16/04/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Britain finely balanced on In or Out of the EU, at least

My guests today are Marc Roche of Le Point and Le Soir,

Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg Markets,

Abdel Bari Atwan who is an Arab writer and commentator and

The opinion polls, which, of course, proved less than accurate in last

year's General Election, now suggest that those planning

to vote IN and those voting OUT in the EU referendum are broadly

neck and neck, although many millions apparently have not

Do you agree everything is to play for? I agree with that and recent

polls suggest 39% for each side. We wind up with two competing political

truisms. The first is that very often people say don't know and they

don't vote. If that is right and we get a load turnout, which after the

first and people like us being fascinated, many people aren't

energised enough to turn out and I think that favours the Leave side.

The other political truism is people who are undecided in referendums

tended to break towards the status quo or what they think is the status

quo. As in Scotland? In most referendums. Asked the Swiss. If you

want to intend to the status quo, have a referendum. The European

Union is evolving and its evolving away from British interests and more

towards the interests of the Eurozone and more towards an

integrated project. The other thing to remember about the deal the prime

and Asda negotiated is that it gives up one big thing, the British

ability to veto -- the Prime Minister, around British interests

and affairs and that's one thing people haven't got through to people

who will vote about it. So what do people have to do? The Remain

campaign had to inspire people with a positive vision. And the Leave

campaign has to do the reverse, say there is an optimistic future for

the UK, able to decide its own treaty agreements and to minimise

any fears people have about the risks of leaving.

What do you think would swing it for those who haven't decided? The fear

of the unknown has decided that ten years of uncertainty will follow a

Leave. If you look at calendar which -- calendar which has given an

example, it has given an example -- Canada. It still doesn't cover

financial services. For ten years minimum, because Europe won't be in

a rush to sign anything cause the onus is on the British side, for ten

years there will be uncertainty, economic problems, problems of trade

and foreign investment, many companies might decide not to stay

in Britain all stay but not developed their investment. In a

way, the status quo, like in the Scottish referendum... Do you take

the point that there is no status quo because Europe is evolving? No,

it is not that. Europe is Europe and you are a member or you are not.

Europe is Europe. We have rules and we renegotiate with the British,

which I think was very generous of us, and it is not evolving. It is

continuing to evolve with Britain according to the problems of the

day. What do you think would swing it? There are two camps. The first

camp wants to leave and they are using the politics of fear, saying

if we stay in Europe it will be terrorism, migrations and it will

affect our standard of living. The other people would like to stay in

the European Union. Both say the economy is important and it will

suffer. Now, when it comes to the real data and when the people go and

vote, I have a feeling that the same as what happened in Scotland could

be repeated. The economy will prevail. People look at their

interests and if they feel the pound will drop and the economy will be

affected and their standard of living will go down and they feel

investment. Coming to Britain, I have a feeling that, in the end, the

23rd of June, maybe people who would like to stay in the European Union

will prevail. Isn't there a difference between the Scottish

referendum and the one we are about to have in that no one really

thought migration would be a major issue in Scotland, but in our Brexit

referendum, it really is and it is properly the number one issue. From

the polls I've seen, it's the economy and those consequences which

are far more important. I don't think most voters look at this...

They are voters -- voting on the staters quota. They don't think the

EU is evolving. I'd then think that message has got through. The most

interesting poll was a couple of the -- please go saying voters could be

swayed if they thought it could mean as much as ?25 less or more in their

pocket as a result. If you look at the most respected economists, the

best case and worst-case scenario, the UK economy would shrink, at

least in the year to -- near-term as a result of a vote to leave.

Comments from the IMF this week, there is increasing concern that

this is not just about that will impact the UK economy but it could

unsettle the global economy. It could be a shock to many

institutions and mean the unravelling of the EU etc -- except

-- itself. So much of the campaign is based around the fact that

Britain couldn't do well on its own, but then look at all the apple cart

it would upset. You can't have it both ways. There is a false

assumption. The Leave campaign says Britain is the fifth strongest

economy in the world. That's true. It has nothing to do with being part

of the EU. It's irrespective. It would remain the fifth largest --

largest economy and even if half of the trade is with the EU it has no

impact. The single market is what made Britain the fifth biggest

economy and it will not... What a remarkable assertion given the red

tape and bureaucracy that goes on in European trade. If I may say, your

Canadian example is peculiar because unlike their command me, economy,

which is peripheral to European trade, on the day we lead -- leave

the EU we will be Europe's number one trading partner so don't you

think that will be a more pressing need to reach a trade agreement than

with Canada? Do you honestly think that trade agreement we would

negotiate would be better than the one we have now? Yes. How do you

know that? Perhaps you can tell me who will win the horse races

afternoon if you can predict the future! And the sovereignty

question, it concerns everybody. How much sovereignty people have. And

much sovereignty does any country have in a world of globalisation of

capital. And then things like defence and the independent nuclear

deterrent? Boris Johnson picked up on it also, that we are not southern

states in the way we were 100 years ago. Not in the same way, but there

are different gradings of sovereignty. I believe who governs

Britain remains a important question. Very few people would say

it is only Westminster. Whilst you are right we consented to enter into

agreements, only with EE you is it a political project. The Chinese are

Americans don't need to enter into a political union with Europe to trade

and nor do we. President Obama seems likely to urge us to remain and

Boris Johnson is right to say that it is intervention because he would

never advocate that for his own country. When we talk about

sovereignty, are we saying to Brexit, for example, if you want to

leave... Why should you ask the Scots to stay in the UK? Or the

Welsh? Why not asked Northern Ireland to stay? It could reflect

badly on this country and the unity of this country. We have a feeling

of the Leave campaign being white, male and very no countryfolk. All

women from ethnic minorities. It is striking when you see it. These

groups... You need to get out more! Did you see the line-up of the Leave

campaign? One black guy and that's all otherwise it's all white.

Britain is diverse and if I were an ethnic minority here... One of the

respectful things about this debate is that is not being directed along

racial lines. You doing that is regrettable. No, look at Ukip. One

final thought. It is difficult to find foreign journalists who take a

Brexit view. One of the things that strikes me about the campaign which

has just kicked off officially is there are too many people saying

both sides... The bogeyman. The NHS isn't safe... But I don't think

people by that stuff. I think people want a positive vision of being in

or out. I have an optimistic view of this country's sovereign ability to

make its own path outside of the EU. The NHS and so forth will be an

issue. My view is these project fears on both sides are awash

against each other and it's the perception of what you want most for

the future that will determine the way people vote. Today, the British

contribution to the EU which is ?10 billion could be used to improve the

national health. Unbelievable! Just now, if this country leaves the EU,

the National health... Is not the fault of the EU. It's an impossible

task. We will return to this quite a bit over the next few weeks.

General Colin Powell once observed that, rather as in a pottery shop,

in international affairs if you break it you own it.

Britain, France and the United States broke the Gaddafi

regime in Libya - what, if any, is our responsibility to do

something about the mess which has followed?

It feeds into immigration and perceptions of North African

terrorism and all kinds of things. Yes, and when we talked about Nato

intervention in Libya, we warned that it would be a springboard for

illegal immigrants and maybe hundreds of thousands of them to

come to Europe. Also, it's a tribal society and when you break it it is

difficult to fix it again. After five years of a huge mess in Libya,

the armed militia are ransacking the country and Libya, as we said, is

supposed to be the role model for the whole of the Middle East.

Instead of that, a prosperous country, it used to have about $65

billion oil revenue for a small population of 6 million. Now, what

is happening? Half of the population are outside Libya. Into an easier

and another 1.5 million in Egypt. Also, people are starving. Imagine a

rich country like that starving! The country has three governments and

three armies and three parliaments. This is the problem. No central

services, water or electricity. This is the problem we are facing. The UN

managed to set up a so-called national unity government and this

government, OK, it's fine, but how it should have the muscle, the army

and security forces and infrastructure full --? I believe

the aim of this government is to say to Nato, please, come again to give

legitimacy to the second intervention. So more Nato? Because

in order to keep this government in power it has to have a military

muscle. Who will give it that? The only people like Tunisia or Egypt

say, no, because it would create more mess than what existed. So they

need a sort of national reconciliation. The Islamic State is

there. They have about 10,000 fighters there and they are trying

to control the oil in Libya. It is extremely dangerous. This is not

somebody else's problem. Not just the moral question of intervention

but it is eight question of whether it will visit us -- a question. It

has been also in the US presidential campaign and Putin got into it

because this week he called on President Obama a decent man for

having admitted the Libya intervention was one of his greatest

regrets of his presidency. Hillary Clinton has been forced to defend

her behaviour in Libya and it has put a spotlight on how the US

managed the aftermath and what they could have done differently. You

have a lot of Clinton advisers saying that it was all going quite

well until Benghazi and then the US had to retreat. Actually, the

Libyans had been reluctant to accept any form of help for security

services and security forces on the ground. That created a real problem

in terms of trying to salvage and guide Libya in the aftermath of the

intervention. Now there is the whole question, was the intervention right

and should we have done it? Going back and looking at the time in

2011, it wasn't about bombing Libya to create a democracy. It was about

stopping Gaddafi from stopping at a massacre against his own civilians

and that was a noble cause which you can't question. But Nato committed

massacres in Libya. Could you give me any reference to how many Libyans

were killed because of Nato's intervention. We talk about

supposedly daffy massacres, which did not take place anyway, we know

that Nato warplanes massacred people in Libya. We can't run to

experiments, can we? With the opposition that Gaddafi didn't

commit atrocities against his own people? There was anticipation that

Gaddafi would massacre his own people. Now people are looking at

comparing Libya to Syria, right? If people had not intervened in Libya,

it could be like Syria. Libyan people are chanting for Gaddafi now.

They say... There is no stomach for another war. We have so many other

problems. The problem of Libya is not a problem we can face except the

problem of immigration and there is a moral duty of the US, France and

the UK to solve that problem by taking Libyans as immigrants. I

wonder whether, the Pope is in Lesbos this weekend and that has the

focus has been in Syria and this is the next thing which you can see

coming like a train wreck. But it won't be the fault of the EU. It

can't be an intervention because we don't want one. So the only solution

is to let the UN do it and the Americans also. You go to Belgium

and so one, what are things like in Belgium -- Brussels and Paris now?

Brussels is a mess. I was there recently. Three hours at the airport

to take a flight. People are fearful to take the tube and it is very

irregular as it doesn't work. There is a feeling that the sea -- city

has been marked for years by this thing.

New Yorkers go to the polls this week with three

Hillary Clinton was once their Senator.

And Bernie Sanders is a native New Yorker now living in Vermont.

What will the New York primary results tell us, if anything,

about the likely outcome of the presidential race?

It is incredible you have three New Yorkers running for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton -- Clinton has the lead in the polls and unless there

is some huge upset she will win that. There are a lot of delegates

that play there and it solidifies her position as the leading

contender for the Democratic nomination and it's impossible for

Bernie Sanders to catch up. For the Republicans, it is still up in the

air. There aren't as many delegates up for drying -- grabs. Jump is

polling a 50%, but most people think he will be 100 delegates short come

the convention and that we won't have any idea how the Republican

nomination will come into place until after California and even then

it may not be clear. I think for the Republican nomination it will be...

I think if you thought it was crazy so far, it will get crazier. There

are hugely talented people in the Republican party. Yes and it's a

shame they're not running. I think the Republican race is difficult and

I think there will probably be... People will not release delegates

and you end up having to go to the convention. There will be an attempt

against Tramp two sticks things up for another candidate and that

attempt will probably fail and Trouble gets elected anyway because

he has, whilst it's not an overwhelming oh -- majority, I think

the will of the people voting will be clear. On the Democratic side,

it's tricky, isn't it? I thought the decision by a bummer about his worst

ever mistake and he said Libya, it was a rare thing in politics, an

honest answer. Like David Cameron saying that he would not run for

third term, oh, God no excavation Hillary Clinton's number-1 argument

is experienced and qualified and can hit the ground running -- running,

but Libya was on her watch. But if you look at what she said this week

at the Democratic debate when asked about it, she said it was the

President's decision. I don't think people like it when people pass

responsibility on. But I agree that Sanders cannot mathematically

overtake her. But he can harm her continuously again and again. Whilst

he may use -- lose in New York, is one the last seven and it doesn't

reflect well on Hillary Clinton. Hillary Denton is well ahead. For

spectators in this, there's an old saying that the best won't run and

the worst won't quit. Is that where we are? In the Middle East we are

following this contest very closely. Simply because becoming president of

the US will affect us and most of the American intervention in the

Middle East, Syria, Libya and Iraq, so to be honest, we are supposed to

vote in this election to have our say because we will be the victims

of this. Anyway, in the end I believe and I agree with you that

Hillary Clinton is supported by American Africans and the Latina

population. But Tramp is really sweeping everything up. You can say

he's a clown and an entertainer or it's a circus, but the problem is we

don't know the American people. They elected Ronald Reagan and Obama. We

don't know yet. Maybe they will elect Hillary Clinton, we can't

predict. Hillary Clinton is elected and that would be the important

point as she would be a good president for Europe and so was

President Obama. I'm not sure how many votes that will sway in

America! Are you saying that next time and the next president will

say, the American lady president, for example? The next lady president

would say no Brexit. People think I'm obsessed with this! We will

leave our competitive accessions. That's it for Dateline

London for this week. We're back next week

at the same time. You can of course comment on the

programme on Twitter @gavinesler. Hello. It feels like we stepped back

a season today. We've seen some lovely