 Okay, you're all very welcome to the Institute of International European Affairs, Barry Andrews is my name, the Director General of the Institute. I think it's an occupational hazard of talking about Brexit that whatever notes that you prepare have to be replaced given the fluidity of the news cycle around this and but we're joined today by Hugo Dixon who is Deputy Chair of the People's Vote campaign and Editor-in-Chief of INFACTS. Let me give you a little bit about the background of Hugo. He's Deputy Chair of the People's Vote campaign, the organization calling for a public vote on the final Brexit deal and he also founded the movement INFACTS, a journalistic enterprise making the case for Britain to stay in the European Union. Hugo graduated from Oxford with a first-class degree in philosophy, politics and economics, having attended Eaton as a King's scholar. He worked with the Economist for a year after graduating before becoming a junior banking correspondent for the Financial Times. In 1994 he became editor of the Financial Times Lex column. He was involved in the writing of the Manifesto of the Social Democrats merger with the Liberals. In 1999 Mr. Dixon left his job at the Lex column in the Financial Times to co-found Breaking Views with Jonathan Ford, a former Financial Times colleague. I'll go through, he's won several awards for his journalism over the years. He founded INFACTS after the Brexit referendum, the journalistic enterprise. Just before the Brexit referendum actually. Okay, Stephanie says after her, the journalistic enterprise is dedicated to presenting the fact based case for remaining in the EU. Their mission statement reads, making the most of post-referendum Britain. Fighting again. You changed that. Yes. The destructive Brexit and campaigning to pull the UK together. So, ladies and gentlemen, please give a very warm welcome to Hugo Dixon. Great. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here and as you said it couldn't be a better day to talk about how Brexit can be stopped because we now have a deal. We haven't seen the full measure of it but it looks very like our parliament will vote it down and that will then pave the way for a people's vote. So I'm going to tell you a little bit about why no Brexit is a realistic alternative both to the deal that Theresa May has negotiated and to the crash out no deal option that a small number of hard line Brexiters advocate. Momentum is building for the people's vote. You probably saw we had 700,000 people marching in London in October. We had thousands of people at Westminster Hall for a rally yesterday evening and there is a big chance that this... I mean we don't know what's going to happen in the Cabinet. The Cabinet hasn't even started meeting our Cabinet. I think your Cabinet has already finished? Done and dusted. Our Cabinet doesn't start for an hour but my expectation... I mean I've been here all day so I don't really know what's going on in London today but my expectation is that somehow or other, if not today in a week, somehow or other, probably today but who knows, somehow or other Theresa May will get the Cabinet's permission to present the deal to Parliament. There may be some resignations on the way. There may not be resignations on the way. It may be that the Cabinet doesn't actually even give full approval for the deal. It just says we approve you putting it to Parliament which would be sort of like a neutral position for them to take. So what is the people's vote? Well it's a campaign demanding that the people should have the final say on Brexit and the choice should include an option to stay in the EU. We can come on to you know exact questions later if you wish. We do have backing. We have backing from business, lawyers, nurses, doctors, students, politicians, trade unionists and journalists and others. We've actually done much better at galvanising segments of public opinion than was done by the Remain campaign, the official Remain campaign in 2016. We have a whole series of sub-campaigns, women for people's vote, LGBT plus for people's vote, business for people's vote, NHS against Brexit. Our future, our choice which is a youth campaign that has the acronym OFOC and the students which is for our future's sake which has the acronym FFS which some of you know can stand for something else. Public opinion has shifted. It has shifted in our favour. I don't want to exaggerate it. It's not yet a dramatic shift. The latest big opinion poll for Channel 4 news had 54% wanting to stay in the EU versus 46% wanting to leave. That was a 20,000 person poll. I think at the beginning of last week it was published. There is also a majority among the public for wanting a people's vote and there is a big majority who thought, and this is before we've actually seen the deal, who thought that we were going to get a bad deal. The deal that has come out is a miserable deal. I'm calling it a deal that will turn us into a geopolitical eunuch. I don't know if that's a politically correct expression, but it would turn us into a rule taker in a huge swathe of areas not just over trade because this backstop that would keep the whole of the UK in a customs union would also contain so-called level playing field conditions which would tie the UK to EU rules on competition, policy, environment, employment, social policy, and maybe even some aspects of tax policy. Personally, I don't have any problem or very little problem with EU rules on those matters, nor do pro-Europeans in the UK. After all, we spent 45 years, along with our friends in Ireland and the rest of the EU, actually writing these rules. We've had quite a big influence over these rules. It was Maggie Thatcher who pushed so hard for the single market to be created in the first place. And on trade, often we've had important UK trade commissioners who have actually played a big role in the trade that we've done with the rest of the world. But it's quite a different matter to be writing the rules and negotiating the trade agreements in association with our partners elsewhere and being a rule taker with no say over what happens. We'll see what happens with this deal. It's very, very early days, but it's not only the problem is not only that it would turn us into a rule taker. It would actually not be good for our economy either because we would be pulling out of the single market for goods, although we would be in the customs union. So there still would be regulatory checks, albeit not custom checks, for goods at our frontiers. And we would not be in the single market for services, which is 80% of our economy and almost half our trade. I think it's about 40% of our trade with the EU is in services. And that's obviously some of the most profitable parts of our economy, particularly the city of London, are in services. So we're going to do all of this rule taking and we don't even protect the economy. And on top of that, huge uncertainty because the only certain thing for business is the 21 month transition once we leave, if we leave the EU. After that, who knows, does the backstop kick in? Or will the transition be extended? Will there be a new deal? What will that look like? Well, it's clear it would look something like the backstop. But exactly how would it look? And if we get into the backstop, when would we come out of the backstop? If at all. I mean, we could be stuck in the backstop for years, but without knowing any of this, how is industry supposed to invest? We've already gone from top of the G7 growth league to near the bottom. And that's because investment has slumped. So it's highly likely that this deal will be rejected in Parliament. There are, it's vulnerable. I mean, as you know, Theresa May doesn't have a proper majority anyway. She's dependent on the DUP. The DUP today says that it would vote against this deal. But it's not just the DUP. There's Boris Johnson and the hard-line Brexitas in the ERG. They sometimes boast 80, sometimes 50, sometimes 40. Anyway, it's not 80. But let's say they're 40. I mean, this is a terrible deal if you look at it from an ERG perspective. Boris calls it turning us into a colony, turning us into a vassal state. But it's also his brother, Joe Johnson, and the pro-Europeans. They're opposed to it. Several of them have come out today and said that they would vote against it. And then there is another potential vulnerability, the Scottish Conservatives. They don't like anything that could unravel the Union of the United Kingdom. And they're also worried about fish. Now, we haven't seen exactly what is going to be said about fish. It looks like the fish issue will be fudged, whether the fudge will win them over or not. I don't know. So now, what's her chance? Her main chance is to scare MPs, enough MPs, both the recalcitrant MPs in her party, the DUP and some Labour MPs, into supporting the deal with the threat that if you don't have the deal, you will crash out with no deal at all. And it's quite a reversal for the Prime Minister, because she spent the last two and a half years saying no deal is better than a bad deal. Now she's going to be saying a terrible deal is better than no deal. But the problem with her rhetoric is that that's not the real choice. At least we're fighting to make the real choice between a deal and no Brexit at all. And increasingly, this is viewed as a viable proposition in Parliament. And the more it's viewed as a viable proposition, the more likely it is to happen. I mean, in the early days of our campaign, we couldn't get people to take the idea seriously. They said, what do you mean, smoking Hugo? And then it was really difficult because if people didn't believe it was going to happen, didn't believe it even could happen, you couldn't get any media coverage. You couldn't get any money. You couldn't get activists to give any time. And you couldn't get politicians to think it was worth their while supporting it. And you probably couldn't have got a wonderful event here at the IIA. But we're here today partly because you think it might actually be an interesting idea to consider. But the critical audience for us now is indeed our MPs. And they believe that this is a viable option. And the other problem for the Brexitas, though, is although there will be on our side in voting down the deal, they don't have a viable alternative. Boris Johnson wants a Canada-style deal. He calls it super Canada. The only problem is he doesn't want an Irish backstop. Michel Barnier would be quite happy to negotiate a Canada-style deal with the UK if there was an Irish backstop. But without a backstop, no dice. Jacob Rees-Mogg says he would like to have a transition that goes straight after the transition into the WTO. And he's prepared to pay half our divorce fee to get that transition. But he also doesn't want an Irish backstop. The EU could say you can have your transition and you can go straight to WTO if you want. If you pay your entire divorce bill and you have an Irish backstop. But half the divorce bill? No Irish backstop? Well, you tell me. I don't think that's going to be viable either. The only, well, and then there are some other ideas that are not the hard-line Brexitas. There's this idea Norway for now, which is the UK joins Norway, joins EFTAR, stays in the EEA, doesn't have an Irish backstop, stays there for a few years, uses that position to negotiate a Canada-style deal without an Irish backstop. Well, I can't think Ireland would like that. I can't think the EU would like that. And Norway has already said it doesn't like that. So that seems like a pretty hopeless idea. Then there are others who say they'd like Norway forever. Now, that is theoretically possible. That's basically stay in the single market and in the customs union, the whole of the single market, not just the single market for goods and stay in it forever. But that means paying membership fees forever without a say over how that money is used. And that means free movement of people. Now, I personally am very much in favour of free movement of people, but it's a bit difficult for the Conservative government to embrace that position since it goes against everything they believe and everything that they put in their manifesto. So that seems pretty hopeless. And then, of course, you've got the Labour Party. And the Labour Party says it wants a jobs first Brexit. Sounds nice. It says it wants to stay in a single market and a customs union. But it doesn't want the bits of the single market and the customs union that it doesn't like. So it doesn't really want state aid controls. And it's not clear that it's really happy to have the full free movement of people. So that looks pretty hopeless. And then, of course, there is a viable option, although it would be pretty bad, which is just to crash out. No deal at all. No transition straight into WTO, even going straight into WTO is problematic because of our schedules not being accepted by the other countries. But this is also, although it is in a sense viable, it is politically hopeless because the Cabinet doesn't want it, the Prime Minister doesn't want it, the opposition doesn't want it. Most Tory MPs don't want it. The number who want it is probably that 40 hardliners in the ERG and perhaps not even them. So Parliament will not vote for no deal. When all of these other alternatives have been explored and found wanting, the people's vote will be the obvious solution. At the moment, we do not have a majority in Parliament for a people's vote. But once we've been through that process, we think we will get a good majority. Because once you've been through that process, Labour will swing behind a people's vote. Their current policy is vote against a deal that doesn't meet their six tests. This is so far away from their six tests. Then if they can vote the deal down, push for a general election, they will fail. We can explore that later if you wish. And then and only then back alternatives, the only one of which they mention is a people's vote. So they will, once you've explored all the others and found them wanting, they will be behind a people's vote, but also a significant amount of Tories, not just those who are currently supporting it, which is, I think, with Joe Johnson's support, I think we're up to nine. So it's not yet very many. But Amber Rudd, the former Home Secretary, has said on the record that she's backing the Prime Minister. But if it came to a choice between no deal and a people's vote, she absolutely prefers a people's vote. So we expect that we get a large number of Tories joining our camp then. Not now, but then we have to go through the full process. And we then think that the pro Europeans should be clear, the people's vote campaign is simply campaigning to get a people's vote. It doesn't take an official view on which side we would like people to vote. However, I as the chair of in fact, and as Hugo Dixon have been very transparent that I want to stay in the EU. And I think that pro Europeans will be well placed to win such a vote. Now, we're not complacent about it. But we need to continue to mobilize public opinion. But we think that compared to 2016, when the people have the choice of a fantasy Brexit, they will in a people's vote have the choice of a reality Brexit. And that reality will bear almost no resemblance to what was promised in 2016. But we need to do more than that. We need to make the positive case. And we need to make the positive case on two levels. And this is remedying the defects of the 2016 Cameron 2016 David Cameron campaign. The 2016 campaign was hobbled, because it effectively was an arm of David Cameron's Downing Street. And so it couldn't diverge from government policy. And it ended up with an almost entirely negative campaign. It is important to warm up the dangers of Brexit, but it is also important to make the positive case for being in the EU. And I make it I call it the three P's. Peace, power, and prosperity. And in that order, because although most of the discussion has been about economics and about prosperity, actually, peace is the most important. And power is the second most important. And prosperity is still extremely important. But we also need to make positive case on another level, which is we have to take seriously the reasons that led a lot of people to vote for Brexit in the first place, which were not about the EU. They were about how their lives were not satisfactory. It was about how towns that had been blighted by de industrialization had had not had investment for decades, frankly, since the early 1980s. There had not been enough investment in public services. We did not have the austerity that you had here in Ireland and in some of the other Euro crisis countries, but we still had a form of austerity. And that hit the poorest people in our society most. And there was a particular concern about lack of investment in the National Health Service. No wonder that the leave campaign preyed on those concerns with that lie about putting 350 million pounds a week into the National Health Service for money that we supposedly sent to Brussels and we never sent to Brussels because our membership fee, even the amount we send before we take off the amount that comes back is less than 350 million pounds a week. And also, we have to take seriously people's concerns about integrating migrations, integrating migrants. Now, it's this is not principally an issue with European citizens, because most European citizens who come to the UK already speak good English. But there are some concerns, some legitimate concerns about making sure that migration is properly integrated. Now, this again was not effectively addressed in 2016. If we get a people's vote, we will need to show how these concerns can be addressed and how they can actually be addressed more effectively if we stay in the EU than if we leave. And the argument is actually quite simple, time and money. If we leave the EU, this will not be the end of the process. Years after years, our political class will spend arguing about what sort of Brexit we want, who should be in charge, going through all the nightmare of changing the rules which will change, which won't change, etc, etc. They will not have the bandwidth, they will not have the time to address the fundamental issues that led many people to vote for Brexit. But they won't have the money either, because the economy will suffer compared to how it would otherwise perform. There will be less money to spend on public services. So our message really to our friends here is we can stop Brexit. To stop Brexit, we will need to have a people's vote. To gather people's votes, we will need a little bit of time. So if we ask for time, please give us time. And the final thing is to say, do not hide the truth of what this deal means. Do not pretend that it is any different from what it is. Fortunately, the Deputy Chief Negotiator for the European Commission has been revealed in the UK Times, the London Times today, actually spelling out very clearly what it means. It means that we will follow EU rules and that the EU will retain all the controls and the backstop will be the basis for any future deal. That is the truth. But do not try to put lipstick on the pig. Do not try to pretend that this deal means something that it doesn't mean. And then if we do hold a people's vote, and if we do decide to stay in the EU, let's work together to make our continent, I was going to say something Trumpian, but I don't think I am. We can work together. This is a dangerous world everywhere around. When you look around Europe, you look what you see. You see Russia, you see Ukraine, you see Turkey, you see Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia. Then you've got the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. You've got the rest of West Asia. There is danger all around. And you look across the Atlantic and you've got Donald Trump in the White House. And many Brexiters used to think, well, yippee, if they thought about Donald Trump, they thought, well, he's going to be our big buddy. He's more like a big bully. So let's work together. Let's work together and make our continent safer and more prosperous. And let's do it. The UK, Ireland and the other 26 countries. Thank you.