Return to Transcripts main page


Trump, I Never Worked for Russia; May, Stopping or Delaying Brexit Would Harm Faith in Democracy; U.K. Parliamentary Debate Resumes Ahead of Tuesday Vote; FBI Debated Whether Trump Followed Moscow's Directions; U.S. Withdrawal from Syria Leaves Kurdish Fighters Behind; Saudi Minister says Khashoggi Killing Won't Change U.S. Relationship; Are Western Democracies Facing a Crisis; Mayor of Gdansk Dies After On-Stage Attack; Theater Group's Interpretation of Britain's Biggest Drama. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired January 14, 2019 - 10:00   ET


[10:00:00] BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST: -- that senior FBI officials debated whether the President was, quote, following directions from Russia. The

inquiry was launched after President Trump fired then FBI director, James Comey.

Another revelation just as stunning. This one from the "Washington Post". It says Mr. Trump went to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his

meetings with Vladimir Putin, even confiscating notes from his own interpreter.

Today, CNN asked a lawmaker while Democrats intend to speak with that interpreter and get those notes.


SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: Absolutely. That is something I actively pressed for. The judiciary committee for a while had a functioning

investigation into obstruction of justice. It ground down and then finally stopped because of party's indifferences, the Republican majority wouldn't

support our asking a series of I think relevant questions that the House Judiciary Committee will now take up.


ANDERSON: The bottom line here, U.S. officials say there is no detailed record of Mr. Trump's meetings with Vladimir Putin over the last two years.

Just minutes ago, the U.S. President told reporters he, quote, never worked for Russia calling the whole thing a hoax. Much more on this story, ahead

in a live report for you from Washington.

I'm Becky Anderson. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. Live from the USA -- live from the UAE. Well, across the pond, from the States, and another

of the world's major democracies in crisis, with the clock ticking towards a make-or-break vote on the British Prime Minister's Brexit deal. A great

debate, resuming a few minutes ago at the House of Commons. You're looking at live pictures now.

In just 28 hours from now, Parliament will vote on the Prime Minister's plan to leave the European Union. And the stakes just couldn't be higher.

If she loses the vote, opposition parties have threatened to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, and that could trigger a general

election. Earlier today, Mrs. May was in Stoke-on-Trent, a pro-leave strong hold and there she warned that failure to deliver Brexit would be

catastrophic. And voting down her plan, she said would destroy faith in politics.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: As we've seen over the last few weeks, there are some in Westminster who would wish to delay or even stop

Brexit until we use every device available to them to do so. I ask them to consider the consequences there of their actions on the faith of the

British people in our democracy.


ANDERSON: Well, we've got each and every angle covered for you. Nic Robertson is right outside Number Ten, and Anna Stewart is in Stoke-on-

Trent, where Theresa May spoke earlier. And Erin McLaughlin is in Brussels with the view from the EU. Let's start with you Anna. A key speech by the

Prime Minister from a city dubbed locally as the Brexit capital of Britain. What else did she say?

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: She was speaking to workers at a factory, Becky, but really the message she was giving was for her MP's back in

Westminster. And it was as you said, vote for my Brexit deal or you risk no deal or you risk no Brexit and she said that would be a democratic

catastrophe that people would lose face in democracy. They voted two and a half years ago to leave, and many people, I say here, cannot understand why

the U.K. isn't simply leaving. Now the people I've spoken to here -- and this is an area that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU -- don't

necessarily follow all of the twists and turns of Brexit.

Interestingly, some of the workers the Prime Minister spoke to in the factory, as she said that they were fairly confused what she was talking

about. They didn't fully and understand all the nitty gritty of her deal. But what they do want is to leave. Most of the people we have spoken to so

far, said they have voted to leave in 2016. All but one person said they'd vote to leave again should that come around should there be a second

referendum. So the sentiment hasn't really shifted much here. But it's easier said than done. Clearly, the Prime Minister is struggling to get

her deal through --Becky.

ANDERSON: Nic Robertson is outside Number Ten, and a lot more from the Prime Minister in the next two days, Nic, she'll make a statement in the

House of Commons, scheduled an hour or so from now. Then of course closing its crucial debate tomorrow. Whatever happens, is it fair to say that

representative democracy is in crisis? Does the behavior of politicians in the U.K. suggest they've lost control of the narrative? Anna just pointing

out, a lot of people she's spoken to don't understand what's going on at present. Or perhaps should we be asking the question, have these elected

representatives lost the plot at this point?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: You know, I think one of the assessments at the moment is that possibly the Prime Minister is

losing control of the narrative. There could be a number of amendments put forward in the coming hours, and that could put her in the position of

losing the control of the direction of the debate here.

[10:05:03] It could put her in the position of really having her backbench MP's -- which is absolute not normal -- being able to decide what are the

primary orders of business in the House of Parliament. Of course this is normally controlled by the Prime Minister and by her cabinet. So this

would be -- begin to fall into that category, of the Prime Minister losing control of the narrative, and MP's rather gaining control of it. That's

not the position that of course that the Prime Minister wants to be in. But it's one of the threads that does seem to be emerging.

This is hugely complex. You know, I don't think there are many constitutional historians and current political analysts who could really

give you an accurate prediction of what will be happening at the end of the week. So for the Prime Minister to speak to the people of the country is

very important. But of course, the real details and understanding, that is going to be on the minds of all of these MP's when they get to have that

vote tomorrow.

ANDERSON: Anna, you suggested that where you are, people are just confused as to what's going on. Our colleagues have been fanned out across the

country, in city, towns, villages, that voted to stay, and voted to leave the European Union. And that seems to be the sort of common thread however

people voted. They're confused now by what is going on. Do they feel let down by these elected representatives who will be voting on their future

tomorrow afternoon?

STEWART: I think that's certainly the sentiment we're getting here today and I think similar, we found in Derbyshire. We know Phil Black is also

gauging, you know, opinion across the country. It's a lot of frustration generally. It's not just why can't she get this deal through, it's why

can't we leave. They don't necessarily understand the full process that's going on. None of them quite get why Jeremy Corbyn hasn't called a general

election. If he wants to call a general election. You know, it's endless minutia of Brexit detail that frankly, most of the country isn't really

interested in.

They voted two and a half years ago to leave. And yes there is a huge sense of frustration and slight anger that politicians can't get their act

together and deliver what they voted for. And they don't really understand why they'd a second referendum, what more would they get from that?

ANDERSON: Nic, I'm going to talk to Erin McLaughlin shortly who is in Brussels. And we know that the heads of the European Union published a

letter a short time ago. In fact, Erin let me put this to you. It says that Brussels would be ready to extend what's known as Article 50,

negotiating this process, if it would ensure that the deal would be ratified. The letter though falls short of what Theresa May was hoping it

would say. Are we looking at too little, too late, from the European Union? If indeed the flip side of Theresa May getting her deal through

tomorrow is a complete no deal which is Britain just putting out the EU completely which we think we would all agree the EU doesn't want?

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's seen as a catastrophic scenario for both sides of the English Channel, Becky. But I think what's

most notable about the letter that was sent from Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council and Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the

European Commission, today is what wasn't included in that letter, which is reinsurance in the form of legal certainty which that the backstop which is

at the center of this legislative impasse would be temporary. Theresa May wanted or proposed in her letter to the EU that there would be a legally

binding start date for the future relationship. But that is a red line to the EU --


ANDERSON: Well, it sounds as if we've lost Erin there. But you've heard where we are at so far as that letter is concerned, too little or too late

really, I think the message is from Europe, in any attempt to support Theresa May's plan at this point. So Nic, just walk us through. I mean

I'll simplify what is in store, if you will, over the next few days, for our viewer. In the last few minutes, Parliament has resumed its debate.

May will make a hail Mary speech of course to MP's in the next half hour or so -- hour and a half. Parliament votes Tuesday. If it votes to reject

Mrs. May's deal then government must offer a plan B within three days. And I guess the question then should be asked, what is that plan B? Is

there one at this point?

ROBERTSON: It's not clear what that plan B would be. What is clear is that whatever the plan B would be.

[10:10:00] There isn't broad consensus for it within Parliament. Because there's such a spread of opinion about the range of options from the sort

of extremes of having a second referendum and deciding suddenly against leaving the European Union. Which the remotest and outside points really,

that I don't think anyone would really consider likely. But from there, all the way back to a hard exit. There just isn't consensus on a plan B,

and that's part of Theresa May's sell. I think one of the big questions that people are asking here is -- and this will be the question that

Theresa May is undoubtedly asking herself -- a loss by how many votes constitutes an absolute dead end to plan A? Plan B has to be delivered by

Monday next week. That was the expectation to go back to Brussels to get something else.

But as we've heard from the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, this important constituency that has the most concern about the backstop

deal on Northern Ireland. They're saying that what they've heard in these assurances that Theresa May will talk about today from the European Union,

they're not legally binding, that this doesn't go far enough for them. So the question becomes how many -- by how many votes would constitute Theresa

May deciding that there was no legitimacy in pushing forward with this. And then how do you get to that point of agreeing in Parliament what a plan

B should be? That would seem to be the most pressing issue.

ANDERSON: Meantime, you know, it's such a cliche, isn't it, but the clock is ticking. I want to get back to both of you. As you have been telling

us, it has been a long hard road since Britain made the decision to leave the European Union in June of 2016. And Erin McLaughlin now with a look

back at the EU's tactics in these negotiation talks.


MAY: So we are at an impasse.

BORIS JOHNSON, FORMER FOREIGN SECRETARY: Brussels has got us exactly where they want us.

JEREMY HUNT, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: We do now face a real risk of no deal by accident.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): As the intensity of Brexit negotiations ratcheted up, so too do the complaints from British lawmakers.

HUNT: At the moment, you European friends seem to think the way to keep the club together is to punish a member who leaves.

DONALD TUSK, EUROPEAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT: The EU does not and will not pursue a punitive approach. Brexit in itself is already punitive enough.

MCLAUGHLIN: From the outset the EU set clear red lines on what it was prepared to negotiate and what it wasn't.

MICHEL BARNIER, EU CHIEF BREXIT NEGOTIATOR: The single market and its four freedoms, four freedoms, indivisible.

MCLAUGHLIN: Part of a strategy which landed the EU with a favorable draft deal. The 27 united around a common position and the rigid structure for

the negotiation.

OLIVER PATEL, EUROPEAN INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON: The U.K. has constantly tried to go around the Commission, to try and get sort of

special deals with different countries, to try to pay them off against each other, divide and rule. But it hasn't been able to do that.

MCLAUGHLIN: And a relative commitment to transparency.

BARNIER: I'd like to show you what we've done.

MCLAUGHLIN: Showing the world exactly what the EU wanted from Brexit, and why.

PATEL: Before the U.K. had even had a position, because it was so early on in Theresa May's premiership, the EU had already published all these

documents. So, it showed the U.K.'s domestic audience how unprepared it was, and it also forced the U.K. to respond with its own position.

MCLAUGHLIN: From the outset, it could be argued that the process was rigged in the EU's favor, with Article 50 of the EU treaty allowing only

two years for negotiation. The U.K.'s primary trump card, when to trigger the process, rushed to satisfy Brexiteers forcing the U.K. into time-

pressured negotiations.

PATEL: Yes, they've used clever strategies. But they also just have the no deal, it's just so much worse for the U.K. than the EU. Which kind of

puts pressure on the U.K. to just agree with whatever the EU suggests.

MCLAUGHLIN (on camera): But it can all be for naught if the deal fails to get through Westminster and all this ends in a messy and costly no deal

scenario. So was the EU too successful? Did it overplay its hand? Well, that remains to be seen. Erin McLaughlin, CNN, London.


ANDERSON: So, you're back in Brussels and you've been going between these two cities now for months and months and months. What is the impression on

the ground in Brussels? We hear from two specific men who've been involved in negotiating this deal on behalf of the EU. The European Commissioner

Juncker and then, of course, Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator. How do people in the European Parliament for example feel about this deal? We've

got the European Parliamentary elections coming up in May.

[10:15:00] We know that those could expose a much more fractured Europe than that which we currently believe exists amongst the 27, as it were.

What's the feeling about all of this in Brussels?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, as I outlined there in that piece, Becky, they see this as a historic mistake. They deeply regret Brexit. We heard from members

of the European Parliament yesterday issue a letter asking the U.K. not to go ahead with Brexit. It was something that was retweeted by Martin

Selmayr, a deputy of the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, earlier today. This is seen as an historic mistake. The EU

ostensibly would welcome the U.K. back into the fold if they should change their mind.

I was speaking to a senior EU official just late last week who was expressing on top of that his concern. He is very worried about the

political chaos playing out there on the other side of the channel. He's worried that at the end of this meaningful vote, Theresa May will emerge in

the midst of some sort of political paralysis. And the default option, as it stands now, for all of this, as enshrined in U.K. law, is that no deal

scenario, which is seen as economically catastrophic for both the EU and the U.K.

ANDERSON: To all of you, thank you so much. A very busy, busy 48 hours coming up for those reporting on this Brexit story. We wish you the best.

We are watching and observing from afar. So two massive roiling stories. We really do live in a convulsing era, don't we? An era of Brexit, and

Donald Trump. Each so chaotic and melodramatic, that one of the greatest minds alive right now, A.C. Grayling reckons that democracy is dying in

dysfunction. We'll get to A.C. in 15 minutes so stick around to hear what are or should be his fascinating insights.

CNN is taking the Brexit temperatures in different parts of the United Kingdom. Log on to our web site to find out what people in one pro-leave

stronghold had to say about the current state of affairs. That is A lot more as you can expect there on the digital site.

Back to what is our top story this hour. The stunning revelation that the FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation on Donald Trump in 2017.

To find out whether he might be acting on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Just moments ago, Mr. Trump denied that, saying he never

worked for Russia. Well, let's bring in Shimon who is live for you in Washington. What more can you tell us about this FBI investigation? I

want to talk about two other bombshells with you this hour. But let's do the first one first.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, certainly, you know, new information that we obtained -- excuse me first -- was from these

transcripts of congressional member -- of two senior FBI officials, who testified in closed door proceedings before Congress. They were

interviewed. They answered questions from members of Congress here in Washington, D.C.

And then on one end, there was the idea that Trump fired Comey at the behest of Russia. Certainly that concerned the FBI. Was he doing this

because of Russia? And the other was a possibility that Trump was completely innocent and was acting within the bounds of his executive

authority. Now James Baker, who was the top lawyer at the FBI at the time, told Congress that basically there was concern. There was this one

extreme, where they thought that Russia -- this may have been done at the behest of Russia, and then there was the other extreme, where the President

is completely innocent, he said, and we discussed that, too.

So there was a range of things this could possibly be, he told members of Congress. We need to investigate because we don't know whether, you know,

the worst-case scenario is possibly true, or the President is totally innocent and we need to get things over with and so he can move forward

with his agenda. This all coming from James Baker.

And now, there was another interview before members of Congress. This came from Lisa Page. She was also a lawyer at the time, with the FBI. She has

come under scrutiny, certainly because of her texts with former FBI agent Peter Strzok who was eventually fired. And she told members of Congress

that the FBI considered investigating Trump for some time.

Quote, it's not that it could not have been done. The case had been a topic of discussion for some time. The "waiting on" was an indecision and

a cautiousness on the part of the bureau with respect to what to do and whether there was sufficient predication to open.

[10:20:00] So this is conversations that certainly were ongoing at the FBI for quite some time about what to do with this investigation. And then

finally, given the events, certainly after the firing of the former FBI director, senior level officials at the FBI decided to open the counter-

intelligence investigation. All of that important to note is still ongoing. It all lives with Robert Mueller. And obviously, that

investigation is still very much ongoing.

ANDERSON: Yes, and we are completely clueless, as everybody else is, because he's keeping that completely under wraps as to what he has found

out in this investigation. Very briefly, you have a bombshell from the "Washington Post" over the weekend. It reports that Trump has gone to

extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his meetings with Vladimir Putin. Shimon, is it clear whether, or how much these two latest

bombshells, as it were, have rattled the U.S. President, if any more than usual?

PROKUPECZ: No, I don't think there is any indication that it's riled him any more than usual. You know, you heard his comments today. He called a

lot of the investigation a hoax. The fact that anyone would even ask if he worked for Russia, you know, he felt was just wrong and unnecessary. He

did final lip come out and say, you know, as we are reporting, that I never worked for Russia.

What I think has me concerned for national security folks, is that the length in which the President has gone to hide, to not disclose, whatever

it may be, his conversations, with Vladimir Putin. It's certainly very concerning. Because it appears that at least with other leaders, he has

shared his conversations. He has briefed his folks, he's briefed folks on the outside, about those conversations. But for whatever reason, it seems

that when it comes to Russia, and when it comes to Vladimir Putin, he takes a different position.

Of course, the "Washington Post" reporting that the notes from the translator were taken away. Very weird and odd behavior. There's a big

call here by certain members of Congress to bring these translators in before Congress. We'll see if that happens. But it is, it's just peculiar

behavior. That people who have been doing this for a living on the national security side, for many, many years, have never seen before, and

that's perhaps why it's raising so many questions.

ANDERSON: Sure. Well, nobody said he was normal, I say not normal, nobody said he would be a classic President, doing sort of normal things. Shimon,

thank you for that.


ANDERSON: The perspective in Washington for you folks, still to come, will the U.S. leaving Syria, and the Kurds are terrified they will be attacked

by Turkey. CNN is in northern Syria, we'll have the story after this.


ANDERSON: You're watching CNN. This is CONNECT THE WORLD, with me, Becky Anderson. Welcome back.

While Europe is consumed with Brexit, and the U.S. focused on Donald Trump's connections to Russia, here in the Middle East, there may be no

bigger story than the fate of Syria. As the U.S. begins pulling troops and equipment out of the country, Mr. Trump is sternly warning Turkey not to

attack Kurdish forces who have long been U.S. allies. Now he tweeted that the U.S. would devastate Turkey economically, if the Kurds are attacked.

But despite those words of support, the Kurds still feel like the U.S. has abandoned them. CNN's Clarissa Ward has more from northern Syria for you.


CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Kobani, the graves of Kurdish fighters are still fresh. 27-year-old

Mahmoud Rasool was killed less than two weeks ago in an ISIS ambush near the town of Deir Ezzor.

Get up, get up, my son, I beg you, his mother, Miasma weeps. These are the people left behind to mourn. Now, they are bracing for the moment they

will be left behind again, as the U.S. begins to withdraw its forces from Syria.

NAJIMA RASOOL, MOTHER OF DECEASED KURDISH FIGHTER (through translator): They got what they wanted. They used the Kurds to get rid of ISIS and now

they're leaving us, Najima, says. America was supposed to have our back.

WARD (on camera): Almost every family in this town has lost someone in this war. And the very real fear here now is that when the Americans

leave, there will be war here once again.

(voice-over): Just across the border is Turkey. Which views the Syrian Kurds as terrorists. To the west, he's the brutal regime of Bashar al-

Assad, and its Russian and Iranian backers.

Kurdish military commander, Sharfan Darwish, tells us the Americans provided the Kurds with a buffer. In return, the Kurds took the fight to


SHARFAN DARWISH, KURDISH MILITARY COMMANDER (through translator): After all those years that we fought terrorism together, he says, it's their

minimum duty to help guarantee our security.

WARD: He takes us to the town of Arimah, where the intricate patchwork of different powers can be seen close-up.

WARD (on camera): So the regime and the Russians are just over there. And the Turks are over there. And the Americans.

(voice-over): We drive closer to the joint Russian regime base. It's too dangerous to stop. Less than five minutes away, the Americans are still

flying their flag. But it won't be there for long. U.S. military hardware is already beginning to move out. No one knows what comes next for the

Kurds. On the road back to Kobani, we happened upon a funeral. Two Kurdish security officers killed by a road side bomb. A reminder of the

daily dangers faced here. After an exhausting battle against ISIS, the Kurds may now have to defend themselves against more powerful enemies


Clarissa Ward, CNN, northern Syria.


ANDERSON: Well, the U.S. Secretary of State is in the Middle East right now. Mike Pompeo met with the King of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince

Mohammed bin Salman on Monday. That was in Riyadh. Pompeo told them that everyone involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi must be held

responsible. Well U.S. intelligence says the Saudi Crown Prince actually ordered Khashoggi's murder. But Pompeo did not say if he brought that up

in his conversations. How does the Khashoggi case impact U.S./Saudi relations to date? That is what CNN's emerging markets editor, John

Defterios, asked the Saudi energy minister just a short time ago. Have a listen.


JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNNMONEY EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR: What do you do with the lingering doubts that the Crown Prince ultimately was involved in this, so

even for the brand of Saudi Arabia, and his reputation going forward?

[10:30:02] KHALID AL-FALIH, SAUDI ENERGY MINISTER: The Crown Prince is a global leader, on a global stage, we've seen that in the G-20. So his

brand, his name, his leadership, his boldness, his ability to lead the kingdom is unshaken and will never be shaken in my opinion. Most

importantly, John, the people of Saudi Arabia are solidly behind King Salman, his majesty, and the Crown Prince. And they're behind the



ANDERSON: The Saudi energy minister speaking to John.

Well as ever, we are connecting your world, right here from Abu Dhabi, tonight. Up next, T.S. Elliot reckons that the world would end with a

bang, not a whimper, so --

Does democracy end with a bang of music and applause? My next guest reckons that might be so. The maverick genius A.C. Grayling with us here

on the show up next.


ANDERSON: If all the world's a stage, this be our cannon's mouth, as Brexit oozes into Shakespearean level torment, even the bard himself

couldn't think of something as bard as all of this.

[10:35:00] In just minutes a figure as besieged as Hamlet, Britain's Prime Minister, will take to this stage, the House of Commons, once again, to

fight, to salvage her own deal. So will actually, pulling off Brexit, remains a cataclysmic mass in and of itself, it is extraordinarily

meaningful in a far deeper way as a momentous paradigm shift in the fundamental political social and economic mechanics of order our world.

Put simply, people are fed up, with being fed up of the so-called establishment.

For example, you ask, well let's stick with Brexit and throw Mr. Donald Trump into the mix for good measure. Both winning in deeply divisive

votes. Then plunging their entire political systems into all-out political war on ideologically driven lines. And after like a tsunami injection at

the dentist, acting like grass roots rebellions from within their own systems, having a paralyzing effect on the way things are normally done.

And these are far from isolated silos of raw, from the demo, the French, the German, Austrians, Italians, all looking at the specter of their own

democracies in crisis as well.

So if small minds discuss people, average minds events and great minds ideas, then our next guest is brilliant enough to just decipher the clock

work of our political universe. We are extraordinarily fortunate to have with us arguably one of the greatest thinkers of our time, the philosopher

A.C. Grayling. So your new book argues that democracy right now made too fail, because so-called elites have gone unchecked, and people aren't

educated enough, alongside ideological distortions. Who has any right to say Brexit and Trump are inherently bad decisions, sir?

A.C. GRAYLING, PHILOSOPHER: I think they are decisions that reveal something about the way that our political orders are operating at the

moment. And you mentioned there earlier that there is a huge amount of dissatisfaction and discontent among people, and the people in question are

those who feel very marginalized and left behind by what's happened in our systems. And this is because inequality in our society has grown. And

it's a very, very toxic thing in any society, when resentment, and you know, the sense of being marginalized becomes so acute. And it has become

our that way because our democracies are not functioning properly. It's because the way Democrats are constituted, and the way the political

process works, it's insulated from what people really think and feel. Now, you get two very, very quick examples of why this is so --


GRAYLING: -- both in the United Kingdom and in the United States. It's because we don't have voting systems that really show what the spread of

opinion and preference is in the society. And also, because we don't have what is sometimes called the separation of powers. That is, the separation

between legislature and executive in the case of the U.K., and in the case of the U.S., between the political process and the very top end of the

judiciary, like the Brett Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court is highly political for example. And this shows you that people who do feel

on the outside think there's a stitch up going on and that our democracies are not sufficiently responsive to them.

ANDERSON: Your argument works, sir, if you would be in favor of remaining in the EU, and had applauded a Hillary Clinton win, at the U.S. election,

for example, back in 2016. The arguments, the education system, you know, the state of growth of these economies, all would have been exactly the

same. But if you had seen different results, both in June 2016, with this referendum, and in November 2016, would you be making the same arguments at

this point?

GRAYLING: Yes, very much so, actually, because these arguments about our constitutional orders have been swelling. The noise for the debate really

has been swelling for a number of years now. And actually, the Trump and the Brexit votes have sort of precipitated or triggered a much faster

process here. But this has been, I mean look the at the U.K. in 2011, there was a referendum on the question of the voting system, very badly

run, and very badly argued. But it showed that it was on the radar. Now, I think this has speed things up.

ANDERSON: All right. The "Economist" intelligence unit, charting the world in democracy, finding that quite a few countries are slipping

backwards including America. But even as that happens and faith in democracy it seems drops off around the world, people are taking part.

[10:40:00] Voting and protesting more and more. And we are seeing that across just this weekend, with the yellow vest's protests, for example.

We've seen it across Europe, and around the world. How do you explain that paradox?

GRAYLING: Well, you see, I don't think it is a paradox. I think it's the case of people saying we don't really think that political establishments

are being responsive enough. We don't think that the system is really allowing our voices to be heard. That is what the protest is about,

really. It is about the fact that political establishments can hijack the process.

We look at what is happening in both the United States and in the United Kingdom today, it's a paradigm case of people who have their hands on the

leaders of power, pulling them in directions that suits them and them only. And which doesn't take into account the fact that there is a diversity of

opinion out there. There's a great deal of need and there is always, always a need to be sensitive to those people who have being really left at

the back end of the process of transition.

An important point here is this. Every economy, and every society, is always in transition. There are always people at the leading edge who are

benefitting from that. And there are always people at the back edge who are being left behind. No when you have a great deal of inequality of

wealth, for example, and if you have power in the hands of a relatively few people in the system, doesn't let other people have a fair share, then

those people at the back are going to get very, very upset and that's what we're seeing today.

ANDERSON: As one President looming large over these sort of discussions, I just want to roll some tape from him. Stand by.


VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I want to see how the critics of this process assess the situation, when and if this spin on

Brexit, and we will keep having these referendums until the results are satisfactory for someone. Why to have these referendums at all in this



ANDERSON: Accused of helping get the British to vote for Brexit, to weaken Europe, even being the puppet master of Mr. Trump, many say that the June

2016 Brexit referendum was a petri dish for the November 2016 Trump win in the U.S. election. So the Russian President, phantom menace or Kremlin

overlord, sir?

GRAYLING: Well, I'm personally allergic to conspiracy theories. But I have to say in this case, fingers do point somewhat in that direction, for

the following reason. It's tremendously in the interests of President Putin that the EU should be destabilized. It's very much in his interest

that the United States of America should be plunged into a period of looking inward and retrenchment and having unstable government.

And therefore, you have to ask yourself the question, all those bits of evidence, which suggests that there is some interference from outside in

both the referendum process and the Trump election process, you have to ask yourself, isn't there something to that? We've learned something very

important, which is that social media and the internet, the platforms that it provides for propaganda and for influence, even manipulation, is

something that we have to look at very carefully now because if it is true as it may well be that the Russians had something to do with both those

processes, we have to guard against it.

ANDERSON: A.C., we're talking about democracy, and philosophy here, both spring can out of ancient Greece of course. And let's bring that all

together in Aristotle, dismissing where the poor rule, that is a democracy, so in dismissing the vote, in your letter to Parliament, are you not just

outright dismissing the will of the people? And isn't that just a bit prehistoric?

GRAYLING: No, on the contrary. If you dig into the referendum vote carefully, you will notice two very important things. Firstly, that the

electorate that was enfranchised for the vote was restricted. And quite deliberately so. There was a debate about it before the referendum bill

was passed. And certain groups of people who had a very material interest in the outcome of the referendum were omitted.

Secondly, the proportion of the electorate that was enfranchised, that did vote for the leave option was a mere 37 percent. 37 percent of the total

electorate. And by any standards, major constitutional change, with huge consequences for the country, simply cannot be justified on that proportion

of the electorate. And indeed, many of the people who have supported the Brexit process themselves argued in exactly these terms, in earlier

referendums, if they didn't happen to like the outcome. And it's an important point or principle.

[10:45:00] I mean, we know referendums in any case should not be happening in representative democracies. Because it represents a hiving off of

responsibility by government and Parliament or Congress, to the people, because Congress or Parliament doesn't itself feel competent to deal with

the issues. But if you're going to do it, you have to be pretty sure that you get a really substantial majority of people wanting a change, and in

the case of the referendum, there was emphatically not such a majority.

ANDERSON: A binary decision yes or, no and a complete dearth of information about why somebody should actually vote either yes or no. No

white paper, no nothing.

GRAYLING: Exactly. There was no plan.

ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. A pleasure and a joy --

GRAYLING: Thank you so much.

ANDERSON: Yes, I'm going to have to leave it there. Thank you. Please come again. You're a joy to have on the show a political visionary for

you, folks, connecting our world, through his eyes, please, do come back soon.

Still to come, on what is CONNECT THE WORLD. Polish mayor murdered after a shocking attack on a charity event. The latest from Gdansk after this.


ANDERSON: The mayor of Polish -- major Polish city has died after a shocking public attack. We want to warn you that the video we're about to

show may be disturbing to you. Pawel Adamowicz was stabbed on a stage on Sunday night during a fundraiser in Gdansk. Just in the last couple of

hours, he has passed away. Officials say the suspect, a 27-year-old man is now under arrest. Atika Shubert is joining us now from Berlin -- Atika.

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is very disturbing video. You can see there, Pawel Adamowicz was actually --

excuse the phone there -- was actually on stage, at a charity concert, it was the finale of the concert. When all of a sudden, you see the attacker

rush in from the side of the stage, stabbed him in the heart and the stomach, and then incredibly, took the microphone, and addressed the crowd.

Explaining that the reason that he had attacked the mayor was because he blamed him for his time in prison.

Now, he was wrestled to the ground by security, and he is now in police custody. It looks like, according to police, that he had an extensive

criminal record, and spent more than five years in prison for a series of armed robberies. We don't know anything more about the suspect. Police

won't give us his name. But this is clearly a shocking and very disturbing attack. And what we're already seeing across social media in Poland is

that crowds are gathering, in remembrance of the mayor. He was a fixture in the Polish political landscape, mayor for more than 20 years.

[10:50:00] And somebody who was respected as a liberal progressive. Somebody who, you know, defended the rights of minorities. So this is a

very sad day for Poland and we will be seeing the memorials tonight -- Becky.

ANDERSON: Atika Shubert on the story from Berlin for you.

More to come on CONNECT THE WORLD, stay with us.


ANDERSON: All of this hour, we've been bringing you the twists and turns of the battle for Brexit. It has often played out like a Shakespearean

play with twists and turn, tragedy and triumph. So it seems only logical that someone in England would decide to turn it all into a theatrical

production. Have a look at this.


NICK GLASS, CNN JOURNALIST (voice-over): The weekend off for the politicians in Westminster, while at least a brief pause in the Brexit

debate, but elsewhere, no rest for the wicked. 100 miles to the northeast, the eyeliner was being lathered on. In the great cathedral city of

Norwich, it was most definitely show time.

UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: Jonny Woo, slow start. This is how you read.

GLASS: Jonny Woo, London drag queen, and indubitable, superstar -- well, he says he is -- has been devising the song for months. It started out as

just a song or two, now a full-length Brexit cabaret.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, NORWICH PLAYHOUSE: For some it's means to all. For others it's a mess. For me, it is a reason to wear this EU dress.

JONNY WOO, ACTOR: We're trying to tell the story, it's a shared story, this is something we share, regardless of the conflict, we all are part of


GLASS: The composer Richard Thomas, best known for Jerry Springer: The Opera, wrote the music.

RICHARD THOMAS, COMPOSER: Well, I think it is, for me, it's a musical celebration of a terrible mistake.

UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: It's all right, it's OK. Take it is the key to this day.

GLASS: At this time, perhaps more than ever, politicians seem fair game for lampooning.

UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: You just want the single market. Tis a canny thing you aim to be.

GLASS: Richard Thomas has been absolutely gripped by the Westminster drama.

THOMAS: I used to speak Bercow and I speak Bercow, order, order, all those points of order and just take it on the chin, boom, boom, boom.

GLASS: The predictable show stopper on the night was an impersonation of the Prime Minister.

[10:55:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SINGER: Now my name's Theresa May. There's one thing I want to say. Where oh, where will this end? Will somebody

read my prayers?

GLASS (on camera): How would you like the reality to end?

THOMAS: That we went back in time and it never happened. But that's not going to happen.

GLASS: What will you be doing on Tuesday?

THOMAS: Oh, I'm going to be absolutely gripped to the TV. I want to see it all live. I mean it's going to be incredible. So miscible, especially

on term.

UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: How does it end? You decide.

GLASS (voice-over): Until then, we will have to make do with this witty distraction from dramas ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: This is more than Brexit.

GLASS: Nick Glass, CNN, the Norwich Playhouse.


ANDERSON: I'm Becky Anderson. That was CONNECT THE WORLD for you folks. Thank you for watching. CNN continues after this short break. So please

don't go away.