I think there is an appreciation that rejoining is
going to be extremely challenging . The problem is that not rejoining is going to be also extremely
challenging. And in a sense they are trying to create a non-existent comfort zone which is
that somehow of course Brexit was not ideal, it was a mistake and things,
but it's not as bad as all that, we can somehow make the thing work, we
can muddle through and this is I'm afraid a line of thinking that has a very long and not
very glorious history in British policy making. Hello I'm Brendan Donnelly, I'm the Director
of the Federal Trust, and I'll be discussing today with the chair of the Federal Trust
John Stevens the state of Brexit and the Brexit debate in the United Kingdom. John, at the
weekend there was a well-publicized report in The Observer about a meeting which has supposedly
taken place between leading Conservative and Labour politicians on the subject of Brexit. The
theme was moving beyond remain and leave camps and trying to make Brexit work. That's been much
criticized, particularly by the most enthusiastic Brexiters who see it as a prelude to betraying
Brexit. Are they right to have these fears? Well, they're right to be concerned that Brexit
is clearly not working and this is further proof of it. But I think they're quite mistaken in
imagining that this is any form of serious attempt at reversing Brexit. Quite the contrary,
it's actually an indication that the Labour Party is accepting that going along with Brexit
and using the slogan of "Making Brexit Work" benefits from having some links to the
Conservative Party. It improves their political strategy which is to recover the red wall by
avoiding essentially the Brexit issue or loading the blame for Brexit onto the Conservatives but
not addressing the underlying issue that Brexit has been a disaster. It seems that Sunak wasn't
informed of this meeting. How significant is that? Well, I think it is quite surprising that he was
not informed and I think it is an indication of his weakness in this situation. I mean he is
at the moment endeavouring to get a deal on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Any form of a
discussion along these lines that raises the fears of the harder line anti-Europeans in the
Conservative Party and beyond in the Democratic Unionist Party I think makes his position more
difficult. So I can't imagine he was overjoyed to read this over his breakfast. Do you attach
significance to the fact that apparently some Leavers, some people who voted to leave, for
Brexit, are now admitting at least in private that Brexit isn't working although interestingly
Gove who was widely quoted in the Sunday press apparently still believes that
Brexit was a spiffingly good idea. Well, Gove clearly thought it was a spiffingly
good idea in order to advance his own personal political ambitions, like Boris Johnson. This
is the irony of the situation, that both of them almost certainly embraced the Leave campaign
not out of deep consideration or conviction but because it was a part of their strategy to
acquire leadership of the Conservative Party. Gove I think is now in a very interesting
position because he must know that Brexit is a disaster and that he will have a very significant
responsibility for it when the history books come to be written. Now I'm not sure whether he is
someone who worries about that sort of thing but if he does the one chance he has of redeeming his
position would be to now actually say that it was a mistake to do Brexit. But of course he won't do
that, I would be astonished if he did. It would be the one thing that could actually really change
the debate in Britain, would be someone like him recanting their errors. But on the contrary it
seems that he is still mired in essentially a personal position of justifying himself. And
as long as that is the case then his place in history will be deservedly as black as night.
Is it overoptimistic to think that two wings are emerging within the Conservative Party in their
approach to Brexit? One of which headed by people like Jacob Rees-Mogg is entirely ideological and
dogmatic, and the other perhaps headed by Gove is a more pragmatic approach, is that over
optimistic? Is it inaccurate? Well, I think it is certainly true that there have been a curious
combination in the Brexit camp between true believers and opportunists. And the most effective
brains in the operation and the most effective campaigners have in fact been the opportunists not
the true believers. And as the problems of Brexit mount up clearly the ranks of the true believers
will thin and the numbers of those who have to work out how they can live with the consequences
of what has happened will grow. As I say, Gove, and for that matter Johnson, but Gove particularly
because he is an intelligent man and I think is more self-aware than most others in this
situation, has got an opportunity to correct the enormous error of Brexit. But I don't think
he will take it because of the personal restraints which he is undoubtedly under and because of
the residual position of his own ambition. But the broader point is that Brexit is clearly
failing and what can be saved from the wreck is now the main direction of debate. Why do you think
it is that the Labour Party has participated in this event, in these discussions? I can see why
they might not want to talk too much about Brexit, I can even understand the claim of Starmer and
others that it will be inappropriate to re-enter the Single Market or the Customs Union. But to be
seen to be working together with the government on this issue, why have they gone down that
road? Well, I think it is a manner of putting the blame for all the problems of Brexit onto the
Conservatives while at the same time not putting themselves into a position of actually addressing
those problems and reversing it. I mean it isn't a sense an ideal political position to be in
ahead of the General Election if their target is indeed winning back the red wall seats which
they lost in 2019. So it is purely tactical but it has a tactical merit in the sense that it is
asymmetric for the view of the Conservative Party. It weakens the Conservative Party's credibility
as a Brexit party, it makes it more difficult for the Conservatives to retreat into an attempt
to recreate the 2019 campaign by firing up the Brexit issue and proclaiming its benefits and
its liberating supposedly liberating qualities. And it therefore traps the Conservative Party
and I think that's principally what Starmer is considering. It has a quality of Peter Mandelson's
tactics actually and of course he was attending the Ditchley meeting. Many people on the remain
side of the argument have welcomed this meeting, seeing it as being a beginning of a more
conciliatory and constructive approach to Brexit. Are they right in their evaluation? Well,
I think there is certainly going to be an attempt to say that we've got to make the
best of the job I mean this is clearly the emerging mainstream consensus
both in the Labour Party's position and I think more widely because I think there
is an appreciation that rejoining is going to be extremely challenging. The problem is that
not rejoining is going to be also extremely challenging. And in a sense they are trying to
create a non-existent comfort zone which is that somehow of course Brexit was not ideal, it was
a mistake and things, but it's not as bad as all that, we can somehow make the thing work,
we can muddle through. And this is I'm afraid a line of thinking that has a very long and not
very glorious history in in British policy making. Do you think that that will be a sustainable
position for the Labour Party in particular over the next couple of years? If the situation
becomes much worse, if opinion turns much more vehemently against Brexit, will the Labour Party
be able to continue with this plan of playing both ends against the middle? I think if the economic
situation deteriorates further it will become more difficult, that's certainly true. But the problem
is that there is no strategy to actually rejoin and there is no honesty about
what rejoining would really entail and as long as that is the case, as long as
there is no one willing to make a positive case for rejoining and a positive
case for the European Union overall then this halfway house of hoping that somehow
we can muddle through will I fear prevail. One of the issues that will certainly have
been discussed at this meeting would have been Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland
Protocol, where it seems that the Labour Party are willing once again in a slightly disingenuous way
to help the government solve the problems which they're confronted with. We're told that there
is a text of the Protocol, revised Protocol, modified Protocol, which Sunak is sitting on. What
do you think the prospects are for an agreement and do you think he can sell it in particular to
the different wings of the Conservative Party? I think he may be able to sell it to the
Brexiteer element in the Conservative Party, I cannot see how he can square it
with unionism in Northern Ireland, and I think that's where the real barrier
lies. And so even if there were to be an agreement of some kind between the EU and the UK
government, whether it would actually be able to work on the ground and whether it would be
consistent with a restoration of Stormont I think is a very different question. I
mean fundamentally there is no solution to the Northern Irish situation following
Brexit other than ultimately reunification. And this truth with all that it entails, with
its immense difficulties in Northern Ireland, it cannot be wished away and so all parties
in this are regarding it as in some way just a damage limitation exercise. And
I think the Labour Party's engagement is knowing that this thing is not going to work
fundamentally and not wishing to have any responsibility for it not working, to
load that responsibility entirely onto the government. In a sense it's a specific
version of why they're happy to engage with the Conservative Party in discussing how Brexit
might be improved somewhat. It loads all the blame onto the government and allows them
to avoid blame for not being more engaged. There is a feedback however between the ERG and
the DUP, isn't there? If the DUP won't buy it I think it will be very difficult for Sunak to sell
it to the ERG. There's a similarity of culture, isn't there, both ERG and the DUP are waiting to
be betrayed by the British government if you like. I think that's certainly true but there
is one very big difference which is the DUP are concerned about the unionist tradition in
Northern Ireland and their existential position, whereas the ERG element I think are confused
with other issues that will enter into their considerations, above all the question of whether
Boris Johnson might stage a return. And so this is much more linked I think in the British
end of the debate with other considerations about the future of the Conservative Party,
how it goes into the next General Election, Johnson's return, the future status of
Trussite economics and all the rest I mean, and Northern Ireland is only one small component
of that, and one which has been consistently used by these parties for their own purposes,
most spectacularly Johnson's own betrayal of the Northern Irish doing the deal in the first
place. Whereas the DUP are in a totally different position, they are playing, they believe they are
playing for their entire identity. Well, you say betrayal of the Northern Irish - not everybody
in Northern Ireland feels themselves betrayed by the Protocol, there is a sector... but the
unionist tradition do. Something that the meeting last week can't have discussed, unless they had
telepathic powers, would have been the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in Scotland,
perhaps equally important for the future of the Union to the question of Northern Ireland.
What do you think they might and should have said about that if they'd known about it, what
implications does this have if any for Brexit? Well, there does seem to be a very widespread
belief that the departure of Nicola Sturgeon is a defeat for independence and a defeat for the SNP
and has weakened significantly the SNP's position. I'm not sure that's entirely true. Nicola
Sturgeon represented an evasion of some of the fundamental truths about independence which
is in a sense also the evasion that far too many pro-Europeans are now making about reversing
Brexit: that for independence to work Scotland has to leave the UK and join the EU. And joining
the EU is a very complicated proposition not least in matters such as the currency and the rest.
And Sturgeon I think was hoping to carry the issue of independence on an emotional tide,
essentially on her personality, on a range of attitudes and feelings which evaded some of the
very tough economic issues that independence entails. And the question really is whether her
departure will force the SNP to address the issue of essentially joining the EU which is the only
plausible alternative to remaining in the UK. And so that's going to be the test I think of
the significance of her departure. I think she was in some respects, and perhaps she was aware of
this, a barrier to the independence cause because precisely she represented a type of nationalism
that was about emotion, about a range of feelings, and not addressing really tough issues. And
of course that can also be said I think for her conduct as First Minister in Scotland that
despite the wave of popularity that she was able to provide, one of which other politicians would
have been jealous of, the actual record of the Scottish devolved government in a number of key
areas, the National Health Service for example, education too, has been in fact rather poor.
Well, it's always suspicious when the Eurosceptic press is unanimous in thinking that something
has happened which enormously strengthens the hand of the Eurosceptics. We're always being
told the European Union is about to fade away, about to be divided, there's no future for
France, Italy, Germany, whichever happens to be the unpopular country at the moment. It seems to
me very premature to say that her retirement from being First Minister is the end of independence in
Scotland. If this is a project which has legs, if it's a real shot on the board then it will survive
the not even disappearance of a particular person because as I understand it she's going to be
continuing in her political work and it might even be that free from responsibility she will be more
effective than she's been on until now. Well we've had a very interesting review of where we are
in the Brexit process. Thank you very much John. No doubt there will be many more episodes
to come in future weeks and months. Goodbye.
