ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SOPHY RIDGE ON SUNDAY, SKY NEWS

SOPHY RIDGE: The government came perilously close to losing crunch votes in the Commons this week and only scraped through after capitulating to Conservative Brexiteers on a series of amendments and that of course left some on the opposite wing of the party feeling perhaps a little put out so lots to discuss with our next guest, Dominic Grieve, who joins us now. Thanks very much for being with us this morning. I want to just pick up with you on a few remarks that we’ve been hearing from the new Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, who’s been setting out his vision if you like. Talking about no-deal, he didn’t deny reports this morning that the government is making plans to stockpile food in the event of a no-deal. Are you relieved that the government is making these preparations or are you worried that they are even actually talking about the fact of no-deal at all?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: I think no-deal will be absolutely catastrophic for this country. Clearly if the government thinks there’s a risk of no-deal it’s right to take emergency measures but we have got to be realistic about this, we will be in a state of emergency. Basic services which we take for granted might not be available. It wouldn’t be possible for example for somebody to fly to Rome because the over-flying rights over the other countries of the European Union are regulated by EU law. We wouldn’t get medicines in, this point has already been made, we’d be out of the Medicines Agency and there would be difficulties bringing food into this country because of the number of regulatory checks that would take place.

SR: Some people will be listening to this saying this is ridiculous, it sounds like scaremongering.

DOMINIC GRIEVE: I don't think it is scaremongering, it is just another way of looking at it is that it is so serious that one would rather hope that even if we are unable to reach any agreement with the EU on the economic framework, we would still at the last minute put together some side deals to address some of these issues but you have got to understand that the language of some of my colleagues at Westminster is that they actively are seeking no-deal because they are so absolutely fixated on leaving the European Union without any ties or obligations at all. If this is what they want to pursue then they themselves will be the people who precipitate this particular crisis.

SR: They might say that actually they would like a deal but they just don’t like the deal that’s on the table and they think that no-deal would be better than the Chequers arrangement.

DOMINIC GRIEVE: I find it difficult to see how the no-deal which involves this sort of national emergency is going to be better than a deal on offer but do bear in mind, there are two issues on no-deal. One is that the EU won’t give us a deal or a deal which is very bad, we’ve got to see what the Prime Minister can get through the negotiating process. The second one is that you actively want to precipitate a no-deal which I’m afraid some of them want to do. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, I’m pretty determined to stop that from happening.

SR: How are you going to stop that from happening because from an outsider it looks as if the Brexiteers have had a rather good week. They are the ones who have managed to successfully get their amendments to Theresa May’s Chequers deal through, you’re the ones that she has managed to face down and effectively ignore.

DOMINIC GRIEVE: It seems to me that this matter goes outside of party. The question is will Parliament, or will Parliament assert its view in this matter? I mean I have very little doubt in my mind that there is a very substantial majority of Members of the House of Commons who both wish to be loyal to their own parties but who at the same time are fairly clear in their mind that a no-deal Brexit precipitated by a small minority of MPs would be completely unacceptable. But inevitably as you start working through a political process I wish to be a loyal member of my own party so I certainly don’t wish to undermine the Prime Minister but I suppose the message I try to get out is that whilst I wish to help the Prime Minister achieve some satisfactory outcome to what is in fact a growing national crisis in many ways – Brexit is full of challenges and risks even if we get a deal – and while I am very prepared to help her do that and I see it as my absolute duty, I also have duties as a Member of Parliament towards my electorate to ensure that we don’t end up in what could be a very bad place I shall have to weigh that up as the autumn and the winter continue.

SR: And it’s interesting when you were saying working potentially with people from other parties, that this goes beyond party and that some of your colleagues like Anna Soubry have floated the idea of a government using people from different parties together. Is that something that you could envisage, is that what you’re saying?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: It’s possible, it is not particularly desirable because I can also see terrible downsides from this. We have had historically in this country a two party system which has worked quite well for us, there has also been a third party with the Liberal Democrats but essentially we have had a two-party system encompassing quite broad ranges of views within each party. Forget for one moment about the Conservative party, the Labour party is in the most terrible mess at the moment, it is wholly split between a left wing leadership who frankly want to turn this country into their idea of Venezuelan socialist paradise and the broad …

SR: [Inaudible] of course …

DOMINIC GRIEVE: Well apparently Mr Corbyn still thinks Venezuela is a good place, a place that has been well run and a place which has a future whereas most outside observers think it’s been gradually taken down a spiral of destruction.

SR: Well let’s not get side-tracked by Venezuela.

DOMINIC GRIEVE: But there are lots of Labour MPs who are appalled at what the Labour leadership is doing, their lack of responsiveness about Brexit, the fact that Labour doesn’t have an alternative policy at all so clearly there are large numbers of Members of Parliament now who are very unhappy about the general direction of travel but it would be better in my view if my own party, which is after all the party I have been a member of for over 40 years, gets its act together and actually tries to serve the electorate properly. That’s what we were set up as a political party to do but we won’t do it if we remain hopelessly divided and if on top of that there are groups threatening, as they did this week, to bring the government down if they don’t get their way. I mean one of the things I found quite astonishing on Tuesday of this week was the assertion that was being made by the Whips, I don't know if it was being made as a threat or a promise, that unless – and also on Monday – that unless the Members of the ERG who had signed up to these amendments which ruthlessly undermined the government’s negotiating position, got their way they would be precipitating a motion of no confidence within 48 hours. I mean that is not a good place to be.

SR: Is she at risk, Theresa May?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: I don’t think she is because she is certainly not at risk … the only group who could possibly bring the Prime Minister down is if this group of my hard Brexit colleagues so lose the plot that they decide that that is an effective way for them to proceed. Yes, clearly, if they decided to vote with Labour which is what they were threatening to do this week apparently, then in those circumstances I’m sure Labour would simply wish to see the government gone, the government would fall because the government has got a very small majority.

SR: The other thing that I wanted to pick up with you as well is that there were reports that Vince Cable missed of course that crucial Brexit vote because he was having meetings about setting up a new centrist party. Is that something, I mean you must look at some of your colleagues and think I don’t have as much in common with you over Brexit. Are you tempted by the idea of a centrist party?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: Well I wish he’d been at Westminster rather than dining somewhere else in London, I have no idea what he was up to, not a clue. No, I’m a Conservative, I mean I should make this absolutely clear and despite differences there are things philosophically which bring me together with people like Jacob Rees Mogg but I’m afraid that the problem we have at the moment is that we have introduced an ideological issue into our party with Brexit which is tearing us apart. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Historically the Conservative party have done well because we’re pragmatists, we try to take sensible decisions stage by stage which will enhance the quality of life of the citizens of our country and we have failed in this. Brexit is a failure and it is so high risk, this is the point about it, that it threatens economic wellbeing, it threatens our future of every single man, woman and child in Britain.

SR: Do you want see a second referendum like Justine Greening has suggested?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: I think it may be the only solution. It’s not an ideal solution, I accept it’s divisive, I accept it’s going back over ground that in one sense has already been covered but in another sense it is worth bearing in mind that where we are today and what we were debating in 2016 are entirely different from each other. If parliament cannot get together to achieve a consensus on a sensible way through Brexit then it does seem to me then that the only alternatives are one, a general election or secondly, to go back and say to the people what is it that you really want? You had an opportunity of seeing this debate now for two years, what’s your opinion?

SR: And with three options as Justine Greening is suggesting?

DOMINIC GRIEVE: You can do three options, there are a number of different ways you could do it and I am perfectly open to debate.

SR: I mean some people would see this as a betrayal, I mean I went to Hastings, we’ll see that film shortly, where people there felt that going back and having another referendum is just not respecting the democracy of what they voted for.

DOMINIC GRIEVE: Well when we have a general election it doesn’t prevent us from having another general election five years later, indeed it is absolutely provided for that we have to have one and just recently we had a general election two years after the previous one. I don’t subscribe to the view that a referendum result is writ in stone for a thousand years, it plainly is not. If circumstances change then it is perfectly democratic to go back to people and say you’ve see how matters have changed, you’ve seen where we now are, what is your preference? This is a really important decision. What I do think is right is I don’t see my role as a parliamentarian to block Brexit, that would be unacceptable in the light of the referendum result, but I do think that going and consulting people again is perfectly acceptable and may indeed be the right thing to do.

SR: Okay, thank you very much Dominic Grieve, strong opinions there.