Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
two stories likely to dominate the year ahead.
First, the future of the European Union as Britain
And secondly, how far President Putin and Russia
are steering events in the Middle East and elsewhere,
with Donald Trump perhaps in the passenger seat.
Annalisa Piras, who is an Italian film maker.
Lyse Doucet, who is the BBC's chief international correspondent.
Michael Gove of The Times, and who is also a Conservative MP.
Britain's top diplomat in the European Union,
Sir Ivan Rogers, quit this week amid the continuing political
row about Britain being unprepared for Brexit.
But with Italy's banks in trouble, the Greek crisis unresolved,
elections in Germany and France in 2017 and in Italy by 2018,
plus fears about the euro, how much of a mess is the European Union
and more importantly the eurozone actually in?
Michael? Over the course of this year the attention will focus on
German elections and French elections and Dutch elections
particularly and three countries there will be strong populist
challenges. I believe Gert builders in the Netherlands will top the
poll, but I suspect the other parties, for the first time in the
Netherlands, will save the person who topped the poll should not be in
government. In France I suspect Marine Le Pen will make it to the
run-off and run the other candidates very close. In Germany the Germany
the alternative the Deutschland, the
anti-immigrant, anti-EU party will get more than 20% in the polls and
may do better than the social Democrats, the coalition partners.
It will shake the confidence of the EU's current leadership. How much of
that do you agree with? There are many parties in Germany and Italy
who are pretty Eurosceptic. Yeah. The kind of picture that Michael has
just painted is correct. Not much is going to happen until the German
elections in the autumn so we have in front of us a long period of
uncertainty and instability in which populist forces are going to mount
an extraordinary challenge to the status quo. Having said that, there
is something else going on, which is extraordinary story, and terrifying,
which could pull together the European Union leaders who are going
to be smart enough and convincing enough to explain to the people
what's going on in the world. I'm referring to the migrant phenomenon
which is going to accelerate massively and is going to show, for
the first time in European history, how the outside challenges can
combine with inside challenges and make the situation untenable unless
Europeans work together. Specifically on Italy, how far are
people concerned about the Italian banks? I've seen debt write-downs of
50%, people are suggesting in reality many banks will be lucky to
get 20% back on bad loans. In other words they are insolvent. The
banking crisis in Italy is one crisis and people have lost faith in
the banking system and the government a long time ago. There
was a very eloquent front cover of a magazine saying welcome back to the
past. Italy is looking at 2017, looking back at what has been
happening in Italy and not expecting anything good from this New Year.
There is a generalised gloom and doom, despair, lack of any hope
whatsoever. The banking crisis is just one of the aspects. Lyse, we
tend to look down one end of the telescope, Brexit Britain and the
challenges here. How difficult to all these other challenges make it
for any British government? You talk about the European Union and we have
discussed how disunited and shaky and fragile this edifice of the
European Union is. Brexit was another jolt. It is now very shaky
in a year with major elections. For those two pillars, Germany and
France, looking inward, and you can't look inward all the time. You
have to take care of the external factors. Brexit will force them to
look inward as well. That is what could set in motion, and already
has, along with the victory of Donald Trump in the USA, these
political forces that are tearing at the whole ethos of the EU. The
migration crisis was emblematic of just how divided Europe is
politically, socially, morally, in every which way in terms of how they
responded. There was no EU response to that and there still isn't. From
the United States, is the European project in serious trouble in 2017,
and particularly the euro? The European project is in tremendous
trouble and far worse than the people in the US are aware of.
People are focused on the domestic situation. Having watched the EU
closely for several years, there's never been a crossroads like this
before and the idea of a closer union is so discredited at this
point that it's almost not worth uttering the words. I've had this
disagreement with Annalisa before. She talks about a common European
response to the immigrants and I think that's beyond the leadership
of Europe. You put those 28 or 27 leaders in a room and you have such
competing, impossible to reconcile self interest that the immigrant
crisis could be what divides it and what leads to gradual breaking away.
Hungary, for example, and some of those countries surrounding Hungary
take one view, Germany and other. Germany, Italy, everyone's crisis
point is different, and so is Britain's. For any British Prime
Minister or negotiating team, never mind affections from the civil
service, to get the attention of any European leader, particularly Angela
Merkel this year, will be difficult. It is. One of the points made by two
of the principal negotiators is that until the German elections
concluded, it will be difficult to get the full focus and the full
attention of everyone in Europe on these negotiations. The point is
also made that once negotiations are concluded, there needs to be
agreement as much as possible across Europe before any deal can be
settled. There is an imperative on the Prime Minister and the British
negotiating team to make clear, and I know the Prime Minister hopes to
in the next week or so, what the core asked of the European union is.
Clarity in this process is absolutely critical to success. More
important, what is the core ask of Britain? You have your cake and you
want to eat it. Yes. Europe might be able to respond. I expressed my
softball, what is Britain asking of the EU? We need to be clear about
what Britain is requesting. It's not open-ended, the clock is ticking.
Once the trigger is pulled with Article 50, they have two years. You
cannot waste a year, even though a year with Germany and France
focusing on their elections, they will have to do something about
Brexit is Brexit. It's not just Theresa May saying that, John Claude
Yunker has said it, so has Merkel, you have to get it done quickly. It
will be up to Britain to clarify, because I don't think anybody in the
British government knows what Brexit they want. I think they do. A
critical thing for the EU is if those who are currently steering it
play a clumsy hand, that will only strengthen what they considered to
be populist forces. Marine Le Pen has put the European institutions on
notice that if British institutions are punished for leaving she will
make that a rallying cry. It is also the case that if countries like
Poland and Hungary that take a very different line to the current EU
court leadership see that leadership privileging its position, its
ultra-federalist position over some of their interests, that could
create difficulties as well. Can I ask some of you who cover these
things to take a step back from this week 's headlines in Britain. Ivan
Rogers have left. Many people would not be familiar with his name or the
name of his successor. How important of these people who have been
derided in some of the papers as the Sir Humphreys? How important are
these people rather than the politicians? Are good ambassador or
High Commissioner is gold dust. They are your eyes and ears in the
country and they have... They are able to tell you forensically what
the situation is. It is up to leaders to listen... Or not. Even
though nobody should listen to experts! They are the experts of all
experts. Ivan Rogers said he knew the British system so well, he knew
the European system so well, he knew all the players. His replacement is
also a very steady hand, but she's losing a key person. It is a tragedy
for Britain that he has resigned. Simply because the world is getting
so complex, the old order is being replaced by completely unstable and
unpredictable orders. Diplomats in this moment are keyed to the
national interest because they understand the way the world is and
the way it's going. The fact he has resigned and he has warned the civil
servants, please speak to the power, it's very, very important. Let's not
forget that the British diplomatic service is considered to be one of
the best in the world. Rogers is a patriot, he is an example of the
best of the Foreign Office. The fact that he has left is very, very
significant and very, very serious. The world is getting very, very
complex and to look only at the British interests and not looking at
the big picture is very dangerous for the national interest. It also
struck me in his farewell e-mail to the civil servants when he was
pointing out that Whitehall and in general Britain doesn't have the
negotiating expertise, doesn't have the staff, doesn't know enough about
how to do the trade deals and he also, in his earlier memo which
leaked, pointed out that even after this two-year process it will be up
to each national parliament to approve the deal and it could fail
at that point. He said some pretty important things that bats the Prime
Minister was not interested in hearing. I'm conscious that the idea
of some kind of Goldilocks Brexit, that everybody likes, not too hard
or soft or hot or cold, won't even work within your own party. The
least of the Prime Minister 's worries is the Conservative Party.
There's a strong consensus behind the type of Brexit most
conservatives would like see. Philip Hammond against Theresa May, big
differences. I don't think so. It's interesting to see the way opinion
has moved outside the Conservative Party. This week and is capable --
Vince Cable made it clear he thought freedom of movement shouldn't
continue. Who would have imagined 12 months ago that someone is committed
as Vince to the Liberal Democrat tradition would have said one of the
core freedoms of the EU should no longer apply? Theresa May she's --
says she wants workers for the farming community and others save
they want banking and service sectors to have freedom of movement.
It's entirely possible to have a migration policy that allows Britain
to get the skills it needs in the sectors that matter without
accepting freedom of movement as it currently operates within the EU.
You will say but not being the single market. You're not going to
say that! The problem with the muddled thinking is that Britain
seems still not able to understand that you can't have your cake and
eat it. You can't have the single market and not freedom of movement.
It's not on the table! It's not on the table! I don't think we do want
to be in the single market. The cake is not on the table. Balatoni.
President Putin has engineered a rapprochement of sorts
with a key player in Nato - Turkey - and is using it to drive
It comes as Donald Trump prepares to take over the US presidency
amid concerns he is close - perhaps too close -
to Putin, and picking a fight with China and possibly Iran.
As Mr Trump remains a riddle wrapped in an enigma,
where are the flashpoints we should worry about in 2017?
And is Putin playing a weak hand with great skill?
The report by the US intelligence agency, the bits that have made
public, it does suggest that Russia really played a very strong role in
the US election, quite an extraordinary role, whether it made
any difference in the voting is a matter of contention. I don't think
there's much doubt it made a difference. Mr Trump doesn't think
so. They had a very concerted, well directed, successful 16 and 18 month
intrusion into the Democratic Party's e-mails which I blame the
Democrats. They were sloppy. We are all pretty sloppy with their e-mails
and they left themselves to blame, they were completely wide open to
state intrusion and Putin's people do that sort of thing
extraordinarily well. It was very effective. It had to have swung some
votes towards Trump, but so did a lot of other things. Nobody is
saying Trump is the president because of Putin, but he enters with
this very cloudy relationship with Putin that will be problematic. It
is extraordinary in our lifetime to have any American leader being that
close to the leader of the Kremlin, particularly somebody who used to be
in the KGB. It sounds like science fiction and if ten years ago
somebody would have told you rub candid and would have been elected
with the help of a former KGB agent, it would have sounded crazy. That
script would never work! Actually we need to brace ourselves because we
are entering a very, very dark year. 2017, especially in Europe with all
these elections, and clear evidence that Russia has been waging cyber
warfare to influence the American elections, of all countries, is
something that might really put us on alert. We've got a number of
elections in Europe and Putin has already been trying to meddle with
Germany, public opinion, in many ways. He's been doing it in the
former Warsaw Pact countries, he's been doing it everywhere. We need to
be aware. This is a year in which what we have taken for granted, the
international law and order, the kind of force of the law, is going
to be replaced. We know that Francois Phil on in France is quite
receptive to Russia playing a bigger role in Europe. We know that Putin
is playing what could be seen as a very weak hand, but playing it very
well. That's exactly what American diplomats will concede. A week and
played extraordinary well. In December 2015 when Russia decided to
intervene militarily in Syria, there were warnings from Barack Obama it
would be another Afghanistan, a quagmire where Russia will get
bogged down. What has happened instead is that Russia, President
Putin has had the projection of military force and forced the
conclusion he wanted. I spent most of 2016 going to one security forum
after another with Western leaders saying we will not accept the
changing of borders in our Time by force, we will not accept the
post-1945 order will be changed. Russia went into Crimea and it is
still there. Russia not only shifted the momentum on the battlefield in
Syria, saved President Assad from collapse on free -- key front lines,
it's a key player on the battlefield and I was in Aleppo jeering the last
stages of the war for that important city. Then he shifted to the
negotiating table. It was Russia and Turkey which negotiated the
evacuation from Aleppo. Russia and Turkey is driving the talks to take
place not in Geneva of Vienna or Paris, but in Russia. It's
extraordinary. Even British diplomats will concede that Vladimir
Putin went from zero influence in the Middle East in 20 15th to now
being the major player with the military force and the political
will to back it up. Golf states are saying we wish our ally was
President Putin. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and also Iran, the
impact of Russia putting its weight about and being successful. Has that
changed things? It's always been asked if Russia and Iran CI die in
Syria, but they don't. They have a shared interest in seeing President
Assad, or at least his regime, remaining, but they have different
strategic interests. Russia wants its military base, Iran wants to
maintain its corridor to Lebanon and has Bhullar, it wants its access to
forces. The question will be once President Trump enters the mix. He
seems to want to work with President Putin, but he also wants to
undermine Iran's influence. If you're going to work in Syria, it's
hard to square that circle. How do you see President Trump's relations,
potential relations, with Mr Putin? Do you see that as a worried that
Britain should be concerned about? One should be alive to some of these
concerns. There are people who have been in the Trump entourage who have
said things about Putin that give me cause for concern. There are others
in the Trump transition team who have been quite robust towards
Russia. It is an area of concern. But we should take one step back.
Many of the games President Putin has made which
cause me concerned and heartache are as a consequence of the weakness
shown by President Obama. We had an opportunity to intervene in Syria in
2013. The British Parliament much to my regret chose not to. Present an
Obama said that was the reason they didn't do it. The President of the
United States could have shown greater resolution and clarity at
that time. It's a great shame that in the final days of his presidency
there's been an element of displacement activity on the part of
President Obama and John Kerry. They have concentrated the United Nations
about resolutions on Israeli settlements rather than accepting
that they played a much bigger role in the clips of Western power in the
Middle East and the unhappy consequences that Lyse has alluded
to with God states looking to Russia for a role. They play a heavier role
and carry it a heavier responsibility than anything Mr
Trump has to have on his conscious at this moment. How far do you buy
that? The other way of looking at that same story is that after
Afghanistan and after Iraqi, Obama did not want to get involved in some
kind of protracted conflict. The opinion polls and MPs here said the
same thing. There's a consistency to the eight years of Obama's foreign
policy. It's been a bit ambiguous in Afghanistan but he's not wanted more
interventions and I think he inherited a truly disastrous
situation from the prior administration and has spent eight
years trying to cope with it and now it goes back the other way. It's a
very confusing time for American foreign policy. Six months ago Obama
was proud of what he had accomplished and what he had not
been dragged into and I think that's no longer the case. I was with US
diplomats the day the US went into Syria and they were convinced Putin
was making a disaster error and he's -- it's paid off beautifully for
Putin. On the other hand, if you want to be more optimistic, it is
true that this new international scenario does put a lot of pressure
on the Europeans. It is true that the bombing of civilians by the
Russians in Syria has caused all the European leaders to really think
long and hard, what are we going to do? If America doesn't in gauge, if
America decides, as Trump has said, that he doesn't want to pay any more
for Nato, the Europeans by necessity have to come together in order to
ensure their own security. The last European Council, there was no
discussion of what had been happening in Syria and no resolution
to deal with what Russia had been responsible for. It's only in the UK
that there is a live debate about the need to increase defence
spending. That's not correct. There are plenty of smaller countries. If
you've been watching EU politics you would see there's been an
acceleration in terms of common defence spending, common research.
More spending? But not more men and more material. The Baltic states are
concerned. If you look at who is putting forces on the eastern border
of Nato come it is America, Canada, Britain. One of the concerns that I
have is that the European Union, for the reasons we discussed at the
beginning, is turning inward and while there is a belief that they
should be institutional change within Europe, what there isn't is
the resolution in dealing with the anti-democratic forces that Putin
has marshalled. We've come full circle. We started off with Michael
saying there was huge internal issues to reserve -- resolve, and
there are in the EU, but they will be forced to confront the problems
of their unity, or the lack of it, when President Trump stalks about
Nato and you have to pay your own way. What about when President Trump
starts talking about easing the sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.
Angela Merkel were leading the way in terms of Russia and dealing with
Ukraine. These are red button issues for Europe in terms of values and
principles. They cannot left then drift away. I suspect if Marine Le
Pen doesn't win, if Francois Phil on might have a chance, that will be
the key moment in which we could see a real change in Europe, especially
on defence and security issues. France is very keen. That will also
have a strong influence on Brexit negotiations. We have one minute
left. I wanted to ask you if we'd missed what could be the scariest
story of the year, which is China, North Korea, South Korea, relations
there and Donald Trump's attitude to China. We don't know what he will
do, but it is interesting. And his attitude to nuclear proliferation,
where has attitude has been its no problem. Will it change in the Oval
Office? We don't know, he hasn't clarified his view. He was very
robust about North Korea. Judging from his tweets rather than major
policy statement. Whatever Obama told him rattled him on that first
day when Obama first met with him after the election. Trump expresses
a willingness to Japan and South Korea to get nuclear weapons. What
he said would overturn their codes of nonproliferation. On that note,
happy New Year! You can comment on the programme
on Twitter @gavinesler We're back next week
at the same time.