Sir Nigel Sheinwald - UK Ambassador to the US, 2007 - 2012 HARDtalk

That's it from me. Now it is time for HARDtalk Mac.

In or out? For the next five years, Britain's future in the European

Union could be shrouded in uncertainty. This is thanks to

David Cameron's commitment to a referendum. He believes his

dramatic gamble will pay off, not just at home, but in Europe,

allowing him to be calibrate Britain's relationship with

Brussels. But will it work? Might yesterday, Nigel Sheriwald, was the

UK's top diplomat at EU, top foreign adviser to Tony Blair and

ambassador to Washington. Is the gambit in Britain's national

Nigel Sheriwald, welcome to HARDtalk. In the recent past you

have been foreign policy adviser to the British Prime Minister. Not

David Cameron, Tony Blair. It had David Cameron had you next to him

as foreign policy adviser and he said to you, Nigel, I am going to

go for this in/out referendum, what would you have said to him? Of as a

professional adviser I would have said that I could see the

attractions in some way if Britain emerges from this more committed to

the European Union and with a more settled position within it. I would

have also said that it is a long way to go and a difficult road that

you have chosen. There are fundamental problems of negotiable

Mitie and of uncertainty. That is associated with the move that he

made. A do you accept the contention that David Cameron makes,

the context he puts to this, that in his view the public disillusion

with the EU is at an all-time high and that consent for membership of

the European Union is, in his words, wafer-thin. He is certainly right.

Public disillusion with the European Union is higher than it

has been. But is it only about the European Union? Is it more to do

with the general state of politics and the economy? After all, the

measures announced here have nothing to do with the European

Union or Brussels. Measures that our government have enacted. So you

think the public have got it wrong? I am not implying they have got it

wrong. There is a tangle of issues. He to accept the contention that

disillusion with the EU in Britain is at an all-time high, is it not a

terrible indictment of policy makers, the people at the centre of

the policy-making establishment who for years have conducted Britain's

foreign policy towards the EU without consulting the British

public? And I would include you and those who faces indictment. I do

not think that is fair. At every stage of our involvement in Europe,

our Parliament, how ministers have been involved. We had a referendum

in 1975. A referendum that nobody under the age of 50 something can

possibly remember. There are very few major public policy issues in

which we have a running referendum in this country. Whether it is

about economy, international relations, moral and social issues

of our time. That is not how we do it in this country. Those are

reserved for special moments were a fundamental change is being

considered. It gets down to this key question of Britain's

constitutional place in Europe. Let us not forget that your former boss,

the man you advised for years, Tony Blair, did say he was willing to

contemplate a referendum as Europe look to create a new constitution.

It became very complicated. We ended up with the Lisbon Treaty.

Britain and the British people never had that vote. A but the

argument for that, and we can go over the past history... Was it a

mistake? I would not have advised him to do what. That is not the

issue. He felt it was necessary. There was a constitutional leap

forward. That necessitated a further consultation of the British

people. The issue is whether that is going to be the case. If David

Cameron achieves his objectives, then in fact there would be a

transfer back to Britain of powers. It would not be an increase of

further European power against us. That was the rationale for doing it.

The problem is that when you and other people who are pro-European

and deeply committed to Britain's place in Europe, when you talk of

the dangers of a referendum and how unwise it might prove to be it, you

sound as though if you are running scared of this basic consultation

with the British voters will stop I have not said so far, but I am

against a referendum. You stressed to me how difficult and unwise it

might be. What I said is that depressed issue is about

negotiating what the UK gets to do. That is what needs to be considered

first of all. Whether David Cameron can achieve the goals he set out.

The significant new settlement of transfer of powers back to the UK,

a fundamental reform, of our role in Europe, whether that is

achievable. With your experience for Brussels politics, is it

achievable? He was very wise not to give us a warned realist. Of

everything he wanted. To reserve that for later when he knows the

context. It is going to be very difficult. Why? The rest of the

European Union has to play as well. When you're in a negotiation of 27,

everyone has got a gun in the room. We are not the only ones with

domestic politics. You have to respect the position of what

emerges that has to be in the general interest of the parties.

They have to assent to what we ones just as we have to listen to what

they want. How does the balance of power sit within that negotiation?

It seems to me that when you say how difficult it is going to be

that you are assuming the cards are held predominantly by the other

member states of the EU rather than Britain. It seems to me Britain

holds cards as well. We do. We start from the position that all

their partners, and that includes the most important, France, Germany

and the other nations, I start from the position that they want us to

stay in and will go somewhere to meet our concerns. A Angela Merkel

has already said. She is looking for a compromise. She is not in any

sense at all sounding negative about what David Cameron has said.

That is what I would expect. says there has to be a compromise.

That is what I would expect from the other parties. They will judge

this according to their national interest and the national economic

interest. That is bound up with the survival of the euro. They do not

want to do anything that undermines the recovery of the eurozone or

unravels the core of the single market that we are talking about.

David Cameron wants to strengthen the single market. That is what he

faces British membership in the European Union. The issue for

others is how you can do that and at the same time bringing back the

to the UK have powers that a number of the parties would say are

inextricably connected to the functioning. Opponents seem to

believe it would be terribly difficult to negotiate powers back.

Let me quote you something that the Europe minister of Finland, who has

written a PhD on the variety of different relationships members

have with Brussels, this is what he said after David Cameron spoke. He

said that we need Britain in Europe. Cameron's move clarifies the debate.

He said that to be quite honest there is a lot of differentiation

inside the EU. Look at defence arrangements. We need to stick to

the bulk of EU integration, but we can take a few raisins out of the

ball. That is what he wants, isn't it? Is it? There is no doubt that

we have a certain accommodation from the parties. Absolutely right.

We were able to opt out from the economic and monetary union. We

have an opt-out on trading. We have an opt-out on justice. We can

decide what we want to do. Our partners have recognised that

Britain, because of its legal system, because of its history, is

a different position. We have a massive amount of flexibility. The

question is whether you can carry on chipping away at that forward to

your starting to reach the Daragh Byrne of what is at the core of the

single market. -- Daragh Byrne. It is reasonable to put forward

proposals and we can get something out of it. Surely it concentrates

the minds of all those in the run much more effectively to say that

if we do not get what we want, there is the option for Britain to

leave the union. No other serious leader of the European Union wants

to see that happen. I wonder about the psychology. For some that might

work in our favour. For others, if they see a part to the sleeving,

they will wonder what is the incentive for them to try and work

with us. Some of them will be irritated by having a gun pointed

at their heads. You very carefully avoided absolutely saying to me

that to believe it is at stake. Many have said that. They say there

is now going to be up to five years of massive uncertainty in the

relationship between Britain and Europe. The fact is that the

uncertainty is there any way because of all the factors we have

already discussed about the state of British public opinion. What

Hamann is promising to do is give a finite end to the uncertainty. --

Cameron. The can put it that way. Five years is a long time. The

economy is going to be... It is probably better than open and it

will stop. There could have been a different time. We could have

waited until after the election. We have extended the time. There is

nothing we can do about that now. But I do not think you can deny it

will create an uncertainty in relations with Investment to the UK

and about our position in Europe. That is why the rest of the world

is watching intently. They are not indifferent. Indeed. But the other

argument that you make, because you are now involved in a lobby group

that promotes business in Europe, the other argument is that

investors might be overcome by this uncertainty and Britain will lose

investment because of the political uncertainty. How do you explain

that 55 of the most senior businessmen in the UK have written

a letter to the newspapers saying that is categorically not true and

what Cameron has done all ended up being good for British business

because it focuses minds on making the EU more open, more competitive

and more business-friendly? Everyone agrees with that. All the

business organisations want to see less red tape and a greater focus

on the single market. That goes without saying. Hang on a minute.

You said in meetings for years in Brussels were you signed up to more

and more red tape. We did not. come we are members of the union

that we now say is dysfunctional and was people like to agree to the

measures that are currently in place? Elected governments like

ours agreeing to things which bring advantage to the UK. That you say

are dysfunctional. I do not think it is dysfunctional. It has got a

series of problems. It is not just David Cameron who wants a

referendum. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to not want it but they also

say the EU needs fundamental reform. It leaves the question in my mind

with diplomats like you signed up to all the arrangements that we now

see in the first place. Governments Did you make some mistakes? I do

not know if I make mistakes or not. Do you think it is dysfunctional?

Not overall. I think it requires reform. Overall, it continues to

bring advantage to the UK. The EU we have created of the past 20

years in relation to the euro has not worked out. But the UK has an

opt-out for that. The single market has advanced, we have achieved an

objective of widening the EU, these are huge advantages for Britain.

Not to be disregarded or regarded as trivial. My opinion does not

matter. The opinion of business people matters. One private equity

specialist says, from his analysis, far from creating jobs, the EU with

all of its red Tate destroys jobs. There are a couple of models for

countries close with the EU but not inside it. Norway and Switzerland.

They do not have any say on the regulations they have to take in

order to be part of the single market. Is that what we want for

the UK? I do not think we want that. Staying in is very important. That

is what the Prime Minister is after after all. Are you saying you can

imagine no circumstances in which you might conclude it would be

better for Britain to leave than stay in? I would see for myself, I

can see no circumstances in which it would be to our overall

advantage to be out. I can see that the path way the Prime Minister has

set out could later that. If that happens Britain's negotiators would

do their best. If we decide to stay out, the prospects are not terribly

good. A final point on this debate. Some are opposed of the -- to the

idea of a referendum. You talk of Britain heading to the exit by

accident. Somehow accidentally voting for an exit. That sounds

like a very patronising opinion of the UK's ability to make sense of

his argument. That is not what I said. I said the debate should be a

full one. The more people know about the European Union the More

Group EU they will be. The last set of polls looking at the in- out

debate suggest that a majority may be there to stay in. That is what I

have been saying. Why be so cautious about the notion... Five

years of uncertainty. Five years of questioning where we will end up in

the end. There is a possibility we will not stay in. We will have to

see. It depends how the government of the day gets on in negotiations.

I do not think it will be a cakewalk. Just on the final detail

the point about that. Given your recent knowledge of European

diplomacy, who would be the main obstacle, the main blocking voices

to David Cameron getting what he wants? It seems to me the Germans,

Scandinavians, they are up for it. Who will be the biggest hurdle?

Quite a few of them would be concerned about anything that UN

picks the single market in any way. We want another great leap of

integration, we want to change the fundamental treaties of the EU, we

want major reform that provides the platform for the UK to put forward

a larger package. Say they do not do that. Say they make small

measures without changing the fundamentals of the eve. In that

circumstance we will look rather high and dry with a big package of

our own. It depends on the context in Europe. I want to change the

context a little bit and talk about the United States. We surprised

that Philip Gordon came to London and made it very plain that the US

regarded it as an important national interest to the US that

Britain remained inside the EU? That referendums have often turned

countries inward. I was not surprised he said US interests that

Britain should be an active and influential member of the year.

That has been the position of America for a long time. -- the EU.

What were you surprised about? reason he made that intervention

now is because the US was worried about the trend of debate here.

About that extreme set of circumstances I was talking about

before which we might find ourselves out despite the best

wishes of the Prime Minister and others in his party. Do you think

it is helpful that that sort of signal is sent so publicly? It

rubbed some get all the wrong way. It reminds people of the big

picture. It reminds people that diplomatically we are in America's

bucket. The truth is, as the Prime Minister ended his speech, the more

influential that Britain is in Brussels, the more influential it

is in Washington, Beijing and Delhi. And vice-versa. Before we end I

want to ask you more about President Obama. You have been very

frank about President Obama. And in I was linked in which you talked

about his high intelligence and his star quality, but also his

aloofness and his ability to be insensitive. Now we are going to

see his second term, how has he handled foreign policy-making?

foreign policy-making has been successful both in America...

asking you as a foreign policy profession of. For example, Israel-

Palestine. -- professional. I think he tried very hard in his first

year but he came up against an absolute block in the shape of the

Israeli Prime Minister. He was not able to get the movement on

settlements. It was a showdown. You saw President Obama and Binyamin

Netanyahu go head-to-head on this question of settlement building,

Obama bling to first. Was that a mistake? The Israelis have to agree,

they did not. I hope they continue trying in this administration. I

think they will. You think he will use political capital in trying to

bring Israel... I do nothing he will ignore that. I think his

Secretary of State will want to continue that effort as well. I

think they are handling the issue with caution and care. And trying

to put the brakes on his rare. not think there is a direct link

between the two. -- Israel. You made a big point of saying we had

to go into Libya because attacks were going to be made on Benghazi.

60,000 people, many of them civilian have been killed in Syria.

Do you not see the same urgent need for military intervention in Syria?

I think the moral case is exactly the same. It is not greater. When

we went into Libya there was a smaller number of deaths than in

Syria. It goes back to what our Prime Minister and what others said

it when we went into Libya, because we were able to do something in

Libya does not mean we are able to do everything else where.

Humanitarian intervention is not a universal principle? It is a

universal principle but it can only be applied in a feasible way. Syria

was always going to be very difficult from that point of view

for a number of reasons. In Libya you hadn't enclave which we could

protect. That was not the case in Syria. Principally because Syria

has and still has the protection from Iran and Russia which prevents