24/05/2014 Dateline London

There's a full bulletin of news at the top of the hour. Now BBC News

Dateline London. Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. Elections in Britain, across the European Union and in Ukraine.

Plus Prince Charles compares Russia's Vladimir Putin to Hitler.

Should he apologise? Putin, I mean? My guests today are Thomas Kielinger

of Die Welt, Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg Markets, Irena Teranyuk of

BBC Global News and Edward Lucas of The Economist One

One year to go before the British general election and in the British

local elections the UK Independence Party has done well, and when the

votes are counted in the European elections they may again enjoy

considerable success. But they promised an earthquake. Is that what

we are seeing? No, it is not an earthquake. And I

still feel when the general election comes, they will be happy to win

more than a couple of seats. They are taking working`class votes from

Labour, disillusioned Tories. It is to his `` too early to see what

effect it will have but as a pro`European, I think it is

deplorable that they have shifted the debate away from the important

things. Europe matters more than ever, that Italy after what is

happening in the `` articulately after what is happening in the

Ukraine. `` particularly. We'll go into it in more detail in a

moment but do you think David Cameron has a chance of reforming

Europe in the British Mitch? There are a lot of countries that

want to extend the open market and take a stronger line against what is

happening in Russia. We have a large chunk of the East Europeans and

North Europeans who are basically on our side and their is a better

prospect to make Europe work the way we want. Not necessarily through

treaties but making existing things work properly. We have seen the EU

busting a gas monopoly in Europe, which is a terrific achievement.

There is more to be done on energy security which will be more

resilient. What do you make of it? Especially

since we don't know the turnout in European elections but a lot of

people think it will be lower than in 2009, when it was 43%. We know

that the British elections, turnout was pretty miserable. It is

difficult to extrapolate. It is difficult to extrapolate it

towards the general election in Britain next year but as far as

European elections are concerned, we can safely claim that UKIP will do

probably better, according to all forecasts. It is a worrying sign

because of what Nigel Farage said about Putin, about immigrants, about

Romanians, rather than guardedly. Ukrainians will be watching the

results with alarm, I think. The European Parliament, if this trend

holds in European elections, of which we will learn on Monday, will

be more to the right. Mainstream European parties will lose ground

but let's hope that a European voice will be strong in Ukraine and Russia

because even though they will lose ground, there will still be a pretty

strong force to stop pressure from further expansion.

It may be a blessing in disguise that UKIP has done so well and

following what Edward says, it could increase the pressure on the

reformist mandate governments in Europe to come together with Britain

and work for a more flexible union. You could say that David Cameron

will, I hope, not put pressure on Brussels to come up with a better

outcome of the negotiations but he could band together with other

governments and say, look at the developments all over Europe. We

have to make the EU work better for the people and improve its image,

improve its Mecca and so forth. `` its regulations.

A lot of people are predicting he will have a significant block of

people who don't want to be part of the parliament that they have been

and did too, like UKIP. Then they may be the more modern

groupings in Russells. They may have to come together and make sure they

defeat this. `` in Brussels. You have to take the world by the horn

and really increase your effort to work for a more effective union.

Stephanie? I think people still receive the

European Parliament is a joke and you can throw away your vote when it

comes to the European elections. The European Parliament has become

incredibly powerful over the last five years since the Lisbon Treaty.

It does have a voice and a strong say in a whole range of legislation

from agriculture, financial regulation, Civil Liberties. No one

really drove home the point with Nigel Farage during this election

campaign that UKIP has the worst voter participation rate in any

European party at the European Parliament, with more than three

seats. He has the 10th worst attendance record.

But that could be a badge of honour. It could be.

He makes a very strong argument that they are all the same, all the other

parties are fundamentally the same and when you talk to Conservatives

and Labour party people, it is an argument they hate because they say

they are not all the same but he makes the argument strongly.

Absolutely. I think there is a disconnect in Europe between

politicians and voters and a feeling that politics is run by a political

cartel that has more in common with each other than the voters. That's

bad and I think the whole way we do representative democracy is based on

an idea from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s of mass voter turnout and that

symptom of the failing current model but I don't think he has the

answer. The alienation people feel about

Brussels is repeated in Britain, where Nigel Farage also says we have

found the mainstream parties no longer listen to the grassroots, to

how people feel. I'm sure there has been too much of an attempt at

political correctness in London to preach to the people what they

think. Paradoxically, I think parties bend

too much time doing focus groups. They are fine tuning their office to

the voters preferences rather than actually concentrating on

leadership. He also makes an argument about

people that go into politics, saying they have not done anything else.

That is factually correct in many cases and it is a big handicap if

you look back on the 50s and 60s at people who served in the military

during the war, perhaps had business interest or trade union interest.

Those people are not in politics anymore.

People have consistently underestimated him and the fact he

did have a previous life before he entered relatives, he has this

bookish, populist demeanour which appeals to a lot of people. ``

blokey, populist demeanour. The other leaders spent most of their

lives in politics. I think underestimate him again when it

comes to the general election because he would do better than most

people expect. On the other hand, I think that the

main issue in the general election will be economics and do we know

what Nigel Farage proposes to solve the housing crisis? How he wants to

increase the competitiveness of the British economy on local markets?

It almost seems like people don't care. The people who vote for him

don't really care. Like the Lib Dems.

Lots of people voted Lib Dem without caring about the policy.

Because they were none of the above. The interesting question, to

me, is whether you denigrate the UKIP gain and forget about

immigration and other things or do you pay up to it? Do you talk about

the EU and immigration more? I think you have got to make a

positive case about Britain because it is a very accessible country.

Immigration has been good for Britain and where you have problems

it is because of system is not working properly. We have very

talented people wanting to come here and work so that is a good thing. If

the doctor 's surgery is badly run, it doesn't matter that the school

doesn't have enough places. That is not an argument against migration.

It is interesting about this UKIP anti`immigration is not cultural. It

is not people saying, I don't like these people speaking Polish. It is

the fact they can't get their kids into school. That is more of the ``

it is not the problem we had with immigration and skin colour before.

Is it that these parties are asking questions or is the question itself

apparent? I think you could have been asking good questions and we

don't have answers. With the BMP, the far right, the question is

abhorrent and we shouldn't try to answer it. `` BMP.

The people of Ukraine go to the polls in effect to offer democratic

legitimacy to the overthrow of the previous regime. Will these

elections result in a government which can control Ukrainian

territory, and deal effectively with Russia?

This is a huge democratic mandate for whoever the next government is,

presumably. The result will be what on the ground?

That is a big question. We pretty much know who the next president of

Ukraine will be because it will be the leader of opinion polls. The

question remains how much of a landslide victory will bring and

whether he will win in the first round of voting tomorrow or three

weeks later. What remains a big issue is how he will reinstate the

government control over the rebellious East. The good point is

the fact that Putin, Russia's president, kindly agreed to

recognise the legitimacy of whoever gets chosen. The task at hand will

be hard. Considering how much bloodshed has been over the last

week in the run`up to the elections and how many attempts were made to

disrupt the whole voting process. Some voting officials were kidnapped

and their fate still unknown. The efforts to disrupt the voting by

Fergus, pro`Russian separatists are tremendous. `` thuggish, pro`Russian

separatists are tremendous. Even without those couple of million

Eastern Ukrainians in the Donetsk region, we are talking about certain

places that won't be allowed to vote, the rest of the regions will

vote. It is a very patchy picture and one town will vote, another town

won't vote because of the thugs terrorising the local population and

threatening to blow up polling stations. Mind you, the turnout in

the Ukrainian elections will be higher than it was here in the

European elections. That is not saying much but the key

point you are making would be the argument that he would say this is

an illegitimate regime that came to power...

It will no longer hold. It is a legitimate government now because it

has been appointed by the legitimate parliament. The acting president had

a bastion of legitimacy. `` a question of legitimacy. Once we have

democratically elected president, there isn't a real opponent against

the leader, Russia will have to accept the result and separatist

will have no backers. The Economist made the point in last

week 's edition that there is a division within the EU those

northern countries tend to be more robust than other countries, who are

not that bothered about what happens in Ukraine? Is that fair enough? The

EU is not speaking in one firm voice about what should happen?

It isn't and I think it is failing, like it did after the Georgian war.

What Putin has basically done is set fire to a neighbouring house and it

is still burning. We might have been able to put out some of it but we

have to have very modest expectations. The Ukrainians are

heroic in the way they go to the polls, even at the risk of death or

kidnapping and so on. Ukraine faces a colossal constitutional crisis of

reconstructing its institutions after an appalling regime. It faces

an economic crisis and part of its territory is occupied by hostile

power. With all respect, we have to have very modest expectations about

what they can do in these circumstances. We allowed this to

happen and the Western response, I think, has been extremely weak and

dangerously so because it has given Putin the impression that we don't

really care about European security. We expect too much from the Western

countries. It is for the Ukrainian people today five `` decide for

themselves what kind of institutional makeup they want. Is

that what the Swiss want or the Russians? Do they want

semi`autonomy? We can lend a hand. There are round table discussions

going on. Is that not the way to go? It is back to front on this. In

conditions of order, countries can decide their Constitution. This is

like saying to Czechoslovakia in 1998, have you considered becoming a

adoration? It is entirely the wrong time. `` a confederation. They want

good government which they have not had for 30 years. Russia wants to be

a good partner. That is complete nonsense! German delusion. Putin has

said it is a territory, not a country. You will continue to lose

out if you continue along those lines. We will link recent sanctions

and take business away. Economically it is going to hurt Russia. Good.

I'd think Putin doesn't want a raging civil war on his doorstep

just as much as he doesn't want NATO troops stationed there, so it is

naive to think he wants to fan the flames of a civil war. He has

realised what is at stake and is sounding more conciliatory with the

threat of a wider sanctions and it is destabilising to other regions in

Russia. The sad thing about Ukraine is that they are constantly having

to choose between independence and economic survival. Ukraine is going

to be moved towards the West and Russia is going to squeeze Ukraine

and gas prices, which is going to kill the industry in the East. Aim

March the company has already `` there is a deadline coming up in a

week or two and that will really squeeze industry, chemical plants in

the East, which... Putin has unleashed forces that he cannot

control. No`one can control those forces. He ultimately secured his

geopolitical goal by stalling Ukraine's close integration to the

European Union. Ukraine is a country under the occupation, because

Crimea, he annexed by Russia in March, will prevent it from having

any deeper cooperation with NATO, and that is his ultimate goal.

Ukraine among `` Ukraine no longer matters, it is unable to decide its

future. We will stick with this area, because I want to come onto

the diplomatic row between Britain and Moscow over remarks by Prince

Charles, apparently comparing Vladimir Putin to Hitler. Russia

suffered greatly in the war against the Nazis, but Russians talk much

less about the Nazi Soviet pact which dismembered Poland and divided

Eastern Europe between two indicators. What ever we think about

Putin, should be British heir to the throne keep his mouth shut? You

wrote a book about the Queen. You should be aware. I'd disagree but we

have to have another programme to discuss that. We have to be careful

to come up with `` not to come up with easy comparisons. This is not a

Kebler situation. This is a situation where Russia helps herself

to the opening of a territory. `` a Kebler situation. She is not

preparing a new war as Hitler did, that it is a battle between

influences, which is not quite the same as the Hitler design on Europe

at the time. Why do you think he is wrong? The whole basis of European

security for decades has been getting away from this idea about

rules `based order. Putin and Hitler are clearly different, and as Mark

trait `` as Mark Twain said, history does not repeat itself. Let's be

clear, this is a race aced politic that Putin is adopting now. Russian

speakers? It is similar to the way Putin talked about the racial idea,

it does not matter which country you live in, whether you like it or not,

it is very similar. The question I was raising is, whether the heir to

the throne should say such things. I'd personally think he should have

kept quiet, knowing that there were journalists around. Whether you

think he is right to make that comparison or not, it is fanning the

claims of Cold War rhetoric that is not helping the situation and is

only encouraging Russian nationalism within Russia. I'd agree that

historical comparisons are very slippery. I have seen other people

say he is more about Melissa pitch than he is like Hitler, which I've

think is probably more true, but I'd do not think you can make these

easy, cliched comparisons of Hitler. Putin is much more bumbling

and reactive and does not have a scary world vision. I think he saw

what was happening in Ukraine, sought a corrupt regime `` saw a

current regime toppled quickly and thought, oh, this could happen in

Russia. He has a dangerous world vision, which is reading Eurasia as

opposed to Europe. `` creating. He is promoting a so`called Russian

orthodox world will stop he knows what he is doing `` world. He knows

that he is doing when he is annexing Crimea or destabilising Ukraine to

prevent it from moving closer to Europe. The question about whether

or not he should be compared to Hitler, in a private conversation,

let's not forget, it was a private comment, and Prince Charles was

speaking to a woman who lost her whole family in the Holocaust and

she only survived because she emigrated to the in 1939, so it was

Smalltalk, but it is never Smalltalk with the Royal Family, because there

could be journalists lurking, but Clarence House keeps quiet, he will

keep quiet. It is the media storm, a storm in a teacup or a glass of

water, blood out of proportion, but it raises the issue of whether or

not we are allowed to speak our mind. Nobody else is saying it.

There are similarities, he is right. There are not parallels, but

similarities to the attitude of destabilising neighbours. Our

politicians are too scared to say that. You are accusing the Prime

Minister of appeasement. I wouldn't go so far. There is it points to be

made that it might be a good thing sometimes not to say what you think

in order to achieve some ultimate goal. What happened when cartoons of

Mohammed were not printed in British media. You would have said that with

cowardice. It was understandable that they did not want to inflame

the situation even more than it already was at the time. There might

be a point to be made that, while the comparison might hold some

truth, it does not behoove the heir to the throne... We are now in the

era where we have Sudeten Russians, I have heard said. The thing that is

why Prince Charles's remarks had such legs and made such an impact,

because he was saying something that lots of people were thinking but

politicians are too scared to say. The grandmother of Nick Clegg lived

under Nazi occupation in Hollins, and like the Royal Family, has at

his history, and said we should not make parallels. Why not? We should

be alerting the public that this is the most dangerous European security

situation we have had for decades. We are being namby`pamby. That

argument can be made without having to resuscitate the spirit of Hitler.

There isn't the famous thing about arguments, that at some point,

Hitler will come up and that will spoil the debate. I think it is a

cliche. We can take on the seriousness of what Putin has done

in the security implications. It just serves to divide and inflame

tensions and emotions rather than focus people's mines on the serious

security concerns at hand. That is eight for this week. We will be back

next week at the same time. You can comment on this the's programme on

Twitter. Goodbye. The chapter you can comment on this programme and ``

you can comment on this programme on Twitter. Goodbye.

Just because I have this particular sphere behind me does not mean to

say that the whole holiday weekend is by any means a complete