this is not an approach that this government would take. but let me conclude by reminding the house of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states. we'll discuss how well it's been handled and what that says about brexit foreign policy. also tonight... this man. leading the brexit negotiations for the european parliament. is he a lion or a pussy cat? hello. demonstrations outside the us and inside. a judicial challenge to the trump immigration curbs. businesses complaining at the policy, and a fall in the dollar and the dow at the fear it is all destabilising. and the public opposition of former president obama. no, things didn't quieten down after the trump presidential inauguration. now, no—one knows where the real balance of opinion lies.
is there a quiet majority in favour of tough immigration restrictions? what we do know is that there is noisy opposition to the specific measures adopted by donald trump, and it includes many conservatives here, and republicans over there. the whole idea of a trump state visit is dividing opinion here, but let's start in the us, and go over to yalda hakim, who is in new york for us. yalda. .. we arrived atjfk airport a few hours ago and there seems to be things have really quietened down here. there certainly weren't the scenes of chaos we saw over the weekend. what does remain is confusion. we spoke it a group of lawyers who have create a make shift office at one of the terminals at the airport. they've told us that they're aware of at least 42 people who were detained here over the weekend. that number could be much higher. we're also hearing unverified reports that at least nine nationals
from saudi arabia have been detained. we're not quite sure if that is actually correct. that remains unverified. we're being told by these lawyers that they're not getting any more information from the authorities. president trump's supporters have welcomed the ban. they're saying this is exactly what he said he would do during the election campaign. his critics, which include immigration experts and security analysts, say this won't make america safer. tonight president obama has issued a statement in support of the protesters and says he's concerned about the ban. this remains a deeply divided nation. a weekend that made america think about what the country stood for. the president of a nation of immigrants taking unprecedented steps to stop refugees
from entering the country to, as he says, make america safer. today, things are quieter and there are fewer protesters around. we've just arrived atjfk. i've been quite nervous the entire flight over. i was born in afghanistan but i travel on an australian passport. i wasn't sure if the policy had changed mid—air between london and new york. trump and his team remain defiant today saying that the government did a phenomenaljob and that the majority agree with the president. i think this has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated. again, you talk in a 24—hour period, 325,000 people from other countries flew in from our airports and we're talking about 109 people from seven countries that the obama administration identified and these bureaucrats have a problem with it. they can either get with the programme or either go. hold on.
this is about the safety of america. regardless of the comments from the white house, there is still anger about the measures. the order appears on the face of it to be clear. it suspends entry for citizens of iran, iraq, libya, somalia, sudan, syria and yemen for 90 days. it places a ban on all refugee arrivals for 120 days. it decrees an indefinite ban for syrian refugees and it places a cap of 50,000 refugees in 2017, roughly the same as president obama accepted at the start of his presidency. part of the problem has been the rollout of the policy. confusion reigned over the weekend, when passengers were detained at airports around the country. there was also confusion about the exact status of green card holders and dual citizens.
today washington state launched a legal appeal against the ban and former president obama made his first public statement since stepping down, saying he was heartened by protests against the policy. despite the mounting pressure and criticism, president trump is not backing down. he criticised the tears of chuck schumer and asked where the lefty outrage was from the democrats when the jobs were fleeing the country. he reminded protesters that a crack down on muslims was a big part of his campaign. but others are seriously concerned. you're seeing people talk about this idea notjust on the refugee side, which is extremely serious, but also on the idea that we're giving preference to one religion over another. that isn't who we are as americans. it is not who we stand for and unless we can retake the narrative and talk more positively about who we are rather than putting this optic of an us and them forward, we're going to have a really big problem both in the united states and around the world.
the president says he will review the ban in the next few months. but that's little comfort for those who dreamt of a future in america. zalmay khalilzad served as us ambassador to afghanistan, iraq and the un. he was the most senior muslim us diplomat ever. thank you very much forjoining us. you were born in afghanistan. you made your life in the united states. what do you think about this, these restrictions? we are in the age of terrorism and terrorists do use visas and immigration as a way to infiltrate, so i can understand that president trump would like to see whether our immigration
policy and refugee policies need to be tightened so that we can protect ourselves against this threat. his executive orders that started the debate and this temporary ban can lead, in my hope, to a debate, to an assessment. then we can come to a judicious policy that balances security concerns with our values and factor what we do on our friends, on terrorists. i hope that emotional period is going to be soon over and that we can have a reasoned debate. you were tipped to serve as a potential cabinet member for a trump office. you weren't a natural supporterfor him. do you think you could imagine still serving for a president who had what is, i think everyone would agree, quite a crude ban on certain countries and certain types of people? i love the united states.
the us has been very good to me, given my personal history. i have said to the administration, as i have said to previous administrations, that if i am needed, if i can help my adopted country, i'll be happy to do so. i'm not looking for a job at this point myself however. some people, a lot of peoplejust hate trump and don't want him there. some people were willing to give president trump a chance and i'm detecting from you, because i would put you in that category, that it hasn't put you off him, that you basically think this is not irredeemable, this is not the worst thing any president could do, this is probably not exactly as you would have done it, but it may lead somewhere good in the end? that is my hope. that's my expectation. i believe it's a responsibility to help, to get to a judicious place
where the various considerations that should inform the policy are brought together in a balanced way. i hope that this will happen. do you as someone with experience in iraq, for example, think this is going to work, it's going to make america safer? or is itjust, as many have said, it's completely irrelevant to the safety of the united states given that no terror attacks have occurred from any of the seven countries in the last x decades? if we balance the various considerations that i have suggested, it should help, because, as i said before, the terrorists are trying to infiltrate. not only the united states, but our allies in europe and elsewhere. and we need to have a strategy, a policy that reduces the opportunity, if not eliminates that opportunity for them. but we have other considerations as well, of course. what was wrong with the previous policy and why did it have to be done on a friday evening with no
warning, various departments who it affects apparently didn't know about it. what is it that makes you want, if you like, to forgive this policy, given that everything you stand for and everything you're really saying suggest it's not actually a policy that's fit for purpose? well, it's a new administration. it has been focussed on domestic circumstances, meeting campaign promises. there could be criticism of the process by which this decision was made and the way it was announced. it does discriminate against muslims, it does. basically they're all muslim majority countries and it allows for exceptions that are minority religions in the countries specificed. he might as well have just said muslims in those countries. unfortunately, much of the terrorism that we experience in the world
today comes out of islamic majority countries, because they're going through a terrible crisis, part of the response to that crisis has been this extremism and terror. but there are more than a0 other muslim countries that are not on the list. this has started a necessary debate. maybe it should have been done differently. but i hope in the end it will come to a judicious point on what needs to be done to protect us, but also to be attentive to other concerns that we have, including what we stand for, there cannot be a religious test for visitors and immigrants to the united states. you've steered a very, very fine balanced line in everything you've said. thank you very much forjoining us. it's great to be with you. well, the issue is obviously a tricky one for the uk. on friday, we were meant to be
proud of ourfriendship with the new president. by saturday morning, it was a potential embarrassment. most british politicians have no truck with the trump immigration ban at all but the issue here is how far we should criticise, given that we are in the market for new friends right now. watt. let's talk about the state visit. we have the lovely backdrop ofa visit. we have the lovely backdrop of a carriage. any hint of a u—turn at all. we are not in u—turn territory. downing street is making clear this visit will go ahead. i was speaking to one senior tory this evening who says that this could put the queen in an embarrassing position. the government is saying during his 65—year reign she has met heads of state that are not angels. i am told that number ten is being advised it would be risky that there could be protests by opposition parties. some are wondering whether it's wise to go ahead with the visit so soon. trump supporters saying it will be in the first week ofjune. the ministers say if only we could wait until the autumn, perhaps tempers would cool by then.
the feeling in whitehall is that downing street are in the driving seat for this visit. the formal procedures have been followed and the right people have been consulted, but one well placed source said to me, this was our ace card to play and we played it early. how well generally has theresa may handled this whole week" yellow she was praised widely for this balancing act on friday and the following day in ankara she looked less certain when she was unable to offer an opinion on the donald trump presidential order on travel. this evening, on channel 4 news, it was reported that theresa may was alerted to elements of this executive order in the white house on friday. downing street will not comment on the content of private conversations. i understand theresa may was alerted to the fact there would be a ban on refugees but not alerted to the seven countries, and she was not told that initially it would apply to dual citizens
therefore apply to some british citizens. there is a feeling in whitehall this evening amongst ministerial circles that, if the prime minister has such a wonderful rapport with the president, why didn't she pick up the phone to him? why didn't she ask ministers to do it? there have been sizeable demonstrations this evening here in the uk. you can see the pictures from london. there were other cities as well. and that petition to cancel the state visit is at about one and a half million, or it was the last time i looked. there is one going now, in favour of a state visit but it's much smaller. on saturday she seemed to be taken aback when she was asked about on saturday evening. imagine the other way around. suppose this was actually a question of the uk's immigration policy about which stella might agree or disagree.
suppose we asked the question, do we think that mr trump, or the american public or american politicians should be deciding our policy, there would be outrage. it is the same this way around. this is an ally with a new president. it might not have been a president i would particularly have voted for, had i been american. but i am not and i do not get to decide the policies. we have a relationship with america. 0liver, he is banning refugees. there are some things in life that are so wrong, you have to say, this is wrong. it does not take much thought. it is about the values you stand for. let alone the seven countries involved and the fact it is focusing on muslims. she should have said, mr president, this is not the right thing to do that you do not pull punches on something as basic and principled as that.
are you an opponent of the death penalty? yes, iam. do think a large number of people in china are put to death every year? yes. she was in the room with him she had an opportunity to discuss this. putting him on a platform with nelson mandela. absolutely. we have called for an ethicalforeign policy. it is notjust about holding their hands but holding our tongues as well. what she has done is not speak up for the values of tolerance we are so proud of in britain. that is why there are thousands of people on the streets tonight. i disagree. i think the reason we have the relationships we have is to try to manage the world in a peaceful and stable way in the interests of our people and also the interests of people in the world. you do not get that by lecturing and hectoring other countries about what their policy should be.
do you think banning muslims from america will make the world more safe? the only people promoting this policy is isis. we have just heard a muslim ambassador explaining that he hoped at the end of this temporary ban there would be a better policy. i do not know if there will be or not. it is not my business and it is not your business. this is very interesting. if it is about a small domestic matter in united states policy, we would not want to interfere. do you think there is anything that america can do in its role recognises the merit. we can stand up and say, this is not right. that is a concern people have. because we have left the eu, the brexit foreign policy is trump and erdogan. i do not think it is that way.
over the past 30, 40 years, under the blair administration certainly, we took too much of an imperialist view we can manage other people's countries for them. it did not work well. we should try to have sensible relationships with great powers, small powers, trading relationships, and except we no longer run the world. that does not mean we should adopt causes we do not believe him. we should believe on our policies and stick to it. we very much disagree on whether it has an impact either on our communities, because it spreads division and hate, or an impact on our world. future generations will ask, did you get a great trade deal? no, they will ask, what did you do to stop the hate? with so much going on, what better time to launch
a new newsnight slot, which we are calling viewsnight. the clue is in the title — a two minute chance for someone to make an argument on our programme. we'll do one each day this week — a big idea pertaining to the year — but we won't keep that pace up forever. tonight, it's rod liddle. he used to edit the radio 4 today programme, then went rogue and now he writes for the spectator, among others. it's 2017 and liberalism is dead. thank the lord. rod liddle — rhymes with liberal. don't worry, by the way. we are not trying to court favour with any particular viewpoint in our viewsnight selections. we will be bringing you a range of opinions. and they'll all be on our facebook page as well as on tv. when the brexit negotiation gets going, we may hear more about a man
called guy verhofstadt. he's a member of the european parliament, and has been picked as that parliament's brexit front man. he's a former belgian prime minister as well, and has just written a book about the eu called europe's last chance. now you need to hand it to him — he doesn't mince his words or speak in bureaucratic language. he's direct. here he is attacking one of our meps in the european parliament back in 2012. mr farage has the whole morning talked about salaries and biggest waste of money. you know, colleagues, what i think is the biggest waste of money in european union today, there is a salary we up paying to nigel farage. that is a big waste of money. you are never there in meetings about the fishing policy. in 2011, 2012, no attendance.
it is fantastic what you're doing. you're coming here saying it is a scandal and you pay yourself a salary without doing any labour in your own committee. that is the reality of your own opinion today. now his book is everything that eurosceptics have feared about the eu. it is an unembarrassed call for a proper us—like federal european union. it's almost counter cultural these days, partly because many are thinking the nation state is reasserting itself as the unit people feel an allegiance to. and also because his call to make the eu more like the us is coming at a time when many think the us is far from a perfect model. well, guy verhofstadt is with me. a very good evening to you. what is it when you see theresa may and trump? what did you think when they were standing together? does britain have good choices out of the eu?
what was in any way depressing from my point of view was what trump said about the european union. he said, oh, yeah, i think other countries will go out the european union, the european union will disintegrate. i think that europe, for the moment, is squeezed between a populist president in america who want a disintegration of the union and an autocrat on the other side, vladimir putin, who once also to defy europe. on top of that we have the political radical islam. i think that europe, for the moment, has an excess ten... we live in an existential moment for europeans. you mentioned putin and trump but you did not talk about the threat that the public in europe are voting all over the place, people who, if not fascists, are flirting with it. in austria, 46% are on the far right. it is inside europe that should be
worrying about, not trump. i think we can face this, find a solution by that, by coming forward with a vision for the future, for the european union. the reason people are falling into this trap is because political leaders in europe are showing the way forward. saying, if you want to really solve the problem of the migration crisis, the economic bailout of the financial crisis. we need a more united europe and not disintegrated europe. how should nationalism solve the problems we are facing today in europe? climate change? should it be sold by nationalism. or the migration flow? this is a very basic issue.
when people in germany say, do they mean europeans or germans? certainly in the uk, probably only in belgium, where you come from. i think it's already thousands of mils from britain, british citizens telling me, i want to be an eu citizen, i don't want to break up the link with europe. because europe that belongs to my civilisation, my culture, my literature, my architecture. it's true that people are feeling german or italian or british but also european, an identity is not one identity. no. an identity are different layers and every person has his own identity. don't give it to the politicians to discuss and define what identity is. you propose defence unity, banking unity, fiscal unity, political union. basically it's the full works. that is what euro—sceptics said
people were plotting and wanted inside the continent of europe. that's, they said, why we should leave the project. in a way, they were right. britain, you agree, britain would never sign up ever, ever sign up to the manifesto you're proposing, a united states of europe. winston churchill for the first time said a united states of europe. the problem of europe, let's be honest, is not that this is a big european union because the budget of the european union is only 1% of the european gdp. the problem is that it is still a loose confederation of nation states based on the unanimity rule. we know that an organisation based on the unanimity rule where 28 heads of state and government have to agree, it acts always too little too late. that is the problem of the union today. not fit for purpose, not effective,
always too little too late. therefore we need to reform it. yeah, and that is the, this book is the manifesto for that direction. let's talk about brexit. you have a brexitjob. you heard theresa may's speech a couple of weeks back, where she outlined her vision of what we're aiming for. some said that was a british wanting their cake and eating it, they wanted to be in, then not to be in, but in all the good bits and not the bad bits. was that your perception. i think it's a good summary. you don't think you can work with what she said? what she said was we are out of the european union, out of the single market, out of the customs union, out of the european court ofjustice. and then maybe we could have this european programme that interest us — that will not work naturally. why doesn't it work? why not? it is in your interest to let us cooperate with you. why wouldn't you ? my idea was totally different was against brexit. i thought that even the best
solution should be that britain is still part of the single market. not only for us, but in the main interests of the british industry, british economy and the british workers. let's take a very specific one, the customs union, she said we'll leave the customs union but we would like to have, for example, a particular deal for the car industry, so that supply chains. will that work or not? i don't think that you can do that. why not? that is what i call pick and choose policy, they're saying 0k we go out of every european corporation and then i take the very interesting parts for us, without taking also the obligations, without also the payments that are necessary for that. i don't think that will work. we need a fair partnership. you cannot create a status for countries outside the european union where it's even more favourable than for the countries who are members of the european union. it's more favourable whichever way you do it.
no taxpayer in europe would accept that. i think that a fair partnership is possible. and i think also that europe has to be generous in a certain way towards not specific country, towards this individual citizens in the uk, who want to retake their citizenship. you'll let me get an eu passport? no, no. not a passport, we know what passport means today. no, no, what i'm thinking about is that maybe some vaengs of the european citizenship could be kept for those people in the uk who want to have them, in the future. that is a generous offer. it's my personal opinion, not the opinion of the european parliament or the negotiators, but i think we should offer that to those individuals who want it, who are still thinking why britain has taken that decision. let's go through some of the other specifics. financial services, if there's no special deal for the car industry,
i mean the financial services industry regulation is equivalent to yours. i will not start here with saying yeah, what we need for the financial service, for the car industry. the basic principle is we don't, cherry—picking will not be allowed. this is an important one, a technical point in a way, not much talked about, but very important. can we negotiate a trade deal for britain and the eu, can we negotiate that with you while we're talking about the divorce and the amount of money we have to pay or do we have to settle the details of the divorce first and then talk trade? the treaty is clear on this. you take article 50 of the treaty and it indicates what needs to be done. first of all, withdrawal agreement needs to be agreed and that in the light of the future relationship and partnership with the uk. so you need also to have already at that moment a broad idea of what will be the
future relationship. that's exactly what it says. informal talks can go on both tracks during the two years? you cannot even conclude even on a framework on the future relationship if first of all you don't have the withdrawal agreement. article 50 is very clear. for the moment, we are not in that stage. we are waiting in fact for the triggering of article 50, by the end of march. then only i think by the end of may, beginning ofjune, we can start the negotiations. people have been saying from the european side, britain has to pay 60 billion euros for payments to pensions of existing staff or commitments made while britain is a member. is that serious? the only thing that i know is that the outstanding commitments now and the future outstanding commitments before britain will leave the european union in total will be around 600 billion euros.
that's the reality. you can find that in the accounts of the european union. we will have a lot to talk about. thanks very much indeed. how have you been getting on with dryjanuary? how have you been getting on with dry january? at one how have you been getting on with dryjanuary? at one point you say you're going to get fit and then you're going to get fit and then you're on the sofa watching this show but vegans have been urging us all to do without meat and dairy in this month. can it be done and what lengths will some vegans go to make carnivores think again? as the month comes to an end, here's steven smith. now let's see what vegans eat. in her new series, tv chef nigella lawson puts on a mouth—watering buffet of vegan sweet meats. that's all well and good,
but we wanted to go deeper into this cuisine and lifestyle. we are approaching the climax of a month—long campaign to get people to go vegan, it's called janu—vegan. no vegan—uary. veganuary. it doesn't always roll off the tongue. we like to say it's the hardest part of the month just saying it! we wanted a fun name. one of the inspirations was movember. we wanted a month with the name that could become a part of the annual calendar to encourage people to try vegan for the month of january. at this vegan expo at alexandra palace in london, people are sampling food free of meat and dairy. what is this? this is soy meat. oh, yeah? we marinate it, it's my uncle's recipe. are you vegan yourself? no, my partner is vegan. everybody else that works
here is pretty much vegan. how come they let you in then? i did once try to be a vegetarian when i was about 30. i lasted a day. then i got so depressed about never eating sausages again, that i had to have five sausages in a row. now i have dolly. she's my daughter and she's15. you're a vegan. that's why we're here. i was very young when i first became vegetarian, i thought, "oh, what about the animals?" veganism is a much more political argument. one of the things about living with dolly, i've really intelectually come down to the idea that it is correct that we should be vegetarian and probably vegan, but ijust don't have the willpower for it. away from ally pally, another, more assertive side of the vegan movement. in this action outside a fast food restaurant in the west end, campaigners show footage
of what they say is mistreatment of livestock in the food industry. they can move on, if they find it too upsetting or don't want to see it. at the same time, people have a natural curiosity to watch what's going on. we have the masks on to draw attention to ourselves and dehumanise us as well and make it about the footage we're showing. our aim is for total animal liberation. we're abolitionists. we want to end all animal exploitation for food, clothing, animal testing or animals in entertainment. i hear what they're saying, 0k animals are treated cruelly in these environments, but i love chicken too much. i was going to go to burger king, but i'm going to skip that now. really? why would you do that? because, come on man, they're not out here for no reason. back to veganuary and veggie burgers, how many of us could go a month or more without red meat or an egg, come to that? how many people backslide into toad
in the hole and shepherds pie do you find? actually fewer than you'd think. from the 2016 participants, 63% were still vegan six months later. the bbc is scratching around for a follow up to bake 0ff, what about your dad some vegan cake experience. yeah. is that what it's going to be called, some vegan cake experience? great british ven 0ff. great british been 0ff. there you go, commission it. emily will be here tomorrow. that's all for this evening. last day for a tax return, if you need to do one. in the meantime, very good night. hello. your latest live update now
from bbc weather. some contrast from oui’ from bbc weather. some contrast from our weather today, the best of the sunshine was in scotland although we started the day at —10.1 at braemar in aberdeenshire. much milder in south—west england but much cloudier, damp and drizzly, misty and murky. some hill fog around overnight with plenty of cloud but we're narrowing the differences across the country as clear whether it is disappearing from scotland as cloud and rain moves in overnight, sleet and snow initially on the high ground, could turn icy in a few spots on the higher routes with conditions improving quickly into tomorrow morning. a wet night in northern ireland with heavy bursts coming through at times. this is the picture at 8am, a soggy one as the rain continues to push across parts of scotla nd rain continues to push across parts of scotland and it may even start dry. wet in northern ireland but the rain will pull away and clear from you. for england and wales, misty
with hill fog around. lots of cloud with hill fog around. lots of cloud with this weather system coming in and some dealing with some outbreaks of rain, nothing particularly heavy here and a mild start again in south—west england. more in wales as well at this stage. if you start the day dry you will see the rain heading across to euston parts of the country, the rain will be heaviest in scotland, in the southern uplands and the grampians. we'll also see some drier and to weather coming into northern ireland so weather coming into northern ireland so the whole day isn't a washout everywhere. where you have the weather system working through, it won't be all—day rain. still cool down the eastern side of the uk, milderair down the eastern side of the uk, milder air from south—west england moving into wales, northern ireland and into the west midlands and north—west england through the day. more rain affecting parts of england and wales into wednesday morning. clearer weather for a time in northern ireland and scotland, some places close to freezing with bob and frost patches. 0n places close to freezing with bob and frost patches. on wednesday our weather system dragging its heels
down the eastern side of the uk, dry and brighter following on down the eastern side of the uk, dry and brighterfollowing on elsewhere before another system works into northern ireland with the freshening wind. parts of wales and south—west england later in the day seeing outbreaks of rain. 0n england later in the day seeing outbreaks of rain. on wednesday some getting into double figures. the picture on thursday and friday, thursday bans and showers with heavy thunder spreading northeast and this uncertainty about the detail could bring stormy weather for some by the end of the week, another dose on the weekend. get up to date for what's to come with our weather for the week ahead video, that's available online. the headlines: first band, then the backlash. president trump defends his immigration policy while many are his immigration policy while many a re left his immigration policy while many are left trying to navigate them. canada's prime minister calls the shooting at a quebec city mosque a terrorist attack, as one of the suspects is charged with six counts of murder. a special bbc