by Craig Oliver
After working it out, and listening to a lot of negativity, I say, ‘Hold on a minute. Isn’t this too good to be true? If you look at it through the other end of the telescope, we would have achieved a major shift in EU policy – changing the concept of freedom of movement. Surely that means it won’t happen?’
Others nod hard. It feels like another wild goose chase.
David Cameron agrees. But he’s convinced we need something in this space. He wraps the meeting up, ‘So we’ve got three things to be going at: an emergency brake on the number of migrants; a brake on the welfare payments they are allowed; and the redefinition of what a worker is.’
My worry is how complex all of this is becoming. We are dealing in concepts that are not easily grasped or translated – even to people who are at the centre of things.
Everyone looks nervous, wondering how the hell they’ll land any of this before the next European Council in just a few weeks. As of early January, it looks increasingly likely we won’t reach a deal by then. There’s a very real prospect of this dragging on – and that isn’t an attractive prospect for a number of reasons:
there’s a danger this process would clog up the arteries of government, making it the dominant, almost the only issue for months, perhaps even until the end of 2017 (the last date there can be a referendum).
there’s no evidence that holding out for longer would get a better deal; more likely Europe will think we are not serious. There are already signals from some Governments that they think we have given up anyway and are just time-wasting on the way out of the EU.
there could be another summer migration crisis.
and in politics, it’s always better to go when you have as clear an understanding of the landscape facing you as possible. Who knows where we will be at the end of 2017? The economy could be in recession, the Government facing a severe bout of mid-term blues, and the Eurozone back in crisis.
Today is becoming one long rolling headache of a Europe meeting. The cast changes, but the location – the PM’s office – doesn’t.
Next up is a discussion including the Chancellor about whether Liz Sugg, No. 10’s Director of Events (viewed by me as our secret weapon, because of her skill at organising events involving the PM with creativity and precision), Ameet Gill and I should be going to meetings with the ‘In’ campaign. Kate Fall worries that the PM will be criticised for pre-judging the renegotiation when it inevitably gets out. It’s putting a lot of trust in people we don’t know.
I take her point – but if everyone wants us to input into the campaign, there’s no way of doing it without being there. We’ll just have to take the consequences.
At this point George Osborne takes a deep breath and delivers a long speech beginning, ‘I’ve never met Will Straw, I’ve never met Ryan Coetzee, and I don’t even know the surnames of their media team … What I do know is they have never won anything in their lives.’ His point is they may be great – but he wants to be sure they are on the case, chasing things down aggressively, sorting the grid, deciding who’s going to go on the radio and TV. Essentially, these people do not traditionally wish us well in politics – how can we be sure we can work with them?
This sparks questions about whether we should set up a completely different campaign. I wince at this and say, ‘I understand the frustration, but the reason we can’t do things better is we are stuck in this crazy bind with the renegotiation. As far as I can work out – the Stronger In team are desperate for us to join forces. We’re starting to make inroads – and we’ll be able to do more.’ George seems to accept this, but spells out again that he wants people he can trust in there.
Without saying so, we have effectively decided to back the Stronger In campaign and given up on setting up an alternative.
Wednesday 6 and Thursday 7 January are spent debating the Prime Minister’s advice to Cabinet on the issue of collective responsibility during the referendum.
Some have gone back and read the 1975 Cabinet minutes on the Government’s plan for a referendum on the predecessor to the EU – the Common Market. What is striking (apart from the fact that the country seemed to be in a disastrous mess) is how concerned they were with the detail of it all – who was allowed to use the department copier, etc.
Today’s Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is clear these issues are just as relevant today. He says the first point to be made is obvious, that people will be expected to show good manners to each other.
Famous last words.
Twitter is alive with a question I expect to be cleared up very quickly: what is our position on Cabinet ministers who want to ‘Leave’ giving speeches in the Commons? Do they have to move from the frontbench to the backbenches to do so?
The PM is in no doubt – ministers should not be allowed to give Leave speeches in the Commons.
I didn’t expect that. ‘But hold on – you’ve just said you’ll suspend collective responsibility on this issue.’
George Osborne also believes we must not allow ministers freedom on this in the Commons. Anything else will be chaos. Someone describes this as the ‘Victorian father’ approach.
My concern is, will this approach survive contact with reality? ‘You’re creating a problem – but if your posture is relaxed, it will have far less impact if someone causes trouble.’
The PM’s view is that we need to be flexible. He describes the Commons as being like a pressure cooker: ‘We allow steam to build and then we let it off.’ Perhaps, but doesn’t that sometimes mean us looking weak and pushed around?
Various drafts of the letter go back and forth – with two areas of discomfort: what do we say about special advisers; and the issue of whether ministers will be allowed to speak from the backbenches.
The PM flies to Germany and the Chancellor is out delivering a speech on the economy. Both now agree we need to take a tough line. Others are nervous that we’re in danger of igniting a massive process row.
It’s agreed there’ll be a conference call with the PM.
He comes on a distant and crackly line, explaining he’s using the speakerphone on Ed Llewellyn’s BlackBerry. He’s just delivered a speech to Angela Merkel’s party and starts by saying, ‘Well, if the CSU were the only people we were negotiating with, we’d be home free.’ He confirms he’s hardened his line: we should be tough on special advisers campaigning and tough on ministers speaking in Parliament. He’ll explain this when he chairs political cabinet next week, which is when party political matters are discussed without civil servants being present.
Kate Fall wonders why we need to do any of this now. The PM agrees we could just leave it until the European Council on 17 February and hope it will be swept away by people declaring their positions while campaigning, but he suspects they won’t let it drop now.
I disagree with the position, but accept it, providing he doesn’t cave in on it. He says there may be a time when we need to let off steam. I wince a little, but stay silent.
The conversation moves on to Special Advisers – or SpAds – the political operatives employed by Cabinet ministers to do their bidding. Typically each has a couple – one to work on policy, one on the media. The PM says SpAds working for Leave ministers should only campaign in their spare time – whereas the rest can do what they want, because the Government position is likely to be to Remain. I reach for an analogy to show why this seems unnecessarily rigid to me, ‘Aren’t you in danger of sounding like the sheriff of Chinatown who says he won’t tolerate gambling and prostitution, when he knows it’ll be happening under his nose and he can’t do a thing about it?’
Others agree – we are likely to succumb on this if they get on their high horses and cry foul.
The PM goes back to his pressure cooker point – allow pressure to build, then let off steam. A couple of us have one more push, and ask, ‘Are you really comfortable with that? We stood firm on Purdah and relented. We stood firm on collective responsibility and relented … now this. We’ll look weak if we se
t things out and then back down.’
I half expect the PM to snap at us, but he understands we’re trying to chart a course through impossible waters, and finally rules, ‘Look – I recognise we are being tough – but we are doing it at a time when we have made a concession, so we look reasonable. This is about the Government not looking like a total mess.’
There is a long pause.
‘Okay,’ I say.
There is another long pause.
‘Okay,’ Kate says.
The PM ends the call – our course is set.
The truism that politics makes for strange bedfellows becomes abundantly clear that weekend. Peter Mandelson calls me for a conversation that lasts ninety minutes. I discover he’s the kind of person who wants to explore issues at length – sometimes interrupting his long monologues to ask someone in the background to bring in a heater or some other comfort. I’m happy to hear him talk – occasionally chipping in with a thought or two.
I ask him about the article he’s written for Newsweek, which was reprinted in that morning’s Times. It’s another reminder of how Corbyn is destroying the Labour party. His view is that the group running Labour aren’t interested in power in the short term – they want to ensure the Left secures its grasp, purging the party of Blairites like him. He suggests the question is not: should Jeremy Corbyn have Hilary Benn in his shadow cabinet? But: why is Hilary Benn having anything to do with Jeremy Corbyn?
Only then does he go on to talk about the Stronger In campaign. He believes it is a rudimentary cheerleader for Europe (held back while the renegotiation is going on) with a good core team. His main concern is the lack of someone who can liaise directly with No. 10 and the Conservative party. Without saying it, he’s asking me to think about how we make it happen.
He reassures me the Labour party will be on board, but the one block is that they fear the renegotiation will do a lot of damage to what they call ‘Social Europe’, the protection rights for workers.
Finally he set out three worries:
The docking of the Government and the campaign (again asking how this would happen and which big figure would be on board).
Immigration – the campaign has no core script on this and is not confident in its talking points.
The concern that the terror attacks on Paris, and the outrage over women being attacked in Cologne by immigrants, have the effect of making people fear that Europe is becoming a funnel for terrorism.
I assure him that Ameet, Liz and I will be engaging more.
Finally he talks with fascination about who from the Cabinet would be In – and who would be Out. He says if the Outers are limited to IDS (Iain Duncan Smith), Grayling, Villiers and Whittingdale, it will be a great thing.
It has become a tradition to start the New Year with an interview on The Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. That means getting up at an ungodly hour on a Sunday morning to ensure I have combed through the newspapers for any issues that might trouble the PM.
We have announced a plan on regenerating housing estates, which is leading the news – it’s a good demonstration that the Government will be about more than the referendum this year.
I feel reassured that after months of crap about us being on the back foot, the Out campaign is seen as being in trouble. The polling guru John Curtice says that at this stage they should be dramatically ahead because of the inevitable late squeeze. They are at best level in the polls. It’s exactly the kind of statement that gives us reassurance about how people will act.
The papers have spotted the chronic lack of leadership on the Leave side. On the one hand it could be a golden opportunity for someone to step in and give their career booster rockets, but on the other, it could be a disastrous choice. I can imagine the calculations going on for some – it’s a high risk bet: backing Leave could see them achieve glory that might not come their way otherwise, or see their career destroyed.
Arriving at No. 10, I text the PM to let him know I’m downstairs. I take a few moments to consider the historic cartoons that Chancellors have chosen to line the stairs running up to the PM’s flat.
Most of them are fairly weak, using heavy-handed metaphors and a buzz phrase of the day. I note Norman Lamont holding a watering can as he tends the green shoots of recovery – while a workman behind sharpens a scythe labelled ‘Public Sector Deficit’. Another is of Nigel Lawson reclining against a huge pile of fish as he lazily watches his line, taut with another fish on the end.
The PM comes bounding down the stairs carrying a large tennis bag, ready for a match with Boris Johnson later on the American ambassador’s court.
We go into his private office and he makes me an espresso from his private machine as I take him through a few things, including ensuring that he uses the phrase ‘a real prize is within our grasp’ when talking about the renegotiation.
The papers have a little on how the Home Secretary, Theresa May, is flirting with leading the Out campaign and we talk about how to handle it if it comes up. We decide he should point out she has a long record of defending the European Union.
We continue the briefing in the back of the car to Broadcasting House. When we arrive, DC suddenly realises he is wearing an old suit, which has worn through at the knee. We have to send for another one that is smarter.
The show is on air when one of the support team turns up with a choice of three suits. DC isn’t thinking and immediately takes off his trousers in front of us both. The poor breathless lady shoots me a surprised look before turning away.
The interview is a relative breeze. The first half on Europe including possible dates for a referendum; then what’s happening with the renegotiation; finally, the smart will have spotted him dropping a heavy hint that he may be prepared to give parliamentary sovereignty a boost – a way of filling out the final renegotiation package.
At the end of the programme, Marr tackles the issue of whether DC will stay on if we lose. There’s been a lot of discussion about this in prep. Ameet thinks he should make clear he would go – because people will realise just how tempestuous things will become by voting Leave, and that they are losing a good PM. DC believes that view is kind, but in reality it will mean the referendum is on the Government and him. We can’t let that happen. In the Scottish referendum, he famously asked people not to vote for independence just because it was ‘an opportunity to kick the effing Tories’.
My feeling is that if we lose the referendum our feet will not touch the floor as we are ejected from No. 10.
When asked, he says that he would stay on, though in his heart he knows there are almost no circumstances in which he would stay. His answer is about attempting to protect the campaign from turning into a referendum on him – and because he should not box himself in completely. We can’t be certain of the circumstances, whatever the outcome on 24 June.
The show is played out by Squeeze, singing a song called ‘From Cradle to Grave’ from their new album. When they are done, the PM applauds and the show is over. I think the band seem remarkably frosty to him – though Glen Tilbrook laughs as I tell him I saw him perform at Jeremy Vine’s fiftieth birthday party.
It soon emerges they’ve changed the lyrics of the song to complain about the destruction of the welfare state and council houses. I tell the PM this as he calls after his match with Boris. ‘Of course, all of them live in council houses,’ he says sarcastically. It’s a wilful misinterpretation of what we’re doing, which will actually improve lives, but I tell the media team to just shrug it off.
DC is in a good mood after beating Boris at tennis. After the match he speaks to him about Europe. Boris has hoped the President of the United States might want to visit one of his big London legacy projects. He’s reminded, ‘He’s not going to do that if you want to leave Europe.’
Boris has been flirting with Brexit, but clearly isn’t sure. We’re in for a tortuous wait before he finally shows his hand.
Chapter 3
Remind Me Whose Idea This Was?
&n
bsp; A MAJOR FOCUS OF the week beginning 11 January is who will be ‘In’ (with the PM) and who will be ‘Out’ (against him) in the event of a successful renegotiation.
Conversations keep circling back to what Theresa May will do. Some feel her past speeches will make it hard for her to go for Out. The PM believes authenticity would be a problem for her, so he thinks that she won’t – if you take a position that isn’t where your instincts lie, there’s a real prospect of being ‘smoked out’. He goes on to give a few more details of his meeting with Boris after tennis, saying he believes he can be brought on board by the prospect of a bill detailing that the UK Parliament is sovereign.
Coming into Downing Street just before 8 a.m. on 12 January, I spot Boris bumbling around, iPhone in hand. He looks even more of a mess than usual, with his hair particularly unruly and wearing a scruffy anorak.
I say, ‘Hello,’ and as we walk towards the front door he tells me he’s made the mistake of arriving half an hour early for political cabinet. Just before we get there and with the snappers and journalists within earshot, he suddenly raises his voice and says, ‘Now come on then, Oliver. Surely you admit we have to go for Brexit?’
The joke dispatched, he doesn’t even look at me before moving on to his next trick, staring at his phone and saying to an email or text he has apparently found there , ‘No, I do not want to write a piece on leaving Europe.’
It’s classic Boris, funny, not worried about who he embarrasses, and attention seeking.
As we go inside, I decide to tease him back on the subject of how his tennis game with the PM went. He says, ‘He needs to sink a few thousand into his backhand!’ I note how he’s skilfully had a go at the PM, without revealing that he was beaten by him. He settles down in the Thatcher Room and I ask one of the team who are setting up for the day if they mind bringing him a cup of coffee.
Political cabinet begins with a presentation by me on the current state of the Labour party and how we should handle them. I’m under no illusion that it’s been stuck in there as a filler, so the letter giving advice on collective responsibility isn’t the only topic of conversation.
