Return to Transcripts main page
First Move with Julia Chatterley
The U.K. Prime Minister Reaching A New Brexit Agreement With Brussels; U.S. Delegation Meets Erdogan On Syria Incursion; U.S. Ambassador To The European Union, Gordon Sondland, Is On Capitol Hill. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired October 17, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:24]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Live from Brussels. I'm Richard Quest.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR, FIRST MOVE: And I'm Julia Chatterley in London. This is FIRST MOVE and here is your need to know.
Deal or No Deal. The U.K. Prime Minister reaching a new Brexit agreement with Brussels. Not so fast. It's a deal, but it's not yet a done deal.
Johnson still needs the U.K. Parliament of course to agree.
And quote, "Don't be a fool." President Trump's advice to President Erdogan made public ahead of ceasefire talks.
It's Thursday, Richard, let's make a move.
Welcome once again to FIRST MOVE and we are following breaking news from Brussels. Of course, the U.K. government has agreed, a brand new Brexit
deal with the E.U. Boris Johnson called it an excellent deal. The question is, is it? Richard Quest is in Brussels for us. Richard, I'll
hand over to you for all the details over the coming hours.
QUEST: Thank you, Julia. Yes, right now, E.U. leaders are gathered here for the Summit, where they are expected to sign off on the new Brexit deal.
The deal, difficult though it was to reach might prove to be the easy part because the battle will be back in London, where the Parliament has to
approve it. And already the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party is seen as key to pushing this through has firmly come out against it.
And the major opposition parties in the U.K. Parliament have also announced they will reject it, so it is difficult to see where the votes will be to
pass it.
Minutes ago, we had from the outgoing E.U. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The negotiations centered around what happens with Northern Ireland after Brexit and here's an outline of the new deal under the terms. So Northern
Ireland is to be remain aligned on a limited set of E.U. rules on goods. All checks will take place at the point of entry to Northern Ireland, and
not across the Ireland. The U.K. authorities will be in charge of applying E.U.'s Customs rules.
Meanwhile, Northern Ireland will remain in the U.K. customs territory as well and will be a point of entry for the E.U. single market. Complicated.
But after four years, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland will vote on whether or not to continue applying E.U. rules. Nic Robinson is
with me. Which means part of this is the troublesome part from the DUP's point of view.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: And we're learning that this morning, early hours this afternoon, because we haven't had the
detail before. So we only have their interpretation of it.
But what we've seen and I'll just say this before I get into that detail, what we've seen when the DUP speaks, those hard line Brexiteers in Boris
Johnson's party, listen to their arguments and say, oh, maybe there was something we hadn't seen.
So what is their argument here? With what we've heard today, is that the point of entry, any goods going to the Republic of Ireland through Northern
Ireland, there will be a tax on those. There will be no tax at the border. That's what everyone wants on the border of the Republic of Ireland,
Northern Ireland, but what the DUP is saying it is only the European Union, they'll have the sole veto on which goods are going to get taxed or not.
QUEST: And what about those goods that are going into Northern Ireland but staying there, because that's also very complicated.
ROBERTSON: It is complicated, and the point that they're making is that they don't have a say on which it is. They say that this will leave the
consumers with less choice, paying higher prices and over time, will lead to a divergence -- the word they don't like -- diverging from what the
mainland U.K. has.
QUEST: Nic Robertson, thank you -- Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Thanks very much, Richard. Major opposition parties have already rejected today's deal as has the Northern Irish DUP, the Democratic
Unionist Party. That means Boris Johnson faces a tough job getting it through the U.K. Parliament to say the least.
To get a majority in parliament, the Prime Minister needs all of his conservative MPs to back his deal, plus, the 21 lawmakers he expelled
previously and the support of all 10 MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party.
Let's cross to number 10 Downing Street, Anna Stewart is there and has been looking at some of these numbers or if he doesn't get that, Anna,
conditions will be applied by Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party perhaps to get their vote and that could mean a referendum on this deal, ultimately.
It's so complicated. What do the numbers look like here -- Anna?
[09:05:08]
ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: So there are a lot of moving parts and it's so important on a day like today when we've got this huge moment where the
E.U. has finally reached a deal with the government. We've been here before, but the last time, we felt the last hurdle we couldn't get this
deal through Parliament. And unfortunately, that could well be the case again.
You mentioned the parliamentary math. This government does not have a majority and needs the support of hardline Brexiteers. It could do it with
the support of the DUP. They don't support this deal.
You mentioned the Labour Party. They want an amendment to be made for a second referendum. They will try and attend that. It is unclear how
successful they will be. They will need the Speaker on side, John Bercow. Up to this point, he has been largely on side with the opposition parties.
Today, Michael Gove, Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister in charge of Brexit preparations was put this question, what would you do if the Labour Party
tried to have a second referendum on this deal? He said literally, quote, "Ain't going to happen." -- Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, I mean, it's a challenge, isn't it? Let's put the counter opinion here. What about for the Brexiteers and the arch
Brexiteers here? If they look at this situation, and we've asked this question all the way along, perhaps this is the strongest form of Brexit
that you get.
We've been there with Theresa May's deal. We've got a fresh deal here again, is there a logic here that suggests that perhaps you'll vote for
this deal because you risk if we go to a referendum, perhaps we don't see a vote for Brexit once again by the U.K. population, and then we go back to
where we were.
What about that option here and that logic for Brexiteers?
STEWART: And that is why the DUP may not be on board. But it doesn't necessarily mean that this time around hardline Brexiteers won't be because
they are so concerned about the risk of a second referendum or this deal being watered down. This does deliver Brexit by the end of October.
Let me just read you a couple of reactions we've had though from both sides of Brexit and it shows you sort of Goldilocks principle. We have Nigel
Farage, leader of the Brexit Party saying, "The commitment to regulatory alignment in this agreement means the 'new deal' is not Brexit, despite
improvements on the customs union." So, not Brexit enough for Nigel Farage.
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the main opposition party, the Labour Party says, "From what we know, Johnson has negotiated a worse deal than Theresa May.
It won't bring our country together and should be rejected."
No deal will satisfy both sides, but can he get the numbers on Saturday. We will see -- Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, the crucial question. Anna Stewart, thank you for that.
All right. Let's get more reaction here. I'm joined by a Brexit Party MEP, Richard Tice. Fantastic to have you with us, Richard. I guess, I can
guess what you think of this deal. But give me your thoughts anyway.
RICHARD TICE, BREXIT PARTY MEP: Yes, so look, as far as we're concerned with the Brexit Party, this is the second worst deal in history. Theresa
May's previous attempts being the worst in history. It is still a really bad deal.
We're paying 39 billion just for the right to have a chance. We would still suffer basically what they call regulatory alignment, which means we
wouldn't be able to get rid of all dafty E.U. regulations and just keep smart regulations and still talk about, you know, customs arrangement. We
would actually be outside the Customs Union. So that's not good.
But the real -- you know, the fishing industry is very likely to be sold down the river again by this government. And then the real anxieties, of
course, the proposed arrangements for Northern Ireland, where essentially it is completely annexed and cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom
and therefore, not surprisingly, the DUP are not on board with this deal and on the current basis, we do not see this passing the House of Commons
on Saturday.
CHATTERLEY: I mean, you've said a clean break all the way along.
TICE: We've always said a clean break, because that's what gives us maximum leverage, the maximum opportunity to take advantage of, you know,
the really good things from a clean break Brexit.
CHATTERLEY: But it's been ruled out. Unfortunately, U.K. Parliament has said we are not doing this. So there has to be a reality check at some
point and to the point that I was just making with Anna there, is there a situation here where you have to look at this and say, if we don't go for
this Brexit deal, you may not get Brexit at all.
TICE: Well, I think that this won't pass the House of Commons on Saturday. There's every possibility that the opposition, together with independents
and certain, you know, non-conforming conservative MPs, you've lost the whip. They are all going to conspire against it.
They may well tack on an amendment to this deal that says we've got to have a second referendum.
Let me tell you, we don't want a second referendum. It would be disastrous for trust in democracy in this country. It will be divisive, it would
increase the uncertainty, but we on the leave side, we would win and we would win really well. Because I think people will be so concerned about
this continuing unnecessary uncertainty.
You know, we've always said we should leave on a clean break. You know, but I don't think Boris has done enough.
CHATTERLEY: What's the path to even get to a referendum and it's the same questions we've been asking now for months. Would we go to a situation
where, it is, this is your Brexit deal? This is what Brexit looks like or we remain, and how do we get there? Do we have to see a general election
before we even get to the point where we see another referendum?
[09:10:06]
TICE: We believe that a second referendum would be disastrous. What there should be is a general election because this is a zombie Parliament that is
well past its sell by date. And so there should be a general election.
But these people, you know, the only thing they don't want to surrender, they have to surrender everything else, our sovereignty, and our
negotiating leverage. The one thing that they don't want to surrender is their seats on those configuring benches. There should be a general
election.
The way to a second referendum could be on Saturday when they pass this amendment, and they may well include the question, who knows. We'll have
to wait and see. We haven't got long.
CHATTERLEY: What's in the best interests of U.K. voters here? And we can talk about this summer political, a democratic standpoint, given that we've
already had one referendum, or we can take a look at it from an economic point of view and what will make --
TICE: In our view in the Brexit party, the two are completely aligned. From a democratic standpoint, you have to respect and implement the first
decision.
From an economic perspective, we believe that a clean break is by far and away the best economic solution for the U.K. Firstly, we don't waste 39
billion that we don't need to waste.
CHATTERLEY: But we are going around in circles, because that's been ruled out by U.K. Parliament.
TICE: Only this parliament, but if there's a general election, we get a huge leave alliance stumping majority of 60 to 100 seats that actually you
could have a simple free trade deal. We don't need all of this unnecessary stuff around it that actually holds us back and we can maximize the
opportunity.
CHATTERLEY: But Jeremy Corbyn and the opposition party have proved that they don't want a general election because they're worried about the risks
of that, too. So --
TICE: Because they're worried about losing their seats because they know actually the mood of the country.
CHATTERLEY: Well, if it came down to it, if you had to choose between this deal as your option for Brexit or remaining and what that represented, what
would you choose? Is this -- if it's the only option for Brexit, would you choose it?
TICE: Well --
CHATTERLEY: Decisions have to be made and we can't say no to everything.
TICE: It's not my choice because I'm just a Member of the European Parliament. I'm not a Member of Parliament. I think the House of Commons
will reject it for a variety of different reasons.
Yet, if you absolutely put your name on it and said it's this or, or remain, you know, we would probably on balance, you know with a heavy heart
--
CHATTERLEY: You'd go with it.
TICE: We might go with it. But let's remember we've only read, you know, we've only had about now to read all the details, we'll see. But I don't
think it passes on Saturday in this Commons.
CHATTERLEY: But your point is that if it came down to it and this was the Brexit option --
TICE: If it came to -- yes, I mean it's the second most -- second worst deal in history.
CHATTERLEY: Yes. Reality check though. Sir, thank you so much for joining us. Great to have you with us.
All right. Let me bring you up to speed now some of the other stories that are making headlines around the world.
Staying in London and this is the moment this morning when some commuters lost patience with climate change protesters taking the law into their own
hands. They dragged a demonstrator off the roof of a train. It's a London Underground Station in Canning Town.
Police have band Extinction Rebellion protests from the whole of London.
America's Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are in Ankara meeting with Turkey's President Erdogan on Northern Syria.
They're bringing the message that Turkey must stop its military operation against Syrian Kurds or else deal with, quote, "punishing sanctions."
Arwa Damon is on the Turkish-Syria border. Turkey of course threatened to respond to those sanctions with sanctions of their own. Arwa, this doesn't
look like a kind of ceasefire solution setup, at least as far as I'm concerned. What are your thoughts here?
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, realistically speaking, if anyone is going to negotiate a ceasefire between the various
warring factions, that has to be an entity that is actually talking to all of them, and that most certainly is not the United States, although America
does at this point, seem to be expecting that perhaps Turkey would agree to some sort of unilateral ceasefire at this stage, Julia.
I mean, it would be quite interesting to be a fly on the wall during the meetings because as is generally the trend, we will probably get a
sanitized version of them at the end of all of this. Not to mention, there's also that issue of the letter that President Trump wrote to Erdogan
earlier in the week that has really caused a lot of shock from a lot of people who saw it, reading it, for the first time barely able to believe
that that kind of language was what was being used by a President of the United States to another world leader.
But when we look at the situation as it is unfolding inside Syria, we're seeing dynamics on the ground continuing to change the direct result of the
U.S. troop withdrawal from Northern Syria with regime forces taking on more and more territory and it being the Russians that are actually holding
something of a line between the regime forces on the one hand of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and then on the other hand, Turkey, and the
Syrian rebel groups that have allied themselves with the Turkish forces.
And at this stage, anyone will tell you, Julia that if any country is going to be negotiating a ceasefire in Syria at this stage, that's going to be
Russia, not the United States.
So it's going to be quite interesting to see exactly how the U.S. delegation handles these meetings with Turkey and what we're able to find
out if anything about what their true content was.
[09:15:26]
CHATTERLEY: Arwa, I'm glad you brought up, in particular the letter that President Trump sent to President Erdogan of Turkey, because to your point,
there was general astonishment I think, and a lot of people asking whether it was fake, rather than a real one.
And of course, the White House confirmed that that letter was real. What does that tell us about the relationship between the two Presidents here
and the change that we've seen over the past few days since Turkey's incursion into Northern Syria, the threat of sanctions from Turkey's side
and the fact that the Turkish President is saying, look, we're not going to -- we're never going to have a ceasefire here. Where does that leave all
of these players?
DAMON: Well, the dynamic in Syria is left as such. The Russians have clearly come out on top of this having accomplished their aim of the
Americans ultimately leaving the country. The regime is now able to gain back territory it has not had full control over for years now, from the
Syrian Kurdish forces, and the Turks, the rhetoric is quite interesting, Julia, because if you see now the rhetoric that we're hearing is that yes,
Turkey will continue until its goals are achieved.
But right now the goal is for the Syrian Kurdish fighters to be pushed back 30 to 35 kilometers and one gets the impression that there's a bit of
wiggle room in the sense that it's not necessarily Turkey or Turkish forces that then need to control that territory, but that perhaps Turkey would
find it acceptable, albeit a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but still acceptable if the border or parts of it at least do end up controlled by
Damascus.
In terms of the relationship between Trump and Erdogan, for years, this has been something of quite a source of fascination. There are certain
similarities between the two leaders given that they both tend to have bullying tactics. They both really play on nationalism, patriotism, the
sort of it's us versus them mentality.
And the relationship between the two of them is fascinating as well, because on the one hand, they seem like they are enemies, but on the other
hand, there seems to be all sorts of ha pasha mos (ph) that are taking place. So it's one that's quite interesting to try to dissect.
CHATTERLEY: Absolutely. Great job trying, Arwa. It's going to be incredible to watch I think. Fascinating to watch. Arwa Damon there.
All right. Up next, as Boris Johnson strikes a divorce deal with Brussels, we ask if it's better than the one brought home by Theresa May. All the
details, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:21:10]
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to FIRST MOVE. Earlier this morning, news of the divorce deal between the U.K. and the E.U. gave the pound, the U.K.
Sterling a lift versus the U.S. dollar. Sterling, as you can see though, gave up that ground and we are now slightly lower.
That came when the DUP's Arlene Foster - that's the Democratic Unionist Party denied that they were on board with this deal and as a result, some
of the optimism that we were seeing taking us away from that no deal exit leaking away from what we're seeing in the currency.
The question is, reaching a deal with the E.U. is one thing, asking whether this deal is a good one for the U.K. economy is entirely another. Perhaps
it's even too late to ask.
My next guest says this deal could be worse for the country than Theresa May's. Jonathan Portes, Senior Fellow of U.K. In A Changing Europe and
Professor at King's College joins us now. Fantastic to have you with us. You say it's a worst deal. Explain why because this is very close. Your
analysis is very close to what we're looking at here in terms of the deal that was agreed.
JONATHAN PORTES, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, KING'S COLLEGE: That's right. Well, the key differences from Theresa May's deal are first of all that
under Theresa May's deal, the U.K. would have stayed in practice in a Customs Union, a customs relationship with the E.U.
CHATTERLEY: A very close arrangement with the E.U.
PORTES: A very close arrangement. That was in the deal, and moreover, there was also a commitment on both sides that there would be a long-term
relationship which builds on that customs arrangement and hence an ambitious free trade deal.
And Boris Johnson has really flipped that on the head. The U.K. as a whole will be out of the E.U. Customs Union, the Northern Ireland, of course,
will be a special case. It'll be somewhere in between, but Northern Ireland is only two percent of the U.K. economy.
So the vast majority of the U.K. will be outside the E.U. Customs Union, and moreover, the commitments to a future free trade deal between the U.K.
and the E.U. are quite a lot vaguer, less binding and make -- and given what Boris Johnson and some of his colleagues have said about the
durability of expansive trade deals with the U.S., with their desire to deregulate, and to move away from European standards or regulation, it's
going to be much harder to do that free trade deal.
So it all adds up to much greater trade barriers between the U.K. and the E.U. under Johnson's deal than May's deal.
CHATTERLEY: Why? Because all of the Brexiteers have argued that actually having a less close relationship with the E.U. is what we want. We want
the ability to set our own path going forward and negotiate new trade deals. What is it about this deal, then that perhaps restricts that and
creates more barriers rather than less?
PORTES: Well, I mean, that's quite right. Some of the Brexiteers do want us to have flexibility. But flexibility comes at a cost.
The cost there is that we're not you know -- so for example, if we want to do a trade deal on goods with the U.S. and China, then we have to be out of
the European Union Customs Union, but the fact is that economically, there's no doubt that the gains from being in the E.U. Customs Union
outweigh any potential gains from a free trade deal with other countries, even if that were to happen and that's a long way off.
CHATTERLEY: You have more of the actual economic impact in terms of the impact on income per capita in the U.K. over the coming years. Can you
just give us a sense of those numbers comparing Boris Johnson's deal with Theresa May's deal with a clean exit, a no deal exit would be in there of
we are going back to World Trade Organization terms.
PORTES: Yes. So we've said that -- and you have to remember of course, this is economic modeling and you know it is not --
CHATTERLEY: Yes, lots of assumptions.
PORTES: There's lots of assumptions. It's not gospel. I wouldn't want to ever say this, but we are suggesting that May's deal would reduce the
income of the average Britain, all 65 million of us on average by about 2,000 pounds per head over the next 10 years to compare it to what would
happen if we stayed in the European Union.
And that's significantly worse than Theresa May's deal, which would be more like 1500 pounds a head, but rather better than a clean break or a W.T.O.
Brexit, which will be significantly larger.
[09:25:08]
CHATTERLEY: Which is what you can see there on your screen. You also look at the numbers for productivity. Right now, you're now looking at the
productivity impact i.e. what happens as far as innovation is concerned, if things like this is suppressed, competition affects. We can't boost our
own competitiveness, and it has an even more detrimental effect.
PORTES: That's right, yes.
CHATTERLEY: Talk me through those numbers.
PORTES: Those are the numbers I was giving, in fact, I feel.
CHATTERLEY: OK, now, we've got them.
PORTES: Now, we've got them. Sorry, I jumped straight ahead. And this essentially comes because we look at Europe. There is a pretty well
established relationship that being more open to trade increases competition, puts more pressure on firms to raise productivity. And we've
seen that in the U.K. as part of its E.U. membership.
So assuming that that effect also holds the other way that we have lower productivity as a result of reducing our trade, then you see the numbers
that you had on the screen just now that I was talking about.
It's also -- and that we also look at the impact of changes to immigration policy. And it's worth noting here. In here, Mr. Johnson, may -- we don't
know yet -- because it depends on what happens, Mr. Johnson may take a more liberal approach than Theresa May, and that actually could be a good things
for the U.K. economy.
CHATTERLEY: Okay. And that is an important point to make here as well. And you've also looked at that in your report as well. Is it too late to
be asking these questions because I remember when Theresa May's deal came out, there were pages and pages and pages of economic analysis.
And on this deal, we have nothing. In fact, we do, we have your reports, and you have three analysts and --
PORTES: That's right. We did this with three people over a week. And of course, we think it is great, but the idea that Parliament should be asked
to vote on Saturday on this deal on the basis of essentially no economic impact assessment except what's produced by independent groups like ours
with none as you say, of the detailed impact assessment which the government have previously prepared for May's deal.
I think -- I actually think that regardless of your position on Brexit, and regardless of whether you think in principle, this is a good deal or not,
it would be a travesty.
This is about our economic future for the next 5, 10, 20 years, it's a really serious matter. The idea that we should decide it without having
any serious analysis by the government, what it would mean for the U.K. economy seems to me absurd.
CHATTERLEY: So we have to separate democracy and fulfilling the vote of the people with the question once again of whether or not this is a good
thing. And to your point, there is a lot of unknowns here.
But I do think this is a very important question to be asking, even at this moment, and that's the key. Fantastic to have you on. The question is do
people actually read the report and do politicians get time to understand what they are all voting on, on Saturday. Maybe it's a moot point anyway.
All right. Let me give you a quick look at what we're seeing now for Sterling. The headline news is that the U.K. has agreed a deal with the
E.U. to see the U.K. leave the E.U. The question is, will that be agreed on Saturday in U.K. Parliament. Do they get time to even understand the
terms of this deal? That's what we're trying to understand on the show here.
Right now, we are 1.2821 U.K. pound versus the dollar.
plenty more to come. You're watching CNN. We'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:31:34]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Happening right now, the U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, is on Capitol Hill.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: He is set to testify today in front of three House committees that are leading the Impeachment Inquiry underway. This
as they investigate President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
Let's speak to CNN's Manu Raju. He is on Capitol Hill with breaking news.
We're getting a first look now, Manu, at Ambassador Sondland's opening statements here. Tell us -- well, you can tell us, because it appears that
he is defending the President's view of events here.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is very significant news. We have obtained the opening statement that Gordon
Sondland is delivering to this committee. And it is quite revealing.
In this statement, what he is testifying before these committees, determining whether to impeach the President of the United States, is that
the President of the United States put on hold an effort to strengthen relations with the Ukrainian government until they were in contact, these
U.S. officials were in contact with Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal attorney, who, at the time, was pursuing investigations into the Biden's
and the 2016 campaign.
Now, let's get into some of the particulars of this rather detailed opening statement.
He said that in May 2019, after President Zelensky of Ukraine had been inaugurated and they went to his inauguration, Sondland and other U.S.
officials went to brief President Trump about exactly how to strengthen relations with the country.
Now, he said that the President essentially said, talk to Rudy Giuliani, according to his testimony, it says, President Trump was skeptical that
Ukraine was serious about reforms and anti-corruption and he directed those of us present at the meeting to talk to Rudy Giuliani about his concerns.
He says it was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President's mind was -- was talk -- was Mr. Giuliani. Then he said, after
that, Rick Perry, the Energy Secretary and then the Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, were in contact, were reaching out to Rudy Giuliani.
He said that they were disappointed, Volker and him, that the President said that. And he said that there should be, quote, "no preconditions" for
having such a meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine.
And then he said. He said, "Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for
President Zelensky, which we all believe was crucial to strengthening U.S.- Ukrainian ties, and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region, or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani
to address the President's concerns."
He said they were left with a choice, and they ultimately chose to listen to the President and reach out to Rudy Giuliani.
Now, he said that he wasn't aware until, quote, "much later" that Rudy Giuliani's agenda might include an effort to, quote, "prompt the Ukrainians
to investigate Biden and his son or to involve Ukrainians directly or indirectly in the president's 2020 election campaign." This is according
to Gordon Sondland's opening statement, a Trump appointee.
Now, he said -- he said that he spoke to Rudy Giuliani afterwards in August only a handful of times. He said that he -- that when he spoke to Rudy
Giuliani about the public meeting, Rudy Giuliani asked for a public statement from Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, committing that Ukraine
would look into corruption issues.
And, according to Gordon Sondland, Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 elections, including the D.N.C. server and Burisma as two anti-
corruption investigatory topics of importance to the President.
[09:35:12]
RAJU: Now, according to Sondland, he did not -- Giuliani did not explicitly say the Biden's, but he came to learn later that Hunter Biden
was on the Board of this company and that's what -- apparently that Rudy Giuliani was talking about.
And there were also these questions about quid pro quo and those texts that have emerged from this -- the top diplomat from -- currently in Ukraine,
Bill Taylor, who raised concerns about a potential quid pro quo.
He had exchanged texts with Gordon Sondland. Sondland went to President Trump and talked to him about this and he said that he had a brief phone
call with President Trump and that the President, according to Sondland, was in a, quote, "bad mood."
And when he called the President to -- in September to ask him, what do you want from Ukraine, the President said, nothing. He repeated multiple
times, no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo.
But significant here, the President's top E.U. Ambassador, his Ambassador to the European Union, is testifying that the President directed him to
deal with this personal attorney in order to further the personal attorney's agenda, Rudy Giuliani, which was to investigate the Biden's and
the 2016 election.
SCIUTTO: So help us out here, Manu, because it's a lot, I think, for people at home to digest. So he says he went to the President and the
President told him there was no quid pro quo.
But you're saying he is also testifying here that he realized that this relationship with Ukraine was being put on hold by the President until they
routed things through his personal lawyer and then he later found out that involved in that was investigating Joe Biden. Is that a correct reading
there?
RAJU: Yes, I mean, that's exactly right because what Sondland testifies to is that it was very important for the Ukrainian government to have a
meeting with the President to talk about how they can bolster this key strategic alliance.
But the President was just not interested in that because he had directed the U.S. officials, government officials, to talk to his personal attorney
first. Deal with Rudy Giuliani first.
And that's a significant statement here. I mean it's saying that Rudy Giuliani was interested in potentially helping the President's 2020
election. That's what he learned, Gordon Sondland learned, later, that that could be what Rudy Giuliani's agenda was about.
Stunning here because what Sondland is essentially saying here, this was the President's direction, directing him to do something, and Giuliani was
up to something else, completely separate from U.S. official policy that was being carried out by the State Department.
SCIUTTO: That is remarkable testimony.
HARLOW: And -- it is. Manu, stay there. We're going to bring in Josh Dawsey as well, White House reporter for "The Washington Post," who has
done extensive reporting, especially this week on Sondland.
As we get some more information on what just crossed, which is a letter from Sondland's lawyers explaining why he is not turning over some of those
key documents. We'll get to Manu on that in a moment.
But, Josh, I mean, your in-depth reporting this week paints the picture of Sondland, a true Trump ally, someone who was, as you put it, collector of
relationships who wanted the power associated with an ambassadorship and would do a lot to get that power from President Trump.
JOSH DAWSEY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Sondland was a big R.N.C. donor and a Jeb Bush donor, and once the President came into office, he had to
work to show that he was loyal to the President.
He worked with Steve Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, others. He'd eventually get that ambassadorship. And once he received that
ambassadorship, Sondland was willing to be very loyal to the President.
He somehow managed to take over the Ukraine portfolio. He was working outside the National Security Council. He was going straight through Mick
Mulvaney and the President repeatedly to handle Ukrainian issues.
And Gordon Sondland became a key player in this role through initially giving lots of money to the Republican Party. Then after he made some
anti-Trump comments during the campaign, repeatedly ingratiating himself with top advisers to convince them to give him a post in the administration
and now playing the key role in all of this.
SCIUTTO: Yes, listen, we are -- and folks at home, we just have a copy now of his testimony that Manu was referencing here.
And I do want to read a section again here because this is a remarkable break between the E.U. Ambassador, Sondland, a presidential -- a Trump
appointee and a Trump loyalist since he joined the government, although, as Josh Dawsey notes in his column, during the election, he did not support
President Trump, but did.
Listen to this quote. "It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President's mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani." Before that he
said, "Trump was skeptical the Ukraine was serious about reforms and anti- corruption and directed those of us present at the meeting to talk to Mr. Giuliani, his personal attorney about his concerns."
Manu, I mean, you've got to some of this before. I think it just bears repeating for folks at home because, again, it's hard to digest all this.
But where he is differing with the President here, or what he is at least corroborating here, is what was an essential thrust of the whistleblower's
complaint, right, was that Ukraine policy, a key strategic partnership, was being hijacked by the President's personal, political interest there, as
led by his lawyer.
[09:40:09]
HARLOW: And predicated on investigations, right? That's what he seems to be saying here.
SCIUTTO: Of Biden. Oh, we --
HARLOW: We can't hear him -- there we go.
SCIUTTO: His mic is back up.
RAJU: ...this energy company --
SCIUTTO: Start from the top just because we lost your mic at the beginning -- Manu.
RAJU: Oh, sure. Yes, just two key aspects of the investigation that Giuliani was pursuing. Both Burisma, this energy company, which Hunter
Biden was on the Board of, and also what was happening in the 2016 elections.
There had been an effort by Giuliani and others to undercut the U.S. Intelligence Committee's findings that Russia interfered in the U.S.
elections in an attempt to help President Trump.
Those were the two key things that he was trying to do, that Giuliani was trying to pursue. And Sondland makes very clear in this testimony that he
is, quote, "disappointed" by the President's direction for him to talk to Rudy Giuliani because of that, because they believe they can help with this
key alliance, this key deterrent to Russia, Ukraine and they could work with President Zelensky.
But the president of the United States just was not interested in that until Rudy Giuliani was talked to. And, yes, you mentioned it, this is
what the whistleblower complaint, the thrust of the whistleblower complaint. Here's the President's top appointee essentially confirming key
elements of that.
HARLOW: Yes, here's another part that strikes us on Page 8 of what he will say in his opening remarks today. Quote, "We were also disappointed by the
President's direction that we involve Mr. Giuliani. Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the President's personal lawyer,
should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine."
Okay, Josh, he is going to say that, or may be saying that right now behind closed doors, but he -- the way he acted was to still call the President in
that five-hour break to figure out how the President wanted him to answer ...
SCIUTTO: That's a good point --
HARLOW: ... Diplomat Bill Taylor's key question of, are we holding up aid because you want this, you know, political agenda carried out. He may say
he believed this, but critical is how he acted as well.
DAWSEY: Right, but you saw last night when Rick Perry did this remarkable interview with "The Journal" where he said also, we were told to route
everything through Rudy Giuliani.
What was happening here, from a macro sense, is that different people in the administration who were in charge of this policy were continuingly
being told they had to deal with Rudy Giuliani. John Bolton, Fiona Hill, John Bolton, Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker, a number of folks in the
administration. Everything was going through Rudy Giuliani to some degree.
And what folks were trying to figure out is what conversations was the President separately having with Rudy Giuliani? What was happen with the
military aid behind the scenes? What were parts of the channels that they could not see because there was one official foreign policy being run here,
according to testimony in our reporting, and then there was a shadow policy also being run and different people inside the government were told you
have to go through Giuliani.
HARLOW: Right.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and just to -- it continues down here, something you reference, Josh, that he says, I did not understand until much later that
Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve
Ukrainians directly or indirectly in the President's 2020 re-election campaign.
Again, that's a Trump appointee in his testimony. I'm not saying these lines could nearly be lifted from the whistleblower's complaint, but
substantively they capture what was the thrust of that complaint. It's remarkable testimony.
HARLOW: Yes, that's true.
SCIUTTO: Manu, I know you're going to be watching this closely on the Hill. Josh Dawsey, you've been covering this story from the beginning.
Great to have you on.
For all of you at home, and our international viewers as well, we're going to stay with the breaking news and be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to FIRST MOVE, where we're following breaking news from Brussels. The U.K. government has agreed a brand new Brexit deal
with the E.U.
Richard Quest has been there for all the action, full credit, I think to Boris Johnson, Richard here. He made the negotiation with the E.U. They
said that they wouldn't renegotiate this withdrawal agreement, and they have.
But I can't help but feel that this is the high point for him and all the challenges now follow.
QUEST: Oh, I think you're right. I think he can do a victory lap that he did get rid of the backstop, exactly as he said he was going to, and he did
put together a new sort of withdrawal agreement and political declaration, which of course the E.U. always said they wouldn't.
But earlier we had from the outgoing E.U. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and from Boris Johnson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, E.U. COMMISSION PRESIDENT: We have a deal. And this deal means that there was no need for any kind of prolongation. This is a
fair and balanced agreement. It is testament to our commitment to finding solutions. It provides certainty where Brexit creates uncertainty.
It protects the rights of our citizens and it protects peace and stability on the Island of Ireland.
BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I do think that this deal represents a very good deal both for the E.U. and for the U.K. and it's a
reasonable fair outcome and reflects the large amount of work that's being undertaken by both sides --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: As Boris Johnson meets with his European counterparts tonight, we're getting more details about what is new on this Brexit deal.
Let's remember, Theresa May's withdrawal agreement was rejected three times, and many blamed the Irish backstop, the arrangement that would have
bound Britain to some E.U. rules if there was no difference, and this is the key difference between Theresa May and the Johnson deal.
The backstop is scrapped under the new plan. However, E.U. regulations will apply to all goods in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland will
remain in the U.K.'s customs territory. The E.U. still has the right to apply tariffs on Northern Ireland goods if they think they could enter the
E.U. And the plan maintains the integrity of the single market.
Nic Robertson, if I am exporting toilet rolls as to use your example from earlier --
ROBERTSON: That every household uses north and south of the border, London, Dublin, Belfast.
QUEST: So if it looks like it's going south of the border, then they have to use the E.U. Well, I don't really understand.
[09:50:05]
ROBERTSON: If you're exporting toilet rolls from London to Belfast, you're in the same customs territory. Wonderful. No charges to be paid.
However, there's an open border.
If you're a family in Dublin, you can drive up to Belfast where these toilet rolls may be cheaper and take them back to Dublin. And this is the
conundrum that the E.U. has wanted to solve by taxing some -- by having all products coming in subject to the possibility of checks coming into
Northern Ireland over the Irish Sea, and only applying tariffs on some of them.
And of course, their big fear is that this family in Ireland thinks they're onto a winner for them. So they'll go and buy in bulk in Belfast at a
cheaper rate and send to their friends in France and that is -- that erodes the single market of the European Union which we're hearing so much praise
from Angela Merkel and Macron coming in and talking about, we've managed to protect the single market, but have they done it again at the expense of
Boris Johnson getting a deal. And that's what the DUP is saying.
QUEST: Once again, I can't help feeling that this was all eminently predictable and was always going to be unsolvable.
ROBERTSON: It always felt that if you could -- or it appeared from Boris Johnson's position, if you could salami slice down the problem, if you
could be in the U.K.'s customs territory, that you would somehow have some things that were in that single market regulatory alignment with the
European Union that you could break it down into small enough pieces that it would be digestible.
But in Northern Ireland, it's very simple. Anything that makes you different from U.K. -- problem.
QUEST: Nic, thank you. Julia, there you are. I mean, you know, despite the large grand visions of markets in Europe and single markets, it really
does come down to toilet rolls and goods crossing the Irish Sea and what tariff you pay on them in one place or another.
CHATTERLEY: I couldn't agree more and if in doubt, E.U. tariff supply and that's what's got the Brexiteers upset once again. Richard, great job.
Thank you for that.
You're watching FIRST MOVE, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:54:23]
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to FIRST MOVE. Let's take a break from Brexit because Netflix shares are sharply higher in early trading after the
streaming giant posted stronger than expected to Q3 earnings results, though overall mixed.
The company failed to meet U.S. growth targets ahead of a critical time for media giants. Clare Sebastian is on the story. Streaming wars, Netflix
don't seem fazed. Talk us through it, Clare.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Julia, they didn't seem fazed but they are acknowledging it really for the first time and that's
because the streaming wars are really heating up.
We've got Apple Plus and Disney Plus launching in November next year. We've got HBO Max owned by CNN's parent company, Warner Media and Peacock
from NBC Universal. So the streaming was are really heating up.
Netflix though, relative to expectations, this was pretty good. They had a lot to prove. You see how the stock price fell in July, after the previous
quarter when they actually lost subscribers in the U.S.
[09:55:13]
SEBASTIAN: This quarter they added in the U.S. less than expected, but still about half a million and they added more than expected overseas, so
that's revived some of the positivity around this stock.
But still some concern going forward around that competition. They now expect to add less overall paid members this year than they did last year.
And there's still, Julia, of course spending heavily on that content to stay ahead of the competition.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, big spenders as far as fresh content is concerned. And of course others have got big libraries. Look at Disney. Clare Sebastian,
thank you so much for that update there.
All right, we're going to be continuing to track the big breaking news story of course, which is the U.K.-E.U. deal on a Brexit exit for the U.K.
from the E.U.
Of course the big question is ultimately will that pass in Parliament? We will continue to follow this story. Richard is back in the next hour live
from Brussels with the latest from the E.U. Summit, but for now you've been watching FIRST MOVE. Time go to make yours. We'll see you tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:00]
END
