Brexit Facts4EU is known for thorough research and analysis of Brexit information
from official sources: from the EU, from the UK, and from other EU countries.
Readers tell us they like us for our punchy articles with simple facts which are
bullet-pointed, and for our simple charts which tell a story at a glance.
Politicians tell us they like us because they know they can trust the facts we
report. They also like that they don’t have to read a 3,000 word article and they
don’t have to work to find the facts contained therein.
Below is the transcript of a long interview conducted by our editor over the
weekend with one of the very few Conservative MEPs in the EU Parliament who has
been consistently pro-Leave.
David Campbell Bannerman is a Conservative MEP who sits on the EU Parliament’s
International Trade Committee. He is the originator of the ‘SuperCanada’ trade
option, for the future trade arrangement between the EU and the UK. He is an ardent
Brexiteer.
He and our editor discussed SuperCanada, as well as ranging over many other Brexit
issues including sovereignty, the Single Market, the Customs Union, freedom of
movement - and crucially Theresa May's Chequers White Paper.
For once we have decided to give you a rare glimpse into the full conversation,
rather then just the highlights.
We warn you: what follows is a very long read. However it is perhaps a unique
insight. We hope you enjoy it.
Tomorrow we’ll go back to our usual punchy and factual articles about the EU and
Brexit.
THE DAVID CAMPBELL BANNERMAN TAPES
Q: What is ‘SuperCanada’? Can you give our readers your ‘elevator pitch’?
A: Yes. Most trade in the world is done through global trade deals - free trade
agreements. I’m advocating for the EU-UK trade deal a ‘SuperCanada Deal’ which is
bigger, better, wider than the Canada trade deal with the EU (called CETA) that
recently completed last year.
But it would have more. It would have 100% tariff-free access and it would have
services in it. So basically, it’s the best ever trade deal the EU has ever
offered and it’s entirely deliverable.
Q: Why do you think the SuperCanada option might fly with the EU?
A: With possible forms of trade deals it’s not just what’s acceptable to the UK,
it’s what acceptable to the EU27, the remaining nations of the EU.
I’ve done nearly 10 years on the International Trade Committee of the European
Parliament and I worked on deals, Canada most recently. I worked also on the
South Korea deal, I’m covering New-Zealand at the moment, and I’m monitoring
Australia.
There’s a lot of commonality about all these deals, I think that’s an important
point. These are not all entirely different deals.
HOW IT’S THE WTO THAT CONTROLS WORLD TRADE
I think the first point to make is that the EU doesn’t make the trade rules, the
World Trade Organization(WTO) does. And I regard WTO as like the spring that
leads to all the rivers of world trade deals.
What happens is that the WTO sets the rules - the global rules network. If you
look at the free trade agreements done by the EU particularly - or others done
around the world - there’s a lot of commonality and what you see reflected are
WTO agreements, such as the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
So, what I’m saying is that the EU is following a lot of WTO practice and
agreements and rules and procedures and protocols. So, you’re looking at any
trade new trade deal being driven by global WTO rules. We would follow those and
we’re comfortable with following those.
Q: If that’s the case, and if this deal you’re proposing follows WTO rules and
follows the way the EU has more recently done deals, why on earth are we in the
state we’re in and why wasn’t this pursued by the government?
A: Well, it has been pursued, it was being pursued by the original Brexit
Department: by David Davis, by Steve Baker, by Stewart Jackson, all of whom has
resigned or lost their jobs recently. The ConservativeHome website actually has
the original White Paper which contains this ‘Super Canada’ deal, otherwise known
as ‘CETA+++’. CETA being the name for the deal the EU did with Canada last year.
This actually was in the official White Paper of the Brexit Department but
unfortunately Number 10 has been playing some very strange games, where their
Europe Unit had developed a separate White Paper for what is now the Chequers
Agreement.
Chequers is a kind of Euromush. It’s closer to the Norwegian EEA Agreement. Plan
A was to use a SuperCanada trade agreement and that was reflected in the
‘unofficial’ White Paper from David Davis’ Brexit Department.
THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY
This is what’s happening at the moment: we are running into problems with the EU.
Barnier’s been very damning because one thing they don’t want to see is
interference with their Four Freedoms and the Single Market. They regard this as
being very much their red lines - very special to them. And of course, the
Chequers Deal messes with goods and services and it creates a lot of questions.
So they look at a free trade agreement like Canada as being a much cleaner,
simpler model. They’ve just signed a free trade agreement with Japan. There was
no talk of Japan being in the Customs Union or a ‘Customs Partnership’ or a
‘Customs Facilitation Arrangement’ – or whatever you’re going to call it.
It’s a clean free trade agreement based on WTO rules and that is how the world
does free trade agreements all around the world. It doesn’t tend to follow EEA or
EFTA – those are special deals which relate to countries supposedly joining the
EU. Norway was supposed to be joining the EU after having this EEA agreement. It
was a sort of stepping stone towards EU membership. As are association agreements
such as Ukraine and some of the North African ones.
At the end of the day the European Parliament has a sole power but important
Brexit power which is to agree or disagree the final Withdrawal Agreement and
also the trade agreement which will follow from that. So essentially the European
Parliament will make the decision whether it accepts the future partnership - the
trade deal - or not.
And the Withdrawal Agreement is more pressing, it has to be done by March. That
gets Britain out of the EU with the £39 billion payment and the EU citizens’
rights and a solution on Northern Ireland, one hopes. But within that there’s a
trade deal, or the outlines of a trade deal, and that will then be negotiated
once we’re a ‘third country’ - as it’s known in their parlance - from the 30th of
March next year. We can’t negotiate a free trade agreement until we’re a third
country.
NEGOTIATING INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEALS NOW
Q: Some people like us, and Martin Howe QC from Lawyers for Britain, have argued
that there’s nothing stopping the UK government negotiating trade deals right
now, so that they are ready to be signed and implemented on Day One after exiting
the EU. What are your thoughts?
A: I agree with that. However we lost the argument over sequencing, and David
Davis in his resignation letter mentions that. My understanding is that allegedly
the business side of the cabinet: the Treasury and Business Ministers wanted to
agree to this sequencing to keep the EU happy. David Davis was overruled right
from the start.
I think it was all about pandering to the EU. But actually I challenged it myself
in the EU. I said: ‘Look, in Article 50 there aren’t many clauses but it does
make clear that you agree a withdrawal agreement bearing in mind the future
relationship you’re going to have. How can you conclude the withdrawal agreement
without knowing what the future relationship will be – trade, security and all
that? It doesn’t make sense. And the only sense is that in negotiating terms
we’ve given the EU the power basically to get us to pay the cash and all the
other things they want, before even starting what we want, which is the trade
deal. They realize that that’s we want more than anything. So I think they’ve
negotiated well, we’ve negotiated very badly.
AM I BORING YOU?
Q: We try to make complex issues readable. How do you find the process of
explaining SuperCanada?
Yes, you produce very important briefings. I do follow them.
The danger with all of this is people are easily turned off because of the
apparent complexities. Particularly with MPs. I find a lot don’t understand the
basics, what a Customs Union is, and whatever.
It’s a battle within government, which I’m familiar with having been a special
adviser in the past and involved with policy. It’s always a battle where you
never quite know.
It’s a black-box of policy and even the Brexit department was kept out of that
black-box until the last moment – ridiculous. But that’s the way it works. I’m
just seeing after 10 years of direct experience that the SuperCanada deal is the
most practical way forward. Good for everyone.
And even Barnier’s chief of staff said to me: ‘As long as you accept the
limitations of Brexit and withdrawal, the loss of passporting rights etc and
other things that Single Market members get, we can do a deal’. That’s what he
said. The Chequers proposal is trying to get too many extra benefits out of it
and it’s messing with the Single Market, and this is why Barnier’s basically
rejected the core of it.
HOW IS SUPERCANADA BETTER THAN THE CHEQUERS PROPOSAL?
Q: Can you confirm that SuperCanada doesn’t impact taking back control, in the
sense of being under the ECJ, in the sense of the Single Market, Customs Union,
freedom of movement?
A: Yes. I think this is the beauty of a free trade agreement. And this is where
Barnier showed that famous slide when he took our red lines and ruled out
everything but a Canada-style agreement. If you follow the logic of the red lines
- not in the Customs Union, not in the Single Market, no ECJ rulings – then
you’re where an independent, sovereign nation state is when it wants to deal with
the EU.
New Zealand and Australia are now negotiating their deals with the EU. The New
Zealand ambassador told me it’s 80 % based on Canada, on the CETA Deal. These are
independent, sovereign nations, they’re very good models for us because obviously
they’re English-speaking, Queen-loving, cricket-playing, English law-abiding
nations. There’s a lot of similarity. It’s almost like there’s a Commonwealth
model for dealing with the EU which is developing.
Q: So you’re very clear that this kind of deal doesn’t compromise any of the
issues that any normal Brexiteer might be concerned about? It doesn’t require
freedom of movement, Single Market membership, Customs Union, common legislation
within the UK that requires us to follow EU law? You’re saying that this is a
deal based on deals which are being done with truly independent sovereign
nations?
A: Yes, that’s the beauty of it and that’s why I strongly advocate this approach
because that’s what all independent sovereign nations are doing with the EU.
That’s what Japan is doing with the EU, when only last week they signed the deal
with the EU.
It’s not compromising its security, it’s not signing up to ECJ, or becoming part
of the the Customs Union or the Single Market. With the Single Market it’s very
important: what independent nations want is access to the EU Single Market but
not membership of the Single Market. When I say that Canada - only the 12th
largest trading partner of the EU - has 99% access to the Single Market through
the CETA deal, that’s pretty impressive.
There’s no tariffs on industrial goods, they’ve all been removed. There are still
some tariffs left on agricultural goods. And this is an important point, Canada
will have 92% of the tariffs on agricultural removed under CETA, so 8% remain.
On the regulatory issue question, CETA ticks a lot of boxes, but I would say when
it comes to regulations, in CETA Canada basically does agree - not to follow EU
regulations - but sort of match them. So, there’s also commonality there, in
areas like consumers and product safety. This is where you get to the whole
regulatory compliance.
Q: Does that apply within Canada or only to the products Canada exports?
A: No, purely to what it exports as I understand. You keep your regulatory
sovereignty. It’s not a common rulebook. This is important, this is the nub of
the Chequers problem. As I said it’s removed 100% of industrial tariffs without
having a common rulebook on industrial goods.
And that is I think it is fundamentally the point. It retains it’s regulatory
sovereignty, however it has agreed voluntarily to follow some areas - and this is
something we may not agree to.
We don’t have to follow it religiously, but it’s a very good template and if you
want to sort of echo the Chequers deal but in an effective way while retaining
your sovereignty, you could follow what Canada’s done and maintain a lot of EU
standards very closely, or follow them voluntarily very closely, so you’re in
effectively in step with them but not legally signing up to a common rulebook.
CAN DYSON MANUFACTURE POWERFUL HOOVERS AGAIN, UNDER SUPERCANADA?
Q: If there’s only about 12% of GDP dependent on EU trade - imports and exports -
why shouldn’t James Dyson be able to manufacture hoovers at whatever power he
wants for non-EU markets, instead of having to follow EU rules for his entire
output? Does the Canada deal allow that differentiation?
A: It’s a very good question. I think it’s important that we do, because clearly
the direction of travel – as David Davis said in his latest speech - is that the
share of exports going to the EU is dropping. We already have the majority of our
exports, 57% go to the rest of the world, not the EU, so we should be following
world standards or other countries standards, not just the EU standards which
tend to be rather costly and over-bureaucratic.
Through the CETA deal, yes we could allow for that. We would have to negotiate
this. It’s a very delicate area of negotiation, because obviously the EU is
paranoid about ‘unfair competition’ as they would put it. But of course we would
have to maintain their standards for the small percentage of our economy that
represents exports to the EU as you rightly say. But I don’t see why that should
tie our hands, if we negotiated properly.
I always believed if the economy’s justified you can have two production lines,
one of which is for the EU standards for the EU market, the other one is for
world markets on different standards. I think that’s entirely feasible. Obviously
when we’re exporting to the US anyway, we have to follow their standards, or
Japan’s when we’re exporting there.
Q: So what you’re saying is you can’t be certain at the moment. That would have
to be part of the negotiations. But with the UK being a third party, independent
country, the EU should accept exactly the same rules that let’s say America has,
where America manufactures to its own standards for its domestic market, and to
EU standards when it sells to the EU?
A: Yes, it should allow that flexibility. It’s a very sensitive area. This is one
of the nubs of the Chequers deal in my view. I think the Government is trying to
sell the Chequers deal along these lines and it’s a subtle difference but
absolutely fundamental and only kind of lawyers fully understand this. But the
difference is, with one you give up your sovereignty. With the ‘common rulebook’,
you just have to follow Single Market rules in certain areas and you have no say
over it. You’ve given up your sovereignty in those areas, in agriculture and
goods specifically.
It does mention following the rules on the environment and consumer issues and
that is quite similar to CETA in its language, but it is fundamentally different
because you could remove that clause. You’d have to pay a penalty and in extremis
it could mean you’d have to negotiate the whole free trade agreement if you
diverge too much.
But this gets you into this whole regularity divergence area which is very
sensitive and language is vital because there’s a fundamental difference between
a ‘common rulebook’, which is no sovereignty in my view, just a sort of vassel
state following EU rules, and Norway having to sign up to all the Single Market
rules.
But our economy is very different to Norway. It’s so much wider and our
manufacturing is so much greater than Norway’s. It’s not right for us. But with
the CETA model you keep your sovereignty. Look at Australia. The Australian Trade
minister said to me at the WTO Conference in December: ‘we will jealously guard
our regulatory sovereignty in this trade deal’.
Basically, they want control of the ability to change their regulations. And by
the way, a fundamental point is: so does the EU. In every trade deal it does, the
EU jealously guards its sovereignty over regulations. It’s always bringing in new
laws so it wants the power to change its regulations. In every single trade deal
it guards its own regulatory sovereignty jealousy too. It’s not Britain being
difficult, it’s actually done on both sides of the equation.
WHAT DO THE THREE +’s IN CETA+++ MEAN?
Q: When you say Britain has been offered 100% tariff free, can you justify that?
Where does that come from?
A: Britain has been offered 100% tariff and quota free access, so that’s our
first +. That’s the CETA+ and then the second + is services.
The key thing to refer to is the offer made on the 7th of March this year by
President Tusk. He made a statement having had meetings in No.10 with the Prime
Minister, having discussed the red lines. He basically offered us what I would
call CETA++ (we’re missing one +) but he offered us CETA++ which is 100% tariff
free and quota free access, plus services. And that is considered to be in
addition to all the benefits that the Canada deal offers which takes us into a
bigger and better place.
The third + of the deeper area of services IS more complex - issues around
financial services etc - that area could be done separately through the World
Trade Organisation. My argument is let’s not forget we are taking back our seat
on WTO. We are members, that hasn’t been changed, but the EU has been dealing
with negotiations for us. But we’ll take our seat back say on services, the
services committee of the WTO and the non-tariff-barrier (NTB) area. Through the
NTB Committee of the WTO we can push our agenda there.
And there’s another agreement called the TISA agreement which is very
significant. The trade and services agreement of the WTO - not the EU, the WTO –
will actually cover 70% of the world’s services in 25 nations. At the moment it’s
getting there but paused, but we can push that and we’ll probably push that in a
more effective way. It’s not just the EU we’re talking about in terms of
services, but 70% of the world’s services. Britain is the ideal champion of TISA
and that’s good news. I know that No.10 is very keen on TISA.
Q: How do WTO rules relate to Britain leaving the EU and what are your views on
the 10 year grace period that has been talked about, where trade carries on
normally until new arrangements are put in place?
A: I actually asked legal advice on that from our advisers in the European
Parliament and I think it’s a greyer area to be honest. We’re in a different
position because we have a sort of free trade area within the Customs Union and
the Single Market and we are moving to a free trade agreement.
We’re not in a position where WTO rules are moving to a free trade agreement -
which is what Japan just has been done, coming from WTO rules to FTA . My
understanding is it may be that the 10 years grace doesn’t apply to us because of
our unique position. I mean as President Tusk says ‘never in history has there
ever been an example of moving backwards’ as he would put it. I talk about
liberation and independence.
HOW DID SUPERCANADA FIT INTO THE ORIGINAL BREXIT DEPT WHITE PAPER?
Q: How did SuperCanada fit in what I call now the Conservative Home White Paper -
in other words the Steve Baker and David Davis’ original White Paper they were
working on?
A: I worked very closely with Steve Baker. He and I co-chaired the Conservatives
for Britain group which theN morphed into the ERG. It was then more about
supporting David Cameron’s negotiations and then preparing for the Leave
campaign.
So we worked very closely on this and I worked with David Davies very closely,
and I’ve been advocating SuperCanada for many years. I’m informed that some of my
thinking has been reflected by government in the original Brexit Dept White
Paper, which I’m delighted about, because it’s just a logical place to go. All I
can say is that I’ve worked on these deals, I met people like Justin Trudeau and
his Foreign Minister, who said: ‘We feel we’re part of the Common Market, not the
Single Market’.
And I thought, well that’s where we want to be. The Common Market is really why
we joined the EEC and effectively, if you have a 100% tariff free and quota free
deal, you have a common market.
There are no barriers between you, which is what we want. And then you’ve got
other issues like services, non-tariff barriers, licences, permissions or
whatever. And that’s very important, but the Single Market in services is only 5%
according to some studies. Only 5% of it really exists and you may well find that
having a legal agreement outside of the EU, being able to enforce more on
services via the WTO, I think you might be in a better position. You may have
more ability to drive service access agreements outside rather than inside,
because we’re not doing very well inside, are we? I wouldn’t describe only 5%
access for services in the Single Market as a success.
Q: We were the only news organisation that covered the OECD Report on the Single
Market which absolutely panned it for services.
A: It’s very important because it’s being regarded as a wonderful thing and of
course the costs are outweighing the benefits.
WHY DO GERMAN EXPORTERS CALL THE UK “TREASURE ISLAND”?
What is really worth examining is why are we called ‘Treasure Island’? A
lot of our imports are from the EU, including particularly the Germans. Why do
they regard Britain as ‘Treasure Island’?
I think with a £95 billion goods deficit with the EU, there’s a major issue here.
Are we a patsy for the EU? Is it now time we actually discovered that not keep
thinking this is a wonderful thing and start to correct it? I think actually one
of the advantages of a no deal scenario is that our manufacturing industry will
get a shot charge and be put back in business big time.
WHY HAVE YOU FOCUSED ON TRADE DEALS IN YOUR TIME AS AN MEP?
I always knew when I was elected as an MEP that if we’re going to get Brexit, the
trade deal would be the core of it. So I thought I’d better understand what trade
deals were and how they worked.
I’ve spent over 10 years working on models of association and I looked at EEA
Lite and wrote a book on it. I’ve been looking at these models for well over 10
years because at the end of the day I’ve always felt this was the crux of it.
What kind of relationship - particularly in trade – would we have with the EU?
But I’m settled in my views now. With the experience I got before Japan, Canada
was the biggest ever deal the EU’s done, so it’s a model agreement. It ticks a
lot of our boxes. There is no free movement, it’s got 99% access to the Single
Market – we’re going to be at 100% - and 100% in agriculture importantly.
It’s a very good agreement, it does deliver a lot and I’m very comfortable with
it for our purposes, subject to the ‘+’s. And importantly for the EU as well,
because when I go to my colleagues in the European Parliament and say to them
that ‘Look, the UK-EU SuperCanada deal is like Canada which you’ve done last
year. It’s bigger, deeper, wider because of our relationship, because we’re that
much closer’ – they get that.
I speak to the EU Trade Commissioner and to the Chairman of the International
Trade Committee, who’s a German socialist but a nice man, and they think it’s
where we should be. It’s not a one-way demand – I think Chequers is a bit of a
one-way demand, to be honest – whereas SuperCanada works for everyone. And we can
work around it, it’s a working model, a workable model.
WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER QUESTION?
I should say firstly that I was special adviser on the peace process 1996 - 1997
in Northern Ireland so I know all the sensitivities and I know that having hard
customs border posts and CCTV on the border is not good politically so we must
avoid it.
Basically it’s a technological solution. We’re in a world where borders are in
computers these days, not with the guys in peaked caps. I have Felixstowe in my
constituency area - it’s the largest container port in Britain - and there is no
sign of any paperwork.
The paperwork is done in Liverpool by HMRC in its computers. And the EU itself
under its new customs code, is requiring everyone to sign up to electronic
measures and in fact they’re requiring standards where you only have to give an
hour’s notice in terms of customs. All is done electronically to move goods
around. That’s the backdrop. And you have things called ‘Authorised Economic
Operators’ and ‘Trusted Traders’ already, which are EU systems.
Essentially, just to simplify, the way borders are policed now is that they
assume everyone is fine, is following the law, not smuggling, except where the
company requires some more investigation or where they have specific
intelligence.
Going back to Ireland, Ireland only checks 1% of goods now. It’s the lowest rate
in the world apart from the Gambia. The UK is only about 3-4%. Felixstowe told me
it was about 4% for them. And why do you check goods? It’s because of the
company. You’re not familiar with them or maybe it’s a little bit odd, or
something. That’s when you check.
The trusted traders scheme is used in Canada and the US as well on their border –
when basically you check out the company in advance. If it looks legitimate and
you’ve got the information in advance, then you allow a much freer access across
the border.
Basically, you put all this together, the fact that it’s all done electronically,
not with peaked caps and barriers, and you can get to a technological solution
for the Northern Ireland border.
I think the point about Northern Ireland is that the entire island of Ireland
only has about 6.5 million people. The scale has been hugely exaggerated, to
biblical proportions, the Northern Ireland issue.
The key point is that you don’t have a hard border. No-one wants a hard border,
the UK has ruled it out under any circumstances, and now the Irish have as well.
In fact just this week Varadkar magically says that the EU will not require a
hard border with Ireland either.
This is new. Northern Ireland has been used as a lever to trap us in EU laws and
ultimately the Customs Union. The Institute of Directors have been dealing with
this as well, it’s business trying to use it as an issue, because for them there
is no other solution apart from the Chequers deal or keeping us as close to the
Customs Union as possible. That’s just not true.
When you look at the scale of it, it’s a tiny scale. For Northern Ireland 4 times
as many exports go to Great Britain than to the South of Ireland. When you start
looking at the realities of it, as long as you have no hard border and keep the
checks electronic and away from that border - which happens that way right now –
then you don’t have an issue.
It’s all solvable. And you certainly don’t want to sign up the entire British
economy – the 5th largest in the world – on that basis, which is very damaging to
the British economy. It holds us back and essentially costs us billions. It’s a
very bad policy.
SUPERCANADA DOESN’T IMPACT ON A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE N.I. BORDER?
Q: We just want to be very clear that your SuperCanada doesn’t impact on the
Northern Ireland Agreement.
A: The Good Friday Agreement has nothing about the border. I can remember it from
the time. I was involved in it from the start, I was behind John Major when the
peace talks started in Belfast. I don’t think there’s any mention – it wasn’t an
issue then. It doesn’t affect that agreement in that sense and I think it has
been weaponised, as people say. The issue of Northern Ireland has been weaponised
and that’s a disgrace. It’s creating tensions that shouldn’t exist.
The previous Irish government under Bertie Ahern were far more reasonable. I
think Varadkar allegedly has his own agenda. He’s young guy, he probably wants to
be in the EU Commission, I don’t know, or in one of the other EU institutions.
Maybe that’s driving some of this, I don’t know.
It’s not a trivial thing by any means but what I’m saying is it’s distorting the
entire debate on it and it’s been appalling how they’ve misused it to the
detriment of Irish people North and South.
HOW WAS IT, BEING PART OF A EUROPHILE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN THE EU PARLIAMENT?
Q: You somehow managed to survive as a pro-Brexit MEP sitting within the
Conservative grouping in the EU Parliament. You’ve been one of the very, very few
pro-Brexit voices in the Conservative Party there. Your colleagues haven’t
exactly been supporting you, have they?
A: Yes, well thank you. I’ve been a Conservative for 28 years and I was with UKIP
for 7 years because of the seriousness of the European Union issue and I don’t
regret that. I think it was necessary and of course UKIP wouldn’t have done so
well in the EU elections without many Conservative supporters.
I’ve guarded against going native, I think that’s an important factor. I was
put there to get us out of the European Union. I wanted to do that in a
peaceful, constructive, friendly way. I get on with – or I try to get on with -
people of all different opinions, even with federalists, and I’m trying to be
constructive.
THE GAME HAS CHANGED
To me after Canada, the game has changed from pointing out the faults of the EU
beforehand to justify Brexit, to actually now finding a constructive way out from
the EU, which doesn’t damage our friends – and they are friends.
We have to remember the nations of Europe are our friends. I think it’s the hard
core federalists and the EU institutions that are not our friends. We have to
take those friends with us, and some of those are actively considering doing what
we’re going to do. But that’s not our business, that’s their business.
REMAINERS IN THE CONSERVATIVE GROUPING IN THE EU PARLIAMENT
Q: There now seem to be Conservative MEPs in the EU Parliament who seem to want
to sweep under the carpet the fact they backed the EU project. What are your
views?
A: I think one of the best guides is how many supported Conservatives for
Britain, because I was leading that at the European Parliament and we ended up
with about 6 out of 20 Conservative MEPs that backed it, backed Brexit. In a way
we had to be lot braver than MPs because obviously we’re losing our jobs and I
was campaigning for my own redundancy – successfully as it turned out.
You had to actually have quite a lot of principles to back Brexit as an MEP. It
has been a lonely journey. We had some who were eurosceptic and many who were
quite the opposite.
[Long section off the record, then:] Obviously I respect those who have now got
behind Brexit.
SO WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON CHEQUERS AND WHERE WE ARE NOW?
We’ve got to leave in a good way with friendly relations. I think this is our
last chance. I say it’s checkmate for Chequers. It’s not going to get through
the UK Parliament, it’s not going to get through the European Parliament, and
it’s not going to get past Barnier in my view.
It’s just dead in the water and we’re wasting time on it. What we need to
do is go back to plan A for heaven’s sake, drop Chequers, accept the Tusk deal in
principle, and you’ll find that the dark clouds will start to evaporate.
And the EU will suddenly start seeing: ‘Ah, you’re not threatening our Single
Market, we can live with this’ and you’ll find that things move forward with a
pace. And we’re nearly there. We had it in the original Brexit Dept White Paper
and subsequently the No.10 Europe Unit has pushed us off that and taken us away
from it, for their own agenda, and got us lost.
We’ve got to get back to it and actually accepting that agreement – I think it’s
us who’s effectively not accepted it - but we can accept it. I think you’ll find
that things will move forward very smoothly. The EU gets free trade agreements,
they’ve just done one with Japan. They’re doing ones with New Zealand and
Australia based on Canada, so they can do one for the UK which is bigger, better,
wider.
I genuinely believe that it’s in my country’s sake - which I always put first -
that this is the best way forward and everyone can live with it including even
Labour, SNP etc. Because they don’t want to see at the end of the day economic
damage to the country and they understand the Canada deal as well.
AND FINALLY, YOUR FUTURE?
Q: What are your plans when you have hopefully made yourself redundant? Are you
available to constituency associations as a candidate for MP?
I am available and I’d love to. I’m very happy to talk to associations around the
country. I would like to be an MP.
I hope that I’m fairly treated this time by Conservative Party Central Office, as
I wasn’t last time. I’m not bitter, I’m not a bitter person, but it was a very
devious process last time. I just hope I’m fairly treated in this occasion and
that I get a fair crack at an opportunity to stand.