Return to Transcripts main page
Hala Gorani Tonight
British Prime Minister Works To Spur On Brexit Talks With Speech; May: Maintain U.K. And E.U. Market Access During Transition; May Promises Legal Protection For E.U. Nationals; Theresa May Calls For Two Years Transition; Trump, Kim Escalate War Of Words; North Korea Threatens Hydrogen Bomb Test In Pacific; Storm Leaves Trail Of Destruction In Caribbean; Administration Official: Current Travel Ban To Be Replaced; British PM Calls For Two-Year Transition; Europe Divided Over How To Handle Migrant Crisis; London Says It Won't Review Uber's License; Aid Groups Urge Action On Syrian Refugee Crisis; Cartoonist Captures Merkel's Political Career. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired September 22, 2017 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:15
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Now Britain's prime minister made a very big important speech in Florence today.
She put an offer on the table. It wasn't as precise as some people might have wanted, but negotiators obviously are working to settle the terms of
the U.K.'s divorce from the E.U. and can do everything all at once.
Theresa May did say Britain will continue to honor its financial commitments to E.U. even after a split and she says she expects that
transition to last about two years. She says the transition could help soothe fears over a hard and fast Brexit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Clearly, people, businesses, and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the
relationship between the U.K. and the E.U. So, during implantation period, access to one another's markets should continue on current terms and
Britain should also continue to take part in existing security measures, and I know businesses in particular would welcome certainty this would
provide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Theresa May. Essentially, the headline is look for two more years past 2019, there will be an implementation where more or less the status
quo is prolonged. Is this kicking the can down the road? What have we've learned today?
Vernon Bogdanor joins me now. He is a research professor at the Institute for Contemporary British History at Kings College London. Thanks for being
with us. So, has Theresa May kick the can down the road?
VERNON BOGDANOR, RESEARCH PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY BRITISH HISTORY, KINGS COLLEGE LONDON: The transitional period is absolutely
essential because it is very unlikely you will get a free trade agreement by the time that we leave the European Union in March 2019.
The European Union is known for many things, but speedy negotiation is perhaps one of them. Now it's very important that business has a stable
sense of what the future is going to be.
GORANI: Well, it just prolongs the uncertainty, doesn't it?
BOGDANOR: Well, there will be no change for the two years, as you say, and then the hope is that the free trade agreement or at least the outlines in
agreement can be reached by them, which will give the business community most sessions even they have now. That's the only way to proceed.
GORANI: But that is the very optimistic sort of best case scenario because the worst-case scenario could be another two years and another two years,
right?
BOGDANOR: What Theresa May reiterated today what she said earlier that people didn't believe that no deal is better than the bad deal. So, she'll
try very hard to get a good deal. She hopes there will be goodwill on both sides and perhaps most important part of the speech is not the specific
proposal, but the tone of it.
Someone said she would love bombing the E.U. She spoke very warmly of it. She said she hopes it succeeds. That Britain will do her best to make it
succeed from the outside. We do want a warm and continuing relationship with the EU.
GORANI: She spoke so warmly of it that it sounded sometimes like she just wanted to stay in it.
BOGDANOR: Well, she was it's fair to say --
GORANI: And remain --
BOGDANOR: She was a remainer. She has inherited a crisis which is not of her making. She's got to lead a deeply divided cabinet that means going
forward, inch by inch with formulas of all can agree upon. It is not an easy task and sometimes I think people underestimate the difficulties of
the task that she is involved in.
GORANI: The E.U.'s trade deal with Canada took seven years to hammer out. How could this extremely complicated divorce, a country extricating itself
for the first time in history from an organization like the E.U. take only four?
BOGDANOR: You used the word divorce, it's not like that because our regulations are absolutely similar at the moment because we are in the E.U.
Canada was moving from a very divergent position to a convergent position.
We are moving from convergence to a very slight amount of divergence so it might be much easier if we retain certain a number of the regulation, not
all of them, but some of the regulation we've already got with the European Union.
GORANI: One of the big issues is what happens to European citizens who are living here in the U.K. and what happens to British citizens living in the
E.U. But again, this is one of most important things.
BOGDANOR: There is no real problem with European Union citizens living in Britain. They will be protected as Theresa May said by our courts. The
problems that remain relate to family rights and I think that can be resolved.
And the request by the European Union that the European Court of Justice should still retain jurisdiction over E.U. citizens in Britain after we've
left the E.U. That I think is frankly unacceptable.
You cannot have people with two sets of rights. Once we've left the European Union, you cannot have a foreign court then telling British
citizens and E.U. citizens what their rights are. So that is not on I think, but otherwise, haven't got a problem can be resolved --
GORANI: You're very optimistic. We'll continue to follow this, of course, incrementally as these negotiations continue. Vernon Bogdanor, always a
pleasure, thanks very much.
The British prime minister, Theresa May, gave that speech from Florence, Italy and as we have been discussing with Vernon, she pledged to protect
the rights of more than half a million Italians now living in the U.K., among other nationalities from the E.U.
[15:05:04] Our international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, joins us from Florence. What's the reaction from other E.U. leaders then to this
speech? Are they on board with the prime minister's proposal?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator, is to do the heavy lifting to move this forward, has
said that it is an indication that Britain does want to move forward.
You know, it's been reasonably positive so far. The Irish prime minister, the Irish foreign minister, who obviously have a very thorny issue of their
economy being hurt potentially seriously by Brexit because of their border with Northern Ireland and that's become a special case in these
negotiations have been sort of open to it.
I think there is a general openness. I mean, look, what British officials are being criticized for, the negotiators are being criticize for recently
by E.U. officials, by E.U. negotiators, was that they didn't think Britain was acting seriously.
There was a sense that Britain really did not know where it was going on this and let us not forget the three key issues that the E.U. wants to see
some Britain answer clearly before they get on to was so important for Britain, the future trade negotiations, and what's been causing a log jam
is the question over how you handle Northern Ireland and not to affect the peace process there.
The rights as we've talked about of E.U. citizens and of course, the Italians living in the U.K. and paying the Brexit bill. So, she did go
some way to answer some of those, but Michel Barnier said, look, on the Northern Ireland issue not so much of a full answer, really nothing new
there.
On the rights of E.U. citizens, that is a good start. On paying the bill, well, let's see where we get to, what the concrete implications of what you
are saying. So, she's sort of broken the log jam a bit to get the talks back on track and they've been slipping.
The analogy I've been using, you know, the talks has sort of -- it is a golf analogy -- the talks were in a phase that ball was stuck in the
bunker, in the sand trap, and she's managed to sort of chip it back onto the fairway.
You know, the main -- the main course, but she is going to get a long way onto the green and sink it in the hole. So, I think she has achieved part
of what she's set out to do. But it has not really kicked all boxes fully and strongly for the E.U. and that is what the rest of the negotiations are
going to be about.
GORANI: Right. Thank you very much, Nic Robertson in Florence. Theresa May made one thing very clear in her speech, the road to Brexit is not
going to be longer than we first expected although then she talked about that implementation period. So really, are we adding two years to the
whole thing?
Let's get some analysis from my two guests, Ruth Lea, an economic adviser at Arbuthnot Banking, and Quentin is an associate fellow at Chatham House.
Thanks to both of you.
Now, Ruth Lea, you are -- you always thought Brexit was a good idea, right?
RUTH LEA, ECONOMIC ADVISER, ARBUTHNOT BANKING: I do --
GORANI: Do you still think that?
LEA: I still do. No remorse. No remorse for me.
GORANI: What did you make of the speech?
LEA: Well, I think it was a pragmatic recognition that we will be able to negotiate the new relationship, you know, new partnership over the next
couple of years before we leave. We are going to leave in March 2019.
So, what she said essentially is we'll have this transition period, this implementation period through to March 2019 where we'll be (inaudible) on
very much the same times as we are today and of course, we are paying into the budget very much as we are today. It's a pragmatic --
GORANI: That's being a member for another two years, isn't it? I mean --
LEA: Quite honestly de facto, yes, but it does not worry me as a Brexiter because the endgame is that eventually post the transition period and she
made it very emphatic that it would be time-limited than it really will be Brexit. But this transition period was a pseudo membership --
GORANI: It was rebranded in implementation period. So, what is it -- is that not kicking --
QUENTIN PEEL, ASSOCIATE FELLOW, CHATHAM HOUSE: (Inaudible) implementing actually it's just a standstill. It's basically we can't do what we need
to do by the deadline. That has been glaringly obvious from the very beginning, but it's taking this government a year to actually say so.
Now we still didn't know where we are going to. If you call it a transition period, you'll presumably saying to transition to something, but
we still don't know what we are --
GORANI: What is that something? Where are we going? Does the government itself know it's so divided?
LEA: I think actually (inaudible) I think they've got a very good idea, but it has to be negotiated. This is the problem, and I agree with you
about the transition period, but I think she talks about this with close partnership based on trade and security.
And I'm sure that is where she wants us to go and of course, it's the trade stuff that interest me rather than the security stuff and that means, and
she actually said it today, continuation of tariff free trade for goods because we don't want tariffs between ourselves and our E.U. friends.
As she calls them now our strongest friends and probably something on the financial services as well, you know, some sort of regulatory equivalent or
something along those lines. And if -- in terms of trade, if she negotiated something like that, and I think that is where the headache that
would make a lot of sense to me.
[15:10:12] GORANI: But what about -- I mean, immigration, obviously Brexit has not happened yet. It probably will not happen for at least another
three and a half years. We are already seeing net migration go down.
We are seeing, by the way, because of the weakness of the pound, inflation go up, and possibly interest rates are going to have to go up as well. So,
the impact of Brexit before it's even been implemented is being felt already. How is this going to be positive for the U.K. to be out of the
E.U.?
PEEL: The trouble is that the transition before you know where you've got to, is always going to be a huge period of uncertainty and we are already
seeing those results. The city has already lost 10,000 jobs.
And the trouble is that city institutions are assuming the worst because they cannot afford not to assume the worst. They cannot afford to be in a
position where in two years' time, they suddenly find the worst has happened and they haven't prepared for it. So, they have been screaming
for clarity about the --
GORANI: But they are not getting it -- but also as an economist where is the net benefit for the U.K. from leaving the E.U.?
LEA: I think the first thing is, obviously, the pound did fall off to the Brexit for a fact so that lead to higher inflation, but the economy is
holding up actually quite well. We all need a full employment -- it's like (inaudible) full employment.
So, we have to recognize that we cannot just continue to grow unless there is some productivity miracle. Once we are out then we can negotiate trade
agreements with the fast-growing parts of the world, which we can't do at the moment as a member to Customs Union.
And we can do something about deregulating some of the most sort of business on friendly E.U. regulations, but will be a Brexit bonus in the
sense that we are saving on the budget and we will be able to have an immigration policy that is actually suited for the economic and social
needs of the country.
GORANI: But the migration as it exists now is a net benefit to the U.K. you cannot --
LEA: Well, it is --
GORANI: -- so why tinker with something that's working?
LEA: There are social problems as well as economic benefits on net immigration. You have to accept the fact that there are a lot of people
regarding to such. I mean, I'm not an absolute --
GORANI: Financial problems meaning what?
LEA: I mean, congestion, problems on the public services, and of course, a lot of resentment across the labor market. They see immigrants as
competitors. So, you have to recognize those problems. Now those are economic problems not a political problem. You know what I mean.
GORANI: Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition had this to say about Prime Minister May's speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you make of the prime minister's speech?
JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER OF U.K.'S OPPOSITION LABOUR PARTY: Well, 15 months on since the referendum when we get to a situation where the problems
suffices the reality that she is have to look for a transition period.
She has had 15 months to think about that and she goes all the way to Florence. We did not even get a chance to see Florence in the background
to tell us what we already know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: But I mean, this is what you were saying that this is transition period. One question I have is why does the U.K. prime minister and we
were discussing this yesterday go all the way to Italy to make an important speech that affects all of her countrymen and women.
PEEL: I find it absolutely extraordinary not only that on the face of it she went through (inaudible) chance because she wants to talk to her
European partners then she takes questions from the press.
She took one question from a European continent journalist and every other question from a British journalist, it seems in saying why didn't she just
sit in London and do the same thing.
GORANI: What do you think?
LEA: It's symbolic. This is because she wants to be their best of friend.
GORANI: Now she --
GORANI: I don't think it's going to have much effect that's (inaudible).
LEA: I'm more optimistic that you are, Quentin. I think at the end of the day, something pragmatic will be agreed.
GORANI: And why are you more optimistic? Because I am hearing a lot of optimism from you just generally speaking about what could happen post-
Brexit just in terms of how it would benefit the U.K.
LEA: Well, as I said what I see the benefits when we actually leave and go, but --
GORANI: What about what kind of country ends up being on its own outside of this? Let's be honest. The E.U. is an extremely successful political
partnership. It's got the continent at peace, love it or not, for many, many decades. What is the identity of Britain once it leaves and it's on
its own?
LEA: You shouldn't ask a Briton that.
GORANI: I'm asking you because this is a question I get most often abroad.
LEA: I want to tell you why did I actually vote for Brexit, I wanted to live in an independent country where the parliament actually was the main
legislature in this country and we did not have legislation made on the continent of Europe. I'm afraid that was a political reason, a democratic
reason why I voted Brexit.
GORANI: Is it inevitable? Is Brexit inevitable?
PEEL: No, I don't think it is. I think -- I think we might be in one of two situations. We might be a situation where actually we end up in an
almost permanent transition phase. I pretty much --
GORANI: Businesses are going to love that.
PEEL: But this will -- yes, it will infuriate people who wanted to be out.
LEA: I should be infuriated.
[15:15:02] PEEL: But the truth is that business is really worried about the exclusion that they face, worried that it is going to wreak havoc with
complicated supply chains, worried that is going to wreak havoc for the city of London and all the financial institutions.
I have very interesting conversation with a senior German official last week who said, look, we really want the city of London to be the major
financial center for Europe, but we won't that we cannot have that unless we can agree on the regulation. If you are going to go (inaudible) down
some route to deregulate then it won't work.
LEA: I don't agree with that. That's why I was mentioning regulatory (inaudible).
GORANI: We will all agree to agree on that point. Thanks for much, Quentin Pell and Ruth Lea. We really appreciate your time on this Friday
evening. Have a good weekend.
Still to come tonight, we are back, "dotards and madmen," the rhetoric between North Korea and the U.S. It's new lows.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GORANI: Name-calling and nuclear threats essentially sums up relations between America and North Korea these days. This morning, President Trump
called Kim Jong-un, a "madman" in a tweed after a statement by the North Korean leader was carried on state TV where he called Mr. Trump a "mentally
deranged U.S. dotard and a frightened dog."
That was in response to a speech at the U.N. where the American president repeatedly called Kim the "rocket man." This as North Korea's foreign
minister in New York for the U.N. General Assembly warned that North Korea may test a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean if it is provoked.
Is all of this name-calling, making a bad situation worse or were we already there all along?
Let's bring in CNN's global affairs correspondent, Elise Labbott. So, Elise, has sort of the mood changed in Washington at the State Department
and the executive branch since this name-calling started heating up? I mean, is their concern that this could all sort of slipped into a much more
dangerous phase?
ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Hala, I think there is definitely a concern that there could be some kind of miscalculation. I
mean, listen, both Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un seemed to have met their match in terms of brinksmanship and name-calling.
I mean, certainly Kim Jong-un is no -- and the North Korean regime has launched threats and labeled, you know, U.S. officials over many
administrations has called them bad names and Donald Trump is famous for that in his administration.
I think, though, the real kind of threat is when Donald Trump says that Kim Jong-un is going to be tested or Kim Jong-un will -- you know, the foreign
minister will say something about a hydrogen bomb into the Pacific.
I think no one really knows what's going to be that real name-calling or real threat that will cause Kim Jong-un to really make some kind of
miscalculation and launch some kind of weapon.
[15:20:11] And so I think that's the real concern here. Certainly, you know, the first time you saw the statement and Kim Jong-un's name shows
that these men are really getting into each other's head. It's become very personal.
GORANI: And if they do indeed test a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific, this would be obviously a serious escalation in terms of their weapons testing
program. What would the U.S. response be then?
LABOTT: Well, I think it is unclear, but you have seen over the last couple of weeks, you know, U.S. officials from President Trump down to
Secretary Mattis, Secretary Tillerson, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley talk about that military option really leading with that
military rhetoric.
I think the message is supposed to be that Kim Jong-un -- listen, don't even think about actually crossing that redline and launching such kind of
weapon because that will be suicidal for your regime.
And so, I think that, you know, the rhetoric aside, you have to just look at whether Kim Jong-un, you know, has a death wish. He knows it would be
the end of his regime to launch some kind of attack.
So right now, you've seen these nuclear tests and missile tests, but they haven't kind of cross this line that the U.S. seems to be laying out, which
is launching a missile near its territory towards Guam, towards the United States.
I think that would be the real redline. I do think at that point you could see a military response, although, U.S. commanders and U.S. officials have
said while there are military options, none of them are really good.
So, that is why they keep pushing the diplomacy, but certainly, there are very few diplomatic things going on right now -- Hala.
GORANI: Right. It is difficult to see any good military option in this or any situation actually. Thanks very much, Elise Labott for joining us.
We have breaking news to bring you from Puerto Rico. The National Weather Service said that Guajataca Dam is failing and causing a flash flood
downstream. A major evacuation operation is underway now.
After leaving Puerto Rico devastated, officials say Hurricane Maria's direct hit left at least six people dead. Unconfirmed reports, though, put
that number higher at 13.
CNN correspondents are following this deadly storm as it tears across the Caribbean and Nick Paton Walsh is now in Frederiksted, St. Croix getting
our first look at that hard-hit island. Tell us what you are seeing in St. Croix.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hala, obviously behind me you can see power cables torn and clinging down, and this is for
this whole normal tourist paradise to a state of powerlessness and lack of electricity. Roofs torn clean off.
Now as we flew in by helicopter about an hour's flight from Puerto Rico to this U.S. territory. We saw on the eastern side the damage not too severe,
but to the west significantly worse.
Boats tossed clean out of the water on the shoreline. Whole fronts of buildings torn. Clean off roofs, missing entirely, and it's here in this
street, we have heard anger and a statement from the governor in which he in their opinion made this not sound so bad.
From above, you think maybe they've escaped it, but on the ground, it is pretty devastating, frankly. We've spoken to the owner of the local bar
here. They are missing the back of that bar entirely.
For them it's a choice about how long do you stay, what you do when don't have a (inaudible) to make ice. They had a little kid, Roby, who did a
little dance saying I'm still standing.
Jamie, her and her husband, Brandon, he is up in Afghanistan. She was a mental health professional. They went to St. Thomas to assist there, but
they came back here and stayed out through Hurricane Maria, which tore the front of their house clean off.
Strange surreal scenes you see here as well, horses strayed roaming around so their advice was to let the horses out from officials before the
hurricane hit. It really is reeling here and there is anger too at the level of aid they've got so far.
It's early days but FEMA have brought in emergency aid to a school here and distributed to 500 or 600 people. Many turned up hearing those some and
realized it all gone that may be alleviated because the Marines and the Army at the field have possibly just taken in a C-17 massive cargo aircraft
we just saw land.
But this is a place whose life has been utterly transformed and devastated by matter of few hours' worth of extreme winds, but Hala, it is
extraordinary to see how this place has been utterly transformed -- Hala.
GORANI: All right. Nick Paton Walsh in St. Croix, thanks very much. Our first look there on CNN at the devastation there.
Now, you'll remember we talked a lot about the Trump administration's travel bans version 1, version 2, then there was that version that allowed
people from countries that were highlighted in the travel ban that have a bonafide family relationship from being able to travel.
[15:25:03] There were exemptions. Now the Trump administration is replacing its controversial travel ban on entry by of citizens of six
Muslim majority nations instead a senior White House official says the administration will unveil more tailored restrictions on travelers from
specific countries.
The president signed the original travel ban during his first week in office. It met major challenges in court, forcing a rewrite and now we are
being told it will be replaced by something else more specific, more tailored to certain countries.
We don't have more details exactly on what those specific sorts of efforts to tailor restrictions would look like, but certainly we are going to keep
following this because we know so many of our viewers come from parts of the world and could be affected by this.
Jessica Schneider can now join me live from Washington with more. Jessica, what more can you tell us about this new travel ban?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think you got it right. We are sort of in a wait and see period right now to find out what
the president has done. The world is -- will do -- the world is waiting on that presidential proclamation to find out which countries will be subject
to certain restrictions when it comes to traveling to United States.
So, as you remember right now under that second Executive Order people in six Muslim majority countries who do not have a bonafide relationships to
the United States, they are banned from traveling here.
But on Sunday that Executive Order expires so what happens then? Well, a new, more permanent set of parameters is expected to be enacted by then,
but the president and the White House, they still aren't giving a lot of hints as to which countries will be affected, and if they might still
include the same six that we saw in the last Executive Order.
So, a lot of uncertainty here, but let me break it down for you and tell you what's been happening. All summer long the State Department here and
Homeland Security, they have been working with countries throughout the globe to get them to cooperate.
The U.S. wants to know how all of these countries establish proper identification of their travelers, whether or not they issue E-passports.
Whether they are willing to share information about terrorists and criminals that are imitating from their own countries.
So, depending on that level of cooperation, that's now how officials will determine whether or not those countries will be facing travel
restrictions, but again the president, it is all up to him.
He has not yet announced a final decision. However, Hala, the "Wall Street Journal" today does report that there will be seven or eight countries to
face restrictions or an all-out ban.
But again, Hala, we got some word from officials today, but they are not saying anything yet until the president comes out with his proclamation.
So, the question is will we see that sort of scramble and uncertainty we've seen during the last two announcements as well. We are on standby right
now -- Hala.
GORANI: All right. And when are we expecting more clarity on this?
SCHNEIDER: Well, that was something that we just asked officials in a conference call that they held. So, the Executive Order that's now in
place that bans travel from some of those countries that expires on Sunday so we are expecting the president will issue another order before then.
But they are not giving us any details as to when exactly that will be so again we are sort of on standby at this point -- Hala.
GORANI: All right. We'll talk soon. Hopefully, we'll get more news on this before Sunday certainly. Jessica Schneider, thanks very much.
Coming up, analysis of Theresa May's critical speech on Brexit. I will be joined by a politician who still hopes Brexit won't happen at all. We'll
be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HALA GORANI, CNN HOST, THE WORLD RIGHT NOW: Let's get back to our top story. British Prime Minister Theresa May is trying to buy time on Brexit.
She used the landmark speech to call for a two-year transition period after withdrawal, prolonging the status quo.
Ms. May promised the UK will still follow EU rules and contribute financially to the bloc during that period. The top EU negotiator Michel
Bernier calls this a step forward.
Others in Europe, as well as here in the UK, have been less positive. Let's bring in opposition politician Baroness Sarah Ludford. She's a
Brexit spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, a member of the House of Lords and also a former MEP.
What did you make of the speech? We got some more details from Theresa May today?
BARONESS SARAH LUDFORD, LORDS SHADOW MINISTER FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION: Well, I think she gave rather good reasons why we should stay in
the EU. She emphasized the shared challenges of upholding liberal international trade, of migration, of terrorism, of climate change, all the
reasons for working together.
A lot of her speech is, obviously, about the hassle of the divorce arrangements. And then, for the transitional period, essentially, we'd be
on EU terms, while having no say in those terms.
So, Liberal Democrats say, first of all, it's better to remain. And secondly, the voters should get the chance when they see the concrete
details -
GORANI: You want another referendum?
LUDFORD: Yes. Between the Brexit - what it actually involves and remain.
GORANI: So, once a deal is struck, put it to the British people and say yes or no on this deal with the alternative to remain. Do you think that's
realistic?
LUDFORD: Yes, I think there's growing support for it. Liberal Democrats have been saying that from the off for the last 15 months and we've been
utterly consistent on that. We're a remain party, very much emphasized by our leader Vince Cable at our recent conference.
We believe that people should have the final say, not just Parliament.
GORANI: What would you base that on? I mean, because I've seen polls since Brexit where Brexit would still win if a referendum were hold.
LUDFORD: No, this one today which shows - it's small, but 52 percent were remain. And people don't yet know what it actually comprises. They were
sold - a lot of them were conned last year -
GORANI: Conned why?
LUDFORD: Well, because they weren't - there were a lot of lies, the GBP 350 million for the NHS famously and Turkey was imminently going to join
the EU, just two of them. But there was no common prospectus put forward by the leave side about what Brexit would actually entail.
And I think have - we need to show them the respect of actually giving them - it's like buying a house. You buy a house subject to survey. Once you
see the survey, you don't necessarily go through with the house purchase. It's perfectly reasonable to get that look at the - to be a first
referendum on the fact.
GORANI: Do you think that this two-year - I think Theresa May rebranded it an implementation period, not a transition period. Was this kicking the
can down the road essentially?
LUDFORD: Yes, it is. I mean, it is realistic. We've been saying that for a long time because it was clear you're not going to make a final deal.
So, Theresa May is finally accepting what everybody knows is the truth.
But implementation of what? Transition to what? As your other guests, indeed, have been saying -
GORANI: Something between the Norway model and the Canadian model, a little less than this one, a little more than that.
LUDFORD: She says what she doesn't want, which is Norway or Canada, but she doesn't say what she does -
GORANI: Something better than both. In
LUDFORD: Well, she doesn't say what she -
GORANI: But that's what the negotiations are for? I mean, there's a year and a half.
LUDFORD: I think it would be helpful if she would spell out particularly her attitude to the single market and the customs union.
GORANI: She says we're out.
LUDFORD: Well, the Liberal Democrats very much believe that the very minimum we should have is to stay in the customs union and the single
market for the long-term, but even that is no substitute for remain.
Because you normally want to talk about tariffs, but it's the customs arrangements for just-in-time manufacturers as well as the arrangements for
passporting of services, particularly financial services for the city of London, but other services as well.
[15:35:11] So, those will only talk about - we don't have any tariffs with the EU, we probably won't. But they are overlooking was swathes of the
economy which need better arrangements.
GORANI: All right. And there's still uncertainty hanging over their future as well. The Liberal Democrats, Sarah Ludford, thank you so much
for joining us. We really appreciate it on CNN.
The Prime Minister May also talked about mass migration today, saying it's one example of a shared European challenge that can only be solved in
partnership.
One of the positive things she said about working with the EU, one of the many today, well, Europe has been struggling to cope with an influx of
asylum-seekers since the dramatic surge in 2015.
These are some of the file images that were filmed back in 2015. Many migrants come from the Middle East and Africa seeking an escape from war or
crushing poverty.
During a visit to Poland today, Hungary's prime minister defended countries like his which are shutting the door on immigrants. He also said nations
with liberal migration policies are experiencing a dilution of Christianity due to the "different civilizations living side-by-side."
Well, I'm joined now by Peter Szijjarto. He's Hungary foreign and trade minister. Thank you for being with us. What does this mean, dilution of
Christianity?
PETER SZIJJARTO, HUNGARIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE: Well, actually, the migration crisis is a huge challenge on the entire European
Union. And as you see, there has been no solution to be found.
And what we see is that the European Union and Europe itself became defenseless when the mass migratory flow hit the European Union.
And instead of taking care of the security and the safety of the continent, many European leaders occupied a hypocritic and politically-correct
approach.
GORANI: Yes. But dilution of Christianity suggests if these were Christian refugees, you'd be fine with it, but because they're Muslims, you
have a problem with them. Is that the case?
SZIJJARTO: Sorry, I didn't get the second part of the question. Sorry about that.
GORANI: Dilution of Christianity suggests that if they were Christian refugees, you'd be fine with them. But because they are Muslims, you have
an issue with them. Is that fair to say?
SZIJJARTO: No. It's absolutely not fair to say that because we don't make any kind of differentiation between the people based on religion. Yes, we
are a Christian country. But being a Christian means that you cannot be anti-anything.
So, you can be sure that we don't make any kind of differentiation between people based on religion. There are good people -
GORANI: So, if they were Christian, it would be the same? You would hold them in detention centers at the border. You'd only let five in at a time
and you wouldn't take the quota that the EU says you need to take. It has nothing to do with where they come from is what you're saying.
SZIJJARTO: In 2015, we were hit by a mass migration flow in our southern border. You're right. There were days when even we had more than 10,000
people who wanted to cross. And altogether, there were 400,000 who crossed the country, violating our rules and regulations.
And it's not a matter of religion. It's not a matter of origin. This is a matter of a fact, that those people who marched through Hungary, violated
our regulations, they did not respect the rules and regulations in the country and actually they behaved in a way which feared the people in
Hungary.
GORANI: But the EU - and you're a member of the EU. And the EU Supreme Court says you cannot refuse to accept the fair share of refugees, the
quota system. Your country says that's not true. Even though we're a member of the EU, we will fight this in the courts. What will you do?
SZIJJARTO: It was the European Court of Justice which made a decision which said that the process, which led to the decision of the ministers of
interior ending up in an obligatory quota system was in line with the European regulations.
So, this ruling of the European Court of Justice definitely didn't say that we have to take illegal migrants from the next morning.
So, actually -
GORANI: No, the quota that other EU countries have agreed to, no illegal - not a limitless number of migrants. That's not what they said.
SZIJJARTO: The quota is about distributing the illegal migrants among European Union member states. We made it very clear that this decision is
dangerous to the European Union, this decision is against common sense, this decision is translated as a pull factor for those ones who will take
the life hazard in the future to come to Europe.
[15:40:03] So, definitely, the bigotry quota system was an extremely bad decision and it's absolutely against the interest of -
GORANI: Let me ask you what I think you'd consider a fair question. Why be a member of the European Union when you benefit, obviously, from many
things in terms of financially or economically from the EU, but never really share in the burden? In this case, yes, it is a burden. This is a
huge refugee crisis caused by wars abroad. Why then be a member of the EU?
SZIJJARTO: Hungary is a member of the European Union and will be a member of the European Union. Yes, we take profit out of being member of the EU
and EU takes profit - but EU takes profit out of us being members of the European Union.
And when it comes to burden sharing, I think it's a legitimate expectation from my perspective to be fair because Hungary has spent EUR 800 million on
protecting not only Hungary, but the entire European Union by building physical infrastructure and organizing human resources on our southern
border, which is the external border of the European Union and the external border of the Schengen area.
That was our obligation to protect that border. And with that, we do not only protect only ourselves, but the entire European Union. So, if it is
about solidarity and if it is about burden sharing, I think it's a legitimate expectation from our perspective to ask the European Union so
how they are in solidarity with us when we have to spend EUR 800 million to protect the European continent.
GORANI: The Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto joining us from New York. Thank you for being with us on the program this evening. We
appreciate your time.
This is THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Uber hits a major roadblock in London. We'll tell you what a decision by the transit authority could mean for the
company's future in the UK. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GORANI: If you've used Uber in London, you're going to want to listen up. The ridesharing app is going to lose its license in this city soon. The
city's transport authority says the company isn't "fit and proper" to operate there. Erin McLaughlin explains what's behind the move.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm told this decision involved a lengthy and meticulous review process by Transport for London, or TfL, the
regulatory body which governs London's transport networks.
There were several reasons for this decision, primarily relating to the safety and security of Uber, its approach to the background checks -
extensive background checks of its drivers as well as the way it reports criminality.
Earlier I spoke to London's mayor Sadiq Khan, who says he supports this decision. Take a listen.
SADIQ KHAN, MAYOR OF LONDON: If you're an Uber driver, if you're an Uber user you're right to be angry at Uber for failing to play by the rules.
The question you should be asking is why is Uber not playing by the rules. And Uber have said they're going to appeal this decision. Uber employs an
army of lawyers and public relations teams and they've already set out their plans to appeal this decision.
[15:45:13] MCLAUGHLIN: London's black cabbies are likely to be celebrating this decision. They've long protested Uber's presence in this city. Their
union actually backs London Mayor Sadiq Khan, although he told me that this had nothing to do with him, this decision, or any sort of political
involvement, that TfL is an independent body.
The people who probably are very upset by this decision, of course, some 40,000 Uber drivers, registered Uber drivers, as well as the millions of
people within the city that use their services. We spoke to some of them and they're pretty upset.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know, like shut it. I don't know what I'd do on a Sunday night now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I use one like every day. It's just an easier, better way to get around. Like, black cabs, they are so expensive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the end of the day, it's a reliable service. Not all of the - in London, if you're a foreigner - if I fly out to New York or
go to somewhere and I know exactly by pushing a button, I'm getting a reliable driver. He is checked. I know him. And they're all friendly
often. And also, they have families.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Uber hitting back at the allegations saying, "The mayor and Transport for London have caved into a small number of people who want
to restrict consumer choice. It does plan to appeal and can continue to function while the appeal process is underway.
Erin McLaughlin, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GORANI: Thank you, Erin. Coming up, the world's most powerful leader speaks out about some of the most vulnerable people. We'll hear what
Donald Trump had to say about Syrian refugees this week and we'll get some reaction from Save the Children.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GORANI: Donald Trump told the world that uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries. At the UN, Mr.
Trump thanked Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey for hosting refugees escaping the war in Syria.
He also said the world must address the root problems.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than ten in
their home region.
Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations
that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: I want to bring in Helle Thorning-Schmidt. She's the CEO of the aid agency, Save the Children. She's also the former Danish prime
minister. Thank you so much for joining us.
What is your reaction to what Donald Trump said about helping refugees closer to their countries and essentially not bringing them into countries
like the United States?
HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT, CEO, SAVE THE CHILDREN: Well, we definitely have to do a bit of both. And what I'm asking for this week, what Save the
Children is asking for is that we put a lot of attention to the education of refugee children, wherever they are.
Let me just give you an example. This week, in the Middle East region, children are starting school again, but access to education is only given
to three out of five refugee children. Two out of five are out of education.
And what we know is that if they don't get education, we are stealing their future wherever they are in the world. So, I'm urging world leaders to
live up to their pledge from last year, which was basically to promise education to refugee children wherever they are.
[15:50:13] GORANI: But what about sort of either reluctance of the countries like the United States to really take in any significant number
of refugees from countries, not just Syria, but Iraq as well?
THORNING-SCHMIDT: Well, I think everyone has to bear this burden of refugees. And what we do know is that the neighboring countries to Syria,
they're certainly taking their fair share.
Lebanon, Jordon and Turkey as well, they're so hard to get refugee children particularly into school to give them the future that they need and it's
very hard.
So, if countries like the United States do not want to take more refugees, I urge everyone to help those three countries to help refugee children even
more.
And what we're seeing right now is that fewer refugee children is getting access to education. And it cannot be right that we don't want to take
them in the Western countries and we're not helping enough for these children to get an education where they actually are.
So, that is what we've been talking about this week. Everyone has to take their share of responsibility, but at least let's help the children where
they are in the neighboring countries.
GORANI: And it has to be said the three countries we're talking about have really taken in millions of refugees. Lebanon has increased its
population, I think, by a third just because of the number of refugees.
And some people there - I was in Lebanon recently - say no one is helping us. We can't afford this. We have our own problems. And you're starting
to sense that there is resentment there directed at the refugees and their children who need education, medical care and the rest of the essential
services in their daily lives.
THORNING-SCHMIDT: Absolutely. I mean, Lebanon is a very small country and they have problems enough of their own. Some places in Lebanon, they do
double shift of school and the teachers are, of course, very, very stretched. That's why we have to help them even more.
It's not only about money. It is about money, but it's also about access for children to these schools. There have to be facilities, there have to
be safe ways to school.
And let's remember, children don't get access to education wherever they are, they are so vulnerable to abuse, to child marriage, to child labor,
and that is why we must help these three countries even more to get Syrian children into school.
And it can be done. Of course, it can. But they're struggling. It's hard for them. And the world leaders need to do more.
GORANI: What is your estimate on how many of these refugee children work to make money for their families? What percentage?
THORNING-SCHMIDT: Yes. I don't have a figure for that because this is always in the dark, how many children work. But I know what they feel
because I went - I was in Zaatari Camp not so long ago and I speak to these children.
They are 14, 15 years old. And they tell me, of course, that what they do is they sneak out of the camp, they work illegally because it's not
allowed. They picked up by these stories and go and do farm work and other things and sneak back into the camp.
And they tell me that they prefer to go to school. Of course, they do. They know how their future is much better if they get an education. But,
unfortunately, I wouldn't have that figure. But it is a real problem.
And we have also unfortunately seen a rise in child marriage for the refugee population because sometimes that's the only way out that these
families have.
GORANI: Thank you so much, the CEO of Save the Children and the former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Thank you for joining us
from New York.
Well, as we've been discussing, many people don't necessarily want refugees. Circumstances, war, famine, desperation force them to uproot
their lives as people are pushed out of their countries and into Europe.
Politicians on this continent have to face the challenge. Countries like Germany have reacted very differently from other countries. Europe's
migrant crisis and Chancellor Angela Merkel open arms policy is boosting the far-right party ahead of this weekend's election in that country.
The alternative for Germany could pick up seats this Sunday because of its staunch anti-immigrant platform.
But Ms. Merkel appears set for another victory heading her Christian Democratic Party. So, it is not necessarily a one-sided picture.
If Chancellor Merkel gets another win at the polls this weekend, it will be her fourth term in office. Her reserved style has earned her a reputation
of being a bit humorless sometimes, but it's been great for one political cartoonist.
He has tracked Ms. Merkel's career for years and says, behind her gruff demeanor, lies a shrewd politician.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[15:55:03] HEIKO SAKURAI, POLITICAL CARTOONIST: My name is Heiko Sakurai. I am 46 years old and I am a political cartoonist.
ANGELA MERKEL, CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
SAKURAI: You learn to draw Merkel or Trump, but to get informed every day, to get to create an idea every day, to stick to the soap opera of politics
every day, that's the real challenge for me.
The best moment is if you just get an idea. You'll hear information and news and then, click, you have an idea.
First, I have to read my paper newspaper. I start with one news I want to comment on and then I try to find a picture in my mind.
Normally, if you see her face, she seems to be a bit harmless and not very dangerous, but she's a clever person and she can become dangerous, pushing
her rivals out of the way. She must be. Otherwise, you can't reach the highest position.
You have to draw a person more and more and then it gets more simple and more obvious to find the formula of the face in a way.
In former times, I thought her eyes a bit closed. It meant she is maybe a bit sleepy, a bit shy, but meanwhile I know it is her rationality.
It was a big surprise how she acted in the climax of the refugee crisis, that she didn't close the border, that she really stick to that attitude
until the full opposition (ph).
TRUMP: At least we have something in common perhaps.
SAKURAI: I think that no bigger difference possible in character than between Trump and Merkel. He's loud.
TRUMP: And just to finish.
SAKURAI: Sometimes not very rational. And she's the exact opposition. She's rational, calm. She's thinking and thinking and thinking all the
time before she's saying anything. Merkel is really prepared for everything. And Trump?
She's not vain. She's calm. She's a bit distant. She's mummy. You can rely on her. You can feel in safety with her. I think that's why people
like her in a way.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GORANI: I'm Hala Gorani. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
