02/10/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London, the biggest decision of our

lifetimes, Brexit, are we any clearer what it might mean? Is the

Prime Minister any clearer? And Syria, any hope left? And Donald

Trump promises in the next debate to get tougher with Hillary Clinton. If

that's an admission he lost the first encounter, does it even

matter? By guests are Alex Keene, a conservative commentator. Suzanne

Grant, Brussels correspondent of the Irish times. There is Lee, a

Sudanese writer and Greg Katz of the associated press. Brexit burst and

100 days after the UK left the EU Kante may come up with a plan to

persuade her own ministers, the Conservative Party, which begins its

annual conference this weekend, the people of Britain and ultimately her

negotiating partners within the EU. It is very slow, is it reasonably

slow or should she have gone a bit faster somehow? It's funny, our last

Prime Minister promised he would remain in office but break Article

50 immediately and his acts were the other way around. I can understand

in those circumstances when you are thrust into office, indeed even

faster than she might have expected because we were supposed to have a

leadership contest, we're only going to have a new Prime Minister two

weeks ago on the original timetable, to take your time and evaluate the

environment in a mature and considered weight and that

characterises Theresa May all around, 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 of use is

traumatic, it is good to have someone who takes their time. --

views. I would say this, I wanted us to leave the EU and I'm glad we

voted the way we did, I, looking at the environment, think that Article

50 isn't fit for purpose, it was never meant to be used and no one

had a sense of who would negotiate on the other side, the side that won

us not to leave the EU, and how they would corralled the interests and

agreements of the 27 member states plus the European institutions. A

bit of a delay on our side would look very mild to the attempts on

the other side when the process gets going to co-ordinate their position.

You don't speak for the other side but you report for it, so how is it

seen in Brussels? I don't really agree but the danger for Theresa May

is that she has allowed a vacuum to build up, we've had no clarity and

specifics from Theresa May about the Brexit she wants. On the European

side they have been gathering their troops if you like, the three main

institutions, the commission, Parliament and council have

appointed negotiation teams. This is familiar turf for brussels, the

issues with trade and the complexes the EU law, they are getting ready.

The message is coming from London, from Liam Fox and David Davies, that

we are going to have a hard Brexit. May be Theresa May this weekend will

give more clarity but at the moment there needs to be a message coming

from senior figures in the government, they want to move as far

away, a clean Brexit if you like, and sacrifice the economic

connections of the single market, the customs union etc for control

over immigration. Unless we see is busy pics from Theresa May this

seems the way it is going from the perspective of London. If you look

at the problem that was meant to be solved Brexit by David Cameron, the

problem of management within the Conservative Party, that hasn't has

it? Although people are looking at the Prime Minister thinking you have

to take your time a bit and this is complicated, the divisions are still

as apparent as they always were. Yes, and they aren't going to get

resolved at the conference in Birmingham this week, they will

continue on I believe and I don't agree that the signals are clear

they want a hard Brexit. I think one of the ironies is I suspect what the

Prime Minister wants is what David Cameron wanted when he started the

renegotiations, they want control over immigration and stay in the

single market and keep passports and not the jeopardise City of London

status. In a way we are in a similar situation to 12 months ago, we could

be in a similar situation 12 months from now. Now you hear muttering of

we can't really start negotiations until after the German elections,

which push everything back. It just pushes things back and back and

back. I agree that I'm not entirely sure that they do know what they

want. I think there's lots of pandering to people who voted Brexit

to say we're working on it and we're working on it in the way you want us

to and we are working on it is something... Pretty Patel, a Tory

member on question Time the other day set a good slogan for the Brexit

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

because I do agree that it is something that had not been planned

for, or had been arranged or considered for Brexit, and so she is

inheriting a plan that needs to be done from scratch, but at the same

time she needs to give not necessarily specifics, nobody is

asking for an itemised list of what's going to happen, but to give

some comfort that after, how long is it now? Three or four months. Three

or four months, all these people that have been corralled, these

Brexit ministers and lawyers that have been appointed, they have come

up with something and we don't have an indication of that. The

difference between the last government under Cameron and this

one under Theresa May is stark, the fault with the last regime was

having no preparation of the eventuality in a binary vote of the

side they didn't support winning and that's one of the biggest criticisms

you can level at the Conservative Party in recent times. They didn't

have a contingency plan. Theresa May, the reason she is upsetting

some journalists, not present company obviously, it may not be

that having no plan is you not being told a running commentary about a

plan and if you are in a negotiation it is probably unwise to give

advance notice of any other point you want to take, or even the

direction of travel you want to go. But it is unwise not to give them

any indication, which makes them calculate the worse case scenario.

Verstappen reality and the issue is Britain isn't going to get

everything it wants that the stark reality. The European Union is much

wrong. We are talking about 450 million people against six 2 million

, 27 countries against one country, Britain is a strong economic power

but Europe has the stronger hand here. Yes there are the German

exporters and French exporters but that is one tiny part of this.

Donald Tusk, the head of the council said at Bratislava a couple of

months ago, said I'm here to protect my 27 countries, Britain has voted

to leave, that's it, they're gone, why would the EU move to an extent

they are going to try to protect their interests, when you bring

things in like passport in and bringing in issues like access to

research money on the common agricultural policy, aviation,

there's a myriad of issues that need to worked out. If Britain isn't

ready then the EU will be in a stronger position and get a better

deal. I've never heard a suggestion Article 50 isn't fit for purpose.

Really? They never in visit it happening. What I'm asking is it

going to work? I have read it quickly, you put it in motion, you

can't stop, that's why everyone is afraid of it. Britain leaving the

EU, that's the way it functions, the way it won't work is Britain having

a meaningful trade relationship in the two years set aside. It is

inadequate for the purpose it was stated. Article 50 is only a couple

of sentences, it is tiny, it says with unanimous agreement you can

extend that. It won't be within the 18 month period. Exactly. This is a

small point, what is Liam Fox's job? He is the trade Secretary but he

can't do any trade deals, can he? About the can with Australia and the

US. He can seek international trade deals with those outside the EU. The

European Union preserves a legal right to monitor negotiation but you

can have bilateral agreements. The UK government, this might not help

in the discussion we've just had with Sarah, the EU is likely to

say... What are you going to do about it? Let's move on, we make no

apology for returning to the subject of Syria this week not because we

have any magical new solutions but because the getting this

humanitarian catastrophe in a once thriving country seems wrong. If the

Assad regime is part of the problem, must it be part of the solution? As

Western policy to marginalise, ignore and not negotiate being wrong

-- has. It has been and people need to acknowledge that. What we

suffered from in Syria is an Iraqi war hangover. Unfortunately history

will judge both of these decisions harshly in that in a fear and

reluctance to look like people are intervening and the Western

interventions in the region has been operatic in the past it has enabled

Assad and has strengthened his hand and there's a triumvirate of

absolutely reprehensible culprits between Hezbollah, Assad and Russia

with the West standing, looking on, that has devastated and until very

recently one of the most thriving, -- relieved vibrant countries in the

Arab world. -- culturally vibrant. I have no problems with returning to

Aleppo because I am concerned people are looking at Aleppo the way they

look at starving children in East Africa, it is what it is, happens

once in a while and we can't do anything about it. A man-made

catastrophe? About this, people will sit and opine and say these are the

political... We can do something about it. There is a way to

highlight in political circles in the West and the absolute paralysis

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

wonder, just in real politic terms whether you've got a choice between

a relative stability in some areas with Assad still in power or some of

the groups somehow overthrowing Assad, which has been Western

policy, and they end up fighting each other. In other words there's

always been a flaw within Obama policy and its irreconcilable. We've

been talking about this for four or five years and the US has never had

a coherent, affective policy and the diplomacy has failed, the flyovers

have failed, the limited involvement has failed and the obviously the

agreement worked out between Secretary Kerry and Secretary Lavrov

and it was a disaster ten or 14 days ago. I a way forward in the waning

days of the Obama presidency -- I don't see. His ability to influence

events has waned. It is significant to bring in the Russia element, it's

a year since they got involved in the war and it has had quite an

impact, it succeeded in shoring up the Assad regime which was losing

ground at that stage. It's interesting the timing, related

relations between Washington and Russia are so bad after the

ceasefire that failed. There are questions about John Kerry's

personal credibility, he put a lock into this and personally negotiated

and now it is in ruins. We've got no... Even in Britain at the Labour

Party Conference it barely got a mention, will we see Theresa May

even raise Syria this weekend? It's not on the domestic political agenda

in Britain and the US and in the meantime Russia is dictating terms a

lot. You don't raise political issues you don't have the solution

for I guess. That's got implications. This has been

successful if you like for Moscow, with very little investment in terms

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

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

diplomacy on this issue. If you take away a moral compass, Putin has

played a blinder, great success with very little at risk to start with an

little lost. But two points from me, the footage we see Aleppo, much of

which is taken by drones, taking nature of reporting from danger

zones fundamentally, it is almost a lunar landscape or a World War Two

Dresden landscape and it is astonishing that a 250,000 people

are living in that environment. You do wonder where. Moral impulse is

absolute. But the second thing I was going to say is the spokesman for

the Assad regime on BBC last week was saying we've never attacked our

own citizens, we never do that, totalled the Lyell of obvious truth.

The difference between that and the Sadam Hussein regime when their

spokesman got out and live was the Hussein regime didn't get away with

it and the Assad regime is. I want to make one point, I do think that

there is huge moral pressure now piling up. I'm kind of more of a

cynic and I don't think that usually results in anything, but the footage

that is coming from Aleppo, the possibility now because Assad and

the Russians are panicking, the possibility to send in ground

troops, potentially 6000 ground troops into Aleppo in the near-term

as the Obama presidency goes into its wane, that is going to be I

think the dividing line between whether somebody actually says, you

know what, it's going to be open combat in Aleppo on the ground, it's

going to be something tantamount to cleansing.

Is the West being hypocritical? The biggest manifestation in Europe has

been the migration crashes, so we want don't want to see the refugees

coming in, and we see the same problem in Aleppo. I was down as a

reporter and the proximity to Aleppo, 40 miles over the border

from Turkey and adjacent to Europe, adjacent to Turkey, and it's got

huge ramifications in terms of the refugee crisis, that still hasn't

gone away. And it will be interesting to see it that wave in

the debate about whether there should be more intervention on the

Aleppo issue. Let's move on. The Clinton, trumped debate engage the

interest of millions of Americans around the world. He really is a

misogynist who insults people around their race, and why is the selection

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 will

vote for him? Yes, we do miss the point, and you in general don't

understand you are starting with an electorate which has maybe 42%

favouring one side and 42% the other. People are equally is that

between the Republican point of view and the Democrat point of view so it

starts fairly even. So this election is about six to 8% of the people in

the middle, and Trump is taking a very unorthodox, radical,

improvised... He is not listening to advisers, he is doing things his own

way, and he is just sort of tossing the dice. It didn't work for him

this week but it might work for him next week. I think in general Europe

doesn't understand just how divided America is, and how election is all

about this small group of swing voters that they are trying to

appeal to. Europeans and European journalists are patronised Ronald

Reagan and various others. But this isn't Ronald Reagan, is it? No, but

the fact he is even further away from the political to consensus may

be part of his appeal. Part of the answer to your question may be the

waiters framed. If you are only going to list the supposed faults of

one of the candidates you will emerge with a particular view of the

debate. If we decide to list the sort of cartoon scenes of Hillary

Clinton on the other side, standing by her man while covering up

systematic abuse of women, the enormous e-mail cover-up and abuse

of her position as Secretary of State, Benghazi and so forth, you

might come to a mob balanced view which is that they are both terrible

candidates. I think it is really interesting what Alex did that,

because one of the reasons why Donald Trump is in a position he is

today where everyone is thinking how has it happened is because of this

false equivalence. It is the sort of desire to not come across as

patronising or a liberal snob, and say they are both terrible. The New

York Times did a deep dive investigation into Hillary's

e-mails, completely unwarranted, because they wanted to look like

they were kind of giving both candidates the same level of

scrutiny. And this false equivalence, the interesting story

is not the normalisation of Donald Trump, it is the demonisation of

Hillary. Donald Trump is a creep, and Hillary is a sort of slightly...

Not slightly, let's even concede that she is moderately corrupt or

inept or problematic. If you compare that to all the other sitting

presidents, that have had e-mail scandals, that have had corruption,

bribery scandals, that have had trade deal scandals, it is not

comparable. So I think this false equivalence is one of the reason

that Donald Trump is where he is today. And sorry, before I conclude,

to answer your question, does it matter that he does all the things?

It doesn't because people are being tribal in they're voting for Trump

and the most interesting thing is that they don't care about his lies.

Because there is the sense that there is a compact between Donald

Trump and his supporters, and that I am lying to them but I am not lying

to you. But that is the basis. He has got to get more to win. He was

very close a week ago to getting into a commanding position in the

polls. He has to move beyond the people he has this compact with an

attractive people and he is not doing it. I were to come back to

what you said at me, I wasn't trying to draw what you have turned a false

equivalence between these two candidates, I was seeking to

correct, with respect, Gavin's one eyed introduction, with all the sins

of Donald Trump, why is even close? If you my view he is a worse

candidate than Hillary, she is part of the Democratic machine that would

abuse office in the same way as her husband did. Donald Trump, on the

other hand, just comes across as a bit of an idiot. Has there been in

the 17 years of the show a larger understatement than that? I do think

the next of weeks and could be entering difficult territory,

because it has been a very difficult week for Donald Trump as the debate

did not go his way, he had a scandal about Miss universe, the Washington

Post has been doing a lot of digging about his charity, and we have seen

in his speeches since Monday he has come back at the Clinton global

initiative, at the Clinton foundation. Has made millions of

dollars. I think this could be an issue, your seed Donald Trump coming

back at this uncomfortable link between big business and politics

that the Clintons have symbolised a lot of people. And the Clintons made

over $100 million in fees on this, so there is an issue that which I

think will overshadow that. But we may see... Interestingly, this was a

huge issue for the Bernie Sanders supporters. Those Democrats who

didn't support Hillary, this is their big team, anti- globalisation,

anti- big business, so how are they going to respond to that? And maybe

we will see a lot of them go to libertarians, the third candidate. I

think the Clinton camp is worried about that. One of the things that

is coming up, and he touched on it there, is the question of false

equivalence. How is, in terms of reporting, this is unique, this

election, is it not? That people who are... Journalists who try to be

fair, talent and reasonably objective as they might possibly be

are now in some cases saying that this candidate effectively is a

liar, pointing to Donald Trump. This is a sea change in American

journalism. Yes, and the New York Times executive editor have taken

the position that they are going to brand Trump Alaia, which is quite

unprecedented. The Washington Post gives him four Pinocchio, which is

their way of saying the same thing. People are blaming the press as if

it is our fault that he has come so far, and I personally don't buy

that. I think when a candidate is nominated we report what he says and

what she says, and we challenge it and investigate it and look into it

and report what is right and what is wrong, and look into their past. But

I don't think it is our job to say this person is unfit or that person

is unfit. I mean, it is not our tradition. But you did have major,

major newspapers that have always gone Republican endorsing... In

Texas, for example. Bo Dallas and Houston paper broke hundreds of

years of tradition to denounce Trump and endorse Clinton. I think it has

zero effect. It is interesting you raise that point, it is a very good

point and it has challenged the limitations of reporting in America

and people have broken cover. It is not reporters' position or job to

save the candidate is fit or unfit, but recently, actually, the pearl

clutching has ceased and now people are saying the birth thing was a

lie. That is when the New York thing was. The so-called birther thing was

started by the Hillary Dominic Clinton camp. Still alive. You are

all saying it is not the media to determine if people are unfit or not

but you are doing a pretty good job. If you listen to what I'm saying, I

am absolutely not saying he is unfit and I am saying he has a very strong

appeal and a that the election to get close again. He took a radical

approach to the debate and I don't think you would argue that it

worked. He didn't listen to a single adviser, he did not prepare, he

Dittert off-the-cuff, sometimes that works great, this time it really

didn't. Sure, I was making a different point. One of the

interesting things about Trump's candidature for history is how

Republican he is. Anti- free trade, not social conservative. I don't

find him an attractive candidate, he is a populist, protectionist, anti-

free trade, pull up the drawbridge... That was even better

than my list. I am able to think on the other hand that, no offence to

anyone here but the sort of sneering that has been done to him helped his

cause. Let me tell you, as someone who campaigned for Brexit, being

sneered at his very helpful. The very famous phrase about Frank D

Roosevelt, who was said to have a second intellect and a first class

increment, temperament is part of the issue here. You may say that

neither of them has a temperament which is particularly appealing but

this will be someone who has got the guy with the nuclear football behind

him, and temperament could be a very big issue. Is that the guy you want

to have with their finger on the button? Sure, I think that is a

point that applies to both of these candidate. This is a deeply

election, and that is an false equivalent. I would agree with that

in terms of foreign policy, let's step back from that. Trump's

comments on Putin, this is a very delicate time for relations between

Washington and Moscow, and Trump saying he admires Putin at this

moment, I think that is very serious issue, and I think somebody needs to

probe him on that, getting back to the media here. Like millions of

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

that it is now. They would like America to be closer to Russia? To

have a better relationship with Russia than it does now, yes. This

is why the debate was so disappointing. Trump's position on

Nato is very radical, very interesting and I would love to hear

an articular defence for it. He is talking about throwing out the

defence plan which has held since 1945 but there was no debate about

anything, it was about Miss universe and it was a really odd debate. I

would like to hear a serious foreign policy justification. The point made

earlier about the swing voters, if we put aside our views of either of

the candidates, what they are both fighting for is the swing voters.

And watch some doing is playing to his own gallery. And the difference

in their positions Trump needs to make a case, a strong case, that he

is not this erratic person, and if he doesn't I think people will

default to Hillary as a safe pair of hands. Or the third candidates, this

is a fear as well, that if you don't vote the Hillary this could have

ramifications. That's it for Dateline London this week. You can

comment on Twitter and with our guests. We will be back next week at

the same time. Please make a date with Dateline London.