Nick Robinson
Well, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I’m Nick Robinson, Presenter of the BBC Today Programme. Thank you very much indeed for joining us here at Chatham House. Well, we’re out. Remember those words? David Dimbleby on the night of the referendum? Well, more than 1,000 days on, we are not out. We are not hours from being out. We may not be weeks, months or even years from being out. Now, we are here to discuss not why that had happened, because we’d probably have to be here for the next three years to do that, but more to look for some of the lessons about the last three years of Brexit negotiations, the lessons that will inform what might happen in the next crucial two weeks, in the next few months, potentially years, in negotiations with the EU. So, we will draw on the past, but really to look forward, rather than to reargue or relitigate the past, and we’ve got a very impressive panel for you tonight.
To my left, first of all, Dr Norbert Röttgen, who is Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the German Bundestag, the German Parliament, welcome to you. Next to him is Anna Isaacs, who covers trade policy and economics on The Daily Telegraph. Then we have, alongside her, Professor Robert Tombs, who’s Professor of Modern European History, the Author of The English and Their History, and the Founder of Briefings for Brexit, which tries to give factual information, factual briefings, from a Brexit perspective, about the arguments that are happening. To my right, now, we have Sir Ivan Rogers, Permanent Representative to the EU. For four years, working for David Cameron, working briefly for Theresa May, until the gatekeepers, the fierce Nick Timothy and Fi Hill, decided that he was, forgive me, Ivan, a bit too much of an Eeyore (a realist) about what was happening in the Brexit negotiations. He’s the author of a new book, which you can buy afterwards, ladies and gentlemen, called 9 Lessons in Brexit. To his right, we’re particularly pleased to have Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, particularly pleased not just ‘cause it’s Caroline, but also, because you may have heard, Parliament is discussing this today, and she gives her apologies, and I give them for her in advance, she may have to slip away to participate in that debate. And then finally, Dr Robin Niblett, who is Director here at Chatham House. So, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome your panel [applause].
What I’m going to try and do is ask each of our panellists, in short order, couple of minutes, to tell us their three lessons that they take from the last three years or so, and how they apply to what might come forward. We’ll then have a bit of a discussion in the panel, and then we’ll open it up to questions. I’ll say it again in a moment, questions, ladies and gentlemen. Not speeches, not opinions, not, “Have you read the paper that I published last week?” what I told my husband in the bathroom, or my wife in the kitchen. Questions, if you wouldn’t mind, and then we’ll try to address those questions. Norbert Röttgen, as the man who is not having to live here day-by-day, what three lessons do you take from the past three years?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Thank you so much for inviting me and allowing me to participate. My – the first lesson is, from an outside view, of course, and from a German European view, is don’t try to appease or accommodate the populists, because if you give them food, they will get ever more hungry [applause]. Second lesson, my second lesson is, while I’m quite convinced that Brexit will not serve as an example to be followed by others, we should not underestimate that, everywhere in Western democracies and in our European countries, there is also widespread mood for populist nostalgia. So, we have not only to focus on the very British, deep-rooted specifities in this cause, but we have to, I think, draw our conclusions and to adjust to a different European psyche, and we have to reform the European Union to be better suited and equipped to meet these challenges. My third lesson is, the European Union must preserve its unity, the possible maximum of unity. So, the big question is, what does that mean? What is our idea of preserving unity, or organising new kinds of variable unities within the European Union? If the European Union stays unified, we will prevail, because then we are strong, and strength matters.
Nick Robinson
Unity, reform, and don’t accommodate the populists. Admirably brief as well, thank you. Robert Tombs.
Professor Robert Tombs
Okay. Well, I’ll attempt to start by saying that we’re the happiest large country in the world. Did you see the index this week, in spite of everything? That’s my only cheerful thought, though. I would say lesson number one, the extent to which the political administrative elite has become so thoroughly integrated into the EU system that it can’t really be relied on to follow democratic decisions. The first time I ever spoke on this subject, a long time ago now, I was with a former Labour Minister for Europe, who said, “It doesn’t matter how people vote in the referendum, the Deep State won’t allow it to happen.” I thought, “That’s a stupid idea,” but now I think he may have been rather perceptive.
But my second point, the division within society that has been revealed or crystallised or aggravated, or all three, by this question, has shown how deep is the difference culturally, socially, in interest, in emotion, between what David Goodhart called the anywheres and the somewheres. I think this exists all over Europe. It was seen very clearly in the 2005 French referendum, when the only people who voted for the – the only social groups who voted for the European Constitution, which, of course, was later introduced anyway in another form, were the upper-middle classes, the – and the professions and the academics. Lack of empathy, lack of understanding, actually contempt for people who disagree is a, sort of, anthropological phenomenon. It’s not intellectual, it’s about the kind of person you think you are.
My third lesson was going to be the difficulty that many MPs seemed to have in understanding basic economic fact, but I was asked to widen the horizons a bit, so I thought I would say instead, that it’s now clearly impossible for any member state to leave the EU without a crisis. And the EU has no plans for reform, and so, the logical deduction is that the EU will face, in future, a series – a growing series of crises: economic, social and political, to which there’s no visible solution. I think Brexit would’ve been good for the health of the EU. It would’ve proved its flexibility, its self-confidence, its willingness to change. Instead, it’s shown its defensiveness, its rigidity, and its contempt for democracy, or populism, as they prefer to call it.
Nick Robinson
Thank you very much indeed, Robert. Caroline Lucas.
Caroline Lucas MP
So, I think my first lesson would be to use referenda with an awful lot more care than we did this time around. We were pretty much uniquely ignorant about how they would work, and uniquely ill-prepared. So, just some of the basics, like, maybe, having nationwide citizen’s assemblies, so that people could’ve have had some independent information in order to, you know, to base their decisions on, that the – we should have minimum thresholds. The idea that we’ve got this 48-52, I think, is – has just been so divisive, and so some basic literacy around democracy would’ve been enormously helpful.
My second point, I think, is around constitutional reform. Yes, the EU needs reforming, but I think what Brexit has laid bare, really, is just the rottenness of the UK’s governance system, and I’m thinking in particular of the way in which I’ve been going around the country, as part of a project called Dear Leavers, talking to Leave communities, and the strongest thing that I hear is that sense of people not being listened to, feeling powerless, feeling that their communities simply don’t matter. And I think one of the reasons for that, and there are multiple, but at least one is the fact that so many parts of England in particular just feel so powerless that we don’t have institutions for England in particular, to be able to express their democratic wishes, their identity and so forth. So, I think there are some big questions around devolution of power. I think there are certainly some big questions about our electoral system. You know, I think one of the best ways of getting back control would be to change our hideous electoral system that essentially, hands power to just the swing voters and the marginal seats, and if we’d had a fairer voting system from the start, I think you could make the case that, perhaps, Brexit might not even have happened, because people’s views would’ve been heard much more loudly and viscerally, over a period of time before we got to the, kind of, pressure cooker of Brexit. And also, perhaps, we wouldn’t have so much diversity pressed into just two big political parties, and we’re already seeing how the pressure is putting such strain on those parties, such that they are now, kind of, breaking apart. So, overall, constitutional reform.
And finally, while I’m at it, ‘cause I think we’re allowed to think big, is that, you know, I think, as well, that Brexit has put on the agenda the grotesque inequalities in this country. You know, when those Leavers voted leave, those who did, because they wanted to send a message that the status quo in this country is intolerable. Frankly, they were completely right, and when you look at the inequalities, and you compare it to other countries, that level of inequality here is massively greater than in many other Western European countries, most other Western European countries. So, I think transformation, when it comes to economic and social reform, as well.
Nick Robinson
Thank you very much indeed. Ivan Rogers.
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, thanks. Three would be how and where you start in a negotiation, very largely it dictates where you end. You can start, obviously, with tubthumping staff and red lines and be lionised by your party conference and your party faithful, and described as the New Boadicea or the New Margaret Thatcher, or whatever else, but, you know, within a year, you’re on the ropes, and within two years, you’re on the canvas or being carried out of the ring.
Nick Robinson
Who could you be thinking of?
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Exactly. An awful lot of this was inevitable, from the whole way in which we started the negotiation, and the reason for that is, we weren’t very clear on the objectives of the negotiation, and where we wanted to end, at least in this first phase, by March 2019. You have to be incredibly crystal clear where you’re trying to get and why you’re trying to get there before you start a negotiation, otherwise, you’re all over the place, and the other side is, if you’re very good at thinking through its objectives. Second lesson would be transparency and openness. I never thought I would say, vis-à-vis the European Commission, that – which is often opaque, secretive, illiberal and, you know, I used to work in it, so I understand the European Commission culture, and I have great reservations about quite a lot of it. It has nevertheless outclassed the British authorities on transparency and openness, and, despite having 27 states to corral, it has done a very effective job of using openness against the opacity and secrecy of Her Majesty’s Government. And you can’t run either a withdrawal negotiation or a trade negotiation through secrecy and in a bunker, and in a black box, and, actually, when it comes to the trade negotiations, so I hope we draw the right lesson for the trade negotiation. If we are to bring the bulk of the general public behind a version of Brexit, and the aspiration still has to be to get the – a significant majority of the country behind a version of Brexit, it will only be done by much more transparency, more openness, more consultation.
A third lesson would be, which, again, I’m afraid, I don’t think has gone very well in the last two and a half years, you’ve got to think round corners, you’ve got to think long-term, medium-term, “Where are you going, and why are you going there?” And again, the other side, look at what the Ambassadors at the – of the 27 were discussing last night. While Britain contorts itself about where it’s going to be at the weekend, they are discussing what happens after a no deal, and under what circumstances and what conditions they would lay down for Britain being allowed back to the negotiating table. In other words, they’re thinking several months ahead, on the presumption that a no deal is a very likely outcome. And throughout this process, they have laid out ground rules and designed a process, and– I don’t much like the process and it’s highly technical and technocratic, but they’ve designed it, and they’ve consistently thought round the next several corners of the negotiation, whilst, I’m afraid, the British political elite has struggled to think until the end of next week.
Nick Robinson
Anna Isaac.
Anna Isaac
Okay and a quick one. Hands up if you knew that the UK was the second biggest exporter of services in the world. Cool, and how many times have you heard the words ‘Customs Union versus Single Market?’ Great, right. So, 44% of our trade goes to the EU, 40% of that is services. We have completely abandoned services in negotiations. Whether today’s deal passes or doesn’t pass, whether or not it has the political declaration attached to it or it doesn’t, services have been completely ignored. We have an 80% service-heavy economy. So, I think it’s fair to say we’ve got a trade illiterate and an economically illiterate political decision-making machine at the heart of Government right now.
That feeds into my next point, which is we face very, very, very binary choices when it comes to the kind of nation we want to be, and the kind of role we want to have on the world stage, and that is directly tied to our trade policy, because there are two games in town: the US and the EU, and they are going head-to-head at the World Trade Organisation, over the treatment of China as a market economy. Now, until that is resolved, the UK finds itself in a very difficult spot, because until we leave the EU, we’re covered under the EU umbrella by the WTO, by and large, but then what are we going to do?
Are we going to align ourselves to US standards in order to try and woo them into a trade negotiation, a full-on trade negotiation, when we know that the economic benefits of that won’t even begin to equate to the economic benefits of a closer relationship with the EU? It’s a fundamental decision we haven’t choi – haven’t made yet. It’s absolutely crucial, when it comes to the conversation about the backstop, about the Irish border, you can’t have a full-thatched trade agreement with the US and not have a border in Ireland, it’s that straightforward.
And, last but not least, I call it the Swindon problem, because I interviewed a lot of people in Swindon, when the news about Honda came out, and this is not a debate about whether or not Honda is closing because of Brexit, ‘cause I think it’s more complicated than just Brexit. However, Leave voters in Swindon would still vote for Brexit, even though they are the ones that – they believe that the reason that the Honda factory is closing is Brexit, okay? So, these are turkeys voting for Christmas. I have had similar conversations in Swindon, as I have in an Italian place called Salerno, which is in rural Italy, very poor. They also feel very antagonistic towards the EU. Regional inequality is so severe within the EU that regions of Romania will overtake the poorest regions of Italy, in terms of development, within – by 2025. We have not solved the inequality problem, and the answer cannot just be more Europe, because that is an argument that has clearly failed.
Nick Robinson
Thank you very much, Emma. Robin Niblett.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well, I suppose my three list partners would be, first, you know, a referendum that was meant to be designed to heal the country and get it beyond problems, clearly has done the opposite. Not only has it exposed what were pre-existing deep divisions, that have been touched on already by Robert, Caroline, and I think, Anna, as well, but those divisions are now being defined by how we think about the process of Brexit, we’ve actually deepened them. I think some of the most interesting statistics, in the British Social Attitudes Survey that came out last week, 8% of Britons now define themselves very strongly by party, over 40% of Britons now define themselves very strongly by Remain or Leave, and that Remain or Leave is not then defined by party, as we’ve seen. Each party contains elements of both. So, my one conclusion, you can’t have a one-party Brexit. It’s just not going to be deliverable, and that’s, I suppose, where we are on the indicative votes, trying to cut across both sides.
Second one is, I don’t think you can have a hard Brexit, as it was defined, which is a real clean break with the Single Market, with the Customs Union, and retain an effective relationship with the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, Ireland has put right, front and beginning by the EU side, and it has ended up defining the whole nature of what the future relationship will be. In a way, a hard Brexit is going to be very hard to deliver, because the backstop, as currently defined, is trying to make sure that that relationship is defined differently. So, resolving Ireland has been the problem at the beginning, it’s still the problem today, it’ll probably define the nature of the future relationship between the UK and the EU.
And my third is that EU members, states, governments might not know where they want to go. They might not know about their future, the Franco-German divisions on this being the most explicit, but they know very well how to defend what they’ve got. They are expert at le [roche – 18:29] protègè, you know, that protects what it has, to use the Macron phrase. And the result of that is that, as I look to the future, the irony of Brexit is where our future relationship with the EU is going to define our future foreign policy. And we will spend more time negotiating with the EU, not only through the Brexit process, wherever it goes in the coming months, but into our whole future, because sitting outside what will remain our principle market and a key global regulator, will mean that we’ll spend all of our time trying to negotiate with them, but from outside the room. So, we’ll have to put even more resource into our relationship with the EU outside the EU than we did when we were inside it.
Nick Robinson
Huge amounts to chew on, thank you, Robin, there, and, ladies and gentlemen, you’ll have the opportunity to chew on that. I’m going to pick up, first of all, though, what Ivan Rogers talked about, about thinking round corners. Now, there’s a corner coming rather fast in the House of Commons this morning, which will determine many corners to come, over the next couple of weeks. Start with you, Caroline, because you’ll be taking part in this debate in the next few hours. Just explain to people, if you could, why you think people who are terrified of no-deal will, nevertheless, vote down the one guarantee of avoiding no-deal, by backing the Prime Minister’s deal.
Caroline Lucas MP
Well, I am going to challenge the premise of your question, because I don’t think it is the only way of avoiding no-deal. I think there certainly is a majority in Parliament to avoid no-deal, and even though that didn’t manifest itself, in terms of indicative votes on the proposal from Joanna Cherry, from the SNP, who had put in a motion around revocation, if we were facing no-deal. I think that’s just because it was a little premature, and perhaps some of the wording could’ve been tweaked. I think everything that I know suggests that when it comes to a push-comes-to-shove, there will still be an opportunity for MPs, if necessary, to pull the emergency brake of revoke, and I think they would. So…
Nick Robinson
As a change in the law not merely an expression of opinion?
Caroline Lucas MP
Yes.
Nick Robinson
That Parliament would pass on law…
Caroline Lucas MP
If we were literally facing that the – I know we’re always at the 11th hour, you know, the 24th minute, but whatever, I think we would do that to avoid no-deal, and that is – it’s not an ideal situation, but May’s deal is certainly far from ideal. And after revocation, I don’t think that would be the end of the story. Hopefully, we would then have some time to rethink, regather, perhaps have some of the democratic debate that we didn’t have before the referendum, and decide where we go next. It’s not an ideal situation, and I also think we haven’t – don’t let go of the idea of the people’s vote, because that did actually get more votes than any other of the options on the indicative ballot, and I still think we could get there.
Nick Robinson
Forgive me, we won’t go to that yet, I’m sure it’ll come up later. I still want to look at the practicalities of what happens today, and how the EU and others might respond to what happens today. So, Norbert Röttgen, imagine, which I think is quite hard to imagine, but let’s imagine, to start with, that the House of Commons does back the Prime Minister today. Is that pretty much it then, as far as the EU’s concerned? What are the next hurdles to come, in your mind?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
I think, then, Brexit would have been passed and the EU would go on ahead, and we would then expect the legislation to be done in the Commons, and then we would – we have – then – the way is clear to move forward, and then we would ne – start to negotiate on the future relationship. But then, Brexit would’ve been done, legislation to be done in the Commons, and then we would focus on the future relationship, clear way, then.
Nick Robinson
Ivan Rogers, imagine you’re back in Number 10. They say to you, “We’ve come up with this…”
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
It’s quite implausible, but…
Nick Robinson
They speak well of you. Now, the – imagine the Prime Minister says to you, “Right, we’ve come up with this cunning weeze. We’re going to get just the withdrawal agreement, just the divorce through,” and you say, “Aha, there are the following problems, Prime Minister.”
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, it’s – look, it isn’t a problem.
Nick Robinson
I’m told that you did that from time-to-time.
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Occasionally. I have been known to, with various Prime Ministers, with greater or a lesser success. Look, it’s not a problem in European terms, because a withdrawal agreements needs to – is, in principle, detachable and I see no problem on the European side with accepting. It is a peculiar process, and I don’t think it’s a very democratic one, if I’m honest, you detach it. You get the withdrawal – say you get the withdrawal agreement through today, and we then still have further debates about the political declaration, given what the Prime Minster has already announced about her own political mortality, aren’t we effectively saying, then, that the political declaration would largely be left to a successor, as yet unknown, soon to be elected by Conservative Party members, and therefore, the direction of the political declaration would be largely set in a Conservative leadership election which, you know, for which the vast bulk of the public are not enfranchised?
So, we go into the blindest of blind Brexits, this is supposedly in the name of democracy, we go into the blindest of blind Brexits, and it is the Tory Party activists who elect a Tory leader who will dictate the direction of a political declaration, which none of us will have seen, until that person then emerges as the Prime Minister of the country unelected. So, I feel – to be clear, I am a believer that Brexit did mean Brexit and has to mean Brexit, and that the public voted for it, and Brexit needs to be delivered. I’ve always thought that, so that’s been my position, but I’m very uncomfortable with a methodology which says, “Let’s pass the withdrawal agreement, and then let’s leave the future direction of the entire relationship to a Tory leadership election and Tory activists in the next three months.” Why can that be right democratically?
Nick Robinson
Anna, you referred to the ignorance of the illiteracy, your word, of the economic and political classes, political class in particular. Does this notion of a blind Brexit, assuming this withdrawal agreement goes through, worry you?
Anna Isaac
Yes, because within the withdrawal agreement there are very fundamental things that deeply affect trade policy and don’t have a clear time limit, and that’s partly what the backstop is. If you go through the – line-by-line with the withdrawal agreement, if you look at the implications for the [inaudible – 24:57], and the common commercial policy, all of these aspects of it, it is – trade is where the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement intersect and become fundamentally intertwined. I mean, you can do what you want to get a vote through, sure. I mean, we’ve seen that, but you can’t divide the economics that lie within the withdrawal agreement from the future political relationship. If it does, as Ivan described, become a matter of Tory debate, that future relationship, we have to remember one of the frontrunners used a four-letter word followed by business, very famously.
Nick Robinson
The F word, to remind you, yeah.
Anna Isaac
Yeah, yes. He also described, I believe, you know, the Irish question as the tail wagging the dog. Those two things together are very significant when it comes to both the trade implications of the withdrawal agreement and the trade implications of the future political relationship.
Nick Robinson
Okay. Robert, briefly, and then I want to turn onto scenario two, the more likely one, which is that it gets rejected today. Is your, you know – Brexiteers, interestingly, have split, as it were, between the Moggites and the Bakerites, that we might call them. Where are you on that?
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, it’s…
Nick Robinson
Hold your nose or not hold your nose?
Professor Robert Tombs
Not being an MP, I don’t have to make that decision. It’s a purely tactical decision, because everyone thinks that – everyone – most people in Parliament, and of all parties, think the withdrawal agreement is terrible. So, the only reason you’d support it is because you think it’s better than not having Brexit at all, and that you can get out of it, which is why the Irish backstop has become so important. And I think, also, why the political declaration is important, because it sets the terms of the future negotiation. So, if the withdrawal agreement is going to lock us in, for a time, into an unfavourable and dependent relationship, the political declaration is likely to continue that.
Nick Robinson
And therefore, the choice of next leader and Prime Minister becomes vital to people like you.
Professor Robert Tombs
Yes, it does, and, I hope, the result of the next general election, which I hope will not be long delayed.
Nick Robinson
Right, interesting. So – but, just briefly, what you think, Theresa May will be forced to call one, or you think a new leader would be forced to call one?
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, I hope a new leader would call one.
Nick Robinson
And you get a Brexit majority, I assume, yeah. So, let’s move onto scenario two, if we could, Norbert. It gets rejected today, the EU then looks to what? It looks to Monday, and these indicative votes?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yes, of course. We will look – so, following the wise decision and approach, the European Council assumed in its last meeting, we are also prepared for that. We will have a Council meeting on 10th or so of April, and then, Heads of States and Governments will gather round and will see what, now, is the situation in Britain. If there is not a decision on the substance of Brexit, we will say, okay, if there is a time extension request, I think, I assume, that they will say, “Yes, you can get that, because you need it, and everything else would be self-damaging.” So, you get the time you require and need, under one legal and one political condition. The legal condition is, or implication is that as long as the extension takes, then Britain will be a member of the European Union, with all rights and duties, which means that British citizens have the right to take part into the European election, which nobody can deny British citizens. So, you have to take part in this election, and the second thing is, please tell us the purpose of the extension. What are you going to do? We have to know that.
Nick Robinson
Now, we might know the purpose on Monday. Michel Barnier, the Chief EU Negotiator, pointed out in Brussels, yesterday, that there were only eight extra votes needed to vote for a Customs Union, the idea put forward by Ken Clarke, this is the EU effectively telling Britain where to go next, isn’t it, saying, “Do that and we’ll do what you want, give you a longer extension, and we’ll all be happy.”
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
No, they definitely won’t say, “Do that.” It would not be a psychologically wise communication, I would assume.
Nick Robinson
Well, I assume what they’re saying is, “You might wish to give careful consideration to doing that.”
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
I think we have learned that even careful consideration don’t go down well in this country, if they come from Brussels or Berlin or Paris or somewhere else. So, we – it’s – we have to say it’s completely up to you, but you know that if you decide for that, it would be, then, an easy case for us to agree on that, very quickly.
Nick Robinson
The EU would agree to talk about Customs Union and agree to an extension.
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yes.
Nick Robinson
Ivan? So, is that the possible way through, for Government? It loses today, if it does, on Monday, votes for a Customs Union in the House of Commons, and off we go?
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, it’s a possible way through it. I’m rather sceptical as to whether that would be the way through. I mean, clearly what the EU side is rightly saying is that if it fail – if the meaningful vote, or the non-meaningful vote that is split vote today doesn’t work, then it’s either a long extension or it’s no-deal. I’ve been saying for a very long time, in the UK, to private sector, for more than 15 months, and pretty much since I resigned that I thought no-deal was a very likely outcome. I still think it’s a very likely outcome, because I see all the perils and pitfalls of a long extension, and I’m not sure there’ll be political appetite for a long extension. If there is a majority in the House of Commons, which I’ve always thought is reasonably likely, in the end, for a permanent Customs Union, the question is whether the Prime Minister, whoever the Prime Minister is, then adopts that and says, “I will be bound, effectively, by the indicative votes, and see that through, and although this isn’t the policy I will advocate, I will live with a permanent Customs Union.” I can’t judge. I suspect Theresa May – I mean, I remember the conversations we had in 2016 on this subject, I don’t think she wants to go to a permanent Customs Union. It’s major problems, if not terminal problems for the Conservative Party, and will divide the Conservative Party very bitterly. It’s not a sustainable solution politically for the Conservative Party. Candidly, do I want to end up in a permanent Customs Union anyway, where we have some consultation rights on the direction of a trade policy we won’t really be part of setting and won’t have any votes on? It’s obviously not an optimal outcome. I personally think it’s quite likely the Prime Minister would refuse to follow an indicative vote, which advocated a permanent Customs Union. So, I think we are gradually gravitating to a General Election.
Nick Robinson
Three things to discuss before we open it up to the audience, then, on this scenario. One is: is a Customs Union a good idea? Two is: politically, can it be implemented by this Government and this Prime Minster? And the third is: what do the EU think of the idea? So, let’s start with the policy first. Anna.
Anna Isaac
Okay. So, a Customs Union, as we understand it, means we have to follow it and we can’t set our own tariffs, and there’s a whole bunch of other regulations and standards and factors that go into it. Crawford Falconer, our Chief Trade Negotiator, who cannot yet negotiate trade deals, said, “I would be out of a job if we end up in a no” – we have had a fight over this, whether or not he said ‘a’ or ‘the’ Customs Union. He couldn’t define the customs territory, but, anyway. It becomes very difficult. We’ve seen what the no-deal tariffs look like, they present extraordinarily large problems for Irish and Northern Irish businesses. They present a lot of other headaches, in terms of wiping out a lot of the UK businesses overnight, but, as I said, we live in a world of F business now, so apparently that’s fine. But the problem with the Customs Union is it does mean you are wedded, you do not have the same ability to negotiate your own trade deals in the same way. As we are quite a services heavy economy, there are factors to consider as to whether or not the Customs Union makes that impossible, but, again, we come back to the argument of why are we talking about the Customs Union so, so much, rather than the Single Market? Why aren’t we talking about the Single Market?
Nick Robinson
Robin.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, I completely agree with that last point, and the Single – you can have a zero-tariff arrangement, but if you’ve got different standards, those standards still have to be checked at the border. It is a somewhat economically illiterate point to take, to say the Customs Union resolves everything. Another point to add, as I mentioned earlier, about our strength in services, this idea that we can, kind of, follow the EU on goods, but then go out and do special trade deals with the world on the services, ignores the fact that a lot of the countries who you want to sell your services to want to get into your market on goods. So, you’ve got no leverage to be able to trade access to your market for goods in return for the access to their market on services. So, I just don’t understand how it makes sense.
Nick Robinson
Caroline.
Caroline Lucas MP
Well, there’s just been shamefully little debate about this in Parliament, to be honest, and, you know, the – some of the proposals on the table, the Corbyn proposal, for example, is pretty much a unicorn. I mean, it’s based on a whole set of fantasies that aren’t going to be possible. But the thing I wanted to come back to, this thing that Barnier apparently said, that you only need another eight votes, that might’ve been the case, in terms of the fact that it lost against those people who voted against it back on Wednesday, but it’s certainly not the case that another eight votes in Parliament as a whole would get it over the line, because we know that the whole Cabinet abstained, for example. So, to be honest, when it comes to Monday…
Nick Robinson
Just to spell that out to you…
Caroline Lucas MP
Sorry.
Nick Robinson
…‘cause you’ve obviously studied the detail, not only did the Cabinet abstained – abstain, but a lot of backbench members chose not to participate in that ballot.
Caroline Lucas MP
Exactly. Exactly.
Nick Robinson
So, eight is just on one day on one particular way of voting.
Caroline Lucas MP
Exactly, exactly, it would need an awful lot more than that to get it over the line, which is why, on Monday, what those of us who think that it’s a very odd way of taking back control, to, kind of, go to a Customs Union when you’ve got practically no control, want to put a composite, if you like, between that, and get the people’s vote linked to it, because if you put together those two sets of MPs who would be happy with going back to the public with some kind of Customs Union proposal on the one hand, or remain on the other, that, I think, is what can get us over the line.
Nick Robinson
Let’s move to the politics, Robert. You started to talk about an election. In this scenario, the Commons mandates the Prime Minister to do something that she said she doesn’t want to do, is against the Tory manifesto. What happens?
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, it would – surely, it would have to be a Brexit election, which the last one wasn’t, because both the main parties said they accepted the outcome of a referendum. Labour, I think, would have great difficulty in defining a common policy, because many of its electors don’t agree with the position of its party membership, and I imagine that many individual Labour backbenchers, in marginal constituencies, would make a personal declaration of what sort of policy they would accept. If I remember the figures correctly, something like 70 – more than 70% of marginal seats held by Labour are in leave-voting constituencies, and of the, I think, the top – the most – the 16 most marginal Tory marginals are also leave-voting constituencies, some of them are very heavily leave-voting constituencies. So, I think either party – if either of the large parties does not back Brexit, it will lose the election. But before that happens, you’ve had an extension, haven’t you? Theresa May loses the vote, she is instructed to have a Customs Union, she then faces two choices. You can’t have a new leader or a new Prime Minister or an election before April the 12th. She faces two choices: she goes along with no-deal, or – and Parliament tries to block her, or she goes along with what they voted for on Customs Union, and she asks Brussels, she asks the EU 27 for an extension.
Nick Robinson
Well, I’m presuming this is a long extension, that we’ve asked for the election, yeah..
Robert Tombs Professor
So, there’s an extension, and in that period, your hope would be a Brexiteer’s elected, and there’d be a general election. If that were the scenario, Norbert Röttgen, so, the House of Commons has voted for a Customs Union, the Prime Minister says, “I don’t want to implement it, but gives us some time,” wouldn’t President Macron say, “You must be kidding? Let’s get the Brits out, otherwise they’ll be encouraging Le Pen. The next thing we’ll have Nigel Farage in the European Parliament, Boris Johnson in Number 10, and Marine Le Pen the next President of France.”
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Not really unlikely that he would say that, yeah, yes. So, he would certainly need the Chancellor to calm him down, and this is our successful way of doing things, we – sorry for being so blunt, yeah.
Professor Robert Tombs
There was just such a division at the last EU Council resolved, and you said, in your introduction, that one of the big lessons was European unity. Do you think, in that scenario, France and Germany, in particular, would find a way through the Macron desire to say, “Oh, enough of the Brits,” and Merkel’s desire to say, “Be patient, keep them in?”
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yes, I think so, because the specifics – or, it’s one element of our specific relationship with the French is that no other couple is so different than the German-French couple, but over, I would say, over centuries, we have succeeded to learn that, at the end of the day, we have to compromise, and we really have understood that, and really have understood that we have to compromise, otherwise we would really contribute to the failure of Europe.
Nick Robinson
I mean, I’m struggling to see a compromise, though. There was a very clever formula done last week, but if the simple question is: do you give the Brits an extension with the political risks inherent in that, Brexiteers getting in the European Parliament, a Brexiteer Prime Minister? It’s you either do it or you don’t, don’t you? There’s no obvious Brussels fudge there. They either give Britain the extension or they say, “Bye, off you go.”
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Yeah, well, we’ve seen the reticence about giving an extension, as I say, without being clear what the extension is for. The extension, clearly, here, could be for, you know, a major political event, a general election in this country. People might then be privately rather sceptical as to whether the general election would make matters better, either because we get the – basically, the same sort of Parliament as the current one, or we get a shift in a more Brexiteer direction, and a British Prime Minister, who wants to go further out.
Incidentally, I think, if we ended up with a British Prime Minister and a more Brexiteer Prime Minister who wanted to go further out, people might regret that in the European Union, and they might doubt the economic wisdom of it, from the UK’s point of view, but I don’t think they’re going to block it. This idea that the backstop is some sort of ghastly trap to keep us permanently, you know, aligned and trapped and unable to exercise our sovereignty, if we choose to go out of both Single Market and Customs Union, that’s our prerogative and our choice, and if that’s what – if we want to end up in a Canadian deal, I think people may think a Canadian deal is very bad for the UK economy, and there’s quite a lot of evidence that suggest it is, but they’re not going to stop us doing it, if that’s where the direction of the next Prime Minister is.
Nick Robinson
I want to open up, in just a second, to questions, but can’t you each just briefly, if you would, Ivan said that he has always thought no-deal is likely. I just want each of you in turn to say, kind of, where are you? Where mo – are you on – are you like me, the prerogative of the Commentator? One minute I think it is, the next minute I guess not. The great thing is we’re not held accountable for any of our forecasts, but what is your view of the likelihood of no-deal? Caroline, I think, from what you’ve said, you think not, because you think that Commons will back – block it.
Caroline Lucas MP
I mean, it’s certainly possible, but I think, on balance, we would get a very narrow majority in favour of blocking the no-deal.
Nick Robinson
Robert Tombs?
Professor Robert Tombs
I think a no deal is less alarming now than it was a year ago, but that doesn’t mean to say that Parliament will see that. I think it would be a – the only way I can see of bringing an end to this internal conflict.
Nick Robinson
But you’re not with, as it were, some of the Lawyers on the ERG side, who say, “Oh, no, it’s the legal default, it’s going to happen anyway”?
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, we – I think – well, it seems to me that Parliament has behaved in a way that is at least verging on the unconstitutional, but it’s doing that, and so it could stop a no-deal, even if you should say, “Well, that is not actually what Parliament’s prerogative ought to be.”
Nick Robinson
Anna?
Anna Isaac
I think what we’ve seen, because of the Government’s secrecy around trade policy, etc., is that we’ve had, for business and the city, no-deal by a thousand cuts, and the longer we have uncertainty, be it an extension, anything else, we will see the economy being steadily eroded. So, you might not see that sudden sharp shock that the Bank of England laid out in its scenario, we had a sudden 8% hit to GDP, but what you see is a steady erosion of competitive advantage, because businesses have to lay their chips down somewhere, and we see increasingly, them doing that in Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt.
Nick Robinson
Norbert?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
No no-deal scenario. I can’t imagine that.
Nick Robison
Because?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Because it would be so damaging for all, for everybody.
Nick Robinson
Robin?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I don’t see it happening, partly because it also would simply open up a complete new set of negotiations. No-deal isn’t a clean break. No-deal is the beginning of then having to negotiate how you manage no-deal. As I said earlier, you cannot escape the process of disentangling or re-entangling 40 years of regulatory linkages.
Nick Robinson
Ivan Rogers.
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, I mean, Anna and Robin have made it – made the points I just wanted to – first of all, no-deal is effectively happening in various sectors, and I’m talking a lot to corporate figures, who are basically telling me we’re having to act on the assumption that no-deal is now the – you know, anything other than that is upside, but we’re acting on it. It’s already happening in the real economy. Talk to CEOs and Chairs, and I do, that’s what’s happening. They have to.
To Robin’s point, I totally agree, and this is what frightens me about the, kind of, no deal rhetoric. In the end, both sides know there is essentially, no such thing, ‘cause it’s not sustainable. It is not an end state, it’s not a destination, it’s a transition state, which is why the Ambassadors, as I said earlier, were discussing it last night, the terms under which there would be a resumption of talks, which we all know have got to be resumed. There are multiple areas. When people…
Nick Robinson
Forgive me, just sum it up for a layperson. You’re saying, for those people, and they do say, in large numbers, “Just get on with it, even if it means no-deal.”
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
And go to WTO only. It’s mostly people who don’t understand what the WTO is or does, and most – and people who do not – I mean, and I’m afraid that includes both Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers, who’ve opined on this. There are large tracks of the economy where WTO only is a simply meaningless formulation.
Nick Robinson
Forgive me, I was asking you just to flesh out a slightly different point. You’re saying that no-deal doesn’t mean you go, “Oof, no more of that Brexit talk, the EU 27.”
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Yeah. Well, I mean, I used to talk a lot to my Swiss and Norwegian counterparts, and above all the Swiss, because they’ve got excellent history and very good negotiating skills, and have been dealing with the behemoth that’s the European Union from the outside, and they said, “Do your Politicians seriously not understand that in the world where you’ve exited the European Union, you will have a balls-aching process of negotiating everything in every sector of your economy with the European Union forevermore?” And I said, “No, I’m afraid our Politicians have a bit of a struggle with that.”
Nick Robinson
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I’m sure you agree, we can keep this going all night, but I’m very keen to get some of your questions. I think what we should do, if this is okay, is to broadly split the conversation into two. Caroline, you’ve got to go a little bit early, haven’t you?
Caroline Lucas MP
About 10:20.
Nick Robinson
Okay. What I’m conscious of is, there was a lot of broader politics raised in the opening contributions that we haven’t pulled apart, and with Caroline here, it seems to me it’s quite a good opportunity to do that. So, can we part the immediate questions we’re talking about. We heard about, just to remind you, we heard from Professor Tombs, talking about even he had begun to wonder if there was a deep state that won’t let Brexit happen. We’ve heard from Norbert, the warnings about not accommodating populists. We heard from Caroline about the rottenness of our UK governance. So, before we pick up the specifics, is there anything on that broad political argument that people – now, when I’m pointing out, if you would, the usual practice, if you just tell us who you are, and if you happen to represent someone, who you happen to represent, and if – forgive me, do keep it to a question, if you would. Yes, gentleman there. Yeah, your hand up, there. Microphone’s coming round? Yeah, there we are. Is there more than one mic, just so I know to point to the next one? Okay and there’s a gentleman here with an orange tie, if you could come forward.
Richard Oblath
Am I…
Robin Niblett CMG
I’m not sure about your timing of the whole thing.
Nick Robinson
Yeah, I’ll come to you later. So, it’s the gentleman behind you. Basically, if you get the microphone, talk, and if you don’t, wave at me again.
Richard Oblath
And Richard Oblath, Member of Chatham House. I’d like to go back to Caroline’s issue about the constitution. Isn’t a referendum, by its definition, in a representative democracy, not in keeping with the traditions of our constitution, although, it’s not written? So, my question is, is one of the learnings, “Don’t have referenda,” strengthen representative Government?
Nick Robinson
Don’t have referenda, question one. We’re going to take two or three in a row. Where’s the next microphone? Here we are.
Euripides L. Evriviades
My name is Eurip – good morning, my name is Euripides High Commissioner of Cyprus. In retrospect, is one of the lessons learned that the withdrawal agreement and the future agreement should have been tackled simultaneously? And do you believe that EU, Europe has learned the lessons of Brexit?
Nick Robinson
Very good. There’s a gentleman at the front here, and we’re going to bring a microphone to you, sir, so just wait ‘til you get the microphone if you would, okay? So, the sequencing, yeah.
Peter Marshall
My name is Peter Marshall. I’m the oldest person in the room present. The question I ask you, and most of the panel, and those present is, how many of you have read and studied closely the guidelines adopted by the European Union on the 29th of April 2017, in answer to Mrs May’s trigger letter, and as a result of your closed study, realise that the EU and their conduct of the negotiations have been in flagrant and constant breach of the provisions of paragraph 50, article 2?
Nick Robinson
So, give us two headlines as to how you think they’ve been in breach, and then we know what we’re dealing with.
Peter Marshall
Yes, exactly, the two principle breaches are ones which the High Commissioner has just referred. That is to say, the refusal to deal – to take in account the future relationship, while we’re negotiating the withdrawal agreement.
Nick Robinson
And the second?
Peter Marshall
And the second, even more important, is the refusal to serve the words ‘negotiate and conclude’, in paragraph two.
Nick Robinson
Okay, thank you very much.
Peter Marshall
All they will do is simply say, “Negotiate.”
Nick Robinson
Understood, thank you very much indeed. Now, are there some more questions? Yeah, hand the microphone to the lady in front of you, I’ll come to you in a second. Let’s just get – there’s a gentleman there in a burgundy tie, I think it is, and there’s a – would you wait a second, madam? I’m going to get some answers to the first set of questions. I was just trying to speed it up. If you sit down for a second, we’ll come to you in a moment, okay? Thank you very much indeed. So, let’s start with the broad democratic point, don’t have a referenda. I think your answer’s yes, is it, Caroline Lucas?
Caroline Lucas MP
Don’t have referenda? Yes, don’t, or yes – yeah, I’m just trying to work out what the yes means. But, anyway, essentially, I think that if we had a different electoral system under PR, perhaps the need for referenda would be far reduced, because you would hear people’s voices and know what they think in a much more realistic fashion, throughout your electoral system. I have to say, and it was probably the biggest political mistake of my life, so – and I haven’t said it publicly before, but I voted for this referendum. I voted for it because I’ve been a Member of the European Parliament for ten years, and whenever I talk to people in the UK, they had no idea what the EU did, what the European Parliament did. You know, they were fed a whole host of lies from the media for 20 years, and I genuinely thought, how naïve, in retrospect, that we could’ve had a mature conversation about the pros and the cons of the European Union, how it might change, how it changed people’s lives, and so forth, and, of course, we never got that. So, I still wouldn’t rule out ever having a referendum, but if we had a written constitution, we could see the role it would play, in that we would have rules around how you would conduct a referendum, and they would be 100% different from the way that we just did.
Nick Robinson
Norbert Röttgen, of course, you nodded, I saw, when the question was asked about a referendum, as they are banned by law in Germany. Is that still the case?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
They are banned by law, and we have always had a debate on the federal level, on the federal level.
Nick Robinson
So, the render – forgive me, I don’t know this, the Labour…
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yes, the Bundestag can do that, but I have – it has been debated for over the decades. I have always been a staunch opponent of doing a referendum, because I think it’s a worse way of doing democracy than the parliamentary system. The experience of the British referendum has led to a severe backlash of those who have been advocating for a referendum in Germany, and my view now is also more clear that either you do it all the time – you can’t do it in a small country like Switzerland, where you have a strong tradition, or you don’t do it at all. So, the way it is done, it’s certainly the wrong way to do it.
Nick Robinson
Very good, and let’s turn – and sorry, do you want to come to that? Can we turn to this point of sequencing, as it’s called, in the jargon? David Davies, you may remember, who’s Brexit Secretary, said there would be a – did he call it a red hot summer? It was something like that, where he said there would be a bitter argument in 2017 about the sequencing. In other words, do you do the divorce deal separately from the future trade relationship, or do you put them together? Do you believe the sequencing was a mistake, Ivan Rogers?
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, it wasn’t a mistake, from the EU point of view. Look, it’s a hard ball negotiation, and it was always going to be, and, you know, I dealt with the EU from the inside and from the outside. I’m not naïve about how the EU behaves with negotiating partners when you’re in it or when you’re outside it. We made a cardinal error in giving them a guarantee that we were going to invoke by date certain without – invoke Article 50 by date certain, without knowing how it was going to run and what our negotiating objectives were.
You can understand the political imperatives for the Prime Minister in moving faster, and she was under huge pressure from all the people who are criticising her now, and anxious for her head now. She was under enormous pressure to do precisely that, and it was a strategic mistake. On the sequencing, you have to have a serious and deep argument with the other side about how is this going to work, what’s the product at the end of it, what does it look like and what do we do in parallel? So, they failed to do that, and caved in at the, you know, after the 20 – after the 29th of April, as Mr Marshall completely correctly says. It’s all written there, it’s very obvious what the EU’s strategy is in running the Article 50 negotiations from that point. It was very obvious that the UK authorities didn’t really understand what the European guidelines at that stage were saying, or at least many in the Cabinet and many outside it, and many in Parliament didn’t. It was blindingly obvious to somebody like me, as an expert who used to be inside, that we were then on tramlines to where we have duly reached.
Nick Robinson
Wasn’t it therefore, Norbert Röttgen, actually short-sighted of the EU? So, the argument goes that by putting divorce first, it made it much easier for the EU to maintain the unity. It’s very easy to agree on British money. It’s very easy to agree that you want EU citizens to have rights. It’s very easy to defend one of your member states, Ireland, but if you want to build a decent relationship, with one of the largest economies in Europe, wasn’t it actually a daft thing to do? Sorry, translate northern pronunciation of daft.
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yeah, I don’t think so, because a future relationship has to have a solid basis, and you have to sort out these things first, and so, I think it is – it reflects a logical order, and, of course, it has been a negotiation approach, and which served the negotiation interest of the European Union. And, of course, we – the perception was this will be – to be hardball, and we have to prepare well and have to bring in all our negotiation skills, and this was the way they did it, and from our side, I think, it was the right approach.
Nick Robinson
But wasn’t it based on a very flattering fear that the Brits had some brilliant, cunning plan, that the EU had to, kind of, stand strong, rather than saying, “Britain’s in a mess, we could be in a mess, let’s get together and see how we get out the mess?”
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Certainly, they conflated Sir Ivan Rogers with all the people here in this country. So, they were more impressed than the most.
Nick Robinson
Anna, and then we’ll go to some more questions.
Anna Isaac
Very quickly, I think it’s a false distinction. I think the withdrawal agreement is the basis for the future relationship, and if you believe anything else, good luck. And I think it’s a very intelligent thing to do to make you think there’s a separation, because what that does is, it makes the withdrawal agreement a test of your pain threshold when it comes to driving the really hard detailed bargain on your future trade relationship. Testing the fear, amongst the British public and political class of no-deal, is exactly what you need to find all of the pain points, when you come to work out which industries are most vulnerable. So, it’s been the best test case in history for preparing someone for locking them into a trade agreement.
Nick Robinson
But they might not want to. Robert.
Dr Robert Niblett CMG
I just want to – one point to be ma – Peter Marshall’s comment, this – I don’t think you can say the EU is in breach. In the end, the UK chose not to take advantage of that Article 50 second paragraph, or it’s we did not have a plan of what we wanted the second phase to be. I don’t think the Government did, and the result is, we didn’t have the opportunity to take advantage of that negotiating conflation. We just didn’t do it. We could’ve done it. We didn’t. We chose not to do it.
Peter Marshall
We did. We proposed, in the letter of the trigger letter, Mrs May proposed specifically that the two questions should be taken alongside, and that was dismissed by Barnier as being, “Too risky.”
Dr Robert Niblett CMG
You – but you can’t take it alongside unless you know what you’re taking alongside, and what we discovered through the indicative votes is, the Government does not know yet what it wants the future relationship to be.
Nick Robinson
Okay, thank you, all. We’ve got about 15 minutes left, and I do want to do some of the questions about the immediate issues that we came up with. The lady at the front has a microphone, yes?
Ellen Dahrendorf
This is Ellen Dahrendorf, Member of Chatham House. This is a non-technical question, but I would love to hear a non-sarcastic, non-emotional, intellectual explanation of why, in the view of a changed situation, and so much new information, it’s undemocratic to go back to the people and see if this is what you still think?
Nick Robinson
I confess, I don’t know what Professor Tomb’s view. I’m going to guess you’re against a second referendum. I don’t know whether you are.
Ellen Dahrendorf
I think that question was for Professors in this room.
Professor Robert Tombs
I’m very happy to say what I think. We could have a second referendum, in a few years’ time, when we know more about the effects of leaving. It seems to me quite wrong to hold a legal vote, which is then confirmed in the general election, to delay the process to use max – try to put maximum pressure on the electorate, and to frighten them, and then say, “We’re going to make you vote again, and this time, if you get it right, that will be the end of the whole process,” and, in effect, it seems to me a way of manipulating a popular vote, in order to supress a popular decision.
Nick Robinson
Okay, there we are, I think you got the answer. Gentleman here’s got the microphone. Let me just see where next. There’s a man with his hand up in the middle. I’m so sorry, I’ve ignored you, but I won’t. So, can we bring the microphone over there? Characteristic of all discussions that I ever Chair, there are an awful lot of men putting their hands up. Are there any women who would care to – no longer a problem we have at the BBC. The – there’s a gentleman here, and there’s a microphone. Good, okay, yeah.
Martin Barrow
Okay and Martin Barrow, Member of Chatham House. I’d like to ask the panel about the underlying issue of regulation, which I call the danger of comfort in complexity. Thicker regulations, increased risk, not reduce it, ‘cause nobody reads it. Now, Ivan, in your time in Brussels, could we have done more, in hindsight, to contain bulky European regulation? Now, Norbert, in your remarks at the beginning, you said that all of Brexit might actually stimulate the EU in simplifying processes, and so on. Do you think that we can make progress on that, which is a global – I used to be Chairman of Deregulation in Hong Kong, something that needs global process. Of course, we need regulation, but keep it short and simple.
Nick Robinson
Okay, regulation. Where was the next microphone, forgive me? Yes.
Dr Nick Westcott
Nick Westcott at SOAS. And nobody has mentioned Scotland. Do the panel think that there’s a risk if Brexit goes ahead in whatever form, unless the SNP vote for that form, that the United Kingdom will become ununited?
Nick Robinson
Okay, regulation in the UK. Yeah, sir.
Quentin Peel
Quentin Peel, Associate Fellow here at Chatham House, but formerly Brussels Bureau Chief for the Financial Times, and Berlin. It looks increasingly likely that European elections will be held here. Do you think that’s a good or bad thing, and who will be the winners and the losers?
Nick Robinson
Quite a lot to get through, so I won’t give you all the chance to answer each one. Let me – wave at me if you’re desperately keen. Regulation, Ivan and Norbert, to start with.
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, it’s a very complex question, in terms of what we could’ve done more and better, and whether one could’ve regulated better at the European level than we currently do, and it obviously depends massively on which sector you’re talking about. There is a problem in the way the European Union legislates, let’s be honest, and the co-decision procedure and how legislation gets passed, and, you know, whether it’s all effective legislation, but it’s too complex to answer. I think what I would answer on the purpose of Brexit, one does have to know whether the purpose of Brexit, which I think is true for at least a number of Brexiteers, although not all, it’s essentially a deregulatory movement. It’s a belief that we are overregulated, and that the European economy is sclerotic because of overregulation. There’s some evidence for that, although I think they overstate it, but then, the key point that I would make is the point that I keep on trying to make now, publicly, is if you are going to deregulate and go in a radically different direction on services, but also on significant parts of goods, look at, for example, what Boris Johnson said about the Copyright Directive and how much he loathed it the other day. That’s fine, and one of the purposes of Brexit might be to go in a radically different direction in significant sectors of the economy.
If that’s the case, it’s perfectly legitimate for the other side to say, “The purpose of this process was divergence rather than convergence.” As I keep on saying, every trade negotiation in history between partners has been a process of convergence between two states, or two systems trying to get closer together. This is a process of divergence. Please tell us where you’re diverging to, and then, in the light of that, we can have a trade discussion about the extent to which we accord new market access, which will be appreciably lower market access than you have under Single Market and Customs Union. But let’s get real about this conversation. If the purpose of Brexit is radical divergence, fine, state that, but then don’t say, everything can remain unchanged about your trade relations with European Union partners, ‘cause it’s nonsense.
Nick Robinson
Norbert?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
I fully agree on this point of regulation and how to do it. I am – I have to say that if Britain leaves, it would be one of, an – it would be an important area where we really would miss Britain to be a member state of the European Union, and work closely together between Britain and Germany. And regarding the future, I am really convinced, and perhaps there is a changing mood that we have to refocus, and we have really started, even Junker and others have restarted to refoc – have started to refocus the European Union. And leave the internal project a little bit behind, which is very much about regulation, and focus and, yes, and design the European Union to get equipped, better equipped and suited to respond to the geopolitical upheavals. So, this means we have to define our role in the world. So, we have to focus on that. Again, it would be an area where we would really miss Britain to be there.
Nick Robinson
I want to come onto the unity of the UK and the EU elections in just a second, but, Professor Tombs, if I read you correctly, one of your main arguments for Brexit has been the EU doesn’t reform, has proved itself incapable of reform, and may well implode on its own internal contradictions. Are you a sceptic when you hear this conversation about how it will reform?
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, I don’t think of that cliché about rearranging the Chairs on the Titanic. It seems to me the EU’s principle problem is in the nature of the Eurozone itself, and in the financial and economic, and indeed social strains that it causes. Far more worrying than the degree of regulations in certain industries is the fact of chronic mass unemployment in a large part of Europe, which is essentially caused by the Eurozone structure itself, and unless that can be remedied, it seems to me that the EU has no very bright future.
Nick Robinson
Let’s turn to the UK. Anybody on the panel want to express a view, Caroline, on whether the UK can hold together?
Caroline Lucas MP
Can I do that, and can I have one other quick bite at the cherry, and then run away? So, I really agree that there’s a real risk that if Brexit happens, any kind of Brexit, frankly, I think it will give new momentum to the – I mean, I say a risk, but for those people who don’t want Scotland to become independent. If I was in Scotland, frankly, I think I’d be looking forward to it quite a lot, but I think it will accelerate, the Independence Movement in Scotland, certainly, if Brexit goes ahead, and I think that would be a very ironic outcome from a process that was supposed to be, kind of, you know, all about Great Britain and United Kingdom on the world stage.
The thing I wanted to come back to very quickly was the point of the – that the woman at the front made, because when Robert said…
Nick Robinson
On the referendum.
Caroline Lucas MP
On the referendum. When Robert said that the referendum result was confirmed in the General Election, I mean, with respect, it really wasn’t. I mean, Mrs May went to the country, hoping to get a mandate for her, kind of, approach to Brexit, and she lost her majority, and a lot of people vote in General Elections on a lot of different issues. So, I definitely don’t think you can draw that conclusion, and I would just simply say that democracy is not just one moment, democracy is a process. There is so much evidence that people’s minds have changed, over the preceding almost three years that we’ve had since, that it feels to me that the only democratic thing to do is to go back to the people.
Nick Robinson
Well, the other democratic thing to do is to go and vote in the House of Commons, so we’re going to let you go.
Caroline Lucas MP
Thank you very much.
Nick Robinson
Can we all thank Caroline [applause]? Just a few minutes left, and I want to end the discussion, just to warn the panellists, with where we’ll be in three years’ time. So, have a mull on that. We’ve been talking about where we’ve come from in three years. Where will be in three years’ time is going to be my last question to you? The EU elections, good or bad, Robin? British politics.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, British politics. I suppose the big challenge would be, for each party, what do you stand for in that European Parliamentary election, given that the Conservative Party is divided in the Cabinet and throughout the Party on what the future is, given the Labour Party, it strikes me, are disguising deep divisions that they hold as well, and whether UKIP reforms. You know, is it – and reforms, let me rephrase that, reforms itself as a major party and stands up. So, you know, if I had to hazard a guess, I would say, actually, Labour would do reasonably well, because their contradictions, perhaps, are more bridgeable than those of the Conservative Party.
Nick Robinson
Isn’t this, Norbert, one of those things where there’s a very different British perspective from the rest of Europe? I mean, the Greens won the European elections under Margaret Thatcher. UKIP have won the European elections more than once, I think I’m right in saying, under Hague, and also, under Cameron, to which most people in Britain shrug and say, “It’s the European elections, who cares?” But to Macron, these European elections are crucial, are they not? That’s why we’re all worried, isn’t it?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yes, and we just had a poll yesterday, in the [inaudible – 66:45], which reflected that the sense of importance in Germany, regarding the European elections, has significantly increased, compared to the 2014 elections. So, there is really a sense, a broad shared – broadly shared sense in Germany that precisely these imminent European elections are the most important we have ever had.
Nick Robinson
Because?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Because it is about the identity of Europe and the future path of Europe. It’s fundamentally about remaining Europe a project of liberal democracy, which is challenged by populist nationalism.
Nick Robinson
But, otherwise, Macron in the lead, because Macron is going, but Macron in the lead versus Orbán, versus Salvini, versus the ‘populists’.
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
Yeah, but I think this is a campaign mode by the French President. He is not acting as President, but as a campaigner to present himself as the leading figure, and by this promoting others, like Orbán, as his opponent, which makes things – makes Orbán stronger than he really is. So, I – we really do not agree with this approach, and I think it has to be more broadly shared, and it’s not a one-man issue, as it was in France.
Nick Robinson
Now, forgive me, ladies and gentlemen, but we’re coming to a close. I’m going to ask the last question, if you’d give me that prerogative, which is, we’ve talked about where we’ve come over three years. Where, hazard a guess, will we be in three years? Still in the EU and negotiating the future? Well out? In what sort of relationship? We’re all guessing. Professor Tombs.
Professor Robert Tombs
Well, I’ve spent most of my life as a Historian, and Historians know that the future is not foretellable, and especially our present future. Who would’ve predicted three years ago where we’d be today? So, I simply do not think it can be predicted.
Nick Robinson
Do you look at the future with optimism or foreboding?
Professor Robert Tombs
I can’t remember who it was who said, “Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect,” but that’s how I look at it.
Nick Robinson
Anna.
Anna Isaac
I think what we won’t have is an economic recovery in three years’ time. I think if you look at the economic backdrop that all of these negotiations are set against, we will probably be dealing with, if not a recession, the bridge of a recession in the US, in the Eurozone, and we will have a really strange layout of economic stagnation that will mean it’s very hard to see a win from any kind of outcome. I think everyone’s going to feel like they’ve lost a lot in three years’ time.
Nick Robinson
Robin?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
A lot depends on whether the confirmatory referendum, which got the largest number of votes, back in the indicative votes, gets more support on Monday, if we get to that point on Monday, because I think there is an outside chance of a confirmatory referendum, because it could bring Labour over. I happen to think that if such a referendum were to happen, there’s a strong chance that Leave might win if Theresa May was up against it. Where I think we will be, however, is in the process of leaving. We will have left in three years’ time, we will not be a member of the EU, and we will be in the process of negotiating our way to an outer circle that is incredibly interlinked, an EFTA-style Britain connected with Europe.
Nick Robinson
Ivan?
Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG
Well, in terms of where we were three years ago and where we are now, I feel slightly inclined to say that although some thought I was rather gloomy three years ago, I may not have been gloomy enough. So, I broadly thought we would be where we are, but in slightly less –and in fact, considerably less chaotic state, and with more clarity about what the future direction and the future framework would be. So, I think we made even less progress in the first three years post the referendum than I thought we would. I obviously am notorious for having said, which I did say both privately and in person and in print that I thought that Brexit was a lengthy process, not an event, because of the extraordinary, complex process of disentangling yourselves, and the deaccession process, in the jargon of Brussels, and that our political class needed to take that seriously, and it would take eight to ten years to get to the other side of it. I stick by that, we’ve already used three of them, and we haven’t even started on the difficult stuff yet.
Where do I think we’ll be in three years’ time? I think we will leave, and are leaving. I think that why are we leaving, and why – we’ve just touched on the question of why does nobody ever mention the Single Market? It’s the dog that doesn’t bark. Everybody obsesses about the wrong issues, both in the executive and in the legislature. Why? Because the services issue is caught up with the free movement issue, and nobody wants to get into the free movement issue. It’s the dog that hasn’t barked in the debate. We will come back to that in the trade negotiation at some stage, because we will discover that our interests in the trade negotiation are to get somewhere much better on services than is envisaged in Mrs May’s rather lousy withdrawal agreement.
So, this is not the end state. We will have a different political declaration. I don’t know who will be in Office. Probably a different, and as I was saying, probably more Brexiteer Conservative Prime Minister. We will be grinding through in three – in the next three years an FTA negotiation. I personally think we will go a bit further out, actually, of the European Union, albeit than Mrs May wants to in her withdrawal agreement, under a different Prime Minister. I suspect we won’t have finished in three years’ time, and I stick by – and then you’ve still got a ratification process, but we will be nearing the endgame of a trade negotiation, three years from now, I think.
Nick Robinson
Lots to look forward to, particularly for Presenters of The Today Programme. Norbert, Norbert Röttgen, I should’ve said when we introduced you that you were, of course, one of the key Authors of the Love Letter from a range of people in German politics, economic life, cultural life as well, saying, you know, “We love you, Britain,” kind of, in either direction, but you were also one of those people, in your recent tweets, have argued for a long extension, and a rethink, but what’s your prediction?
Dr Norbert Röttgen MdB
I would prefer to follow the academic insight of the unpredictability, and I would prefer to express our wish, and we want you to stay [applause]. As simple as that.
Nick Robinson
Well, that applause comes from this non-representative sample of the British public gathered in Central London in London’s Chatham House. Ladies and gentlemen, can I just ask you to join me in thanking all of our guests today: Sir Ivan Rogers, Robert Tombs, Norbert Röttgen, and Robin Niblett, Anna Isaac, and, of course, again, Caroline Lucas. Thank you very much indeed [applause].
