:00:11. > :00:17.That's it from me. Now it is time for HARDtalk Mac.
:00:17. > :00:21.In or out? For the next five years, Britain's future in the European
:00:21. > :00:25.Union could be shrouded in uncertainty. This is thanks to
:00:25. > :00:29.David Cameron's commitment to a referendum. He believes his
:00:29. > :00:33.dramatic gamble will pay off, not just at home, but in Europe,
:00:33. > :00:39.allowing him to be calibrate Britain's relationship with
:00:39. > :00:43.Brussels. But will it work? Might yesterday, Nigel Sheriwald, was the
:00:43. > :00:48.UK's top diplomat at EU, top foreign adviser to Tony Blair and
:00:48. > :00:58.ambassador to Washington. Is the gambit in Britain's national
:00:58. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:24.Nigel Sheriwald, welcome to HARDtalk. In the recent past you
:01:24. > :01:29.have been foreign policy adviser to the British Prime Minister. Not
:01:29. > :01:33.David Cameron, Tony Blair. It had David Cameron had you next to him
:01:33. > :01:40.as foreign policy adviser and he said to you, Nigel, I am going to
:01:40. > :01:43.go for this in/out referendum, what would you have said to him? Of as a
:01:43. > :01:47.professional adviser I would have said that I could see the
:01:47. > :01:53.attractions in some way if Britain emerges from this more committed to
:01:53. > :01:58.the European Union and with a more settled position within it. I would
:01:58. > :02:03.have also said that it is a long way to go and a difficult road that
:02:03. > :02:07.you have chosen. There are fundamental problems of negotiable
:02:07. > :02:12.Mitie and of uncertainty. That is associated with the move that he
:02:12. > :02:18.made. A do you accept the contention that David Cameron makes,
:02:18. > :02:23.the context he puts to this, that in his view the public disillusion
:02:23. > :02:29.with the EU is at an all-time high and that consent for membership of
:02:29. > :02:33.the European Union is, in his words, wafer-thin. He is certainly right.
:02:33. > :02:40.Public disillusion with the European Union is higher than it
:02:40. > :02:44.has been. But is it only about the European Union? Is it more to do
:02:44. > :02:49.with the general state of politics and the economy? After all, the
:02:49. > :02:54.measures announced here have nothing to do with the European
:02:54. > :02:58.Union or Brussels. Measures that our government have enacted. So you
:02:58. > :03:05.think the public have got it wrong? I am not implying they have got it
:03:05. > :03:09.wrong. There is a tangle of issues. He to accept the contention that
:03:09. > :03:14.disillusion with the EU in Britain is at an all-time high, is it not a
:03:14. > :03:18.terrible indictment of policy makers, the people at the centre of
:03:18. > :03:22.the policy-making establishment who for years have conducted Britain's
:03:22. > :03:26.foreign policy towards the EU without consulting the British
:03:26. > :03:32.public? And I would include you and those who faces indictment. I do
:03:32. > :03:37.not think that is fair. At every stage of our involvement in Europe,
:03:37. > :03:43.our Parliament, how ministers have been involved. We had a referendum
:03:43. > :03:49.in 1975. A referendum that nobody under the age of 50 something can
:03:49. > :03:53.possibly remember. There are very few major public policy issues in
:03:53. > :03:57.which we have a running referendum in this country. Whether it is
:03:57. > :04:02.about economy, international relations, moral and social issues
:04:02. > :04:06.of our time. That is not how we do it in this country. Those are
:04:06. > :04:11.reserved for special moments were a fundamental change is being
:04:11. > :04:16.considered. It gets down to this key question of Britain's
:04:16. > :04:21.constitutional place in Europe. Let us not forget that your former boss,
:04:21. > :04:27.the man you advised for years, Tony Blair, did say he was willing to
:04:27. > :04:32.contemplate a referendum as Europe look to create a new constitution.
:04:32. > :04:36.It became very complicated. We ended up with the Lisbon Treaty.
:04:36. > :04:43.Britain and the British people never had that vote. A but the
:04:43. > :04:48.argument for that, and we can go over the past history... Was it a
:04:48. > :04:52.mistake? I would not have advised him to do what. That is not the
:04:52. > :04:57.issue. He felt it was necessary. There was a constitutional leap
:04:57. > :05:02.forward. That necessitated a further consultation of the British
:05:02. > :05:07.people. The issue is whether that is going to be the case. If David
:05:07. > :05:11.Cameron achieves his objectives, then in fact there would be a
:05:11. > :05:17.transfer back to Britain of powers. It would not be an increase of
:05:17. > :05:23.further European power against us. That was the rationale for doing it.
:05:23. > :05:28.The problem is that when you and other people who are pro-European
:05:28. > :05:33.and deeply committed to Britain's place in Europe, when you talk of
:05:33. > :05:39.the dangers of a referendum and how unwise it might prove to be it, you
:05:39. > :05:44.sound as though if you are running scared of this basic consultation
:05:44. > :05:49.with the British voters will stop I have not said so far, but I am
:05:49. > :05:54.against a referendum. You stressed to me how difficult and unwise it
:05:54. > :05:58.might be. What I said is that depressed issue is about
:05:58. > :06:03.negotiating what the UK gets to do. That is what needs to be considered
:06:03. > :06:08.first of all. Whether David Cameron can achieve the goals he set out.
:06:08. > :06:11.The significant new settlement of transfer of powers back to the UK,
:06:11. > :06:16.a fundamental reform, of our role in Europe, whether that is
:06:16. > :06:22.achievable. With your experience for Brussels politics, is it
:06:22. > :06:26.achievable? He was very wise not to give us a warned realist. Of
:06:26. > :06:34.everything he wanted. To reserve that for later when he knows the
:06:34. > :06:39.context. It is going to be very difficult. Why? The rest of the
:06:39. > :06:44.European Union has to play as well. When you're in a negotiation of 27,
:06:44. > :06:50.everyone has got a gun in the room. We are not the only ones with
:06:50. > :06:53.domestic politics. You have to respect the position of what
:06:53. > :07:01.emerges that has to be in the general interest of the parties.
:07:01. > :07:06.They have to assent to what we ones just as we have to listen to what
:07:06. > :07:10.they want. How does the balance of power sit within that negotiation?
:07:10. > :07:14.It seems to me that when you say how difficult it is going to be
:07:14. > :07:18.that you are assuming the cards are held predominantly by the other
:07:18. > :07:24.member states of the EU rather than Britain. It seems to me Britain
:07:24. > :07:27.holds cards as well. We do. We start from the position that all
:07:27. > :07:31.their partners, and that includes the most important, France, Germany
:07:31. > :07:36.and the other nations, I start from the position that they want us to
:07:36. > :07:41.stay in and will go somewhere to meet our concerns. A Angela Merkel
:07:41. > :07:48.has already said. She is looking for a compromise. She is not in any
:07:48. > :07:53.sense at all sounding negative about what David Cameron has said.
:07:53. > :07:57.That is what I would expect. says there has to be a compromise.
:07:57. > :08:01.That is what I would expect from the other parties. They will judge
:08:01. > :08:06.this according to their national interest and the national economic
:08:06. > :08:10.interest. That is bound up with the survival of the euro. They do not
:08:10. > :08:15.want to do anything that undermines the recovery of the eurozone or
:08:15. > :08:23.unravels the core of the single market that we are talking about.
:08:23. > :08:26.David Cameron wants to strengthen the single market. That is what he
:08:26. > :08:30.faces British membership in the European Union. The issue for
:08:30. > :08:34.others is how you can do that and at the same time bringing back the
:08:34. > :08:40.to the UK have powers that a number of the parties would say are
:08:40. > :08:44.inextricably connected to the functioning. Opponents seem to
:08:44. > :08:50.believe it would be terribly difficult to negotiate powers back.
:08:50. > :08:52.Let me quote you something that the Europe minister of Finland, who has
:08:52. > :08:59.written a PhD on the variety of different relationships members
:08:59. > :09:04.have with Brussels, this is what he said after David Cameron spoke. He
:09:04. > :09:08.said that we need Britain in Europe. Cameron's move clarifies the debate.
:09:08. > :09:13.He said that to be quite honest there is a lot of differentiation
:09:13. > :09:19.inside the EU. Look at defence arrangements. We need to stick to
:09:19. > :09:26.the bulk of EU integration, but we can take a few raisins out of the
:09:26. > :09:30.ball. That is what he wants, isn't it? Is it? There is no doubt that
:09:30. > :09:38.we have a certain accommodation from the parties. Absolutely right.
:09:38. > :09:42.We were able to opt out from the economic and monetary union. We
:09:42. > :09:47.have an opt-out on trading. We have an opt-out on justice. We can
:09:47. > :09:51.decide what we want to do. Our partners have recognised that
:09:51. > :09:55.Britain, because of its legal system, because of its history, is
:09:55. > :09:59.a different position. We have a massive amount of flexibility. The
:09:59. > :10:03.question is whether you can carry on chipping away at that forward to
:10:03. > :10:10.your starting to reach the Daragh Byrne of what is at the core of the
:10:10. > :10:13.single market. -- Daragh Byrne. It is reasonable to put forward
:10:13. > :10:17.proposals and we can get something out of it. Surely it concentrates
:10:17. > :10:22.the minds of all those in the run much more effectively to say that
:10:22. > :10:26.if we do not get what we want, there is the option for Britain to
:10:26. > :10:31.leave the union. No other serious leader of the European Union wants
:10:31. > :10:37.to see that happen. I wonder about the psychology. For some that might
:10:37. > :10:40.work in our favour. For others, if they see a part to the sleeving,
:10:40. > :10:45.they will wonder what is the incentive for them to try and work
:10:45. > :10:50.with us. Some of them will be irritated by having a gun pointed
:10:50. > :10:57.at their heads. You very carefully avoided absolutely saying to me
:10:57. > :11:02.that to believe it is at stake. Many have said that. They say there
:11:02. > :11:07.is now going to be up to five years of massive uncertainty in the
:11:07. > :11:09.relationship between Britain and Europe. The fact is that the
:11:09. > :11:13.uncertainty is there any way because of all the factors we have
:11:13. > :11:17.already discussed about the state of British public opinion. What
:11:17. > :11:23.Hamann is promising to do is give a finite end to the uncertainty. --
:11:23. > :11:29.Cameron. The can put it that way. Five years is a long time. The
:11:29. > :11:39.economy is going to be... It is probably better than open and it
:11:39. > :11:42.
:11:42. > :11:46.will stop. There could have been a different time. We could have
:11:46. > :11:51.waited until after the election. We have extended the time. There is
:11:51. > :11:54.nothing we can do about that now. But I do not think you can deny it
:11:54. > :12:00.will create an uncertainty in relations with Investment to the UK
:12:00. > :12:05.and about our position in Europe. That is why the rest of the world
:12:05. > :12:10.is watching intently. They are not indifferent. Indeed. But the other
:12:10. > :12:17.argument that you make, because you are now involved in a lobby group
:12:17. > :12:21.that promotes business in Europe, the other argument is that
:12:21. > :12:27.investors might be overcome by this uncertainty and Britain will lose
:12:27. > :12:30.investment because of the political uncertainty. How do you explain
:12:30. > :12:33.that 55 of the most senior businessmen in the UK have written
:12:33. > :12:37.a letter to the newspapers saying that is categorically not true and
:12:37. > :12:43.what Cameron has done all ended up being good for British business
:12:43. > :12:48.because it focuses minds on making the EU more open, more competitive
:12:48. > :12:51.and more business-friendly? Everyone agrees with that. All the
:12:51. > :12:57.business organisations want to see less red tape and a greater focus
:12:57. > :13:01.on the single market. That goes without saying. Hang on a minute.
:13:01. > :13:07.You said in meetings for years in Brussels were you signed up to more
:13:07. > :13:11.and more red tape. We did not. come we are members of the union
:13:11. > :13:17.that we now say is dysfunctional and was people like to agree to the
:13:17. > :13:22.measures that are currently in place? Elected governments like
:13:22. > :13:29.ours agreeing to things which bring advantage to the UK. That you say
:13:29. > :13:34.are dysfunctional. I do not think it is dysfunctional. It has got a
:13:34. > :13:39.series of problems. It is not just David Cameron who wants a
:13:39. > :13:43.referendum. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to not want it but they also
:13:43. > :13:46.say the EU needs fundamental reform. It leaves the question in my mind
:13:46. > :13:56.with diplomats like you signed up to all the arrangements that we now
:13:56. > :13:59.
:13:59. > :14:04.see in the first place. Governments Did you make some mistakes? I do
:14:04. > :14:11.not know if I make mistakes or not. Do you think it is dysfunctional?
:14:11. > :14:16.Not overall. I think it requires reform. Overall, it continues to
:14:16. > :14:21.bring advantage to the UK. The EU we have created of the past 20
:14:21. > :14:29.years in relation to the euro has not worked out. But the UK has an
:14:29. > :14:37.opt-out for that. The single market has advanced, we have achieved an
:14:37. > :14:41.objective of widening the EU, these are huge advantages for Britain.
:14:41. > :14:47.Not to be disregarded or regarded as trivial. My opinion does not
:14:47. > :14:52.matter. The opinion of business people matters. One private equity
:14:52. > :15:02.specialist says, from his analysis, far from creating jobs, the EU with
:15:02. > :15:13.
:15:13. > :15:18.all of its red Tate destroys jobs. There are a couple of models for
:15:18. > :15:22.countries close with the EU but not inside it. Norway and Switzerland.
:15:22. > :15:27.They do not have any say on the regulations they have to take in
:15:27. > :15:37.order to be part of the single market. Is that what we want for
:15:37. > :15:40.
:15:40. > :15:46.the UK? I do not think we want that. Staying in is very important. That
:15:46. > :15:50.is what the Prime Minister is after after all. Are you saying you can
:15:50. > :15:55.imagine no circumstances in which you might conclude it would be
:15:55. > :15:59.better for Britain to leave than stay in? I would see for myself, I
:15:59. > :16:03.can see no circumstances in which it would be to our overall
:16:03. > :16:09.advantage to be out. I can see that the path way the Prime Minister has
:16:09. > :16:17.set out could later that. If that happens Britain's negotiators would
:16:17. > :16:27.do their best. If we decide to stay out, the prospects are not terribly
:16:27. > :16:29.
:16:29. > :16:33.good. A final point on this debate. Some are opposed of the -- to the
:16:33. > :16:42.idea of a referendum. You talk of Britain heading to the exit by
:16:42. > :16:47.accident. Somehow accidentally voting for an exit. That sounds
:16:47. > :16:53.like a very patronising opinion of the UK's ability to make sense of
:16:53. > :16:58.his argument. That is not what I said. I said the debate should be a
:16:58. > :17:07.full one. The more people know about the European Union the More
:17:07. > :17:12.Group EU they will be. The last set of polls looking at the in- out
:17:12. > :17:20.debate suggest that a majority may be there to stay in. That is what I
:17:20. > :17:26.have been saying. Why be so cautious about the notion... Five
:17:26. > :17:31.years of uncertainty. Five years of questioning where we will end up in
:17:31. > :17:37.the end. There is a possibility we will not stay in. We will have to
:17:37. > :17:45.see. It depends how the government of the day gets on in negotiations.
:17:45. > :17:50.I do not think it will be a cakewalk. Just on the final detail
:17:50. > :17:55.the point about that. Given your recent knowledge of European
:17:55. > :18:01.diplomacy, who would be the main obstacle, the main blocking voices
:18:01. > :18:06.to David Cameron getting what he wants? It seems to me the Germans,
:18:06. > :18:13.Scandinavians, they are up for it. Who will be the biggest hurdle?
:18:13. > :18:21.Quite a few of them would be concerned about anything that UN
:18:21. > :18:27.picks the single market in any way. We want another great leap of
:18:27. > :18:32.integration, we want to change the fundamental treaties of the EU, we
:18:32. > :18:40.want major reform that provides the platform for the UK to put forward
:18:40. > :18:44.a larger package. Say they do not do that. Say they make small
:18:45. > :18:49.measures without changing the fundamentals of the eve. In that
:18:49. > :18:55.circumstance we will look rather high and dry with a big package of
:18:55. > :19:03.our own. It depends on the context in Europe. I want to change the
:19:03. > :19:10.context a little bit and talk about the United States. We surprised
:19:10. > :19:14.that Philip Gordon came to London and made it very plain that the US
:19:14. > :19:20.regarded it as an important national interest to the US that
:19:20. > :19:30.Britain remained inside the EU? That referendums have often turned
:19:30. > :19:31.
:19:31. > :19:36.countries inward. I was not surprised he said US interests that
:19:36. > :19:45.Britain should be an active and influential member of the year.
:19:45. > :19:49.That has been the position of America for a long time. -- the EU.
:19:49. > :19:54.What were you surprised about? reason he made that intervention
:19:54. > :19:58.now is because the US was worried about the trend of debate here.
:19:58. > :20:01.About that extreme set of circumstances I was talking about
:20:01. > :20:08.before which we might find ourselves out despite the best
:20:08. > :20:15.wishes of the Prime Minister and others in his party. Do you think
:20:15. > :20:19.it is helpful that that sort of signal is sent so publicly? It
:20:19. > :20:23.rubbed some get all the wrong way. It reminds people of the big
:20:23. > :20:31.picture. It reminds people that diplomatically we are in America's
:20:31. > :20:35.bucket. The truth is, as the Prime Minister ended his speech, the more
:20:35. > :20:45.influential that Britain is in Brussels, the more influential it
:20:45. > :20:46.
:20:46. > :20:52.is in Washington, Beijing and Delhi. And vice-versa. Before we end I
:20:52. > :20:57.want to ask you more about President Obama. You have been very
:20:57. > :21:02.frank about President Obama. And in I was linked in which you talked
:21:02. > :21:07.about his high intelligence and his star quality, but also his
:21:07. > :21:15.aloofness and his ability to be insensitive. Now we are going to
:21:15. > :21:20.see his second term, how has he handled foreign policy-making?
:21:20. > :21:29.foreign policy-making has been successful both in America...
:21:29. > :21:34.asking you as a foreign policy profession of. For example, Israel-
:21:34. > :21:38.Palestine. -- professional. I think he tried very hard in his first
:21:38. > :21:44.year but he came up against an absolute block in the shape of the
:21:44. > :21:52.Israeli Prime Minister. He was not able to get the movement on
:21:52. > :21:56.settlements. It was a showdown. You saw President Obama and Binyamin
:21:56. > :22:05.Netanyahu go head-to-head on this question of settlement building,
:22:06. > :22:10.Obama bling to first. Was that a mistake? The Israelis have to agree,
:22:10. > :22:16.they did not. I hope they continue trying in this administration. I
:22:16. > :22:22.think they will. You think he will use political capital in trying to
:22:22. > :22:28.bring Israel... I do nothing he will ignore that. I think his
:22:28. > :22:32.Secretary of State will want to continue that effort as well. I
:22:32. > :22:37.think they are handling the issue with caution and care. And trying
:22:37. > :22:47.to put the brakes on his rare. not think there is a direct link
:22:47. > :22:48.
:22:48. > :22:54.between the two. -- Israel. You made a big point of saying we had
:22:54. > :22:58.to go into Libya because attacks were going to be made on Benghazi.
:22:58. > :23:04.60,000 people, many of them civilian have been killed in Syria.
:23:04. > :23:09.Do you not see the same urgent need for military intervention in Syria?
:23:09. > :23:13.I think the moral case is exactly the same. It is not greater. When
:23:13. > :23:17.we went into Libya there was a smaller number of deaths than in
:23:17. > :23:22.Syria. It goes back to what our Prime Minister and what others said
:23:22. > :23:29.it when we went into Libya, because we were able to do something in
:23:29. > :23:34.Libya does not mean we are able to do everything else where.
:23:34. > :23:40.Humanitarian intervention is not a universal principle? It is a
:23:40. > :23:44.universal principle but it can only be applied in a feasible way. Syria
:23:44. > :23:49.was always going to be very difficult from that point of view
:23:49. > :23:56.for a number of reasons. In Libya you hadn't enclave which we could
:23:56. > :24:03.protect. That was not the case in Syria. Principally because Syria
:24:03. > :24:09.has and still has the protection from Iran and Russia which prevents