01/04/2017 Dateline London

Two examples of power to the people for us this week,

but with very different responses from those in charge.

Russia saw some of the largest street protests of Vladimir Putin's

17 years in power, which ended with more than one thousand arrests

Nine months after the British voted to leave the European Union,

Prime Minister Theresa May sent a polite letter to Brussels

To discuss the week's events in Russia and the EU,

with me are three journalists who write to the world from London:

The Russian-born writer Alexander Nekrassov,

Michael Gove MP, who was a Conservative cabinet

minister until last summer, and is now a columnist

And Stefanie Bolzen, from Germany's Die Welt.

Let's begin with Britain's exit from the European Union.

Last summer, by a margin of 52% to 48%, people here voted to leave.

Theresa May wanted to stay in the EU, but now she has the task

of negotiating not just Brexit, as it's become known,

Since 1973, Britain's laws have absorbed growing quantities

of regulations devised between the 28 member

countries, on which a court in Luxembourg has the final say.

Those who want to stay argue this pooling of sovereignty has made it

easier to trade and has created new protections in areas

Supporters of Brexit say it's simply a case of taking back control.

Michael Gove, you were a supporter of Brexit, a big advocate during

last year's campaign. On Wednesday, the tone was sadness on all sides.

By Friday it had become steely. Should we be preparing for a long

and bloody war between the two sides before the deal is reached? I think

we should be preparing for a professional and hard edged

negotiation which at the end of it will result in a strong partnership

between both sides. It is absolutely the case that while Donald Tusk

expressed his sadness that Britain was leaving, he is also clear that

he wants at the end of this process, all European negotiations want at

the end of this process, a free trade deal between Britain and

Europe and the preservation of security cooperation and other links

which are in all our interests. I suspect that when historians come to

look back on Britain's membership of the European Union, they will see

those 40 odd years as an anomaly in Britain's history, and they will

conclude that people like Hugh Gaitskell and shall Charles de

Gaulle were right, that we were destined to be friendly but

separate. Is that right, Stefanie Bolzen? I came across a sentence by

Winston Churchill who said, if we ever had to choose between Europe

and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea, so we are now

out there on the open sea, and we have seen by the answer of the

president of European Council, but immediately the tone here in Britain

has changed, and one is talking about provocation by the EU 27,

going down the path of war, and let's just say it is a sensitive

situation we are in, and I think everybody who was a stakeholder is

to be treating us with a lot of responsible to. How much, Stephanie

Baker, do you think we are at Brent Winship? We had this from Britain

say we must do the two things together, we must have our divorce

negotiations but also our trade agreement running side-by-side, and

Brussels says, Angela Merkel says, divorce first and then we talk

trade. I think this shows you how complex these negotiations will be.

They can't even agree on process, let alone the issues at hand. There

was some hope, and some people expressing hope that Theresa May's

letter to Donald Tusk this week might have led to some kind of

associate membership that was voiced in various quarters, but remember

she did reiterate her stance that she does not want the UK in the

single market or the customs union because she wants to be able to

negotiate free-trade agreements with other countries. But this is the

issue that worries business is the most, if you look at what businesses

are doing and how they are reacting to this, they are re-evaluated

business in the UK and implementing their contingency plans, and you

already see the big players in the City of London, Lloyd's of London,

Goldman Sachs, opening offices on the continent, shifting jobs, and

you will see a slow burn. Now you see Theresa May finally recognising,

she finally mentioned it in her letter to Donald Tusk, that

financial services are imported to the UK economy, and the task pushed

back saying we will not give any special deals for specific sectors.

So she has overpromised and the British people on what is possible,

and I think it will be hard for her to deliver. And difficult for her

party, as well, Michael Gove, because she was a Remain a, and she

has to convince them that she is now committed to Brexit, there will be

people in the party who say, we cannot compromise on this, people

will be trying to do the negotiation almost on her behalf. The Prime

Minister will face pressures from people who feel strongly on either

side of the debate, but she is in a stronger position domestically than

any other leader in western Europe, she is 19 points ahead of her

principal opposition about it and doesn't face an election. So of

course there are domestic waters to navigate, but actually, Theresa goes

into these negotiations with United and solid Conservative Party behind

her, a Labour Party incapable of providing opposition, and with a

country including those who voted Remain pretty solidly convinced that

we now have to proceed with our departure. More than that, she also

has the goodwill of a variety of international partners outside the

European Union as well. So of course in these negotiations there will be

give-and-take, but I think it is important not to underestimate the

strength of the position the Prime Minister is in. How prepared are

they to negotiate with the other 27? Angela Merkel has been adamant on

separating the process first. First we talk about the divorce, and that

is mainly the status of EU citizens in the UK and on the continent, but

it is also about the money. Somebody in Berlin said to be this week, it

is a question of trust. The British Prime Minister will have to give

something very substantial in the beginning, and I wonder where you

sake she is strong domestically, but she will get a lot of grief about

that. This did your former boss, David Cameron, because he got his

renegotiation, and everybody said, that is not very impressive, he had

to give away too much. There is a willingness to give the Prime

Minister a benefit of the doubt. The point about divorce first and trade

second is those elements of the divorce that have been mentioned by

Michel Barnier are all areas that we want to see progress on as well. He

said that he wants to make sure that the position of EU citizens in the

UK and UK citizens in the EU is settled, we want that as quickly as

possible. He also said we don't want a hard border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic, we want to ensure that. And it is also clear

that while the nature of what Britain might pay in the future, the

sum is not going to be resolved rapidly, and it is also clear from

other European Prime Ministers that they don't want the sum resolves

necessarily rapidly to be able to move on to other talks, they just

want an acknowledgement of the fact that Britain will play its part in

making sure that the European Union budget which would be revisited

until 2021 would be resolved satisfactorily. How do you think

they will be looking at this in Moscow, Alexander Nekrassov? This is

the European Union that Britain was part of for nearly half a century,

and it seems to be fractured. I appear on Russian television to

explain to the Russian people what is going on here and what is going

on with Europe generally. The feeling is that there is a Project

Fear continuing in Britain, for example the Remainers have not

calculated how much it will cost by the Brexiters if they pull out. And

how will it cost Britain? Nobody talks about that. Secondly, I think

the Remainers and the Brexit are being allowed a voice and having

more tribal, whereas the Brexit people seem to be apologising all

that time, apologising to leave. I am glad that we voted to leave, but

I also recognise that having voted to leave, we have to respect the

rights of priorities of the EU 27, so I want us to be in a position

where we are the end of this process remain friends and partners. So I

think it is very important for those of us who argued that we should

leave the European Union to respect the right of the EU 27 to respect

their own priorities and implement their victory in their way. You

mentioned finances, Alexander. There are big elections coming up, and one

outcome in France could be if Marine Le Pen were to win. The euro would

be in trouble. I think her chances are very slim. She would have never

gone to Moscow with the visit a few weeks before the elections, because

that is basically suicidal. That does mean she has no chance. But

coming back to the Europe thing, the important thing to understand is

that everybody has concentrated on Britain, Britain is entering

troubled waters, nobody knows what is going to happen. Europe is

entering the same waters. Nobody knows in Europe what to do. My

personal opinion is that Europe is more terrified than Britain, because

what might happen when this country leaves them. I think they are

absolutely terrified. In my personal opinion, Britain should have slammed

the door in Europe's face and said, we are leaving, if you don't give us

what we want, we just walk away, Europe will sink. Can I just

interrupt? I am German and going a lot to Germany and other European

countries, and I do not find anybody who was terrified because the UK is

leaving, because the UK leaving Europe is doomed. Not Europe, the

EU. Even the EU. Germany has never had such low unemployment since

1991. It is in a very good place... Germany was profiting from the EU,

the only country that was. Hoiland is going well, Austria. I think it

is time for everyone to say that the project benefited Germany most of

all. Let's be fair. Let's be honest about it. Why are we always

pussyfooting around this? This is not about pussyfooting... Germany is

terrified, Merkel is terrified of Britain leaving, because it can

start chain reaction. So why did we cease much unity after the 23rd of

June 2016? There is no unity? No? If there was unity, they would already

be in a position, they have had nine months after the referendum, they

could have worked out, there is no position, no unity, they don't know

what to do... And I suppose the thing, Michael Gove, is in

situation, because of the elections in the summer in France and the

autumn in Germany, serious negotiations without knowing who is

in charge in France and Germany can't really start until after that,

can they? Certain things can be resolved. It is the case that

concern among some French politicians and German politicians

about what they might term populism would mean that they would not want

to be seen to be giving Britain too much for fear of encouraging those

populist movements. However, I sense that both in France and in Germany,

the surge of Marine Le Pen or the alternative Deutschland has been

capped, and whatever the long-term future, in the medium term there is

confidence that Emanuel Krom will be French president and Angela Merkel

will remain as Chancellor. And there was a lot of confidence last summer

that Hillary Clinton would be President of the United States! Yes,

but I think the leaders of the EU feel more comfortable in their skins

and more prepared to deal with Britain in a businesslike way rather

than having to look over their shoulder at insurgents in their own

backyard. Stephanie Baker, we are back again one way or another to the

question of the money. Has to be a deal from the EU 27 point of view

that doesn't make being outside the European Union more attractive than

being in it, and whether it or not you are right, Alexander, about

other countries looking for an exit, there is always that fear that once

one country has left, it was supposed to never happen and it is

happening. But in terms of agreeing the money, there have to be

compromises. Has anybody done any proper analysis as to how much

Britain should be paying to leave? There was a report that estimated

25-30,000,000,000 as a figure. That is a bargaining position. It is,

which is why Theresa May might be prepared to pay more for future

access, but this has never been done before, so we don't know, what is

the trade-off? I will give you EU pensions if you give me the wine

cellar? There are so many variables that need to be worked out, which is

why she wants, sensibly, to do it simultaneously. Obviously from the

EU 27's point of view, UK wants to leave, that is fine, all they care

about is the terms of departure. They don't need to give a future

free-trade agreement with the UK. That is a secondary issue. And

speaking to your point, I think Brexit is all consuming in this

country, and I don't think it is in the other European capitals. It is

lower down in the pecking order, and they think it has in some sense

given the fallout from the referendum, encouraged a degree of

unity and taken the wind out of the sails of some of these populist

movements on the continent. And recently, you see every weekend in

Germany thousands and thousands of people going on the street and

protesting in favour of Europe, so I still can't see why you think every

German will think the EU is doomed. I think to be fair Germany because

of the way in which the euro was constructed has had an advantage,

and I think the unhappiness within the European Union, and again I

recognise it is for EU countries to resolve their own fate, is in the

south, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, where the pain of the single

currency has been felt. And we have this to talk about for months and

months! Let's move east. Corruption is not a word you hear

used much in British politics. Even the European Union's

critics are more inclined to accuse its bureaucrats of waste

and of not supervising properly how the money is spent rather

than of ripping off member countries In Russia, though, last

weekend Alexei Navalny, the most prominent of a relatively

small number of politicians to publicly oppose President Putin,

produced a report accusing Dmitry Medvedev, prime

minister turned president turned prime minister

again, of corruption. He urged people to take

to the streets to protest. For Muscovites, that resulted

in more than 1,000 arrests. The week ended with Mr Navalny

serving the start of "Those who go outside

the law must be punished", Alexander, there are going to be

more protests, inevitably. That is the nature of the beast, once

protests have started, they always continue. What will be the Russian

response? We're already seeing handcuffs on Mr Navalny. Do keep

ratcheting up that reaction? Corruption is a problem in Russia.

Nobody will deny this. But Russia is one of the few countries in the

world, maybe China as well, where a big politicians, or cabinet

ministers, actually, bankers, governors of vast regions are

arrested and put in jail for corruption. Give me another example

of any country in the western world where such things happen? I do not

know about such things. There is a war on corruption, but

unfortunately, this corruption problem has a western angle to it.

You probably read about the Russian money-laundering in London and other

places in the West. Unfortunately, western banks are open to such

money. Unfortunately, the problem is that some of these officials, quite

a few of them in Russia, all these sort of criminals, they move that

money to the West. Until the West helps Russia and the banks stop

accepting billions and billions of dollars coming from Russia, to fight

corruption in Russia is very difficult. It is the same with

China, by the way. Lots of Chinese money is coming into western banks.

Nobody as the question, nobody says anything. As regard to the protests

themselves, I must say, they were not massive. I am not trying to

demean them. 1000 plus people on the streets of Moscow? By Russian

standards, that was not something like we had in 2012. That was not

massive. As for Mr Navalny. He makes Marine Le Pen look like a schoolgirl

with some of his statements. Russia is only for Russians, no immigrants,

that sort of stuff. You have to be careful. As to my question, more of

a crackdown if these protests continue? I do not really see large

protest continuing. Navalny does not have the support in the country.

Still, Putin has vast support, 80% plus. Another thing which people

here do not understand is that the more the West puts pressure on

Putin, the more popular he is in Russia. All these sanctions, the

constant reminders that Russia is going to invade or attack, or

interfere, like we have in Washington, Russia is now deciding

who the president of the US is going to be, this plays into his hands. Of

course western banks are enabling Russian corruption, there is no

doubt. Of course Horacio Cartes is -- of course Putin is popular and

will likely win re-election next year but to say that the only reason

that Russian corruption is continuing, that the Russian

authorities would crackdown if it were not for the western banks, that

is ridiculous. The corruption goes to the heart of the Russian

government. The protests are interesting. They are different from

the last protests in 2012, partly because they spread beyond Moscow

and St Petersburg to nearly 100 Russian cities, but most importantly

because of the number of young people that came out to protest.

Teenagers and university students who do not get their news from

Russian state television. They get their news from the Internet, so

they are watching not only Navalny's YouTube channel, they are watching

videos of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. How does the Russian

government deal with, what does it do to stop these protests from

spreading? Already we have seen the Russian prosecutor General blog

Internet pages of some of the protesters, calling for new protest

tomorrow. He is going to have a hard time reining in this new, young

opposition movement that has breathed new life into what has

previously been a moribund, demoralised opposition. Michael

Gove, you're back from Washington. There was a time when America would

have been very publicly saying it was on the side of the protesters on

the streets. Presumably not at the moment, with the administration of

President Trump, giving the difficulties he is facing over the

relationship between some in his campaign team and the Russians? Yes,

it is striking. The former national security adviser, Mike Flynn, and

the former campaign manager, they are in the downsides of Congress and

others because of allegations of corruption and collusion, but

separate from that, or so it appears, the president and Rex

Tillerson are looking for a reset. Every previous president has sought

a reset with Mr Putin. President Obama wanted one, President Bush

wanted one. The previous president said he thought he was a good man. I

think there will be a disillusionment. Fundamentally, it

is very difficult to see how any American president worth their salt

can forge an understanding with Putin when there are strategic

interests are not aligned, and also when Putin's incursions into the

Ukraine and his attitude towards his neighbours is not that of the

country which is respecting the national sovereignty of other

states. Europe has renewed its sanctions against Russia, but there

is there to the relationship now, or is it frozen until President Putin

finally leaves office, whenever that is, Stefanie Bolzen? There is a

feeling of being powerless against what is going on in Russia, and we

have seen protests in the past, the past, the killing of Boris Nemtsov,

we have seen one person go to jail. He is now living in London. There is

a feeling that there is not much that we can do.

In looking at what is going on in Washington, and they're probably

relieved that for the time being Donald Trump cannot really move on

Russia, he cannot commit anything. He has said in the past that he

would lift sanctions. But whatever he might now do towards Russia will

be seen in the context of what is going on. It must be very

frustrating for some of those people in Moscow who were celebrating when

President Trump was elected, this is a man we can do business with, not

like dreadful Hillary Clinton, we have seen her off, but now his hands

are tied? What we are witnessing in Washington is not an attack on

Washington, it is an attack on Trump. People have missed this

point. The US Congress, is trying, along with intelligence agencies, to

unseat the US president. That is remarkable. In Moscow, in the

Kremlin, they are quite bemused by what is going on. Putin is

approaching another election next year in March. He is basically not

doing anything, because the West is doing everything for him. The

election campaign is run from London, Paris, Berlin and

Washington. There must be marginal fears among some, the word

whispered, impeachment, maybe it is being said a little bit louder in

Washington than it might have been a few months ago. Donald Trump does

not look as secure as he did. It is unlikely that he will be impeached

with the Republican-controlled Congress. This week, Michael Flynn,

the former national security adviser, his offer to testify before

the house and Senate intelligence committees in exchange for immunity

from prosecution. That indicates that perhaps he had something really

explosive to drop, or is he is worried that he has all ready

violated so many rules he wants to get something in exchange. We do not

know that so far. The Senate intelligence committee seems to have

pushed back on his offer for unity, and is not ready to entertain it. It

could take months for that to pan out. That is something to look

forward to. Thank you all very much for being with us on Dateline this

That's it for Dateline London for this week.

We're back next week at the same time.

You can, of course, comment on the programme on Twitter