14/05/2016 Dateline London

Welcome to Dateline London. International Monetary Fund suggests

that it could be bad for the UK to exit the European Union. Corruption

is also a big prop on for Africa and the developing countries, but how

big a problem for us? IM joined by -- I am joined by several guests

this morning. The governor of the Bank of England,

Mark Carney, pointed out that the biggest political decision in the

ways of most British people, voting to leave the European Union, put

provoke a technical recession. The IMF has also suggested that things

could get rough. With so many heavyweights against Britain leaving

the EU, why are the opinion polls so close? Mark Carney is a serious

person making a serious point, and he has been ready chilled by some

people. The operative word was "could". A technical recession,

whatever that is. It sounds like they are talking to six-year-olds.

This is precisely the point. The more big battalions that are brought

into argue in apocalyptic terms, the more people suspect this is a stitch

up. People are not believing, even if these arguments are credible and

sound, there are very few empirical facts because you're prophesying

about the future, which is always a dodgy thing to do, especially when

you are an economist. You get it right so often! People are thinking,

why are these people trying to bully me, frighten me, threaten me? The

British population, in my experience, is the most resilient

population in the world when it comes to being bullied and

threatened. They do not like it. But Mark Carney, if he did not see

something which he believes in about this, and it goes terribly wrong, it

is very difficult to say that the biggest decision in our lifetime, to

get out of the EU, would result in everything being hunky-dory. I did

not say that he should not have said it. Your question was about public

opinion. It is all right for him to have said it, it is a question of

how you take it. The uncertainty, the risk is what all of these big

battalions who are coming into this fight are talking about. There are

uncertainties and risks about staying in. This is a train heading

very fast in a direction that most people, or many people in this

country, do not like. The question is, how much risk is there? How much

risk is there in staying in? There is risk in either option, because

the EU is changing as well. Look at foreign investment, growth, they are

stalling. Why? Not because the British people does not believe that

it will be unknown quantities and the economy does not like unknown

and it is better to continue with the economic situation that we have.

I think, basically, they have lost the economic argument, the

Brexiters. Their one argument they are strong on his immigration. The

economy, it is quite clear, it will be MS and renegotiation of lots of

things. -- it will be a mess. Confidence and trust is not here.

The Prime Minister clearly is thinking along the same lines as

Mark Carney, because he again has been talking about problems with

exports to the European Union if we were to pull out, that there would

be tariff barriers. He needs to learn a few lessons about British

society. I am an outsider, but I have some friends who are British

and we were discussing it. Someone said, I would really like to stay

in, but these things are attempts to bilious. You believe with the

psychology? What concerns me is their attempts to shut down this guy

who is trying to say anything. I am such a fanatical believer in freedom

of expression is that the right thing is to believe anyone who's

anyone, the Governor of the Bank of England or so on, let them see

exactly what they wanted you are what will happen and then lets

people judge. The only problem with what is happening with this debate,

and the fear factor, you introduce fear, people who are sensible and

who now that you're scaremongering will vote the other way. Some

believe there is scaremongering on both sides. If we stay in the EU it

will be a disaster. When we look at the IMF and Mark Carney and all of

those who have been warning about the disastrous consequences of

Brexit, I am reminded of the idea that these

people are not seeing anything other than what you expect they would say.

Maybe they believe it, perhaps they do not believe it with quite the

intensity with which the express it. One of the summaries which was made

by Nigel Lawson, asserting clarity has emerged from it, it is not clear

from the economic outcome, and he is a Brexit man, we have to concede

that it is not clear what the economic impact will be. There may

be, at least in the shorter medium adverse effects. The real issue here

for Brexiters is not economic, it is political. Do you want to be a

self-governing country? Every time we have seen the arguments made in

front of an audience, that draws the biggest cheer. What will be the role

for Britain on its own? Back of the queue, back of the line. He was

translating for the English! This is a terribly important point about, he

would say that, wouldn't they? The big government fanatics, European

unionists, they are in some kind of oligarchic relationship with

ordinary people. What has happened to democratic accountability? The

European Union is effectively run by its commission, who are an elected

officials. There is a sense that you're not only losing

self-government, but Democratic accountability. This is the real

threat, the real risk of remaining. The parliament is elected. The

commissioners are chosen by the government who are elected. They are

chosen, appointed officials. By the government, who are elected. And the

commission creates legislation. If you're asked me what side, I am born

in England and everything, I would see perhaps that I wanted to remain

in. This thing of Brexit scares me I would say, right now, because, as an

immigrant in this country, one of the biggest points is that we want

to get out so we can control immigration and all of these types

of things. But Europe has a huge problem with immigration. So does

the whole world. It is reaching terrifying proportions. The

migration crisis, which should have been a temporary crisis, has become

a permanent tragedy... You are pinpointing a problem which does not

exist in Britain. I am talking about the incompetence of the European

Union. If it exists for anything it is to solve, or deal with, problems

like the migration crisis. If the United States incompetent? It has

been fundamentally unable... That has nothing to do with the EU. It

cannot deal with its immigration problem. But the US is exactly the

model that the US heading for. This federal Europe. The United States of

Europe. Europeans around Europe, do you think that you have a problem

with migration? That is alive. In Uganda we have a problem, of

refugees. Kenya has many. If I take you to history, who has settled in

all of these places? Europeans. So it was very good for you to migrate.

They do not want us to come here? Most of my 45 years in journalism, I

have travelled and lived in distant parts of the world, I reproach

myself and most of my colleagues for not having realised that this divide

between the rich world and the poor world, there haves and the have

nots, could not be sustained. The millions of have nots, who have

satellite television or more Bell telephones, they now know how the

rich live, and they are no longer willing to have more generations...

They want to go to Britain, and Britain does not let them in. It is

a question of whether you have a policy, a political union which is

capable of dealing humanely and justly with that kind of problem.

The thing that has been so scandalous of the EU's handling of

migration is that they have made a total mess of it and created a

prolonged, global tragedy. Why is Britain not taking any of them? That

is the point I am making. I am talking about the effectiveness of

the European Union as a political union. We talk about Brexiters, and

immigration is at the centre of the Brexiters. What they do not realise

is that Britain has not taken any immigrants. You very accurately put

your finger on something of the British people's psychology, which

is that we do not like to be lead and told what to do, -- bullied. Can

I ask you something else, if the British people do not understand the

facts, and we do not quite know which are the facts, and we look at

who should we trust in readership, on the one side we have foreign

leaders who have Britain's best interestWomack at heart, Barack

Obama, on the other side there is Vladimir Putin, married Le Pen,

George Galloway... Hang on, you do not have to equate the Brexit

campaign with the most disreputable people in the campaign. Michael

Gove, Nigel Lawson. Foreign leaders? They should not get all weekend.

This is a question for the British. The reason that European leaders

specifically cannot be trusted on this is because the Europeans are

terrified that if there is a Brexit it will create a domino effect and

that other countries, which as you know have tremendously and -- have

tremendously Euro-sceptic movements, that these movements. To demand

their own exit strategy. That is a fair point. But that means it is so

important that Britain stays on. That we avoid Europe becoming part

of the extreme right-wing. You are exacerbating that kind of far right

nationalism by enforcing best. Look at Ukip in this country and Brexit.

The intensity of this debate, it strikes me that perhaps everyone is

missing the point. They talk about Europe as if it is static. It is

not, it is highly dynamic. There are forces at work in all of the major

Western European countries which are heading for a kind of Brexit of

their own. We do not know how strong those forces will be a couple of

years from now. It might be that the people who wish for a deeply

reformed Europe will be pushing on an open door. That is if Brexit does

not win, and I do not think that it well. I think we will see a repeat

of the previous referendum. They did not take the opportunity to reform

when Cameron went to re-negotiate. He presented them with a mild,

lukewarm reform agenda and the effectively sent him away with

almost nothing. The consequence is that you have to assume that the EU

is unreformable and the ways that matter. It will not back down on it

ideological commitment to oligarchy. I am struck by the same is Hollywood

screenwriter who said, nobody knows anything.

Afghanistan and Nigeria are two very corrupt countries, according to the

British Prime Minister. And at just about anybody who has had to deal

with those nations. How much of a difference will the conference me?

Shall we talk about Africa first? I was very struck by what the Nigerian

president said, because it chimed with what I had heard at eight

conferences. It is not the money going into Africa we should worry

about, it is the money coming out and going into Britain. Is that what

you think? That is half the story in terms of British responsibility. The

other guys, who helped bring some of these people the power. In Uganda,

for a to become president, but Asian intelligence -- British intelligence

put him there. How corrupt is that government that they have helped to

put in place? In Uganda, the President's wafer is one of the most

powerful ministers and government. His son is the commander of special

forces. His brother is a general, he is corrupt to the rot. And then they

use the same special forces to oppress and kill our people. In the

name of what? Stability? In the name of keeping their loot 's. That is

why I said it was half of the story. He is right to show some

responsibility. But he is the Minister of oil. He is the Minister

of Finance and Nigeria, he is the president. Why? Because when he came

to power he was doing great work to stop corruption. He could not trust

anybody in Nigeria to take those additions. They would steal the

money. It shows how deeply entrenched corruption errors. As a

Ugandan, what concerns me more is those who are stealing the money. If

the president stops the money being looted, by Nigerian people, there

will be nothing for the British to keep in their banks. This is much

wider than Africa. I spoke to somebody who monitors the situation

very carefully and pointed out that quite rich countries like Russia and

China have really, really serious problems with corruption and we

tolerate it. If you want to get rid of corruption, you have to get rid

of tax havens. The conduit of all that money that is taken from

Africa, but also Russia, etc, goes through tax havens. That ridiculous

conference in London, knowing the role of the city in corruption, it

is hypocritical. There is a tax haven in many places for each

country. You want to get rid of corruption? You want to get rid of

tax havens, because they are parasites. I have a bit of a problem

with the kind of surveillance that would be necessary to get rid of

every conceivable money-laundering and tax scheme. Effectively you have

a global police force which has access to all the financial

information about every individual. Because that is how it has to be.

The political answer is, rather than that technical financial pursuit and

police state kind of pursuit, the political answer, we really know how

to cure mass corruption. Democratically accountable

government and free-market economics. That creates corruption.

I agree with democratically government. Nationalised monopoly

industries, the old Soviet Union, the perfect model of systemic

corruption. If you get rid of those and if you do not prop up

governments of that kind, with misguided aid, pour money into

corrupt governments and maintain the talent here and, corrupt

governments, you're halfway there. One of the interesting aspect of the

debate touched on aid, with David Cameron saying, in effect, we cannot

use aid as a lever on this. Last time I looked, foreign aid to Africa

since the colonialisation ran to the best part of $1 trillion. Anybody

who has travelled in Africa knows how little Africa has to show for

that. I would say that we should concentrate on doing what we can.

Janet is right, we're probably not prepared to take these police state

tactics that are necessary to prepare discover who the beneficial

owners of the property is. But we can do something about aid. We can

not continue to pour money into projects they should be funding

themselves. But you're leaving the problem here. The idea is right

here. Democratically accountable governments. Those are the

governments. The acceptance of those governments, who are totally

corrupt, let me give you an example, in this country, in Britain, there

is a lot of corruption, people stealing money in certain ways,

giving themselves contracts, but can you imagine David Cameron going to

the Ministry for health in broad daylight and steals ?2 million. He

would be sent to prison. But David Cameron, Barack Obama, all of these

leaders, know very well which countries... For example, Uganda

itself, the money that came for aid, the ministers stall it. There is not

a single project... Ministers steal it, it becomes a scandal. This money

goes in the city and in Wall Street. Part of the money comes here, but a

lot remained at home. The cost is destroying personal

privacy. That is a serious sacrifice. The idea that every

single person is guilty without due process, there is no assumption of

innocence, the invasion of privacy. But these should be pursued, it is

immoral. Of course it is, but how do you distinguish the tax evaders? We

do it with large deposits. If you turn up with more than ?10,000,

people ask questions. You can do it in terms of skill. The only

practical way for this to work would be if the 200 members of the native

nations had universal agreement on the measures which needed to be

taken. That is light years away. If the money was denied to the Chelsea

football club are to the banks and the traders in the city, where would

it go? They would find somewhere else to put it. Money inboxes. How

do you allow these people to bring billions, hundreds of millions?

Baroness Scotland, she said that the 53 countries of the Commonwealth

could reach an agreement on this. It might not be the 200 countries of

the world, but that could be a big start. But do you know why they

cannot? All of these looters in Africa, who are not part of the

Commonwealth, they will not allow that to take place. There are now

two presidents in our country. But one of them talked very badly and

abused the ICC, and the Americans, the Canadians walked out of the

ceremony to inaugurate him. The problem is, those leaders in Africa

will not... So you need to help us overthrow them, help us make sure

that we have democracy. It useless organisation!

You would say that! We are back next week at the same time.

Please make a date with Dateline. Goodbye.

Good morning. I will take you back to last weekend, when we had a

summer. We