23/04/2016 Dateline London

prospect. If you want the full story for the next week -- next week Matt

Taylor will have it in the next few hours on the BBC weather website.

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Eight US former Treasury Secretaries - and President Obama -

say Britain should stay in the European Union.

And the Queen at 90 - what future for the House of Windsor?

My guests today are Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt, Nesrine Malik,

who is a Sudanese journalist, Stryker McGuire of Bloomberg

Markets, and Ned Temko, who is an author and

Britain fights terror better, is stronger and will be more

prosperous within the European Union - the view not just

of the British Prime Minister but of President Barack Obama

in London this week and eight former US Treasury Secretaries.

Do the views of foreign leaders count for anything in this debate?

What do you think? People pay attention, but does it change minds?

There are foreign leaders and foreign leaders. The publicly stated

view much more directly than expected of the President of the

United States does count for something. I think the easiest way

to judge that is to see the response of some of the leading lights. And I

use those words advisedly. Of the Brexit campaign, like Boris Johnson.

There is almost a panic and nastiness. When you get to the point

of sounding like Donald Trump with a British accent, and whether he was

born in the United States, whether his Kenyan ancestry makes an dislike

the United Kingdom, that is both desperate and slightly ugly.

Yesterday, Boris said, for instance, I think, as a pre-emptive strike,

that Obama talking on Brexit is incoherent, irrelevant and

hypocritical. And this from a guy who won the Nobel Prize for

hypocrisy over the last few months because he had been going around

Europe as the Mayor of London external link the values of the

British financial services industry within the European Union. So, will

it have a dramatic effect? Probably not come but I think it will have

some effect, and some early surveys show that particularly among younger

voters there is an open this to Obama saying what he thought on

this, and as it will make a difference. One final small point --

and that it will make a difference. Their result was an argument against

intervention politically, because this isn't an American issue, it's a

pretty -- it's a British vote. All perfectly true. One of the main

demands of the Brexit campaign is that there is this shining city on

the Hill, probably somewhere near San Francisco, and that once you are

out of Europe, you will have this wonderful, new, even more special

relationship with States. And I thought it was very good that he

simply remarked that it might make sense to hear from the President of

the United States whether that is a fantasy or not. And the final great

touch was using the British word queue instead of lying. There are

those who say, and Nigel for Russia's one, that the use of the

word queue shows that it was all written by Downing Street and he was

doing what David Cameron wanted, as if there is a union of existing

leaders who all work together. And it's hypocritical, because he would

never die with America's sovereignty in this way. That is a foolish thing

to say, and it is said by someone who has never been involved in any

event of this sort. What happens is, before the press conference takes

place, the advisers are meeting, going over what the questions are

likely to be, what the answers will be. If at some point an American

started talking about going to the back of the line, somebody would

have said, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't use the word

line, we should use the word queue, because that is the word that is

operable in this country. That, I would just dismiss out of hand. This

was not done for David Cameron. It will help David Cameron, but it was

not done for him. It was done to the United States, and I think that's

what Obama made perfectly clear, that this was an intervention. We

don't normally do these things, but this is a friendly intervention. He

is saying, in a sense, I'm warning you, don't do this. This is not good

for us in the United States, not good for the transatlantic

relationship, not good for the world. And it also happens not to be

good for you, the United Kingdom. I think we were all struck by how

blunt he was about trade and this going to the back of the queue. Yes.

When he talked about the special relationship, it was a personal

relationship, a cultural relationship, I love the Queen, all

that stuff that warms people's hard. But then it was pretty hard-headed -

you opt out of the big league, you opt out, was what he was saying. It

was planned but refreshing. The Brexit and the Remain campaigns have

become in the last few weeks centred around the visceral, emotional

aspect of leaving or staying. I think it was repression to hear

Obama just cut through all these hysterical positionings and say it

is about hard facts, about trade and priorities. And also saying, I'm not

sticking around. The subtext was, I'm not run for a long time, so I

have no skin in the game, I'm just telling you what is good for you and

your potential relationship with America trade wise in the future. I

found it fascinated that everyone was talking about the erosion of

sovereignty and US intervention on the back of a state - celebrate a

birthday for a monarch, and I was like... Have I been back to Saudi

Arabia? I don't think the British monarchy is quite the same as in

Saudi Arabia. We could discuss the differences later. There was just

the kind of petty, insecure under dog edge to the reaction to Obama.

Strong countries with strong southern treat -- with strong

sovereignty don't react that way. You're talking about some of the

trivial froth, but the key point that is being made by some,

including Boris Johnson, is that he would never do this. That's why Mr

Johnson said it was hypocritical, because the idea of an American

dilating American sovereignty in the way the British have by being part

of the European Union, what do you make of that argument, given there

are fairly profound differences between the United States, a

continental power three miles away -- 3000 miles away, and Britain, an

island nation. Even to pose the comparison is ridiculous. In our

way, what Obama said felt undermining because he was making

that point, you can't really go it alone, you are not the US. If you

want that special relationship that gives you strength, you need to stay

in. Just to pick up on the security thing, yesterday on BBC Radio, the

Justice Minister, a discount Boris Johnson in the Brexit campaign, took

great exception to the comparison of sharing internal sovereignty among

individual American States, that is to say that you have these 50 states

that fool their sovereignty, often don't like what Washington is doing,

but they don't CC, and the response was, what are we, North Dakota? And

I think there is this kind of sensitivity. There is. The obvious

answer is, you could be California, which is almost the same size of

economy has Britain. It is a huge difference of scale. I have a

slightly different angle. Not to be a devil's advocate, but just say

there are all these arguments swirling around sovereignty. Or Bama

takes the the American view. The sovereignty issue worries people in

this country, and the EU is not the beacon of democracy, Brussels

framework, the beacon of democracy that America might lead the world to

believe. Europe has things to answer for. It has a democratic deficit

will stop also, this admonishment, BET you is the area with the lowest

growth in the developed world. Some people are worried and asking,

should we stay in a community that has such an imperilled future? Those

are fair arguments. The problem, and I agree with the notion that the

level of debate, if you can even call it that, has been disturbingly

low at the beginning of this campaign, but all of those are valid

questions. The problem, just intellectually, with the Brexit

campaign, from my perspective, is that you have all these shining,

city on the Hill speeches, but there is no answer to how getting out of

Europe would actually improve any of it. For example, if 50% of your

trade is with Europe, leaving Europe doesn't solve the problem of

Europe's wrote. But the point is made that they still want to buy

stuff from ours and we would still want to buy French cheese and wine.

I'm sure that's true, you are stronger together, basically. The

arguments you are making, Thomas, they are perfectly good, however, I

think there is this thing at the bottom of everything that goes to

the insecurity question. There is a nostalgia and romanticism among the

Brexit crowd, yearning for something that is history. It's gone. That's

true of some people. For others, there are two case is being made.

There is a negative case, but also a lot of people who want to get out of

Europe who say things would be better, whether you agree with that

not, they do say that. I have talked to many of optimists about the

future of Britain outside Europe. The rhetorical weapon that is the

point in this campaign is optimism. These are tough decisions, and it is

one of these decisions you can't go back on. The only thing I would say,

and I will be quick, is the problem isn't sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU -

the problem is in the real world, the economy and the system that we

live in the 21st century. There is no such thing for even the fifth

largest economy in the world as absolute sovereignty. No country,

even the United States, has sovereignty over everything. You are

a member of Nato. Globalisation, world trade. The Brexit supporters

can't predict the world outside the EU. Obama can't predict either. He

is on the way out. You made the case to be very sceptical about Europe,

but why is it then that in response to Obama we are hearing things like,

he is on the way out, so he doesn't cancel much? He is half Kenyan, it

is hypocritical, he moved a bust of church because he doesn't regard

Britain very well. This was a speech written by number ten. In substance,

what you have addressed is not the substance of what we're about. The

responses to the speech have been horrendously trivial piffle. To get

hung up on hypocrisy... Obama is expressing an American viewpoint,

and he's entitled to it. My goodness, hypocrisy doesn't come in.

Also, the issue that somehow Europe is so weak that we have to get out

by hook or by crook is over the top. You have to take the situation

seriously that, come what may, once Britain is out, there is a new

world, nobody can predict what will happen. Or Bama says we are linked

at the hip, the two countries, so friendly, so how can he predict that

you would be relegating Britain to the end of the queue? I think if I

were a neutral person trying to decide for or against, the response

to the Obama statement would be troubling, because you would think,

this is not a Leave campaign that is based on rational fact, it is a

campaign that is reactionary and reacting to Obama's statements

because they feel they were belittled. It feels like the United

Kingdom is a country that is powerful, and to point out that it

would be less powerful outside Europe in fly is that we are a weak

state. I think the final statement was a beautiful metaphor, Freddie

says, no man is an island, even an island as beautiful as this. It

really spoke to that, you think you are this wonderful, special British

Empire, but not even you can go it alone any more. Even weak states can

be turned around. If Europe is to be a weak block of nations, I can

Britain's power be augmented in a set of those nations? To answer the

specific thing about anticipating whether Britain would would not be

at the end of the queue, and beastly we don't know who the next President

of the United States will be, but if you crunch the numbers, as Obama

said this morning, doing trade deals is not easy. If you had a choice of

doing a trade deal with Britain, albeit the fifth largest economy by

GDP in the world, and the market of 500 million people with a gross GDP

of almost exactly the same as the United States, which would you do

first? It's just logic. We are at cross purposes. It is quite true

what you say, economic weak and in terms of trade. When it comes to

prosperity in the future and the weakness of the EU economic area,

the argument of Britain becoming stronger in a weakening Europe has a

lot of validity. We have a couple of minutes. I want to pick up a point.

You were critical of Boris Johnson. I wonder if you feel, in this

campaign, Mr Johnson has proved the most effective leader of the

campaign, of whether there are other people who have the same views as

him who may have expressed it in a way that is better put? The thing

is, he is this magnet, giant, fluffy magnet for publicity. It gravitates

to him. He is like your friend Donald Trump in that sense. But one

thing that has happened ever since Boris has been put more at the head

of the campaign, he really has not done himself any service. He has

become a figure of fun, and to become that if you aspire to be the

leader of our party, or certainly the leader of the country, the Prime

Minister, you are not in good shape. He just hasn't switched gears. He

doesn't seem to be able to raise his game. That's the thing. It has been

bad for the campaign and for Boris himself. What people say about him

is, it's all an act, and one day when it is serious and the chips are

down, he will basically revealed this intelligent... Like Trump, too.

Boris will say, don't write him off, it's just an act, when things get

real people rise up and expose his intelligence and his edge. Either he

is that and has failed to do it, or he has done this buffoonery act for

so long, he doesn't know what else to do. Let's move on.

Almost 65 years, one Queen and 12 US presidents.

Most British people have only ever known one queen, a remarkable woman

who celebrated her 90th birthday this week.

But when the Elizabethan Age finally draws to its close,

will the British monarchy re-invent itself once more, or will it

Does it depend, in other words, on the personality of the monarch,

You have written a book about the Queen, a bestseller in Germany.

Thank you very much. You like her. You like her a lot. I like a lot,

but when you read the book, you will see I have two personalities to

write about. One is the sovereign and one is the institution. I think

it is far more important to get a little bit away from her, because

she is also mortal, despite her age, one day she will not be there. So,

you think she has done a wonderful job? Everyone is saying that. I look

beyond it, at the continuity of the institution, the longer the tail

monarchy -- the longevity of monarchy. I don't think there is a

contradiction between monarchy and a republic. There is a phrase that was

coined about Britain that it was a royal republic of stock that is a

beautiful way to understand what this country is about. It is a

republic. Everyone knows where power rests - with the elite, with the

Prime Minister and parliament. That has nothing to do especially with

Queen Elizabeth II, it is a 1000 year old history. You think it will

continue? Absolutely. With three generations waiting in line. It

continues like this. Even if your view of history is through Wolf

Hall, you know that the history of the monarch has changed completely.

The monarch ran the place at one time. The monarch now is a hugely

significant ceremonial figure. And wonderful. There was a deal with

democratic development, it had its power ridges by Parliament and kept

it ceremonial outreach and charm. Unlike European monarchies, who

confused their standing with political power and were removed.

Some people would say that is the genius of it. The nonpolitical

nature of it. I'm not entirely sure. I'm not sure of the nonpolitical

nature of it. Just the fact that they have no actual political power

does not mean that subliminally this monarchy situation bleeds into the

establishment politics of the country. I struggle with this idea,

firstly, that the Queen has done a great job. I'm not entirely sure

what that means full stop what is doing a great job as Queen? Does it

mean not becoming an alcoholic and having a divorce, not having

children? That's just one, two, three and four. I'm not sure about

this inability to criticise the Queen because she has done an

amazing job and therefore the institution has become bestowed with

this sense of impunity because the Queen has done such an amazing job

and she is an older woman and how could you criticise? I am not sure

what it means. I am genuinely asking, it's not rhetorical. My

second point, I think it is really disturbing in a country that is

still so steeped in class divisions and values and where, no matter what

people do to try to prevent the dominance of the elite, it keeps

happening and we keep electing eaten students and landed gentry to

positions of power. I think having a royal family and institutions such

as this, firstly, gives sanction to it and, secondly, makes it difficult

for the country to get beyond that dynamic. I know it sounds

conspiratorial and academic, but I think that when you say it is

completely nonpolitical and it is shorn of any social influence and

political infants, I am not sure that is the case. All I would say

is, be careful what you wish for. Constitutionally, you would probably

move to some sort of powerless presidency, but you would still have

to be like a Boris Johnson figure or someone. I think the diligent -- I

think it is interesting when people say, D1 Simon Cowell? We need

entertainment. We can debate that too. People are asked whether they

can name the president of Canada. Why would you change a monarchy that

is influenced but not power for a presidency which you have to renew?

Why would you do that? Those who take the view that the monarchy

doesn't work in theory but does work in practice. There is a class

structure, but you have to ask yourself why the British are so in

love with it? Is there something in a nature that loves the class

structure? Is it not part of their theatrical tradition? It may have

been that at one time, this country has changed. And it should change.

Because it worked at one point doesn't mean it should work now. The

starters cause eel of approval that the monarchy gets is worrying. It

also brings in a lot of foreign visitors. President Obama seems to

like it. Among others! In the year of the Queen's Silver Jubilee,

someone said, if Elizabeth wasn't the Queen of this country, nobody

would think of writing a biography about her, because she's such a

wonderfully healthy, normal person, you would never write the story of

Elizabeth Windsor. As Queen, she is bigger than herself. I come back to

my argument. But would you retain the institution? The longevity of a

comedy tradition of, more than 1000 years. You had kings and queens in

the Anglo-Saxon age. It is past and parcel of this country. -- part and

parcel. Someone who is also relevant this weekend whose power hasn't

declined is Shakespeare. Talk about meaning, real, true meaning.

Exactly, and that is why I think the continuation of the monarchy, with

or without the Queen, comes back to that point of achievement. I have a

real problem with the society and the body politic scraping and bowing

to someone purely because of some history and bloodline that they

have. I would rather have William Shakespeare is king, because he

actually did something. Take Germany as a case. We have political turmoil

often swirling around. We will be rid of all that after Brexit. The

head of state rises above the toing and froing of everyday politics and

the fluff that goes with it, and it does give the country stability.

While simultaneously giving sanction to the establishment, which is a

problematic institution in the UK. My sense is that they like the class

structure. Well, they shouldn't! There are those who think that the

reason for this excess of the monarchy is simply the same as the

flag in the United States - the flag doesn't do anything in the United

States, but it is the United States for many people. It's cheaper. Not

the way you run presidential elections! That's not the flag. In

other words, it's assemble of unity. I guess the monarchy is cheap. The

problem is, it is assemble but it's also not democratic in the same way

that even the flag is. Yes, because people feel like they have a stake

in the American flag, the institution. When you say the

monarchy is cheap, you mean that in the British sense, not the American

sense. It's inexpensive. The centre for work in most English football

clubs can be had for a fraction of what the British cough up for this

institution. We need a fact check. That is it for this week. You can

comment on twitter. You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler. We're back again next

week at the same time.