25/02/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

The state we're in - is there a vacuum at the heart

How far does the future of the European Union rest

And, the fight against the group calling itself Islamic State.

My guests today are Agnes Poirier who is UK editor

Stryker McGuire of Bloomberg Markets,

Mina al Oraibi, the Arab Affairs commentator,

and Ned Temko who is an author and journalist.

The tradition in Britain is for Opposition parties to do well

in by-elections since they can often be used as a protest vote

This week, the Conservatives actually won a seat in Copeland held

by Labour for several generations and Ukip's leader lost

in the seat his party claimed was Britain's Brexit

As we move towards Brexit, we clearly have a Government.

Do we have anything which looks like an Opposition?

Perhaps the Scottish National party? Yes perhaps the unelected House of

Lords the short answer, do we have an opposition in the House of

Commons is absolutely not. You mentioned by elections. Opposition

parties have to work up -- might lose a by-election against a sitting

government. It happened once in the early 1980s but Labour was splitting

at the time. It went so far to the left it became serially unelectable,

but the last real loss by an opposition party was in the 1960s.

The last time Labour lost that particular seat was in the 1930s so

it's a huge deal. It's hard to see how Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party

leader, can recover, not so much just from the by-election but from

the fact that clearly the opinion polls, by-elections and everything

shows, that a critical mass of even Labour voters don't see him as my

ministerial and that's difficult. And yet the reaction has been that

they lost but it could have been lost and steady as she goes. What

interesting is that Labour has its own opposition and the reason we had

this by-election is that you had to front bench is resigning. It's

interesting because we are seeing this serious opposition to Jeremy

Corbyn and yet there's real denial amongst those who support him and

say he can carry on. Of course, we have you -- Ukip and Lib Dem vying

for who is the third party and still third parties here don't impact the

big picture politics. But we are seeing the competition between them

who are getting a smaller size of the electorate but they are clearly

defined and we know what they stand for. Interestingly, both are very

much focused on Brexit and the EU. One completely for eight and one

completely against it. Absolutely. But for the Conservatives and

Labour, it is a constituency that was Labour for 80 odd years because

the -- people felt the MP could look out for them in an area that

ordinarily Labour looks out for them. What is the defining peak --

of each other parties? It's hard say. The Lib Dems and Ukip are

ideological your post but there are also differences elsewhere. The Lib

Dems are gaining support. Anecdotally you hear it a lot

largely because of what's going on. Party-macro is in serious trouble,

really serious trouble. Paul Nuttall, their leader, fought a

pretty disastrous campaign in a seat he clearly thought they should win

and so did party workers because they put in a lot of effort but the

party was shambolic. It must have been cringe-making to have been

around him when all this was going on. It was appalling. Here's another

leader who presumably will survive just because they've had such

trouble finding a successor. Maybe he and Jeremy Corbyn could swap?

Where do you see this? You could say the Conservatives have their

opposition within their own ranks also although it is more quiet and

subtle than it has been in the Labour Party. Theresa may has a

boulevard in front of her, no opposition. When you listen to her

she is now the workers party. She said this weekend we are the party

of the workers. But you tend to leave her and that is to her credit

on that level. It is the nuclear industry that did it to her credit.

But that is also happening in France because there's no opposition. The

French left is in disarray in the same way as it is here. Not to

mention the American left. Some things must or something had to give

and that is the rise of the centrist party, the split of labour and the

Socialist party in France. Something win happen because it cannot go on

like this. The reason she has a boulevard now is that she can go on

sometimes in a new thing Brexit means Brexit because it hasn't

happened yet. The other issue that has yet to drop is what happens when

article 50 is triggered, when some of the real-life effects begin to

take hold? That is when, particularly inside the Tory party,

it will be worth watching. You need somebody to take advantage

of that, don't you? You do and she may start considering an early

election now because the momentum that she has at the moment she won't

keep when Article 50 is triggered, we assume. So now 's the time to

consider calling an early election. When could you ever say that a

Conservative Prime Minister's popularity rose a further north you

go until you reach Scotland? That is remarkable. Copeland is the North

and Labour and the North... But do you think that, into this vacuum,

Tony Blair could come back? David Miliband? A good question because,

of course, Tony Blair is the man that the British love to hate but he

was the only sense voice. That was a week ago when he talked about

Europe. Not everybody thinks that, I should say. Even people who hate him

could thing, I agree with every word. He made the broader argument

that it isn't just about Brexit. In other words, we see Trap and Brexit

and he was arguing for a reconstitution of the centre-left or

centre-right coalition -- Trump. It could steal it a reasonable path.

For example, David Miliband. Someone who has been in British politics,

but he was associated with or tarnished by the Tony Blair years

and that's the challenge. He was part of the Tony Blair thing. And

that's never going to go away but the memories will become more fuzzy.

It will become an asset at some point, I'm sure of that. He was a

relatively independent member of new Labour in that he started as a

policy adviser and he always had a mind of its own. The question is,

does he have the real ambition because that keep junctures during

the mess that was Gordon Brown -- Gordon Brown versus Tony Blair,

there was an opportunity and even an expectation on some on the Blair

side of the party that David Miliband would seize the crown. He

always didn't quite want to do it. A certain sense of decency actually.

He's not cut-throat enough. He really extracted himself out of that

hole rivalry with his brother and so forth and there's a reason he's

never ruled it out. I spoke with him a few months ago briefly and asked

if he would come back. He said, the time is not really right but you

never know. Yesterday he said never say never. But the thing is, several

times he's had an opportunity to go for it and he hasn't. So the

question is, has he acquired the sort of backbone that you need to

really push it to the next level? Especially since the party is in

much worse shape than when he ran for leader. Since...

Since France and Germany have together been the motors

of the European Union, elections in both countries this

year will define the future of the EU at its most difficult

period, with Britain determined to leave.

If, in France, Marine LePen wins, is the Euro and possibly

If she wins she will have a vote on the euro. She won't win. I was

trying to get beyond that. I might have to eat my words in May, but we

have two rounds, OK? That's the big difference with the Brexit vote. She

will come first in the first round and then she will most probably lose

at the second round. Opposite Emmanuel Macron or opposite film

macro. OK, she has the slightest chance of becoming the next

president of France if the turnout is really low -- or Francois Fillon.

If it is Francois Fillon against Marine Le Pen row, because he is so

damaged, and people don't vote -- don't bother to go and vote she has

some chance. I know we are not allowed to mention... The president

of the United States. We took a vow not to mention him. But I wonder

whether the you know who effect will galvanise French voters to realise,

do we want that or the equivalent? And whether turnout will be

affected? She's had quite a good week, hasn't she? This headscarf

business... Appealing to the kind of electric she wishes to appeal to,

she couldn't have asked for something better in secular France.

That's correct, it's incredible though because she also has

financial scandals at her door with exactly the same allegations from

Brussels the way she uses her budget to actually hire people and it's

been quite dodgy and Brussels is launching enquiries against her.

What you mean? In terms of her electorate, she did a clever job in

refusing to wear a headscarf? Absolutely and whoever is president

of France they had to work with her survey had to receive her although

it was complicated for Muslim Lebanese local factions. But

regardless what happens in the election, if she doesn't win in

France than the EU is safe? That has huge problems. Even if she doesn't

get in, the EU will not be able to pull out from this as we have the

Greek crisis, we have real troubles in Italy and we don't know what will

happen with issues against immigration. Germany? Although of

course the election of the new president gave many people some hope

of the sort of stature coming in as president and the stature of the

Germans at the moment. It looks good but we will have to wait and see.

How are the leaders of Europe working together to face of what

Brexit will mean for the union when they are also busy with their

domestic elections? There's yet another layer to it and cars you now

have the external factors of what's happening in the United States and

Russia which are really causing the EU, that old spirit the EU in --

that created the EU in the first place. It's really hard to imagine

the EU falling apart. It's not hard to imagine the euro falling apart,

is it? To go back to your question, let's imagine Marine Le Pen becomes

France's next president, she is very astute because she's not going to

hold a referendum about belonging to the European Union because the

French deal too much European to vote to go for that. But what she

will do is a referendum on the euro and she's likely to win it. It's

very unpopular in France? Unpopular enough to tilt it to 51%. That would

be the end. If it was on the euro in a number of European countries with

Greece being a possible example...? It's a false referendum because it

is a kind of Brexit referendum in the sense that if you have

widespread discontent and people can think they can blame economic

malaise on the euro and that will fix it, then they will vote against

it. But that won't fix it. Then you have to have politicians brave

enough to say that but that's rare. Where does this leave Britain? You

could say that, in voting for Brexit, the British have decided

they will, at some point and whatever the difficulties ahead,

leave a union which is failing and which many of the ordinary citizens

know it's failing even in countries very strongly in favour of the EU.

It's a complicated because to the extent the EU does fail, and I agree

that one of the ironies is there are no forces that are bringing it

closer together again, one of the reasons will be Brexit. In other

words, this big building block that is British membership... And that's

an obvious challenge to the EU as an organisation. It's a self-fulfilling

prophecy in a way. The irony I still can't get over is that even though

the remain campaign was Lansing -- lousy at getting the point across,

Britain, of all the EQ member states, had a charmed existence as

it wasn't a member of the -- Europe and opted out of everything it

didn't like -- it wasn't a member of the euro. It wasn't an encouragement

to those who think Brexit is a mistake, but it's easy to see a

scenario where both sides suffer equally.

After past humiliations at the hands of the group called Islamic State,

Iraqi government forces have begun to reverse the tide in Mosul

and elsewhere while in Syria IS is squeezed between government

How much support should the United States, Britain

In Iraq, the Iraqi army has been retrained and seems to have a new

spirit. It's also important to remember that when Mosul held to

ISIS it was because army generals were giving -- given the order to

withdraw. There is a myth that the army was in disarray and every

change them and two and a half years later they've come back. Yes, there

has been training and effort but at the heart of it is the political

decision. The political decision to leave most sold to ISIS break

something significant in Iraq. The loss and huge humanitarian suffering

and amused -- the mosaic in terms of different ethnicities and religion

who live together well, at the moment that will need to be

reconstructed -- religions. The Iraqi army going back is our hope

and opportunity to try to rebuild that and having belief in the Iraqi

state. Having said that, on those heels are some of the mobilisation

units which are the volunteer forces that were put together to fight ISIS

who are sectarian in large part, but not all of them. How Iraq will

figure out dealing at -- dealing with all of these groups when ISIS

is defeated is hugely significant because if we have groups who are

armed who's someone to turn into political parties, like Hezbollah in

Lebanon, then that could spell a disastrous period for Iraq going

forward. Then you have the coalition led by the United States with sub

port from some Arab countries and Britain and that significant because

then we had to say, ideological league, with fighting ISIS but Iran

is saying we are part of the coalition. In real allergy, they

support some of the sectarian groups that leads to this publication. The

point I am trying to make is, let's not take it so clear that acronym is

bad and everyone else is good. Unfortunately, there are those in

power in Washington and other places who think it could be pushed that

much. However, part of the job administration is well aware of this

and if there is any... They know Iraq inherently well. Syria is

different. The fact that Iraq has used its F or is to strike inside of

Syria is a huge development. Baghdad, Moscow, Teheran, Damascus

together came and agreed on that strike. I agree with her! I know you

do. The point for those of us outside is, however it is dressed up

by some political leaders on different sides of the Atlantic,

there are no good guys and bad guys. In Syria what we are seeing is that

you now have Al-Qaeda related groups pushing out some of the so-called

moderate opposition and I will make one prediction here. The person we

can't talk about, yesterday, President Trump I think said that

the American military was going to obliterate ISIS. I do predict he

will claim to have a better rate it ISIS, but it's no easier than it was

six months ago. In some ways it's more complicated because it requires

an engagement that he is very wary of. Luckily, as you say, people like

the new national security adviser not only has knowledge of the Middle

East but has a nuanced knowledge of it so it's interesting that he,

unlike Trump, says don't refer to is Lambie terrorism. Separate those. It

was an interesting point. The Kurds are doing a lot of fighting so give

guns to the Kurds? Hold on, Turkey is a native Ali -- Alliant doesn't

like it so it's complicated. It is and also it's wonderful to hear

about ISIS losing battles and losing ground, but you hear about them

using drones and making a lot of casualties on the ground. Also, at

the same time, you know they are going to concentrate their

intelligence in spreading terror in Europe. This is what they are very

good at doing. It doesn't take many people to be able to cause a great

deal of damage, as we know in fans. And in Belgium, some vulnerabilities

exist with fighters who have dual nationality, for existence. Recently

there were those sentence -- centres and you have them in the UK, of day

radicalisation. In Rome -- in France, there were reports it didn't

work. War is also in the mind. You can't declare victory on that. The

idea that anything could happen quickly is out of the question.

There is no short-term. You just take Iraq and you've had the Iran

and Iraq war. You had the revolution. You had that war and the

first Gulf War, the invasion in 2003. Now it's 2017. This is not

going be solved overnight. The first Gulf War was in 1919. Exactly. And

you have two generations there. There are 140,000 children inside

Mosul and in western Mosul they are under siege. The idea that no food

or medical substance is coming in... Unless they are given something to

look forward to and they feel the world has looked out for them, what

impact will it have on these people. Because of the risk some Iran as

seen in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, there is a new diplomacy going on

and it's interesting. Donald Trump has reflected that in some ways.

Very significantly, the Saudi Foreign Minister in Baghdad, that

development is of huge consequences for inter-Arab relations but there

have been some developments. With the new Lebanese government and the

fact the Lebanese president who is seen as an ally of Iran is seen in

all the Arab capitals. There are overtures to try to bring back some

Arab countries who felt that Iran was a better part -- partner and

they're trying to change that. The other Iraq was able work against

Iran is how it was seen in many countries. And over a million people

died in the Iran/ Iraq war. Iran always paid the highest price.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a player, too? He would like to be. I think he

overstates, as does Trump, the likelihood that any Arab coalition

or Saudi government is going to meaningfully invite Israel or the US

into this kind of grand coalition if there is no at least attempt at

progress to rein in settlements, get some sort of political resolution in

the Israeli/ Palestinian issue. No Arab leader will a bad -- abandon

the Palestinians, will they? That part of American diplomacy has got

very interesting this past week. The comments of the National Security

adviser and the sophistication of them was interesting. Yes, and what

you don't know is the dynamics of the executive branch have -- are

crazy. You don't know from day to day who is really running things and

how it's being run. Yes, there are some smart people, some supposedly

strong people who have not been politically deeply tied to Trump,

like the Secretary of State. This reminds me so much of back in 2002

and 2003, the State Department seems to be totally sidelined. That's it

I'm afraid. You can comment on the programme on

Twitter and engage with our guests. We will be back next

week at the same time.