| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Tell our enemies they can take our lives... | |
| Posted by: | T P Howell | |
| Date/Time: | 19/03/17 13:13:00 |
| John Major's speech at Chatham House is worth reading in full for anyone who has an interest in the "pros" and "cons" of the Brexit debate: - "Let me turn directly to the politics of exit. Leaving the European Union isn’t just about trade. It will have political consequences as well. For over forty years, British foreign policy has been based upon the twin pillars of our relations with the United States and with the European Union. To be straddled between these two economic and political giants has served our interests well. Outside the European Union, we become far more dependent upon the United States and – for four and possibly eight years – upon a President less predictable, less reliable and less attuned to our free market and socially liberal instincts than any of his predecessors. As a boy, I was taught that America was our greatest ally and – throughout my life – I have seen her as so. But America’s size and power means that we are, by far, the junior partner: mostly we follow – only rarely can we lead. And despite the romantic view of committed Atlanticists, the “special relationship” is not a union of equals. I wish it were, but it isn’t; America dwarfs the United Kingdom in economic and military power. Sadly, that is a fact. Once we are out of the European Union, our relationship with the United States will change. She needs a close ally inside the European Union: once outside, that can no longer be us. And that may not be the only change. If we disagree with American policy, we may – I say, may – weaken our ties with them. But if we support it slavishly, we become seen as an American echo – an invidious role for a nation that has broken free from Europe to become more independent. And – inevitably – such is a life in politics, there will be disagreements with the United States: the US wish to contain China and engage Russia; we wish to contain Russia and engage China. We seem likely to disagree on refugees, on free trade, on the legality of Jewish settlements, and on climate change. How many disagreements can there be before even the closest of ties begin to fray? Until now, the world has seen the United Kingdom as a leader within Europe. We are the second largest economy, with hopes of one day – maybe fifteen years away – but one day of overtaking Germany. We are one of only two nations with significant nuclear and military power. We have the widest and deepest foreign policy reach of any European nation. So, in Europe, we have often set policy: the Single Market; enlargement to the East; restraints upon expenditure – together with a host of less prominent policies. Our role within Europe has magnified the power of our nation state. Once we leave, that will no longer be so. Now, the Prime Minister knows all this: her policy to maintain a good relationship with Europe after exit is surely the right policy. But, at some time, she will have to face down those who favour total disengagement and who have never accepted our role within Europe. For some, a total divorce has been a decades-long ambition. I believe they are utterly wrong. And although – today – they may be allies of the Prime Minister, the risk is that – tomorrow – they may not. I am no dedicated Europhile. As DeAnne told you early, I said “No” to the Euro and “No” to Schengen on open borders. But I have never doubted the importance of cooperation with a successful Europe. And in voting to leave, we have done the European Union great harm. For the loss of the UK will weaken the European Union – especially when set against the superpowers of America and China. For the first time, the European Union is contracting and not expanding. It is about to become smaller and less relevant. And, without the United Kingdom, it may also change in character, becoming more protectionist and less of a pillar of free trade. Such a Europe would be damaging to British interests. Our departure is also adding to domestic political problems across Europe. Britain has rejected the colossus of the European Union. This has energised the anti-European Union, anti-immigrant nationalists that are growing in number in France, in Germany, in Holland, in Italy, in Greece – and in other European countries. None of these populist groups is sympathetic to the broadly tolerant and liberal instincts of the British. Nonetheless, said, their pitch is straightforward. If Britain – sober, stable, moderate, reliable Britain, can break free of a repressive bureaucracy in Brussels, why, then “so can anyone”. It is a potent appeal. I caution everyone to be wary of this sort of populism. It seems to be a mixture of bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. It scapegoats minorities. It is a poison in any political system – destroying civility and decency and understanding. Here in the UK, we should give it short shrift, for it’s not the people we are, nor the country we are. Whatever grievances exist, the United Kingdom and Europe cannot ignore one another without mutual damage. As the Prime Minister has intimated, our future self-interest is to cooperate on all aspects of security, on terrorism; on crime. We should take a common position on climate change, on human rights, and on representative democracy. We should continue to cooperate over the migrant surge to Europe and contain Russian misbehaviour. The plain truth is this: irrespective of Brexit, the UK benefits from engagement with Europe – not isolation from Europe – and both parties have an interest in ensuring that is maintained. My hunch is that, over the years ahead, the political price of leaving the European Union may turn out to be greater than the economic cost. That said – to protect our interests – the trade negotiations will require statesmanship of a very high order. There is a real risk that the outcome will fall well below the hopes and expectations that have been raised. Regrettably, I see little chance that we will be able to match the advantages of the Single Market in the negotiations to come. In my own experience, the most successful results are obtained when talks are conducted with goodwill: it’s much, so much easier to reach an agreement with a friend than with a quarrelsome neighbour. But, behind the diplomatic civilities, the atmosphere is already sour. A little more charm, and a lot less cheap rhetoric, would do much to protect the interests of the United Kingdom. The negotiations will begin with the costs of disengagement. These could, could be politically explosive. During the Referendum, the “Leave” campaign promised to, I quote, “take back control” of huge sums of money, and pay an additional £350 million a week to the NHS. Many believed this, and yet the bitter irony is that the “divorce settlement” – that is, the costs of leaving Europe – may involve paying out much larger sums of money than this. The European Union Chief Negotiator has estimated that our bill for exit may total between €40 billion to €60 billion. Now, let me say immediately, I find that figure very contentious. But the bill will be substantial: it will billions, not millions, and very unpalatable. It will come as a shock to voters who were not forewarned of this – even in the recent White Paper. One Member of Parliament has referred to the estimated divorce payment as “a threat”, his argument being, I quote, “You pay to join a club but not to leave it”. Now of course, that is true; but when you leave any club, you are obliged to settle your debts, and that is what the European Union is going to expect the United Kingdom to do. There are liabilities to be met: pension costs, legacy costs, contingent liabilities, a proportional share of work-in-progress. The European Union will argue that we have a legal obligation to pay these bills. They may be right, but the issue, frankly, is not clear-cut. Some of the European Union’s claims seem to me to be highly questionable and – unless there is a political agreement – any dispute may have to be resolved in Court. An agreement would be preferable and, if she sanctions one, the Prime Minister will deserve support against any criticism she may receive. The European Union Chief Negotiator has also warned that the separation costs must be agreed before any detailed trade negotiations can even begin. I must say I doubt he will be able to sustain such a hard line if we are prepared to engage in constructive talks, but we shall see. But if there is a stand-off – perhaps because of a backlash against the size of the exit bill – then trade talks may have to await a Court decision, be delayed indefinitely – or scrapped altogether. In either event, the faint hope of a comprehensive trade deal by Spring 2019 will have gone. Without such a deal, three options arise: we can leave the European Union with a flimsy, inadequate deal hastily cobbled together; or we can seek a transitional relationship – perhaps for 3 to 5 years – for which, as non-members, we would have to pay. A minimum option would involve staying in the Customs Union and submitting to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; or we can trade with the European Union on a WTO basis. The more one examines probabilities, the more contentious becomes the task of leaving. Some of the most committed Brexit supporters wish to have a clean break, and trade only under WTO rules. This would require tariffs on goods – with nothing to help services, and nothing to inhibit non-tariff barriers. This would not be a panacea; for the UK, it would be the worst possible outcome." |