01/10/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

The biggest decision of our lifetimes - Brexit.

Are we any clearer what it might mean?

Plus, Syria - is there any hope left?

And Donald Trump promises in the next debate to get tougher

If that is an admission he lost the first encounter

My guests today are Alex Deane, a conservative commentator,

Suzanne Lynch, who is Brussels Correspondent

of the Irish Times, Nesrine Malik, who is a Sudanese writer,

Brexit, and 100 days after Britain voted to leave the European Union,

can Theresa May come up with a plan that will persuade her own

ministers, the Conservative Party, the people of Britain and,

ultimately, her negotiating partners with in the European Union? It is

pretty slow, isn't it? Do you think it is reasonably slow or she should

have gone faster? EU it is funny, our last Prime Minister promised he

would remain in office and invoke Article 50 immediately. His acts

were the other way around. I understand when you're thrust into

office, even faster than she might have expected because you were

supposed to have a leadership contest. We were only going to have

a new Prime Minister two weeks ago on the original timetable. To take

your time, evaluate the environment in a considered way. That

characterises Theresa May all round. She is a considered and thoughtful

person. I think that is probably to the good. If we are going to go

through this process, even on the most neutral view is traumatic, it

is good to have somebody that takes her time a little bit. I would also

say this. I wanted us to leave the European Union and I am glad we

voted the way we did. Looking at the environment, I think Article 50 is

not fit for purpose. It was never meant to be used and nobody really

had a sense of who was going to negotiate on the other side, the

side representing those that represent is those not leaving, and

how they were supposed to corral the interests and agreements of the

member states and European institutions. A delay on our side is

going to look very mild, compared to the attempts on the other side, once

the process gets going, to court make their position. You don't speak

for the other side, but you do report on it. How is it seen in

Brussels? I don't really agree. The danger for Theresa May is that we

have had clarity, no specifics about what kind of Brexit she wants. In

the meantime, the European side have been gathering their troops, if you

like. The three main institutions, the European Commission, Parliament

and Council, they have appointed negotiation teams. This is familiar

turf for Brussels, the issues of trade, the complexity of it all.

They are getting ready, if you like. The message seems to be coming from

London, from Liam Fox and David Davies, that we are looking at more

of a hard Brexit. Maybe Theresa May this weekend will give a bit more

clarity about what she wants. At the moment, there is a sense from

Brussels that this is the message coming from senior figures in the

government, they want to move as far away, a clean Brexit, if you like,

and sacrifice may be the economic connections of the single market,

the customs union, for control over immigration. Unless we see some

specifics from Theresa May, it seems to be the way it is going from the

London perspective. When you look at the problem that was supposed to be

solved by Brexit, by David Cameron, the problem of management in the

Conservative Party, that has not actually happened, had it? Although

people are looking at the Prime Minister and thinking you have to

take your time and this is complicated, the divisions there are

still as apparent as they always work? Yes, and they are not going to

get resolved at the conference in Birmingham this week. They will

continue, I believe. I don't completely agree that the signals

are clear that they want a hard Brexit. One of the ironies is that I

suspect what the Prime Minister once is exactly what David Cameron wanted

when he started the renegotiations. They want control over immigration

and they wanted to stay in the single market, keep our sporting and

not jeopardise the City of London's start -- that is. We may be in a

similar situation 12 months from now. Now you hear people saying we

cannot start negotiations until after the German elections, it

pushes it back and back. I agree they are not sure what they want.

There is a lot of pandering to people that voted Brexit, saying

that we're working on it in a way that you would like us to, but we

are working on it, Priti Patel, a Tory member, said on BBC question

Time the other day, a really good slogan for the Tory party's racks at

plans, we are working on it. It is a difficult situation for Theresa May.

I do agree, it is something that was not planned for or arranged, or

considered before Brexit. She is inheriting a plan that needs to be

done from scratch. At the same time, she does need to give not

necessarily specifics, nobody is asking for an itemised list of what

is going to happen, but just to give some comfort. After... How long is

it now? Three months, after three months, all of these people will

have been corralled, all of the Brexit ministers, lawyers appointed,

they have come up with something and we don't have an indication of that

yet. The difference between the last Government on this one is quite

stark, default in the last regime was having no preparation of the

eventuality of the side they didn't support winning. That is one of the

biggest criticisms you can level at the Conservative Party in recent

times. They had no contingency plan for the verdict they didn't want.

The reason Theresa May is upsetting some journalists and they are

getting frustrated, it may not be that having no plan is the same as

you not being told a running commentary about a plan. If you are

in a negotiation, it is probably unwise to give advance notice of

every bullet point, or even the direction of travel you want to go.

It is also unwise not to give any indication at all, which then makes

them calculate the worst-case scenario. Ultimately, the stark

reality is that Britain is not going to get everything at once. It is not

if you have all of the access. The European Union is a much stronger

position, 450 million people against 60 million people, 27 countries

against one. I accept there is a strong economic power there, but

undoubtedly Europe has the stronger hand. Yes, there are German and

French exporters, but that is one tiny part of that. Donald Tusk, the

head of the Council, said at the Bratislava summit if you weeks ago,

I am here to protect my 27 countries. Britain has voted to

leave, that is it, are gone. Why would the European Union moved to

really... Yes, they will protect their interests, but that is one

small part. When you bring in things like passporting, Common

agricultural policy, aviation, a myriad of issues that have to be

worked out. If Britain are not ready, I think the European Union

will be in a stronger position and get a better deal for their side.

I'm curious, I never heard the suggestion that Article 50 is not

fit for purpose. Really? They never envisaged it happening. What I'm

asking is, is it going to work? I have read it quickly. You put it in

motion, you cannot stop, that is why everybody is afraid to trigger. It

will work in that Britain will leave the European Union. The way it will

not work is having any kind of meaningful trade agreement in the

two years set aside. The time frame established in the treaty is

inadequate. Article 50 is only a couple of sentences, it is tiny. It

does say that with unanimous agreement you can extend the period.

It will not be unanimity amongst the European countries. This is a small

point, what is Liam Fox's job? The trade Secretary, that he cannot do

trade deals? He can seek trade agreements with countries outside

the European Union. There is nothing to stop him... Well, there is, the

European Union preserves a legal right. You can have bilaterals. In

effect, the United Kingdom government is not helping in the

collaborative discussion we are having, it is likely to say, I will

negotiate with other people if I want, what are you going to do about

it? We make no apology for returning

to the subject of Syria this week - not because there are any magical

new solutions, but simply because forgetting the humanitarian

catastrophe in what was once a thriving Arab country

seems just wrong. So, if the Asad regime is clearly

part of the problem, Has Western policy to marginalise,

ignore and not negotiate It has been wrong. I think people

need to acknowledge that. I think what we suffered from in Syria is

the Iraq war hangover. I think unfortunately history will judged

both decisions harshly. I think in fear and reluctance to look like

people are intervening, and the Western interventionism in the

region has been problematic in the past, it has enabled President Assad

and strengthened his hand. There is a triumvirate of absolutely

reprehensible culprits, between Hezbollah, Assad and Russia, with

the West looking on, that has devastated what was until recently

one of the most thriving countries in the Arab world. I make no

apologies for it to Aleppo, I am really concerned that people are

looking at it the way they would look at starving children in East

Africa and say, well, it is what it is, it happens once in a while and

we can't do anything about it. It is a man-made catastrophe? Yes, people

will sit and opine and say that these are political calculations,

what can you do about it? We can do something about it. There is a way

to highlight, in political circles, in the West, the absolute paralysis

that has been the state of play when it comes to Putin and Assad. I

wonder in real politic terms, if you have a choice between relative

stability in some areas with Assad in power, or some group somehow

overthrowing Assad, the western policy, and then indignant fighting

each other? In other words, there has always been a flaw within Obama

policy? We have been talking about this for five years, the US has

never had an effective or coherent policy. Diplomacy has failed,

flyovers have failed, limited involvement has failed and the

agreement worked out between Secretary John Kerry and separately

Sergey Lavrov was a disaster 14 days ago. I don't see a way forward in

the waning days of the Obama presidency. I see his ability to

influence events as faded. It is significant to bring in the Russian

element, it is a year since Russia became involved in the war and it

has had quite an impact. It succeeded in shoring up the Assad

regime, which was losing ground. It's interesting, the timing.

Relationships between Washington and Moscow are so bad on the back of

this failed ceasefire. Questions about John Kerry's personal

credibility, he put a lot into the deal, he negotiated it personally

and it lies in ruins. We are committed the end of the

administration in the US, it is not high on the political agenda in the

US, where other issues are. Even in Britain, the Labour Party

conference, it barely got a mention. Will we see Theresa May even raise

it? It is not on the domestic agenda in Britain or the US. In the

meantime, Russia is dictating terms. You don't raise political issues you

don't have a solution for, I guess? But that has implications. This has

been successful, if you like, for Moscow. With very little investment

in terms of losses, although we are not entirely sure on that, and

costs, it has succeeded in putting itself back at the centre of world

diplomacy. If you take away any kind of moral compass, Putin has played a

blinder. He has had very great success with little risk to start

with, and little lost. The footage we see of Aleppo, much of which is

taken by drones, changing the nature of reporting from danger zones, it

reveals an almost lunar landscape, or World War II Dresden. It is

astonishing to think that 250,000 people are still living in that

environment. I think moral impulse is absolute. The second thing is

that the spokesman for the Assad regime on the BBC last week was

saying we have never attacked our own citizens, we never do that, just

terrible denial of obvious truth. The difference between that and the

Saddam Hussein regime, when his spokesman lied, is that the Saddam

Hussein regime did not get away with it, the Assad regime is. I do think

there is huge moral pressure piling up. I am more of a cynic and I think

that usually doesn't result in anything. But the footage coming

through from Aleppo, the possibility now, because Assad and the Russians

are panicking, the possibility to send in ground troops, 6000 ground

troops into 11 -- Aleppo, I think that will be the dividing line

between if somebody says it will be open combat, it will be something

tantamount to cleansing. Are we in the West being hypocritical? The

biggest manifestation of the war has been the refugee crisis. People

don't want to know about the migration crisis, then they see the

awful scenes in Aleppo and don't make the connection it is the same

problem. Just the proximity, 40 miles across the board in Turkey,

adjacent to Europe, adjacent to Turkey, it has huge ramifications in

terms of the refugee crisis and it has not gone away. It will be

interesting to see if that debate about whether there should be more

intervention. The Clinton-Trump debate this week

engaged the interest of more than 80 million Americans

and millions more people If Donald Trump really

is a fat-shaming, ill-informed, tax-avoiding misogynist

who routinely insults people of other races why is this

election even close? Do we miss the point about Donald

Trump, outside the United States? Do we just not get why tens of millions

of people would vote for him? Yes, you do miss the point. In general,

you don't understand. You started with an electorate that has maybe

42% favouring one side and 42 the other. People are evenly split

between the Republican and Democrat point of view. It starts off fairly

even. This election is about 6% or 8% of the people in the middle.

Trump is taking a very unorthodox, radical, improvised... He's not

listening to advisers, he is doing things his own way and tossing the

dice. Did not work for him this week, it might next week. In

general, Europe does not understand just how divided America is and how

this election is all about this small group of swing voters that

they are trying to appeal to. European journalists have patronised

Ronald Reagan and various others. But this isn't Ronald Reagan, is it?

But the fact he's even further away from the political consensus may be

part of his appeal. Part of the answer that question may also lie in

the way it is framed. If you only list the supposed faults of one

candidate, you're going to with a particular view of the debate. If we

decided to list the cartoon sins of Hilary Clinton on the other,

standing by her man while covering up systematic abuse of women, the

e-mail cover-up and abuse of her position as Secretary of State,

Benghazi and so forth, you might come to a more balanced view, which

is that they are both terrible candidates. I think it is really

interesting what Alex said. One of the reasons why Donald Trump is in

the position he is today, where everybody is thinking how has this

happened, is because of this false equivalence. It is this desire to

not come across as patronising or a liberal snob, saying they are both

terrible. The New York Times today deep investigation into the e-mails,

completely unwarranted, because they wanted to look like they were giving

both candidates the level of scrutiny. The false equivalence, the

interesting story is not the normalisation of Donald Trump, it is

the demonisation of Hillary. Donald Trump is a creep. Hillary is a

slightly... Let's concede she is moderately corrupt, inept or

problematic. If you compare that to all of the other sitting presidents

they have hard, e-mail scandals, corruption, bribery scandals, trade

deal scandals, it is not comparable. I think this false equivalence is

one of the reasons that Donald Trump is where he is today. To answer your

question, does it matter that he does all of these things, it does

not, because people are being tribal in their voting for Trump. The most

interesting thing is that they don't care about his lies. There is a

sense that there is a contract between Donald Trump and his

supporters, I am lying to them but not to you. He has to get more to

win. He was close a week ago to getting into a commanding position

in the polls. He has to move beyond the people he has this contract with

and attract other people. That wasn't me, so I wanted to come back

in. I wasn't seeking to draw what you have tamed false equivalence

between the candidates. I was seeking to correct what I thought

was Gavin's one eyed introduction saying all of the sins of Donald

Trump, why is this even close? If you want my view, she is a much

worse candidate than him, she systematically corrupt, she is part

of the Democratic machine that would abuse office on the same way as her

husband. Donald Trump just comes across as a bit of an idiot. In the

17 years of this show, has there been a large understatement? In the

next couple of weeks, and Clinton could be entering difficult

territory. It has been a tough week for Donald Trump, the debate did not

go his way. The scandal about Miss Universe, the Washington Post has

been doing digging about his charity. We have seen in his

speeches since Monday, he has come back at the Clinton Global

Initiative, Clinton Foundation... Which made millions of dollars. He

will come back this, the and comfortable link between big

business and politics at the Clintons symbolise for a lot of

people. The Clintons made over $100 million in fees on this. And

Benghazi and some of the other things? I think it will even

overshadow that. It was a huge issue for the Bernie Sanders supporters.

The Democrats that did not support Hillary, this is their big theme,

anti-globalisation, anti-big business. How are they going to

respond to that? Will we see some of them going libertarian, the third

candidate? I think the Clinton candidate is worried about that. One

of the things that came up, you touched on it, the question of false

equivalence. In terms of reporting, this is unique, this election.

People who try to be fair, balanced and as reasonably objective as they

might possibly be an outcome in some cases, saying that this candidate

effectively is a liar, pointed to Donald Trump. This is a in American

journalism? Yes, the New York Times executive editor, they have taken

the position that they are going to brand Trump a liar. That is quite

unprecedented. And he has been given four Pinocchios from the Washington

Post, they're funny way of saying the same thing? People are blaming

the press as if it is our fault that he has come so far. I don't buy

that. When a candidate is nominated, we report what they say, we

challenge it, investigated and look into it and report what is right and

wrong, look into their past. But I don't think it is our job to save

this person is unfit or that person is unfit. It is not our tradition.

But you did have major, major newspapers that have always gone

Republican, endorsing... I used to work for the Dallas and Houston

paper, they both broke hundreds of years of tradition to denounce

Donald Trump. I think it had zero effect, what newspapers say. It is

interesting you raised that very good point, it has challenged the

limitations of reporting in America. People have broken cover. It is not

a reporter's position job to say if a candidate is fit or unfit, but,

recently, the pearl clutching has ceased. People are saying the birth

of thing was a lie. That is when a New York Times came out and said it

was a lie. The birth thing was encouraged by the Clinton camp. It

is still a lie. A liar by Hillary Clinton. You all said it is not up

to the media to determine if the media are unfit or not. You do a

pretty good job of... If you listen to what I am saying, I am not saying

he is unfit, I am saying he has a strong appeal and I expected to get

close again. But he took a radical approach to the debate and I don't

think you would argue it worked. He didn't listen to a single adviser.

He did not prepare, he did it off the cuff. Sometimes it works, this

time it didn't. One of the interesting things about Trump's

history is how an -- unRepublican he is. I don't find him a good

candidate, he is populist, protectionist, against free trade.

Better than my list! Those other reasons I don't like him. No offence

to anybody here, but I think the steering that is done to Donald

Trump helped his cause. As somebody who campaigned or Brexit, being

sneered at is very helpful. A famous phrase about Roosevelt, second-class

intellect, first-class temperament. Temperament as part of the issue.

You might say that neither of them has a temperament that is

particularly appealing. But this is somebody with a nuclear football

behind him, and temperament could be an important issue. Is that the guy

you want to have the finger on the pulse? I think that applies to both

candidates, it is a deeply unpleasant election, that is not

false equivalence. I would not disagree in terms of foreign policy.

That is why the US is so important. Trump's comments on Putin, it is a

very delicate time for relationships between Washington and Moscow. Trump

saying he admires Putin, at this moment, I think that is very

serious. I think somebody needs to probe him on that. Millions of

American voters will want to think that America can be closer to Russia

than it is now. Will they? Well, have a better relationship with

Russia than it does now. This is why the debate was so disappointing.

Trump's position on Nato is very radical and interesting, I would

love to hear an articular defence of it. He's talking about throwing up

the defence plan that has worked since 1945. But there was no talk of

this, the debate was all about Miss Universe, it was an odd debate. I

would like to hear serious foreign policy justification. The point he

made about swing voters, if we put aside what our views are about the

candidates, what they are fighting for his swing voters. What Trump

keeps doing is playing to his own gallery. The difference in their

positions is that Trump needs to make a case, a strong case, that he

is not this erotic person. If he doesn't come I think people will

default to Hillary as they say their pair of hands. Or third candidates,

this is a fear, if you do not vote for Hillary, Obama was saying it has

these implications. That's it for Dateline

London for this week. You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler and also We are back next week at the same

time - please make a date