The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2015-

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And even that sharing is partial.

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

    Our education system? None.

    Our NHS? None.

    Our welfare system? None.

    Our Armed Forces? None.

    Our police? None

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

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

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

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

    Were we dragged into the Euro? No

    Were we dragged into Schengen and open borders? No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And what of the “numbers” argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Show us charitable need and we dig deep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    INTRODUCTION BY JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Good morning to you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning John.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    You’ve had it from both sides?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Why did you bring North Korea into the debate?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    72-0

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    It’s meaningless.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    These matters are important to us.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    Sir John Major, thank you very much.

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

    Let me set out my own position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If the UK departs, the EU will lose:

    – its fastest growing economy;

    – one of only two nuclear powers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The UK will face another dilemma with its international trade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Article on the EU Referendum – 19 March 2016

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    There are many positive reasons for membership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – the fastest growing economy in the EU;

    – one of only two nuclear powers;

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 20 December 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast on BBC1 on 20 December 2015.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now then, it’s 25 years since in the most dramatic circumstances Sir John Major became leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, and you could say the Tories have never really resolved the issue which ultimately led to his predecessor Margaret Thatcher’s fall from power – namely the party’s attitude to the European Union. Sir John wrestled with it during his premiership. He also had to deal with war in the Middle East, a recession, global economic uncertainty. It sounds just a tad familiar, Sir John. Thanks for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start talking a little bit about the economy and so forth. I remember when I was a very young reporter and you were a very young Prime Minister, there was a kind of asset bubble thing going on and then interest rates ticked up and we had all sorts of problems with negative equity and so forth. Now interest rates are clearly on the move up again, led by the Fed. We have a very, very problematic asset bubble in terms of house prices in the UK, which is leading to inequality as we were talking about. I’m just wondering on your reflections. Twenty-five odd years on from that, how do you see that problem?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think we’re going to get rapidly rising interest rates at all. In the 1990s we were on the back of a huge inflationary bubble. I mean people forget on the day I became Prime Minister, we were heading into a recession. We had interest rates at 14 per cent and we had inflation at nearly 10.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Fourteen per cent? A totally different world, yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Fourteen per cent. So a totally different background. Now the Fed have just ticked up interest rates a little and I think this will be a very slow process. I don’t think we’re suddenly going to see a huge spiral in interest rates. I know many mortgage owners in particular will be concerned about that. I very much doubt that is going to happen. But I think there are some problems that we can foresee ahead. In a curious way the very low price of oil is likely to be a problem because many of the countries that have invested, often overseas, are going to be much shorter of cash than they were. I think three large economies will probably be in difficulty next year – Russia, Brazil and China will slow a little – but overall I think we’ll see the world economy growing a little faster and Europe will be growing a little faster as well.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You came in as the Brixton boy from a cash poor family in your background and so forth. How worried are you about inequality now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I was worried and I am worried. I mean it was a great frustration to me that I had to deal with other things – the European splits in the party and getting the economy right – and I was never able to do for inequality what I would have wished to do and that is a lasting regret. But it exists and it’s not the fault of this government or the immediate past governments; it has grown up over 40 or 50 years and it is extraordinary that here we are. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re growing, and yet we have 7 out of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. Now that cannot be right.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s wrong, but what can be done about it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think some of it is starting to be done, but there’s a great deal more to do be done. The Chancellor’s concept of a Northern powerhouse is exactly right. We need to spread the wealth in this country more evenly than previously it has been spread and that means necessarily large-scale capital investment outside London – in the West Country, for example, to open that up to investment, in the Midlands and in the North – and that is a long job but it is necessary.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But you can’t talk about redistribution, you can’t talk about taxing the people at the top more without howls of outrage from all round the place. It has become completely impossible to discuss.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I wasn’t talking about taxing people more because if you tax people more, you’re just going to make us a less competitive economy. What I was saying is that we should spread our investment more wisely and we should have perhaps more incentives to encourage people to invest outside the regions that typically have attracted investment – into the Midlands, into the North – and it is vitally important that we do it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So a more interventionist government strategy really?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think we’ve always had a form of intervention. It depends on how much. I don’t welcome intervention into detail, but I do welcome intervention in encouraging people to invest in our country and particularly in the parts of our country where people are falling behind. It isn’t acceptable if you have the degree of inequality that has built up over so long and I’m delighted that we now have a Chancellor who’s seeking to reverse that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now you must have had a bit of déjà vu over the last few days watching David Cameron with I don’t know how many shirts he was carrying with him for those negotiations. It wasn’t Maastricht, but it wasn’t very far away – it was in Brussels and so on. Do you think this is a negotiation which is in a sense too trivial or, as some people on the Eurosceptic side of the argument are saying, almost meaningless?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well isn’t it curious? I mean Eurosceptics say this is meaningless and it’s trivial, and in fact it embraces many of the things they’ve been asking for for a very long time. Consider what the Prime Minister’s trying to negotiate. He’s trying to negotiate an end to our commitment to ever closer union. I think he will succeed in that. Is that trivial? If it is, why have the Eurosceptics been asking for it for the last twenty years? He’s trying to negotiate more competitiveness, set out very clearly in his letter to Donald Tusk. He’s trying to negotiate a whole range of things that matter to us on migrancy, on … I sense you seeking to intervene. Do so now if you wish!

    ANDREW MARR:

    Thank you so much. The big problem is going to be this very specific promise that he was going to end in-work benefits for four years for EU migrants coming here to work and that seems to be something that people like well certainly the Poles and many other countries are determined that we will not get. And in a sense has he not created a problem for himself by saying I am going to get this; this is going to be my big sticking point? If he doesn’t then get it, it may not be the most important issue but that’s what he’ll be crucified over.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s a sub-set of the general migrancy issue of course. Now whether he will get exactly four years, I can’t say, but the whole ethos of the European Union is compromise. The European Union are not going to wish Britain to leave. They’re not going to wish Britain to leave because we tend to look here at what our position is. Consider Europe’s position were we to leave the European Union? What would Europe lose? Forget what we would lose for the moment. What would the European Union lose?

    ANDREW MARR:

    The export market for a start?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that’s not quite as true an argument as you may think, but let me deal with the points I was going to raise. Firstly they will lose the best performing economy in Europe. They will lose the economy that in twenty years is likely to be the biggest economy in Europe. They will lose the country with the longest and most historic foreign policy reach. They will lose one of only two countries with a military capability and a nuclear capacity. Now if Europe was formed, as it was, to look America and China and the big countries of the world in the eye as equals, if Britain comes out that ambition has gone.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So they have to give them something substantial?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They will be immensely diminished, and they know that and so they will negotiate. Everybody’s setting out positions. It’s a classic European situation. On both sides they are setting out positions. And they will meet and a compromise will be reached and the compromise won’t just deal with trivial issues. Subsidiarity, for example, isn’t a trivial issue, we had that in the Maastricht Treaty. Germany and Britain put it in meaning that things were only done at the European level if they couldn’t be done at the national level. And that was agreed at Maastricht and then bypassed by the then Commission. Well if it’s reinserted again, it will be reinserted in a way that they will not be able to bypass.

    ANDREW MARR:

    That’s essential?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s very important. And that’s one of the things that has caused so much frustration with the European Union, and there is frustration right the way through the country.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So on the other side people say but in the end they’re not going to change their spots. Charles Moore – I’m not sure that he’s your favourite columnist, but he said something very interesting this week I was just quoting. He said two things are going to happen. One is the Prime Minister will come back with something he’s able to say this is a successful renegotiation, look what I’ve got. But the second thing he said is that this will not fundamentally change either the direction of the EU or our relationship with the EU. On the fundamentals it remains the same.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But the European Union has already changed with the advent of the Eurozone. What we’re heading towards is a European Union that has a Eurozone and non-Eurozone members and one of the things the Prime Minister’s seeking to negotiate is to protect us from paying for the policies of the Eurozone members. Now that is significantly different. Ally that to an end to ever closer union and you do begin to see a rather different relationship. Add to that subsidiarity and you have a very different relationship. So the argument that the Eurosceptics have been advancing since before the Prime Minister set out his aims that it would be trivial is a good negotiating, a good arguing point for them, but it is essentially bogus when you look at the detail of what is actually being discussed.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sticking with a bit of that detail, this business of transitional benefits, in-work benefits for people coming into this country, the big problem for the Prime Minister is discrimination between one citizen of the EU and another citizen of the EU. Do you think that could be overcome?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s an interesting word ‘discrimination’, isn’t it? We’re saying there’s discrimination if people don’t get exactly the same benefits. You could equally argue that it’s a discrimination that people who are watching this programme have been paying into our national insurance system for forty years and someone arriving on day one gets exactly the same benefits. I think that’s an equal form of discrimination and I think we’re going to have to recognise that and I don’t know what the outcome will be, but I think there will be a compromise.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There will be some kind of compromise?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think so.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What about the other great issue I suppose at the moment, which is open borders? I mean this has produced probably an existential crisis, an overused word – Private Eye will start an existential crisis column quite soon – but nonetheless a very, very big crisis for Europe, this Europe of open borders, the Schengen Europe, people able to move from one country to another very quickly. Liam Fox has raised the question of terrorists as well being able to use this and this does worry an awful lot of people watching this programme.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Indeed it does, and of course they’re right to worry about that. The question is whether we would be able to stop that in anything we did. Now if we actually look at the question of freedom of movement, there are several things to say about it. Firstly, freedom of movement is said to be sacrosanct because it is one of the four European freedoms. That is a totally phoney argument. Another of the four European freedoms is freedom of movement of goods and services, yet Germany and France and other countries block our banking, block our insurance, block our technology services. So the belief that that is absolutely fundamental is unchanging.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’re beginning to sound like Liam Fox at this point, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No well they do, they do, and that’s the sort of thing we’re going to have to change. The bigger issues are why I’m absolutely convinced we need to stay in for our future, but that means on the question of the sheer flow of people coming here, here is a matter where we should move away from rigid positions and look at the reality. It is not commonsense to sweep into countries more people than we can provide for if they are sick than we can house or we can educate and we need a commonsense position.

    Let us accept the principle of free movement, but it has to be mitigated to deal with the number of people that can be accepted in any given period and that again is a piece of commonsense negotiation that ought to be acceptable to our partners.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If we left, we would get control of our borders back period?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, consider what that means. Half our immigration at the moment doesn’t come from the European area. It comes from the old commonwealth and elsewhere.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But we would have control over that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Just a moment. We have been been letting more people in than most of the people objecting to us being in Europe would like, but without them we wouldn’t have a transport system, we probably wouldn’t … we certainly wouldn’t have a National Health system. So let’s not assume that immigration per se is a bad thing. It isn’t. And neither is it per se a bad thing from Europe. It’s the sheer total of it.

    Now if we had control of our own borders, I wonder what would happen with all the people who had got into Calais, to France. Would the French keep them there or would they say well this is no longer our problem, Britain’s outside the European Union; we’re no longer going to do, as David Cameron agreed with us that we would, which is hold them at Calais? Do we want that sort of situation to arise? Do we really believe that in an open world that we have at the moment that we can suddenly opt out and become a closed nation? I tell you, Andrew, it’s a fantasy.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it? Well I mean a lot of people would say, first of all, that the French are allowing many of those migrants to go to Dunkirk and other places and they are coming into the country; but, second, if we had a hard border of our own, we could stop them coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Do you really think that is so?

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well I’ve no idea, but …

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Do you really think that is so and do you really think all the implications of that would necessarily be right in terms of our international reputation, our international trade and all the things that go with it? I don’t think that is the case and I think we are better able to deal with this problem collectively rather than siphoning ourselves off, cutting ourselves away from the biggest single market in the world and seeking to negotiate a new arrangement with that single market, which would be less convenient and less good for us.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Though of course they are selling us much more in goods than we are selling them.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You see there’s a fallacy in that argument. Many of the things that they sell to us, they would continue selling them to us because it’s covered by wider treaties than simply the European treaties. The converse would be that the things we want to sell to them – services and other things – can be blocked by the Europeans, so it would be very much to our overall disadvantage. Added to which of course there are 27 of them, there are one of us, so I think the belief that Europe’s going to collapse if it loses the UK market is a bit wide of the mark.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One final question on this. I mean you have intervened in this argument today. How big an argument is it for the country? Alan Johnson, who’s leading the Labour campaign to stay in Europe, was on the programme a couple of weeks ago and he said that he thought it was a once in a lifetime, possibly thirty or forty year kind of decision. Do you take the same view?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s a long-term decision. I mean the argument that we can have a referendum, say no and then go back and renegotiate is just a fallacy. If we come out, we are out, that’s it. It’s not politically credible to go back and say we’ve reconsidered, let’s have another referendum. If we vote to stay out, then we are out and we will have to get on with it and face the consequences, which will be many and varied. Of course we will survive – we’re a big and a powerful nation, of course we will. That’s not the point. The point is would we be as safe? No. Would we be as well off? No. Would we be as influential? No. So that is the point that is really at issue.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Very clear. Sir John, for now thank you very much indeed for joining us.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you.

    ………………..

    Later in the same programme:

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John, we’ve now got potentially three members of the Cabinet who want to campaign alongside Liam Fox for Brexit. Should they be allowed to stay in the Cabinet and disagree with the Prime Minister while doing so?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I spent the best part of seven years trying to keep a party at civil war over Europe together. I think that it would be extraordinary if anybody decided to campaign against Cabinet policy, at least until the negotiations are completed. When the negotiations are completed I would very much hope that they would not wish to campaign against the Cabinet position.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But if they did?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that’s a big if, and if is the longest preposition in the English language, and I’m now getting drawn on that this morning. But certainly between now and the end of the negotiations, absolutely not. I would hope afterwards that they would not wish to. The unity of the argument, for the sake of the country – this is bigger that the Conservative Party, is very important and people deserve to hear a clear-cut argument and not an internecine piece of strife.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If he can’t persuade his Cabinet he won’t be able to persuade the country?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I personally believe he will come back with a satisfactory deal and he will be able to convince the country.

    The trouble with the European debate, ever since it began, is that it is often conducted at the extremes. People who will never really be persuaded that we should be in and people who are utterly convinced that we should not leave. In the midst of that is the rest of us, and it is the rest of us – the great mass of the British people, whom David Cameron will have to convince that it is better for our future, their children and their children, and our international influence that we should stay in a world that is drawing together, rather than exclude ourselves, and become an offshore island, a big and a powerful one admittedly, but an offshore island off the biggest continent and market in the world.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme – 16 December 2015

    The text of Sir John’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 16 December 2015.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    The Prime Minister reaches an important point in his promised EU renegotiation in Brussels tomorrow when a summit of all the leaders reveals whether he’s made headway in the argument for change that he’s been making for months in almost every European Union capital.
    It’s going to be difficult as critics at home, particularly Conservative Euro-sceptics, say that he is already backing away from his pledge to make people coming into Britain from the rest of the EU wait for four years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing, and that was something that he put at the heart of his reform plan.

    This is the latest chapter in a story in which every Prime Minister has played a part over the last two generations or so, grappling with the tortuous and emotional question of this country’s relationship with the rest of Europe. Throughout much of the 1990s it was the issue that defined the character of John Major’s Conservative Government and the state of his party, riven by the fundamental disagreements over Europe that had never been healed in the era of Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher.

    Sir John joins us now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning James.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Do you think that David Cameron should decide his attitude to EU membership on the basis of this renegotiation?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s clearly important that there are changes made in the European Union and that’s what he’s seeking to do. What does concern me a little is that everybody is regarding Thursday and Friday as though it were high noon and that everything will be decided then. Unless I’ve very much missed the mark, I don’t think it will be.

    It’s a process and there will be discussions that are aimed at an agreement. That discussion will take place and everyone will leave and state their own positions. Underneath that there will be a movement either towards an agreement or against and we won’t really know about that until they actually come to the crunch some time next year.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    That was a very elegant off-drive Sir John but it avoided the question. The reason I asked it is that people around Downing Street are saying, don’t doubt it, if the Prime Minister isn’t happy with what he gets in this renegotiation effort then he is quite prepared to argue for Britain to leave the EU. I simply want to know whether you believe that this renegotiation should decide David Cameron’s view as to whether Britain is in or out?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I can’t put myself inside David Cameron’s mind. I can tell you what my view is – my view is that this renegotiation is important but that it shouldn’t decide whether or not we remain inside the European Union because of the importance of the issue. I have no means of knowing whether that’s the Prime Minister’s mind and that’s a question you really need to address to him.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’ve said something very interesting there, from your perspective, whatever comes out of this renegotiation, you still believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest to be in full stop?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me put it to you this way. You mentioned the troubles I had in the 1990s with my own party and with others. If there is anyone in the United Kingdom who really ought to be anti-European and thoroughly frustrated with them, then perhaps it ought to be me. I am not a starry-eyed European. I did after all say no to the Euro currency in the early 1990s, I said no to the Single Market and in 1996 I said no to joining Schengen when it began. I am sceptical of a great deal of European Union policy. But flirting with leaving, at a moment when the whole world is coming together, seems to me to be very dangerous and against our long-term interests.

    We see American, Japan and other countries forming a trans-Pacific partnership. Of course that’s trade, but it’s also common standards and it’s bringing people together. The whole world is coming together, and for the United Kingdom, 67 million out of a world population of 7 billion, to break off and head off into splendid isolation doesn’t seem to me to be in our interests now, or perhaps more important in the interests of our children, our grand-children and future generations.

    Whatever the frustrations are, and whatever comes out of these negotiations, we are going to be able to continue to try and influence the European Union while we are in it. One point that some people do not seem to realise is that once this issue has been determined by the modern generation of Britons, if they decide that we should stay in, and there will be those who never accept it of course.

    [connection problem – interview continued slightly later in the programme]

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    We have Sir John Major back on the phone. Looking back 21 years it’s as though the technology when you were Prime Minister, and I started with you on the World at One with Maastricht, was a bit better then.

    You were talking about splendid isolation, and that was your phrase, for what would happen if we left the EU. You know the argument on the other side, very passionately held by many in your party although not just in your party, who say that this would be independence and it would give the country the right to govern itself in a proper way which is something they believe has been ceded over the years to a supranational body. They think that this independence could work in the interests of people in this country. Why do you believe that it wouldn’t?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me point out some of the realities of what would happen if we left the European Union. Let me say firstly, like many other people, I find the European Union often as frustrating as hell as sometimes there is an inability to confront problems which is very maddening. But I think we are better off, we are safer, we are going to be more prosperous in rather than out and flirting with leaving is dangerous.

    Let me address the particular points which you make. If we left there must be a higher probability that Scotland would have another referendum and leave the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would be fractured and that would be very damaging and our international prestige would suffer.

    Many of the things we are told we can achieve with a regaining of sovereignty are illusory. People can say that we can save all our net contributions. Not true – we would have to pay at least half, and possibly more, simply for entry to the Single Market.

    They say we can easily negotiate entry to the Single Market. That’s very disingenuous as if we leave the European Union it won’t be a friendly departure, it’ll be very acrimonious, negotiations with an irate ex-partner could be very difficult. We may get a very sub-standard deal to enter the Single Market.

    They say that we can control our borders and that we’ll have no immigration. I don’t think that’s so, as in or out we can’t keep the world at bay. If we were out one question arises. In present circumstances would France would be holding so many immigrants at Calais or would they not? If not, they would be heading here.

    We’re told our Parliament would be sovereign. That, of course, is total nonsense. In order to trade with the European Union we would have to accept their regulations. We would have no input into those negotiations or be able to change them. The Prime Minister would have to go to Parliament and say ‘here are some regulations which the European Union have passed, we must pass them without change or we cannot trade with Europe’.

    So much for Parliamentary sovereignty. I could stretch those arguments but I think the point is made.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Are you surprised that those around David Cameron are saying, that coming from a political and ideological position that’s not very different from your own, that he could contemplate coming out given what you think are the simple facts of the case? If he is contemplating a decision to say ‘let’s leave’, it must be that he, as one of your successors, does not accept the case that you have just made?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    You must ask David Cameron that, I can’t answer what is in his mind. I have sat in his chair and in the European chair and I know the difficult position which he is in and how he has to negotiate the British national interest and cope with all shades of domestic opinion as well. I have to say James in my experience of being in his chair advice, particularly from someone who has sat in that chair, is not usually very helpful.

    So if you’re trying to tempt me into giving David Cameron advice, or alternatively judge what is in his mind, then I’m afraid that it will be fruitless.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’ve had experience of back seat driving.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve had a great deal of experience of it, yes.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    If we are to believe opinions polls and surveys, and the campaign in a genuine sense hasn’t begun yet, it looks like an even split across the country. Do you believe that this is the position now and do you believe that there is a greater chance of a vote to leave than there has been in your political lifetime?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    There is a lot of frustration with the European Union at the moment and much of that frustration is entirely justified and I share the frustrations that many people have.

    When people truly engage and when they look at the long-term implications of where Britain would be if it were not in the European Union, and examine what it would mean for our future, our children’s future and our grand-children’s future then people will move back to realising that in a world that is as inter-connected, in a world that is moving together as we are, that we are better off and safer inside the European Union rather than outside. That is what I believe people will finally conclude, but it is their decision.

    David Cameron has decided to ask people in a referendum for their view, and I think because of this long-running and tiresome debate that he’s entirely right to do so, and for the public to decide. When the facts are before them of what it means, especially in the long-term, I believe that they would be advised to stay inside the European Union and that is what I believe they will vote to do.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, thank you very much.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If I may, one thing before you go. This is your last morning and like millions of other people I have found you and John Humphrys my daily diet for a very long time. If I may grab the airways for a moment, I’d like to say that I’ll miss you, and I think a lot of other people will in the morning.

    I will do so as I believe, generally, you’ve asked the right questions, mostly, you’ve listened to the answers and you’ve done it in an extraordinarily professional way. So I hope as you leave you are proud of what you’ve done. Whatever you do now, good luck with it and I hope our paths will cross.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    There is going to be a lot of reporting still going on, some of it on this programme, there will be constitutional matters to be looked at so Sir John, I’m glad to say that our paths will undoubtedly cross before long.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    It’s not often allowed on this programme to say that I agree with that politician, but I agree with that, the last bit anyway!

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Hinton Lecture – 10 November 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Hinton Lecture held in London on 10 November 2015. The speech was entitled “A Nation at Ease With Itself”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I met Nick Hinton, but only briefly, so cannot claim to have known him. I wish I had. But this lecture, named in his honour, enables me to talk about what life is like for the poor and the near poor: and how civil society – together with Government – can help improve their quality of life. It is, I hope, a theme that would have appealed to him.

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

    That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power.

    Even so, the solution is not only money. Education is the high road out of poverty. I began to implement reforms that were at first discontinued by my successors, then reinstated and carried so much further.

    I broke the binary link between universities and polytechnics – a divide that, to me, reeked of class distinction.

    I introduced a Citizen’s Charter to improve the standard of public services and make it more personal. Since people paid for them, in advance, through their taxes, I believed they deserved the same quality of service as if they had paid in cash. Often, it seemed to me, the poorest – perhaps cowed by authority – didn’t receive this.

    But these and other measures could not arrest the powerful forces that were – and are – driving inequality and so, overall, I failed.

    With age comes reflection, and I have begun to reflect more and more on inequality. Sixty years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. But in a country now immensely more wealthy, life is still not easy for many others.

    Let me first state what is obvious but often ignored: there is a gap between what our nations need in social provision and what the taxpayer can afford.

    Rich as we are, our nation isn’t rich enough to rescue all those left behind while, at the same time, it has to meet the soaring social costs of a population that is living longer and growing in number.

    For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work.

    But, inevitably, there are gaps, and I wish to set out how we might bridge them – and why we must.

    The why is easy: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are among the poorest in all Northern Europe.

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

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

    Policy-makers must understand how hard it is to escape from such circumstances. It is not inertia that keeps the unemployed immobile: it is simply that, without help, they are trapped.

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

    Although borderline poverty is far less than it was, it is still more than it should be. And it cannot be ended by benefits alone. Where benefits are necessary – and they always will be – we should never begrudge them. But they are a palliative, not a cure. The cure, in areas left behind, is more jobs that pay a living wage.

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

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

    Among the many attractive qualities of the British is an enduring belief in fairness. As Colonel Rainsborough observed in the Putney Debates over 250 years ago: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he then, and so has he now. The Colonel was a Leveller – I am a Conservative. But, upon this, we agree. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

    To do so, we need to level the playing field. We are not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood.

    Many are fit. Able. Intelligent. Lucky.

    Others are not.

    Many are vulnerable. Unequipped with skills. Trapped by circumstance. Often old. Perhaps sick or disabled. For them, a comfortable life seems a fantasy. Often the week lasts longer than the money.

    I have never forgotten living in such circumstances. There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and it never leaves you.

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

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

    Poverty isn’t only about empty pockets. The poorest among us not only live meaner lives – but shorter lives. In some of our great cities – Glasgow and Westminster among them – the lifespan of the poorest is twenty years shorter than that of the most wealthy. I have no doubt that much of this disparity is caused by poor lifestyle, poor choices, poor diet – but poor environment, poor housing and poor education must surely be contributory factors. Whatever the reasons, this is a shocking situation in 2015.

    Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence, overseas aid, industrial support and much else. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this just doesn’t work. It is simplistic and naïve.

    The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they are a recipe for ruin. Easy promises, with no hard policy in place to support them, are unsustainable – and those who claim otherwise are simply posturing.

    And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed. What does help is national wealth – created by financial, commercial and industrial success. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the repair of our national finances – which is clearly a Government responsibility – is the essential pre-requisite to ending poverty.

    So – as the Rowntree and Fry families taught us so many years ago – are better living conditions. Housing is a huge driver of inequality. If house prices rise, so do rents. We need to stop stimulating demand and squeezing supply. This will require strong political willpower, but is absolutely necessary.

    We have too few homes for a population that is growing. That’s a bad mix. Not only does it leave too many poorly housed, but a shortage of houses puts property prices up – and beyond the capacity of the young. Would-be home owners are frustrated, and – more relevant to my focus this evening – so are those whose aspiration is not necessarily for ownership, but simply for somewhere decent to live.

    So, although they are controversial, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to accelerate low-cost building, ease planning on brown-field sites, and speed up our inefficient (and costly) planning system.

    And surely it is right to bring unfit and neglected properties back into use: and where they are wilfully left empty for years, to use compulsory powers so that local authorities or the private sector can renovate them.

    If we are to make up the shortfall in housing – and make social mobility a reality, and not an aspiration – then plans must include social housing and a vibrant private rented sector. Owner-occupation is an ambition for most, but not all – and we need homes for those for whom ownership is not an option.

    I bow to no-one in my affection for the green belt, for our wonderful woodlands, moorlands and wide open spaces. We protect them for all to enjoy, and I hope we always will. But, as we do so, we cannot regard every piece of open land as sacrosanct, when so many are living in sub-standard housing, and there is a growing shortage of single-person accommodation.

    Here we have a paradox. Although few deny we need more homes, many oppose new building. Sometimes their opposition is justified – but not always. We must decide to whom we listen: opponents of more housing, or those who hope – and deserve – a home of their own.

    Job creation is crucial too: over recent years, we have seen surprisingly high employment growth, but often not enough in areas that have fallen behind. To correct this, we need continuing investment in better information technology, in roads, in airport capacity, in rail investment. And, as North Sea Oil fades, we need to accept fracking, so that on-shore energy can make us more self-sufficient – and competitive.

    Much of this is underway, but many of these schemes are unpopular.

    Some will instinctively oppose all of them. I do understand this. But such critics must understand there is a link between investment and jobs and well-being: if our infrastructure is not upgraded, we will condemn many to remain poor – now, and in the future. It cannot be right to deny the homeless or jobless the hope that better times are ahead.

    *******

    There are many things that make me proud of our country – but none more so than the scale of philanthropic, voluntary and charitable work that is the daily labour of many in every corner of the UK. Volunteers and the faith community can be proud of what they have done. We should all be proud of our open-heartedness: over 180,000 Charities, one million Trustees, and countless voluntary workers is incontrovertible evidence that the British soul and conscience is in good working order.

    But – a reality check: we cannot be complacent about our charitable sector. There are negatives: we have all seen the publicity generated by bad fundraising practices and poor governance. I won’t dwell on these shortcomings, except to note that all charities have a duty to protect their reputation. Unless they are seen as efficient and well run, donations will fall away. Giving is not a given.

    History tells us donations collapsed when the Fabians argued that social care was the – presumably sole – responsibility of the State.

    In 1948, when the NHS was formed, 90% of the public told opinion polls there would no longer be any need for charity. The act of giving also falls when taxes are too onerous: as a former Lord Mayor of London put it: “much as I would like to give … The Government has taken all my money.”

    This may seem perverse – but politicians should be careful not to claim too much success in meeting social need: if they do, they may cut off the voluntary impulse without which we would all be poorer.

    Charitable activity has a long and proud history in our country. The 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses – together with its contemporary Statute for the Relief of the Poor – were intended to encourage the rich to supplement contributions from rate and tax payers. They have done so ever since. Had they not, our social conditions would be incomparably worse.

    The House of Commons Library tells me the UK now has over 100 Sterling billionaires, and many thousands of millionaires. Is this growing wealth a source of additional funding? Almost certainly – whether it be lifetime giving, lifetime loans or legacies. I need not elaborate – fundraisers are well aware of the opportunities of tapping into rising wealth.

    The role of charities has long been one of the glories of our way of life. They promote human nature at its best … care of the very sick; the terminally ill; research into cures; help for those with learning or physical disabilities … the list is both magnificent and almost unending.

    Our society would be very bleak indeed without them.

    And charities can be innovative.

    Take the Prince’s Charity, which has done so much to regenerate deprived areas. It has been the catalyst in bringing together a range of charitable organisations to work with both the public and private sectors. This approach was pioneered in Burnley in 2007, and has since spread to Burslem, Middlesbrough and Tottenham.

    An independent evaluation by Dr Peter Grant of Cass Business School reports that this has been a hugely successful partnership. The pioneer of the programme, Burnley, was named in 2013 as the most enterprising place in the UK by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. During the past year, they have had the largest percentage increase in private sector jobs in the UK. Surely this form of approach could be more widely developed?

    “Give us the tools,” pleaded Churchill, in a moment of national crisis, “and we will finish the job”. In our lesser crisis of helping the poorest among us, one essential tool is money: it is the root of much progress.

    As Chancellor, in 1990, I sought to accelerate charitable income by introducing Gift Aid: since then, this tax change has generated £13.5 billion in additional revenue for charities, and is the gift that keeps on giving – at over £1 billion a year.

    In the late 1980s – as Social Security Minister, with responsibility for the Disabled, and then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, responsible for the allocation of the public purse – I saw raw need, often unmet. I realised it was impossible for even the best causes to compete for public money against the demands of pensions, health, education, social security and defence.

    So, as Prime Minister, my solution was the Lottery – money from the public … for the public, and – to protect the independence of charities – from a source other than the State. It was controversial.

    Some denounced it for promoting gambling. The Church was restless, but underwent a miraculous conversion that enabled many a leaking church roof to be mended. The Treasury was conflicted. Officials realised that the Lottery would ease demands for public money – and approved. But equally, they knew it would be out of their control – and disapproved. Even worse, the Lottery promoted fun – which the community of killjoys absolutely hated.

    The critics are silent now. As of today, the Lottery has distributed over £34 billion to good causes: nearly £8 billion to charities alone, and the balance to other causes – sports, the arts, heritage – that enhance the lives of everyone and, most importantly to me, those who have little else.

    And, as intended, most of this money has gone to small local schemes: to village halls, arts centres, playgrounds for children, parks and open spaces, sports equipment, and instruments for orchestras and bands.

    I admit to paternal affection for the Lottery, but worry for its future. It was designed as a National Lottery – in effect, a monopoly – to maximise returns for the designated good causes. But its success has attracted rivals. In recent years, so-called “Umbrella” society lotteries have emerged, that have circumvented the original legislation, and pay a far smaller proportion of their income back to worthy causes.

    “Betting on lottery” operators have also expanded, blurring the line between lotteries and gambling. If these rivals grow or multiply in number, they will threaten the future of the National Lottery.

    Charities should all be concerned about this.

    In a nation at ease with itself, business, too, has a role. Of course, its main purpose is to make profits – but, as it does so, it can do more for social development than paying taxes and creating jobs.

    In a recent visit to Liverpool, I learned that local building companies – Carillion were one – were actively seeking out former Servicemen and women, the long-term unemployed, the homeless and ex-offenders.

    They are employing them and teaching them skills from which they can benefit for the rest of their lives. It is an idea that should be adopted more widely.

    Business can – and does – help charities. I am the Chairman of The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, set up to provide a legacy for

    Her Majesty’s many years as our Monarch.

    The Trust is seeking to end forms of avoidable blindness across the nations of the Commonwealth and our principal private sector supporter has been Standard Chartered Bank. Other Banks have dedicated departments advising on philanthropy. Many private sector companies sponsor named charities each year, or contribute to them, or collect for them among their employees. Some newly rich private sector benefactors are proving to be enormously generous: this, I believe, is an area that can and should grow dramatically.

    Their contribution is in stark contrast to the activities of pay-day lenders that offer loans at extortionate rates of 1500% or more. They are not helping the poor: they are helping themselves at the expense of the poor. That’s not a free market, it’s an exploitative market. And morally reprehensible.

    Let me offer some closing thoughts:

    During my preparations for this evening, I have sought the views of many specialists on the work of civil society.

    Some suggested that we have too many charities, and that it would be less wasteful, more efficient, and minimise duplication of effort, if they merged.

    There is a logic to that suggestion – but I have reservations about how desirable it is. The urge to set up a charity is surely driven by the heart, not the head, and I would be disinclined to discourage that. In any case, I fancy small charities dip into a different pool for funding – and it would be folly to lose their enthusiasm. In my experience, they also offer small, anonymous acts of kindness, vital to the recipient, that may be overlooked by their larger brethren.

    Others – with an eye to the reputation of charities – have argued there is a strong case for charities to make a sound business case before they are formally registered. This I do agree with.

    As a general principle, I am not an admirer of regulators. I am therefore surprised to have reached the conclusion that we would be wise to expand the remit, and the funding, of the Charity Commissioners.

    I believe, in so doing, we can improve the chance of eliminating malpractice and scandals in a charity sector that has an annual income of nearly £70 billion. I see advantages in the Commission engaging with more charities and encouraging “friendly” mergers. They could act as a catalyst for change by encouraging charities to become transformative as well as palliative. If this is beyond their remit and resources now, then we need to change their remit and increase their resources.

    Today, I have no power and no public money at my disposal, but I care no less now than I did then. I also have a voice which – by and large – the poor don’t.

    And I wish to say – 25 years on – that we are still not a nation at ease with itself. Much has been done – is being done – to ease inequality, but we can do so much more.

    As the world becomes richer, inequality becomes less tolerable, and the case for reducing it more urgent. A crusade to widen prosperity more equally will not only ease hardship, it will build our national wealth – and health.

    I grew up in a community that had very little. I have been lucky, very lucky. But not everyone is. And it is for us – all of us – upon whose lives good fortune has shone, to do whatever we can, big or small, to ensure it shines on others, too.

    If you think this is a fanciful notion – and that nothing you can do will make a difference – think of Burnley. Think of Carillion in Liverpool.

    Think of those left behind. And you will realise that much can be done if the will is there.

    We have a choice. We can leave it all to Government – or we can all contribute, and ease inequality more comprehensively and more swiftly.
    It is up to us. It is our choice and I, for one, am clear about what that choice should be.

  • Article on HM Queen Elizabeth II in the Sunday Mail – 6 September 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on HM Queen Elizabeth II, published by The Sunday Mail on Sunday 6 September 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Princess Elizabeth was not born to be our Monarch: it was fate that made her so. When her uncle Edward VIII abdicated, her much loved father became King George VI, and she became heir to the throne.

    In 1952, by the age of 25, the young Princess had become Queen. On that day few, if any, could have imagined that she would still be on the throne 63 years later, having surpassed Queen Victoria as the longest-serving Monarch in 1,000 years of our history.

    Throughout her adult life, the Queen has dedicated herself to public service. You have to be aged over 70 to be able to recall any other face on our banknotes and postage stamps; and of the seven billion people in the world today, only one billion have known another British Monarch.

    She is the most widely travelled head of state in history: indeed around the world whenever anyone refers to ‘the Queen’, they mean our Queen. Her 63 years on the throne is, quite simply, an awe-inspiring achievement.

    When she took the Coronation Oath in 1953, the United Kingdom was still emerging from the aftermath of the Second World War. Her people had not forgotten the sacrifices of war. Some were still grieving for those who had perished, yet – with characteristic British spirit – they were determined to pull together to lift the nation out of its economic and social gloom. The Coronation inspired the British to put the grim days behind them.

    Hundreds of thousands lined the streets and many millions more crowded into the homes of neighbours to watch the procession and ceremony on small, flickering black-and-white television screens.

    Street parties celebrated the dawn of a second Elizabethan era and small children clutched treasured Coronation souvenirs. It was a time of hope and cheer – a new start – and no one who took part in the events of that day will ever forget them.

    The privations following war were easing, but far from ended. As a ten-year-old boy, I confess that one of my own personal highlights of 1953 was the end of sweet rationing – followed closely by eggs and sausages. For others, the beginning of Coronation year was less happy, as floods ravaged the east coast and caused huge devastation.

    But mostly it was a year of hope and triumphs. On the very morning of the Coronation, news came through that Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing had reached the peak of Everest.

    Some sporting heroes achieved lifelong ambitions. After 28 years of trying, Sir Gordon Richards finally won the Derby on Pinza. Stanley Matthews led Blackpool to victory over Bolton in the most famous FA Cup win of all time. And Len Hutton’s England team regained the Ashes at The Oval after years of Australian domination.

    Popular culture changed our world: James Bond made his debut in Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, while Bill Haley and the Comets introduced us to rock and roll music. It would be another ten years before we heard of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and then only on a mono record player.

    In the home, very few people knew the luxury of vacuum cleaners or washing machines, let alone tumble driers. Fewer than ten per cent of households possessed a refrigerator, and although the Coronation produced a surge in sales, there were only around 1.5 million households with a television, with BBC1 being the only channel, and the black-and-white image barely visible through the fuzzy screen. It would be another 15 years before we would see anything in colour. As for mobile phones and internet, such things would have been beyond anyone’s wildest imagination.

    For those of us who lived through this time, it seems like another age altogether.

    Overall, throughout the Queen’s reign, we in the United Kingdom have been lucky. We have known peace above war; prosperity above austerity; and, whatever hardships some may still face, we enjoy a quality of life in 2015 that is immeasurably better than it was in 1953.
    The Queen is as popular and revered today as when she was crowned, despite living through a world of enormous change.

    Since her Coronation, Man has walked on the Moon and explored far-away planets. The world’s population has more than doubled. Life-spans have dramatically increased as – for most, but not all – living standards have risen beyond any expectation.

    Around the world, politics and economics have shifted the global order. Change in every sphere of life shows no sign of stopping. Even the Royal Family – at the behest of the Monarch – has evolved. But amid all the change, the Queen has remained a constant – both here at home and overseas – for it is not only the people of the United Kingdom she serves: she is Queen to more than two billion people around the Commonwealth.

    At the time of her Coronation there were only seven nations in the Commonwealth. There are now 53. No one should underestimate the Queen’s dedication to, and affection for, her Commonwealth family. When consulted about how best to mark her Diamond Jubilee year of 2012, the Queen did not want memorials to commemorate the past; she wished to create a much more human legacy for the future. Thus, The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, of which I am chairman, was founded.

    With her active approval and support we have established two Commonwealth programmes: to end avoidable blindness; and, each year, to identify a group of young leaders who we hope will play a significant role in the future of their own nations and others. This is but one illustration of the Queen’s support for the Commonwealth, and her central role as its head.

    I attended the first award ceremony for these young leaders, which took place at Buckingham Palace last June.

    As each winner approached the Queen to receive their medal – many in national dress – I saw the future of the Commonwealth before me: beaming faces, bursting with pride as they represented their own home territory, full of hope, positivity, and the will and wish to work together in the name of their Queen. It was a truly moving occasion, the memory of which I will long cherish.

    The core of the Queen’s life – apart from family and long-standing friends – has been duty. Almost every day since her accession, she has received and read State papers. Each week she meets her Prime Minister in a private audience attended by no one else (except, perhaps, a few corgis).

    No notes are taken, no reports made, no subject is off-limits – and its privacy is total.

    The Queen’s first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill: it would be another 16 years before David Cameron was born. As one of the 12 who have occupied that office during her reign, I can say in all truth that – on matters of State – there is no one whose personal judgment I would value above that of the Queen.

    It is that unique, informed, experienced, yet impartial insight which is so valuable to the Government of the United Kingdom, and although it is a crucial aspect of her duties as Monarch, it is one which remains largely unknown.

    The Queen does not involve herself in party politics, but may well offer counsel – perhaps through well-directed questions – that any Prime Minister would be foolish not to consider with care. All of them soon learn that the Queen, far from being cut off from her people, is very much aware of the shifting tides of public opinion – indeed often ahead of it.

    Beyond her duties, the Queen has a private hinterland. No one – apart from her family and close confidants – can truly claim to know her thoughts and wishes. In addition to her expanding family, her affection for dogs and passion for horses is well-known – and widely shared across every part of our country. No one who has seen her walking her dogs in the early morning rain at Balmoral, or watching her horses race at Ascot, can doubt how deep, or how genuine, these interests are. When her horses win, her joy is absolute.

    While we honour this historic landmark, we must not overlook the service of the Duke of Edinburgh, who gave up a promising naval career to marry the young Princess Elizabeth.

    Through 67 years of marriage, he has been an unfaltering and indefatigable support to the Queen: a pivotal part of our ship of state. At the age of 94, he continues to play an important role in public life and, I believe, is held in greater affection today than ever before.

    How does one sum up our remarkable Monarch? Compassionate, shrewd, well-informed, pragmatic and wise, with an unshakeable commitment to duty – and a great sense of humour.

    Throughout her reign she has led by example and served our country well. She has entrenched a popular Monarchy so firmly in the affections of our nation that even the most hostile critics have been silenced.

    In an egalitarian age, this is an extraordinary achievement. As a nation we have been very lucky: in a world of change – the pace of which is often bewildering, even frightening – the Queen has provided a stability that is comforting and true.

    Nearly 70 years ago, the then Princess Elizabeth broadcast a message to the Commonwealth in which she pledged: ‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service…’

    In that, and so much else, HM Queen Elizabeth II has never failed us.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Singapore at 50 – 3 July 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Singapore at 50 Conference held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore on 3 July 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is now over 40 years since I first came to Singapore as a young Banker, and frequent visits since then have kept me abreast of the remarkable way in which it has developed.

    It has been an extraordinary evolution since independence, and especially since Singapore broke free of its relationship with Malaysia.

    It is sad that Lee Kuan Yew – such a magisterial figure in your history – is not here for your 50th Anniversary, but I’m delighted to share a platform with his successor – my good friend and colleague of many years, Goh Chok Tong.

    In this session we are looking at some of the new challenges faced by democratic governments. In the brief time available to us, I can only skim over the surface, but I hope to say enough to provoke debate.

    First, some context. We live in a new age, in which electors demand openness, freedom of information, and a swift response to public concerns. They are not remotely passive; they react swiftly and sharply to policies they dislike – sometimes even when they know those very policies are in the long-term interests of the country.

    This points up a structural change – in politics and government. As individuals become more assertive, it is far more difficult for the political parties that form governments to obtain – and then retain – support.

    Partisan allegiance to political philosophies is fading in many countries and, as unquestioning philosophical support falls away, governments must rely on popular and successful policies to retain support.

    In principle, this is excellent – thoroughly democratic – but it has a downside: success may take a long time, and holding on to public affection can drive government to short-term policies. This is the antithesis of what Singapore has always done – and an unwelcome trend.
    An even bigger problem is that market forces are becoming more powerful and national governments less so. This is the effect of a truly global market. Globalisation has implications for domestic governments.

    If a country is to compete in our global economy, external rules and regulations may have to be adopted; every nation’s currency becomes more sensitive to events – sometimes events on the far side of the world; inward investment must be attracted in the face of global competition; the price of essentials to everyday life – food, energy – may rise or fall as a result of external factors. All this is unsettling.

    And international agreements can demand unpopular action in a Nation State – on climate change, for example. Singapore illustrates this: as a low lying island State, Singapore needs sensible policies on global warming from nearby States: notably China, India and Indonesia. But such policies are often unpopular in those countries.

    We could all extend this list in our world of inter-dependence. The plain truth is that – more now than in the past – governments are not in control of events – but are driven by them. Sometimes, election promises – made in good faith – have to be abandoned for reasons outside any national government’s control.

    All this can make for an uncomfortable democratic legitimacy. And it will not get any easier in the future.

    These dilemmas arise from a world changing faster than we have known. They leave governments struggling to keep up with new challenges – both domestically and in the wider world. They are expected to understand events, then analyse, and respond to them, but with the 24 hour professional media – they are rarely given much time to do so.

    This dilemma is more difficult for democracy than autocracy. Autocracy can make decisions and implement them speedily. Democracy is slow, often painstaking, because it has to obtain consensus and agreement.

    This may be less efficient management, but it is what the majority of public opinion demands. In the longer-term, democracy – the imposition of public will – is bound to prevail in any country that has fair elections.

    It is 25 years since Sir Tim Berners-Lee set out an idea at Cern that developed into the World Wide Web: it has changed our world.

    Moreover, it is largely uncontrolled by government – and, probably, uncontrollable in a free society.

    The Web continues to develop in a manner that is bound to influence and change government. It is casting a light on how people think and what they do in their professional and personal lives. We know more about one another – our fears, our hopes, our quirks – than ever before.

    The Web influences behaviour – for good or ill. It can offer truth or lies. It affects what people do. It might encourage some to take up charity work – or seduce others to become suicide bombers for an extremist sect, as it recently has a boy from Dewsbury in England.

    It can post, as one foolish man has done, security information that puts governments at risk and lives in peril. Almost nothing is off limits.

    People react to peer pressure, and the Web enhances that pressure.

    We can’t dis-invent the Web – nor should we wish to do so: it is a magnificent invention. The question for government is: can its misuse be controlled, and can it be used to improve the quality of life?

    I believe it can – but controlling misuse begs the question: what is misuse? It can’t be misuse simply by embarrassing governments – but it must be misuse where it aids illegality and crime: governments cannot ignore that.

    The plain truth is that social media has added a new dimension to the opportunities and pitfalls of government. It can either help or hinder. It can help because a direct form of communication can aid government in understanding public needs and attitudes and responding to them.

    This is a valuable tool that governments have barely begun to explore – let alone implement. They should do so.

    But it has a negative side, too. Social media can whip up opposition to decisions that are demonstrably necessary – but may be unpopular in the short-term: it is a medium that can force democratic politicians into an ill-thought-out response, or one that is, frankly, wrong.
    It can put enormous pressure on governments for an early decision, and pre-frame public attitudes before facts are fully explored – or explained. This is a truly negative development for good governance.

    We saw the power of social media in the Arab Spring. It supported and encouraged uprisings that brought down autocratic governments and dismissed long-term despots but – in the absence of order – left behind chaos that continues to destabilise countries across the Middle East.
    Good government requires tolerance and understanding by Governors and Governed alike and, at the moment, that is not available in many countries. As it settles down – it is, at present, in its infancy – social media can enhance tolerance or inspire chaos: hopefully, it will be the former.

    And, of course, it has highlighted the growing problem of terrorism which poses some acute dilemmas for democratic governments.

    Last year, there were over 13,000 terrorist attacks around the world – mostly in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. No other region had more than 1,000 incidents – but many countries were affected, and yet more will be.

    As this happens, it will create a friction between measures to protect the citizen – and measures to uphold civil rights. There is a delicate balance here.

    Secondary problems arise also for countries with no domestic terrorist threat – most obviously the problems of displaced persons and massive migration. No country dare be complacent.

    To many people in Singapore, the problems of the Middle East, of Syria and Iraq, may seem far away, but the ugly truth is that they are influencing jihadist groups worldwide.

    Nationals from the Philippines and Indonesia appear to be fighting in the Middle East. There are Maoist insurgents in Sri Lanka and jihadis in Pakistan and India. There are Muslim militants in Southern Thailand. The point is simple: no country is immune.

    Even Singapore – although serious counter-terrorism plans are in place – has had impressionable youths radicalised by Islamic State.

    A big question lies in front of government: how can they harness each aspect of modern technology – to improve governance and make life easier for the citizen.

    Some answers are obvious: technology and digital tools can target and deliver services better. They can improve access to services, ensure better traffic control and parking, be better informed on shortcomings to be corrected.

    All this is already being implemented in many parts of the world. “Smart” cities surely lie ahead – with digital advances enhancing urban living, using energy efficiently and engaging more actively with citizens. The scope here is obviously long-term – but almost infinite.

    One aspect of modern technology – cheap and easy communications – is already affecting human behaviour. I come from the age of the quill pen – but even I have come across Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, which can bring people together from every part of the world: on one level, this is a benevolent development that increases familiarity and can reduce or remove tensions.

    This is excellent – but again has risks attached to it: it can also be used to oppose, to frustrate, to magnify difficulties – all of which can complicate the exercise of government. And it can – indeed, is – being used to radicalise young minds.

    But I am optimistic that long-term advantages can outweigh short-term problems. Governments can use technology – and especially the Internet – to improve governance. The technological uses are frankly too wide and pervasive to mention here – except to note that they exist and are increasingly being implemented across the world.

    In nearly every aspect of our lives, technology can improve both business efficiency and services, although we have not yet remotely explored all the options.

    But we do know that the internet and social media is a valuable tool to obtain clarity about what electorates need and want.

    It can improve education enormously, and thus national economic well-being. The scope here – for young and old alike – is huge. The best lecturers – and minds – in the world can be available to everyone.

    This raises a mischievous question: in fifty years’ time, will we need universities? I hope so – believe so – but know others who take a different view!

    The internet can disseminate and receive information. “We didn’t know” – as an excuse for inaction by government or individuals – is on its way to becoming obsolete.

    It can cherry pick best practice from across the world.

    And, as it extracts information, it can spot trends – to plan policy for the future.

    One worry for government is whether social media can undermine or diminish them. The answer to that is that it can – and will – unless and until government becomes sufficiently familiar with it to regard it as an ally and not as a threat. Then it can – and, I believe, will – be a worthwhile ally.

    Let me summarise: in brief, social media will change the nature of government in ways we have not yet begun to realise. On the credit side, the information tools at its command will give government the ability and knowledge to target its policies more accurately, more inexpensively and more productively. It can help deliver better and more efficient government.

    Conversely, government will be under greater pressure to succeed, to be in touch, to reflect the public will. I suspect the impact of all these changes will be to make government more complex, and the public more demanding.

    One last question arises: why has Singapore – a small island State – been so successful in a world of many nations of greater size and with more resources?

    There are many reasons. But, at their heart, it is because Singapore has always judged what is in Singapore’s interest and acted with determination to implement it.

    Singapore looks to the future more rigorously than any nation I know. She has leveraged every opportunity to remain ahead of the curve: this conference illustrates that perfectly: each session celebrating fifty years of independence is geared to look to the future.

    That is why Singapore has succeeded in the past; and – I believe – why you will continue to succeed in the future.