11/03/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

How much, if anything, should Britain pay to leave

How bad is the military situation facing the group calling

And is Wikileaks a good or a bad thing?

My guests today are Greg Katz of Associated Press.

Abdel Bari Atwan who is a writer and commentator on Arab affairs.

When Britain leaves the EU, we should be faced with a stiff

it is like leaving a golf club - we stop paying when we stop playing.

And how much is the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying

to save money to pay for what he knows will be

What should we pay? What is the tariff for leaving? Does anybody

have any idea? No, since we think she will do the triggering on

Tuesday, and therefore the big discussions, it seems likely, there

are things that have to be done before that. The Ides of March our

report us. Then the discussions happen about in principle about

these things. It was interesting listening to some of the Europeans

this week because it suddenly occurred to the media in Britain it

was time we found out what those people on the other side of the

consulate thought -- continent Thorton believed. They exist in

terms of the Council and the commission and in terms of the

parliament and in terms of 27 other nations, all of whom have to ratify

what deal is done. This question of how much Britain should pay as part

of the divorce is only one thing they have too discussed and it is in

with all the others and it seems obvious that we have incurred some

degree of liability and responsibility for whatever the

separation costs will be and ongoing costs of the EU. You do not just

walk away at this point will stop how much that ends up being, you

guess. Thank you. I am talking about 60 billion. The Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson said we should not give them anything. You cannot have

a free divorce. If you decide to divorce you have to pay the price,

it is as simple as that. It will be painful in the beginning but after

that you have to realise you are exporting 50% of your exports to

Europe. It has to be a soft landing, it has to be flexibility from the

British side to keep good relations with the ex-wife, for examples.

There should be pavement. At the same time there should be soft exit

without problems because it is in the interests of Britain to keep

good relations with the EU. They are angry and upset and we should

understand that. I am not sure about the divorce metaphor, it is like

breaking up a business. We have been part of what Jeremy Clarkson has

called the biggest budget in the world, a huge budget. We made

promises to participate in projects ahead and we cannot just say, we

said we will do this but we are not going to now. We can say that. It

would not be right. As David said, the European Parliament 's have to

vote on the final deal and the commission and I agree, there has

been an atmosphere in the British press of fog in the channel,

continent cut off. We are not in charge. The other point underlined

what David said, you do not know how much of this is boxes squaring up

before a match, a lot of talk, and eventually it will get down to

boring detail about who owes what is what. It will get down to a long

discussion with difficult detail that civil servants will have to sit

there and crack out. The reality as far as the 60 billion, we will not

know the real figure. If she triggers Article 50 on Tuesday it

will be a year and 364 days and 23.5 hours before we know the figure and

we will have to have to years of the press pointing fingers about it but

it will be a hard negotiation. It will be an important part of it.

While we look at Crystal balls. With various degrees of incompetence! Do

you think there is a chance Theresa May will go for an early election?

Some people look at the state of the Labour Party and the question of

whether she has a mandate. We love this one. Turn once, it is a good

question, because if I were her, I would. This year? I would stop I am

the new Prime Minister, I do not have my own mandate and I am likely

to get a bigger majority than the awkward majority I have at the

moment made up of people who did not want to come out of the EU whereas

if I get a 100 seat majority over Jeremy Corbyn's pathetic and

hopeless Labour Party, I am away and swimming and can pretty much dictate

the terms. Two things would stop you, the first is complexities of

triggering the election, trigger being the word. The word of the

year. The difficulty because we have a fixed term parliament, but it can

be achieved. Then the question of the uncertainties. Is it just

possible that somewhere out there lies a new Ukip leader who can get

50% of the vote? The Lib Dems, a pro-European... None of these things

are likely. Jeremy Corbyn. Tony Blair. David Miliband comes back.

But Scotland. If you go to the country and the Scots go to the

country at the same time and they as a result get a significant mandate

for the Westminster Parliament for the SNP, and over -- an overwhelming

one. They are strong, being pro-European. You are Scottish.

There is a Scottish problem but all sorts of other problems. Theresa May

said we do not need more instability. We have to make sure

the ship is going in the right direction. Up to now she is handling

things wisely and not taking a very strong stance against Europe, she is

trying to negotiate. I agree with David, she should go for it. She

should have a mandate, because it is a huge responsibility and I believe

the time is right to do this. Gordon Brown did it at a certain stage

after Tony Blair. She needs that. She needs a strong mandate from the

British people. Why not another referendum, with Brexit, for

example? Why not another Scottish referendum? That is the nub, whether

there is a British people or whether Scotland is going a different way

from England, Northern Ireland is going a different way. To keep them

in, you should give them a good example. A referendum. On Brexit?

Why not? And your Prime Minister... A strong mandate for the Prime

Minister. I don't think I can bear it! A referendum a year. If there

were an election, and this is the issue, is it about we have a Tory

party who will win without any opposition or will it be an election

on Brexit, in which maybe by some miracle the Lib Dems and the part of

Labour for remaining in the EU get-together. The other problem it

might solve is the House of Lords question and how much parliament

should be consulted about this, if Theresa May had a thumping majority,

she could say, the British people have spoken again, I am the right

person to negotiate, Parliament can decide what it likes, but my party

runs parliament. She adds to her majority if she calls an election.

She may do it but it does not solve anything in Scotland and may make it

worse. The idea that Labour and the Lib Dems come together as a saviour

act. We like to dream! I do not see anyone sitting in the party about to

leap to the fore, in either party. I think she would end up with a bigger

majority. In Syria and Iraq, the territory

held by Islamic State What difference will it make

if they are driven our What difference will it make

if they are driven out of towns and cities,

and how will that affect the chances of terrorist

attacks in the Middle East, They are under great difficulty and

pressure. In Mosul, Raqqa, and the catastrophe might get worse. We do

not know about the humanitarian catastrophe because there is a

blackout on what is happening in Mosul. There are 150,000 Iraqi

forces attacking Mosul, they liberated the eastern part and they

are facing difficulties with the western part because there are

narrow alleyways, the old city. It seems that Islamic State have

managed to dig a lot of tunnels and they are fighting. There are

difficulties and a lot of casualties. We do not know about the

people, do they have food, electricity, water? But definitely

the Islamic State is losing a lot of ground there and there are reports

that may be the leader of Islamic State managed to run away to another

part of Iraq. And that he is hiding. We don't know. The Americans say he

left Mosul. If you know that, why did you not kill him, for example,

if you have information about him and he is still alive and he managed

to run away. Who is going to liberate? And what will happen after

day liberate Mosul and Raqqa? Who will be the sovereign ruler. Raqqa

is part of Syria. There is a huge problem between the Russians and

Americans and between Turks and the Russians, when it comes to Syria.

The Americans would like the Kurds, the Syrian Democratic army, to do

the job because they trust them. But Turkey doesn't. They say we are

Sunni, they are Sunni, and we should do the job. Where is the United

States in this? We have seen Marines are part of this. Several hundred

marines. I do not think the mission has been clearly explained, it was

done quietly and I do not think the media has had a chance to ask

questions of the Trump administration on their role and it

is not clear to what degree they will cooperate. The American

position is in flux and not clear at this point. They wanted boots on the

ground and I expected more attention to be paid to that in the States.

Presumably, at least in the short-term, given the humanitarian

problems everybody expects outside Mosul. We might expect more migrants

as well. The refugee crisis is still with us and we'll get worse. In the

long run, what is there to hold this loose and difficult situation

together? What is there for people in the Arab world to look to for

hope? Islamic State has a plan B, but, there are opponents, enemies,

they do not have a plan B. To retreat to the desert? OK, they will

go underground. They start causing a lot of terrorism attacks in the

Middle East, and outside, because they will be relieved from running

big cities like Mosul and Raqqa but what is the plan B for the coalition

's? There are 60, 70 countries fighting Islamic State. -- 16, 17.

We have seen bloodcurdling reports there could be 800, 900 fighters who

wish to come back to this country. By thing we have a good handle on

who those people are likely to be. I am not saying I am not worried about

it, but I think the point is that he takes Raqqa? You can see the Iraqi

government will end up in control of Mosul and the question is whether

the Iraqi government can behave in such a way it can deal with the

Sunni population, majority population, and come to an

agreement, which is a big question that involves the Kurds. Raqqa is

more of a problem. You can take it, but he keeps it? There you go back

to the fact you are in the middle of the Syrian civil war. I tend to

believe from what I have heard that Isis, whose unique selling

proposition is the caliphate, will be weakened and although it has a

great deal of propaganda capacity which is mobile, it can take it with

it, and on the whole there are other groups. You should look at the

Al-Qaeda affiliate 's bands successor organisations. Who hold

territory. It's of territory, and they have capacity and they have not

at the moment as IS will, the reputation of being defeated. They

are extant in Syria. As you raise the question of people coming back.

Terrorist events in the west. I tend to think that will carry on as it

did before. I do not think it will be significantly worse as a result

of the end. Most of the big questions about Isis are in the

region. You have written about the digital caliphate, the idea and

means of communication will continue. It is much cheaper for

them to go underground. It is less problematic. They do not need to run

a bigger state or cities like Mosul and Raqqa. If you say you want to

have a caliphate and we have declared it and here we are and you

are not there any more, it is... You cannot invite people any more. The

problem is look at Al-Qaeda now. Why we are busy with Islamic State. Now

Al-Qaeda is gaining strength in different parts of the Middle East

and now they are very strong in Yemen, in parts of Africa. They

start to gather strength and recruit people. The same thing, Islamic

State will do. They have branches. In Sinai, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan.

I just came back from India. They are worried about terrorist attacks

by Islamic State, especially among the Muslim community. We are seeing

this terrible famine. How that will play together I do not know. I

wonder whether Al-Qaeda will be almost like a successor

organisation, like a more sensible Islamist force.

Donald Trump claimed - based on no evidence, apparently -

that predecessor Barack Obama wanted to wiretap him.

The language seems quaint, given that we learned this week -

courtesy of Wikileaks - that the CIA can not only

bug your phone, but your TV and, for all I know, your toaster

Is Wikileaks doing a public service, or is it a danger

How do you think Wikileaks is seen by the Trump administration? They go

back and forth. Trump I think was happy when Wikileaks was releasing

e-mails from the Democratic national committee and was kind of thrilled

all those embarrassing e-mails were coming out. Now he is in the White

House he is annoyed the CIA's secret weapons, online weapons, revealed

online, so now he wants them to please be quiet and can play a

different game. Basically, this release is embarrassing to the CIA

and has a lot of practical overtones. Nobody is surprised they

are trying to get into your phones and TVs. Releasing thousands of

pages of no high and detailed coding is not something... And nobody

knows. Where it came from. That is my problem with Wikileaks. I need to

know where it comes from. It can sometimes be illegal to publish

material that has been stolen as long as you did not steal it. That

does not satisfy my own ethical concerns. That is the point. Edward

Snowden, somebody an insider, discontented, saying people in

America need to know this. If that is the case here. Perhaps one takes

a moral judgment, if it came from Russian intelligence you might take

another judgment. If our friend Julian Assange, if his goal was to

damage Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, which he has implied,

that is meddling into domestic politics. I am not crazy about the

idea of him trying to shape elections. Wikileaks, good or bad?

Wikileaks used to provide a useful service and I remember the release

of the Guantanamo operation annual and lists of membership of the

American far right groups. The toxic dump on the Ivory Coast. Something

else has happened since, and Julian Assange is locked up in the embassy

and has taken complete control of the organisation and got rid of

people he used to trust. He is paranoid, like kids sitting in their

mother's basements, posting. I don't think he has an agenda, political

agenda in the way you suggest, I think his agenda is his own

aggrandise mint. He can be used by almost anybody and we do not know

who is using him. Wikileaks is doing a good job. We must expose these

intelligence services, the CIA, why not? They are plotting here,

plotting their, let us expose them and let them be aware there are

people vetting their operations and knowing what they are doing. I had a

look at Wikileaks because I was mentioned several times when it

comes to the bodies it was a great job, doing a great job against

brutal dictatorships in that part of the world and how they function, how

they pay dirty money, financing walls, in our part of the world,

dealing with superpowers like the US. It is nice to know what is

behind. I think Wikileaks is doing a great job. It is selected releases.

We hear about Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Give us the truth about

Russia. Chinese... One of the difficulties, one of the mysteries,

why are there no Russian and Chinese whistle-blowers? I cannot imagine!

You can expect a face white in an airport, that is why, or somebody

will saunter across Waterloo Bridge with a knob roller and stick it in

your foot! The problems for whistle-blowers, one of the great

benefits of these open societies is our whistle-blowers, they don't

generally face being offed by the state any more. Journalists want to

know everything but as citizens we don't necessarily want everything to

be no. There are a lot of things our spooks are doing that I want them to

do. Let's say the proposition was, could you Bagh a jihadis televisions

so when they are having a conversation about who to bomb you

could pick it up, I am in favour. I would be in general not in favour of

that being known so the jihadis could stop it happening, so we would

share that. Insofar as that is what is being explored, I am antsy about

other people discovering it will stop we are conflicted. The big

question in a democratic society is what oversight you have about what

spooks are doing so you can be relatively sure they are doing the

things he would approve of. A lot of this I want them to do. I want them

to stop people blowing up our schools and so on. This would be

news to us but not to Russian or Chinese intelligence that you can

get a Samsung television and bucket. As citizens we might not know this.

-- bug it. Look at the American election and what happened. There

are good cyber attackers out there. Allegedly, yes. They are welcome to

sue in the British courts. Wikileaks, good or bad? Is it for

you the question of provenance, where does it come from? Who is

doing it for whose benefit? Discrimination. I don't regard to

data dumping as whistle-blowing. It is not whistle-blowing.

Whistle-blowing is you think something is wrong and you bring

attention to that thing. Taking every bit of data and dumping it in

the open without care about what it is or where it comes from... And

failing to redact personal information. They are now doing

that. Not all of the time. They are spying on us. We do not have any

privacy. They always spied on us. My parents were spied on with

telephones tapped because they were communists. The question is whether

there is a proper degree of oversight. There are enemies of

society within society you might want this stunting. Democracy has

become the establishment of, and Twilight Son wants to dismantle the

establishment. The Julian Assange's -- wants to dismantle it.

Dismantling democratic institutions becomes a part of that. How as

journalist should we treat this? Previous leaks, journalists have

redacted it themselves and information has become available to

British newspapers and they say they will not publish that because it

puts lives at risk. That seems to have changed. Wikileaks has been

good at manipulating the media and the first response in most cases is

let's publish everything and the documents may be not fit for the

public to see because it contains names of agents or personal

information about people who have not done anything wrong. I am more

sceptical about what they release them my colleagues and... You do not

think it is as important as they suggest? Julian is very good at

making what he is to do sounding very important. I would like to know

if the Swedish are going to charge him with any sexual offences, and I

would like to know whether the US does or does not have an indictment

against him. These things are important for understanding who he

is where he stands. I would like to know why Nigel Farage went to see

him. I think he wanted an interview, nothing more. We see.

That's it for Dateline London this week.

You can comment on the programme on Twitter @gavinesler

We're back next week at the same time.