:00:25. > :00:25.Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
:00:26. > :00:32.This week we discuss whether Theresa May can go
:00:33. > :00:35.on and on as Prime Minister, look at the latest round of Brexit talks,
:00:36. > :00:42.and ask what can be done to defuse the North Korea crisis?
:00:43. > :00:46.the political journalist and commentator Alex Deane
:00:47. > :00:48.the North American journalist and broadcaster Jeffrey Kofman
:00:49. > :00:50.and the writer broadcaster Mihir Bose.
:00:51. > :01:01.The British Prime Minister Theresa May ended up having a rather frank
:01:02. > :01:03.conversation with journalists on her flight to Japan this week -
:01:04. > :01:07.she insisted she would like to lead her Conservative party into the next
:01:08. > :01:11.general election, in five years time.
:01:12. > :01:13.For politics-watchers of a certain age, there were echoes
:01:14. > :01:17.of Margaret Thatcher's stated determination to go on and on.
:01:18. > :01:22.Alex, what did you make of her comments?
:01:23. > :01:30.I think as soon as any political leader gives the deadline as to when
:01:31. > :01:34.they are going to go, speculation becomes rampant about who will
:01:35. > :01:38.replace them. It's healthy for a leader to want to fight whatever the
:01:39. > :01:43.next contest is that their party faces. It was the right thing for
:01:44. > :01:47.the Prime Minister to say. There is also more room to manoeuvre than in
:01:48. > :01:52.the Blair Brown years because there is no Gordon Brown. There is no one
:01:53. > :01:58.going around with lots of aggression, both theirs and others,
:01:59. > :02:04.determined to oust the incumbent. Interestingly, Tony Blair also got
:02:05. > :02:08.caught by a pack of journalists on the plane when Doctor David Kelly
:02:09. > :02:13.died. They got a lot of commentary out of him in that time. There seems
:02:14. > :02:19.to be something that happens on aircraft. I think you are right. The
:02:20. > :02:23.dilemma that Theresa May faced was if she did not declare this, she was
:02:24. > :02:29.in danger of becoming a caretaker and lame-duck Prime Minister. She
:02:30. > :02:34.has to be all in. She can't be half pregnant, so to speak. Whether it is
:02:35. > :02:41.the intention to stay, she needs to declare this or else she loses
:02:42. > :02:45.control. I don't think she is going to stay. Obviously she will wait
:02:46. > :02:50.until the Brexit negotiations and then she will go and you are quite
:02:51. > :02:55.right. You know, she can't say no, I won't stay otherwise she will be
:02:56. > :03:01.dead in the water. She will wait for the Brexit negotiations. I can't see
:03:02. > :03:07.her leading the Conservative Party. Into an election? There was
:03:08. > :03:12.speculation after the election that the May's leadership might have been
:03:13. > :03:18.under attack before that, but her fortunes have improved considerably.
:03:19. > :03:23.David Davis is the one to watch out for. The bigger picture is, you are
:03:24. > :03:28.right, it was the only answer she could give as the leader of the
:03:29. > :03:34.Conservative government, but in national terms, what is this good
:03:35. > :03:38.for if she stays? She is, as many people have commented, she has lost
:03:39. > :03:43.her credibility. She went into an election she did not need to and
:03:44. > :03:46.lost the Conservatives seats and ended up with a hung parliament
:03:47. > :03:55.which means that the government is too weak to legislate. At a time
:03:56. > :03:59.when Britain is dealing with Brexit, economic stagnation, wage stagnation
:04:00. > :04:04.and spiralling costs. We have a government that is ineffectual. They
:04:05. > :04:08.cannot do anything to address real issues and problems. So when we look
:04:09. > :04:12.at her in terms of she is doing the responsible thing, and that might be
:04:13. > :04:16.true for her party because the Conservatives don't have another
:04:17. > :04:20.leader otherwise she would be replaced in a flash. They simply do
:04:21. > :04:25.not have anyone to replace her with. It might be good party, but what is
:04:26. > :04:34.good for the country? You could make the argument that it would be better
:04:35. > :04:36.for the Conservative Party to have a leadership challenge, even if that
:04:37. > :04:38.precipitate another election. One of the reasons for her making the
:04:39. > :04:43.comment now is that the party conferences coming up. She would not
:04:44. > :04:47.want to say something like, I'm going to go because then the party
:04:48. > :04:53.conference will become an election for which is the last thing they
:04:54. > :04:56.want. It's going to be anyway. They are too disgruntled with her and
:04:57. > :05:03.there is too much disunity within the party for that plaster, that
:05:04. > :05:07.Band Aid to stick. And to your point, Alex, there is no obvious
:05:08. > :05:13.successor and that is different to where we were a few months ago. It
:05:14. > :05:17.has change quickly. There is no obvious person around whose
:05:18. > :05:20.ambitions might coalesce, but I disagree with Rachel. There are
:05:21. > :05:26.plenty of people around the Cabinet table that are qualified to hold the
:05:27. > :05:30.role of Prime Minister, it simply that the May's position does more to
:05:31. > :05:37.defend itself when she is in the mode of governing and not
:05:38. > :05:42.campaigning. Any party that calls an election when it doesn't need to and
:05:43. > :05:50.does not get the result it wants, it's not good. I disagree with
:05:51. > :05:53.Rachel though because challenges to Theresa May are far less likely than
:05:54. > :06:07.these conversations imply. I know where going to talk about Brexit in
:06:08. > :06:10.a moment... They dovetail! We see the Labour Party defining a
:06:11. > :06:14.different position over the last week and so it becomes a more
:06:15. > :06:20.nuanced going for her to try to figure out how to navigate Brexit.
:06:21. > :06:23.It is not going well and whether or not she can deliver something that
:06:24. > :06:28.is going to satisfy enough people, I think it will determine her own
:06:29. > :06:38.future. Mihir, you mentioned David Davis. Let's talk about him and what
:06:39. > :06:43.he has been saying. He said that things had got a little tense this
:06:44. > :06:44.week. That's the word he used as Brexit tools were into their third
:06:45. > :06:50.round. Another British minister, Liam Fox,
:06:51. > :06:52.said the country shouldn't be blackmailed by the EU
:06:53. > :06:54.over the divorce bill. the bloc's chief negotiatior,
:06:55. > :06:57.expressed frustration at the slow Rachel, you've been writing
:06:58. > :07:00.a lot about Europe. through all of this,
:07:01. > :07:09.he remains optimistic. No, I am not optimistic. It is not
:07:10. > :07:15.looking good, is it? It was a deadlock and it was to be expected.
:07:16. > :07:19.In terms of the EU black men in Britain, I mean I would not expect
:07:20. > :07:27.anything other than the EU looking after now it's 27 remaining states.
:07:28. > :07:31.I do not expect it to do anything different, so I think it's a bit
:07:32. > :07:37.ridiculous and certainly, I can understand the frustration of the EU
:07:38. > :07:42.negotiators saying, look, we need to see some paperwork here. Something,
:07:43. > :07:45.anything. Give us some indication of where this is going so we can
:07:46. > :07:53.negotiate, so we can start negotiating. What is becoming more
:07:54. > :07:57.and more clearer is how much Brexit is really an ideology rather than a
:07:58. > :08:02.deliverable practical reality, but we are where we are, we voted to
:08:03. > :08:08.leave and we to execute that. I think what is becoming clear now is
:08:09. > :08:13.that there is a difference between the two. The their political reality
:08:14. > :08:17.of what they are saying rhetorically is very much what the negotiating
:08:18. > :08:23.situation is. For Britain, the political reality differs from the
:08:24. > :08:27.rhetoric that Brexiteers have been giving us over what we might expect
:08:28. > :08:31.from a deal and I think the government, it's incumbent on them
:08:32. > :08:36.to manage people's expectations and said look, we promised you a lot of
:08:37. > :08:41.stuff we can't deliver. We don't know yet, we might be able to
:08:42. > :08:47.deliver it. It is early days, actually. The writing is on the
:08:48. > :08:51.wall. We do know, the cake and eat it thing is something we know. We
:08:52. > :08:56.cannot have the same conditions and exit. Things will change, right?
:08:57. > :09:01.It's likely they will change for the worst, at least in the short term
:09:02. > :09:09.and we almost certainly do need a conditional deal that needs as much
:09:10. > :09:18.continuity in place as is possible and certainly parliament to have
:09:19. > :09:23.changed their position on that has made a difference. It's not tenable
:09:24. > :09:28.one have any Parliamentary wait. There is a big gap between what the
:09:29. > :09:35.public has been promised and what actually will be the case. That is a
:09:36. > :09:39.problem the Britain in a way it isn't for the EU. This notion of
:09:40. > :09:44.blackmail is very much about trying to set up a bogeyman that says, oh,
:09:45. > :09:49.it is therefore. In Europe this is not a big deal as it is here. This
:09:50. > :09:53.is Britain's problem. The people of France and Germany in the
:09:54. > :09:57.Netherlands are waking up and saying, I want to have a Brexit
:09:58. > :10:01.negotiations went this week? They have their own issues. Macron has
:10:02. > :10:06.transformed the French economy. That's what they're talking about in
:10:07. > :10:10.the French media. This is an old political game. Those bad guys in
:10:11. > :10:14.Brussels, the EU were making it difficult and not playing fair. This
:10:15. > :10:22.is a British problem and Britain has to find a way to negate the gate --
:10:23. > :10:28.find a way to navigate with the EU. On the one hand the rhetoric coming
:10:29. > :10:32.out of the EU is wholly accurate, on the other hand the rhetoric from the
:10:33. > :10:38.United Kingdom is outrageous, and serves and does not reflect reality.
:10:39. > :10:43.Both sides are posturing. There is this weird self lacerating instinct
:10:44. > :10:47.among some in the United Kingdom to believe everything that comes out of
:10:48. > :10:52.the EU bloc and nothing that is said by our own government and
:10:53. > :10:57.representatives. Some of this is not true. The suggestion that we need
:10:58. > :11:05.some paperwork to have some kind of negotiation as Rachel said, that was
:11:06. > :11:14.a big gap there. There have been publications of Brexit papers. It's
:11:15. > :11:21.about what is in them. You are having your own meta- debate. Oh, I
:11:22. > :11:28.don't like that paperwork. Historically, this reminds me of the
:11:29. > :11:37.Empire. There was a difference. The British were in control. For
:11:38. > :11:44.example, India was going to become a republic. Backley and Churchill
:11:45. > :11:49.wrote begging letters staying in the near room, stay. They created then
:11:50. > :11:54.the Commonwealth which is an imaginary club. The Queen has no
:11:55. > :11:58.power in India or the various republics are formed. The British
:11:59. > :12:05.aren't used to walking away. They like to be liked. They like to feel
:12:06. > :12:10.they are morally superior, that is the basis of their war, we are
:12:11. > :12:13.morally right. What the EU is not giving them is enough of that
:12:14. > :12:19.reassurance, that feeling that we can create a club somehow and have
:12:20. > :12:26.links with the EU of a certain kind, but yes we are outside it. What is
:12:27. > :12:32.interesting is Labour's walk back. Now we have some differentiation
:12:33. > :12:38.between the two main parties and it creates an interesting opportunity
:12:39. > :12:45.for debate. Corbyn, for so many people is hard to stomach as much as
:12:46. > :12:51.he has a huge following. He is a polarising figure, as is Theresa
:12:52. > :12:56.May. Now his party straddling these different worlds. That distinction
:12:57. > :13:02.is interesting. Corbyn, until he became leader at least, used to say
:13:03. > :13:08.that the EU was a stitch up, done in the interest of big business and big
:13:09. > :13:14.banks. He's not completely wrong. Then he becomes the leader of a
:13:15. > :13:21.party that is fastly more pro-EU then he is. He is sort of mumbling
:13:22. > :13:27.and going on with his position. Keir Starmer, whose position is
:13:28. > :13:32.different, it goes almost unsaid that there is this gulf between him
:13:33. > :13:38.and his leader. Does anyone think that there are moderate voices in
:13:39. > :13:43.Europe who are not being heard in this debate? To Alex's point, there
:13:44. > :13:46.will be posturing, this is part of a negotiating process and there are
:13:47. > :13:52.probably lots of reasonable people behind the scenes who want to strike
:13:53. > :13:58.a deal with Britain because it is in everyone's interests, in terms of
:13:59. > :14:02.trade in harmony. The only way to give Britain to good deal, is that
:14:03. > :14:07.other countries might want it as well. They have to keep the union
:14:08. > :14:14.together. If they have too many getaway causes, other countries will
:14:15. > :14:17.want it. Is that the EU worry? If you had a friend who was in a
:14:18. > :14:20.relationship and they wanted to leave, but were afraid to do so
:14:21. > :14:30.because of the consequences of what would happen, what would you advise
:14:31. > :14:34.them to do? That has no substance. If you are a member of a club, then
:14:35. > :14:38.obviously you want the perks to be better than they would be if you
:14:39. > :14:43.were outside the club. Nobody in that club will want to see someone
:14:44. > :14:47.leap that club and have the same benefits, and that is what I meant
:14:48. > :14:51.by the rhetorical gap. That position is the EU position and that is
:14:52. > :14:55.consistent with what they are saying. They are constantly saying,
:14:56. > :15:00.look, things can't be the same for you. I'm going to pause it there
:15:01. > :15:04.because guess what? We will be talking about this a lot in many
:15:05. > :15:09.weeks to come. The next stage of the reading of the bill is in the UK
:15:10. > :15:12.Parliament on Thursday, said there may be more next week. Thank you on
:15:13. > :15:14.all of that is now, but there will be more to come.
:15:15. > :15:16.Tensions on the Korean peninsula are the highest
:15:17. > :15:20.The United Nations condemned as outrageous North Korea's firing
:15:21. > :15:23.of a ballistic missile over Japan a few days ago.
:15:24. > :15:27.all options were then on the table, and today we learn that the US
:15:28. > :15:30.and South Korea have agreed in a phone call to strengthen
:15:31. > :15:33.Seoul's missile programme, and that Donald Trump approved
:15:34. > :15:36.the sale of billions of dollars worth of military equipment
:15:37. > :15:40.Jeffrey, the firing of the missile over Hakkaido
:15:41. > :15:56.We have talked about ratcheting it up a few times, but this is
:15:57. > :16:00.ratcheting it up again? These are frightening times. If you live in
:16:01. > :16:07.that peninsula, these are terrifying times. What we have are two
:16:08. > :16:15.schoolyard bullies, King John Warner and Trump. What we need is
:16:16. > :16:20.diplomacy. No one is going to win this, we know that. Ultimately the
:16:21. > :16:25.US will triumph, should it get to that horrific scenario, but it's not
:16:26. > :16:30.one we can allow to happen. We have to bring it back and find a way to
:16:31. > :16:40.allow the sides to save face enough to dial this down. If that means the
:16:41. > :16:44.US pull back a bit on their military exercises, somehow we have to get
:16:45. > :16:49.North Korea in its insanity to stop firing these missiles and say OK,
:16:50. > :16:53.you can save face. The problem is it now looks like extortion. The
:16:54. > :16:57.sanctions that were passed in early August by the UN are crippling
:16:58. > :17:08.against iron, or an seafood and other exports from North Korea. 25
:17:09. > :17:22.million people with the average income of about $1000 US a year.
:17:23. > :17:26.They need the sanctions lifted. Be duly elected president of the United
:17:27. > :17:36.States and the third generation of a dictator who has this map -- who has
:17:37. > :17:42.systematically... I take your point, but the fact is we have a president
:17:43. > :17:47.in the US, this has gone on through Obama, through Bush, Bill Clinton,
:17:48. > :17:52.it goes right back to Richard Nixon, this belligerence we are seeing out
:17:53. > :17:56.of North Korea. They have managed to contain it. The policy, like we have
:17:57. > :18:03.seen in the Cold War is one of containment. If Ruby belligerence of
:18:04. > :18:08.a duly elected US president, and we can talk about that another time, if
:18:09. > :18:19.belligerence meets belligerence, are we going to be better off? The point
:18:20. > :18:26.is, why is keen on doing it? He has seen Saddam and Gaddafi, two very
:18:27. > :18:30.bad dictators, no question about it, not having nuclear weapons, removed.
:18:31. > :18:33.There is at some stage some big oceans that need to take place and
:18:34. > :18:42.China is crucial to this to make sure that whatever your regime is,
:18:43. > :18:45.and of course you were not elected like the American system, but we
:18:46. > :18:50.don't want to remove you from power. How you do that is the crucial thing
:18:51. > :18:54.and the more belligerent talk there is one Trump, it becomes more
:18:55. > :18:58.difficult to get that. It's interesting to see the effect it has
:18:59. > :19:03.had on Japan. You look at the country, and whatever you think of
:19:04. > :19:07.the geopolitics of those nations, they are now looking out for the
:19:08. > :19:13.first time they have raised the possibility of installing
:19:14. > :19:17.pre-emptive missile capacity. That is a really big deal for a country
:19:18. > :19:23.that constitutionally has been disinclined to do anything like that
:19:24. > :19:29.since the Second World War. It's a really big change and of course,
:19:30. > :19:35.they are now having drills in a way that it must be very terrifying for
:19:36. > :19:41.the population, and there is a Guardian story about this today.
:19:42. > :19:47.They have 600,000 northern Koreans living in Japan, a lot of them
:19:48. > :19:52.descendants of former prisoners and the tension being caused in the
:19:53. > :19:54.country itself between those two groups, is it is having terrible
:19:55. > :20:01.ramifications for the country as well and I do think that that is
:20:02. > :20:08.where the belligerence is really unhelpful. Let's get back to how we
:20:09. > :20:13.get to any form of negotiation. I have lost count of the number of
:20:14. > :20:16.academics, diplomats I have interviewed who say it is about
:20:17. > :20:21.diplomacy, you have to get them around the table, but no one is
:20:22. > :20:24.coming up with an answer. You are seeing a two track narrative. On one
:20:25. > :20:28.hand the president with his belligerence and the people very
:20:29. > :20:32.close to him, Tillerson, the Secretary of State and others in the
:20:33. > :20:38.Cabinet, being much more diplomatic and giving a different story. That's
:20:39. > :20:44.exactly what Nixon did with Russia and China in his triangulation
:20:45. > :20:46.policy and Kissinger had negotiations, notwithstanding the
:20:47. > :20:50.fact that the president was pumping the table. There is a rationale
:20:51. > :20:59.here. Maybe people don't want to see because they don't like President
:21:00. > :21:02.Trump, maybe they see it. But chairman -- ultimately, this is
:21:03. > :21:05.about buying them off and working out what the prices, as compared to
:21:06. > :21:11.the fact that the people that have been most resistant is the North
:21:12. > :21:14.Koreans. They have acquired the technology to have nuclear capacity
:21:15. > :21:19.and attack others. Not that they will do it in some mad act of self
:21:20. > :21:28.destruction, but it is to raise the stakes in the game. It's about
:21:29. > :21:34.self-preservation. North Korea, it's much more complex than German
:21:35. > :21:38.unification was. This economy has been in the decrepit state for so
:21:39. > :21:43.long and China has so much interest in not seeing an outcome that
:21:44. > :21:49.ultimately makes a unifying Korea with a western allies. There are all
:21:50. > :21:57.things at play in terms of the chess game in that region. We will post it
:21:58. > :22:06.there for now. We have met here with us. I have to ask you, football.
:22:07. > :22:10.Even I know that the transfer window closed this week and the figures
:22:11. > :22:15.were astronomical. It's a new record. What is going on here? There
:22:16. > :22:19.is more money available. The Premier League, which is the best run, most
:22:20. > :22:28.successful league in the world in money terms, they did a deal a year
:22:29. > :22:32.ago, 8.4 billion. More importantly, the money is going down to clubs
:22:33. > :22:36.that don't expect to be in the Premier League, like Bournemouth,
:22:37. > :22:40.who now have more money to spend. Britain has allowed a free market so
:22:41. > :22:47.most of the top Premier League clubs are owned by foreigners. Manchester
:22:48. > :22:51.City is owned by the United Arab Emirates. Like America, it doesn't
:22:52. > :23:01.believe in socialism, but it does believe in sporting socialism, we
:23:02. > :23:04.allow everyone to come in. They see this as branding exercises and as
:23:05. > :23:11.far as they are concerned, most of the money is going abroad. In the
:23:12. > :23:15.old days, there used to be Reaganite trickle-down economic. The big clubs
:23:16. > :23:20.pay the lower division clubs. Now they pay all sorts of foreign clubs.
:23:21. > :23:24.The only thing if they can get into the Premier League and brand
:23:25. > :23:31.themselves, look at what has happened by PSG. They are owned by
:23:32. > :23:42.the Qatar state. They paid 86 million for Neymar. Maybe that is a
:23:43. > :23:45.solution for Kim. Perhaps if the paid for Neymar and they could say
:23:46. > :23:55.that North Korea has a great footballer. If only! I am a fan of
:23:56. > :24:00.the best club in the United Kingdom, Ipswich town. We have secured a new
:24:01. > :24:07.striker from Rangers, so we have done our part! It does seem that
:24:08. > :24:15.when other clubs see that an English club is making an acquisition, the
:24:16. > :24:21.price goes up. People can pay more, so they do. We play exciting
:24:22. > :24:27.football and that is what is a sign of success. When people say that the
:24:28. > :24:30.sums are obscene, are we just wringing our hands? There is nothing
:24:31. > :24:36.we can do about it, it is the new World order. Much of Neymar's money
:24:37. > :24:42.went to his father. These players, because of the money they earn, they
:24:43. > :24:46.are corporate entities. They can employ the best lawyers, agents and
:24:47. > :24:52.because of the way that football works, the agents also the
:24:53. > :24:58.recruiters. But what about smaller clubs, grassroots? This is what is
:24:59. > :25:05.wrong with the 21st-century economy. This kind of polarisation of wealth,
:25:06. > :25:10.they are given a lot of money, but ?30 million, 35 million, it is just
:25:11. > :25:15.ludicrous. As we sit around a table at the BBC, let's not pretend it's
:25:16. > :25:20.just football that has a problem with salaries. That's what I said.
:25:21. > :25:26.The Americans have done it better. They disclose more details about
:25:27. > :25:31.players salaries. The Germans insist that 51% of the club is owned inside
:25:32. > :25:37.their own country. We have owners now who have no connection.
:25:38. > :25:51.Abramowitz has never given an interview. At the end of the day,
:25:52. > :25:55.football is meant to be a community sports. If the owners are somebody
:25:56. > :26:02.you have never heard of, they just come in by the club, what is their
:26:03. > :26:06.purpose in doing it? There we are. We attempted to solve geopolitical
:26:07. > :26:10.problems through football. Thank goodness you manage to do that for
:26:11. > :26:15.us. Lovely to have you all here. Much more to discuss same time, same
:26:16. > :26:21.place next week. Thank you for being with us. Goodbye.