The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2016

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme – 29 April 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 29 April 2016 on the UK’s membership of the EU.

    INTRODUCTION BY JOHN HUMPHRYS

    We’ve given Sir John the chance, as we did with Michael Gove for the Brexit campaign last week, to deliver his message without interruption.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    As Prime Minister I sat at Europe’s top table, and I know its faults better than most. I said ‘no’ to the Euro and ‘no’ to the Schengen Agreement to open our borders. So I’m no starry-eyed Europhile, but I have no doubt where our future lies.

    The EU helped free Spain, Portugal and Greece from fascism. It helped rebuild the Balkans after war. It offered a new future to countries once imprisoned in the Soviet empire.  Across Europe old enemies, who for centuries fought against each other, now live and work beside each other.

    It has increased our prosperity, once the sick man of Europe we are now on course to be the biggest economy in Europe. The UK sells five times as much to Europe as to all the other 52 nations of the Commonwealth added together. We face no tariffs and no hidden barriers to our exports.

    In the UK a better life depends on jobs for our people, profits for our companies and taxes to support our public services. For that, we need overseas investment. What is more likely to attract that investment, the UK in a European market of 500 million people or outside with a domestic market of 65 million? The answer is obvious.

    If we go it alone, we’ll lose free trade agreements with over fifty countries. It would take many years to renegotiate them all and we would never get as good a deal as we now have as part of Europe.

    Before us all is a fateful choice. If we leave Europe, both Europe and the UK would be weakened. Our relationship with America would wither. America needs an ally inside the European Union and it could no longer be us. And at home, Scotland may choose to leave the UK. Each day Brexit uses the same emotive mantra, ‘we want our country back’, they tell us ‘we’re held hostage by a corrupt organisation’.

    What nonsense that is. To listen to them you’d think we were entrapped in the clutches of an evil empire, not in a democratic partnership with our European neighbours whose sunshine and pavement cafes we enjoy on summer breaks. And far from taking back control, yet another mantra of theirs, we would lose control. The British people don’t need mindless sound bites and faux patriotism. What they do need is a clear explanation, based on fact and not fantasy, of what Brexit would mean for them.

    Painting Britain as a victim of Europe is simply ludicrous. We gain more than we give, we win more than we lose. We should remain in Europe to help shape its, and our, future. Walking away has never been in our national character. And to walk away from Europe now is most definitely not in our national interest.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Good morning to you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning John.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Can I pick you up first on that idea of mindless sound bites and faux patriotism? To many people that might be quite insulting, because for them, and for many people in this country, sovereignty goes to the heart of this debate.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me deal with the mindless sound-bites first. I think you’ve had them every day when you’ve had people on your programme arguing for Brexit. I gave a couple of examples and there are many others. Everyone listening to this programme knows them.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    You’ve had it from both sides?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, you haven’t had it from both sides to the same extent, I don’t accept that for a moment.

    Day after day you’ve had the Brexit people producing sound-bites that are either offensive, inaccurate, or just plain silly. And they’ve also said a great deal which is just frankly not so. As far as faux patriotism is concerned, it isn’t for them to assume patriotism only for their side of the argument. Everybody in this country loves this country, I certainly do. I find it offensive myself when they apply to themselves the feeling they are the patriotic side because they are arguing for splendid isolation. That is most certainly not the case and I do not believe that it’s patriotic to argue for a case that will make this country weaker and the well-being of this country less certain in the future.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    The point that they’re making is that EU law, in many respects, is sovereign and they do not want that. They want us to get back those powers that we have arrogated to the European Union.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let us deal with that point of sovereignty. This county is sovereign. We can vote to repeal the Accession Act of the European Union at any time. That is sovereignty in its purest form. If you want undiluted sovereignty in the modern age, when everybody is inter-connected, then go to North Korea because that’s where you’ll get it. It is certainly true that we share sovereignty, we take some sovereignty from other people and they take some of ours, we haven’t surrendered it because at the end of the day, the House of Commons – our representatives, can say we won’t have this, we will leave the European Union.

    In the modern world and in the modern economy that now exists you have to share sovereignty or you find yourself isolated and weaker. Our prime concern must surely be the economic well-being of our country and the political and diplomatic clout that our country has. Both of those, in my judgement, are better within the European Union and working with our partners than in walking away from them.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    A lot of people who say that go to North Korea is a bit of a silly notion.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I didn’t say that, don’t talk nonsense.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Why did you bring North Korea into the debate?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If they want undiluted sovereignty, then that it is where you will find it.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Let’s deal with the reality, articles 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act entrench EU sovereignty, the European Court of Justice has the final say on many of our laws.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The European Court is there is interpret the law and it often interprets the law in our favour and it isn’t always interpreted against us. We would be damaged if we didn’t, and let me give you an example. You and I will both remember the terrible events of the BSE crisis in the 1990s. Our beef was banned. When the crisis was over, France continued the ban. The European Court, in our interests, told them to lift it and France wouldn’t. The European Court threatened huge fines on France until they lifted the ban, and they lifted it. If they hadn’t our beef might have been banned for many years. So the European Court often works in our favour.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    The point is that we don’t have the final say. Sir Francis Jacobs, former Advocate General, spelt it out on this programme. European law would always prevail over national law, that is what people don’t like. That’s why they say we need to get our sovereignty back.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It doesn’t always prevail. It doesn’t prevail over intelligence matters or services, the ECJ has never interfered with that. It doesn’t apply over national security and that’s specifically outside European law. So, it doesn’t apply everywhere.

    There is a shared sovereignty, of course, I can see there’s a shared sovereignty and I said so quite distinctly. But we have to weigh that against the economic advantages we have and the fact that that shared sovereignty often works in our favour such as in the example I just gave you.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    The fact is that since records began this country has voted against 72 laws in the Council of Ministers and it has been out-voted every single time.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We’re on the winning side in over 90% of the votes inside the European Union. If you share sovereignty with other countries because it is in your economic and national advantage to do so, then of course there are going to be times when you don’t win. If you’re in an argument with two people, you don’t always win. Of course not, that’s the world in which we have to live.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    72-0

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s not 72-0. There are 72 examples but in 90% of votes the UK is on the winning side, so let’s have some balance.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    The fact is that the European Union that you advocate today is going to be a very different body in five, ten, fifteen years time. It’s moving relentlessly towards federalism. We know that, are you happy with that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’m glad you mentioned that. Firstly, we now have exemption from ever closer union, something that the Prime Minister has achieved that everybody in the leave campaign said was impossible and he wouldn’t get it, and he did get it.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    It’s meaningless.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Of course it isn’t meaningless. Is the law we passed in 2011 meaningless? If there’s a new Treaty law produced in Europe it has to be approved by a referendum of the British people. That is something that the Prime Minister has produced. There are two areas where we have a specific and exclusive position within the European Union. So they may well integrate further, and in terms of the Euro-zone they may well integrate further and if the Euro-zone recovers economically that might be helpful for us, but we are not going to be part of that. The Prime Minister has determined, and Parliamentary legislation has determined, that we will not.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    The fact is that we’ll be joining an organisation which is becoming increasingly integrated and we will be standing on the outside of that. What, therefore, is the point in joining that institution?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I will tell you some of the points. 44% of our exports go to that area and we have very large economic advantages because it goes there. That creates a great deal of well-being in this country and it supports a great deal of jobs in this country. The fact that we are the access point to a market of 500 million people produces a great deal of investment in this country that would not happen. The fact that we are actually in Europe gives us economic and diplomatic clout that we wouldn’t otherwise have.

    We wouldn’t have been able, alone, to impose sanctions on Russia or sanctions on Iran, with the part we played in the recent nuclear agreement. If I may give you another example from my own years, you may remember that at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was murdering Kurds in Northern Iraq. We conceived in Downing Street the idea of safe havens for the Kurds. I went to Europe and I achieved the agreement of Mitterrand, Kohl and other European leaders. With that we obtained the agreement of the Commonwealth and that persuaded America to join in, which they had previously been reluctant to do, and the lives of tens of thousands of Kurds were saved. That was diplomatic power and pressure that we would not have had if we not been members of the European Union.

    These matters are important to us.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    I don’t know whether you’ve seen the European Parliament’s visitors centre. There is a projection on the wall which is a quote from Lord Lothian, Philip Kerr as he was, from way back admittedly in 1939.

    “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times and the steady march of humanity back to tragic disaster and barbarism. The only final remedy for this evil”, I’m quoting, “is the federal union of the peoples”. That is what the European Union is all about and a lot of people are saying we don’t want to be a part of that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Firstly, it’s interesting what he has to say about undiluted national sovereignty, but we are not part of the federal element within the Eurozone. We have got a specific exclusion from it, as I have mentioned several times this morning, but despite those exclusions we still have all of the economic advantages, important for this generation and the next generation and their economic well-being. That’s not something that you can just brush aside.

    If you consider what some of the members of the Leave Campaign, such as Professor Minford, giving evidence to the House of Commons. A very distinguished economics professor, he wants us to leave because of the sovereignty point that you raise and I know that some people feel very strongly about that. But he also conceded that if we left manufacturing would be eliminated and 2.5 million jobs and he thought on that basis we could run down the car industry. Those are the choices that people are going to have to make in some form or another.

    I’ll tell you what my choice is, my choice is the well-being of this generation and the next. To share sovereignty given that we have all sorts of protections, now some of them legislative, others agreed with the European Union, that prevent us being dragged into the melee of a federal Europe.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    A quick thought about the future of David Cameron. As you know, Ken Clarke has said that the Prime Minister wouldn’t last thirty seconds if he lost the referendum. Do you agree with Ken Clarke?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The Prime Minister has made his position very clear. You’re not going to drag me into that.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    I thought I wouldn’t but it’s worth a try. The serious point here is that it’s going to be terribly difficult, the most important decision of our generation and indeed many would say the last fifty years, and if this happens here we are turning against the Prime Minister. If we reject what he wants, it would be incredibly difficult for him to run the country?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    John, you’ve very skilled, but you’re not getting me down the ‘what if’ route. The Prime Minister has made his position clear, I shall work and he will work to win this referendum. The most important thing before us is the determination of this referendum because it is not something that is going to be repeated. If we leave, we leave. We can’t leave, decide its uncomfortable, and then go back. If we leave we are out of Europe.

    The most important decision for a very long time is to make sure that we make the right decision, not just for you and I John, it’s the next generation that would really be affected.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Sir John Major, thank you very much.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Hong Kong on the UK’s EU Membership – 7 April 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech in Hong Kong made on Thursday 7 April 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    During the last few days in Hong Kong I have been asked repeatedly whether the UK will leave the European Union.

    Almost without exception, the questioners – often investors in the UK – believe it is a bad idea. I will not quote their warnings given to me in private, but let the public remarks of Hong Kong’s Li Ka Shing, a large investor in the UK, speak for many:

    “If Brexit really happens”, he said on Bloomberg, “we will surely decrease our investments.”.

    Mr Li is not alone. As we move towards the referendum in June, the UK has been warned against exit by – amongst others – China, Japan, America, New Zealand and Australia; by the G20; the Governor of the Bank of England; our military leaders; our leading academics and scientists; and a majority of large and small businesses.

    In response, the advocates of Brexit accuse all these sources of “interfering” if they are foreign; or “scaremongering” if they are British.
    The “Out” campaign label such warnings – even from distinguished friends of the UK – as “Project Fear”. I disagree. In truth, it is Project Reality – and the British people have a right to be told what is likely to happen if the UK were to leave the EU.

    Let me set out my own position.

    As Prime Minister I refused to join the Euro currency. I believed it to be premature and risky. I also opted out of the Social Chapter since, at the time, it seemed to give rights to those in work, at the expense of denying work to the millions who were not. And – when it was first introduced – I refused to enter the Schengen agreement on open borders.

    I am, therefore, no starry-eyed European enthusiast. Yet I have not a shred of doubt that the UK should remain a Member of the EU.
    The case for remaining is most often seen in economic terms. But it is far wider than that. The outcome of the UK Referendum will decide what sort of country we are – and what our wider contribution to the world will be.

    When the UK joined the then Common Market our economy was the “sick man” of Europe: today, as a result of our domestic reforms, together with our membership of the European Single Market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.

    Within the next 20 years – on present policies and, crucially, with continuing full access to the Single Market – the UK is likely – not certain, but likely – to be the biggest economy in Europe: bigger than Germany.

    On issues such as the environment, climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress – or sometimes, only progress – in unity with our fellow Europeans.

    The underlying mantra of the “Out” campaign is – and I use their words – “I want my country back”. It is an emotional appeal, but a bogus one.

    If emotion triumphs over reality, then all four British nations will lose out: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will lose power, prestige, security and some of our future economic well-being.

    At present, our world is very disturbed. Uncertain. Across Europe, the scales have fallen from our eyes over President Putin. We see Russia threatening her neighbours with trade embargoes, cyber attacks, energy cut-offs, and encouraging pro-Russian minorities to ferment trouble.

    I am not, and never have been, a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril.

    A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.

    The faults and frustrations of the EU are widely publicised in the UK: its achievements, less so. But they should be. Across Europe, ancient enemies of many years no longer fight against each other – they work alongside each other.

    The EU was the magnet that helped Spain, Portugal and Greece free themselves from fascist dictatorships. It helped the political climate that brought about the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

    It helped re-build and heal the Balkans after a terrible conflict. And enlargement of the EU has brought a new future to countries once imprisoned within the Soviet Empire. So, when we criticise the shortcomings of the EU, we should also remember its considerable successes.
    If the UK leaves the EU, the impact will be felt widely – and negatively – not only in the UK but across the EU.

    If the UK departs, the EU will lose:

    – its fastest growing economy;

    – one of only two nuclear powers; and

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

    As a result, the EU would be gravely weakened, especially when set against the power of the US and China. Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would bow out of super-power influence.

    Does the UK really wish to be the cause of that? Does she really wish to abdicate her role in European and global influence? I truly think not – but many enthusiasts for exit either cannot see the danger – or are prepared to run that risk.

    The point is this: a UK departure would not only be a huge setback for my own country, but for many other nations too. It would have widespread repercussions – and no-one can be sure what they will be.

    For Europe, already facing internal and external crises, it could be one crisis too many.

    There are hard questions for the UK too, and it is more appropriate for me to raise these in detail at home, rather than overseas. But some are directly relevant to our global trading partners.

    Would external investors – China, Japan, America, be more or less likely to invest in the UK if she shrunk to a domestic market of under 65 million, rather than remaining inside a Europe-wide market of over 500 million?

    That is not a difficult question to answer. The UK would lose investment and jobs. How much, how many, and how soon is difficult to say – but there is no doubt that would happen.

    In the referendum debate, the advocates of leaving claim they can negotiate an arrangement to protect our trade relationship with the EU. After all, they say, the EU needs us because they – the EU – export more to the UK than the UK exports to them. It’s a beguiling soundbite, but they are deceiving themselves.

    Their argument is, to put it kindly, disingenuous: more accurately, it turns the truth on its head.

    UK exports to Europe are between 40-45% of all our exports: 14% of our overall wealth. On average, across the EU, the other 27 Members States only send 7% of their total exports to us: 2½% of their overall wealth.

    In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. If the UK exits the EU, our partners will not be the demandeur in any negotiations on our future access to the single market – the UK will be.

    Moreover, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the “Out” campaign to assume our partners – having been rebuffed, deserted and weakened – will still feel so well disposed toward the UK that they will be eager to accede to our demands.

    I fear the reverse will be true. A divorce, at the behest of one partner, is rarely harmonious – or cheap. Such a broken relationship is more likely to be full of rancour.

    The UK will have chosen to leave and, by so doing, will have gravely weakened the whole EU. Some countries will see fifty years of ambition imperilled – and our partners will hardly wish to reward us for that.

    Any trade deal the EU might eventually do with us would certainly not be a sweetheart deal: and it may be harder and harsher than the optimists believe.

    And if we wished such a deal to include services (and we do – since they represent 80% of the UK economy) – or the removal of hidden non-tariff barriers – it may be a long time coming, not least since it would need the approval of 27 other Member States – many of them angry and disappointed at our departure.

    And, of course, the UK would have to accept free movement of people. If we refuse that – there will be no trade deal at all – as Germany, for one, has already made clear.

    The UK will face another dilemma with its international trade.

    By leaving the EU, we would be withdrawing from Free Trade Agreements with 53 countries negotiated by the EU on behalf of all their Member States. These cover 60% of all UK trade.

    They will all need re-negotiation: a tough – and almost certainly lengthy – process. It is pure self-deception to believe that less than 65 million Britons will get the same favourable terms as 500 million Europeans.

    Nor will bilateral renegotiations of these Free Trade Agreements be a priority for other nations – as America, for one, has made clear.

    Our partners are more concerned with multilateral trade agreements, and will see the UK’s need for a speedy bilateral deal as a self-imposed own goal: we may well have to wait our turn to have any new deals agreed – and it could take many years.

    To brush aside such realities is to play Russian roulette with the economic future of the UK.

    The battle now joined over Europe has – on one side – the romantic nostalgia of an “Out” campaign that aches for a past that has long gone, in a world that has moved on.

    On the other side those – like me – who wish to remain are not European dreamers: we are realists who see an edgy, uncomfortable world, and believe that the UK is safer, more secure and better off remaining with our partners in Europe.

    In the Referendum, the easiest slogans inevitably lie with the “Out” campaign, and repudiating their often foolish and extreme claims is for a UK audience. Suffice to say, the “Out” advocates, whether in enthusiasm or ignorance, lace their argument with false statistics and unlikely scenarios.

    They promise negotiating gains that cannot – and will not – be delivered. They hail the purported gains of leaving Europe, whilst ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks.

    Nor can they tell us how they actually see the UK outside of Europe. This is simply astonishing, not least since some of them – for over a quarter of a century – have made a career out of wishing to leave the EU. Yet now they have the opportunity to do so they seem bereft of any real detail.

    Some wish to have no relationship at all with the Single Market. Others can’t – or won’t – say what relationship they favour: 25 years of planning, and they still have no idea. Instead, they engage in shrill denunciation of what we have, with no indication of what would replace it.
    I understand the frustration that fuels the “Out” campaign, but have no doubt that an exit from the EU would harm our nation, now and in the future. We must not let an emotional spasm of faux-patriotism overcome the realities of the modern world and spin us out of Europe.
    We would soon regret it. And our children and grandchildren would regret it even more.

    That is why – between now and June – I will be doing all I can to persuade the British people that the consequences of our leaving the EU would be bad for the UK, bad for Europe, and bad for the wider world.

    I hope and believe that – on 23 June – good sense will prevail, and we can finally lay this particular ghost to rest. I have no doubt that, once it is, our international investors will breathe a large sigh of relief … as most definitely will I.

  • Article on the EU Referendum – 19 March 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the economy, published by The Sunday Telegraph on Sunday 19 March 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This June, the UK will vote upon whether to leave or remain in the EU. This vote will be momentous. It will decide Britain’s place in the world for generations to come.

    There are many positive reasons for membership.

    When we joined the EU we were the “sick man” of Europe: today, as a result of our domestic reforms and membership of the European Single Market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.

    Within the next 20 years – on present policies, and with continuing full access to the Single Market – the UK is likely to be the biggest economy in Europe.

    And surely – in a global market drawing ever closer together – it is verging on the reckless for us to seek divorce from the world’s pre-eminent trading bloc?

    On issues such as the environment, climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress – or sometimes only progress – in unity with our fellow Europeans.

    In an uncertain world the UK, as part of the EU, is better able to face up to the aggressive policies of hostile nations. We are safer, because the EU has brought together former enemies to face common perils. In the last thousand years of history, no previous generation has been so fortunate.

    It would be sheer folly to put this all at risk.

    Beyond the positive advantages of membership, we have protection from many aspects of the EU that we dislike: we are not in the Eurozone – because I kept us out of it over 20 years ago; we are not part of Schengen (and thus have control of our borders); and we have opted out of “ever closer union”. We can veto any Treaty that enhances EU powers.

    We are the only nation within the EU which has managed to secure these concessions. It would surely be perverse to turn our back on these advantages, and replace them with serious risks that alarm our international friends and repel the inward investments that boost our jobs and living standards.

    Suppose we left? What are the risks? They are many and real – and simply cannot be brushed aside with flippant slogans such as “Project Fear”.

    Consider this: as a Member State, the UK can (and does) influence European policies – often to our advantage, and sometimes simply to minimise damage to our own domestic interests. Outside, we would not be able to influence them at all. And yet, if – as a non-Member – we wish to retain access to the Single Market, we will be compelled to follow EU rules, over which we would have no influence at all. This is not only demeaning, it is a recipe for economic self-harm.

    The “leave” campaign blandly assumes that once they have undermined – if not wrecked – the power of the EU by leaving it, they can simply re-negotiate all the advantages of membership with pliant Europeans eager for our trade. This is self-deception to the point of delusion. Their argument is that the EU needs the UK market more than we need theirs, on the basis that – overall – the EU exports more to the UK than we export to them. This is, at best, disingenuous. More bluntly, it is fantasy.

    UK exports to Europe are nearly 45 per cent of our total exports. On average – across the EU – the other 27 Member States send only 7% of their total exports to us. In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. Our European partners will not be the demandeur in any negotiations on the Single Market – we will be.

    Moreover, if we left, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the “leave” campaign to assume that our partners – having been re-buffed and deserted in an EU diminished by our departure – will be well disposed and eager to accede to our demands.

    I fear the reverse will be true. Resentment will be deep. The broken relationship is more likely to be poisonous than harmonious. The UK will have chosen to leave and, by so doing, will have gravely weakened the whole of the EU. Our partners will not wish to reward us for that – indeed, they may well be more inclined to resist our demands to discourage other nations from leaving it.

    In time, the EU will no doubt do a trade deal with us – but it will certainly not be a sweetheart deal: and negotiating it is likely to be harder and harsher than the optimists believe. And if we wish such a deal to include services (such as banking and insurance), or to prevent hidden non-tariff barriers – which we do since both are crucial to our wellbeing – it may be a long time coming.

    Of course – and “leave” campaigners please note – the price of any deal with significant access to the Single Market is that we will be forced to accept free movement of people, and pay into the EU budget. Without that, as Germany’s Finance Minister has made clear, there will be no deal. These are realities that the “leave” campaign must face up to and address, so that the British people are able to reach their decision based on facts. Instead, they ignore – even obscure – the facts, to hide the weakness of their case.

    “Give us our country back” is an emotional appeal that warms the heart of all those who love our country, as I do. But it is a meaningless soundbite. An illusion. A prelude to disappointment. And what country, exactly, will we “get back”? Will Scotland remain part of the UK? As a Unionist, I hope so – but no-one should ignore the threat that if the UK-wide vote is to leave, Scotland may demand another referendum on independence. The UK out of the EU and Scotland out of the UK would be a truly awful outcome.

    Let everyone be clear, no-one can be certain of the scale of the fallout from leaving the EU. But there are many legitimate risks, and not even the most optimistic “leave” advocate can wave them away. We have been warned against exit – by America, China, Japan: are all these large investors in the UK to be ignored? Should we also ignore the G20? The Governor of the Bank of England? Our military leaders? Our leading scientists and academics?

    A majority of large and small businesses? Are they really all guilty of “interfering”, “scaremongering”, or being part of one enormous plot being orchestrated by Number 10? Such a notion is absurd.

    Would we remain such a pre-eminent ally of the United States if we no longer had influence in the EU? Close, yes – because of trade; important, yes – because history matters; but outside the EU, part of our influence would wane. In our absence, the US would need a powerful friend within the EU – and it could no longer be us.

    Our departure would not only weaken the UK but Europe, too. If the UK leaves, the EU will lose:

    – the fastest growing economy in the EU;

    – one of only two nuclear powers;

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

    As a result of a UK exit, the political influence of the EU would be diminished – especially when considered against the power of the United States or China. Without the UK, Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would fall to a lower significance. I cannot believe that any sensible Briton wishes to divide Europe, and thus divide the West: only our enemies could gain from that, as Senator McCain has made clear in recent days. No doubt the “leave” campaign will accuse him of “scaremongering” too.

    The Referendum decision on 23 June is not a prelude to further negotiation. It will be final. Our nation can either decide to be true to our history – and remain outward-looking internationalists on the world stage – or shrink to lower prominence.

    It will be a fateful choice: Great Britain or Little Britain.

    As our children and grandchildren look back at this pivotal moment in our history, I hope they can be proud that, in a world of uncertainties – of Daesh, of Syria, of Putin’s Russia – our country did not turn its back on Europe and cripple its authority, but chose to remain in it, reform it, and play our part in maximising British influence and European power for the common good.