The comments made by Sir John Major on 25 November 2020.
Cutting our overseas aid is morally wrong and politically unwise. It breaks our word, and damages our soft power. Above all, it will hurt many of the poorest people in the world.
I cannot and do not support it.
The speech made by Sir John Major at Middle Temple on 9 November 2020.
THE STATE WE’RE IN
It is a privilege to be invited to deliver this lecture and my only regret is that it is remote – with no live audience ….. nor the delights of a Middle Temple dinner.
Given the date, my subject is appropriate. On this day in 1923, Hitler failed to seize power in Germany; in 1938, it marked Kristallnacht and the Nazi assault on Jews; and, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.
Each of these events impacted on the wider world – and that wider world will now impact on “The State We’re In”.
The future of that State requires plain speaking if we are to be honest with our nation.
And, of course, with ourselves. The great powers of our age are the United States, China, and the European Union.
The world they straddle is fractious. The values of liberal society are stalled, if not in retreat. America and China are in a Trade War and an embryonic Cold War. Europe and America are far apart on many issues, but both deplore China’s authoritarian direction under President Xi.
Lesser powers like Russia – the Great Disrupter – and Turkey continue to subvert and to meddle.
Free trade and globalisation are now widely questioned.
Migration and radical Islam are an ever present problem.
Populism continues to promote prejudice and racial intolerance.
And, in many nation states, autocracy has grown – and democracy has fallen back.
Our world seems ill at ease, at a moment when harmony and collective decision making seem more and more essential for our security and well-being.
The post-War settlement is out of date.
The United Nations is hamstrung by the rules of its own Security Council.
The World Trade Organisation is paralysed, with no functioning resolution dispute procedure.
The World Health Organisation is under-funded, under-powered and under attack.
Despite all this, no nation seems prepared to lead the case for reform.
The financial crash of 2007 weakened many countries and the lives of billions of people; and, in the year of Covid, trillions of dollars have been diverted from growth as the virus has increased hardship on every Continent.
This is the wider context in which the United Kingdom must prepare for our future, whilst facing the added challenges of Covid-19 – and Brexit.
Our country has many virtues but, if we are to be successful in this challenging environment, we need to be cruelly honest with ourselves about what needs to be done to ensure our political and economic wellbeing.
If we’re complacent, we betray our own interests. If we see ourselves through rose-tinted spectacles, then we will deceive ourselves.
Complacency and nostalgia are the route to national decline. So I favour reality and optimism – but with the warning that false optimism is deceit by another name.
We are no longer a great power. We will never be so again. In a world of nearly 8 billion people, well under 1% are British.
We are a top second-rank power but, over the next half century – however well we perform – our small size and population makes it likely we will be passed by the growth of other, far larger, countries.
In recent decades, we have consoled ourselves that we “punch above our weight” in international affairs. I think that was true: but that was then, and this is now.
Our hefty international influence rested on our history and reputation, buttressed by our membership of the European Union and our close alliance with the United States.
Suddenly, we are no longer an irreplaceable bridge between Europe and America. We are now less relevant to them both.
COVID
At home, we must face Covid.
Covid has already left many families bereaved and bereft. It has changed lives and work patterns, cost billions, increased national debt and annual deficits.
It has destroyed public tolerance of austerity, and made tax rises inevitable – although not, if we are sensible, until the economy is more healthy.
The virus also presents a formidable obstacle to one of the Government’s better instincts. Their intention is to level up the regions and help individuals “left behind”. The pernicious effect of Covid will be to level down.
The problem is not so much the gap between rich and poor, but that the poor may become so indebted and destitute they are unable to maintain themselves – or their families.
The classic response to tide people over – until the private sector returns to full capacity – is for social subsidy out of taxation.
But billions upon billions have already been spent, and friction between the extent of need and the capacity to help is inevitable.
And there are many in need of help – businesses forced to shut down, the unemployed, the self-employed, the care sector, health, the arts, sport: the demands on the Exchequer are beyond anything we have known in peacetime.
The Government deserves credit for what has been spent so far, to set against criticism for unmet needs.
But I do find it surprising that – in the midst of the Covid crisis – the Government appears to be fostering disputes with the
Judiciary, where all Governments should tread carefully; the Civil Service, upon whose help the Government depends; and the BBC, still the most respected broadcaster on the planet.
These are unmerited distractions from the issues the country needs them to focus on.
BREXIT
The core change in the New Britain being forged is – Brexit. It has been hidden behind Covid for a few months. It has not gone away. You have to be wilfully in denial not to see the damage already done, and not to be concerned at what it might mean.
Brexit divided England and Wales from Scotland and Northern Ireland. It divided political parties and families; the young and their elders; business and trade unions; and friend from friend. As its full impact becomes apparent in the New Year, old wounds may re-open.
There is no consensus on Brexit, and never has been. It was a bitterly divisive policy, and uncorked a populism that may be difficult to quell.
The Referendum debate was unlike any I have known before. Emotion overcame reality. And, in the search for hearts and minds and votes, fiction defeated fact and fostered a belief in a past that never was – whilst boosting enthusiasm for a future that may never be.
If that mode of politics takes root, it will kill all respect in our system of government.
In the Referendum, Britons voted to leave the European Union. I have never hidden my view, nor have I changed it. To my mind – and I am no starry-eyed European – Brexit is the worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime.
I have seen the EU from the inside and know its frustrations. But have no doubt we were better off in than we will be out.
The decision to leave will damage our future in many ways, and the reassurances we are given are unconvincing.
Brexit was sold to our electors on false premises.
Promises made will not – indeed, cannot – be kept. To leave the EU – to separate ourselves from our neighbours – was sold as “regaining sovereignty”, but it is, and will prove to be, a long and painful ball and chain on our national wellbeing.
After the Referendum, Brexiteers did not even bother to argue the merits of their case – why should they? – it was “the will of the people”.
And once “the will of the people” was asserted as a repeated mantra – and the Brexit leaders claimed to speak for all “the people” – any opposition to Brexit became illegitimate, and any contrary view was howled down.
Free speech for those who supported remaining in the EU came at a price. They were pilloried as “Remoaners”: sticking to long-held principles and policies, and warning of clear dangers ahead was depicted as “sour grapes by sore losers”.
Even Judges were denounced as “Enemies of the People” for ruling on a Point of Law. Opponents of Brexit were cowed, and free speech was curtailed. It was shameful. No democracy should find itself in such a position.
Overseas, the outcome of the Referendum delighted our enemies and dismayed our friends. As our nation voted against its history and its self-interest, a bemused world looked on, wondering why we had chosen to become poorer and less influential.
Brexit was sold to the nation as a win-win situation. It is not. We were promised we would stay in the Single Market. We have not. We were told trade with the EU would be frictionless. It will not be.
We were promised we would save billions in payments to the European Union: a bus was driven around the country telling us so.
Not so: Brexit is costing billions – not saving them.
We were told that our “liberated country” could cut back on bureaucracy and regulations. We now know they will increase – and dramatically.
We were promised we would strike lucrative trade deals with America, India, China and others in quick time. Japan apart – we have not.
More recently – and for the first time in our long history – Ministers have proposed legislation giving them powers to break the law. This is a slippery slope down which no democratic Government should ever travel.
And, it was claimed, Brexit wouldn’t increase support for Scottish independence or a united Ireland. It has.
It defies logic that intelligent men and women making such extravagant promises did not know they were undeliverable – and yet they continued to make them.
It was politics. It was campaigning. It was for a cause.
It was also unforgiveable.
If that is how we are going to conduct our public affairs, then not only will our politics truly fall into a bad place, but our word as a nation will no longer be trusted.
POST-BREXIT TRADE
Trade has always been the life-blood of our prosperity.
We were promised a comprehensive trade deal with the EU. We were told this would be “the easiest deal in history” because “we hold all the cards”. Apparently not.
As the politics changed, the promises were ditched.
We can now look forward to a flimsy, barebones deal – or no deal at all. This is a wretched betrayal of what our electors were led to believe.
It now seems that on 1 January next year, Brexit may be even more brutal than anyone expected.
Brexit is no friend of free trade with Europe. It may set up new tariff barriers. And it certainly will:
These costs and complexities are the certain legacy of Brexit. This is as a result of our negotiating failure – and it is a failure.
Because of our bombast, our blustering, our threats and our inflexibility – our trade will be less profitable, our Treasury poorer, our jobs fewer, and our future less prosperous.
This is not hindsight wisdom: this outcome was not only foreseeable, it was foreseen. Unfortunately, in a brilliant mis-direction, all warnings were scorned as “Project Fear” and ignored. And, to add tragedy to farce, it was the people who were misled who will now lose out.
The Government has not been frank about our negotiations with Europe.
They say we are merely asking for a Canada deal, but that’s not so. We are asking for a deal without tariffs or quotas and for more on haulage, on energy, on aviation – and we are a bigger trading rival than Canada and nearer to the EU.
The Canada comparison is – to put it kindly – disingenuous. And to refer to an Australian deal is absurd.
There is no Australia deal. It is a fantasy: a euphemism for no deal at all – and the Government should say so.
Its reputation will suffer if it is not honest with the British people about this.
It is time to stop putting Ministers on the media who speak to a pre-prepared script and parrot misleading or pointless slogans.
There are hopes of trade deals with America, China and India. They would be welcome but, once again, the promises are overdone.
One day, I am sure, we will get the much-heralded trade deal with America, originally promised for last Spring, then Summer – now, who knows?
When it does come, it will benefit America far more than us. It may be symbolically important, but it won’t be an economic game-changer.
The promised trade deal with China is highly unlikely in any near timescale. Our ice-cold diplomatic relations with Russia rule out a trade deal with her, too.
And, if we wish to have a trade deal with India, the Government must realise that we cannot seek it on a Monday, and restrict immigration from India on Tuesday – it is a poor optic and a worse negotiating strategy.
The macro arguments against Brexit: the economic and social damage, our weaker position in the world, and the loss of trade advantages, may seem remote. They won’t prove to be.
WIDER IMPACT OF BREXIT
And lesser issues will impact directly:
Small irritations, some may say, but – collectively – a significant loss of freedom that will be an unwelcome surprise to many as Europe itself begins to “take back control”.
When the present phase of Brexit is over, it is important we negotiate a more comprehensive relationship with the EU than is likely to emerge from the present negotiations.
We should seek bilateral agreements in areas of trade and policy which have not been agreed in these rushed negotiations.
We should work with the EU to address global problems.
And we should recognise that the nations of the EU are bound with ourselves in ties of common interest, history and future destiny.
To ignore this would be a dereliction of our national interests.
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE
One deeply troubling effect of Brexit is the risk of breaking up the UK by increased support for Scotland to leave the Union, and Northern Ireland to unite with the South.
Neither will do so immediately, but the combination of Brexit – and the unpopularity of our present Westminster Government in Scotland – has increased the likelihood of a breach.
I remain a convinced Unionist. Every part of the UK is richer – and of more weight in the world – if they stay together.
The most likely to leave is Scotland. If she does, it will not only weaken Scotland, but also undermine the rump of the UK.
It will be a step into the unknown for us both.
The problem is politics.
The raison d’être of the SNP is an independent Scotland while – for many Conservatives – Unionism is at the heart of their philosophy. It is a challenge to see whether that chasm can be bridged.
To keep the Union together will require consensus, consideration and consultation. The Government must engage, coax, encourage, and examine every possible route to find an arrangement that will obtain a majority for union.
It will be difficult – and is made even more so by the posturing of English and Scottish nationalists.
In law, the Scots require the approval of the Westminster Government before they can legally hold a new independence referendum.
But refusing one might help the separatist case, by adding to the list of grievances the Scottish National Party exploit with such skill.
The choice for the UK Government is either to agree the referendum can take place – or to refuse to permit it. Both options come with great risk. But the lessons of Brexit may offer a way ahead.
The Westminster Government could agree for an Independence Referendum to take place, on the basis of two referenda. The first to vote upon the principle of negotiations, and the second upon the outcome of them.
The purpose of the second referendum would be that Scottish electors would know what they were voting for, and be able to compare it to what they now have. This did not happen with Brexit: had it done so, there may have been no Brexit.
Many Scottish voices – and especially business – may support the logic of this: it may focus minds away from a short-term reflex opposition to a perceived English Government, and back to the mutual and long-term virtues of the Union.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Brexiteers affected not to notice that Northern Ireland’s support for the European Union pulled the Six Counties more into the orbit of the Republic of Ireland.
This was exacerbated when the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Deal left Northern Ireland more integrated with the Republic than the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was sold as a triumph, but it was a surrender.
These developments accompanied a third reality: the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland is growing faster than the Unionists, and is close to a majority.
The conjunction of these events is to increase the future possibility of a border poll – already sought by Sinn Fein – to vote upon a united Ireland.
I doubt that such a poll would be won at present. Not all Nationalists will vote for unity. The Republic would find it hard to absorb the weak economic structure of the North.
The time for a poll is not yet come. But it will. And if – when it does – the Northern Irish vote for unification, then those who ignored the warnings that Brexit posed will have to answer for the dismantling of a further part of the United Kingdom.
And, here in Middle Temple, one issue cannot be ignored. The Rule of Law.
Earlier I referred – in passing – to the provisions in the Internal Markets Bill that empower a Minister to disregard aspects of the Treaty the Prime Minister agreed earlier this year.
This action is unprecedented in all our history – and for good reason. It has damaged our reputation around the world.
Lawyers everywhere are incredulous that the UK – often seen as the very cradle of the Rule of Law – could give themselves the power to break the law.
Moreover, at a moment when we need to maximise our commercial activities, this Bill has had a corrosive impact on the reputation of English and Welsh jurisdiction.
This may have a practical cost.
International dispute resolution can be conducted anywhere overseas and the Bill could erode the present pre-eminent position of the UK and, perhaps, especially London.
Was this considered when the Bill was drafted? Was there consultation with the legal profession? If not, why not? And if there was consultation – why was it ignored?
Similar concerns apply to the clause that seeks to exclude Judicial Review in delegated legislation.
I cannot believe it is compatible with the Rule of Law to protect executive Acts from judicial scrutiny: put simply, Ministers must be subject to legal restraints. They cannot be above the law.
And all individuals must have access to the law. Our delivery of justice must be seen to be fair and impartial – access to the law must not depend upon the size of your bank account.
Magna Carta promised:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.
And yet, an individual – if denied legal aid – may not have the resources to right an injustice. That can deny justice: it cannot be right.
Nor can it be right to denigrate our Judiciary. They are not the “Enemies of the People”: they are the guarantors of our liberties under the law.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to uphold these liberties if they are threatened by any source: not to do so would be to curtail an essential freedom.
I have set out some concerns about the present state of our country. But I wouldn’t wish to be misunderstood.
SUMMATION
Throughout my life I have travelled widely and – in the last 20 years – almost incessantly.
In all my travels I have found nowhere I would wish to live, other than here in the UK.
That said, I believe we have a duty to make life better for this – and future generations – to whom we will be passing a difficult legacy.
In hard times, there is often an inflection point that changes minds, and compels policy that otherwise could not be easily implemented.
The combination of hazards before us may be such a moment.
To make it so, policy should be set to pave the way to a fairer, better, safer, and – in time – more prosperous future.
We will all have to bear burdens for such aspirations to become a reality, but that is both our privilege and our responsibility.
The very core of well-being is an expanding economy, efficient health provision and quality education.
The Government’s “levelling up” strategy is essential. So is – sooner rather than later – a credible system of social care for the elderly.
For future employment, we will have to focus increasingly on vocational education, and give such skills the respect they deserve.
It is essential we remain a United Kingdom – and reinforce the values that have built our reputation. If we cannot again be a great power, we can be a great example.
If we cannot compel, we can influence.
We can build up our soft power to sustain our profile.
We can use our diplomacy to raise issues that need multi-nation action.
We can be “Global Britain” in more ways than trade. But, to be so, we must reject the narrow nationalism that some have imported into our politics.
We must put aside the notion of “British exceptionalism”: it is a fantasy baked into the minds of those who do not know how the world has changed.
But – we can be exceptional.
All this – and more – can be achieved.
We like to think of ourselves as the land of hope and glory. “Hope” is essential – most especially during the darkest of times.
But I am ambivalent about the “glory”.
I will settle for a land that is united and prosperous; which rises above challenges – as it has done so often in the past; whose word is trusted both near and far; and whose people are seen to be decent, fair and compassionate to all.
In every corner of our United Kingdom that remains the instinctive heartbeat. And it is one which I hope will always prevail.
The joint statement issued by Sir John Major and Tony Blair on 12 September 2020 and published in the Sunday Times on 13 September 2020.
Last October, Britain concluded an international Treaty with the European Union for the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU. This subsequently passed into British Law. It contained a specific agreement for resolution of the terms of trade for Northern Ireland.
It was described by the Government as a “negotiating triumph” which would lead to an “oven ready” trade deal between the UK and Europe.
It was, of course, no such thing. Even so, a General Election – with this agreement very much centre stage – was fought and won by the Conservative Party.
Last week, with the promise of a comprehensive trade deal with the EU long gone, and the Brexit negotiations in disarray, the Government published a Bill which it openly admits is a violation of that Treaty. This Bill contravenes the Treaty the UK ratified, and overrides the law that Parliament passed on the basis that the agreement over Northern Ireland – as reached by the Prime Minister himself – did, in any event, contain “unforeseen” ambiguities.
We have become so inured to the unending Brexit saga of misinformation and misdirection that the hollow claims, empty promises and emptier threats have lost their power to shock.
But what is being proposed now is shocking. How can it be compatible with the Codes of Conduct which bind Ministers, Law Officers and Civil Servants to deliberately break Treaty obligations? As we negotiate new trade Treaties, how do we salvage credibility as “Global Britain” if we so blatantly disregard our commitments the moment we sign them?
Yet the Government seeks to do so by the extraordinary pretence that breaking international law is necessary to “save the Good Friday Agreement”, which has given us peace in Northern Ireland for over two decades, and utterly changed the relationship between the UK and its nearest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.
We disagree. The Government’s action does not protect the Good Friday Agreement, it imperils it.
When the two of us travelled together to Northern Ireland during the 2016 referendum campaign, we warned that the open border between the North and South of Ireland – such a vital element of the Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement – was inconsistent with the UK leaving the European Single Market. We warned that we would be faced with a choice of either abandoning that open border, or keeping Northern Ireland at least inside the Single Market. We warned that, if Britain left the Single Market and Northern Ireland stayed, a degree of separation would be created between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
At the time we were excoriated as out of touch and out of time “has beens” who didn’t understand the complexities of the Irish problem. We – and the British and Irish people – were assured it would be easy to negotiate a way around all this.
Four years on – after Theresa May ended up accepting, as a “back-stop”, that Northern Ireland should stay closely tied into the rules of the Single Market and the whole of the UK in the Customs Union – Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary on the basis that her agreement was a “betrayal”. He subsequently succeeded Mrs May as Prime Minister, and promptly replaced the “back-stop” with a “front-stop” that keeps Northern Ireland tied to EU single market rules, which was exactly where we were always going to be.
When the Government renegotiated the Withdrawal Treaty, and urged MPs to pass it into domestic law, it did so in full knowledge of the consequences of doing so. These were that Northern Ireland would have to comply with some EU rules to keep the border open, including those on state aid, and that, as a result, new barriers to trade would arise between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
That was the unavoidable price of Britain leaving the single market and customs union, while wishing to avoid the imposition of a new hard border on the island of Ireland.
To claim now that the Government has only just discovered this consequence is a nonsense, for it was the Prime Minister himself who negotiated it.
The overt repudiation of the Treaty – by seeking to unilaterally override the provisions agreeing to the application of certain EU rules to Northern Ireland strikes at the very heart of the Withdrawal Agreement.
It puts the Good Friday Agreement at risk, because it negates the predictability, political stability and legal clarity which is integral to the delicate balance between the North and South of Ireland that is at the core of the Peace Process.
If the Government has concerns about specific parts of the Withdrawal Treaty, there are ready mechanisms within it to resolve them amicably, in the first instance by negotiation between the UK and the EU and, if that fails, through independent arbitration.
It has chosen to ignore these options. Instead, it has thrown the Withdrawal Treaty into uncertainty and given the EU genuine reason to question whether Britain can be relied upon in any future agreements they make for trade with the EU.
This has wide-ranging ramifications. It will not only make negotiation with the EU more difficult, but also any trade negotiations with other nations – including the United States. Once trust is undermined, distrust becomes prevalent.
If Parliament passes this Bill, the UK is bound to end up before the ECJ which, under the Northern Ireland protocol, retains jurisdiction over EU rules. What if the UK loses? Do we defy the ruling? What price our international word then? Has any of this been thought through?
It is unlikely that the EU will respond in a way that prejudices the Good Friday Agreement, but it may well retaliate in areas of enormous significance to the UK, such as limiting the access of UK financial services firms to the Single Market.
We both opposed Brexit. We both accept it is now happening. But this way of negotiating, with reason cast aside in pursuit of ideology, and cavalier bombast posing as serious diplomacy, is irresponsible, wrong in principle and dangerous in practice.
It raises questions that go far beyond the impact on Ireland, the Peace Process, and negotiations for a trade deal – crucial though they are. It questions the very integrity of our nation.
If the Government succeeds in its plans, what constitutional audacity will be beyond them? If Parliament deliberately passes legislation known to undermine international law, what will that do to the reputation of Parliament and our country?
For a country which has for hundreds of years furthered the cause of law around the world, respecting treaty obligations is just as important as domestic law. The constitutional principle of the Rule of Law requires us to treat such obligations in international law in the same way as in national law. Sophistry cannot justify this behaviour, nor can sly interpretation of one particular clause over another.
This Government has already played fast and loose with Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. It had its knuckles rapped last year by the Supreme Court, but this did not deter them.
As the world looks on aghast at the UK – whose word was once accepted as inviolable, this Government’s action is shaming itself and embarrassing our nation.
This latest ruse has spectacularly misfired, and must stop now – before any further damage is done. And, if the Government itself will not respect the Rule of Law, then the High Court of Parliament should compel it to do so.
The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH
The Rt Hon Tony Blair
12 September, 2020
The text of the statement issued by Sir John Major on 9 September 2020.
For generations, Britain’s word – solemnly given – has been accepted by friend and foe. Our signature on any Treaty or Agreement has been sacrosanct.
Over the last century, as our military strength has dwindled, our word has retained its power. If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained.
The text of the statement issued by Sir John Major on 3 August 2020, following the death of John Hume.
John Hume was an advocate for peace in Northern Ireland for the greater part of his life.
Few others invested such time and energy to this search, and few sought to change entrenched attitudes with such fierce determination.
Those whose communities have been transformed into peaceful neighbourhoods may wish to pay tribute to one of the most fervent warriors for peace.
He has earned himself an honoured place in Irish history.
London
3 August, 2020
Below is the text of the interview with Sir John Major on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 27 June 2020.
MARTHA KEARNEY
There’s a focus on the terrible problems, the tragedies, caused by the pandemic. But we should also remember that there have been some positives too?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
There have been quite a few and there may be a lot still to come. Most crises throw up opportunities and I’m sure this one will. For example, they can change what was merely possible into something that becomes inevitable – because it is unavoidable.
So among the losses of the virus, there will be gains. Some are apparent already. We’ve seen one with rough sleepers. This has been a problem for 20, 30, 40 years and yet for health reasons, it has been absolutely necessary to take rough sleepers off the streets. That has happened, is very welcome, and is great progress. We now need policy to keep them from returning there. That’s one illustration, of which there will be many more.
MARTHA KEARNEY
It’s an indictment that it’s taken a pandemic to address a problem like that and to have this sort of urgent action?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
There are some things that tend to do this. It’s likely, not certain though, that the lessons of this pandemic will lead to a tipping point in our value system. The virus has showcased inequalities, and as a result of that public opinion and priorities may change.
If I can give some examples, everyone is aware of the remarkable job done by the National Health Service and the NHS is clearly going to have an even greater priority in funding, in research and in training than ever before. I think that the country as a whole will welcome that, and will want people who work in the NHS to be fairly treated.
But beyond that, we’ve learned that there are many unglamorous jobs in our economy, often lowly paid, that are crucial to our way of life. I have in my mind care workers, who are generally lamentably paid – but also cleaners, porters, the refuse collectors who protect our health by collecting our rubbish, shop assistants, a huge number of people who we depend upon in our daily life. I think that has become clearer, and will have an effect on policy. It has become evident that a lot of people have been left behind by the changing nature of modern life. That has been happening over quite a long period and it hasn’t been sudden, but the shock of the virus has made that crystal clear.
MARTHA KEARNEY
So many of those people have borne the brunt haven’t they in terms of their health and lives?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Some have lost their lives, some have lost their health. Many of the people who have cared for the sick have themselves been living in fairly deficient accommodation. Many of those who supported them have done so too, and common decency suggests that this has to be put right. I think that the national conscience post-Covid may well demand it.
MARTHA KEARNEY
It’s not just a question of national conscience is it? It’s a question often of Government policy, such as care-workers and we’ve seen terrible situations erupting in our care-homes. Social care has been an issue that has been neglected by many Governments hasn’t it?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I agree with that. I think that it has been under-valued, and I don’t think it’s possible to under-value it any longer – and that may be an advance. I’m very conscious that it is easy for me, who is not in Government and doesn’t have to enact policy to point these things out. These are very big issues, and they are very complex for any Government. The solutions will be expensive and some of them will have to be long-term. But some are immediate. I don’t know if I speak for others when I say this, but it seems to me that ending dependence on food banks is essential. It’s truly shocking that we have food banks in 2020.
Then there are the much bigger issues. Clean, healthy homes for example. We know that’s necessary, and steps have been made towards that by Government after Government. We don’t just need a policy for issues such as housing and those left behind by modern life. If we step back, we are still the fifth or sixth richest nation in the world and we have to acknowledge that. We need a crusade to improve the living standards of those people who have fallen behind.
If this Government, and its successor Governments (because this is a very long-term project) tackle hardship consistently and enthusiastically – a crusade for a decade as it were – then it will do a great deal to end divisions in parts of our society.
MARTHA KEARNEY
You’ve acknowledged that that crusade would be expensive and you think that there might be more of a public appetite for this, but what are you talking about? Are you talking about greater Government intervention? We were looking back at some things you’ve talked about in the past, in 2015, you said some people think the solution is easy, penalise the rich, cut defences, cut overseas aid, borrow more and spend more. You’ve said that that argument is simplistic and naive. So what should the Government be doing?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
None of this is easy for any Government of any political ideology, but it seems to me that it is going to be inevitable that the Government takes a greater role in what happens in terms of the future, in terms of social care, simply because there is nobody else who can do it. The attractions of small Government are always ideologically obvious, but the practicalities, from where we are at the moment, are that the Government is going to have to take the lead in policies that deal with many of our social problems.
I said that this is going to be extremely expensive, but there are other positives that are not as expensive. So how does the Government handle this? Let me make one point first, I think to put up taxes before the economy has recovered, which may take a while, would in my view be a mistake. Over time, there is little doubt that taxes are going to rise. For the moment, because interest rates are so low, and likely to remain so, it’s possible for borrowing to take the strain in a way it couldn’t have done a quarter of a century ago.
MARTHA KEARNEY
So even though our debt levels are now more than 100% of national income, which is eye-wateringly high in historic terms, you think there is still a case for more borrowing?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think it will be inevitable in the short-term. It would be politically impossible for any government not to deal with these problems. They will neither wish to, nor will be able to ignore them and I don’t think that, at this moment, they can tax. So I think there is scope in the short-term. Not forever – and there is no magic money tree, let me make that clear – but for a period, until the economy has recovered and taxes for some people can then go up.
MARTHA KEARNEY
The money would be spent on the left behind people? Continuing perhaps with the furlough scheme in some sense after it’s due to end?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t want to be prescriptive about what needs to be done. There is a whole range of options and priorities may become clearer as we move out of lockdown. But clearly the Government is going to have to borrow a great deal, and there are one or two imaginative things that previous Governments may have been against, which they may wish to look at. As an example, I think you can use borrowing as a social tool. For decades, our nation has been told to save for retirement and, over the last few decades, many people have done so in order to be secure in their retirement.
With interest rates now at their present level, which is in some ways helpful, the people who have saved and who have done what Governments have asked them to do, are now earning nothing on their savings. This is causing resentment and embarrassment.
One option might be to offer very long-term bonds, say twenty years, to UK nationals at a slightly higher rate of interest, and perhaps with the added advantage that if the investor dies during the period of the investment, then the sum they invested is excluded from inheritance tax. There are lots of variants, investment in bonds for hospital building or social housing. Of course, the Government can borrow more cheaply from the markets, but that often means a foreign commitment rather than a domestic commitment. I think there would be an appetite for domestic investment from many people in the UK.
MARTHA KEARNEY
I wanted to move onto another very important area and one which I know you care a great deal about, the future of the United Kingdom itself. We’ve seen different parts of the United Kingdom, different countries, moving in different directions and at different speeds over coronavirus measures. How do you see the future?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
The priority in the future is, in my mind, to keep the United Kingdom as a single entity. I believe every part of it is better off within the United Kingdom rather than split away, for a range of complex reasons that I and many other people have made clear in the past.
As policy develops, it would be much more difficult for the Scottish Nationalists, for example, to win a referendum in the short-term, because of the economic difficulties that they, too, will face as a result of Covid. In that period, the UK Government should work very hard to try and reconnect to a greater extent with the way the Scots think and act, and try and persuade away the arguments for breaking away from the United Kingdom.
There may be a breathing space to do that, and we should hug the regions closely and make sure they are properly consulted – as they should be. They need to be given a great deal of freedom as they are now, but we must do everything we can to keep the United Kingdom as an entity. Without it, we are all much weaker.
MARTHA KEARNEY
And finally, we’ve been talking about the kind of lessons to be learned in social terms and in economic terms? What about the way that the pandemic has been handled so far? Do you think that there’s an urgency that we look at what has been happening in recent weeks in order for us to be able to handle any potential second wave more effectively?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
In due course there will be a full-scale Inquiry, but the time for that is not yet. It might be practicable to have what you might call a “quick and dirty” look to see what lessons can be learned in case it returns in the winter, or next year. But we mustn’t overlook, and I hope we won’t, the many positives there have been across the country that have arisen solely because of the crisis that we’ve passed through.
MARTHA KEARNEY
Sir John Major, many thanks indeed for talking to us.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Thank you.
Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the National Archives Trust in Kew, London on Tuesday 11 February 2020.
I would like to begin by thanking the Clore-Duffield Foundation for their very generous grant to the Trust. I have no doubt it will be wisely used to extend both the knowledge of – and love for – our history.
The reason for my confidence is because the Trust has an experienced and talented Board – which is Chaired by Anthony Seldon.
Anthony has not only spent a lifetime in education, but is himself a leading historian: to him, the success of the National Archives will not only be a professional responsibility, it will be a personal crusade.
The timing of this initiative is especially apt.
A few days ago we formally left the European Union; and two months ago the General Election produced a result that changed the political face of our country.
Many people have set out their explanations for these two outcomes and, in due course, the National Archive will cover them.
But, the election result – or at least the scale of it – was not remotely forecast; and leaving Europe was considered extremely unlikely. Until they both happened.
So, what made them happen?
Beyond the superficial answers about policy and personality lies a much deeper cause: national identity.
Our national identity is about who we are; what we are; and from whence we came. It’s our history, our legacy. It’s about us. We, today, are the history of tomorrow.
But yesterday’s history is about our forebears. Over recent years, researching family ancestry has become something of an industry and, to my mind, a very welcome one.
Because our history is not just Monarchs and Governments and Politicians. It’s about the lives of every single citizen. It’s about how our ancestors lived – what they thought – what they did.
Consider: who fought at Agincourt? Henry V, of course – and his senior barons. But their foot soldiers were there too – our ancestors: farmers; weavers; blacksmiths; ordinary, everyday people.
Similarly, the War of the Roses was fought largely by everyday people: retainers, supporters and tenants of the Dukes of York and Lancaster and their allies.
If all that seems long ago and far away, more recent stories tell the same tale.
The pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain were often little more than boys fresh from school or university. With precious little training, they took to the air and faced fear and mayhem that few can possibly imagine. Any one of those war heroes could have been your father or grandfather.
Many might say: “I’ll never discover anything startling about my own ancestors.” But don’t be so sure.
The history of our land is not just the story of the “great and the good”, but of all those who stood beside them in times of turbulence or tranquillity; hardship or prosperity; war or peace.
We are today – in part – what they made us. To know ourselves is to know our history.
Of course, it continues to evolve. Every generation puts its own mark on it.
Today, we are living through an accelerated period of change which, for many people, is moving too fast for comfort. But our past is stamped on our actions as surely as our features resemble the faces and forms of our ancestors.
We ignore history at our peril. We need to heed it, learn from it, and build on it.
And that takes me directly to the ambitions of the National Archives Trust, which are extensive.
Above all, it’s to open up our history to our nation. To make it accessible, understandable, and informative to all. And, yes, to make it fun too.
This ambition stretches far wider than the study of historic documents from ancient and modern times – fascinating though they are.
The Trust is planning interactive exhibitions; education programmes; theatrical performances of events relating to history. Their treasure-trove of knowledge will not be imprisoned at Kew: the Trust will tour the country; seek partnerships with local archives; and, in due course, set up National Archive Centres across the UK.
The People’s History will be taken to the people.
And it’s long overdue – for everyone, especially children – to see original documents from long ago, and sense their own place in history.
Imagine holding in your own hand a letter from Elizabeth I; or Jane Austen; or Wellington; or Nelson; or Mrs Pankhurst. In different ways, they all changed our lives. And the Trust will bring all their documents to life.
One exhibition is on view this evening: a replica of No 10’s Cabinet table and chairs.
I remember a group of visiting schoolchildren sitting around the actual Cabinet table ….. as I recall, they were far less trouble than the real Cabinet!
The Trust has big ambitions for the long-term but – even in a world that demands instant results, the best of outcomes takes time – not least since the Archive history extends to over 11 million records, covering one thousand years.
It also takes money – the root of all progress.
The National Archives Trust is a new charity set up to serve the public, whose funding will come in part from the Treasury, but also from private donations.
Based on experience – and the size of our national deficit – I have no doubt that fundraising will be a vital part of the engine for expansion.
*****
As so often before, our country is passing through a period of division and disillusion. But we will come through it, because we are a nation with a history of which – mostly – we can be proud.
By pride, I don’t mean thoughtless jingoism. That is simply an embarrassment. No-one should be proud of that.
Our pride should be about our national contribution to the rule of law; to science; to engineering; to health; to civilised behaviour; and so much more …..
As a nation, we know the difference between right and wrong, and history flags up many warnings of what can happen if any nation loses sight of that.
The natural instincts of our country are kindly, decent ones of tolerance, compassion and co-operation. I know of no other country in which so many of its citizens work voluntarily for – or donate to – charitable causes. That is decency in action.
It is now a quarter of a century since I first met Anthony Seldon. Soon afterwards, his two young daughters – then very young – joined me for tea at No 10 and, as if to prove their lineage, asked far more probing questions than I ever got in Parliament.
Those two young girls did not become historians like their father …. they became civil servants, and are now, themselves, contributing to the National Archives of the future.
I hope they – and millions of others – will embrace the important work of this Trust; it may be about our past, but that past is the essential building block to our present and our future.
So do visit the Archives and learn from them: you will all be very welcome.
And – enjoy it: after all, it is our story.
Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the British Gymnastics National Awards, held in Telford on Saturday 25 January 2020.
I’d like first to add my own welcome to everyone here tonight:
– to the gymnasts who give us so much pleasure;
– to the coaches for their skill and guidance;
– to the families, without whose enthusiasm our sport would be so much weaker; and
– to the administrators who work so hard for our sport.
And, tonight, to one administrator in particular – our Chief Executive Jane Allen, who was awarded an MBE in the New Year’s Honours List.
It was richly deserved – and Jane, many congratulations from us all.
* * * * *
As this is “Awards Night” let me start with our gymnasts. As someone with a damaged leg – but who, even before that, was never particularly graceful – I am full of admiration for our gymnasts.
Admiration for their skills; for their grace; for their courage; for their perseverance; for their commitment; and for their successes.
It is easy to forget how many forms of gymnastics there are.
We have been blessed with world medallists in:
– artistic gymnastics;
– trampoline gymnastics;
– tumbling;
– double-mini trampoline and acrobatic gymnastics;
– and, of course, in all the classic gymnastic disciplines.
Gymnastics is an art as well as a sport.
And every single one of our successes is the reward of dedication and high quality coaching.
We have won twelve medals in the last three Olympic Games; and four medals in the most recent World Championships.
When you watch our elite gymnasts – Max Whitlock, or before him Beth Tweddle – you are watching the result not only of extraordinary talent, but also sheer hard work.
I am not surprised that, when Max won his second Gold Medal in Rio, the BBC audience was over 10 million.
But, of course, we’re greedy. We seek ever greater success … ever more medals … and many more people – the young and the not-so-young – committed to our sport.
And, although our elite gymnasts are vital to popularising the sport, our ambition goes much wider. We want to see gymnastics continue to grow in popularity.
To do that, we must expand grassroots facilities to encourage more and more young people to join our clubs and become part of our sport.
So we are investing for the future. We are not a rich sport but, even so, will be investing £7.5 million in new and improved facilities over the next six years.
Today, over one million people take part in gymnastics every week. We are working hard to increase that number.
Some may become the gymnastic icons of the future, others may simply enjoy the fun of competing at local level.
But all will be fitter, and more healthy – both physically and mentally – as a result, and provide a fan base for the future.
We always need to remember that, although elite competition can be fierce, gymnastics is – above all – fun, and has been since the ancient Greeks first popularised it.
What else must we do to help our sport grow?
We must promote elite gymnasts. Their success generates publicity through increased television coverage; brings spectators to competitions; encourages others to take up the sport; and helps deliver sponsorship and other financial support – all of which creates a positive virtual cycle.
We also need the hidden heroes of gymnastics: the coaches, the administrators, the many men and women – including, especially, former gymnasts who give up their time (mostly voluntarily) – to help build up the sport.
And – of course – the veritable array of parents, families and friends who ferry young gymnasts up and down the country, encouraging them and – sometimes – having to console them too.
Of all the sports I know, gymnastics is the most family-orientated, and that is a great strength for our future.
But not the only one.
As well as investing more towards improving and enlarging facilities, British Gymnastics will be hosting a range of international events – for all aspects of the sport – as well as holding a World Cup each year.
And, in a little over two years, the Commonwealth Games will be held in Birmingham.
So, there is a lot happening – all of which will help boost the profile of our sport, and encourage our future growth.
But, tonight, we are here to celebrate the best of the best of our recent past.
I warmly congratulate all our Award winners tonight, and commiserate with those who might not have won, but who have nonetheless done so much to enhance our sport during the past twelve months.
Everyone present this evening – in one way or another – has contributed to the growing success of gymnastics.
So – I would like to thank you all for all you have done in the past, and all you will continue to do in the future which – for gymnastics – looks very promising indeed.