The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2018

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs – 11 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin, the Republic of Ireland, on 11 December 2018.

     

    The UK and Ireland in a New World

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin, and I’m delighted to be with you this morning … and on such a slow news day….

    It’s an especial pleasure to see John Bruton and Bertie Aherne here: both vital contributors to the Peace Process – and to the wellbeing of the island of Ireland.

    For me, John was an indispensable partner in negotiating the “Framework Agreement” – an essential mid-step between the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement.

    And Bertie, of course, worked tirelessly with Tony Blair to finalise the road to peace, established by that landmark settlement.

    I warmly congratulate them on their joint endeavour, and am honoured and delighted to see them here today.

    * * * * * * *

    There has rarely been a time when International and European Affairs were in such a fluid state, and so it is a uniquely appropriate moment to speak to this Institute.

    I will talk of British, Irish and European affairs shortly but first – not least for context – I would like to range more widely.

    Before I do, let me turn briefly to events last night in the House of Commons.

    Whether a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”, no-one welcomes chaos.

    So it is time for everyone to reflect and consider.

    Time to turn to reality – not fiction. Reason – not ideology.

    We need to calm the markets.

    We need to protect the economic wellbeing of the British people.

    We need to protect our national interest.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that – to do so – we need to revoke Article 50 with immediate effect.

    The clock must be stopped.

    It is clear we need the most precious commodity of all …. time.

    Time for serious and profound reflection – by Parliament and people.

    There will be a way through the present morass – there always is.

    In our national interest we must take time to find it.

    I hope and trust we will.

    Let me now turn more widely ….

    Wherever one looks, a new world is forming: it is vigorous, and often contemptuous of old thinking. For a long time democracy, free trade, and the spread of liberal politics seemed unstoppable: we now know they were not.

    Democracy hasn’t just plateaued – it is in modest retreat. Many democracies have relapsed over the first two decades of this Century, and there is widespread dissatisfaction in others.

    The United Nations reports that, in 2016, over 60 countries saw a decline in civil and political liberties, while only half that number had gains. That trend is continuing.

    This suggests that arguments we believed had comprehensively been won: about democracy and the rule of law, about a liberal system of government, about free trade – must be fought and won all over again.

    There are no limits to change in our modern world.

    This is true of politics, and the structure of world power. It’s true of how we live now, and how we will live in the future. It’s true of health, and the world of work. Globalisation, science, medicine, technology, and public expectations all drive unrelenting change.

    Few things in life are certain, but what we can be sure of is that the world of tomorrow – in which the UK and Ireland must live and trade – may be very different from the world of today.

    Internationalism – co-operation with and the understanding of others – is becoming unfashionable. An intolerant nationalism is raising its ugly head in far too many countries.

    Too often, the art of compromise – consensus politics – is condemned as “weak”. Agreements are more likely to be condemned than applauded, whilst more robust, more extreme, more antagonistic politics is attracting popular support.

    Capitalising on discontent – the worst sort of populism – is thriving. Countries like China and Russia have a history of autocratic leadership.

    Elsewhere, today, so-called “strong men” rise to power – or, if not power, influence – by preaching self-interest, and promising national wellbeing.

    But their idea of wellbeing is often at the expense of minorities, who may not be able to protect themselves. This is alien to the British, Irish and European tradition.

    The risk is clear. It is that the international values-based system is under threat. A selfish form of nationalism is on the march. A trend that proclaims “Forget shared values …. it is time for self-interest”, is a hazardous route of travel.

    That trend is evident across Europe. It manifests itself in xenophobia. It is anti-foreigner; anti-immigrant; anti-Europe. It is careless of the misfortune of others. It opposes overseas aid. It lacks human empathy or compassion. The drumbeat of its motto is – “Self, Self, Self.”

    All this needs to be resisted. There is a better way to go.

    After the last World War, the post-war generation faced the most daunting of challenges but – led by America – rose to meet them.
    World leaders worked together – across national boundaries, and beyond national self-interest – to build alliances and structures to oppose Communism; protect and build democracy; promote rules-based global trade; and – as far as possible – secure long-term peace. It was visionary.

    Out of the rubble of 1945, a new world was built: on shared values, and communal interest. Crude, self-promoting nationalism was defeated, and replaced by inter-national co-operation.

    But this laudable achievement is now being eroded, at the very moment it needs to be refreshed. The post-war settlement is out of date and needs to be updated, yet there is little sign of that happening. No-one is looking beyond national self-interest.

    At the same time, autocracy is thriving – not only in Russia and China, but in Turkey, in Iran, in Poland, in Hungary, in Brazil – and advancing in many other countries.

    Europe is the home and bedrock of democracy. Yet far-right groups are growing across Europe – in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, in Austria, in Holland, in the UK. The concept of crude, intolerant populism finds an echo in many countries.

    Even America, the nation which helped finance the rebirth of war-torn Europe with the “Marshall Plan”, now advances under the nationalist slogan of “America First”.

    America – for so long the most powerful ally to both our nations – is shifting her focus from the West to the opportunities of Asia-Pacific.

    Anglo-Irish and American policies, that have been so closely entwined for so long, are now beginning to diverge.

    We believe in free trade: America introduces tariffs.

    We support the Paris Climate Accords: America withdraws from them.

    We welcome China’s Infrastructure Investment Bank: America does not.

    We support the Iran Nuclear Deal: America rejects it, and threatens sanctions on European and British companies if they trade with Iran.
    Britain, as a full member of NATO, and Ireland as a member of the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, see NATO as crucial to global security: President Trump is equivocal.

    For the time being, upon these issues, British, Irish (indeed all Europe) and American views are diverging: I look forward to the day when – once again – we are at one.

    That is in both the European and American interest: even the Great Republic needs allies she can rely upon.

    * * * * *

    The most fundamental shift in world power for generations is the rise of China. In many ways that is welcome: a Chinese economic giant in the East – to match the American giant in the West – will better balance the world economy. Together, these two countries may shape the Century to come.

    But, as they do, the UK will no longer be part of a European political and trading block that can deal with both of them on a more-or-less equal basis.

    This illustrates a new dilemma for Britain – and for Europe. For decades, Britain’s overseas presence has been boosted by our close relationship with America, and our membership of the European Union.

    We were a more valued ally of America because of our influence in Europe; and were more valued by Europe because of our close relationship with America.

    But, America now appears to be moving away from us both – at the same time as we are moving away from Europe. Britain, shorn of these longstanding allies, is suddenly seen by the world as a mid-size, middle-ranking power, that is no longer super-charged by her alliances.

    This will surely diminish our international influence.

    Don’t misunderstand me: the UK will still matter – she is an amalgam of four proud and important nations – but she will matter less than once she did.

    But the UK leaving the EU is a double loss: the EU is weakened, too.

    Europe loses its second largest economy, and one of only two European nuclear powers, with a significant military capacity.

    It loses a nation with a worldwide foreign policy reach.

    And it loses the most significant counter-weight to the Franco-German policy alliance – a counter-weight that has often spoken out against policies opposed by smaller European nations reluctant to challenge any consensus.

    Any weakening of a United Europe – whilst China grows in power; Russia misbehaves; and America become more distant – cannot be in the best interests of Europe.

    Let me now turn to the UK and Ireland.

    This week is the 25th Anniversary of the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. The Declaration did not bring peace, but it did halt violence and bloodshed, and was an essential preliminary to the Good Friday Agreement.

    It did not come easily. It was hard pounding, and the outcome was the work of many hands – in and beyond politics.

    But it could not have been done without the vision and commitment of Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach, and I was delighted, last night, to have had the opportunity to pay tribute to Albert in his home town of Longford.

    I hope – and believe – that his work on the Peace Process will have earned him an honoured place in Irish history.

    As Brexit draws near, Ireland must contemplate a range of issues – among them her changed relationship with the UK; life in the EU without her nearest neighbour; and her future relationship with Northern Ireland.

    She must also consider how to re-activate the Power Sharing Executive in Northern Ireland – a core achievement of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It is now nearly two years since Northern Ireland had a functioning Government, and it is an indictment of both the DUP and Sinn Fein that they have not reached an accommodation.

    Few would deny that community relations have deteriorated during this time. And most would agree the causes of the dispute do not merit ignoring the interests of the electorate for so long.

    Everyone must realise that sectarianism has not yet gone: Northern Ireland is still far from a community that votes solely on policy and not identity. History’s legacy is not yet forgotten – or put aside. No-one should forget that.

    I understand the deep wounds of past history, and how they became hard-wired into the philosophies of Unionist and Nationalist politicians. There is hurt on both sides. But those wounds need to be healed and not re-opened.

    But – let me be blunt – if the DUP and Sinn Fein let old wounds, old suspicions, old enmities take fresh root and live again then the people of Northern Ireland will be the first to lose. They may not be alone: subsequent losers may include the culpable politicians.

    Both parties are elected to take up their responsibilities, and every day they find excuses not to do so is a dereliction of their duty to their electors. This is doubly true when the Executive should be jointly considering the impact of Brexit.

    Brexit has already inserted its very own poison into the turbulent politics of Northern Ireland. It begins with the DUP’s support for Brexit, which is flatly opposed both by their business base and by the majority of voters in Northern Ireland.

    It continues with the Confidence and Supply agreement the DUP reached to support the minority Conservative Government at Westminster.

    It may – on occasion – do so, but any formal support has the secondary (and inevitable) effect of undermining the UK Government’s role as an independent and honest broker in solving any problems between the two traditions in Northern Ireland.

    Let me ask two questions. Do the Westminster and Dublin Governments wish to see the Power Sharing Executive return to its duties? Self-evidently, yes.

    And is the British Government helped or hindered in its persuasion to do so by its dependence on the DUP in the House of Commons? Yet again, the answer is obvious.

    I have said before – and continue to believe – that, for this reason, the Confidence and Supply arrangement is a deal that would better have not been made.

    I cannot believe, despite its best efforts, that many Nationalists will accept the Government as a fair and dispassionate arbiter – as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement –whilst being politically yoked to the DUP.

    The enthusiasts for leaving the European Union like to present it as a great and confident liberation. It is not. It is a retreat, not a liberation.

    A more confident United Kingdom would be remaining within Europe, reforming it; not complaining about Europe and leaving it.

    But that is not the view of the Brexiteers. Their apparent belief that Europe “gangs up” against the UK, and that the Commission “bullies” the UK, is not only absurd, it is embarrassing.

    On one day, they boast that a “global” United Kingdom can successfully “go it alone” in the world; the next day, they complain that the UK is being “bullied” by mere officials.

    There is a disconnect in logic here. They really must decide whether we are the United Kingdom or Little England.

    And the European Union they classify as a bully is the same body that gave the UK a budget rebate; that agreed we need not join the Euro, nor sign up to Schengen, nor the Social Chapter.

    That same European Union offered concessions to the UK that left us in a privileged position no other Government has yet enjoyed. Some bully, indeed!

    Of course the European Union protects its own interests – as every country does – but they are activated, as we all are, by self-interest – and not by maliciously wishing to do damage to the UK.

    Nor do they need to do so: the UK has shown we are able to inflict that on ourselves that without any help from the EU.

    During the Referendum campaign in 2016, Tony Blair and I joined forces – not the most natural of partnerships you may have thought – to point out the importance of Northern Ireland, and the significance of the border, if the UK left the EU.

    Following our statements, we were told, in effect, by the then Northern Ireland Secretary and the present Leader of the DUP, that we clearly didn’t know what we were talking about. Subsequent events suggest that we did.

    Any border between North and South risks re-awakening memories of the worst of days; nearby graveyards bear witness to how bad were those days. No sensible person can wish to return to them.

    A border would not just be a trade barrier. It would be a visible manifestation of “us” and “them”.

    In the past, it not only divided communities, it divided minds; it created sides; it was the justification for conflict and murder; and its disappearance was one of the best days in the long history of Ireland.

    Under the Withdrawal Agreement, a new border is deferred while – for the time being – the UK remains in a Customs Union, until a technical solution is available to cope with trade formalities. But the problem is not over.

    The much sought after technical solution may be a mirage and – like waiting for Godot – the wait may be forever. What then? Does the UK stay in a Customs Union for good, or will impatient politics seek to drag us out? No-one knows: we cannot be satisfied unless a permanent solution is agreed.

    There are further dilemmas to face as the UK leaves the European Union, while Ireland remains a Member State.
    In such circumstances, the two sides will no longer be able to bond over common causes in Europe. No longer can they speak for joint interests.

    No longer will Ministers and officials meet daily in Brussels: the loss of this contact is unquantifiable – but profound.

    Some say that familiarity breeds contempt. Our Anglo-Irish experience as partners in the European Union suggests our familiarity is more likely to breed trust, agreement and peace.

    I recall being shocked, in 1991, when I learned from the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, that British and Irish Ministers only met rarely, and usually simply to disagree. We must never return to such a distant relationship.

    I believe it is essential that, post-Brexit, forms of permanent Anglo-Irish bodies be established that guarantee regular and substantive meetings between our respective Prime Ministers, other Ministers, and senior officials. Inside or outside the European Union, we will always have much to discuss with our nearest neighbour.

    Both sides can benefit from institutional engagement; from close ties; from established mechanisms to promote mutual interests; from delivery systems for sectoral issues. Such institutions should be built up and kept in good repair.

    Nor is this just about trade. The relationship between our two countries can be good or bad; close or distant; but whatever it is will have an effect on community relations in Northern Ireland.

    No-one should underplay the Anglo-Irish relationship. The UK exports more to Ireland than to China. Over 7,000 Northern Ireland companies trade across the border to the South.

    Since 2000, UK exports to Ireland have more than doubled: Irish exports to the UK have risen by 80%. We are a huge market for each other.
    We have been neighbours since the dawn of time. A huge Irish community is embedded in the UK. For nearly a hundred years, we have enjoyed a Common Travel Area that also offers reciprocal rights in health, education and employment – which, thankfully, will continue.

    We have offered one another unique voting rights in the host country. Our cultural links are extensive. In sport, we field common North-South teams in rugby, cricket and hockey.

    I could go on: our links far exceed politics and trade – important though they are. As a Briton, I say – Ireland is important to us and – in or out – of Europe that will not change.

    Our duty – if we are to part company from the European Union – is to build on our relationship and not let it fragment.

    We British owe that to Ireland – and we owe it to ourselves.

    We can do this. We should do this. And we must do this.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture – 10 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture held in Longford, the Republic of Ireland, on 10 December 2018.

    An invitation to deliver the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture was irresistible to me, for Albert was a friend I cared about, an ally who mattered, and a man I miss.

    I’m so sorry that, due to ill health, Kathleen cannot be with us today, but I am delighted that so many members of the Reynolds family are here….

    I have to tell you that walking into Albert and Kathleen’s home in Dublin was like being wrapped into a warm and cosy blanket – while enjoying hot tea and cakes. It was always a treat. And delivering this lecture is a tribute to a very special man.

    Albert was never a run-of-the-mill politician. Some thought he’d strayed into politics by accident, but I don’t agree with that at all. Certainly, his background was atypical – for Taoiseachs.

    Albert ran dance halls, and thrived on the back of 1960s pop music – but he was always fully prepared, fully equipped for politics: he was a deal-maker supreme, a “bottom line man”, a man who demanded an outcome, a solution, to every problem.

    His background – far from being a drawback – was an asset. Albert knew people: how they lived, how they thought, what they cared about.

    And, in my experience, he liked people – forever an asset in a politician.

    He had no illusions about how some could go astray, but no doubt about what they could achieve if given the opportunity.

    And he was an optimist – far more inclined to say “we can do this”, than to rule anything out. To Albert, a deal not made was a failure.

    Some people in politics are no more than ambitious concoctions. But Albert was the real deal – in practice and in spirit. The world saw just how authentic he was at his funeral service at Donnybrook Church, when symbols of his life were carried to the altar by members of his family.

    The Downing Street Declaration was, of course, laid on the altar. But then so was a pack of cards, and a tin of dog food. Even in death, Albert could shock the politically correct. During that Service I may have had tears in my eyes, but I knew that – watching from afar – Albert was chuckling.

    At the very core of Albert was Kathleen and their family, about all of whom he was inordinately proud, and often spoke. I once teased him that “I know you love children because you have so many”, and he replied, “Not enough, John. Not enough.”.

    And that is true, too, of his time as Taoiseach. Not long enough. Not long enough by a long chalk.

    But Albert left an indelible mark on Irish history and will, I believe, be remembered long – and fondly. I know the memory of Albert will always bring a smile to my face.

    In five days’ time it will be the 25th Anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration, which led to paramilitary ceasefires and, ultimately, the Good Friday Agreement. It would never have happened without Albert.

    The Declaration didn’t come easily. In negotiation, you give to gain. Albert and I had a common objective, but came at it from different directions. There were many proposals, many drafts.

    There were advances and setbacks. Mini triumphs and mini disasters. There were frustrations and rows, gains and concessions. And, of course, we both had critical – often hostile – opponents to persuade or to cajole.

    But, with help and advice from many quarters – officials, politicians, the Church – we got there and, for Albert’s sake, I’m delighted you have remembered his own vital contribution to this document, and also honoured me by your invitation.

    It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that I wasn’t able to complete the Peace Process, but I applaud Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern for doing so. They met all the challenges successfully.

    The Irish Ambassador to the UK, Adrian O’Neill – who is a superb representative of your country – quoted aptly from the Declaration in a recent speech.

    The Declaration had a range of objectives: to heal past enmity; to ensure a peace that lasted; and to encourage the economic and social co-operation that was, and is, and always will be, essential for mutual understanding and, with it, peaceful prosperity.

    The Declaration was born during a private conversation with Albert in the White Drawing Room of Downing Street. As I recall, we were talking of our respective children over a drink, and then – more widely – the children of the Troubles.

    Albert said, “No child should have to face this”, and I agreed, adding “If it were in Surrey or Sussex it would not be tolerated; nor should it be accepted in Northern Ireland.”. So, together, we agreed to try and end it, and I could never have had a more dedicated partner than Albert Reynolds.

    Were we together this evening, Albert and I would be concerned about Brexit; the Irish border; the protection of the Peace Accord; and – perhaps most important of all – the long-term relationship between our two countries.

    As the Peace Process advanced in the 1990s – and especially after the Good Friday Agreement was signed – the Anglo-Irish relationship blossomed.

    Our joint history is chequered, but it was put behind us: not forgotten, perhaps, but no longer used as a weapon with which to attack one another.

    In the last two decades, the Anglo-Irish relationship has been better – and closer – than at any time in our history. Now, once again – as the UK leaves the EU – there is reason to be concerned.

    The Republic – as well as the UK – needs the power-sharing executive to return to its duties in Northern Ireland. It needs to ensure that now – and in the future –there is no hard border dividing the island of Ireland; and it needs a future that embraces what Ireland and the UK have in common.

    Some opinion – including many who believe themselves to be Unionists – has shown a breath-taking ignorance of the likely impact that unsettling the Good Friday Agreement will have on Ireland, both North and South.

    To them, the Irish demand for a “backstop” is a bogus ploy to keep the UK in a Customs Union: in truth, a backstop is of vital national interest for Ireland and for the UK.

    As our own Prime Minister has said, this is not a demand imposed on the UK by Dublin or Brussels – it is an interest we all share.

    Furthermore, the Brexiteers claim that the backstop damages the Union is wholly misguided. The greatest danger to the Union would be a hard border that damaged jobs and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and undermined the Good Friday Agreement.

    If the people of Northern Ireland see a border returned – together with no power sharing at Stormont – will they not look once again at a United Ireland?

    The plain truth is this: the future of the Union is protected, not undermined, by avoiding a hard border.

    If the House of Commons defeats Mrs May’s plans tomorrow, the risk of a hard border once again becomes possible.

    Even if her plans are approved, the problem is not solved, but temporarily put on hold – until a “frictionless” border moves from myth to reality; or until a long-term deal is reached that removes the need for any border at all.

    A hard border – now, or at the end of a long transition period – would be disastrous. That said – whatever may happen at Westminster this week or later – I do not believe a majority of Members of Parliament will permit a hard border to become a reality.

    The reckless few, who are careless of its likely effect, are a clear minority. And with good reason.

    Of course, a new border would not remotely resemble its hated predecessor – with its barbed wire, its listening posts and its Army check-points.

    But any new border – however gentle its intent – would become a symbol, and thus a target. Both physically and emotionally it would present not only a barrier between North and South; between Unionist and Nationalist; but between the UK and her nearest neighbour.

    The fear – that must not be forgotten – is this: any border, be it now or in the future, risks creating an impediment to the excellent bilateral relations of recent years. That, truly, would be a tragedy.

    Peace is at risk if we erect barriers that remind people of ancient disputes: it will only be a way of life we can rely if we create a future in which old protagonists can live and work together.

    Peace is not secure – it never is – and any new border would be a focus for the wild men on the fringes to reactivate old disputes and hatreds that should be laid to rest – for good. Until sectarianism is ended, that will never be fully achieved.

    Some hardline pro-Brexit voices have claimed that European and Irish opposition to a “hard” border is merely a means of frustrating Brexit.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. They are blind to the reality.

    As Sir Hugh Orde, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, has said – the political consequences of Brexit “will play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed”.
    “Customs Posts”, Sir Hugh added, “would be a target for dissident paramilitaries”. Sadly, such dangerous people are still around – in both communities.

    Those who mock and disparage the “backstop” should reflect on the risks of destroying it, and stop relying on uninvented, fanciful, technical alternatives that, for now, exist nowhere.

    At stake is not only community relations, but security – and, with it, lives as well. We should not forget that the “Troubles” began in the 1960s with the murder of Customs Officials at the North/South border.

    A “no deal” scenario would have many damaging repercussions for the UK and Ireland.

    If – by accident or design – the UK was forced to trade under WTO rules, both sides would be forced to apply customs tariffs on imports from the other.

    This would not be optional. Under WTO rules, the UK and Ireland could not reach a bilateral “sweetheart” deal of low tariffs – even if they wished to do so.

    The UK would have to charge the same tariffs to Ireland as to any other member of the WTO worldwide.

    And Ireland would have to reciprocate. The impact on business – and farming – would be instant and profound. This is no way for friends and neighbours to treat one another.

    But, once again – for what it is worth – I do believe wise counsel will prevent this outcome.

    I have made no secret of my own view that the UK leaving Europe is a colossal error. It is a lose-lose decision for both sides. It betrays the internationalist past of the UK, and undermines her future.

    Most of the world believes we have taken leave of our senses, and so, I believe, will future generations. However, that is an argument I would prefer to make in the UK – and not here this evening.

    But what of Europe? How are they affected? That is an argument for now – and for Ireland as a member of the European Union. Is the whole of Europe, including the UK, better off with a strong European Union or a weak one?

    Across Europe, some extreme nationalists believe it would be better if the European Union collapsed and we returned to a Europe of nation states. I believe they are profoundly wrong in that judgement.

    We live in a world in which America – so long the guarantor of European safety – is turning her interest increasingly towards Asia-Pacific.
    China – with the largest navy in the world – is now growing both in economic and military power, and is prepared to use that power for political gain. Russia is, once again, behaving as a rogue nation.

    In the light of these developments, is Europe better or worse off being united rather than divided? Undoubtedly, it is better united.

    Are we all at greater risk if Europe is weakened? Undoubtedly yes – both economically and militarily.

    Is the world order better balanced with America, China and a strong European Union broadly economically equal, or with the European Union minus Britain falling below the economic authority of their two rivals? The answer is obvious.

    And yet the British departure will not only weaken the UK but – certainly more important to the wider world – diminish the role of the EU.

    The EU will lose:

    Sixty five million citizens, and its fastest-growing economy; potentially, the largest economy in Europe;

    It will lose one of only two powers with a nuclear capacity and a significant military capability;

    It will lose the nation with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach; and

    It will also lose the only buffer the EU has had to hold back policies promoted by Germany and France in partnership.

    British pragmatism and caution will be sorely missed by smaller EU countries: on many occasions, the UK was their protector.

    Time and again, it has not been unusual for the UK, alone, to oppose a European policy – while other member states remained silent – and later be thanked for having done so.

    The UK’s departure means that, for the first time, the European Union is contracting and not expanding. This will weaken the EU – especially when set against the superpowers of America or China.

    The British departure is likely to hasten European reform – which will involve Ireland as a Member of the Eurozone.

    Over the next few years, I expect members of the Eurozone to further align fiscal policy to protect the Euro even though – at present – that is not politically acceptable.

    I do not believe – after the Greek experience – that the Eurozone will hurry to admit new members and, if that assumption is correct, a distinct inner and outer core is likely to take shape.

    Other changes – opting in to policies rather than opting out – may be sought by the less consensus-minded countries from Central and Eastern Europe.

    Nothing is certain but – ten years from now – the Union may look very different. Ironically, it may be a Union that would be much more amenable to the UK.

    The Anglo-Irish relationship will change when the UK leaves the EU – but we need to cherish it, and I will talk of that at greater length tomorrow.

    For now, let me simply assert that the relationship should remain precious to us both, and our duty is to ensure that it is.

    My working assumption is that the UK will leave the EU in good order and not in chaos. If so, she has a robust political and economic structure – and should be able to weather the almost inevitable economic turbulence upon leaving.

    However, as many independent assessments have set out – as well as the Bank of England and the UK Government itself – I do anticipate lower growth, lower inward investment, and – subject to the terms of any future trade deal with the EU – a range of practical (and costly) obstacles for British commerce.

    No-one can be certain how long such a trade deal will take to negotiate: or even if aggrieved nations will hold back – or refuse – their consent to any, or all, of it.

    What we can be sure of is that the right deal will be tough to get; and an imperfect deal will be hard to sell – and harder still to justify. But, as grievances cool, a deal is in the best interests of both sides.

    The City of London is powerful, innovative and pre-eminent. But, post-Brexit, we can assume other financial centres in Europe will wish to challenge its present dominance. That is an unavoidable consequence of the British exodus.

    Although I don’t believe the EU can hope to replicate the City in any foreseeable timescale, I do expect they will move towards focusing more financial activity within their own Borders – politics will dictate this as well as long-term self-interest.

    Dublin itself may be a beneficiary of this trend.

    The wider trade implication of leaving the EU is that the UK not only loses her free trade deal with the European market of 500 million people, but also free trade deals with 53 other nations that were negotiated by the European Union – but only for its Members.

    Over time these can be replaced, but, for now, there is a very, very long way to go – and the question arises: are 65 million Britons really likely to get the same favourable treatment as 500 million Europeans?

    The UK lives by her trade – so, we must try. But this process will not be swift – or straightforward.

    Let me summarise. Barring a sudden outbreak of common sense, and a reality check on national self-interest, the UK will be the first nation to leave the EU.

    This will be yet another irony, as the first proposal for a European Union came not – as is generally supposed – from the French cognac salesman, Jean Monnet, but from an Englishman.

    Three and a quarter centuries ago, in 1693, William Penn advocated a European “Diet or Parliament” as a policy to end perpetual military conflict on the Continent. It took 280 years and two world wars to convince his fellow Britons that unity was better than division.

    Forty three years later, the British people reversed that decision.

    It is in the interests of both Ireland and the UK that wise negotiators can now minimise the downside and maximise the opportunities.

    Let us hope they will – and they can.

    Many futures depend on it – both in my country and in your own.

    As I speak, I can hear Albert’s lilting voice pushing us on towards a sensible deal.

    We must all do everything we can not to let him down.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to George H.W. Bush – 5 December 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to George H.W. Bush, published in The Times on 5 December 2018.

    Very few leaders have been as qualified for high political office as George HW Bush [obituary, December 3].

    His early career as a navy pilot left him, at the end of the Second World War, a 21-year-old veteran who had seen death, faced death, and thus achieved the rare balance in perception that such experiences bring.

    I came to know and admire him during his presidency. We were allies, we became friends, and that friendship lasted to the very end of his life. As a human being he was one of the most gentle, wise and deep-down decent men I have ever known.

    A politician, yes — but not at all costs. The dark side of politics was not for him. George Bush had an open heart and an open mind. He was always more comfortable acknowledging the virtues of opponents rather than abusing them.

    And if you were lucky enough to become his friend — and yes, I mean lucky — you were a friend for life. George’s gift of friendship was as remarkable as it was deep. He was a true citizen of the world, and his friends came from every corner of the world.

    At Walker’s Point, Kennebunkport — the Bush family’s coastal home in Maine — guests would feel the full force of George and Barbara’s warm embrace. Family members, young and old, would come and go throughout the summer months. Children would run riot on bikes and go-karts, and dogs would scamper over the rocks in pursuit of seabirds that would never be caught. But there were some things that were taken very seriously indeed: sport and games. George was very, very competitive. Taking part was important, but winning was all, be it golf, tennis, horseshoes or fishing. Fishing was normally the one sore point. George was always on the lookout for bluefish, but alas, they also seemed to be on the lookout for George — more often than not they proved elusive, even for the presidential fishing rod.

    This gave George another idea for water sports, Kennebunkport-style: he would take the wheel of his motorboat and head off at speed into the open ocean in an attempt to outrun his Secret Service escort boat. Discretion prevents my revealing which boat won.

    Life was certainly never dull at Walker’s Point. But it was real. And always, for George, his balm and refuge. On his 80th birthday George gathered some guests: Brian Mulroney, Mikhail Gorbachev, myself and many others. The weekend-long celebrations included a country and western concert and a parachute jump — by George, of course. He suggested that I might like to join him in the jump, an invitation that I had little difficulty in declining.

    Over the past two decades I have travelled extensively to every corner of the earth. Wherever I have gone — and especially in the Near and Far East — I have found an affection for George HW Bush that exceeds that of any other political leader I have known. That is due partly to his policies — he reached out to every country and every continent — but also, on a more personal level, to the friendships he made, and kept. The telephone was almost umbilically attached to George. He would call family and friends at the drop of a hat, often for no other reason than to simply say hello. When I became prime minister his was the first call I received. After my election defeat in 1997 he was, once again, the first to call, with comforting words and an invitation to Kennebunkport: “Get yourselves over here, John,” he said, “the bluefish are biting.”

    Yet despite his own generosity of spirit, he could still be hurt. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait he said immediately, “This shall not stand”, and subsequent events proved that he meant it. Margaret Thatcher’s remark, “This is no time to go wobbly, George”, was unfair and wounded him without cause. Even so, in later years he spoke of Margaret only in terms of affection and respect.

    Notwithstanding the public offices he held, even that of the most powerful man on the planet, there was nothing in George Bush’s life that was more important to him than family. He and Barbara were married for 73 years. If George was the high chief of the clan, then Barbara was the maypole around which they all danced. It is impossible to overstate Barbara’s role in George’s life and career, or her ferocity in defending his interests against all-comers. Theirs was the most extraordinary partnership.

    George and Barbara Bush would forever mourn the loss of their daughter Robin, who died of cancer at a tragically young age, but they looked on with pride and joy as their other five children carved their own way in the world.

    George W and Jeb took to politics, becoming governors of Texas and Florida respectively. George W, of course, became the second Bush to call the White House his home, and his parents lived through every moment — every high and low — of his presidency. Neil, Marvin and Doro led less public lives, but no less impactful.

    Each one of their children has been true to the Bush family maxim of giving far more than you receive, and their personal dedication and commitment to so many noble causes is already being mirrored by their own children. Of all the legacies of which George and Barbara would be proudest, this would be the one.

    In a world that so often admires the cheap and tawdry, it is not easy to find the words to sum up the life of such a good and gentle man who at his core was devoted to public service. But one mighty pen has done it. As Shakespeare put in the mouth of Hamlet: “He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.”

    Indeed, we shall not.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement Following the Death of George H.W. Bush – 1 December 2018

    The text of the statement made by Sir John Major on Saturday 1 December 2018 following the death of George H.W. Bush, the former President of the United States.

    George H.W. Bush was above all else a family man and, for him, the American people were part of that family.

    In public office he served as he lived, with compassion, courage, dignity and grace. As President, he saw America’s obligation to the world and honoured it – and he remained committed to public service until the day he died.

    I feel privileged to have worked with him, and even more privileged that he became a lifelong friend. He was, quite simply, one of the most deep down decent people I have ever known.

    Our hearts go out to his family, but they will take great comfort in the knowledge that their brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather is now reunited with his beloved wife Barbara, and their daughter Robin.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Evening Standard – 30 October 2018

    Below is the text of the article by Sir John Major which was published in the Evening Standard on 30 October 2018. Mentioned in the article is the ‘Our Future, Our Choice’ report.

    Our decision to leave the EU is one of the most divisive in British history. Brexit has divided the component parts of the UK, placing England and Wales (as “Leavers”) in opposition to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    It has divided our mainstream political parties, business and commerce, communities, friends, families — and generations. In many cases, these scars run deep, and will not be easily healed.

    People who voted for Brexit did so with high hopes — most of which will be unrealised. We were told we would keep the advantages of the single market. We will not. That we would be better off. We will not. That we would get cash back to fund the NHS. We will not. That trade deals could be negotiated overnight. They will not. That the Irish border would not present a problem. But it has — and it will continue to do so.

    The public were offered pipe dreams, not realities. The industrialist, the financier, the fisherman and the farmer will come to realise that, as will the health worker, the scientist, the businessman or woman, and the family member guarding the household purse.

    We were told that there were “no downsides” to Brexit. Reality checks from expert opinion were dismissed as fearmongering by the “elite”.

    This was misdirection on a classic scale.

    Under every scenario that has been independently modelled — even by our own government — the UK will be poorer and weaker, and the poorest regions and the least well-off will suffer the most. No-one could — or should — be complacent about that.

    A fresh analysis by Our Future, Our Choice, a group of young people who are campaigning for a vote on any Brexit deal, now sets out with great clarity the implications for young people. The report indicates that the younger generation can expect a big loss of earnings, at or around £76,000 by 2050 under a World Trade Organisation-terms exit.

    On this basis, a hard Brexit would cost young people three times what they pay for university, or double the deposit needed to buy a house. I do not believe that those who voted Leave intended for their own children and grandchildren to be worse off.

    As negotiations have proceeded — and the downsides become clear — the inevitable question arises: how could the UK have voted to enact such a policy of self-harm? And how can the fervent Brexiteers in Parliament continue to ignore and dismiss every warning — even when those warnings seem ever more likely to be true?

    History may well judge that, for a time, the world’s most pragmatic nation lost her gift of promoting national self-interest. Once more we must look to Parliament to safeguard our interests. As the facts become known, Parliament — our ultimate sovereign power — will need to decide whether the deal presented to them meets the promises made to the British people. If it does not, I believe Parliament would be right to order a “binding” referendum.

    Such a further — and final — referendum would be controversial, especially among those who fear they may lose it. I accept it is not an easy option. But the moral — and democratic — case for voting upon proven facts, rather than peddled fiction, is rock solid. The reverse is also true: how can it be right to hold people to a decision made upon so many false promises?

    It is neither right nor wise, especially for our young. Their recent report — published last week — is poignantly entitled Our Future, Our Choice but of course it was never the choice of the young, who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU while many elders voted to leave.
    And there is something unjust that so many of the younger generation — who will have to live with the fallout from Brexit for the longest period — are to be denied any say in the process.

    Since June 2016, there are now nearly two million more young people who are eligible to vote, a large majority of whom intend to vote in any potential second referendum. Of those certain to vote, an astonishing 87 per cent would opt to stay in the European Union.

    One final thought: I have a word of caution for the fervent Brexiteers that is kindly meant — even though they will not wish to hear it. If, in pursuit of the “no deal” Brexit they favour, they vote to delay approval of any other options by Parliament, or deny the nation a binding referendum, they will have nowhere to hide if — as so many forecast — Brexit harms our national wellbeing.

    Those responsible for forcing through a policy that impairs the prospects of the British people will be held accountable for many years to come. They will not be forgotten — and may well not be forgiven — by those they misled.

    It is, therefore, in the Brexiteers’ own interests to support a final decision by a Parliament unhampered by political coercion, or by a nation in possession of all the facts on how the lives of its citizens will be impacted by the decision that is taken. This is hardly a novel proposition: it is democracy — and our own sovereignty — in action. One might even call it the will of the people.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Quinlan Lecture – 16 October 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Michael Quinlan Lecture held in London on 16 October 2018.

    When Mary Quinlan invited me to deliver this lecture I was flattered – and fearful; flattered by the opportunity, and fearful about whether I could do justice to such a remarkable man.

    I first met Michael over 30 years ago and he left me with two over-riding impressions. First, he was an easy man to like; and second, he was even easier to admire. He had a distinguished career as a civil servant, and – to me – exemplified the ideal of public service.

    It was my experience in Government that, taken as a whole, the best of the Civil Service was the equal of talent in every other sphere of activity and, in Michael’s case, he was not only a public servant – in the true sense of that term – he was also a world-class authority on his subject.

    Public service matters because, without it, Government is paralysed. Its efficiency is as relevant to public wellbeing as policy itself.

    This is not universally understood, but it should be: those who use “bureaucrat” as a term of abuse simply don’t understand the wider role of public servants.

    I hope to speak of this more fully at a later date but, for now, let me observe merely that the State needs its fair share of our brightest and best talent, and it is important we continue to attract them. Michael Quinlan is an exemplar of who and what we need.

    And, at this moment, our country is in need of all the expertise it can get. We live in a world of flux. Power structures are changing.

    Allegiances are changing. Little is as it was: even less will remain as it is.

    For many millions, the financial crash of a decade ago destroyed their faith in the political and financial world. I am not surprised. The innocent were hurt. Since then, the global market, the on-rush of science, of medicine, and all forms of technological advance, continues to move the world on at an ever–faster pace.

    Government is a serious and complex business. It is far more important than the trivia of who is “up” and who is “down” in the political stakes – intriguing and newsworthy though that may be.

    Government is about enhancing our status in the world. Our security. Our economic well-being. Our national reputation. Our future prospects.

    It is about selecting priorities between Government programmes; between business and civil society; between rich and poor.

    It involves choices between competition and compassion; between young and old; or between the component parts of our (currently not very) United Kingdom. Sometimes, the choices are straightforward but, all too often, they can be hideously complex.

    What Government is not about is cheap grandstanding. It’s not about deceiving the electorate with slogans, or soundbites, or untruths or half-truths. It’s not about windy oratory that says nothing. It’s not about simplistic solutions to intricate problems. It’s not about scapegoating one part of our population to earn the plaudits of another.

    And – most emphatically – it’s not about princelings fighting for the political crown of Premiership. Coded messages that shriek “I’m the One” are about as subtle as a punch on the nose.

    Such self-interest is politics at its least attractive. It does not deliver sound government. It destabilises Government.

    As a general rule, those whose focus is on self-advancement are rarely the most suitable to be entrusted with power.

    Talk of power moves me on to the post-Brexit role of diplomacy and the Foreign Office. Here – in the Locarno Room – I feel a little inhibited.

    I recall Harold Wilson speaking in the 1966 Election and asking, as he moved to his peroration:

    “ … and why do I talk about the Royal Navy?”

    to be told by a heckler:

    “Because you’re in Chatham.”.

    But I plead “Not Guilty” to that charge. I talk of diplomacy because it is vital to our national interests and, once we leave the EU, we will need to become ever more forceful in pressing those interests.

    The blunt truth is that – as a nation of 65 million – our voice is going to be less resonant than as a leading member of a Union of 500 million.

    We need, therefore, to compensate – as far as we can – by increasing our foreign policy capability.

    That must mean more proactive diplomacy. If we retreat solely to our own interests; to Fortress Britain; to our own national boundaries; to the role of on-looker and not innovator – then greater isolation will surely lead to greater irrelevance.

    But being proactive requires an expansion of our Foreign Service capacity. As an internationalist, I believe such a posture is desirable in all circumstances. Post-Brexit, it will be essential.

    For decades, our foreign policy has been bolstered by our membership of the EU, and our closeness to the US. Now, we are on the verge of leaving the EU, while the US continues to move towards Asia-Pacific – and away from Europe and the UK.

    Until now, every US President I have known has considered our relevance to America to be enhanced by our membership of the European Union. Yet very soon – on our current course – we will no longer be able to argue from within the EU for Anglo-American beliefs in free trade; open markets; and strong defence.

    Our value – as an ally of America – will decline. Our friends, the Americans, are hard-headed about power. It is romantic folly to think otherwise. Be in no doubt – if the UK can no longer serve America’s interests in Europe, she will look elsewhere for someone who can.

    Of course, our relationship won’t collapse: ties of blood, trade and security will remain. But the UK will be even more clearly America’s subordinate and dependent junior partner.

    No “ifs”, no “buts”: we will be less relevant. No-one should be bedazzled by folksy talk of our “special relationship”: it is becoming less “special” year by year.

    At this moment our country needs to focus on policy, not personality; on substance, not show; on the national interest, not ideology. Because decisions that must soon be taken will shape the futures of our children and grandchildren for many years to come.

    You will assume that I am referring to Brexit – and I am. But my concern runs far wider than that.

    However, first Brexit …

    For centuries, our State schemed and plotted to prevent all Europe uniting against us. Our Monarchs even married off their children and bribed our foreign adversaries in order to maintain alliances.

    Now, we have chosen to turn our back on all Europe. A long line of former Statesmen will be turning in their graves.

    Europe gone ….. America going.

    We are told our future aim is to be “Global Britain”: that is certainly the right policy, but it is hardly new. It has been the reality for 300 years.

    What is new is that much of the world will now perceive Britain to be a middle-sized, middle-ranking nation that is no longer super-charged by its alliances. Suddenly, the world will be a little chillier.

    If the art of negotiation is to obtain what you seek, then the intention must be to give a little to (hopefully) gain a lot more.

    Such a negotiation is difficult. It benefits from a trusting relationship. From goodwill. It is most likely to succeed if respect is evident on both sides.

    I cannot know how the Government has conducted negotiations in private with the European Union: very possibly they have met the tenets I have set out.

    But, even if they have (and not all the signs are good), belligerent noises-off – on a daily basis – have built up ill-will, and made the Prime Minister’s task even more difficult.

    We know the post-Brexit world will be very different from now.

    It cannot be otherwise, because no form of Brexit will remotely match up to the promises made by the Leave Campaign in the referendum: they were vote-gathering fantasies, not serious politics.

    I have no constituency vote clouding my view of Brexit. I have no ambition driving my support for it. I have no Party Whips demanding loyalty before conscience.

    I have made no false promises about Brexit that I must pretend can still be honoured, even though – in my heart – I know they cannot.

    I am free to say absolutely and precisely what I believe about Brexit.

    And it is this:

    I understand the motives of those who voted to leave the European Union: it can – as I well know – be very frustrating.

    Nonetheless, after weighing its frustrations and opportunities, there is no doubt in my own mind that our decision is a colossal misjudgement that will diminish both the UK and the EU.

    It will damage our national and personal wealth, and may seriously hamper our future security. It may even, over time, break up our United Kingdom. It will most definitely limit the prospects of our young.

    And – once this becomes clear – I believe those who promised what will never be delivered will have much to answer for. They persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer.

    That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven.

    Our domestic focus is on the impact leaving Europe will have on the UK. That is quite natural but, to the world at large, the bigger question is how the EU itself will be affected. The answer is – badly.

    Most obviously, the EU will lose their second largest economy; one of only two nations with a nuclear capacity and significant military capability; and the nation with the longest, deepest, and most effective foreign policy reach.

    But it goes further than that. Without the UK, the dynamics of Europe may change. Once the UK leaves, the balance of the EU changes. The free market majority may be at risk: protectionists will be encouraged and, perhaps, empowered.

    The UK will no longer be a buffer between the Franco-German steamroller and smaller nations. Germany will be more isolated, and friction may grow.

    The UK may have been an irritant to the Commission and some of our European partners, but it has also been the anchor to windward against precipitate, or unwise, or unaffordable policies.

    There is irony here: over 70 years ago, Britain stood alone to fight for Europe – now we freely choose to stand alone and, in so doing, undermine Europe.

    “So what?” committed Brexiteers say, “We won’t be Members: it’s Europe’s problem”. But that ignores reality. How can it not be our problem, too?

    Whether we are “in” or “out” the EU is in our neighbourhood; is our predominant economic partner; and our wellbeing is inexorably linked to their own wellbeing.

    In the hot heat of debate it should not be forgotten that we ignore the EU, disdain it, or stand aside from it, at our own risk.

    * * * * * *

    We live at a time when America is showing withdrawal symptoms, and China is growing in economic, political and military power. Whenever the US leaves a vacuum around the world, it will be filled by China, or Russia, or regional players.

    Already, Russia is a far more significant presence in the Middle East than would have seemed conceivable a decade ago.

    The fundamental point is simple: if America withdraws from international obligations, then Europe can best protect her own interests if she is united.

    It is easy to demonstrate why this is so. When China joined the WTO, it was hoped she would conform to accepted trade practices. Thus far, she has not.

    Instead, the evidence suggests that she still appropriates other countries’ intellectual property; forces technology transfer; closes out competitors’ investment to favour her domestic – often state-run – industries; and still subsidises to succeed.

    None of this meets WTO rules.

    China also smothers complaints about her trade practices by judicious economic investment: this shows that, rules notwithstanding, economic power and a deep national wallet can by-pass accepted international behaviour.

    All this undermines the rules-based world trading system.

    No-one seeks a dispute with China. But rules made – must be obeyed.

    China may be powerful enough to ignore, isolate and punish individual critics. But she cannot ignore or punish the whole of Europe.

    And unfair trade practices can no longer be excused with the argument that China is an emerging economy and we should therefore turn a blind eye to her activities. We should not.

    She is now an economic superpower dramatically increasing her defence capability. Expenditure on land, sea, air and submarine capacity is soaring.

    China now has the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America – and she continues to build them at pace.

    It is time to remember that – in the late 16th Century – China was the pre-eminent global power. China has not forgotten this: and nor should we.

    * * * * *

    It is impossible to talk of Michael Quinlan without considering defence and, in particular, nuclear weapons. We may wish they had never been invented – but they were.

    Today, nuclear capability is in the hands of certain undesirable States, and is sought by yet more – including non-State actors.
    The UK has Trident. It is our nuclear insurance: a weapon to deter. It is hard to see the circumstances in which we would initiate a nuclear strike but, if attacked, our enemy can and should expect us to retaliate.

    To this end, every Trident submarine carries instructions on what to do with its payload were the UK to be destroyed in a nuclear attack.

    Because of that, such an attack is unlikely.

    But no Government can ignore the demands of non-nuclear defence and security expenditure. I don’t only mean combat aircraft, or destroyers, or frigates, or submarines, or tanks, or manpower: I mean the growing threats of new technology and cyber warfare.

    The misuse of new technology is almost impossible to control. The fear of rogue States or terrorist groups gaining a nuclear capacity obsesses many – and rightly so.

    But so should bio-technology.

    Consider this quote from the American National Academy of Sciences:

    “A few individuals with specialised skills … could inexpensively and easily produce a panoply of lethal biological weapons …”

    That is truly terrifying – especially if one accepts that technical expertise is as likely to lie with the fanatic as it is with a sane and balanced citizen.

    It is not the only novel threat. Many States – and, most probably, terror groups as well – are developing offensive cyber capabilities that could be targeted anywhere at anytime.

    Conceivably, we might not even know we were under attack – or from where the threat had come.

    But we know where it might go. Malicious cyber activity could hit anything from missile defences; to civil nuclear power plants; to water supplies; to innovative research; to corporate interests; or to Government secrets.

    One successful cyber attack at a civil nuclear plant could release radiation, disrupt energy supply, and create havoc.

    But attacks on the fabric of a nation can go far beyond the physical infrastructure.

    Take information, which is now being weaponised.

    America has been examining whether her Presidential election was perverted. Some believe there may have been external influence in our own recent referendum and General Election.

    Whether or not such fears are justified, external interference in internal matters must be on everyone’s list of rising dangers. And democracies are vulnerable targets since they have open societies, a free press, and an active social media widely available to the mass of the populace.

    Attack comes through weaponised information, and mis-information, pumped into public news broadcasts and social media. In this way, the reputation of individuals and organisations can be trashed; opponents can be undermined; and public opinion can be manipulated.

    The purpose is to sow confusion and create distrust. To weaken opponents – whether individuals, or Governments, or countries – and put them on the defensive.

    This can reinforce and strengthen extreme views or populist insurgencies. It is very difficult to defend against, and inflicts damage well before its victims realise what is happening.

    Russia is the present master of this tactic, although other nations have a similar capacity. It is a threat to beware. It is effective, and may – probably will – grow.

    Other big questions arise. What happens to security and defence cooperation when we leave the EU? And what is the future of NATO?- Time and again, our Government has affirmed its commitment to European defence. This is an area of the Brexit negotiations where both sides should drop their red lines and their posturing and agree a mutually beneficial arrangement.

    It would be a mistake for the EU to treat the UK as simply another “third country”.

    A mutually beneficial deal should reinforce information sharing; involve the UK in planning and key decisions; tie in a British commitment to joint operations; and encourage co-operation in research, development and military hardware.

    Such an outcome is in the interests of British and European security and – if it is not agreed – will be a failure of negotiation.

    The whole agenda of risks is extraordinarily difficult to navigate, even with unlimited resources.

    But we don’t have unlimited resources – nor will we. So choices must be made that will be painful and controversial.

    This becomes doubly important because, since he took Office, President Trump has repeatedly made disobliging references about NATO.

    He has derided it as “obsolete”, and its funding as “unfair” (to America), for whom it is a “great financial loss”.

    Whether this is playing to the gallery (since America does have a legitimate grievance over funding, and the President is right that Europe should up its game); or a prelude to withdrawing American troops from Europe; or a ploy to encourage a greater contribution from EU countries – is mere conjecture.

    What is clear is that – since NATO was formed – the world has changed, and so have the risks it must guard against. In view of present concern over the future of NATO, there is a case for a new Treaty to include an updated commitment to collective security and action.

    The present Article 5 – the famous agreement that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all – has served us well for almost 70 years.

    Is it still solid? Can we rely on it? Does President Trump’s public hectoring of NATO encourage ill-wishers to believe Article 5 may be vulnerable if a weak financial contributor to NATO were attacked?

    Old commitments are a comfort. Renewed commitments reassure.

    It is not clear – certainly not to me – whether this worrying American tone is simply a ploy to encourage higher defence expenditure across Europe, or indicative of a future policy drift.

    Should we sit out President Trump, or prepare now for a less engaged America?

    I don’t know the answer but, upon defence, we have surely learned the lesson of history – if in doubt, prepare.

    * * * * *

    Let me turn finally to politics.

    As I look at the political scene now, I feel both hope and concern.

    My hope is two-fold: first, in the proven capacity of our country to rise to challenges; and, second, in the depth of talent that has entered politics in the last two Elections, and is now working its way up the greasy pole. This talent exists across the floor of the Commons.

    But the immediate scene is less attractive. None of the mainstream political Parties is in a healthy condition. Both the Conservatives and Labour face pressure from fringe opinion within their own membership.

    Voices from the extreme wings of both Parties – in and out of Parliament – are often the most committed, most noisy – and most likely to stir dissent. I admire their passion, but not their policies.

    My fear is that the extremes of Right and Left will widen divisions and refuse to compromise, whereas more moderate opinion will often seek common ground.

    The risk of intransigence – “My way or no way” – is that the mainstream Parties will be dragged further Right and further Left.

    We should not be complacent over this: extreme views are already driving policy in many countries.

    A famous line of Yeats comes to mind:

    “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

    I am deeply concerned that the “Centre” vote – the moderate vote that is shared among all the main Parties – will not be able to hold its traditional influence over policy.

    It is crucial that it does. At heart, we are a tolerant, compassionate, and kindly nation. I feel privileged to have been born into it.

    Our nation should not tolerate the unreasoning antipathy of the extremes – to the EU, to foreigners or to minority groups. Such antipathy is repellent, and diminishes us as a nation. Softer, more reasonable voices should not be drowned out by the raucous din of the loudest.

    I freely confess to a taste for compromise. I have always preferred good old British pragmatism to rigorous ideology. Politics is real life. It isn’t warfare. It isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about people. It’s about four nations who deserve more than an ideological tug-of-war.

    And the advocates of the extreme Right or Left must understand those with different opinions may well be opponents – but they are still our countrymen and women. To treat them as “enemies” or “saboteurs” or “traitors” is to poison both the political system and our way of life.

    Respect and civility would do much to help lift politics out of the dog days in which it is now living.

    More compromise – less confrontation.

    In our world of change, that is one change I would dearly wish to see.

    And so, I believe, would Michael Quinlan.

  • Sir John Major's Podcast with Nick Robinson – 11 October 2018

    Below is the podcast with Sir John Major and Nick Robinson, released on 11 October 2018.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 22 July 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show broadcast on Sunday 22 July 2018.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John, for a lot of people this is not really a problem in the British political system generally, it is still a problem inside the Conservative Party.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it is a problem inside the Conservative Party, that’s entirely true, but it is wider. Had it not been for some Labour anti-Europeans some of the amendments passed in the House of Commons last week would have failed. So it certainly spreads beyond the Conservative Party, even though I agree, it’s principally a Conservative Party problem.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Can I put it to you that there are – there’s lots of different kinds of Conservatives, but there’s two in particular. There’s, as it were the more traditional Conservatives who think that they are in politics to preserve jobs and business and national prosperity. And there are those who think the overwhelming duty and the great cause is breaking away from the European behemoth at all costs, at all events, and those are two different kinds of politicians. And my question to you is for how long can they continue to reside inside the same party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I wish I knew the answer to that. I mean there are a large number of – I say large – maybe 30, maybe 40, I don’t know precisely, but a considerable number of Conservative MPs who on the subject of Europe are irreconcilable. It is absolutely the most important issue of all.

    Nothing else matters to the same extent. They were there in the 1990s; many of the same people are there now, but they have been added to by new members who’ve come in in the interim. And the difficulty we face at the moment is that has boxed the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, into a corner. They are a minority of the House of Commons. A substantial minority of the House of Commons but they’re larger than the government’s majority. And that means to a substantial extent they have a much greater ability to frustrate policy than any small group really ought to have. And the danger at the moment is that they will frustrate every move that the government seek to make and that by accident, because nothing can be agreed, we will crash out without a deal. And that has a very material effect on everyone in this country. You touched on it earlier. But there’s a whole range of things. If we crash out without a deal the people who have least are going to be hurt most. It would be a terrible betrayal of the interests of everyday people who really are not political.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And yet that is where we are heading at the moment unless something changes. Now I know it was, in some respects it was easier for you as Prime Minister because there were fewer rebels inside your party and you could stand and challenge them openly. If Theresa May did that we both know what would happen. What can she do?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t think she should do that. I mean it was a limited success when I did it in the 90s. It wasn’t a wholly successful. It preserved a position, it dampened things down but it didn’t really solve the problem, so I wouldn’t advise the Prime Minister to do that. But I do think the point about the way in which people will be affected. I mean if I had my way I would put a sign on every Member of Parliament’s desks.

    People, people, people. Because that is what matters at the end of these negotiations. Now the people who are going to be affected may be represented by Conservative MPs or Labour MPs or Liberal MPs or ScotNats, or whomsoever. And I think the majority of the House of Commons should not let this irreconcilable minority within the Conservative Party determine what happens in these negotiations. Now I was encouraged by what Dominic Raab has said about being pragmatic and trying to persuade those who are not yet persuaded that they need to build on the Chequers compromise. I don’t much like the Chequers compromise, it isn’t what I would have preferred to see, but it is –

    ANDREW MARR:

    But it’s about as much as she could have got from the Conservative Party now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is. It is a compromise. Now both the European Union and the UK are going to have to compromise if we get a deal. Nothing unusual about that, it’s the very nature of negotiations. You set out your position, the other side sets out theirs and you compromise and you reach a deal. But if every compromise reached by the Cabinet is blocked by this minority of irreconcilable hard line, utterly committed, anti Europeans, anti Europe on all occasions then we will not actually get to negotiations, we will fall out without a deal and it will be catastrophic – damaging for Europe, but catastrophic for us. And not only catastrophic for us, it is the people who have least who will end up being hurt most.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There are various possible ways out of this that people talk about, including a second referendum, a so called ‘people’s vote.’ Now you have said this is not a terrible idea but you haven’t yet committed yourself completely to the idea that it’s a good idea.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No. It has downsides. I mean frankly a second vote has democratic downsides. It has difficulties. But is it morally justified? I think it is. If you look back at the Leave campaign a great many of the promises they made were fantasy promises. We now know they’re not going to be met. It’s painfully –

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well, both sides told some whoppers let’s be honest.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t deny that both sides got it wrong, but it was the Leave side that said, this is going to be the easiest trade deal in history, we can get it in an afternoon. We will easily be able to get trade deals around the world. Many of the things that they said were absolutely pie in the sky and if you look at any possible deal we’re going to get and compare it to what people were promised with Brexit, there will be a gaping gap. Now that is a reason why people might want a second referendum. I mean if for example – let me give you an illustration. Would you buy a house without knowing the price? No, you would not. Should we finally decide to leave Europe without knowing the cost of doing so? And by the cost I don’t just mean to the government, to the nation, I mean to the lives of individual people in every constituency in the land.

    Now I think it’s arguable that once the cost is known, if it is as damaging as I believe it will be – it may not be, the negotiations may be a success but I have my doubts. If it is as damaging as I believe it to be then you either face the question of letting the public endorse it or not or five years down the road when it is blazingly apparent how much has gone wrong, there will be a huge amount of disillusion. Much greater disillusion than we’ve yet seen with the British political system. So a referendum isn’t an easy option, but it’s not one at this stage that I would rule out.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Because you said in terms during the first referendum, this is it. There’s only going to be one referendum, it’s a once in a lifetime chance, there will be no more referendums. And now you’ve changed your mind. And that’s why some of your critics on the Brexiteer side of the party are so angry with you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    If circumstances change you change your mind. I think that was said by a very wise man.

    ANDREW MARR:

    JM Keynes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Absolutely, Keynes, and we now know that circumstances have changed. The promises made are not going to be met. And if the promises made are not going to be met, there is a justification for changing your mind on letting the public decide whether the Brexit they’re offered after the negotiations is going to be remotely like the Brexit that was promised by the Leave campaign during the referendum. I do not believe it will be remotely like the promises that were made.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Another way of possibly resolving this, and we came very close to it earlier in the week, is another General Election.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think we could stumble into that by accident. If the House of Commons continues to be deadlocked, if the irreconcilables remain unmoveable and the whips of the other parties decide to take political advantage of the government’s voting weakness in the House of Commons, if they decide to do that and put party politics before the national interest, then there is a possibility of the Commons being unable to reach an agreement and a General Election ultimately becoming unavoidable. I would hope not. It would be a very unpleasant General Election if we had it. This campaign, the referendum campaign, and afterwards, frankly, has not been a glorious episode in British Constitutional history. It’s been very ugly with many of the things that have been said, particularly if I may say so, about the small number of Remain MPs in the Conservative Party who to my mind have been extraordinarily brave and have been insulted uphill and down dale because they have expressed their concern for what will happen to our country if we go down the Brexit route.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you know Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that is all just embittered bile from a failed Prime Minister in your terms. I think he said even worse than that, but I won’t read the entire quote out.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t read very carefully what Mr Rees-Mogg says, but I believe he said something like that. It was very statesman like.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right, Let’s turn to Theresa May herself. As I said at the beginning you have been in this position, you know what it’s like sitting in Number 10 trying to find a way forward. Do you think she can survive at this point?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, I do. Yes I do. I do for a range of reasons because a General Election would be catastrophic because a leadership election would be absolutely absurd for the Conservative Party. For the Conservative Party again to decide suddenly they were going to get rid of a Prime Minister –

    ANDREW MARR:

    But she can’t afford to lose her Brexit vote in the House of Commons, can she? Losing a big vote in the House of Commons or having her plan turned down by Brussels would leave her with no options really left at all.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think we’ll have to wait and see whether people come to their senses by realising what the implications of a leadership election or a General Election might actually be. What is our purpose at this moment? Our purpose at this moment is to engage with the European Union and get the best deal we can. Any deal, any deal is going to be less good than the deal we currently have as a member of the European Union. This is not me as Mr Rees-Mogg put it, as an embittered Remainer speaking, this is what the government said in its own calculations and a no deal Brexit is the worst of all. The North East for example, an area not full of bounding prosperity might lose 16% of its GDP if we crash out without a deal.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it not possible that the Brexiteers are right? I mean there’s lots of ifs, there’s lots of projections, there’s lots of crystal ball gazing. It is possible that after no deal we do strike new trade arrangements, we become a slightly different kind of economy, a slightly different kind of county and we find a good future?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s possible the earth is flat, but not very likely. I mean if you look at the deals they’re seeking to do with big economies, the European Union has just done a deal with Japan, another deal that would have been available to us had we remained in the European Union. They want a deal with America, the Brexiteers with America, with China, with India. Well, I think we know an American deal can be done but I don’t think it would be especially to our advantage. We would get minor advantages perhaps but lots of downsides, particularly for agriculture, particularly for services. Doing a deal with India, where we really want a deal in their services sector seems to me a very distant prospect indeed at the moment. And a deal with China, I don’t think we are particularly on China’s radar for a deal at the moment, and when we leave, Andrew, when we leave, we lose over 50 trade deals that we have because we are a member of the European Union and we will have to renegotiate them all. That will take years and years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One very final quick question on a related but not identical matter. If your Chief Whip was breaking pairing arrangements, what would you do?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would certainly wish to decide exactly how it had happened and what had happened.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it appears that the Chief Whip has been telling Conservative MPs to break their pairing arrangements because of the tightness of a vote. That sort of smashes all parliamentary conventions and a lot of people think it’s just not decent.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not in the Commons, I don’t know the Chief Whip, I don’t know the details, I’m not going to comment on it. But I think it has to be cleared up and cleared up within the House of Commons. But what that will throw up I really am not in a position to judge.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Irish Assembly – 10 May 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Irish Assembly on 10 May 2018.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This History is a magisterial undertaking and it’s a privilege to be here on this special occasion.

    We are living history at the moment.

    This evening’s focus on Ireland comes at a moment when I view the emerging situation between our two countries with a great deal of trepidation.

    England and Ireland have endured a turbulent relationship for nearly 1,000 years. It has been studded with unrest, repression, rebellion, reprisals, mistrust, betrayal and violence. In times past, there is much to repent.

    Now, today – we are again at a moment when decisions made might once more unsettle our relationship.

    During the 1990s, the Peace Process prospered as the construct of many hands: governments, politicians, the Church, peace movements, whilst war weariness – and the recognition by the men of violence that armed conflict would never achieve their aims – also helped forge the search for agreement.

    The whole Peace Process was spurred on and cemented by the obvious wish of Irish men and women – North and South – to work together to end violence.

    No-one wished to see the lives of yet another generation damaged by “The Troubles”.

    When commonsense, and common humanity triumphed, the Good Friday Agreement ushered in two decades in which the British/Irish relationship moved to a higher and more co-operative level than at any time in our joint history.

    And this is how it should be: the UK and the Republic of Ireland are one another’s nearest neighbours, and the relationship should be one of mutual consideration and harmony.

    And – as one of millions of Britons with Irish antecedents – I was delighted to see our relationship mature and grow closer.

    Brexit – depending on the final deal – may now put this in reverse. When Tony Blair and I went to Ireland together to warn of the implications of the UK leaving the EU – for the whole island of Ireland – we expected opposition from Brexit supporters.

    What we didn’t expect was a complete failure of understanding about its impact by leading Brexiteers.

    There are serious issues to address:

    How the UK can minimise the damage to Ireland of Britain leaving the European Union.

    Whether a new Customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will divide communities that are now united, and complicate bilateral trade with the UK, which totals over one billion pounds a week.

    Whether such a border could – I emphasise could – yet be a focus for both Unionists and Nationalist fringes to recreate violent friction.
    If one of the British ambitions after leaving the European Union is to “go global” to increase our trade and influence, distancing ourselves from our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners is a curious way to begin.

    I, myself, deeply regret that Ireland will feel the impact of the UK’s departure more negatively than any other European State.

    A former Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, put it more bluntly noting that: “Brexit is the greatest economic and social challenge to [Ireland] in 50 years”. Sectors like agri-foods and fishing, tourism and energy, are among those that face particular challenges. The UK Government neither can nor should ignore that.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the British Government wishes to hurt Ireland: far from it. I simply observe that preventing collateral damage to Irish interests doesn’t appear to feature prominently in the concerns of those who press for Brexit. I believe that the obligations of history – and sheer good neighbourliness – suggest that they should.

    It is not only the Border question – or the need to avoid impediments to the trade flow. Many other issues must be considered. Some can, at least in part, be solved.

    I have in mind the Common Travel area, where I’m sure an agreement will be reached. There is also the scale of co-operation set up under EU frameworks where both Governments are committed, in principle, to maintain co-operation –although there must be doubt whether it will be fully replicated post-Brexit.

    The problem of the North/South border is more intransigent. Once a hated symbol of division, it was abandoned without regret under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It may yet return as the border between the UK and the European Union.

    At the very least, a new Customs border will harm trade: East-West as well as North-South. Ten thousand commercial vehicles travel back and forth across the North-South border each day, carrying a vast range of goods.

    Were there to be a Customs Border, this weight of commerce is bound to face delays, queues, and administrative obligations that will lead to higher costs for companies and consumers, North and South.

    No doubt many goods can be cleared in some invisible, frictionless way – as yet unidentified – but not all. Some, such as animals and animal feed, which cross the border every hour of every day, will probably have to be examined for health and safety reasons, in order to avoid infections and diseases such as BSE.

    If so, a physical border seems unavoidable. And, since the border winds through over 300 miles of countryside, this may require a number of border posts to be erected.

    The very words “Customs Union” seem to have become toxic in Brexit circles. They do not seem to understand what is at stake for the Irish economy and Anglo-Irish trade flows.

    The benefits of a Customs Union are crucial to trade. It abolishes tariffs on goods between Member States. It offers common rules of origin, and common standards for products.

    It has ancillary benefits: a common tariff for third country exporters, and no customs checks at borders – all designed to simplify trade between Member States. No sensible alternative exists.

    Ingenious options – well-meaning options – have been proposed but rejected by Cabinet sub-Committees, with the limp promise that further ideas will be sought.

    No doubt the search will intensify – but I doubt it will be successful.

    There has been talk of “frictionless” trade to avoid a physical border. But, so far, the delivery of this has proved illusory.

    There is no “frictionless” trade model anywhere to copy. The only certain way to avoid border checks is a Customs Union.

    Of course, a Customs Union isn’t perfect. It does have ancillary downsides although, in my view, these are heavily exaggerated. But it does soften some of the economic fallout of Brexit, and remove the need for a North-South border in Ireland.

    That alone is a significant gain – but even full membership of the Customs Union will not compensate for leaving the Single Market, or retaining full membership of the EU.

    A new Border may carry a further risk. There is a complacent belief that, because violence has largely disappeared over the last 20 years, it is unlikely to return. I hope that is true but am not wholly confident that it is.

    I do agree that it may not return on the scale of “The Troubles” – but I do not agree that we can be sure it is banished for good.

    The introduction of a “hard” border – with all its unpopular symbolism – may provide a focus for protests from fringe groups – either Unionists or Nationalists.

    What if demonstrations against a new border are followed by attacks on it? Would it then be protected? If so, how? Would security be brought in? If so, what? What would be the reaction to that? Would it re-activate old disputes and begin a downward spiral towards violence?

    Past history warns us how this might play out. I don’t wish to overplay this but, at the very least, it increases the potential for conflict.
    Some Brexit supporters dismiss this as scare-mongering; an anti-Brexit tactic. It emphatically is not. It is simply trivial to suggest so.
    Sir Hugh Orde, the former Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, has warned that the political consequences of Brexit may: “play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed…”.

    He added that customs posts “could be a target for dissident para-militaries”. And that risk cannot be blithely dismissed.

    There are also other risks to long-term stability.

    The British Government’s deal with the DUP for Westminster votes must surely be seen by Nationalist opinion to destroy their impartiality as an independent “honest broker”. This will weaken the Government’s hand in dealing with disputes between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, and healing fractures in the Peace Process.

    The collapse of the Northern Ireland Power Sharing Executive, if not re-established soon – and it won’t be – may also be a provocation to dissidents – and will lead to campaigns for a border poll. There is no Executive. No direct rule. And the Civil Service hold the line. Despite all Parties claiming they want an agreement, none is making concessions to achieve one. The risks are obvious.

    I have never hidden my view that leaving the EU – for all its frustrations, which are many – is an historic mistake.

    The negotiations to leave were always going to be hugely complex and expensive – and are ever more proving to be so.

    Thus far, progress is modest at best. Every advance seems to involve retreat, and every agreement delivers less than expected.

    The costs are mounting. The exit bill is likely to be £50 billion. The costs to industry are incalculable. The staff costs to the Civil Service – and, therefore, the British taxpayer – are huge.

    Yet, as the bills mount, and the negotiations falter, the advocates of Brexit become more entrenched.

    Some of them – let us be frank – would be quite content to see the talks fail and no agreement reached. That would be the worst possible outcome.

    That said, there is goodwill everywhere to solve the “border question”, and that is a hopeful sign.

    But to do so, originality and flexibility are essential – together with mutual respect and understanding.

    This is much more than a political squabble between Brexiteer and Remainer; it is a battle for the future direction of a policy that will affect all the people of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    Its resolution may help us grow closer – or drift apart. There is no doubt in my own mind which is the best outcome for both our countries.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Brexit – 28 February 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Somerset House in London on 28 February 2018.

    I would like to express my thanks to the Creative Industries Federation, Somerset House Trust, and Tech London Advocates for the opportunity to speak here today.

    Brexit matters to our creative industries. They express our culture and values – but give so much more.

    Nearly 10% of our national workforce is in creative industries. They are often the young – and overwhelmingly in small units up and down the UK.

    Job growth outpaces every other part of industry – especially in the Midlands and Yorkshire.

    Their exports total over £35 billion a year, but their added value to our country – both economically and socially – is incalculable … and far beyond cash.

    Our decision to leave the EU faces the creative industries with a variety of threats that could harm their future, both in financial and human terms.

    So I am delighted to be their guest here this afternoon – to talk of Brexit.

    ********

    For years, the European debate has been dominated by the fringes of opinion – by strong supporters of Europe or convinced opponents. But, as we approach Brexit, the voice of middle opinion mustn’t be overlooked.

    I am neither a Europhile nor a Eurosceptic. As Prime Minister, I said “No” to federal integration, “No” to the Euro Currency, and “No” to Schengen – which introduced free movement of people within the European Union but without proper control of external borders.

    But I am a realist. I believe that to risk losing our trade advantages with the colossal market on our doorstep is to inflict economic self-harm on the British people.

    Of course, the “will of the people” can’t be ignored, but Parliament has a duty also to consider the “wellbeing of the people”.

    No-one voted for higher prices and poorer public services, but that is what they may get. The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have least. Neither Parliament nor Government wish to see that.

    The “will of the people” – so often summoned up when sound argument is absent – was supported by only 37% of the electorate. 63% voted either in favour of membership – or did not vote at all.

    There was a majority for Brexit, but there was no overwhelming mandate to ignore the reservations of 16 million voters, who believe it will be a harmful change of direction for our country.

    Brexit has been the most divisive issue of my lifetime. It has divided not only the four nations of our UK, but regions within them. It has divided political parties; political colleagues; families; friends – and the young from the old.

    We have to heal those divisions. They have been made worse by the character of the Brexit debate with its intolerance, its bullying, and its name-calling. I welcome rigorous debate – but there must be respect for differing views that are honestly held.

    In this debate there are no “remoaners”, no “mutineers”, no “enemies of the people” – just voices setting out what they believe is right for our country.

    In recent weeks, the idea has gained ground that Brexit won’t be too bad; that we will all get through it; that we’re doing better than expected – and all will be well.

    Of course we will get through it: life as we know it won’t come to an end. We are too resourceful and talented a nation for that. But our nation is owed a frank assessment of what leaving Europe may mean – for now and the future.

    I fear we will be weaker and less prosperous – as a country and as individuals. And – although it grieves me to admit it – our divorce from Europe will diminish our international stature. Indeed, it already has.

    For decades, we British have super-charged our influence around the world by our closeness to the US (which policy divisions are lessening); and our membership of the EU (which we are abandoning).

    As a result, we are already becoming a lesser actor. No-one – Leaver or Remainer – can welcome that.

    We are all urged to be “patriotic” and get behind Brexit. But it is precisely because I am patriotic that I oppose it.

    I want my Country to be influential, not isolated; committed, not cut-off; a leading participant, not a bystander.

    I want us to be richer, not poorer. Yet every serious international body, including the IMF, the OECD, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research – as well as Nobel prize-winners – forecast we will be poorer outside the EU.

    Such forecasts could be wrong, but to dismiss them out of hand is reckless.

    Our own Government has assessed our post-Brexit position upon three separate criteria: that we stay in the Single Market; or reach a trade deal with Europe; or fail to do so.

    Each option shows us to be worse off: and disastrously so with no trade deal at all. And the poorest regions will be hurt the most.

    If, as negotiations proceed, this analysis appears to be correct, that cannot be brushed aside. I know of no precedent for any Government enacting a policy that will make both our country and our people poorer. Once that is apparent, the Government must change course.
    Meanwhile, we are yet again told all will be well. Certainly, the recent fall in the value of Sterling has temporarily boosted our exports. The strength of the world economy may even increase our forecast growth this year.

    But this sweet spot is artificial. It won’t last. Prosperity isn’t built on devaluation of the currency. More exports on the back of other countries’ economic growth is not a secure position.

    The UK has been at the very top of European growth.

    We are now the laggard at the bottom. We have become the slowest of the world’s big economies, even before we surrender the familiar advantages of the Single Market.

    Our negotiations, so far, have not always been sure-footed. Some agreements have been reached but, in many areas, only because the UK has given ground.

    Our determination to negotiate the divorce bill and a new trade deal at the same time was going to be “the fight of the summer” – but instead became an immediate British retreat.

    There was to be a “points based” immigration system. There isn’t, and there won’t be.

    We were to become the “Singapore of the North”. No more: we have retreated from a policy of lower taxes and de-regulation.

    No transition period was going to be needed. But we have now asked for one – during which we will accept new EU rules, ECJ jurisdiction, and free movement of people.

    I don’t say this to be critical.

    I do so to illustrate that unrealistic aspirations are usually followed by retreat.

    That is a lesson for the negotiations to come.

    They will be the most difficult any Government has faced. Our aims have to be realistic. I am not sure they yet are.

    We simply cannot move forward with leaving the EU, the Single Market, the Customs Union and the ECJ, whilst at the same time expecting à la carte, beneficial-to-Britain, bespoke entrance to the European market. It is just not credible.

    A willingness to compromise is essential. If either side – the UK or the EU – is too inflexible, too unbending, too wedded to what they won’t do – then the negotiations will fail.

    The very essence of negotiation involves both “give” and “take”. But there are always “red lines” that neither side wishes to cross. In successful negotiations those “red lines” are traded for concessions.

    If our “red lines” are held to be inviolable, the likelihood of no deal – or a poor deal – increases. Every time we close off options prematurely, this encourages the EU to do the same – and that is not in our British interest.

    A good Brexit – for Britain – will protect our trade advantages, and enable us to:

    – continue to sell our goods and services without disruption;

    – import and export food without barriers and extra cost; staff our hospitals, universities and businesses with the skills we need – where we most need them;

    – be part of the cutting edge of European research, in which British brains and skills lead the way;

    – continue with the over 40 FTAs we have with countries only as a result of our membership of the EU.

    A bad Brexit – for Britain – will surrender these, and other, advantages.

    For the moment, our self-imposed “red lines” have boxed the Government into a corner.

    They are so tilted to ultra Brexit opinion, even the Cabinet cannot agree them – and a majority in both Houses of Parliament oppose them. If maintained in full, it will be impossible to reach a favourable trade outcome.

    Alarmed at the negotiations so far, the financial sector, businesses, and our academic institutions, are pleading for commonsense policy to serve the national interest and now – fearful they may not get it – are making their own preparations for the future.

    Japanese car-makers warn they could close operations in Britain unless we maintain free access to the EU. That would be heart-breaking for many people in Sunderland or Swindon or South Wales.

    This isn’t “Project Fear” revisited, it is “Project Know Your History”.

    Any doubters should consult the former employees of factories, now closed, in Bridgend, Port Talbot and Newport, where jobs were lost and families suffered.

    In 1991, employment by Japanese firms in Wales was about 17,000 people: today, it is 2,000. If free access to Europe is lost – that scale of impact, across the UK, could lose 125,000 Japanese jobs.

    Over many years, the Conservative Party has understood the concerns of business. Not over Brexit, it seems.

    Across the United Kingdom – businesses are expressing their wish to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. But “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Businesses wish to have the freedom to employ foreign skills. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Business and academia wish to welcome foreign students to our universities and – as they rise to influence in their own countries – we then have willing partners in politics and business for decades to come. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    This is not only grand folly. It’s also bad politics.

    The national interest must always be above the Party interest, but my Party should beware. It is only fear of Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell that prevents a haemorrhage of business support.

    Without the comprehensive trade deal the Prime Minister seeks, we risk economic divorce from the EU, and the chill embrace of a “hard” Brexit with WTO rules.

    Leading Brexit supporters believe there is nothing to fear from losing our special access to the Single Market.

    But that is profoundly wrong. Swapping the Single Market for WTO rules would mean our exports facing the EU external tariff, as well as hidden nontariff barriers that could be adjusted to our disadvantage at any time.

    A Minister has speculated we might face tariffs of 3%. Not so.

    It is more likely that we will face tariffs on cars (10%), food (14%), drinks (20%), and dairy products (36%). Even if a successful negotiation were to halve these tariffs, our exports would still be much more expensive to sell – and this would apply far beyond agriculture and the motor industry.

    And if, in retaliation, the UK were to impose tariffs on imports, this would result in higher prices for the British consumer.

    If we and the EU agreed to impose nil tariffs – as some have speculated – WTO rules mean we would both have to offer nil tariffs to all countries. That isn’t going to happen.

    This is all very complex. But it is crucial. And none of it has yet been properly explained to the British people.

    There have been attempts to reassure business by claiming that other nations trade with the EU on purely WTO terms. That statement is simply wrong.

    China, the US and Japan all have side agreements with Europe on standards, customs co-operation, mutual recognition and investment.

    These economic giants did so to protect their own trade even though none of them is exposed as we are – still half our entire exports go to Europe.

    Ultra Brexit opinion is impatient to be free of European relationships; to become – in their words – a “global player”, “sovereign”, “in control”. I believe they are deceiving themselves and, as a result, they are misleading the British people.

    Before the modern world took shape – their ambition would have been credible. But the world has changed, the global market has taken root, and – if we are to care for the people of our nation – philosophical fantasies must give way to national self-interest. We cannot prepare for tomorrow by living in the world of yesterday.

    I don’t doubt the convictions of those who long for the seductive ambition of British exceptionalism. But these sentiments are out-of-date and, in today’s world, wrong.

    It is not my purpose to stir controversy, but the truth must be spoken. The ultra Brexiteers have been mistaken – wrong – in nearly all they have said or promised to the British people.

    The promises of more hospitals, more schools, lower taxes, more money for transport were electioneering fantasy. The £350 million a week for the NHS was a ridiculous phantom: the reality is if our economy weakens – as is forecast – there will not only be less money for the NHS, but for all our public services.

    We were told that nobody was threatening our place in the Single Market. That tune has changed.

    We were told that a trade deal with the EU would be easy to get. Wrong again: it was never going to be easy, and we are still not sure what outcome will be achieved.

    We were told “Europe can whistle for their money” and we would not pay a penny in exit costs. Wrong again. Europe didn’t even have to purse her lips before we agreed to pay £40 billion to meet legitimate liabilities.

    I could go on. But suffice to say that every one of the Brexit promises is – to quote Henry Fielding – “a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true.”.

    People should pause and reflect: if the Brexit leaders were wrong in what they said so enthusiastically before – are they not likely to be wrong in what they say now?

    The Prime Minister is seeking a “frictionless” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. She is absolutely right to do so. This is a promise that must be honoured, and I wish her well. But, so far, this has not materialised – nor, I fear, will it – unless we stay in “a” or “the” Customs Union.

    Those of us who warned of the risks Brexit would bring to the still fragile Peace Process were told at the time that we “didn’t understand Irish politics”. But it seems we understood it better than our critics. We need a policy to protect the Good Friday Agreement – and we need one urgently. And it is our responsibility to find one – not the European Union.

    Although the referendum was advisory only, the result gave the Government the obligation to negotiate a Brexit. But not any Brexit; not at all costs; and certainly not on any terms. The true remit can only be to agree a Brexit that honours the promises made in the referendum.

    But, so far, the promises have not been met and, probably, cannot be met.

    Many electors know they were misled: many more are beginning to realise it.

    So, the electorate has every right to reconsider their decision.

    Meanwhile, our options become ever narrower.

    We have ruled out full membership. Ruled out the Single Market and Customs Union. Ruled out joining the European Economic Area. Dismissed talk of joining EFTA.

    A Norway deal won’t do. Nor will a Swiss deal. Nor a Ukraine deal; a Turkey deal; or a South Korea deal. No, to them all, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    So, little is left, except for “cherry picking” – which the EU rejects. Or a comprehensive deal – which will be very hard, if not impossible, to get. So compromise it must be – or no deal at all.

    It is now widely accepted that “no deal” would be the worst possible outcome. The compromise must, therefore, focus around our accepting Single Market rules (as Norway does) and paying for access.

    Or an enhanced “Canada deal” – and it would need to be enhanced a very great deal to be attractive. The Canada deal largely concerns goods – whereas the bulk of UK exports are services.

    But what we achieve to protect our interests may depend on what we concede: it is, as I say, “give” and “take”. If our “red lines” dissolve, our options enlarge.

    Our minimum objective must be that “deep, special and bespoke” trade deal the Prime Minister has talked about.

    So, some unpalatable decisions lie ahead – with the cast-iron certainty that the extreme and unbending Brexit lobby will cry “betrayal” at any compromise. But it is Parliament, not a small minority, that must decide our policy.

    I spoke earlier of the “divisiveness” of Brexit across our United Kingdom. But, in due time, the debate will end and – when it does – we need the highest possible level of public acceptance for the outcome. It is in no-one’s interest for the bitterness and division to linger on.

    I see only one way to achieve this.

    It is already agreed that Parliament must pass legislation giving effect to the deal. A “meaningful vote” has been promised. This must be a decisive vote, in which Parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum.

    That is what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

    But, to minimise divisions in our country – and between and within the political parties – I believe the Government should take a brave and bold decision. They should invite Parliament to accept or reject the final outcome on a free vote.

    I know the instinct of every Government is to oppose “free votes”, but the Government should weigh the advantages of having one very carefully. It may be in their interest to do so.

    There are some very practical reasons in favour of it.

    Brexit is a unique decision. It will affect the lives of the British people for generations to come. If it flops – there will be the most terrible backlash.

    If it is whipped through Parliament, when the public are so divided, voters will know who to blame if they end up poorer and weaker. So, both democracy and prudence suggest a free vote.

    The deep divisions in our nation are more likely to be healed by a Brexit freely approved by Parliament, than a Brexit forced through Parliament at the behest of a minority of convinced opponents of Europe.

    A free vote would better reflect the reality that – for every 17 voters who opted for Brexit – 16 opted to remain in the EU.

    But, regardless of whether a free vote is offered, Parliamentarians must decide the issue on the basis of their own conscience. Upon whether, in mature judgement, they really do believe that the outcome of the negotiations is in the best interests of the people they serve.

    By 2021, after the likely two-year transition, it will be five years since the 2016 referendum. The electorate will have changed. Some voters will have left us. Many new voters will be enfranchised. Others may have changed their mind.

    No-one can truly know what “the will of the people” may then be. So, let Parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people.

    And what is true for the House of Commons must apply to the House of Lords. Peers must ignore any noises off, and be guided by their intellect and their conscience.

    I have been a Conservative all my life.

    I don’t enjoy being out of step with many in my Party and take no pleasure in speaking out as I am today.

    But it’s as necessary to speak truth to the people, as to power.

    Leaving Europe is an issue so far-reaching, so permanent, so over-arching that it will have an impact on all our lives – most especially on the young and the future. With only 12 months to go, we need answers, not aspirations.

    This is far more than just a Party issue. It’s about the future of our United Kingdom, and everyone who lives in it.

    That is what matters. That is why I’m here today.