Return to Transcripts main page
NEWS STREAM
WikiLeaks founder Arrested in London; Sudan's President Forced Out Of Office; The E.U. Has Granted And Extension For Brexit. Aired: 8-9a ET
Aired April 11, 2019 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, NEWS STREAM: I'm Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong. Breaking news this hour. A standoff that has lasted
for years between British authorities and the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange has ended with the U.K. carrying out an extradition request on
behalf of the United States. Incredibly, London's Metropolitan Police say the Ecuadorian Embassy invited them inside to make the arrest after
revoking his asylum. Assange had been holed up there since 2012, initially to avoid facing sexual assault allegations in Sweden. That case has now
been dropped.
CNN's Isa Soares is the source is outside the Magistrate's Court where Assange is expected to appear soon and Isa, we are expecting to see the
WikiLeaks founder there behind you in the hours ahead so immediately his legal fate. What is next for Julian Assange?
ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. I've gone into the House - the Magistrates Court just behind me, Court 1 in fact to get a sense of what we
can expect in the hours ahead. We are being told that anytime from two o'clock so roughly in about an hour or so, any time from one -- from in
about an hour or so, we should be able to hear more.
What we are expecting is Julian Assange to walk in perhaps from the back entrance to the Magistrates Court and there what we've been told is that he
will most likely be asked for his name, for his full name, for all these personal details before then he is told what his charges are and what
charges he faces.
That could be anything from actually skipping bail, which is from -- skipping bail which is what we heard from last year, 2012, in fact. Or
which is a lower offense, of course and he could get a fine, Kristie, or in fact, it can be a shortened sentence -- prison sentence, or he could
potentially hear about the extradition request. That could come as early as that which is in fact what we know from Met Police that he has been
arrested for the extradition. We don't know, of course, if it's that quick of a process.
This is a political as much as a legal process. I was speaking to a lawyer who specializes in extradition cases between the U.S. and U.K. and he says
it takes time. It can take anything up to 28 days. It depends really on the urgency and what we then expect to happen is the court to consider the
key documents against Julian Assange and relates to the extradition process and they basically rate to and I'm just going to talk you through them.
The risk of death penalty -- if he is extradited, is there a risk that he could face the death penalty? Is political act? This is something, of
course, the laws will be looking at and is there a reasonable grounds of guilt?
The court will have their hands in a lot of the material and they will reach that decision. There could be then a process of appeal that could go
back and forth. But the ultimate decision will be from Sajid Javid from the Home Office and from the U.K. Government.
Now, interesting point here. His health could play a part. He could argue that he is in no condition to actually be extradited, and that could be a
decision that they take not to extradite him. In terms of is there a case that we can compare it to you? Well, just think of the Pinochet case going
back that Spain wanted Pinochet to be extradited to Spain and that was then decided, the court he had decided yes, he could, but then the Home Office
under in fact that then Jack Straw, who was in charge of the Home Office decided he couldn't be extradited because of health reasons.
So a political as well as the legal process that will take time, but of course, all eyes today on this court behind me to see Julian Assange and
see what state he is in really and what condition he is in, but also what exactly he has been charged with.
LU STOUT: Got it. A number of legal questions, political questions as well as additional factors like his health and condition will determine the
fate of Julian Assange. Isa Soares reporting live for us. Thanks to you.
Now, let's go straight to our senior international correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh who is standing by. He joins us from our London Bureau and
Nick, the world saw the footage of the bearded Julian Assange being apparently dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy after so many years. Tell
us more about the manner of this arrest and why British police arrested him today.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And when you see those pictures, you can't help but think possibly Julian Assange knew this
arrest was coming. Certainly Ecuadorian authorities early hours of today withdrew the asylum status that enabled him to seek diplomatic immunity to
some degree with inside that that embassy building and then it was under the permission of the Ecuadorian diplomats there that the Scotland Yard
Metropolitan Police entered in.
[08:15:12] PATON WALSH: And clearly if you look at those pictures, forcibly removed him. Now, just bearing in mind his physical condition
there, a long beard, hair slicked back, looking somewhat pale in the images you see. This is a man who in public appearances just kept himself frankly
in quite good condition over the past years, so you have to wonder whether or not he knew potentially this moment was nearing.
And also to this, may explain motivation behind his colleagues last week unleashing an extraordinary barrage of allegations against the Ecuadorian
diplomats who thus far have kicked him out of the hands of U.K. police suggesting that they had mounted an extraordinary surveillance campaign
against him inside that embassy building with video and audio recordings. WikiLeaks when they made that announcement said that this information had
comes to light, a massive Trove, they said because of separate judicial proceedings going on inside of Spain that even suggested extortion against
Mr. Assange.
So clearly at that point, there was an obvious fissure in his relationship with the Ecuadorian authorities who had been complaining about his personal
conduct inside that building, how he cleaned up after himself, the communal spaces he shared with Ecuadorian diplomats, even how we looked after his
cat. It kind of got beyond the absurd, frankly, his sort of holed up status of hiding inside the building.
And now he's been taken away into a completely new and different chapter. One in which Isa was touching upon there that really deals with the nature
of extradition treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Now there's a lot, which is the discretion of the courts. There is something which the Home Secretary can possibly have influence over. We
are due to hear from him possibly the next hour in 10 minutes or so addressing the U.K. Parliament about this issue. A remarkable move,
frankly, and shows that obviously the high stakes here and the role of U.K. government has had to take in weighing up the Ecuadorian position and the
U.S. position and deciding to take him from one building and most likely push him in the direction of an extradition towards the U.S.
What could get in the way? The judge could view this potentially as being overly political, possibly, and that may damage the U.S. cause here and of
course, most importantly, really, as well are, what are the charges? Suggestions potentially, from what one of the lawyers involved in this on
the defense side that this may be linked to the case of conspiracy against Chelsea Manning that was initially submitted back in 2010. The beginning
really, of WikiLeaks's role in all of this.
We simply don't know if there's something completely different, if it has to do possibly with outcome of the Mueller report, no idea about that
either. Remember, WikiLeaks was central to leaks of information during the 2016 election campaign and in fact, even indictments against Russian
intelligence officials suggest some of them had in fact been in contact with WikiLeaks. Did Julian Assange hole up in the Ecuadorian Embassy know
anything about that at all? We don't know as well.
These charges will have to be open to some part and they'll begin the lengthy legal and public discussion as to exactly where Julian Assange's
future potentially lies, and really, it comes down to British courts, which initially wants to see him brought up in front of them because of his
evasion of bail back in 2012. They will begin to weigh up this U.S. request.
I've got to tell you, you know, U.S.-U.K. expedition proceedings, often subject to controversy here about whether or not the United States has a
lesser burden of proof and the U.K. to extradite somebody from one country to the other. Deeply complicated, and we'll see, I think those elements
unpicked, as well as the exact nature of the charges in the hours ahead -- Kristie.
LU STOUT: Yes, still so much unknown at this point, the nature of the charges that he is facing in the United States. What exactly did Robert
Mueller write about WikiLeaks in his report get to be fully released to the public? And the big question, the legal fate of Julian Assange. Will he
be extradited? Nick Paton Walsh reporting live for us. Thank you.
Now, we also have got our senior international correspondent, Atika Shubert standing by. She interviewed Julian Assange several years ago. In fact,
several times. She joins us now live from Berlin and Atika, you've interviewed the founder of WikiLeaks, I believe at least twice. One time,
there was a walkout -- he even walked out on you. You know his character. You have followed his story closely. What are your thoughts on his arrest
this day?
ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, my first thought when I saw the video was I was pretty shocked. You know, he looked
desperate. He seemed cornered and it wasn't at all the man that I had interviewed about seven years ago, when he first entered the embassy.
Back then, he seemed pretty very confident and optimistic that he would be able to run WikiLeaks even if it meant that he was in the embassy. I don't
think at that time he had any idea how long he was going to be there, and the kind of physical and possibly mental toll that it had on his health.
I mean, keep in mind he was living in what he described to me as a spaceship. It was basically a windowless room. He had no view to the
outside world. Anybody who wanted to see him had to come through security.
[08:10:10] SHUBERT: He could have guests. But you know, he didn't even have a shower at the beginning. He didn't even have his own private
bathroom. So all of this had to be built over time by the Ecuadorian Embassy.
In in addition to the stress of having, for example, round the clock police surveillance outside, I mean, it's sort of unimaginable the kind of
conditions that he really brought upon himself by walking into the embassy to, you know, evade extradition to Sweden.
At the time, and I think this is really important, at the time, he insisted to me, and he told many people this that it was not that he didn't want to
face the allegations in Sweden, but that he believed that it was a ploy to get him extradited to the United States. And it now appears with this
arrest today that those suspicions have been confirmed that the U.S. has put in an extradition request and arrest warrant, even though we do not
know what those charges are. They have not been made public.
So, you know, it was shocking to see him pulled out like this. On the other hand, maybe we'll finally get to know what the U.S. government is
actually charging him with, and will be how some of that mystery will be revealed.
LU STOUT: You know, all along and the reason why he was holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy, there inside for so long, is because of the fear -- the
fear of getting into the hands of U.S. officials, the fear of being charged in the United States. In any of the interviews that you had with him, to
Julian Assange lay out precisely why he was so afraid? What could be in store for him?
SHUBERT: He was very concerned that he would be charged on the Espionage Act. And this is of course, something that in the United States could
possibly even in most extreme cases, carry the death penalty. And it was his defense, and I think he maintains this today that if he is charged on
the Espionage Act, then every journalist around the world could also potentially face something similar that because you receive leaked
information, and then publish it that somehow you are going to be held accountable to the Espionage Act.
So there have been numerous legal arguments about this. A lot of discussion, but the fact is, we do not yet know what those charges are.
The U.S. government has not revealed them. The only reason why we know that these charges have been filed is because of a slip up in a completely
separate court case that revealed there was a secret grand jury that had at least considered charges against Julian Assange.
So what he feared was that he would be put into prison in the United States based on these very severe charges in the U.S., but at this point, we
cannot confirm what those charges may be. It does seem however, that his fears have been realized.
LU STOUT: And Julian Assange, he faces multiple charges in multiple places. You know, even though the -- even in Sweden that case against him
there could be reopened. What do you think immediately is going to be next for him? Is he going to have to face the music first in the U.K. where he
is facing charges of skipping bail, and then perhaps go to the United States?
SHUBERT: It's probably likely that the U.K. charges will take precedence first. So he will have to deal with the fact that he did skip out on bail.
But then it's up to the Swedish prosecutors to see if they will reopen his case. I think that's still under discussion. And then what's interesting
to note here is what exactly the U.S. wants him arrested for.
His lawyer has put out a statement on Twitter saying that this is related not to the democratic e-mail leaks, but in fact, to the 2010 leaks from
Chelsea Manning, the National Security leaks. Now if that's the case, then that case, it could take precedent. We don't know when that arrest warrant
was filed, but it is a completely tangled legal knot. So trying to unpick that is going to take a lot of time.
LU STOUT: Atika Shubert, we thank you for your reporting. We thank you for joining us. Now, I want to bring in human rights campaigner, Peter
Tatchell. He has been a supporter of Julian Assange and is strongly criticizing Ecuador for allowing this arrest to happen. Peter thank you
for joining us. Your reaction to not just the arrest, but also the footage of the arrest, the manner in which Julian Assange was, at least, it
appeared to be dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police?
PETER TATCHELL, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER (via Skype): Yes, I mean, it really begs the question, where is the public interest for Julian Assange
to be handled in this way, and for him to be evicted from that embassy? Quite clearly, as an Ecuadorian citizen, and someone who was granted legal
asylum, he has certain inalienable rights under the Ecuadorian Constitution. And I think that the way in which the Ecuadorian authorities
have proceeded effectively to hand him over to the British authorities is a dereliction of its own duty towards one of its own citizens.
[08:15:10] TATCHELL: In terms of where we go from here, again, I don't see where the British public interest is in further pursuing Julian Assange.
Yes, he did skip bail and he has a price to pay for that. But I can't see why there was any great need for the British government to deal with him
other than some sort of preemptory sort of small, appropriate fine or maybe even a short-term imprisonment.
But the big thing we have to ask British government is, why won't it give assurances that Julian Assange will not be extradited to America? Right
now, the fact the British government has declined to give such assurances would indicate that it is cooperating with the United States. And I would
fear that Julian Assange is likely to face extradition to face the charges that have been drawn up by this secret grand jury.
We don't know what those charges are. Even Julian Assange doesn't know what those charges are. The secrecy of the grand jury process is not
really compatible with democracy and human rights, you know, judiciary and legal process should be open and transparent.
The big fear, of course, is also that he is being singled out. Julian Assange did not leak anything. He merely published the leaks of others;
notably, the leaks of Chelsea Manning, in the same way that "The Guardian" newspaper and the "New York Times" newspaper, also published those leaks.
So why aren't "The Guardian" and "New York Times" in court? Why is it only Julian Assange? He is a publisher, not a leaker.
LU STOUT: And that's the thing. Today's arrest and the questions about extradition and what's going to happen next to Julian Assange have reopened
this long running debate over WikiLeaks and the value of WikiLeaks.
You and other supporters of Julian Assange believe that he is doing a public service. Playing devil's advocate, critics of Julian Assange, there
are many critics out there say that he has exposed classified information, sensitive intelligence that has caused real world political damage and
security damage, damage to intelligence agencies around the world. Why should Julian Assange be protected?
TATCHELL: Well, the claim is that what Julian Assange published has caused damage, but I've never yet seen any example or evidence of that damage
actually being caused. It's a claim, but it's not backed up by evidence. What is certain is that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange helped expose U.S. war
crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a great public service.
In my view, he is not a criminal. He's a hero. And he heroes like him, people who expose malpractice and wrongdoing, they should not be hounded by
the state, they should be lauded by the state. What Julian Assange has done, however, has caused the U.S. government incredible embarrassment.
So this is all about the U.S. government seeking to protect its own image. It's about going after someone who has embarrassed them by exposing bad
things that the U.S. government and military have done.
LU STOUT: And if there is indeed damage caused in relation to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks and Russia, we don't know because
it's in the Mueller report, and it hasn't been publicly released just yet. Peter, we will have to leave it at that, but thank you for sharing your
thoughts with us this day.
Now to additional breaking news, this out of Sudan. After 30 years in power, President Omar Al-Bashir has been forced out of power by the
country's military. The Army has dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency. Military sources say it all started before dawn on
Thursday morning. Al-Bashir was told by security chiefs that there was no alternative but to step down and he went quietly.
A journalist in the capital, Khartoum captured this video reporting that thousands of people were marching toward the military headquarters
chanting, "He is a coward and he has fallen." Now, this all comes after months of deadly anti-government protests demanding an end to Al-Bashir's
long rule.
We're going to bring you more on this story later on this show. But CNN's Nima Elbagir, she is joining us now from New York and Nima, it's happened
after 30 years in power, Bashir has stepped down. Tell us more about what brought about his removal from power.
NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What is truly extraordinary is that the majority of Sudan's population is actually under
30. So this is his generation. This is the generation that grew up under Omar Al-Bashir's dictatorship that didn't actually know democracy or
freedom of expression or freedom of movement and yet, this is the generation that has bought about his downfall.
Most of the people at that demonstration, you can see the pictures there on the monitor. We are showing them to you, were very young. These are
university students.
[08:20:14] ELBAGIR: But they were also incredibly, incredibly committed. They stared down live ammunition. They stared down tear gas canisters. We
were able to get in a few weeks ago and show that they stared down an infrastructure of oppression and torture. The question is for them, what
now?
Well, the self-proclaimed military transition council has said that there's going to be a two-year transition and already many of those that we are
speaking to on the ground say, this is not what we processed it for. They want a civilian transition. They want civilian rule, Kristie, and the
Sudan Professionals Association, which was the association that organized and led many of these process is calling on many of those on the streets to
stay on the streets because they know that now is when they have the most leverage.
But what is so absolutely extraordinary is there is, as we understand it, it was among those closest to Omar AL-Bashir, his Defense Minister, his
Security Chief, the head of the Rapid Support Forces -- they were the ones who went and finally told him at around 3:30 this morning, Kristie, "It's
time, Mr. President, to step down."
LU STOUT: And Nima, tell us about the man who has fallen from power, you know, after decades of strongman rule of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir, he has
ruled for three decades. He is wanted our war crimes. Remind us why.
ELBAGIR: There is an incredible contradiction at the heart of this, which is that this is an indicted war criminal. This is a man who had indicted
war criminals in his Cabinet, the head of the ruling party is an indicted war criminal. The former Interior Minister is an indicted war criminal.
He is wanted on counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes and he is accused of using - of utilizing rape as a weapon of war in the Darfur
conflict. He is accused of sparking regional atrocities.
And yet, this is also the man that the European Union gave hundreds of millions of dollars to, to help stem the flow of illegal migration through
Sudan. This is also the man that in November, the FBI reached a counterterror cooperation agreement with. This is someone that the West
had actually found an accommodation with and had found to be very useful. He was very useful in combatting the presence of ISIS militants moving
through the Middle East into Africa.
He was very useful to an extent that it served him in rooting out some elements of Al Qaeda. So it's extraordinary that just as he was deemed to
be tolerable by many Western powers, in spite of being an indicted war criminal, that this is the point at which it finally tipped for his people.
LU STOUT: And this man has been ousted after 30 years in power. Nima Elbagir reporting live for us. Thank you. You're watching NEWS STREAM.
We will be back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:25:10] LU STOUT: All right, coming to you live from Hong Kong, welcome back. This is NEWS STREAM and in the ongoing saga that is Brexit, an
update for you.
The E.U. has granted and extension, but what does it mean for Theresa May? Let's go straight to Max Foster for more -- Max.
MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Kristie, the British Prime Minister Theresa May expected to make a statement here in Parliament this hour,
actually after agreeing a six-month delay to Brexit. The U.K. is now scheduled to leave the bloc on the 31st of October, despite having her deal
repeatedly voted down by Parliament, May remain positive about getting it through.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: They want us to leave the E.U. with an order -- with a deal, so it's an orderly exit as soon as possible. This
decision enables us to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker was also in good spirits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN COMMISSION: I like the decision we have taken tonight because the end date has been fixed on the 31 of
October. I have to leave my job on the first of November this year. So my guess would be that we will have another night session because if we had,
I'll have to leave the meeting at midnight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Let's get the latest there from Brussels with our Erin McLaughlin. It was a very, very late night, wasn't it? Hours and hours' worth of
meeting just discussing how long this a delay could be? So where was the disagreement?
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the disagreement was over the length of the extension. All sides wanted an extension of some sort, Max
and Donald Tusk, at the end of the Summit in that press conference with the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker had a very clear
message for the United Kingdom that being, "Do not waste this time."
And the fact of the matter is that many of the voices, many of the people there at last night's Summit were not convinced that this extra time will
help the situation and that perhaps was feeding into the night's divisions.
On the one hand, you had President Tusk, as well as the German Chancellor advocating for a longer extension. On the other hand, you had the French
President, Emmanuel Macron pushing for a shorter extension.
We heard from Macron at the end of the Summit, he called the results a compromise. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: I think we delivered the best possible compromise first because it was the one to preserve the unity of the 27.
Second, because we addressed the request from the U.K. to get more time to deliver a deal on the basis of the withdrawal agreement negotiated a few
months ago. And third because thanks to this agreement, we preserve the well-functioning of the European Union.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: I also heard from a diplomat that Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator for the E.U. was supporting President Macron's position,
but the vast majority of member states at last night's Summit wanted a longer extension of up to a year -- Max.
FOSTER: Okay, Erin, thank you. Let's get some reaction from John Rentoul, chief political commentator for "The Independent" newspaper. She's
obviously gotten rid of one immediate problem which is this sort of crashing out of the E.U. which would have happened tomorrow, but she has
now got another set of problems opening up, isn't she?
JOHN RENTOUL, CHIEF POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, THE INDEPENDENT: Well, I mean, her problems feel pretty terminal to me. I mean, she's not going to be
Prime Minister for much longer. It'll be quite a feat if she's still Prime Minister by October. I think her party have had enough of her and they
want to get rid of her.
But I'm not sure that a lot of our MPs wanted to be replaced by you know, someone who is even more Eurosceptic such as Boris Johnson.
FOSTER: This is the problem that they've had all along, isn't it? Whilst they're not happy with her as leader, they haven't got an alternative. So
how will that process progress?
RENTOUL: Well, messily, I think is --
FOSTER: Because the rules don't allow for another leader to be elected straight away.
RENTOUL: No, she's not supposed to. She's not allowed under the rules to be challenged again, within 12 months of the last challenge, which was in
December, but those rules are devised by the 1922 Committee, which represents conservative back benchers and if the Conservative back benchers
want to change the rules, they could do it.
FOSTER: Yes, they can.
RENTOUL: And they --
FOSTER: And are they looking at that as far as you know?
RENTOUL: As far as I know, that is probably what they're discussing behind us right now.
[08:30:03] FOSTER: But then we have six weeks of leadership election as I understand it. We've also got you know, holidays, the vacation time
effectively for Parliament. They've got the conference season as well coming up. So, again, it might sound like a long time -- six months -- but
it's not in terms of parliamentary time.
RENTOUL: Absolutely. No, and the thing about a leadership election, I mean, you know, it'll be interesting for us, journalists, to have a new
Prime Minister to write about, but it won't actually change the arithmetic in the House of Commons.
FOSTER: Yes.
RENTOUL: Well, right now, she changed the basic problem, which is that there isn't a majority in that place for any kind of deal. And I think
that's the problem. I think we're going to get to October without getting a deal through and then the question will be will be, will the E.U. allow
us another extension?
And I think the answer to that is probably, yes. Because -- and all the same arguments will apply. Emmanuel Macron may throw his weight around a
bit, but I suspect he will compromise and go along with the consensus.
FOSTER: One of the assumptions is that Macron for internal political reasons, which will go away after the European elections is objecting to a
long delay. So is that what you're intimating there, that he will adjust position if it comes to it in October?
RENTOUL: Yes, I mean, I think what we what we discovered last night is that the European Union leaders don't want to be blamed for forcing us out
without a deal because that would be -- the economic dislocation of that would hit Ireland in particular, very hard and all their rhetoric is about
solidarity with Ireland, with all member states. And also as the European Union, you know, they are committed to the European ideal and that means if
there's a chance that we, British may change our mind about leaving, they ought to give us the space and time to do that.
FOSTER: Okay. John Rentoul, thank you very much, indeed. Kristie, six more months.
LU STOUT: That's right. Extension granted, one crisis averted. The larger picture, the chaos grinds on. Good luck, my friend. Max Foster,
thank you. Now Ecuador said that British authorities had guaranteed that Julian Assange wouldn't be extradited to a country where you could face the
death penalty. But London Police said that they arrested him on behalf of the United States, what may be next for the WikiLeaks founder, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
LU STOUT: We are following breaking news from London where WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange has been arrested. The dramatic scene was captured
on video. And there you see London Police yanking Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy. You see him there, bearded looking bedraggled, and
this was done at the request of U.S. authorities.
Now, Assange had been living in that embassy under asylum for the past seven years. Ecuador revoked his asylum. Now, President Lenin Moreno said
Assange provoked the decision with his quote, "discourteous and aggressive behavior," and he literally broke international law.
CNN's Nina dos Santos is standing outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the arrest was made. She joins us now.
[08:35:10] LU STOUT: Nina, we have seen, we have been airing that footage of Assange being dragged out of the embassy by London Police, tell us more
about the manner of his arrest, where he is now and what could be next for Julian Assange?
NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, quite dramatic scenes here outside the Ecuadorian Embassy where he has been holed up for almost seven
years here, and that relationship with his host country had become more and more fraught as Ecuador had changed government.
You mentioned in your introduction there, the difficult relationship between the current President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno and Julian Assange.
In fact, just yesterday, Julian Assange's team accused the Ecuadorian government of having infringed his privacy and engaged upon a very
extensive spying operation against him. That may well have precipitated this decision by Ecuador to eventually cancel his asylum after all these
years and invite the British Police into this very small embassy where he had one room and was occupying a significant amount of the space there and
invite the British Police in to arrest him and take him away.
What we know is that there is the U.S. arrest warrant that has been issued here that was, according to his lawyers the reason why he was arrested.
And his lawyers also have said on Twitter that that U.S. arrest warrant was actually issued in 2017 in relation to his decision to leak specific
diplomatic cables of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
LU STOUT: Okay, Nina, I don't know if you heard me. Unfortunately, we need to cut you off. Theresa May is addressing British lawmakers. Let's
listen in.
MAY: This is now a legal matter before the courts. My right Honorable Friend, the Home Secretary will make a statement on this later. But I
would like to thank the Metropolitan Police for carrying out their duties with great professionalism and to welcome the cooperation of the Ecuadorian
government in bringing this matter to a resolution. Mr. Speaker, this goes to show that in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law.
Turning to the Council, my priority is to deliver Brexit and to do so in an orderly way that does not disrupt people's lives. So I continue to
believe, we need to leave the European Union with a deal as soon as possible. And of course, this House has voted repeatedly to avoid a no
deal. Yet despite the efforts of members on all sides, we have not so far being able to vote for a deal.
So ahead of the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to seek a short extension to the Article 50 period to the 30th of June. Critically, I also
requested that any extensions shall be terminable, so that whenever this House agrees a deal and ratifies the withdrawal agreement, we can get on
and leave.
And I did this not merely to avoid a further delay beyond ratification of the withdrawal agreement, but specifically to retain our ability to leave
the E.U. without having to hold European parliamentary elections on the 23rd of May.
Mr. Speaker, the discussions at the Council were difficult and surprisingly, many of our European partners share the deep frustration that
I noticed that many of us feel in this House over the current impasse.
There was a range of views about the length of an extension, with a large number of member states preferring the longer extension to the end of this
year or even into the next. In the end, what was agreed by the U.K. and the E.U. 27 was a compromise, an extension lasting until the end of
October. The Council also agreed that we would update on our progress at the next meeting in June.
Critically as I requested, the Council agreed that this extension can be terminated when the withdrawal agreement has been ratified. So for
example, if we were to pass a deal by the 22nd of May, we would not have to take part in European elections and when the E.U. has also ratified, we
will be able to leave at 11:00 p.m. on the 31st of May.
In short, the date of our departure from the E.U. and our participation in the European parliamentary elections remains a decision for this House.
As President Tusk said last night, during this time the course of action will be entirely in the U.K.'s hands. In agreeing this extension, there
was some discussion in the Council about whether stringent conditions shall be imposed on the U.K. for its E.U. membership during this period. But I
argued against this.
I put the case that there is only a single tier of E.U. membership, with no conditionality attached beyond existing treaty obligations. The Council
conclusions are clear that during the course of the extension, the U.K. will continue to hold full membership rights.
In turn, I assured my fellow leaders that the U.K. will continue to be bound by all our ongoing obligations as a member state, including the duty
of sincere cooperation. The United Kingdom plays a responsible and constructive role on the world stage and we always will. That is the kind
of country we are.
The choices we face -- the choices we face are stark and the timetable is clear. I believe we must now press on at pace with our efforts to reach a
consensus on a deal that is in the national interest.
[08:40:07] MAY: I welcome the discussions that have taken place with the Opposition in recent days and the further talks which are resuming today.
This is not the normal way of British politics and it is uncomfortable for many in both the Government and Opposition parties. Reaching an agreement
will not be easy, because to be successful, it will require both sides to make compromises. But however challenging it may be politically, I
profoundly believe that in this unique situation where the House is deadlocked, it is incumbent on both Front Benches to seek to work together
to deliver what the British people voted for, and I think that the British people expect their politicians to do just that when the national interest
demands it.
I hope that we can reach an agreement on a single unified approach that we can put to the House for approval, but if we cannot do so soon, then we
will seek to agree a small number of options for the future relationship that we will put to the House in a series of votes to determine which
course to pursue. As I have made clear before, the Government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House, but to make this process work, the
Opposition would need to agree to this, too.
With the House's consent, we could also bring forward the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is a necessary element of any deal, whichever course
we take. The Bill will take time to pass through both Houses, so if we want to get on with leaving, we need to start this process soon. It could
also provide a useful forum to resolve some of the outstanding issues in the future relationship.
Crucially, Mr. Speaker, any agreement on the future relationship may involve a number of additions and clarifications to the political
declaration. So I am pleased that at this Council, all 27 member states responded to my update on the ongoing cross-party talks by agreeing that
the European Council is prepared to reconsider the Political Declaration on the future relationship in accordance with the positions and principles
stated in its guidelines and statements. The Council also reiterated that the withdrawal agreement itself could not be reopened.
Mr. Speaker, I know the whole country is intensely frustrated that this process to leave the European Union has still not been completed. I never
wanted to seek this extension and I deeply regret that we have not yet been able to secure agreement in this House for a deal that would allow us to
leave in a smooth and orderly way.
I know, too, that this whole debate is putting Members on all sides of the House under immense pressure and causing uncertainty across the country,
and we need to resolve this, so let us use the opportunity of the recess to reflect on the decisions that will have to be made swiftly on our return
after Easter. And let us then resolve to find a way through this impasse so that we can leave the European Union with a deal as soon as possible, so
that we can avoid having to hold those European Parliamentary elections and, above all, so that we can fulfil the democratic decision of the
referendum, deliver Brexit and move our country forward. This is our national duty as elected Members of this House and nothing today is more
pressing or more vital, and I commend this statement to the House.
JOHN BERCOW, SPEAKER, BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS: Jeremy Corbyn.
JEREMY CORBYN, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, LABOUR PARTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her
statement. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, E.U. leaders agreed to grant the United Kingdom an Article 50 extension to the 31st of October. This means that
Britain will now have to start the process of holding European elections in the extraordinary situation of not knowing whether new MEPs will take their
seats, or for how long.
This has come just three weeks after the Prime Minister told the House that she was not prepared to delay Brexit any longer than 30th of June. This
second extension in the space of a fortnight represents not only a diplomatic failure, but is another milestone in the Government's
mishandling of the entire Brexit process.
A measure of this could be seen in this House on Monday when one-third of her party voted against her own policy to request a short delay and four of
her Cabinet members abstained. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the request by the Leader of the House on Tuesday for the E.U. to reopen the
withdrawal agreement has also been rebuffed? The Prime Minister stuck rigidly to a flawed plan and now the clock has run down, leaving Britain in
limbo and adding to the deep uncertainty for business, workers and people all across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome that the Prime Minister finally decided to reach out to the Opposition last week in open talks to try to find a breakthrough.
The fact that the invitation did not even come at the eleventh hour, but at five past midnight.
[08:45:58] CORBYN: Three days after the Prime Minister had missed her own Brexit deadline of the 29th of March, is a reflection of the Government's
fundamental error in not proceeding by consensus. However, Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that the talks now taking place between the
Opposition and the Government are serious, detailed and ongoing, and I welcome the constructive engagement that we have had.
Although this view may not be universally shared on the Conservative Benches, I also welcome the indications from the Government they may be
willing to move in the key areas that have prevented the Prime Minister's deal from being supported on this side of the House. If these talks are to
be a success, resulting in an agreement that can bring our country back together, the Government will have to compromise.
That is why it was with disappointment that I read the Secretary of State for International Trade's letter this week, in what seemed to be an attempt
to scupper meaningful talks by all but ruling out Labour's Customs Union proposal -- a proposal, I might add, which is supported by business and
industry bodies as well as by all leading trade unions in this country. It is a proposal that European Union leaders and the Irish Taoiseach just
yesterday have said is both credible and negotiable.
Labour will continue to engage constructively in talks, because we respect the result of the referendum and we are committed to defending jobs,
industry and living standards by delivering a close economic relationship with the European Union and securing frictionless trade with improved
rights and standards.
If that is not possible, we believe all options should remain on the table, including the option of a public vote. And Mr. Speaker, we see no
advantage -- no advantage in the proposals of the Secretary of State for International Trade to create distance and divergence in our trading
relationship with our largest trading partner.
This House must also bear in mind that after a deal has passed, the current Prime Minister has said she will step down. We have no idea who may
succeed her, so with that in mind, we have to entrench any agreement, because some of those already throwing their hats into the ring have said
that they would scrap the Human Rights Act, they would rip up burdensome regulation, or they would even prefer to leave without any deal at all.
Some on the Conservative Benches want nothing more than to use Brexit to create a race to the bottom, opening up our economy to U.S. big pharma
companies in our national health service, hormone-treated beef on our plates, slash workers' rights and consumer standards, and to have the U.K.
become a virtual tax haven on the shores of Europe.
Let me be clear to the Prime Minister and to the country: Labour will not support any deal that would leave us open to such a dystopian vision for
the future of this country. It is incumbent on all of us now to find a way forward. We must continue to talk to each other, and if the Government are
serious, the red lines must move and we must see a real compromise. I look forward to the discussions in the coming days and, even at this late stage,
to work to find a deal that can command the support not only of this House, but, perhaps more importantly, the support of the public across this
country, too.
BERCOW: Prime Minister.
MAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the talks between the Government and the Opposition have indeed been
serious. They are detailed and they are being taken forward in a constructive and positive fashion. We did, of course, offer talks at an
earlier stage than very recently, but I am pleased that we are now able to sit down in this way.
He raised the issue about the European parliamentary elections. Of course, had Members in this House voted with a majority to agree the withdrawal
agreement on the 29th of March, we would have guaranteed leaving on 22nd of May and not holding the European parliamentary elections. At the time,
obviously, the right Honorable Gentleman did not feel able to support a deal to enable us not to hold those European parliamentary elections. It
is still possible to do so, and we will continue to work on that.
He talked about the need for us to protect jobs, industry and living standards; and indeed, that is what we have been aiming to do with the deal
that we agreed with the European Union. But not just in relation to the deal with the European Union.
[08:50:05] MAY: Actually, it is this Government that has presided over record levels of people in employment. It is this Government who have --
who are helping people with their living standards, with tax cuts for 32 million people.
He talked about the future relationship and the need for us to -- the need to entrench aspects of the future relationship. Of course, the Government
did, on the 29th of March, say that we would accept the amendment that was put down on the Order Paper by the Honorable Member for Stoke-on-Trent
Central, which would require Parliament to have that role in looking at the future relationship and the negotiating objectives for the future. And
what clearly makes the case that any Government -- any Government -- as they are going through those negotiations, will have to ensure that they
are taking Parliament with them in agreeing that future relationship.
On the issue of coming together in an agreement, the point is very simple. I am not prepared just to accept Labour's policies; the Labour Party is not
prepared just to accept our policies. As the Honorable Gentleman, the Member for Holborn and St Pancras has said, this takes compromise on both
sides, and that is what we are doing: sitting down seriously to find a way that enables this House to ensure that there is a deal that commands a
majority, so that we can leave the European Union, fulfil the vote of the British people in 2016 in the referendum and do so in a way that does
indeed protect jobs and living standards and industry.
BERCOW: Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
KENNETH CLARKE, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, CONSERVATIVE PARTY: May I urge my right Honorable Friend, the Prime Minister to stick to her
commitment to lead the country through to the conclusion of the Brexit process, and to ignore some of the vicious attacks being made upon her by
our more extreme right-wing colleagues?
Can I also ask her, given that she rightly points out in the national interest that the next obvious step is to reach a settlement between the
Government and the principal Opposition party on the best way forward, can she indicate that it is clear that the minimum that that requires is some
sort of customs arrangement and sufficient regulatory alignment at least to keep our trade as open and free as it has been across the channel and in
the Republic of Ireland? And can she negotiate that so that it does actually bind any successor Government in future negotiations?
BERCOW: Prime Minister.
MAY: My right Honorable and learned Friend is right that, of course, as we look to that future relationship, we are looking at the customs arrangement
that would be in place in that future relationship. We have already indicated, as is reflected in fact in the political declaration that we
want to retain the benefits of a Customs Union of no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin checks, and that is provided for in the political
declaration as it currently stands.
Of course, we have not been able to enshrine that in legal text, because it is not possible for the European Union to negotiate that treaty with us
until we are a third country -- until we are out of the European Union -- so any commitments that are made here will be about the negotiating
objectives that we take through into that process, but there will still be negotiations to be had with the European Union.
But in terms of adding to and clarifying what is in that political declaration, and the position of the U.K. Government, obviously, as I have
indicated, the E.U. Council have said that they would be willing to look at additions and clarifications to that political declaration.
BERCOW: Ian Blackford.
IAN BLACKFORD, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, SCOTTISH NATIONALIST PARTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and can I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight
of her statement. Mr. Speaker, what a total fiasco the past few weeks, months and years have been under this shambolic Tory Government. The U.K.
did not leave the E.U. in March, and thankfully, given the efforts of SNP politicians and others in this place, and the goodwill of the European
Union, we will not crash out of the EU on Friday. What an irony that it is the European Union that has got the U.K. out of this mess. Let that be a
lesson for Members in this place: it is the E.U. that has put the interests of our citizens and the U.K. first -- our businesses, our farmers and our
fishermen. We should not be lambasting the E.U., we should be thanking them.
With the European Union agreeing to a further extension to Article 50, the Prime Minister must use this time to hold a second E.U. referendum, with
the option of remaining on the ballot paper. It is now a very real possibility that we can remain in the European Union. Mr. Speaker, there
were a total of 133 days between the 1997 general election and the devolution referendum in Scotland.
[08:55:10] BLACKFORD: As of today, there are 204 days until the new Brexit deadline on the 31st of October, so will the Prime Minister now remove the
ridiculous excuse that there is not enough time to hold a second referendum, with remain on the ballot paper? Scotland did not vote for
Brexit and should not be forced to accept any Brexit deal that will harm our interests. The only way forward is to put the decision back to the
people.
Scotland will not support a Brexit deal cooked up by the Brexit-supporting Labour and Tory parties, so, Mr. Speaker, let me ask this; the Prime
Minister yesterday, you ducked and dived my questioning, so a simple yes or no will suffice. Has your Government ...
LU STOUT: And you've been watching live from the House of Commons, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May has been addressing Parliament after
the European Union agreed to extend the Brexit delay to some six months, but as you've been seeing and hearing, the interparty discourse is still
strong.
Thank you for watching. I'm Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong. "First Move" with Julia Chatterley is indeed next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:00]
END
