At the beginning of Newsnight on Friday night was a poll by Ipsos Mori about alleged post-vote attitudes to the EU referendum.
Presenter James O’Brien said that 56% of leavers and 76% of remainers thought negotiations would not yield a good ‘exit’ deal, 16% thought the UK would not actually leave (with 22% not knowing), and that ‘almost half’ of voters thought there should be a general election to vote on the ‘exit’ deal. The commentary linked to the 5% disc above, used in the graphics about the poll, suggested that significant numbers of ‘leave’ voters now wanted to change their minds – planting the idea that if there was a re-run, there might be a ‘remain’ vote.
The rest of the programme magnified this, suggested that ‘Brexit’ sentiment was closely linked with the Front National in France and further posited that, against the background of the uncertainties, the 48% who had voted ‘remain’ might now effectively be without representation.
After the poll intro, the next sequence of the programme investigated what was happening over the Labour and Conservative leadership struggles. Political editor Nick Watt concluded:
British politics is being refashioned right in front of our eyes. But even in the middle of a revolution, perhaps it will be the steadiest member of the crew who will guide us to the next stage.
O’Brien then reminded viewers that immediately after the referendum vote, Newsnight had visited a pub in Burnley to canvass opinions. He said that Nick Blakemore had re-visited the pub to find if there had been much change.
The opinions he gathered were:
Delighted with the poll outcome
Got to work together to make it work.
We are all in the same boat – not now leave or remain and must move forward
The UK has left
The UK was leaving but voters had to remember that many had voted remain
Friends who are on either side but not falling out.
England is not an easy touch – you cannot come here and take advantage of the country
Tired of paying out for people who think it a career option to be a dosser, get a council house and take, take, take. We are working men and are sick of this
A remain voter said:
I actually voted ‘In’ last week. The reason was because erm . . . I just feel that Britain has a massive role to play in the European Union and it doesn’t make sense for me for us to come out of that. I’m a second-generation Italian, so my mum and dad came over here. What I think the biggest thing is that . . . I was born here but all my friends around here in Burnley have no issue whatsoever with any foreign people coming to this country, because, as long as the foreign people that come here contribute, that is the main thing. The biggest problem this country has is any foreign people who come over here and grab from the state, I think that’s the biggest issue.
I voted leave because I want a say in the laws we make
I voted leave, but I am not sure if it was the right thing to do.
People are making laws that we don’t have a say over
There’s been a decline in living standards in the North of England, compared with, say, Basingstoke.
Anyone who is annoyed with the vote should get involved in politics.
If the left are to win ever again they have got to realise they have to respect the voice of normal working people.
We are going to get screwed either way.
The longest most prominent contribution was from a remain supporter who strongly supported immigration and said it made no sense for Britain to leave the EU. The reporter found no one who was equally eloquent in supporting the leave position. By contrast. the ‘leavers’ statements were staccato and fragmentary – they didn’t like scroungers, laws being made elsewhere or being taken for granted by people who thought they were smarter.
James O’Brien then turned to studio guest novelist Kazuo Ishiguro, a man he said was ‘responsible for a lyrical evocation of interwar England so powerful and convincing that it won a Booker prize’. He added that he was thus a literary poster boy for a multicultural Britain and full integration – and was worried that ‘Britain may be in some sort of mortal threat’.
Ishiguro said he thought that the claim was ‘melodramatic’, but there was a serious threat. The nation was now bitterly divided, was leaderless and anxious. He said that if he was a strategist for the ‘far right’ he would now be getting very excited; it was the best opportunity since the 1930s to push Britain towards neo Nazism racism. People had to show decent heart.
James O’Brien suggested that in this connection, there had been some ‘grim tales’ this week. Ishiguro agreed that he was shaken, but despite what had happened, he had faith in the essential decency of the country. He said he had grown up often as the only foreigner but the National Front and the BNP had never got a hold of the country – the UK did racism really badly. It was important, though, not to get complacent now, the decent part of the country needed something to rally around.
O’Brien responded:
….as you refer to in your piece, who voted to leave the European Union, and will be just chilled by the spectre that you portray as anybody on the Remain side is. It’s a challenge to really separate, isn’t it, the toxicity that seems to have been emboldened by the result and the people who will be just as alarmed by that emboldening as, as anybody else is. How, how can we do that?
Ishiguro said the majority of the people who voted leave were not racist…but some were. He wanted a petition from the leave side to say they were not in favour of the xenophobia and racism that was threatening to take over.
O’Brien asked if he had experienced any of that. He said not but said lots of people were really anxious, and there were reports that things that were not acceptable before were seeming to be so now. O’Brien asked if this included people being asked to go home. Ishiguro said the leave side needed to declare that they were not racist. O’Brien asked if this should include a hashtag. Ishiguro said he agreed it should. He then declared:
. . . you know, thing, I, I’m one of the people that would like to see a second referendum, not a replay of the last one. But I think we, what we lack now is a proper mandate for the new Prime Minister, whoever it is, on what sort of Brexit we are going to go for. And I think we need another . . . some sort of discussion for a referendum.JO: (speaking over) And you, you’ve, you’ve pulled the pin on a second r— a second referendum grenade just as our time together comes to an end. So we shall, we shall have to leave it there . . .
O’Brien then introduced a sequence about France’s attitudes towards Brexit. He noted that growing numbers of people there might want a referendum. Gabriel Gatehouse’s first port of call was George Bertrand, who during the referendum campaign had appeared on Newsnight to say how strongly he opposed both the holding of the referendum and a UK exit. They had ended his ‘European dreams’. His first words in this report were:
I’m sad and angry. I always wanted Britain to be part of European dreams… The results for Britain are extremely complex difficult to manage. But it is not only a domestic issue, but as it concerns us too….We consider Britain as an exceptional country. As itself, the role it has played in two wars, the way democratic life was developed… At the same time, we were absolutely aware that Europe without Britain was not Europe. The English Parliamentary tradition has a very positive influence on the European Parliament started to evolve.
The report then contained a vox pop regretting that Britain was leaving. Gatehouse also spoke to three members of the Front National, who said they were pleased with the referendum result, and linked themselves to other anti-EU movements in Europe, including Ukip. He then spoke to Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National. She said:
It’s the same cocktail than for the Brexit in a way, it’s anti-immigrant feeling, because it’s an open door to immigration, refugees and possibly terrorism, so the second issue is insecurity, law and order. And the third dimension is anti-elites, the idea that the people who govern us, they are so far away, they don’t understand us, the little people. And they are corrupt.
Gatehouse said:
And here is a curious paradox. In a country with a proud, democratic tradition, many people feel disenfranchised. Sure, they can vote for a choice of parties and politicians, but many feel the politicians are all saying the same things, in a language they no longer understand. It’s not just France. In corridors of power across Europe, politicians, the centrist establishment, the people who by and large have governed this continent since the end of the Second World War, are suddenly realising that for a whole variety of different reasons, vast swathes of their electorate simply don’t believe in them anymore. It’s not that the centrists aren’t aware of the problem, they are. They just don’t seem to know what to do about it.PIERRE LELLOUCH French Minister for Europe, 2009-10: People have a sense that they are losing the control of their nation. As a result of globalisation, the arrival of huge companies from the other side of the world, who are now controlling the economy. You are losing control of the economy, you are losing control of the people coming into your nation. A lot of poor whites consider they are losing money, they are paying for the newcomers. And I sense this anger all over the country here in France. And I’m worried about that. Because governments are . . . tend to . . . For example, right now, they are involved in legislation that has no impact on these issues but you know, but it’s like a theatre.
GG: You’re irrelevant?
PL: In many ways, yes. Because of lack of courage, essentially.
George Bertrand had the last words. He said:
Britain used to rule the world. Europe used to rule the world. That’s finished….. I’m angry because we are putting our respective security in danger and democracy in danger. In spite of the economic and social divisions in Europe, we are the most balanced part of the world. The most human part of the world, the most socially-advanced in the world. That could be jeopardised.
James O’Brien opened the final sequence by stressing very strongly that the 48% who had voted ‘remain’ found themselves with ‘absolutely nothing’. He asserted:
Politically your position is, in many ways, no stronger than if you’d won 0%. With all the Conservative leadership candidates now fully committed to Brexit and the winner of course guaranteed to govern, what will opposition even look like? And who will speak for the 48%?
He introduced his next guests, ‘journalist and broadcaster, Paul Mason, The Times columnist Phil Collins, and adviser to Nick Clegg, Polly McKenzie.’
Paul Mason suggested that the Labour party had scored a ‘fantastic success’ by knocking George Osborne away from fiscal rule. The task now was to push for more investment in business and tax cuts. Collins disagreed and said the reason for the change was the massive shock of leaving the EU. O’Brien suggested that something more fundamental than infighting and squabbles. McKenzie agreed:
I think something has to change, because as you said in your intro, there’s nobody who really represents the 48%, the people who voted for Remain. And we don’t even have a mandate for a government to negotiate our Brexit. As we were hearing earlier, we don’t know what kind of Brexit we want – a sort of economically sensible EEA-type strategy or, you know, full complete distance and we just cut ourselves off and float in the mid-Atlantic? And actually, unless there’s some sort of election or some sort of realignment of politics, nobody has a mandate to make that decision.
O’Brien asked what the alignment would look like. McKenzie said it was hard to see the Liberal Democrats leading it because they had only eight MPs. O’Brien noted that leader Tim Farron had committed to a campaign that would involve fighting to get back into the EU. McKenzie confirmed that this was the case and felt ‘very strongly represented by that’, but there was not enough support to build a new party. Collins suggested that if the Labour MPs who did not support Jeremy Corbyn broke away and formed a new party, that would be a great outcome. Paul Mason said that the ‘centrist politics’ that wanted to re-join the EU would have to be a new party because neither Conservatives or Labour would do that. McKenzie said something needed doing urgently in terms of renegotiation, but at the moment there was a Cabinet office team of only three engaged in it. Collins said the referendum vote did not give a mandate for anything – it was only to leave.
ANALYSIS
What were the aims of this programme? Clearly a central thread was the Newsnight-commissioned opinion poll. The findings were projected by James O’Brien to suggest primarily that the referendum had raised more questions than it answered, and that many ‘leave’ voters were now, in any case changing their minds.
The sequence from Burnley provided a range of opinions about what people had voted for and what they were expecting in the wake of the ‘out’ vote, but gave most prominence to a ‘remain’ voter whose contribution was that Britain still had a big part to play in the EU, and that immigration was vital to the economy.
Following on from that James O’Brien interviewed Remains of the Day author Yazua Ishiguro, who he said was very able and a strong supporter of multiculturalism. O’Brien worked with him – he asked no adversarial questions – in developing several ideas, including that a second referendum might be necessary, that the danger was that ‘the ‘leave’ vote would be a lever for the far right to introduce Nazi-style policies and that intolerance would increase.
The sequence from France gave pride of place to George Bertrand, who had helped take the UK into the EEC and now was angry because the UK had voted to leave. He claimed that this jeopardised the EU’s achievements and Europe’s place in the world. Gabriel Gatehouse also drew attention, as the main focus of his reporting, to that Marine le Pen, leader of the front National, and her supporters strongly supported Brexit and saw it as a means of reinforcing their own position.
The final section was predicated upon O’Brien’s statement that 48% of the electorate were left with nothing by the ‘leave’ vote. He steered the discussion with the three supporters of remain so that they were given the opportunity to say that Brexit should not happen without a further election and that a new political party was required to represent the ‘remain’ side. He also gave a platform for former Newsnight economics editor Mason to argue extensively for tax cuts and to claim that the decision by George Osborne to, in effect, end austerity was a victory for the left.
In overall terms, therefore, the programme was focused through the prism of the findings of the opinion poll on giving five ardent ‘remain’ supporters a platform for suggesting that Brexit must not actually happen and was a disaster for the EU and the UK. It was a blatantly one-sided presentation and appeared to be a continuation of what looks like Newsnight’s deliberate campaign to reverse the referendum verdict.
Another major issue was the programme’s use of the opinion poll.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines contain clear advice about the use of such polls. It is stated:
Opinion polls, surveys, questionnaires, phone and online votes are useful and fruitful ways of listening to our audiences. However, when we report them, the audience must be able to trust that the research – and our reporting of it – is robust. To avoid misleading the audience, we should be rigorous in using precise language and in our scrutiny of the methodology.We must also avoid commissioning any of our own research that could suggest a BBC position on a particular policy or issue.
There were three direct infringements of the guidelines.
First, Newsnight does increasingly have a position on the referendum result. It is on a mission to present as much evidence as possible to undermine it. The poll was framed to amplify that message, to show that voters wanted a fresh chance to vote in a general election, and had changed their minds.
Second, in the wake of the referendum, there is clear evidence that in this arena, polls are not reliable. Only two of the surveys published close to polling day predicted a ‘leave’ vote. One poll gave a 10% advantage to ‘remain’ and Ipsos Mori (Newsnight’s pollster) 4%. In the wake of the referendum polls, Populus has issued a guidance note spelling out that, in effect, there is a huge question mark over how the lack of accuracy can be addressed. They state:
Having now studied turnout at the referendum and compared it to our analysis of the demographic composition of the voting electorate at previous referendums and general elections, we have concluded that turnout patterns are so different that a demographically based propensity-to-vote model is unlikely ever to produce an accurate picture of turnout other than by sheer luck.We will continue to examine these methodological challenges in producing accurate snapshots and predictions of how the country will vote. We will not publish another such poll until we are confident that it is right.
In that context of uncertainty, it seems extraordinary that Newsnight decided to commission a poll at all. The suspicion must be that the editors were desperate to find another way of showing that voters were now unsure about the result, and projected the findings as an ‘objective’ and reliable verification of that. Nothing of what O’Brien said gave a warning that there was a huge question mark over the reliability of such polls. This was a direct breach of the editorial guidelines.
Third – and even worse, perhaps – two separate statistics of polling information were conflated so as to overemphasise the numbers who said they would change their vote.
92% of the Ipsos Mori respondents said they would not change their minds if asked to vote in a second referendum (with 4% saying they would change their vote, 3% saying they didn’t know, and 1% saying they wouldn’t vote)
Newsnight presented this 92% figure in the graphic shown above. However, O’Brien then introduced an additional statistic: that 5% of Remain voters and 2% of Leave voters said they would now change their vote. Two smaller circles were duly placed on the chart to reflect this, despite these numbers having no direct correlation to the initial 92% figure. Therefore, the graphics and commentary suggested 7% wishing to change their votes, whereas the Ipsos Mori data itself had given a figure of just 4%.
Further, the two smaller circles of 5% and 2% cannot even be fairly compared to each other, given that more voted to Leave in the referendum than voted to Remain. The only way to have fairly reflected this difference would have been to have introduced a second chart, showing the overall numbers of Leave and Remain voters, and how potential shifts in voting intention might have affected the totals.
A closer inspection of the Ipsos Mori data also reveals that, to produce the 5% and 2% figures, two responses were combined: those who would ‘definitely’ change their vote, and those who ‘probably’ change their vote.
Had Newsnight focused only on those who were certain to change their votes, then the chart and commentary would have been even less striking: only 1.1% of those polled would definitely change their Leave vote, and just 0.4% would definitely change their Remain vote – a far less dramatic statistic than the one selected.
Put another way – bringing in the unweighted sample size of 935 voters who were actual consulted to reach these findings – only FIVE people told Ipsos Mori that they would definitely change their mind from ‘leave’ and two people said they would definitely switch from ‘remain’. On that highly tenuous basis, Newsnight told its viewers, in effect that 5% of total ‘leave’ vote of 17.4m was considering changing sides. This was a preposterous extrapolation.
Is there other evidence that Newsnight is in such campaigning mode? The News-watch post about the previous Friday’s edition is one instance. Further examples of such bias are on the Is the BBC Biased? website.
Of all this evidence, perhaps the most devastating is Evan Davis’s hugely negative treatment of ‘leave supporter Crispin Blunt MP last Thursday evening (30/6) in his capacity of chair of the Commons foreign affairs select committee. Blunt argued that it was likely that the UK could get a positive deal in the Brexit trade negotiations with the EU, and would also be able to influence free movement of peoples. Analysis of the transcript indicates that Davis tried extraordinarily hard to prevent Blunt making his points. The full exchange is below. It was 1,420 words. Evan Davis spoke 624 words (44%) and Crispin Blunt 796 words (56%). There were 37 interruptions, at a rate of six per minute, among the highest recorded by news-watch in an equivalent interview.
Transcript of BBC2, Newsnight, 1st July, EU Referendum, 10.30pm (Extract on Polling)
JAMES O’BRIEN: For once, the clichés seem almost inadequate. It really was a political earthquake. We really are in uncharted waters and we really do have no idea what happens next. So, the search for clarity, and maybe even some certainty, is underway. And while it’s a little previous to suggest that much dust has settled, a week has now passed since the Referendum result was revealed, so we have, at least, had some time to consider its possible ramifications. Time now, then, obviously, for a poll examining where we were, where we are and where we think we might be going with Brexit. It’s thrown up a few surprises and some rather bad news for anyone hoping that they’d seen the back of the ballot box for a while. Have you had enough of voting yet? Apparently not. In fact almost half of voters polled said Britain should hold another general election before the UK starts to negotiate Brexit, so that each party can set out its own vision for life outside the EU. And maybe this is why. 59% told us they were not confident in Britain’s political leaders getting the best possible Brexit deal for Britain. That rises to 76% of Remain voters. And what about buyer’s remorse? All those voters who supposedly want to change their minds? Well, maybe not. 92% of respondents said they would definitely vote the same way. But of them, 5% of Leave voters did say they would now change their vote, compared to just 2% of Remain voters. And finally, imagine if this all just went away. Well, more than a third of voters they think it might. 22% said they don’t know if Britain will actually leave the EU and 16% think the UK will actively defy the Brexit vote and find a way to stay in. Of course, that’s only part of the post-Ref picture. The real action is unfolding at Westminster where just about everything is up for grabs on both sides of the House.
Transcript of BBC2, Newsnight, 29th June 2016, Interview with Crispin Blunt, 10.49pm
EVAN DAVIS: Joining me now, Conservative MP, and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Crispin Blunt, who has declared he’s backing Boris Johnson, a very good evening to you.
CRISPIN BLUNT: Good evening.
ED: (speaking over) You were just explaining something to me, you’re not really worried about the negotiation at all, because you think if it all fails we’re still in an okay situation?
CB: Well, the Foreign Affairs Committee looked at this and we published our report on the 26 April, I suggest people read it, erm, because it is highly likely our European partners are not going to be able to agree on a negotiating strategy between themselves. They have to . . . and if they . . . if there’s qualified minority blocking a deal, either those people who want to deal er, er, positively with UK or those who want to be seen to be . . .
ED: (speaking over) Punish . . .
CB: . . . to punish us, er, then that doesn’t work, and equally, the European Parliament has to approve this as well . . .
ED: (speaking over) Right so, if, if, if all of that . . .
CB: . . . and the mood there is . .
ED: (speaking over) fails, then, then . . .
CB: So . . . then, er, we go to . . . have to sell into the European single market, on most-favoured nation terms of WTO rules, tariffs at about an average of 3% – 10% in some areas, such as on cars and things . . .
ED: (speaking over) Your point is that is not the end of the world . . .
CB: That is . . .
ED: (speaking over) That’s perfectly (words unclear)
CB: (speaking over) And that’s how we sell into the . . .
ED: (speaking over) Okay.
CB: . . . United States. But no, but it’s better than that, Evan, because we then, er, get control of immigration, we have control of free movement of people, and we then don’t have free movement of . . .
ED: (speaking over) Okay.
CB: . . . labour into the UK, we don’t have to pay £20 billion . . .
ED: (speaking over) No, well that, look . . .
CB: . . . into the EU budget, okay, we then get £10 billion back, but we can at least decide where that £20 billion gets spent. It gets even better than that. We are then in a position where we are regulating our own market, and where there are issues . . .
ED: (interrupting) Okay, so I understand, you basically think the backstop, if everything else fails, is, is, is, not to bad . . .
CB: (speaking over) I think people should appreciate actually just how strong . . .
ED: (speaking over) What, what, Boris Johnson, can I just ask you . . .
CB: . . . the British hand is.
ED: (speaking over) I want to ask you what you understood by what Boris Johnson wrote in The Telegraph the other day, this line he wrote about British people would be able to go and work in the EU, live, travel, study, buy homes and settle down there. What do you think he meant by that, when he wrote that was going to be the outcome of the negotiation?
CB: What . . . I don’t, I don’t know what . . .
ED: (speaking over) You don’t know?
CB: I don’t know, I don’t know . . .
ED: (speaking over) (words unclear)
CB: I don’t know what, well, well . . .
ED: (speaking over) Can you, can you foresee any outcome . . .
CB: (speaking over) I don’t know what Boris, er, meant by that, there is plainly going to be . . .
ED: (speaking over) You don’t know what he . . . can you see any outcome where that, if that happens . . .
CB: (speaking over) Yeah, well, if you look . . .
ED: . . . and we don’t . . .
CB: (speaking over) Well . . .
ED: We can restrict them . . .
CB: Can we go and live in the United States if we have the means and ability to do so, if we get a gre— . . .
ED: (speaking over) Is that what he meant when he said that? Is that what he meant?
CB: (speaking under) a green card. Er . . .
ED: I can’t go and live in the United States . . .
CB: (speaking over) But . . . but . . .
ED: I have to get a job and get a green card.
CB: Er, and get a green card. Now that may be . . .
ED: (interrupting) Sorry, I’ll tell you why I’m pushing this, you’re supporting him, he’s written this thing which is . . . appears to imply ‘We will stop them coming here, but we will have the right to go there’ . . .
CB: No, and if that’s . . .
ED: (speaking over) He’s just been in the middle of a campaign, he ought to know whether that is achievable or not, and I’m asking you whether . . .
CB: Well, I, I . . .
ED: . . . you think it is achievable?
CB: (speaking over) Well . . . er, my view is that, er, we will come, have to come to a deal about how people move between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.
ED: Can you see . . .
CB: And we go into those . . .
ED: (speaking over) that they will allow us freedom of movement without us allowing them freedom of movement? Because that is what your candidate . . .
CB: (speaking over) No, and that’s why . . .
ED: . . . from Prime Minister . . .
CB: That’s why . . .
ED: . . . who is meant to be an expert on this, having run a campaign on it has just (word unclear due to speaking over ‘written’?)
CB: (speaking over) Well, if you could . . . I’m quite certain that everyone is now going to disinter everything that Boris has said, because there’s obviously a significant campaign to try and . . .
ED: (interrupting) What?! Is this unreasonable, to take something he wrote in article for which he was paid several thousand pounds, at the end of a campaign, he wrote something that was reassuring . . .
CB: Well . . .
ED: . . . about what would be the position for the British, that appears, to most commentators, utterly incoherent . . .
CB: (speaking over) There is a . . .
ED: (speaking over) Does that not worry you about the candidate you’re supporting?
CB: There’s . . . uncertainty all over the place, erm, amongst the candidates, in certainly, in, certainly in the media, please let me . . . to finish this point, and it is extremely important to the national interest now, that we actually get some, as much certainty as possible about what the bottom line is for the United Kingdom. The bottom line . . . for the United Kingdom (fragments of words, or words unclear due to speaking over)
ED: (speaking over) You’ve explained the bottom line, which is . . .
CB: And that position . . .
ED: (speaking over) But if we take the bottom line . . .
CB: (speaking over) Wait, wait, well, well, hold on, hold on (fragment of word, or word unclear due to speaking over)
ED: (speaking over) Will I be able to live, travel, study, buy a home, settle down in France, do you think? Under your bottom line?
CB: Well no, if the, if the . . .
ED: (speaking over) Right . . .
CB: . . . if the negotiations (fragments of words, unclear due to speaking over)
ED: (speaking over) Right. So how can Boris give me that reassurance in his article?
CB: Well, because that’s no doubt what he is seeking to achieve. And it is obviously in the mutual interest of both United Kingdom and our European partners that that is the case, in exactly the same way . . .
ED: (exhales or laughing?)
CB: Evan, in exactly the same way as it is in our mutual interest that the tariff regime, particularly in the interests of our European partners, that if they sell nearly twice as many manufactured goods to was as we sell to them, that they would want to see those tariffs reduced.
ED: Can I give you a quickfire round, because there are some issues, which I know . . . well, do you think, immigration from non-EU countries, if Boris, your candidate wins, will go up . . . or not . . .
CB: (speaking over) (fragment of word, unclear)
ED: . . . when we have our new immigration regime?
CB: (fragment of word, unclear)
ED: Because promises were made to Asian communities that it would be easier to get relatives in. Do you think immigration will go up or down?
CB: Well, my view is that we should regulate immigration from outside the United Kingdom (sic?) consistently across, so people face the same rules . . .
ED: (speaking over) More or less from outside the EU?
CB: Both the regulation should be the same from (words unclear due to speaking over)
ED: (speaking over) Okay, you’re not going to answer that.
CB: (fragments of words, or words unclear)
ED: (speaking over) You’re not answering it.
CB: No Evan, this is, Evan, this is rather more serious, this trying to score . . .
ED: (speaking over) I’m not, these are just really basic questions . . .
CB: (speaking over) to try to . . .
ED: . . . which have not been answered in the campaign . . .
CB: (speaking over) But you know, you know perfectly well . . .
ED: (speaking over) and which your candidate is now going to stand for Prime Minister . . .
CB: (speaking over) But . . . but you know, but you know perfectly well that, er, the numbers of people that come into the United Kingdom are not necessarily, depending on what system you set up, is then going to depend . . .
ED: (speaking over) Right . . .
CB: . . . how many people come into the United Kingdom, so if you put . . .
ED: (speaking over) So maybe . . .
CB: . . . so if you put a . . . cap on the number of visas you’re going to allow . . .
ED: (speaking over) Right.
CB: . . . that’s one way of controlling it. Are you going to seek control . . .
ED: (interrupting) So it can go a lot of ways . . .
CB: . . . by the number of, (fragments of words, unclear) by . . .
ED: (speaking over) Any, any . . .
CB: . . . by issuing green cards.
ED: (speaking over) Any suggestion made in the campaign . . .
CB: And finally . . . and finally, we are going to have control over this. So we are then going to be . . . do the very important business of trying to protect British unskilled and semi-skilled labour from having to compete with people who have professional qualifications, from Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, or indeed, anywhere else in the world. That’s why they are not allowed into the United Kingdom (words unclear due to speaking over)
ED: (speaking over) That is a very long way of saying . . .
CB: . . . outside the European Union.
ED: . . . you don’t know whether immigration will go up or not. Crispin Blunt (laughter in voice) sorry we have to leave it there, thanks very much indeed. Thanks.
Transcript of BBC2, Newsnight, 1st July, EU Referendum, 10.30pm
Opening Montage
Music with the lyrics ‘The world turned upside down’ repeated throughout.
DAVID CAMERON: I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.
EMILY MAITLIS: When you voted leave, was it about the EU, was it picking the government, was about change of any kind? Or was it about something I haven’t mentioned?
UNNAMED FEMALE: It’s everything.
UNNAMED FEMALE: Everything.
EM: Right.
HILARY BENN: I no longer had confidence in his leadership.
ANGELA EAGLE: I feel that I’ve served in the best way I can.
REPORTER: Here at Westminster in the last few minutes there are more Labour resignations, three Shadow ministers . . .
UNNAMED FEMALE: He doesn’t need them shadow cabinets, get an . . . get an election and he’ll get in.
JEREMY CORBYN: Seumas, I’m not sure this is a great idea, is it?
DC: And I thought I was having a bad day ! (Laughter)
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER: You were fighting for the exit. The British people voted in favour of the exit, why are you here?
THERESA MAY: My pitch is very simple, I’m Theresa May and I think I’m the best person to be Prime Minister of this country.
VICTORIA DERBYSHIRE: Tom, Tom, I’m really sorry to interrupt, but we’re just hearing that Michael Gove is preparing to announce his candidacy as well.
JOURNALIST: What is your to Michael Gove? What is your to Michael Gove?
BORIS JOHNSON: I have . . . concluded that person cannot be me.
MICHAEL GOVE: I came reluctantly but firmly to the conclusion that I should stand and Boris should stand aside.
BJ: I cannot, unfortunately, get on with doing what I want to do, so it will be up to someone else now. I wish them every possible success.
JAMES O’BRIEN: For once, the clichés seem almost inadequate. It really was a political earthquake. We really are in uncharted waters and we really do have no idea what happens next. So, the search for clarity, and maybe even some certainty, is underway. And while it’s a little previous to suggest that much dust has settled, a week has now passed since the Referendum result was revealed, so we have, at least, had some time to consider its possible ramifications. Time now, then, obviously, for a poll examining where we were, where we are and where we think we might be going with Brexit. It’s thrown up a few surprises and some rather bad news for anyone hoping that they’d seen the back of the ballot box for a while. Have you had enough of voting yet? Apparently not. In fact almost half of voters polled said Britain should hold another general election before the UK starts to negotiate Brexit, so that each party can set out its own vision for life outside the EU. And maybe this is why. 59% told us they were not confident in Britain’s political leaders getting the best possible Brexit deal for Britain. That rises to 76% of Remain voters. And what about buyer’s remorse? All those voters who supposedly want to change their minds? Well, maybe not. 92% of respondents said they would definitely vote the same way. But of them, 5% of Leave voters did say they would now change their vote, compared to just 2% of Remain voters. And finally, imagine if this all just went away. Well, more than a third of voters they think it might. 22% said they don’t know if Britain will actually leave the EU and 16% think the UK will actively defy the Brexit vote and find a way to stay in. Of course, that’s only part of the post-Ref picture. The real action is unfolding at Westminster where just about everything is up for grabs on both sides of the House. To provide a measure of the mayhem, no pun intended, you could probably argue tonight that the Parliamentary party which didn’t want a leadership battle is having one while the Parliamentary party that desperately does want one, isn’t. Yet. Newsnight’s political editor, Nick Watt, is filling his boots.
Nick Watt talks about plans to ‘ease Jeremy Corbyn out of the door’, and allow him to resign with dignity.
What’s the latest? Nick, you have found out about a plan to help ease Jeremy Corbyn out of the door?
NICK WATT: Yes, all the signs from the Shadow Chancellor today John McDonald work that Jeremy Corbyn is not going anywhere and he’s going to stay. But I understand there was a delegation of Shadow Cabinet ministers yesterday who tried and failed to meet Jeremy Corbyn to suggest a plan to allow him to resign with dignity. They were suggesting that a commission could be set up over the summer and that would in trench some of his ideas about how you democratise the Labour Party and would also push on the party to commit to some of his core policies on inequality. If that could happen and some of the leadership contenders could agree to that, he would perhaps pre-announced his retirement and he would go after the Labour conference. What is really interesting about this is that people like John McDonald are very wary of this because they are scared that the moment he gives up the power, that is it for the left. But I understand that some members on the left who were in that room last year when his candidacy was approved that they thought with great reluctance and sadness that this may be the wise thing to do because they fear that the party could divide.
JO: I hesitate to ask, but more bad news for the Labour leader tonight?
NW: Yes, an interesting YouGov poll of Unite members, whose general secretary is one of Jeremy Corbyn’s most ardent supporters and this shows that 75% of people who voted Labour in the general election last year believe that Jeremy Corbyn will not be Prime Minister. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jeremy Corbyn’s opponent in the Labour Party picked up on this to challenge one of his central arguments. That Central argue it is, I may not have any support at Westminster but I do have support in the wider labour movement. Important health warning, election day to admit that YouGov were not able to do the full weighting you would normally expect because they do not know the full and exact demographic breakdown of Unite members. But we shouldn’t forget that there is a contest to choose the next Prime Minister of this country, so what I thought I would do is take a look at how that is going and also see how the front runner, Theresa May is getting on. (package report) Who would have believed it? The plodder of the Cabinet who issues the political gossip and the party circuit is emerging as the front runner in the Tory leadership contest.
DOMINIC GRIEVE Theresa May supporter: She brings to her work eight professionalism, dedication and hard work, a willingness to confront difficult problems, and that may be in great measure due to the fact that she is a woman. Which is probably a positive at the present time in my view in terms of our national politics.
NW: There is an unmistakable buzz around the Home Secretary and her rivals are concerned. 36 hours ago, Boris Johnson appeared to be the slam dunk candidate in the Tory leadership contest. After his former friend Michael Gove ended his lifetime’s ambition to be Prime Minister, the question tonight is whether the Theresa May juggernaut is unstoppable. Like it or loathe it, Theresa May is now defining this leadership contest and even influencing wider government policy.
GEORGE OSBORNE: It’s incredibly important we maintain fiscal credibility…
NW: George Osborne indicated today that he would abandon his plan to achieve an overall budget surplus, a day after the Home Secretary said she would do just that. And at his campaign launch, Michael Gove had his sights set on Theresa May when he said that the next Prime Minister must be a Brexit supporter. But Michael Gove knows he has to overcome the perception that he is guilty of a double act of treachery against two old friends, David Cameron and Boris Johnson.
PAUL GOODMAN Editor, Conservative Home: As we sit here today, you have to conclude that it looks as though he has gone over the Reichenbach falls with Boris Johnson, taken him over the falls but done some damage to his own reputation, who was previously above the fray, but he’s now gone down into the marketplace and has been swinging punches like the rest of them.
NW: Fans of the Justice Secretary say he has the brains and personal touch to make it.
ANNE-MARIE TREVELYAN Michael Gove supporter: He is a powerhouse of a man, an intellectual I’ve known for 30 years, I’ve watched him develop. He’s a radical reformer and a man who has always led his politics by conviction. He’s the one who persuaded me to in politics. He has the same vision for our country that I do, which is that we can really bring everyone together.
NW: But momentum appears to be building up behind Andrei led ‘ — Andrea Ledsom. Perhaps she could become the main leadership challenger to Theresa May.
PG: Candidates with novelty tend to do well in leadership elections. No one had heard of John Major in 1990, William Hague was a religiously junior figure in 1997. Iain Duncan Smith had been a Maastricht rebel. So Andrea Ledsom could come from the outside to give Theresa May a run for her money.
NW: Some of Theresa May’s supporters hope this contest could be over by next week. They are nervous that if this goes to the second stage, decided by grassroots Tory members, the support for the Remain side could count against her.
PG: The main test for Theresa May is whether or not she could persuade that Tory members should elect her when she was four Remain and the majority evidence was that a majority of them were for Leave. There is a form in Tory leadership contests being about Europe.
NW: British politics is being refashioned right in front of our eyes. But even in the middle of a revolution, perhaps it will be the steadiest member of the crew who will guide us to the next stage.
Full transcription:
JO: We’re off to the pub now. The one in Burnley next where, you’ll recall, we canvassed the immediate post-vote feelings pretty comprehensively. So, have they changed much? Will feuding friends forgive and forget? In a moment, Nick Blakemore will find out, but first a quick reminder of how those Brexit campaigners reacted when they found out the result.
TANYA THOMPSON Vote Leave Activist (Unnamed here): I’m over the moon, I don’t know what to say. We did it. Everybody woke up in time. Everybody listened. Everybody understands, yes, it’s going to be rough at the beginning. But we’ve done it.
JO: So, a week on, how are they feeling? Just to warn you, you may hear some strong language in the background of Nick’s film.
UNNAMED FEMALE: We’ve got to work together to make this work.
UNNAMED MALE: It’s like anything, you either go for it or you are left behind.
VOX POP FEMALE 2: We are all in the same boat. We now move forward. We are not Leave and Remain, we are United Kingdom.
VOX POP MALE: (speaking over) Leave. No, we are Leave, we’ve left.
VPF2: We are leaving, but we have to remember that a large percentage of this country voted Remain, and we don’t feel that way.
VPM: (speaking over)(words unclear) He’s Remain – I’m Out, aren’t I – are me and you falling out?
VOX POP MALE2: No.
VPF2: No.
VPM: We might be in ten minutes, like, but you know . . .
VOX POP MALE 3: This time we will just carry on. As it were. We just want people to know that England is not an easy touch. You know what I mean? You can’t just come here and take, take, take. To enjoy the advantages of this country, you’ve got to contribute. It’s as simple as that.
NICK BLAKEMORE: Why do you think Burnley voted for leave?
VPM3: They’re tired of paying out for people who think it’s a career option to just be a dosser and get a council house and take, take, take. And we’re getting sick of this, you know, you look around, every one of us here are hard working men and that’s what we’re sick of.
VOX POP MALE 4: I actually voted In last week. The reason was because erm . . . I just feel that Britain has a massive role to play in the European Union and it doesn’t make sense for me for us to come out of that. I’m a second-generation Italian, so my mum and dad came over here. What I think the biggest thing is that . . . I was born here but all my friends around here in Burnley have no issue whatsoever with any foreign people coming to this country, because, as long as the foreign people that come here contribute, that is the main thing. The biggest problem this country has is any foreign people who come over here and grab from the state, I think that’s the biggest issue.
VOX POP MALE 5: Did you vote Leave in the referendum?
VOX POP MALE 6: (words unclear) Did you?
VPM5: I did, definitely. You know why? Because I want a say over the laws that are made.
VOX POP MALE 6: I voted Leave which the majority of people round here did. I’m not sure if it were the right thing or the wrong thing, we will soon find out.
VPM5: People are making laws now that we don’t even vote over. That’s my biggest gripe.
VPM6: You could definitely say that we’ve seen a decline in our living standards, especially in the north-west. The North of England. I mean, I have family who live down south, like Basingstoke, and you go down there and it’s like a different country.
VPM 5: So, we talk about how it’s . . . what’s happened down south compared to what’s happened in the north-west, but if you think about it, we, we now have a say over where that money goes. And I’d say to anyone who is annoyed about this referendum, annoyed that we voted to leave and they wanted to remain, get involved in politics right now because at this moment in time it’s the biggest change you can make.
VPM6: I would say that if that is going to be a left wing ever again, they’ve got to realise that they’re not the super intelligent people that they think they are. They have to respect the voice of normal working people. And we’re not stupid.
BARMAID: I see the pros and cons, either way, to be honest with you, I think, putting it bluntly, we are going to get screwed, either way!
JO: Joining me now is the novelist Kazuo Ishiguro, the Japanese-born, raised in Surrey and, and as the author of The Remains of the Day, the man responsible for a lyrical evocation of interwar England so powerful and convincing that it won the Booker Prize and was made into a famous film. Kazuo, I mention those three parts of your past because they paint you, in a way, as a sort of literary poster boy for a multi-cultural Britain and full integration, and yet (exhales) you write in Today’s Financial Times of your fears that that sort of Britain may be in some sort of mortal threat. Why?
KAZU ISHIGURO: Mortal threat may be putting it a little melodramatically but I think this is very serious, you know, in my whole life time here, I have . . . I don’t think I’ve felt this anxious. I mean, the nation is very bitterly divided. It is leaderless, it is very anxious. Erm, if I . . . if I was a strategist for the far right now, I would be getting very excited, you know, this is, this is probably the best opportunity since the 1930s to push Britain towards some kind of neo-Nazi racism, and I think that we have got to . . . All the decent people in this country, and I mean both, people on both sides of the referendum divide, have got to rally around some sort of decent heart of, of Britain, and I think that’s decent heart . . . I don’t doubt that decent heart, you know . . .
JO: Not even a little?
KI: I . . .
JO: There’s been some grim, grim tales this week.
KI: I was, I was, I was shaken, I was a firm Remain person, you know, and I was shaken, like a lot of people. Er, but in the end I, you know, I have . . . I have a faith about the essential decency of this country. I speak both as someone who grew up as the only visible foreigner at school, I was always the only foreign boy at school, the only foreign kid in the community, over the years I have lived in various parts of Britain, when very large numbers of immigrants came from the Caribbean, Africa, the Asian subcontinent, the Caribbean, during a time of enormous economic turmoil in the 1970s and 1980s, people like the National Front and the BNP have never gained a hold in this country. You know, I think . . . and just as it was in the first half of the 20th Century, basically, I know, and I can tell from my perspective, everything I know about this country, is that it is essentially a very decent, tolerant country, it does racism really badly, even worse than football!
JO: (laughs) (words unclear) a part of the country is doing quite well.
KI: And when fascism was rampaging across Europe, you know, in the first half the 20th century, it couldn’t get a foothold here. But, I think this is . . . we shouldn’t be complacent now. And I think the country does need to . . . the decent part of the country needs something to rally around.
JO: Well, let’s try and identify what that may be, but of course, there’ll be plenty of people watching this, as you well know, and as you refer to in your piece, who voted to leave the European Union, and will be just chilled by the spectre that you portray as anybody on the Remain side is. It’s a challenge to really separate, isn’t it, the toxicity that seems to have been emboldened by the result and the people who will be just as alarmed by that emboldening as, as anybody else is. How, how can we do that?
KI: I absolutely believe that, you know, the majority of the people who voted leave are not racist . . .
JO: Of course.
KI: Some are. But, you know, just at a local level, I would like to see . . . I would like to see some kind of campaign declaration, a petition, I can’t do it, I am from the Remain camp, people from the Leave camp, I’d like them to clearly say that they are against the kind of xenophobia and racism that is threatening to take over.
JO: Have you experienced any?
KI: Not personally, no, no, just, just reading . . . I mean, there are a lot of people very anxious, you know, and we’ve heard reports of, just, you know, things that weren’t acceptable before, seeming to be acceptable now.
JO: (speaking over) People being told to go home (words unclear due to speaking over)
KI: (speaking over) I think yes, yeah, exactly . . . it’s at that level at the moment, you know . . . I . . . I don’t know how deep it goes, but I would like to see the people from the Leave camp just clearly . . . isolate the racists, you know, by saying, ‘This isn’t us.’ You know, I would even offer them a slogan, you know “Leave Racism”, you know, you know hashtag whatever . . .
JO: It needs a hashtag.
KI: Let’s just, let’s just try and win back the tone of this, this thing. At a deeper level, at a deeper kind of . . .
JO: Hmm.
KI: . . . you know, thing, I, I’m one of the people that would like to see a second referendum, not a replay of the last one. But I think we, what we lack now is a proper mandate for the new Prime Minister, whoever it is, on what sort of Brexit we are going to go for. And I think we need another . . . some sort of discussion for a referendum.
JO: (speaking over) And you, you’ve, you’ve pulled the pin on a second r— a second referendum grenade just as our time together comes to an end. So we shall, we shall have to leave it there . . .
KI: Okay.
JO: Kazuo Ishiguro many thanks indeed.
KI: (speaking over) Thank you very much.
JO: Of course, the referendum shockwaves reach much further than the shores of these islands. And few countries have been watching events here more closely than France. One of the original architects of the Common Market and, of course, long a historical obstacle to the UK’s membership, the country today hosts a growing strain of Gallic Euroscepticism and may be developing an appetite for what has inevitably been dubbed Frexit. Newsnight’s Gabriel Gatehouse has been taking a breath of French air to find out how events on this side of the Channel have played out over there.
UNNAMED MALE SPEAKER (GEORGE BERTRAND?): I’m sad and angry. I always wanted Britain to be part of European dreams.
GABRIEL GATEHOUSE: : It may look like life as normal. Paris in summertime. Cafes, strikes, the odd riot. But make no mistake, Brexit was an earthquake. The old Europe has changed.
VOX POP MALE: I was like, no, no! You can’t do that! We have a future together.
UNNAMED FEMALE (MARINE LE PEN?)On the side of the far right, it has come as a divine surprise.
UNNAMED MALE: One has to react very quickly because as a disease it is very profound.
GG: In the run-up to the referendum, Newsnight met George Bertrand, one of the founding fathers of the European Union. Brexit, he believes, is a disaster.
GEORGE BERTRAND: The results for Britain are extremely complex difficult to manage. But it is not only a domestic issue, but as it concerns us too.
GG: Mr Bertrand played a prominent role in shepherding Britain into the common market. And so, for him, it’s personal.
GB: We consider Britain as an exceptional country. As itself, the role it has played in two wars, the way democratic life was developed… At the same time, we were absolutely aware that Europe without Britain was not Europe. The English Parliamentary tradition has a very positive influence on the European Parliament started to evolve.
GG: Today, in France, an unpopular centre-left government is trying to force through reforms to the labour code. It’s not going well. The French, of course, are no strangers to this kind of labour protest. But it does feel now that there is a flight from the centre to the left and to the right. On the left, they see the EU as part of a neoliberal project which they blame for austerity, inequality and rising unemployment. And yet even here, some are dismayed by Brexit.
VOX POP MALE: OK, Europe, us, it exists. It’s shit, but we can’t, as we say in French, we can’t throw away the baby with the water of the bath.
GG: The baby out with the bath water, yes we say the same in England.
VPM: Yes, we can’t do that.
GG: In France, discontent with the political establishment is rising. The chief beneficiaries are not on the left but on the right. The Front National was once a fringe movement, the preserve of ageing ex-colonialists bitter about the loss of empire. No longer. Like the left, young FN supporters rail against globalisation, but for them, Brexit is a cause for celebration.
VOX POP FEMALE: The British have opened the door and I hope they have opened it for us too and for all the other peoples of Europe as well.
VOX POP MALE 2: It’s a strong message, an historic message. It’s the most important event since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s very galvanising.
VPF: In every country, we see the rise of parties with patriotic, anti-globalisation agendas. We don’t agree with all of them. We don’t agree with everything Podemos say. We were very disappointed by what happened in Greece. We are interested in UKIP, we are interested in the Northern League, Alternative fur Deutschland.
GG: Polls suggest that the Front National could win the presidency next year. The polls also show a rise in Eurosceptic sentiment. And the Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, has promised a referendum on Frexit.
MARINE LE PEN: It’s the same cocktail than for the Brexit in a way, it’s anti-immigrant feeling, because it’s an open door to immigration, refugees and possibly terrorism, so the second issue is insecurity, law and order. And the third dimension is anti-elites, the idea that the people who govern us, they are so far away, they don’t understand us, the little people. And they are corrupt.
GG: And here is a curious paradox. In a country with a proud, democratic tradition, many people feel disenfranchised. Sure, they can vote for a choice of parties and politicians, but many feel the politicians are all saying the same things, in a language they no longer understand. It’s not just France. In corridors of power across Europe, politicians, the centrist establishment, the people who by and large have governed this continent since the end of the Second World War, are suddenly realising that for a whole variety of different reasons, vast swathes of their electorate simply don’t believe in them anymore. It’s not that the centrists aren’t aware of the problem, they are. They just don’t seem to know what to do about it.
PIERRE LELLOUCH French Minister for Europe, 2009-10: People have a sense that they are losing the control of their nation. As a result of globalisation, the arrival of huge companies from the other side of the world, who are now controlling the economy. You are losing control of the economy, you are losing control of the people coming into your nation. A lot of poor whites consider they are losing money, they are paying for the newcomers. And I sense this anger all over the country here in France. And I’m worried about that. Because governments are . . . tend to . . . For example, right now, they are involved in legislation that has no impact on these issues but you know, but it’s like a theatre.
GG: You’re irrelevant?
PL: In many ways, yes. Because of lack of courage, essentially.
GB: Britain used to rule the world. Europe used to rule the world. That’s finished.
GG: Europe is in the grip of a malaise. For some, Brexit presents an opportunity for renewal. For others, it is a dangerous gamble.
GB: I’m angry because we are putting our respective security in danger and democracy in danger. In spite of the economic and social divisions in Europe, we are the most balanced part of the world. The most human part of the world, the most socially-advanced in the world. That could be jeopardised.
JO: Lose by 4% of the vote in a General Election and you find yourself in strong Opposition with a fighting chance of halting legislation and embarrassing the Government. Win 48% of the vote in a Referendum and you find yourself with absolutely nothing. Politically your position is, in many ways, no stronger than if you’d won 0%. With all the Conservative leadership candidates now fully committed to Brexit and the winner of course guaranteed to govern, what will opposition even look like? And who will speak for the 48%? Some suggest we’re approaching a fundamental redrawing of traditional party politics but few are prepared to predict what it might look like. Joining me now to survey the scene are, the journalist and broadcaster Paul Mason, The Times columnist Phil Collins, and adviser to Nick Clegg, Polly McKenzie. We’ll get onto the highfalutin stuff imminently, but I’d like to begin by asking you all a very simple question, who’s in the biggest mess at the moment, the Conservatives or the Labour Party, and Polly, I’ll start with you.
POLLY MCKENZIE: Probably the Labour Party, because at least the Conservatives have a process which will get them to a leader they will broadly all be happy with, even if the country has to like it or lump it. Whereas the Labour Party, frankly, this could go on for months or even years.
PHILLIP COLLINS: Well, the Conservative Party’s mess is more important because they are visiting it on the rest of us, they are visiting it on the country. So their mess is more important in that sense, but the bigger mess if it weren’t for that obviously important fact is the Labour Party, which is facing the prospect it might not even exist quite soon.
JO: An existential threat to the Labour Party, Paul Mason?
PAUL MASON: Yes, well I noticed your political editor, comprehensive though he was on the unnamed sources inside Westminster omitted to report that there had been tens of thousands of people on the streets here in Manchester, in Cardiff and Birmingham, just tonight, supporting Jeremy Corbyn. Now, Labour is in a mess and what you’ve seen so far is the equivalent of the kind of Haka before the rugby match. If the actual rugby match actually kicks off, it’s going to get very brutal. And I think what we all need to do, on all sides of this debate, I’m a Labour member and I voted Remain, is to try and find a way to de-escalate it , because this generation of people who signed up to depose Jeremy Corbyn, these young, centre-left MPs, have no idea what an actual struggle inside the labour movement looks like. Those of us who saw the miners’ strike and have seen what people are getting ready for right now, fear . . . It is, it won’t disappear, it may, however, seriously split.
JO: Who speaks for you at the moment, politically? As a Corbyn-friendly Remainer?
PAUL MASON: Well, Jeremy Corbyn. I think he’s speaking but we, the wider Labour family, have to find some way of de-escalating this, and of course, focusing on the policies, the policies . . . The fact is, Corbyn and John McDonnell scored a fantastic success this week, not one you would want to score, but they’ve knocked Osborne away from his fiscal rule. We were calling for him to do that, he’s dropped it, but now we have to come up with a new fiscal policy for Britain. I would be arguing for a fiscal stimulus, tax cuts for businesses to attract investment now, investment tax spending to boost investment, all that needs to happen, but of course, it’s going to canon straight into the Brexit negotiations. We need both parties, actually, to be on the ball . . .
JO: Okay . . .
PAUL MASON: . . . and thinking in a centrist and national interested way.
JO: Okay Paul. Phil Collins, the credit for the fiscal retreat of George Osborne being handed there to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. I’ll let you respond to that in a moment. I’m interested also, in the notion of Jeremy Corbyn speaking for Labour Remainers while Labour Remainers in the main blame him for the Brexit?
PC: Yeah, which I think is a bit harsh, actually, I think there’s a lot more in the vote to leave the European Union than could have been solved by Jeremy Corbyn, so I don’t think it helps to blame him. He was a pretty lukewarm advocate for it but that’s because he’s not very good. It’s not because he had a particular bad day, it’s that he was as good as he can be, which is not very good at all. I think it’s . . . as scientists say of a bad theory, that it’s not even wrong. And it’s not even wrong to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are to gain the credit for George Osborne changing his rule, he’s changed the rule because the country has had a massive economic shock and we’re going to come out of the European Union. It’s perfectly reasonable in politics to try and claim your opponent’s shifts, so I’ve no objection to them attempting to do so, but it’s not credible to think that that’s the reason it’s happened.
JO: Polly are we looking at something rather more fundamental than the usual local difficulties, infighting and squabbles that typify your world?
POLLY MCKENZIE: I think something has to change, because as you said in your intro, there’s nobody who really represents the 48%, the people who voted for Remain. And we don’t even have a mandate for a government to negotiate our Brexit. As we were hearing earlier, we don’t know what kind of Brexit we want – a sort of economically sensible EEA-type strategy or, you know, full complete distance and we just cut ourselves off and float in the mid-Atlantic? And actually, unless there’s some sort of election or some sort of realignment of politics, nobody has a mandate to make that decision.
JO: What would that realignment look like?
POLLY MCKENZIE: At the moment, God only knows. I mean, you know, there is this growth in the Liberal Democrats but with only eight MPs it’s hard to see Tim Farron leading . . .
JO: (interrupting) Tim Farron has committed to a campaign, a manifesto that would involve doing everything possible to get back into the European Union.
POLLY MCKENZIE: To get back in, absolutely, and, you know, I feel very strongly represented by that but they only have eight MPs and it’s hard to see that as being enough to build a new centre party.
PC: It’s possible that a break could come if Jeremy Corbyn digs in and then he’s challenged and he wins again and then the 172 Labour MPs in Parliament who have declared no confidence in him declare themselves a new party, that’s not beyond the balance of possibility at the moment. So we might, we’re closer perhaps than we’ve ever been before. I’m not sure it’s a great solution or a great outcome but that is entirely feasible at the moment.
JO: Have we found something on which you can all agree, Paul Mason, that a fundamental realignment might well be on the horizon?
PAUL MASON: I think centrist politics, which wants to rejoin the European Union after this . . . i.e. overtly and proactively rejoin the European Union, would be . . . would have to be a new party. Because neither the Conservatives nor Labour are going to do that, as parties. But I do think there is a big problem for centrist politics, full stop. Centrist politicians from both sides are going to be called upon to act in the national interests in a way that they are not really used to defining. You know, what should happen right now is we should slash business tax and boost business investment. The moment we do that, the people we are across the table from in the Brexit negotiations, the French and the Germans are going to say ‘hold on a minute – this is unfair competition, Mr’ – whoever it is they are talking to, ‘Please withdraw your tax cut in order to get back into the EEA’ – I favour going into the EEA, I also favour doing rapid tax cuts to boost growth and business investment. So, we need a political class that knows how to do this sort of thing, they’re not used to it, because they’re used to 40 odd years of multilateralism that they triggered the breakdown of.
JO: Mr, or of course, it may well be a Mrs . . .
PAUL MASON: It could be a Mrs, very sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah.
JO: (speaking over) That’s quite alright, they’ll be negotiating with.
POLLY MCKENZIE: Most importantly, there isn’t anybody to make those decisions. We’ve had this unbelievably hectic week in British politics but actually we have no more clarity one week on about what on earth we’re going to do next. And it’s that complete vacuum, whatever negotiating strategy we adopt, the truth is we need to start doing something because all across Europe and especially in Brussels, people are planning for how to negotiate this in their interests and not in ours, whereas we, you know, we’ve got a Cabinet Office team of three people thinking about this.
PC: (word or words unclear) a referendum doesn’t give you a mandate for anything in particular, it’s a mandate to leave the European Union.
JO: It’s a binary question.
PC: There are no, sort of, terms . . .
JO: (speaking over) How big a part do you think that’ll play in the Conservative candidate battle, do you think they’ll be putting forward rival visions of Brexit, or do you think they’ll just be trying to sort of woo the party faithful in the normal way?
PC: It’s very interesting that the overwhelming favourite appears to be someone who voted Remain, that was on the Remain side, Theresa May. I mean, I guess nobody would have predicted that this time last week, but then I suppose nobody would have predicted anything that’s happened this time last week. But it does appear that she’s moving ahead. As yet, as we said in the introduction, everybody there is committed to exit. I don’t think any of them really have the first idea what it means, yet. So I think, if they do put forward any plans, they’ll be very meagre plans indeed.
JO: Paul Mason?
PAUL MASON: Hello?
JO: I beg your pardon, Paul, I was expecting you to respond to what Philip Colins said.
PAUL MASON: Yes, look, I’m sorry, look, what is amazing at the moment is the fact we’ve got this, all the political class cannot utter the words that we have uttered on this discussion, EEA, European economic area. It is the obvious solution, to apply for the European Economic Area, to design a variation on free movement, ask for the emergency brake you can get and then start from there. You may not get it and you may have to recoil back to a complete break with the EU, but it’s logical to go for that. What frustrates me on all sides of Parliament is that people are not prepared to do that and that is because the party machinery is fractured.
JO: Paul Mason, Polly McKenzie, Phillip Collins, many thanks indeed.
