The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2016

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Consortium for Street Children – 15 November 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Consortium for Street Children on Tuesday 15 November 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is hard to believe it is nearly a quarter of a century since I spoke at the launch of the Consortium. Today, it is a global network to protect children, and its growth and success is largely due to the dedication of many of the pioneers who are here this evening. They have taken us a long way.

    It is easy to see why they are so committed, and why I wished to be a part of their work 23 years ago. All children deserve care – not just some of them. They deserve a home, a family, security, education, adult guidance and – above all – love and affection. And yet – although we cannot be precise as to numbers – it is likely that, in 2016, 150 million children enjoy none of these benefits. They face the world alone, and can be found on every Continent. In every way, this is unacceptable.

    When children are not cared for – we have all let them down. By we – I mean governments and individuals. It is – to me – extraordinary that they have been left so far behind for so long. Extraordinary – and indefensible. It is as if they are invisible to the conscience of the world.

    Now – at last – we may be on the eve of a breakthrough that is long overdue. Next Spring, the United Nations will issue a General Comment – an unimaginative name for a vital advance. A General Comment is a legal framework that will offer guidance, and set out governments’ obligations to children and how our responsibilities to them should be met. This will provide – for the first time – an opportunity for civil society to hold policy-makers to account if they don’t take action: and for street children it could – and should – be Liberation Day.

    But, of course, the effect of this won’t be instant – for the children or anyone else. The scale of the task is immense, and what needs to be done will take a very long time. But, once begun – and with continued advocacy – it should develop its own momentum.

    On behalf of those street children everywhere who don’t know – and may never know – who their advocates have been, a heartfelt thank you to all those here this evening who have done so much to bring this about.

    However, important though this advance is, it’s not enough. Declarations don’t house the homeless or feed the hungry. But it most definitely marks the beginning of what we hope will bring about the end of this truly terrible – and unacceptable – human neglect.

    So we all need to make sure the General Comment is implemented fully. I say this because we have all seen how grudging the international response has been for refugee children – despite the horrors of Syria. This should make us realise that, although we may cheer this advance, we cannot yet celebrate a victory.

    Over 23 years, and across 130 countries, hundreds of thousands of deprived children have been helped. But we have so much more to do. Sometimes their enemy is not disinterest – but the lack of Government action or the wrong action.

    As a child in Harare told us about the police: “They treat us as animals, they can raid us and lock us up in a cell for three weeks and they would only give us dry bread for food.”

    The General Comment can be used by Governments to eliminate police round-ups of children who are loitering, or sleeping in public places.

    And, from a Mexican child: “There are street children who die, while others survive, because they don’t have the money to pay for a hospital.”

    The General Comment spells out to governments their obligations to end discrimination so that, for example, specialised health services and education are made available – free of charge – to street children.

    I could go on.

    In the past, UN action has sometimes been ignored. We must make sure this one is not. These neglected children are in dire need and, having put so much effort into getting this far, we must understand that there is still so much more to be done.

    Uruguay has – or is about to – announce that she will be an “Early Adopter” of the General Comment – which is tremendous news, but we must plead with/encourage/persuade others to do the same.

    So we still need pledges – of help, of expertise, of cash – to increase the momentum of our campaign. As a wise man once said – “Money is the root of all progress”: and that is certainly true of our own work.

    To those of you who already feel overwhelmed by all your other responsibilities, I would only say this: Many – most – of us present have children – or, in my own case, children and grandchildren. How would we feel if any one of them was condemned to live the life of a street child? Cold; hungry; and certainly alone; with no-one to turn to, and no-one to rely on. Even worse, without the most basic human need of all: hope.

    Would we not think we had failed? Yes, we would.

    So, in a sense, we are all parents of these lost children. And when we think of it in that way, we know we must help.

    So, thank you for what you have done, are doing, and will be doing to help those who cannot help themselves.

    Let me close with the following thought:

    When you go home this evening, you – like millions of others around the world – will walk into a warm and welcoming place. You may pour yourself a glass of wine … or two. You may look inside a well-stocked fridge for a snack. You may pop something into the oven. Or flip on the kettle to make a hot drink. You will then climb into a soft and comfortable bed; warm, well-fed and – above all – safe and secure behind a locked door.

    As I say, like millions of others. But with one key difference: as you turn the lights out you will be the ones who – by being here tonight – have helped some of the youngest and most vulnerable people in our world clamber out of despair to – hopefully – experience the same degree of comfort and security.

    And that, I hope, will lead to a very peaceful night’s sleep indeed.

    Thank you for being here, and joining our crusade for fairness to children: it is a cause to warm the conscience.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Shimon Peres – 28 September 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s tribute to Shimon Peres, issued on 28 September 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Shimon Peres was a giant of Israeli politics. He tried consistently to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He took the long view that Israel needed security with their near neighbours to protect them from wider dangers. He was a true patriot, and Israel has lost one of its most illustrious leaders.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments in Bristol on EU Referendum – 22 June 2016

    Below are extracts of the speech made by Sir John Major in Bristol on 22 June 2016.

     

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This is the last day we have left to try and persuade the British people to remain in the EU.

    As Prime Minister, European rows upset many of my ambitions. I should wish to leave …. and yet I passionately believe that our jobs, homes, savings and family life will be safer and more secure if we remain in the EU.

    Of course I understand there is concern over the current level of immigration – I stress current. I understand it – the PM understands it. But leaving the EU is no solution. To try and solve a short-term problem by doing so is to risk a far greater longer-term impact on our prosperity and place in the world.

    If we were to leave, we would be seriously diminished as a country. I don’t want a Broken Britain without influence. And that is what we risk.

    Throughout this campaign I – and others – have been accused of “scaremongering”. Of running a “Project Fear”. What a grotesque travesty of the truth.

    So many respected bodies have pointed out the risks – and the Remain campaign has a duty to inform, correct myths and untruths – and to warn. That is Project Reality.

    That is our responsibility. If we had failed in that – and if the British people vote out and all the things we have warned of come to pass – they would be fully entitled to say: “Why on earth did no-one ever tell us it would be like this?”

    The British people will make their own choice tomorrow – but I do not want to sit on my rocking chair in a few years’ time wishing I had done more to lay the truth on the line …

    Of course being a member of the EU can be frustrating. Sometimes deeply frustrating. No-one knows that better than me – and the PM – for both of us have sat around that top table for many years.

    But the benefits of being inside the EU are real and by far outweigh any downsides: our international prestige, influence, security, wellbeing are all enhanced inside Europe.

    As I stand here beside a still very youthful and energetic PM … I am very much aware that I represent the “grey” vote – actually, I think I’ve probably represented that for many years …..

    But this is an important point: many people my own age – and older – remember the last referendum in 1975. Many say “We voted IN then – but we never voted for this ….. we never voted for what we have now ….. this is my chance to reverse that … to get out of Europe”.

    I understand that sentiment, but would put another one to them: our country, Europe – and the wider world – is a very different place than it was in 1975. The world has moved on – and we have had to move with it. Who would have imagined that China would become so economically dominant? Who would have imagined that the communist Soviet Union would collapse, and that wall of division – of hate – between the East and the West would be torn down? Who would have foreseen the Global Market?

    Our country is as free as any in the world. We take freedom for granted. Political freedom. Freedom of movement. And these are not one-way freedoms: our children and grandchildren think nothing of hopping onto Eurostar and heading off to Paris for a weekend break. Or travelling around Europe with a backpack earning money to pay their way …. why should such freedoms be denied to others?

    Our nation is instinctively compassionate, open-hearted, generous-spirited, fair-minded and tolerant. We balk against hatred and extremism. We are fiercely patriotic – but not nationalistic.

    And it is patriotic to work with others to ensure our security; to improve our economic well-being; to carry British influence and British values around Europe and the world. The optimistic patriot looks outwards and forwards – not inwards and backwards.

    I am at an age when I often look back. But I owe it to my children and my grandchildren to look forward.

    And it is because I want the very best for their future – and for the future of your own children and grandchildren – that I wish to remain in the EU.

    I want their futures to be safe. Secure. I want them to enjoy the freedoms that I have enjoyed. I want them to know prosperity not austerity. I want them to feel compassion for those in genuine need. I want them to reject hatred and violence – and to live in a country that does so too.

    For these and many other reasons, we cannot – must not – pull up the drawbridge on our own country, and shrink back into ourselves. We need to be a strong voice, with a strong influence inside the EU and on the global stage.

    If we leave, Europe would lose the country with the best performing economy; one of only two countries with a military capability and nuclear capacity; and the country with the longest, deepest and widest foreign policy reach.

    And how ironic it would be if Britain – the nation that once, by her steadfastness saved Europe – were to end up as the architect of disarray across Europe.

    If our nation does vote to leave – we must respect their decision.

    But, if they vote to leave on the basis of half-truths, untruths and misunderstandings then – pretty soon – the gravediggers of our prosperity will have to account for what they have said and done.

    But that will be of no consolation. For we will be out. Out for good. Diminished as an influence on the world. A truly Great Britain, shrunk down to a Little England.

    This is not how our island story should go.

    Tomorrow – millions of our fellow citizens can save our country from a mistake we will live to regret … for a very long time to come.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Death of Jo Cox – 17 June 2016

    Below is the text of the comments made by Sir John Major during an interview with Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, on 17 June 2016.

    LIONEL BARBER

    I must begin to ask you about the tragic and senseless killing of Labour MP Jo Cox. What does this tell us about the state of our representative democracy?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s a particularly shocking event for several reasons. I think it’s particularly shocking because it is simply not what we expect in this country. It’s doubly shocking because here was a young lady with young children, little more than babies themselves, and I think that has sunk deep in the public consciousness.

    I think what people will be concerned about is whether this is the act of a single deranged man or is this emblematic of an angry feeling that has grown up, not just in our country but all over Europe. I hope and believe that it’s the former.

    LIONEL BARBER

    Do you believe the referendum campaign can, and has, engendered those kind of emotions?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t believe this is to do with the referendum campaign, certainly not. I think you’ve seen this concern arising all over Europe, and of course in the United States, for quite a long time. There is a disaffection with politics, and hence with politicians, and there are a vast range of reasons for it. One of course is the fact that, probably since 2007, the majority of people across Europe have not have any material increase in their quality of life and in their standard of living and that is very, very unusual. We need to go back to the 1930s to find a comparatively long period.

    We in our country have done better than most, hence the pretty dramatic fall in unemployment. But you don’t see that across Europe and there are some very harsh feelings and a rising of some pretty unpalatable thoughts across Europe.

  • Sir John Major’s Palliser Lecture Speech – 15 June 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s Palliser Lecture Speech on Wednesday 15 June 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    THE EU: IN OR OUT?

    When I was invited to deliver the “Palliser” Lecture, I was delighted to accept.

    First, because Sir Michael Palliser was a distinguished diplomat and Head of the Diplomatic Service. And second, because – as a lover of Anthony Trollope novels – I grew up reading about the world of 19th century politics, in which Plantagenet Palliser, the Duke of Omnium, became Prime Minister. It was irresistible to deliver a Palliser Lecture.

    In my experience, more often than not, Lectures are dispassionate: but I am not dispassionate when I see the future of my country at risk.

    We are in the midst of a debate about our place in Europe that has no certain outcome. We may, as I hope, stay in the EU. But we can’t be certain of that: in a season of political anger, the British people may vote to leave. If they do, it will not only change our relationship with Europe, but with much of the world as well.

    Our world has changed. We Britons are 65 million people in a world of 7,000 million. It is a world facing common threats that is drawing together in trade, in politics, in social exchange, in almost every sphere. It would be an extraordinary moment to cut ourselves adrift from the largest and richest free market in history.

    I would like first to put the case for Europe. The EU has enabled its Member States to enjoy 70 years of peace, and greatly reduced – even perhaps ended – the risk of future conflict between them.

    NATO is our military arm in times of danger. But the EU has worked to prevent military action; to bring former enemies together; to end Franco-German hostility; to build economic cooperation.

    It has offered a democratic alternative to fascism for Greece, Italy and Portugal; it has widened its borders to offer democracy to nations once trapped in the Soviet sphere; it has pooled resources for foreign policy initiatives; it has faced down threats from Russia and Iran with communal sanctions; it has brought down national barriers.

    Little or none of this could the UK have done alone.

    Alone we would be weaker politically and weaker diplomatically and – as John Kerr succinctly put it earlier this week – “Why would China listen to us if our influence in Europe, and in America, is shrunk?” That is unanswerable.

    So is the economic case for Europe. I will come to trade in a moment but, apart from that, the EU has delivered market liberalisation in energy, air travel, telecommunications – and enhanced competition that has meant more choice, more efficiency, and cheaper prices for everyone who uses those services.

    Travel by road, rail and air has become easier. Collaboration in science and industrial research has been massively enhanced by the EU, while poorer regions have gained extra assistance from Europe as a matter of right.  

    When Britain entered the Common Market, we were the “sick man of Europe”. In recent years, we have been the best performing economy – partly due to our own reforms, but also because of our tariff-free entry to the richest trade market the world has ever known: a market that is not at the far side of the world – but on our very doorstep. In the EU, we are on track to become the biggest economy in Europe – bigger even than Germany. If we leave Europe that ambition can be forgotten.

    We have jobs and wages and prosperity in our country because we are great traders. We export. Nearly one-half of all our exports go to Europe. We export six times as much to the EU as to Brazil, Russia, China and India added together. We export five times as much to the EU as to all the other 52 members of the Commonwealth added together. And we sell more services to tiny Luxembourg than to mighty India with a population of over one billion. These are the facts now – not the Boris-in-Wonderland aspirations of what might come to pass if we left Europe.

    The sheer scale of our trade has vastly improved living standards in our country and will improve them even more as the EU opens up the digital market; the energy market; and the financial services market – but not, of course, to us if we were to leave. As Margaret Thatcher would have put it in her prime: “There is no alternative to the European Single Market”.

    I am an old-style Conservative. Before I abandon something of value to our country, I wish to know what will replace it. No-one with any sense would think of crossing the road unless they knew they could get safely to the other side: yet “Vote Leave” is encouraging our nation to take a far greater gamble. Like lemmings headed for a cliff edge, “Leave” leaders assure us it will be all right. But it won’t.

    When our friends around the world tell us not to take this risk, we are told they are only “trying to frighten us”. When venerable institutions set out probable outcomes, we are told that they’re “part of an establishment plot” or “stooges” of the Government. When friendly foreigners – with huge and important investments in the UK providing employment up and down the country – intervene, urging us to remain in the EU, we are told they are simply “interfering”.

    Individuals are disparaged and abused – from the President of the US onwards. By June 23rd, Vote Leave will have insulted just about everyone who speaks up for the future of the UK inside Europe.

    And it’s a long list: the Governments of the US, China, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; organisations such as the World Bank, OECD, IFS and Bank of England; and investors in our country such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg and many others – are all ignored.

    So are scientists led by Stephen Hawking. So is Academia, the Research Industry, the NHS, 300 historians, 9 Nobel Prize Winners – I could go on.

    In a normal world, when big investors like Li Ka Shing say, “If Brexit really happens, we will surely decrease our investments” – we would sit up and heed his warning.

    But in the topsy-turvy world of Vote Leave, every single person, Government or institution – however eminent and respected – who warns the UK, urges the UK, to remain in the EU are wrong – and Vote Leave alone is right.

    When I hear that China is poised to triple her investments inside the EU – I think of what the UK might lose outside of it. And when I put the question: “Is the world more likely to invest in a British market of 65 million or a European market of 500 million?” I am beyond baffled that anyone could argue for exit from the European Union.

    But our decision on June 23rd will not only affect us here in the UK. Consider what the EU loses if we desert them:

     – its fastest growing economy;

     – one of only two powers with a significant military capability and a nuclear capacity; and

     – the country with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach.

    In a world of three great economic powers – the US, China, the EU – Europe will fall to a lower level, and have a lesser voice, a smaller market, a diminished influence. Our European partners will not thank us for that. The divorce will be bitter: the rancour will be long lasting.

    No-one should be complacent about the possible wider impact of a British exit from the European Union. Our departure is not going to be a soon-forgotten moment, with minor turbulence. No-one can be sure what will happen, but it could lead to catastrophe on a much wider canvas. Some Europeans fear that the EU could unravel. I can hear anti-Europeans cheering at that – but, if they do, they can have absolutely no understanding of the implications.

    The economic, political, diplomatic and reputational damage to the UK will be severe and long-lasting. Waving away the risks as inconsequential is reckless beyond measure.

    If the UK leaves and if the EU implodes, the impact on our security, our trade, our living standards and on Europe’s place in a world of mischief would all be negative. The next few years could be chaotic, dysfunctional, and the fight to secure national advantage for each European Country could be ugly – and produce many casualties.

    Anything remotely along these lines – even at the lower end of events – would be a gift to the fringes of politics, to the extreme nationalists, to the xenophobes and to the far right movements that are beginning to scar the political landscape.

    Britain leaving the EU would be a mega event, and no-one can be certain where it would lead. Every aspect, every eventuality must be set out before we ask our people to make their decision – and that is what I will continue to do right up to polling day.

    And how ironic it would be if Britain – the nation that once, by her steadfastness, saved Europe – were to end up as the architect of disarray.

    And, before “Vote Leave” scoffs further, predicting only a placid, sunlit Utopia outside the EU, let me tell them this: a chaotic situation across Europe is a far more likely outcome than their scurrilous and – to my mind – shameful warning of 77 million Turks flooding into the UK.

    How can it be – against such a potentially disastrous outcome for our country – that the case for leaving Europe has become so popular? In part, pro-Europeans like me are to blame: whilst we have criticised the EU’s shortcomings we have failed to adequately praise its virtues.

    Our neglect has helped feed anti-European sentiment. That accepted, we now face a tide of half-truths, untruths and exaggerations that are widely believed – and threaten to propel us into isolation.

    So – let me look at the Brexit case.

    What a tide of woe they pour out every day. What an angry miserable tale they tell. But that is what it is – a tale.

    They tell us that poor, defenceless Britain is governed by a European elite that is answerable to no-one. This elite group makes our laws and steals our sovereignty.

    If this were true, the British people would be right to rebel – but, of course, it is pure fiction.

    And who is this European “elite”? The democratically elected Heads of Government who run the EU? Or the democratically elected MEPs? No, it is the European Civil Service: the Commissioners appointed for a fixed time only by the individual nation states – whose proposals for laws must be approved by the Heads of Government, or senior nation state Ministers, by elected MEPs, the European Parliament and then by nation state Parliaments.

    We’re told these bogeymen make all our laws. Again, not so. The House of Commons Library tells us that – at most – one law in seven comes from the EU – and often that is a law we would pass ourselves.

    “We’ve lost our sovereignty” bleat the Brexiteers. No we have not: we share it by our own choice. If we didn’t have sovereignty we couldn’t even hold this Referendum; moreover, we do so by exercising a clause in EU law that enables Member States to leave. The myth of an over-mighty Europe is just yet more misleading propaganda.

    And then there are the two Big Scare Stories from the “Leave” camp: about our security and immigration.

    We’re told that – if we stay in the EU – all sorts of terrorists and undesirables are going to come flooding into our country from Europe.

    Really? Over the last decade two terrible incidents stand out: the 7/7 bombings in London and the murder of Lee Rigby. Both were carried out by long-term UK residents, not European migrants. That suggests the security forces and Border Control have been far more successful than their critics claim.

    On immigration, “Vote Leave” exaggeration has become almost hysterical. Let me offer some facts as an antidote to their fictions.

     –  Over half of all our immigration is from outside the EU.

     –  EU migrants include 52,000 doctors and nurses; 80,000 social care workers; 43,000 academics in Higher Education; and a total of 240,000 men and women in our public services. Are they really unwelcome? Are they undesirable? Are they a threat? What an absurd notion. These are people who cure us when we are sick; care for us when we need help; educate our children; keep our public transport running; and staff coffee shops, restaurants and hotels across the UK.

    So what does Vote Leave propose? A points system to pick and choose: but who will be excluded? Would there be a cap? Would others need visas? What of people here now who don’t meet the new requirements?

    And what would be the position of British citizens living or working in Europe? What would happen to the Common Travel Area with Ireland? There are so many questions, yet still – with only one week to go to polling day – absolutely no answers. And I have no doubt that if we block Europeans from entering the UK, they will retaliate: not least since their voters will insist on it.

    The plain truth is “Vote Leave” is resorting to scare tactics because they have lost the economic argument.

    According to Boswell, the great figure Samuel Johnson expressed the view that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I’m not sure I agree with that harsh judgement: but he was surely right when he wrote, “it is sometimes used for a fractious disturber of the government”.

    In this debate over Europe no one side has a monopoly on patriotism. The Leave campaign believes it is patriotic to – I quote – “take back control”. Although I don’t doubt their sincerity, the premise of that statement is profoundly flawed, and their definition too narrow.

    I believe it’s patriotic to work with others to ensure our security; to improve our economic wellbeing; to carry British influence and British values around Europe and the world. The optimistic patriot looks outwards and forwards – not inwards and backwards.

    It is simply not true that we need to leave Europe to make us a great country: we are a great country – that is why people wish to come here.

    And any thinking patriot must surely be concerned about the impact of leaving the EU on the unity of the UK? On Scotland? On Ireland?

    Here is the nightmare scenario: the UK out of the EU; Scotland out of the UK; a rump England with a discontented Wales and Northern Ireland. Do we really want to see Border and Customs controls between England and Scotland – and Northern Ireland and the Republic? I emphatically do not.

    I spent years on the NI Peace Process to improve relations between North and South; I don’t wish to see them undermined by some of the very same people who opposed that Peace Process 25 years ago. And it simply baffles me how members of the Conservative and Unionist Party can be so careless of the Union.

    I am a Briton, an Englishman and a Unionist, and I believe our United Kingdom is a benevolent influence in the world. I don’t want us to isolate ourselves. Overall, we are a force for good, for reason, for moderation. We have much to offer. We should not shrivel into ourselves and hide away.

     I hope everyone will think of what we can offer Europe – and of the future, and the next generation – before they make up their minds. The decision we take is, quite literally, more relevant to our future then any General Election has been in the past – or will be in the future.

    If our nation then votes to leave, we must respect their decision.

    But, if they vote to leave on the basis of half-truths and untruths then – pretty soon – the grave-diggers of our prosperity will have to account for what they have said and done – but that will be of no consolation, for we will be out. Out for good. Diminished as an influence on the world. A truly great Britain, shrunk down to a Little England.

    That is not the future I wish to see for our country ……

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Peterborough Cathedral – 10 June 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Peterborough Cathedral on Friday 10 June 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is extraordinary that this is the 900th Anniversary of this great Cathedral.

    Its foundations were laid over 50 years before the martyrdom of Thomas Beckett, and 100 years before Magna Carta opened a small chink towards democracy. In those days, one third of England was forest – and the Cathedral would have dominated the landscape.

    Today, it sits in the middle of a city, and the forest has long gone: although part of its wood survives in the great ceiling above us in this Nave.

    Nine hundred years ago our dinner – on a Friday – would, of course, have been fish: probably sole or eels. We would have shared a communal soup bowl and eaten from common plates of food, helping ourselves with – hopefully clean – fingers.

    We would have had knives but no forks. We would have been discouraged from licking our fingers clean (very bad table manners), or taking too much food, or using bread to mop up morsels from the communal plate. And if we were wise, we would not have drunk the water. We would certainly have never imagined the future.

    So much has happened since then and – today – events are moving faster than ever before. For many, it is a bewildering world, throwing up choices and decisions perhaps more complex than anything we have known in all our long history.

    The role of the Cathedral has evolved over the centuries. Faith is more liberal now, more user-friendly, more open to accept different cultures – and more tolerant of those who have no faith at all.

    Yet it remains massively important to its community. As part of the celebrations of this anniversary Peterborough 900 is raising funds for community purposes: a heritage and education centre, and a Music School, are projects that will benefit many people.

    So will re pitching the Organ to enable the Cathedral to function as a concert venue with a new sound system. Some may say – is this the purpose of a Cathedral?

    I would say, “Yes, it is”: in a secular – often too materialist – world, in a multi-cultural and multi-faith City, it must reach out and be seen as a relevant part of our way of living: if it were to become a mausoleum for only the committed to visit on Sunday it would surely wither.

    Our country was once a collection of small towns and cities and tiny villages, and the Church was the heart and soul of the community: today, when so many are elderly, some lonely, and others possibly a little frightened at the pace and change of modern life, this role is as important as it has ever been.

    For the sick at heart, it is a sanctuary: open to the good and the bad alike: a comfort zone for some when none other may exist. That is why in my view – though this is not shared by everyone in public life – it should use its pulpit to speak out more clearly on issues that affect the lives of everyday people.

    Today, around the world, intolerance of minorities is on the rise. In country after country we see them scape-goated. Extreme politicians reach for power. Even in our own backyard of Europe, intolerant voices influence opinion. Here, in this bastion of faith, I invite the Church, and all faith groups, to speak out whilst intolerance can still be beaten back. It is important that they do – without fear and without reservation.

    * * * * *

    Some problems are eternal. Twenty five years ago, at the door of Downing Street, I set out my ambition for “a nation at ease with itself”. At the heart of this was my wish to tackle inequality.

    That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power. I made some progress – but not enough. Overall, I failed in my own objective.

    With age comes reflection and, these days, I am more and more concerned about inequality. Sixty-five years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. And for many – in a country now immensely more wealthy – life is still not easy.

    The global market is driving inequality – and the uncomfortable truth is that there is a gap between what our nation needs in social provision, and what the taxpayer is willing to pay.

    For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work. The National Lottery, too, has now disbursed over £33 billion to good causes – mostly to provide facilities the State could not afford. Indeed, this Cathedral has benefited from some of them.

    But, inevitably, there are gaps: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are amongst the poorest in all Northern Europe.

    Even in areas that are recognised as wealthy, there are families or individuals who have fallen behind.

    In communities where traditional jobs have gone, too many are on low incomes – or no income at all. A minority move elsewhere to find work. But the majority can’t: not through disinclination, but because – even if they have sufficient savings to do so – it is tough to uproot to find a job and a home. For the penniless, or for those with families or who act as carers, it can – literally – be impossible. They are effectively trapped.

    And let us cast aside a common misconception. Everyone out of work is not an idler. Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and Governments are right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not only be on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

    We have made progress. We can raise living standards: we have been doing so for a long time. At the turn of the 20th Century, millions struggled to eat. In London, one in three lived below the poverty line; in York, one in four ate less well than the unfortunate wretches in the poor house.

    Over the decades, mass poverty has shrunk back. The quality of life has risen across all income groups – but much less evenly than is healthy. Politicians, and charities, and churches, and the free market, can all take a mini-bow for what has been achieved. But there is no cause for complacency: a hard core of relative poverty still remains.

    A nation at ease with itself requires fairness.  

    370 years ago, in the Putney Debates, Colonel Rainsborough observed: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he, or she, then, and so has he, or she, now. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

    Of course we’re not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood. As a boy, my family lived in two rooms in Brixton. Life was hard but for others it was worse. I saw poverty all around me – and have never forgotten that.

    There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and the memory of it never leaves you.

    We see poverty as a social evil – which, of course, it is: but it is far more than that. It is an economic evil. It wastes talent. It destroys ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair and communities in decline.

    And inequality – poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. It undermines national cohesion. The human spirit can endure great hardship: but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

    Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence. End overseas aid to people who are far poorer than us – and living in conditions of squalor that we cannot even imagine. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this doesn’t work.

    The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they have failed before and would do so again. Easy promises, with no practical policy to bring them about, are simply posturing.

    And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed.

    What does help is national wealth accompanied by national conscience. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the health of our national economy is an essential preliminary to a nation at ease with itself.

    * * * * * *

    And that brings me to my final point. Ahead of us in a few days is a pivotal choice – to stay in the European Union or leave it. This arouses strong emotions among some people – and no doubt both sides of the argument are represented here tonight. I am no starry-eyed European. I was, after all, the Prime Minister who kept us out of the Euro and declined to join the Schengen zone on free movement of people.

    But I am a realist. And unlike many in the present debate, I sat for seven years at Europe’s top table and saw it from the inside. I learned its intentions. I know its virtues, its faults and its frustrations at first hand, yet I have not a shred of doubt that it is in our present and long-term interest to remain in the EU. Inside we will be richer. We will be more influential. We can do more.

    Our world has changed. We Britons are 65 million people in a world of 7,000 million. And it is a world that is drawing together in trade, in politics, in travel, and in facing common threats. It would be an extraordinary moment to suddenly cut ourselves adrift from the largest and richest free market in history.

    I am a Briton, and an Englishman, and I believe our country is a benevolent influence in the world. I don’t want us to isolate ourselves. Overall, we are a force for good, for reason, for moderation. We have much to offer.

    I hope everyone will think of that – and of the future, and the next generation – before they make up their minds. The decision we take is, quite literally, more relevant to our future then any General Election has or will be.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Northern Ireland – 9 June 2016

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Northern Ireland on 9 June 2016.

    Let me start by saying how pleased I am to be back in Northern Ireland, and with you this morning.

    Tony and I are here to talk about the European referendum, and why it matters for you, for Northern Ireland, for Anglo-Irish relations,
    …and for the future of our United Kingdom as a whole.

    In a moment, Tony will talk specifically about Northern Ireland, but I want to take a step back and ask: what’s this referendum really all about?

    First, it’s about the economy, jobs and the wellbeing of everyone in the UK.

    Just like Prime Ministers before us and since, Tony and I fought hard to persuade our fellow European leaders to continue to build the Single Market: we did so because it is of huge benefit to Britain. It is the richest free market in the world and we have full access to it: that is enormously valuable for our prosperity.

    To risk losing it – or reducing our access to it – seems to be pure folly.

    Secondly, our security and strength on the world stage is also vital.

    If we work with our partners in Europe we can achieve things in the British interest that we cannot do alone.

    I know that immigration remains a concern for people – but, in my view, that would remain a contentious issue whether we were in or out of Europe.

    It is a difficult and complex problem, but there are no simple answers to it, no magic bullets that solve it.

    But – this morning – I want everyone here to understand something else – something that is critical in this debate – and for all our futures.

    This referendum is also about the people in every part of the United Kingdom, and the union that we have built together over generations.

    That’s important to all of us – it’s about the ties of friendship, family and affection that bind us together.

    Men and women; friends and neighbours; workmates and classmates…

    …all of us living together side-by-side in a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    And I say without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that the wrong outcome on June 23rd will affect our union; and will jeopardise that unity.

    That means the unity of the United Kingdom itself is on the ballot paper in two weeks’ time.

    Let me explain.

    First, Scotland.

    Two years ago, on the eve of the Scottish Referendum…

    …thousands and thousands of people gathered in Trafalgar Square to wave Union Jacks and sing songs together – imploring the Scottish people not to vote for independence.

    It was a last-ditch appeal, an emotional plea, from the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish to stick together, to stay together – to preserve the most successful union in history.

    Wisely, the Scots did so – against the advice of the SNP.

    I believe that, with one qualification, the matter is now settled for a generation and beyond.

    But it is a very big qualification.

    Because if Scotland votes to stay in the European Union, but the UK as a whole chooses to leave, there is a serious risk of a new referendum…
    not straight away, perhaps– but ultimately nationalist pressure for another shot at leaving the UK could prove to be uncontrollable and irresistible.

    And in those circumstances – if the UK was outside the EU – I can well envisage a different result.

    That is the risk … that a British exit from the EU could re-open the whole question, and tear apart the United Kingdom.

    So I say to everyone who is undecided, everyone who is wavering: please understand the potential – even the likely – consequence of a vote to leave the EU.

    Not just a shrunken economy, not just a diminished United Kingdom on the world stage; but a smaller country in a very real and literal sense.

    The most successful union in world history would be broken apart for good.

    That appalling outcome could follow the wrong choice on June 23rd.

    But of course there is also the question of Northern Ireland – itself a vital part of the Union.

    Tony and I know more than most how carefully the peace process was stitched together over many years.

    We met the families of the victims, whose pain when their loved ones were murdered was raw and real – and, I imagine, still is.

    We know about the stops and starts of that process; the setbacks; the compromises and the contradictions that are inherent in building a peace that can endure.

    I think back to working with my friend, Albert Reynolds, and the breakthrough that was the Downing Street Declaration, sowing the seeds for the IRA ceasefire and then the chance – in time – for a negotiated and peaceful constitutional settlement. I carried this forward: Tony completed it.

    Throughout my years as Prime Minister, no issue consumed my thoughts and my attention more than the goal of peace and stability here.

    I was convinced that, however intractable the Troubles seemed…

    …however routine the daily cycle of violence became…

    …however deeply the hatred was felt….

    …that a solution could and must be found.

    That with patience, care and hard work, we could find a way. Many people, both well-known and unknown, helped in that endeavour.

    I pay tribute to Tony for all that he did, to the Irish government…and to all parties here in Northern Ireland for having the strength and commitment to see the Process through. And to the communities, here and in the South, who were sick of violence and wanted a better future.

    And it is an incredible achievement to see a successful power-sharing executive working in Northern Ireland – a dream thought impossible 30 years ago.

    Indeed, it is a mark of the progress made in Northern Ireland that, today, elections are now conducted with more courtesy and good humour than many other campaigns I can think of.

    So I believe it would be a dreadful mistake to do anything that has any risk of destabilising the complicated and multi-layered constitutional settlement that underpins stability in Northern Ireland.

    But that is what a British exit from the EU would do: it would throw all of the pieces of the constitutional jigsaw into the air again, and no-one could say where they might land.

    We can all be proud at what Northern Ireland has achieved … but we should never take the very good state of Anglo-Irish relations for granted.

    Today, relations between the UK and Ireland have never been better.

    And though I’ve no doubt – whatever happens – that they will remain cordial, I do worry about the prospect of a British exit, which would leave Ireland on the other side of the table in a new negotiation between Britain and 27 other EU countries.

    I fear that would have a totally negative effect on the relationship between our two countries.

    And there is also the severe economic damage that leaving would cause in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland alike.

    And all of the issues that we thought were completely settled – like the Common Travel Area – would suddenly be thrown into real doubt.

    In a moment, I will hand over to Tony to talk in more detail about Northern Ireland but, before I do so, let me end by saying this: here you have two former Prime Ministers from two different parties. Rivals on many occasions, but never over the Peace Process for Ireland; never on the unity of the UK; never on the importance of our relationship with Europe.

    It’s not a coincidence that every living former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, shares the same view about Europe.

    We know, because we have sat at the top European table that despite its many frustrations, our membership of the EU magnifies Britain’s influence in the world, and significantly improves the living standards of the British people.

    And we are in no doubt of this: our membership is also an absolutely vital part of our finely-tuned and carefully-preserved union.

    Throw away the membership of Europe, and don’t be surprised if – in the end, as a consequence – we accidentally throw away our union as well.

    Please don’t put that at risk.

    Make a positive and patriotic choice to remain – choose to fight for the UK’s interest in Europe, and in so doing, safeguard the UK’s interests at home as well.

    That’s the right choice for our country, and for our future.

    In two weeks’ time, I hope it is the choice we will all make.

    And with that, let me hand over to Tony.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 5 June 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast on 5 June 2016.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So to the main event part one. Sir John Major, who’s struggled through every day of his premiership against rebellious anti-Brussels Tories. He’s described the Leave campaign as an ‘unforgiveable fraud’ on the British people. And he joins me now. Those are strong words, Sir John. Are you referring, when you talk about that and the deceit of the Leave campaign to Boris Johnson in particular?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not particularly to Boris, no. I think it goes much wider than simply the leader. Of course, as the leader, Boris is in a position to stop it. But I felt that for several reasons. Firstly on the economy and what would happen if we actually left. The Leave campaign have said absolutely nothing to the British people, and what they have said about leaving is fundamentally dishonest and it’s dishonest about the cost of Europe. And on the subject that they’ve veered towards, having lost the economic argument, of immigration, I think their campaign is verging on the squalid, and I’ve said so before and I’m happy to say so again.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it not possible that these are thoroughly honourable men who have taken a big political risk, risked their own political reputations, their own political futures standing for something they fundamentally believe in, and which is agreed with by a huge number of British people? That these are the good guys in essence?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ve no doubt that there are many people in this country, including members of the Leave campaign, who thoroughly believe what they say. I’ve never questioned that. But I must say in Boris’s case it was a rather late conversion. I don’t know whether he had a day trip to Damascus and came back, but until the very last moment everyone thought he was in favour of staying. But he’s made up his mind and I respect that. But I think what they have done now they have begun the campaign is to feed out to the British people a whole galaxy of inaccurate and, frankly, untrue information. And what they have not done is tell us what would be the position if we were to vote to leave. I think it would be chaotic and damaging, and I think the people who would suffer most would be the ordinary everyday man and woman in the street. They need to tell us, if they wish us to leave, what it would be like and how they would then meet some of the objectives they’ve set out.

    ANDREW MARR:

    They say this morning an extra 300,000 jobs would be created because we’d be free to strike our own trade deals with America, Australia and China and other countries.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, it’s fantasy. Firstly, we have something like three million jobs connected – I’m not saying they’re wholly reliant – but connected to our present trade with Europe and essentially with the single market. I gather their current policy today is that they will leave the single market.

    There would also be a socking great hole, according to every commentator, in our public finances. So these promises of expenditure on the national health service, or elsewhere, are frankly fatuous. They are a deceit.

    We would lose a huge amount in terms of national income through trade, the small businesses who sell their goods to Europe, who would sell less because if we left the single market we would face a tariff barrier of probably around ten per cent. So we would sell less, people would lose their jobs, we would find ourselves in a much worse position. The Leave campaign can turn to no serious organisation who believes what they have said about the economy and about the future of Britain and the single market.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So to be clear, you’re saying this is a deceitful campaign? To call a spade a spade, are you saying that Boris Johnson is lying?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not personalising this. Though I do find it very difficult to understand how Boris can justify the 350 million that he has on his battle bus, that he and Michael Gove in particular have defended time and again. You know, I know, the IFS knows, everyone knows, Boris knows, that the real net amount that we send to Europe is about one third of that. After the rebate and after the money paid back to our fishermen, to our farmers, to our researchers, the amount we send to Europe is about one third of the amount that they claim. Now, if they can’t be straightforward and honest on a clear cut matter of fact like that, upon what else can we trust them?

    ANDREW MARR:

    You keep using words like ‘straightforward’, ‘honest’, ‘deceitful,’ and yet you say you’re not personalising it. You are accusing people of lying.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m talking of the Leave campaign; I’m not necessarily talking of individuals. I’ll tell you exactly. I think throughout the whole of my political life people have regarded me as being guilty of understatement. I am angry at the way the British people are being misled.

    This is much more important than a general election. This is going to affect people, their livelihoods, their future for a very long time to come. If they are given honest, straightforward facts and they decide to leave, then that is the decision the British people take. But if they decide to leave on the basis of inaccurate information, inaccurate information known to be inaccurate, then I regard that as deceitful. Now, I may be wrong, but that is how I see their campaign. This is so important for once I’m not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to other people, I’m going to say exactly what I think, and I think this is a deceitful campaign. In terms of what they’re saying about immigration, a really depressing and awful campaign. They are misleading people to an extraordinary extent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well, let’s move to immigration if we could. When you were Prime Minister, I think when you left immigration was still below 50,000, around 48,000 something like that. It’s now a third of a million and rising fast. It’s not racist or xenophobic to be really worried about that, to be worried about the effect on all of us.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no. I’m worried about it. Everybody is worried about that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But your side don’t seem to have an answer.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t think they have an answer. We’ll come directly to that if you wish. Let me take the immigration point absolutely head-on. Yes, immigration is very high, and yes, this causes great troubles for us. Not only for us, but all across Europe. Half the world is on the move at the moment because of what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East, because of fears about Russia in Eastern Europe, because of the economic difficulty within the eurozone, there are a lot of people on the move. They come here because we are a great and successful country. The nonsense we hear from Leave about let’s get our mojo back and be a great country, we are a great, successful country, that is why people are coming to us. Now, how long will this last? It is a serious problem, you are going to see a diminution as the eurozone recovers, and it is recovering, it’s now growing pretty much as fast as us, the eurozone. But it isn’t just us.

    The point that really angers me is the utterly false suggestion, repeated more than once, not in a single offhand remark but in scripted, carefully prepared speeches, that we face the risk of 88 million Turks coming here. Firstly Turkey are not in the European Union. They’re unlikely to be in the European Union in the next decade or two. Even if by some chance they were, we are outside Schengen. In any event, is it seriously suggested, as they do, that all 88 million Turks would come here? Apparently for a higher national living wage. On the one hand they’re saying migrants are depressing wages, and on the other people are flooding in to get our higher national wage. It’s nonsense.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s be clear, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Nonsense on stilts.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The EU wants Turkey to join, the British government wants Turkey to join, the Prime Minister has said he’d pave the way from Brussels to Ankara. So this is not a complete fantasy, it’s quite possible. This choice in this election, this decision, could be with us for 20 or 30 or 50 years’ time.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Turks have been negotiating for the best part of 30 years a whole series of different things that have to be negotiated. They’ve negotiated one of about 30. Even if they were able to reach agreement with the European Union, any one nation in the European Union could veto their joining. The French have already said they would have a referendum on that issue. The Germans almost certainly will follow suit. Turkey will not be in the European Union for a very, very long time, if ever, for a whole series of practical reasons. And the Leave campaign know that. That’s the point, they know that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There are people watching this who will say, hold on a second, this is Sir John Major, this is the man who negotiated the Maastricht Treaty and at that time you got your opt-outs and so forth – I remember it very well, I was there at the time, in the rain, in the dark and so forth. But nonetheless we were being told at the time that the European Union was not going to evolve into a very centralised super-state and sprawl and spread. And actually your critics then were right, because that’s what’s happened.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No. No, it hasn’t. Firstly, you’re quite right, I did negotiate the opt-out of the single currency. I’m told by the Leave campaign I’m wrong on everything on Europe. Well, I certainly wasn’t wrong on that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What about those other treaties which followed, which followed nonetheless, in a direction of travel?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not under my premiership they didn’t. We were also out of Schengen because I declined to join it in 1996. Now, what happened, we negotiated at Maastricht a safeguard, the subsidiarity safeguard, which was then bypassed. David Cameron has now effectively reinstated that with his red card system. So it has been reinstated. Any more power in a treaty – now, this is very important – any more power in a treaty to Europe would have, by British law, now to be approved in a referendum. So if there is a grab towards a super-state, which they may integrate further inside the eurozone, but we’re not in the eurozone and we’re not going to integrate further.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Does that not live us a bit like a kind of rickety sidecar stapled to the side of a vast Mercedes going to a place we don’t want to go?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Only if you think we’re a little country. We’re not a little country, we’re a big country. We’re one of the biggest countries in the European Union. We are outside the eurozone, we are not responsible for their debts, we are not going to be responsible for their debts. We are not going to enter the eurozone. We’re staying in a wider Europe and we’re going to continue to trade with Europe if we are wise, but we are not involved in what is happening in the part of Europe that is in difficulty. But if we cut ourselves adrift, we will become a vastly diminished country.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We’re talking about the world after Brexit, if that’s what happens, and you’ll have seen a whole series of pledges now, about 100 million a week for the NHS, about an Australian-style points system, about new farming subsidies and much else. It’s beginning to look like another manifesto isn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, it’s certainly very ill thought-out. I mean, the concept that the people running the Brexit campaign would care for the national health service is a rather odd one. I seem to remember Michael Gove wanting to privatise it. Boris wanted to charge people for using it. And Iain Duncan Smith wanted a social insurance system. The NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be with a hungry python. So I don’t think that’s very wise. As far as immigration is concerned, what they’re planning is immensely difficult. Let us suppose that they win, let us suppose that for a moment and that’s possible, and their policies on immigration were implemented. Firstly, as you know, the Scots may hold another referendum. We might end up with Britain out of the European Union and Scotland out of the UK. If Scotland is out of the UK –

    ANDREW MARR:

    England alone?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, England and Wales. But you, Andrew, you will be a –

    ANDREW MARR:

    I’ll be sent back.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You’ll be a migrant.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I’ll be sent back over the border, I’m sure.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    How are they going to reduce their numbers? There are more people coming into this country from outside the European Union than inside. Who are the people they’re going to send back? The 52,000 doctors in the national health services, doctors and nurses? The 80,000 care workers?

    ANDREW MARR:

    To be fair, they’re not talking about sending anybody back. Because of the Luxembourg Agreement, they can stay.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    How are they – we won’t be in the European Union if we leave. How are they going to reduce their numbers? Who are they going to stop coming in? The footballers who enchant us? I think we need some practical information and we’re not getting it. People are being invited to vote for a pig in a poke.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Two final thoughts just before we finish. Do you think this is about Boris Johnson’s personal ambition?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’ve no idea. I can’t see inside Boris’s mind, and I wouldn’t attempt to try and do so. But I would just offer this piece of friendly advice – I like Boris, I don’t know him well, but what I’ve seen of him I like.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well you took him off the candidates list, didn’t you once a long time ago?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, I did not. No, that’s utterly untrue. No, I did not. He’s a very engaging and charming court jester and a very engaging and charming public figure, and he’s very likeable and people like him. But I think I would offer him this piece of advice. If the Leave campaign led by Boris continue to divide the Conservative Party as they are doing at the present time, and if Boris has the laudable ambition, for it is a laudable ambition, to become Prime Minister, he will find if he achieves that that he will not have the loyalty of the party he divided. Iain Duncan Smith was serially disloyal in the 1990s. When he became leader he was surprised that no one was loyal to him. Now, Boris should learn from that. And I think Boris – all his instincts in the past have been those of a One Nation Tory, which is where I stand. He seems to have drifted away from that, with the way in which they’re approaching immigration and some of the other things. I’d like to see him get back, because if he gets back he is an engaging Conservative, important engaging Conservative figure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think the Conservative Party is in danger of dividing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, we’ll have to wait and see. All I can say is that whether the Conservative Party divide or not is one thing we must look at in the future. But that is not as important as the decision that we have to make. This is not about political parties, it’s not about the elites, it’s about the everyday men and women in the street and their children and their grandchildren. It is their future that will play Russian roulette with if we leave the European Union.

    ANDREW MARR:

    My last question. Given what you’ve said about Boris Johnson today and in the past, do you think he’s fit to be Prime Minister?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not making judgements about whether anybody is fit to be Prime Minister. That’s a matter for a much wider view than mine. It’s a matter for the Conservative Party, ultimately it’s a matter for a whole electorate. So I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to have a suggestion either way. I merely say that whether Boris is Prime Minister is no doubt a very important matter for Boris and many other people, it is less important than the decision we have to take in less than three weeks’ time. That is crucial. And I must say, if I may put it this way, of all the participants there is nobody on the Leave side of the campaign who has, as I have, sat at the top table in Europe for seven years, and I know from what I have seen inside the European Union that what they say about unelected elites is absolute hogwash. The Commission, for example, are answerable to David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the others. They’re appointed for a limited period of time, they’re told to produce legislation which then has to be approved by ministers, the European Parliament, the Westminster Parliament. The belief an unelected elite is running wild is yet another piece of copper-bottomed Leave nonsense.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major, thank you very much for talking to us this morning.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Sunday Mail on the EU – 29 May 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the UK’s membership of the EU which was published in the Sunday Mail on 29 May 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We have less than one month to go before casting possibly the most important vote of our lifetime. The arguments upon whether to remain in or leave the EU are complex. The very least the British public should expect from our politicians is that they be accurate and truthful and focus on our long-term wellbeing.

    The Remain campaign has doggedly tried to do this. Vote Leave consistently fails to do so: instead they offer a mixture of confused or distorted facts that mislead rather than inform.

    Those who challenge statements that are flimsy or demonstrably untrue are either personally disparaged, or accused of being part of a mythical ‘Establishment plot’.

    International bodies, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are told they are ‘wrong’, or stooges of the Prime Minister. The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies is told that it is a ‘paid-up propaganda arm’ of the EU. Friendly overseas governments are criticised for ‘interfering’.

    Overseas investors in the UK receive the same crass response – even though they provide jobs for our people and taxes that pay for our public services.

    The Governor of the Bank of England is castigated for warning of risks to the UK economy even though – if he failed to do so and the risks materialised – he would be accused of gross negligence.

    So, too, would the Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are continually in the line of fire for presenting Government reports that warn of the risks of leaving Europe.

    They have a responsibility to the British people to ensure all facts are before them, yet their statements are denounced with boorish monotony by Vote Leave, and with sneering asides from their acolytes, who taunt that those occupying No 10 ‘won’t be there for long’.

    When Michael Heseltine voiced dismay over foolish and inflammatory references to Hitler, he was dismissed as being ‘from another era’, the clear implication being that, because of his age, his views don’t matter. On that basis, one can only assume that Vote Leave believes the arguments put forward by Michael’s contemporary, Nigel Lawson, don’t matter either.

    Such playground name-calling is not only irrelevant but is offensive to millions of elderly voters who – although born in ‘another era’ – still have opinions, hopes and ambitions that matter very much indeed.

    The tactics of Vote Leave are clear: to ignore the arguments and abuse their critics. But the British people deserve better than that as they search for the facts required to reach a balanced judgment before June 23.

    I suspect the silent majority is irritated by, even contemptuous of, such evasion and political trickery. A couple of weeks ago, in a speech in Oxford, I sought to bring clarity to a number of issues where I believed the British people were being misled: notably, the cost of the EU, immigration and sovereignty. True to form, instead of addressing the argument, Vote Leave’s only response was that I have ‘always been wrong about Europe’.

    This was an odd reply – especially since I kept the UK out of the euro and refused to sign up to the Schengen Agreement on open borders.

    Nonetheless, their evasion met its purpose and, once again, diverted the debate from their own misinformation.

    So now, as the referendum vote comes nearer, I again ask the senior figures of Vote Leave to correct the inaccuracies and falsehoods they are peddling to the British people.

    First, we do not – I repeat not – pay £350 million a week (the equivalent of £18 billion a year) to the EU. Vote Leave knows this. Yet, despite being urged to stop repeating such an obvious untruth – not least by the UK Statistics Authority – they continue to do so.

    The facts are simple and clear: during the past five years – after taking account of our rebate and money returned to the UK – our average net payment to the EU was £7.1 billion.

    Last year, the figure fell to just over £6 billion after payments to our farmers, businesses, scientific research and for regional aid such as flood defences.

    But there is a much bigger point: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that even if we stopped paying anything into the EU, the economic damage caused by leaving it would blow a £40 billion black hole in the nation’s budget.

    So, far from saving money if we left Europe, it would, in fact, cost us a very great deal more.

    Even at this late stage, I hope Vote Leave will end their shameless distortion of the truth and admit, publicly and clearly, that the figures they use – on every piece of literature and every lick of paint on their battle bus – are wholly false. Their refusal to do so is simply breathtaking.

    On the issue of immigration from Europe, again Vote Leave seems more focused on raising fears than setting out facts.

    Their cavalier exaggeration of likely immigration flows has been the most distasteful aspect of this referendum campaign.

    I understand very well the concern felt by many people about the current scale of immigration. This is an important issue. So let me turn again to it, in the hope of flushing out what Vote Leave’s plans for border control may mean for present and future migrants.

    First, a statement of fact: we are not, as they warn, facing the risk of 88 million migrants from Turkey and the western Balkans: this fear-mongering is the worst sort of ‘dog whistle’ politics.

    It is highly unlikely that Turkey will join the EU for many, many years (if ever). And Vote Leave knows this. As Boris Johnson himself said: ‘It is not remotely on the cards.’ Quite so. Yet Vote Leave persist in raising more scare stories. Even if – at some far distant date – Turkey did join, are we really to believe that every one of her citizens would up sticks and head for the United Kingdom? Of course not.

    Vote Leave’s irresponsible and provocative oratory is intended purely to plant an entirely false image in people’s minds. It is fear over fact. Responsible politicians should know better.

    The entry of any country to the EU is in our hands. We can say No. We – the British – have an absolute veto on the entry of any country to the EU if we wish to use it. Vote Leave knows this, so what were they thinking of last weekend when they stated the opposite?

    As one migrant scare story falls apart, Vote Leave raises another. And, to add emotion to their mischief, they warn that European migrants will have a negative impact on the NHS. This is spectacular misdirection, for without the skills of European migrants, the NHS would be heavily understaffed.

    There are 54,000 EU citizens working in our Health Service as doctors, nurses and ancillaries, and a further 80,000 caring for the sick in Social Welfare. How many of us have been cared for in hospital by European doctors and nurses?

    Who keeps our public transport running? Who keeps our hotel industry staffed? Who greets us each morning across the counter in coffee shops up and down the country? Collectively, these and other workers contribute far more in taxes than they take in benefit or care costs. Of course, there is a temporary problem of numbers of migrants. I totally accept this. But please note the word ‘temporary’.

    The growth of the eurozone economy – now clearly under way – will create more jobs across Europe which, in turn, should cut demand to come to the UK. But, in any event, a short-term migrancy flow from Europe should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that benefits our country immensely, and will continue to do so in the much longer term.

    ‘Let’s keep people out’ is an easy slogan with a murky history – but Vote Leave needs to explain who their policy would affect, and how they will implement it.

    Specifically, I would welcome their responses to the following points:

    – Have they considered how their plans to cut EU migrancy would affect the immigration status of EU citizens now working in the UK – more than 110,000 of them in the NHS and social care system?

    – What would be the effect of their policy on our caring services, transport, commerce and industry?

    – How would their policy on leaving the EU affect British citizens living or working in Europe?

    When Vote Leave turns its attention to the Single Market, their disregard for truth turns into utter confusion. Not only have they failed to dent the economic case for remaining in the EU, they can’t even agree on their own case if we were to leave. Their heads are all over the place on this issue, and yet it is central to the quality of life for every individual and family in the UK.

    Some in Vote Leave say the UK should leave the Single Market, lose all preferential access to it, and rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in future trade with Europe. It is hard to imagine any single event that would do more harm to our country’s well-being.

    Outside the EU, we would have to renegotiate more than 50 free trade agreements, which could take many years to complete and, as the Director-General of the WTO has said, ‘leaving the EU would cost the UK many billions in trade tariffs’. The damage to our economic interests would be self-inflicted – and severe. Other Brexiteers disagree about leaving the Single Market. They say they would negotiate a different arrangement with the EU. Some want a Swiss arrangement; others a Norwegian arrangement; yet others an Albanian arrangement.
    In the first two circumstances we would have to continue to pay into the EU budget and accept free movement of people. Not only that, but such a proposal would mean we would have to accept European rules and regulations, while having no say whatsoever in making them. In the third, we would have no access to the Single Market, which would do profound and long-lasting damage to our economy.

    It’s an absolute mess. No wonder the British people are left baffled, bewildered and confused. They need to know what all this would mean for their future, but Vote Leave are in such a muddle themselves that none of them seems willing or able to explain it to others.

    Moreover, for the UK to have to obey rules and regulations without any influence over them would be an absurd and undignified position for a nation like Britain. It would be an absolute negation of sovereignty on trade rules. Instead of sharing sovereignty (as we do now), we would be surrendering it. Far from ‘taking back control’ as the Brexiteers trumpet they wish to do, we would be throwing it away.

    Vote Leave has consistently failed to tell us how they see the UK outside Europe. They have glib slogans, but no solid detail. They know what they are against, but have no agreed position on what they are for. Some of the leaders of Vote Leave are my fellow Conservatives. Others are experienced parliamentarians. I don’t doubt their patriotism, nor their commitment to their cause. But I am dismayed by the way in which they have conducted this campaign, which I believe to have been a fraud on the British people.

    They have, knowingly, told untruths about the cost of Europe. They have promised negotiating gains that cannot – and will not – be delivered. They have hailed alleged advantages of leaving Europe, while ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks. They have raised phantom fears that cannot be justified, puffing up their case with false statistics, unlikely scenarios and downright untruths. To mislead the British nation in this fashion – when its very future is at stake – is unforgivable.

    We British are an open-hearted, open-minded, generous-spirited, compassionate people. The majority of us are decent and hard-working, wishing to do the right thing for our families, friends and communities. We have been an outward-looking, internationalist nation for centuries: Great Britons, not Little Englanders. We need to embrace Europe and the wider world, not exclude ourselves from it.
    There will not be another referendum on Europe. This is it. The decision we take on June 23 will shape our country, our people and our livelihoods for generations to come. I have no doubt that the long-term positives of our country’s membership of the EU far outweigh the short-term frustrations of it.

    That is why each and every vote is crucial, for our children and grandchildren will not easily forgive us if we get it wrong.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Oxford Union on the UK’s EU Membership – 13 May 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Oxford Union made on Friday 13 May 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This is my first formal speech in the Referendum campaign, and it is appropriate that it is here – because it is your generation’s future that will be enhanced or diminished by whether we “remain” in or “leave” the EU.

    I’ve no particular reason to be a supporter of the EU. It is far from perfect. A quarter of a century ago it bitterly divided my Party, and European disagreements wrecked many of the ambitions I had as Prime Minister. It opened disputes that linger yet. Nor am I an unquestioning European: I did, after all, say “No” to the Euro, and “No” to joining the Schengen Agreement on open borders.

    Even so, I passionately believe we must remain in Europe and help shape its future: geography, trade and logic mean our futures are linked whether we wish it or not.

    Tonight I want to explain why I believe that is so, and then cast a critical eye over the flawed – and misleading –arguments for Brexit.

    What sort of country are we? For hundreds of years we’ve been a positive force in the world – a nation that looked outwards, and spread our ideas, our principles, our laws, our democracy, across the world.

    But that world has changed. Today, we are 65 million people: less than 1% of a world of 7,000 million, forecast to become 9,000 million by the time your own children are at University.

    And the global market is inexorably drawing that world together on a scale we could not have imagined even a few years ago. It is counter-intuitive to try to go it alone and, as our friends around the world tell us, a disastrously bad decision to do so.

    Within the EU, we are a large and influential nation and – while we remain a part of a Union of 500 million people – we have serious political and diplomatic clout, as well as economic advantages. Some examples make this clear.

    In Europe, we were able to impose sanctions on Russia to keep her in check, and deter further misbehaviour in Ukraine. We persuaded the EU to join America and impose sanctions on Iran, to bring about a deal that halts development of a nuclear weapon. We could not do this alone. If we were to leave, the world would consider us diminished. Departure would be a gratuitous act of self-harm.

    The economic argument for Europe is overwhelming: it is nearly half our export market, and nearly five times bigger than all the 52 Commonwealth countries added together, or indeed, six times more than the sum total of trade with Brazil, Russia, India and China.

    In the EU, we have unimpeded access to the richest trade market in the world – right here on our doorstep. Access to that market of 500 million people encourages a wealth of investment into our country. That’s not an abstract statistic –it’s people’s jobs, taxes, profits and overall quality of life.

    Outside Europe, we would still have to comply with EU rules and regulations, unless we surrendered all access to the Single Market – which all reputable authorities, not least the IMF, OECD, NIESR and the Bank of England, regard as economically foolish.

    And, once out – or “liberated” in the more emotive language of the “Leave” campaign – we could no longer protect ourselves against the impact of EU laws on the City of London, nor on our industry and service sectors.

    Nominally, we would indeed be “free”, but – in practice – we would only be “free” to accept whatever the EU determined, with no power to argue against it. Is that “taking back control” – as the “Leave” campaign describes it? No it isn’t. And it’s not glorious sovereignty either. It is nothing other than reckless, imprudent folly. And the price for that would be paid by every British family.

    It is not the only price. The NIESR warns of a collapse in the value of Sterling. The LSE warns of higher prices. The Bank of England fears higher interest rates and mortgages. All this and more – from independent bodies – is ignored and brushed aside by the “Leave” campaign.

    Yet many people – not least in my own Party – wish to leave.  

    Their motives are many and variable: pride in our country, concern over sovereignty and immigration, and fear that we have no influence in Europe and are heading towards a federal structure.

    We must address these instincts, these emotions, and debunk myths that are wrong, but sunk in our national consciousness. If we fail to do so, we may end up leaving Europe because absurd falsehoods are widely believed to be true.

    One absurdity is that, subsumed in Europe, we would lose our traditions, our heritage, our individuality. We won’t: after sixty years of Europe are the French less French or the Germans less German? Of course not: and nor will we be less British.

    In the search for voter support the “Leave” campaign repeatedly overstate their case: if they were to win, they risk a backlash from those who reasonably might say they were misled.

    There is no shortage of such exaggerations. One clear example is the cost of Europe. Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith and Boris Johnson all put it at £20 billion a year; Michael Gove is more modest at £18 billion (£350 million a week), all of which, they tell us – if only we could be free of Europe – would be spent on the Health Service and our hospitals.

    If only … if only…. but the truth is their figures are wrong by a factor of over three! During the last five years the average gross payment was £12.7 billion of which £5.6 billion was paid back to us. Last year, our gross payment was just over £11 billion, of which over £5 billion was paid back to our farmers, businesses, science, research and regional aid. This is not my calculation – it is the calculation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    So, to put £20 billion more into hospitals the “Leave” campaign would have to claw back all the money paid to some of our fellow countrymen and, on top of that, tax us all by an additional £10 billion. Those who make such false claims – and knowingly do so – need to apologise that they’ve got their figures badly wrong – and stop peddling a demonstrable untruth – as they have been repeatedly asked to do by the Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority.

    The “Leave” campaign fret that we have surrendered our “sovereignty” to Europe. That is a very rum claim: and – if it were true – how could we offer our nation a Referendum? It is certainly true that we have shared sovereignty: we share ours and, in return, we gain a share of the sovereignty of 27 other nations.

    But this is our choice – because it is in our own national interest. And, if it ever ceased to be, our Government can always commence withdrawal with Parliament support. So let me make the position on sovereignty absolutely clear: we share it within the EU only for as long as our British Parliament wishes us to do so.

    And even that sharing is partial.

    What say does the EU have over our economic policy? None.

    Our education system? None.

    Our NHS? None.

    Our welfare system? None.

    Our Armed Forces? None.

    Our police? None

    I could go on: 98% of government spending is entirely in the control of the British Parliament.

    Like much we hear from the “Leave” campaign, the sovereignty argument is emotive but specious. In a global economy, no country truly has sovereignty – not even our mighty friend the US. And in our most crucial area – security – we have happily shared sovereignty within NATO for over 60 years.

    Of course, we don’t always get our own way. Who does in any relationship of two – let alone one that numbers 27 other Member States? But we should not forget that – in well over 90% of the votes cast in Brussels – the UK wins. The caricature that we are repeatedly voted down in Europe is ill-informed nonsense.

    Another cherished “Leave” mantra is that we will all be “dragged” into a “federal” Europe. It is their favourite horror story. But, yet again, it is fantasy.

    Were we dragged into the Euro? No

    Were we dragged into Schengen and open borders? No

    Are we now exempt from “ever-closer union”? Yes, we are.

    And if any new Treaty seeks more power, that Treaty would have to be put to the British nation in a Referendum and if – and only if – it were approved by us would it become law.

    A final point on sovereignty: we have sovereignty in its purest and most potent form: we – the UK – can leave the EU at any time; nothing legally binds us to the EU forever. That is the fact and we should disregard the fiction.

    As the “Leave” arguments implode one by one, some of the Brexit leaders morph into UKIP, and turn to their default position: immigration. This is their trump card. I urge them to take care: this is dangerous territory that – if handled carelessly – can open up long-term divisions in our society.

    I grew up in Brixton in the 1950s – a time of massive West Indian immigration. As a boy, I played in local parks with the children of migrants.  Some of these newcomers rented rooms in the same house as my family.

    So, I can tell you, as a matter of fact, not fantasy, that those I knew then – and later – didn’t come here for our benefits: they came half-way across the world to give themselves and their families a better life.

    But, at the time, fears were fanned by careless statements from political figures. That was a mistake then, and would be a mistake now.

    Do not misunderstand me. Of course, it is legitimate to raise the issue of the sheer number of those wishing to enter our country. I wholly accept that. Nor do I wish to silence debate. We mustn’t overlook genuine concerns: but these should be expressed with care, honesty and balance. Not in a manner that can raise fears or fuel prejudice. The “Leave” campaign are crossing that boundary, and I caution them not to do so.

    They attribute motives to new arrivals that are speculative and, frankly, offensive. They highlight – with grotesque exaggeration – the risk of mass migration from Turkey – which is unlikely to be joining the EU any time soon and indeed may never do so. And – even if she did – the terms of her accession would need to be agreed by every Member State.

    So, when the “Leave” campaign warn of “opening our borders to 88 million” (meaning Turkey and the Western Balkans) they cross the boundaries of responsible comment. It is unlikely in the extreme that – I quote – “another 88 million people will soon be eligible for NHS care and school places for their children”.

    I assume this distortion of reality was intended to lead the British people into believing that almost the entire population of possible new entrants will wish to relocate to the UK. If so, this is pure demagoguery. I hope that – when the heat of the Referendum is behind us – the proponents of such mischief making will be embarrassed and ashamed at how they have mis-used this issue.

    They advance a second migration red herring – that the recent modest rise in our National Living Wage will be “irresistible” to would-be migrants.

    This is very dubious. First of all, 40% of all migrants are under 25 and therefore ineligible.

    Second, are people really motivated to cross an entire Continent to receive a few pence a week extra? I very much doubt it.

    But even if they were – why would they choose the UK, when the minimum wage is higher, for example, in France; and wage levels higher in other countries that have no statutory minimum.

    And what of the “numbers” argument?

    There are various categories of immigrants. Commonwealth immigration is entirely unaffected by our membership of the EU.   

     Would-be migrants from around the world need skilled worker visas to enter: and these are under our control.

    Refugees are dealt with on a case by case basis. Many of those applying for citizenship have lost everything, and we have always been a compassionate nation.  But these decisions are under our control.

    But there are clearly undesirables, who we can – and already do – exclude. This includes anyone where there is concern over national security, criminal activity or adverse immigration history. This, too, is already under our control.

    But yes, if we were to leave Europe, we could exclude more EU citizens – such as the 54,000 EU migrants now working as Doctors, or Nurses or Ancilliaries in our Health Service, or the nearly 80,000 working in Social Care. We could exclude skilled workers like builders and plumbers – or unskilled labour that takes jobs that are unappealing to the British. In short, the people we could most easily keep out are the very people we most need.

    A balanced approach would acknowledge the contribution of migrants to our national wellbeing. Without their contribution, the Health Service would not be able to cope – nor would our public transport system; and our hotels, restaurants and shops would be without staff to serve their customers. We would have a shortage of many skills for industry. This is the reality of what lies beneath the emotive language of those who seek to raise the drawbridge on our country.  

    This problem of numbers will not be forever. The growth of the Eurozone economy – now clearly underway – should cut demand to come here, as jobs grow elsewhere across Europe. And, in any event, a short term migrancy flow should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that already benefits our country immensely –and will continue to do so in the future.

    I asked earlier: what sort of country are we? And what sort of people are we?

    Under our undemonstrative exterior we are an essentially kind and benevolent nation, and more inclined to emotion than the age old caricature of stiff upper lip.

    Show us charitable need and we dig deep.

    Show us children in need, and we pay up happily.

    Show us people starving in Africa, and we text our contributions by the million.

    Show us a far away nation suffering from natural disaster, and we rush to help.

    We do so because our emotions are touched. But we should not let those emotions be stirred by false fear: nor allow false fear to impair our judgement on the future of our country.

    Over the next few weeks we – the British people – will decide the future direction of our country.

    This is not a General Election which rolls around every five years: we can’t “suck it and see”. There will not be another Referendum on Europe. This is it.

    So – whatever your view – register and vote. Because the decision you take on the 23rd of June will shape our country, our people, and our livelihoods for generations to come.