Professor Anand Menon
One minute. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this Chatham House event on Respecting the Referendum Result. It’s a good question: What Brexit Satisfies the Democratic Will of the People? My name is Anand Menon, from King’s College London, and a few announcements to make. Firstly, this event is on the record and is going to be livestreamed, and you can comment on Twitter, using #CHEvents if you so wish, but do so on phones that are turned to silent, please, if you can. We’ve got a fantastic panel to discuss this question, and in the order they’re going to speak they are: Sir Richard Dearlove, former Head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Janet Daley, Columnist with The Daily Telegraph, Professor Matthew Goodwen – Goodwin, University of Kent, and finally, Antoinette Sandbach, MP for Eddisbury. You can find their bios online if you want more details, but I’m keen to kick us off, so we can have a decent debate. Sir Richard, over to you. Each speaker’s going to speak for a maximum of eight minutes, which I’m going to police ruthlessly. Sir Richard.
Sir Richard Dearlove
You can’t say much in eight minutes, and I’m just going to make a number of points, and I promise I’ll try and do it in less than eight. I mean, the answer – my answer to the question, “What Brexit Satisfies the Democratic Will of the People?” I think that the majority of voters thought they were voting for the repatriation of decision-making to the UK. The phrase used at the time was, ‘Borders, law and money’, for legal, political and economic issues. So, I think that would be, first of all, my answer to the primary question.
And the second point I would make is, I think, we have a juxtaposition constitutionally of Parliamentary democracy, and democracy by referendum. My comment, in relation to that is, I think there have been 11 referenda in the UK, and the result of every single one hitherto, has been accepted and regarded largely as non-controversial once given, and I will also remind everybody that all the political parties in Parliament signed up to respect the results of the referendum, when it was called by David Cameron. I make no bones about the fact that I hope what may happen, in the next ten days, is that President Macron will veto extension beyond the 12th of April. And the reason I think this is it will get us out of our current agony, and I don’t see any extension delivering a clear political solution. So, if we have an extension, the agony just continues, the uncertainty continues, and if we crash out, I would prefer to call it the sovereign Brexit, then we at least have another point of departure, politically, and take it forward from there.
The particular issue that has interested me in the withdrawal document and the political declaration is the issue of national security, and, to an extent, defence policy, and I am very surprised by the material, which is in the withdrawal agreement, in particular, and it is spread like butter through the document. Interestingly, there is no separate section on defence and security, and the reason I am surprised by this is there is, within the document, a very significant change in UK policy towards the European Union and the Commission in Brussels. It has been UK policy to resist any Brussels involvement in national security and defence issues. That doesn’t mean we have openly opposed them, but we have gently, from the side, discouraged them, and, those that have taken off, we have made sure that we influenced and dominated.
I remind you that the UK is the defence, intelligence and security leader in Europe by a very significant margin, and therefore, we have called the shots in this particular area. However, within the withdrawal agreement, we have locked ourselves, or appear to be locking ourselves into continued membership of common security and defence policy, and I do not understand why, without a very significant debate in Parliament, our attitude towards EU defence and security issues has shifted so significantly, because we now find ourselves advocating a closer relationship on defence and security with the European Union when we were a member having opposed that policy. This hasn’t been much advertised or discussed. There’s been too much preoccupation with other issues, but I think the national security issue is possibly one of the most serious aspects of the withdrawal agreement, and why I so fundamentally disapprove of that policy.
The other issue, which surprises me enormously is the backstop, and I still cannot get my head round how the UK got itself into this situation on the Northern Irish border. The one thing I would say is that the technology for an open border exists, and is very easy to implement. If you can have a traffic-charging system in the complexity of London, you can have a technologic control of the Irish border. It is not a problem. When I happened to advise the Swiss company, who is the world leader in what’s called track-and-trace, and how track-and-trace works, I happen to know quite a lot about, this was ruled out by our own Government and by the Irish Government on no other grounds than apparently, political grounds, and therefore, we got ourselves into a lock, which, at the moment, it appears we cannot get out of, and will lead, almost certainly, to the demise of the withdrawal agreement.
So, those were the primary points I wanted to make, particularly emphasising the national security point. And the final point I would make is that I personally, deeply worry about the political and economic future of the European Union. I think it is only a matter of time before there is a Euro crisis. The only solution to a crisis with the Euro would be fiscal union, and fiscal union requires much closer political union, and Macron, who is advocating that particular policy, has already been rejected by the German Government. So, it is hard to see where we go from this point on, and I think, if there is a Eurozone crisis, we will be better outside, and, of course, we will be heavily influenced. In fact, the Eurozone crisis is going to have a much bigger impact on the British economy than Brexit.
Professor Anand Menon
Thank you very much, right on time. Janet.
Janet Daley
There has become a prevailing mythology, a persistent myth about the referendum result, obviously reinforced or perpetrated by the remain camp, and that is that people didn’t know what they were voting for. Now, there is a sense, entirely counterproductive to the remain cause, in which that’s true. Many ordinary people who voted leave did not understand how complex it was going to be to disentangle our relations from the EU. They didn’t, in other words, know how deep we were in. To the extent that they have become aware of that, they are deeply shocked, and, if anything, it has confirmed their view that we should leave. They had no idea of the extent to which British sovereignty had been lost in the relationship with the EU, but there is also a sense in which – the more important sense in which that claim is entirely false. Whatever the tangential issues, whatever the marginal concerns were of people, they – virtually every single person who voted leave was affirming his belief that he should be governed by people he has elected, and whom he can remove if he so chose.
Now, given that that precept has been embedded in the Western political consciousness since the 18th century, it’s been quite an achievement to have made it controversial, and yet, the remain camp has not only, to the extent that it’s addressed it all, it has made it a contentious claim, but, for the most part, it hasn’t even attempted to address it. The most fundamental assumption of the leave case, that the populations of democratic societies have a historic right to choose those who make their laws, and to remove them from power when they see fit. Instead of engaging with this proposition, or even attempting to make some sort of persuasive case for dispensing with it, I mean, you could have made an argument that we’re in a post-democratic period in history, although that would take quite a lot of nerve. The advocates of remain simply traduce those who voted for leave as bigoted no-nothings. The debate that should’ve dominated national discourse, for the last two and a half years, about the integrity of the democratic nation state, or the status of our institutions never happened, because the remain side occupied itself purely with really shockingly vicious slurs against people whose lives and problems were, for the most part, completely unknown to them.
The supposed justification for all this vilification was that many leave voters cited uncontrolled immigration as a reason for voting the way they did. Ergo, all or most leave voters must be bigoted xenophobes. So, I’m prepared to take this assertion, for once, head on. It is not inherently wicked to want to live in a socially homogenous community. In fact, that’s a quite natural factor in the human condition. Even people who’s – even the official spokesman for remain, who spoke in patronisingly sympathetic terms of the left-behind classes in post-industrial Britain, seemed unwilling to come to terms with this basic truth. It’s an inclination to live in a ho – socially homogenous community, it’s an inclination that has been natural from – for every society that has survived long enough to be recorded. In fact, when the notion of civilisation itself arises from cultural identity, in which common beliefs and assumptions and values make it possible to live together in a rational way, the – it – of course, as you undoubtedly will occur to you, or you will argue, communities and nations need contact with others to remain alive and to remain vibrant, not to become inbred and inward looking, but accepting and incorporating outsiders is an important part of this.
The history of human progress is a story, to a considerable extent, of the migration of peoples, even when those movements involve invasion or conquest, but that doesn’t delegitimise the basic human need to live and to raise one’s children among people whose behaviour and attitudes are similar enough to one’s own, to provide cohesion and stability. To demonise this in favour of a relentless cosmopolitanism is quite stupid and unjust. The citizenship of the world, so beloved by utopian European fantasists, might be appealing and possible for a tiny proportion of the world’s population, the specially qualified, socially confident, domestically unattached and rich, but, to most of the world’s people, rootlessness is not even attractive. Indeed, it would be scarcely bearable, an endless existential insecurity, and I sometimes wonder whether it ever occurs to all the merchants of cosmopolitanism why they find unspoiled provincial backwaters of Europe so delightful as places to have holidays in, and to visit. It’s because of the confidence that comes from, essentially, a socially homogenous community.
Just to add a point, a rather personal point, I’ve never known a time in my life in Britain, and I’ve been here all my adult life, when public intellectuals have actually suggested that those who hold opinions opposed to theirs should go away and die. I mean, it – there are commentators who have practically stopped – just stopped short of eugenics, in talking about how it is necessary to move on from these old-fashioned, supposedly xenophobic attitudes. It goes way, way beyond snobbery, which is usually quite good natured in Britain.
It used to be the case that people who did not have your advantages or your privileged education should be treated with sympathy and respect. It was – this was, to some extent, descended from the aristocratic idea of noblesse oblige, and Project Fear was very much an expression of this contempt and incomprehension. I could not understand, for the life of me, why Politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne, quintessentially British establishment figures, did not understand their own country, the character of their own country. When the British are threatened or bullied, they don’t get frightened, they get angry, or they laugh, and they did both, in fact, in response to Project Fear.
Yeah, I – if the UK cannot leave, just is a final point, if the UK does not succeed in leaving, being the fifth largest economy, having its enormous global influence, its unique relationship with the Five Eyes security network, as Sir Richard referred to, it’s inconceivable that any other member state could succeed in leaving. And that means that those other member states, even if we manage to get out, but if we don’t manage to get out, that means that they have no hope of bringing about radical reform within the EU, because without the possibility of leaving, there is no leverage for demanding radical reform, and I really fear for the fate of a European Union, which is essentially a protectionist bloc, a declining element in the global economy, and seems to be determined, ultimately, to achieve the kind of political union, which would make, as Sir Richard described, fiscal union necessary.
Fiscal union means that even your tax and spending policies are not determined by the Government you have elected. What would be the point of voting in a General Election, because tax and spending policies are generally the issues that determine who you will vote for in a national election? That seems to be sliding into a kind of modern protectionist empire, which is quite terrifying.
Professor Anand Menon
Thank you very much. Matt.
Professor Matthew Goodwin
So, I think, in terms of the question, “What Brexit Satisfies the Democratic Will of the People?” I think we need to ask two subset questions. The first is, “Why are we here?” and the second is, “What’s happening to Britain right now?” and in terms of answering the first question, “Why are we here?” I would say that we know exactly why we’re here. That we’ve got, now, more than a dozen studies showing quite clearly that, in very general terms, Leavers were driven by two core concerns. The first is they wanted a greater sense of judicial independence, a restoration of national sovereignty, and the second is that they wanted to slow the pace of immigration, to reform freedom of movement beyond the reforms that David Cameron brought back in early 2016, which were not very significant, from the point of view of most voters.
Now, all of those studies, whether they’ve used large-scale surveys, whether they’ve used qualitative focus groups, have basically all said the same thing, which is those are the two core drivers, but, of course, within all of that, there’s a whole lot of variation, there’s a whole lot of debate to be had among voters about what exact Brexit model they really want. And I remember, the day after the referendum, my friend and neighbour, Vernon Bogdanor, whispered into my ear on College Green on the morning of June the 24th, “Of course, this is the first moment in post-war British history, perhaps the first moment ever in British history, when a majority of people formally ask for something that a majority of MPs didn’t want to give.” And, in a way, it was always, I think, inevitable that we’d end up here, with a political and constitutional crisis, so I think it was inevitable. But I think what Vernon missed, and I’d say it if he was here, is that public opinion is not that homogenous, that even among Leavers there is a great deal of variety around what type of Brexit deal they want to see. And I actually completely agree with Janet, that a lot of our post-2016 debate has completely lost sight of the nuance within the leave camp, but also, the remain camp, by the way. One in three black and minority ethnic voters opting to leave, Liberal Leavers being just as important as those working-class Leavers in Stoke. We’ve not really heard much about graduate Leavers. Some of my students, for example, who voted for Brexit. All the vox pops mainly have come from Burnley, Stoke and Clacton, but I do think we have a good grasp, now, from the research, about why we’re here.
We also, now, are getting very good sense of how Brexit is changing our country, and one of the main things there, I think, and Anand and UK in a Changing Europe have done a lot to promote this, is just how polarised we are becoming. If you look, for example, at a recent YouGov poll, it asked a very interesting question that was imported from the US. The US has seen remarkable progress where over 90% of Americans now say they’d have no problem if their son or daughter married somebody from a different ethnic or racial group. Whereas, in the 1950s, over 90% disapproved of that, which goes to show how quickly social change can happen, but they asked a very interesting question, which is, “Would you mind if your son or daughter married somebody from the other political tribe?” and 40 – sorry, about 50 to 60% of Americans said they’d have a problem with that, if their son or daughter marries – married across the political aisle.
YouGov, about a month ago, found, in the context of the UK, that 11% of Leavers would have a problem if their son or daughter married a Remainer, okay? 37% of Remainers would have a problem if their son or daughter married a Leaver. On one level, I, sort of, looked at that and thought, “That’s kind of funny,” but, actually, it matches up with a lot of research that we have, and I think the previous speakers were alluding to, which is that the polarisation that we’re witnessing, the fact that, now, 8% of us identify strongly with a political party, but 40% identify with a Brexit identity, I would argue that polarisation is skewed, actually, far more strongly towards Remainers.
The – we now have quite a bit of research showing that Liberals, in general, can often be as intolerant as the Conservatives or even the populists that they claim are more intolerant. And I’ve just run an experiment, you’ll find it on my Twitter feed, last week, where we asked Remainers and Leavers a series of questions. “Would you mind working with somebody from the other political tribe? Would you mind going on a date with somebody from the other political tribe? Would you mind marrying somebody? Would you mind your child having a relationship with somebody from the other political tribe?” and what you consistently find is that Remainers are more anxious about what we would call that social distance being proximate to somebody with a different ideological view than Leavers. And I think we need to talk about that, because I think it’s rumbled through our Brexit debate for the last two and a half years.
The reason we haven’t had the debate about how to fix our social and economic and political settlement is not only because of that, but I do think it’s partly to do with that. I think some of the pieces that we have had around the, sort of, depiction of, kind of, you know, Leavers just waiting to die and, you know, we should turn our backs on coastal towns like Clacton, and then wondering why those areas are giving 70% to leave. I do think there are unfortunately, large and very significant communities that are not that invested in trying to use this moment as an opportunity to address the imbalances within our social, economic and political settlement, and I think we’ll come to regret that.
The answer to the question of what satisfies the democratic will of the people, what Brexit satisfies, what model of Brexit, my view is we have to have some form of Brexit, but I’m not convinced that we have to have the polarised extreme versions of Brexit that are being advocated on either side. I’m a pretty boring pragmatist in that I, sort of, woke up and thought, “Well, everybody’s voted for leave, let’s try and figure out how to make it work,” and, in that sense, however bad Prime Minister May’s deal is, the one thing that I see in surveys is that, actually, the only thing that unifies Remainers and Leavers today is that they don’t really like that deal, but maybe that’s the point. Maybe, in a way, it is a 52-48 outcome.
I look at Conservatives, and 60/70% are saying they really want a no-deal. I look at Remainers and you’re seeing similar numbers say they either want to have a super, super soft Mr Whippy Brexit, or overturn and revoke Article 50 altogether. I just don’t think, in terms of the social settlement where we are, either of those two models are going to be particularly effective at addressing the polarisation that we’re seeing. As an American colleague said to me last week, “You are where we were ten years ago.” I don’t particularly want to see British society follow the American model. So, I think compromise and consensus, wherever possible, is the way forward.
Professor Anand Menon
Thank you. Antoinette.
Antoinette Sandbach MP
So, I’ve got the advantage of being the only elected MP on the panel, and I can tell you that I have access to my inbox, I represent 80 – well, just below 80,000 people, and they’re all telling me what the will of the people is, and every one of them is suggesting totally contradictory things, and that’s why you’re seeing a divide in Parliament. MPs are as representative as the people that they’re elected to represent, and you are seeing very real divisions in Parliament, but I would argue that the will of the people can and does change.
The 2016 referendum is not frozen in aspic, and as time goes on, the reality of Brexit diverges from the dream that was promised, and the case for another vote becomes stronger. We’re discussing what Brexit satisfies the democratic will of the people, but given that it’s been a year since leave was ahead in the polls, perhaps the question should be, does Brexit satisfy the democratic will of the people? And I think we should remember that, on the ballot paper, what the question that was actually asked on the ballot paper was about our membership of the EU, i.e. the EU institutions and not what form of Brexit, Brexit should take. The question was, “Should we remain or leave a member of the EU as its institutions?” So, I would argue that we just don’t know what was in people – what people had in mind when they voted to leave, and rather than respect – demanding that MPs respect the will of the people, or the manifesto, those who do so should try and argue their vision of Brexit on their own merits. And there was a poll that was done a week after the referendum result of leave-only voters, and only 35% of leave voters, at that time, felt that that meant leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union, and I’m sure you’ll all remember the different visions of Brexit that were advocated during the campaign.
So, I don’t oppose a no-deal because it’s not what people were promised, although I don’t think it was what people were promised during the referendum, but I oppose it because of the impacts that it will have on my constituents, and the material harm that the evidence that I’ve had, as a Member of Parliament, sitting on a select committee, taking evidence, five hours a week, for the last 18 months, from business, ‘cause I sit on the base of that committee, and the impact that that will have on my constituents, I oppose a no-deal. And I – that doesn’t mean that I oppose Brexit, and I think what was very difficult and one of the reasons why we’re in the space that we’re in at the moment is that there wasn’t time taken by the Prime Minister, after the referendum result, to bring people together and to actually stand back and really look at what were our best options.
She never put her negotiating lines to either Parliament or to any – or even to the party. She – not – or to her Cabinet. So, you know, I find it very difficult that people say, “Well, I stood on a manifesto, which said that that meant leaving the Customs Union and the single market,” when the manifesto was published after nominations were closed. My postal vote letters had already gone out before the manifesto was published, and, actually, in my election literature, I made very clear to my local electorates that what I wanted was a negotiated deal with Europe that meant that we had a positive relationship, and I don’t see a no-deal about that outcome.
So, the referendum result is really all about interpretation. And what worries me is that 50 or so Brexiteer MPs are, in effect, rewriting history about 17.1 – 17.4 million people and how they voted, and I just want to say to Janet, you know, I was on the train coming back from Westminster, and one of my constituents came up to me and said to me, “Please do something about Brexit, please. I only voted to leave because I wanted to give David Cameron a kicking,” and I think it’s very dangerous to assume that 17.4 million people all had the same vision or idea of Brexit, and we’ve never really addressed that. And what you’re seeing in Parliament, at the moment, is the kind of debate that I would argue we should’ve had back in 2016, about what does it mean to us as a country? What are the best opportunities? What are the trade-offs? We have not had honesty about what the real trade-offs are, and, Janet, although I would still argue that being in Europe is – would be best for my constituents, I absolutely do not want ever-closer union, I don’t want to be part of some super-state project.
I would argue that Europe is getting – becoming more democratic, not less, because of the co-decision making that is now being given to the European Parliament, and the ideas of subsidiarity, and I absolutely do not want fiscal union. I do not want to be part of the Euro project, but I think we are dealing with a global world that has massive issues like climate change, where our voice is stronger in a bloc, when we are looking at the rise of China, and an increasingly, what I would call, difficult United States, and we really need to work and co-operate together, and I don’t see that as a subjugation of national authority.
I think there is a way of having Brexit or a way of influencing how we remain, if we end up remaining, and I’m not sure that we will, that means that we don’t have what I would regard as a narrow, isolationist no-deal Brexit. It will have massive consequences for my constituents. So, where are we going to go? I really have no idea, but if Parliament retains the paralysis that it currently has, then I would argue we are going to have to go back to the people and say, “This is the Brexit that has been negotiated. This is the option on the table, and maybe, you know, you need to decide whether you want to leave,” and the Vote Leave campaign, as I said earlier, didn’t promise a particular outcome, and it really, deeply concerns me that no-deal Brexit is being advocated as the outcome that was being voted for.
Professor Anand Menon
Thank you very much, and thank you all. You’ve done it in half an hour, which is superb. When I read out my speaker’s notes at the start, I’ve forgotten the most important sentence, which is the Chair has prerogative. So, the Chair is now going to abuse that prerogative and ask a couple of questions himself before I turn to you lot, quite specific ones, in some cases. I mean, to you, Sir Richard, I suppose my question would be, you say the technology exists, but there isn’t a single border in the world that’s run with this sort of technology. Why not, if the technology exists? For you, Janet, a very specific question, ‘cause I imagine you’ll get questions on this, but let’s be clear, what does socially homogenous mean? I wasn’t quite clear. I mean, yeah, yeah, we’ll come – I’ll ask the questions and let you all answer. I mean, Matt – I mean, we read the same research, and I’ve got less in the way of questions for you, but you ended on this rather warm and fuzzy note that, you know, we should’ve come together and got – can anything agree on – anyone agree on anything? I mean, where is – everyone says, “Oh, she’s se – if she’d sought consensus, we’d have found it.” Where is that consensus? And the final question, I suppose, for you, Antoinette, is, you do, I imagine, accept the fact that – ‘cause you hinted at us remaining in, if we overturn the first referendum without implementing it, won’t that cause enormous problems politically in this country? So, there we go, that’s just to kick you off. If you want to start off, Sir Richard.
Sir Richard Dearlove
Well, I would argue that, you know, borders, pretty much, are sui generis. I mean, they are very different, depending on where you are and what their purpose is. The Irish border is a pretty unique and unusual construct. I mean, it exists in terms of tax already, but there’s no, you know, physical separation. So, you can drive back and forth, I mean, just as, you know, I used to live on the French-Swiss border. You similarly there can drive back and forth, but there are certain controls, which can be exercised, usually by physical posts.
Now, we know, for political reasons, physical posts are impractical on that particular border, because of its complexity and the number of roads that cross it, the farms in the middle of it, all that sort of stuff, but, on the other hand, track-and-trace technology is largely not used for border control, it’s used for fiscal control and for collection of excise, or excised goods, in the majority of cases. So, it’s a new application to a cross-border situation with technology that’s hitherto used for something different, but it’s absolutely ideal for the Irish border, in terms of, you know, the system of trusted traders you have to apply, and you can then, you know, exercise whatever control you like,
The other point to make is, I – what is it, 1% of the UK’s GDP goes across that border? I mean, it’s financially pretty irrelevant. This has been made into a political issue for the sake of the Irish Government. The Irish pulled off a massive coup in Brussels, but, I mean, it’s completely anomalous. Let’s say you’re a Lithuanian.
Professor Anand Menon
If we must, okay.
Sir Richard Dearlove
For the defence of Europe, you are largely dependent on the UK’s contribution if you have a problem with Russia, and yet, you’re saying to the Lithuanian Government, “Hold the British Government to ransom,” which is what Brussels are doing, “over the Irish backstop,” when the Lithuanians haven’t got a clue what the issue is about, because they’ve never been historically involved in Ireland. What I’m saying is, the anomalies that we’ve managed to inject into this situation are stunning, absolutely stunning, and they could’ve been solved from day one by taking the technology, which is highly sophisticated, which is used, for example, to collect tax in Brazil on carbonated drinks. Think of the complexity of that issue.
Professor Anand Menon
Actually, I’m going to fight the urge to argue, and when you answer your…
Antoinette Sandbach MP
Can I just ask?
Anand Menon
Go on.
Antoinette Sandbach MP
Because that’s fine for goods, but what about phytosanitary tracks – you know, checks? The biggest barriers are non-tariff barriers. They are the checks that have to be conducted at borders, and the Northern Ireland Select Committee did a report to Parliament saying there is no technology that deals with the Irish border. Now, I don’t – I accept that it may come, and I do accept that, but we have to have a model that has – that deals with the issue around regulation, as well as the flow of goods and people.
Sir Richard Dearlove
But…
Professor Anand Menon
Sir Richard, I’m going to ask you to hold that thought.
Sir Richard Dearlove
Right, right, right.
Anand Menon
We’re going to finish, because I want to turn to the audience as soon as possible. But Janet, if you just want to explain socially homogenous to me, quickly. Sorry, I know…
Janet Daley
Yeah. Of course, socially homogenous isn’t a specific paradigm. It’s a vague term. It’s – and what I’m talking about is the everyday experience that every honest person has of the fact that there are particularly provincial parts of Europe, in which families have lived for ten and 12 generations. There are working class communities in Britain in which there is, at least since pre-war, the between-the-wars periods, communities that have grown up with assumptions and about behaviour, and codes of behaviour which they feel comfortable with. Nobody is saying that everyone should be averse to allowing outsiders, foreigners or foreign communities. It’s a question of whether people in communities which – who are – which very often are already tremendously economically disadvantaged, discover that they cannot get a place in a primary school because of an influx of migrants, or because that – the – of that influx of immigration. At least half – more than half of the children in that primary school don’t speak English as a first language. This is not an urban myth, these are real problems.
Professor Anand Menon
So, when you say socially, you mean culturally homogenous?
Janet Daley
Yes, yes.
Professor Anand Menon
Okay, alright. Matt.
Professor Matthew Goodwin
Where do voters agree, Remainers, Leavers? So, they all agree that the Government is managing Brexit terribly. They all agree that Prime Minister May is doing a really bad job. They all agree that they don’t feel – well, 90% – and 80 to 90% agree that they’re not represented by the main parties, and they’d like somebody else to vote for. And, remarkably, today, last majorities of them agreed in saying that they don’t know who the de facto Deputy Prime Minister is, David Lidington. They don’t know who the former Brexit Minister, Dominic Raab, is, and they – 65% don’t know who the Foreign Secretary is, Jeremy Hunt. Yet, somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves into thinking that, actually, what we really should give the electorate is a highly complex three-way referendum, which will somehow make complete sense because everybody will suddenly understand what WTO is, what Chequers is, what, well, what May’s deal is, versus what remain is. So, I think, you know, we have to remember that a month ago 50% of this country didn’t know what the Customs Union was, right? So, we need to be sensitive to the level of public knowledge around the specifics.
Having said that, they all, Leavers at least, agreed on the broad thrust of what they wanted, and that thrust, I think, is really important. So, it all comes down to the question, to answer you, Anand, is what are you willing to concede? If you’re a Remainer, what are you willing to concede? If you’re a Leaver, what are you willing to concede? If your answer to that question is, “Nothing,” then we have more polarisation, and I’ll be back here in five years and we’ll have a panel about how populism is back on fire in the UK, and why is Tommy Robinson an MEP? You know, seriously.
I know right now for a fact, in Westminster, there are people who are seriously, seriously organised about campaigning for a European Parliament election, and the funny thing is, if we have a second referendum or a European Parliament election, it won’t even be about Europe. It will be about trust, and it will be about Parliament, and we will unleash something that will make this episode look fairly tame by comparison. So, I do think we need to ask that question, “What are we willing to concede?” and that’s why I’m fairly boring and say, actually, I think, May’s deal, for all of its faults, probably gets us into that area where we all have to just make a bit of a concession and go on with that.
Professor Anand Menon
Okay. Antoinette, I can’t remember what I asked you now.
Antoinette Sandbach MP
So, as someone who’s voted for May’s deal three times, even though I would – I still hold my personal belief, that we should remain, I have voted for May’s deal three times, to try and honour that promise that I gave to my constituents, to respect the referendum result. The problem is, I have seen it be striked down by people who have an ideologically pure Brexit that they want to achieve, and that really concerns me, because that – it is a small number.
Now, 28 ERG MPs in the Conservative Party, plus six or so Remain MPs that are absolutely determined to vote for nothing but a second referendum, and, you know, the reality is, is that I’ve had to completely change my way of life. I live under constant death threats and I have to have security at home. You have already, this referendum, already unleashed that bottle. That has – that ident – the identification with political parties is gone now, and I see that, again, in my constituency. People are now identifying, and I agree with the research, from what I see in my post box and what my – I’ve been running my own surveys in my constituency. I ran – I run – I put an online survey up last week, and just before the indicative votes, and 63% of those who didn’t vote, in my constituency, in the referendum, would now vote for May. I have – I see people that are very polarised between no-deal and remain, or revoke and Article 50, but there is a willingness to compromise, and I think the big failing, in a way, is not – I think it’s been very encouraging, what’s been happening in Parliament, over the last few weeks, which – where MPs have so-called seized the order paper, because you’re now seeing dialogue about the trade-offs. How can we resolve this? Can we reach a consensus and compromise that, maybe, people don’t like?
And I accept, you know, I don’t care whether it’s May’s deal, Common Market 2.0, the Customs Union, I have voted for them all, to try and deliver a Brexit, but my absolute red line is no-deal, because I have a duty to put my constituents first. And on the evidence that I have seen, I simply cannot support that, and therefore, I will vote for every reasonable alternative, but if we cannot agree in Westminster, what other alternative is there? And I’m afraid most MPs do say that it will have to go – that – or a lot – the majority in Parliament, at the moment, has been to take no-deal off the table.
Now, practically and constitutionally, can you do that? We will see where things go, but, you know, there is already that massive polarisation, and the 48% feel that the closeness of the result was not recognised, that the attempt to try and negotiate something that reflected that, and to perhaps take some of the best elements of our relationship with Europe has not properly been identified, and that’s why I have voted for May’s deal, because I think, although it’s not a perfect deal, it is a compromise that allows us to go out. But if Parliament is being blocked on that by a small minority of MPs, then I think we have to look at another solution and, to me, for the very reasons that Matthew has identified, a General Election is not the answer. Labour is split on this equally to the Conservatives. So, it’s just not the answer. If you want an answer on Europe, you’re going to have to go back with a specific question.
Professor Anand Menon
Right, over to you lot, using my prerogative, keep the questions short, and I’m not going to ask all four of the panellists to answer each one, so we can get as many in as possible. To the gentleman back there, at the back.
Vincent Champion
Thank you, and Vincent Champion, Journalist and Private Chatham House Member. Why doesn’t someone call the backstop out? I mean, politically, no-one would ever put a hard border in. I mean, how many divisions does Mr Junker got?
Professor Anand Menon
Anyone want to?
Janet Daley
You want…
Professor Anand Menon
Do you want to?
Janet Daley
Sir Richard, do you want – I want – I’d like to respond to that. It was contrived, the whole Irish border question was contrived, and it was done at the instigation, I’m afraid, of some very influential Remainers. There were people who were particu – had been particularly involved in the Good Friday Agreement and the Belfast Agreement, who saw the opportunity to create an immovable obstacle, and who are staunch Remainers, and who I – and, you know, according to the information I have, really helped to instigate the creation of that problem.
Professor Anand Menon
Antoinette?
Antoinette Sandbach MP
We have international treaty obligations under the Good Friday that – Agreement that we need to comply with, and the suggestion that we can just write those off is just nonsense. That’s the first question, and, secondly, I, just – I don’t see it as calling it out, I see it as a genuine difficulty, but it’s been blown out of proportion, I would argue, by the DUP, and, actually, the ERG, to create an obstacle, because the chances of that being there are – the backstop ever being used are remote. The aim of both parties is to try and get a negotiated agreement, and let’s not forget who signed up to the backstop. The joint agreement that came back in December 2016 was signed off by Boris Johnson and David Davis. Two Brexiteers who were put in charge of that joint agreement, and they came back, having signed up to it, and it was presented to Parliament as the agreement that had been struck by the Government, and I – so, to suggest it’s some kind of Remain conspiracy is, frankly, laughable.
Professor Anand Menon
Who – gentleman there, in the middle, I think was next. Thank you.
Simeon Voltev
Simeon Voltev, I’m a student at King’s College London, Political Economy. I wanted, perhaps, to turn my question toward – to Sir Richard. With the United States having a more domestic approach, the population of Africa increasingly – swiftly increasing, and the Chinese getting a bigger influence within Eastern Europe, economically and even, say, security-wise, does the United Kingdom think, perhaps, the European Union would have a security threat within those capacities, and would the United Kingdom be co-operating in regards to intelligence with the European Union, in case of a no-deal Brexit? Thank you.
Sir Richard Dearlove
Well, my own view, professionally, on a no-deal Brexit is that it wouldn’t change anything, in terms of the bilateral exchanges that we have with the 27 member states. So, most of the sensitive material that is exchanged is done bilaterally. It is not done through the European Commission. So, removing the European Commission, as it were, from the equation makes no difference. I mean, it has been the UK’s policy, not publicly, sort of, stated, but, I mean, maybe it’s worth stating now, to make sure that the EU did not, sort of, interfere in the UK’s national sovereignty. And, for example, when the Lisbon Treaty was drafted, I personally went round most of the major European Governments, asking them for their agreement to cross out the references that were put in the European Constitution, which, of course, was not ratified, to national security, because the UK didn’t want it there. Most member state – most of the larger member states agreed with us, with the exception of Germany, but, in the end, they were under pressure to take it out too, but I’m just using that as an illustration of where our stance was.
I mean, I think one has to draw a distinction on defence and security from leaving the EU, and we’re not leaving Europe, we’re not abandoning our relationships in Europe. I mean, our closest partner, after the United States, on defence and security issues is France, and that relationship, although, sort of, marred by the tensions of the Brexit negotiations, is in very, very good shape. You know, we help the French, in terms of their deployment of troops against Islamist jihadis in Francophone Africa. You know, I’ll give you many, many examples of the, sort of, close co-operation. So, I mean, I think one needs to think down a slightly separate channel, because of – I mean, the UK has only ever been a skin-deep member of the European Union. I mean, that’s the truth of British policy. Okay, bits of the British Government were much more enthusiastic Europeans than our Politicians were. This is one of the problems that we have. I mean, the Foreign Office has been totally Europeanised, you know, in its mentality and it never really reflected the reluctance that a number of our Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, always felt about the EU, and, you know, we have always resisted political integration, and strongly resisted political integration. And the reason that, you know, we were so supportive as it – of enlargement was we knew that if the EU was extended to 27 members, it could never take any political decisions and, you know, we were horrendously successful. In a way, we shot ourselves in the foot on this issue.
Professor Anand Menon
So, what sort of shape would Anglo-French relations be in if President Macron does what you want him to do, and forces no-deal on us?
Sir Richard Dearlove
And I think we’ll be very pleased.
Janet Daley
Yes, we’ll all be happy.
Professor Anand Menon
Okay, alright.
Sir Richard Dearlove
I mean, I think he’s resolving a political blockage that we’re incapable of resolving ourselves. And, okay, I mean, I’m not arguing with a brilliant constituency MP, who feels a strong responsibility, which not enough MPs feel, towards, you know, your electors, and I think that’s great, but, I mean, we took a massive political risk in having a referendum, we voted out. We’re not pre – I mean, I think what I find so shocking is, we’re not now prepared to face that risk.
Antoinette Sandbach MP
We are, but I don’t think…
Professor Anand Menon
But we are, but under controlled and managed circumstances.
Sir Richard Dearlove
No, because the deal that’s being negotiated is keeping us, essentially, spiritually and mentally inside the European Union. It is not a clean break. Now, we – I mean, I – Mervyn King, the other day, said, you know, “Our political classes are suffering a nervous breakdown.” I think we’ve got no confidence in ourselves and our ability to face a tricky future…
Professor Anand Menon
Okay
Sir Richard Dearlove
…and this has been a fault line in British politics…
Professor Anand Menon
Lady in the front.
Sir Richard Dearlove
…ever since I’ve been a Government servant, and I started in 1966.
Anita Punwani
Anita Punwani, Independent Risk Adviser. I take your point on the political aspect, but what about the economic, social, financial aspects? We have leaders in industry saying, clearly, they have no political agenda, that they’re leaving. Ford was on this morning saying, “We’re leaving. We’re closing down.”
Sir Richard Dearlove
But we took a political decision. I’m not saying that we took an economic decision.
Anita Punwani
But we now know we’re closer to the actual event, and from a risk-based perspective, we have more information, but, on a day when the Head of the Civil Service is warning of the potential negative impacts, when we’re so close, tend…
Sir Richard Dearlove
Yes, I was fascinated by that. Why has he done it?
Anita Punwani
Because that’s what the Civil Service is telling him.
Sir Richard Dearlove
I don’t think that’s why he’s done it, because if he’s wrong it doesn’t matter, and if he’s right, and there’s a Government inquiry, he can say, “I warned you.”
Antoinette Sandbach MP
So, can I say, Sir Richard, you know, I am elected, and I would go for the Burkeian philosophy that I am elected to exercise my judgement, and when I’m looking at the chemicals sector in the North West, 21% of the UK’s chemical sector is in the North West. Astra Zeneca, who’ve spent millions of pounds trying to mitigate some of the consequences of a no deal, that could’ve gone into medical research, the aerospace industry, the nuclear industry, car manufacturing industry, these are high-paid, highly skilled jobs in the North West. The – I think it’s the UK Independent Trade Policy Observatory has estimated 83,000 job losses in the North West.
Yes, we’ve taken a political decision, but that should not be sacrificed for the purity of a no-deal Brexit because it’s a clean break. Actually, we need to be explaining the trade-offs, and that’s why I’ve supported a Norway-style agreement, or a Customs-style agreement. You know, manufacturing firms do not want to manufacture to different regulatory standards. They want to be able to make one product and sell that product to the largest possible market that they can access, with the least friction possible, and a no-deal is simply catastrophic for my constituents, and that’s why I draw my red line there.
I’m happy to compromise in all sorts of other ways. You know, with Norway, we can get agriculture back, fisheries back, crime and justice. I – we could go into an arrangement that takes us very easily out of the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is just the terms on which we’re leaving, it is not the terms of our future relationship, and it will be superseded by our future relationships. So, I really think that Politicians are not being open and honest with the electorate, and maybe we’re not being given the chance to be, because it’s all about soundbites, and it’s all about, “I’m on this little hill, and I’m going to make – wave my flag, because I’m a PVer, or I’m a ERG member, and I want a leave-means-leave Brexit,” and we actually have to be much more pragmatic. People look at us now and say, “What has happened to the United Kingdom? Where is your reputation for pragmatism, and for compromise?” and I really think, within Parliament, forget our negotiation outside, we need to find that spirit of pragmatism and compromise, and get a deal over the line.
Janet Daley
But you’re accusing people of simply sloganeering. I spent an awful lot of time listening to the people who argue in defence of no-deal, and the projections that are being made by very strong vested interest, corporate vested interest don’t necessarily have to be taken absolutely at face value, just as the prognostications of the original Project Fear, the – part of the difficulty is that the public simply doesn’t believe a word that’s said to them now, because they were told that millions of jobs were going to be lost, the economy was going to crash, as soon as we voted leave in the referendum. I mean…
Antionette Sandbach MP
Hold on.
Professor Anand Menon
Why is consumer spending declining, then?
Janet Daley
Wages are up, job – employment is up.
Professor Anand Menon
But if the public are com – extremely unconcerned…
Janet Daley
That’s because they’re – because – no, no, they’re not unconcerned.
Professor Anand Menon
Oh, so, they do believe it?
Janet Daley
No, no, the uncertainty, certainly, is causing reductions in spending and reductions in investment. The uncertainty is the issue, and even the businesses you’re describing are saying that, that it’s the uncertainty that is the real difficulty. It’s not a question of assuming what will happen after a particular outcome, it’s the not knowing what that outcome is. So, even though employment is up, unemployment is at an all-time record low and wages are up and the economic growth is better than it is in the European Union, people are not spending…
Professor Anand Menon
So, just to be clear…
Janet Daley
…because of the uncertainty.
Professor Anand Menon
…if the population were to be reassured that we’re having no-deal, they’d start spending again.
Janet Daley
No, I don’t think so, because, apparently, according to the latest polls, no-deal is the most popular outcome.
Professor Anand Menon
No, but what I’m saying is, you seem to be implying that the people don’t believe the forecasts, and so are unconcerned, and I just…
Janet Daley
No, no, no, no. No. No, no, no, I’m saying – no, that’s confusion of – no, and the people are concerned about the lack of certainty about the fact that we seem to be in a kind of purgatorial vacuum, but they’re not – it’s not that they are worried about a specific outcome, like no-deal. In fact, they now favour no-deal, and I’m afraid, although I advocated in print that people did vote for Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, her withdrawal agreement is the least popular option. So, you know, it – but it’s a question of not knowing what is going to happen, rather than fearing the consequences of some particular outcome.
Professor Anand Menon
Okay, thanks. There’s a gentleman that has been waiting at the back, in the middle there, and if we can be quick, we can get one more in before 7:00.
David Skidmore
Hi, David Skidmore. Just to throw a hand grenade into this, surely the best answer would be a) for the country to crash out and then hand the responsibility of sorting it out thereafter to the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, because I think the entire country would actually welcome Ken Clarke coming in as a Prime Minister, across the political divide. Try that for size.
Professor Anand Menon
Does anyone want to comment? I’m quite keen to take one more question from a woman, if I may, as the last question, and all the hands go down. Anyone? They’re all men, okay. In which case, this gentleman at the front has been waiting for – did I – and then we’ll have the lady standing at the back, sorry. We’ll do them one after the other and then answer them both, I think.
Harry Blaney
My name is Harry Blaney. I am a retired US Diplomat. I’ve served on our missions to the European community, and also, served at US NATO and with the policy planning staff in the White House. But I started my life, really, studying, here in Britain, and the debate taking place joining, in 1964, of joining the, then, the European communities. I have watched the…
Professor Anand Menon
I’m sorry, we’re really running short on time. Can you ask the question?
Harry Blaney
I’m going – I know that. I have watched what is taking place now, and I’ve come from a place that depressed me, and I have now seen a place that is depressing me even more. This debate, not only in the Parliament, but also on this stage, has demonstrated the inability and the sadness of people who have a particular perspective, but not, as we used to say in America with respect to Trump, not dealing with the facts. There were a lot of things that were said here by almost everyone, except our fine representative of the House of Commons. That seems to me to have been inaccurate about this debate. I would like to ask the final, if you would, question, is, where – what forw – what does the word ‘forward’ mean, and why has not the only option that Britain can take that is for it to – and its future security interests and for its economic interests, and for its relationship with America? I take exception to the idea that if you – if Britain were to leave Europe, then America’s relationship with Britain, in the same level, would take place again.
Professor Anand Menon
Brilliant, thank you. Lady at the…
Member
Hi, I’ll try and be quick, but I was just really interested in what Professor Goodwin, and you said at the beginning, about social distance, ‘cause it’s something I’ve, like, seen anecdotally, but I’ve never heard quantified with those statistics. My question is, do you think that’s something that’s happened and grown since the vote, and if so, what do you think has caused that change?
Professor Anand Menon
Do you want to answer?
Sir Richard Dearlove
Well, the specific issue of the relationship between Europe and the United States, including the UK, I would say that the defence of Europe, you know, depends on NATO, and that talk of a European army is a total waste of time, unless Germany were significantly to change its policy on defence expenditure. I believe firmly in the, as it were, revival, as it happens, Putin’s done us a good turn, NATO is much revived. Trump has got one thing right, you know, maybe by accident, but his demand that Germany increases its defence expenditure of 1.3 to 2% of GDP is exactly correct. We should not be expecting the Americans to pay for European defence, we must pay for our own defence.
Professor Anand Menon
The specific question is leaving the European Union will harm our relationship with the United States.
Sir Richard Dearlove
I totally disagree. I think if we return to the Mid-Atlantic, it will strengthen it.
Professor Anand Menon
Matt, you’re going to get the last word in.
Professor Matthew Goodwin
Yeah, so…
Harry Blaney
Trump is against the unity of Europe and the western democracies to appease Putin.
Anand Menon
Sir, we’re just going to have to move on, I’m afraid, because we are, in fact, over time, but, Matt, you can answer.
Professor Matthew Goodwin
So, just, one of the things that I’ve found remarkable about the Brexit debate since the referendum is, actually, how little we’ve still talked about what is happening in Europe, what is happening elsewhere around the world. Our debate has been incredibly insular, has been really parochial. We’ve just not looked up, put our heads above the parapet and looked around, and that will come back and bite some people if we do end up having a second referendum. The economy is in a fragile place, absolutely, but we have to remember that the counterpoint at which voters are using is, well, what would life be like if we were in the EU?
Now, if you believe life is going to be better in the EU, you’ve got to start making that case, because, at the moment, very few people are making that case, and this is an important one. As we go into European Parliament elections at Chatham House, and we talk a lot about international events, I’m sorry, but I think the counterpoint for most voters is not a good one. We’ve got populists in Italy, rule of law issues in Hungary, Poland, Romania, we’ve got a slowing, not very productive Eurozone economy, we’ve got much of Central and Eastern Europe depopulating over the next 20 years, and this is a debate I think we actually need to have moreso than, “What does London want?”
Professor Anand Menon
Matt, can you answer the question from the back?
Professor Matthew Goodwin
And the question, sorry, about social distance, it links into the comment here, because it was quite interesting. You had a little pop at us, and I’ll have a little pop at you in return, when I was mentioning the academic studies about why Leavers voted for leave, you were nodding your head and saying you disagreed with me. That is, I suspect, because they didn’t fit your view of the Leave vote, but they’re quite clear. All peered review research, all pretty robust. What we don’t know is whether this stuff has been increasing over time since the referendum. What we do know is that we’ve got very significant social distance between Leavers and Remainers, and that Remainers are consistently a little bit more likely than Leavers to say they don’t really want to hang out with people that have different views to their own, right? And that’s a problem, that’s a really big problem.
The way forward, by the way, is citizen’s assemblies, I’m convinced of it. That’s the way forward. We’ve got to stick everyone in a room together, lock the doors, and nobody can leave until we’ve compromised.
Professor Anand Menon
Well, on that bombshell, I’ve screwed up, I’m afraid. I’ve let us overrun by five minutes, so you’ll never see me Chair an event here again, but, just, for the moment, let me thank our fantastic panel, let me thank you all and wish you all a very good evening, thank you [applause]. Thank you so much.
