19/11/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

There simply is no escape from the world's biggest news

Plus: Does the British Government really have a clue about Brexit?

When will they let us into the secret?

My guests today are: Amir Taheri, who is an Iranian writer,

Suzanne Lynch of The Irish Times, Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg

Markets, and Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who is a writer and commentator.

After the delight of some, the shock of others,

and the surprise of many that Donald Trump is to become president

of the United States, the more prosaic struggle now

is to create the Trump administration.

What clues do we have about how he will govern?

And how do others react around the world?

First of all, in terms of clues to how he will govern and the kind of

people he has appointed, it has proved divisive, despite his saying

he wants to bring the country together. Yes, he has made three key

appointments so far in the law and order, national security space.

Those were rewarding loyalists during the campaign. Jeff Sessions

is attorney journal, -- general, Mike Pompeo. They are hawks and

outside the mainstream of the Republican party. The administration

is shaping up to be unlike anything America has ever seen before. What

you would expect from that is Mike Glennon has been a real hawk and

would be expected to take a much more aggressive stance on fighting

Islamic State. Which would be very popular. He has said he doesn't

think Islam is a religion, he thinks it's a political movement. He will

probably take a softer line on Russia. He took part in a paid

speaking engagement with Russia Today last year, when he was sitting

next to Vladimir Putin, so that is what you would expect there. Mike

Pompeo has been a fierce critic of the Iran nuclear deal and Hillary

Clinton, so I think between Mike Pompeo and Jeff Sessions, I would

expect Trump will follow through on his campaign promise to pursue

Hillary Clinton on a number of fronts. And Mr Sessions himself is

controversial, isn't he? He is someone who will, in effect, be in

charge of the federal judiciary without being able to become a

federal judge in self because he was unable to be confirmed as a federal

judge because of comments he made about the Ku Klux Klan and allegedly

about African-Americans. There were accusations. He called civil rights

groups un-American, and now he will be running the Justice Department,

where he will be in charge of the civil rights apartment. More

importantly, I think, on that, because his track record on that is

mixed, he has been a fierce critic of immigration policy and he will

oversee immigration ports in the US as well. Again, that is something

that strikes a chord and which the President-elect ran on, so it will

be popular. And it will follow through on what he promised on the

campaign trail. Some other appointments are interesting. He

seems to be talking to everybody for Secretary of State, so it is unclear

who he will tap for that. He will meet with Mitt Romney this weekend.

He is apparently in the running for that. How Mitt Romney would get

along with the likes of Mike Glennon is a real question. Or Donald Trump,

because they didn't hit it off during the campaign. It shows that

given Trump alia native people and so many people were critical of him,

he doesn't have a deep bench of policy experts or experience people

to call in to stuff his administration. You cover the

European Union, Brussels most of the time - how is it going down?

President Obama did his final trip to Europe, went to Greece first and

then to Berlin. I think his job, in a sense, was to reassure his

European counterparts about the incoming regime. He spent quite a

lot of time in Berlin with Chancellor Merkel, which shows where

America sees the centre of power in Europe. A big concern for European

leaders would be the commitment to Nato and the issue around Russia.

Significantly, following this minisummit of EU leaders with Obama

on Thursday, they issued a statement saying they would keep sanctions

against Russia, which is crucial, because in January, the sanctions

that the EU has against Russia are upper renewal. There is already

tension with some countries wanting to pull back, some wanting them to

continue. In Brussels, people will be looking at the signals from

Washington. In terms of timing, it is quite easy, because Mr Trump will

not be in place until the 20th of January, and at that stage, the

decision will have to be taken. It is significant that Chancellor

Merkel in particular said, we will keep the pressure on Russia. The

Iranians deal, which we will come onto as well, that is a big issue.

Europe was involved in negotiating that for years. The EU foreign

ministers met this week, and again, it was significant that after the

meeting they endorsed the Iranians deal, saying they would continue to

back it. How will this be seen? This deal was a minefield to try to do,

and in Iranians politics, it was difficult for ministers, whatever

one may think of them. How will it go down if Mr Trump and his people

decide to end the deal? The truth is, there was no deal, because no

one has signed it. There is a UN resolution which Iran has rejected.

The only thing that has happened is that President Obama individually

has decided to suspend some of the sanctions against Iran. The next

president could simply refused to suspend them. We would be back where

we started. The Iranian nuclear problem is intact and has not been

solved. In a word, they have appealed to public opinion, and it

is a lie, because Iran continues its nuclear programme, not that it

doesn't have the right. The sanctions are there. They have not

been abolished. Some of them had been suspended will stop so, the way

forward, I think, would be for President Trump and whoever else is

interested in solving this problem is to force or persuade Iran to

accept the seven UN resolutions officially, write to the Security

Council that they accept them, and then lift the sanctions against Iran

as soon as Iran has done its part of the deal. Not to leave it to the

United States president. He can sign up he cannot sign. It is a mess.

Iran is suffering a lot, even now, because the Iranians cannot pay the

salary of their ambassador in London because they don't have access to

banking. They have to bring cash to the ambassador, and here put-mac he

distributes it. Everywhere it is like that. It is a disaster. It has

been lying on the part of a Obama, a lie on the part of the Iranians, a

lie on the part of the European Union, and this Italian lady, to say

that we have a deal. But where is the deal? What do you make of it? I

can't tell you how depressed I am. I don't think I remember feeling

utterly hopeless. Trump doesn't understand deals anyway. He wrote a

book called The Art Of The Deal. That kind of deals he does. I think

one of the things he wants to achieve is to demolish anything

Obama tried to do did. That has been his thing - I'm going to get rid of

Obamacare. He operates like that, doesn't he? From these appointments,

which I find really shocking, actually, because a part of me

thought, now that he is going to be in real power, he will make real

attempts to be taken as a proper statesman, but no. This tells you a

lot. I mean, I don't know how African-Americans feel today about

these appointments. Isn't the truth about Mr Trump that he is not

particularly in command of a whole lot of details about policy, but

there are some things he feels strongly about, and those things he

articulates very well to the people who voted for him. He articulates

them to those who are filled with rage. That's what a demagogue does,

actually. He speaks to rage very well, very well. But not to policy.

I would like to make a comment. We could turn him into a caricature and

just dismiss him, like Obama's opponents did. When Obama became

president, we had a similar discussion. One of his mentors was a

communist. To attack the person before he has done anything at all.

As for undoing what Obama has done, this is exactly what Obama did with

President Bush. His only policy was to undo President Bush's work. Let's

go beyond that. If we go beyond that, for the time being, Trump at

least has the merit of forming a cabinet that looks like him. You

don't have anybody opposing some of your wildest ideas. The merit is

that it is not a lie. But Obama brought all these people in and then

prevented them from doing anything. I think the concern in Europe...

Read their memoirs and see how they were treated. A lot of people are

concerned that in the first few days after the election, there is a sense

of a more conciliatory Trump, tempering his language and he would

not revoke Obamacare are completely. We have seen the appointments of

three very senior people in justice and law enforcement, more

conservative hardliners, and that is worrying people. Another issue for

Trump is the potential conflict of interest between his business

interests and now his role as president. There is a huge issue

here is in that there are dozens of lawsuits awaiting him. Apparently he

is going to settle one that is imminent. Trump University. I have

done a lot of reporting on Trump's business conflict, and they are many

and varied, particularly when it comes to foreign policy because he

has licensing and marketing deals in a range of countries, from Turkey to

the Philippines to Panama. He is going to be making foreign policy

decisions with people that, you know, that could impact his business

deals abroad. Likewise, the involvement of his children in the

transition team is raising serious questions. If uncut Trump --

Ivanka Trump was at his meeting with Shinzo Abe, the first meeting with a

foreign leader. He said he would turn the business over to his

children and put it in a blind trust, which it is and if it is run

by your children, particularly if they are involved in helping you

select the people who will run your administration. His son-in-law, it

is unclear whether he will have an advisory role and whether that

conflicts with anti-nepotism laws in the US. This will be an ongoing

story, and the overarching question is, will the presidency ultimately

enrich him and increase the power of his brand? That is the flavour of

some of the coverage in America and it suggests that the honeymoon is

over already for many people. You know that Trump has many enemies, as

Obama did. American politics is a violent politics. They tear each

other apart. We know that. What is happening now is that Trump is still

a private citizen, still not the president, so his daughter Ivanka of

whatever her name is can go out and see Shinzo Abe, because it is not an

official meeting. She does not have security clearance and they did not

involve the State Department in that. So many different questions.

He is not president yet. He must be sworn in. He has access to CIA

briefings, he is President-elect, which is more than a private

citizen. He can have briefings and so on, but what he does does not

commit the United States of America. It is a completely different issue.

I am saying that I am not a fan of Trump, I am not American, and I do

not care who is the American president. It is none of my

business, but I am saying that the American sport of destroying all

their presidents before they have started is bad for America. I don't

go with this narrative. Of course, power leads to certain compromises

and failures, but I find it problematic to have such a cynical

view, that every single one of them was driven by the same values as

Trump is. The world values followed by Republicans and Democrats. I

didn't say they had the same values, I said they were all attacked and

destroyed before they were sworn in. Look what they did to Clinton, to

Ronald Reagan will stop you cannot say this is the normal narrative. I

don't think this is the new normal, and nor should it be. Whatever the

President-elect says will be taken seriously by world leaders and

should be regarded as de facto policy. It doesn't just affect

Americans, it affects other people, which is why there is such an issue

and interest in this new president. Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May

made clear this week that there is a plan for dealing

with Brexit, but for now The alternative view is that this

cunning plan does not actually exist and behind Mrs May's calm exterior

lies a world of bureaucratic panic about what is legally

as well as politically acceptable. Let's get the view from the belly of

the beast, which is Brussels. It has been a bad week for Theresa May this

week. First, the report in London, leak from Deloitte, saying Britain

was not ready and would have to hire up to 30,000 civil servants to deal

with this. So, a drop creation programme -- a job creation

programme? There is no shortage of bureaucrats in Brussels, and they

are ready and waiting to get going on the negotiations and they are

doing so insofar as they can. They have set up a task force and they

are working at the moment on that. Politically, there are some worrying

signs from senior figures. The German finance minister warned that

Britain would have to pay billions after Brexit, that there would be

some transitional deal. Germany has been seen as an ally of Britain, so

there would be worries that they are getting tough. The Dutch finance

minister, head of the eurogroup, he was strong and criticised Boris

Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, who this week in an interview suggested

that Britain would leave the customs union and yet would still have

access to the single market. The Dutch finance minister said that was

intellectually impossible and politically unavailable - very

strong words. There was annoyance in Italy about Boris Johnson's comments

about Italy exporting press echo. One of the Italian minister said,

look, it's not as simple as that. Boris Johnson maybe has a fridge

from Italy to put the press echo in, or an Italian car. In terms of

retaliatory measures from Europe, the whole supply chain, it's hugely

complex. The other issue for Theresa May is this Supreme Court case

that's coming next month which will delay Article 50. The longer Britain

leave this, the more prepared Europe will be. There is a lot there,

obviously, but the German finance minister is basically saying, you

will pay for things, not just up until you leave, but this is like a

really bad divorce where you will be paying alimony for many years and

you will hate each other. That was the implication, though he didn't

put it quite as strongly as that. It is such a long relationship,

completely entwined. It is like separating two finds that have been

going together for 40 years of whatever it is. You cannot cut them

without killing one of the other, so of course, it's complicated. Again,

it was the oversimplification of the task ahead, whatever decision was

taken by the majority of those who voted, people weren't told how

difficult it would be, of course, because that's not how politics

works. And it will be hard. Amir? I am always puzzled why the British

wanted to leave the EU, because I haven't heard a proper argument on

that score. They talk about sovereignty, but Britain shares

sovereignty in 118 international organisations, the United Nations,

Nato, etc. The only countries with full sovereignty at the moment are

maybe North Korea and Zimbabwe. No one else has that. There were a

number of issues. Control the borders. I came here from Paris and

had to share my passport twice, so you control your borders. You don't

want foreigners. That is a separate issue. It has nothing to do with the

EU, and even on that score, we don't want foreigners except in the NHS,

which is at type of British secular religion. You cannot scrutinise it

or criticise it or anything. We also don't want to get rid of foreigners

in the building industry because we need houses. Also, we want

mathematicians in the city and Italian bankers, chefs in our

restaurants. Even the idea of not wanting foreigners is meaningless.

There is a question I put to all my British friends: In what way has

membership of the EU adversely affected youes none of them can

answer that. I appeal to everybody to please send me their answers. We

will pass on the letters that come in! Blasting is not taking Britain

out of the EU but taking the EU out of Britain. There are 28,000 laws.

Since last June, 68 more have been added. What are you going to do?

Each of these laws have supporters inside Britain, including among

those who voted to leave. A French cynic said, in politics, it's not

important to make a mix take -- to make a mistake, you can correct it.

The important thing is not to do something that is not necessary. And

this was not necessary. Whereof we left now? We have a few minutes

left. The EU itself -- where are we left now? The EU is in terrible

shape. You could have Marine Le Pen is the president of France, in which

case the EU could fall apart. In Italy, there is effectively a vote

of no-confidence. There are issues with Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The problem with Greece has not been solved. Maybe we left the Titanic

just before it hits the iceberg. We have tried to leave. If the French

elections go the way that people think they might, if Marine Le Pen

wins, that changes things completely because it thrusts the EU into

another crisis and puts a question over whether France will have its

own referendum. It is frustrating to watch. The cat might leave campaign

simplify the process of leaving the EU so much that it has raised

expectations within the British public. There was a study this week

saying that 90% of people wanted access to the single market, yet 70%

of them wanted to limit immigration. Those two things are contradictory.

You can't have both. Theresa May can continue to say she doesn't want to

reveal her negotiating strategy, and I understand she doesn't want to

publish out wish list and had people criticise it. She can only say that

for so long before people realise that she doesn't actually have one,

and people are going to go after her. You will see businesses in the

next few months I think, targeting the Government in a much more

focused way, particularly in light of, for instance, is ideal where a

company -- video that Nissan got. Other businesses will try to get

that. -- the deal that Nissan got. Philip Hammond is much more

conciliatory towards business and the City of London, banks and the

finance industry. He is worried about the economic picture. It seems

to me, from what I understand speaking to business leaders, he is

much more open and has a lot more dialogue with business leaders than

Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, David Davis on the other side, who are taking a

much more hardline stance on Brexit. The bookmakers get things right more

often than the posters, and the odds of Marine Le Pen becoming French

president have shortened. We could have an upset in the French

elections next year. It is one of a series of referendums and elections

that are taking place right up until next September. The Austrian voters

will vote on a president in two weeks, on the same day as this key

constitutional referendum in Italy. Renzi has threatened to resign if it

doesn't go his way. This sense of battening down the hatches and

getting through this next ten months, there will be no great leap

forward for European integration, no great changes. Even in Germany, the

most pro-European country, there is a sense of, let's pause for the

moment. They can see there is euro scepticism across Europe, so it will

be about getting through these few months and then towards the end of

next year, looking at how we can reform the EU, how to change it to

make it more relevant. That raises another question. I spoke to Herman

van romp away a few weeks ago, and he said, you have no idea how low on

the list of priorities Britain is. There are 27 countries, and my

country, Ireland, are obviously hugely important. They are part of a

group that want to keep Britain as close as possible. In Eastern

Europe, it is not as significant as Russia, for example, and the

Ukrainian issue, and sanctions. Eastern European countries don't do

that much trade with Britain and their priority will be free

movement. Trying to reach a balance between all 27, and Germany will be

crucial here in a de facto leadership role. We need to focus on

the divisions in the Tory party. Anna Silbury has taken an

extraordinary line... Prominent Conservative backbencher. There are

lots of people who feel that Theresa May's position is not sustainable

and not even real, that there is deep confusion and division, even

between the three Brexiteers, who often shoot off before they know

what they are talking about. The three people leading the exit.

Marine Le Pen is not going to be the French president, because there are

two rounds. Maybe she will be in the second round. But like her

illustrious father, who ended up at 20% in the second round... We

believe it there. -- we will leave it there.

That's it for Dateline London for this week.

You can comment on the programme on Twitter @gavinesler and you will

We're back next week at the same time.

Please make a date with Dateline London.