Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well Ladies and Gentlemen, great to see that, despite the lovely weather, we’ve got such a great turnout and I would expect no less, with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, with us today. But let me just say, this is the 2018 John C Whitehead Lecture, and I’m delighted, Mr Blair, that you would take the time and come and give this lecture, on behalf of what was a remarkable individual. John Whitehead, known to a few of you here, but we’ve had the pleasure of having a number of lectures in his honour, since I’ve been here and it started before my time at Chatham House, including one of your predecessors, Sir John Major, who gave this lecture in 2011.
But John Whitehead was part of that generation that really helped build the Liberal International Order, the rules-based order was that phrase that’s often described, during his time. He was in the US Navy, commanded one of the landing craft that landed on Omaha Beach in D-Day, did he MBA at Harvard, had a very successful career in Goldman Sachs, retiring as Co-Chairman, became Chairman, retired as Co-Chairman and then, as they do in America, went into Government and became Deputy Secretary of State, under George Shultz in the Reagan Administration, where he developed a very close relationship with Peter Carrington, who at that point, was NATO Secretary General. And Peter Carrington was very involved with Chatham House and through that, the connection was established here. And as one of those individuals, who believed in the centrality of the transatlantic relationship, the US-UK relationship as being fundamental to a peaceful international order. Again, I think the timing of this speech, that you’ll be giving and this lecture that you’ll be giving, Mr Blair, could not be better.
Tony Blair, obviously, I don’t need to introduce at all. Such a convenient thing, not to have to give a long introduction. But Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1997 to 2007, I believe, still of the only Labour Party Leader, in its 100 year history, to have been – to have won three consecutive elections, but somebody who was really at the crucible of international politics and international affairs. Developed some isms, liberal interventionism, amongst them, but somebody who’s continued his work post-government on some of the big challenges of globalisation in particular, and you may not be calling your speech, In Defence of Globalisation, but that’s what we have up here. I really cannot think of anyone better placed to take a look back and forward at the challenges of this remarkable period, ‘cause I would think the globalisation heyday in a way, was, when you were Prime Minister, 97 to 2007 was when things really took off. 100s of millions of people brought out of poverty and integration of the global economy.
We’re now living obviously, in a very different environment, Mr Blair, and we really look forward to your remarks. This is obviously on the record. We want to welcome all of our members and guests. This is being livestreamed as well. We’ll have a good opportunity for question and answer after this. But for the moment, thank you very much for joining us and for giving us the John C Whitehead Lecture 2018. Mr Tony Blair [applause].
Tony Blair
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Robin, it’s a great pleasure to be here with you at Chatham House. I was asking Robin, actually, about the origin of the phrase ‘Chatham House Rules’ and he was explaining to me, that it was developed to allow people to speak completely frankly and non-attributory. Nowadays, we’ve just got Boris really, and that’s – but it’s a wonderful institution and I’m very proud to be giving this lecture. I actually met John C Whitehead, a couple of times. He was an extraordinary man, a great man actually, a brilliant entrepreneur, a true public servant, and a dedicated advocate for Western Values and the Transatlantic Alliance. He also kept going strong, until his death at the age of 92, which, as I get older, I, kind of, like those examples. So, it’s a great honour to give this lecture in his name.
Globalisation and its advocates are on the backfoot. Populism of left and right meet at a certain point in denunciation of free trade arrangements, migration and international alliances. All are portrayed as contrary to putting individual national interests first. The populist wave that’s upending Western politics shows no sign of abating. Italy proves that. It’s difficult to predict whether we’re at the crest of the wave, which will soon subside, or whether it is still building its momentum. I fear it is the latter. Much will depend on the state of the global economy and here, reasonable people differ. Some think it is growing strongly and interest rates should rise in acknowledgment, others think fundamental weaknesses remain and the world could tip back into recession.
Immigration is the most obvious political gamechanger, certainly in Europe. Stagnant incomes for a significant part of the population reinforce the sense of political alienation. Technology has suddenly become perceived as a threat as much as a benefit. We live in a world of accelerating change, where people feel their lives are being changed by forces and interests beyond their control. The politics of pessimism are the fashion.
Once it’s clear the populism isn’t working, because ultimately, it offers only expressions of anger, and not effective answers, the populous may double down, alleging that failure is the result of half-heartedness and that only more of the same will work. Who knows where the dynamic of that scenario takes us. Then the comparisons with the 1930s no longer seem quite so far-fetched.
So, this is a moment in time when we must remake the case, for reason based politics, with a correct analysis of why the world’s changing and how we can navigate our way through that change to the advancement of our people and the reignition of the politics of optimism. Things we take for granted must be reargued from first principles, why protectionism is bad, why properly managed migration is good, why the technological revolution can bring enormous gains and its displacement impact surmounted. Why the Transatlantic Alliance is as relevant today as ever and why globalisation is a force driven primarily, not by Governments, but by people and resisting it, is dangerous. But this must be accompanied by a stark commitment to deal effectively with the grievances driving the discontent.
There is an absurd parody on both far left and right, that globalisation is a project of the political elite. Dictionary definitions of globalisation are strangely unsatisfactory, but in a colloquial sense, we can say it stands for the coming down of barriers of nation, race, trade and culture, a world coming together, mixing more, integrating more, in experience and lifestyle.
The forces that drive this process are cheap travel, interconnectedness through technology, which allows us to see how others are living and thinking, which, in turn, makes migration more attractive, and the desire on the part of people for quality, but inexpensive consumer goods. Government can, in varying degrees, enable or hinder this process, but the idea that Government created it, or can stop it, is fantasy. Moreover, there is no doubt what decades of opening up have done for the world. The world has become more prosperous. You don’t have to agree with all the commentary in the books by Rosling and Pinker, to accept, that the facts are clear.
Another parody is that those who believe Governments should enable and not hinder this process of globalisation, somehow also believe that globalisation should not only be unhindered, but unmanaged. This is to confuse globalisation with laissez-faire. It is a charge often repeated about my Government, the unpresented investment we made in public services in the poorest communities, all whilst keeping borrowing levels below that of the previous Conservative Government. The minimum wage and a host of other labour rights, major reforms in tax and benefits and the development of the university sector is critical to future industrial policy. They are ample testament to how fatuous this charge is and of course, that in Government today, in the post the financial crisis, I would be doing much more and doing it differently in areas like infrastructure, education, skills, welfare and preparation for our future, particularly in respect of the coming technological revolution.
The interdependence of the world is not a policy, it’s a reality. But it has consequences, which need to be managed, not by market forces, but by a reformed Government structure, which is strategic and empowering. Even regarding the financial crisis, I would urge caution in learning the right lessons not the wrong ones. This was a failure of understanding about the modern global economy and its new financial instruments, combined with an irresponsibility on the part of some of the players in it. So we learn and adjust the regulatory framework accordingly. But it neither invalidates the overall importance of markets nor free-flowing global finance, as a necessary part of them.
Likewise, there is little doubt that protectionism harms prosperity, that is the one unequivocal lesson actually, of the 1930s. The tariff measures today of the USA aimed at China, have an origin which is understandable, it’s true, China needs to open its markets and abide by the rules on technology transfer. There may well be reforms of NAFTA and if used to do with USA-Europe trade which are legitimate. However, the manner in which these concerns are pursued, affect crucially, the climate for international trade. Pursued as part of the dialogue about how the international trading system can be reformed, they can lead to trade which is fairer, and still free. Pursued unilaterally as a straightforward assertion of national interest, they can trigger a chain reaction, which can do profound harm to the international order of trade.
This is where the Transatlantic Alliance has never been more needed. The unipolar world, of the late 20th Century, is giving way to a multipolar one. The emergence of China is the new geopolitical fact, the ramifications of which, we’re only beginning to comprehend. Russia’s economy may be only 60% of the size of the UK’s, but Russia has shown remarkable resilience in reinventing its military and security capability. All round the world, there is a new model of Government competing with our notion of Western democracy. This strongman model of Government, claims to be more effective, more productive, less decadent, less paralysed than ours and it has its admirers and imitators in the West.
It treats democracy, not as the cause, but as the game, where the smart people flout the rules rather than play by them. America is described traditionally as the Leader of the Free World, Europe its partner. This Transatlantic Alliance is different from any other, because it is explicitly an alliance of values, as well as in our own self-interest. It has created the societies we now live in, which for all their faults, are still those most people round the world aspire to. I always say it’s a great test of any country, are people trying to get into it or out of it? We know the answer in our own case.
Rule of law, free speech, an independent media, the right to elect those who govern you, basic elements of social solidarity and decency and a Rules-Based International Order. We don’t always fulfil these goals, but we have always accepted, we should try to. Yet, these are contested positions in the multipolar world of today.
The Transatlantic Alliance is the bedrock of our values system and way of life. Yet, the right wing relegation of it as secondary to national interest, rather than part of it, and the kneejerk, left wing reaction against anything American-led is leaving this alliance in danger of fracture. This will damage both of us.
Of course, there could be disputes, as over trade, commitment to NATO spending, how to tackle the Middle East or climate change. Friends could disagree, but we need to know from the current American Administration and its President, that our Alliance matters, that it is regarded historically and for today, as a vital American strategic interest. And leading European Governments, if they’re given that visible and clear reassurance, need to respond in kind. We need leaders both sides of the water, explaining the importance and seeking ways of strengthening this alliance.
Inevitably, we then come to Brexit. I’m afraid I get bored of people telling me they’re bored of it. If it is by consensus the most important decision we’ve taken as a country since World War II, then our preoccupation with it must continue, until one way or another, it is finally decided. The debate on Brexit has naturally focused on the economic fallout. But the political effect of Britain leaving the European Union may be worse.
At a stroke, Britain loses its position in the world’s largest commercial market and biggest political union. America loses its foremost ally in the European Union, which has often been a bridge between the two sides of the Alliance and of course, the Brexiters will argue that Britain can still be the USA’s greatest ally outside the EU. But examine the reality, since the Referendum, does Britain feel closer to the USA? Is the relationship stronger? On a global issue, who is the American President calling first on the continent of Europe? The British Prime Minister?
As for the USA, the reason why any American President should be strongly supporting the European Union is absolutely topical, the here and now, not old-fashioned sentiment. In a world where population and GDP and therefore, global power become realigned, whereby the middle of the 21st Century, India’s economy, never mind China’s, will be several times the size of Germany’s. America needs Europe, united and standing with it, not isolated as individual nations, able to be picked off, one-by-one by the new emergent powers.
The only people who gain from the fracturing of the Transatlantic Alliance, are America’s rivals or adversaries. I do not believe this is the desire of the present administration, but too many Europeans do. This feeling needs to be countered with vigour and urgency. Some, in America, think Brexit will boost the American Alliance. This exposes the contradiction at the core of the Brexit coalition, which is, the reason for the mess we find ourselves in and it’s important our allies understand it.
The intellectual driving force behind Brexit, is a mix of nationalism and ultraliberalism. These are people on the right of politics who think Thatcherism is incomplete. They want out of Europe because they think it bureaucratic and overly-regulated. They want a Brexit where we sell ourselves to the world as not Europe, changing our economy so that it becomes attractive for investment, despite our exit from our main market, with economic restructuring, deregulation, lower tax and therefore, lower spending and probably, deep reform of public services, including the NHS. Geopolitically, they want an even tighter alliance with the USA. However, the foot soldiers of Brexit, those in Labour areas in the North of England, critical to the Brexit vote, they do not share the liberal part of this vision.
On the contrary, they were persuaded by promises of a crackdown on immigration and more money for the NHS. Neither are they big supporters of even closer ties to America, and I point out the official opposition is opposed even to the American President visiting Britain. The risk for Britain, is that we leave Europe, with a deep unresolved disagreement about what our future, political or economic, should be.
On the one hand, clean break Brexit, is a ten to 15 years’ project. Short to medium-term, the pain will be significant. Presently, we have two service sectors: financial services and technology, where Britain is predominant in Europe. Exclusion from the Single Market will hit both. In time, maybe we can rebuild by making ourselves super-attractive, but it’s going to take years. The statements on the industrial side, from car, pharma and aerospace industries similarly, are not threats, they’re warnings. The essential disingenuousness of the Brexiteers is to pretend leaving is an act of will. The comparison Boris Johnson gave of the Brexit negotiation, to that of President Trump with Kim Jong-Un, betrays a truly shocking misunderstanding of the relative bargaining power of the EU to Britain, with the greatest world power and North Korea.
What we have learnt, since 23rd of June 2016, if we’ve learnt anything, is that after 45 years of intimate trading links with Europe, the disentanglement is complex, intricate and replete with hard choices. The trouble is, the compromise position, favoured by the Cabinet, so-called moderates and Labour, is also unsatisfactory. Supposing we stay in a Customs Union, or in the Single Market, or in some version of them. Supposing, this is apparently one proposal, we end up in the Single Market for goods, then we will have to abide by Europe’s rules, adjudicated by the ECJ for the sector where we have a huge deficit with the EU, but remain shut out of the service sector, where we have a massive surplus.
This so-called, soft Brexit, will leave us half in and half out, with no great increase in flexibility and without a say, a curious way of taking back control. It is, of course, preferable to a hard Brexit, but does it genuinely honour the Brexit mandate?
Business agreement is fundamental, it’s why the Cabinet has not yet reached a negotiating position. Up to now, the negotiation with Europe has been conducted by Civil Servants in a state of despair, overseen by Politicians in a state of denial. We cannot go on like this. I have never been more worried about the future of our country than now, with competing emotions, frankly, of anxiety and rage. We have a Government, whose every move is a calculation, not about the interests of the nation, but the internal balance of advantage between the factions of the Conservative Party, with the Prime Minister more a hostage than a leader. And meanwhile, the leader of the Labour Party neglects to lead the fight here at home, over an issue, which literally determines the future of Britain and where he could play a decisive role.
Parliament, therefore must assert itself, because neither Government nor opposition, can or will. Then the people must make the final decision, because only they have the right to decide what version of Brexit they want or whether, in the light of all they now know, they prefer to remain. But the present impasse is imperilling our economy, our international standing and our alliances. Crashing out with no agreement would deal Britain a devastating blow. Therefore, we should plan now for the possibility. We need to extend the March 2019 deadline.
Presently, we are drifting towards March 2019, with no clear negotiated position, no resolution of the Northern Ireland question, still vaguely hoping that Europe will allow us access to the Single Market, without abiding by its rules, which it will never do, and with Senior Cabinet Members opening debating the merits of a negotiating decision, which threatens Europe with a no-deal Brexit, which is the equivalent of holding a negotiation on the top floor of a high rise building and threatening to jump out of the window, if our demands are not met.
The whole thing has become so protracted, it has numbed our outrage and because of the distractive impact of Brexit, the challenges facing the country, from the violence on our streets to the decline of the NHS, receive not a fraction of the attention they need. But the risk for our allies is also grave. A weaker Britain means a weaker Europe, which means a weaker alliance with America and therefore, a world in which the cause of Western democracy itself is weakened.
Brexit has become a metaphor for the debate around globalisation. The only way out of the cul-de-sac of populism, is to understand that the case for globalisation will not succeed, unless we deal with the underlying grievances, of that part of the population, for whom globalisation holds more fear than hope. But it’s possible to do this. Europe and Britain could strike a bargain, which would see Europe reforming, which the European people, plainly by their votes, are demanding and Britain staying in such a Europe.
For Europe, as well as Britain, this means dealing with the immigration issue decisively and for all nations, it will require more active Government intervention, helping people in communities left behind. Those in the centre ground of politics, centre right, or centre left, must become again the Changemakers, not the Managers of the status quo. This challenge, however, is urgent. We are losing sight of the values which brought the West together, sawed through the menace of Fascism and Communism and for all of the justifiable grievances, has wrought immense progress.
We’re in danger of spoiling the gains of a world opening up through globalisation and putting at risk our democratic mission. This is a fightback which will require self-criticism, new thinking, and a certain muscularity in defence of reason, but in my view, the fightback better begin soon. Thank you [applause].
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well, thank you very much for giving us that lecture. I think it was a two half lecture, is the way I’m going to interpret it, not least because you brought the challenges of globalisation and Brexit firmly together in the second half, and I’ve no doubt, we will get a number of questions on the Brexit element, probably as well, as on the broader issue of globalisation. But to stick to the theme for a minute, if I may, just on one follow-up question, if I may, Mr Blair? You are now, obviously the Executive Chairman of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. Mission: making globalisation work for the many not for the few, and you’ve got a number of areas that you’re working in.
Now, I heard you say one thing in particular there, I wanted to ask you about. Globalisation is not laissez-faire, and you gave an example, the fact that the – under your ten years, the Labour Government was able to both be involved in globalisation and invest massively in public services, the minimum wage was introduced, I mean, there were a number of steps that were taking, as you said, “Square the circle.” But 2007 was the moment where, of course, everything that had been done before turned out to look as if it wasn’t sustainable. So, the financial crisis came in and one interpretation would be, that during that period, Britain was, in fact, living beyond its means. That it was firing on fumes, that in a way, it was participating in globalisation, but those investments that had been made, in the end, were not sustainable, and whether it was the chill winds from the global financial crisis, as started in the US, but we weren’t in a particularly strong way to do it. So, my question to you, how do we in the West, United States, Europe, both engage in globalisation, but make sure we can afford the quality of life, the public services, the welfare state even, that our societies are so determined about? ‘Cause I think people sense those two things actually, don’t hang together, that 97-2007 was a mirage almost. Not your Prime Ministership, but obviously, the – that moment, you know, that, in a way, it’s contained seeds of today, and is that a fair point to make or not?
Tony Blair
Look, I think one of the things that I’ve found, since leaving office, is that, if you don’t go out and define your own period in Government, people define it for you. So, just to point out that there was certainly an argument you could have had and actually, we did have it inside the Government around 2005, that we should probably have physically tightened, rather than kept expansion. But that is – was honestly at the margins. The fact is, we got hit by a big global financial crisis like everyone else. Now, in the end, and actually, as I say, the borrowing, and in my ten years of office, was actually lower than the previous Conservative Government. But in the end, once the financial crisis hit, you have to take the measures out of that and I agree, some of what we’re dealing with is still related to that, because until you return to high levels of growth, you don’t get the employment and the jobs, and so on.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
But we were the global financial crisis, we weren’t hit by it. I mean, our banks were as vulnerable as any others.
Tony Blair
Yeah, but…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
A lot of the deals were done from London.
Tony Blair
Right, but you could say the Americans, the Europeans, were as well.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Exactly.
Tony Blair
I mean, every Government.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
No, no, all of us. No, I meant all of us.
Tony Blair
Right, no, no, absolutely, and so, you – my point is very simple, you adjust from that, you change the regulatory system in the way that you need to. But what we’ve got to ask ourselves today, ‘cause if you look at the levels of unemployment, for example, which in historic terms, would have been the key to saying, “How does the public feel?” Then what we see today is actually, unemployment has not risen, indeed over Europe recently, it’s been falling, and yet, this populism has been on the rise. Now, I think that is attributable to two things, which we need to focus on and deal with.
One is economic malaise, in the sense that, for some people, not all people, there’s been stagnant incomes, cutbacks in public spending have also harmed their general living standards and, you know, there’s a feeling that life is changing very fast, especially with the new technological revolution and are people equipped to deal with it? So, economics is one part of it.
But my own view is that the cultural aspect of this, is as big as the economic, and I think there’s a real risk, particularly from my side of politics, the progressive side, that we, kind of, feel more comfortable talking about the economic and not comfortable talking about the cultural, ‘cause, you know, if you take a country like Poland, for example, it’s quite interesting. ‘Cause populism has grown in Poland, over the last few years, as their economy and real wages have been growing strongly.
So, I think you’ve got to look at this in two ways and essentially, what I am saying is, that globalisation is not the problem. You’re always going to have to manage globalisation and there will be periodic crises of a financial or economic sort, that will happen. What you’ve got to do, if you want to keep support for the basic processes of globalisation that have yielded so much is you have to deal with the economic and the cultural questions and that’s why, you know, these issues of immigration are really important and can’t be ignored.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Just one follow-up, just a take on keeping the globalisation theme. You talked quite a bit about China in the opening half of your remarks. I mean, China seems to be a country that, at the moment, has the perfect blend of sovereignty and openness to globalisation. The bit that they’re leaving out is the democracy bit in the middle and this is where Dani Rodrick and others have commented, that it’s almost an impossible triangle. Sovereignty, democracy and globalisation, because the tough decisions are really difficult to take and yet, people want sovereignty, they want to be part of globalisation, if you’re China, in a way, you’re able to make some tougher calls. I mean, do you think is just really is, we’re going to structurally going to find it very difficult to get through this period?
Tony Blair
Well, I think it’s a really interesting point and I spoke in a conference on democracy in Copenhagen last week where I said, “You know, we’ve got to understand what the challenge to democracy is today. For the first time since the Soviet Union, in the 1950s, said, you know, “Actually, we’re more efficient that you guys. We may be less free,” okay and you can have a debate about that, “but we’re delivering for our people in a way you’re not.” So, for the first time, in a long time, today, you’ve got, what I would call, that sort of strongman concept of Government, is issuing a challenge of efficacy to democracy. “You may be free, but you’re actually useless if you can’t deliver for the people.” And I think the paradox here for the public, is that at one level, I think, the traditional Politicians, particularly with social media today, are just, kind of, they look as if they’re constantly buffeted, rather than driving forward and taking decisions. and therefore, what I think the reason why people feel inclined towards what you might call a kind of Putinist model of Government is ‘cause they think, “Yeah, okay, but at least there’s someone in charge in there. They make the thing move,” and so on.
However, there’s absolutely no reason why you can’t do that in a democratic system, and I think to be fair to Macron, he’s showing that at this present time, and secondly, the trouble with Dictatorships is that however benign they start off, when they become maligned, there’s not much you can do about it. And over a long stretch of time, I think democracy’s proved its worth. But the fact that we’re having this debate by the way, shows you the scale of the challenge. And I think in respect of China, the critical thing is to realise, you know, when I look ahead right now, I’ve got grandchildren, I look ahead to what they’re going to be experiencing, you know, when they’re in their 30s. You know, by 2050, by the middle of this century, you’re effectively going to have three giants: America, China, India because their populations are much, much bigger than other countries. Certainly China and India and America is powerful, for all the reasons of resource, the position that we know. And then you’re going to have some tall countries, who will be, your, kind of, Indonesias and your Mexicos and maybe your Russias, if they sort themselves out. And then you’re going to have medium sized countries, and those are going to be people like us, Germany, France, populations round about 60/70 million. There is no way the medium sized, in a land of giants and tall people, can secure their interests, other than by banding together, otherwise the giants are going to sit on them, because that’s what giants do.
And the reason for Europe – the reason why I always – I keep saying to people, it doesn’t matter what all the problems of Europe are, there is an underlying force, which will keep this European project together, which is to do with China, because the reality – this is why it’s so crazy when you hear these Brexit people say, “We’re going to go off and do these free-trade deals with China and India and America.” You know, you sit across the table with China in the years to come, it’s not disrespectful to our country, just to, kind of, recognise you’re in a new geopolitics. Unless you have force behind you, you can’t make your influence count. And that’s why it’s so im – that the actual geopolitical impact of Britain’s decision is so damaging and why, you know, I still – I may be the only person in the country who believes this, but I still believe that it can and should be stopped.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, we got back – that was like your speech, we started there, we ended up with Brexit. It’s good.
Tony Blair
Sorry, yeah, I know. I can’t help it and it’s a…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
No, but I think there’ll be a lot of interest. There’ll be a lot of interest.
Tony Blair
My apologies.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Let me get a few questions in, and I’ll take a sort of two or three in a group and I will see them, as hands go up. First hand went up at the back I think almost appropriately, from a former Minister I think, actually, so Dennis, you’re right at the back. I’ll come to the front and we’ll take yeah, James.
Member
Robin, Prime Minister, as was, thank you. I think you held the room. You won, probably the argument, but we’ve lost the people. How do we bring them back?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
There’s a nice direct question, and I’ll take three and we’ll – do you want to hold that one for a second?
Tony Blair
Yeah, sure, yeah.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’ll just take three. Yeah, and right at the front, please, here? Microphone right at the very, very, very, very front. Yeah, thank you.
Member
So, there seems to be a, sort of, a two-tiered configuration of governance today. You have what globalisation and what we need through globalisation, but it’s not exactly meeting the needs locally in communities and cities, there seems to be a disconnect there. What are your thoughts on greater devolved powers in countries generally? And also, on the migration, which – issue in Europe, I think will be the disentanglement of Europe, if we don’t handle it, based on more than just organised hypocrisy, what are you thoughts, when you say, “It has to be managed,” what do you mean by that?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay, and James, one more there and then I’ll get – we have plenty of time. Yes, just there, yeah.
Member
Two very quick questions. Some people argue, Mr Blair, that the way to save the International Rules-Based Order, is to reform it, so that it better reflects the current balance of power, that it takes into account, China and India. What do you make of that? Is it possible for that reform to be made, without making compromises on the values that you think that rules-based order currently espouses? And secondly, if you were given the essay title, Global Britain, how would you answer it?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, I’m going to let – that was those three questions and then, I’m going to take about five, I think, so we’ll try – I’ll try and be more disciplined after this, ‘cause they’re all good questions. So, I’ll let you take them in the order you want, and I’ve got to track as well.
Tony Blair
We get the people back, by dealing with the underlying grievances through policies that actually work and then remaking the case for why an open approach is still the best approach and why, you know, if you go to protectionism, isolationism, nativism, it doesn’t work for the people. I mean, look, Dennis, as you – and I remember, we won – we did win three elections in a row, and we governed for longer than the – twice as long as the previous Labour Governments, and one of the reasons we did that, was ‘cause I was always very conscious of the fact we had to keep our traditional base with us.
And that traditional base was often dealing with multiple problems, around education, healthcare and things like law and order, and you will remember when I – you know, one of the ways I sort of, as it were, made my mark in the Labour Party was to say, “The Labour Party had become a party that took the issues of law and order really seriously and then, towards the end of my time, when I could see this immigration thing building, we then put forward a solution on the immigration question, which is around identity cards, which was extremely unpopular at the time and everyone complained about it. But as I said, if you want to deal with it, you have to deal with – take tough measures to do it.
So, I think we gained the people – I’m not sure, you know, this is why I always find it – I mean, I shouldn’t, but, I always find it a trifle, sort of, disturbing when the people that have lost elections, you know, blame their defeat on those of us that won them, but you know, I think, if I was to look self-critically at this point, I would say, for sure, if I was back in Government today, I would be trying to deal with the issues that I could see were moving people today. And even on the issue of Europe, you know, freedom of movement within Europe, where we did miscalculate the numbers of people that came, although I think overall, this has been of enormous benefit for the country, once I saw there were huge problems arising, I would have been dealing with it, I can assure you. And I think the other thing is, we haven’t lost all the people. You know, I think it was 52/48, it wasn’t like 70/30. You know, if you look at the Clinton/Trump vote, in the US, I mean, I’m just – there’s a lot to play for and, you know, I – it’s too early in the Macron Presidency to see, but it seems to me that what that shows you is, that it isn’t impossible, from what I would call a rational centre ground position, to win support. I just think we need to be smart about it.
What we can’t do, and that comes with the second question, is around issues like immigration, you know, you can’t dispute that people are worried about them. And by the way, if you look at – you know, I became aware of this when I was actually on holiday in Sicily a few years back, and it’s about three years ago, and I went into one of the local towns and I saw the local Mayor and then I came back out and you know, ‘cause I’m – for various reasons, have a quite high-profile in Italy. Anyway, it was like a group of people, kind of, assembled, who were saying to me, “What you going to do about this immigration?” I mean, I’m not even the British Prime Minister anymore, never mind – but anyway. So, you know, you ended up having a kind of, you know, constituency meeting…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Town Hall.
Tony Blair
…Town Hall meeting, with a whole lot of people who – but they were really angry and they were angry because they felt there were a whole lot of people coming into their country, they worried that they didn’t necessarily share their values, and they just thought they had no control over this.
Now, these are not unreasonable people. You know, so one of the things you’ve got to – the way of dealing with this immigration thing, is to realise that today, you would get massive support, for Europe controlling its borders much more effectively, which it could do, not leaving the Southern states to deal with this thing on their own, ‘cause they’re not capable of dealing and why should they, ‘cause it’s a European problem? Having much better relations with those countries from which, you know, the migration is coming, and actually, securing agreements for the return of people who are – are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants that the country doesn’t want to take in. I think you will get to a situation, not just – I think this is right for Britain, but right across Europe, where you have to have some form of proof that you’re entitled to be in the country. And I don’t think any of these things are contrary to human rights or the values of Western democracy, on the contrary, I think they’re the way of preserving them. But if you’re not prepared to show you’re going to deal with this immigration question, you’re just going to be left in a situation, where if you don’t deal with it, someone’s going to exploit it, and that’s really, the lesson of the politics for the last few years.
Devolution, I fully support. But honestly, I’m not sure it’s going to be an answer to this problem.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Rules-Based International Order, can we reform it?
Tony Blair
The Chinese and the Indians, the Japanese, they’ve got a case. So, how you do it is very, very difficult. I remember trying and being involved in discussions to reform the UN Security Council and I mean, that is the political equivalent of the Rubik Cube. So, it’s very difficult to do it, but I think we should try to do it, and there’s absolutely no reason why we have to diminish our values in order to do that, but if you’re China and you’re looking at your power and footprint in the world, you think, “Well, why shouldn’t I be of equal status with the other big powers?” I think that’s perfectly reasonable.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
But would you – and I’m thinking of an article that our incoming Chairman, Jim O’Neil put out about a week ago and he said, “Look on the G7, if it is going to be the club of democracies that are big economies, why is it those one? Why not have Brazil or India or Spain in there?” Would you, sort of, pull apart, if you were Prime Minister right now, look at something like the G7 and say, “Well, that was good at one point, but it needs redesigning.” Would you be that radical?
Tony Blair
Yes, I would and I also think one of the reasons why the G20 has assumed importance is precisely because people think the G7 is too limited and it is. It’s totally, you know, American and Europe-based. So, I think – no, I think we should do that. What – Global Britain? Well, if I wanted to advocate for Global Britain, I wouldn’t start by getting out of the main alliance on our doorstep. I think that would be my basic – I don’t know whether I get a – well, it depends who’s marking the paper if I said that. But I mean, oh, it drives me mad when these people talk about this, it’s so ridiculous. I mean, if Britain wants to be a global player today, it’s got to leverage its alliances. One of those is with America, the other is obviously, with the commercial market and political union on its doorstep. And you know, it’s – and the other thing that I find, is this is one of the things that’s really troubling about his whole Brexit business, is that I really do think, that for the people really driving Brexit, this has never been just about getting out of Europe, it’s a two step thing.
You get out of Europe so you can take us down this, you know, ultra-free market path. But what I keep saying to people is, where’s the evidence that the British people are going to vote for this? And the risk is, you do the first step and you never do the second, and you know, one of the things I read in an article by – I think it was the former Policy Director or Chief, in Theresa May’s Office. But it was all about, you know, “We’re going to do Brexit and then here are all these things we want to do for Britain.” Which are basically about fairer capitalism and more spending on the NHS, and so on. So, question number one, why do you need to leave Europe to do any of that? Question number two, I mean, how utterly bonkers is it to leave Europe and then start importing the European Social Model into Britain? I mean, I understand intellectually the argument, you leave Britain ‘cause you hate the social model, which I don’t, but to leave it and then start putting workers on the boards and whatnot, I mean…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, I think what you’re saying is, you wouldn’t start from here, is what I’m…
Tony Blair
Yeah, and no.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, the gentleman here had his hand up very kindly, and I’m going to take a couple from the front. Yes, you, I’ll do a little threesome over there, but I’ll start from there. I will get to you, yeah.
Member
Thank you, a really encouraging and optimistic lecture from yourself, Tony. I’d like to ask, in that vein, about building political consensus, alliance, with people, who I think, from different parties would agree with you. For example, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, even Theresa May, voted to remain and John Major. I think if the public heard from many voices, from different political parties, do you think that would make a difference?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay. Right, the lady at the front and then the gentleman there, yeah, I’ll get to you. Lady at the front, the front, white jacket.
Member
I have two questions. Mr Blair, I wondered if you – you’ve addressed the issue of immigration, in saying what should be done now, I wonder if you bear any sense of personal responsibility for your Government’s failure to implement the measures that were at your disposal, at the time, when freedom of movement began? Yeah.
Henry Mance
Henry Mance from the Financial Times. Are you satisfied with the way that President Trump’s visit to the UK has been handled and how do you think we should judge it’s success?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, we’ll see how this plays out in a minute. Okay and I’m going to get one Ambassadorial question to start with here, yeah, and then we’ll stop. We’ll take that group, yeah.
Member
Thank you.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
And then I’ll come back here.
Euripides L. Enriviades
My name is Euripides, High Commissioner of Cyprus. Prime Minister, thank you very much, insightful clear talks. Two questions: how do you answer the statistics coming from the World Economic Forum and others that 1% of the world’s population basically, is controlling more than 85% of the world’s wealth? Therefore, globalisation hasn’t been fair to all and the rich become richer, the poor become poorer, and all that goes down the line. Do you see also a security aspect in globalisation? Obviously, the Chinese come in and they don’t ask any questions, they invest, we need investments, you wake up one morning and your country isn’t there. Whether these are the Chinese or the Indians or whoever else of the big guys that you talk, and I represent a microstate therefore, I do not know how I fit in this whole global thing, thank you.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
We’ve got a little cluster there. Building political consensus for the first and then…
Tony Blair
Well, my daughter-in-law is a Greek Cypriot, so you’d fit in very much into the Blair family. Sorry. Yes, got you. Okay.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
You’re a little rusty.
Tony Blair
Right, so, on the building of the political consensus, yeah, no, I think we should. I think there should be far more – I mean, on the whole question to do with how you – you know, basically, how you approach, what I would call the openminded view of the world, of which Brexit is a part of that whole debate, yeah, and I’m very happy to work with people from different political parties to do it.
One of the ways, by the way, I think we also build support for, you know, the process of globalisation, is also to show that, you know, one of the dangers of present politics is that it becomes very fractured. I mean, if you look at the situation, both in the US and here, if you’re not careful, you’re going to end up with a fragmented electorate, you know, two groups of people who aren’t really talking with each other, aren’t listening with each other and actually, aren’t liking each other. I think that’s dangerous for democracy long-term and so, the more that there can be some sense that people are prepared reach across the political divide, I think the better, and I personally would support it.
You know, personal responsibility in immigration? So, there are two different things here. One is non-EU immigration and the other is free movement within the EU. It’s very important – which I was trying to explain to Mr Humphrys on the Today Programme, when I could get a word in, this morning. So, the transitional arrangements, when the Eastern Europeans joined the EU in 2004, we could have put them in. It’s important to realise, they wouldn’t have affected freedom of movement. Freedom of movement came in for all of those countries, when they joined the European Union. What we could have had transitional arrangements, in respect of, are the right to work. The worry that we had at the time, first of all, obviously, the economy was roaring ahead strongly, we actually needed people to come in, but the worry at the time was that people would come in, because they were entitled to come in through freedom of movement and then would work, without agreement and actually, Germany, had very similar problems, even though they put in transitional arrangements.
But the other point to make is this, which I think is really important about enlargement. One of the frustrations that Europeans have with our present position is that the two things that British Governments used to fight for in Europe and became frankly, a pain in the collective backside of Europe over, was support the Single Market and support for enlargement. And Single Market – the Single Market was actually created under the Thatcher Government, it was continued by John Major, developed by myself, and it was a great British national interest. So, you can imagine the irritation of the Europeans now, to be told that we want out of that because it doesn’t suit us and then to say, “And what we really don’t like about Europe is the freedom of movement that’s brought people in from Eastern Europe,” when enlargement was again, a major priority of the British Government. And it’s important to restate why we did this.
Think today of the security situation in Eastern Europe in which we hadn’t brought those countries into the European Union. And just to give you one interesting statistic, where people think, because this is why we make payments into the EU today, it’s essentially for structural payments in those poorer European Countries that are now becoming wealthier.
In 2004, our trade with Poland was roughly £3.5 billion, today it’s 13.5 billion. So, it’s not that we lost financially in the end even, over this, and this is why it’s important to take a broad view of this. So, on non-EU immigration, you know, again as I’ve tried to point out this morning, we were taking measures again and again and again on asylum, immigration and so on. And we have – we’re not part of Schengen in Europe, that’s again, one of the bizarre things about Britain. We’ve got an opt-out of the Euro in Schengen. We actually do have the best of both worlds in Europe at the moment. So, you know, we’re entitled to restrict our immigration as we wish. The reason we haven’t is ‘cause we haven’t chosen to, and by the way, the reasons for not bearing down on immigration too much and encouraging at least managed migration is because it does an enormous benefit for our economy. And you know, there’s no modern economy today, that is going to be successful, unless it’s encouraging migrants of talent and ability, to come to our country, and you know, why do you think the Japanese, after years and years and years of saying they don’t want immigration, are now desperately trying to encourage it? It’s for that reason, so…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
And Trump, please?
Tony Blair
Trump, well, is it being handled? Yeah, it’s being handled, is it being handled? I mean, it’s – I think – I mean, first of all, I completely – whatever disagreements Britain might have with the present American Administration, it’s completely sensible that we have the American President here. You know, this is – look, for heaven’s sake, what we can’t do is, do Brexit, and then refuse to meet the American President, that would be – yeah, I mean, you know, come on, these guys – so, we should definitely – of course we should have them here and I think he most important thing is – the most sensible thing, I think what he would want as well, is to focus it on issues. Because even though there are some areas of disagreement, there are plenty of things where Britain and America co-operate very strongly, particularly in security, and where we need to work closely together and you know, I think that’s why I’ve always supported Theresa May in inviting him here and I think that there’s no person who’s ever been Prime Minister, who would ever think it’s sensible not to invite the President of America to visit us.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Mr Blair, if you were sitting in a European Summit meeting today, debating how to respond to President Trump’s imposition of tariffs, would you be among the group saying, “Look, we’ve got to match them tit for tat, this is, kind of, a bully situation and if we don’t – we’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength”? Or would you be saying, “Folks, we’ve got to bite our tongues and don’t escalate, because if we let this go further, actually, the Transatlantic Alliance, which,” as you said, has been so important for this country, “is really going to be under threat”? President Trump is looking to take on the EU, it’s the ideal enemy in a way, weaker and doesn’t fit with some of his values. But would you be arguing, match the sanctions and match the tariffs or would you be arguing for control?
Tony Blair
You can’t let tariffs be slapped on and just sit there passively. I think what I would be trying to do is to pull the American administration at every different level into a dialogue about what they really want. Because, as I say, you know, there are bits of what the administration are doing and saying, and I’m well aware, it’s very hard, ever have a rational conversation about President Trump, but – because, you know, people feel so strongly about it, but there are bits of what the US is saying, for example, about China’s position, which are perfectly justifiable points to make.
The question is, how you deal with them. And I think what I would be trying to do, in relation to Europe is say, “Look, if there are big worries that America has, in respect of Europe and its own barriers to trade, let’s sit down and talk them through.” But if people act unilaterally, they’ve got to know that they can’t – you know, you’re not going to just passively accept that. I think this is one of those – this is an area where, you know, as in so many things, and I think this is why, what often happens to people when – whatever scepticism about Europe they had before they go into Government, most people, when the get into Government, and you start dealing with the reality, you realise, whether it’s trade, or it’s Iran, or it’s the Middle East, or it’s, you know, any of the big security issues of the day or it’s how you deal with Russia, or what do we do about, you know, the rise of China? You realise that in the end, Britain a) needs to be with other European nations, in dealing with this, and it also has a unique role to play because it – and certainly, up until very recently, we did play that role. You know, I would spend a lot of my time, as Prime Minister and I think the same was true of Gordon Brown and David Cameron and John Major, we’d spend a lot of our time, you know, navigating between, and trying to bring the two sides together and I think it’s an important role for Britain. But you can’t really do that if you, you know, if you leave Europe. And then…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
The last two is on the 1% control the 85% and whether there’s a security dimension as well to foreign investment?
Tony Blair
Yeah, no, I think there is a – you’ve got to be – well, put it like this, I think we would do a lot better attracting investment if the West was far less bureaucratic about it and more nimble, because a lot of the reasons why – I mean, I do an immense amount of work in Africa, and we have many different projects, for example, in Africa, where what you find is, the reason why people turn to investment from China is that they don’t get snared in the bureaucracy of the West, which means that projects don’t get done and fulfilled. But I think we can do it in a way that’s compatible with our values.
And on the 1%, I think this is a very valid point, one of the things my institute is doing at the moment and we’ll publish some work, in probably a couple of months’ time, is I think we really need to dig deep down under what’s really happening to income levels. Because it’s not true that in all countries, inequality has risen. It is true that there is a very small number at the top, who’ve done super-well, compared with everyone else, but when you start to analyse the figures and I say, we’ll have much better data on this in the time to come, but when you start to analyse it, you see two other things that are really interesting.
First of all, there’s 30 and 40% that have actually done reasonably well and feel reasonably at home in the new economy, but there’s a large part of the population that don’t, but it’s not quite the same as saying there’s 1% and then 99, or even 10% and then 90. But secondly, there’s about 10% that are cut adrift and the rising tide’s not going to lift their boat at all. So, I think you’ve got – you know, I think on this issue, this is a big question, but you’ve got to dig deep down beneath it. And the other thing I think is really, really important, is to realise that I think part of the alienation is cultural and it’s not economic.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, we’re – literally, we’re on our knife edge here, and there’s two people I absolutely promised I would bring in and there was at least one hand I saw there. So, the two people with their hands up there on the corner and then there was – yes, that lady right there, and yeah. Exactly, and I might just come here in the front as well. Go ahead, please.
David Hughes
David Hughes from the Press Association. You’ve suggested that the March 2019 deadline for Brexit may have to slip, you’ve also suggested that the European Union could implement reforms, which may allow the UK to remain within it, presumably they couldn’t be done by March 2019, so is that another reason why an extension may be helpful to the UK Remainer Cause?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay and microphone right behind, yeah.
Alex MacDonald
Hi, Alex MacDonald from Middle East Eye. One of the issues you’ve spoken about before as a major threat to the global order of course is international radical Islamism. In April 2014, you said, “The West should ally with Putin’s Russia to tackle the issue of radical Islam.” I was wondering if you still think that?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay, and the lady, please, here, yeah.
Member
Do you think the forthcoming election for the European Presidency is an opportunity and do you share my view that Jean-Claude Juncker was a malign influence on European politics and reform?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
On the record question, I think I will just take this last one. If you could take the microphone to the front. Have you got a microphone at the front, can you just put it right here ‘cause this gentleman did have his hand up, sorry, earlier and in case you don’t answer the previous one, I’ll let you take this one.
Member
Thanks very much ‘cause it’s related to the previous one. At the end of your presentation, Mr Blair, you said that “Brexit can and should be stopped,” and you also talked about the UK and the EU agreeing to reform, so in the context of reversing that decision, what did you think should be the message from Europe to the UK and to those wavering voters, coming forward?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
That will be a nice one to finish on. We are over time, so I’ll let you be very disciplined on these.
Tony Blair
So, let me deal with the middle two. I mean, the election of the European Presidency, yes, it’s a real opportunity to make sure that someone is elected, who is, and let’s say, you know, fully politically sensitive to the anxieties of Europe, and I won’t comment any further on that.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
You are diplomatic.
Tony Blair
Well, I’m at Chatham House, so I feel I should do a certain amount. On the Middle East, yeah, on fighting terrorism, yes, I mean, we will have to ally with Russia. But that’s not to say that we don’t – we aren’t prepared to have very powerful and strong disagreements with them, when they’re doing things that we don’t agree with and can’t agree with. But you know, this is why we’ll always – with Russia, we’ll be having disagreements, which could be very ugly and difficult from time-to-time, but we’ll always also be wanting to deal with them at a certain point, which is why we need to be careful of how we approach the relationship.
On – and these first and last questions, kind of, go together, in a way. Look, my view is this, what you can’t have is a situation, in which Britain goes out of Europe, at the end of March 2019 and doesn’t know what it’s getting. I think the Government wants to do that, I’m afraid, because I think they have no answer to the central dilemma of negotiation because it’s obvious, as you can see from the Cabinet, they don’t seem to be bound by Cabinet or Chatham House Rules, of any sort at all.
They have a profound disagreement. One lot wants to keep close to Europe, but that will mean regulatory alignment and that will mean the debate is, “What’s the point?” And the other one, wants to go for a clean break Brexit, in which case, business and those warnings from Airbus and the others are going to be very real, in which case, “What’s the price?” That division is not resolved. They haven’t begun negotiating.
When you talk to the Europeans and you say to them, “How’s the negotiations going?” They, kind of, say, “Well, other than they’re on process, there isn’t one.” So, you can’t afford for the country to pull out, and by the way, a meaningful vote, should mean a meaningful vote, in the sense that, we know what this new relationship is and the Government has made its choice, before you go out of the European Union. But to go out of Europe, without knowing what the future is, that is a catastrophe, for the country, because you’re going to be out of Europe, you’ll have no bargaining power with the rest of Europe, and these Brexit guys can then take us in whatever direction they want and we’ll have no power to retrieve the situation at all. So, I think that is extremely important, however, it would be a lot easier, but I’m only saying you need to extend the time. If you get to the end of March 2019, and they’ve not resolved it.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah.
Tony Blair
And finally, Europe, look, the sensible thing – I mean, maybe this is too rational a view in today’s world, the sensible thing is for Europe to realise that the Brexit vote represented a feeling that is not specifically or exclusively British. That’s what all these elections have shown you, over the last few months, this is a European-wide feeling, it’s just that Britain had the Referendum. So, the sensible thing is for Europe to reconsider and rethink its positions and come to a view about reform and change in Europe, particularly over these issues to do with migration, and for Britain to be made an offer that allows us to stay with dignity. And that is, in a rational world, that’s what we would do, because if we leave, look, what do we know, in the last two years? It’s not – the most these people now say about Brexit is, “It’s not as bad as you guys say.”
So, it’s – there’s nobody – you go out around the world, there’s nobody saying, “Oh, that’s a really wise things you guys have done.” Nobody’s saying that. Okay and – but for Europe, I think they also, after a period where there was a certain amount of, kind of, Schadenfreude about the whole thing ‘cause people go so fed up with it, I think they also realised, it’s going to be a weaker Europe, so the – statesmanship is about taking those situations, which seem irresolvable, and managing somehow, to knit together a resolution and that’s what we should focus on.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Mr Blair, I think John Whitehead would have loved to have been sitting in the front row of this conversation ‘cause you weaved together both the politics of today, but also, with some great structural insights about the politics of the world. So, I’m very grateful for that. I think we’ll see whether Britain can remain very much part of Europe, if Brexit does happen in the ways that it appears likely to happen, and certainly, we’ll see if the UK can remain part of the US, and beyond President Trump as well and be part of that very close relationship.
If not, I think what we’ve taken away from you, globalisation is going to be that much harder to handle, very difficult to handle indeed, but together, we have a much better chance of doing so. Could I ask you please to try and remain in your seats, if you could for a second, while I’m able to escort Mr Blair out there on the side there, but please, a very strong hand for, Tony Blair. Thank you very much [applause].
