27/07/2013 Dateline London

for you. It is time for Dateline London. The unrest in Egypt, with

what consequences? And as the British media gorged on Prince

George, what does the rest of the world think of the peculiar

institution of monarchy? The army takeover in Egypt has led to the

killings of dozens of people during angry demonstrations in Cairo and

Alexandria. The army chief has urged his supporters to take to the

streets. What are the consequences for Egypt and the wider Middle East?

Did you foresee that this was going to happen when the army took over?

Definitely. It was a clear-cut military coup. He took one side

against the other and he used force against the Muslim Brotherhood, they

won the election, I think the whole of the Middle East, to have this

kind of bloodshed in Egypt, more than 75 people were killed when the

army opened fire against the people, Egypt is extremely important for the

Middle East. What happened in Egypt is reflected in other parts of the

Middle East. This civil war could last months, maybe years, we don't

know yet. Are you really that bleak about this? It could be another

Algeria, about 200,000 people were killed in Algeria. The same scenario

could be repeated in Egypt. It is dangerous because Egyptian people

are peaceful by nature, they don't turn to violence, but if the Army

continue confronting and shooting peaceful demonstrations, who are

considering President Mohammed Morsi as the legitimate president, if

people turn to violence, this could create a huge disaster. Not only for

Egypt, for the whole of the Middle East. The army is playing a very

dangerous game. There are some people, a front-page said is the

Arab Spring over? How do you see it? The great hope and expectation of

the Arab Spring has been dashed. It is a major setback for democracy,

people are expecting democracy to take route and it hasn't happened.

On the one hand, if you back democracy, or if you are backing

religious extremism. In this case, and man was democratically elected,

one has to respect that. Those who are critical of them say he was

democratically elected but he did not govern as if he was a Democrat.

He didn't govern as leader of the whole country. That is true, but

that flawed situation has to be worn for the term he was elected. I don't

think it is correct for democracy to house the person one and a half

years into his term, I used. He would not have been re-elected.

the army, when it stepped in, stepped into a situation in which

there was enormous civil strife and rebellion against this very

undemocratic government which had not been elected. Being elected

democratically does not mean that you are committed to democracy,

Hitler was elected. You can be elected and then turn on the

democratic values. President Morsi was not elected on the programme

which he installed when he arrived in power and there was tremendous

civil unrest over this. The army stepped in because the civil unrest

was getting out of hand. The initial demands that were made by the Army

were that he should allow for a more inclusive government, that he should

not bring in an oppressive Islamic fundamentalist social regime. He

refused to accept that kind of inclusiveness and the army took

over. But as a result of the crew, there is even more unrest. It's a

tragic situation. Are the military leaders legitimated by the turnout

on the streets? It suggests he wants a degree of Dawson and. I'm not sure

legitimated is the right word. In terms of the laws of the country,

the constitution of the country, the Constitution that Morsi changed, it

is not legitimate. That's the problem, everything that is

happening here is extralegal. you put it that way, we should

support democratic, elected leaders. We should listen to the ballot

boxes. The Arab Spring was to bring democracy. But it brought in an

anti-democratic regime. We cannot be selected and democracy. If people

choose the Muslim Brotherhood, we should respect their choice.

President Morsi made mistakes, no question about that, but he ruled

only for one year and from day one, the military establishment, the

Liberals said we don't want him. He did not have a fair trial.

refused to address the criticisms being made, he refused a more

inclusive government, he insisted that he was going to bring in this

socially repressive Islamic fundamentalist regime. It is only a

few months... Part of the people think that. It is only a few months,

and people judged him and the Muslim Brotherhood started, demonstrations

started. It was going that way, there wasn't any hesitation on his

part. He wasn't saying I will think again, I will consider. He said

that. The other one says this was not a coup. But it acts like a coup,

and he is acting like a coup master. He called for demonstrators,

demonstrators came out, suddenly there are all these placards. Where

did they come from? President Morsi did not get a fair trial. One and a

half years, no matter what his intentions were, that term should

have been allowed to run out. We were looking at a situation which

was an infant democracy, the impatience of the Egyptian people

was very high and the demonstrations therefore took place. The army took

advantage of that situation. Where do you think this leaves the Arab

Spring? Most people in the Arab world look to Egypt, and this is

going backwards, isn't it? Definitely, the Arab Spring is

creating failed states in the Middle East. People are on the streets,

people killed in Libya, there are a lot of attacks against the Muslim

Brotherhood's headquarters, in Egypt people are divided and the army is

stepping in and shooting people. Would it be better there were no

Arab Spring? It was derailed. The Arab Spring was derailed to the

worst conclusions. This is the problem, people aspiring for

democracy and human rights but the problem is when you have a militant

government, it is Islamist and the West doesn't like it or some part of

the Egyptian people don't like it. This is the problem, we have to be

patient, more seat was in power for less than a year -- President Morsi.

But it seemed to be moving away from what we regard as democratic

values, personal freedom, liberty, civil rights, all of this was being

dispensed with. But an elected government was being given a chance.

Plenty of African countries have one election and then nothing. We have

criticised people a lot in this country, saying policies are

complete failure, his authority is ruining the country. But does that

mean that the Army should step in? It doesn't abolish basic

constitutional freedoms. You may discuss the army coup in Britain

later. Britain's GDP figures were considerably better than over the

previous few years. Is the recovery truly underway or as the British

economy still beset by major structural problems that are not

being tackled? Where do you stand on this? It's better to have growth

than no growth. It is basically bumping along the bottom. Many of

the remedies are contributing to the structural problems. Very low

interest rates, the quantitative easing is effectively undermining

the value of pensions, for example, and savings. The biggest structural

problem for this country is the demographic problem. We have an

ageing population and too few people of working age. If you destroy the

value of savings and pension funds, you're never going to be able to

solve the problem of an elderly population dependent on a shrinking

working population. The remedies themselves have contributed to the

long-term structural problem. don't get much coverage of it here,

but the Merkel campaign in Germany, she banged on all the time, in

Europe we have got 25% of the GDP and 50% of the welfare, is that

basically your analysis? Yes, and America going in the same direction

because it's decided to become a European social democracy. It

combines with the problem of post-industrial societies, Detroit

has just gone broke. It's a magnified example of the problems

that we are having in the North of England, for example, where we are

past the stage of industrialisation, where hundreds of

people were put to work. And we have got an ex-working-class population

who are not being trained and educated to the level needed now.

When you look at the British economy? There is a skills gap, it

is quite extraordinary that there are industries, particularly in the

north of England who need more skilled workers and they haven't got

them. There is a skills gap and a growing anti-immigrant feeling in

the country and the two often collide. The politics of this are

interesting because obviously the GDP figures are good, welcomed by

the government. It is welcomed by the people, but the people don't

feel it, the people feel, they know that their living standards are

lower than they have been in ten years, they know that austerity will

continue. The government is not suddenly going to change course.

They know that public debt is basically the same this year as it

was last year. Then they also know what Janet is talking about, about

the longer term problems. We all feel this in different ways, it is a

big dilemma and elections do not always, I am in favour of elections,

but elections don't always help these matters because often the

policies are designed to lead up to an election as opposed to long-term

thinking about... You mean the housing subsidy, it is politics

rather than policy. It's hard to find an economist who thinks that is

a good idea. It is completely out of sync with most people's earnings. If

we are really unlucky, we might have another crisis. It is very cynical

to think that that bubble might not happen until after the election.

don't see not .6% growth as particularly spectacular. I don't

see the circumstances in academic terms. To put it simply, growth

needs to be spread out over the entire country, not just the

south-east. The crucial thing, this is where the people look at the

figures more closely than any other figures, is employment. If growth

leads to greater employment, I think there will be a feel-good factor.

One analysis goes but the reason unemployment has not been so bad as

it could've in previous recessions is because wages have been squeezed

so much it is cheaper to employ people in real terms than it was

five, ten years ago. Absolutely, and that could lead to a certain amount

of foreign investment because labour is cheaper than it was. That

certainly is the case, but growth needs to be something like one and a

half to 2% in the first quarter of 2015 for the Conservatives to feel

comfortable and for Labour to feel uncomfortable. Those analysts told

us for the last six months that the decision is coming and the economy

is shrinking. Now we have 0.6% growth, which is really good news.

We are waiting for good news to happen in this country, especially

on the economy side. But I believe the emphasis of the British economy

should be changed a bit. It should be concentrated more in innovation

and competition. And if we can import skills from the third World,

for example, Germany imported more than 200,000. Canada is doing the

same, the US is doing the same. This country shouldn't be very sensitive

to the foreign expertise who are essential to improve the economy,

create more jobs. Now we are in a technological world now. We have to

emphasise that. The trouble is you then still have the remaining rumble

of unemployable people who have to be sustained by welfare and

benefits, which is a very unhealthy situation socially, but it's also an

viable economically. We can't go on spending money on welfare provision

in the way that we have been. Millar change the education system.

Absolutely. But in a sense, the Labour government's solution to this

problem was just to import labour, not just skilled labour, unskilled

labour. And the people in this country who could have been doing

unskilled jobs were kept afloat on a welfare programme that became

prohibitively expensive. There's another thing, too. The costs were

unaffordable even in the 90s and early 2000s, when growth was higher.

We'd better get used to figures like 0.6% because we are entering an era

of low growth. 0.6% begins to look good. 1.5% begins to look like...

revolution! Nobody has said a single good word about Osborne. We have to

give him some credit. His recipe at last has started to bear some fruit.

It's good. He has been flogged for the last two years. When he took the

job he knew that people would hate whoever was the next chancellor.

Austerity has hardly hit. The cutbacks everyone has been told

about have just begun, nobody has felt the effects of these. They talk

about austerity but nothing happens. Therefore the nervousness in the

Labour Party that if austerity works, what argument does Labour

have? There was wall-to-wall coverage in most British media this

week of the latest addition to the Royal Family. But what does the rest

of the world think of this very British obsession and of the

institution of monarchy itself? How does the great Republic of India

view it? The great Republic of India, which has links with Britain,

but it cut its links with Britain and decided to be a republic rather

than have the British monarchy at the head of government, it has

reacted in a very exuberant manner. I must say that media coverage in

India has been wall-to-wall. So there is still this residual link

with Britain and an emotional link. People do get very excited when

something happens with the Royal Family. Whether it is the jubilee of

the Queen or the marriage between William and Kate, or any other, I

think there's extraordinary attention paid by media. That

reflects at least urban India is really clued in when it comes to the

British Royal Family. How about in Palestine and across the Arab world?

How do you feel that people react to this, are they interested or not?

was surprised with the huge interest in the middle east with the Royal

baby. People there, despite the depressing situation, the Arab

Spring is faltering, demonstrations everywhere, Civil War in Syria and

Tunisia, despite that they have amazed me. They were really

interested, the media, the television, the newspapers. I don't

know, we have Royal Family is there and they are very productive. Some

of them have maybe 20 princes or something like that, plenty of

wives. Despite that... Definitely! Despite all this production...

royal babies. We've lost count, to be honest. Despite that, whether

monarchists or Republicans, they are looking at the Prince and the

British news and the British Royal baby. It is amazing. In this

country, this channel in particular, its ratings were about

2.3 million. Just on this channel and there was more on BBC One.

happy news. It's a good news story. The birth of a baby to a couple who

are obviously happy and who actually like each other, which is quite rare

in the Royal Family... Who can resist? A lot of those hours staring

at a door, it did get a bit... I couldn't believe the lack of irony.

The great Republic of the United States! We, in the United States,

don't have two live with the constitutional anomalies that this

does create. The same is true with the rest of the world. There are

strange things about Britain and the Royal Family is one of those things.

Not personally, but as a constitutional issue. It raises a

lot. But nobody was thinking constitution, everybody was just

thinking, baby! My American friends were all amazed at how relatively

detached we in Britain were from it. I had American friends who were

glued to every minute of the Royal Wedding, for example. I went to

Paris to escape from it. They thought... They were mystified by

this! Most people love the Royal Family. In all parts of the world it

is not the same case. It is nice to have a baby from a young couple.

Your Royal Family is actually rule. Yes. And because of globalism, we

lost the tradition. We are looking for this tradition. To be honest,

the media here, they are extremely good in marketing the Royal Family

and the baby. What I loved most was the simplicity of Prince William.

Down to shirtsleeves, down to business. If you see the photograph

of his father 30 years ago, coming out of that same hospital, the same

door in a suit and tie. He was dressed down, that approach makes

the couple very attractive to people. The bit that surprised me

was he was brave enough, as a new dad, to try and clip in the car

seat. Anybody who's ever done that ever knows it is fraught with

disaster. And in front of the world's media! Maybe it was part of

his military training! Are we going to welcome the United States back

into the Commonwealth as a result of this? I don't think that comes with

the coverage. Where'd you see this going, because this child will grow

up in this new media world... Prince Harry, when he was in Las Vegas, was

snapped on a mobile phone, so everything he does, he is going to

have no real privacy, is he? Definitely, he wouldn't have

privacy. His father didn't and his grandfather didn't also. I feel

sorry for him because the media is looking for all details. I really

envy the media here, how they produce this endless coverage! It's

unbelievable. And how they find the material. It is a lesson of

journalism here. How can you create a big story of a very small event?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. This guy, this wonderful child, if

he becomes king, it may not even be in this century. It may not be in

this century. We are looking at 60 years. We've got two Kings to go!

Imagine when he has a teething problem, it will be a headline. The