hello. if you thought thursday this is the briefing, i'm victoria fritz. was windy, get used to it. our top story: very blustery weather on the way conspiracy, and fraud. all the way through the weekend enter the dragon. paul manafort must also pay into next week. us attempts to restart space travel more than $24 million reach a crucial stage as the unmanned spacex dragon to the us government. capsule attempts re—entry unsettled too, wet at times. to earth's atmosphere. he hid millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for ukraine's former pro—russian government. a bit of a lull though britain has escalated efforts as we start friday. to free nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe from an iranian jail. frosty, but sunny for many of us, president trump's former campaign but clouding over with rain later. chief is jailed for nearly four she's an aid worker, but is accused of spying, here's a look at the years for conspiracy, money laundering and fraud, which she denies. satellite picture. this area of low pressure has and must repay more than $24 million she has dual nationality, brought the windy weather, and the uk government has made the wet weather in the unusual move of granting her places during thursday. a bit of a gap between to the us government. diplomatic protection. weather systems now. it means the row over her detention we are in that gap as friday begins, but we're in a cold gap. britain escalates its efforts to have nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe becomes a formal legal dispute. you can see the blue showing up released from prison in iran, where temperatures will be offering her diplomatic protection, facebook says it will in a move that triggers a formal try to stop the spread at their lowest as friday starts. of misinformation about fairly widespread frost around, bit of scraping the ice off the car, vaccines on its network. a little misty in places too. the company has faced pressure dispute between the two countries. to tackle the problem, amid outbreaks of measles around the united states attributed but actually a lots of sunshine to growing numbers of parents who for most of us at the start china's exports tumble the most of the day. in three years in february, refuse to vaccinate their children. already a bit of wet weather though pointing to a further slowdown into the western isles. we see more cloud pushing in the economy despite a spate across the uk during the morning and then further outbreaks of rain spreading from west to east as the day goes on. becoming increasingly light now on bbc news, hardtalk‘s and patchy as it does so. stephen sackur speaks and it's notjust rain, to lord ricketts, the hills of scotland, north of the central belt,

former top diplomat and uk national security adviser. will see a bit of snow out of that as well. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. with just days to go it's not going to be until the british parliament votes as windy as thursday, though it is still breezy out there. again on theresa may's brexit deal, temperatures mostly around 7—11 degrees. a bit of snowfall also into shetland the political debate in the uk grows before that system begins ever more polarised. to clear away. as we go into friday night, but the legacy of brexit still some showers pushing in towards the north—west of the uk on the breeze. won'tjust be deep fractures wintry on the hills. it's not going to be within the political parties, as cold as friday morning, this protracted national argument has also raised questions about how the machinery of government works, and the role of the supposedly by the time we're up and about on saturday for the start of the weekend, but it is going apolitical civil service. to be an unsettled one, with low pressure my guest is lord peter ricketts, close by all the time. the atlantic in charge former top diplomat and uk national security advisor. of the weather, pushing now an ardent advocate in disturbances occasionally. of a second referendum. at the very least that means we're going to be getting some showers, have britain's mandarins been exposed as an unelected, carried on strong unaccountable break on brexit? to gale—force winds. it will make it feel quite cold, even though temperatures will not be

too farfrom average. some wet weather at times, notjust in the form of rain but some snow, more especially on hills, but also some sunshine occasionally too. the best of the sunshine will be across the east and south—east of the country during saturday. showers already towards the north—west will push further east during the day. it will be a windier day once again. we are expecting gusts fairly widely of around 40—50 miles an hour, and that will make it feel colder than these temperatures might suggest. and some of these showers might lord ricketts, peter ricketts, welcome to hardtalk. merge to give longer spells of wet thank you. weather at times. still plenty of showers coming how hard did you have to think in during sunday and there is a more before you took the decision wintry component to these showers, to enter the political fray on this so we could well see some sleet or some hail to lower levels vexed issue of britain and brexit? out of these as well. again, it's going to be windy. these are average speeds, because you spend your life being, but gusts will be around 40—50 miles if i may say so, a faceless, an hour once again. temperatures are a little lower apolitical, mandarin on sunday, so it will feel even diplomat civil servant, colder in that wind. that's your forecast. so you are doing something entirely new. first of all, i would still consider myself apolitical. i'm not part of any political party. if i may say so, that is a very different thing. you can be political without being a member of a political party.

i'm not a party politician. i have also been given a place in the house of lords which is a great honour and i assume i was put there because people thought it would be useful to have my experience in the public debate and it is notjust on the issues of brexit that i offer that opinion. the country is facing such an important moment. i think probably the most serious peacetime crisis since the second world war. quite honsestly, i think opinions of those who have had years and years of public service but are no longer in the government, i think they are entitled to be in the debate. i personally make a point never to attack people. i don't want to get personal about these things but i do have views about the policy and i think the position the country is in makes it important that every view is heard. i'm no more legitimate than anybody else but i think i am no less. am i wrong in remembering that at one point you and a bunch of other senior diplomats described

the current position and the negotiating strategy of the government as a fiasco? i think that was a joint letter, yes. i think we are in a serious mess. if you are accusing the prime minister and her team of conducting a fiasco of a negotiation, you are clearly making a very political point and indeed a point that is deeply damaging to the serving prime minister. i am giving my opinion of the position we are in. i am farfrom being alone in thinking that this negotiation that's been conducted has been pretty disastrous for the country. and started right at the beginning with the choices made about the red lines and the triggering of article 50, we are now in a very difficult position. i spend a lot of my time abroad and everybody says to me, what has happened to your country? you used to be a country of commonsense, of pragmatism, of hardheaded sense of your own common and national interest. why have you spent the last two years in the way you have? i just wonder how your successors, as key members of the government team, that is the top civil servants

running the departments, whether it be the brexit department which we now have, whether it be the cabinet, how they would view you on the sidelines as one of them in the very recent past now sniping, describing the negotiating strategy as a fiasco, and using comments which are not only being picked up in the uk but also europe and clearly do something to undermine the prime minister's position. i don't think they undermine the prime minister's position. i think people abroad are making up their own mind about the approach she's taken. there's a long tradition of people who are no longer in government service speaking up on their own account and indeed in this debate, there are people who speak up on both sides of it. there are prominent figures speaking up very strongly for the leave campaign and indeed have been very critical of those speaking up for remain. but i think as an ex—public servant, i have a right to express my own view and i am always careful not

to attack politicians and also to say those in harness as public servants are doing the very bestjob they can in the usual professional way you would expect of the civil service. it's the leadership they have had from the politicians that i think justifies criticism and i believe i am legitimate in making that criticism. it is the comments i have seen of yours and you have written joint letters with others and it must be said that the preponderance of senior civil servants who have entered this debate seem to be ardent remainers still or certainly advocates of the second referendum, but let us park that for the moment. in the way you have made your arguments, it seems to me one thing you never refer to, you refer a lot to what you regard as a failing negotiating strategy and the process but you never refer back to the fact that injune 2016 the british people gave a clear directive to the british government. that is 52%—48%, they declared they want britain to leave the european union.

and we spent two years finding how difficult that is, what the cost to the uk is going to be, the fact the country is going to be worse off and probably less secure as a result of leaving the eu and i thought in a democracy that you had a regular consultation with the electorate and that people were able to change your mind once they learned the facts. were able to change their mind once they learned the facts. that is parliamentary democracy, it is not this referendum direct democracy where your former boss, david cameron, made clear when he set upon this policy of a referendum, he said this is a once—in—a—lifetime decision, do not think there is going to be a second chance. he was quite explicit. he told the british people, this is your one—time opportunity to decide whether you want britain to be in the european union or not. that's what david cameron said but i think since the whole campaign was based on a series of propositions that have turned out to be just flat wrong and that some of the issues like northern ireland barely figured at all in the campaign, given that this

is such a moment of rupture in britain's relations with the rest of the world, i think it's not unreasonable at all the people should be presented with a deal and offered the chance to give their opinion and if their opinion is, in the light of this deal, we still want to go ahead, i am not going to oppose that. in what you say, and your view of what you would put as the deceptions and lies of the original 2016 campaign, it is subjective, it is your view, you just feel that deceptions were made upon the british people. but on the other side of the argument, the brexiteers‘ side of the argument, they would say that you and your fellows, and some of the most renowned experts in the country, so—called, are peddling misconceptions even about the downsides of leaving the european union. well, maybe they do say that.

but if you look at what businesses are doing, people with a lot of money invested in the uk, they're making decisions that suggest they are very worried about the uncertainties created by brexit. some are making decisions that are not welcome in the uk, others are putting whole lots of new money on. others are putting whole lots of new money in. well, you know, again, we will see. but i note a lot of major investors in the uk are now deciding to move their business outside, to move jobs to other european capitals. so they clearly think there is something difficult about this. yeah, but that's what i'm really clearly trying to get to. you see all the downsides. mnd many other people see sunny uplands, and they're notjust idealogues of the brexit right. they're economists like liam halligan. he says, right now, the public finances are on the mend. despite all the brexit uncertainty, there's a healthy surplus. employment is at record levels. in fact, if you look at uk growth, it's outstripping france and germany right now. he says investors from china

to the middle east are flocking to this country. forbes magazine has just declared britain the best place in the world to do business. these are all realities that you care to — you choose to ignore. i am not claiming that i have absolute truth on this. everybody‘s view on this is subjective. we will see. we haven't left the eu yet, of course. we are beginning to see some of the effects of businesses deciding that they will move their business outside. yes, for the moment, employment is high. growth is not spectacular but it is not disastrous. that's great. we haven't left the eu yet, and we do not know what the future will be. i am simply offering my perspective on the basis of my experience, and what i see and hear from abroad. i understand, lord ricketts. i never claimed to be speaking absolute truth. i am making a subjective account. i am trying to be quite subjective about the nature of your argument, though, because you say that categorically there has to be, and it is indeed legitimate to argue for a second referendum, because you say it is now

quite clear how damaging a brexit would be. and there are, of course, different forms of brexit, but you seem to think any form of brexit would be deeply damaging, and that's yourjustification for a second referendum. my point to you is that your conclusion about the negativity of brexit is so subjective that it surely can't undo david cameron's promise that this would be a once—in—a—lifetime decision. but are you saying that my view is so subjective that i shouldn't make it available to people to consider, as part of the debate? no, i'mjust saying it may lack credibility. well, maybe it does, but it's what i believe. it's what i believe people need to be aware of. i believe that the brexit deal on offer in the prime minister's negotiated deal is certainly better than leaving with no deal at all, but is sufficiently damaging to britain's future prospects that it is worth giving people a chance to confirm or otherwise the view they took on the basis of,

frankly, a very skimpy campaign in 2016. let me, if i may, tap into your expertise and experience in one other key area of this brexit argument. we've talked a little bit about the economy and the divergent views about what brexit will mean for the economy, but you've also zeroed in on national security. you bring to this a lot of experience, because you were indeed david cameron's national security advisor for a couple of years in his premiership. you and others, including john sawers, former head of mi6, have contended that brexit will do real, lasting, serious damage to britain's national security and its sort of geopolitical standing in the wider world. explain that to me. well, let's start with britain's law and order — the cooperation that goes on between our police forces and those on the continent, ourjudicial authorities and those on the continent. i sit on a committee that put out a statement saying there are real

risks for our security of leaving the eu without tying down a continuation of the cooperation that goes on under the eu instruments. at the moment, our police forces depend on data bases, on confidential messaging systems, on a whole range of instruments to cooperate across borders with their european counterparts. we can only be part of those as a member of the eu. when we leave, we'll have to negotiate some sort of some sort of associate status. yes, well, exactly. we'll have to negotiate another status, another association. and given the import that everybody in europe puts on co—operation with britain, because of its very impressive record in a whole raft of different security agencies, there is almost no likelihood at all that europe won't want very close security co—operation with the united kingdom. well, what they say is that there are rules about who can be part of these instruments, and when you're a country outside, you have to negotiate status, which will give

you less—good access. and in some areas, like the european arrest warrant, some countries won't be willing to extradite their citizens to the uk as well. in others, there are eu instruments, but no country outside the eu is even an associate. so it's a complex field that's going to take years of negotiation, and if we go ahead and leave before that's tied down, our law enforcement agencies will find it less easy to work. the metropolitan police commissioner herself has said the same thing, so i'm farfrom being alone here, and i think it's worth highlighting this. well, no question you're not alone, but it comes back to this same thing about subjectivity and whether you bring a glass—half—ful or a glass—half—empty approach to brexit. let me quote to you a couple of senior security figures who do not take the same view as you. jeremy fleming, gchq director, in 2018 at a nato conference he said, we are leaving the eu, but we're not leaving europe. we have excellent relationships with intelligence and security agencies right

across this continent. we expect them to continue. richard dearlove, a former head of mi—6 — very sanguine about britain's ability to develop strong relationships with the europeans after brexit. so again, it's a pick and mix. you can hear what you want to hear on both sides of this debate. no, well, let's unpack that. jeremy fleming was talking about intelligence relationships, and i completely agree with him. intelligence relationships happen outside the eu now, and they will go on happening outside the eu afterwards, so they're not a part of this argument. law enforcement, judicial co—operation, foreign policy cooperation, defence cooperation, go through the eu and will be affected. well, sorry to interrupt, but if i may say so, it seems to me the biggest british foreign policy, security, military decision of the past 20 years, the one of most significance, was the decision to join the americans in the invasion of iraq, toppling saddam hussein. now, when that happened, the eu was adamantly opposed to that policy. it was britain, the united states,

a few other eu member states like spain and poland, who supported that. but the eu as a whole, led byjacques chirac of france, was absolutely opposed to it. so, when it comes to those key elements of britain's national security policy, it's not the eu that matters most. it's a relationship with the united states, and it is nato. well, the eu was absolutely split down the middle. it wasn't oppposed, it was split on iraq, some countries taking one position... the franco—german motor, which is still at the centre of the european union, thought that our decision to go into iraq was mad. correct, and a lot of people would agree with them that that was a good judgement. so when you tell me, though, if we leave the eu our security and military, our defence capabilities, will be fatally undermined, it seems to me categorically to fly in the face of history and the evidence.

but i haven't said our defence capabilities will be undermined. i said, in a very clear way, the internal security issues of law and order and judicial co—operation will be affected. they won't stop altogether, but the police will find it harder, slower, to take more resources, to achieve the co—operation that we have now. 0n intelligence, it won't be affected, on defence much less, because defence — eu has a defence capacity, but it's a very modest one. the main load goes through nato and our bilateral relationship with america, and i have never argued otherwise. and isn't it the truth, and you would know this much better than me, as a former ambassador to france, that even the french want very strong defence and military cooperation with britain, whatever happens? they do, although if you notice now on the defence industrial side, where we had very close corporation with the french, for example future aircraft, now suddenly all of that is orienting towards france and germany.

so the industrial side is more difficult. but, just to finish on that point, i think britain's weight in the world will be less as a result of leaving the eu, because instead of being an influential member of one of the largest blocs in the world, able to steer policies, we will be on the outside of it. and, for washington, we would be less useful as in ally because we will have cast anchor from the eu. well, frankly, that is not the way donald trump sees it, and hejust happens to be president of the united states. he thinks britain leaving the eu would be a jolly good thing. well, he has a view as well. you tell me blithely that it's going to damage relationships with washington, and the president of the united states is cheering us on as we leave the european union. he thinks it's terrific for britain and transatlantic relations. well, i leave donald trump's view to himself. i take the view that we'll be a less influential international player, and we'll have to work a lot harder to have an influence in the world outside the eu. there's a couple of things i wanted to get to before we finish the interview. 0n brexit, does it worry you that the foreign office in particular, which was your home for so long, seems to be peopled by mandarins who think brexit is not in britain's interest, is wrongheaded, misguided,

and shouldn't happen? it seems to me there is a groupthink, there is a bubble in the senior civil service, but particularly in the foreign office, which is not representative of the country as a whole. and surely, again, in governance terms, that is problematic. why do you think that? why do i think that there is this preponderance of one view? because people like sir simon fraser, who succeeded you as boss of the fco, in civil service terms says it's no secret that most people in the british foreign policy establishment favoured staying in the european union. well, favoured. but now, if you're in the civil service, and the reason for my question for you is because if you're in the civil service, i have complete confidence that they'll be doing a professional job to deliver the instructions of ministers. i would have done if i had been a civil servant. simon fraser would have done, john sawers would have done. and 0lly robbins, who is a senior civil servant, who has been involved in much of the negotiations with michel barnier in brussels,

is seen by those who support brexit, politicians as opposed to civil servants, as a man who brought his own beliefs and commitments and thoughts about brexit to the table, in a way that was deleterious to the negotiation from britain's point of view. well, i think that's disgraceful, to attack the civil servant that's in office like that. i mean, nobody knows what 0lly‘s personal views are. 0lly robbins has carried... 0lly robbins has got europe running through his veins — that is a quote from one brexiteer. sure, but 0lly robbins is a very professional civil servant, who has been given an almost impossible task by the red lines the prime minister has set him, who has struggled manfully over the last two years, and i think it's quite wrong for him to be attacked personally. i have complete confidence that those who are in the civil service will be doing what ministers tell them to do, and in the very best way they can. two quick points before we finish, one of them very germane to what happens to civil servants after they leave their posts. you left the civil service.

you are now a senior consultant adviser to lockheed martin, the us defence and arms manufacturer whose weapons are used by the saudi government in their campaign in yemen. does it trouble you that, again, with your experience, your place in the house of lords, the respect afforded to you as a former political civil servant, that you now work for an organisation, in defence, a huge corporation which is involved in helping the saudis bomb yemen? well, i have nothing to do with lockheed martin's arrangements in saudi arabia. i advise lockheed martin's uk office. well, hang on, but it's a global corporation. you can hardly disassociate yourself from what lockheed martin's parent in america does. if i can finish — i am not a spokesman for lockheed martin. i'm an adviser to them in their relations with the british government. that was cleared by the advisory committee on business appointments. it's a role which i can play between a major us corporate and british government on some issues of pretty fundamental importance to the uk, like a future strike fighter and other things that

lockheed martin do. and just one thought on that — when you work for a company that is so locked into a relationship with saudi arabia, and many see the murder of an independent journalist, as it was, jamal khashoggi in the consulate in istanbul, does it give you pause about your own compa ny‘s relationship? well, it's not my company. i'm an adviser in the uk. but you take a fee from them every year, and i wonder if it gives you pause? i take a fee from them in a relationship which is completely open and above—board. so what goes on in saudi arabia is not something i am involved in at all, either with lockheed martin, or in any other capacity. do you have a view on it? i have a view that saudi arabia, you know, has more to do to account for the murder of jamal khashoggi. and should governments and corporations therefore exercise their ability to put influence and leverage on the saudis, by either imposing sanctions, or indeed withdrawing commercial contracts? well, governments have been doing that. and the british government,

and jeremy hunt, and i give them credit for this, has been active on that. i make no comment on lockheed martin's policy. it's not my decision to do so. and the final area i would like your view on, that is the vexed issue of what to do about british citizens who went off to syria, sometimes iraq as well, to fight for the jihadists of the so—called islamic state. the germane issue right now is the young woman, shamima begum, who has been found in a camp in syria. she was a british citizen, but the home secretary has declared he is going to strip her of that citizenship because she went off to syria to support and do what she could for the jihadis. do you think, as a former national security adviser to david cameron, that was the right thing to do? well, i have been cautious about it, because i think for all of these people, this young lady, but others as well, who were born here, brought up here,

educated here, radicalised here, and therefore it's. .. we have some moral responsibility and some practical responsibility to bring them home and to have them face justice here, if they're not in a country where they can face justice in acceptable conditions. and i think to strip people like that of their british nationality, when they don't have another nationality, i think the argument is she is entitled to bangladeshi nationality. she has no contact with bangladesh at all. it seems to me that our obligation is to have these people back to the uk, to try them, if there is evidence they have committed crimes, and then to work to reintegrate them. and it may be that among these people will be some who will be sufficiently horrified with what they have seen that they can then help in the campaign to prevent other teenagers being seduced by islamist propaganda and going abroad. was it opportunism on the part of the uk home secretary to declare that she was no longer a british citizen? i personally think it was the wrong decision, that we ought to accept she was a british citizen, and have her back to this country. peter ricketts, lord ricketts, thank you very much for being on hardtalk. 00:24:55,247 --> 4294966103:13:29,430 thank you.