:00:27. > :00:34.television. I will be back at 1 Welcome to the programme. Two big
:00:34. > :00:41.topics today, the future of the United States under Mitt Romney or
:00:42. > :00:49.Barack Obama. And Angela Merkel meets with David Cameron and there
:00:49. > :00:54.could be a wrangle over the EU budget. Welcome to my guests. Very
:00:54. > :00:59.good to see you. The United States' first. After one of the worst
:00:59. > :01:04.storms on the eastern seaboard, campaign plans have been rewritten
:01:04. > :01:10.in the nasty days before Tuesday's election. It is still neck-and-neck.
:01:10. > :01:16.What difference could Mitt Romney make? How serious his partisanship
:01:16. > :01:20.over the economy? Is the world's great superpower likely to be less
:01:20. > :01:25.important, whoever wins? With Mitt Romney himself, what difference
:01:25. > :01:31.would it make domestically, for example with his views on the
:01:31. > :01:37.economy? He has been attacking towards the centre in this campaign.
:01:37. > :01:42.I think that could be a good sign. There is a lot of middle ground
:01:42. > :01:48.that both candidates have to appeal to. But I think Mitt Romney would
:01:49. > :01:52.make a difference in terms of domestic policy. He has about two
:01:52. > :01:57.repeal healthcare legislation that President Obama put in which was
:01:57. > :02:05.his single achievement as governor of Massachusetts. That would be one
:02:05. > :02:10.important thing. Possibly abortion rights and health. As well as some
:02:10. > :02:17.financial reforms that have been put in. I think we could actually
:02:17. > :02:24.see quite a change under Mitt Romney. It is clear that he is a
:02:24. > :02:31.business man. But on social issues, do you think he actually cares? On
:02:31. > :02:38.a portion, does he talk about it but not too much about it? --
:02:38. > :02:45.abortion. He has made noises throughout the campaign,
:02:45. > :02:49.particularly to secured his nomination. He will still have a
:02:49. > :02:56.constituency within Congress that he has to actually catered to and
:02:56. > :03:02.for some of them it is important. You have been in Washington for a
:03:02. > :03:10.while. What difference could he make? A big difference in terms of
:03:10. > :03:17.having only a one-term President and the legacy of the first
:03:17. > :03:23.African-American President. On the ground, domestic policy remains the
:03:23. > :03:29.economy. Healthcare is the issue which has dominated a knot of the
:03:29. > :03:35.President Obama administration. It is all about what it stands for and
:03:35. > :03:40.how society is going and they might want to repeal that. On the outside
:03:40. > :03:44.world, looking at what Mitt Romney or Barack Obama would do and what
:03:44. > :03:50.it would mean for foreign policy and international affairs, we are
:03:50. > :03:54.waiting to see what would happen in Syria after the election. The same
:03:54. > :04:00.goes for the Middle East peace process. And wider relations with
:04:00. > :04:06.China. It would be a sort of a shift even though there is a
:04:06. > :04:14.consistency. We will come to foreign policy in more detail in a
:04:14. > :04:18.moment. Domestically, the economy and healthcare are important issues.
:04:18. > :04:24.The issue is that Mitt Romney understands the problem and it is
:04:24. > :04:27.not just an issue which the United States that all Western democracies.
:04:27. > :04:33.There is an assumption in the centre ground of politics that you
:04:33. > :04:38.can have a free-market economy, supported by an entitlement society.
:04:38. > :04:45.That is the problem in the 21st century for Western democracies.
:04:45. > :04:49.They are trying to finance social democratic entitlement programmes
:04:49. > :04:56.and with the Treasury receipts produced by a free-market economy
:04:56. > :05:04.and it cannot be done and it is not affordable. Does Mitt Romney
:05:04. > :05:08.understand that? They are going to be a joint ticket. We have looked
:05:08. > :05:12.at the alternative Budget. There is an understanding of the fiscal
:05:12. > :05:17.problem. With a Mitt Romney administration, they will come to
:05:17. > :05:22.grips with that in a way that Europe ought to. The real
:05:22. > :05:27.difference is that Barack Obama is bizarrely, because America is
:05:27. > :05:31.usually 20 years ahead but they seem to be 20 years behind, trying
:05:31. > :05:36.to sleepwalk into exactly the dilemma Western Europe has got
:05:36. > :05:42.which is an unaffordable entitlements programme. There are
:05:42. > :05:49.political choices. Barack Obama said he wanted defence spending to
:05:49. > :05:54.get up to 4% per year. Is that affordable? We have had a platform
:05:54. > :05:59.for tax cuts and the regulation. Defence spending can be increased
:05:59. > :06:04.and can be cut by the federal government. But with entitlement
:06:04. > :06:08.programmes, when people come to expect universal entitlements,
:06:08. > :06:14.which almost half the population now expect and depends upon, that
:06:14. > :06:20.is a political problem. That has to be faced. Some people take it is a
:06:20. > :06:26.political solution. Not if it is unaffordable. What is happening in
:06:26. > :06:31.Europe is that we are moving away from democracy and into a socialism
:06:31. > :06:34.and planned economy. A command economy. A democratic socialist
:06:34. > :06:43.thing does not work. You cannot have this free market supporting
:06:43. > :06:50.the Socialist programme. We will come to that later. What about
:06:50. > :06:59.Russia? We have got my great to clear use it. Jobs and the economy
:06:59. > :07:06.are the main issues. -- two clear views. The extent of the problem is
:07:06. > :07:13.such a big one. Sometimes you start doing something else but the real
:07:13. > :07:17.issue is jobs. How will it be seen in Russia? Historically, the
:07:17. > :07:26.Kremlin would prefer to deal with republicans rather than Democrats.
:07:26. > :07:32.They prefer the tougher stance Washington would take. It would be
:07:32. > :07:36.better to take an even tougher stance. The Kremlin is never quite
:07:36. > :07:46.sure how to deal with people that want to be nice to you like Barack
:07:46. > :07:53.Obama, for example. Ingenious argument! He is a political foe,
:07:53. > :07:57.regardless of whether he was treated properly or not.
:07:57. > :08:04.President Obama missed a trick in saying that Mitt Romney gets
:08:05. > :08:08.Vladimir Putin's vote? It is not high on the agenda. I agree that
:08:08. > :08:14.China and Syria will be important and Russia would like to be high on
:08:14. > :08:18.the American agenda but in reality... And the question at the
:08:18. > :08:22.beginning, will America be as important as it was in the last 30
:08:22. > :08:27.years? There is a distinction between as powerful and as
:08:27. > :08:34.important. We have got the rise of other countries like China, India,
:08:34. > :08:41.Brazil. But it we are looking in 30 years at two major powers like the
:08:41. > :08:44.US and China, I think it will actually still be right up there.
:08:44. > :08:51.One country his arm democratically run and elected and you need the
:08:51. > :09:00.counterbalance. -- not democratically run. And perhaps all
:09:00. > :09:10.of you see and people seem To forget, we have had a grisette
:09:10. > :09:17.emphasis on troops going into Asia and Australia. Do you see that
:09:17. > :09:24.whoever is President, that is going to continue in the Pacific? At that
:09:24. > :09:29.will continue, in the shipping lanes in the South China Sea. But
:09:29. > :09:35.you do have differences in approach in China. Mitt Romney seems more
:09:35. > :09:45.confrontational and will take it to China. He said that he will
:09:45. > :09:46.
:09:46. > :09:51.declare... Unlike the United States. China is doing a particular thing
:09:51. > :09:55.that with the dollar at the moment. The danger is that he could
:09:55. > :10:00.precipitate a trading war which could be very serious because of
:10:00. > :10:04.the cheap goods coming from China into America. Is there partly some
:10:04. > :10:12.disappointment after the speech in the Middle East, but broadly in the
:10:12. > :10:21.Middle East, the sort of thing Mitt Romney is talking about his...
:10:21. > :10:26.Events of the last couple of years have changed. Events are taking
:10:26. > :10:31.speed in a way that nobody could have expected. There are certain
:10:31. > :10:41.things. In Afghanistan it is strange how few people have spoken
:10:41. > :10:46.about that in the campaign. There is a 2014 deadline for withdrawal.
:10:46. > :10:51.For the issues of Israel and Iran, in Israel we almost had a love fest
:10:51. > :10:55.during the election season. There is not that much difference but in
:10:55. > :11:00.Iran there is a sense that with a bit wrong the there will be a more
:11:00. > :11:06.focused stance than he would have with President Obama. His advisers
:11:06. > :11:13.are quite clear, people like John Bolton, they are very hawkish. They
:11:13. > :11:21.believe in a military strike. of the things interesting about
:11:21. > :11:24.President Obama's foreign policy is the incident in Libya. At the
:11:24. > :11:28.consequences for foreign policy with the murder of the ambassador
:11:28. > :11:35.and the fact that this was a planned terrorist attack and not as
:11:35. > :11:40.was claimed that his was spontaneous. -- it was spontaneous.
:11:40. > :11:46.It looked like he had smashed Al- Qaeda once he had killed Osama bin
:11:46. > :11:53.Laden but that has gone and disintegrated. What is left of his
:11:53. > :12:00.claims to have succeeded in terms of the terrorist threat? It is not
:12:00. > :12:04.anywhere near smashed. Even if they have killed Osama bin Laden the
:12:04. > :12:12.ideology remains. But it was very politicised and they have had to
:12:12. > :12:22.step back, because it was about who knew what. They could have spoken
:12:22. > :12:22.
:12:22. > :12:31.more about... The other big thing that is kind of obvious is that
:12:31. > :12:35.whoever is elected, it is also the Senate would be one way and
:12:35. > :12:40.Congress would be another and this year it has not been great. They
:12:40. > :12:47.will say, if they win, let's all pull together and it will be
:12:47. > :12:50.difficult. It is difficult to avoid gridlock. President Clinton did. He
:12:50. > :12:56.really did go bipartisan and abolished the federal welfare
:12:56. > :13:01.programme and did a lot of things Republican Congress wanted. With
:13:01. > :13:06.President Obama in 2010, he did not. He alienated the Republican
:13:06. > :13:14.Congress and he has not been able to get budgets past. Would he
:13:14. > :13:18.become more bipartisan? Unlikely. If he was re-elected I think he
:13:18. > :13:23.would actually have learned from some of his mistakes. Bill Clinton
:13:23. > :13:30.is not the best example because he faced off and had a government
:13:30. > :13:33.shutdown. And for Bill Clinton in particular, he was more successful
:13:33. > :13:40.and more popular facing down Republican Congress than he was
:13:40. > :13:45.working with Democrats who he felt undermined him. And he met the
:13:46. > :13:53.Republicans halfway. Whatever happens in the United States, we
:13:53. > :13:57.have got a suggestion of a fiscal cliff. We have got problems with a
:13:57. > :14:04.suggested a lame-duck Congress. We have under reported outside his
:14:04. > :14:10.nation of how difficult it can be. The important thing is the legacy
:14:10. > :14:18.of the first term. Four years ago, there was this sentiment of hope
:14:18. > :14:21.and that things might change and how America would almost book form
:14:21. > :14:28.on the international stage but perceptions have changed. --
:14:28. > :14:33.perform. The majority of the population in many countries would
:14:33. > :14:38.prefer to have a right to vote and they all would vote for President
:14:38. > :14:48.Obama because he still carries this hope. Whether that is correct or
:14:48. > :14:50.
:14:50. > :14:55.Does anyone think that the way President Obama has handled the
:14:55. > :15:03.hurricane has helped him? I do not think it has hurt him but perhaps
:15:03. > :15:08.has not produced the bounce they could have been hoping for. I think
:15:08. > :15:13.Governor Christie of New Jersey, after so many attacks on President
:15:13. > :15:23.Obama, to stand up and say he has had the good job, that was quite a
:15:23. > :15:24.
:15:24. > :15:31.moment. Two years somebody saying that he's done a good job. I did
:15:31. > :15:37.not think that there was anything, the kind of electrifying moment
:15:37. > :15:43.that he might have had, like George Bush with the megaphone, that did
:15:43. > :15:51.not happen. He does not do a motion. So why do not think it has made any
:15:51. > :15:57.difference. I was on a break last week in Barcelona and watching
:15:57. > :16:02.television and from the way the news was reported, it seemed to be
:16:02. > :16:09.that President Obama was taking care of things there and then. That
:16:09. > :16:14.impressed me. It is very much the world media. I was watching the
:16:14. > :16:16.American media and it did not have that feeling. David Cameron and
:16:16. > :16:22.Angela Merkel have quite a bit in common, instinctive fiscal
:16:22. > :16:25.conservatives, practitioners of austerity. Yet as they meet this
:16:25. > :16:27.week ahead of the big European summit on the budget later this
:16:27. > :16:29.month, their common cause over cutting spending is undermined by
:16:29. > :16:32.one simple fact. Germany's world role depends on being at the centre
:16:32. > :16:35.of the European Union. Britain, especially after a major defeat for
:16:35. > :16:41.Mr Cameron in parliament this week, is on the fringes, and may move
:16:41. > :16:45.outside. Is it crunch time for Britain in Europe? You would think
:16:45. > :16:49.that because of the fiscal conservatism and where they both
:16:49. > :16:54.come from, if any country's Good Corporate, they should be able to
:16:54. > :16:58.do it on this budget matter. trouble is the structure of the
:16:58. > :17:04.European Union makes that almost impossible. If Angela Merkel wants
:17:04. > :17:13.to respond to her own electorate, and David Cameron wants to respond
:17:13. > :17:17.to his, which is perfectly appropriate, then they have to put
:17:17. > :17:22.the national interests of their own countries ahead of the structure
:17:23. > :17:26.which is supposed to supersede those nation-states. That is the
:17:26. > :17:33.contradiction of the European Union. This problem will solve itself
:17:33. > :17:38.because that union has become untenable. So not just Britain
:17:38. > :17:46.believing, it is all going to fall apart?! It is all going to fall
:17:47. > :17:55.apart! Some might call that wishful thinking. Last week I was reading a
:17:55. > :18:02.note saying that the European Union, the way they want to tackle the
:18:02. > :18:08.problems in place 20, 30, 40 years ago, they want to apply the logic
:18:08. > :18:18.of today to something completely irrelevant. It was a time of post-
:18:18. > :18:19.
:18:19. > :18:24.war food shortages. Exactly. It is essentially something socialist.
:18:24. > :18:30.Perhaps they need a bigger budget in order to rethink! I think they
:18:30. > :18:35.might need it for something else. The European Union was expanding in
:18:35. > :18:40.the past decade, that is another question. I think they need to beat
:18:40. > :18:48.realistic about what they want to do. The thing is that people have
:18:48. > :18:51.to speak to their own electorate. But in some ways the German
:18:51. > :18:57.electorate is similar to the British, they do not like paying
:18:57. > :19:01.taxes for other people in particular. But the distinction is
:19:01. > :19:05.they want Europe to succeed. They are completely signed up to the
:19:05. > :19:09.European experiment. That is not to say they are in favour of how it
:19:09. > :19:16.works out mechanically, but conceptually they are in favour of
:19:16. > :19:20.it. That is how they exercise their influence. What I found curious
:19:20. > :19:25.about Britain is that you hear about the possibility of Britain
:19:25. > :19:32.was drawing eventually, a referendum. I have yet to hear
:19:32. > :19:41.anyone make an argument for Europe over here. But plenty of
:19:41. > :19:44.politicians say they are pro-Europe. Business people to say that they
:19:44. > :19:50.have problems in its but they would prefer to be in it because it is a
:19:50. > :19:55.big market. And it is one currency for a lot of people. Small
:19:55. > :20:00.businesses do not want it. But the big corporations do because they
:20:00. > :20:06.want a corporate universe. We will have to see what happens with the
:20:06. > :20:11.Scottish referendum. But politically, and on the world stage,
:20:11. > :20:15.it is important for Britain to remain within it. But it is going
:20:15. > :20:20.through an incredible economic crisis and crisis of identity.
:20:20. > :20:25.Britain wants to say we still have the pound, we are still strong. It
:20:25. > :20:31.remains to be seen if the European Union can survive that Euro crisis.
:20:31. > :20:38.And that is something that Britain wants to stay away from. If we did
:20:38. > :20:41.not have that euro crisis it would be so much less politicised. What
:20:41. > :20:47.about David Cameron and the Conservative Party. Ed Miliband
:20:47. > :20:57.also on the Labour Party quite interesting. But Ed Miliband says
:20:57. > :20:58.
:20:58. > :21:02.you are John Major all over again, you cannot control your party.
:21:02. > :21:07.Obviously he is scoring a political point that is useful to him. But
:21:07. > :21:13.this business about you cannot control your party. It is not a
:21:13. > :21:20.bunch of lunatic right fringe areas within the party saying this. In
:21:20. > :21:23.fact it is the majority of the population saying this. The
:21:23. > :21:28.majority actually think we would be better off outside the European
:21:28. > :21:32.Union. This has become mainstream. So when David Cameron said he was
:21:32. > :21:37.going to overall that section of his party, he's saying he is going
:21:37. > :21:43.to overall popular opinion. That is a funny thing for a Prime Minister
:21:43. > :21:47.to say. It is interesting about the opinion polls, that many would like
:21:47. > :21:55.to leave the European Union. But they want to travel to Spain on the
:21:55. > :22:00.holidays and keep losing money on the exchange rate. They have to
:22:00. > :22:07.change their money now. There wondering why their benefits are
:22:07. > :22:10.being cut whereas the European Union budget is not. There are also
:22:10. > :22:20.aware that there are droves of French people swimming across the
:22:20. > :22:20.
:22:20. > :22:27.Channel to reach Britain to escape the 27% tax rate! Post 2015 when
:22:27. > :22:31.Britain could be out of European Union, Scotland out of Britain, no
:22:31. > :22:41.longer being in the permanent five of the Security Council of the
:22:41. > :22:43.
:22:43. > :22:48.United Nations...? Why we did not be in the Security Council?
:22:49. > :22:52.Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. That is interesting. The
:22:52. > :22:57.argument that without Europe, Britain has no role in the world.
:22:57. > :23:02.It has always had a strong role in the world far go because of its
:23:02. > :23:06.alliance with America. Partly because of its history. So I do not
:23:06. > :23:09.think in terms of world influence that would be a problem. On the
:23:09. > :23:14.contrary I think it would be lost and diluted if it was to get
:23:14. > :23:19.swamped by its membership of the European Union. I do not think that
:23:20. > :23:29.it would be swamped. But if it chose to opt out of the European
:23:29. > :23:33.Union then there is an alliance with Germany, and that talks with
:23:33. > :23:38.the Iranians were so strong because it was Britain, Germany and France.
:23:38. > :23:42.That cannot be underestimated. lot of people in Germany would like
:23:42. > :23:52.to see Germany opt out and deal that would be the solution to the
:23:52. > :23:53.
:23:53. > :24:00.economic crisis. The other side of the argument is that the European
:24:00. > :24:05.Union without Britain is also hobbled itself. It will have a
:24:05. > :24:07.lessening of influence without Britain. If they were to lose a
:24:08. > :24:14.seat on the Security Council I think a lot of their global
:24:14. > :24:18.influence actually would decrease. That is why �350 million was
:24:18. > :24:26.announced for pride -- for Trident and the whole idea of nuclear
:24:26. > :24:30.weapons. In terms of how that vote, the views of the British people,
:24:30. > :24:37.but in terms of David Cameron talking to Angela Merkel and then
:24:37. > :24:42.threatening to veto on the budget negotiations, how has that
:24:42. > :24:46.strengthened David Cameron's position? I think the narrative is
:24:46. > :24:52.he has not been able to exercise the kind of discipline that he
:24:52. > :24:56.ought to us party leader. Because he is ahead of the party. Addis
:24:56. > :25:02.Ababa has to be able to keep people in line. He is not going to get
:25:02. > :25:07.what he wants, regardless. Soak exercising a veto is actually the
:25:07. > :25:14.right way to go, domestically. of the complexes is that if he uses
:25:14. > :25:18.the veto and chilly Britain's contributions could go up. It also
:25:18. > :25:24.helps negotiations with Angela Merkel and others saying, look what
:25:24. > :25:27.I am dealing with domestically, you have to give me some leeway. What
:25:27. > :25:33.might have been more sensible would be perhaps to see, we are a great
:25:33. > :25:39.party, let us have a free vote on this. Because actually many more
:25:39. > :25:45.people could not face going into the lobby with the Labour Party.
:25:45. > :25:49.Then I think the whole party would walk out from under him! At what
:25:49. > :25:54.did you make of what Labour did? Clearly it was a move to embarrass
:25:54. > :26:01.the government but does it also suggest a political consensus?
:26:01. > :26:05.and No. It was wildly opportunistic. He wanted to embarrass Cameron by
:26:05. > :26:09.making the boat as large as possible. But there are a lot of
:26:09. > :26:12.Labour voters who appeal as Euro- sceptic as any of the Tories.
:26:13. > :26:15.That's it for Dateline London for this week. We'll be back next week