21/05/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Civil war in the Conservative party as the European referendum campaign

Plus the loss of an Egyptian airliner,

and the safety of all air passengers.

Mina al Oraibi who is an Iraqi writer.

Jeffrey Kofman who is a North American journalist,

About the only thing everyone on either side of the European

referendum campaign can agree on is that this is the biggest

decision for British voters in at least a generation

But what began in large part as an attempt by David Cameron

to manage honest divisions within the Conservative Party

on the issue has now become - perhaps predictably -

How far is the abuse muddying the important arguments

I said it was a civil war but it is a bit of an uncivil war. I don't

accept your premise that it began with the Tory party. I think from

time to time it is only right to obtain the consent for the

government in the manner that they are governed. Given that we have not

had a vote on our membership of the EU which has changed hugely since

1975, I think it is right to have a referendum. Obviously, I think those

who want to leave believe that but I think it is also the case for those

who wish to remain. Secondly, there is a strong market went on the left

for the European Union. That is why one of the applications for the

designation of the official Leave campaign was from the trade unionist

and Socialist coalition. There is not meant on the left that the EU is

a corporate stitch up done in the interest of big business and big

bank will stop that is the argument Jeremy Corbyn made when he became

leader of the Labour Party. It is not just in in-house Tory

discussion, yes, it has strongly divided the Conservative Party, but

I think again, another reason to disagree with the premise, there is

a lot of ugliness beyond the rhetoric that is happening between

Boris and Michael Gove and George Osborne. I think one of the worst

things that happened so far was one of the classic open Mike Gatz from a

Labour member Pat Glass, who was a colleague of yours at the BBC, she

did not realise the microphone was on and she said I knocked on a door,

first as my net was concerned about immigration, what a horrible racist.

That is the off-camera view of a Remain campaigner. There are a lot

of good principled people on the Remain side and people campaigning

to leave the EU but my instinct is that is a strong position on the

side of some of those who wish to remain. They think anyone who

disagrees with them is not just wrong, they are a racist. Pat

Glass's apology was not really because she was sorry for what she

said, she is not sorry for thinking what she thought, she is sorry for

getting caught. It reminds me of the gas by Gordon Brown at the election

in 2010 when he made a similar gaffe on microphone, with a woman who was

concerned about immigration. Gillian Duffy. We have just had David

Cameron hosting an international conference and was heard saying

Nigerians and Afghanistan is terribly corrupt. The Prime Minister

was being accurate, they are fantastically corrupt countries.

They are, but both current president of Nigeria and Afghanistan are

working hard to tackle that. But we go off message, I apologise for

that! I will go back on message and say what Pat Glass was responding to

is the fact the voter was complaining that there are these

Polish migrants and they think they are on the dole. It is a concern

about immigration but it is assuming that people are only coming here to

sponge off the government. That is not racist. It is illegitimate

concern but we have to see the context. We have gone immediately

into the meat of one of the arguments about this debate. My

point was that maybe it is time to have a referendum on Europe and so

on, maybe it is time to look at why we are governed. I wonder if David

Cameron thinks that today when he sees what is happening in the party

and the way people are calling each other out. The irony is he promised

this referendum, to keep the party together for the election, he won a

majority, and now the thing he thought he was avoiding is now

actually occurring before him, and he is presiding over this schism

within the party that threatens its very future. I think there are a

couple of things you can observe. The challenge with these kind of

votes is it is all about speculation. It is all about this

might happen, the fear will happen. You will lose this if it happens.

There are not anyways to have so-called facts in these

discussions. It comes who can scare most and it becomes about passion.

Therefore, these are not rational, grounded discussions. I think there

is a positive case in this referendum. People are discussing

sovereignty. People say patronisingly they do not discuss

this and that down the dog and duck, but now they are discussing how we

are governed, whether we can have trade deals or not, the short answer

is no trade deal except through the EU. These things are being discussed

and I think that is a good thing. They are being discussed but we have

had the prospect of world War three before us, Hitler raised, house

prices going down by 18% or whatever it is, we have 5.2 million

immigrants who will come in from new accession countries come if I were

missed meg looking in a crystal ball I could come up with stuff which is

less reliable. We do not know any of this stuff, do we? In that sense,

Cameron has become a hostage to fortune. He may regret calling the

referendum but he cannot avoid it now, he is in it. What more

arguments are there to be made except going one better and

increasing the fear factor and so forth. The debate becomes less

rational and more emotional. I agree with Alex that at the bottom of it

all, we are doing well to discuss what it involves. To come back to

the first point, Gavin, it is not just speculation that there will be

a huge wave of more immigrants coming to this country, because as

we know Britain is hugely popular in the world and Europe in particular.

There is no other European country which can claim to be at the mercy

of ever more immigrants coming to our shores like Britain. She has

enormous soft power. She is a magnet for all and sundry who want to come

here. I don't know why because the cost of living is so enormous! And

yet they want to come here so there is a rational case to be made, can

we contain the flow of this immigration or not? Can we become

hostage to ever more arrivals and find ourselves incapable of coping

with social services, schools and what have you? That is a

rational argument. And the NHS. These are terribly rational debates,

but sometimes the debate has been framed in a way which does not make

the politicians look very good. I think it is very unfair on Michael

Gove. We are getting close to calling him a racist for saying more

immigration places more of a burden on the NHS. That is a fact. We are

seeing more visits to A and treatments as a whole. But also,

many immigrants work in the NHS, not just for the EU. And neither I nor

Michael Gove dispute that. He didn't make that point, he didn't say the

NHS also relies on people coming from abroad to help us. He said

there could be a problem because of people coming to the NHS. He did not

frame it in both sides of the art amid which is fine, it is politics,

but it does not necessarily help divisions in the Conservative Party.

We are in a somewhat polemic discussion, are we not? One of the

things that comes out is you watch Cameron trying to control a party.

In the 20th century, we saw parties come together under a leader,

particular in Britain and also Canada where I am from. When you had

a majority, you could with your whip enforced discipline. I think what

you're seeing now, and not just in Britain is this idea that the

political party of the 20th century is having a lot of trouble staying

unified, that with social media, with transparency and the immediacy

of communication, it is much more to impose that you behave or you are in

trouble. This kind of fracture that we are seeing, we see it in Labour

with the divisions over Corbyn's leadership. I think we are stuck

looking at these parties as if they are in the 20th century. I have

raised this with a senior figure in Labour, is the Labour Party held

together by one big idea of social democracy and socialism, if so what

is it, or is it held together by the fact that if parties split in

Britain you are heavily penalised because of our voting system and it

is probably a bit of both? I don't think all Labourites share that

view. I think there are a lot of little centrists who vote Labour and

a lot of moderates who vote Conservative. I think these parties

are having trouble maintaining that. You see this in the US. We are

watching Donald Trump, we see the fracture in the Republican party and

with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders fighting it out until the

end. When David Cameron thought of this referendum and brought it up, I

agree with the point you raised, Alex, it is important to have a

serious and honest discussion about it, but it was a short-term strategy

thinking about this is how I will get through the election, and then

passed the election, dealing with the referendum. The idea that

collective responsibility has gone out of the window, for the British

political system, has huge consequences. There is this fact of

life that parties are very difficult to keep together. Parties are, but

collective responsibility in a cabinet system is hugely important.

Even when we had the coalition they had to stick with it. Even when Nick

Clegg completely was agreed, they had to toe the line. But they should

not have had a referendum, should you? Cabinet acknowledge they had to

leave it for a free vote. There is no way they could have avoided it

because the issue itself was so central and seminar and strategic to

the country as a whole and his party. What I fear, Gavin, is not

just the war in the Conservative Party, I fear about the perception

of the stability of British politics as a whole. If you look at it from

my point of view in Germany, we worry that if Britain can be a

predictable culture in the next few years, because on top of the

referendum, we have Cameron's decision not to stand for election

in 2020. Once the referendum is over there will be holy war about

accession to come. I was in Scotland recently and people were talking

about how growth in the Scottish economy has been damaged, they say,

because there was a referendum. Because people held back on

investment. I talked to an Economist this week. He said never mind the

result, we will see lower growth because of a referendum, because

people are holding back on investment. You deal with a lot of

businesses. Is that true? I forget who said economists are put on earth

to make astrologers look respectable... In the 1985

Quebec referendum is, when I was a boy in Canada, all of the five major

banks were in Montreal. They moved to Toronto. The economy of Quebec

never recovered from the sovereignty movement. I think Britain has a

bright future within or outside of the EU. I think this is a short-term

concern. The issue for me is what happens in the long-term

economically. That is where the uncertainty lies. For me, the

certainty lives if we stay in. With France and Germany, the GDP can

never catch up with the debt. If France or Italy hit the rock they

are aiming for, everyone will have to bail them out. Surely the

financial crisis showed that G20 and wider countries had to step in. In a

globalised system, if the UK was outside of France and Germany

stumbled, we would all be affected. We would not have the same

responsibility. Frustration for me as this is where we see the real

discrimination in the EU between member states. We almost France and

Italy would be treated differently to how Greece is treated. 50% youth

unemployment, hospitals closed. That is real austerity. Are you

suggesting that if the UK pulls up the drawbridge and with this

referendum in France, that the UK would not be obliged to help? They

need to for self-interest. Beyond the rhetoric of it, I think pulling

up the drawbridge is an absurd suggestion. Britain is a global

trading nation. Precisely. It needs France and Italy. But we would not

have the same obligation that we would have as a member of the EU

towards member states. In exactly the same way that earlier this year,

and economists, who knows how reliable, a pretty specific figure

of 1.8 billion as the UK figure to help on board Turkey as an accession

state. I think it is almost certain that if France and Italy, with their

enormous debt problems if they go off the rails, they would have to do

something incredibly drastic not to at this point. That is their

direction of travel. We are much more likely to end up bailing them

out. Do we get affected if we're not in the EU? Yes. This is more about

the Department of fear again. It is about what might happen based on

your opinion. It is a legitimate possibility... The French and

Italians are in debt... But there are a lot of leaps of faith here

that by pulling out things will be different etc and this will happen

imminently. The problem is so much of this boat is about speculation.

Do you think if we left the EU we would be more likely to be allowed

the French and Italians? I do not think we would be less likely. To

bring this back to where we started, do any of you see there will be a

major realignment in British politics after this vote? Or do

think the parties will kiss and make up because they have to? There will

be a period of uncertainty between now and the next five years. If that

impinges of investment, who knows. Nigel Farage is saying it will help

Ukip, that is his prediction. But at a short-term thinking. We don't care

which party will benefit like Ukip. We need a more serious setup of

political stability. Think the ability to form our own trade

agreements and look to old friends and allies outside the EU will

redefine the nature of politics. Ironically, that might help the

Brexit case that there will be a more predictable way will stop but

the time that we get new trade deals, what will happen to our

economy and secondly, if the referendum is something like 52 to

48 either way, it will not end the discussion. It is kind of like what

will happen -- what happened in Scotland. It will not be a

definitive answer. People will say what about a second referendum and

that increases the uncertainty. Is the question about who will vote,

who goes to the polls? I get the sense that those who want to leave

much more fired up about it than those who wish to stay, because for

those who wish to stay, the EU is not that great better the devil you

know? One thing polls disagree on is those who are determined to Vote

Leave are more likely to vote and they are more likely to talk about

it with their friends, more likely to turn out, even if it is

inconvenient for them, if they cannot find their ballot card, if

they cannot get to the polling station without it being

inconvenient and so forth. That perfect turn out to an extent. The

biggest thing which will affect turnout is whether or not people

think it is a done deal or whether people think it is close. The

trouble of Mina was implying, if we have a very close result on a very

low turnout, then whichever side wins will say that is the result,

and whichever side loses will say is that the jet at? And also what

happens to our economy? -- is that legitimate. Many countries trade

without a trade agreement at all. We have no trade agreement with China.

President Obama says we will be at the back of the queue, there is no

trade deal with the US at the moment. It was ridiculous. There is

no -- it was an empty threat. I think we have exhausted this topic!

The glamour of air travel disappeared long ago,

aided in great measure by al Qaeda, the 911 hijackings and attempts

to use cosmetics and even shoes to hide explosives in the air.

Now the disappearance of the Egyptian airliner

bound from Paris to Cairo - whatever the precise cause -

What more can be done to make airlines safe?

In Egypt, they're all kinds of conspiracy theories, what do you

make it first of all? It is impossible to speculate about what

happened, but the impact will be huge either way. Whether this is a

mechanical failure, what it will mean for EgyptAir, what it means for

Airbus, what it means for our trust in air travel is one thing,

especially as we have had a series of mechanical failures. If it is a

terrorist attack then everything from security at Charles de Gaulle,

and all so different airports and what it means. Some people say

you've let those who work in the airport and increasingly people are

saying for Muslim workers in airports. We feed into that fear,

that guilt by association. You are guilty until proven innocent,

however, there is a real terrorist threat and we cannot deny that. We

had the Russian Metro Jet plane which was shot down last year, and

the impact it had an Sharm el-Sheikh, it is a real blow, in

addition to the human tragedy we are seeing. In terms of terrorism, and

the uptick we have had in attacks and being able to terrorise people,

everything from we still take off our shoes, what this will mean to

air travel. If there is any proof that a device was put on board, what

this will mean for sweeping aeroplanes. It is impossible to do

it with a plane taking off every minute at Heathrow. The psychology

of people travelling generally and also airport procedures. It is all

too soon to speculate. We had an incident in the UK this week with

the Manchester United game being cancelled because of a bum a device

which turned out to be false. 70,000 people had to be evacuated. Yes, it

is amazing how security services are getting better and better at dealing

with these situations, but also our sense of risk and the way we deal

with risk is not as good as it used to be. Look at a country like Iraq.

We had 200 people died this week from terror attacks. That is the

real failure. We see countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria which are

failing their citizens in protecting them. But we have a very difficult

time in factoring in risk. I spoke to an expert who said 2016 has been

a really safe year so far, even when you include what ever has happened

here. Statistics is one thing but how you feel is different. If you

quote statistics, considering the number of people who travel and the

number of airlines which take off and land every day, this is a

minimal event which does not register on the statistical scale,

but it is the psychology of it, I agree. On the other hand, given time

for this incident to pass into the past, people will then again use

their instinct and say we need to travel, we want to get to foreign

destinations, we want to have our holidays. It will mostly affect

countries which are already suffering. Like Egypt. It is one of

the most important sources of income for Egypt. It even if you look at

the more Western Europe in nations, something could happen again,

mechanical failure could strike fear in the hearts of people or there

might be a terrorist attack on planes destined for Spain. Who

knows? Unfortunately, we have to live with the fear factor, it is the

way of the world. One thing you have to factor into the complexity of

this, when things happen to developing countries, they react

differently to developed countries. I was a correspondent in 1999 when

an aircraft crashed en route to Cairo. That investigation, the

Egyptians said to the National Transportation Safety Board, we do

not have the resources, it is in international waters, can you

conduct the investigation? They determined it was the flight officer

who downed the plane. The Egyptians said we are going to do our own

investigation. In the end, there were two conclusions. The Americans

said it was a wilful downing by this first flight officer, and the

Egyptians said it was a mechanical error. It became an issue of

national pride, that clouded the ability to come to a logical

conclusion. I think the Americans believed, the evidence of the

flight's movement in its last period suggested it was not a mechanical

failure, there was a deliberate downing, much like the Germanwings

flight. The point being that it does cloud the discourse and particularly

as Mina said, the damage to the fragile economy of Egypt, as it

tries to recover from the instability of the Arab Spring and

all these terrorism acts, really is enormous. I think part of where this

really hurts Egypt is when you have 90 million people and so much

unemployment, and this seed of terrorism flowering throughout, the

unemployment caused by these incident leaves more young

disaffected people vulnerable. And it becomes a vicious circle. We have

a couple of minutes left. One must never lose sight of the human

tragedy which affects individuals. Sometimes in our efforts to find out

what it means, we skirt past that, and we mustn't. Once we sympathise

with those involved profoundly, we must think about what it means more

widely for us, whether it is a terrorist attack or not. What it

means for us living our lives. And that extent, it does not matter

whether it is an accident or terrorism. We must remember that

aviation is a safe form of transport and it has enjoyed a pretty safe

period. We fly more than ever and it is increasingly safe. We must not

allow whether it is an accident or an act of terror, we must not let

either put us off the increasing and improving way of life we have that

has given birth to higher quality of life, longer life expectancy, a

better quality standard of living. These things come about because of

transport and improved technology. We must not let our way of life be

shaken. Thank you. That's it from Dateline

London for this week. You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler. We're back next week

at the same time. Please make a date

with Dateline.