20/01/2018 Dateline London

Hello and a warm welcome

to Dateline London, I'm Jane Hill.

This week, we look at the new

relations between France and the UK.

We ask whether Germany's Mrs Merkle

will get a deal to form a government

and remain Chancellor.

And we discuss why the Russians

are getting cross with Iran.

My guests this week:

Mina Al Oraibi, the editor

of the Abu Dhabi-based The National,

The Times columnist

David Aaronovitch,

the author, Thomas Kielinger

of Germany's Die Welt, and

Marc Roche, former London

correspondent of Le Monde,

who now writes for the magazine Le

Point.

Welcome to you all.

Let's discuss France and Britain,

first.

Emmanuel Macron came on his first

official visit to Britain this week.

Among the agreements reached

between the French President

and British Prime Minister?

Theresa May committed to spending

an extra £44 million on border

security in Calais.

France said they would lend

us the Bayeux Tapestry

in a few years' time.

With Brexit inevitably

the backdrop to this meeting,

Mr Macron said the two countries

were making a new tapestry together.

Marc, is this the new

"Entente Cordiale"?

See what he did there? What did you

make of this meeting? How did you

read it?

Well, the Bayeux Tapestry,

you give a big gift for love in

French and a small gift for

friendship that's what we say in

French. It symbolised this meeting,

but a military cooperation, better

arrangement an Calais. And fights

against terrorism. The background

was Brexit. President Macron was

very clear. The usual British tactic

is divided to rule. The EU is

united. For financial service, you

want to access the single market,

you pay for it. You accept free

movement.

And you accept the court of justice.

Of course, that is unacceptable for

the Brexiteers in how government.

Let's hope that after that

agreement, President Macron, he's

not hostile to the city, he is a

former banker. Let's hope he will

accept a bespoke agreement which is

needed, not Norway. Something new so

we can turn the page Brexit.

He's

not hostile to the city but plenty

of people have sat round this table

in the last few weeks somewhat

chuckling at the way that France is

trying to encourage British

financial institutions to relocate

to beautiful Paris.

Absolutely.

France isn't the only one, Frankfurt

is doing that, Amsterdam, Dublin.

The problem is, very few

institutions will leave the city

because in the end, London can

continue to be financing Europe.

Although out of the Eurozone and out

Brexit. I dent think that'll be

problem. Of all capitals, one at

Paris? -- I don't think. Put a few

banks there.

Thomas.

A nice French

perspective. But to go back to the

Bayeux Tapestry, it is a division

three tactic by France. As you place

this prediction on history in

England, 1066 and all that, everyone

knows not worrying about 1066, we

are talking about 2019, 2021, that

is the salient point to discuss. Why

this Bayeux Tapestry thing? He is

Marc quite right,, the biggest

conundrum is continuing to operate

80% of British economic output

invested in financial services.

Yes.

To have that all cut off, I wonder

what price Britain will continue to

pay or wants to pay, in order to

preserve this big advantage? At the

moment, to looks pretty much

impossible. If you leave the union,

the EU, you can't operate in the EU

without passporting writes. How do

you solve this conundrum? Macron

didn't help. He kept saying in

accordance with position of

Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk,

you can't cherry pick, if you leave,

you leave but I wonder if there is

wiggle room. The EU is in need of

money and Britain leaving will leave

them in need of a certain amount of

a big slice of money. If Britain

were to continue to want to pay into

the coffers of the EU, which is a

small price anyway, considering the

huge advantage of the financial

markets for the British economy,

might not Brussels reconsider this

absolute adamant position? No,

possible. If Britain is willing to

cough up billion euros every year --

11 billion euros.

There are red

lines of Mrs May, no court of

justice. She said it.

And Emanuel

Macron has given an interview to the

BBC this week and reiterating

exactly the point that you are both

making.

We are still a couple of

months away from the final deal. I

predict certain U-turns here or

there, both in Brussels and London,

in order to not come to a cliff edge

resolution of the Brexit issue,

which would be catastrophic for

Britain.

What was interesting about

Macron's visit, in addition to

Brexit and the single market future,

there was this focus on the

bilateral relationship that we speak

less of an hour. The importance of

France's relationship with the UK

and whether that is military

support. -- we speak less of at the

moment. Britain saying they will

support France's efforts in Africa,

not having troops on the ground but

actually sending helicopters aboard

and air support. It's important to

show that there are areas we will

work together on. I think the tone

was important at this meeting, how

can we get beyond the bickering and

being angry at the fact that Brexit

is happening? And trying to find

points of conversions. And on the

Bayeux Tapestry, what I think is

important is looking at Macron, how

he's forging his presidency and

diplomacy. The use of cultural

diplomacy. In Abu Dhabi we have seen

that, ten years in the planning

coming to the fore. Also, his focus

on the French language, and wanting

to project France's position. We see

different western countries, whether

it's the UK, the US and Germany in a

pickle. France is saying we are

here, strong, we will project our

presence.

That's interesting, did

you read it that way the visit,

David?

Probably not the first to

have coined the term Macronise.

Probably someone else did it as

well. We were Macronised.

What does

that mean? Cultural diplomacy?

Certainly cultural diplomacy.

Macronise understands what a lot of

British people have forgotten, we

live in an independent world. That

interdependency would stop if we

leave the European Union, it carries

on. He had an idea about how the

world might be shaped in the period

after that happens. And there are

certain things that Britain and

France need to do together in that

world. It would be a good thing to

have good long-term relationships

with Britain. But the other thing

they emphasised, which is really sad

for me, as a British person, it

symbolised the loss of British

influence in the world. It really

did. Yes, of course, they want good

relationships with us, etc, but

there is Emanuel Macron, maybe

because Angela Merkel has done her

12 years and we will come back to

her later and there might be another

German leader. He will be shaping

the continent and the world and we

won't be. That was brought home to

me. We will get the Bayeux Tapestry

to remind ourselves, because we have

decided as a country... And we have

always been prone to this, to live

with one foot in the past always.

The French have been prone to this

as well quite often. The Germans,

with very good reasons, have made a

sundering with the past.

But we face a situation and a future

whereby we won't be able to exert

anything like so much influence

about what happens.

It's

interesting, you take us neatly onto

our next point, you mentioned Angela

Merkel. This is a really fascinating

weekend in that regard.

Sunday is a crucial day

for German politics

and, some argue, for EU

stability more broadly.

Delegates from the social

democrats, the SPD, will vote

on whether to enter formal coalition

talks with Chancellor Merkel's bloc.

Nearly four months after

the country's election,

Angela Merkel has still not managed

to form a government

and many in the SPD are anxious

about entering another coalition,

given their vote was eroded

in September,

after four years as

the junior partner.

Thomas, Martin Schulz has been

travelling the country

trying to sell the idea.

Trying to rally the support in the

run-up to Sunday's vote.

You have

given a good introduction into the

problems, the ten Juanma, wondering

whether they will continue in

government with Merkel and they

might disappear from the screen --

the SPD, wondering whether. Rigging

and Germany, if it was an ongoing

concern, business, would be tied to

issue a profit warning -- looking at

Germany. Frankly about the health of

their political culture. The problem

the Conservative Party has, Merkel

and her cohorts, they have gradually

destroy conservatism in Germany for

the purpose of forming coalitions.

Getting more and more left wing,

left of centre ideas on board to the

extent that nowadays you rather have

a situation where there's very

little difference between the two

major parties. One of the reasons we

keep returning such indistinct

election result is that people

cannot differentiate between these

two parties. They have become so

much a mishmash of general ideas.

The Conservative Party has become

somewhat left of centre. The

punishment is there. They scored 32%

in the election. They are about to

disappear, already down to 20.

Latest polls say they are sinking

evermore. The country is at a

standstill, politically. It seems

that there's nobody left to want to

govern Germany in a sense. On the

other hand, she is being

administered perfectly well. The

economy is growing and expanding.

People don't feel the absence of a

government in their daily lives at

all. Which is probably an indictment

against why do we need politicians

in the first place when the

administrators are doing the job so

well for themselves. Schools are

being taught, taxes are being

collected. And all the other

efficiencies that modern states have

are in place. It is a profit

warning. Germany is needed for

future decisions to be taken about

Europe. France wants Germany to be

there.

What you need, really, is a

very strong Germany for Europe. At

the moment, Emmanuel Macron is

taking all of the weight of Europe

because he is saying we needed to

speed. But Europe doesn't want to

have all this agenda taken by

Brexit. There are other things,

refugees, the crisis in the

Eurozone, that could come back.

There's a question of Poland,

there's a question of defence. There

is a question of foreigners first

and all that. At the moment it is

all blocked the main country is

blocked politically. It is urgent

Bev is a government in Germany.

Whether it is weak or strong it

doesn't matter -- there is urgency

for a government.

You called for a

strong one, that is the point, I

don't think you will see one emerge

in the near future. It will be

viable in certain functions,

economic and otherwise but it won't

be in a position to really represent

the country as a whole because there

is such a wrangling going on between

the two main parties.

This could be called keeling up's

paradox, suggesting Germans want

change but they don't want any

change. They want politicians to

suggest to change without any

reality of change because actually

their lives are very good. The

danger for Europe and for others out

of Germany in the last 30 years has

essentially not be any kind of

extremism that has been a retreat by

Germany into parochialism.

Stop the

world, I want to get off!

Yeah. As

long as industry is working, as long

as we have good employment and so

on, we don't want to get too much

involved in the business of how

things are structured. The paradox

is, though some people in Britain

would hate it, it is required that

Germany does step up to a leadership

role in Europe. The economy. You

can't take all the benefits of the

economy of the European Union and

then say, but we're going to leave

the business of how Europe is going

to be to be to others.

That is one

of the fears, there is a

complacency, that the economy is

doing fine, we don't need a

government. It is complacency, to

have weak leadership and weak

government. It is not a K. After a

while it starts to a road structures

that people now think just ticked on

as normal and that's not true. Even

if Angela Merkel is able to form

this coalition and they go ahead

with the government, people are

already talking about possibly the

need for early elections in two

years. If they have a government

that is perceived as weak and

unstable you will have elections

within two years, it is hard to make

long-term decisions. We take for

granted the fact that we have had

Merkel around since 2005.

12 years!

Four British prime ministers later

and she is still here. The idea that

stability.

What do I perceive to be

the development? There will come a

time when people are so fed up with

the traditional parties that there

will be an emergence of a new party

like in France. Macron showed it.

Austria had a similar development.

The current powers that be no longer

deliver the goods, frankly. As you

say, people post long, and all of

the traditional sort of activities

of daily life at all impaired, you

have a sense that your country is

not pulling its weight on the world

stage. -- daily life is not

impaired.

But that is divided

between west and east. East with a

FT, the extreme right wing, which is

a new problem in Germany. -- East

with a FT.

Fascinating, the vote is

on Sunday. If that goes through it

needs to go to wider membership.

There is a long way to go and we

will certainly be talking about that

again. Let's move further afield.

The head of Iran's Revolutionary

Guards, Muhammad Ali Jafari,

The head of Iran's Revolutionary

Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari,

declared this week that he can now

drive from Tehran via Baghdad

all the way to Beirut,which

shows how successful

Iran's involvement in Iraq

and Syria has been.

But Russia, Iran's ally,

wants out of the war,

and is far from happy.

Mina, what's happening here?

That's quite a boast, he was

boasting.

Quite a frustration for

ordinary citizens that would never

feel safe to go from Tehran by car

and that journey. All the lives that

have been lost but also all of the

fears, whether it's kidnapping,

intimidation, if anyone else tried

to make a similar route. That says

something that they control, the

Iranian Revolutionary guard, threw

themselves or proxies, the militias

they support that they can clear the

roads for them. It is very worrying.

We talk about the importance of

nation and government. If you have a

leader of the armed wing in Iran

saying they can traipse through

these Arab countries with very

little push back it is hugely

concerning. This idea of a corridor

from Iran all the way to the borders

of Israel were things that people

would talk about five or six years

ago, nonsense, conspiracy theorists

of the Arab world, but they have

made that happen. Partly because of

the fight against Isis, which was

important. The defeat of Isis was

very important for the people who

suffered under them and also for the

world to move forward. But at what

cost in terms of what comes in its

place? The vacuum should be filled

by the national army in Iraq but in

Syria, the problem continues to

fester. While Iranian troops or

militias can go through Syria and

into Beirut, what state have we left

Syria in? Whether it is the Turks

bombing from the air certain areas,

the Russian continued air campaign

and a lack of clarity to how Syria

can be put back together.

Increasingly worrying. We talk about

elections and coalitions forming, we

see what is happening in Iraq at the

moment. As we look to the elections

in May coming up. As you have

different armed groups wanting to go

into Parliament and say that they

are now valid, even though certain

groups are considered terrorist

organisations by the US and other

entities.

Going forward, what the world really

needs to pay attention to is if you

are having these armed groups

controlled out of Tehran, what is

the long-term strategic aim of Iran?

That raises eyebrows.

And what does

the long-term strategic alliance

between Iran and Russia mean? If you

want to proceed on this route

without any hindrance all the way to

Beirut, it begs the question, what

about the Russians? Do you have an

ongoing policy agreement between

those countries, what is the

relationship between the two?

It is

a marriage of convenience between

Russia and Iran and in large part in

Syria. The Syrians have paid a heavy

price for this. They continue to pay

a heavy price for this. The Russians

don't want to see Iraq and Lebanon

and Syria weakened and having

Iranians control that in the

long-term, their strategic aim is

not to have a theocracy that calls

for the exporting of the revolution

that continues to be part of Rambus

my constitution. Long-term, you

imagine they are going to hit. --

part of the Constitution. It would

be convenient for Russia to keep the

President Assad regime in check in

Syria.

Except for the Russians, the

main issue is now getting the

European sanction out. By getting

out of the region and concentrating

on trying to solve Ukraine and

Crimea and all of that, you can get

the sanction out. Election coming up

for President Putin, the economy is

not doing well, oil and commodities

are quite low. They want to get out

of that.

This

-- this struck me as classic hubris,

would drive with a big letter X on

his car for a start. Quite a few

people would take him out from the

air and would drone him as soon as

look at him.

Secondly, during the recent Iranian

protests, one of the things that

people were spontaneously protesting

about was the amount of money and

loss that was incurred by Iran's

adventures abroad and so on. There

is the question about its

sustainability at home. One tends to

see Iran purely as an external power

but it has a very powerful set of

internal politics, which acts as

some kind of limitation to them as

well.

There were talks this week in

Brussels with the focus, again, as

we discussed many times, but the

focus very much on the nuclear deal.

That is my point, that is where

other nations are focused on that,

perhaps to the exclusion of all

else.

European nations.

Yes.

You are

thinking the nuclear deal is nice

and tidy if you are in that region.

You rightly raise this point, saying

that the nuclear deal alone fixes

these problems is absolutely

incorrect. That was one of the fatal

mistakes of the Obama

administration, they were able to

say that the nuclear deal is

separate from these other dynamics.

But where is the money coming to

allow for this military might and

the paying of militias? Whether it

is militia men from Afghanistan,

Lebanon or Iraq, largely that came

from as the sanctions were being

lifted from the nuclear deal. It is

interconnected. The big question

going forward, people want Iran to

stabilise but you have had this

internal semi-revolt that was put

down. Where the EU's position on it

was that there are some recent

events in Iran but let's talk about

the nuclear deal. And not even

putting out a voice to champion

hundreds of people who are now in

prison. Because they went down to

protest.

It is important with the

new regime in Saudi Arabia and the

modernisation going on, that now

Saudi Arabia is the only

counterweight to Iran. We should

support them. I thought I would

never say that!

LAUGHTER

You should always qualified when you

do say it.

But I think that Saudi

Arabia is now the only counterpoint

to Iran.

But I think a lot of Arab

countries in the region see the

problems with Iran's projection of

military power. People say it is

natural, Iran is a large country to

have influence. It is not influence,

it is armed groups on the ground

challenging people's ways of life.

Saudi Arabia, yes, but you have a

coalition of Arab countries that are

together, trying to figure out how

they face this and we have the

repercussions of that. Whether it is

11 on or Iraq or Yemen.

Yes.

Because

military power is being used, you

get pulled into all of these losses

that people of the region suffered.

You are right in that Saudi Arabia

can be a counterweight, but they are

not alone. Many people want to say

that as well.

Power in an area which

is already suffering from huge

instability, that is not going to

lead to anywhere other than making

it more unstable than it already is.

Any prediction about the Middle East

, there is so much emerging, so much

embryonic situations. What kind of

Iraq are we going to see at the end

of Isis? What kind of Syria will

emerge? Nobody has an answer.

Rejecting military power into this

cauldron is futile.

To your point

about Syria...

-- projecting

military power.

Still huge activity

on the border in Turkey.

Huge. They

continued flow of refugees, one of

the pressing things is that you see

very few people in Europe talk about

the refugee issue saying this was a

crisis that came to your's we have

to push back. Reality is that we

have heard of a family of nine

Syrians is freezing to death in

Lebanon because they've had no

support. People have continued to

die and suffer. This crisis

continues to fester. Turks also

looking at close to 2 million, 1.5

million Syrians there and their

future is unclear. It is

humanitarian and a security risk.

And the prospect of Turkey 's

military interventions getting

stronger against the Kurds. That

could lead to another refugee crisis

and another flow. And so on.

It continues to fester. Again, what

you want to see, we talked about

leadership. What we really required

to see in the world is a greater

degree of foresight and leadership

amongst the west and some of the

other countries about how we're

going to deal with this. It's been

reactive.

It's not Europe, the

Middle East, the US is the only

country that can do it. And at the

moment the US is not there.

Actually think that the UK and

France and Germany, they play a role

that they are uninterested. Partly

because they are so caught up in

Brexit but also thinking it is only

for the US to play the role bust the

vacuum isn't filled by US and

Europe, it will be filled by Russia

and Iran and others.

Europe is

afraid of the refugees, that is the

main issue. One of the populist

right wing and extreme right is

coming from that. -- all of the

populace. Europe has a tendency to

want to leave them in Turkey which

is not a solution.

David is right in

detecting a yearning for new

leadership. Why are these things

becoming so popular? I am worried

about the renaissance of

nationalism. Remember the kind of

era in which he became a leader, it

made him look strong. It was a

fierce... -- he was a fierce

antagonist. Do we want another

church? Do we want the re-emergence

of that sort of power struggle that

he faced? -- another Churchill. It

is difficult for a modern leader to

burnish a profile because the world

is so much in chaos. It is so

unpredictable. He would not have

known how to deal with these other

problems we have been discussing for

weeks and weeks.

I hedge my bets about new

leadership.

In the region we have

very interesting new leadership,

especially as Mark mentioned.

It is interesting to see how they

see this need to open what is going

on in the region.

There is a good

topic for another Dateline London.

Do we need another Churchill? Thank

you to all of you.

That's it for Dateline London

for now,

we're back next week

at the same time.

Thanks for watching.

Goodbye.