23/08/2017 HARDtalk

while another has been released while investigations go on. It has

just gone to 30 a.m. . Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk. --

2:30am. Welcome to HARDtalk. . I am Stephen

Sackur. Politicians and civil servants usually abandon their

offices in the dog days of August, but not this year in London, where

Brexit is now an overwhelming political priority.

Theresa May's Government has issued a raft of proposals on what trade,

border and legal arrangements might look like post Brexit,

with a striking focus on continuity rather than change.

My guest to one of the Conservative Party's

staunchest Brexiteers, MEP Daniel Hannan.

If Brexit isn't a clean break, then what's the point?

Daniel Hammond, welcome to HARDtalk. We are six months into a two-year

process that will end with the departure of the UK from the

European Union. Are you satisfied with what has happened in those

first six months? Yes I am. I think it is gone better than many

expected. We were told during the referendum campaign that the very

act of voting Leave would trigger a downturn. I don't think anyone now

argues that happen. We grew faster in the six months after than we did

in the six month before. Whether you look at exports, consumer

confidence, retail sales, overseas investment, the stock exchange...

They are all rising. Britain is in a strong position, and I am hopeful

that we can have an amicable process that leads to a mutually

advantageous outcome. Of course, this is a process which is a two Way

St. We have wishes, desires, things that we want to achieve. I say we,

as the United Kingdom. The European Union, all 27 states still in at,

they have their own take and concerns in this. It is interesting

that European politicians seem to be feeling that the process is not

working, starting with the negotiated themselves, which left

negotiations at the end of July expressing deep frustration with

what they believed was the lack of preparedness from the UK's side. I

don't recognise that description. I think the government is now making

public what was in its private negotiating positions up until now.

And they are very sensible, moderate proposals on how to maintain

judicial co-operation, how to ensure mutual recognition of goods and

services, the border in Ireland, customs, and so on. But Stephen, I

do really buy that this is a win- lose operation, where we have our

desires, and the 27 as. It is plain that it is in the interest of the UK

for our partners to prosper. It would not be in our interest for

Brexit to lead to some sort of prolonged bout of uncertainty about

the euro, which affected the prosperity of our neighbours. We

wanted to do well. We should go into this process looking for win- win

outcomes. Surely this is an exercise in power dynamic. Surely you would

agree that right now the leveraged lies with the European partners,

rather than the UK. Michel Barnier, he gives reminding us that the clock

is ticking. The UK will leave in 18 months now, come what may. It is

clear from so many different voices in the UK that we cannot, now,

conceive of leaving with no deal. So we have to do a deal. I am not sure

why that countdown is considered only disadvantageous to us. Imagine

there was no Article 50, no deadline. Then we really would be in

a position where the talks could be strung out endlessly, where

continuing financial tribute could be exacted from us, where we could

be subject to all the rules without any hope of getting out. Citing

putting an end moment on it and saying we are leaving, with or

without a deal, by such and such a date focuses both sides, it makes it

more likely that we will have a mutually beneficial arrangement. I

am talking about leverage and who holds the cars. -- the cards. Some

have said that if we leave without a deal, placed could stop flying. Car

manufacturers have said if there is no deal based would be to send their

components, receive their components from European manufacturing sites,

and reduction will stop. That is a pressure was the United Kingdom has

to deal with. If you really took it seriously... There are 27 countries

in EU. There are many more not an EU. The idea that our players will

be grounded in such an absurd fantasy. It is ridiculous that we

are even discussing it is a proposition. You don't need to be

part of a political union to trade with another country. And actually,

I suspect that the trade talks with the EU will be technically the

easiest bit of these hold negotiations. There will be some

tough talks about the money and agricultural standards and so on,

but the basic idea of a free trade area - remember that these will be

the first trade talks in history where you start from a position of

zero tariffs and regulatory equivalents. So for the first time,

the bias is looking the other way. With respect, you are one of the

longest serving Brexiteers I can think of. Your voice has been a

strong voice in the Tory party to withdraw for a long time. You

clearly have a vested interest in saying there is no urgency or

problem. But let me quote Jon Foster from the CBI. He says it there needs

to be urgent agreement to ensure the goods and services still flow

freely, otherwise we have a profound problem. And the CBI declared itself

encouraged by the proposals established last week on how the

customs union would work. Hears talk about urgency. Urgency works in

favour of the European Union, rather than be UK, it seems to me. -- he

was talking about urgency. He's talking about a collapse of the

talks. Let me stop you right there, because what you have just said is

very important. Back in January, Theresa May said at Lancaster house,

she said while I am sure that a positive agreement can be rich, I am

equally clear that no deal for Britain is the better deal than a

bad deal for Britain. I am saying that. That is a statement of the

obvious. If you had some kind of deal, some kind of Hunger Games type

deal, where you had to send a boy and a girl each year... No, it is a

statement of the obvious to say there is a point where you would

walk away. What I am saying is that applies to both sides. On the day

that we leave, we become the EU's single biggest export destination,

right click it is not in the interests of anyone in Brussels, and

I've not heard anyone their say otherwise, for us to walk away

without the trade arrangements put in place. But the percentage of GDP

of the European collective is tiny compared to a percentage of GDP

trade with Europe reserves rise. Clearly, we have more to lose than

they have. Techie both sides have an incentive to reach a deal. -- both

sides have an incentive to reach eight deal. Of course it is bigger

than the UK then the EU. But the balance of trade is in favour of the

EU. It is selling to Britain much more than it is buying from Britain.

It is not normal in any trade negotiations for a salesman to bully

a customer. Let's into detail of what has happened in the last few

weeks. I think we can agree that the British government has shown signs

in the last few weeks to be very keen to find ways to coalesce around

transitional arrangements that can maintain a positive economic

relationship with the European Union after this two year deadline has

passed. It seems to me, looking at the detail, that key concessions

have already made. I want to know how you feel about them. For

example, on money, David Davis, the Brexit Cabinet Secretary, he is

saying now that, quote, programmes at the UK wants to consider this is

a bedding in, we will participate in. It's easy sent a signal that

ongoing parents will continue to the European Union. -- payments. Is it

acceptable to you? Remember that it was a narrow result. 52 % voted to

leave, 48% voted to stay. The best system would leave in place of our

existing arrangements. What ever we end up with will go too far for

some, not far enough others, we should try to build a consensus that

is suitable for most of the 48% and most of the 52%. Part of that is

remaining part of these various programmes, where they are in

everybody's interest. What about the jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice for a transitional period? No, we're working an

arbitration mechanism such as other non-EU countries in this part of the

world have, like the Swiss or the Norwegians, we can have mutual

applicability of each other's judgements, and an arbitration

mechanism that makes both the use of the ECJ and the other party. That

sounds very complicated. I have heard people say this, and I think

it is important to highlight the difference: The ECJ has direct

effect on member states. It is the only court they can do that. That is

looking at staying in the ECJ on those terms. We are looking to have

a friendly bilateral deal. It is not in a sense quite personal to you? I

am wondering how you react to it in a personal way. You spent the best

part of your adult life, politically, working to free

Britain, as he was said, from the shackles of the European Union. But

now, we have a government which this summer is sending a message to the

public which essentially says, worry not, although we are leaving the

European Union, and we will do all the symbolic stuff that involves

leaving, actually, what annuity is the watchword, and we will keep as

much of what we had before as we possibly can. Is that in some ways

sticking in your throat? No, on the contrary. Before the referendum, I

have wrote a book on why you should Vote Leave. It said that the day

after Brexit will do quite like the day before. That is where Devenish

and can start to begin. But it is a new status quo. That is the point.

Did make it is a grisly in is to keep those bits of European

co-operation working for all sides. -- it is obviously best to keep

those bits. You can give a rule through domestic laws, or bilateral

treaties, like the Swiss, but you have sensible things that, you

should them. Research programmes, educational programmes, fine. The

Swiss deal with the European Union based on the economic free trade

area, that is a highly comic's agreement. And that is a much

smaller country than we are. You could take many years to negotiate a

deal that is British version of what the Swiss have. We don't have many

years. After this message from the Cabinet, including Philip Hammond

and David Davis, in a joint statement, is that whatever

transition we have, it must be over by the time of the next election,

which will be 2022 at the latest. So there is very little time, here. The

Swiss managed it, and of course there are smaller country, but that

gave immense leverage, because there were 8 million people, rather than

65 million, and they have a deficit, rather than surplus, with EU. They

did manage to sit down and work on issues like fisheries and the

permissible noise of lorries, or whatever. Both sides except that

this was at least that where they are largely in a free-trade area,

but largely outside all of the politics. And I really don't think

it is rocket science to do something similar. One of the most senior

members of your party, the Conservative Party, George Osborne,

now in its the Standard newspaper in London. He put his name to the paper

which wrote a scathing editorial about where the government is taking

Brexit, just yesterday, in which is scornful conclusion was written is

working hard to prove that we can recreate what we already have. What

on earth is all this about if, in the end, even your message is, you

know what, so much of what we are going through this and is an

anguished to get is what we are ready have?

What we are getting is the right to democracy, to make our own laws and

live under our own Parliament. Otherwise, we would be getting the

right to trade with companies around the world, the right to be more

global. But it does not mean that you have stopped cooperating with

your friends and allies across the Channel. It is possible to be an

independent country, takeback control in the sense that British

law becomes supreme in our own territory, but to use that control

through multilateral deals to have working, acceptable arrangements

with countries who are our friends, suppliers and customers. I don't

wish to flatter you, but you sound so emollient and reasonable that one

wonders what this difficult negotiation is all about. I think it

may be easier than you think. Unfortunately, you are not

representative of so much of what people are... People are emotionally

invested in wanting it to fail. Is Boris Johnson? Of course not. I am

deliberately not quoting your political opponents or your rabid,

pro-EU opinions in this country. I am trying to focus on the nature of

negotiations today. Quoting Boris Johnson, who told negotiators to,

quote, blow whistle if they get part of the compensation package for part

of Britain leaving the EU. You've been in this game for a while, what

would you expect to be happening at an early stage? Wouldn't you expect

both sides to put in a high opening bid? You would expect the EU to come

out with a high figure and for the British to say, a whistle. I would

not expect that. I would not expect the Foreign Secretary to use that

kind of language and tiring in negotiation with the very people who

Britain will have to do a deal with -- go whistle. On the issue of

financing, it seems that the obvious way to solve it is for both sides to

accept impartial arbitration. A neutral tribunal and said, you work

out the assets, you work out the liabilities, and we both agree to

your ruling. I am sure it would be a lot less than the EU is currently

working for. But if it is not, you'll be willing to pay it? Of

course we will pay a bill is. We are not the kind of country who breaks

treaties. So, go whistle was just fundamentally unhelpful? A figure

that the EU was coming out with, even the European Commission has

completely dropped. Boris Johnson has already been vindicated, they

are no longer asking for that amount. If you are so short that

everything in the best possible world can be achieved with goodwill

and good temper, do you accept that the European position, which is that

they can be no meaningful debate about long-term issues in terms of

future trading in an economic relationships between Britain and

the EU, none of that can happen until the three divorce issues have

been sorted out, that is, the money, the compensation package, the status

of the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and the third

one, which is the status of EU citizens in the UK and vice-versa.

Do you accept that? We have just spoken about the first, I think

there will be arbitration on money. Ireland is a British priority as

well. They are our closest neighbour and we all have an interest in

wanting peace and prosperity in northern Ireland. We don't want to

stabilisation. That is not just an EU priority. The point is... We are

talking about... The Irish prime ministers said they are not

satisfied with the progress made so far. Since he said that, we have

come up with two very practical, workable ways of not having an

obstructive land border in Ireland. One is to have a kind of, we will

involve the EU tariff, and we can also work with dismantling the

border check but neither of those... It is this old message again, it

takes two to make a deal. The Irish and the commission and many other

European leaders, whether it be on Ireland or the British government's

rather convoluted take on customs and tariffs, the Europeans are not

buying what the British are offering. On Ireland, we have said,

even if neither of those schemes is accepted by the EU, we will not

employs physical border tax -- impose. But it leads to the very

important question of what kind of trade deal we get with the EU. You

can't discuss Ireland in isolation unless you are also talking with

some idea of what the eventual customs and tariff arrangements

between the EU and the UK will be. You can't say this is a completely

separate issue that we will talk about, and then we will come onto

the broader one. Likewise with money. If we put in money for the

sake of good will and to have a deal, we need to know what that deal

is going to be. The issues are going to have to be discussed in parallel.

You said, fundamentally, leaving the EU is about democracy. Concentrating

on that, Tony Blair, an opponent of yours who believes Britain is better

off inside the EU, he said, people may decide that they actually don't

want to leave on the terms set out. There has to be some way, either

through Parliament or an election, possibly another referendum, in

which people are able to express their view. As a Democrat, who sees

this as fundamentally about an argument in the UK, would you agree?

There is no evidence that what he has said has happened. We have had a

general election... The Democratic case for letting the British people,

either in a parliamentary vote or in a direct referendum, have a say when

the outline of the deal is done? The only justification for another

referendum would be if it were on a different question. If there were

substantively different deals from the one that they've read Cameron

negotiated in February last year. If that were to happen, if a looser

arrangement... That would be different. But you know as well as I

that that is not happening. It is quite surprising it hasn't happened.

I expected that, but I don't know what is going to happen next. I

don't think you can make those predictions. We do have to accept

the outcome. The idea that they would be taking this line that they

have taken if it had gone the other way, it is absurd. Thinking one last

time about what might happen next, I have talked about unpredictability.

It is clear that the Conservatives are deeply split on the European

issue. There are people in it who have said, openly, I would be

betraying my principles if I didn't make it clear that country comes

before party. One MP has said that, if the hard Brexit option is pursued

by her own government, she would leave the Tory party. This could

split your party? I hope all politicians would ultimately put

country before party. If not, they need to ask some hard questions. All

the parties were split by the referendum. The majority of

Conservative MPs voted Remained, and a minority voted leave. Since the

referendum, the MPs who voted remain have behaved with exemplary

Democratic respect. They did not try to argue, they accepted the outcome.

They said, if this is the instruction from the British people,

let's try to make it successful. There is a legitimate argument about

the terms of Brexit, which parts we keep, how much we shadow what the EU

is doing. We should welcome the input from any interested parties.

But the fact of leaving the EU, having the supremacy of British law,

that is no longer in question. We have to end there. Thank you for

being on HARDtalk Thank you very much, Daniel. -- HARDtalk.

Yesterday was a pretty humid day, wasn't it?