26/01/2013 Dateline London

Syrian refugees have fled. I will be back at 1pm. Now it is

time for Date Line London, live Welcome To Date Line London. Three

big cheers for democracy this week. Well, sort up. Britain's referendum

on Europe, Israel's elections and Barack Obama's inauguration. My

guests are John Fisher Burns of the New York Times, Saul Zadka up of Al

London, Nesrine Mali, a Sudanese writer, and Janet Daley of the

Sunday Telegraph. If the Conservative Party wins the next

election, there will be a referendum on Europe. Is this a

political masterstroke, a genuine democratic consultation or a

political tactic driven by internal Tory party politics which could

result in a strategic'? What do you think? Is this a great plan?

that the official BBC view? No, it is the Swedish finance minister's

idiot. Oh, I see that is a quote. There is no BBC view. If there was

a democratic vote to cut out, that would be a cheer. Democracy

according to the majority of the population if they wanted out. The

point is Cameron outlined quite elegantly and with faultless logic

a delightful scenario of what Europe might be like, that we would

have this diverse, democratically accountable separate nation state

with our own integrity and able to Corporate when they pleased and so

on. It is completely contrary to the original conception of the

founding fathers of Europe, the whole point of it was to deprive

countries of democratic accountability. The idea was a

franca-German conception after the war and was intended to prevent

electorates going rogue and criminal governments whose

disagreements tended to end in mass murder and the whole point was to

get institutions that would be impervious to democratic

accountability. I do not think there is a hope of Cameron getting

the kind of reforms he wants, at least not to the radical degree

that he wants. But what that would mean for the supposed referendum,

what are we going to be voting to come out of? It is very unclear at

this point. Why promise it? You know that the alternative view, not

just the Swedish finance minister who David Cameron likes very much,

but also from other people is where are the voices in favour of this?

of the referendum? The United Kingdom Independence Party want it

and many British people do not care that much. About 53% of the

population. When asked. When it is a salient question. When you wake

up in the morning do you think about that or jobs? Probably not

unless you are an obsessive. That is the point. The question is how

much consequence on your daily life... More people are convinced

that the limitations on political action and democratic

accountability are affecting their lives, but even more so in other

countries in Europe. There is a lot of indication that the German

population would quite like to have a plebiscite on whether they should

stay in the European Union. The Greeks and the Spanish and the

Italians, you could almost make the argument that Cameron was trying to

pitch his message over the heads of the European institutions and the

leadership director the peoples of Europe who are becoming quite

restless. That is exactly the point. There has been for years, not just

in Britain and those who are buoyant Euro-sceptics, but all

across Europe people think they do not have a say in this. Referendums

in some countries do not go the way the bureaucracy once, they are held

again to get the right answer and that is a major problem for the

legitimacy of the EU. That is partially what motivated David

Cameron to call for a negotiation because he feels that throughout

the country he has plenty of support, not only in the Czech

Republic, but in other countries who are finding it quite resentful

they have lost so much of their own sake in many matters, including

foreign affairs. It is quite ironic that David Cameron by seizing the

moment, so to speak, he has chosen that timing three days before her

we saw that Britain is maybe going into a triple dip recession. It

means it would be better for Britain to declare its intention to

have a referendum it from a position of strength, but he does

not have it. It seems to me David Cameron is gambling not only on our

future, but on the future of the Conservative Party by choosing such

a timetable two years after the elections. You have been a senior

member of the US State Department. They need countries to focus

internally on internal matters is the implications. In other words

the bye administration does not think much of this. The United

States has its own compelling national interest in seeing Britain

remain in Europe, because it has a perspective that is often shared by

the United States. It is a moderating influence. But the

Barack Obama administration knows full well that there are plenty of

issues in the United States that are settled on a state-by-state

basis, by popular boats, for example the vote in California on

the same-sex marriage. There is a broader issue and I would say we

have all known that there was going to come a point where the people of

this country had to be consulted again given the tremendous changes

that have taken place in the European Union since the last time

the British people were consulted in 1975, 36 years ago. The need for

it is accelerated by events in Europe which David Cameron can

hardly be held responsible for. We know the European Union is going to

be substantially restructured in a centrist direction. We know that

there are a very substantial number of people in this country who are

already discomfited over what they have seen has been the intrusive

petty manners of the Eurocrats. It seems to me that David Cameron had

to do something in what is essentially a logical fashion. Be

not consent the people until we know what the deal will be and

let's see if we can get a deal. More than half of his speech, which

was overlooked by his critics, his own passionate belief in Europe.

Indeed it was, but that led to another question, which is if you

do not get the deal that you want which side we you end up on? We are

all attributing slightly lofty reasons to Cameron's motivation for

making the speech. I agree it is a topic people feel something about

when they are asked, but it is not a pressing concern. Not if you go

to the local pub. You go to the local pub and they will all reply,

but it is not a pressing concern for people. My problem is I do not

understand why it offer a referendum before you have had the

renegotiation? Why did Cameron not say we will renegotiate, I am going

to engage robustly with the European Union and then I will come

back with the proposition? What happens now is between now, the

renegotiation if it is successful, and the referendum, it is you have

potentially five years of internal political war in Parliament and in

the Tory party and Cameron is siding himself with a vote to stay

in and negotiated with Europe who think that he is an out person.

the normal parliamentary cycle you have the principal parties strongly

opposed to each other on various matters and that leads to a

fundamental insecurity. It is unnecessary. Why promise a

referendum? Why promise it if there is such a long period? He has put

effectively an end, or at least called a ceasefire, on the war in

his own party by declaring himself in favour of a referendum. He has

also put his cards on the table with Europe and in effect is making

a threat and saying if we do not get the renegotiation we want, we

are out. This is fundamental, how is that supposed to endear him and

strengthen his position? We are beyond endearing. If he wants to

stay in Europe heart and soul and goes to negotiate, these are the

basics of negotiating skills. If you do not give us what we want, we

are out. The bit about heart and soul, this was a sordid attempt to

cover both parts of his own party. He wanted this, he was trailing the

speech as being more Euro-sceptic than Margaret Thatcher's speech in

Bruges. From the point of view of Europe we are long gone that the

ship has sailed about endearing yourself to Europe. Now this is

poker, this is not chess. Well we finish the British politics, the

really big story is presumably this gloom about the economy and the fat

we may be in for a triple dip recession. It is not a huge debt,

but it is not what George Osborne want it. A lot of people inside the

party are wondering if he has got it right. Yes, there is a big

argument about capital expenditure and using the rhetoric of austerity.

The rhetoric of austerity seems to have been intimidating so many

people who are responsible, who could be responsible for creating

growth that it has become counter- productive. But at the same time

the business about injecting money in terms of capital spending is not

the same thing. Plenty of people argued you can inject capital

spending into the economy while still cutting back all the welfare

programmes and entitlement programmes. They are quite separate

issues and they are getting muddled. They are, but part of the Court of

this is there are a lot of big companies in this country sitting

on a lot of cash and not prepared to spend it. There is the

Government's spending question and the private sector spending his

befuddled by uncertainty. But that is true in Europe as well. On the

possibility Europe cannot afford to lose Britain and Britain cannot

afford to lose and the Continent and he will come out with a good

deal for the people. Can I mention one thing? I think George Osborne

exposed this when the GDP figures came out and said the reason they

were depressed is because there is the pressure in the euro-zone of

which 50% of our exports go to. So you are privately a Euro-sceptic,

you are campaigning for a vote privately to get out of Europe, but

you are saying the reason why the GDP figures are low is because

there is a crisis in the euro-zone. Teddy Roosevelt talked-about

talking quietly and carrying a big stick. He had a big stick. Does

David Cameron had a big stick? think it is quite plain that even

the French really do not want the United Kingdom outside of Europe.

They made very well, a few years from now, be prepared to meet

Cameron if not halfway maybe quarter of the way. We have five

years to discuss it. The people of Israel went to the polls this week

and Benjamin Netanyahu is probably going to be prime minister. Israel

is a democracy, but is the result yet again a week per minister in

thrall to small groups and parties who do not have any idea of peace

with Palestine and it is impossible. How do you see this? He is

He has become very weak, simply because one third of his voters

deserted him, either to the far right, all nicely to the centre.

Yesh Atid. Yes. To think that these are seasonable, fashionable parties,

they are always looking for a warm home. They are frustrated by

Netanyahu's inability to do anything. The to be rude about it,

is the system, the democracy clearly works and they have a

vigorous press, but is the system for forming a government in Israel

quite dysfunctional? There is always a small party that will peel

off on something in the coalition. It is the most democratic system,

in my opinion, but it doesn't really work! However, what we are

seeing during this election is a great deal of people who felt that

Netanyahu abandoned them. This might be the beginning of the end

of his premiership. He is already a lame duck before the start of his

new term. He will definitely be paying a heavy price because he

will have to pay more for his future coalition partners. A I

think the answer to your question is yes, Nissan yard to his weakened

with smaller parties snapping at his heels. However, a good thing

and a bad thing has happened in this a good selection in Israel.

People have been moving away from the rhetoric of war with Palestine

as a motivator when it comes to the ballot box. That is something that

Netanyahu had tried, but they are fed up with that. The people are no

longer voting on scare tactics when it comes to threats from

Palestinians. The bad thing is that peace with the Palestinians has

fallen off the radar when it comes to any kind of electoral rhetoric

or motivation for the Israelis. The status quo is being perpetuated and

sold as desirable. So there is no peace process? It has fallen off

the tee -- table. People are concerned about income, pensions,

employment and so on, and people forget that Israel is a country

that has functions and lives at side its conflict with Palestine.

However, it is not promising for peace with Palestine, because it

has fallen off the radar in terms of what people want, because there

is a status quo at the moment. The wall is being erected and is being

seen as something that has perpetuated peace and made things

more stable, and so people are going to the ballot box thinking

things are fine as they are. It may be a status quo, but it is not a

stable status quo. Things in Israel changed rapidly. I find it quite

dispiriting, because outside of Israel on all sides you see very

sates of chaos in the Arab world. That is going to be a long time

before it is resolved, but one thing that seems to be clear, and

this is true particularly of two crucial nations in this region,

Egypt and Syria, that is the mis- sold one way or another going to be

taking a fundamentally important role, which is going to strengthen

Hamas the Ellises to the other Palestinian groups and going to

make any kind of negotiated settlement or a two-state solution

even more difficult. It seems to me that we will have to accept that

there is going to be a generation long hiatus in effective peace

negotiations. I'm sorry, I did degree. If we take the Muslim

Brotherhood's attitude in the last attacks on Gaza, it was by no means

the strength in hand that everybody expected. If anything, people were

surprised. The US was pleasantly surprised that the Egyptian Muslim

Brotherhood was happy to talk Hamas down, if anything. It is not a

situation where the Muslim Brotherhood has risen to a sentence

in the Arab world and his strength in the arm of Hamas and Hizbollah.

President Morsi made remarks some years ago about Jews and he is now

discounting them. It would be dangerous to assume that a

continuing Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt would be a bar

you will part of the peace process. To be fair... As you say, an awful

lot of anti-Semitic, or anti- Zionist, comment in this country

before the elections was absolutely convinced that this would be a

right wind swings. A Jewish home. And the assumption was that this

would become an extremely hawkish coalition. However, it worked out

numerically. What is interesting, I think, in Egypt with the Muslim

Brotherhood government, is how much agitation and resistance they race

to it. They are a great many people in Egypt to actually wanted

democracy, a modern democracy. Imagine that! There were people who

were a -- agitating against this takeover by is amiss. There is a

schism in Egyptian politics on its way. I agree. The Muslim

Brotherhood by no means has a wide mandate in Egypt sufficient to

engage foreign relations in strengthen in -- strengthening its

hand. I think the Muslim but there had threat is... I just want to get

back to Israel for a second. This is where we start the conversation

to. Is it true that there is chaos on the borders, it had you see the

next year with Netanyahu trying to form a coalition with one party

that, for example, wants to change the rules on what the ultra-

orthodox can do, and perhaps having a small author -- orthodox party

that would leave the coalition if that happens? There are too many

conflicting parties within the Government. I could see another

general election within a year or two, so we will have another

opportunity to discuss it before the British general elections! One

party is advocating peace talks with the Palestinians. On that

slightly happier note, I would like to bring in thoughts about Barack

Obama's in operation this week. He talked about the role of government

and co-operation with other parties. He did say that the ten-year war is

over. I thought, good luck with that. It was a very liberal

progressive speech. That means left-wing! And it was certainly a

tremendous spectacle, as it always is, but it reminded me somewhat of

what they say about battle plans and campaign plans. They did last

Yvonne to -- beyond the first engagement. Many of his ideas are

grand and soaring, but what chance does he have of achieving these

plans in the face of a fundamentally divided, and in many

cases hostile to him Congress. Fifty-fifty divided. Almost

completely down the middle. No doubt he will put some meat on the

bones when he gives his state of the Union address next month. But

the appeal for people to unite is a good one and will appeal to many

Americans, but will it work? It has fallen flat. I thought be in

operation felt quite flat. The rhetoric about the end of the

decade of war was really tried. Obama usually carried -- manages to

combine profundity with rhetoric, but I thought this was quite right.

You have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq all in turmoil. Marley,

Algeria, a fragmented terrorist network which is a proxy for

political rebellion across North Africa. Across North Africa and the

Arab world, post Arab Spring, what has become clear about a barn is

that he cannot deal with new ones in foreign policy. He cannot deal

with foreign policy at all! Can I say as somebody who spent years in

Iraq and Afghanistan, I think he deserves considerable credit for

bringing those wars, one of them, to a conclusion, and the other one

is now less than 24 months we may hope from a conclusion. I think

that a large number of Americans and Europeans and people elsewhere

would say that that may be his signal achievement. But what he has

made clear by saying that this is the end of a ten-year period of war

is that America is withdrawing from that stage. But only are they

withdrawing from that stage, but also from Eastern Europe. He made a

speech early on in his first term when he removed the missile shield

in Poland and the Czech Republic that, we are out of here and you're

on your own. At the immigration speech was music to liberal ears,

but I am not so sure that the Syrian refugees as enjoyed it! He

has been tracked into the comforts by France. He was not involved in

the current situation in Syria. He is three reluctant to be involved

in Algeria or in Mali. He said in his speech that, in order to ensure

peace and lasting security, we do not have to perpetuate was, but he

has simply declared himself as a weak president in foreign affairs.

People in Europe in particular do tend to speak with forked tongues

about this. When the United States has an assertive foreign policy,

they aggressively to like -- dislike it. When the United States

says that they have paid a price in blood and treasure in these

engagements, we need time to mend our own wits at home, people say,

where are you, America? He has withdrawn and he is trying to bring

these messy was to a conclusion. But it is not a triumphant,

gracious with the role of strength. It is a bloodied, weakened and

ballad with Coral. He wants to develop his own welfare state at