:00:00. > :00:00.prospect. If you want the full story for the next week -- next week Matt
:00:00. > :00:22.Taylor will have it in the next few hours on the BBC weather website.
:00:23. > :00:25.Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
:00:26. > :00:27.Eight US former Treasury Secretaries - and President Obama -
:00:28. > :00:31.say Britain should stay in the European Union.
:00:32. > :00:35.And the Queen at 90 - what future for the House of Windsor?
:00:36. > :00:38.My guests today are Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt, Nesrine Malik,
:00:39. > :00:40.who is a Sudanese journalist, Stryker McGuire of Bloomberg
:00:41. > :00:42.Markets, and Ned Temko, who is an author and
:00:43. > :00:54.Britain fights terror better, is stronger and will be more
:00:55. > :00:57.prosperous within the European Union - the view not just
:00:58. > :00:59.of the British Prime Minister but of President Barack Obama
:01:00. > :01:01.in London this week and eight former US Treasury Secretaries.
:01:02. > :01:06.Do the views of foreign leaders count for anything in this debate?
:01:07. > :01:13.What do you think? People pay attention, but does it change minds?
:01:14. > :01:21.There are foreign leaders and foreign leaders. The publicly stated
:01:22. > :01:23.view much more directly than expected of the President of the
:01:24. > :01:27.United States does count for something. I think the easiest way
:01:28. > :01:33.to judge that is to see the response of some of the leading lights. And I
:01:34. > :01:40.use those words advisedly. Of the Brexit campaign, like Boris Johnson.
:01:41. > :01:44.There is almost a panic and nastiness. When you get to the point
:01:45. > :01:53.of sounding like Donald Trump with a British accent, and whether he was
:01:54. > :01:59.born in the United States, whether his Kenyan ancestry makes an dislike
:02:00. > :02:03.the United Kingdom, that is both desperate and slightly ugly.
:02:04. > :02:15.Yesterday, Boris said, for instance, I think, as a pre-emptive strike,
:02:16. > :02:18.that Obama talking on Brexit is incoherent, irrelevant and
:02:19. > :02:23.hypocritical. And this from a guy who won the Nobel Prize for
:02:24. > :02:27.hypocrisy over the last few months because he had been going around
:02:28. > :02:32.Europe as the Mayor of London external link the values of the
:02:33. > :02:37.British financial services industry within the European Union. So, will
:02:38. > :02:41.it have a dramatic effect? Probably not come but I think it will have
:02:42. > :02:45.some effect, and some early surveys show that particularly among younger
:02:46. > :02:49.voters there is an open this to Obama saying what he thought on
:02:50. > :02:55.this, and as it will make a difference. One final small point --
:02:56. > :02:58.and that it will make a difference. Their result was an argument against
:02:59. > :03:07.intervention politically, because this isn't an American issue, it's a
:03:08. > :03:11.pretty -- it's a British vote. All perfectly true. One of the main
:03:12. > :03:16.demands of the Brexit campaign is that there is this shining city on
:03:17. > :03:21.the Hill, probably somewhere near San Francisco, and that once you are
:03:22. > :03:26.out of Europe, you will have this wonderful, new, even more special
:03:27. > :03:30.relationship with States. And I thought it was very good that he
:03:31. > :03:32.simply remarked that it might make sense to hear from the President of
:03:33. > :03:38.the United States whether that is a fantasy or not. And the final great
:03:39. > :03:45.touch was using the British word queue instead of lying. There are
:03:46. > :03:49.those who say, and Nigel for Russia's one, that the use of the
:03:50. > :03:53.word queue shows that it was all written by Downing Street and he was
:03:54. > :03:59.doing what David Cameron wanted, as if there is a union of existing
:04:00. > :04:03.leaders who all work together. And it's hypocritical, because he would
:04:04. > :04:06.never die with America's sovereignty in this way. That is a foolish thing
:04:07. > :04:11.to say, and it is said by someone who has never been involved in any
:04:12. > :04:14.event of this sort. What happens is, before the press conference takes
:04:15. > :04:17.place, the advisers are meeting, going over what the questions are
:04:18. > :04:25.likely to be, what the answers will be. If at some point an American
:04:26. > :04:29.started talking about going to the back of the line, somebody would
:04:30. > :04:32.have said, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't use the word
:04:33. > :04:37.line, we should use the word queue, because that is the word that is
:04:38. > :04:42.operable in this country. That, I would just dismiss out of hand. This
:04:43. > :04:47.was not done for David Cameron. It will help David Cameron, but it was
:04:48. > :04:50.not done for him. It was done to the United States, and I think that's
:04:51. > :04:56.what Obama made perfectly clear, that this was an intervention. We
:04:57. > :05:00.don't normally do these things, but this is a friendly intervention. He
:05:01. > :05:06.is saying, in a sense, I'm warning you, don't do this. This is not good
:05:07. > :05:08.for us in the United States, not good for the transatlantic
:05:09. > :05:14.relationship, not good for the world. And it also happens not to be
:05:15. > :05:20.good for you, the United Kingdom. I think we were all struck by how
:05:21. > :05:25.blunt he was about trade and this going to the back of the queue. Yes.
:05:26. > :05:28.When he talked about the special relationship, it was a personal
:05:29. > :05:32.relationship, a cultural relationship, I love the Queen, all
:05:33. > :05:37.that stuff that warms people's hard. But then it was pretty hard-headed -
:05:38. > :05:43.you opt out of the big league, you opt out, was what he was saying. It
:05:44. > :05:48.was planned but refreshing. The Brexit and the Remain campaigns have
:05:49. > :05:51.become in the last few weeks centred around the visceral, emotional
:05:52. > :05:55.aspect of leaving or staying. I think it was repression to hear
:05:56. > :06:01.Obama just cut through all these hysterical positionings and say it
:06:02. > :06:06.is about hard facts, about trade and priorities. And also saying, I'm not
:06:07. > :06:11.sticking around. The subtext was, I'm not run for a long time, so I
:06:12. > :06:15.have no skin in the game, I'm just telling you what is good for you and
:06:16. > :06:20.your potential relationship with America trade wise in the future. I
:06:21. > :06:23.found it fascinated that everyone was talking about the erosion of
:06:24. > :06:27.sovereignty and US intervention on the back of a state - celebrate a
:06:28. > :06:35.birthday for a monarch, and I was like... Have I been back to Saudi
:06:36. > :06:40.Arabia? I don't think the British monarchy is quite the same as in
:06:41. > :06:45.Saudi Arabia. We could discuss the differences later. There was just
:06:46. > :06:48.the kind of petty, insecure under dog edge to the reaction to Obama.
:06:49. > :06:55.Strong countries with strong southern treat -- with strong
:06:56. > :06:59.sovereignty don't react that way. You're talking about some of the
:07:00. > :07:02.trivial froth, but the key point that is being made by some,
:07:03. > :07:08.including Boris Johnson, is that he would never do this. That's why Mr
:07:09. > :07:11.Johnson said it was hypocritical, because the idea of an American
:07:12. > :07:16.dilating American sovereignty in the way the British have by being part
:07:17. > :07:22.of the European Union, what do you make of that argument, given there
:07:23. > :07:25.are fairly profound differences between the United States, a
:07:26. > :07:30.continental power three miles away -- 3000 miles away, and Britain, an
:07:31. > :07:35.island nation. Even to pose the comparison is ridiculous. In our
:07:36. > :07:39.way, what Obama said felt undermining because he was making
:07:40. > :07:43.that point, you can't really go it alone, you are not the US. If you
:07:44. > :07:47.want that special relationship that gives you strength, you need to stay
:07:48. > :07:56.in. Just to pick up on the security thing, yesterday on BBC Radio, the
:07:57. > :08:05.Justice Minister, a discount Boris Johnson in the Brexit campaign, took
:08:06. > :08:08.great exception to the comparison of sharing internal sovereignty among
:08:09. > :08:13.individual American States, that is to say that you have these 50 states
:08:14. > :08:18.that fool their sovereignty, often don't like what Washington is doing,
:08:19. > :08:24.but they don't CC, and the response was, what are we, North Dakota? And
:08:25. > :08:31.I think there is this kind of sensitivity. There is. The obvious
:08:32. > :08:34.answer is, you could be California, which is almost the same size of
:08:35. > :08:39.economy has Britain. It is a huge difference of scale. I have a
:08:40. > :08:46.slightly different angle. Not to be a devil's advocate, but just say
:08:47. > :08:59.there are all these arguments swirling around sovereignty. Or Bama
:09:00. > :09:04.takes the the American view. The sovereignty issue worries people in
:09:05. > :09:10.this country, and the EU is not the beacon of democracy, Brussels
:09:11. > :09:14.framework, the beacon of democracy that America might lead the world to
:09:15. > :09:26.believe. Europe has things to answer for. It has a democratic deficit
:09:27. > :09:29.will stop also, this admonishment, BET you is the area with the lowest
:09:30. > :09:34.growth in the developed world. Some people are worried and asking,
:09:35. > :09:41.should we stay in a community that has such an imperilled future? Those
:09:42. > :09:47.are fair arguments. The problem, and I agree with the notion that the
:09:48. > :09:52.level of debate, if you can even call it that, has been disturbingly
:09:53. > :09:58.low at the beginning of this campaign, but all of those are valid
:09:59. > :10:01.questions. The problem, just intellectually, with the Brexit
:10:02. > :10:06.campaign, from my perspective, is that you have all these shining,
:10:07. > :10:10.city on the Hill speeches, but there is no answer to how getting out of
:10:11. > :10:17.Europe would actually improve any of it. For example, if 50% of your
:10:18. > :10:21.trade is with Europe, leaving Europe doesn't solve the problem of
:10:22. > :10:24.Europe's wrote. But the point is made that they still want to buy
:10:25. > :10:35.stuff from ours and we would still want to buy French cheese and wine.
:10:36. > :10:39.I'm sure that's true, you are stronger together, basically. The
:10:40. > :10:42.arguments you are making, Thomas, they are perfectly good, however, I
:10:43. > :10:48.think there is this thing at the bottom of everything that goes to
:10:49. > :10:52.the insecurity question. There is a nostalgia and romanticism among the
:10:53. > :10:57.Brexit crowd, yearning for something that is history. It's gone. That's
:10:58. > :11:02.true of some people. For others, there are two case is being made.
:11:03. > :11:07.There is a negative case, but also a lot of people who want to get out of
:11:08. > :11:12.Europe who say things would be better, whether you agree with that
:11:13. > :11:15.not, they do say that. I have talked to many of optimists about the
:11:16. > :11:23.future of Britain outside Europe. The rhetorical weapon that is the
:11:24. > :11:26.point in this campaign is optimism. These are tough decisions, and it is
:11:27. > :11:31.one of these decisions you can't go back on. The only thing I would say,
:11:32. > :11:40.and I will be quick, is the problem isn't sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU -
:11:41. > :11:44.the problem is in the real world, the economy and the system that we
:11:45. > :11:49.live in the 21st century. There is no such thing for even the fifth
:11:50. > :11:52.largest economy in the world as absolute sovereignty. No country,
:11:53. > :12:00.even the United States, has sovereignty over everything. You are
:12:01. > :12:14.a member of Nato. Globalisation, world trade. The Brexit supporters
:12:15. > :12:26.can't predict the world outside the EU. Obama can't predict either. He
:12:27. > :12:32.is on the way out. You made the case to be very sceptical about Europe,
:12:33. > :12:37.but why is it then that in response to Obama we are hearing things like,
:12:38. > :12:43.he is on the way out, so he doesn't cancel much? He is half Kenyan, it
:12:44. > :12:47.is hypocritical, he moved a bust of church because he doesn't regard
:12:48. > :12:51.Britain very well. This was a speech written by number ten. In substance,
:12:52. > :12:56.what you have addressed is not the substance of what we're about. The
:12:57. > :13:06.responses to the speech have been horrendously trivial piffle. To get
:13:07. > :13:10.hung up on hypocrisy... Obama is expressing an American viewpoint,
:13:11. > :13:18.and he's entitled to it. My goodness, hypocrisy doesn't come in.
:13:19. > :13:26.Also, the issue that somehow Europe is so weak that we have to get out
:13:27. > :13:30.by hook or by crook is over the top. You have to take the situation
:13:31. > :13:33.seriously that, come what may, once Britain is out, there is a new
:13:34. > :13:38.world, nobody can predict what will happen. Or Bama says we are linked
:13:39. > :13:41.at the hip, the two countries, so friendly, so how can he predict that
:13:42. > :13:47.you would be relegating Britain to the end of the queue? I think if I
:13:48. > :13:52.were a neutral person trying to decide for or against, the response
:13:53. > :13:58.to the Obama statement would be troubling, because you would think,
:13:59. > :14:03.this is not a Leave campaign that is based on rational fact, it is a
:14:04. > :14:05.campaign that is reactionary and reacting to Obama's statements
:14:06. > :14:09.because they feel they were belittled. It feels like the United
:14:10. > :14:12.Kingdom is a country that is powerful, and to point out that it
:14:13. > :14:18.would be less powerful outside Europe in fly is that we are a weak
:14:19. > :14:22.state. I think the final statement was a beautiful metaphor, Freddie
:14:23. > :14:27.says, no man is an island, even an island as beautiful as this. It
:14:28. > :14:32.really spoke to that, you think you are this wonderful, special British
:14:33. > :14:36.Empire, but not even you can go it alone any more. Even weak states can
:14:37. > :14:42.be turned around. If Europe is to be a weak block of nations, I can
:14:43. > :14:47.Britain's power be augmented in a set of those nations? To answer the
:14:48. > :14:50.specific thing about anticipating whether Britain would would not be
:14:51. > :14:55.at the end of the queue, and beastly we don't know who the next President
:14:56. > :14:59.of the United States will be, but if you crunch the numbers, as Obama
:15:00. > :15:08.said this morning, doing trade deals is not easy. If you had a choice of
:15:09. > :15:12.doing a trade deal with Britain, albeit the fifth largest economy by
:15:13. > :15:17.GDP in the world, and the market of 500 million people with a gross GDP
:15:18. > :15:22.of almost exactly the same as the United States, which would you do
:15:23. > :15:26.first? It's just logic. We are at cross purposes. It is quite true
:15:27. > :15:30.what you say, economic weak and in terms of trade. When it comes to
:15:31. > :15:34.prosperity in the future and the weakness of the EU economic area,
:15:35. > :15:39.the argument of Britain becoming stronger in a weakening Europe has a
:15:40. > :15:43.lot of validity. We have a couple of minutes. I want to pick up a point.
:15:44. > :15:48.You were critical of Boris Johnson. I wonder if you feel, in this
:15:49. > :15:51.campaign, Mr Johnson has proved the most effective leader of the
:15:52. > :15:55.campaign, of whether there are other people who have the same views as
:15:56. > :16:02.him who may have expressed it in a way that is better put? The thing
:16:03. > :16:08.is, he is this magnet, giant, fluffy magnet for publicity. It gravitates
:16:09. > :16:14.to him. He is like your friend Donald Trump in that sense. But one
:16:15. > :16:17.thing that has happened ever since Boris has been put more at the head
:16:18. > :16:24.of the campaign, he really has not done himself any service. He has
:16:25. > :16:29.become a figure of fun, and to become that if you aspire to be the
:16:30. > :16:36.leader of our party, or certainly the leader of the country, the Prime
:16:37. > :16:40.Minister, you are not in good shape. He just hasn't switched gears. He
:16:41. > :16:45.doesn't seem to be able to raise his game. That's the thing. It has been
:16:46. > :16:50.bad for the campaign and for Boris himself. What people say about him
:16:51. > :16:54.is, it's all an act, and one day when it is serious and the chips are
:16:55. > :17:02.down, he will basically revealed this intelligent... Like Trump, too.
:17:03. > :17:08.Boris will say, don't write him off, it's just an act, when things get
:17:09. > :17:13.real people rise up and expose his intelligence and his edge. Either he
:17:14. > :17:17.is that and has failed to do it, or he has done this buffoonery act for
:17:18. > :17:20.so long, he doesn't know what else to do. Let's move on.
:17:21. > :17:22.Almost 65 years, one Queen and 12 US presidents.
:17:23. > :17:25.Most British people have only ever known one queen, a remarkable woman
:17:26. > :17:27.who celebrated her 90th birthday this week.
:17:28. > :17:29.But when the Elizabethan Age finally draws to its close,
:17:30. > :17:32.will the British monarchy re-invent itself once more, or will it
:17:33. > :17:36.Does it depend, in other words, on the personality of the monarch,
:17:37. > :17:48.You have written a book about the Queen, a bestseller in Germany.
:17:49. > :17:55.Thank you very much. You like her. You like her a lot. I like a lot,
:17:56. > :17:58.but when you read the book, you will see I have two personalities to
:17:59. > :18:02.write about. One is the sovereign and one is the institution. I think
:18:03. > :18:07.it is far more important to get a little bit away from her, because
:18:08. > :18:16.she is also mortal, despite her age, one day she will not be there. So,
:18:17. > :18:22.you think she has done a wonderful job? Everyone is saying that. I look
:18:23. > :18:29.beyond it, at the continuity of the institution, the longer the tail
:18:30. > :18:38.monarchy -- the longevity of monarchy. I don't think there is a
:18:39. > :18:46.contradiction between monarchy and a republic. There is a phrase that was
:18:47. > :18:49.coined about Britain that it was a royal republic of stock that is a
:18:50. > :18:54.beautiful way to understand what this country is about. It is a
:18:55. > :18:58.republic. Everyone knows where power rests - with the elite, with the
:18:59. > :19:04.Prime Minister and parliament. That has nothing to do especially with
:19:05. > :19:10.Queen Elizabeth II, it is a 1000 year old history. You think it will
:19:11. > :19:14.continue? Absolutely. With three generations waiting in line. It
:19:15. > :19:22.continues like this. Even if your view of history is through Wolf
:19:23. > :19:27.Hall, you know that the history of the monarch has changed completely.
:19:28. > :19:31.The monarch ran the place at one time. The monarch now is a hugely
:19:32. > :19:42.significant ceremonial figure. And wonderful. There was a deal with
:19:43. > :19:46.democratic development, it had its power ridges by Parliament and kept
:19:47. > :19:51.it ceremonial outreach and charm. Unlike European monarchies, who
:19:52. > :19:56.confused their standing with political power and were removed.
:19:57. > :20:02.Some people would say that is the genius of it. The nonpolitical
:20:03. > :20:08.nature of it. I'm not entirely sure. I'm not sure of the nonpolitical
:20:09. > :20:12.nature of it. Just the fact that they have no actual political power
:20:13. > :20:17.does not mean that subliminally this monarchy situation bleeds into the
:20:18. > :20:23.establishment politics of the country. I struggle with this idea,
:20:24. > :20:27.firstly, that the Queen has done a great job. I'm not entirely sure
:20:28. > :20:33.what that means full stop what is doing a great job as Queen? Does it
:20:34. > :20:37.mean not becoming an alcoholic and having a divorce, not having
:20:38. > :20:45.children? That's just one, two, three and four. I'm not sure about
:20:46. > :20:48.this inability to criticise the Queen because she has done an
:20:49. > :20:52.amazing job and therefore the institution has become bestowed with
:20:53. > :20:55.this sense of impunity because the Queen has done such an amazing job
:20:56. > :21:01.and she is an older woman and how could you criticise? I am not sure
:21:02. > :21:05.what it means. I am genuinely asking, it's not rhetorical. My
:21:06. > :21:08.second point, I think it is really disturbing in a country that is
:21:09. > :21:14.still so steeped in class divisions and values and where, no matter what
:21:15. > :21:20.people do to try to prevent the dominance of the elite, it keeps
:21:21. > :21:25.happening and we keep electing eaten students and landed gentry to
:21:26. > :21:32.positions of power. I think having a royal family and institutions such
:21:33. > :21:35.as this, firstly, gives sanction to it and, secondly, makes it difficult
:21:36. > :21:40.for the country to get beyond that dynamic. I know it sounds
:21:41. > :21:44.conspiratorial and academic, but I think that when you say it is
:21:45. > :21:47.completely nonpolitical and it is shorn of any social influence and
:21:48. > :21:52.political infants, I am not sure that is the case. All I would say
:21:53. > :21:56.is, be careful what you wish for. Constitutionally, you would probably
:21:57. > :21:59.move to some sort of powerless presidency, but you would still have
:22:00. > :22:07.to be like a Boris Johnson figure or someone. I think the diligent -- I
:22:08. > :22:09.think it is interesting when people say, D1 Simon Cowell? We need
:22:10. > :22:20.entertainment. We can debate that too. People are asked whether they
:22:21. > :22:24.can name the president of Canada. Why would you change a monarchy that
:22:25. > :22:28.is influenced but not power for a presidency which you have to renew?
:22:29. > :22:37.Why would you do that? Those who take the view that the monarchy
:22:38. > :22:41.doesn't work in theory but does work in practice. There is a class
:22:42. > :22:43.structure, but you have to ask yourself why the British are so in
:22:44. > :22:48.love with it? Is there something in a nature that loves the class
:22:49. > :22:54.structure? Is it not part of their theatrical tradition? It may have
:22:55. > :22:58.been that at one time, this country has changed. And it should change.
:22:59. > :23:02.Because it worked at one point doesn't mean it should work now. The
:23:03. > :23:09.starters cause eel of approval that the monarchy gets is worrying. It
:23:10. > :23:20.also brings in a lot of foreign visitors. President Obama seems to
:23:21. > :23:26.like it. Among others! In the year of the Queen's Silver Jubilee,
:23:27. > :23:29.someone said, if Elizabeth wasn't the Queen of this country, nobody
:23:30. > :23:36.would think of writing a biography about her, because she's such a
:23:37. > :23:40.wonderfully healthy, normal person, you would never write the story of
:23:41. > :23:44.Elizabeth Windsor. As Queen, she is bigger than herself. I come back to
:23:45. > :23:50.my argument. But would you retain the institution? The longevity of a
:23:51. > :23:56.comedy tradition of, more than 1000 years. You had kings and queens in
:23:57. > :24:07.the Anglo-Saxon age. It is past and parcel of this country. -- part and
:24:08. > :24:12.parcel. Someone who is also relevant this weekend whose power hasn't
:24:13. > :24:18.declined is Shakespeare. Talk about meaning, real, true meaning.
:24:19. > :24:21.Exactly, and that is why I think the continuation of the monarchy, with
:24:22. > :24:26.or without the Queen, comes back to that point of achievement. I have a
:24:27. > :24:29.real problem with the society and the body politic scraping and bowing
:24:30. > :24:33.to someone purely because of some history and bloodline that they
:24:34. > :24:42.have. I would rather have William Shakespeare is king, because he
:24:43. > :24:49.actually did something. Take Germany as a case. We have political turmoil
:24:50. > :24:58.often swirling around. We will be rid of all that after Brexit. The
:24:59. > :25:02.head of state rises above the toing and froing of everyday politics and
:25:03. > :25:08.the fluff that goes with it, and it does give the country stability.
:25:09. > :25:11.While simultaneously giving sanction to the establishment, which is a
:25:12. > :25:21.problematic institution in the UK. My sense is that they like the class
:25:22. > :25:25.structure. Well, they shouldn't! There are those who think that the
:25:26. > :25:29.reason for this excess of the monarchy is simply the same as the
:25:30. > :25:33.flag in the United States - the flag doesn't do anything in the United
:25:34. > :25:39.States, but it is the United States for many people. It's cheaper. Not
:25:40. > :25:47.the way you run presidential elections! That's not the flag. In
:25:48. > :25:53.other words, it's assemble of unity. I guess the monarchy is cheap. The
:25:54. > :25:59.problem is, it is assemble but it's also not democratic in the same way
:26:00. > :26:02.that even the flag is. Yes, because people feel like they have a stake
:26:03. > :26:08.in the American flag, the institution. When you say the
:26:09. > :26:18.monarchy is cheap, you mean that in the British sense, not the American
:26:19. > :26:23.sense. It's inexpensive. The centre for work in most English football
:26:24. > :26:29.clubs can be had for a fraction of what the British cough up for this
:26:30. > :26:31.institution. We need a fact check. That is it for this week. You can
:26:32. > :26:33.comment on twitter. You can comment on the programme
:26:34. > :26:35.on Twitter @gavinesler. We're back again next
:26:36. > :26:38.week at the same time.