Here’s the final version (in Polish – thanks Google Translate) of an interview I have given to Wiadomości about sundry Brexit issues.

They did not use everything I said (and why should they?). Here’s the full text in case anyone is interested:

1. Both campaigns seem to have indulged in accusing each other of scaremongering and underplaying Britain’s ambitions in the world. Do you think this rather negative campaign, on both sides, will have any impact on the outcome of the vote? 

Not really. These days most political campaigning is about ‘framing’ the issues in a deliberately divisive way. That means exaggerating and distorting the supposed negative qualities of the other side’s arguments, and in turn exaggerating the supposed glory of one’s own arguments. This has horrible results, as we have seen. But at least it captures public attention!

2. Many commentators point that this has been largely post-fact, post-truth campaign, with both camps using radical arguments about each other’s positions – including Boris’s references to Hitler and Napoleon, or PM’s comments about a World War III. Do you agree with that? If yes, what do you think allowed for this sort of arguments to be used in the debate – is it something to do with relatively little understanding of the EU among the British population?

Different issues in that question. The aggressive rival framing of the issues (Hope! Fear! Sane! Mad!) requires ‘facts’ to play a fairly minor rhetorical role. That said, there has been an avalanche of brilliant analysis on both sides for anyone who actually wanted to study the choices carefully. See eg my own website You’re right to mention the almost startling level of ignorance among voters on EU issues. Children go through the whole UK education system not spending even an hour learning about the EU and how it affects our government. Mind you, most also learn nothing about the UK system either!

3. A lot of debate ahead of the focused has focused on the issue of immigration. What is your take on this; do you agree that this is a legitimate concern, mishandled by the government or perhaps few last governments?

Huge question. Of course it’s a legitimate concern. How many ‘migrants’ can any country take in without losing its identity? How to control national borders (and so control anything) when so many people can move around the world so fast these days? 

Precisely because we in the UK have been largely open, generous and successful for many years we have attracted a lot of migrants of different categories, including from Poland. It’s hard to see that changing quickly – something like the Single Market free movement of people deal for Europeans is likely to continue even after a Brexit vote. But as this referendum shows, the issue of ‘controlling’ migration is highly sensitive and difficult for every party, and indeed for every country. See this from a Dutch writer in the Guardian: 

How does an open society based on equality survive, when every year it takes in tens if not hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries with no tradition of openness, equality or democratic debate? Especially when those immigrants consistently have more children than the native Dutch?

4. Just few months after the PM’s deal in Brussels, only some academics and experts seem to care about the renegotiated conditions of the EU membership. Why is that? Do you think the reform he secured is significant at all, or has no influence on the outcome whatsoever?

Mr Cameron achieved no ‘reform’ – merely some solemn promises of dubious weight affecting the UK’s EU role. There is no reform possible without changing EU treaties, but the EU dare not attempt that as things stand because it is divided on what changes to bring in. As I have written elsewhere, the EU is like someone stuck on a steep sand dune – unable to move upwards or even sideways without slipping back to the bottom! The Cameron Deal was quickly forgotten as a factor in all this, as everyone knew it would be.

5. Some Remain campaigners say that the case for Brexit is based on fears of globalised world and nostalgia about the long-gone times – with many people left behind by the complex processes of globalisation, and the EU seems to be an easy target to blame it. Would you agree with that?

Up to a point. But the bigger issue is ‘globalisation’. It creates amazing contradictions for every country at amazing speed. What sort of integration makes sense today? Maybe not what made sense 50 years ago? No other regional organisation in the world has anything like the EU’s sovereignty-sharing, yet life goes on there. Are the EU’s structures now too heavy and slow and maybe too undemocratic for modern conditions? If so, what instead? These are not trivial questions, and the UK referendum has really opened them up.

6. Leave campaigners claim that Britain has had little influence over several key areas of policy making in the EU. As an experienced ambassador, you surely have seen and been exposed to numerous situation where Britain’s wanted to make its voice heard. Do you agree with these claims?

The spread of QMV over so many new areas under the EU treaties and the inexorable influence of the ECJ do curtail ‘national sovereignty’ for each EU member state. Above all the horrible Eurozone problems lead to strong pressure to deepen EU processes in ways that might hit non-EZ countries’ core interests. So there are real problems. The Cameron Deal purports to address some of those concerns, but it’s not clear if it would be respected by other partners in an EZ crisis – they have their interests too!

7. What do you think would be the best scenario for the UK? Remain or Leave?

The best scenario for the UK is a reformed Europe in two parts. Eurozone Europe, for those (probably fairly few) countries that want the EZ and al the deep sovereignty-pooling and tight disciplines it requires. And Free Trade Europe, all the other non-EZ countries working on an intergovernmental basis, including Ukraine and Turkey and maybe even Russia somehow. We could be a natural leader of the second group. I wonder which Europe Poland would choose(!). Something like that outcome is by far the best for all of us. The problem is getting there from where we are now. 

8. What do you think are the most likely scenarios following both Remain and Leave votes? 

Too big a question! But in either outcome the case for deep EU reforms to try to tackle its ‘legitimacy’ problem is now big, and getting urgent.

a) Many claim that if Remain loses or wins with a very narrow majority, PM Cameron would need to step down to allow for a new Conservative government to take over — whilst accepting that the Europe issue has not been settled once and for all, as Cameron intended. Do you agree with that?

It’s up to him. Politicians tend to be tenacious! If there is a Brexit vote he’d be the best UK leader to negotiate the immediate way forward.

b) Others claim that this campaign is largely about the succession of Mr Cameron at No. 10, which Boris eyeing on the PM job himself. Do you agree that he is the most likely replacement for Cameron, should the UK vote Leave on Thursday?

Plenty of other Conservative voices have done well in the referendum campaign. Boris won’t find it easy to beat all of them. 

c) Given a lot of blue-on-blue action throughout the campaign, do you think the Conservatives will be able to get back to work as usual, despite accusations of scaremongering, outright lies and misinformation flying around during the campaign? Or is there a severe risk of internal divisions that will be difficult to overcome once the referendum is over?

Don’t underestimate red-on-red divisions. The Labour Party’s performance in the campaign has been calamitously bad, especially on the migration question. Huge divisions exposed. Nothing will unite Conservatives as the prospect of hammering away at labour woes. All in all, serious people in both main parties have made life unpleasant for themselves, and it will take some time to get over all that.

9. Many Polish politicians and experts fear that by losing the UK, Poland would lose a strategic partner in the task of reforming the EU, and face turbulences in bilateral relations, as Poland will be expected to stand in line with other EU member states during the Brexit negotiations. Do you share these concerns? 

If there is a Brexit vote, I doubt that there will be a firm EU ‘line’ during subsequent negotiations. Why should there be? Different EU member states and their leaders will face their own internal pressures for a different way of running Europe. Does it make sense to ‘punish’ the UK if that means punishing one’s own economy too? Things will get very interesting!

Subtle language/translation point. My text said this (emphasis added):

And Free Trade Europe, all the other non-EZ countries working on an intergovernmental basis, including Ukraine and Turkey and maybe even Russia somehow. We could be a natural leader of the second group.

In Polish this comes out as:

Wielka Brytania byłaby naturalnym liderem drugiej grupy

There is no difference in this way of doing it between ‘a’ natural leader and ‘the’ natural leader. Yet in English the former is open-ended whereas the latter might sound arrogant haha. One for Ewa Kanigowska-Gedrojć, the best interpreter EVER.