07/01/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

two stories likely to dominate the year ahead.

First, the future of the European Union as Britain

And secondly, how far President Putin and Russia

are steering events in the Middle East and elsewhere,

with Donald Trump perhaps in the passenger seat.

Annalisa Piras, who is an Italian film maker.

Lyse Doucet, who is the BBC's chief international correspondent.

Michael Gove of The Times, and who is also a Conservative MP.

Britain's top diplomat in the European Union,

Sir Ivan Rogers, quit this week amid the continuing political

row about Britain being unprepared for Brexit.

But with Italy's banks in trouble, the Greek crisis unresolved,

elections in Germany and France in 2017 and in Italy by 2018,

plus fears about the euro, how much of a mess is the European Union

and more importantly the eurozone actually in?

Michael? Over the course of this year the attention will focus on

German elections and French elections and Dutch elections

particularly and three countries there will be strong populist

challenges. I believe Gert builders in the Netherlands will top the

poll, but I suspect the other parties, for the first time in the

Netherlands, will save the person who topped the poll should not be in

government. In France I suspect Marine Le Pen will make it to the

run-off and run the other candidates very close. In Germany the Germany

the alternative the Deutschland, the

anti-immigrant, anti-EU party will get more than 20% in the polls and

may do better than the social Democrats, the coalition partners.

It will shake the confidence of the EU's current leadership. How much of

that do you agree with? There are many parties in Germany and Italy

who are pretty Eurosceptic. Yeah. The kind of picture that Michael has

just painted is correct. Not much is going to happen until the German

elections in the autumn so we have in front of us a long period of

uncertainty and instability in which populist forces are going to mount

an extraordinary challenge to the status quo. Having said that, there

is something else going on, which is extraordinary story, and terrifying,

which could pull together the European Union leaders who are going

to be smart enough and convincing enough to explain to the people

what's going on in the world. I'm referring to the migrant phenomenon

which is going to accelerate massively and is going to show, for

the first time in European history, how the outside challenges can

combine with inside challenges and make the situation untenable unless

Europeans work together. Specifically on Italy, how far are

people concerned about the Italian banks? I've seen debt write-downs of

50%, people are suggesting in reality many banks will be lucky to

get 20% back on bad loans. In other words they are insolvent. The

banking crisis in Italy is one crisis and people have lost faith in

the banking system and the government a long time ago. There

was a very eloquent front cover of a magazine saying welcome back to the

past. Italy is looking at 2017, looking back at what has been

happening in Italy and not expecting anything good from this New Year.

There is a generalised gloom and doom, despair, lack of any hope

whatsoever. The banking crisis is just one of the aspects. Lyse, we

tend to look down one end of the telescope, Brexit Britain and the

challenges here. How difficult to all these other challenges make it

for any British government? You talk about the European Union and we have

discussed how disunited and shaky and fragile this edifice of the

European Union is. Brexit was another jolt. It is now very shaky

in a year with major elections. For those two pillars, Germany and

France, looking inward, and you can't look inward all the time. You

have to take care of the external factors. Brexit will force them to

look inward as well. That is what could set in motion, and already

has, along with the victory of Donald Trump in the USA, these

political forces that are tearing at the whole ethos of the EU. The

migration crisis was emblematic of just how divided Europe is

politically, socially, morally, in every which way in terms of how they

responded. There was no EU response to that and there still isn't. From

the United States, is the European project in serious trouble in 2017,

and particularly the euro? The European project is in tremendous

trouble and far worse than the people in the US are aware of.

People are focused on the domestic situation. Having watched the EU

closely for several years, there's never been a crossroads like this

before and the idea of a closer union is so discredited at this

point that it's almost not worth uttering the words. I've had this

disagreement with Annalisa before. She talks about a common European

response to the immigrants and I think that's beyond the leadership

of Europe. You put those 28 or 27 leaders in a room and you have such

competing, impossible to reconcile self interest that the immigrant

crisis could be what divides it and what leads to gradual breaking away.

Hungary, for example, and some of those countries surrounding Hungary

take one view, Germany and other. Germany, Italy, everyone's crisis

point is different, and so is Britain's. For any British Prime

Minister or negotiating team, never mind affections from the civil

service, to get the attention of any European leader, particularly Angela

Merkel this year, will be difficult. It is. One of the points made by two

of the principal negotiators is that until the German elections

concluded, it will be difficult to get the full focus and the full

attention of everyone in Europe on these negotiations. The point is

also made that once negotiations are concluded, there needs to be

agreement as much as possible across Europe before any deal can be

settled. There is an imperative on the Prime Minister and the British

negotiating team to make clear, and I know the Prime Minister hopes to

in the next week or so, what the core asked of the European union is.

Clarity in this process is absolutely critical to success. More

important, what is the core ask of Britain? You have your cake and you

want to eat it. Yes. Europe might be able to respond. I expressed my

softball, what is Britain asking of the EU? We need to be clear about

what Britain is requesting. It's not open-ended, the clock is ticking.

Once the trigger is pulled with Article 50, they have two years. You

cannot waste a year, even though a year with Germany and France

focusing on their elections, they will have to do something about

Brexit is Brexit. It's not just Theresa May saying that, John Claude

Yunker has said it, so has Merkel, you have to get it done quickly. It

will be up to Britain to clarify, because I don't think anybody in the

British government knows what Brexit they want. I think they do. A

critical thing for the EU is if those who are currently steering it

play a clumsy hand, that will only strengthen what they considered to

be populist forces. Marine Le Pen has put the European institutions on

notice that if British institutions are punished for leaving she will

make that a rallying cry. It is also the case that if countries like

Poland and Hungary that take a very different line to the current EU

court leadership see that leadership privileging its position, its

ultra-federalist position over some of their interests, that could

create difficulties as well. Can I ask some of you who cover these

things to take a step back from this week 's headlines in Britain. Ivan

Rogers have left. Many people would not be familiar with his name or the

name of his successor. How important of these people who have been

derided in some of the papers as the Sir Humphreys? How important are

these people rather than the politicians? Are good ambassador or

High Commissioner is gold dust. They are your eyes and ears in the

country and they have... They are able to tell you forensically what

the situation is. It is up to leaders to listen... Or not. Even

though nobody should listen to experts! They are the experts of all

experts. Ivan Rogers said he knew the British system so well, he knew

the European system so well, he knew all the players. His replacement is

also a very steady hand, but she's losing a key person. It is a tragedy

for Britain that he has resigned. Simply because the world is getting

so complex, the old order is being replaced by completely unstable and

unpredictable orders. Diplomats in this moment are keyed to the

national interest because they understand the way the world is and

the way it's going. The fact he has resigned and he has warned the civil

servants, please speak to the power, it's very, very important. Let's not

forget that the British diplomatic service is considered to be one of

the best in the world. Rogers is a patriot, he is an example of the

best of the Foreign Office. The fact that he has left is very, very

significant and very, very serious. The world is getting very, very

complex and to look only at the British interests and not looking at

the big picture is very dangerous for the national interest. It also

struck me in his farewell e-mail to the civil servants when he was

pointing out that Whitehall and in general Britain doesn't have the

negotiating expertise, doesn't have the staff, doesn't know enough about

how to do the trade deals and he also, in his earlier memo which

leaked, pointed out that even after this two-year process it will be up

to each national parliament to approve the deal and it could fail

at that point. He said some pretty important things that bats the Prime

Minister was not interested in hearing. I'm conscious that the idea

of some kind of Goldilocks Brexit, that everybody likes, not too hard

or soft or hot or cold, won't even work within your own party. The

least of the Prime Minister 's worries is the Conservative Party.

There's a strong consensus behind the type of Brexit most

conservatives would like see. Philip Hammond against Theresa May, big

differences. I don't think so. It's interesting to see the way opinion

has moved outside the Conservative Party. This week and is capable --

Vince Cable made it clear he thought freedom of movement shouldn't

continue. Who would have imagined 12 months ago that someone is committed

as Vince to the Liberal Democrat tradition would have said one of the

core freedoms of the EU should no longer apply? Theresa May she's --

says she wants workers for the farming community and others save

they want banking and service sectors to have freedom of movement.

It's entirely possible to have a migration policy that allows Britain

to get the skills it needs in the sectors that matter without

accepting freedom of movement as it currently operates within the EU.

You will say but not being the single market. You're not going to

say that! The problem with the muddled thinking is that Britain

seems still not able to understand that you can't have your cake and

eat it. You can't have the single market and not freedom of movement.

It's not on the table! It's not on the table! I don't think we do want

to be in the single market. The cake is not on the table. Balatoni.

President Putin has engineered a rapprochement of sorts

with a key player in Nato - Turkey - and is using it to drive

It comes as Donald Trump prepares to take over the US presidency

amid concerns he is close - perhaps too close -

to Putin, and picking a fight with China and possibly Iran.

As Mr Trump remains a riddle wrapped in an enigma,

where are the flashpoints we should worry about in 2017?

And is Putin playing a weak hand with great skill?

The report by the US intelligence agency, the bits that have made

public, it does suggest that Russia really played a very strong role in

the US election, quite an extraordinary role, whether it made

any difference in the voting is a matter of contention. I don't think

there's much doubt it made a difference. Mr Trump doesn't think

so. They had a very concerted, well directed, successful 16 and 18 month

intrusion into the Democratic Party's e-mails which I blame the

Democrats. They were sloppy. We are all pretty sloppy with their e-mails

and they left themselves to blame, they were completely wide open to

state intrusion and Putin's people do that sort of thing

extraordinarily well. It was very effective. It had to have swung some

votes towards Trump, but so did a lot of other things. Nobody is

saying Trump is the president because of Putin, but he enters with

this very cloudy relationship with Putin that will be problematic. It

is extraordinary in our lifetime to have any American leader being that

close to the leader of the Kremlin, particularly somebody who used to be

in the KGB. It sounds like science fiction and if ten years ago

somebody would have told you rub candid and would have been elected

with the help of a former KGB agent, it would have sounded crazy. That

script would never work! Actually we need to brace ourselves because we

are entering a very, very dark year. 2017, especially in Europe with all

these elections, and clear evidence that Russia has been waging cyber

warfare to influence the American elections, of all countries, is

something that might really put us on alert. We've got a number of

elections in Europe and Putin has already been trying to meddle with

Germany, public opinion, in many ways. He's been doing it in the

former Warsaw Pact countries, he's been doing it everywhere. We need to

be aware. This is a year in which what we have taken for granted, the

international law and order, the kind of force of the law, is going

to be replaced. We know that Francois Phil on in France is quite

receptive to Russia playing a bigger role in Europe. We know that Putin

is playing what could be seen as a very weak hand, but playing it very

well. That's exactly what American diplomats will concede. A week and

played extraordinary well. In December 2015 when Russia decided to

intervene militarily in Syria, there were warnings from Barack Obama it

would be another Afghanistan, a quagmire where Russia will get

bogged down. What has happened instead is that Russia, President

Putin has had the projection of military force and forced the

conclusion he wanted. I spent most of 2016 going to one security forum

after another with Western leaders saying we will not accept the

changing of borders in our Time by force, we will not accept the

post-1945 order will be changed. Russia went into Crimea and it is

still there. Russia not only shifted the momentum on the battlefield in

Syria, saved President Assad from collapse on free -- key front lines,

it's a key player on the battlefield and I was in Aleppo jeering the last

stages of the war for that important city. Then he shifted to the

negotiating table. It was Russia and Turkey which negotiated the

evacuation from Aleppo. Russia and Turkey is driving the talks to take

place not in Geneva of Vienna or Paris, but in Russia. It's

extraordinary. Even British diplomats will concede that Vladimir

Putin went from zero influence in the Middle East in 20 15th to now

being the major player with the military force and the political

will to back it up. Golf states are saying we wish our ally was

President Putin. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and also Iran, the

impact of Russia putting its weight about and being successful. Has that

changed things? It's always been asked if Russia and Iran CI die in

Syria, but they don't. They have a shared interest in seeing President

Assad, or at least his regime, remaining, but they have different

strategic interests. Russia wants its military base, Iran wants to

maintain its corridor to Lebanon and has Bhullar, it wants its access to

forces. The question will be once President Trump enters the mix. He

seems to want to work with President Putin, but he also wants to

undermine Iran's influence. If you're going to work in Syria, it's

hard to square that circle. How do you see President Trump's relations,

potential relations, with Mr Putin? Do you see that as a worried that

Britain should be concerned about? One should be alive to some of these

concerns. There are people who have been in the Trump entourage who have

said things about Putin that give me cause for concern. There are others

in the Trump transition team who have been quite robust towards

Russia. It is an area of concern. But we should take one step back.

Many of the games President Putin has made which

cause me concerned and heartache are as a consequence of the weakness

shown by President Obama. We had an opportunity to intervene in Syria in

2013. The British Parliament much to my regret chose not to. Present an

Obama said that was the reason they didn't do it. The President of the

United States could have shown greater resolution and clarity at

that time. It's a great shame that in the final days of his presidency

there's been an element of displacement activity on the part of

President Obama and John Kerry. They have concentrated the United Nations

about resolutions on Israeli settlements rather than accepting

that they played a much bigger role in the clips of Western power in the

Middle East and the unhappy consequences that Lyse has alluded

to with God states looking to Russia for a role. They play a heavier role

and carry it a heavier responsibility than anything Mr

Trump has to have on his conscious at this moment. How far do you buy

that? The other way of looking at that same story is that after

Afghanistan and after Iraqi, Obama did not want to get involved in some

kind of protracted conflict. The opinion polls and MPs here said the

same thing. There's a consistency to the eight years of Obama's foreign

policy. It's been a bit ambiguous in Afghanistan but he's not wanted more

interventions and I think he inherited a truly disastrous

situation from the prior administration and has spent eight

years trying to cope with it and now it goes back the other way. It's a

very confusing time for American foreign policy. Six months ago Obama

was proud of what he had accomplished and what he had not

been dragged into and I think that's no longer the case. I was with US

diplomats the day the US went into Syria and they were convinced Putin

was making a disaster error and he's -- it's paid off beautifully for

Putin. On the other hand, if you want to be more optimistic, it is

true that this new international scenario does put a lot of pressure

on the Europeans. It is true that the bombing of civilians by the

Russians in Syria has caused all the European leaders to really think

long and hard, what are we going to do? If America doesn't in gauge, if

America decides, as Trump has said, that he doesn't want to pay any more

for Nato, the Europeans by necessity have to come together in order to

ensure their own security. The last European Council, there was no

discussion of what had been happening in Syria and no resolution

to deal with what Russia had been responsible for. It's only in the UK

that there is a live debate about the need to increase defence

spending. That's not correct. There are plenty of smaller countries. If

you've been watching EU politics you would see there's been an

acceleration in terms of common defence spending, common research.

More spending? But not more men and more material. The Baltic states are

concerned. If you look at who is putting forces on the eastern border

of Nato come it is America, Canada, Britain. One of the concerns that I

have is that the European Union, for the reasons we discussed at the

beginning, is turning inward and while there is a belief that they

should be institutional change within Europe, what there isn't is

the resolution in dealing with the anti-democratic forces that Putin

has marshalled. We've come full circle. We started off with Michael

saying there was huge internal issues to reserve -- resolve, and

there are in the EU, but they will be forced to confront the problems

of their unity, or the lack of it, when President Trump stalks about

Nato and you have to pay your own way. What about when President Trump

starts talking about easing the sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.

Angela Merkel were leading the way in terms of Russia and dealing with

Ukraine. These are red button issues for Europe in terms of values and

principles. They cannot left then drift away. I suspect if Marine Le

Pen doesn't win, if Francois Phil on might have a chance, that will be

the key moment in which we could see a real change in Europe, especially

on defence and security issues. France is very keen. That will also

have a strong influence on Brexit negotiations. We have one minute

left. I wanted to ask you if we'd missed what could be the scariest

story of the year, which is China, North Korea, South Korea, relations

there and Donald Trump's attitude to China. We don't know what he will

do, but it is interesting. And his attitude to nuclear proliferation,

where has attitude has been its no problem. Will it change in the Oval

Office? We don't know, he hasn't clarified his view. He was very

robust about North Korea. Judging from his tweets rather than major

policy statement. Whatever Obama told him rattled him on that first

day when Obama first met with him after the election. Trump expresses

a willingness to Japan and South Korea to get nuclear weapons. What

he said would overturn their codes of nonproliferation. On that note,

happy New Year! You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler We're back next week

at the same time.