The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2003

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to John Smith – 15 December 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s tribute to John Smith, made ten years after his death (12th May 1993) in December 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN SMITH QC

    It seems impossible that it is ten years since John Smith died.

    John was Leader of the Opposition during part of my time as Prime Minister and I learned to respect his skills as well as his principles. Although we were political opponents we were at ease in each other’s company and liked one another.

    I briefed him when appropriate and our exchanges remained private. I negotiated with him on Parliamentary matters and we often agreed. Where we did not, there was no rancour. After Prime Minister’s Questions, a raised eyebrow across the mace was a signal for us both to repair to my Office behind the Speaker’s Chair – for a whisky and an uninhibited chat that often covered the deficiencies of our respective colleagues.

    I was sitting at the Cabinet table in No. 10 when my private secretary came in with the news that John had died. It was tentative and uncertain at first but, sadly, was all too rapidly confirmed. I was immensely sad. John was a man of conviction and ability, with standards appropriate to high Office, and his loss to Parliament was personal as well as political.

    Would John have become Prime Minister? Yes, I think he would. We Conservatives had overstepped the normal span of Governmental life and were always likely to lose. It would have been a different form of Labour Government under his leadership: based on our private exchanges it would, I think, have concentrated far more on domestic matters and far less on foreign affairs.

    But this can only be conjecture: a malign fate has meant that we will never know. An anniversary tribute is well-deserved: John is still missed.

    December 2003

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Annual Barnett Lecture – 17 November 2003

    The text of John Major’s speech at the annual Barnett Lecture, held at Toynbee Hall in London on Monday 17th November 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    My theme tonight is change.

    We now live in a world without economic boundaries: crumbling for years they were finally smashed by technology.

    As the global economy has taken root, the command economy has taken flight.

    This economic wind is changing even the role of Government itself. Governments can wreck economies with bad policies, they can help build them up: but more than ever before the true engine of growth is private endeavour.

    As the unfettered power of Government diminishes, the power of markets increase. And technology has ensured that markets never sleep. We are now into a continuing revolution that will not settle down into a comfortable pattern: it will accelerate and grow.

    Much has changed in the last 15 years. Not only is the global economy a reality but one super power, the Soviet Union – for so long the glue that kept the West together – is no more. China has emerged from its chrysalis. World demand is tilting towards Asia and the economic challenges are more testing than even a decade ago.

    During much of the 1990’s the world enjoyed substantial growth with rising investment and low inflation but in the last few years, we have seen the flipside of that boom. None of the economic motors has been driving the world towards growth.

    There are bright spots. In the US, the economy is about to grow rapidly.

    Japan is showing renewed signs of economic life, even though her days of massive external investment are gone. Her potential is still huge, although, for the moment, she is merely limping towards recovery.

    China is a different case. She is enjoying rapid growth helped by massive inward investment and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. But China’s growth comes with a warning: so cost effective have they become that there is a risk that they will export price deflation.

    The political structure of the world is changing no less rapidly.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed we all rejoiced that the world was safer. It was: the threat of nuclear exchange between superpowers had fallen. But – in politics – the laws of unintended consequences can be harsh. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability.

    For example, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Probably not.

    Other consequences were more benevolent. Freed from Soviet control Eastern and Central Europe re-embraced democracy and much of it will soon swell the free market of the EU which – within a few years – will stretch from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia herself.

    For the moment, there is but one super-power – the US. America is the most powerful political, economic and military nation in the world: no-one can rival her. But, for America, this is not an undiluted benefit: it brings obligations as well as rights. Problems as well as opportunities.

    History is instructive here. When Britain had an Empire, we were widely detested. Hundreds of millions resented our power and envied our wealth. Even as they paid polite lip service to our face, they rejoiced if we were defeated or embarrassed.

    Today, that envy, that resentment, is directed against wealthy nations more generally – and especially against America and Britain, her closest ally. It will take wise and generous policy to turn that tide of opinion.

    It is easy to rail against the mighty – and we may see much of that in London this week – and often a proper sense of perspective is lost. I strongly support the right of people to protect against policies of which they disapprove. But let them remember. America is our closest economic and political ally: without her might at a time of peril, we might not enjoy the right to protest at all.

    In the post Soviet world, two military-political problems loom large: the threat of terrorism and the instability of the Middle East.

    The war in Iraq was very controversial – but no-one should weep for Saddam Hussein and his regime.

    They divided Iraq with terror and left fear, suspicion and hatred behind them. A once rich land became poor. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – mainly Shia – were murdered and ten times that number persecuted and driven from their homes.

    The aim of the coalition must be to bring stability to Iraq.

    This will not be easy. Ancient feuds run deep and each day terrorist attacks seek to make a difficult task – impossible.

    There are three main risks:

    (i) losing the tacit support of the Shia tribe;
    (ii) open conflict with Iran; or
    (iii) getting bogged down.

    All are possible.

    Yet, having invaded Iraq, we cannot turn our backs on it. We must aim to leave behind a free nation with a stable government. No-one should suppose this will be easy. It will not. It will be costly in cash and costly in troop deployment. If we cannot find the troops now, I fear we will need them later.

    But – and here is the conundrum – if it is later it may be longer before the security situation improves; longer before an Iraqi Government can be in place, and longer before we can leave Iraq. That equation – early troops and early withdrawal – or later troops and later withdrawal, is a harsh reality.

    One growing concern over the last few years – pre-dating the Iraq conflict – has been the growing division between much of the Arab and the non-Arab Moslem world and the Western democracies. A prime cause of this is the lack of progress in the Arab-Israel dispute.

    MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

    The question is: is a settlement achievable?

    Certainly, both sides need one. Israel needs security and recognition and acceptance by the Arab States: and Palestine needs a future. An active peace process is vital – without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem step too readily. We have seen too much of that in recent years as a low grade war has simmered, always at the risk of becoming a full scale war.

    The outline of a solution has long been clear. And yet, prospects of achieving it have rarely seemed as grim.

    During the last year, hope has been hijacked as attitudes have hardened.

    Israel has faced a spate of suicide bombings that are part of a deliberate strategy. Wicked men have encouraged foolish young men and women to become human bombs in Israel. The carnage has been frightful.

    In a bleak year, over 400 Israelis have been killed. Many thousands more have been injured. For the third year running the economy has contracted, leaving unemployment at 10% – the highest the State of Israel has ever known.

    And Israelis notice that the Palestinians do not regret the violence of the Intafada.

    It has been bleak for the Palestinians too.

    They have seen:

    – their society fragmented and collapsing;
    – their economy all but destroyed;
    – malnutrition in Gaza rising to a par with the Congo;
    – 30% of Palestinians living on food handouts;
    – 60% living on two dollars a day;
    – and 87% of Palestinian families having one or more family members suffering from psychological difficulties.

    And Palestinians notice that Israel is unrepentant about occupying Palestinian areas.

    Out of that mutual despair, is there any scope for optimism?

    The essentials of this conflict have been unchanging for a long time. There is no new proposal for peace that will suddenly be seized on by all sides. The biggest change needed is one of attitude.

    No-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. It will not be easy to wring out the compromises that both Israel and the Palestinians must make.

    PM Sharon has spoken recently of “painful concessions”; “a Palestinian State”; and “no military solution”. What this implies is unclear – and must necessarily be so – but it must involve compromise on settlements and the line of route of any partition wall.

    A reality check tells us also that the exercise of American power and American diplomacy is crucial to progress for history suggests it is unlikely that a purely bilateral deal can be done – especially now for the Palestinians are in disarray and there is no clear authority in Ramallah.

    A solution to Iraq may change the whole face of the Middle East but a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict would assuredly do so.

    TERRORISM

    This week there is unprecedented security in London. The fear is terrorism. Over many years terrorism has grown bolder and more deadly.

    On 9/11 it over-reached itself and led democracy to declare War on Terror.

    This cannot be a short-term war. It will not be won in this Presidency. Or the next. Or the one after that.

    Terrorism isn’t a nation.

    Terrorism is Al-Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; … the list goes on. Groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money hidden as effectively as their men and weapons.

    In the mind of the terrorist, no-one, nowhere is immune: not New York, not Baghdad, not London nor even – you may remember – Warrington, where a few years ago – on a sunny Easter Saturday morning I shall never forget – two young boys aged 12 and 3 left home to buy Easter eggs for their family. They never returned: their tiny bodies caught in the eye of an IRA blast.

    The question is: is such a war winnable at all? With one proviso the answer is yes. The proviso is this: we are unlikely to eliminate terrorism entirely because as terrorist groups are beaten back they are likely to splinter into smaller, more radical groups, with more extreme agendas.

    But what we can do is cut back their threat, and lower their potency to a wholly different level.

    To do this, we need international co-operation: especially from countries within whose borders the terrorists take shelter.

    Many of these are Moslem which is a further reason why we need to improve our relationship with them.

    But we need to hurt the terrorists in another way too.

    We need to cut off the flow of their support and, to do that, we need democracy to tackle the grievances that act as the Recruiting Sergeants for militancy.

    These go beyond Iraq and the Arab-Israel dispute.

    We should never lose sight of the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer and the undeveloped nations fall further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption, poverty and the growing epidemic of AIDS condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship.

    Some may say – well, it’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem. Maybe, but we have to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility this causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Self-interest joins with common humanity to suggest we should help. If we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we will help ourselves. In removing grievances we cut away the resentment of the “have nots” for the “haves”.

    In the 1940s/50s, the US launched a Plan to deliver Aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of wars. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    In a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations together would be wise to consider another such un-sordid act.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when?

    Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act now, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will under-cut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    Let me say a word about domestic politics.

    We are at an immensely fluid time at present.

    The old verities can no longer be relied upon. Every child is no longer – as W S Gilbert wrote – a little liberal or a little Conservative. Or even a little supporter of old or new Labour.

    For generations our politics was largely based on a familiar combination of class, of background and an affiliation to one of the competing philosophies of socialism or the free market. For those political non-conformists who wished to plague both the main political houses, the Liberal Party offered themselves as a safe haven.

    All that is going. The old politics is dying.

    Today’s voters are less interested in ideology and more fluid in voting intention. They are bored with the old arguments and the familiar jibes. They are also puzzled because nothing is clear-cut any more.

    This leads to the widespread (but mistaken) view that “they’re all the same” and “nothing makes any difference”. The result is a General Election with a turnout of under 60%: in which the “don’t knows” and the “won’t votes” score more highly than the winning Party.”

    No-one should dismiss this turnout in 2001 as a “blip”, brought about solely because one Party was unappealing and another not yet seen to be ready for Government. The malaise is deeper and needs to be remedied.

    An underlying problem is that the Commons has been losing status for some years. Some of this is inevitable. Some of the powers it had have been lost to the impact of the global economy. The world has changed and vital decisions must often be reached in wider fora: in the G7, the UN or – most likely – the EU. The Commons has also actively surrendered decision-making making internally to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Mayor of London, the Northern Ireland Assembly and – very possibly – a wide range of Regional Assemblies as well. Its decisions, therefore, are often less relevant to more people.

    To balance this, the Commons must look seriously at reform: and by reform I do not mean the pale-pink changes that have been made to “modernise” it. Many of these are for the convenience of MPs and I have no intrinsic objection to that: but they are irrelevant to the need for Parliament to re-assert its authority over the Executive and improve its capacity to influence long-term decisions.

    Our present and future Governments, face complex problems – the consequences of an ever more elderly population – especially upon Pension policy; the need for far higher education standards than we have been able to deliver; – the list is endless.

    None of them are easy.

    None can speedily be remedied. None benefit from the ‘yah-boo’ exchanges that so dismay the political onlooker or the character assassination that has swept into fashion.

    All need a strong, virile Parliament and not a powder-puff legislature dancing to the party games of yore. If the institution declines; if respect is lost for that; if politics is seen as a game not as an essential bulwark of our constitution and our liberties, then we are in serious trouble.

    My theme tonight has been one of change: let me try and bring it together.

    CHANGING WORLD

    In a world of bewildering change, the speed of medical advance is staggering and the demand for medical services is infinite. It will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy. It will be common place for today’s children to live beyond 90 years of age. What changes may they see?

    As so often, the past may give us an idea of the scale of change in the future.

    Last year, I attended the funeral of Her Majesty the Queen Mother and, as I sat in Westminster Abbey I pondered upon the remarkable advances the world has seen during the 100 years of her life.

    At her birth, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Primitive typewriters, vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future. Marie Curie had not discovered radium; nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity. As a child, she would have remembered the amazement – possibly even disbelief – at the news of Count Zeppelin designing a machine that would fly. It would be twenty-five years before Lindburgh would pilot the “Spirit of St Louis” to Paris. Consider what has happened, within the period of that one very long life:

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface. Only Siam had never been governed by the Europeans.

    Even the United States was still a debtor nation, financed largely by the City of London.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French Empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China – after 3,000 years of isolation – on course to become her greatest rival. Europe is building unity on the back of 1,000 years of war and establishing a free trade area from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation.

    They will see the deserts bloom.

    See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    CONCLUSION

    Against the enormous changes that are taking place, we need a longer term approach to policy and an end to the travesty of “sound-bite politics”.

    Soundbite is quite simply a fraud: falsely promises an easy solution to a complex problem. Easy – no problem. Problem – not solved by soundbite.

    The events of 9/11 are giving us a masterclass in consequences. We need politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities.

    I will read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:

    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.

    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.

    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.

    For the want of a rider the message was lost.

    For the want of a message the battle was lost.

    For the want of a battle the war was lost.

    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.

    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

    Benjamin Franklin, 1758

    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can be triggered by one single incident.

    If it was true in the world of 18th century – it is even more true in the hectic global world of 21st century.

    This world is competitive. Complex. Confusing. And always changing. This is our world, and we would be wise to reflect with care upon how it is and plan for how it could be – for the possibilities are infinite and constrained only by our imagination and our endeavour.

  • Mr Major’s Article on HRH The Prince of Wales – 16 November 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on HRH The Prince of Wales, published in The Sunday Times on 16th November 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    These have been dire days for the Royal Family. The “revelations” of a former butler have been followed by wholly uncorroborated – and deeply unpleasant – allegations about an incident involving Prince Charles.

    I have known the Prince of Wales for nearly 20 years and believe the allegations to be inconceivable; indeed, they are so outrageous they should never have been aired without evidence – of which there is none.

    They derive solely from a sick man known to be an unreliable witness; a man whose previous stories have been proved to be untrue; a man suffering from traumatic stress disorder; a man who has received psychological care; a man evidently in a poor mental and physical state who may not appreciate fully what he is saying and the pain and distress it causes. Poor Mr George Smith, the source of these stories, needs medical care not banner headline publicity and I am astounded that worldly-wise media outlets – whilst privately acknowledging the unlikelihood of the allegations – should have created such a storm. Ultimately, it will abate – not least because the claims are so fanciful – but there is debris and damage in its wake, together with further sordid cuttings to be drawn upon in the future.

    Moreover, these allegations have not been confined to our own shores, but have created ever more sensational headlines around the world. As it becomes clear they are groundless, what corrective headlines will there be? Precious little, I imagine: headline material is not re-visited when stories are proved to be wrong; nor is much prominence given to the fact that the claims are discredited as well as discreditable.

    I wonder sometimes at the motives of these tale bearers. What is it – money? The desire for publicity? Revenge? And why are such fanciful stories aired – is it the basic commercial need to create news and sell newspapers whatever the personal cost may be? How is it possible to ignite worldwide interest in something so obviously untrue?

    Are we now in a world in which peep-hole journalism will print anything – true or false, that is said by anyone – sick or healthy, on the grounds that the subject is a public figure and therefore the public has a “right to know”? What sort of “right” is this? A right to know of lies; a right to know of smears and innuendo; if this is the future, it is a bleak one for us all.

    When The Queen referred to 1992 as an Annus Horribilis neither she, nor anyone else, could have dreamt that members of Her Family would still be under sustained, and unjustified, attack a full decade later. Nor could the Prince of Wales have imagined he would still be a favourite target in the shooting gallery.

    The Prince of Wales does not deserve this. Throughout the whole of his adult life, public duty and obligation have been his backbone. Nor is this simply his perception of the role of a Royal: he is a man who cares – perhaps too much – and must be left bewildered over how his best intentions can so often be distorted.

    In areas where the Prince is open to criticism, it has been poured upon him in rich measure. No-one should imagine that his high position protects him: in fact, the converse is true and with each fresh batch of headlines, his critics become bolder and less inhibited by fact.

    Nor is the Prince of Wales the only victim of this on-going feeding frenzy: the pain and distress falls upon wholly innocent shoulders as well. Prince William and Prince Harry have lived through a decade of storms. Notwithstanding their heartache at the break-up of their parents’ marriage – as traumatic for them as for any other children in similar circumstances – they had the added torment of seeing their mother hunted and haunted by the demands of an insatiable media up to the very moment of her tragic death. Now they see the full focus of calumny turned upon their only surviving parent to whom they are so close.

    I have never written or spoken of the occasional privileged access that I have had to the Royal Family – but one small glimpse into their private lives might illustrate the concern I feel for the impact of publicity upon the two Princes. A few years ago, I called on the Prince of Wales early one morning. We talked over the breakfast table. Prince William listened avidly whilst the younger Prince Harry interested himself in the sports pages of the morning press. After a while, Prince Harry put the paper aside and both sons turned towards their father.

    There was not a shred of doubt about the affection on those young faces; even less doubt that it was returned. Here was no dysfunctional unit but a family bonded by the humour, teasing and loving concerns that characterise the very best of family relationships. Perhaps those who have no mercy upon the Prince of Wales might reflect upon the secondary agonies they inflict upon his children? Most especially, perhaps, Prince William. As he moves into adulthood his obligations as second in line to the Throne will become a greater part of his life. Having witnessed through childhood the malicious treatment of those he has loved most in the world, he would have good reason to look into the future with a heavy heart. It is a measure of the man he has become that he does not.

    I wrote earlier of the “right to know”: and there is much the world does have a right to know about the Prince of Wales. They should know he founded his own charity, The Prince’s Trust, to help the least privileged in our society. They should know this is a consuming interest for him and that, as a result, many thousands of young people are helped annually to overcome hardship and achieve their ambitions. They should know the Prince is a redoubtable defender of our Armed Forces; that he has the courage to speak out for unfashionable causes; and that he speaks passionately in private for those who cannot speak for themselves.

    Inside the public Prince is a private man, a sensitive man, a man who hopes for personal tranquillity. Despite a brave outward demeanour, he must have been wounded by recent publicity because – knowing it to be untrue – he will not understand why it has been given such currency. If that is too innocent, too naïve, for a man born to be King, then I much prefer such human vulnerability, to the knowing cynicism that so often masquerades as worldly wisdom.

    One day, Prince Charles will be King: the most visible presence of our Monarchy and the symbol of our Country to the world. To pull him down with false testimony is not only profoundly unjust to the Prince of Wales as an individual, it is also a grave injustice to the interests of the institution of Monarchy and our Nation as a whole.

  • John Major’s Book for the CPS – The Erosion of Parliamentary Government – 15 October 2003

    The text of John Major’s book written for the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) entitled “The Erosion of Parliamentary Government”, published in October 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    THE AUTHOR

    The Rt Hon John Major CH was Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1990 to 1997, having previously served as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon from 1979 to 2001. Since leaving politics, he has returned to business in the private sector. He also lectures around the world and is active in many charities.

    The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation. The views expressed in our publications are, however, the sole responsibility of the authors. Contributions are chosen for their value in informing public debate and should not be taken as representing a corporate view of the CPS or of its Directors. The CPS values its independence and does not carry on activities with the intention of affecting public support for any registered political party or for candidates at election, or to influence voters in a referendum.

    CONTENTS

    Prologue

    The Decline of Democracy

    The Decline of Parliament

    The Politicisation of the Civil Service

    The Manipulation of Government Information

    Conclusion

    Prologue

    In the six years since leaving Downing Street, I have been approached almost daily and invited to express my views on the Government, the Opposition or the issue of the moment.

    Generally, I have resisted. As well I know, government is a tricky business and I have a degree of sympathy for the mistakes that are sometimes made – often for reasons not apparent to the casual observer.

    And so, by and large, I have kept my counsel and remained silent – even when provoked by former friend or foe. It has not always been easy but it has been right. The resignation of Alastair Campbell and the evidence revealed to the Hutton Inquiry have drawn attention to much that is wrong in the way that New Labour governs our country. But these, and the many other similar issues that have arisen over the last few years, are merely symptoms of a far deeper malaise: a malaise that is undermining Parliamentary democracy itself. I do not pretend that we have reached the point at which this is irreversible. But I do believe that if we do not act now, then it may become too late. In such a situation it is necessary to speak out. And – perhaps – it would even be cowardly not to do so.

    When style and substance intermingle in politics, substance must predominate: where it does not, the fall-out can be unpredictable and far-reaching. New Labour’s obsession with spin, with style, with perception, has given it great presentational successes. But our political system has paid a high price as, on occasion, have its own most skilful practitioners. Slick presentation has proved to be the forerunner of distrust.

    The Decline of Democracy

    We take democracy so much for granted in our country that we scarcely notice any longer whether it exists; how it is exercised; or the ways in which it is being undermined.

    The visible structures appear intact: mature political parties; a universal adult franchise; free elections with a specified maximum term of office; a two-tier Parliament supreme in authority; an independent Head of State; the rule of law; an impartial Civil Service; a free press; traditions of behaviour that amount to hidden institutional safeguards and restraints [1]. It is familiar and comforting.

    Indeed, so familiar and comforting that we have scarcely noticed that the timbers which support it are creaking and diseased; and are in danger of collapse. The structures remain but many of them are being hollowed out. The erosion is evident from the top to the bottom.

    At the grassroots, our political parties are shrinking in membership from mass movements to the size of special interest groups. The old convictions and prejudices that sustained them through the generations have been replaced by widespread disinterest and complacency. The broad mass of the nation is detached from politics. Many feel a distaste for it. They do not share the ancient tribal loyalties and look askance at the enthusiasts who underpin our system, attend party conferences, and work for the local party machine. W S Gilbert once wrote that every child was “a little Liberal or a little Conservative”. If any lyricist did so today, he or she would be regarded as seriously out of touch.

    Our democracy owes a great debt to grassroots activists. But that should not blind us to the reality that all the party machines are moribund, near bankrupt, unrepresentative and ill-equipped to re-enthuse the electorate as a whole.

    Nothing is clear cut any more. These days, New Labour ministers are political cross-dressers with a policy portfolio borrowed heavily from their Conservative predecessors and a hard nose for social policy that a Victorian capitalist would envy.

    No wonder our largely apolitical electorate is puzzled. But it is not the only puzzle. The widespread (but mistaken) view that “they’re all the same” and “nothing makes any difference” has led to a General Election turnout of under 60%, with the “don’t knows” and the “won’t votes” scoring as highly as the winning party. The campaigners for universal suffrage would have agonised had they lived to see such a day.

    No-one should dismiss the turnout at the last election as a “blip”, brought about solely because New Labour was unappealing and the Conservatives unready. The malaise is deep and is getting worse: it needs to be understood and acted upon.

    The Decline of Parliament

    The rot in our political system is not only at its roots: it is evident in Parliament, too.

    The behaviour of individual MPs is the lesser part of the mosaic of disregard for Parliament but it cannot be ignored. Parliament has always contained a number of bad hats. But their ruthless exposure over the last decade, aggravated by the unappealing public response of some of the miscreants, has been damaging. In the 1990s, the Labour spin machine in opposition, allied to elements of a receptive media, was so successful in labelling the Conservative Party as a whole with the sins of individual members, that it was able to damn the Conservative Government, too. But the appetite for scandal, once awakened, is not easily sated and, since 1997, it has repeatedly come back to harm and undermine New Labour.

    The failings of a minority of politicians should not be allowed to get out of proportion. Most Members of Parliament have standards comparable to the general public and the Commons is big enough to deal with the abuses of those that do not: far more dangerous is the institutional undermining of our political system.

    This arises if any major party is careless of Parliamentary traditions and propriety; if its use of power becomes an abuse of it; if it resorts to character assassination as a political weapon. Our present Government has all these traits.

    New Labour has certainly not been ‘purer than pure’: the Prime Minister’s famous promise has not been kept. Since 1997, New Labour offenders have been far closer to the centre of power than their much-maligned predecessors: moreover, there is a perception that New Labour’s failings may have influenced government policy [2]. This charge is vigorously denied. But the suspicion is vivid enough for it to linger since the age of spin has made reality of perception.

    And the perceptions are damaging. When senior members of the Labour Party were investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, there appeared to be an organised attempt to obstruct the inquiries or to withhold proper co-operation. This perception deepened when the Prime Minister established a Committee to examine issues relating to Standards in Public Life and then refused to let his own key officials appear before it. These are murky depths. It is no surprise that many of the public are disillusioned with politics.

    All these are factors in the fall in the reputation of the House of Commons. There are wider elements as well. While some of these are inevitable they have rendered it less influential in our lives.

    Vital decisions are today often decided in wider fora: in the G7, the UN or – most likely – the EU. This is understood broadly by electors but bitterly resented by swathes of opinion – with the European Union a special target.

    An antipathy to the EU is the Approved Text for many commentators, part of the Conservative Parliamentary Party and, re-emerging once again, Labour anti-Europeans. This is not the place to examine this phenomenon in depth, except to note that it does reflect the distaste felt by many people that decisions affecting the UK are no longer the sole prerogative of our Parliament. The fact that it is part of our bargain with Europe – we surrender some of our powers and gain some of theirs – does not assuage deeply felt reservations. The House of Commons is losing control over decision making and, as it does so, many in the electorate look on in disinterest, not least because of the peripheral factors that have brought politics into disrepute.

    Nor is this the only loss. As part of this Government’s policy, Parliament has surrendered decision making within the UK to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Mayor of London and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It looks set to do so to Regional Assemblies as well. As devolution grows, the corollary is inevitable: power is sucked from the Westminster Parliament.

    I have never been in favour of devolved Assemblies except in Northern Ireland where, for decades, Ulster politicians had no responsibility whatever for policy. Yet even there I favoured only very restricted powers. My fear was that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom as a single entity and that this would diminish our influence in the EU and around the world. That has not happened yet: but it still might. That is why I resisted Scottish and Welsh demands for their own Parliaments. Time alone will prove whether I was right or wrong to do so but it is certain that the Conservative Party paid a heavy political price for putting long-term concerns for our country before short-term party political self-interest. We were pro a United Kingdom not anti Scotland or Wales. Alas, it was not seen that way.

    New Labour took a more populist and self-interested view and implemented changes that were poorly thought through: even Scots, proud of the principle of Home Rule, admit that its implementation has been a shambles. An overwhelming majority of Scots demanded devolved powers. But – if devolution had to be ceded – it should not have been done in a fashion that was politically motivated to benefit the Labour Party; that was a one-way advantage for Scotland at the expense of England; that ignored the knock-on effect across the UK; and that distorted the electoral make-up of the Commons.

    It was tactless beyond belief to appoint Dr John Reid, a Scottish MP as Secretary of State for Health in England. Even worse, it is wholly wrong that Scottish MPs are entitled to vote on legislation at Westminster affecting England yet not vote on similar legislation affecting their own constituencies: it is also a scandal that English MPs cannot vote on comparable legislation affecting Scotland. New Labour’s devolution was tantamount to gerrymandering an electoral system already biased in their favour by grotesque boundary changes to constituencies. These have resulted in a situation in which the Conservative Party needs an 8% lead in votes over Labour to win the same number of seats; in a system in which vigorous politics offers the best safeguard of individual freedoms, this cannot be acceptable. Parliament loses because Labour has chosen to ignore this anomaly so that it might benefit from it.

    Parliament has lost elsewhere, too. The Mayor of London has responsibility without power and without resources in an experiment that, if left unchanged, will bring nothing but grief to London as well as to both present and future Governments. The Mayor needs either more resources or fewer responsibilities.

    Monetary policy has also been subcontracted to the Bank of England and could, at some future date – possibly in the next Parliament – find a new home with the European Central Bank.

    Some of these changes have merit – arguably some have significant merit. But all of them are consistent in only one regard: they all reduce the power of Parliament. One by one its prerogatives are going. It is debilitating. So are some of the changes within the House of Commons itself.

    This has been exacerbated by the Government’s disregard, sometimes contempt, for the Commons. Labour uses its majority as a rubber stamp. Select Committees are ignored or suborned. Complex Bills are poorly scrutinised as the Government is bound to get its way. And if the House of Lords attempts to block or amend legislation, which is its legitimate role, it is discredited and attacked. Already it has been mutilated and fears abolition.

    Since 1997, Parliament has been downgraded in more subtle ways, too. Major policy statements have been made outside it, or leaked, before a Parliamentary announcement. This may be a good way to control media coverage but it is bad for democracy. During World War II, Winston Churchill, took the Commons into his confidence and treated it with courtesy and respect – together with his personal presence as far as circumstances allowed. Lord Jenkins made this point in his recent biography. The present Prime Minister rarely attends the House, except when unavoidable, and votes irregularly: the precedent here is Lloyd George’s behaviour from 1918 to 1922. Such disregard extends to the traditional courtesies: informal consultation with the Leader of the Opposition – or between front-benchers – is minimal.

    Prime Minister’s Questions has degenerated to pointless farce. Its purpose was never so much to impart or extract information, as to embarrass the Prime Minister – or, in the Prime Minister’s eyes – to expose the inexperience of the Opposition. This, curiously, had a point. If the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition could prevail in head-to-head combat, he rallied his troops and gained in authority.

    Now, the triviality of the exchanges has robbed the circus of even that benefit. The Hutton Inquiry has revealed the extent to which the Prime Minister’s responses and emotions are pre-scripted by others. Questions are rambling, often planted by the Whips onto pliant backbenchers, and partisan to the point of irrelevance. Up to a point this has always happened – it was not perfect in my day nor before – but never was it abused with the orchestration that pervades today. Critical questions rarely elicit an answer, or even rational argument, and are more likely to stimulate a patronising jeer or a party political rant in response. It is time to reform this farce or abandon it. Question Time to Ministers is becoming equally pointless. The loser, again, is Parliament.

    Parliament has been weakened, too, by the Government’s policy towards the House of Lords. The abolition of the hereditary peers was a populist – and to many, popular – policy. But, for those who wish to see an effective Upper House, it was a mistake: it robbed Parliament of a revising chamber of talent and experience and independent thought. Hereditary legislators were a soft target to attack but, if they had to go, they should have been replaced by others with similar virtues. They were not.

    The House of Lords should have more power: there is much it could usefully do. It could improve the quality of our law by pre-legislative scrutiny of Green Papers, thereby foreshadowing changes in the law. It could monitor the resulting Act of Parliament to see how it worked in practice. It could examine and take evidence publicly on draft Treaties. It could establish a Standing Committee on Ethics as moral and personal questions on human behaviour and scientific research become more difficult to adjudicate upon. It could maintain a Standing Constitutional Committee… all this and more would be useful.

    I do not agree with the current vogue for a largely elected Second Chamber. Yes – it would be democratic. But No – it would not be an improvement. It would replace nominated leading figures from industry, trade unions, education, the military, the civil service, the media and elsewhere with elected career politicians who failed to make it to the House of Commons. First-rate independent minds who have made it to the top of their professions would be replaced by second-rank politicians whose Party Whips would do their thinking for them. A pale imitation of the Commons would be pointless. And it would further diminish Parliament.

    I understand the urge for the legitimacy of election but it is a poor bargain for electors: a less talented House of Lords stuffed with more professional politicians is the wrong prescription for our democratic deficit.

    If not election, what? Prime Ministerial appointment alone is no longer acceptable (although any mechanism must provide nomination by political leaders with the intention of maintaining a proper balance in the Upper House). We continue to need a system to nominate leading public figures to maintain and reflect the wide experience now available to the Lords.

    And in my view, it should remain “the House of Lords”. Its members should continue to be Peers: to change the name would be pointless if it is to serve its traditional role as a revising Chamber and to withhold the courtesy of the title would be petty.

    The Politicisation of the Civil Service

    The neutrality of the Civil Service is vital and must be protected. Civil Servants support the policies of the elected Government but are trusted by politicians of every political complexion who acknowledge their political impartiality. This impartiality is now in danger of being compromised [3].

    Civil servants need to be confident that preferment is based on merit; and that the civil service ethic is not diluted by politically motivated appointments. The barriers between carrying out the policy of the elected Government and offering support to the politics of the majority party is often a fine one: but it existed and was honoured. It was policed by the Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries and was jealously guarded. Thus, when a senior Civil Servant spoke, he was believed. He gave the facts without gloss. This was our tradition and the need to observe the proprieties imposed a great and valuable discipline upon Ministers.

    Yet there is genuine concern that the present Government has imposed changes in attitude and structure that have undermined this impartiality. The effect of their actions, whether intended or not, is to begin politicising the Civil Service: too many Ministers behave as if officials should be committed extensions of the New Labour project.

    A similar mindset has led to the unseemly sight of Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, openly blaming the Civil Service for errors that have in the past been accepted as the responsibility of Ministers – and still should be. New Labour’s blame culture must, over time, damage the advice offered to Ministers and prejudice the loyalty and impartiality of the Civil Service.

    This changed philosophy is evident in Downing Street. The tone was set by the appointment of a special adviser, instead of a career Civil Servant, as de facto the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister with authority over career civil servants. This position is crucial. The Principal Private Secretary is the gateway to the Prime Minister. He has always had the vital role of ensuring the proper flow of non-political advice and analysis from civil servants – alongside more politically slanted advice. He also has oversight of the priorities – and the proprieties – of the Prime Minister’s diary. Putting a political appointee in such a sensitive post has lost the non-partisan propriety safeguard and it risks exposing the Prime Minister. A case in point is the Prime Minister’s meeting with Mr Bernie Ecclestone over the issue of tobacco advertising and Formula One – and the quite extraordinary absence of a file note detailing the exchanges. Nor can it be right – or wise – for the superintendent of Labour’s ‘Blind Trust’ of donors in opposition to be the quasi civil servant who is the guardian of access to the Prime Minister.

    The position worsened further after those initial ill-advised appointments. Professor Peter Hennessy, the Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History was right when he said, in a Royal Society of Arts lecture, [4] that the present reorganisation of No 10 shows:

    …a special adviser atop all three segments of the rejigged No. 10 – Jonathan Powell, the PM’s Chief of Staff leading the fused Policy Unit and Private Office now known as the ‘Policy and Government Division’; Alastair Campbell, the PM’s Director of Communications and Strategy, leading a division of that name; and Baroness Morgan, the PM’s Director of Government Relations, heading the ‘Government and Political Relations’ Division.

    Reporting to Powell were not only Jeremy Heywood, the PM’s Principal Private Secretary (formerly the head of the Civil Service-manned Private Office), Wendy Thomson, Michael Barber and Geoff Mulgan but also the two new post-2001 election amphibians, the career diplomats Sir Stephen Wall, the PM’s European Adviser, who also heads the Cabinet Office’s European Secretariat, and Sir David Manning, the PM’s Foreign Policy Adviser and head of the Cabinet Office’s Overseas and Defence Secretariat.

    So the traditional – and deliberate – distinctions between No. 10 Private Office and the rest of Downing Street, and the Cabinet Secretariat from No. 10 had gone.

    The Manipulation of Government Information

    The pattern of by-passing the independence of the Civil Service was set in May 1997. The number of political advisers soared [5] as Labour stalwarts moved into the public sector resulting in 10 Downing Street becoming more akin to Labour Party HQ. One by one, the Government Information Officers – the civil service interface between the Government and the media, and the guarantee of impartial and honest answers – were dismissed or forced out. The No. 10 Press Office was politicised and the cult of spin was let loose. All the new political appointees were paid out of the public purse.

    Spin is the pornography of politics. It perverts. It is deceit licensed by the Government. Statistics massaged. Expenditure announced and reannounced. The record reassessed. Guilt declared. Innocence proclaimed. Black declared white: all in a day’s work.

    From the moment New Labour saw the value of spin, the truth became partisan. The outgoing Conservative Government was to be abused: no piece of character assassination, no lie, no half-truth, no insult was to be missed. Nor were they the only target. Others who embarrassed the Government – even non-politicians such as the 94 year old hospital patient, Mrs Rose Addis or train campaigner Mrs Pam Warren – were all part of the shooting gallery. So too, at one time was “psychologically disturbed” Gordon Brown; and Mo Mowlam, who had committed the sin of being too popular. All were abused and smeared to serve the contemporary interests of the Government at the expense of the reputation of the conduct of politics generally. Nothing on this scale has been seen in modern British politics. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have individual citizens – unconnected with politics – ever been targeted before.

    In its hey-day, the daily line from No. 10 was ruthlessly disseminated. It was formidable propaganda. The Press became the receptacle of Orwellian attempts to manage the news. Favoured journals – and journalists – were given scoops. Others were frozen out to bring them to heel. Independent thought among MPs was discouraged – if not forbidden. Opinions were fed to the timid on their pagers. Some spin doctors crashed in flames though not without a legacy: the five Tests for the Euro, which the Chancellor would still have us believe are Holy Writ, were invented over a weekend to resolve a problem created by a leak from Gordon Brown’s then spin doctor, Charlie Whelan, an aficionado of the Red Lion Pub in Whitehall.

    If the old Government Information Service was bypassed, it was not alone. Advisers from outside Government have flourished. The wholly unaccountable Lord Levy became the PM’s special envoy in the Middle East: yet I doubt he was better informed than our most senior diplomats. When Mr Blair wished to visit President Assad, an envoy was approached to check the lie of the land: it is not clear why our Ambassador in Damascus could not perform this function which is – historically at least – the sort of thing he was sent there to do.

    Some months ago – after a piece of underhand dealing was exposed, the Prime Minister said – or was it his spokesman and does the distinction matter any more? – that “what was appropriate in opposition was not appropriate in government.” If one decodes this sentence, it means it was acceptable to lie about the Conservatives in the 1990s because they were unpopular, and the media played up to the tales being peddled. Now, however, as the scales fall from everyone’s eyes and as the public becomes familiar with the tactics used by New Labour, we are told it is necessary to move on. Once spokesmen said that they had nothing to add to the words of Ministers. Now we are apt to hear that Ministers have nothing to add to the words of spokesmen.

    The art of misrepresentation for political advantage is not new. While I am comfortable that, in my own Administration, we never set out to deceive, it would be naïve to suppose that no one will dispute the meaning and intent of specific statements and events: all Administrations face this.

    But what sets this Government apart is the scale and pre-meditation of its spin operation. Nor did it start when New Labour came to office: as we have seen, it perfected this black art when it was in opposition. The result is a cynicism now so deep-rooted among the electorate that when the Government’s spin merchant-in-chief said spinning had gone too far, the public suspected it was only spin that made him say so. And when he eventually resigned, few were surprised that No. 10 briefed that spin would be put aside. I suspect that their attempt to spin against spin convinced no one but the most gullible or the most partisan.

    It is fatal to the conduct of policy if the word of any Government is disbelieved until proven beyond doubt to be true. The erosion of trust has now reached the point where it is undermining the ability of the Government to call on the trust of the people – as recently, for example, on Iraq. New Labour cannot complain if their word is not taken at face value: it is their own behaviour that has brought this about.

    This breakdown in trust between the Government, the media and the public has been recognised in the interim report of the Phillis Review. And some of the recommendations that have been made are welcome – in particular the need to re-establish clearer guidelines between the responsibilities of civil servants on the one hand and special advisers on the other. It is also to be hoped that the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary to oversee the Press Office will restore the trust that was destroyed by the political appointee. However, it remains to be seen whether structural adjustments of this sort are really enough to eradicate a culture which has grown strong and deep roots over the last six years.

    A few years ago, it would have been inconceivable that any Prime Minister’s Office could have been accused of distorting and misusing intelligence information to popularise the case for war and yet, whatever the reality, that has now become a widespread belief.

    For the sake of the future conduct of policy this impression needs to be dispelled. In the case of the Iraq war, an independent Franks-type Inquiry – as established by Margaret Thatcher after the Falklands War – is the only way to restore the reputation of the Government. And yet, the Government refuses and points to the Inquiry being conducted by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Having myself set up this Committee I am well placed to judge that it is insufficient in this case. The Prime Minister determines what papers the Committee sees and has the right to excise from the resulting report anything he deems to be in the public interest. This will not do: when I established the Committee, I could not have imagined it would be investigating the actions of the Prime Minister himself. Nor that the Prime Minister would be judge and jury in his own cause.

    Conclusion

    The sorry state of affairs in the House of Commons is a by-product of two successive imbalanced Parliaments. A large majority in the Commons gives the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, very wide powers – in some ways, almost unchecked power. The system relies, therefore, on the governing party recognising the true temporary nature of its authority, and not abusing it: the greater the majority, the greater the need to respect the checks and balances of Parliament or – as Quintin Hailsham warned three decades ago – we become an elected dictatorship.

    I have seen three Governments at close quarters. Margaret Thatcher had a secure majority in 1979 and, from 1983, a very large majority. Once a policy was decided upon, her majority enabled her to be unbending and authoritarian. Such is her reputation. But, at close quarters, I never saw her disrespectful of Parliament. It was never ignored, bypassed or disregarded.

    After 1992, with no effective majority, the Conservative Government could not have behaved high-handedly to Parliament even if it had wished to – but I can state, with absolute honesty, whatever our majority, it would not have done so.

    But New Labour has had no such inhibitions. What the Prime Minister has failed to understand is the importance and power of the traditions, customs and conventions that have shaped the values of our system of government and provided its checks and balances. The way our nation’s government works is not simply defined by the bare words and legal structures of legislation – it works because generations of Britons, in safeguarding their liberties, have established boundaries of acceptable behaviour and created rituals and rules that keep them alive.

    That is why, through the generations, wise Governments have taken constitutional change gradually and, as far as possible, by consensus and after consultation. That is no longer the case.

    New Labour, apparently contemptuous of our history, has swept away centuries of institutional values. Rushed, ill thought-through constitutional changes have been introduced in the name of modernisation – changes that imperil the soul of the Constitution and leave democracy and freedom weaker and poorer. Even where there is a case for change – as in the role and stature of the Lord Chancellor, and the abolition of Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales – the Government has bungled it. It neglected to consult, announced the changes as an off-hand consequence of a Cabinet reshuffle and then had to climb down as the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had to don the Lord Chancellor’s wig and tights; and other Cabinet Ministers became, after all, territorial Secretaries of State.

    Further diminution of Parliamentary authority will be accomplished within this Parliament if the Government enacts the proposed European Constitution as a superior overarching legal framework. The legacy of centuries of common law would be subordinate to ambiguous language interpreted and enforced by European institutions.

    Such legislation is likely because, in almost all circumstances, democratic accountability in Parliament is suspended until the next election: even a cataclysmic rebellion can be ignored. With an 8% lead in votes in 1992 – and more votes than any Government received before or since – I was rewarded with a bare majority of 21. Today, with an 8.5% lead in votes, New Labour’s majority of 161 seats is awesome.

    It is time for Parliament to reform, regain authority and increase the accountability of the Executive. Sadly, the reforms implemented by New Labour have reduced accountability and not enhanced it. The Government’s failure offers a real opportunity to the Conservatives: they must pledge themselves to enhance the power of Parliament and set out the manner in which this will be done.

    New Labour’s style of governing – and its adoption of spin and soundbite as its weapons of choice – has done immense damage to politics. Such black arts are political tricks, not statesmanship: they are not what we need in our complex world. It is hardly surprising that the electorate shrugs its shoulders in despair and moves on, blotting political involvement from its collective mind.

    The fate of politicians and governments does not matter: they are mortal and, in due time, are replaced by fresh administrations more tuned to the needs of the age.

    But if the institution of Parliament declines; if respect is lost for it; if politics is seen as a game not as an essential bulwark of our constitution and our liberties; if Ministers bow the head to advisers; and if the public loses its trust in the integrity of government, then we are in serious trouble.

    Is it too late for Parliamentary democracy? Has the watchman tolled the hour for our unwritten Constitution and Parliamentary system? I think not. I hope not. But the danger is clear and present.

    And so is the need for action.

    [1] – Such as consultation and if possible, consensus on constitutional change.

    [2] – As in, for example, the Ecclestone, Hinduja and Mittal affairs.

    [3] – Concerns have been expressed by Sir Nigel Wicks, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as well as by other civil service bodies. On 11 September 2003, the Committee declared that; “The Committee is disappointed that core recommendations have not been accepted. These include … That there is a rejection of the proposal that Special Advisers should be defined as a category of government servant distinct from the Civil Service and that Parliament should set a limit on the number of Special Advisers”.

    [4] – “The Blair Style of Government”, 10 June 2002

    [5] – In 1996/7, the Government employed 38 special advisers, of which 8 were in No. 10. By March 2003, there were 81 special advisers of which 27 were in No. 10.

  • Mr Major’s Letter to the Daily Telegraph – 15 September 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s letter to the Daily Telegraph on the subject of the Single Currency, published in September 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir,

    The Swedish rejection of the Euro re-emphasises the unlikelihood of our Government holding an early Referendum on the same subject. They will not do so for they know they will lose.

    In 1991, at Maastricht, I obtained an opt-out from the Euro. Later, I persuaded Cabinet to offer a Referendum prior to membership – a commitment the Blair Government had no choice but to inherit. I am therefore – at least in part – responsible for Sterling not yet having been abolished and the Euro adopted. It has always been my view that circumstances might arise in which it would be in our interests to join, but I have yet to see any that are imminent.

    The belief of the euro-sceptics that I offered a Referendum to appease them is both fatuous and wrong (as official documents will reveal in time). I did so because entry to the Euro would have a personal impact on every citizen and was therefore an issue upon which I felt they should have the opportunity to express an opinion.

    The same principle applies to the proposed European Constitution. The Government are resisting a Referendum on the specious grounds that Margaret Thatcher did not have one on the Single European Act and nor did I on the Maastricht Treaty. This line of defence does not stand up to examination.

    In neither instance was such a clear and fundamental point at issue. Moreover, at Maastricht, I opted out of the two greatest concerns – the single currency and the Social Chapter. I also agreed a negotiating position with Parliament and held to it in every particular. The present Government are not in this position with the proposed European Constitution.

    Another difference is relevant too: in the 1980s and 1990s, referenda were not commonplace, hence my difficulty in getting Cabinet to agree to one since many colleagues did not like the wider constitutional implications. Labour, however, have used referenda frequently.

    The Government should stop hiding behind a half-truth and offer a public poll on the European Constitution without further delay.

    Yours faithfully,
    JOHN MAJOR.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Children for Peace Lecture – 4 April 2003

    The text of John Major’s speech at the Children for Peace Lecture, held in Warrington on Friday 4th April 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    There are some events seared into the mind and never forgotten. The Warrington bomb is one. I remember the day vividly: Saturday, March 20th, 1993, a warm, sunny afternoon and I was walking in the garden of my home in Huntingdon. It was a rare moment of peace of mind at a turbulent time. The sound of a ringing telephone interrupted that Spring day and in quiet despair I listened as Number 10 told me of the bomb and the likelihood of there being fatalities.

    And so it proved. Two little boys, wholly innocent of any political thought or action, had their young lives cut short by that bomb. 56 others – totally unconnected with Northern Ireland disputes, suffered injuries – many serious.

    The true horror of that Warrington day struck deep into the British psyche. The images of Tim and Johnathan are as vivid today as they were during that dreadful weekend.

    That bomb – with its pitiless destruction – was to have a lasting impact on the Peace Process.

    The process had begun over two years earlier. In 1992, Albert Reynolds had become Taoiseach, Prime Minister of Ireland. He and I knew one another from our days as Finance Ministers. We were at ease with each other from the start – and shared the same view about the Irish troubles: we both believed they could be brought to an end. An examination of history did not support our optimism. Initiative after initiative had failed: the Willie Whitelaw talks in 1972; the Sunningdale Agreement made by Ted Heath in 1973; Jim Prior’s Assembly proposals in 1982 and Margaret Thatcher’s Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.

    Albert and I knew that if progress were to be made it would require a joint approach by the British and Irish Governments: a solo effort would not be enough. Before 1990, contact between the two Governments had been minimal despite our mutual membership of the EU. Charlie Haughey, the then Taoiseach, and I had agreed we should meet at least twice a year bilaterally and be in regular contact between such meetings. Albert Reynolds was keen to do the same. Over the years our senior officials were to get to know one another well, too.

    From the moment I arrived at Number 10, Northern Ireland was a priority issue for me. I can’t rationally explain why: I can only say the issue kept bubbling to the front of my mind. And during the 6½ years I spent as Prime Minister, it never fell from the top of my agenda. I visited Northern Ireland more often than any of my predecessors and more frequently than any other part of the UK. I held meetings beyond number with leaders of the main Northern Ireland Parties at Westminster and special interest groups at Westminster and in Belfast. Some were interminable. Some were friendly. Some were raucous. Some were hopeful. Some ended in people walking out. All were necessary. It was a panorama of protest and progress.

    Invariably, I was struck by one common perception. It was the distinction between the warmth and charm of most of the politicians and community leaders I met, and the depth and viciousness of the rivalries that divided them. In Northern Ireland itself that perception was magnified. Yet, from Belfast to Derry, from Ian Paisley’s Antrim to Jim Molyneaux’s Lagan Valley to the SDLP constituencies of John Hume and his colleagues, there came a message demanding peace and a readiness to support action to achieve it. Only the evil of bigotry and deep-rooted hatred slowed down the process.

    From the beginning, Albert Reynolds and I had similar objectives, although our preferred means of achieving them were often far apart. We had many agreements and some rows. Both of us sometimes operated on a short fuse lit by frustration at the obstacles to progress. Sometimes the climate was frosty and mutual frustration evident. But our disagreements were political never personal and Albert became – and remains – a friend I cherish. As did his successor, John Bruton, with whom I enjoyed a more equable but equally fruitful working relationship.

    At the time of the Warrington bomb, I was optimistic about movement from the IRA. It was – ironically – the very day a message from me had been delivered to Martin McGuinness. The bomb was a bleak response and suggested my optimism was misplaced. I considered whether we should break off negotiations but decided against it for many reasons – some hard headed and practical, others more personal and emotional.

    If we abandoned our attempt at peace, I wondered, what legacy would that be for Tim and Johnathan? Would it not be a cop-out, a striking of an attitude, because to continue would be a political risk. If we did so, how many other innocents would have their lives cut short? How many other families would be left to grieve?

    Would breaking off negotiations simply lead to entrenched attitudes and encourage more violence?

    More positively, if we were to continue with our efforts, would not the instinctive reaction of horror following Warrington help box-in and isolate the men of violence? I thought so.

    So did Albert Reynolds and he, too, was keen to continue. We were both aware of the warped mentality of the hard men of the IRA: if they negotiated at all they guarded their backs by showing their volunteers they did so from “a position of strength”. In their coded language, this meant after an atrocity. In essence they were saying to their members “How can you think we’re going soft – we’ve just blown someone up.” The commonly held view after Warrington: that negotiations were failing and would not proceed, was a misjudgement. It was more likely that negotiations would make progress now that the IRA had shown their volunteers in the most violent way possible that they were not weakening. They hammered home their point with a further bomb at Bishopsgate a few weeks later which cost yet another life and much destruction of property.

    Perverse – of course. Cynical – certainly. Wicked – beyond doubt. But what motivated both Albert Reynolds and me was the hope that we might prevent more bombs and return normality to Northern Ireland and the mainland. The IRA had tried violence for 30 years. It had failed. It would always fail. They now knew bombs would never drive the British from Northern Ireland. They had no realistic choice other than to seek a political settlement.

    In the early nineties, the Peace Process was controversial. Many supported it. Many others – in and out of the British Cabinet – did not: they preferred the posture of “no talks until the IRA lay down their arms” which on the face of it seemed to be a strong and decisive position but in practice was not. Such a policy could only lead to a stand-off, with no progress at all, continuing violence and everlasting anti-British propaganda. I thought such a laissez-faire policy was short-sighted and wrong. In fact, it was no policy at all. I was fortunate that both my Northern Ireland Secretaries of State, Peter Brooke and Paddy Mayhew, shared my view – and continued to do so even after the IRA unleashed a mortar attack on Downing Street in 1991 in an attempt to kill the British Prime Minister and as many of the Cabinet as possible. The mortar landed in the Garden of Number 10. A few feet closer and there would most certainly have been fatalities.

    The Labour and Lib-Dem Opposition front benches were supportive of a peace process and, with rare forays into criticism, remained so throughout my term of office. In turn, I have supported the present Government’s efforts and have kept my counsel even when I believed mistakes had been made, as – no doubt – they did for me: maintaining the momentum for peace was – and is – the only objective.

    The causes of the Northern Ireland troubles lie deep in history and have been exacerbated by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and out-of-date tribal attitudes. Although the roots may be ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations has kept mutual loathing burning brightly. Until the Northern Ireland Assembly was formed, politicians were literally irresponsible – they had no responsibility in government for decision-making at all – nothing to force them to reach a pragmatic rapprochement. That need was vital which is why elections and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly was so important and its suspension last Autumn such a setback.

    Despite ongoing difficulties, I have always been an optimist about Northern Ireland. There will be a settlement because there must be. If one looks back through the avenue of the past three decades or so there are many reasons to justify that optimism. The clamour for normality from the majority of people in Northern Ireland has grown ever louder.

    The Women’s Peace Movement was conceived and led bravely, and showed both Loyalist and Republican hard men that the majority of people in their communities opposed violence and wanted a better, more peaceful future. Other grass roots organisations like FAIT – Families Against Intimidation and Terror – showed their distaste at the brutal behaviour of the paramilitaries. They were brave campaigners in a good cause. The public anger at atrocities – Warrenpoint, Greysteel, Warrington, so many of them – also drove that point home. The Downing Street Declaration, the Framework Document which laid the basis for the important Belfast Agreement, the ceasefires, the work of the Mitchell Commission, all were a response to the demand for normality.

    Of course, “the troubles” are not just political and nor is the solution to them. There are those in the IRA and the Protestant Groups for whom the nature of the political settlement is all important: but there are many others in these movements for whom criminality sheltering behind a political cause is quite simply a way of life. Such men, and women, have no wish for a settlement, no wish for peace, will do everything in their power to frustrate it and, if it were achieved, might peel off to join ever-more extreme splinter groups. They will be isolated by a political settlement. But until it comes they will oppose it. These people – forever arguing, disputing, deceiving and distrusting – are one of the fundamental reasons why political agreements have been so hard to achieve. But when that political agreement is finally reached – and it will be – these remnants of humanity will be seen for the violent criminals they are and be isolated, caught and punished.

    To many it is baffling that – so long after the Peace Process began – there is still no settlement. I am not in the least surprised. First, because as I have just said, some people are working from within against a solution; and second, because that elusive solution is wrapped in layer upon layer of complexity.

    There are two words that bedevil a settlement: “distrust” and “decommissioning”. Historically, in Northern Ireland politics, nearly everyone has distrusted nearly everyone else.

    The Unionists distrusted the Republicans.

    The Republicans distrusted the Unionists.

    Sinn Fein and the SDLP distrusted British Governments.

    The UUP and DUP distrusted Irish Governments – and one another.

    The paramilitaries distrusted most politicians and all authority.

    The authorities distrusted the paramilitaries and their political spokesmen.

    I could go on – but you get the picture.

    Distrust breeds fear. More especially, it breeds a fear of making concessions and encourages everyone to hunker down in their established positions.

    It is for this reason that successive British and Irish Governments have made policy changes aimed at confidence-boosting in the hope of encouraging reciprocal gestures. Sometimes they have met with success whilst on other occasions they have been rebuffed. Thus, the process inches along – often at a snail’s pace. It was always going to be that way.

    By far the biggest stumbling block is decommissioning – the removal of weapons from the political debate. Seemingly straightforward but, in fact, far from it. Decommissioning is – and this will seem contradictory – both essential to the peace process and a red herring. Let me set out why this is so by considering the divergent views.

    Protestant politicians and their communities must have decommissioning as a sign of good faith and a guarantee that the gun will not enter into Irish politics again in the future.

    The British and Irish Governments, responsible Northern Ireland politicians and the public as a whole share that view and would warmly welcome decommissioning.

    It is what they have long sought. For them, it would signal a certainty that the conflict which has haunted them for so long is finally coming to an end.

    For the paramilitaries, it is more complex. The Loyalists – whose very name is a misnomer, for their loyalty is more to anti-Catholicism, anti-Republicanism and anti-Southern Irish sentiment than loyalty to the British Crown – embrace many splinter groups often at war with each another. When they offer decommissioning, it is primarily as a lure to the IRA. Any disarming from them is but a token gesture and any weapons surrendered can be replaced easily.

    The IRA has a deep-rooted conviction that is difficult to overcome. Their philosophy is that “the movement” never surrenders. They argue that no paramilitary group has ever given up its arms unilaterally and many in the IRA bitterly oppose any move to do so. I once tried to make it easier for them by suggesting they could destroy their own weapons. No-one was asking them to hand them over to the British Army or to be destroyed in public. I was content for there to be independent verification of destruction and made clear I would not mind if the twisted metal was used to fashion a statue of Eamon de Valera. The present Government take the same position. But the IRA’s suspicion of the motives of British Government is deep rooted and lingers on: the response from them has been minimal.

    Even so, the IRA – like the Loyalists – toy with token decommissioning for public relations purposes. Such gestures are helpful but much more will be needed – not least to convince Unionists to return to the Northern Ireland Assembly and remain there. The underlying situation is not easy: the paramilitaries of the IRA have a psychological block to de-commissioning and Unionists have no reason to trust them until they have disarmed. Decommissioning is, therefore, essential though movement towards acceptance of this truth has been very stately: as though one were viewing events through a slow motion camera.

    The irony is that the surrendering of weapons, so vital to confidence, may turn out to be a red herring, for not all may be delivered up and, even if they were, more can be purchased readily. It’s a Catch 22: disarmament is a touchstone of good faith and yet, if it occurs, it may not turn out to be the guarantee of peace that is sought.

    One unintended – and unwelcome – side effect of progress in the Peace Process is the impact it seems to be having on voting intentions in Northern Ireland. As progress is made, voter support rises for the more extreme political alternatives – Sinn Fein and the DUP – and diminishes the political base of the UUP and the SDLP, who have striven hardest for an agreement. It is a perverse situation.

    The most obvious loser is the SDLP – for so long the beneficiary of support from the moderate majority of Catholic/Republican sentiment. As Sinn Fein becomes less extreme, more mainstream, takes part in the work of the Assembly, sloganises about peace, becomes a more visible daily presence, it begins to appear a more relevant political party than the well-meaning SDLP. The UUP faces the risk of decline for more complex reasons. First, internal disputes and continual sniping at their leader (always a recipe to turn off the electorate); second, the easy criticism that can be levelled at the inevitable compromises and pragmatism of Government. Evaporation of support for the latter point is particularly galling since – outside of autocratic dictatorships – pragmatism is an essential ingredient of democratic Government.

    And yet, in the 1980s and 1990s, a mode of argument arose that pragmatism was weak, had no spine, and that only unblinking pursuit of pre-determined motives represented strong Government. The argument is nonsense of course but it seduced many people to its cause and its divisive impact is apparent still – not least in the DUP’s assault on the voting support of the Ulster Unionists.

    The road towards peace in NI has been the work of many hands. Politicians from a range of political persuasions, men of religion – both Catholic and Protestant, Civil Servants in London, Dublin and Belfast, many brave individuals, distinguished foreigners serving on Commissions, the EU and successive US Governments. All have had an input.

    So have events, some of them tragic. I have spoken already of domestic tragedies but the wicked terrorism in Oklahoma, New York and Washington brought home to the US the pain and the horror of violence for political ends. So did the sight of the IRA being caught red-handed in collaboration with terrorists in Colombia. All this helped dry up funding for terrorist groups and helped push them towards a political settlement.

    Curbing economic deprivations is an important ingredient in cutting away the support structures of the paramilitary groups. What does terrorism feed on? Hatred and bigotry, of course. But not only that. It fuels up on resentment as well. It feeds on deprivations and poor living standards. People with little or nothing to lose can often be attracted to desperate causes. Terrorism gives a focus to their lives.

    So the pursuit of growth and success of the economy in the Republic of Ireland is vital in every way and the British Government needs to focus on the deprived areas of Northern Ireland that – perversely – so often provide comfort to the men of violence, whose behaviour frightens away the investment that can provide jobs and improve living standards for the community as a whole.

    Today – although there is still serious deprivation in Shankill and West Belfast, the overall economic situation is greatly improved – much is happening that is good. Unemployment – very high for decades – is now in single figures across the Province as a whole, with the centre of Belfast flourishing as it enjoys substantial redevelopment. All this should be engendering confidence.

    But an improving economy must by matched by political normality. “Normality” for Northern Ireland must include an active role for the devolved Assembly. This is vital.

    It is vital – because responsibility for policy breeds a responsible attitude. That is why I wished to see an Assembly established: I believed it would provide a vehicle for Protestant and Republican politicians to sit together and take joint responsibility for their society. The idea had already been in my mind when it was suggested to me by Ian Paisley; it was rejected as a “back-door Stormont” by John Hume; it intrigued the then Taoiseach John Bruton but infuriated the Foreign Minister, Dick Spring; it was deeply controversial and yet made a good deal of sense.

    Once established, the Assembly was moderately successful. Old opponents worked together, albeit often disagreeing face to face and using the Assembly for Party political purposes, but also delivering new policy and benefits to Northern Ireland. More important is what the Assembly could – and should – do: namely, frame fresh economic and social policies to curb the ills of generations, encourage inward and domestic investment, and bring together divided communities.

    Instead, the Assembly has been suspended following violence from all sides and a general lack of confidence in collective goodwill. As ever in Northern Ireland, the events leading to suspension had all the elements of Greek theatre: challenges to David Trimble from the ruling Council of the UUP, the raiding of Sinn Fein offices by the police investigating intelligence gathering by Republicans, and the arrest of a senior Sinn Fein figure accused of having documents of use to terrorists. It is easy to see why there was a collapse of confidence.

    The need now is to rebuild the Assembly which is why the British and Irish Prime Ministers have met twice recently at Hillsborough to plan the way forward.

    I understand these meetings made good progress although, as ever, the Parties needed time to consider proposals and consult their grassroots before giving approval. Soon, the two Prime Ministers will meet again to publish their proposals to finalise implementation of the Belfast Agreement and repair the damage to it of recent events.

    A settlement – with goodwill, and an outbreak of trust – could be tantalisingly close and, if achieved, would lead to the progressive withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland, the monitoring of ceasefires, new policing arrangements, human rights changes and the return of the Assembly.

    We need also, the end of all preparations for paramilitary activity by Loyalists and Republicans alike. The end of paramilitary will being enforced on the streets. Above all – again and again – the restoration of trust.

    But all may yet hang upon the destruction of arms. When a family has suffered a loss of life the psychological effect is very great: often there needs to be a period of “closure” before life can resume its normal pattern and peace of mind be re-established. Almost everyone who has lived through the death of a beloved family member or friend understands that emotional movement: from agony – to acceptance – to normality.

    The peace movement needs “closure” too: in this case “closure” is the destruction of arms. No one knows for sure how many weapons there are – especially in the hands of the IRA, the dominant paramilitary group – but the sum total is significant. It is probable that there are many tons of explosives in secret caches, together with heavy weaponry, rifles and handguns. All are a threat to peace of mind as well as peace on the streets and must be verifiably destroyed or surrendered.

    There is a second element to closure. In 1991 I was sitting in the Cabinet Room of Downing Street on a grey November afternoon when a message was brought into me. It had come through a secret channel of communication opened in 1990 and was from the Provisional Army Council of the IRA. I was convinced then – and remain convinced – that it was approved also by Martin McGuinness – though I should add for the record that he has always denied it. In any event, the message was dramatic.

    It said:

    “The conflict is over but we need your [British] advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold a dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion to the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet the Secretary of State’s public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked.”

    The conflict is over. That message helped persuade me to continue on with the Peace Process and, in the following ten years under successive Governments, we have come to be in sight of the end of the Northern Ireland tragedy. The blood that has been spilled requires that end to be secured.

    So – we need such a statement again – this time open and acknowledged. The war is over. These are words that the people of Northern Ireland have waited too long to hear. I hope they will not need to wait much longer. There is a place in history for those Irish leaders prepared to turn those words into reality. I know the British and Irish Governments will respond to such a declaration and a new era can be ushered in for Northern Ireland.

    Let me return to Tim and Johnathan in whose memory we are here tonight. Were their lives wasted?

    In one sense – yes: for they should have been here today – young men on the threshold of life with so much to experience and so much to give.

    But, in another sense, the loss of these young lives – and the pain and agony of their families – bears another interpretation. It shook the world. Forced it to think afresh. Closed down options for the men of violence. Impacted deep on the demands for peace. Led to the foundation of this Peace Centre. They are both – forever – an important landmark in the agonisingly slow movement from a path of hatred and violence in Northern Ireland to a now probable future of tolerance, compassion and hope.

    Let that forever be their epitaph.

  • Mr Major’s Article on HRH The Prince of Wales – 17 March 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on HRH The Prince of Wales, published on 17th March 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Over recent weeks, much printer’s ink has been spilled over Sir Michael Peat’s inquiry into alleged misconduct within St James’s Palace. The pursuit of HRH The Prince of Wales has been unrelenting. It is also unjust.

    Some of the wilder comments even predicted revelations that would shake the Monarchy itself. Others pre-judged the internal inquiry, and condemned it as a “whitewash”.

    The reality, as any dispassionate reader must acknowledge, is that – throughout – the report is concise, detailed, comprehensive and critical. It acknowledges mistakes – some of them serious – but puts them in a proper context that illustrates how disproportionate much of the criticism has been. The report is cathartic and should help prevent future controversy. Sir Michael has done his job well and Prince Charles is wise to have accepted his recommendations in full.

    Unlike many of his critics, I know the Prince of Wales. He is a man who cares, sometimes too much. He has a social conscience that can be uncomfortable in an heir to the Throne. His forthright views on architecture and the rural community lead him into controversy but there are as many who share his views as oppose them.

    He does lobby Ministers – and Prime Ministers – but always within the bounds of propriety and, in my own experience, in support of very good causes. His charitable work is not simply a duty but, especially in the case of The Prince’s Trust, a commitment that matters to him greatly. He is not – and cannot be – above criticism. But some critics go too far. Their excessive zeal has wider ramifications than their personal criticism of the Prince.

    There is a scene in the original film of “Goodbye, Mr Chips” in which Chips muses on the habit of exaggeration of one of his pupils: apparently the boy was apt to exaggerate a nought to a nine in his Latin marks. Similar exaggeration is often apparent in the lack of sympathy or understanding offered to Prince Charles with much of it magnified by the belief that an hereditary Monarchy is contrary to the spirit of the times in our egalitarian age.

    Such a belief, though often peddled subliminally, does much to belittle the Monarchy. There is, for some, an agenda here: if Members of the Royal Family are undermined, then the Institution of the Monarchy itself begins to wither in public affection. I do not argue for the Royal Family to be above criticism, nor to be deferred to as a matter of course (having been raised in Brixton, I am myself a product of our egalitarian age) but I do ask for a sense of balance. I ask for any criticism to be just. For it not to be exaggerated. Nor, sometimes, invented. And for shortcomings to be weighed alongside virtues.

    I am a Monarchist and I care for the Institution of Monarchy. I believe our country would be changed immeasurably for the worse if we were to become a Presidency. I see the intellectual case for such a change but reject it absolutely. Its advocacy is most often heard in the Westminster-Whitehall beltway but, like so much of that chatter, it is not an argument that resonates in the towns and villages of our nation.

    One day, Prince Charles will be our King and the embodiment of the Monarchy. Around the world, he will be the symbol of our nation. In due time, Prince William will succeed him. This is the hope and expectation of the vast majority of our nation. There are only a very few who wish to see the unique fabric of our country damaged and the legacy of Monarchy wrecked – chipped away by innuendo and condemned to death by a thousand smears.

    As Heir to the Throne, the role of any Prince of Wales is difficult. If he has views and expresses them publicly he is in danger of infringing his constitutional obligation to steer clear of controversy. Of course, he should not be seen to oppose Government policy – but nor, in a mature society, should every nuance of advocacy be seen as a political statement. If his observations are merely of the motherhood and apple pie variety, he is parodied for being without substance or, worse, ignored. If he remains silent, his critics are all too ready to pounce, claiming he has no purpose. For the Prince himself, it must be frustrating beyond measure.

    Times are changing for the Monarchy: deference to it is out of fashion and so is tolerance of any human failings within it. But we, the public, can’t have it both ways. If we change our expectation of and attitude towards the Monarchy, then we must accept that they – in turn – must be allowed greater freedom of public expression and action than hitherto. Why should they not have the right to the tolerance so freely offered to others?

    Let us suppose, for a moment, that the Prince of Wales were a Commoner. What would we see? A sensitive man, with no malice and much good intent. A man who takes an active interest in several hundred charities to benefit the young, the old, minority groups and the arts. A man who – almost thirty years ago – established his own charity, focused on helping the least privileged in our society: The Prince’s Trust (now the UK’s leading youth charity) has thus far helped almost half a million youngsters to overcome personal hardship or unfortunate circumstance. A man who shares, with so many of his fellow citizens, the pain of a failed marriage but who in the midst of his share of responsibility for that failure has retained the love and affection of his children. A man who has dedicated his life to the country he was born to serve.

    The Prince of Wales has honoured that obligation with compassion, tolerance of human failing and a wish to support those most in need. We, as a nation, should at the very least extend to him a similar courtesy.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Iraq – 19 February 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on Iraq, published in House Magazine on 19th February 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    It looks like war but it is not yet unavoidable: Saddam could back down or be deposed, or accept an offer of sanctuary although, sadly, none of these options is likely. President Bush could not – and will not – back down and, with one-quarter of the British Army committed, nor can Britain.

    It is a natural human emotion to oppose war but action against Iraq is not precipitate. Iraq has been ignoring the UN for twelve years and continues to do so despite clear knowledge of the consequences. She has chemical, biological and conventional weapons and has not shrunk from using chemical weapons on her own people. She is feared as a threat to stability in the region and may have links with terrorist organisations. The longer the delay in disarming her the greater her strength may become, not least in developing a nuclear capability: and if Saddam is seen to face down the most powerful nation in the world, his prestige in the Middle East will be given an enormous boost.

    If it does come to military action, the United States will win. Iraq, with her massive but ill-equipped Army, cannot withstand the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. The US spends more on defence than the next nine high spending nations added together – and such power is irresistible.

    But the fact that the US will prevail militarily is one of the few certainties that lie ahead. The danger of Saddam unrestrained is well understood but the short and long term risks in restraining him have had little public airing.

    But these risks are stark. In the short term, there is the dangerous situation that arises as Saddam is faced with a war he cannot win and the near-certainty that he will be deposed. This is very different from the Gulf War. Then, Iraq was to be evicted from Kuwait. Now, although Resolution 1441 does not specify regime change, it seems almost certain that Saddam and his Government will be removed from power unless they disarm voluntarily. Since, notwithstanding their defeat in the Gulf War, the regime has remained in power sustained by the Republican Guard and the feared Secret Police, the chance of them stealing away quietly seems an unlikely option. We must, therefore, presume that we may have an unstable and threatened man at bay: what may he do?

    At worst, there is the risk that Saddam, believing he has nothing to lose, will use all his arsenal in the forthcoming conflict including biological and chemical weapons. If so, what would be his target? It could be the invading Army. Or he could attack Saudi Arabia for being staunch allies of the US and as revenge for the Saudis’ financing of the Gulf War. Or, of course, his target could be Tel Aviv in order to draw Israel into the war in the hope of maximising Arab support. He will be likely to use conventional weapons to set alight the Iraqi oil wells in an attempt to maximise economic chaos. He would justify this latter act of destruction by deploying the populist but misguided view that the aim of the US is to control Iraqi oil. He may also seek to contaminate or set alight oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    He might also leave as his legacy a gift of weapons of mass destruction to terror groups so that they might strike against the US and her allies for years to come. This, of course, assumes he has not already done so. None of these scenarios may come about but none dare be ignored.

    We must plan also for what may happen in Iraq itself once the immediate battle is over. There may well be chaos, near civil war, revenge taking and the onset of anarchy.

    At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a Shi’ite uprising began and may do so again once US and other ground troops begin to get the upper hand. Such an uprising could even include Baghdad where there is a large Shia population. Last time, the strife was brutally put down by the Republican Guard. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites have been killed by Saddam’s regime. As a result, Shi’ites in the holy cities – Najaf, Basra, Karbala – have old scores to settle and will not be merciful to their Sunni enemies. The US and her allies may arrive as liberators but be compelled to remain as peace-keepers.

    The US may also have a task to keep Iraq as one entity since, as in 1991, there is a subliminal suspicion among many Arabs that one war aim might be to dismember it. This is not so but, were it to happen, it would inflame suspicion and hostility throughout the region. In the North, the Kurds could well manoeuvre for an independent Kurdistan, a long cherished aim. It is highly unlikely to come about – the US, Turkey and Iran will all oppose it – but the wily Kurds will be pushing for it and this may well add to the post war cocktail of chaos.

    And what happens post Saddam? What nature of Government is likely to take power? Another ‘strong man’ is unattractive for he may be as bad as Saddam. The US would have great difficulty in governing Iraq and, no doubt during a UN supervised interlude, there will be efforts to form a new Iraqi Government.

    This will not be easy and the replacement Government may not be benign: the concept of a Western style democracy can be dismissed. In practice, voting by clan would mean power would pass from the less-than-20% Sunni minority to the overwhelming Shi’ite majority. This would be bitterly resisted by both Sunnis and Kurds. Even if any new Government is dressed up in some form of regional representation and minority involvement, it would still be dominated by the Shi’a. We would awaken to a Shi’ite Iraq alongside a Shi’ite Iran which would harbour ambitions to dominate the Gulf. At first, their eyes would turn to the Shi’ite communities in Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The Gulf States would tremble and their tremors would reverberate throughout the region.

    The destruction of the whole hideous apparatus of Saddam’s regime has an aftermath with ramifications far beyond Iraq. It would be folly beyond belief to plan only for a swift and successful war followed by a smooth transfer of power. It may be not all these problems will arise – but some surely will. We must prepare for the many problems ahead for it would be ironic to win the war only to lose the peace.

    Yet if the US and Britain are to win the peace, they must win hearts and minds for their cause. This will not be easy. The cause is not popular in the Arab world and, unlike 1990/1, there is no Arab coalition for the war. There is little or no regional support for it either. Instead, there is resentment and suspicion of the motives of the US and Britain with many voices claiming the war to come has more to do with Imperialism and Oil than disarmament. Although these charges are unfounded and wrong, they are deeply felt and damaging. To help minimise opposition and build long term support, the US and Britain must have their plans ready for the reconstruction of a war damaged Iraq; for the renovation of her already-declining oil industry which they must make clear will be left in Iraqi hands; for the provision of food, water and medicine to a population that will be grievously short of all such necessities; and for dealing with an exodus of refugees to neighbouring countries.

    The advocates of war cite the need for Churchillian resolve for their enterprise – and they are right. But when the fighting is done, they will need another Churchillian virtue – magnanimity – or Iraq will sink into despair and the Moslem world will grow still further in hostility to the West. If that were to be the outcome it would be a calamitous setback in the war against terror.

    It may be easy to win the war: it will not be easy to win the peace.