Murnaghan Interview with Dr Liam Fox MP
September 16, 2012
ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS
DERMOT MURNAGHAN: So six more NATO troops killed by Afghan forces, a total then of 51 so far this year. So where does this put the timetable for withdrawal and what does success look like? In a moment I’ll be talking to the former Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. Let’s a say a very good morning to Dr Fox, Afghanistan, you’ve visited it so many times as Defence Secretary, you would say as you did interviews there that real progress has been made, is being made, do you stand by that now?
LIAM FOX: Yes, and our aim was always very clear, that we would stay in Afghanistan until the Afghan national security forces were strong enough to maintain order and defend the democratic government itself. That means that we have to stick to the timetable, we have to continue with the training of the forces. I think it was always inevitable that we would get infiltration for this reason, that when it became very clear that we were not going to abandon Afghanistan early, the Taliban and Al Qaeda and their allies were then next going to try to undermine confidence in the Afghan national security forces, both internally and internationally, and that’s what they have been seeking to do. I think we have to hold our nerve through that and continue with the strategy that we set out some time ago.
DM: The strategy also to include substantial talks with elements of the Taliban and even Al Qaeda, you mentioned Al Qaeda even.
LF: Well the aim was always to identify the groups who were reconcilable to the Afghan government’s plans for their own country, to maintain a democratic government and to move forward with social progress and where there are groups willing to support that and abandon violence, we should welcome them into the process but we also have to recognise there will be fanatical elements who will want to disrupt that and will never be reconciled to any of those plans. They will have to be dealt with by continuing security means.
DM: But this infiltration, we talk about progress, 2008 two such green on blue incidents, now 51 deaths, 51 so far this year. It looks like things are getting a lot worse, what does that mean for the Afghan security forces when they stand on their own? They look like they’re riddled with infiltrators.
LF: Well, of course there are two things that you have to remember there. The first is the sheer number of Afghan national security forces that we have been training from nothing to well over 100,000, so we are bound to pick up a few on the way, that was impossible to avoid, I think we have to accept the risk within that tragic though the outcomes are. The second thing is that as we go forward in the process, we will have to continue the engagement, we will have to continue training and we will have to continue taking some of those risks if we are going to get to the point that we want of that increased stability.
DM: Well thank you for sharing some of your expertise with us on Afghanistan but can I turn now to the issue of Europe because you are writing about it in this morning’s Mail on Sunday and your analysis is that the eurozone, some people think the eurozone may be getting close to sorting out its problems but you foresee a very dark future continuing for it and therefore that Britain right now needs to look very closely at what it wants from its relationship with the European Union.
LF: Well I think those are two very separate issues. The eurozone is a great economic European own goal, we shouldn’t have allowed a number of countries or a number of countries should not have been allowed to join the euro in the first place, they didn’t meet the economic convergence criteria and then not only were they allowed in but they were allowed to actually exacerbate the problems by not meeting some of the fiscal restraints that were supposedly put upon them. Incidentally that includes France and Germany at times, so they have been heading for a problem with the eurozone for some time and this is compounded now by these endless summits we have, one more summit to save the euro seems to come on a regular basis and it is because they are making a fundamentally flawed analysis in my view. They believe they are dealing with a fiscal problem but in fact they are dealing with an economic and cultural problem. The Greek economy is diverging away from an ever more efficient and productive German economy and so they throw more and more taxpayers money into the gap hoping they can cover it up when actually what they need is to actually see a number of the members of the eurozone actually leave. To see Greece leave alone I think is one of the biggest mistakes they could make. We remember in the ERM when the markets were able to target one country, what happened? If Greece goes, they’ll focus on the next in line. The most sensible thing to do is to recognise this project is not going to work, let a number of countries go, if they are desperate to have monetary union …
DM: So a north/south split?
LF: Yes, effectively, on a Germany monetary zone and let them go down that route but the eurocrats don’t want to do that because they want ever closer union.
DM: Ah, now that’s the point, interesting you mentioned eurocrats. In the article you mentioned the desire, and there is no secret that they make of their desire for closer political and economic union but that is a recipe put forward by our very own Chancellor amongst others, for the eurozone. Saying look if you want to protect your banks and indeed the nature of your sovereign debt, you need to get more closely together. Clearly you don’t think Britain should go along with that, what does Britain have to do then in terms of redefining that relationship?
LF: Well first of all, people in Britain voted to join a Common Market, they didn’t vote for political union, although the first line of the Treaty talks about ever closer union so you can have a big argument about whether they were sold a pup or not, in my view they were. I think that what we now need to recognise is that the Europe that is now beginning to emerge, the Europe of ever closer political and economic union to protect some of the eurozone countries, is not the Europe that either we joined or we agreed to as treaties were passed. If they want a new European settlement that’s fine, so do we and I think most people in Europe want to go … in Britain want to go back to the European relationship that was about economics and trade and not about interference in our political life.
DM: Do you think Mr Cameron wants to do that? Are you disappointed in Mr Cameron, that in opposition he more or less said he would get a referendum in some form on our relationship with the European Union but no, nothing?
LF: Well I think it is very clear now that there is a very wide consensus in this country that there has to be a change in the relationship. John Major was talking about it at the weekend. So right across the political spectrum, certainly across the Conservative party, there’s an appetite for a renewed relationship so what I think we need to do is first of all determine what that settled relationship would be. I would want a minimum one, a customs union and a single market but that’s a decision we have to come to. Then I would like to see us put in our manifesto for the next election a time that we would set for our partners to renegotiate that with us with a referendum at the end and I think we should make it very clear to our partners that if they give us what we want, then we would stay in Europe on that basis of a common market …
DM: So just be clear what the Conservatives offer. You offer a renegotiation first in your manifesto at the next election, a renegotiation first which will be defined – some might say perhaps the referendum ought to come first in terms of what we actually want to ask for rather than renegotiate first and then have a referendum to rubber stamp it or not.
LF: I think we should make very clear what it is first of all that we want to renegotiate, as I say my view would be a common market and nothing more, others may have a different view but we need to decide that. Secondly, set out a period for negotiation with the referendum at the end, making it clear to our partners that if we get what we want we’ll recommend that we stay in on that basis but if they say to us we will tell Britain what its relationship must be, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that the British people would choose to leave. That is leaving the fate and the destiny of the United Kingdom in the hands of the British people, that’s the right thing to do.
DM: Well let me get back to that question I put to you about whether you think that’s likely to happen with the current leader in place because you’re hanging around with a lot of people who are disappointed in Mr Cameron, who feel he has reneged on what they say was a promise to hold a referendum.
LF: Well I look at the figures, I did an interview the other day and someone said to me, you must be really disappointed being in the doldrums politically like this in mid-term and as I pointed out, at the same point in his Premiership, John Major would have given his right arm to be only seven or nine points behind.
DM: Sure but on the issue of Europe and as I said, people are hanging around within this Conservative Voice group, there are a lot of people there who want a referendum right now and say David Cameron offered us that when we elected him leader back in 2005 and look at it, now he’s in power he’s not giving us one.
LF: Well I don’t want a referendum right now, I’m not one of those. There are a range of opinions on a referendum, when is the best time to have it. The reason I am against having it now is the same reason that David Cameron is against it, is that the choice would be now being right outside Europe or the status quo for a generation. That’s not a very good choice, I would much prefer to see a renegotiated position and then a referendum on that. I don't think that’s a million miles away from the Prime Minister’s position. There’ll be arguments on timing, that’s for sure but I’m not sure that the Prime Minister’s mind set is all that very different, I’m sure he would like to have a very different relationship from the one that we currently have with all the costs on our industry, all the jobs that that costs us in terms of international competitiveness and the difficulties that we have in governing ourselves as a free sovereign government.
DM: Do you think Mr Cameron is going to face problems within the party if he doesn’t address this issue because your voice in this, you are the very public face of it, we are having this discussion right now, we know what an issue it is within the Conservative party. If the Prime Minister wants to kick it into the long grass, will he have difficulties?
LF: I don't think it’s possible to kick an issue into the long grass that is going to be so dominant on the agenda. The eurozone crisis will rumble on, at some point they are going to have to say we need a change in the relationship to make what we want happen. That, as John Major was pointing out at the weekend, is exactly the point for us to say, you want a different Europe, fine, that’s good for you. We also want a different Europe that’s more in our image. We may not be alone, you see across Europe in other countries, in Finland, in the Netherlands, in the Czech Republic, sentiment moving away from this concept of a single European state and ever closer union. The question will be in these other countries, who has the say, the bureaucrats or the people?
DM: Okay, you’ve articulated a lot of ideas about the relationship with Europe and I mentioned this group that you’ve established with David Davis and others, Conservative Voice. I mean are you being a bit cheeky when you say you want to work alongside the leadership, surely you are a thorn in their side? You are talking about tax cuts and other growth measures that don’t seem like they are ever going to happen.
LF: The Prime Minister is in a difficult position, he has got a coalition to manage. Those of us in the Conservative party who are freed from the responsibilities of collective responsibility, we’ve got an opportunity to set out what we believe should be a Conservative agenda. We argued for these things in opposition, we didn’t get a parliamentary majority but that does not mean in any sense that we’ve stopped believing that they are the correct solutions to our problems. Supply side changes in our economy, labour market liberalisation to allow us to compete on an international basis, the alternative being a generation of young unemployed in Britain which should be unacceptable to all of us. So these are on-going arguments. You know, in most other countries in coalitions the two parties quite often will argue for their own party’s beliefs whilst continuing the necessary process of government. We inherited an economic emergency which we’ve had to deal with and full marks to the Liberal Democrats for recognising that. We’ve been able to carry out substantial welfare reform, two huge achievements for the coalition government.
DM: But how would you assess your strength, not in terms of the pure members, people who will attend Conservative Voice meetings but in terms of the message that you’re putting across on economic policy, on Europe? Would you say that is the majority of the Conservative party?
LF: They are certainly a large part of the Conservative party. We are a broad spectrum and in fact are at our strongest when we have our widest coalition but if we have a coalition that sees a number of our former voters going off to UKIP because they are unhappy with that part of the policy, maybe we should be asking how we can broaden that out again in terms of party policy. Mrs Thatcher had her biggest win in 1979, in terms of share of the vote. It dropped off in ’83 and ’87 and that is because the Conservative party then was at its broadest coalition, it represented the widest spectrum of political views in the country and it took people with her into a very successful time in office. We can replicate that, we mustn’t be afraid of debate on the big issues, on Europe, on security, on the economy and I think the more that we’re seen to be open and talking about these big important issues, the more people will actually be interested in politics because they are very turned off by all this froth about personality which seems to dominate political debate today.
DM: Exactly, so what would you say to those people then presumably who come up to you and say we like what we’re hearing, Dr Fox, we like the idea of Conservative Voice, we’re not happy with the Prime Minister, what do you say to them when this morning we hear oh we’ll give him to the May local elections next year then we might launch a leadership challenge, fourteen MPs writing letters to the 1922 Committee, what do you say to that?
LF: I think it’s utter rubbish.
DM: You think it’s rubbish it’s not happening or that they say that?
LF: I think it’s nonsense that there’s a threat to the Prime Minister. If any Prime Minister has not had fourteen disgruntled back benchers I’d be very happy, I’d be very surprised. I think that we first of all have got a very good Prime Minister, we have a very good leadership in the Conservative party and we need to fall behind it. We need to have a very robust debate but having a robust debate is not the same as undermining the leadership and I think that people have to recognise that for the Conservative party to win a majority next time, we need to get the policies in place that resonate with the British people. That’s how you get a majority, stop obsessing with personality.
DM: And your leadership ambitions are over, gone, done for good? You just want to be a sane voice from the back benches?
LF: I am much more interested in policy than I am in position and I would be dishonest if wasn’t able to say to you that I feel a bit liberated after seventeen years on the front bench. I want to see a majority Conservative government and whatever role I can play in policy formation in enabling that to happen I will be very happy because we are at the moment in politics the thin blue line that stands between our country and another catastrophic Labour government.
DM: Just lastly, you would be empowered if you were leader to put into place some of the policies that you are talking about or that aren’t being talked about now.
LF: I would much rather that we are just able to continue with the stability that we have at the moment, the reform we have at the moment but put into a place a manifesto that gives us a chance winning a majority at the next general election. I’ll play whatever party the Prime Minister asks me to do in making that happen.
DM: Dr Fox, very good to talk to you, thank you very much indeed for coming in today, Liam Fox there.
LF: Thank you very much indeed.