Skip to main content

tv   Sophie Co  RT  June 17, 2019 1:30am-2:01am EDT

1:30 am
a very clear pro european consensus between 4 political families the popular party the socialists the greens and the liberals now when it comes to the minority that 25 percent minority on the nationalist side in a sense precisely because they are nationalist and being nationalists they're not particularly good at cooperating internationally by definition actually not only is it numerically relatively contained minority but it is also one that is unable to work together i think we have already seen the 1st instance of this was there so we need the leader of the league in italy that essentially tried to unite the national minister of the populists to that extreme right but failed to do so i don't think is going to be able to do it and he has been very demonstrated that he's been unable to do so particularly by failing to reach an agreement with poland
1:31 am
incidentally russia was the main source of that disagreements because of course populist and nationalist disagree on most issues i mean being russia of course being one example bit migration. territory and fiscal policy in every single domain in every major domain of european policy they're actually at loggerheads with one another so this is a big topic the whole they need dream of creating this platform because he already has france and germany is alternative for germany party. and with quality but he's hoping for hungary's fidesz to join and for agis party do you think that could happen well firstly ferocious party is not going to stay there for a very long. service by. this year the u.k. is out and therefore i would say is it really that we can talk about it because we don't know. oh now because i know the test case that turns them
1:32 am
a resigned after the bracks a deal failed and he's saying now that there's a 30 percent chance that it may not happen and all well to be honest i think that they would have to be something very significant taking place in the united kingdom and by very significant i mean a call before the 31st of october either for a 2nd referendum all for a general election for the e.u. to allow for 2nd postponement of the deadline i think unless something so dramatic happens i think even in a no deal outcome the rest of you the 27 will see the u.k. out so i i actually think that with reserve may hours with the picture with a radicalization within the conservative party in the united kingdom this is actually increased the chances of the no deal i guess it. really has been saying that bracks said in no way heard stay you actually going to hurt the u.k.
1:33 am
it's going to be isolated now but i still wonder how is it not hurting you because it is like a strong military power within the you 2nd largest economy within the you how can it possibly not affect the un our well i think that the main way in which it does affect the e.u. has already happened so the big blow for that you actually took place in 2016 with the with the referendum and that was the moment in which you know the rest of the world looks at the european union and saw this as an edifice that looked like it was crumbling in the sense we've already got i just did that pain that cost now the big pain is actually on the u.k. more than on the e.u. because the i think the way in which the rest of the world and certainly the way in which the $27.00 the looking at this is what a bloody mess the brits have made out of this with themselves we have. surely we
1:34 am
meaning the $27.00 managed to remain surprisingly i would add united on this front so i guess what i'm saying is that we've already digested the cost now the big cost to be paid is really on the u.k. side not the rest of the e.u. i want to go back a little bit elections because there were so and to some pain. people were so divided about it. the crank coalition in the parliament is sort of now dead what does this mean is it going to be harder for the union to take consolidated decisions or not. no i don't think it will be harder i think it means 2 things one remains not fundamentally different from the past and what i mean by this is that those 4 political families from the popular party socialist greens and liberals are not new political families all 4 were already present in the european parliament and in the european parliament the way in which decisions are taken are
1:35 am
very much issue based and depending on what the issue is actually already in the past you have coalition forming that even went beyond the solide sort of popular party socialist bloc if you are of the past so in a sense on one level it's close in quotes more of the same these are 4 families that are used to working with each other on another indeed it is different from the past because it is not a 2 party majority it's a full party party 3 or 4 party majority but that in my view adds a new dynamism i mean unless one starts from the assumption that everything was perfect as it was and i said to me to share that assumption so if one believes that actually a degree of renewal a new dynamism is actually necessary the fact that 2 major parties lost their majority and now have to work more dynamically across 3 or 4 political families in my view is good news. what do you make of the far right success it's not
1:36 am
considerable it's not what people expected but it's still there you can't completely disregard it what does it mean in terms of the e.u. policy. frankly speaking nothing so you hear just a very skeptical and very skeptical ironic to nothing thing i do think that whereas this current institutional political cycle. the strength of that mind already as i said negligible what i do believe is that this is really the opportunity for the next 5 years to tackle some of the root causes lead to. we leave this place disregard completely that there was this surge in many countries. and people were just coming out in the streets and saying we're not ok with. the system that was in place before every almost every country in europe
1:37 am
is our last you know you are right in fact it's in the united states internationally this is this is basically the story about the quote unquote losers of globalization this is what this is after it's not about the european union really it's about growing inequality is so it's a russia story it's the u.s. story it's a china story and it's an e.u. story so those are the issues that have to be tackled what do you make in terms of the you what do you think are the main changes that should take place so that what you fear for right or for a left turn take over well basically i think you know it is about having a european union that is a more social union that basically adds on to the current monetary union set up to the current single market set up not only a completion of the euro zone through a fiscal and a political union but also added to it single market dimension more social
1:38 am
measures you know a european unemployment benefits scheme i mean you know things that basically are giving where 72 of the states in terms of making the. sessions especially when it comes to foreign policy because a lot of a lot of these debates also came down to migration and not being able to you know make your own decisions whether you want to let people they are in or not. do you think that would help given while at the moment the problem is exactly the opposite meaning the member states have complete sovereignty when it comes a lot of them would argue that you know technically speaking legally speaking the competence is not a new competence it's a member state competence if we take my country it's really what is my country asking for it's not asking for repatriation of competences or migration it's actually asking for exactly the opposite europeanization of responsibility when it comes to migration but then you take hungary and it's asking for
1:39 am
a different think it's asking for a different thing and it has it it has had its pursuit its own independent migration policy and it hasn't allowed anyone in so hungry has pursued what it wants. what do you make of this idea because i heard that a people in europe when it comes to national elections they tend to vote for the traditional parties because they directly impact their lives and then when it comes to elections they sort of have this out of the box thinking going on and that's where actually they're saying that national for irish does what it does in britain but not so much in in the e.u. parliament what do you make of this idea i mean i think there is some truth in it in a sense some new political ideas are being tested out in the european elections i think this is actually one of the things that makes the european elections so interesting you know beyond the fact that they are the 2nd largest democratic elections in the
1:40 am
world after india see there's a question of scale that makes them so significant but also this idea indeed of testing testing out new ideas because indeed your. peon level you don't only have the traditional if you like left right horizontal divide you also have very significantly a new vertical divide that is really characterizing a lot of 20th century politics which is really one between the open and the close and so translated in the european level it is about being pro european or euro skeptic so i think this is one of the things that makes them very interesting on the specific point about the united kingdom though i think that whereas you're absolutely right in the past raj did make. a much stronger shows showing that european elections rob the national elections i think in this specific specific european election it is more a story about an implosion of the conservative party which may also be therefore
1:41 am
reflected in new general elections if they were held. in a short time span and more broadly i would add this is about an implosion of the political system in the united kingdom really triggered by the disastrous conduct on their side of the whole break that affair now is going to take a short break right now when we're back will continue talking to not only touchy special advisor to use foreign policy chief eddie compass get any stay with us.
1:42 am
we had one man 3540 years old. this child in the water. some 30 fisherman later in this left. i guess the. elements you want to take and i thought my feet were stubborn and what the most. i believe that this is one of the therapy is. tom. absurd it's really harsh things that happen in life ringback. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to
1:43 am
guests of the world the politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. you know world of big partisan movies a lot and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the back and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks.
1:44 am
and we're back with natalie attach a special advisor to ears foreign policy chief and that he cannot get any natalie what about the transatlantic relations i mean they have had their ups and downs averse and came to their office ironically and now he's actually sympathetic to the euro skeptics and to the whole populist party wave. do you think maybe this whole far a populist parties gains were actually have a good effect in terms of e.u. american relations now. well not really because they're not in charge you know out of 28 member states you basically have only 3 that have governments being represented by nationalists one of these 3 poland has actually a very close relationship with charms united states in the case of its early i
1:45 am
think you know so so aren't in the case of hungry clothes the hungry frankly speaking is a fairly small country. whereas you know all the 25 member states are actually being governed by parties that have a completely different view you know all of populism of nationalism and consequently of the trumpet ministration. 3000000 he has said that you will continue this thing defense cooperation between the member states and at this point pentagon it was just like you if you shuts out the americans american companies out of defense contracts then washington will retaliate do you think you will stick to its gun when it comes to defense contracts i think that we don't have much of a choice i think we have to this is really about quite aside from the trumpet administration
1:46 am
a structural transformation which is going on in the world really. and it is clear that in a world in which there are the americans that the chinese the indians the russians etc europeans can only really be a player at that global top table by standing united and we are already united on the economic front and we increasingly understand that we have to do so also on the defense front let me be very clear this is not in order to be protectionist or not talking you know when we talk about autonomy as an ambition as a goal it is really basically the bottom line is having the ability to act now it's part of our d.n.a. to try and act together with our partners whenever and wherever we can but what if our partners don't want to act with us then we need to feel we feel we need to have the ability to act on the road so the big question whether you can act on your own or now is the iran deal so right now rouhani saying that you know i'm going to
1:47 am
withdraw from a. distance for and show some courage. to sing this is a last warning to the u.g. do you think tehran is actually serious about quitting the deal. i think all i can say about this is putting myself in iranian shoes and if i and the reigning decision maker i would probably be making these threats rightly so i mean it's clear that if one side of a contract lives up to their commitments meaning around and the other side meaning the other 3 plus 3 and obviously this includes russia as well it's only fair for one side to say hang on you know if you continue acting this way i'm going to pull out now having said that i also think that it would be actually fairly irrational for iran to leave the j.c. pure way before 2020. simply because. it is basically
1:48 am
what a year in a few months time before there could be a change in the united states or not or not i mean need if they aren't syria is not there indeed if i were and i would probably not stick with the j.c. pure way. because indeed this as i said the social contract can only hold of both sides live up to the bargain that many analysts are saying that rouhani is behaving this way because he wants to accept some pressure on the you do you think tehran's expectations are legitimate absolutely can he do something to actually move you. know there has been some movement at the point is that we're talking about something which is very complicated take nicky's well as politically i mean essential in this by the way is not just a new affair i mean when the e.u. tries to set up an inspection mechanism this is not only to allow the trade between
1:49 am
the e.u. and iran without being subject to extra territorial sanctions it is also a mechanism eventually to allow for other actors to do the same without being hit by u.s. excretory general sanctions and this also includes russia and china so this is. in my view really part of a much much bigger story that goes beyond around it goes beyond the middle east it goes beyond nonproliferation and which does not only concern europeans it includes all international actors because today we're talking about in terms of u.s. extraterritorial sanctions on iran what if the struggle the rivalry the competition the contest between the united states and china boils to the point where the u.s. decides to impose extraterritorial sanctions on china. what precisely 7 and what how what does this mean in terms of our trade in terms of your trade in terms of everyone's trade so russia can care less you know that it is continues trading with
1:50 am
iran and likely where she has its own oil so it doesn't need to trade. as much as the arabians expected it to do to be cautious but still doesn't go along with american line of but the europeans like you a lot of them were outraged and like you know this is not in our interest to scrap this deal so we're going to continue doing our thing with iran but then you know when americans are slapping sanctions from what i understand most of the major companies are wrapping up and even with this is what i mean the point is how to create a global investment climate there in juices companies to make those investments even in the event of u.s. extraterritorial sanctions so obviously you're absolutely right there are more european count companies in the situation than russian companies but this is the facts everyone and you know of course governments cannot point guards at the heads of companies forcing them to do so what we have to try and do is to create an
1:51 am
international investment and trading environment that allows for companies to freely engage in those investments and trade without being unduly punished for it. i know that you've been saying u.s. and europe have very different jack. ron. sort of seeking to contain iran's nuclear program and america wants regime change in iran so trump obviously who very often changes his mind now says that actually iran could be a great economy under romney and he has and want regime change there why don't you trust him well because perhaps he should try and change his national security adviser that very clearly has a very different position on this one where he has a lot of disagreements with a lot of people within the administration but as of today you've got to give it to him he does what he wants to do i think unfortunately on iran he's actually been led into a very different direction as i said particularly by joe bolton who's positions on
1:52 am
iran date back way way way or you know further down sort of back the line you know in the bush 2 administration even earlier. so unfortunately at the moment it seems to me that the u.s. is iran policy houser very clear author and that author is not the president of the united states so china and america are always the going guy they're like in the midst of a fiercest trade war but europe has its own thing going on with america what is america does slap europe with terrors what's going to happen. i think you know on this are i feel fairly in fact very confident. as i said on trade europe is an actor and this is an actor to be reckoned with you know i think that whereas you know if we're talking about defense if we're talking about other
1:53 am
policy areas it is still a very asymmetrical relationship i think this is not the case on trait so ultimately all i can say is that europeans would respond and would retaliate but he also has its own. has to do with china can afford to actually be at odds with the 2 largest economies in the world well that's that's why i think that ultimately less the us facts completely irrational moody it will have to back down and change its strategy on trade what about the whole one belt on road i know that america is very much against it because it feels like it would give china not only economic power all around the world but also jam political power europe is reluctant to follow them merican hard line. it's reluctant to follow it in the same way but i do think that there has been a change of heart in europe with respect to the belton road and maybe it was the
1:54 am
same position but i guess you know there has also been some change in with the national itself once upon a time we used to look at belton road as being a purely geo economic endeavor. yes china pursued a geo strategic agenda in east asia but basically when it came to you know china's policies westwards this was basically about geo economics i think now we begin to see far more clearly the belton road yes is a jack a moment project but it has a very clear geo strategic intent reverend that we're ready see that it is basically a means of establishing and consolidating and expanding influence and then you really asks and thing in return you know as a political regime change or anything like that you will marry because it is what it does ask for things i mean look at the way in which china has tried to act
1:55 am
in a very typical divide and rule fashion in winning over some european countries with respect to its position on the south china sea so it does not simply look at it through an economic lens is tries to use that economic advantage for political and strategic ends as well and i think this is something that we're beginning to understand far more than we did which is why there is a far greater understanding of the need for us to be united visibly china because of course it is very easy for china to aaa its game and therefore the 17 plus one and various other initiatives where it's in our interests of course not to block china off and it's in our huge economic interests to bring china in but to do so in order to stay. around on a par with china economically and therefore also geo politically by standing united and i know that you want to act as
1:56 am
a united front when it comes to one vote one ballot some member states are saying. you know sign the contracts with presidency on our own what do you think it is that this is always been the case i mean this tension between you know acting uniting and acting bilaterally has always been at the heart of european integration but i think it's a changing balance in favor of greater unity not because we all agree with each other and love each other but because we understand that unless we do we are all liable to lose out so it is not you know a point in which you know yesterday it was like rats and tomorrow it's going to be like this is that changing balance of the changing story but i think the direction of travel is towards greater unity rather than towards greater disintegration of fragmentation as i thank you very much for this into 98 luck with everything.
1:57 am
paradise with. the experimentation field cultural chemical we know that these chemicals have consequences they are major there's no question otherwise why would the company workers themselves be. locals attempt to combat the on regulated experiments that often. and you have many obese people one foot into the biotech pharma and the other foot in the government regulatory bodies this kind of collusion is reprehensible while the battle goes on the chemicals
1:58 am
continue to poison hawaii and its people so one has to ask the question whether there is a form of environmental research going on in hawaii whether these companies feel they can get away with this because the people have less political power. and. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy in front ation let it be an arms race is on off and spearing dramatic development only mostly i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time time to sit down and talk. we came here where did you work before you came here when you live well death row
1:59 am
in many us states capital punishment is still practiced convicted prisoners can spend years waiting for execution but most of the time the victims' families they are very much in favor the death penalty there are some people because of what they did have given up the right to live among us somebody even proven innocent off 2 years on death row and how many more exonerations is it going to take before we as a society realize that this is not working and we actually do something about. ha ha ha ah. ah. ah.
2:00 am
thank. the u.s. . all options on the table for a running clearing military action over a terrans alleged. victims of forced sterilization in japan appealing for compensation saying it's not enough for the suffering of. a relative of a victim. of her car was when i knew something was very wrong. donald trump continues his battle with the new york times he's now accused the paper of treason for publishing an article about u.s. cyber attacks on russia's electric power grid.

10 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on