06/02/2016 Dateline London

Deal or no deal - Britain and the EU.

And Syria's peace talks collapse - so how far will $10

billion in humanitarian aid go to ease the pain?

My guests today are Jef McAllister, who is an American writer,

and broadcaster Maria Margaronis of The Nation.

Britain's attempts to renegotiate terms of membership

of the European Union are - depending on your views -

edging towards a successful conclusion, or something of a farce.

This week David Cameron talked up his claim of success.

But how close is he to convincing British people to vote Yes?

And how far will the obvious divisions in his party last,

let us begin with David Cameron in Europe, he was in Poland and

Denmark, talking to different forum leaders and you have just come back

from Hungary. How is this initiative coming down? The Prime Minister of

Hungary was very pleased that his visit, the only Western leader to

visit him lately. Vladimir Putin has seen him once or twice. It has given

him a kind of respectability which is very useful because he has been

spearheading the European anti-refugee drive, really. And the

fact that Cameron saw him has boosted his popularity. He has been

using the refugee and immigration issue very much to push back the

threat from the far right party. Hungary is interesting because you

don't see any refugee anywhere in Budapest. It is one of the issues in

the media and the news and felt like a distillation of your's fear of

this thread. -- Europe's. It has closed the route. The first country

to build a fence on the Croatian border and that also put up legal

fences by declaring Serbia the third country to live -- returned refugees

to. Is there a sense that European Union itself has been shaken to its

foundation? Putting offences? That is antithetical to what the EU is

supposed to be about? They Hungary and historians said we are the

grave-diggers for the European Union, he meant the European

taxpayers are basically funding the government, which is siphoning the

funding to cronies and supporters while undermining all the liberal

principles upon which the union was supposed to be built. This news will

be good, strengthening the belief that the players should not be in

the European Union? You could say this news means we have to think

very carefully about what we want the EU to be at work to make it into

that. Is that the case? We know about the domestic politics of

Britain but David Cameron has hit upon a very rich seam within the EU,

that it is not working for Greece, particularly well, for Hungary or

different countries. Is that part of what we are seeing? It doesn't take

a genius to see there are huge problems in Europe. My quarrel with

the approach of David Cameron is either not think that wasting

everybody's time pretending to re-negotiate is any solution to any

of the real problems. It does not solve either the questions of the

euro, the and refugee crisis. Nothing that we have seen will solve

the refugee crisis. And I would agree that unless Europe goes back,

goes back to operating in concert, which Britain is undermining, it

will be unable to deal with the refugee crisis, which will get

worse. I didn't think Britain is helping at all and it is blaming the

wrong things. The president of the European Parliament said something

similar, but Britain can be a bit of an attempt and some people say they

don't want to be part of the union, so go. People see the island

offshore to Europe and the island is an uptight but the confident! The

mentality of the British, you have to start with where they are

located, they have it within them to keep distance from the continent and

it is amazing that they have been part of the European project in the

first place. But this enterprise didn't start with a demand from the

European people, it was Cameron 's failure to control the provisional

wing of his own party. I recognise that, but he has two continued to

negotiate. With this referendum and the month leading up, through public

opinion. You have to seen -- be seen to be the go I will doubt he will

have a good deal, it is very slipshod and unsatisfactory and

while there is a lot of scepticism, there is also scepticism about what

happens when we're out. Hamlet said the fear of something after death,

the unknown country, will make us better the bills rather than going

to unknown ones. Are the ills that come from Brussels as bad for the

British? That would be a vote on behalf of Europe! A Danish prince!

You would expect it in these great events but according to the opinion

polls, which we know are virtually infallible in Britain, the out

campaign is nine points ahead? It is too early, it is bubbly not a

realistic... I would agree that with Thomas, the fundamental mentality of

Britain is keeping that Napoleon and Hitler and is no affection for

Europe, that is evident. You don't seek European flags around Britain

and win their next to the national flag all over Europe. It is not the

same thing. But Cameron has negotiated something, sceptic MPs

called it polishing to! But the European recruit the economy is not

doing badly, the government is more or less going to unite around

whatever this thing is and the fear and complexity of trying to get out

is so overwhelming and I think we are not Ukip voters around this

table and although I don't feel much enthusiasm for the staying in the

vote, I didn't feel the anger and frustration with hordes of migrants,

although it has been around in the past, I just do not feel that cannot

be conquered with a smart campaign and sceptics are divided amongst

themselves. David Cameron has been lucky with his enemies, the out

campaign has various names and there are three or four, depending on how

you look at it, it is not a coordinated campaign? What happens

if he wins? Will not silence the Eurosceptics? You can never really

but what can they do? What if it is 51%? It has to shut them up for a

little while. You might be sceptical because I have talked to some people

who are very passionate about leaving within the Conservative

party and they say that this will continue. It has continued all the

time I have been looking at this. We have had a referendum before, it did

not close the issue, these people will not be satisfied with any

negotiation, which is why the whole thing is an exercise in shadow play

but you must be careful about making assumptions about British sentiment.

What is Britain? If you look at Scottish sentiment on Europe it is

different. It is an English problem and it is not a big image problem.

If you look at the demographic, younger people are much more

pro-Europe than older people. What problem is this referendum designed

to solve? Is entirely a Tory Party thing. It is partly symbolic. Even

if this is settled, not simple as well attached to something else, it

is that Little Britain mentality. Or is it about making our own laws in

our own country and should not be a supranational body? Like Doctor Who,

the Tory party has got two Hearts, cultural Conservatives and

independent sovereignty and then those economic interests. The other

supranational entities... The Island race, I know British people talk

about this and you are a great observer of culture but British

people over 200 years have mostly got exercised when they feel utterly

excluded from Europe by Napoleon and cursor will helm and Hitler, those

were the moments when the British people organise themselves because

they had been excluded from this massive continent. The balance of

power means you want a controlling input in Europe and you want to be

present and that is what I think will eventually win the day for

David Cameron, staying in the union will give them the voice they need

to be an important part -- party for reform and improvement. I slightly

disagree with respect in that it is just a problem with the Conservative

party. The British people as a whole are exercised and worried about

immigration and Britain is the victim of its own popularity, there

will be continuing migration into the Labour market in this country

and with the improved earnings that will come into effect later this

spring, it will absolutely continue to be a magnet for people to arrive

and so this is a bigger issue and the Tory party needs to deal with

it. Let us move on... Ever since the leadership

of Deng Xiao Ping and the crackdown on student protests

in Tiananmen Square in 1989, there has been a basic

bargain in China. will pursue the line that to "get

rich is glorious," but the people of China should not push too hard

for basic freedoms or engage Now China's economy is in a mess

and writers, publishers and artists are all feeling the crushing weight

of state repression. Are those things connected? They

are, what happens when the government does not deliver its

side? China has had 30 years of catch-up growth, like other Asian

tigers, based on investment, cheap Labour and exports. And that model

is exhausted, but runs out. And then China has to exercise this tricky

transition to a higher value economy, it has run out of cheap

Labour. But the same time, avoiding the middle income trap. Not

everybody manages that. In previous examples that has been increased

pressure to broaden political participation, whatever you call it.

We were moving in that direction until 2009 and the government has

moved firmly back the other way so we have an increase in all manner of

political oppression and closing down civil society, managing the

image of the government through censorship and building its own

media and pushing its own message and Hong Kong is a problem because

Hong Kong had retained that freedom to say things that could not be

saved in mainland China and sends 2013, the party has decided that

Hong Kong has to be shut down and brought into line. People

disappeared and ended up in mainland China? A British subject was

kidnapped from Hong Kong and appeared, is facing charges in

mainland China, a Swedish citizen, Hong Kong Chinese but a Swedish

citizen from his holiday home in Thailand, another journalist from

Thailand so this is international kidnapping! And Western governments

have been pretty lenient about this, the British government has not been

going in for their citizens. Or the world media. Every talk about

sovereign rights... One could say that is because people particularly

understand in the United States that our economies are so interlinked

that anything that happens in China closes major problems for the United

States, in particular, and also Europe. That is right. And China has

been smart in the kind of repression that it is exciting, it reminds me a

little bit of the way that Vladimir Putin has done things, shutting down

NGOs, unbelievable propaganda, lots of investment in burnishing the

image, knowing if you throw your weight around people will pay

attention. And maybe not kidnapping Americans, at least yet! This will

be an irritant that will keep going, but it has so far been managed. We

will likely see the US may be getting angrier if this squirt site

in great power tactics in the South China Sea and Taiwan and the

bellicosity you expect of countries under threat who want to burnish

their own image by showing how tough they are. Patriotism over islands,

which does... And other places where this time of thing is likely to be

shown and struck before the Americans, they have shown they are

willing to make more investment in the military and they're trying to

burnish alliances with China and others. Is it because we don't know

just how bad the problems are? Trillions of dollars in a black:

China because has been in edition of the stock market and although it has

moved towards a capitalist leaning economy it doesn't have the openings

and the rigour and ability to check what this figure is actually are?

Most Western governments have been interested in striking up deals with

China to make sure their industries can lodge themselves and do business

in China rather than looking behind the scenes and finding out what

really goes on. As long as they have what they think are profitable

deals, look at George Osborne, they will parade any new trade deals that

have been cleansed from China to say that set, and we don't learn

anything more about the nature our partner. There is growing alarm,

people have been slow to recognise how worried the Chinese are about

their own economy. It was called unbalanced, uncoordinated in 2007

and then the Olympics and then that financial crisis, at which point,

instead of moving away from investment lead over capacity, the

Chinese through a massive stimulus package at their own economy, 7% of

it in local government debt, the so-called shadow banking sector.

These are coming home to roost. China's debt to GDP ratio is worse

than Greece and Germany after the war, it is really rather serious.

How unsafe is Western investment in China? Western investment is going

down very quickly, because the returns are very low in China and

when the other thing to watch about concerning China is how many of the

rich said they want to leave and how much capital flight there is,

running at 1 billion every month. And a picture about effective

devaluations and deflation which leads to a worldwide recession. I

was going to ask Isabel, in terms of effects on the rest of the world, we

have seen the British Steel industry more or less shut down because of

competition from China. What are the long-term effects? Others have it

worse, Brazil is in recession, so all of the commodity suppliers,

people who were supplying the old glory manufacturing economy are

really hurting. That is energy, Roger Ailes, steel commodities,

Australia, Brazil, Nigeria, they have lost that market and they're

having a very hard landing. For the rest of the world, China, partly

because of the stimulus package had its failure to make this transition,

was a big factor in dragging the rest of the world out of the last

crisis. There is no engine any more, the engine in China is spluttering

so we should be careful. Let us move on...

Syria's peace talks collapsed this week -

pledged to raise $10 billion in humanitarian aid for refugees.

However welcome the money may be, is it also an admission

that the civil war in Syria will last for years to come,

has no obvious solution and may even get worse?

The news appears to be that it is getting worse, even more refugees

coming up from Aleppo, Russians apparently bombing in a way where

they are bombing civilian positions and Turkey is very anxious about

this. It could spread? You can understand why President Obama

wanted to stay out of this year's ago. We can see the fruits of having

done nothing. Even if having done something may not have done anything

particularly good, this is a war against all, it is inside, it is

Russia versus others, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, and you cannot see

how the normal tools of diplomacy and conferences and international

consensus, which does not exist can accomplish anything so we're getting

to see more voices in Washington and elsewhere talking about recognising

that Assad probably has the strength to say, he has Russia behind him and

we have to make a deal and silly trying to deal with what we have and

build up from there. Maybe there can be some distribution of power with

on clothes supported by international troops but we have to

dollars that essentially Vladimir Putin as an easier job because he

can just bomb and everybody else is trying to create something when

nothing else can be created, nobody has any good solutions as far as I

can see. It could get much worse, Turkey Ms Reid and so is about what

is going on with its borders, it has a very strong army and who knows? We

have Turkey, a member of Nato, rattling sabres with Russia and

Saudi Arabia offering descendant ground troops -- to send in. And we

have this massive flow of refugees destabilising all of Europe and

threatening to tour the EU apart if some sort of agreement cannot be

made. This one cannot be contained and it is very difficult to see any

way of containing this apart from the way in which you describe, which

is catastrophic, Assad is causing more... His government is what most

people in Syria are fleeing from, as well as Isis. Very grim. You

mentioned Isis. In the list of problems that we face, we have taken

our eyes away from that. We're talking about Russia and Syria and

bombing campaigns, they were meant to hit Isis on the head, what are

they doing are? Creating a new stronghold in Libya so the next

crisis already is on the horizon. And they will make that the hotbed

of activities. The main culprit in all of this and I wish we could

agree on that is Russia. Russia is playing a destructive game here,

minding its own interests, bombing the anti-Assad forces and creating

this exodus which is creating ever more problems for Western Europeans

so ever since that the Russian leader is rubbing his hands in glee.

Creating problems for Europe and getting his own back for sanctions

were imposed on him. You have Russia with severe economic problems back

home because of the Will Price and instead of looking at what is

happening here, Putin is saying, look at what is happening over

there. To rally the people? I do not think he is going to rally anyone

other than the Assad regime, which has lost credibility. It is amazing

to hear Jeff telling us what thinking is in Washington,

supporting Assad, he is singularly responsible for destroying the whole

country. No one has been able to get rid of them. And they cannot see any

way of doing that. We may see some astonishing dividends, jerky probing

into Syria with troops on the ground, who knows? Can they absorb

much of that? Aleppo, 2 million people, crowding the Borders?

Something must give. If Turkey felt it had more support from Congress

excelled here, it was not a return to the Ottoman times, this was being

stabilised by people coming in, it could be the case that the United

Nations should intervene? But what question arises? I do not descend

from much of what Thomas says. About Assad. But remove Assad and what are

you looking at? Not a functioning country or any alternative, you are

looking again at a kind of long-term attempt to manage an inherently

unstable situation. Who will take that long? Turkey? This programme

has a tendency to attack political leaders but with this, I do detect a

degree of sympathy for leaders in trying to figure out that which is

perhaps unsolvable? And were not even journalists! Perhaps we have to

have reasonable sympathy. The point by Maria, which is that this is not

just a humanitarian catastrophe, for the people involved, it could shake

apart the European Union because it is so destabilising? What I saw in

Hungary was a total... Moving it in the direction which I think is very

dangerous. When the French Prime Minister says we have to protect

Europe, he means Schengen and open borders but when Victor Altman says

that, he says we have to protect Christian Europe. I didn't want to

live in Christian Europe, I want to live in a liberal, multicultural

Europe. Even if the European Union manages to hold, and I think it

will, it is a big elephant, it is moving in the direction which is not

at all what many of us want. He suggest you cannot have peace talks

with people fundamentally do not want to make peace with? You have to

have at least enough people who want peace, to isolate those who do not,

so we can get some sort of sustainable political situation but

in terms of what this means for Europe, and the shortcomings of the

political leadership, none of us can see this crisis going away for

several years so many more people will come and to be erecting

barriers and sticking your fingers in our ears and looking the other

way is not a solution so the lack of political leadership on the question

of refugees and mixed up with the question of migration is really what

is destabilising, in my view. Strengthening the outside perimeter

and borders of Europe is not erecting a fortress, that is

something that needs to be done in our interests because we cannot go

accepting any more refugees. Even Angela Merkel is under pressure to

change your tune about coping, within three years these people can

return to Syria. The instinct to listen to the most unhelpful parts

of national constituencies is to elect national defences, and is what

we're seeing, and that is not solving the problem. We will have to

leave it there. That's it for Dateline

London this week. You can comment on the

programme on Twitter. We're back next week

at the same time.