Podcast: You Brexit, You Buy It with David Miliband

Transcript

Listen: How will the UK (and Europe) get out of the Brexit mess that they're in? Ian breaks it down and then talks with the International Rescue Committee's CEO David Miliband, who also happened to be UK Foreign Secretary for a time. They'll talk Brexit and the geopolitics of humanitarian crises around the world.

TRANSCRIPT: You Brexit, You Buy It with David Miliband

David Miliband:

Extremes in economics can produce extremes in politics. We have to do a better job at figuring out what are today's answers in political economy. In a population, some of whom fear that for the first time in three generations, their kids are going to be worse off than they are.

Ian Bremmer:

Hi, I'm Ian Bremmer, and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast, an audio version of what you can find on public television, where I analyze global topics, sit down with big guests, and make use of little puppets. This week I sit down with former UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, on British parliament's vote on Brexit. Then we'll dig into his current focus as CEO of the International Rescue Committee. Refugees. I'll ask David Miliband, the son of refugees himself, how governments address and ignore the issue in 2019. Let's get to it.

Announcer:

The GZERO World is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of service, safety and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.

Ian Bremmer:

David Miliband, former Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and head of the International Rescue Committee. Great to be with you.

David Miliband:

Nice to be with you.

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, we can shake hands. We can do that. That's allowed.

David Miliband:

I'm happy to shake hands.

Ian Bremmer:

Get in there, yeah.

David Miliband:

This is public television, so I'm not sure you're allowed to do that.

Ian Bremmer:

It is. We can touch. We're men. It's okay. Let's start with Brexit. You say we need another vote. Why do we need another vote?

David Miliband:

Because the Brexit deal that was offered in 2016 is not on offer. The Brexit referendum was won with a promise of more money for the Health Service, promises of trade deals around the world. 40 would be signed within seconds of leaving the EU, according to Liam Fox, now the head of the trade department. And I think there's not just an economic case, but a political case for a vote to affirm whether or not people want to go ahead with the deal that has been negotiated, or whether they want to step back from the decision. In the same way that when you buy a house, you put in an offer, you then do a survey. When you do the survey, you have the right not to go ahead with the purchase if you find out that it's got-

Ian Bremmer:

Things that are damaged, for example.

David Miliband:

And so I think that there is a democratic case for that. There's also an economic case, because I think the British people have learned and come to understand and come to see, really, over the last two and a half years, that the integration of the UK with the rest of the European economy belies the facile statistic that was given that the fastest growing economies are outside Europe. Ergo, we should leave our association with Europe. Even on the trade matter, it's not just that half Britain's exports go to the rest of the EU; the EU has trade negotiations, trade agreements with 70 other countries that comprise another 15% of Britain's global trade. So I think there's an economic case and a political case.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, define for me ... I mean, if we were to have another referendum, it says what? Tell me what the language on that piece of paper is that the Brits are going to go and vote for.

David Miliband:

Well, there's language that I could suggest. "Do you support the prime minister's deal for withdrawal from the European Union, or do you want to stay in the European Union on the current terms?" But I want to make a different point. One of the lessons of referendums around the world, for example, in Ireland, which has had two referendums in the last three or four years, Ireland has had two referendums that have shown the way to have a referendum that doesn't leave the country split asunder on core issues-- abortion, gay rights, issues that go to the core of the identity of the country. Because of the way citizens were involved in drawing up the question, debating the answer, coming to a conclusion, the losers in those referendum debates didn't feel that they'd been betrayed. There was a sense of legitimacy. Now, what you have with the cavalier way that the referendum was run in 2016, three months after a shotgun referendum straight after David Cameron finished his negotiations, means that no one's happy. Neither the Brexiteers nor the Remainers are happy, two and a half years further forward. And that's why people talk about a constitutional crisis as well as a political crisis in the UK.

Ian Bremmer:

So do you think that there can be political agreement on what a referendum would be?

David Miliband:

Yes, of course there could be. If Parliament decides it wants to go down a referendum route, a so-called people's vote route, then of course it could do. I'm not saying that's the only outcome. You've got a situation now of what I've called a game of four-way chicken, where different groups are arguing either for the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated, for no deal. Some argue that we should leave with no deal at all. Others are arguing that there is a so-called Norway deal, which is a softer version of Brexit, closer adherence to European rules. Or there's people like me, arguing for a further referendum.

David Miliband:

Now, the danger obviously is that the clock ticks towards March the 29th, which is the Brexit day. And for an American audience, I think there's a broader question here. Britain was the country where populism first struck gold. It struck gold in the referendum of 2016 before the election of President Trump. I'd prefer to call it nationalism or nativism... has struck. And so there is a global significance as well as a European and British significance to the trauma that Britain is going through. Because the truth about the Brexit referendum is that those who argued for Britain to leave the European Union articulated anger about the state of the country, but had no answers for the state of the country. And that is the story that we're seeing in other countries around the world. An articulation of anger, a surfing of the wave of anger. But as you're seeing in the US, a government elected on a wave of anger but without answers is not able to address the root causes of the problems that it has identified. And that's certainly the case in the UK at the moment.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, you've talked a lot about the political process inside the United Kingdom. You haven't talked so much about the functionality of Europe itself. And even if the Brexit process has so far been a dog's breakfast-

David Miliband:

Or even a dog's Brexit.

Ian Bremmer:

Even a dog's Brexit, the longer term of Europe certainly doesn't seem as attractive as what the European experiment was set out to be.

David Miliband:

Remember, we've had the longest period of peace and prosperity in European history, and the European history is thousands of years. So this has been a remarkable period. We've also had, secondly, the largest expansion of peaceful democratic governance to the East than ever before. Real problems in Hungary and in other parts of Eastern Europe, which we can come to. But the European Union is now 28 countries, the world's largest, richest single market. It's a global player, thirdly, in the multilateral scene. And when you look at the problems that exist in the UN and elsewhere, you look at the EU and the way it's addressing some of the problems it faces, the report card I would give is yes, massive problems still remain. Governance of the Euro, handling of refugees, renewing the productive capacity of the economy, addressing youth unemployment, which is the big issue in Southern Europe. Those are real questions. But the resilience of the European project, the fact that in countries like Italy, populist or nativist, nationalist governments elected on an anti-EU ticket pretty soon actually relegating that part of their agenda because they realize, even in Italy, 59, 60% of the population are still very supportive of European membership. Countries like Poland, government very cautious in the runup to European elections now in May this year, worried about how an anti-European agenda plays.

David Miliband:

So I would say don't write off the European effort as having failed. Yes, there are big problems, but its resilience over the last 10 years since the financial crisis has, I think been more remarkable than its problems. Extremes in economics can produce extremes in politics. And there are extremes of inequality that exist in the UK, and that produces a demand for radical change. So at some level, I think you're right to think that the economics is driving the politics. I think there's also a more, if you like, self-critical aspect to this. I came of political age in the '90s and the 2000s, when economics and politics seemed to be in quite good alignment. I know that we're living through a time when there are more refugees and displaced people, not immigrants, people who are driven from their homes by conflict or persecution than at any time-

Ian Bremmer:

Any point since World War II.

David Miliband:

Exactly. 68 and a half million people, 28 million refugees and asylum seekers. That means people who are driven from their homes, cross borders, and therefore designated refugees-

Ian Bremmer:

Despite all the wealth that we see growing in the world, all the people coming into the middle class, the refugee problem is greater today than at any point-

David Miliband:

Yeah, but that shouldn't be surprising to you, because refugee flows are not related to wealth.

Ian Bremmer:

No, I understand. I'm just saying that for our audience here.

David Miliband:

But for the audience, the interesting thing is, before we even come to talk about immigration, people who are leaving their homes in search of a better life, we're talking about people who are forced from their homes, fleeing for their lives. 28 and a half million of them crossing borders. Syria, six million refugees. Afghanistan, two and a half million. 40 million people displaced within their own home countries as a result of conflict.

David Miliband:

Now, on top of that, you've got people who are fleeing because of poverty, who are on the move as a result of poverty or insecurity. They wouldn't qualify as asylum seekers or as refugees, but they are part of an immigration debate around the world. One of the lessons that I think is very important is that we understand that there's a different set of issues at play in an immigration debate than in a refugee debate. Just one example; in a debate about immigration, the needs of the host country are the starting point. In the debate about refugees, the needs of the individuals come first.

Ian Bremmer:

So I was precisely going to ask you that, which is that you have now been in a position where you have worn both hats.

David Miliband:

Worn both hats, yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes, you've worn both hats. And I'm wondering, how that makes you think. Before we talk about the refugee hat, how that makes you think about the United Kingdom and the needs of the British nation, the British people in response to their changing views on immigration.

David Miliband:

Well, look, there's a very simple point to make. You have to manage the flow of people in the same way that you have to manage the flow of capital or manage the flow of goods. You have to regulate the market, otherwise it overshoots.

Ian Bremmer:

You just put out your list of the top conflicts to watch in terms of these refugee areas. Number one on that list, if I remember correctly, was Yemen. So it's reverse alphabetical order. Yet we do have a ceasefire that seems to be in place and holding right now in this port of Hudaydah. Are you getting a little bit less pessimistic about what's happening on the ground there?

David Miliband:

So, really good to start with Yemen, for a number of reasons. One, it's a war that has produced today's humanitarian crisis, both refugees and displaced people. And in Yemen, it's more about displacement than about refugees. It's driven by war and conflict more than anything else. Secondly, the rules of war are not being observed. Remember, since the Second World War, the international system built a set of conventions that are now not being honored. We are living in a world where there is impunity rather than adherence to international norms. Thirdly, it's a conflict that is a civil war, because it started with the Houthi rebels overrunning the government, but immediately the regional actors came in. And you've got Iran on one side, Saudi Arabia on the other side. Saudi Arabia, UAE backed by the United States and others. And fourth, you have a UN that for four years has struggled to get in the door.

Now, you've got an experienced diplomat who's managed to create this ceasefire in part of the country. We, the International Rescue Committee, have about 230 staff on the ground in Yemen, mainly Yemenis, both in the north of the country, where the Houthis are in control, and in the south of the country where a range of governmental forces are there. In answer to your question, is it better to have a ceasefire, albeit a fragile one, now than four or five weeks ago when we didn't have one? Yes. Does that make you optimistic? Not yet, because it's not yet a plan for peace. And I think it's really important that there have been some recent reports in the last couple of days of renewed fighting, renewed reinforcements, breaches of the ceasefire and reinforcements on both sides. And so I think it's far too early to say that Yemen is in the ... it's still in the 'to do' box, rather than the 'done' box.

Ian Bremmer:

Is humanitarian aid starting to actually flow into the country?

David Miliband:

On a very limited basis. What people need to understand is the port of Hudaydah, that you rightly mentioned is the focus of the ceasefire, 80% of humanitarian and commercial goods comes through that port. And so it's been under an absolute choke-hold. There's still a very, very tight choke-hold. We're running malnutrition clinics across Yemen. The UN is still warning that 14 million people are facing malnutrition in a population of 25 million. So it's a desperate situation.

And for the first time in the last month, really probably you'd say since the murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, finally there's been some interest in the global media in the Yemen crisis. Because obviously, it's been going on for four years. It's been very hard to get anyone interested in it at all. Has it produced a change? Well, there has been some change in that the Saudi-led coalition did let Houthi soldiers out for medical treatment. The Houthis did turn up at the ceasefire-

Ian Bremmer:

Diplomatic talks. Yes.

David Miliband:

We're not yet into fully fledged peace talks. In the end, if people think they're not going to get education for their kids, they're going to move on. And that's how you ended up with a European refugee crisis in 2015.

So my call is to say, "Get serious about the conflicts that are happening and stop the culture of impunity that allows 43 children in northeastern Yemen to be bombed by the Saudi-led coalition with US support. Secondly, get serious about support for the refugee hosting states. And take responsibility. Don't run away from the UN refugee compact." States should be saying, "Yes, we'll play our role in refugee resettlement for those who are most vulnerable." And I always used to put the numbers back into the frame for my own former constituency in the northeast of England. And people say to me, "Well, should Britain take more refugees?" And I say, "Well, at the moment, South Shields," which is my constituency, "Is taking six refugees a year, every parliamentary constituency on average." No one is going to tell me that 12 refugees are going to overwhelm the town of South Shields. You're not going to persuade me that 20 refugees are going to overwhelm the town of South Shields. In the UK, a parliamentary constituency is 65,000 people, just for reference. And so I think put at that level, you can see-

Ian Bremmer:

But you've said before, you said precisely that the places where you have the greatest opposition, the fear, are precisely the places that aren't diverse. So how do you convince them-

David Miliband:

Well no, the place with the greatest opposition is the place with the fastest change.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes.

David Miliband:

And frankly-

Ian Bremmer:

Six to 12 is not a fast change.

David Miliband:

Correct.

Ian Bremmer:

Got it. Very good. David Miliband, good to meet you.

David Miliband:

Thank you very much.

Ian Bremmer:

My pleasure.

Ian Bremmer:

That's our show this week. We'll be right back here next week, same place, same time, unless you're watching on social media, in which case it's wherever you happen to be. Don't miss it. In the meantime, check us out at gzeromedia.com.

Announcer:

The GZERO World is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company understands the value of service, safety and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.