of course i'm not against the u.k. or other countries fighting an influx of dirty money because we all know where the oligarchs in the early one nine hundred ninety s. got their money from with the breakup of the soviet union and a lot of the wealth does this imply to russia ended up in the hands or in seasons because you just brought him up as an example because he's money seems to be quite transparent clint what do you read into a not promote his work this and that being renewed in the u.k. is this a very first of many more refusals to come well you know clearly clearly it's political but what you know what i've said to the government security minister you've got a security minister ok to tackle the money and tackle criminality that that's fair enough but you need to be objective and do it across the board not just russian oligarchs who let's face it virtually a lot of them a quad their wealth in in devious manner in the early ninety nine but also taking on maybe dubious saudi princes money from africa dirty money from africa or in

china so if we are going to tackle the influx of dirty money then we need to do it across the board and it should be for moral reasons for economic reasons it shouldn't be politically motivated and i think the danger really because we only need two individuals i think like political motivations are said to do we agree that in opera mochi skase this is politically moderated rather than. tackling dirty money well i mean the government would would say well they're not saying actually that term and i would have. money was dirty they would say that they were merely looking into his case and there was no decision on that they haven't they haven't said that i remembered his wealth came from those sort of sources i just saying that you know under the new visa rules and needing to look into these cases in more detail but i think i think it's pretty clear that but a lot of all got snubbed. people that have seemed to be close to president putin

have come under increased scrutiny i'm not it's being primarily for political reasons so we need to separate the political motivation for some of these actions and the economic and moral reasons for. this sort of action i mean the city of london needs to be seen to be very clean and that's fair enough but we need to do it on a rational basis noughts and all the purely political basis to see if there is any chance that economic pressure will force u.k. leaders to rethink the sanctions because right now the number stands at ten billion reportedly lost every year due to the anti russian measures well you know i think i am actually opposed to the sanctions against russia entirely for the reason that i don't think sanctions will work if you look at cuba over the last fifty years the sanctions had no impact whatsoever in changing the policy of the leadership of cuba sanctions are useful in terms of bringing people to the negotiating table but

there's no sign actually that the west has any desire to bring brusha russia during negotiating table to to discuss anything and if you look at the sanctions as well if you look at europe european wide the e.u. european countries have something like you know fourteen times more trade with with russia than the united states so for the united states to impose sanctions against russia it's pretty much. economically light decision for them it doesn't really have an impact on their economy it has a big impact upon the european economy as a whole when you have countries like germany the reliant on on german on russian imports of gas under a lot of business with russia who are very concerned about the sanctions and indeed in the new government in italy refuse frankly saying that they think the sanctions against russia should be dropped so again you know the world is changing the days when the united. states just turn around and say you know we're going to impose

sanctions on everyone else needs to fall or those days are coming to a close even had a french minister saying you know that the europeans an awful states the united states there is a different mood and particularly with the trumpet ministration it's becoming more and more difficult for western powers to follow the united states blindly or you'd have the united states pulling out of the paris climate accord you've had them imposing tariffs against the e.u. e.u. station nations and you've also had the united states pulling out of the iran nuclear deal now in the policy britain always followed as i said since the second war with one exception to be and was always followed the united states but it's becoming increasingly difficult even for the u.k. to follow the u.s. in all these issues because the u.k. is saying hold on we don't actually agree and it may well come to a point again with the sanctions where it's the europeans who say look we're not going to go along with these sanctions anymore if that happens i think it's going

to be very difficult if not impossible for the u.k. to try to go it alone on sanctions against russia even if they have the support of the united states i'm going to say about the united states and sanctions it's it's interesting that the i don't think it's don't trump personal preference is very much the preference of the military industrial elite. in the united states to use sanctions and this sort of neo conservative policy against russia and you've got those people around donald trump on by john bolton mathis to our own actually is the moderate in the in the group who have generally a more hostile attitude to russia would like but trump is buying my them the state department the pentagon and also by congress to have a much more hostile attitude towards russia so even if trump wants to change the policy he's finding it then we can talk about that in a second hospital our program but we'll have to take

a short break right now but we'll be back talking to a large member of the house of lords discussing the u.k. russia confrontational and the challenges to a post rex at u.k. has to deal with stay with us. i think the last two interventions military interventions. to those who usually be to listen to. the regime change those who perform it take. them will take a leave but i think. and think we should we all should. we could

execute these a nation that listens to regime change is the those who should exceed the limits but i think the ideal for regime change will be to the issues from outside this is mostly all that. and we're back with lord peter truscott member of the house of lords discussing politics and so i can post it here of welcome back so there are calls from your colleagues like lord waverley lord to kill clooney in the house of lords to and

escalation aimed at russia and to engage in more cooperation dialogue with moscow are there ways is being hurried or are they considered as marginals. well i think i think i'm fortunate the moment is still in the minority their voices on being and you know one encouraging thing for me is that there are more people saying that now than than say a couple of years ago a couple of years ago things were. pretty bad in terms of their research phobia and the rhetoric which was used against russia in the house improve noticeably in the house of lords i think. in the house of commons is a bit more of an uphill struggle but nevertheless there are people increasingly speaking up and saying you know this is all very well but where where is this going to lead us you know where all sanctions going to lead is where is all this rhetoric going to lead us to you know do we want to end up in

a conflict with russia i mean what what's the endgame it doesn't really make sense and at the end of the day you know we should have a dialogue there are many areas where we need to engage quite frankly and then there is also like the culture of discourse and the language that countries use to confront each other why has the diplomatic language used by united kingdom deteriorated so badly i mean the british defense secretary saying russia should shut up that's like a direct quote the foreign secretary comparing the world cup to killer so lympics and those are moves that can only result in knowing and outraging the other side is that one's true goal in this game all are there's just random blunders. well you know i mean i agree that that sort of language is thoroughly on except the anyone who knows anything about russian history would find those remarks. referring to nazi germany and comparing washington also germany is just beyond the pale and i i

think really that those ministers should be reined in and that sort of language is not acceptable what i think it's all about it's the it's a political posturing and you have boris johnson and we the the the the defense secretary posturing really trying to put themselves. at the head of the party in the public limelight and i think really that's what it's about when it comes to foreign sector in the different defense sector it's about political posturing rather than anything else. so you're saying while ukase adopting a confrontational stance talking tough and gathering backers against moscow some of its allies like italy adopting a more pragmatic strategy comfort on one issue cooperation and other like in the middle east for instance is the united kingdom shutting itself out of solutions to global problems by antagonizing the russians to the point of not being able to work with them at all on anything it will on mutually beneficial issues i think it is to

a certain extent not something that i've been saying for quite a while but if you want to have a serious influence on events in places like syria then you need to constructively engage with russia and i think all this sort of rhetoric that we've heard from the defense sector in the foreign sector doesn't really help that we should be working together to solve international issues argue we should be fine where we disagree if we think the things that are happening that we don't approve of then we can we can say about but there's one thing about being frank. but you can use diplomatic language and be frank and this is another thing about using hysterical rhetoric and not engaging the tool and i think the u.k. at the moment is sort of roll the cloning tools the lesser all the forma so how does through estimates forging a european league of anti russian measures go with her taking the u.k. out of the e.u. how easy will it be for the u.k. to pressure it either here or pay nations to fall london's live after it makes

a heart break said which is to course now right. well i will haul bricks it off right so it will have to stay and somebody was lying there won't be bricks at all because it's such a shambles but let's see how about one guys but one least clear is that britain at the end of the day is a medium sized power it punches above its weight at the moment but it also has a certain amount of influence because it's within the e.u. when it leaves the e.u. pretty sure it will the next year it's going to be on its own with the with the e.u. and the weight of the e.u. behind it so it's going to find it more difficult i think to have influence in the world and if if it sort of tries to isolate countries like russia and doesn't sort of engage with them it will be seeing that its own position is weak and the end of the russia as a nuclear state member of the permanent five on the u.n.

security council and it makes sense to engage with with russia the whole thing about bret's it is that britain has to find a new role in the world and in that case and it has to be engaging with emerging economies has to be engaging with with countries like russia and some countries that quite frankly in the palm. it hasn't really taken very much care about when it comes to diplomatic relations you know funny enough that many officials in the current u.k. government have said that the u.k. safer in the you because a moscow secured this russian thread be used to actually justify slowing down or even doing a complete u. turn on the access. no i don't really see that happening at all quite frankly if we stay within the e.u. it will be for political reasons it's unlikely but it will be because the government falls in the u.k. because it doesn't have the votes needed to push through its its version of brecht's it whatever that comes to be and then there is another general election

where all the parties promise a second referendum on membership with that to happen and then that to take place and the british people vote not to come out of the e.u. then we would stay within the e.u. a result of that but i think the likelihood of happening at the moment is not probable but it is still possible and that's the only way that the u.k. would stay within the european union so i london is searching for support inside the e.u. many voters who put the current government in place are distrustful towards the block how well teressa may deal with the contradiction contradiction. well she's finding it difficult at the moment i don't think she can that's the problem because there are just so many different views on how this should be dealt with i mean the brics it is within the camp won't basically to cut free of the the customs union the single market and for britain to get to go on its own to make these trade deals

across the world but i think the problem is that majority of our trade is with the european union and some of these other countries that supposedly we should go from a new deals with like the united states already showing us that they're going to push us to make very tough deals to accept a lot of things that we don't want to accept currently so i think there is this problem at the heart of the debate the moment breakfast is one thing the future for britain which is very difficult to achieve another pragmatist saying we need to maintain strong links with the e.u. say through a customs union which the bracks that is won't accept so that is the that is within the conservative party and within the cabinet and then you look at polymer the whole and the there are divisions there so it's something that is very difficult to achieve for the.