A lot of what you claimed during the referendum, I mean, we now know to be to to use a technical term, we now know it to be bollocks, don't we? >> No. What you can't do is blame Brexit. >> Well, you were the Brexiteers and you were in government. Why do you think your party never saw you as leadership, prime ministerial? >> I don't know. And I think that um probably the best explanation lies in my ex-wife Sarah Vine's book. Welcome to the Andrew Neil Report with me, Andrew Neil. 10 years ago last month, Britain voted to leave the European Union. So we're bringing you an extended interview with a man who was at the heart of the winning campaign and then part of the governments which took us out of the EU and then were in power during the first years of Brexit. The Daily Telegraph once called him the most powerful Tory never to be prime minister. Michael G, welcome to the Andrew Neil report. >> Thank you Andrew. Thank you. I think actually you're probably the most powerful uh Tori never to have been prime minister but still >> is that assumes I'm a Tory which I'm not. It's uh it's 10 years since Britain voted to leave the European Union. >> Yes. >> So So why is Brexit now widely regarded as a disappointment even among many of those who voted for it? >> Well, I'd challenge the premise. So it's suddenly the case that if you ask people in some opinion polls, would they want to rejoin the EU? Um or do they regret Brexit? Some of those polls show a majority. But then when you dig beneath the figures to show uh or to demonstrate or to ask more broadly what people's attitudes are when uh asked in detail about uh what rejoining the European Union might mean you find that support for that es away. I think in particular there is an element of if not nostalgia certainly uh uh regret that what we've lived through since Brexit has involved partly thanks to the war in Ukraine, partly thanks to domestic policy mistakes, partly thanks to COVID a turbulent and difficult time. And some of those who were really never reconciled to Brexit have argued that everything that's gone wrong in the world and everything that's been difficult in the UK is somehow as a direct result of that vote. And I think that that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. >> But my question wasn't why do so many people want to rejoin the EU? Because I agree with you. You can ask that question in various ways and the answer may be different after we've had another national debate about it. My question was why does are so many people even Brexiteeers disappointed by it? The latest poll found that 57% now think it was a mistake. Not that they wanted necessarily to rejoin but they just thought it was a mistake and only 30% now say it was the right thing to do. Well, I think that some of that uh may be down to people attributing to Brexit, some of the difficulties that the country has faced which are not a consequence of Brexit. Some of it may be a reflection of the agonies that uh we endured when Parliament attempted to frustrate Brexit. So that Brexit is less associated in the public mind with leaving the European Union and more associated with constitutional wrangles and political infighting and self-indulgence. But ultimately uh given what you say about public opinion uh I don't know because I'm one of the 30% who think that it was the right thing to do even more so now than when I took the decision 10 years ago. >> But even you must be disappointed that it's it's been nothing like as transformative as you and other breers were claiming a decade ago. >> No, I think it has been. So the single biggest change of course is the restoration of democratic control. Uh there are still some areas of course for Britain either by choice or necessity as part of transnational or international institutions that fetter our capacity sometimes to do what is right. We might go on to those things like the European Court and Convention of Human Rights. But fundamentally the the great thing about Brexit is that politicians are held accountable for their errors as we were as I was in 2024. But it is also the case that uh at the time we argued and uh Boris was particularly prominent in arguing that there would be some costs, some one-off costs inevitably on departure. But what that created was the potential for Britain to take its own course in a variety of areas. We might go on to some of those where the potential for economic growth and for uh Britain to flourish is much greater. But even if you can point to some successes, and by the way, governments found themselves on the wrong end of landslides like yours long long before Brexit. We didn't need Brexit to be able to throw out the government. There is I think when people look back, there was at least for a period and maybe still we're in the long tale of this. It broke British politics. It it broke your party. I mean, we're on the brink of our seventh prime minister in 10 years since the Brexit vote. We've had eight chancellors since the Brexit vote, eight foreign secretaries, eight home secretaries. I mean, you took us out of the European Union, but you've turned Westminster into Rome on the temps. In fact, that's unfair to Italy. I mean, we actually make Italy look like a beacon of stability these days. >> Well, uh, the first thing to say is that we might have had fewer prime ministers who had made different choices either in 2016 or 2019 about who should lead the Conservative Party and who should be prime minister. we might have had a greater level of continuity then. But more broadly, as our friend and uh Times colleague Danny Finkelstein has pointed out, there have been times in Britain's past when you've had a relatively rapid turnover of prime ministers. That's normally been at times of uh uh economic and political and social change that's affecting Europe uh more broadly. So we had that in the Napoleonic wars. We had that in the 1920s and 30s after the first world war. And what we've seen across Western Europe essentially since 2008 uh has been uh different ways in which the traditional political culture a broadly Christian democratic center right party and a broadly social democratic center-left party alternating that has been smashed to smitherines and you've been covering it on times radio but whether or not it's been the decline of the French socialists and gouists or the emergence of the AFD or or indeed in the United States of America the transformation of the republican and Democrat party bases, broader global effects have had different manifestations in different political systems. And to say that it's simply because of Brexit that this has happened, I think is unprovable. Indeed, arguably, had we not had Brexit, then our domestic political system might be under even greater strain. I certainly think so. >> Well, that's hard to tell. Of course, we'll never know. But, I mean, you played a part in this chaos. I mean, you helped usher in a period of post-referendum case. Even though you had won the referendum indeed, despite winning, you departed the field. You left the country with no plan for breakfast for Brexit, no leaders to deliver it. >> Oh, I I I would vigorously contest that. Um, not only did we have a plan for Brexit, which was laid out uh by the vote leave team during the campaign and capable of being implemented, um, I stood on that platform to become leader of the Conservative Party. I didn't win, but far from quitting the field, I clambored onto the field and hoisted a standard aoft. Now, >> Varys Johnson says that you and he never once discussed what a leave government would do if you won. You had no plan, no blueprint. Well, one of the reasons why I stood in the end even though Boris was already in the field is that I believed though I adore Boris that actually he wasn't the right person at that time to lead the country and I thought that uh as someone who was committed to implementing the plan that Vote Lee had outlined that understood exactly why we'd won and what change should be that uh we could actually very quickly um begin to reap those benefits. Now, it's a matter of obvious historical fact uh regret to me, but you know, that's life. Uh that I lost and lost that uh leadership election uh decisively. Uh we then had in Theresa May, someone whom I do admire, but we had someone who was a remain supporter as prime minister. That was a challenge. I think you can quite legitimately tax the Conservative party with having made the wrong choice at that time given what had happened in the referendum. But I think for those of us who were in the vote leave team, while that was undoubtedly disappointing and a sadness, that is just one of the consequences of the uh complexity of our democratic system. But did you seriously think that by turning on Boris Johnson you were going to take the mantle of leadership? >> Yes. >> Because no one else did. >> Well, a significant number of people did vote for me. Sadly, not enough. >> Well, but you lost by quite a large margin. Uh when you decided to run yourself, you must have known it was mission impossible. And the consequence of what you did is I mean you lumbered us with Theresa May. She had voted to remain. She saw Brexit as a problem to be managed, not an opportunity to be seized. Yes. >> By your own actions, you mired us in three miserable years of chaos, which then morphed into rigor mortise. Everything in the political system gummed up by bloody Brexit. No. Uh firstly, uh it was perfectly open to uh uh my Conservative Party colleagues to vote for uh Brexiter in that leadership election. they chose not to. I as I say 10 years ago, I regret that. Uh but you know, they will have had their reasons and you quite rightly make the point that perhaps if they look back, they might regret their decisions not to vote for uh a Brexitier who was committed to the vote leave program um as I was at the time. Uh but I don't think even though there are many criticisms that can be laid at my door that I can be criticized for quitting the field when I was making that case. More than that, the reason why we had that agonizing time, was because there were a number of people in parliament, many of them noble, some of them not, who wanted to frustrate the Brexit vote because it was, as we both recognize, a rejection of uh the established way of governing in the United Kingdom, a restoration of uh our democratic traditions. And there were a lot of people very uncomfortable with that who sought to frustrate it. >> In retrospect, you would have been better just to let Boris Johnson go ahead. If you hadn't turned on him, or as they would say, knifed him uh in the back. If you hadn't done that, he would have become the leader and he would have attempted to carry out the referendum mandate. And in the end, after three miserable years, three of the most miserable years of British politics I can remember, you ended up with Boris Johnson anyway. and you ended up serving in his government. So, it was a three-year interregnum which served no purpose. >> Well, again, uh it was Boris's decision to withdraw. It was perfect. >> It was perfectly open to people to uh vote for me and uh again, Boris as prime minister, I was very very happy to serve. But I I I think that uh the decision that as as I say members of the Conservative party made was a decision uh for people who didn't vote for me that you can legitimately tax them with. But uh in my case uh I had the uh ability to put forward a case people rejected it. Uh and then we saw those consequences and uh the question which I would ask it's up to you. I I I don't expect you to decide is uh who do people think would have been a um uh better able to have a team in 2016 ready to implement the vote leave uh agenda. I'll leave it open to people to decide if they think certainly not you, Michael. That's fair enough. But that's what I was willing to do. >> Sure. I see that this blueprint for Brexit, this plan to actually carry it out. Where can we see it? >> Uh I hope it's still cashed on the vote leave website. you the the vote leave website's been taken down. >> Well, I will do my very best to send it to you. It's very clear about what we were going to do. For example, it was very clear that we were always going to leave the single market and the customs union. A number of people have argued that there was no mandate for that. It was very clear because the remain campaign uh entirely understandably said, "Oh, that's the Albanian option." We embraced the uh uh criticisms that they put at us, pointing out that by leaving a single market and customs union, we could genuinely really take back control. And we also outlined a program of increased investment in science, education, and the NHS alongside a program of deregulation. Some of that deregulation, I'm delighted to say, has not just been adopted by, but extended even under Karma. But that program was very clear. we wouldn't have uh triggered Article 50 in the way and and at the time that Theresa did and we certainly would never have accepted the European Union's approach towards the Northern Ireland border with their ridiculous assertion that we needed to have Northern Ireland in the single market to stop the IRA from returning to violence. >> You oversold Brexit though, didn't you? And that might explain the widespread disillusion that has since set in. I mean, a lot of what you claimed during the referendum, I mean, we now know to be to to use a technical term, we now know it to be bollocks, don't we? >> No. >> All right. Well, let me give you an example. In the run-up to the referendum, you and Boris Johnson issued a statement. It was headed restoring public's trust in immigration policy. You vowed to replace Europe's open door immigration policy with a much more tightly controlled pointsbased system. >> Yes. >> Well, that didn't age very well, did it? Look what happened. >> Uh, it has not only aged very well, it's true. So, when we introduced the pointsbased system, uh, it was introduced uh, in a way which meant that it wasn't nearly tight enough or effective enough, but it has since been altered and can be altered further. the but in the first years of this I mean just look the the last year before uh the Brexit referendum net migration to Britain was 320,000 uh mainly from the European Union in 2022 Brexit's happened you're in charge not you're in charge but you're in the government you promise a much more tightly controlled pointsbased system net migration was 700,000 that calendar year the next year it was 900,000 Even by 2024 it was 330,000 about the same as it had been in 2015. You didn't deliver on that until it was too late. >> Well, the key thing is that we can have net migration at whatever level we want outside the European Union. >> But you didn't say it was going to be a million. >> Uh there are we can go into the specific details of why in the immediate aftermath of COVID during the period of COVID net migration of course was zero. nobody was coming into the country. Um the figures for that year were greater than they would otherwise have been partly because of the number of Hong Kong British nationals, partly because of the homes for Ukraine scheme, but partly also, and you are right about this, because the way in which the pointsbased system was introduced was too lax. But the whole point about a pointsbased system is that you can change it. We have we can the key point about uh uh that is you can take back control. But but my point is you didn't and you had promised them the referendum would. >> Yeah. But you didn't. That's the point. And that's why even Brexiteeers when they realized that in 21 22 23 24 migration came to 2.5 million people begin to realize they'd been sold a pup. >> No, I I think that it's it's a rare lapse on your part, Andrew, but you're making a category error. Um because a car can go forward or back, the fact that a car may have reversed doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to go forward. >> But you didn't say it would go forward. You said it would be reversed. You said you would reduce the numbers. And for the first years, you failed. >> We said that we would absolutely take back control. Brexit allows you to do so in a way that um if we were in the European Union, we would not. uh as I've said and um not just in this conversation happy to repeat and have said elsewhere uh there were factors in the first years of operation of the pointsbased system that meant that it wasn't implemented properly. >> Well, it may be now and of course ironically it's it's the Labor government that's getting the credit or getting taking the advantage and getting the cudas for it. >> I'm delighted by that. >> Right. But when you said take back control and a much more tightly controlled system, nobody thought that you were going to increase the 2015 figure by three-fold. No one thought that. And that's what helped the disillusion set in that what you had said in the referendum was turning out in 21, 22, 23, even 24 not to be the case. Well, maybe as a result of this podcast, um the the disillusion that you allude to may be dispelled because what you've helpfully done is to point out that yes, it rose. We've discussed that there were some exceptional factors there, but also some very poor implementation. And we've also acknowledged that now a Labor government, as Neil Kenik might say, a Labor government is using Brexit powers to reduce net migration. So at the end of the conversation, yes, you can legitimately say, Go Boris, you mishandled the tools that you rested from the EU. But what everyone will know is that those tools now in other hands are being used to reduce migration. And actually, as we both know, it was James Cleverly as home secretary that introduced the policies from which this Labor government are now, and I'm delighted for them, benefiting. You understand that you can't, Conservatives can't have any credibility when you promise in a referendum to take back control and the first thing you do when you're in power is to triple immigration. I mean that I mean that's just ludicrous. >> It wasn't the first thing. Um I think that uh as we've both acknowledged uh in the period when immediately after our departure from really immediately after our departure from the European Union and the COVID pandemic struck migration not as a result of any policy decision related to migration because of the pandemic absolutely went to zero. Then >> well it didn't quite go to zero but it wasn't very high. >> Yeah. Then there were exceptional factors um in the period immediately after the referendum up to 20 uh sorry after COVID up to 2024 and uh as I pointed out there were at least three elements to that two of them external Hong Kong British nationals and the homes for Ukraine scheme which I think most people not everyone would support but a third was undoubtedly uh a a problem uh a mistake an error fully. I'll use any word you like about the implementation of the system. But you can blame me and Boris and anyone who was in that administration. What you can't do is blame Brexit. Well, you were the Brexiteers and you were in government. Uh but anyway, slashing immigration was one of the dominant themes of the campaign for the referendum. And as referendum day approached, you ramped up the related prospect because it was related to immigration of Turkey joining the European Union. >> Yes. >> That was another lie as well, wasn't it? >> No, it was a British government policy, >> but it had been dropped. There was no prospect of Turkey joining the EU by 2016. no prospect. You knew that. >> No, it was absolutely the case that it was British government policy at that time for Turkey to join the European Union and >> and it had made no progress. It had began accession talks in 2005 and almost zero progress had been made in the 15 years since that. Sorry, in the 10 11 years since that. No one no one seriously thought Turkey was anywhere near joining the EU. >> Uh well, the first thing I would say is that you've reminded us how terribly poor at negotiating uh uh the EU can be and how bureaucratic it is. But more broadly, I would say uh that um uh David Cameron, great man in many ways, nevertheless said that he wanted to pave the road or pave the way from Anchora uh the Turkish capital to Brussels. It was British government policy to extend EU membership to Turkey as it is indeed EU policy. As you point out, the fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't alter the fact that it's EU policy. >> Well, but that's the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we are in 2026 and Turkeykey's no nearer joining the EU now than it was in 2016. >> Well, I let's see because the EU is >> Well, we have seen it hasn't joined. The EU is intent on further expansion and uh that is part of its uh aim. But more broadly, not only does the EU say that it wants Turkey to be a member and of course Turkey is >> it doesn't say that very often these days, it goes through the motions. You said that you claimed Turkey would join as soon as 2020. That's true. If you're saying that the the EU is a disingenuous men mendacious organization uh that plays fast and loose with its neighbors and doesn't deliver on its promises then then you know listeners will take their own uh >> the problem was >> but more broadly it is EU policy that Turkish and also even more broadly let's look at the EU's record on handling migration overall. I don't think that it is one that necessarily commands perfect confidence. >> But you claimed that Turkey would join and these are your words as soon as 2020 and here we are in 2026 and it hasn't joined. And we know why you did this because it was in the final days of the campaign. It was getting down and wasn't quite sure what the result would be. You then warned of a cumulative Turkish migration to the UK of between three and five million people in the 2020s. Three to five million coming to this country, a population the size of Scotland. You said your campaign then put posters stating with no caveats, Turkey population 76 million is joining the EU. I mean that is reform style scaremongering. I I I absolutely think that's very unfair of you on reform. Um uh I'm not a reform supporter, but um I would >> You should be ashamed. >> Not this. >> It didn't join. It wasn't joining. It didn't join. 5 million Turks did not come. You were trying to scare us. >> No. Uh it is the case as we both acknowledge that it is EU policy uh for Turkey to be a member and it is the case that the EU has mismanaged migration. Um and it is the case that outside the EU we have control of our borders and it is our decision to decide who comes into this country and on what terms. It would not be if we were in the EU. But everybody watching this and listening to this can see that you were wrong. Turkey did not join in 2020. It's 2026 and it still hasn't joined. There is no there is no timetable. No set of negotiations even taking place. They've all gone under is not going to happen. And yet you still try to claim that what you said would happen in 2016. You you you won't admit now that you were just wrong. >> No, I I I'm happy to admit on the many areas or in the many areas where I were either wrong or mistaken, but at that time it was clear that was EU policy. More broadly, the EU in the intervening period has had to deal with both the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine and even I stern critic of Brussels would acknowledge that uh the organization has had its hands full. Um, it is the case that there are other countries, other countries in the Balkans to whom the EU wants to extend uh the hand of membership and those countries including Albania uh uh Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia uh are not yet members but >> you said you said all these would join by 2020 as well. >> That was the EU's timetable. But as I say, other events intervened. Um, I think if you were to ask the EU, is it their intention that these countries should join, then they would say yes. >> Well, I'm sure it's your intention to go to the gym every morning, but I wonder if it's happening. >> I did >> every morning. Let's look at the economic fallout because many people this is the important thing. Now, various studies, official and unofficial, have tried to measure the hit to UK GDP since deciding to leave. Now, some I would be with you on they're on the fancible side. Like the recent US-based think tank claiming it was 8% of GDP. That's been the hit. Others like the OBR, Bank of England, they're more measured. They put a range of 2 to 4%. The scale of the hit is up for legitimate debate. My own guess is is more at the lower end so far anyway than the higher end. But can you name any reputable study which shows that Brexit has added to our GDP? >> I think uh look at the uh facts in front of us. So I think the the key thing is that um many of these models and projections came from the same organizations that uh in both of our youths were telling us that we had to join the euro. Um uh these are the sorts of organizations which during the course of the referendum campaign I described as uh organizations with acronyms that have consistently got things wrong in the past. Um if one looks for example at the German economy, Germany is in the heart of Europe. I don't think there's any economy more integrated, more European than the German. Since we left the EU, >> which economy has grown faster, Britain's or Germany's? Every economy is growing faster than Germany's. >> Oh, good. >> As you know, Germany is going through a particularly uh major structural change as a result of events in China and the collapse, the cost of its net zero policies and the and its its industrial restructuring of its industry and machine tools. My question to you was, can you name any reputable study which shows Brexit has added to our GDP? Well, I think that uh exactly as I've pointed out, I've drawn what we might call a randomized control trial. I've looked at the German economy integrated. >> That's not a study. >> It is. It's it's reality. So, >> so your only case is that we like every other major economy in or out of the of the EU, we've grown faster than Germany. That's it. >> Uh not only growing faster than Germany, I think our growth rate has been broadly comparable to France's. I think France is growing slightly faster, >> right? But you know that's on GDP growth. >> Yes. >> And one one thing that flatters our GDP growth on an annual basis is all these migrants you let in. That's so it's much >> and one thing one thing that holds back our GDP growth is the energy policy of Ed Milliband. Um and uh another thing that holds it back has been the tax policy of Rachel Reeves and the labor market policy >> of Lena. um attempts to uh uh disinter which are Brexit factors and which are non-rexit factors are are of interest of course I understand but but um if you look at the composite picture of economies we were told that we would somehow be uh the runt of the European litter we were told that there would be uh tsunami of companies leaving the city would be hit um the city employs more people it has a bigger share of trade in financial services than it had before we left the EU. And our economy has grown at least as fast if not faster than the major EU economies. Not in terms of GDP, not in terms of GDP per capita other than Germany. Not in terms of GDP per capita. And you know that that's a much better measure of growth in national wealth and living standards than just the blunt GDP figures. When you when you look at GDP per capita figures since we left, since the referendum, you can see that Brexit has indeed taken its toll. >> No, I think that uh you can attribute to uh uh Brexit, as many many people do, all manner of factors, but when you're looking at something as complex as the economy of a G7 or G20 nation, you can't isolate just one single factor. as as you uh quite rightly did when we were talking about Germany, you isolated a number of factors that have contributed to Germany's course problems. Um and the whole point is that to say that either you know one factor Brexit or another factor energy prices is responsible solely for these problems. I think >> Lord King, former governor of the Bank of England who said when we look back um and this will be many years hence he argued and look at uh the growth rate of the British economy you won't be able to spot the point at which we left the European Union it because it will be other factors that have a far bigger effect. You can if you look at GDP per capita which as I say is a better measure of national prosperity and the growth in national wealth in the 10 years before the referendum growth in UK GDP per capita was up there with the best of them. We were as strong as the European Union as a whole. We were better than the Euro zone better than France and in these days we weren't far behind Germany. In the 10 years since the referendum, our per capita growth has been a third of the EU's and a half of the Euro zones, worse than France and better only than Germany's. It rose by 12% in the decade before the referendum and only 5% in the decade after the referendum. That is the real price, the economic toll of Brexit. No post hawk, nonargo, proctorhawk, as they say in Aberdine. Um the the you're attributing everything to Brexit rather than >> No, I'm not. But >> but rather you you you you make your case rather than to other factors. Some of the uh uh economies that have grown fastest within Europe uh Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain uh particularly uh Greece and Ireland were countries that in the immediate aftermath of the Eurozone crisis had austerity policies which uh uh shrunk their state led to uh uh the sorts of changes which put them on a trajectory for growth and that changes the way in which we look both at EU growth overall and at Euro zone growth overall. for all um I it's a different point. It is the case, as I mentioned earlier, that on leaving the European Union, there are additional costs. There were additional costs for some businesses. But it is also the case that we now have when it comes to clinical trials, when it comes to gene editing, when it comes to financial services, when it comes to artificial intelligence, when it comes to being outside the digital services act, a more deregulated and innovationfree economy than the EU. And those are benefits that will accumulate over time. >> You notice I'm not arguing about that. What I am trying to put to you is that during the referendum campaign 10 years ago, you promised Brexit, these are your words, would make people richer, their future brighter, richer and brighter. >> Yes. >> Never hasn't happened. Uh I think it is the case that as I just mentioned we're on that trajectory and I think it is also the case that our future is brighter because we've recovered the capacity the vital capacity to hold our politicians directly accountable. One of the terrible >> but people are not richer because of Brexit they're poorer. Their per capita GDP has grown more slowly since we left not more quickly. It's grown a little bit, 5%, not much better than Germany actually, which uh you're having a go at. Germany's 3%, we're only five. France was eight. Uh and and so we have grow we have paid a price in the growth in our living standards because of Brexit. It has not made us richer or brighter. >> Um so two things. The first thing is that uh uh uh as you've been generous enough to acknowledge there is not a single factor that drives or has driven the rate of growth. We are richer notwithstanding uh the ravages of COVID. Uh are we as rich as we might have been? No. And that's because there were some mistakes that have been made both by conservative and by Labor governments. nothing to do with Brexit per se, but those were errors which have meant that, for example, energy prices are higher. For example, our labor market is more rigid than it should be, that have held us back from growing as fast as we would like to. But outside the European Union, we have more levers at our disposal in order to ensure that we become wealthier. If our politicians, myself included, don't use those levers, then there is no hiding place. The fundamental argument that I made and that vote leave made was an argument about removing the excuses that politicians use for failure by saying the EU wouldn't let me. Brussels dictates this. We still have some of those same arguments now often related to the ECR quangos or judges. But ultimately the sharper they yank on the chain uh when uh you are uh reproving politicians the quicker the change to get things better overall. >> So let me get this right. Your argument is that by voting for Brexit, we removed the constraints that were stopping us from taking the right decisions uh to get the economy growing faster, making people richer in your words, uh improving our making our prospects brighter. We removed that and you still didn't do it. That's the argument. >> Uh we did some of it as as um we were discussing earlier. Some of those changes uh have been made. Not all of them that I would like to have seen made, but some of them have been made and we were uh uh reaping the benefits and we will reap more of the benefits as time develops in all of the areas that I mentioned. We will be able to approve drugs more quickly. We will be able to develop crops that are more resilient and yield uh more food, a new green revolution. we will be able to h attract financial services uh in a way that uh Europe won't. We will be able we are already the country in Europe with the greatest tech leadership and uh the biggest uh AI sector. >> You even predicted that because we were going to become much richer with much brighter prospects >> that Britain would flourish so much. That's what you told us during the referendum campaign that there would be a queue of member states eager to follow the UK out of the door. >> Yes. >> How is that worked out? >> Well, it will be, I think, in uh both our lifetimes, I hope, the case that either the EU reforms or it will face yet greater strains in which some member states begin to question the very structure and foundation of it. And I'll take one particular case in point which is the report that to be fair the EU itself commissioned the draggy report which looks at the competitiveness of the block overall. It's a searing critique of the EU. indeed I've read it. >> One of the key points about that is that there are uh I think people who believe in the European Union in the principle of uh ever closer union uh but a growing number of them who've come to recognize that it is not working. I believe that as uh Britain or British politicians take increasing advantage of the freedoms and flexibilities that being outside the European Union affords us that there will be increasing questioning of the direction of the European Union. >> Give me a country where that's happening. >> Well, um I think Sweden um uh I was in uh Finland just uh last week. Um I was talking to Swedes, Finns, Danes and others all of whom were committed to the European project but all of whom were deeply concerned. They were business people to be fair about the competitiveness of the EU. Um there's one other dimension. >> But but hold on that's a different matter. lots of people even the Dragit report uh well that was all actually all about competitiveness and the lack of I mean I again an argument for me on this European Union is increasingly stagnant in so many fronts >> but what I asked you was where is there a movement where is there an equivalent Brexit movement in the Europe in any other European Union country >> I think there are two things that have happened one is that uh we've had that uh more profound criticism but we've also seen a change within Europe in its politics in that you've seen parties that are euroskeepic in tradition who have uh taken a position which is that it is better to try to mend than end at this moment. So uh a a classic case in point would be Georgio Maloney's um uh the origins of that party were deeply euroskeptic right >> um and Georgia Maloney and her team have uh taken the Italian right out of the Christian Democrat tradition and into a more conservative >> but they don't propose leaving the EU >> not yet >> they don't propose leaving the Euro even the national rally which could well provide the next president of France come the elections next summer it used to actually for pulling out of the EU. It used to be for pulling out of the euro even if it stayed in the EU. It's not in favor of either now. There is no movement I would suggest in any country that wants to follow Britain's example. And that is because most people even skep euroskeepics like Maloney like the national rally even euroskeptics regard Britain as a bad example. >> Well, we shall wait and see. I mean I think it's understandable that there will be uh continental politicians who will uh consider some of the things that are happening in the UK at the moment particularly falling on from Karma's demise and think that uh the British government is not conducting itself in a manner that invites emulation. I think that's true but I think there's a broader point as well. Um during the course of the referendum campaign, uh one of the arguments I I made is that historically you've seen uh jurisdictions escape from transnational or international rule, assert their independence. There is a period of turbulence, but afterwards they flourish and no one ever says that they should go back. Whether it was the United Provinces, the Netherlands breaking from Hapsburg rule, the American colonies leaving the British Empire or indeed even Ireland leaving the British Empire. Yes, there was a period of turbulence. I don't think Ireland established the uh economic ascendancy that it did uh for five decades. The first 30 years of American independence certainly until 1820 America was losing out economically. No one now would say that they would want to go back. I'm not talking about going back. I'm trying to give get you to give me an example of any country that is anywhere near following our example. >> Well, we're both impatient naturally. We both want to see change and uh therefore if it hasn't matured quickly, uh both of us I think by temperament are inclined to say let's have a bit more radicalism. However, >> this is going to go the way of your turkey prediction, isn't it? >> However, let's see. >> It's fantasy land. They they they the the key thing is that this is a decision um like turkeys, not just for Christmas, but for life. >> Indeed. Well, Turkeys are not too keen on Christmas. Um do you think that Brexit, whether it's regarded as success or not, do you think it did in the end contribute to the electoral decline of the Conservative Party? >> No, I I don't think that it did in and of itself. No. But I think that uh I think the principal uh reason why the conservatives lost the 2024 general election there were three. One was the perception of hypocrisy and the idea that there was one rule for the elite and another for everyone else that was crystallized by the party gate controversy. >> Uh the second was our reputation for economic management took a battering with Liz's mini budget. And I think the third which you've mentioned was uh the failure effectively to control migration when people clearly voted in almost every electoral contest since 2010 uh on the basis that migration should be reduced. I think those were the three principal factors. >> No and I I agree with all of that. Uh so your party is where it is now. is not in a great place that >> Timmy Bidnok is is kind of establishing herself as a a leader of substance but that's not rubbing off on your party in the polls. Uh that famous victory in Abedine South notwithstanding that was a suie generous victory. Let me put I think what I've got a fundamental problem. It speaks I think to the predicament that your party is now in. And I'll put it this way. Do you accept that many problems that bedevil this country under this government under spending on defense, cavalier, hugely expensive commitment to net zero, highest taxes, spending and borrowing since the war, the squeeze on living standards, all of the above that they all have their origins. They all began in 14 years of conservative government. >> Uh the short answer is yes. Uh but I I say two things. One is uh a personal uh not disclaimer but um a personal um uh point um while I was in that government and I have because I think I was probably in that government for longer than any other individual. I deserve an out outside share of responsibility for those mistakes. But I'm now a journalist. That doesn't mean I run away from my responsibilities when I was a politician. But the Tory party is under different leadership as you acknowledge now. Uh Kem Badok is leading it in a different way. I am not a uh Tory spokesman or >> No, but you take the Tory whip in the house of law. I am a you're not an independent. >> So you are still a politician. >> Yeah, but I think the distinction is this >> that um uh those errors should not be laid at Box's door. >> No, I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. But I'm laying at your party's door which therefore by definition or would logically would follow. I'm laying them at the people who were a member of members of that government at the time >> which would include you and I wonder how I >> I wanted to make that clear. I wanted to draw distinction. >> I understand that and distinction I I accept good distinction. Let's come back to you because you were in the government. So you see I I I interviewed earlier this week a former Tory defense minister, not the secretary of state. Of course the tries are calling uh for a lot more on defense spending. >> Dubai. Yes. Dubai Elwood. >> Yeah. But you your government, the Conservative government, you cut defense spending by 22% in real terms between 2010 and 2016. >> Yes. >> And then even after that, you didn't increase it by very much. In fact, you didn't increase it at all in the year after or the second year after Mr. Putin went into Crimea. So when you call when the tries call for more defense spending, given your record, you have no credibility. Well, I have less credibility. I can say all the things about not being defense secretary and all the rest of it, but yes, um we did make uh some errors, a number of errors in defense policy when I was in government. But uh while people might say well Gove you've got you you know a cheek talking about this and I I can argue about uh my positions and my views I think when you say the Tories I think that is a category error. The party that Kami Bnok leads is taking a different course with different leadership and different policies when I was in government and she has quite rightly I think been honest about the uh mistakes that were made which predated her ever being in uh parliament let alone in government. But you know the tries now rail against net zero. But actually you your party presided over net zero for 14 years. You were enthusiastic, zealous even for net zero. You were environment secretary at one stage. You enshrined it in law only seven years ago with zero debate. So when you say you're now against it, your part is now against it. Again, it's not credible given your record. >> Well, if it were the case that um those who had been in the forefront of arguing for uh some of those climate change uh uh policies were now leading the Conservative Party, then it would be uh perfectly um uh what's the word uh stinging critique. But there is a distinction. So the people who were most in favor of that type of policy, Michael Chris Skidmore, Theresa of course is prime minister, are no longer >> She was the one that put it into law. Ex. >> Exactly. >> Without a debate. >> Uh uh well, one of the people who was um uh unhappy about that and said so at the time in parliament was Kem Baitn. It was the case that uh Kem as a a backbencher at the time couldn't really uh influence things and she and Cla Coutinho have stressed that they have taken a different view. It is a bit like not perfectly but is a bit like saying to Tony Blair, well you stood on Michael Foot's manifesto in 1983. The key thing is uh at the time that was uh what you know any aspirant Labour MP had to do in order to get into a position to change the party for the better. >> So I am guilty but chem and others are not >> but he clearly disavowed Michael Foot in everything Tony did as leader. If if this is your look I mean the situation it is what it is. You are where you are. your 14 years are your record and a and you've agreed that a lot of what is wrong with the country now was actually uh the tries did their bit to make it wrong. it was their policies that they followed. That's just the reality. Given that you accept that, do don't the Conservatives have to draw a clear clearer clearer line? Don't they have to say, "Look, that was then. This is now." And by the way, we were wrong then. We see now we were wrong. We're on the right track. That's not been done explicitly enough. And I would suggest until you do this albatross when you come to be interviewed by people like me, it's going to haunt you. >> I think uh Kimmy Bnock has been very clear about where she thinks that conservatives got things wrong in the past. Uh and in fact when she was running for leader, I think she was very clear um in her critique um of those errors. Now, I would argue, it's not central to the point you're making, which I think is a fair one, that there were many things that the Conservatives got right. There were many things during that period that were good for the country. But in the areas that you've identified as arguably the areas of greatest conservative failure or error, those were the areas that Keenor identified in order to become leader as the areas that needed to change most. It's going to be a tough job, isn't it, to convince the people that after doing all these things for 14 years on on issues which were vital to people's living standards, were vital to cost of living, vital to their well-being, that you're not that party anymore. That's a tough one, isn't it? That's going to take you more than one election to shake that off. >> Politics is tough, but then so is chem. But you can't shake it off in one election. You gave us the highest energy prices in the world for industry, the second highest for domestic energy, a cost of living squeeze, uh, of which there hadn't been anything like it for 40 years. Um, so lack of growth, uh, uh, lack of of of a sense of things getting better, that's a legacy that will not be easily shaken off. I mean, don't you maybe you need a truth and reconciliation committee to start again. >> Well, I'm perfectly happy to be put up against the wall um, and take my beating for the mistakes that I made. I would hope that there would be an extensive plea and mitigation on the basis of the things that I either supported or helped to enact. >> Well, you supported net zero, didn't you? >> I did and I am uh >> Do you regret that? >> Uh I am a strong supporter of action to ensure that we deal with environmental damage. I think the pace and ambition by which we've um said that we were going to reach the net zero target was a mistake. I think the issue requires careful handling. But I think that Kem Baitnok has been very clear both that the uh uh adoption of the climate change act, the climate change committee's recommendations and the current timetable were an error. And I do think that she um makes a very powerful case that has forced me to review the the way in which we set about implementing that policy. But what I don't resolve from is the belief that uh environmental stewardship is important and that climate change is generated by a variety of factors of which mankind's activity is one. >> Right? But none of that is an issue in net zero for Britain because our CO2 emissions are already under 1% of the global total and we're in the process of spending4 billion pounds plans inherited and then uh enhanced by Ed Milliban but inherited from your government 40 billion pounds to reduce that uh 1% it's actually 0.9% now down to about 0.70.6 six, it will make no difference at all. But it was your >> I think I think I think a I think that is a fair point. Um I think that just because um Ed Milliband uh is uh saying that he is operating in tune with what we did in the past. um masks the fact that what he has done is not just double down but 10x that drive in a uniquely harmful way. >> I would also say that uh uh speaking for myself, I've always argued that we needed to have uh a policy to make the best uh and most effective use of domestic fossil fuels. for example, um I would not have placed the restrictions on exploration in the North Sea. >> Well, you're from Abedine, of course you wouldn't. >> Exactly. >> I understand that. But uh >> um but but but what one of the reasons why I I make these points is uh that I am one individual. Uh I was uh collectively responsible in government for a variety of policies. Some of them whether that was an education or tech or justice or changing the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy um or indeed leveling up um I think were absolutely right and have been vindicated by events. Others uh the ambition set on net zero and reductions of defense spending you're quite right to take me to task on on the question about the cost of living squeeze. I think there are a variety of factors there and of course the government in power at the time takes responsibility for the fate and direction of the economy but there were other factors deep structural factors that were uh contributing to that. >> We're coming to the end but you did mention leveling up which was of course a signature policy of Boris Johnson's. You were made leveling up minister uh and and stayed there even after Boris Johnson uh departed. Um it was a policy of uh ambition. It was a policy which was the right one in terms of making the country spreading the wealth more geographically equal. Um and it was a policy I think everybody agreed had very meager results. Well, again, uh, when we published the leveling up white paper, the point we made was, which funny enough, Andy Bernham is echoed, is that we would take at least 10 years to affect the uh, rebalancing of the economy that we talked about and we had uh, particular missions, I know that they become less fashionable, um, which were measures of how we would make progress in those areas >> and there was very little progress, isn't I mean, you said you actually said most of it was a You said you had built halfbuilt a cathedral. >> I would say you didn't even get round to finishing the foundations, >> but you then said the rest of it was a mess. >> Well, by definition, that's the case whenever you were constructing any project. >> It's a mess. It's just a work in progress. >> Well, exactly. But but um >> you said it was a mess. Not me. >> The the key thing about works in progress is that there are always on top of one another that need to be put into place. But I'd argue and I hope that we'd have the chance that if you came with me to uh Blackpool or to Bllythe, just to name two places, I could show you how some of the money that we have given those communities is already having an impact. And more broadly, um, one of the reasons, only one, that Andy Barnham is on course to be prime minister is that the additional powers that we gave him, uh, uh, and other mayors have helped them to transform their ears. Not every mayor has used them wisely, but they were still evidence of trusting northern leaders to uh, make a progrowth policy the heart of their appeal. Well, 25 25% of Blackpool's population of working age is economically inactive. >> Yes. >> So, I wouldn't regard that as a great example of leveling up. >> No, no, no, no. But the critical thing is Blackpool um was uh uh has some of the worst social problems in the country. And it's precisely because it was one of the toughest nuts to crack that we've done everything from investing in improved technical education there to making sure that we can get the housing stock taken back into uh a better condition to making sure that we had some of the additional uh uh infrastructure and transport investment that it needs. Is it enough? No. Is it a difference? Yes. And we can demonstrate that on the ground. >> What's your advice for Andy Bernham? who seems to wants to go down this road with uh perhaps even more enthusiasm and resources. >> Um I think that the if you are going to have uh effective devolution then what you need to do is to have uh uh a greater level of responsibility for raising money as well as spending it. and you need sharper accountability for delivery and above all you need to ensure that uh you listen to the private sector. I one of the interesting things that Andy Bernham says is that he wants a quotes more productive state. The problem as we both know is that while the state can provide certain services, infrastructure, education and so on, it is not a hot bed of innovation. And if you are going to get the state to be productive in the basic things that it does, then you have to be incredibly tough with people working in the public sector. Um, you've got to, you know, obviously, you know, recognize the distinctive contribution they make. Um, and I think that Andy is someone who because he is so personable, doesn't like to be disliked, but I'm afraid that you as prime minister, if you're going to drive change, you will have to get quite a lot of scars on your back. Well, I think that's good advice. We'll pass it on. Whether he'll listen or not is another matter, but we can only be the messenger in this. Let's just finish with you. Looking back at >> your political career, why do you think your party never saw you as leadership, prime ministerial material? I mean, you're smart, articulate, personable, informed. Uh you've shown all that in this interview. Uh you're hugely successful from a modest backgrounds. In some ways, it's the it's the classic modern Tory story, yet not the party leader. Why? >> I don't know. And I think that um probably the best explanation lies in my ex-wife Sarah Vine's book um in which uh uh she explores uh some of the uh what's the word? Uh complexities of politics. But but um I think in the end uh well I'll leave it to others to decide because all right as education secretary I thought that self assessment and marking your own homework was a bad idea. >> No that's I think that's very true though sometimes politicians can't stop doing it. Let me finish by marking your homework. I would say many would say I would also agree with the many that your greatest success in politics was the seminal part you played in transforming English state schools. Um, what's your greatest regret or failure? >> Um, my greatest regret is that I didn't have the chance to spend more time at the Ministry of Justice reforming prisons and the criminal justice system. Um, I don't know if the changes that I was hoping to bring in would have um, uh, been as beneficial as I hope they might have been. uh that is probably my uh greatest regret. If I think about my biggest mistake as in deliberate error as in something for which I was wholly responsible that I got completely wrong. Um there are quite a few >> just one will do just the one. >> Oh funnily enough one is it was something called English votes for English laws. Um ah I remember >> immediately after the referendum I said to uh the the the 2014 referendum I said to David Cameron that uh English MPs felt that um uh Scotland had been promised too much in uh in what was called the vow which was a commitment to more devolution to Scotland then um and that English MPs wanted uh an assertion of their rights and and David was persuaded by that even though I'm a Scott myself. Um, I think what it did actually was when David announced it in the aftermath of the uh uh uh campaign, rather than it seeming like a generous reconciliation, it seemed a rather ungracious move from a conservative government. And I helped that I think that it helped give rocket boosters to nationalist SNP resentment at the time. And I repented of that. And then when I was in uh the leveling up job later, I tried and succeeded in getting us to drop it and taking a a different approach towards our dealings with the SNP government. >> Understood, Michael G. Thank you. >> Thank you, Andrew. Thank you very much. And good luck. >> And thank you for joining me. This has been the Andrew Neil Report with Andrew Neil. Now, just a reminder, the full podcast is with you every Thursday, so make sure you listen and follow now in your podcast apps uh so you never miss an episode. And I'll also bring you video clips from the show throughout the week on YouTube. Just search for the Andrew Neil report to subscribe now.