Danielle: Thank you very much for joining us.
So let's dive right in and ask a difficult question.
I think you really struggled with the question of what to do on the issue of what's been
come to call “Brexit.”
How did you come to your conclusion that you would oppose Brexit?
Javid: I think it's fair to say it's been a difficult decision for a lot of people,
and many people probably find themselves in a similar position to me where your heart
pulls you in one direction, which is either to state, "Why doesn't Britain become more
independent and leave the EU?"
But on the other hand, you need to also use your head and all the knowledge you've accumulated
over years.
In my case, it's not just my time as a politician the last five years, both in the treasury,
and now as the business secretary in Britain, but also 20 years working in business.
And to me, it just became clear that in terms of our economic interests, our long-term economic
prosperity, it's much better to stay part of the European Union, but also to take advantage
of this special status that Britain will have.
And what I mean by that is that already Britain is not part of the Euro, it's not part of
the Schengen passport-free system, and now David Cameron has gone further and actually
carved Britain out of one of the key commitments of the EU up until now, which is ever closer
union.
And Britain is the only one of the 28 countries that is carved out.
So I think we get the best of both worlds.
We can have much more independence and flexibility, and that's great, but also take advantage
of the single market, which is 500 million consumers, the largest of its kind in the
world.
Danielle: So thoughtful conservatives, Tories in the U.K., who I know you respect, may be
friends with, have come out on the other side, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson.
Quite a surprise to me, I confess.
They're balancing the same things you are.
Why did they come out on the other side, do you think?
Javid: I think that just goes to show how difficult it has been for so many people,
and so first of all, you're absolutely right, both of those people I hugely respect.
They're both my friends.
And so what you'll find is that there's people that are heavyweights, hugely respected intellectuals
and business people and stuff, on both sides of the argument.
But at the end, you've got to make your judgement.
And part of it is there's uncertainty of course because if Britain stays in the EU, I don't
pretend that everything is certain.
Of course things might come along that you didn't expect.
But if Britain leaves the EU, then I think there's much more uncertainty, and where it
becomes much more difficult for people that support that course of action is to explain
what the alternative looks like.
And so it's a very big debate, and I actually think in the end, it's good to have people
that are well respected on both sides of this debate because you don't want to keep having
this debate again and again.
And I think to have it properly thought through and allow the British people to make the decision
that ultimately we will all accept, it's good that you've got the heavyweights on both sides
of the argument.
Danielle: How did we come to this?
There are people who are free riding on the migrant crisis, and the camp at Calais, and
what's happened in Germany to suggest that this is the fuel behind the Brexit fever.
But of course there was Brexit fever even before the migrant crisis.
What's the EU done wrong?
Sajid: Well, this has been a long-running debate in Britain, well ever since...that
you can look back decades, this has been an issue.
And I think fundamentally what it goes back to is if you look back at...you go right back
and think why was the EU created in the first place, the predecessor organizations, for
most of continental Europe, I think for all of it, it was a reaction to World War II.
It was about how do we bind countries in Europe closer together so they never have to go through
that kind of horrific killing and that kind of thing ever again.
And clearly, if you're more economically bound, then it's going to bring you together.
And so that's perfectly sound and perfectly reasonable.
For Britain, when Britain joined much later, it was much more about the economics and it
always has been.
It was about the single market and having all these consumers on your doorstep, being
able to sell your products without customs checks and any problems across all these borders.
And that's got a value.
And actually it was Margaret Thatcher that was the biggest advocate of the single market
and rightly saying that to make it work properly, you're going to have to have some sharing
of sovereignty to set the rules.
And everyone sort of accepted that.
But it comes with lots of other things that people don't like.
So for example, you mentioned migration flows, and that's been a long-running issue.
Not the recent migration we're seeing, but more the legal migration even has been an
issue for many British people.
And so it's I think a different viewpoint for Britain versus the rest of Europe that
has caused this tension.
And it's eventually got to a point where I think quite rightly David Cameron said, "Look,
this has been a long-running issue, and we should settle it for this generation.
Because it's absolutely right that this generation didn't vote for the kind of relationship that
we have today.
So let them have a say.
Let's have the argument, but let the British people decide.
Danielle: It's interesting, we have seen, since the end of World War II, ever closer
union in Europe, whether it was inside the EU or it was simply the product of shared
interests after the end of that era, also a shared enemy in the Soviet Union.
But now for the first time in the last few years, we've really started to see the Europe
that we know coming apart a lot more, whether it's the question, even just the question
of the U.K. leaving, or it's the collapse of Schengen in the face of hundreds of thousands
of refugees, or the arguments that are going on internally about shared burdens, or the
Greek economic crisis.
What's happening to the EU?
Javid: Well, there clearly are these challenges, and on top of that, you can add things that
aren't directly to do with the EU, but such as Ukraine, and Russia, and what's happened
there.
So they have challenges for Europe, and what it does require to one extent, it does show
you that when you think of the migration flows, which are particularly acute for Greece and
Italy right now, whether there was an EU or not, these problems and challenges would probably
still be there as well.
If you assume that Syria's problem is not to do with the EU, which I don't think that
anyone is claiming that, you'd still have possibly millions of migrants coming to Europe,
and it would still be a Europe-wide a problem, and these migrants will still want to spread
out through Europe.
So isn't it better to actually have some mechanism to try and coordinate and cooperate however
imperfect that looks at the moment?
The other side of the coin, we've talked about the challenges, but the single market itself
is working.
I don't think many people question the ability of the single market or what it has achieved
in terms of helping to raise people's incomes by having this zone where you can trade freely.
And it's something Americans would understand.
But imagine if you had lots of borders and customs controls between different states
in the U.S. what that would do to the economy, how it would raise costs.
So it's not perfect, the single market yet.
It's getting better.
It's adding more and more services to what you can trade.
But I think people, ultimately, they need to balance out their positives with all their
challenges that rightly exist.
Danielle: There was a day that I might've said Americans would understand, but right
now, our leading presidential candidates from both parties are against free trade.
Javid: Well, actually the EU has free-trade agreements with I think almost 55 territories
and countries around the world.
I think for the U.S., it's like one-fifth of that.
And so it isn't organization at its best, they can be much more open with the rest of
the world and say, "Look, common trade with us."
And I think ultimately that's a good thing.
Danielle: Right.
That means jobs, prosperity—you have no argument from me.
A lot of people that I talk to inside the EU who are concerned about the refugee flows
really blame Angela Merkel in Germany.
They say that she has violated the rules of the Schengen Agreement, that she has exacerbated
a problem that was there and had nothing to do with Europe as you rightly say.
Do you see that as accurate?
Javid: I think it's a bit too simplistic for people who take that view.
I think on the one hand, others would say that Germany has shown a very compassionate
approach.
They've seen the suffering around the world, and they've sat there and thought about how
can they help.
And they've taken that approach.
And I'm not going to criticize them for that.
That's their approach.
Our approach in the U.K. has been very different though, and I'm pleased with the way that
we've handled it, which is to say, "Yes, absolutely.
It's incumbent on every rich nation I think to try and help refugees around the world."
And the approach the U.K. took was to say, "It's better to help these people closer to
their home," because first of all, easier to provide that help.
So Britain has given well over 1 billion pounds in the last couple of years to help Syrian
refugees, which is second only to the United States.
It's more than almost all the other European countries put together.
And also eventually I think everyone accept there's some point, it might be hard to believe,
but Syria, the fighting will stop.
And people will want to go back to their home to rebuild.
It's much easier to do that if you're in Jordan, or Lebanon, or Turkey, than if you've resettled.
And so it's important to help rebuild your community as well.
So the kind of support that we've provided, which is everything from refugee camps, to
education, to health care, I think that's what really makes a difference on the ground.
Danielle: So let’s talk about the problem on the ground then.
We've all been dis-investing in defense, all of the NATO allies, the United States included.
And we're not doing very much in the Middle East about what's happening in Syria.
We're not doing a lot against ISIS.
There's a lot of argument about it.
Do you think we should be doing more?
And when I say we, I mean not just the U.S. obviously, but the U.S., the U.K., and the
Allies.
Javid: Well, we are.
First of all, the U.K., we've had a big debate in the U.K. quite recently on whether we should
extend our airstrikes into Syria.
And fortunately that debate was won by Prime Minister Cameron, and he made a very strong
case and got actually eventually a huge amount of support in the British Parliament.
And at the same time, by the way, a few months back, Prime Minister also announced that Britain
will meet its 2% commitment in terms of GDP spending on defense...
Danielle: Are you now the only one in Europe...?
Javid: I think we're probably the only one or one of the few in NATO actually that are
meeting that commitment.
So I think it says a lot about the U.K. and how it's willing to play its role, but of
course, in terms of playing a role in Syria and trying to end the suffering, no one country
can do it alone.
So does require U.S., U.K., our allies to work together.
The heavy lifting in Europe has been done by France and Britain, and we work very well
together with France on that.
But it does require the U.S. to stay involved.