30/04/2016 Dateline London

end of the week, and some voices could be into the low 20s. -- some

places. "It's the economy, stupid" was how

an aide to Bill Clinton once The phrase comes to mind

after a week of competing predictions in Britain's European

referendum campaign about the cost of leaving, or remaining in,

the European Union. Europe's idealism is being tested

once again by the migration crisis, as borders are re-erected

between European countries. We'll be debating who's coming

from Africa and why. And the continuing suffering

of Syrians, a key component in the mass movement of people,

as their leaders talk peace in Europe even as they bombard

each other back home. With me to discuss all that:

Dr Vincent Magombe, an Africa analyst, Agnes Poirier,

UK Editor for the French weekly The American writer and broadcaster

Jeff McAllister is here, too, along with David Aaronovitch

from The Times. On Friday, a new organisation

was added to the alphabet soup of groups campaigning in Britain's

referendum on whether to leave Economists for Brexit -

there are eight of them - said the UK economy could grow

by an extra 4% in a decade outside On the same day, JP Morgan Chase,

the bank, suggested leaving would cost everyone

in Britain ?45,000 each. Even the Chancellor, George Osborne,

who wants to stay in, thinks leaving wouldn't be as bad

as all that; his officials reckon the cost equates to a more modest

?4,300 per household. I find the attempt to bring it down

to a cost per household is problematic. All you are being told

is the best guess of the majority of economists and organisations, people

who think about this stuff, that people will lose out as a

consequence of leaving the European Union. And eight economists don't

agree! Well, there may be others who support them. And you have to say

that because the BBC have to be balanced. But they are wrong. Agnes

Poirier, you are reported for an audience outside of Britain. Yes,

and we are fascinated by this obsession with figures. You can

always make figures sing. You will always find a statistic from one

survey or forecast that supports your argument. We have fact checkers

now, and that is all we talk about. On the one hand, we understand it,

because even the Remain camp is not going to go all emotional about

Europe. I think they should, because they like passion. So the passion is

all on the other side, you think? Yes, or aggression rather than

passion. It is normal that both camps, being British and pragmatic,

think it is just a question of reason, a topic that addresses

British mines and brains. But it is also guts. When you are in the

polling booth about to cast your vote and you are British, it is

about your history. It is a ballot about culture and the European

spirit. If you talk to a lot of British people, that is what they

feel inside. So it is fascinating in France not to hear anything about

what it is to belong to Europe, what it is to feel European. I defy any

British tourist travelling through the Alps not to feel something about

what an amazing continent to which I belong. In the end, it is a

historical vote, not a question that we be posed again in the next 50

years. Do you think we are not seeing the wood for the trees in

Britain? Well, coming from outside, this is a story that everyone writes

about over and over again. I wrote a cover story on your phobia ten years

ago for Time magazine. It is a recurrent problem. There is just not

the same attachment to Europe, and there never will be. There is at

some level, which is ignored. You don't see the European flag flying

with the British flag here. You commonly see it in other continental

countries. The channel stopped Napoleon and the Armada and Hitler,

and a good thing too. There will always be the emotional difference.

When you get to the economists, I am reminded of Geoffrey Howe's incident

when he was Chancellor for Margaret Thatcher, when 364 economists were

against his Budget, which turned out to be a good thing. Can 364

economists be wrong? Apparently. These predictions are difficult. If

you look at what the polls say that if people are thinking about, no one

is the economy. Even Brexit voters think it will be disruptive to the

economy. Number two is immigration, three is sovereignty. The Brexit

people take it will be Singapore, led by Boris Johnson, the buccaneer.

We want Britain to be independent, the way we think it used to be. But

that is not translating to the rest of the country. I must say this is

interesting for entertainment purposes! As an African looking on

everyday, I listen to different sites and I just can't believe how

much each of them want to exaggerate what might happen or what it means

to stay in and so on. Some suggest that Britain will be like Uganda,

the economy might get broken. I don't think that can happen. If you

have the skills and resources that Britain has, the advancement it has,

Britain can exist. Why would Britain not exist if it got out? On the

other hand, is an African, it really bothers me when people round up

their core arguments about immigration. Imagine if you are in

my country, Uganda, a guest staying there for some time, I have stayed

here for 20 years, they say immigrants have to go. That scares

me. What type of country will come once Britain comes out. Forget

economics, but the attitudes towards people like us who are here? We pay

taxes. We are part of the fabric. Colonialism, Commonwealth and so on,

every day we are reminded that if Britain get out of the European

Union... What about French expats, we are the same! I am sure you will

all be welcome! Actually, when that happens, I shall be alone in this

studio, and I will get the monumental fees that all of you get

paid. But it will be a dollar programme. You will have a little

longer to get your point across. Thank you very much.

Britain's referendum may be a distracting irritation

for other Europeans, but a greater strain on European

Austria has re-introduced border controls on the Brenner

It says Italians should be documenting new arrivals,

This last week, the EU has been fulsome in its praise

for Turkey, which is assisting in the repatriation of people who've

entered Europe and who aren't legally entitled to sanctuary here.

But both examples are treating the symptoms and not the cause.

Many of the migrants are African, from a continent where the UN

estimates three quarters of the population are now

Well, before we know who is coming, it is important to focus on the

African migrants as well. The major wave has been from the Middle East,

and people forgot that the Africans were dying in the shadows as they

came from some of the north African countries. But if you take Africa

generally, I am one of those that came to Britain almost 20 years ago

to seek political refuge. People tend to generalise about us who are

coming from Africa, that we are all economic migrants. Even if we are,

what is the cause of that? We need to understand that people run away

because of bad governance, and that manifests in corruption, which then

steals money from all the different services, health and so on, in poor

economic performance, which makes sure that in my country, Uganda, you

have 75% of the people who are young people. Among them, 65 to 70% are

unemployed. It is to do with very bad governance. If you take some of

us who are the so-called elite who take part in politics, journalists

and so on, we ran away from our countries just because I can't speak

a lot of the things I am speaking around the table in my country.

Right now if I went to Uganda, I would be arrested at the airport?

White? Because I am saying in the elections, you cheated. No democracy

and so on. So just like in Syria or elsewhere, if we want to resolve

those issues, I want to focus more on how you get the African

governments to be better for their people. And how do you do that,

given that we already put considerable sums of money, the

developed world, into Africa, through international aid and other

programmes. China is investing huge amounts into infrastructure because

it sees the potential of Africa, and yet it is not changing fast enough

to meet the genuine aspirations of many Africans. This is the $64

million question. $64 million would not help! Or a trillion. You have a

choice. You can try to build walls. That is an emotional appeal that

politicians can make. We will all close our borders. Donald Trump is

doing it, people in Europe are doing it, and that will somehow keep all

this away from us. But there are now double the number of migrants, 60

million in the world, than there were ten years ago. Some of it is

desert evocation, climate change, causing huge numbers of lives to be

unsustainable in Africa. So either you make it work, you build gardens

where people are, or you build walls to keep them out. And whatever it

takes, it has got to be cheaper. Not that there is any solution that is

easy. You need to do smart things in terms of not just aid, to help those

in migrant camps, the average time people stay in migrant camps is now

70 years, so their children need all sorts of education and development.

But in the long one, it is cheaper to do it in that way and better for

our polity not to leave Europe, not to close your mind. And yet some of

these things are working. The Turkey deal, for example, with the EU. I

saw a report on Thursday that Lesbos last year had 5000 people arriving

every day on that Greek island. There was nobody on Thursday. So

somehow, the message is getting across. To a certain extent, but it

is also possible that almost all the Syrians who could move has moved.

After all, Syria is not a bottomless pit of people. A significant

proportion of its population has already moved on. Nevertheless, it

is probably the case that Europe could not have been worse at

processing, and I don't just mean the EU by this. The responsibility

for the Syrian migrant crisis, to put it down to the European Union

alone, one of the greatest international crises of our time,

always seemed odd to me. But Jeff is right. You have the choice between

trying to deal with people where they are, trying to deal with them

as they come or putting up walls. And the penalties for putting up

walls are huge. It is incredibly disruptive, and it leads to a degree

of authoritarianism. But censors are being built in Morocco. You have a

little Saharan Africans going to North Africa, where they wait for

weeks, months or years. They are in Morocco and Algeria, where the

economic situation is not very good. And between Morocco and Spain, you

have got huge fences. And we have not talked about something which

perhaps, being the only woman on the panel, birth control. When you look

at the birth rate in some parts of Africa, more than seven children per

woman. This is perhaps the root of the problem. That is usually solved

by a rising economic tide as in China where, regardless of the one

child policy, average fertility went down as it does in almost all

developing countries once people get a stake in the economic system.

Obviously, it would be good to have birth control as well. The Pope went

to Africa and actually supported birth control, and a lot of imams as

well in Muslim countries in Africa. All these things, birth control,

whatever a government can do, will depend on whether Africans have

effective governments. But why do young Africans want to come to

Europe, given that there are so many problems in Europe which these days,

they now see on their mobile phones and televisions? You have put your

finger on it. Whatever it is they are seeing on their mobile phones is

better than what they have got. That is one thing, but let me tell you my

story. I was a young African and have become an old man staying in

Europe. I came here 30 years ago. I really wanted to come to Britain

because I could not stay in my country, mainly for political

reasons. Others come for economic reasons. But 90% of those people

that I know who have stayed here for that long don't want to stay in

Britain any longer. There may be others who don't know what is

happening in Europe, think it is all gold. But others think, I would be a

better person teaching in my university at home. I would be more

happy at home, but I can't, because of the political situation at home,

because of bad governance and corruption. And how much

responsibility do you think rests with countries like Britain, Europe

and the United States? I don't want to bore you with history, but Europe

and Britain, you are to blame for how Africa was dislocated in

post-colonial times. But those times have passed. India means couldn't

have come to Uganda without British intelligence -- Iggy and mean. --

Idi Amin. The British and Americans helped. The governance of Britain,

Europe and the United States very much have played a role in

maintaining those bad governments. Do Americans feel that, or do events

of the last 20 years mean the last thing they want to do is rather

sleeves up and become involved in a continent like Africa? I think the

foreign policy class, educated people might understand these

things, but it has no political resonance. And while you may be able

to, as Bill Clinton and even George W Bush did, build consensus that

more needs to be done for Africa, this is not what you hear Donald

Trump talking about. This is not where the weather is being made. And

even Hillary Clinton? If she becomes president, she would do good things,

but I don't think there will be a puddle wave of interest in putting

the kind of investment into the problem that it needs. Agnes, how do

you change that view in Europe? To go back to what gestures was saying,

the UN is also the place where a lot of money is channelled back to

Africa. We have the millennial goals. They do a lot of good work.

But that money gets stolen by the governments. We can talk about

colonialism for a long time, but this is now. But that is why

personally, I blame more my people than anybody else. One of the issues

David has alluded to in the bass movement of people is the war in

Syria. The war in Syria continues to be one

of the things encouraging people to seek a new,

less dangerous life in Europe. The fighting goes on,

even as peace talks have been Despite an earlier cessation

of hostilities having been imposed by Russia and the United States

on the government and rebel sides, the city of Aleppo, for one,

has been remorselessly bombarded - 200 people have died

in the last week alone. The US and Russia are trying again,

this time announcing a "regime of silence",

but there's been no agreement A regime of silence - is this

the calm before the storm? I think the cam and the storm

coexist. This is the way Russia and Assad are using the peace talks as

part of their strategy of aggression. So they are playing for

time? Right. If they get Aleppo, as it looks like they are trying to do,

this cuts off the opponents of the Assad regime from supplies. It

doesn't do much for Isis. It creates new refugees, which is an added

bonus is far as Putin is concerned in destabilising Europe. The Russian

propaganda machine is taking videos filmed by human rights activists

showing Russian planes hitting a hospital in Aleppo, editing out the

noise of the planes and saying it to the opponents of Assad who are doing

it. It is all part of the same system. The Russians take the planes

out, but they bring in helicopters. This is not going to be over any

time soon, and the peace talks are not in a position to make anything

happen, I would say. David, a paper in Syria warned that the war of all

wars is about to be unleashed on the rebels. Does it look like the Assad

government is moving towards what it thinks is the endgame? No. What the

Russians have been doing with Assad, as Jeff said, is using the peace

talks and bombarding those areas they think they can take back or

neutralise so as to create as big a zone for Assad as possible. But if

he had Aleppo, he would then have all the main pieces. Nobody, not

even the Russians, except Assad, believes he can go back to being the

unitary ruler of a peaceful Syria. It is not owing to happen. It will

be at best a significantly divided Syria. This is about taking enough

of it to stabilise his part of it and to stabilise control. That is

all they can hope to do. It is a war opposition before coming to some

kind of long term settlement which is advantageous to him and no one

else. It looks as if we are just waiting for Assad to gain back some

territory, hoping that then, he will be inclined to go back to the peace

talks. That he will be magnanimous in victory. Exactly. It looks a bit

flawed. As long as Putin backs him financially and militarily, he will

never surrender. Fighting IS is not his priority. And Russia's priority

is not fighting IS. Turkey are more in custody in crushing the Kurds. --

they are more interested in crushing the Kurds. And the US are not going

to do anything for another 18 months because of the ending of Obama's

presidency. And the Russians know that. Obama has been pushed to do

something in Syria for the last three years and he has not figured

out what to do. The Labour Party in Britain said, hang on, we are not

going to join, and that was a shame. France were committed to go, and

then we were all deflated. Thank you, Ed Miliband. I was in Russia

for a long time. I was there when they were humiliated in Afghanistan

and had to rush through the mountains in retreat. I am sure they

understand that in Syria, it could be the same thing. This thing off

thinking that if he wins Aleppo or even wins back the whole entry, that

is the end of it, before this whole thing, he had the whole country.

They started fighting because of a lack of democracy and so on. Even if

he gets the country back, I am a big fanatic of this thing called

democracy. If you do not bring democratic governance which then

tries to work for all the people of Syria, you are wasting your time.

Even if they make peace, but do not find a framework in which they can

have a democratic Syria with a government that answers to all the

people, you are wasting your time. David, does that mean there was a

role for the international community as honest brokers in this, or have

they seized to be honest brokers because of their own interest is?

The problem is, it is almost impossible to see that the Assad-

Putin road leads anywhere but to a different kind of disaster. And

because there was and the willpower on the part of the international

community, which would have to mean us saying to the Americas, you have

to lead this, because it always does, if the refugee crisis had been

on America's border, actually coming down from Canada, we might have seen

a much more decisive move from the United States which people could

have fallen in behind. Has President Obama been flat-footed on this? I am

sympathetic in a way to his flat-footed nurse. After all, we not

recently -- recently invaded Iraq and that did not turn out great. He

was right to try and figure out, what is the endgame? In Libya as

well, what is the endgame? It is a smart question to ask. Just because

the problem now is bad does not mean the solution you proffer is any

better, and it could make things worse. On the other hand, it is so

bad and it is creating so many refugees and so much destabilisation

that you have to think, what are all these fancy troops and capability

good for if not stopped this? The biggest tragedy about Syria is that

those people who originally rose up to try and find a more democratic

path for their country are now completely forgotten. We are talking

about roubles, and we don't even know who they are. -- rebels. Where

are those Syrians who hoped for a better country? Thank you all very

much, a sombre note on which to end the programme.

Gavin will be back in the chair at the same time next week.