The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2014

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Joint Award for Outstanding Contribution to Ireland – 4 December 2014

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech in Dublin on Thursday 4 December 2014 at the Outstanding Contribution to Ireland Awards.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is not easy to say how moved I am to receive this Award and I know that Albert would be, too: the fact that he is not beside me now is the only blot on this wonderful evening. But – in a very real sense – Albert isn’t absent. His spirit lives on. And how thrilled he would be that Kathleen – his wife and his inspiration – is here, together with so many members of their family: to them I say, “You have every right to be proud of Albert – he is, and will forever remain, a genuine hero of Irish history.”

    But a very human, down-to-earth hero. When we first met, as Finance Ministers in the 1980s, Albert looked suspiciously at this very English man whose father was a trapeze artist. And I looked pensively at this very Irish man who owned dance halls. Yet, in a few minutes, we were aware of a similarity of outlook that made us allies, not opponents; friends, more than acquaintances.

    Some years later, we met as Prime Minister and Taoiseach. When our formal business was concluded, we left our officials to talk and moved to the White Drawing Room at Number 10. Just the two of us – with a glass or two as company. It was there and then that we decided to work together.

    We were optimistic. We felt a deal could be done because violence could not win. We knew it wouldn’t be easy. That it might go wrong. We recognised we might start a process and not be there to finish it. We weren’t blind to any of these problems, but nor were we blind to the rewards of success – and the prize it would yield for the future. And, as Albert once put it, “Given the size of my family – the future is important.”

    Albert’s family: visiting Albert and Kathleen, when the family is there, is as comforting as a warm blanket. It’s very Irish. It’s why it’s widely believed in England and America that everyone must have an Irish relative. I am sure that I do. My father was born in 1879 – a long time ago.
    When my grandfather married in 1873 it was to a young girl who had never been taught to write, and left no record of her youth. But, since her name was Sarah O’Marrah, Irish roots seem very likely – and, if so, I am proud to acknowledge them.

    “The past”, wrote L P Hartley, “is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” Those famous lines apply to all Ireland after the evolution of the Peace Process. The past was different. The present – and future – has been transformed.

    Bilateral relations are better now than at any time in our long history. In 2011, Her Majesty The Queen made an historic State Visit to Ireland. The return visit of President Michael D. Higgins was an equal triumph. I was at the Albert Hall on the evening when Ireland sang, Ireland danced, and Ireland’s President spoke of a “true and deep friendship” between our two countries. Never before could that truly have been said, but it was on that magical night – and is now the template for our future relations. In trade, in politics, in culture we have never been closer.

    Our Governments have set up bilateral co operation on a scale that neither has ever had with any other country. They plan to jointly promote British and Irish companies around the world. Bi-lateral trade now exceeds 1 Billion Euros every week. There are more Irish companies listed on the London Stock Exchange – and more Irish Directors on the Boards of UK companies – than from any other country. The border with Northern Ireland has become almost invisible. There are no border controls. Rail and road links are improved. By the end of next year a single visa scheme will allow visa holders to travel to both our countries. Last year saw our first ever UK-Ireland military mission. I could go on, but the point is made.

    All of this is a legacy of the Peace Process and of the many people – known and unknown – who weaved a thread to create this canvas for the future. The weavers make for a great gathering: politicians, civil servants, clerics, members of the public, and – yes – those paramilitaries who realised that political engagement was the only way ahead and that a decent future could never be born of violence. All these – and others – played a part. Together, Ireland – North and South – has buried an unwanted past, and awakened hope in a future few believed could ever happen.

    And how much that outcome meant to Albert. He fought for peace – always with an eye to the future, and an ear cocked so that he would not miss the final gunshot, the last explosion.

    Albert may now be gone from our sight, but I’ve no doubt he’s looking down on us this evening and chuckling. Apart from anything else, Albert always loved a good party – and I know he wouldn’t miss this one…

    Many years ago, when my father was old and very sick, he sought to reassure his grieving son by telling him that no-one is ever really gone while they remain in the hearts of those they leave behind. Albert was truly loved by his family – and will linger on in many other hearts too: he will never be lost to us while that memory remains.

    At Albert’s funeral, his daughter, Andrea, read from Theodore Roosevelt’s speech, “Citizen in a Republic”, in which Roosevelt honours the “Man in the Arena”. It was so apt then – and still is. As I listened to that reading some other lines came to mind, translated from Spanish by Robert Graves, but originally written by a bullfighter. It captures accurately how the man in the arena has a unique perspective:

    “Bullfight critics ranked in rows
    Crowd the enormous Plaza full
    But only one is there who knows
    And he’s the man who fights the bull.”

    Of course, Albert fought only for peace. He charmed his opponents with guile, with persistence, and – let me be strictly honest – with an occasional embroidery of the facts. Albert liked facts. He knew they could inform. He knew also that – with a little rearrangement – they could persuade. So, when necessary, Albert rearranged them – mischievously, perhaps, but with a purpose: the purpose being to bring an end to bloodshed.

    Albert and I did not achieve the final deal: others did – and I praise them for that. But I do believe we pointed the way and am honoured – as Albert would have been – by your generous acknowledgement of our role.

    For that – on my own behalf as well as Albert’s – I truly thank you.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 16 November 2014

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast on BBC1 on 16 November 2014.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major gives very few public speeches these days, but when he does his words carry weight. This week, in Berlin, he’s warned Britain’s European partners that there’s a serious chance the UK will vote to pull out of the EU in a future referendum unless it’s given serious concessions on the crucial issue of free movement and migration. Sir John, welcome.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Going back to that speech, Angela Merkel has made it very, very clear that as far as she’s concerned, the free movement of people inside the EU is off the agenda. It’s absolutely fundamental to the EU and we will not get concessions on that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are four founding freedoms of the European Union and free movement of people is one of them, that’s perfectly true. None of the other three have fully been honoured yet and I think in terms of free movement of people that there’s a lot of misunderstanding of the British position. We aren’t seeking to end free movement, but what has been happening over the last few years has been such a bulge in the amount of migrants coming to the United Kingdom – it’s gone up, our population has risen by about 7% in a decade – and at the present rate, the British population would rise in a few decades by 25% while the German population would have fallen.

    I think as people begin to see the particular circumstances that we face, I think there’ll be a good deal of sympathy for the difficulty. The European Union has a very pragmatic record of finding a way round difficult corners like this and the point I was making in my speech is that we shall need to do so again on this and perhaps on other issues too.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So it’s not an end to free movement across all EU?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, of course not, of course not. How many people watching this programme have actually been treated in the National Health Service or helped on the transport service by people who are migrants? We wouldn’t have a National Health Service without migrants, we wouldn’t have a transport system without migrants, so of course not. We’re an outward looking nation. We always have been. We’re not going to close our doors, and nor should we, either economically or politically. But there is in the midst of that a particular problem of numbers. It’s not Poles, it’s not Slavs, it’s not Italians. It’s numbers, numbers, numbers. That is the point at issue.

    It’s purely numbers and it may only be relatively short-term. Consider, for example, the whole of Southern Europe, the Eurozone of Southern Europe is very close to recession and is very close to even more serious economic difficulties. So of course there’s an accelerated amount of movement to the United Kingdom. Once they’re back in growth, the demand to come here will almost certainly fall. So I see it as a shortish-term problem, maybe not a year, maybe longer and we need a little help over that period.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So in the shortish-term term, whatever that means, in the shortish-term what do you think we could get? What’s the most that Britain could get if the negotiation is conducted well and aggressively and so forth?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not going to negotiate on air. I think there are some practical things that could be done that don’t infringe the principle but do meet the problem, but I think frankly they’re much more likely to be done if they’re not aired in public but discussed in private.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think we need some kind of super ambassador figure to carry out those negotiations alongside the Prime Minister?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think in time there will be someone.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Might that someone be you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think not. I think it’ll have to be someone who is in the government and who is close to the Prime Minister in the government. But a great deal of the most important negotiations on these occasions, on this as in previous treaties, will inevitably be done by the Prime Minister himself. I think that is undoubtedly so because it’s done at the very top of government. But I think beyond that, there are 28 nation states. We have to form alliances with many of them on many issues. Subsidiarity, for example, the argument that things should only be done at the European level if they can’t be done at the national level, the Dutch are likely to be huge allies in that and so are others and we need to form these alliances to make sure we get the most successful negotiation.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’ve been a great proponent of parliament. Do you think this idea of having national parliaments, getting a veto over more European legislation is a runner? Do you think we could form alliances on that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there are lots of countries that will follow us with that. At the moment you have as it were, in footballing parlance, a yellow card. I think if you could find 12 nations who are opposed to something, saying it’s against their national interest, I think pragmatically that should be a red card and that should be the end of it because there is a democratic deficit.

    I am strongly in favour of our membership of the European Union for economic and political reasons, but I don’t think it’s faultless. There are reforms that need to be made and some of them are to give it more democratic legitimacy, which at the moment frankly it lacks, and the idea of there being a system in which national parliaments can block alien and unwelcome legislation is certainly a route where I think we would have a number of allies across Europe.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So there’s that. But you also think that Angela Merkel can be persuaded to suspend the free movement of people so far as it affects Britain?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s not just Angela Merkel.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But she’s kind of crucial?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Of course she’s hugely important, of course she is and I’m not trying to understate that in any way. But it is an agreement we have to have across the European Union. It’s not only we who face troubles. Many of the far right parties, many of the anti-social parties who offer nothing but negativity across Europe – in Greece, in Sweden, in many countries including our own – have an antipathy to immigration because immigration is seen by their populations at too high a level as causing difficulties. So it is not just a uniquely British problem. It’s uniquely difficult for us because of the numbers and because we, for example, are a fraction of the land space of say France or Germany.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think that non-EU immigration to this country is too high?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We have ancient agreements there. I lived in Brixton at the time of the mass immigration in the 50s, and many of the people who came in then are now icons in our public life. We have a lot of Members of Parliament who are sons of immigrant families of twenty or thirty years ago and right across the country. On the subject of numbers, I think I’d wish to look at it carefully, but the numbers argument holds from wherever the migrants may come.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Even though the European migrants, according to a recent report, have actually contributed to the Treasury?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, they have.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And others have not?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The other migrants have certainly contributed to the National Health Service and other services, and indeed many of them were invited in the 1950s and 60s to come here by the then governments precisely for that reason.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Philip Hammond has said that if you go into this kind of crucial negotiation, you have to make it clear that you would walk away if you fail. Do you agree with him about that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s a question of saying we would walk away if we fail because I don’t anticipate failure. I have negotiated sufficiently with the European Union to know that if you have a good case and you persuade you are highly likely to get a satisfactory result.

    ANDREW MARR:

    This is why I wondered if you yourself might come back.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’ve done it before.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Indeed, but there are other people who are part of the government. I can think of people who’d do it very well.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I won’t press that. Now you said it’s 50/50 that we would leave if we didn’t get those kind of movements.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No I didn’t, that’s not quite what I said. I said I thought at the moment it was almost 50/50 that we would leave and there were a number of things that would make it more likely we would leave if we weren’t able to negotiate them, so I think there’s a nuance of difference there.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think there would be a decent future for this country outside the EU as Boris Johnson and many Conservatives have said?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Of course there would be a future but it would be a lesser future. The belief that we would be economically free if we left and we can just trade with the European Union as before. We would have to pay for entry to the single market and we would have to accept their regulations. I wouldn’t like to be the British Prime Minister ten, fifteen years from now who had to stand up in Parliament and say ‘in order to continue to trade with the European Union, we have to pass the following regulations into which we have had no input or we can’t trade with them’. I wouldn’t like to do that.

    I wouldn’t like to be the British Prime Minister who said ‘we’re no longer getting the inward investment we used to, it’s now going to Germany and France and Italy’. On a political level, I really wouldn’t want to be the Prime Minister who had to explain that we are sinking to a much lower level of relevance in the world outside the European Union with the doors in the corridors of power being closed to us.
    On every count, despite its frustrations, of which there are many, despite the reforms we need, which are many, we are far better off in the European Union than outside it. Most important of all, we are far better off for the next generation and the generation after that if we are in.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So those Conservatives who say we could have a comfortable future outside are wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I don’t know what you mean by “comfortable”.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I don’t know what they mean by “comfortable”. That’s the word that’s been used.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I am saying that Britain has been a great nation in the last three hundred years. Do we really want to sink to a lower level of relevance outside the European Union? Of course we’d survive, of course we would, and how frustrated would we be when our word meant so much less and our economic power was materially decreased?

    ANDREW MARR

    The Conservatives, as you know, are facing a very important by-election in Strood and Rochester, and some Conservative MPs have said that the Conservative Party must stop treating UKIP as a kind of eccentric fringe or protest party. They have got the ear of the British people on major issues and they have to be taken seriously. How do you regard that view?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Let’s look at UKIP for a moment and let’s draw a distinction between the leadership and those who have been voting for them. I think many of the people who’ve been voting for them are doing so out of frustration at the ongoing difficulties of the recession, the belief that they’re losing out and falling behind. That will fade away as the economy improves and it is materially improving. But the policies of UKIP, the direction of UKIP, is it seems to me, profoundly un-British in every way.

    They are anti-everything. They are anti-politics, they are anti-foreigner, they are anti-immigrant, they are anti-aid. I don’t know what they’re for, we know what they are against, and that’s the negativity of the four-ale bar. That’s not the way to get into Parliament, it’s not the way to run a country, so they may be elected because people are frustrated.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If I can jump in. They’re frustrated partly about many of the diktats that have come from the EU and they have got the ear of very many British voters.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That is exactly the point of subsidiarity. One of the points I made the other day is that subsidiarity, and let me explain that, that’s the concept that things should only be done at the European level if they can’t be done at the national level. I thought we had written that into the Maastricht Treaty twenty odd years ago and the Commission bypassed it. I made the point the other day we have to resurrect that and nail it down as a matter of European law so it cannot be bypassed. That’s a fundamental part of the renegotiation.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You mentioned the economy just now, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well you mentioned Rochester. I feel very strongly about this. I’ve been watching over the last few days the huge generosity of the British people to Ebola. I’ve watched with fantastic pride the amount of money that was donated to Children in Need. People even in times of hardship prepared to put their hands in their pockets and be generous to other people. What a counterpoint that is to the negativity and sheer nastiness of much of what UKIP stands for.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well we’ll see what happens in Rochester. But you mentioned the economy just a moment ago. There’s some very interesting stuff in the Financial Times and elsewhere about the fragility. We have got a recovery, but it’s a fragile recovery, and in particular the difficulty faced by the next government – whoever composes it – of making huge, huge and much more difficult cuts to public spending and/or tax rises. Do you think the next government has a kind of hospital pass coming to it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That depends what growth we manage to generate. The counterpart to how much reduction you need to make in public expenditure and what happens to taxes is what level of growth we’ve got. Now there certainly was a hospital pass in 2010.

    If you recall, the incoming coalition faced a situation where people were not even sure their money was safe in their high street banks. We now have over 3% growth, unemployment has dropped by a quarter. But, but – and this is where we still have people concerned and worried – none of the growth in the economy has yet reached wage packets or salary slips. Now surveys suggest it will do next year. Not government surveys, but independent surveys have suggested perhaps 3% growth in salaries – I can’t say whether that’s right – next year. So you are going to see things going better. What folly, when you come from such a bad position to such a promising position to suddenly think about changing governments.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John, thank you for now very much indeed.

    […… later in the programme ……]

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well Sir John is still here. Gerald Scarfe, Catherine Mayer and Fraser Nelson have also joined us. We’ve just heard the terrible news that yet another beheading has been taking place in the Middle East – an American, I think – and we’ve also been talking about ISIS growing much faster than we’d expected.

    Sir John, an existential threat of the kind that you didn’t face when you were Prime Minister, do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think potentially yes. I mean this is 13th century barbarism, there’s no other way to describe it. And the people they are murdering – which makes it doubly worse, triply worse – are people who actually went there to help those in difficulty and in need and they are being murdered in the most brutal way. It’s almost beyond belief.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Fraser?

    FRASER NELSON:

    Is this the sort of problem, Sir John, that you think Britain nowadays with the military just cannot realistically do much about?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think we can do all that much about it alone. But can we contribute to other people to do something about? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes. Though unless we want the old argument that the crusaders have come in to attack, we really need to support other Arabs on the ground and use our power in other ways to help them, support them, surveillance, training, provide weapons and so forth. I think that is a proper role for us.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Chatham House – 2 October 2014

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Chatham House on 2 October 2014. The speech was titled “Security Challenges in Asia : The Relevance of the European Experience”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Professor Yamanaka, many thanks for your kind introduction; and Mr Sasakawa, thank you very much for making it possible for this important dialogue to take place between our two countries. I am delighted to be here, and to take part in it.

    And I would like to thank all of you for participating in this two-day conference, organized by Chatham House, the Nippon Foundation and the Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation.

    As one of the co-presidents of Chatham House, I know that the Nippon Foundation is one of our most important partners. I hope our partnership will continue to thrive long into the future, so that we can exchange informed ideas about the many pressing global problems before us. We will not be short of work, for there is no shortage of challenges.

    The theme of this conference – the role of the nation state in tackling global challenges – is crucial in a world becoming increasingly global. Some people believe globalism will be the death knell for the nation state. They are wrong.

    The nation state cannot – and should not – be ignored: it is not a derelict. National traditions, instincts and customs will never go away – and our world would be the poorer if they did. But we must recognize that protecting the nation state can sometimes lead to confrontation, where consensus would be more valuable. Cooperation is essential in confronting and solving the great challenges of today.

    Let me begin with a fundamental truism: we live in a world that seems to become ever more perilous. We all wish this were not so – but it is. One only has to think of the mayhem in Syria, Iraq and much of the Middle East, the fighting in Crimea, the military and political conflicts in Asia, and the democratic deficit in parts of Africa to see where problems lie.

    And this list is far from inclusive. A good dose of enduring optimism, and a firm belief in a more prosperous and secure world for all, are prerequisites for the world leaders of today as they confront the critical issues before them.

    Even a casual look at our world shows how many global challenges must be addressed. In some cases, there are dangers we may be able to head off but, in others, they are tragically real and present: as we are seeing with so many innocent lives being lost due to the brutality of extremism.

    The focus of this conference is Asia and Europe. Over the last forty years, the balance between the two has changed dramatically as Asia’s economic development has exceeded all expectations. Such economic growth inevitably leads to political authority. Today, in an increasingly global world, both Asia and Europe have an interest in events far beyond their own borders.

    What does all this change mean for Asia and, in particular, Japan? Japan, with the third largest economy in the world, is a truly global player and will remain so. Since the 1980s when Japan’s leaders first articulated the concept of ‘internationalisation’, your country has steadily acquired a greater global role.

    Today, under the leadership of Prime Minister Abe, Japan is building on this tradition to promote a more ‘proactive’ role in international affairs. I welcome the fact that Japan is raising her profile in this way – not least in taking command of international ‘anti-piracy’ task forces, and committing troops to peace-keeping in Sudan.

    The importance of Asia to the world is often seen through the lens of economic opportunities. This includes expanding trade and investment – not only in Europe and the US, but within Asia itself, specifically between the most resilient economies such as Japan, China, India, South Korea and, potentially, Indonesia.

    But there is far more to Asia’s future than that. Asia is a crucial political entity. While the world has its eyes on the Middle East and Ukraine, there are Asian security tensions that must not be ignored.

    The first one I would highlight is China’s military rise, and her growing defence expenditure. I have spoken often enough about welcoming China’s emergence as an economic power. I do that most genuinely. Less welcome is that China is expanding her maritime presence in the East and South China Seas, and – in so doing – is creating tensions with – among others – Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

    The newly-expanded Chinese Air Defence Identification Zone adds to Asian concerns. When the Zone was first promulgated, Japan observed that the airspace declaration could escalate regional and bilateral tensions, particularly those associated with the contested Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands. That is undoubtedly true, and the fact that confidence building measures are limited in scope within North Asia raises the risk of those tensions mounting.

    The reason for concern is clear: China is acting in a fashion that potentially challenges the international order which, if she miscalculates, may provoke a response. This may never happen but is a risk, nonetheless. To recognize that risk is the first step in reducing it.

    The second Asia tension is North Korea’s de facto nuclear weapons status, and the prospect of renewed conflict on the Korean peninsula. There is likely to be a fourth nuclear test within the next 12 months.

    At the same time, despite signs of small improvement in the economy, Kim Jong-un remains politically vulnerable to domestic unrest and leadership rivals – especially if he fails to deliver on his promises to reboot the economy. China, as North Korea’s ally, is increasingly irritated by Pyongyang but relatively limited in its direct influence. The result is that North Korea remains a dangerous wild card in the region, with an inexperienced and belligerent leader raising the risk of military conflict.

    Other challenges – reflecting the global state of affairs in many corners of the world – are affecting security across Asia.

    One is the growth of popular nationalism, which has become a vibrant political dynamic in many countries. Where this manifests itself as pride in one’s country, it is entirely benevolent: but if that sentiment becomes anti-foreigner, it is emphatically not. We await events to see how this develops.

    The risk is clear: if public opinion is conditioned to be fearful of external threats, this – in turn – fuels more ‘nationalistic’ attitudes and, where this is the case, government leaders find it harder to de-escalate rising tensions. Fear has always been a potent driver of bad policy.
    Another challenge is intra-alliance tensions. Perhaps one of the most talked-about today relates to the US commitment to Asia, and the strength of America’s ‘rebalancing’ towards the region. Others relate to tensions around post-colonial legacies: Hong Kong’s democratic ambitions spring to mind. Will China delay them, or concede them, or crush them? We wait to see – but China’s commitment to One Country – Two Systems was unambiguous.

    The world will be watching to see if statesmanship resolves this dispute – or if the Chinese authorities remain intransigent.

    But China’s commitment to yet more tensions relate to historic relationships in poor repair: Japan and Korea being one instance although, in this case, diplomatic exchanges are now taking place again. This is how wise governments conduct themselves, for such tensions – if left to fester – lead to political conflict that, once started, can be hard to control.

    Unfortunately for Asia, she has some moribund institutions. Tri-lateralism between Japan, the Republic of Korea and China has not yet succeeded. The Six Party Talks on North Korea are dormant, while new initiatives such as President Park’s Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative remain underdeveloped. The ASEAN gatherings – although well established – often seem unfocused.

    There are also concerns about energy security: as demand rises, supply remains uncertain. Following the Great Eastern Earthquake, Japan is now identifying new sources of energy, and debating whether her nuclear power plants should be reactivated. This is obviously a hugely sensitive issue within Japan, but long-term energy needs demand that it is examined.

    Japan – like China and South Korea – is increasingly dependent on oil imports from the Middle East. In Japan’s case, the loss of nuclear energy has swollen her demand for oil. One side effect of the general search for energy security is the uncertainty as to whether energy will offer future opportunities for cooperation, or for further tension: it could be either.

    Nor is oil the only commodity we should be concerned about. We think of the ChinaTibet dispute as essentially political – but behind it lies the matter of ownership of the vast supplies of water on the Tibetan Plateau. Tibet has water – China is short of it: and much of what she has is polluted. This is not simply of bilateral concern: Tibet’s water also flows to India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and Cambodia.

    Separatism is also a threat in Southeast Asia: consider here the military coup in Thailand, and continuing insurgency in the Philippines. In Myanmar there is a growth in ethnic and religious conflict.

    National governments struggle to deal with such problems at the same time as they try to keep up with awakening economic and political expectations – and these are increased by the world-wide impact of the social network.

    Now let me turn to my own backyard: Europe. And, given the current debate in the UK, let me make clear I see our future inside the EU, not outside it. Today is not the occasion to develop this theme, so let me simply say that if the UK were to leave, both she and the EU would be weakened. That is not the way forward.

    Given the opportunities and challenges Asia presents, European nations – acting individually, and the European Union – acting collectively, need to be more involved in the region. A distant relationship is a missed opportunity, and I would like to explore three possible models of greater involvement.

    First, I believe that there are ways in which Europe could be a useful model for Asian countries in their own efforts to increase security through enhanced co-operation. In Europe, Anglo-German and Franco-German reconciliation have, for example, been realised in part via public diplomacy, academic interaction and strong personal relationships. Here are traditional foes, who have often – over the centuries – been at war with one another, yet who now enjoy close and hugely co-operative relationships.

    There are also lessons to be drawn from individual countries and crisis-defusing political settlements such as the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Here, again, two communities – hostile for centuries and with different and seemingly intransigent political and religious allegiances – have come together.

    Drawing from my own political experience, I can attest that personal relations at senior levels of government can play a vital role in reducing – and sometimes, ending – tensions. This is often slow and painstaking work, but it can be very effective. Fear of the unknown increases tensions: familiarity reduces them. If leaders know and trust one another, then provocative actions or statements are less likely and difficult situations are more easily diffused.

    Since 1945, Europe has – generally – succeeded in bridging divisions that, in the past, threatened to divide the Continent. The European Union, NATO, the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe have each played a part in building trust. There have been failures – such as the European Defence Community – but even they paved the way for initiatives such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
    The second model sees Europe as a mediator in defusing tensions between Asian partners. At present, Asia looks at Europe’s experience in confronting security challenges to see if there are lessons to be learned: perhaps one is that Europe could be more proactive in helping to resolve some of these challenges. Forgive me if this sounds presumptuous – I assure you that it is not intended to: it merely reflects an area of European expertise. It is also a matter of European interest that Asian relations are harmonious.

    Europe could do more of this. Third party mediation is an under-used asset in our modern world. The Asia-Europe Meeting has also been in place since 1996, and could play a more active role – both in resolving regional tensions and improving relations between our two regions.
    Bilateral cultural diplomacy also has a role: I offer as examples educational exchanges, and British Council initiatives in North Korea. These can help to minimise regional tensions and, in so doing, open the door to progress on sensitive human rights issues. Lectures from afar won’t make progress; dialogue might. In this regard, I wonder whether there might be a role for an ‘Educational Marshall Plan’ in northeast Asia. If so, surely the UK and UNESCO could help.

    To summarize, I would like Europe to be seen as an active partner, working side by side with Asian countries and institutions to address the world’s challenges together. At present, I believe there is a valid argument that Europe-Asia cooperation is focused only on the region itself. Surely this is too narrow? Why should focus not extend to developing global participation between European and Asian States so that (either bilaterally or multilaterally) they can address security challenges that do not respect neat geographical boundaries?

    It is beginning: consider Japan’s establishment of a permanent Self-Defence Forces base in Djibouti; the Republic of Korea’s anti-piracy initiatives; and also the strategic dialogues between the UK, Japan and the Republic of Korea. And we should not forget that expanded defence cooperation – and more explicit sharing of intelligence – could help minimise some of the new security challenges we all face. For example, I am delighted at the current growth in Anglo-Japanese contacts at both the political and military level.

    I passionately believe that if we work and plan for a more efficient – and better – world order, we can build a more prosperous and secure future for all. But we dare not be complacent about security in Asia. The seeds of conflict are there. The risks are real and not phantoms. They may come in many guises, and be related not only to new security challenges, but to governance in the economic, social and energy spheres.

    As we identify these threats we must seek to head them off. And by ‘we’, I mean everyone who can contribute. I repeat: in our global world, Asian problems impact far beyond Asia, and we all have a stake in the solution.

    The world of today is very different to that of fifty years – or even twenty years – ago: the world of tomorrow will be different yet again.
    It is in our hands to shape it, to make it better, if we have the determination and the wisdom to do so.

    That is why conferences like this are so valuable, and I wish you every success in your discussion and debate during the next two days.

  • Sir John Major’s Contributions on ‘Who Won the War’ programme – 29 September 2014

    The transcript of the contributions made by The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH on BBC Northern Ireland’s ‘Who Won the War’ TV programme on 29 September 2014. The programme was broadcast on the 20th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefires and the presenter, Peter Taylor, reflected on the troubles in the province.

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked why he made Northern Ireland such a priority?]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    People were killing one another. If that had happened in Surrey or Sussex or any part of the mainland nobody would have tolerated it for a moment. It seemed to me to be equally intolerable in Northern Ireland.

    COMMENTARY BY PETER TAYLOR

    [Talking to terrorists was anathema to Conservatives but John Major reluctantly accepted the only way forward was to engage with the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries. Three days before secret talks with MI5 were due to take place the IRA bombed Warrington, killing two little children. Incredibly the meeting went ahead although John Major himself was not aware of it at the time]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The angry part of me said I would never sit down [for discussions with the IRA], the pragmatic part of me of course would have done so had I thought that there was going to be an outcome from any such meeting that would carry the process forward.

    COMMENTARY BY PETER TAYLOR

    [The Government’s key point of contact to establish whether the IRA was seriously interested in calling a ceasefire was Martin McGuinness]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If he couldn’t deliver the IRA then there would have been no point in talking to him……..

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked about the IRA and loyalist ceasefires in 1994]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It gave a great boost to the belief in many people’s minds that there was a deal that could be done. Many doubted it but then there was a glimmer of hope.

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked about the war in Northern Ireland and the current situation]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s been an exemplary journey in many ways and when one looks at other parts of the world, where the conflict looks irresolvable, one can realise that it is possible to bring together those who seem implacably opposed to one another for ideological reasons and it is a gift of human nature that that is possible.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview with Christiane Amanpour – 16 September 2014

    The text of the interview with Sir John Major and Christiane Amanpour broadcast on CNN on 16th September 2014.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    John Major was the Conservative Party’s Prime Minister here in Britain from 1990 to 1997 and he’s a veteran of this particular political war and he’s joining me now live in the studio. Welcome to the program.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Thank you.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    So what of Nicola Sturgeon? The Scottish Nationalist saying that this vow is a bribe and it’s a day late and a dollar short. Do you agree?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    As a matter of fact, there’s nothing that anyone could say that would satisfy the Scottish Nationalists. Their aim is independence, a separate Scotland. They’re perfectly prepared to throw away 300 years of history and the gains we’ve made in unity. So whatever was said, the SNP would turn it away and would disavow it. That’s been their tactic right the way through this debate.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    Do you believe, though, that this vow is the right way to go? Can it keep the union together? And is it offering something that you believe in?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    This vow is something quite special and quite new. It offers Scotland a great deal more self-dependence in terms of the powers given to the Scottish Parliament; it keeps the United Kingdom together. It stops many of the risks that would otherwise take place both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland because – be in no doubt about this – were there to be separation, both the United Kingdom and Scotland, in my judgment, would suffer and suffer seriously.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    Let’s first talk about Scotland. They are obviously full of the desire to move inevitably and inexorably from devolution to their own Parliament to independence. And they say we can run our own economy; we’ll be able to talk about jobs and govern those crucial economic areas ourselves.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No-one has denied that the Scots are an intelligent nation who could run their own country. That’s not the issue. Whenever the realities are placed before the SNP, they say people are lying. They say we can get straight into the European Union. Well, the European Union say they can’t. But they say the European Union is lying.

    The SNP think they can enter into NATO. I think that’s extremely unlikely. They say they can manage without having their own currency. They can’t use sterling. They’re two days away from the vote and they do not yet know what currency they’re going to use in the long term. Now that is just absurd.

    One could stretch that list to points put to the SNP that they’ve denied. And they’re not points put to them by advocates of the No campaign; they’re points put to them by senior businessmen, by senior politicians outside the country, people who have studied what’s happened and knows the impact upon Scotland and a Scottish nation have, frankly – and I don’t say this lightly – have been fed a load of pap by the Scottish nationalists in the belief that everything will be all right on the night. Well, it won’t. There are very serious problems that Scotland will face if they go down this route.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    What about the wealth of the nation, so to speak? They talk a lot about the oil wealth. There they have it in waters off Scotland. Why should that not keep them afloat?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, it’s UK oil, it isn’t all Scottish oil. Let me make that point first. Second, it’s a diminishing asset. The oil is reducing. It’s not going to be there forever. It might be there for 30 years. It might be there for 40 years. But what about the young men and women who’ll be voting for the first time in this referendum and their children and grandchildren? They won’t have Scottish oil to rely on. They will have to compete, and in future they’ll have to compete with the rest of the United Kingdom as well as others; whereas now the United Kingdom are advocates of Scotland.

    I go abroad frequently and I speak about British prospects and I include the prospect of investment in Scotland. In future, they’d be competitors if they were separate, not part of the United Kingdom.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    And what about this notion? Because everyone watching this program from around the world is worried about what this means for separatist movements elsewhere, but also what does this mean for the reliable, trusty ally and trading partner that is the UK? Is this going to lead to a totally devolved UK, one way or the other?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, there are two separate points there, firstly about separatism. There’s no doubt that the Scottish plans have excited separatists in Catalonia, in Bavaria, in Flanders, all over the place. They expect to join the European Union and yet they will have excited dissent and separatism in a large number of European Union countries, a point they totally overlook.

    As to the impact if Scotland became separate, it would have a pretty dramatic impact on the rest of the United Kingdom as well. I don’t think anything is going to break the United Kingdom’s affinity and affection for its traditional allies. But they will be weaker. They will be weaker. They will have less influence. You can’t have a large chunk of a country suddenly falling off and retain the same international influence that you had before.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    I mean, right now, we’re in the midst of a major existential fight that the West has identified against these terrorists, barbaric terrorists, who slaughter people in public, ISIS. Britain has always been a trusted military ally. It’s been a trusted voice in the United Nations Security Council. How will that be affected, boots on the ground and people under arms, Scottish contribute a lot to that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    British military capability would be diminished if Scotland became a separate nation, no doubt about that, it’s an extraordinary time to do it. We have jihadists all over the Middle East. We have Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. We have a range of problems in different parts of the world and this is the moment that the United Kingdom, that’s been together for 300 years, finds a part of it possibly breaking away, it is an extraordinary concept and a particularly extraordinary concept at this moment in time with the world as it is.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    You fought an election in 1997 and you lost to Tony Blair. But one of your platforms was to oppose the independent Scottish parliament. Now they have it. Do you agree with the idea of devo-max or whatever’s been promised in this vow, even if they vote to stay in the UK?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think if they stay in the United Kingdom and get more powers, I’m perfectly content with that. Frankly, I’d trade almost anything for the importance of keeping the United Kingdom as a single entity.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    So why was that offer made from the beginning by Prime Minister Cameron?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I can’t answer that question. You’ll have to ask Prime Minister Cameron, but I did foresee in 1992 the damage that would come about by spreading devolution. I believed it would be a stepping stone for a separatist movement and thus it has proved.

    But we’re now under a different circumstance. And now we’re in the circumstance where there is a demand in Scotland that I think that in one way or another needs to be met. And for that reason, I think it is right to make this particular offer if it will sustain the Union.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    And finally, what about people/individuals who say they are just fed up of central government? They just don’t believe in this anymore; they don’t see the leadership. They don’t see how it helps them.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think that’s a feeling in the UK, but not only in the UK, I think that’s true in the United States and in most of the countries of Europe as well. But there’s a bigger point really in terms of the United Kingdom. Are we suddenly to wake up in two mornings’ time and find that the Scots are foreigners? It’s an alien concept, very hard to grasp. And I think people today who are advocates of separatism have not perhaps realised the sheer impact upon them, upon Scotland, upon their colleagues in the United Kingdom and upon the United Kingdom as a whole if separatism were to be agreed by the Scottish voters on Thursday.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

    Sir John Major, you’ve made your case. Thank you very much indeed.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Thank you.

  • Extracts from Sir John Major’s Interview with Peter Hennessy- 13 August 2014

    Extracts from the interview held with Sir John Major on BBC Radio 4’s “Reflections with Peter Hennessy” which was first broadcast on 13th August 2014.

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Asked Sir John Major when the seeds of ambition were first planted, when he realised he wanted to do something in public life]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think probably about the age of thirteen. I think what influenced me most was what Harold Macmillan would have called “events, dear boy, events”. It was what I saw, and what I experienced, that made me realise that I would like to take part in public life to see if I could change some things.

    I always had a fascination for history. The first time I ever went in the House of Commons, at the invitation of a Labour MP, Marcus Lipton, the Member for Brixton. There is a special atmosphere in that building and it reaches out and it grabs you. I thought to myself that this is where I’d like to work.

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Why choose to join the Conservative Party?]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    At the time, when I was twelve, thirteen, fourteen, we lived in Brixton, five members of the family in two rooms and a little landing upon which we cooked and a washroom three floors down. The Labour Party in Lambeth were very big-hearted, their attitude generally was “yes, you are in difficulties and in due course we will help you. But be patient.” The Conservative Party said to me, “we’d like to open up avenues of opportunity for you to change your own circumstances and those of your own family.” So of the two philosophies there was no doubt which one appealed to me. So I was, by instinct, a Conservative. I am not an ideologue in any way, what attracts me is what can pragmatically can be done, not whether it meets some ideological test or not.
    ….

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I saw immigrants at very close quarters in the 1950s, they shared my house, they were my neighbours and I played with them as a boy. I didn’t see people who had come here just to benefit from our social system, I saw people with the guts and the drive to travel half-way across the world in many cases, to better themselves and their families. I feel that was a very Conservative instinct. That’s what I saw, and it was things like that and also the fear I saw amongst many people who had nothing.
    ….

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Asked Sir John Major about the one nation era in the 1950s and 1960s and whether he was comfortable with this]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Certainly I felt comfortable with it, I much prefer consensus to disagreement. If you can reach consensus then so much the better and certainly of the politicians of those days it was Ian McCloud who most attracted my attention as a young teenager. Firstly because of what he said, which was uplifting, but secondly, because of the way he said it, which was compelling.
    …

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Asked if it was a mystery that he didn’t work hard at school]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not to me. Circumstances at home weren’t easy, my father was very sick and was plainly in the beginning of dying. My mother was very sick, there were lots of domestic problems and I had to travel from Brixton to Wimbledon each day. There were difficulties that sat in the forefront of my mind far more than studying. So I withdrew from what I should have been doing, which was studying. I knew I was doing it and I knew I was foolish in doing it, but I couldn’t not do it. But the moment I left school I knew that I had to study and I had to make up for that.
    ….

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Asked Sir John Major if Margaret Thatcher misread him and did he allow her to misread him]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, I didn’t. If she did misread me, I’m puzzled as to how that happened. Both as Chief Secretary and Chancellor, and briefly as Foreign Secretary which was a glorious 94 days in which we went to war with no-one, and I saw a great deal of Margaret Thatcher one to one. We didn’t always agree and we did have a relationship where I could say to her what I thought. I didn’t have to temper what I thought and I didn’t temper what I thought. So I find it difficult to understand how she could have misunderstood what my views were because they were expressed often enough.

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Ask Sir John Major whether he was ready to be Prime Minister and whether he would have liked more time in another job]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes I would. I think I was missing the fact that the longer you have been in Government, the more experience you have. I would have preferred it if I had become Prime Minister a few years later. I think that would have been easier in terms how I felt about it and easier in terms of the experience which I was able to bring to the job. But if the ball comes your way then you grab it, there’s nothing else you can do.
    …

    PETER HENNESSY:

    [Asked Sir John Major about the problems after the 1992 General Election]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Of course the party changed in 1992, a large number of the last remnants of the post-war generation who had been in the war, and who thought anything was better than having another European war as they have lived through one and had memories of the first earlier in the century. They were prepared to make accommodations to bring Europe together so that there could never again be another European war. They were succeeded by a new young group of Conservatives who had grown up in a much more ideological age with a much more ideological bent and without the historic memory of the war and its immediate aftermath. So the Parliamentary party that was so difficult after 1992 was a significantly different Parliamentary party that had existed throughout the 70s, 80s and the early part of the 90s.
    What significantly changed it was the collapse of Sterling falling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The background to it was forgotten, why did Margaret Thatcher sign up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism? We talked to her and she was persuaded, and she wasn’t as some have said, persuaded with a pistol held to her head.

    I will tell you exactly why Margaret agreed to go into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, because we were entering the end of her Premiership and we were suffering a recession which so often follows a boom and we were now heading into the recession. Inflation on the day I became Prime Minister was very nearly 10%, unemployment was soaring, interest rates were 14% and we were undoubtedly heading towards a deep recession. Margaret cared about inflation, it hurt the people that she knew, she wanted to bring inflation down and that is why she decided that we would enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

    Every time in her political life, and mine, we had had an anti-inflationary policy, the Government had given way when it got difficult. The Exchange Rate Mechanism produced a clear external discipline to bring inflation down, and so concerned about that was she, she actually wished to go into the Exchange Rate Mechanism at a more punitive exchange rate than the one we choose. So the argument that Margaret was unwillingly pushed into the Exchange Rate Mechanism is utterly, utterly false.

    When of course we crashed out it was taken by the Euro-sceptics as a classic reason to pile in on Europe on every conceivable front. And that is what happened, it was a great calamity, a political calamity, that we came out. What is frustrating about that is that we had already been discussing privately within Government, including with the Policy Unit and others, how we could come out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism without causing too much disruption and without the market believing we had given up our anti-inflationary credentials. The crisis hit us and we were toppled out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism before we could reach a conclusion on how to come out voluntarily. That of course seasoned everything that followed.
    …..

    I was never sure whether I should have resigned or not. I asked the views of people I respected such as Douglas Hurd and Norman Fowler. And also people who were not politicians about whether I should resign and their view was that unequivocally that I shouldn’t and if that a Prime Minister did resign a few months after winning an election then the Government itself was doomed.

    I was never in any doubt that winning the 1997 General Election would be very difficult. The day after the 1992 General Election Chris Patten and I sat in the White Room in Number 10 and we agreed that in winning a fourth successive term we had stretched the democratic elastic as far as it would go. Unless Labour collapsed we would have little chance of winning the next election. I was reinforced by that view by the impact of Black Wednesday, I thought it over-whelming likely that we had lost.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC’s One Show – 9 July 2014

    The transcript of the interview with The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH on BBC 1’s “One Show” on Wednesday, 9 July, 2014.

    [Link from a previous piece about Paul Eddington, who starred in Yes, Prime Minister and shots of Number 10]

    MATT BAKER

    Sir John, what do you feel like when you see the famous door, shots like that of the Number 10 door?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It obviously brings back a lot of memories. In many ways it seems rather like a different life. I’m not completely cut off from politics, but I’m out of politics, I’m not involved in the day to day ebb and flow of it. But one remembers and one looks back. You can’t see that door without a degree of familiarity, you remember walking through it and you remember the good times, and the bad times, of what you found when you got through it.

    ALEX JONES

    From 10 Downing Street to Buckingham Palace, we mentioned you were there earlier today, launching this brand new initiative with Prince William and Prince Harry. What can you tell us about it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We had a wonderful day. The background is that we’ve set up the charity the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust to celebrate the Queen’s 60 years as Head of the Commonwealth.

    We’ve raised a certain amount of money and we propose to spend that on two schemes. Firstly, ending avoidable blindness across the Commonwealth, and secondly, the scheme we were launching this afternoon, which was to find, reward and honour inspirational young people from every one of the 54 countries of the Commonwealth over the next few years. Prince William and Prince Harry launched that today and it was an astonishing afternoon.

    I come from the quill pen age, they are very familiar to me. This afternoon I visited Google hangouts, Google booths and Twitter mirrors. So did the Princes and it was astonishing seeing them and they sat there talking live to young people in Australia, in South Africa, in India and in Jamaica. It was an astonishing fact that huge numbers of people were being reached absolutely immediately and then a multiple of that with people tweeting and commenting afterwards.

    ALEX JONES

    You’re looking for 240 of these leaders from every country in the Commonwealth, so you’ve got to get the message out there. Will you be joining in with Twitter?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I had every opportunity to express my views years ago and I have no wish to force them down people’s throats now. So the answer is no, I probably won’t, I’ll leave that to other people. We do want to find these inspirational young people and for lots of reasons. It’s very fashionable these days, you can’t pick up a newspaper or watch television without finding some damning story about young people. I think they ought to meet some of the young people I’ve met, some of the inspirational young men and women who were there today.

    DAVINA MCCALL

    Tell me about them.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ll give you several examples. There were two boys who lost both their parents in the tsunami in Sri Lanka a few years ago. They’ve now set up a business to help orphans all around the world. There’s a young lady who has set up a charity to help people who have suffered from human trafficking. These are the sort of things they’re doing.

    There’s another young man who has taken ground coffee that has been thrown away and used and is turning it into biomass. Extraordinary things that young people are doing and that’s just three examples of fifty amongst young people who were there today, and that’s just the UK, and there will be innumerable people like that right across the Commonwealth and we want to identify them and honour them.

    MATT BAKER

    Recently you said that “in every single sphere of British influence the upper echelons of power in 2013 are held over-whelming by the privately educated or the affluent middle-class, to me and from my background, I find that truly shocking.”

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I did and I do. And that applies not just to this country but right across the Commonwealth. When you think how relatively rich some of the Commonwealth countries are, including us, and then you see some of the Commonwealth countries that are very poor indeed. The scraps from our table are the largesse on their table and you begin to realise how much we can help.

    MATT BAKER

    Is that putting people off from becoming leaders, if you’re not from a privileged background?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Most of these young people we talked to today didn’t come from a privileged background, I can’t think of one that did. They came from perfectly normal straight-forward backgrounds and their ambition and their drive had led them to do something extraordinary. We need to open up the avenues so that people can do that.

    ALEX JONES

    Like yourself Sir John.

    DAVINA MCCALL

    Sometimes those who have been helped want to help others, through Comic Relief and Sport Relief.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We’re so lucky in this country, we have so many real icons. I’m not talking about politics, I’m talking about icons in business who came from nowhere, icons in show business, icons in sport who set a very good example. So often it is the counter-point to that which gets publicity and I think it’d be a great help to everybody if we began to focus on the other side of life.

    ALEX JONES

    Thank you Sir John.

  • Sir John Major’s Contributions on BBC Radio 4’s Royal Activist – 29 June 2014

    The transcript of the contributions made by The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH on BBC Radio 4 “Royal Activist” on Sunday, 29 June, 2014.

    [ELINOR GOODMAN NARRATING – Under Britain’s unwritten constitution there’s a delicate balancing act between the Head of State and the elected Government. At the heart of it is the weekly private audience.]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s simply the Queen and the Prime Minister, they sit entirely alone, nobody else is present, nobody takes notes and it’s a conversation much as you’d have with two adults with a common interest in something.

    [ELINOR GOODMAN NARRATING – This secret conversation between the Queen and her premiers is where a Monarch might influence the Government. Sir John Major was the ninth Prime Minister of the Queen’s reign]

    ELINOR GOODMAN

    Can you remember actually being influenced by the Queen and can you remember changing things as a result of your discussions with her?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think that every Prime Minister can think that and can think of occasions when they happened. I have no intention of indicating what they are, but the answer is yes of course. It would be very foolish indeed not to be influenced.

    ELINOR GOODMAN

    Influence in so much as withdrawing a Bill, changing a clause in it or changing the tone of a argument, what kind of detail would it go into?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I can’t recall an occasion where a Bill was withdrawn. I can recall occasions where the Queen, in discussion, put a gloss upon something which made one think and reflect upon whether it was being done in the right fashion at the right time or perhaps reflect upon what the impact of it would be.
    …….

    [ELINOR GOODMAN NARRATING – Sir John Major does’t think he should have to bite his tongue on every issue]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Prince Charles is his own man, he has his own views, his own thoughts, his own interests and his own style. He is often, if you look back on the last twenty years, ahead of events and not behind them. I think that will be a strength and not a weakness.

    Do we really want a Monarchy that takes an interest in the lifestyle of people in this country, or do we not? If we do, then we can’t expect the Monarch to be a cipher and not express their views, in private, to the Prime Minister of the day so that he, or she, is aware of them.
    …….

    [ELINOR GOODMAN NARRATING – But Sir John Major defends the Prince’s contacts with Ministers]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it is encouraging that the Prince of Wales is entirely free, from his unique perspective, to write to Ministers or the Prime Minister in a way that is invariably intended to be helpful. I think to cut that off, or to make sure that those letters are much more bland than they otherwise might be, would be a loss.
    …….

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The Queen has a special bond with the Commonwealth, but Prince Charles has quite a bond. He knows the Commonwealth very well, he’s travelled to many parts of it on many occasions. I have no doubt, from what I know of Commonwealth leaders over the years, that Prince Charles will become Head of the Commonwealth in precisely the same way the Queen has.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4 – 18 June 2014

    The transcript of the interview with the Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH on BBC Radio 4 “Today Programme” on Wednesday, 18 June, 2014.

    INTRODUCTION

    [Sir John Major has entered the debate on Scottish independence arguing for a no vote and also saying that if that is the outcome the whole of the UK would have to reach a long-term constitutional settlement. And the former Prime Minister said that the SNP Government’s defence proposals would wreck the UK’s ability to maintain a nuclear deterrent. James Naughtie has been speaking to him]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If Scotland were to become a separate country that would have serious implications I believe for Scotland, and negative implications, but it would also have very negative implications for the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Of what kind?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If, for example, you see a country begin to fracture, does it have greater or lesser influence, over its international bodies? In the European Union, in the United Nations, in the G7, in any of the international groupings. Self-evidently, they have less.

    If you have Scotland deciding to be independent what does that actually do inside the rest of the United Kingdom? Does that inflame a greater independence demand in Wales, for example? And it has implications in every part of the UK. We would be weaker.

    Of course, one of the big implications of Scotland becoming separate would be the SNP’s threat to expel Trident from Faslane. That would, in effect, be the end of the serious British nuclear deterrent?

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Why?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Because you can’t just move those submarines, they need proper ports, they need proper facilities. You’re talking of many, many years before they would have them. By which time Trident may no longer be as relevant as it is now.

    That affects not just us, that affects every European country and NATO. How will the United States react when one of the only two countries with a credible military and nuclear capability suddenly has the nuclear capability effectively wrecked?

    This affects the United Kingdom, it affects our security. There are long-term strategic questions for the whole of the United Kingdom that depend upon the result of this referendum.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    But Alex Salmond says that the reality of politics is this. If Scotland were to vote yes on September 18th then David Cameron has promised, in what Alex Salmond calls the Edinburgh Agreement, that he will enact the result of that referendum and treat it with respect. What the First Minister says is, the minute that happened, we’d be into a pragmatic argument. Politicians of good will would have to get together and they would have to solve some of these problems.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    They’re soft words that mean nothing. Where is the pragmatism in deciding, and reiterating again in the last few days, that they will expel Trident? What is the likelihood of Scotland retaining Sterling? I would said the answer is nil.

    It is not a question of anybody being beastly or threatening Scotland. But unless the Scottish electors are told the truth of what the SNP’s programme actually means for Scotland, then they will have every reason later to say ‘why didn’t you tell us’?

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    One of the things you have spoken about as happening if there were to be a no vote is some kind of constitutional discussion which would go on for a long time about embedding enhanced devolution. People are entitled to be a little leery about this aren’t they because after all you were against devolution in the first place, in the late nineties and indeed before that, because you thought it would break up the union.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I opposed devolution not because I thought the Scots couldn’t govern themselves, of course they could. They’ve been a very talented nation and they have run a large part of the British Empire and been remarkably influential in building up the United Kingdom.

    My opposition to devolution was that it would be a stepping stone to separation. When I look at events that are taking place at the present moment I can see precisely why I thought that. My concern then is the same as my concern now, I wish to preserve the Union. That now means that we’re going to put right the defects in the Devolution Bill of the late nineties because it was a very bad Bill, it took no account of the impact upon the rest of the United Kingdom.

    We are now going to have to give Scotland the power to raise its own taxes so that it can pay for its own programme, which I think is an essential democratic point. Then with this enhanced devolution we are going to need a Constitutional Conference which will involve all parties, including of course the Scottish National Party, to decide how we deal with the problems of Scottish devolution as they effect Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Mr. Salmond has a simple answer to that, ‘don’t trust the Tories, they’ve let you down before’.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That’s a cheap answer isn’t it? And it’s a silly answer.

    Is he seriously suggesting that a promise publicly made by the Conservative Prime Minister, by the Labour Leader of the Opposition and by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister could just be callously ditched after the referendum vote? It’s absurd.

    In the real world of politics, not the fantasy world of campaigning, it is not credible for any of the three major parties to resile upon the promises that they have made to the Scottish electors, and nor will they.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Mr. Salmond also appeals to the people in Scotland who believe that the EU link is important and he looks south of the border and he says ‘this lot are going to go sleep-walking out of Europe. If you don’t want that to happen, there’s only one option, vote yes’.

    Now when he says that to people you could forgive them, even you, for thinking he’s maybe right.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Firstly, I have probably suffered more in the cause of Europe than most.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    No argument about that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Thank you, I recall it all very vividly.

    I have not a shred of doubt that the future of the United Kingdom, and by that I mean our material well-being, and our international influence, is far better as a member of the European Union than outside it. I believe a decision will be reached to stay inside the European Union. I believe there are reforms that can, and will, be negotiated.

    But the second point I would make to Mr. Salmond is this. How much influence would he lose in Europe as a nation of five million amongst a Europe of five hundred million? At the moment, whether he wishes to admit it or not, it is the fact that every British Government for a long time has fought for Scotland within Europe. Britain as a voice within the European Union is self-evidently a more powerful voice than any component part of Britain, whether it’s Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’ve alluded to the scars on your back in your European battles right through the nineties with your party, and with some other European countries. David Cameron is having the same kind of problem now. If he loses his public fight over the appointment of Mr. Juncker as Commission President, and it seems as if he may have lost that, for many people in your party the game will be up, Cameron will have laid his chips on the table and lost.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I know Mr. Juncker of old. I have no animus against Mr. Juncker at all. I think he was a very fine Prime Minister of Luxembourg. But Luxembourg is not the European Union. For the whole of the European Union, including Britain, we need a really big political figure at the head of the European Union. That will generate a great deal of authority for the European Union that it doesn’t have internationally at the moment and it should have.

    I don’t know how it is going to turn out with Mr. Juncker. I do not think that he is the right candidate. But it is conceivable, for the wrong reasons, that Europe might elect the wrong candidate. If that is so the way Europe often works is if it has done something which is very much not in the interests of a particular country, they often seek both subliminally and publicly to make that right in some other way.

    The question is, can we get a satisfactory negotiation along the lines that Britain has been talking about. My answer to that is categorically yes, we can.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    One translation of what you have said is that if Mrs. Merkel gets Juncker, she’ll give David Cameron some reform in return.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think it’s a question of Mrs. Merkel, I think it’s a question of the European Union as a whole.

    We are not alone in seeking reforms. I often found that when I appeared to be battling on my own for some change in Europe that after the battle had been fought, whether I had won or whether I had lost, I often found I had allies I didn’t know were there who hadn’t always spoken out.

    I think that there is sufficient common interest in terms of problems across Europe for alliances to be formed when the negotiation proper starts. And I do believe, and I genuinely believe, that David Cameron will be able to come back with a successful and significant reform package that will enable him to put that before the British nation and for Britain then to vote in a clear-cut way to stay as a member of the European Union.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, thank you very much.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists’ Association – 17 June 2014

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists’ Association, held in Edinburgh on Tuesday 17th June 2014.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you for inviting me to Edinburgh today.

    Before saying any more, I’d like to make it clear that – since I’m no longer in politics – I speak for no-one but myself: but like any Englishman – I have a stake in the Referendum debate.

    1707 wasn’t just the Act of Union: it was the creation of Great Britain – and it led to what the historian, Simon Sharma, described as “one of the most astonishing transformations in European history”. We are all, still, in that Great Britain – and I hope we remain so.

    I believe in the Union as a force for good. In 1992, I opposed Devolution because I feared it would weaken the Union and open up divisions between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I saw it as a stepping stone to separation – and the dissolution of a partnership that was vital to our interests and those of our friends and allies.

    Why do I – an English Conservative – care about Scotland remaining in the Union? For many reasons.

    But, first, let me make a purely political point. Conservatives have only one Westminster MP from Scotland. Only David Mundell. One out of 59. Thus, in pure political terms – if Scotland left the Union – the Conservative Party would benefit enormously. We would likely win most elections at Westminster, condemning Labour and the Lib-Dems to almost permanent Opposition.

    This raises the question: why is the Conservative Party in favour of the Union? Why are we campaigning against our own political interests?

    Which other Party is doing that? Certainly not Labour: keeping the Union is life or death to their political future. Not the Liberals; and, obviously, not the SNP. It is only the Conservative Party who are campaigning out of conviction, and against their own political interests. I believe that gives us a right – English though most of us may be – to be heard with respect, and without the petulant name-calling that has been the response to some English interventions.

    Nationalists claim the decision on the future of Scotland is for Scots alone or – to be more precise – people (including non-Scots) who happen to live in Scotland. That is certainly how it will be decided. The 800,000 Scots living elsewhere in the UK will be denied a vote.

    But the decision will affect everyone in the UK: my children and grandchildren may have their future circumscribed by it. So will Scots living outside Scotland – and future generations of Scots. The UK cannot be broken apart without damaging repercussions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland – some unforeseen; some unforeseeable.

    There are three possible outcomes to the Referendum vote. First, Scotland will vote decisively for the Union. Second, separation is defeated – but only by a modest margin. Third, the separatist argument wins, and Scotland becomes a foreign country.

    I hope there will be a large majority for maintaining the Union – albeit with the promises of enhanced devolution. For a small plurality would simply prolong uncertainty and – in such circumstances – the Nationalists will not give up.

    They are committed. They will re-group. They will fight on. And the ongoing debate may become more divisive – not only in Scotland, but also between Scotland and her neighbours. Separatist tactics are obvious: they demand ever more powers from the Westminster Parliament, and complain if they don’t get everything they want. The effect – perhaps, even, the purpose – is to create grievance; to foster maximum ill-feeling; to divide so they can rule. This is what Separatists have been doing for the last two decades or more, and it is a tactic that is damaging for everyone – Scots and non-Scots alike.

    The campaigns for “Yes” and “No” are very different in character. The case for separation is based, at root, on emotion. On Scottish pride. Pride says “Scotland can go it alone” – which, of course, she could. Indeed, the nation of Adam Smith, James Watt, David Hume and Alexander Bell has played a vital part in building up the whole of the UK – it was Scottish talent and ingenuity that pretty much ran the British Empire. “Rule Britannia” may be considered jingoistic in its sentiment these days – but it was written by an Edinburgh Scot (James Thomson [1740]). In return, the Union has offered Scots greater opportunities than would otherwise have been available to them. This will be as true for Scots yet unborn, as it has been for Scots long gone.

    The case for the Union is based on facts: facts are, of course, far less enticing than emotion – but they last longer. Voting “No” to separation is not turning away from a “once-in-a-lifetime offer”: it is holding on to the advantages of one of the most successful partnerships history has ever known.

    We are safer together. Stronger together. More prosperous together. More influential together. We have more opportunities together. Our huge cross-border trade and investment is easier together: Scots may thrive as easily in London or Cardiff as in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Together, we have ridden out many economic crises – though whether Scotland alone could have saved RBS is debatable.

    We have fought wars together more often (and more recently) than we have fought against one another. We were at war centuries ago – which is why I find it – frankly – rather sad that the SNP chose the anniversary of Bannockburn for the vote – presumably to maximise the opportunity for anti-English sentiment.

    They seem to have forgotten two even bigger anniversaries this year.

    Two weeks ago was the 70th Anniversary of D Day. One of the most brave and ambitious military operations in history. The commemorations at Normandy saw many moving moments, not least the image of a silhouetted lone piper – at dawn – playing a haunting lament on Gold Beach, where so many perished in 1944. And who can forget the parachute drop by 89 year old Jock Hutton – who joined the Black Watch at the age of 15, before a lifetime of service in the parachute regiment?

    For hundreds of years, patriotic Scots have fought and died alongside their brothers in arms, under our national flag – the Union Jack.

    In July, we commemorate the beginning of World War I. How ironic it would be if – come September – we are marking the joint sacrifice of so many brave men as separate Nations.

    All we have ever done together – achieved together – we take for granted. Yet – if we part company – much of that is at risk, and both Scotland and the rest of the UK will be the losers. Pointing this out – setting out the truth for Scottish voters – is surely morally right – yet it is criticised as negative campaigning.

    Unpalatable facts are derided and dismissed by the Nationalists – who ignore valid and complex points and merely abuse the messenger. In so doing, they are deceiving the Scottish electorate, who deserve an intelligent response – and to be told the truth.

    When the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems say an independent Scotland cannot use the Pound, the Separatists say they’re bluffing, or bullying.

    Believe me, they are not: a currency union requires a political union – and the latter would no longer exist. Experience of the Eurozone surely proves the importance of that?

    When the EU says Scotland must wait in a queue to apply to join it, Separatists brush it aside as nonsense. But it is the truth. Entry may take years – and may be probable – but is by no means certain. Nations like Spain and Belgium – with separatist tendencies in their own countries – will not be keen to see any Separatist Nation waved easily into the EU.

    The SNP like to present Scandinavian countries as models for an independent Scotland. I hope they heard the former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, lamenting the impact of breaking up the UK. He is not alone. Or are we to believe that such eminent Europeans are “bluffing” too? Their views of independence may well influence any negotiations with the European Union.

    And, is it not bizarre for the SNP to campaign to leave one highly successful Union, whilst applying to join another far less successful one that is seen – even by its most ardent advocates – to be in serious need of reform? This is even more difficult to understand when you consider that there have always been Scottish voices around the Cabinet table at Westminster – and at the top of our public services. By contrast, Scotland – as a mere 1% of the population of the EU – will be guaranteed no senior roles at all. The SNP are campaigning to replace influence in the UK with irrelevance in the EU. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Scotland.

    When the SNP threaten to expel Trident from Faslane, they not only undermine the UK, but NATO as well. America would not forgive – nor forget – this, and yet the Separatists assume membership of NATO is almost a given. Trust me, it is far from that. What – exactly – would an independent Scotland be able to offer NATO in return for membership?

    As the Referendum approaches, Ming Campbell, Gordon Brown and Tom Strathclyde have all made striking proposals. There are promises to enhance devolution from all three mainstream political parties: it is absurd to suggest these would simply be shelved after the referendum. They won’t. They will be enacted. Three political parties could not possibly resile from such explicit commitments.

    Tom Strathclyde has suggested that – if separation is defeated – there will need to be constitutional talks involving every part of the UK.
    I am sure he is right. Devolution is no longer simply a West Lothian question: experience shows us it is a West Berkshire question, too. Our United Kingdom can sustain constitutional anomalies – and has, thus far, with existing devolution – but, to find an equitable long-term settlement, we need to consider the impact of enhanced devolution on Government and Parliaments across the UK. Solutions can be agreed – and may be wide-ranging – and it is right these be carefully considered. The status quo at Westminster and Cardiff cannot be sustained and must be changed: the question to be decided is – how?

    At present, there is an unhealthy atmosphere surrounding politics across the UK and Europe. It is one of the factors causing disenchantment with the traditional political Parties: but we must not allow it to contribute to the disintegration of the United Kingdom.

    One of the first men to call for Union was a 16th Century Philosopher who taught at Glasgow and St Andrews Universities. His view was clear: once broken, it cannot be put together again. His name? John Major. And although no descendant, I echo his call for Union. Voting for separation – with Scotland becoming a “foreign” country – is not a temporary arrangement that can be reversed. It will be permanent.
    Back in the 1500s, John Major the Scot had some more wise words to offer: “It is of more moment to understand aright, and clearly to lay down the truth of any matter, than to use eloquent language”. That is what the “No” campaign is doing.

    Britain is Great. From the lochs and glens of Scotland, to the valleys of Wales, to the peaks and gorges of England and to the coastline of Northern Ireland. Each has its own unique beauty, and its own people. But collectively, we four small and proud nations – for all our differences – have achieved so much together as a United Kingdom.

    With separation, we will no longer be United, but fractured – and we will all be the poorer for that.