stop that from ever happening again. why, then, would a body whose
founding purpose is to reduce tariffs force the eu to raise them against the uk? the eu is a member of the wto and it has no real special deal with the uk at the moment. then what the wto will force the eu to do is treat the uk like it treats any trade partner and that would mean increasing tariffs to the uk. the idea is to stop tit—for—tat 1930s style trade war, average tariffs round the world from falling from 22% in 1937 to 5% now. the problem is, these days, modern trade barriers are less likely to be tariffs, itjust isn't the ‘30s any more. the modern wto took its current
shape at talks in 19114 in marrakech but while it's achieved in reducing tariffs is important and helpful, it hasn't been so good as preventing other sorts of rules and regulations these so—called non—tariff and technical barriers are much more important than tariffs. in the rules there is no provision for cooperation between regulatory agencies, which is important, if you look at the pharmaceutical sec store where we are continually producing new drugs you need to make sure they are being accepted and approved by agencies, particularly at the eu level to be able to put on the market. the wto in short isn't good at reducing the admin hassle of selling is across the border or stopping local laws or approval processes that might hobble foreign companies. that is why countries strike free trade agreements. pascal lamy is a former
eu trade commissioner, and was director—general of the world trade organisation. hejoins us now from davos. good evening. we will come on to talk about the wto possibilities in a moment, but first, injuly last year, as far as brexit negotiations were concerned, you said it would be complex, bumpy and nasty. after theresa may's speech yesterday, do you still hold that view? yes, i do. it's going to be complex, bumpy and nasty, like any trade negotiation. we know that by experience, unless we invent the first ever trade negotiation in history, which would be a love affair. i don't really believe it can happen. except that theresa may is determined to invent something. she doesn't want, as we talked about a minute ago, an off—the—shelf
deal like norway. she wants a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the eu. how would that work? i think that's what we have to do now, now that the uk has decided to leave the internal market, as you just said in your excellent summary. the uk will be a third country, like mexico, korea orjapan. so, uk has to negotiate the terms of access to the eu market, and the eu has to negotiate the terms of access to the uk market. it's seven for the size of the eu market to one, which is the size of the uk market. it's going to be complex, long, it's probably a good thing, a better thing than going back to the wto tariffs, but it will take time and, inevitably,
trade will be less open than when the uk was a member of the internal market. it may have to go back to the wto. what christine lagarde was saying was, if you are outside the club, you are not going to get as good a deal as if you were inside the club. no one wants to give britain such a good deal. i wonder what you think of the idea — we've already heard of some companies like ubs shifting to paris and beyond. certain different areas, such as financial services and the car industry, might strike separate deals within the eu. what do you think of that? there will be no separate deal. it's a single undertaking. you have to to agree on everything before you agree on anything. and there's no deal which would be a sector deal. this will be toughly negotiated on both sides.
as you just said in your programme, the main difficulty for the british exporter to the eu continent, whether goods or services, like financial services or accounting, will be that the uk will have to match eu regulations and standards, without having any say on the regulations and standards. that's a big problem for the future. 0n the question of how all this operates, because we have to trigger article 50 and negotiate our way out. negotiate the laws of the eu and the uk. and then, the idea would be that simultaneously you do your fresh deal at the same time. is that possible? no. i don't think it's doable simultaneously. it can start simultaneously, but any trade negotiation of this kind is very complex and will take
a long time. i'm convinced this is not doable in two years. two things about that. and yet david davis, our chief negotiator, says it will be done by the end of 2018. you don't think it'll be done by then. do you think, knowing the complexity of all this, that the uk has a sufficiently high octane negotiating team ? very difficult to say. what i know is that, like any other eu member, the uk disbanded its trade expertise when it was transferred to the european union, so they have to reconstitute a whole body of trade experts and trade negotiators. this will inevitably take time, and by the way, be pretty costly. at least, that's what i'm told by my friends in the consulting
and the legal business. so how long do you think it would take to strike a new deal with the eu? i don't know of any trade negotiation that lasted less than five to seven years, which means that there will need to be a sort of interim arrangement which will have to be negotiated before we move to the new trade regime. so theresa may is a saying, i don't want a bad deal. what if there is no deal, and then we fall back on wto rules? with this tariff of, for example, 10% on car imports to the eu, will it apply to britain automatically? that's a possibility if there is no deal, as you rightly say.
you go back to the wto rules, but those rules are worse for the uk, and for the eu into the uk, than a good deal. so that's ad? so that's bad? i have been a trade negotiator. this notion that no deal rather than a bad deal is something all trade negotiators have been saying all the time. the question is, if you have an option between going back to the wto rules, or the ideal, which is full of pain, you will choose the full of pain. finally, you are aware of and indeed you know borisjohnson. do you think you should be one of the lead people in negotiations, given what he said today that so offended so many french? look, what borisjohnson said today
leads me to wonder whether it's donald johnson or boris trump! it's a clear embarrassment for all of these high—flying diplomats in the foreign office, and they deserve all of our compassion. thank you very much indeed, pascal lamy. in three hours‘ time we will know if the military are about to be deployed to enforce the election result in the gambia. tonight, the nigerian air force and senegalese troops are on standby because of the outgoing president yahya jammeh's refusal to relinquish power after his election defeat. today, the un said at least 26,000 people, mainly women and children, it's not a very good news.
president yahya jammeh seized power in 1994 at the age of 29. he's survived several coup attempts to rule for the past 22 years. last december, he lost the presidential election to a candidate backed by a strong opposition coalition. despite initially conceding the result and appearing to hand over power, jammeh now won't budge. we hereby declare a state of public emergency, throughout the islamic republic of the gambia. the president—elect, adama barrow, is due to be sworn in tomorrow. the regional bloc of west african states, ecowas,
has repeatedly warned it would launch military action if jammeh refuses to step down before the ceremony. jammeh once said he would rule for a billion years if allah willed it. we are about to see if his faith in himself will be trumped by the will of the people. steve cockburn is from amnesty international and is in senegal. today is the deadline given by the international community for presidentjammeh to step down from power and pass over to adama barrow. so far he has refused and mediation efforts have failed. this evening, the president of mauritania has flown into the country as a last ditch effort to try and find a peaceful solution to the crisis, and at the same time forces led by senegal and nigeria have been preparing to launch a military intervention in the country if that peaceful process doesn't succeed. dayo forster is a gambian writer.
she's an international development writer based in the uk. are yourfamily all0k? yes, they are all treating the crisis from different points of view. how are they treating it? what are they doing? today, my mother decided she needs to stock up on rice and gas. they've been to work and come home early, and got various groceries ready to sit it out. are they fearful? i would say they are uncomfortable, but not fearful. we've been through this before. it's tense. it's not entirely in 81? yes. it's not entirely clear what will happen, but they have confidence that the senegalese will come in and sort it out. you've been living with this president for a very long time.
what has it been like? it's an odd mix, because basically, loads of things have been happening under the radar that have been terrible, like people who have had plastic melted on their genitals. you've heard of people disappearing, and journalists just not turning up for work the next day. so there's all this against a backdrop of a president who has also done things like spread water, so there's been renewed wells for portable water across the country. so this mix of absolute control for doing things for development, but not enough to make people become independent of view. he is clearly digging his heels in. he said he would rule for a billion years.
what will shift him? loads of things'arekhappening: we heard this morning that at least the top brass in the army were supporting him, but you think they are not? it's not entirely true. this is according to my family, but there's basically two factions in the army. there's the soldiers, who rejoiced to the election, and there's some who are staying loyal. there are some who are ditching their uniform in the streets. the gambia is a small place, so everybody is related to everybody else. it comes through to you that you have a personal choice, and some of the soldiers are making the choice that they would rather not continue to support him.
ecowas have acted very quickly. the nations of africa. why is it so critical for them to get a hold in the gambia? the gambia is a test case. we have had a coups and countercoups in the west africa for a long time. since the war in cote d'ivoire, we have had elections in nigeria, and ghana, successful and peaceful elections and changes of power. in the gambia, there's not been one single successful peaceful change of power since i was born, so it's time to make that happen. thank you very much indeed. president 0bama gave his final press conference from the white house this evening, and ranged over subjects from chelsea manning to the israeli palestinian conflict, warning his successor over any sudden unilateral move. emily is in washington, watching the final chapter of the 0bama presidency, and preparing to report on the next.
in his last press conference, president 0bama conceded that donald trump was unlikely to take his advice, given that he had won his election on an anti—0bama platform, but he warned the new, that perhaps he would be hit by the complexities of the role once in office, and his thinking might shift on issues like health care and jobs. he described phone calls between the two men as constructive and lengthy, and said that the best advice he could give was to try and rely on those around him. he said it was not a job for one man alone. perhaps the most memorable moment was his rebuff to trump. trump has already hinted that he might move the press corps outside the white house, and he insisted that the reporters covering his administration were an essential facet of a functioning democracy. have a listen.
you're not supposed to be sycophants, you're supposed to be sceptics. you're supposed to ask me tough questions. you're not supposed to be complimentary, but you're supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power, and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here, and you have done that. and you have done it for the most part, in ways that i could appreciate for fairness, even if i didn't always agree with your conclusions. it will be understood as a rebuke to donald trump. it will be understood as a rebuke to trump who has picked those very public, personal fights with individual reporters and their news organisations, he has lambasted in the past, forfake new, a term has almost weaponised for anything he doesn't like very much. this was the last time that 0bama
will speak in public as president. he leaves office with near record approval ratings and a flurry of last minute activity which might suggest an awareness of the many things he still leaves undone, so what will his legacy be like? we look back at the last eight years. we will go out and remake america and then we will change the world. when you study anyone and understand why they do it, you become more sympathetic, when you study 0bama, it's hard not to become a fan. i do solemnly swear... the description he left from behind was true, you can't say that he didn't do anything, they certainly did a lot, but the actions they took, it wasn't enough to make a difference. i think we got more change than
a lot of people thought possible. there are 20 million more people insured in this country than there were in 2008. we are fighting to keep that right now, today as i talk to you, trying to make sure that people can keep their health care, there has been change in that, in marriage equality, there has been change all over this country when we think how marginalised people have been. there is more change that needs to happen. you cannot underestimate how bad the cards he inherited in terms of the economy, and nobody gets credit. no politician in history ever has got credit for averting a disaster. but 0bama the technocrat, the hard nosed technocrat,
who passed the largest stimulus in us history. and compromised to do it. people talk about him unwilling to bend, but he did get republicans to vote for that which is why it passed which is why there wasn't a second great depression. in his first two years in office he passed more legislation and did more major things really than any other progressive president has done really in living memory, and part of the problem that that caused was that there was a counter attack. we're not going to give up. we are going to fight. we are going to get rid of him in 2012. but that coalition of less educated, rural people who are kind of losers in the globalisation game, is exactly the same coalition that put donald trump into the white house.
and it's just a straight line, you can see it. the democratic party at the grassroots has really been decimated under 0bama. they've lost most of state house, the legislature, the party under 0bama in some sense has hollowed out and it's going to be very hard for them to come back from that. 0njanuary 20th, i will become the first president of the united states to serve two full terms during a time of war. i wouldn't give him a great score on foreign policy, he has two successes, cuba and iran, they will survive. —— the trump presidency. but the rest — i, you know i worked on a lot of other issue, on isil. syria, and ukraine, and he wasn't as strong as he could have been. i would give 0bama
poor marks on syria. i worked on syria in the state department for several years and i think there were several points when had 0bama done much more than he did, things really could have changed. he had legitimate reasons for avoiding getting more involved but unfortunately you ignore unpleasant parts of the world at your peril. you can't contain a conflict like syria. so what have we had as a result of syria, we've had isil and isil by the way notjust in that region but we have seen attacks in many other country, in europe as well. we had the migration crisis. we went into iraq and it didn't work. we tried persuasion in egypt and it didn't work. we tried limited intervention in libya and it didn't work. we didn't intervene in syria and it didn't work. i mean, really, the person who said
the thing you have to be is lucky, has probably got the answer. if we could just recognise ourselves in one another. bring everybody together. democrat, republican, independents, latino asian and native american. black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not. the first time i went into the white house, when barack 0bama actually lived there, that was the first thing that came to mind, that my ancestors, my enslaved ancestors, built that house. that house that for so long we had to enter the back door of for so long we were not allowed in the dining rooms of, let alone in the oval office. so for a lot of us having a black man in the white house represented hope. that is not a great legacy on race
but that is not 0bama's legacy, that's an american legacy on race. if people are tired about hearing racism i guarantee we are far more tired of dealing with it. but at the end of the day, people confuse identifying racism with actual racism. that doesn't mean that race relations have gotten worse, it means people have become more aware. i'm asking you to believe not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours. yes, we can. yes, we did. yes, we can. thank you, god bless you. may god continue to bless the united states. ahead of the inauguration, feelings about donald trump are running high,
and tonight we bring you the second of our two polarised "animated" perspectives on the incoming president. last night, roger kimball, editor of the us literary magazine, the new criterion, exhorted trump to bring it on. tonight, the former editor of the new republic, the british american author and blogger andrew sullivan, has a rather different take. as donald trump began his march through american democracy toward the white house earlier this year, my mind kept drifting to a passage i read years before as a graduate student, from the first book on politics ever written. plato's republic. the passage is from the dialogue where socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems. how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another. socrates says something pretty
shocking — tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy. democracy was defined as a political system which maximises two things — equality and freedom. everyone is equal, and everyone can do whatever he or she likes. and the longer a democracy lasts, socrates says, the more democratic it becomes. its freedoms multiply until it becomes a many coloured cloak, decorated in all hues. men are interchangeable with women, and all their natural differences forgotten. animals have rights. foreigners can come and workjust like citizens, children boss their parents around. teachers are afraid of their students, the rich try to lookjust like the poor. soon, every kind of inequality is despised. the wealthy are particularly loathed. and elites in general
are treated as suspect, perpetuating inequality and representing injustice. it's when a democracy is evolved into this, plato argues, that a would—be tyrant will often seize his moment. he is usually of the elite, but is in tune with the times, given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on food, and especially sex. he makes his move by taking over a particularly obedient mob and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt. he is a traitor to his class, and soon his elite enemies find a way to appease him or are forced to flee. eventually, he stands alone, offering the addled, distracted and self—indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy‘s endless choices and insecurities. he rides a backlash through excess. too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery. and offers himself as the
personified answer to all problems. to replace the elites and rule alone on behalf of the masses. and as the people thrill to him, as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, impetuosly repeals itself. well, that's almost it for tonight. but the music world is today mourning the death of the nigerian synth funk legend william 0nyeabor. if you've never heard of him, that's because he never performed on screen, and he quit the music business years before he even found fame to become a born again christian, and pretty much ignored his subsequent feting by the legion of western musicians who he profoundly influenced. so we'll leave you instead with talking heads david byrne and the atomic bomb band, performing 0nyeabor‘s song fantastic man on thejimmy fallon show in 2015. goodnight.
# i want you try to tell me how you feel about me, girl # i want you to tell me how i look # tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me # please, please tell me how i look # you look so good # fantastic man.# i will say one thing about the weather, it has got a pattern to it. let me show you what's happened over recent days. monday, the satellite picture looked like this. cloud building under high pressure. tuesday looked like this. again a lot of cloud, but some sunshine across the south—east of england.
the day looked like this, again cloudy skies, a bit of sunshine towards the south. you can see the pattern. guess what the forecast will be like for thursday? rudy cloudy for most. some exceptions. clear skies in southern parts. under the cloud much of the uk will have through the night it will be frost free. the coldest weather across southern counties of england to start the day. maybe south wales, the south midlands and east anglia. cabbage is about minus four. another morning where you will be scraping theice morning where you will be scraping the ice off the windscreen, but plenty of sunshine again. further north across mid wales and the midlands there will be quite a lot of the cloud. mist and fog hatches around. if you spot the drizzle. cloudy skies for northern ireland and scotland to stop a day, if you brea ks and scotland to stop a day, if you breaks in aberdeenshire. starting with a bit of frost and a couple of showers to the north—west of scotland. for the rest of the day we will be stuck under these cloudy skies. with derby day cloudy or
finished cloudy. —— we start the day cloudy. not a lot of change through the afternoon. the cloud at the thai air in the sky through the northern half of the uk compared to wednesday, so it will at least look a little bit brighter and temperatures about 8—9, so not especially cold under the cloudy skies. 0n especially cold under the cloudy skies. on thursday night the cloud thickens and drizzle coming out of it. if you mist and fog patches dotted around. where we keep the cloud temperatures forced free. but there will be a frost in southern england, maybe northern ireland and eastern areas of scotland where we have a few breaks coming and going. this is the weather picture on friday. we still have high pressure and a lot of cloud across the country, with the best of the sunshine around the peripheries of the high. southern england, southern wales, scotland doing 0k. into the weekend and into next week, no real changes. the high pressure still
with us and there will still be accepted cloud. by the time we get the tuesday, with winds picking up, we should see more sunshine coming through. hopefully a change to the rather cloudy picture we will have for the next few days. iam in i am in singapore. the headlines. barack 0bama i am in singapore. the headlines. ba rack 0bama holds i am in singapore. the headlines. barack 0bama holds his final press conference, and says he leaves the white house optimistic. at my call, i think we are going to be ok. ——
core. we just have to not take it for granted. i know you will help us do it. thank you. no arrest for samsung's boss. there is not enough evidence to prosecute. samsung's boss. there is not enough evidence to prosecutelj samsung's boss. there is not enough evidence to prosecute. i am in london. millions of dollars are being pledged for research to prevent the next ebola—like epidemic. and we speak to the first indigenous australian to become a government minister.