Brexit.
There
was a 72% turnout of British
citizens
in Britain who voted and, in
effect,
37% voted to leave.
It's hardly an
overwhelming mandate but it
indicates
a sense of the division in
Britain.
I
think that division reflects
very much
it the stupidity of a
referendum on a
very complex subject.
Not only the
stupidity, but the
devisiveness of the
issue in terms of class, in
terms of
the growth of insecurity and
the
growth of austerity with the
Government.
So the Government was
asking to remain when they
were
pursuing policies of
austerity which were
increasingly in securities.
This is relevant for our
later discussion because it's
happening in other parts
of Europe.
If you have your citizenry
becoming more and more
insecure, and
feeling aggrieved, then the
Government
says "Vote for us to
remain." Don't be
surprised if a large number
of them
revolt against that.
I think we also
have a terrible situation
because
David Cameron, the prime
minister at
the time, has said recently
that he
doesn't regret calling the
referendum.
He regrets the outcome.
That seems to
me an exercise in se
mantices that I
don't appreciate.
We don't have a
tradition in British
democracy of a
referenda.
We are a representative
democracy.
We believe in Edmund
Burke's principle.
We elect people to
represent us even if we may
not agree
with them.
I think we're in danger of
repeating some of these
errors that has taken place
in Brexit today and
there's one other issue I'd
like to
mention at the beginning
because it
affects every single
democracy today,
which is that we're seeing a
corruption of democracy
dominated by
pollute  -- plutocatic
donors and
owners of the media who can
manipulate
opinion.
This is an unprecedented
situation which is powerful.
We know
in Britain the Brexit vote
was
influenced by Cambridge
Analytica and big money went
into the Brexit
campaign.
Ironically, many of the
leaders of that Brexit
campaign are
now rushing to leave
Britain.
The richest man in Britain
has promptly gone off to live
in Monaco, a tax
haven, because he doesn't
want to pay
British taxes.
>> Who is that?>>
Ratcliffe.
He's just been knighted and
then he rushes off and he
moves to a
tax haven, openly saying it.
The same
with Dyson, the most
dramatic
entrepreneur who led in the
Brexit
thing.
He's now moving his company
to Singapore.
Very interesting choice of
place, a tax haven.
He says it's got
nothing to do with Brexit
but it's very strange.
And one of the titles
that's being used to
describe the
prospect of Brexit in
Britain is
Singapore on Thames, which
is rather
appropriate given what he's
done.
But we have a whole string of
people
rushing to take out
residency in
France, like Nigel Lawson
and Nigel
Farage, making sure his
children have
German passports and so on.
So we have
a very split situation and I
think the bitterness in
Britain is going to last for
a long time.
Whatever happens, whether we
have a second vote, which
is the route I prefer, or we
have the May's deal which is
very controversial but a lot
of the no deal people are
desperate to clamber onto
that or some other
compromise.
We're going to have a
bitterness that stretches for
decades, I believe.
>> Jules.
>> So I confess, I looked at
this slightly differently.
When I was thinking about
Europe after Brexit, whilst
there's a huge amount I don't
know, I was
thinking Europe after
Brexit, let's
imagine there is less
uncertainty.
So from me, seeing this from
London I can see two trends
that come with less
uncertainty.
The first is I think a
really large resurgence of
human
relationships that have
found uncertainty to be quite
a blocker.
There has been a really
large amount
of pragmatism beneath the
politics that I have seen in
my daily
engagements with
entrepreneurs from
across the continent,
particularly our digital
entrepreneurs for whom many
issues are global, not
regional
anyway.
But for each chink of clarity
I think we get, I think
we'll see that pragmatic
energy grow and the reason I
say that is I think it
reflects the many inter
dependencies that we have.
This is not to under estimate
the importance of frameworks
that go with it but the inter
dependencies we have in terms
of finance, talent, tech
across our European
continental
ecosystem areville
significant.
We're a powerful ecosystem of
powerle cities and actually
the report that came out
on Monday at the start of
Davos, they
had the ten most powerful
city s in
the world and four are
European.
London remains a city that
attracts
more FDI projects than any
other city
in the world.
We see so many
city-to-city collaboration.
But our entrepreneurs have
been itches for
certainty and clarity and I
have been quite struck by the
levels of confidence that
there will be ways
through.
So I take reassurance in that
level of pragmatism that
when uncertainty starts to
reduce we will start to see
that collaboration come
through from the factors that
pull us together.
The second thing that I think
will be positive from a
reduction in uncertainty is
to - all the energy, effort,
brainpower that
has gone into this issue,
particularly
on the UK side, but actually
across
European countries, has been
significant at a time when,
again, sitting in Davos, you
have a time to lift your
heads up and think about the
fourth industrial revolution,
the shared opportunities, but
goodness, shared challenges,
much of which, I
think, is integral as to why
these issues are facing us
from Brexit in
the first place.
But there are so many
shared values we have I
think for many people there
was a lot we took for granted
that perhaps we now
appreciate a little bit more.
But when we talk about our
shared liberal values, our
shared diversity as a
European continent, the
importance we put around
equality, these are things
that when we talk about the
future of AI and ethics,
Europe needs to be firing on
all cylinders right now.
It's really important that
our voice is heard at the
global table.
So for me the reduction of
uncertainty, the reduction of
finance going into
contingency planning but
actually being put into
issues where we all really
need to be fighting together
when we share so much.
That for me is something I
look forward to.
>> Martin.
>> OK, I'm - nobody said
anything I disagree with so
that's a bit disappointing
but it means I don't
need to go over the history
of the referendum, which Guy
went through
very well, and some of the
characters
involved can be described
pretty
accurately.
I thought you were rather
restrained, actually.
And the London
and cities, I've been a
Londoner all
my life.
I recently wrote about that.
So put this to one side.
So let's
focus on this.
I want to divide my
discussion into what it means
for the UK and what it means
for Europe and I will try to
cover it very, very quickly
so it will be very terse and
there will be lots of points
I can't elaborate.
So the first point is the
uncertainty will not be
removed on March 29.
>> Not then.
>> It depends
on the path we then follow
but in many respects the
uncertainty is bound to
remain for years, if not
decades
afterwards, and I will
explain why and I will go
through the different parts.
So first of all, we don't
know what
Parliament will, or whether
Parliament
will agree on anything and
therefore
we don't know what will
happen on
March 29 in the following
respects.
We don't know whether the
Prime Minister's deal will
ultimately be passed.
I think that's quite possible
and Brexit is moving in that
direction, as she expected.
So the
chances are significant.
It is quite
possible that no deal will
be reached by Parliament and
in theory we crash
out.
I'll come to that.
And it is also possible that
Parliament will agree
and seek and gain an
extension to the
article 50 vote, exit
possible, or
probably in order to have a
second
referendum.
These are also possible
outcomes.
And they all obviously have
completely different
implications for subsequent
uncertainty.
If the Prime Minister's deal
goes through, the
uncertainty is, in a sense,
least but all we've decided
is the withdrawal.
We have not decided, and
indeed have
not begun to negotiate quite
deliberately the post Brexit
trade
deal.
It's clear that that will be
very difficult.
The Brexiters will
want to go back to Canada
and Canada
is imcompatable, the Canada
free trade
area is incombatable with
the Irish
backstop.
We don't know how that will
be resolved.
If we have a change of
government, which is
possible, it is very likely
what the Labour Party would
pursue in government would be
a very different trade deal
from what
the  Conservative Party
would seek.
There's total uncertainty,
even with
the Prime Minister's deal,
about the
subsequent trade with the UK
and the rest of the world.
It could take years
to resolve those.
I won't go through
the timetable is granted is
currently
only a couple of years but
it could be extended.
If there is no deal, nothing
is resolve ed because no
deal is meaningless.
There will be a huge
number of deals that would
have to be agreed after no
deal on almost
anything including how our
aviation
works, important regulatory
areas, I
can't go through all of
them.
Immediately start
negotiating in a completely
different environment, that
would be a mess, that is
clear, and our future trading
policy outside in this no
deal world would be also
completely uncertain because
we would have to re-establish
WTO membership and a whole
lot of other things which
will be very, very
complicated.
And of course, if we have
another referendum, nobody
knows what will happen in
that referendum.
It could be any one of the
possible outcomes, or even
what will be on the table of
this referendum.
The important to understand,
we have consign ed ourselves
to a multiyear with mess
which, in my view, and this
is where I part company with
my
colleague on my right, will
create an
enormous, ongoing cost for
the UK and its trading
partners and the only
description for this process
is one of
insane psycho drama.
So that's - the
important thing is there is
no post
Brexit EU because we're
nowhere near
the post-Brexit world.
The British
elite in holding this
referendum and having it
carried through is
astounding.
So that's us.
So what does
it mean for Europe?
Well, the
uncertainty will be costly
for Europe because
uncertainty is costly for
Europe.
In general I take the view
since the EU is six times as
big as
the UK its break down of its
trade relations in all
dimensions will be a
sixth as big but it will be
as big
across the whole EU as it
will be for the UK, pretty
well.
Not quite, because there are
much more alternatives.
But, of course, per head
it will be much, much
smaller.
I do think that Britain's
exit will change the EU in
important ways and I would
just like to find a path
from the
uncertainties.
Some positive and nom
negative.
The positive way are twofold.
It's made clear that exit is
really quite costly.
That's quite
encouraging.
And two, because it's
clear exit is quite costly,
it's pushed the whole EU
together.
My favourite joke is the
great nightmare,
and I know it should stop
now, the great nightmare of
Britain throughout
history is it should have a
united
Europe and Britain, with
Brexit has
united Europe against it.
It's
economic culture will change
somewhat,
in a less liberal direction.
Guy might like that but I
think it will be an important
development and, of course,
it will be smaller.
It will be seen in some parts
of the world that are quite
significant country has left,
a country which is invisible
because of its language and
history, and they will say
well, if the British really
think the EU is dying maybe
there's something in that.
So all round, a
complete total comprehensive
disaster
from which nobody important
will gain,
except, in my view, Mr
Putin.
>> OK.
Thank you.
There's a lot to think about
there and unpack.
I'm just conscious of time.
We do want to answer some of
your questions.
So as you were all talking
there, I was thinking about
various elements.
I want to talk about, and
actually one of the guests in
the audience has brought this
up with a question on
Slido.
If we're looking ahead to
what life is like after
Brexit, given the fact that
we've got years and years of
uncertainty and everything
else and all the questions we
can't answer, can we talk
about what this means for the
future of the labour market.
So this
question, what are the
potential consequences in
regards to the labour
market?
If you could keep your
answers short and can you
talk about labour market in
the UK and then labour
market in Europe?
Guy.
>> Yeah, I'm going to be very
brief.
I wrote at a book just before
the referendum and before the
election of Donald Trump
and I said a large part of
the precariat will be voting
for Brexit and will be voting
for Trump.
I think
we've got to be, as
Europeans, looking
in the mirror at this issue
because we
shouldn't divorce what's
happening in
Britain from the fact that
there's a
crisis in Europe as well.
The crisis
of insecurity, the growth of
the
precariat, I get invited to
every
single country in the
European Union
to talk to precariat groups.
In France
is a latest symptom of a
fundamentally
festering inequality,
insecurity,
stressful set of
circumstances.
We've
got to be self-critical
because the
European Union has also
failed to
address the growth of these
phenomena.
I think that part of it is
much to do with the labour
market but it's much
more to do with what I call
rentier
capitalism.
The growth goes to
plutocracy and plutocratic
corporations.
More austerity cuts for
living standards and
benefits are intensifying
this insecurity and if we
continue to go down this
course, we
will move from a situation
where today
one in four voters across
the European
Union is voting for a
populist party
or populist politician, to a
point
where half will be doing so.
And that, of course, will
spell political
dangers that we don't need
to elaborate because we've
been there
before, we're seeing what
Trump
represents.
I happen to be an economic
adviser to one of the
opposition
leaders in Britain, and I
said I wish
you could come out and say
Cane's
famous remark, he was asked
why are
you being inconsistent on
this issue?
He said, "Sir, when the
facts change,
I change my mind.
What do you do,
sir?" I think we've got in
Trump a
fundamental shift in the
geopolitical
situation where Europe has
to address
its own problems and
challenges and
forge a new identity in the
context of
an emerging China and a
fundamentally
different United States
where it's
America first and all the
other stuff that goes with
it.
I think it is something to do
with the labour market but is
much more to do with the
breakdown of our income
distribution system where
disproportionately large
amounts of wealth and income
are going
to a tiny plutocracy and
elite.
Those people are represented
here in Davos.
The group I'm writing about
and talking to are not
represented here in Davos.
I think we do have a
fundamental challenge and
it's not just to do with the
labour market.
>> Jules, your thoughts on
what this
Brexit process, whatever it
looks
like, means for the labour
market in
the UK and in Europe.
>> I think the
one - I mean it is very
difficult to answer and, of
course, this is such a
critical question where we
really don't know what's
going to happen.
But I think the things from
trying to balance political
and economic arguments that
have come out on the UK side
of things, I think the one
thing that has come in quite
clearly has been the issue
around not skills-based
movement but just free
movement.
So I do think it is quite
likely that the UK will adopt
a skills-based system.
That's what all the white
paper advisory has been
talking about.
But, again, I think that
Europe, as a continent, it
will be far more hit by
automation, by the need for
reskilling, the digital
economy, the changes in the
way that we work and travel
anyway, that I think that
this is something that the
agenda is moving on so
quickly that it's something
that we need to pool our
brainpower.
I know that's slightly
avoiding the question but I
think it's very hard to
predict and it's not just
about the arguments that
we're having at the moment.
I think there are arguments
that we haven't thought of
that the digital economy will
dictate.
>> Martin, something Guy
mentioned earlier is James
Dyson is moving to Singapore.
His argument for going there
is to find the right skills
for his company and what he
does.
He said it's not about
Brexit, not about tax.
But there is this discussion
about skills, where they are
and how the system's working,
education and everything
else, that Europe is lagging
behind the likes of Asia, the
US?
>> I can't obviously comment
on Mr Dyson's business
affairs, and I wouldn't dream
of doing
so.
So - but I think the points
are already brought up and
the most obvious change that
one can expect, if
we leave, and if we have a
government, anything like the
present one, both of which I
think are open to question,
is
that immigration policy will
change.
The instinct of this
Government will
be to try to reduce numbers
very sub
stant  -- sub  --
substantially.
It will try to pursue a
policy which is trying to
deal with that very problem,
which is orientated towards
taking in skilled labour as
they define it, which at the
moment they seem to be
defining by how much they're
going to be paid.
I understand the last one was
30,000 a year, someone can
correct me.
So if you're going to earn
more than
30,000 pounds a year you can
come in,
if you can't you're not.
That moves
all our nurses and it's
pretty
important.
You can hear the screams
already.
So that will be our effect.
Now what will it mean?
That will, of
course, be a mess because
all our immigration systems
are a mess and
thainge -- changing them
will - that
is certain.
They will be under the
Home Office, which is our
worst
department.
I think that's a
noncontroversial statement
in Britain.
But on the European side,
obviously
export of labour, there's
been a very significant
emigration to the UK.
A lot of talented, wonderful
people have
come pch .
I think the costs to Europe
will be real, though not
massive because most of the
people who would
like to come have come.
A huge Polish immigration has
happened and clearly there
will be lots of people
leaving for very good reasons
in this situation.
But I do think, finally,
there are a lot of firms I've
been in contact with, very
different groups
from Guy's, for which the
flexibility
of moving labour around, and
I'm talking skilled, medium
skilled people around Europe
is a very important part of
that business operation.
And if
they're going to have to
deal with the
Home Office on all of those
things it
will be a nightmare and they
will run Britain from a
separate island from the rest
of the European business
because they will have to,
that will be one of the many
ways in which this will be
costly.
>> I've talked to a lot of
company CEOs about lots of
things to do with this but
two or three have said to me,
who run businesses in
Britain, who employ a lot of
European workers, that
actually what they will do -
they've already
got their bases lined up in
Amsterdam, other parts of
Europe.
They've already got their
sort of ducks in a row.
We're almost out of time but
I just want - a lot of people
have liked this question and
it's the top of my list here
so I'm going to put it to you
guys for a quick response.
What is the best argument
against a new
referendum?
Guy.
>> Further uncertainty but I
still think that
it's the least bad option
from where
we are today.
>> To have one?
>> To have a second vote.
I think a lot of
the young precariat didn't
turn out
last time.
We had 70% turnout.
A lot of younger people are
tending to be much stronger
remain.
They see
themselves as European.
I think that
having a second vote will be
divisive but any option is
going to be
divisive.
And I think this will be the
least bad of the options
available.
And we should enter that
debate by
saying that we should be
critical
remainors.
None of us should be
idolising the EU.
>> The UK has always
been that, hasn't it?
>> A predominantly European
audience.
I think one of the lessons of
Brexit
should be the lessons for
all of us.
I
think we all have lessons to
learn.
It
may take different forms, it
may be a
different form to what
happened in
Britain and what happened in
Eastern
Europe is different but the
same fe
phenomena has to be
addressed.
>> I think the argument
against is even if a result
came out for effectively
remain, it probably wouldn't
do so in a hugely conclusive
way.
It's not suddenly going to be
an 80/20 split.
It's likely to be very close
and looking at the different
polls it is
close.
It looks like it's slightly
shifted but it's very close.
The reason that could be very
disruptive
and divisive, I draw
parallels with
Attenborough talking about
why isn't more done more
quickly on climate
change.
He said as humans, when we
listen to things that are of
such complexity and enormity
and very often put in a
negative way, we naturally
tune out.
I think a lot of people have
tuned out because it's just
so complex
and, as I say, a lot of the
discussion around it has been
quite negative.
So I think that would be an
argument
against.
>> So little advertisement,
this is the subject of my
column which
will be up in about an hour.
Well, the
case for and against the
next
referendum.
I think - it's basically
been described.
That it won't resolve
the uncertainty because it
won't
decide Britain's position,
and that it
will turn what is still
manageable and
civilised civil war - it is
a civil
war - into an unmanageable
and very
uncivilised civil war in
which, if the
Brexiters lose, but by a
modest
margin, a very, very
significant proportion of the
British population
will feel, with some good
reason, that they have not
been listened to, that
they've been cheated of
their
democratic right to make a
decision
and that therefore the
legitimacy of
the political system of a
whole, of
which they're a part, which
is, I
would say, the single most
important
asset Britain as a country
has had historically and the
thing that is striking about
Britain compared with
other large European
countries.
That asset will be destroyed.
Unfortunately, in my view,
that asset
is going to be destroyed
anyway.
I remain - I'll be precise
because this
is so important.
I got my paper and
myself support as the first
best
option if it can be done
without risk,
the Prime Minister's
wretched deal for this reason
.
People disagree with me
but for this reason.
If the Brexiters
won't let that through, I'm
never
going to accept a no deal
crash out and we'll have
another referenda but then
the civil war has already got
really serious.
The responsibility of
the Brexiters in the last
month in not
accepting victory and
compromise is
making a political
resolution in
Britain almost impossible
and that is,
to me, absolutely
astonishing.
>> And
depressed.
>> Of course.
>> And we are
pretty much out of time.
As you can
tell, it's extremely
complicated and
difficult issue to try and
navigate
and try and resolve so  many
problems
come up as you try to
discuss even the basic
issues.
Thank you so much for your
questions.
This was a very short session
so apologies we couldn't
cover more of your questions.
But you can continue the
conversation.
If you do
that use #wef19 #Brexit on
social
media.
>> Sally, I feel like it's
ended on such a negative
note.
Can I put in a short
anecdote.
A few years ago I was a
British ambassador and I
collaborated with my European
colleagues in such a strong
way, not because our capitals
instructed us to or the
Commission instructed us to,
but because there were so
many things on which we
agree.
We had shared priority,
shared interest, shared
values.
I think let's not forget as
we go forward, I'm not
meaning to belittle the
complexity, the fragility,
but let's not forget what we
represent as a continent, as
a group of people who share
values because, as I say,
there are so many other
things beyond our continent
that are so important and I
think it's really important
to remember that.
>> And that's why Jules is a
