h in e? it is, afterall, the foreign common welt office. and, if i may say, isn't it also the case that we fly the flag of the european union? if we've got to be consistent, shouldn't we instruct to not fly the flag of the eu if they can't fly the commonwealth flag? >> on that last question the position is that outside of british european missions to fly the emblem alongside the union flag where there is a case in doing so. they have to make a business case for flying that eu emblem. >> last question, briefly.

that it's showing not consistent with your previous secretary. but on the day her majesty is here for the commonwealth surface at westminister abbey, we should surely make it a position. would you make that change before the general election? would you consider doing that? >> no. we've made a decision about flag flying this year. i know the number of people are disappointed with the commonwealth flag wasn't flying. but if we were to fly the commonwealth flag on commonwealth day i can promise you we will be inundated with requests to fly other flags and other emblems in support of articles as in other organizations.

are there any grounds for optimism about the u.n. media towards the parties in libya? >> yeah, i think there are some grounds. >> and when i meant the special representative, i have to be candid having listened to him. >> we have at least got people talking.

we have people with a focus on a catalytic event. the growing presence of isil in libya, which is i think, no cussing the minds of both people on the sides of the civil war. >> >>. >> it's a nuisance, to say the least. >> foreign secretary, quizzing you? >> thank you rngs foreign secretary. >> do you agree that peace keepers will be needed in libya? and, if so, has the u.n. government made any commitments? >> we haven't made any commitments. we've discussed on friday and

saturday. >> i think we recognized in discussing this european union that there would be a strong expectation that the european union would take the lead in providing peace keepers. that is not to say a military force to subdue the warring factions. but more of the policing force to maine tan a peace that had been established. libya is very much a step in business with roots through to the gulf of guinea, which is the

source of many of these things. it's very much in europe's interest to help to secure libya and ensure that the soit earn coast of the mediterranean is properly policed all the way along. >> >>. >> so clearly there's some steps in the peace keeping force. >> all i'm saying is that i think there is a recognition across the european union that it would be to europe that the world looked to provide such a force. if flfs a peace to keep in the future. >> so that element was discussed. was there any other developments? that were discussed last friday around some con kreet steps in libya to win the peace?

there are outside players involved in supporting both sides and seeking to apply diplomatic pressure on outside players to seek to minimize. is there are concerns about protecting the assets of the libyan people in the form of the assets of the central bank to ensure that they don't get acquired by either side.

>> i think it's not about how much time he spent in libya. northeast of them are taking place outside libya meetings in rome meetings in malta, meetings in tunisia, meetings in cairo. i think that would understate what he's doing to look only at the time spent in libya. obviously, time spent in libya is restricted by security considerations.

to be able to forge meaningful relationship stz. >> good. president,you touched upon in anxiousing my questions on the issue of being on the doorstep to europe. if so, how do we counter this

threat, specifically on the migration issue? >> well, the migration challenge is a threat to the whole of europe, not just to the u.k. but to the extent that travel is facilitated within europe. obviously, irregular migrants arriving in italy or spain are potentially a threat to the u.k. it does occur through ill leaguely trafficked people. we believe that the only way to stem this is at source. to tackle the traffickers, the smugglers, the extortionists who prey on these people along if way and to seek to work among countries of origin. and to reduce the impulgs to travel as it were among that

group of potential mile grat e grants. >> when your minister came in front of the commission last week, he said and i quote we need a policy on dealing with isil in libya. it is still the case that the government does not have a policy on dealing with isil. >> yeah well the policy, the desire, is to establish a government of national unity behind which the international community can then get in the fight against isil. they're willing to take some risks now in getting early behind the government of national unity to help it to tackle the threat to libya from

isil and other established groups in that country. >> i am aware that that sounds sliegtly wishful thinking. we'd just like there to be a nice government of national unity and then we support it to deal with the isil problem. we have also discussed in eu foreign ministers the obvious fact that we can't wait forever for a government of national unity to be fought. and if the initiative does not succeed, we will have to look at alternative strategies to deal with specific threat from those

isil-related groups in libya. >> a real prospect in libya which appears to be in a semi or hypnotic state where the people with guns are basically running the country are going bankrupt. >> i think there is calls for some moderate optimism. but i wouldn't put it any higher than that. i don't think to be an expert on libya. but those who are tell me that the principle protagonists. >> if people are really fighting

over territory and money and oil. it is easier to find solutions which divide the riches. and this is a rich country. so i would be moderately optimistic, but no more than that. cautiously optimistic but there could be a chance of the government of national unity. i do think that the presence of isil in the country, the inevitability that there will be continued intervention that is able to deal with the problem itself. i do think those are helpful points of oppression on the sides of the civil war to think very hard about whether it's in their collective best interests to try and resolve their differences and work together. >> foreign secretary, can we

turn to iran and the nuclear negotiations going on at the moment. quite clearly, they've made a sensitive point. >> it could become a spanner in the works.

>> it sigsales coming out of teheran teheran, but there is a desire to find a deal. there's still some very, very difficult issues on which there has been no movement at all. and you have to make some really quite heroic assumptions to get to the point where it's all agreed in the next two or three weeks. but i think compared to where we were in vienna we've made quite significant progress over the past few weeks, but still very challenging. >> well, first of all, you may have seen one of the issues

which is, of course, in congress over the last couple of weeks, including with the visitor of prime minister, it has made in progress more previously than it has changed in the dynamic as far as the united states are concerned. as the foreign secretary said we have made some progress in the negotiations. i think the reason they're from both sides to try to reach a deal, but the obstacles are still formidable. these are difficult decisions and are critical to success from which we do not have movement. so, as the justice said, we go into the negotiations, the next round of the negotiations with the degree of optimism.

but we frankly will not know where we've got an agreement until we got one. >> would we be prepared to veto a bad deal? >> yes. >> bad deal is better than no deal? >> no deal is better than the bad deal. there has to be complete transparency. that one year breakout time, as it's called, is our bottom line.

the iranians understand that. >> the deadline is the 30th of march. so it's quite possible that the detail of this, after parliament is being dissolved is how, in a way, the more important part is there's more knew wans to it. it can't be -- you consult the opposition when its comes to a nato for the intervention.

>> on iran, the deal when it comes in -- >> i consider that we set out, and i've just done it again pretty clearly, the parameters of a deal that we bould find acceptable. i do not anticipate a situation where we are going to decide when parliament's dissolved that actually we want to do a deal on six-months breakout that. 's not going to happen. it would have to as ministers do defer to the technical experts, a 12-month breakout, what kind of structure would give us a 12-month breakout guarantee. so long as we are at 12-months breakout, i consider that we have a clear view that

parliament would endorse such a settlement. i certainly don't recall any colleagues saying a 12-month breakout time is insufficient in the mood of par limit would certainly regard 12 months as being adequate. we're clear for our own reasons. but, also,. >> would it require an international treaty which would require ratification? >> it would be on a motion to support the agreement. >> that would be a detail eded

agreement drawn up. at best, there might be an agreement on the key elements. it would take several months of huge detail to make sure the loopholes, the technical specifications have been nailed down. and you may recall that the extension of the joint action agreed in vienna runs until the 13th of june. and my guess, until you get to that point, which you may not have an agreement, where we can say yes, we now have an agreement. >> if the agreement as the response secretary said, would almost be the united nations security council for a form of endorsement. >> foreign secretary, do you agree that the iranian government is determined to maintain on a breakout, the capability of exercising the option of having a nuclear weapon?

>> there's not a homogeneous position. there are different factions as there are in many governments as there are in probably many iranian societies. i suspect quite sharply divided on this issue. i think the important point is that we are not assuming good intent. we are working from the

assumption that there could be a breakout that gives us a year's notice were that to happen. that's how we're approaching the debate. >> foreign secretary, that completes our questionnaire. if there's any note that you might want to refer to before i wrap things up? >> as it happens,. >> the seo reviewed all license extents in russia. the,co ensured that all were

revoked. there's around just over a hundred, we think joule use licenses remaining in place. but these are in respect of goods up for non-military uses. for example, i.t. security products, mobile telecons products products which require licenses but which are not for military use. if i may i'll write to you chairman, and just confirm the detail behind that. i will think you and your fellow ministers in the offices. i would like to thank you for the cooperation you have given us for the last five years. our job is criticism of the foreign office, but done with

the best of intentions. i would like to think the relationship has been a model that other committees and government departments could faulty. i thank you all for the cooperation you have given us over the years. it has been appreciated. >> thank you. it may feel like a year, but it is just over seven month. [laughter] >> this sunday on q&a, the director of the georgetown university medical center watchdog project on how pharmaceutical companies lobby congress on what medications to prescribe. the promotion of the drug starts before the drug comes on the market. >> while it is illegal for them to market it before it has been approved, it's not illegal to market a disease.

so drug companies have invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of a certain condition, or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of the drug, for example. they blanket medical journals and meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug. and also to premiere -- prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition good -- condition. >> sunday on c-span's q&a. announcer: we are live from the renaissance hotel in washington, d.c. this is where the gridiron club will be hosting its annual dinner. the event is closed to cameras but we will be bringing guest arrivals over the next hour or so on seas and.

--on c-span. some of the expected attendees include president obama and governor terry mcauliffe of virginia. the gridiron club was founded in 1885, making it the oldest journalistic organization in washington, d.c. it's 65 numbers are reporters editors, and grow chiefs who work in the d.c. area. this is the 130th year for the dinner. it is a formal, wait time event known for featuring satirical speeches and skits from journalists and politicians. we will keep an eye on the arrivals for tonight to gridiron dinner as we are live from outside the venue outside the renaissance hotel in washington, d.c.