Welcome to hardtalk, im stephen sackur. The scale of the conservative party triumph in last weeks uk election promises to have seismic consequences. Borisjohnson can get brexit done on terms and a timetable of his choosing. Parliamentary approval guaranteed. Not since Margaret Thatcher is a tory leader had such an opportunity to remake written. An opportunity to remake britain. Well, my guest is conservative mp and former cabinet minister andrew mitchell. Boris johnson has been handed immense power. What will he do with it . Andrew mitchell, welcome to hardtalk. Thank you. I want to begin with some very interesting words coming from the mouth of Boris Johnson after his election victory. He said, this election has changed this government and this conservative party for the better. What did he mean by that . I think hes right. I think what he meant was that the paralysis that has characterised the past 3. 5 years of mrs mays government has been swept away. There is a decisive conservative majority and its sprung from the loins of the brexit argument in britain which has seen the country more divided than at any time in my political life and which hopefully this election will now heal. But surely he was pointing to Something Else as well. Perhaps even he was surprised by the degree to which voters in traditionally labour strongholds in the north and in the midlands of england gave their vote to the conservative party and he seems to recognise that gives the conservative government a new task to deliver on promises made to those very people. Well, it certainly does and i think its a great mistake to see this as some sort of clash between the conservative party moving towards the brexit party as opposed to being the one nation party that many of us strongly believe conservatives should be. The challenge to which he is referring is how do we make sure the election is not a flash in the pan and that people who have given the conservative party their trust in this election like what they see, think the conservative government gets on in serving their interests, dealing with some of the communities in britain that been left behind and so that, at the next election, they think the conservative government has done a good job and they wish to support it again. That is precisely the point. It seems to me the conservative party of the next few months, year or two, has to make some fundamental decisions about what it is and who its for. There are thatcherites in the conservative Party Represented in the house of commons who still are preoccupied with making government smaller and yet, to deliver for the people we are talking about, who voted tory for the first time in some of the most deprived parts of england, making government smaller will not do. They need government to be more interventionist, more proactive and, frankly, to spend more money. I think we will spend more money. I think that we are clear, all the parties were clear during the election that we would invest more in britains infrastructure. I think the difference between the conservative. So the tories are going to borrow . I think yes, but i think the difference between the conservative partys offer and labours offer, if i could characterise it like this, is that the conservatives offers will be, if you like, the sort of expenditure one would make on a mortgage whereas the labour party appeared to me to be maxing out the credit card. And that sort of responsible investment, particularly into communities that have been left behind in the past, will be right at the forefront of Boris Johnsons government. But to me, one of the key clear indicators where the government is heading, and its an ideological emblem, if you like, is the proportion of gdp which is taken up with public expenditure. Traditionally in the uk it sits at around 39, a0 . Under Margaret Thatcher, who did want to cut down government, it went to a record low of 34 . For you, as a senior conservative mp, do you want to see it rise to 40 and above, which it seems it will do if borisjohnsons borrowing plans, his commitment to spend £100 billion on, as you say, transport infrastructure, rolling out new broadband, all sorts of spending plans, the tories could be the party of public spending. Well, i have no precise level for gdp, im not looking at it in that sort of ideological way. Why not . Because i think that can borrow now, with Interest Rates being so low, so long as the markets and everyone else understand this as a responsible investment in our future and infrastructure and thats what i think were going to do now and in terms of the dilemma you pose, i dont believe there is a dilemma between the one nation traditions of the conservative party, the lure of the brexit party and what you described as the sort of thatcherites. The fact is one nation conservatism, which boris epitomised when he was mayor of london, that is the way ahead and i believe his government will capture that and deliver. Interesting you say blithely, we can borrow money at low rates, the market will have confidence in us. They wont have confidence in a tory government if they believe your brexit policy is going to be damaging to the economy. The first big decision taken by borisjohnson since his election victory is that he is going to out or any possibility of an extension to trade negotiations with the eu beyond december 2020. The markets worry about that, business worry about that. Do you . Well, i think youve seen since friday morning a huge sigh of relief across the markets from british business. No, you havent what you saw is the pound strengthened and as soon as borisjohnson said there would be no extension of negotiations beyond december 2020, even if it meant a cliff edge and no trade deal, the pound lost all of the gains it had made in the previous two days. Lets just look at this sequentially. First of all, there has been an enormous amount of relief. If you look at the uk stock market, you look at the comments made around the world, in other financial centres, there is huge relief that there is now a government with a majority in a clear sense that can forge ahead. The value of the pound will go up and down but he is absolutely right to say we want to get the deal done by next december and to make it clear in law that is the decision of the British Government, because all the shilly shallying around over the last 3. 5 years, these forced debates about whether you can take no deal off the table have done britain an enormous amount of harm, both in terms of our internal economy and reputation externally so i think he is quite right to be clear indeed that this negotiation can be done in that time. Fine, then you are accepting there will be, to coin a phrase used yesterday by an eu official, a bare bones deal at best with the European Union which will be very far from the sort of frictionless trade that i dare say the manufacturers in your midlands constituency want to see. You are at peace with that . Yes, i think there will now be a clear sense of direction because people arent going around the back any more telling the European Commission that if they hold hard and negotiate toughly, may the brits will change their mind. The evidence of the election is clear now for everyone to see. Im not sure youre addressing my point. The point is you can have a deal in 11 months if you want but its going to be a very thin, very limited deal, just to ameliorate the worst of a cliff edge exit. If you want that, its fine, but your manufacturers must realise there will be no frictionless trade, theirjust in time supply chains will not work and that will have a damaging effect on the uk economy. Look, it is complete nonsense to say that it has to take at least 2 years, 15 months, 18 months to do a deal. What matters is the intent of those negotiating. As i was saying a moment ago, the eu and now clear from their side that britain is leaving, it will be enshrined in law, at least in principle, and we will leave at the end of january. So you can call the bluff of Michel Barnier in the eu . Its not a bluff anymore. The eu knows its going to go ahead, we are not wallowing in indecision and that will help enormously the process of these negotiations. There are choices to be made as to the direction the uk looks to in the future when we talk about economic alignment. Its clear that borisjohnson doesnt want dynamic high alignment with the European Union but he says he wants a deal with them. At the same time, he says he wants a very deep and meaningful and important deal with the United States of america. The rules on the different sides of the atlantic are very different. Which should be his priority, the us or the eu . Well, its both. So youre cake and eat it man . In the sense of a trade deal, i think that we are going to negotiate and with the eu, and it is very difficult because we are negotiating with 26 sovereign states that have their own priorities and with america, we are negotiating with the biggest but a very big market as well and there will be trade offs to be done. That is the nature of trade negotiations, and i think armed with his majority and his election victory, there will be wind in british sails which will make those trade deals much easier to achieve. But the point is, you have to make choices. Of course. When it comes to food standards, for example, the us, just to take one symbolic element of this, it totally allows and believes in the efficacy of chlorinating chicken and other foodstuffs. In the eu, that is outlawed. We have to make a decision. Are we going to make a decision to go with the americans and trade with them in foodstuffs or go are we going to go meet europeans standards . Which are we going to do . Its a great mistake in my view to see it in those terms. Why . Because its difficult . No, no, because you want to do is get all these negotiations and issues and pieces on the board up on the table so you can see what the picture looks like and you can make the trade. You dont make the trade offs before you start the negotiations. Lets just think about where the leverage lies. We quote you the words of a very experienced us economist, politician, Larry Summers who, before the uk election, said, its delusional for the uk to expect a massive favourable trade deal with america after brexit because the uk will be in a fundamentally weak position with its key trade partners, including the us. Britain, he says, has much less to give than europe as a whole did when it comes to negotiating with the us. He is just making the point that britain outside the European Union is a smaller economic entity. Its diminished. Than inside it. Its leverage and power is diminished. There are advantages, however, from being much quicker on your feet, than having to negotiate, as europe does, bringing 27 countries as it is today, along with them. So of course, its new, its different, its going to be an exciting and difficult negotiation but i have great confidence that in a new environment, it will be a hell of a lot easier than it was going to be before. Im struggling to see a basis for this great confidence of yours, as youve effectively acknowledged. Yes, our leverage will be diminished and leverage is what matters. Its not emotion, its leverage. There is huge interest on both sides in doing a deal that will be in everyones interest and i think that, at this stage, we got a year in which to do it. And the us negotiators, they want access to our healthcare system. Thats what the negotiation will be. So youre happy with that. So the Us Pharma Companies want to sell into our market at prices they regard as legitimate, itll be much higher than the prices the nhs currently pays for drugs. They want changes to our patent rules, intellectual property rules. Youre suggesting to me because we are so desperate for a us deal, we will talk about that . Im suggesting nothing of the sort. Im suggesting there will be a sensible and serious negotiation which in everyones interest should be concluded and when you see all the pieces on the board, inevitably there will be trade offs made. 0n the National Health service, its already been made absolutely clear both by the president of the United States and the british Prime Minister that the nhs is not on the table. With respect, the americans have said various different things. We know from these leaked memos that the us is interested in accessing our healthcare system. The only issue is whether Boris Johnson is going to be adamant that it wont happen. Youre suggesting all the pieces are on the table. Since those memorandums were leaked, you have heard from the Prime Minister that the nhs is not in play. We will return to global positions of power and influence later in this interview, but firstly, the question of the union. I am mindful that you represent the conservative and unionist party. You over the next five years, and your colleagues, are going to face the gravest of scottish questions what to do about the demand in scotland for independence, at least a new independence referendum. What have you got to offer them . Well, i think many people in scotland will hope that this issue had been put to bed earlier, for a generation. Well, with respect, 48 scottish mps just elected ran and won on a mandate which says that we must have a new referendum on independence. So, far from wanting to put it to bed, they are intent on demanding a second referendum. Well, there were many factors, ithink, in play in the scottish result. But youre right that not everyone, unfortunately, accepts that you cant go having these referenda on a very regular basis. They should really be for a generation. But lets assume that that argument is not accepted. Then, in the end we will have to we will have to have an argument about this. Probably better after brexit has taken place, and everyone can see what the new settlement is for the united kingdom. But, if youre asking me whether or not the uk government can put off forever the demands of the Scottish Nationalist Party in government in edinburgh, my answer is no. That is interesting. Because if the British Government says were not going to do it, the Scottish Government has the power to set up its own referendum, with all the panoply of the scottish state, to have people vote in their own constituencies and their own villages. And if the British Government the argument for the union is not put, then that will go through. We will be in a very difficult position. What you are saying is fascinating, and reading between the lines, you seem to be suggesting that borisjohnsons insistence that he will ignore nicola sturgeons demand, her moral and political demands for the scottish people to have the right to determine their own future, it wont stand. Boris johnsons current position will not stand. I think it will stand for now, and i think it will stand. For how long . Well, i think it will stand until the end of the brexit process, when the new settlement is clear. He says it will stand until 2020. You are suggesting that, in the second or third year of the borisjohnson administration, there could well be a revisiting of this issue. How confrontational do you think this government will be with key institutions of the British State . I am thinking for example of borisjohnsons most senior, important advisor, dominic cummings, who has called for a whitehall revolution, a complete, radical reshape of the way government is done, and also, for example, what weve seen from borisjohnson suggesting real questions about the future of my own organisation, the bbc. Is there going to be a radical shakeup of the system in the uk . I think it is absolutely right that an incoming government with a big majority, that has been elected with a very clear mandate, should be looking carefully at the machinery of government to see how it could be shaken up, to deliver on the objectives of the government, the peoples priorities. It is right to look at that, and i dont think anyone should be in any doubt about the determination of the government to do that, and the fact it is the right thing. So, when he talks of revolutions, youre one of the revolutionaries, are you . Well, its not my language, but i am certainly very keen that he should be restless in support of making government more effective, to deliver the objectives that have been clearly set out. What if it doesnt make government more effective . I am mindful that you are a very proud secretary of state responsible for International Development. It seems that Boris Johnson, with Dominic Cummingss support, is intent on eliminating your Old Department and folding the Development Portfolio back into the Foreign Office. Now, one former fco, Foreign Office minister from the tory party, alistair burt, has said that would be a big mistake, that dfid, as it is known, should remain as a standalone department. Do you agree . Well, dfid is the most Effective International organisation for propagating International Development of the poorest parts of the world. So why eliminate it . There is a debate going on at the moment. I am very strongly in favour of dfid remaining as an independent department of state. Its widely admired, its extremely effective. The absolutely critical things about britains International Development policy are first of all the spending, and secondly point seven, which i am very proud it was a conservative party that finally implemented. So those are the two key things. The machinery of government and the way you deliver it is a third order issue. But, if youre asking me whether i think it would be a good idea for dfid to be folded into the Foreign Office, i think it would not. And furthermore, the direction which people think that would give to development through the Foreign Office is anyway delivered by the National Security council. So its a very important point, this, stephen. The National Security council co ordinates britains Foreign Policy, defence, diplomacy and development, and that is the right place to get Co Ordination between these three departments, not by mixing them together. So let me expand on this question of Foreign Policy and global strategy for britain in the borisjohnson era. You will be very mindful, because you care about these things, that dozens of britains most senior former ambassadors and diplomats signed a joint letter for the times before the election, in the autumn, early autumn, saying that they regarded brexit as an act of self harm, and a massive diminution of britains power and influence in the world. The same sorts of things that i have been told by sirjohn major, former Prime Minister in your party, also by lord heseltine, former senior minister in your party. Everybody that expresses that worries about the ability of britain, post brexit, to project power and influence. Well, i originally voted to remain, but i am a democrat, and i accept entirely the results of the referendum, where remain lost and the country determined to leave. And its the duty of democratic politicians, in my view, now to implement that. With respect, it doesnt address my question. Do you believe that, post brexit, britain loses power and influence . Iam explaining. So we are not in a position to choose. There is a mandate for politicians to leave the European Union, and the issue is how do you then ensure that britain continues to exert what i think have been hugely beneficial influences internationally. Britain has stood over the years in some very difficult places, for some extremely important principles and values. And i hope that britain outside the European Union because of course, we will still be a considerable european power will be able along with our allies, along with people who think like we do, to still propagate that same british influence around the world, where it matters so much. But will it not be harder . And will it not be true, as Emmanuel Macron has said, that britains influence will be lessened . I dont know why youre struggling to acknowledge what seems to be self evident to so many people indeed, some in your own party. Because i think its important to recognise that we dont have a choice on this. We have voted, and we are leaving. No, i have heard that. The future is out there. Well, let me stop you, because you say we have no choice. The vote has happened, borisjohnson is going to deliver on it, and thats all that can be said about it. But there are still choices to be made. And it comes back to the discussion we made about trade choices, and where we look to, the United States or to europe. The United States right now, our transatlantic partner, is led by an isolationist, a nationalist, a man who does not seem to hold dear to the rules based system. The eu is still multilateral and rules based. Where, in the future, is britain going to position itself in that dynamic, that choice . Well, the International Rules based system is indeed on the back foot, and we have seen around the world very clear evidence of this sort of strongman culture which pervades so extensively. And britain. So, if were putting our eggs in the basket of our relationship with the United States, thats what we have to look to. And britain has always been a voice, an influence, behind the rules based system. And that i have no doubt, inside the eu, outside the eu, in our relationship with commonwealth countries, in our relationship with our closest ally, the americans, always britain stands up for those values. We were at the heart of the setting up of the United Nations in the late 40s. Thats what britain stands for. Its in our dna, and wherever we are, whether inside or outside the European Union, we will be arguing for that. And britain does have a voice and does have an influence, not least through our being one of the five key members of the United Nations. And, inside or outside europe, we will be using that voice, and hopefully with these domestic arguments settled, we will be able to focus again on the importance of doing so internationally. Andrew mitchell, we are out of time, but thank you very much for being on hardtalk. Hello there
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.