THE DCB TAPES
THE FULL AND UNEXPURGATED INTERVIEW
WITH DAVID CAMPBELL BANNERMAN, MEP
David Campbell Bannerman MEP
talking exclusively to Brexit Facts4EU.Org
FULL TEXT OF INTERVIEW WITH A PRO-BREXIT BRITISH MEP
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.
TODAY WE BREAK WITH TRADITION
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.
WANT SOMETHING SHORTER?
If you only want highlights, we published these yesterday here.
You can also read our summary of Mr Campbell Bannerman's SuperCanada proposal here.
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.
OBSERVATIONS
We have never before published anything this long. No doubt many readers will not have time to read it.
For once we thought that it might be interesting for some of our readers to gain a unique insight into the thinking of an experienced politician. DCB has been at the coalface. He has spent nearly 10 years as an MEP in the lion's den of Brussels, with almost all of that time as a member of the EU Parliament's International Trade Committee.
Do we agree with all of his views on everything? Of course not. DCB is a very nice chap and he is looking for solutions. We tend to take a harder line with the nonsense of the federalists who run the machine.
That said, DCB is a Brexiteer. He is also a patriot. If any constituency associations in the Conservative Party are looking to replace their Remainer MP, in our view DCB would be an excellent choice. He has the rare distinction of seeming to be an honest man in politics. Our editor frequently offered to go off the record, but Mr Campbell Bannerman only accepted on a couple of occasions. For almost all of the time, he answered questions openly and said what he thought, and in a charming way.
He was also perfectly clear about his thoughts on Theresa May's Chequers White Paper: "It’s checkmate for Chequers." "It’s just dead in the water and we’re wasting time on it."
Brave words from a man hoping to secure a parliamentary candidacy at the next general election. We sincerely hope he is rewarded for this honesty.
[ Sources: David Campbell Bannerman MEP ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       08.15am, 23 July 2018
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
Click here and then copy the url from the new address bar
READERS' COMMENTS
Submit your comment here
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: D Price, Berkshire, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 08.11am
Message: Many thanks to Mr Bannerman and yourselves for giving and documenting the interview. What is described makes a lot of sense so it begs the question why the May government has gone in the direction it has, not just their devious and dishonest behaviour revealed recently but also their utter stupidity in unnecessary giveaways to the EU.
Name: Tony, East Anglia, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 10.27pm
Message: Thank you Mr Bannerman. I haven't commented on this site before but I read it when I can. As the owner of a manufacturing business our exports go about 75% outside the EU. What's important to me is that we can trade post Brexit without having to apply costly EU rules and regulations to our operation, when the bulk of our exports go to countries around the world. I understand your superCanada proposal will need to stress this point, but it looks like a positive proposal to me. God alone knows why we have such a weak and EU-subservient PM. And by the way, I'd vote for you if you became my local candidate, based on what I've read.
Name: Big Mach, Cheshire, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 7.22pm
Message: I am quite certain that these proposals would meet with the approval of the majority of the British people and would even pass the House of Commons. DCB is right about the Irish border, as your own article on the subject in March made clear. Tusk made this proposal in March 2017 and included participation in the various agencies, such as chemicals, medicines and aviation. Any disruption at the border in the absence of a customs union would be very quickly resolved as it would be in everyone's interest to do so.
Name: ContraryMary, North-East England, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 3.40pm
Message: Please thank David Campbell Bannerman for giving up his time becaue I can see it was a long interview. And thank you too facts4eu for this and the article on the super canada deal. I hope that the powers that be will be openminded and consider if this is a possibility. I'm not an expert in trade so i don't know but it sounds like there's something here. By the way I think the conservatives must get rid of May asap.
Name: Tom Rogers, Bridlington, East Riding, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 2.38pm
Message: Thank you for your work and thank you to Mr Bannerman. This is a useful and informative piece, I do mean that.
However, no disrespect intended to him, but I don't think he 'gets it'. I understand why. I think it is difficult for all of us to take this to its logical conclusion, but once you grasp it, you quickly see that not only is there no reason for us to negotiate agreements with the EU (beyond routine facilitation), it would also be deeply undesirable to do so - for a host of reasons that have been discussed at length and I need not regurgitate here. We've been over this, yet men like Mr Bannerman and even John Redwood are still stuck in this out-dated approach of wanting to negotiate these sweeping monolithic agreements. Why?
Please, forget about FTAs. Trade is moving in a multi-lateral direction now and we as a country have a unique opportunity to get ahead of the curve and become more competitive than our peers. Just leave, and declare unilateral free trade, with subsidies to protect manufacturing jobs. Everything we want can be achieved under the WTO umbrella. If competing countries decide to take counter-veiling measures, we can deal with this and adjust. Yes, a Clean Brexit has its pitfalls - there will be problems - but a national government can tackle these.
Name: Shieldsman, Surrey, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 12.30pm
Message: "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." I cannot recall what the Tusk Deal said? Can you refer me to your reference. Does it make more sense than EFTA, EEA.
Name: Pops, In the Real World, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 11.03am
Message: "A: With possible forms of trade deals it's not just what's acceptable to the UK, it's what is acceptable to the EU27, the remaining nations of the EU."
This is where David Campbell Bannerman (and every other so-called Brexiter) is wrong. It does not matter one jot what anyone in the EU finds "acceptable"; it matters only what the people in the UK, who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, find acceptable. The UK should tell the EU to basically get lost - today. UK manufacturers must be completely free to make and sell what they want where they want. If the EU overlords don't want to import our products, we will find other markets. The UK should immediately approach every viable market in the world and start talking trade - preferably, tariff-free trade. Oh, and Treasonous May and her Europhile advisors should be thrown out on their ears - today.
Name: Dunstan, Cambs, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 09.52am
Message: Long article but once I got into it I read it to the end. I didn't know about Bannerman before this but I like the sound of him. Seems to be some confusion over just how easy it will be to get this Super Canada deal without arguments over whose laws prevail, but all in all it sounds like a possibility. Thanks for doing this - worthwhile.
Name: Mike Donnan, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 08.57am
Message: I am not sure the following comment is relevant to the article on the “SuperCanada” proposals but I thought I would get it off my chest.
I read yesterday (Sunday 22/7/18) that our new Brexit minister, Mr Dominic Raab, has said that the UK would refuse payment of the so-called “divorce bill” to the EU if the latter fails to agree a trade deal. On the assumption that our Goody Two-Shoes of a Prime Minister would never countenance doing anything remotely illegal, we may take Mr Raab’s statement as confirming that the EU’s demand for payment has no legal basis whatsoever.
Mr Raab’s statement also shows that Mr Philip Hammond’s statement – to the effect that the UK’s “walking away from an obligation …. would not make us a credible partner in future international agreements” – is nonsense. One cannot walk away from a legal obligation that does not exist. And nobody could credibly argue that the UK has a “moral obligation” to pay a divorce bill, given (a) that it has been one of the highest net contributors to the EU budget, and (b) that decisions about the EU budget are made by EU institutions, not by the member states acting as a partnership.
If the above analysis is correct, one may reasonably ask why the offer to pay the “divorce bill” was made in the first place. The only possible answer surely is that it was an inducement to the EU to conclude a trade agreement with the UK. Accordingly, the next question for Mr Raab to answer would be: how much of a monetary inducement did Canada and Japan pay the EU in order to secure their respective trade agreements?