01/07/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

This week we discuss the still fragile nature

of Britain's new government, and we try to assess

where we are with the campaign against the jihadist group Isis.

With me this week; Michael Goldfarb, host of the podcast FRDH,

First Rough Draft of History; Steve Richards, the political

commentator and broadcaster, Suzanne Lynch of the Irish Times,

and the writer about Arab affairs, Abdel Bari Atwan.

Welcome to all of you. Good to have you with us again today.

The British Government has survived its first tests

in the House of Commons - winning the vote

on the Queen's speech - but compromises are everywhere.

Brexit talks are ongoing, and we have word today from a former

insider that the Prime Minister's red lines are making negotiations

very difficult; and Northern Ireland is still waiting to return to power

sharing, there's been yet another extension to the deadline

Steve, how do you assess where we are this way? We have many vivid

examples of this government's fragility, it's unavoidable

fragility. When we got the concession about people in Northern

Ireland being able to now come over here, to the rest of the UK to have

abortions costing quite a money, that was because otherwise the

government would have been defeated. This is going to happen on a regular

basis. It did when we last had in effect a minority government between

74-79, they were defeated all the time and if they were undefeated

they were making manoeuvres all the time. Apart from anything else, it's

exhausting for the Prime Minister and the government. If you add on

top of that Brexit, and the beginnings of a sort of opening

within the government, about what has really been going on, now they

are in the cabinet position themselves very differently, this

all feels very fragile. The point is they weren't public therefore, it

was a very tight ship. Theresa May has lost her two key advisers. When

we hear today that apparently David Davis, the man in charge of Brexit,

is struggling with those red lines, the tough lines Theresa May wants to

keep two, does that resonate with the people you talk to? Yes, and

this is the most interesting of all the developments I think, an two

fronts. Before she called that silly election, they were all in the

Cabinet I think as scared of her as the cabinets of Margaret Thatcher

were scared of her at her peak in the mid to late 1980s. They didn't

even speak critically behind the scenes. Now she is so weakened, we

are getting... Clearly David Davis knew this would happen. David Davis,

senior media adviser saying he was unhappy, and clearly not consulted,

about, for example, in her Tory Party Conference speech last October

with Britain was going to pull out of the European Court. This is

apparently something David Davis has found very, very difficult, to begin

a negotiation with all these red lines kind of defining Britain's

position, to a point of extreme rigidity. That's interesting in

itself, but the fact that we know about it is also interesting.

Because Cabinet ministers feel free now to indicate where they are

concerned about her, in a way they hadn't been before. How do the rest

of you see it, and indeed talk about it? On the issue of the DUP, it's

extraordinary what has happened here. Arlene Foster, the head of the

DUP has been described as the second most powerful people in British

politics, her party is propping up the British government. A few months

ago she was in serious trouble. There were assembly elections in

Northern Ireland, the DUP did very, very badly and a resurgence of Sinn

Fein confidence. There were talks about her having to resign over the

renewable heating policy. It is amazing how things change. And the

fragility was there in Northern Ireland. We have these talks that

are separate, about the internal power-sharing agreement in Northern

Ireland. They are ongoing, they have been delayed and delayed again into

next week. We have been here before. There may be a deal but I think Sinn

Fein, who are newly confident because of their own electoral

successes, are going to be very closely watching the DUP. They are

not comfortable with the idea, even though they will receive a lot of

this 1 billion, not very comfortable with the DUP being so close to a

Conservative government. Steve was talking about Margaret Thatcher

before. In the 80s they said there is no alternative, now you have

incredibly weak Theresa May and it is still Tina, there is no

alternative. Isn't that what is keeping her in office in the first

place? Yes. If there was a formidable figure waiting in the

wings, if they're worth the equivalent, as there was in 1990

when Margaret Thatcher finally fell and Michael Heseltine, John Major

and Douglas Hurd... I don't think she would be here now. The fact is

there isn't. Those who want to be leader aren't sure they would win at

this point, so they are not clamouring for a leadership contest

they might lose. That keeps her in place. This is the worst thing which

could happen to this country, in this critical time you need not

fragile government, you need a strong government, otherwise we will

be black mailed from outside and inside, because Brexit, because of

terrorism, because of the economy, because of the changing on

atmosphere all over the world, political. Theresa May cannot

actually guide this country to a deal, a good deal, or even a bad

deal, vis-a-vis Brexit and that negotiation with the European Union.

Also, if suddenly it is free abortion for the Irish girls to come

to this country and the second, what kind of blackmail will happen? So

you need a very strong government. I believe they should find an

alternative. The Conservative Party should find an alternative as soon

as possible, and actually before September, otherwise the country

will collapse. Before party conference? Yes, terrorism, three

attacks in less than three months. It is very dangerous. OK, the

Conservatives say we managed to maintain security, we kept this

country safe. Everybody wanted to make use of the experience of

Britain and terrorism, European, Middle Eastern... And she was Home

Secretary for years. Exactly. We have to be very precise here. This

country needs a strong government, not vulnerable, not fragile, not

weak. That is the name of the game. Just on that, you're talking about

the lack of opponents at the moment. Some people, particularly those in

the city, the likes of Philip Hammond, he would be seen as a

possible alternative. And Boris Johnson as well but you are saying

nobody is moving at the moment, there's no sense of that. We do have

a situation now where as you are saying, we have a very interesting

perspective where we now have different versions of what people

want Brexit within the Cabinet. This is highly dangerous in negotiation,

when your opposite number can see it being played out. Philip Hammond

went to Germany this week and said something very different to his

colleagues back home, and David Davis. The irony is that the moment

the Brexit route for Britain is the Theresa May blueprint. She has set

out a strong, hard Brexit, out of the single market and customs union

and no jurisdiction under the ECG. -- ECJ. People are getting

uncomfortable with that in government. Will there be a point

where that changes? Negotiations are now on. Whether these tie into

things domestically before the autumn may dictate if we see someone

moving against or not. You see, the problem with that theory... A strong

government would be a good thing to have at the moment but a change of

leader does not change the broader situation. That Prime Minister would

still be at the head of a minority government, dependent on the DUP, in

exactly the same way. Whoever he or she happened to be wouldn't dare

risk calling another election unless there are about 50 points ahead in

the polls, given that they just lost one or nearly lost one when they

began it 25 points ahead in some polls. So the prospect of this House

of Commons with a minority government continuing for some time

is quite strong, I think. So even if they change the Prime Minister...

It's a mute point because we are in the situation we are in. I would say

the whole idea of Brexit, even if she had got her majority of 50, as

she more or less expected to get... Because the whole process, it's two

things. Its government, it would be nice to have at least a government

that was in a minority government and beholden to a party in Northern

Ireland, because playing the Orange card is a sidetrack, for any

government. But, you know, Brexit is... Brexit! There will be a whole

university course... Brexit is Brexit. It was always going to be a

government destroyer, because the reality of negotiating this

separation... Steve are no better than us because he lives in

Westminster, but I thought in addition to the 20 point lead, which

was a temptation to go to the country, she wanted to roll over the

mandate. They understood they couldn't get the deal done before

the next election in 2020, so if they kicked that can down the road,

which is classic European Union thinking by the way, take it a

little further... Another 18 months of 24 months and we can come up with

a solution or a fudge. I think that's where they would have been at

in any case. I agree with that. That's one of the many twists in all

of this, that they are running out of time. This is meant to be done by

March 2019. To keep within the two year time limit, which one of the

architects of it John Bruton, me they deliberately set at two years

to make it impossible for anyone to leave. We've already several months

and and nothing has happened. I'm alarmed, you say yes, the government

will continue. For how long is it going to continue? It could be

years. There will be illness, there will be death, there will be

by-elections... Suppose ten people decided to rebel against the

government, what would happen? I cannot see this government lasting,

actually. Labour had a rebellion this week. We haven't even mentioned

the opposition, which is part of the dynamic of governance in this

country. Labour are not in power. The Conservatives are in power.

Theresa May is heading a government, the Cabinet. A divided Cabinet. Is

this the best formula to control? Where does that take us question

does it take us to another general election? Try and find a strong

government? I think she gambled and she failed, and she should step down

and leave the stage for other people who can form a strong government and

go for the Brexit negotiation, look at the services in this country,

challenge Labour, impose or say we are Britain, we are a major player

in the international community. To have a government very vulnerable

like this, and you have a Prime Minister who gambled and failed and

still at the head of the government, I believe this is absolutely

unacceptable. Even Labour have its own contradictions about Brexit.

This is the irony, as Jeremy Corbyn becomes more and more popular among

young people, when they find out what he actually thinks what he

thinks about Brexit, which is very anti-EU. That will have problems for

Labour. I think Brexit is the thing, the main issue facing Britain at the

moment for the next few years. Neither party has a coherent message

on it. Both are confused, both are conflicted. This is what is going to

probably of the next government and when the government will be formed.

Steve, a quick thought from you. You have touched on it to some degree.

Your sense, what people say to you about the internal workings in

Downing Street now? You say there is no one obvious to take over. What is

your sense of Theresa May, how much do we know? It feels much weaker,

not just politically, that's obvious, but in terms of its

resources and sense of power. Number ten is physically a weaker entity

than the Treasury, which is this mighty department down the road. So

exercises power through authority, and the authority of those advisers

working with the Prime Minister fostered she had to get rid of her

two advisers, who terrified ministers and all the rest of it.

They are gone. The head of policy, was there before, is gone, she has

just replaced him with someone else. There are new people moving in. Her

authority's greatly diminished, and those in the Cabinet who work as I

said earlier, in awe and fear of her, she was so popular, they are

now beginning to feel assertive and muscular, and that's why we know

what David Davis thinks this morning. That's why we know what

Philip Hammond thinks. So it is a completely changed dynamic in this

government. You are right to suggest she won't recover that authority.

Once you've lost a kind of mandate in the way she did in that early

election, you don't recover from that. But I don't think there will

be an early election, because the Conservatives can't afford to hold

one because they might lose it. I might suggest people watching are

breathing a sigh of relief! It depends on your view, obviously.

Let's turn our attention is outwards and talk a little bit about the

Middle East. Coalition forces have almost

recaptured the city of Mosul in Iraq, and in Syria the defacto

Isis capital Raqqa is surrounded, but still the jihadists fight

on and the civilian toll is huge - some half a million

people have been killed, and millions more left

homeless and displaced. Your assessment of Isis, its

strength or otherwise, who is in charge, your take on where we are?

We have been talking about Mosul falling for a long time and still

hasn't happened. We must talk more about the middle east on this

programme and other programmes. Middle east is coming to us. Not

only are we going to the Middle East, terrorism is coming to us.

Look at the other side of the Mediterranean was that there is

Libya, and absolutely failed state and a source of trouble. Look at

Egypt, it is bankrupt. There are 90-95,000,000 people there. Look at

Syria, about 500,000 were killed. Look at Iraq, look at other parts,

even the Gulf region, Saudi Arabia and Qatada are struggling and

fighting. Middle East is very important, we have failed state, not

just Isis an Islamic State that a lot of problems. The question now,

OK, I can send some sort of euphoria. Isis is going to be

defeated, they are about to lose Mosul, they are about to lose Raqqa.

But there are two very important questions. What will happen to Isis

after that? The second question, what will happen to the coalition

which is fighting Isis? Is it going to be intact? Is it going to be

strong as it used to be? Because they were united simply because of

Isis. Answering the first question, I believe there are two choices for

Isis. The first one, to resolve itself, which is impossible. The

second one, to go underground and turned a plan B, terrorism, and they

are shrinking in territories. The third option is to go to other

branches, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, like Olivia and Syria,

like Libya... We don't know. Yemen. If they go to these branches and

they have the infrastructure there, instead of having Isis in at Iraq

and Syria, you will have Isis 19 branches all over the world. Going

underground, they will be more dangerous. Why? Because they will

be, they will get rid of the burden of running a state, a caliphate.

Now, they used to have 9 million under their rule. If they get rid of

that, you know, if this country struggling with health care,

struggling with education, struggling with services, so imagine

a country, Isis example he lacks the experience. Those men are the men of

Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just a front. Those people can

disappear underground and can be very, very dangerous. So we

shouldn't actually celebrate the death of Isis. We should prepare

ourselves for the next age. It is interesting, because if you think

about the history of all of this... Isis descended from Zarqawi's

networks, which descended from a pledge of allegiance to Osama bin

Laden. We can go back decades on this thing has metastasised through

the Muslim world. I agree entirely. I think that menu of choices you

listed being open to Isis, I've think they will take all of them. I

think as they are squeezed out of Mosul... You have to understand,

they are surrounded in the old city of Mosul. You cannot really get a

car down the street in many parts of these quarters. They still have tens

of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of civilians under their

control in this warren. The Allied forces are trying to be as careful

as they can be, but there is still huge civilian casualties. They will

go away. The bigger question, and this is one that goes back three

years to when Isis first arrived in Iraq, was you could find any day of

the week in the newspaper talking about security services being

concerned about kids going to Syria, kids going to Iraq to make jihad and

then coming. We know some of the attacks in France and Brussels were

perpetrated by people who had been in Syria and had come home. I wonder

to what degree the security services in Britain know of people who have

travelled to Syria and Iraq, have worked or gone online and read Isis'

main form of communication and are thinking of stuff... This is a real

problem... It applies in lots of European countries. They survive on

publicity. Every time someone comes out and either kills 50 people in a

gay nightclub in Orlando and says, I pledge allegiance to Isis. Or runs

15 people over on London Bridge on this, I pledge allegiance, this is a

great success for them and allows them to sustain themselves in all

these other countries where they are running away too. One positive, if

you like, as the shrink in territory happens, their finances are being

affected here. They're taking control of these oilfields and

having the money to finance this. That would be interesting, how that

plays out. As you pointed out, it could be that they take a different

strategy or underground attacks. That is a huge positive, that it is

going to affect them and perhaps their recruitment. A lot of the

people that went over where getting paid a lot of money. How are they

funding it and can they continue to do it? They lost 80% of their

income, because now they don't control the oil fields, the gas

fields and if they do control it, they can't export it, they cannot

sell it. These are important things. But when you convert them in Mosul

and Raqqa it means they don't need this amount of money. They used to

receive about $3 million, equal to export of oil and gas. Now they

don't need, they will go underground. I would like to remind

you that the people, the cost of the 11th of September, $250,000 only. It

didn't cost that much. So they don't need a lot of money, as they used

it. The problem, the problem... We should look at the incubators who

actually give their oxygen to those people in Iraq and Syria and all

parts of the Middle East. If we want to reduce the danger to the minimum

we should deprive them from incubators. We should deprive them

from the grassroots, from frustrated young people. Unemployment is

extremely huge, instability is the name of the game in the Middle East.

You have a new generation completely frustrated. No jobs, no future, no

hope at all, so we have to look at it if we want to solve this problem.

Haven't people been warning about that for some years? Exactly. Your

argument is Western governments have needed this question up we know

about that and have said it several times but nobody paid attention to

it. We have to look at the roots of the problem and try to find a

solution which actually can treat it from the roots, not actually trying,

OK, let us go and look at security measures. Security measures... Saudi

Arabia and the GCC isolate Qatada and say it's all their fault. This

is ridiculous. It is not the fault of Qatar. There are 7000 Saudis

fighting in the ranks of Isis. From Chechnya, from Pakistan, from

Tunisia. From Tunisia about 5000 are fighting under the Isis flag. Why?

You were right in your introductory comments to say we have to give a

lot more thought to this, because the Middle East is coming to us and

you gave the example, absolutely rightly of course, the refugee

crisis, if anything will deepen. When I wrote the book the rise of

the outsiders, it was amazing to see the degree to which that was

defining the politics of many European countries, from the

vulnerability of Angela Merkel for a time, to the way social Democrats in

northern Europe... All responding to that process. You mention the fact

that the Isis leadership are basically Saddam Hussein's old

Republican guard. So that Western intervention has triggered all of

this. What should the West do, in terms of dealing with this? I can't

see... What's not happening is American leadership, that will be

interesting. How the Trump administration, is talking about

more troops in Afghanistan, maybe we will hear more about that in the

next few months. They are quite happy to keep it at arms distance,

they are there behind... Steve, you are absolutely right. We should

change all our plans, our way of thinking when we look at the Middle

East. Isis defeated, OK, now American president... Who does the

war against Iran? Let us finish from this terrorism and then move to

that. This is the problem. We have to stop wars in the Middle East, but

by all means and concentrate on people, how to make their life much

better, in order to keep them away from us. LAUGHTER

This is a problem. We have to leave it there, even though as you say,

you're quite right, we must be talking about it more. We will

return to I'm sure. Thank you to all of you.

That's all we have time for this week.

Please do join me again next week, same time, same place but for now

We started off quite cloudy in actual fact, as you can see