The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Albert Reynolds

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

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

     

    The UK and Ireland in a New World

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

    So it is time for everyone to reflect and consider.

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

    We need to calm the markets.

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

    We need to protect our national interest.

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

    The clock must be stopped.

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

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

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

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

    I hope and trust we will.

    Let me now turn more widely ….

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

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

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

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

    There are no limits to change in our modern world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We believe in free trade: America introduces tariffs.

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

    This will surely diminish our international influence.

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

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

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

    It loses a nation with a worldwide foreign policy reach.

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

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

    Let me now turn to the UK and Ireland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The EU will lose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dublin itself may be a beneficiary of this trend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Let us hope they will – and they can.

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Northern Ireland – 9 June 2016

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Northern Ireland on 9 June 2016.

    Let me start by saying how pleased I am to be back in Northern Ireland, and with you this morning.

    Tony and I are here to talk about the European referendum, and why it matters for you, for Northern Ireland, for Anglo-Irish relations,
    …and for the future of our United Kingdom as a whole.

    In a moment, Tony will talk specifically about Northern Ireland, but I want to take a step back and ask: what’s this referendum really all about?

    First, it’s about the economy, jobs and the wellbeing of everyone in the UK.

    Just like Prime Ministers before us and since, Tony and I fought hard to persuade our fellow European leaders to continue to build the Single Market: we did so because it is of huge benefit to Britain. It is the richest free market in the world and we have full access to it: that is enormously valuable for our prosperity.

    To risk losing it – or reducing our access to it – seems to be pure folly.

    Secondly, our security and strength on the world stage is also vital.

    If we work with our partners in Europe we can achieve things in the British interest that we cannot do alone.

    I know that immigration remains a concern for people – but, in my view, that would remain a contentious issue whether we were in or out of Europe.

    It is a difficult and complex problem, but there are no simple answers to it, no magic bullets that solve it.

    But – this morning – I want everyone here to understand something else – something that is critical in this debate – and for all our futures.

    This referendum is also about the people in every part of the United Kingdom, and the union that we have built together over generations.

    That’s important to all of us – it’s about the ties of friendship, family and affection that bind us together.

    Men and women; friends and neighbours; workmates and classmates…

    …all of us living together side-by-side in a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    And I say without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that the wrong outcome on June 23rd will affect our union; and will jeopardise that unity.

    That means the unity of the United Kingdom itself is on the ballot paper in two weeks’ time.

    Let me explain.

    First, Scotland.

    Two years ago, on the eve of the Scottish Referendum…

    …thousands and thousands of people gathered in Trafalgar Square to wave Union Jacks and sing songs together – imploring the Scottish people not to vote for independence.

    It was a last-ditch appeal, an emotional plea, from the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish to stick together, to stay together – to preserve the most successful union in history.

    Wisely, the Scots did so – against the advice of the SNP.

    I believe that, with one qualification, the matter is now settled for a generation and beyond.

    But it is a very big qualification.

    Because if Scotland votes to stay in the European Union, but the UK as a whole chooses to leave, there is a serious risk of a new referendum…
    not straight away, perhaps– but ultimately nationalist pressure for another shot at leaving the UK could prove to be uncontrollable and irresistible.

    And in those circumstances – if the UK was outside the EU – I can well envisage a different result.

    That is the risk … that a British exit from the EU could re-open the whole question, and tear apart the United Kingdom.

    So I say to everyone who is undecided, everyone who is wavering: please understand the potential – even the likely – consequence of a vote to leave the EU.

    Not just a shrunken economy, not just a diminished United Kingdom on the world stage; but a smaller country in a very real and literal sense.

    The most successful union in world history would be broken apart for good.

    That appalling outcome could follow the wrong choice on June 23rd.

    But of course there is also the question of Northern Ireland – itself a vital part of the Union.

    Tony and I know more than most how carefully the peace process was stitched together over many years.

    We met the families of the victims, whose pain when their loved ones were murdered was raw and real – and, I imagine, still is.

    We know about the stops and starts of that process; the setbacks; the compromises and the contradictions that are inherent in building a peace that can endure.

    I think back to working with my friend, Albert Reynolds, and the breakthrough that was the Downing Street Declaration, sowing the seeds for the IRA ceasefire and then the chance – in time – for a negotiated and peaceful constitutional settlement. I carried this forward: Tony completed it.

    Throughout my years as Prime Minister, no issue consumed my thoughts and my attention more than the goal of peace and stability here.

    I was convinced that, however intractable the Troubles seemed…

    …however routine the daily cycle of violence became…

    …however deeply the hatred was felt….

    …that a solution could and must be found.

    That with patience, care and hard work, we could find a way. Many people, both well-known and unknown, helped in that endeavour.

    I pay tribute to Tony for all that he did, to the Irish government…and to all parties here in Northern Ireland for having the strength and commitment to see the Process through. And to the communities, here and in the South, who were sick of violence and wanted a better future.

    And it is an incredible achievement to see a successful power-sharing executive working in Northern Ireland – a dream thought impossible 30 years ago.

    Indeed, it is a mark of the progress made in Northern Ireland that, today, elections are now conducted with more courtesy and good humour than many other campaigns I can think of.

    So I believe it would be a dreadful mistake to do anything that has any risk of destabilising the complicated and multi-layered constitutional settlement that underpins stability in Northern Ireland.

    But that is what a British exit from the EU would do: it would throw all of the pieces of the constitutional jigsaw into the air again, and no-one could say where they might land.

    We can all be proud at what Northern Ireland has achieved … but we should never take the very good state of Anglo-Irish relations for granted.

    Today, relations between the UK and Ireland have never been better.

    And though I’ve no doubt – whatever happens – that they will remain cordial, I do worry about the prospect of a British exit, which would leave Ireland on the other side of the table in a new negotiation between Britain and 27 other EU countries.

    I fear that would have a totally negative effect on the relationship between our two countries.

    And there is also the severe economic damage that leaving would cause in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland alike.

    And all of the issues that we thought were completely settled – like the Common Travel Area – would suddenly be thrown into real doubt.

    In a moment, I will hand over to Tony to talk in more detail about Northern Ireland but, before I do so, let me end by saying this: here you have two former Prime Ministers from two different parties. Rivals on many occasions, but never over the Peace Process for Ireland; never on the unity of the UK; never on the importance of our relationship with Europe.

    It’s not a coincidence that every living former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, shares the same view about Europe.

    We know, because we have sat at the top European table that despite its many frustrations, our membership of the EU magnifies Britain’s influence in the world, and significantly improves the living standards of the British people.

    And we are in no doubt of this: our membership is also an absolutely vital part of our finely-tuned and carefully-preserved union.

    Throw away the membership of Europe, and don’t be surprised if – in the end, as a consequence – we accidentally throw away our union as well.

    Please don’t put that at risk.

    Make a positive and patriotic choice to remain – choose to fight for the UK’s interest in Europe, and in so doing, safeguard the UK’s interests at home as well.

    That’s the right choice for our country, and for our future.

    In two weeks’ time, I hope it is the choice we will all make.

    And with that, let me hand over to Tony.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Joint Award for Outstanding Contribution to Ireland – 4 December 2014

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech in Dublin on Thursday 4 December 2014 at the Outstanding Contribution to Ireland Awards.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is not easy to say how moved I am to receive this Award and I know that Albert would be, too: the fact that he is not beside me now is the only blot on this wonderful evening. But – in a very real sense – Albert isn’t absent. His spirit lives on. And how thrilled he would be that Kathleen – his wife and his inspiration – is here, together with so many members of their family: to them I say, “You have every right to be proud of Albert – he is, and will forever remain, a genuine hero of Irish history.”

    But a very human, down-to-earth hero. When we first met, as Finance Ministers in the 1980s, Albert looked suspiciously at this very English man whose father was a trapeze artist. And I looked pensively at this very Irish man who owned dance halls. Yet, in a few minutes, we were aware of a similarity of outlook that made us allies, not opponents; friends, more than acquaintances.

    Some years later, we met as Prime Minister and Taoiseach. When our formal business was concluded, we left our officials to talk and moved to the White Drawing Room at Number 10. Just the two of us – with a glass or two as company. It was there and then that we decided to work together.

    We were optimistic. We felt a deal could be done because violence could not win. We knew it wouldn’t be easy. That it might go wrong. We recognised we might start a process and not be there to finish it. We weren’t blind to any of these problems, but nor were we blind to the rewards of success – and the prize it would yield for the future. And, as Albert once put it, “Given the size of my family – the future is important.”

    Albert’s family: visiting Albert and Kathleen, when the family is there, is as comforting as a warm blanket. It’s very Irish. It’s why it’s widely believed in England and America that everyone must have an Irish relative. I am sure that I do. My father was born in 1879 – a long time ago.
    When my grandfather married in 1873 it was to a young girl who had never been taught to write, and left no record of her youth. But, since her name was Sarah O’Marrah, Irish roots seem very likely – and, if so, I am proud to acknowledge them.

    “The past”, wrote L P Hartley, “is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” Those famous lines apply to all Ireland after the evolution of the Peace Process. The past was different. The present – and future – has been transformed.

    Bilateral relations are better now than at any time in our long history. In 2011, Her Majesty The Queen made an historic State Visit to Ireland. The return visit of President Michael D. Higgins was an equal triumph. I was at the Albert Hall on the evening when Ireland sang, Ireland danced, and Ireland’s President spoke of a “true and deep friendship” between our two countries. Never before could that truly have been said, but it was on that magical night – and is now the template for our future relations. In trade, in politics, in culture we have never been closer.

    Our Governments have set up bilateral co operation on a scale that neither has ever had with any other country. They plan to jointly promote British and Irish companies around the world. Bi-lateral trade now exceeds 1 Billion Euros every week. There are more Irish companies listed on the London Stock Exchange – and more Irish Directors on the Boards of UK companies – than from any other country. The border with Northern Ireland has become almost invisible. There are no border controls. Rail and road links are improved. By the end of next year a single visa scheme will allow visa holders to travel to both our countries. Last year saw our first ever UK-Ireland military mission. I could go on, but the point is made.

    All of this is a legacy of the Peace Process and of the many people – known and unknown – who weaved a thread to create this canvas for the future. The weavers make for a great gathering: politicians, civil servants, clerics, members of the public, and – yes – those paramilitaries who realised that political engagement was the only way ahead and that a decent future could never be born of violence. All these – and others – played a part. Together, Ireland – North and South – has buried an unwanted past, and awakened hope in a future few believed could ever happen.

    And how much that outcome meant to Albert. He fought for peace – always with an eye to the future, and an ear cocked so that he would not miss the final gunshot, the last explosion.

    Albert may now be gone from our sight, but I’ve no doubt he’s looking down on us this evening and chuckling. Apart from anything else, Albert always loved a good party – and I know he wouldn’t miss this one…

    Many years ago, when my father was old and very sick, he sought to reassure his grieving son by telling him that no-one is ever really gone while they remain in the hearts of those they leave behind. Albert was truly loved by his family – and will linger on in many other hearts too: he will never be lost to us while that memory remains.

    At Albert’s funeral, his daughter, Andrea, read from Theodore Roosevelt’s speech, “Citizen in a Republic”, in which Roosevelt honours the “Man in the Arena”. It was so apt then – and still is. As I listened to that reading some other lines came to mind, translated from Spanish by Robert Graves, but originally written by a bullfighter. It captures accurately how the man in the arena has a unique perspective:

    “Bullfight critics ranked in rows
    Crowd the enormous Plaza full
    But only one is there who knows
    And he’s the man who fights the bull.”

    Of course, Albert fought only for peace. He charmed his opponents with guile, with persistence, and – let me be strictly honest – with an occasional embroidery of the facts. Albert liked facts. He knew they could inform. He knew also that – with a little rearrangement – they could persuade. So, when necessary, Albert rearranged them – mischievously, perhaps, but with a purpose: the purpose being to bring an end to bloodshed.

    Albert and I did not achieve the final deal: others did – and I praise them for that. But I do believe we pointed the way and am honoured – as Albert would have been – by your generous acknowledgement of our role.

    For that – on my own behalf as well as Albert’s – I truly thank you.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on the 20th Anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration – 11 December 2013

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech marking the 20th anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration. The speech was made in Dublin, Ireland, on Wednesday 11th December 2013.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s always a pleasure for me to come to Dublin – a city of which I have very fond memories, in a country for which I have great affection.

    Eighteen years ago, I was here to discuss a key piece of architecture in the Peace Process – the Joint Framework Document. That evening, in the margins of my discussions with John Bruton, Norma and I went to the National Concert Hall with John and Finola to catch the second half of Handel’s Messiah.

    On arrival, we received an overwhelmingly warm reception from the audience: This, I am sure, was due to John’s popularity, but it reinforced my determination to end the friction that had bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for too long. That night is one of the most treasured memories of my years in Office and it’s good, yet again, to be back here in Dublin.

    Twenty five years ago it would have seemed improbable – to some inconceivable – that a former British Prime Minister would be invited to celebrate the anniversary of a political agreement that was a staging post in making the UK and Ireland more contented neighbours than at any time in their long and tortuous history.

    Yet it is so – and British and Irish alike can now focus on our present and future relationship instead of all the disputes, conflicts, rights and wrongs of the past that poisoned it for so long. It’s time to put them behind us. Of course, the past will remain in the memory, but it mustn’t stand in the way of the future.

    Britain and Ireland are the closest of neighbours. Our cultures intermingle: we share a taste for Shakespeare and Shaw; for Milton and Beckett. We enjoy the performances of Judi Dench and Kenneth Branagh; of Maggie Smith and Peter O’Toole.

    Irish citizens with residency qualifications can vote in UK elections. Our trade and investment flows are huge. British exports to Ireland exceed those to India and China collectively or, alternatively, to the whole of Africa – added together: In return, Britain is Ireland’s largest market. We are both members of the EU and share sporting ambitions with the Lions, the Barbarians and in the Ryder Cup. We steal Eoin Morgan, Ed Joyce and Boyd Rankin to play cricket for England, and you send an unending stream of Irish jockeys to ride to victory in our classic races.

    When Ireland faced financial problems, the British Government was swift to help. It is a new (and better) relationship, sealed in May 2011 by the first ever State visit made by a British Monarch to Ireland. And next Spring, President Higgins’ State Visit to England will further enhance our mutual interests.

    The gateway to this new partnership is the success of the Peace Process. This had no single architect, no single event, no single hero. Many people, known and unknown, contributed over a long period – including, above all, the men and women of Ireland who became impatient at the delay in resolving the troubles; angry at the senseless violence that marred daily life; and frustrated by the failure to resolve an essentially political dispute. Their voice and actions made the extremists in both camps realise that the Irish people expected something better from them and, in this, both Protestant and Catholic clerics played a vital role.

    In December 1993, the Downing Street Declaration set out principles that both the British and Irish Governments were agreed upon: no-one could claim that it’s an easy read. In fact, to let you in on a secret, I did win an award for the Declaration which I failed to share with Albert Reynolds. It was a tin of rhubarb … from the Campaign for Plain English – their annual award for gobbledygook.

    But language is important in the land of James Joyce, and the medium was part of the message. The Declaration pointed up agreements, set a direction, and opened up a future that had once seemed impossible to unlock.

    “No heroes”, I said, and I shall stick to that. But I want to say something about my counterpart in agreeing the Joint Declaration. Albert Reynolds is not well now, and his illness is a cruel trick of fate for a man who gave so much to break the Gordian knot of Anglo-Irish distrust. Although I’m sad Albert cannot be with us this evening, I’m delighted that Kathleen is here – and it was a real treat for me and Norma to spend some time with the Reynolds family earlier today.

    I like and admire Albert very much. He is – quintessentially – Irish: most at ease philosophically in the wearing of the Green. One of the most mortifying experiences I endured as Prime Minister was to sit between Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring – both howling like dervishes – at Twickenham in 1994 when Ireland won by a single point [13-12]. In negotiation, Albert fought like that rugby team – fought and fought again for the Irish point of view but, above all, he sought a way to end the bloodshed and open up a new future for the country he loved so much. He came looking for agreement, not an argument, and was prepared to take risks and make concessions to achieve that outcome. The more I saw of him – despite all the hurdles, despite all the frustrations – even the rows! – the more confident I became that we could and would find common ground.

    Albert and I were both helped by some remarkable civil servants – most especially Martin Mansergh in Dublin and Roderic Lyne in London: their work behind the scenes – and with one another – was untiring. Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring were also crucial to the agreement, and I’m delighted to see Dick here this evening. There are, of course, many more names that merit recognition, but time forbids me from mentioning them all. But they know who they are and what they did – and that is the most important thing.

    Of all nations, the Irish love history – and family. And Albert’s as-yet-unborn great great grandchildren can be proud of their ancestor’s role in building a momentum that gave peace a chance.

    Albert, I see you too rarely, but think of you often: I am proud to call you my friend.

    The agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments was crucial in putting pressure on the violent fringes in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities. It did box them in. It did cut down their support. It did begin to cut off their financial lifeline. In the eyes of many of their former supporters, they were no longer seen as fighters for a political cause but, instead, as a barrier to peace, responsible for so much misery, so many deaths – often of innocent bystanders, unconnected to any political struggle.

    By the early 1990s, a number of instincts were coming together that made a peace process more likely. War weariness was setting in – crucially, even among the Provisionals. Throughout their adult lives they had fought – and achieved nothing towards their cause. Without a political settlement, they foresaw their children and their children’s children facing an equally bleak and violent future.

    Public opinion was swinging in the same direction. Moreover, British and Irish membership of the EU was throwing Ministers from London and Dublin closer together in a common cause. Against that background, Albert and I saw opportunities. He knew violence would not change British policy – indeed, it would only serve to harden it.

    I knew that a British policy of no talks until the Provisional IRA gave up their weapons and ended all violence would very likely mean that the dance of death would continue. And that dance seemed unending: 632 deaths from 1987 to 1993 – including Enniskillen, Ballygawley, Warrington, Shankill Road. It’s a roll-call of horror.

    But the decision to proceed was not a comfortable one, for either side. Easy – because it was right – but not comfortable. We both knew that we were taking a risk. We knew we would face opposition and the profound scepticism bred by two decades of stalemate. Many asked: “How can you possibly talk to an active armed militia?”. Many, looking at history instead of changing circumstances, forecast failure.

    Plainly, success depended on the leaders of the IRA engaging in the process. We believed they would, and were prepared to gamble on it. Let me now say something that may surprise you. Throughout the process, I was acutely conscious that IRA leaders were taking a risk, too: if Albert and I upset our supporters we might – as Albert cheerily put it – “be kicked out”. That was true – but the IRA’s supporters were more deadly than our backbench colleagues – and their leaders were taking a risk too – possibly with their own lives.

    From the moment the process started, I spent countless hours trying to think myself into the mind and tactics of IRA leaders: what were their aims; their constraints; their motives? What would tempt them into agreement?

    We knew we had to agree objectives between London and Dublin. We had to address grievances and contradictory ambitions. We needed to offer an end-product, and reassure two communities that had different fears and different ambitions.

    The Joint Declaration, agreed with Albert Reynolds, did so: it was the beginning of the end of conflict. For the first time, we had a set of principles on which not only the two Governments agreed, but also the leaders of the two largest parties of the day in Northern Ireland, the SDLP and the UUP. Much credit is due to the untiring efforts of John Hume and Jim Molyneux for the courage they showed in lining up with us.

    It was a set of principles strongly supported on both sides of the divide. It demonstrated that there really was an alternative to endless conflict.

    The Framework Documents, agreed with John Bruton – who faced great internal opposition but overcame it – carried us forward – and our political successors continued along the same path. I congratulate them warmly upon what they did. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement condemned the past to history and opened a better prospect for both our countries. Let me now look to that future.

    First, a word about Northern Ireland. While the success of the peace process has transformed life there, the task of building a normal society is still work-in-progress. The British and Irish Governments need to continue working together to help Northern Ireland become the tolerant, inclusive, shared society we all wish to see.

    For too long the “Northern Ireland Question” was the only agenda item between the UK and Ireland: no longer. Last year, David Cameron and Enda Kenny agreed to a future of intensified co-operation across the whole range of Government business.

    Work is progressing with a focus on jobs and growth – both vital for living standards and for the long-term future of both countries. Within a few days, Ireland will be exiting its IMF/EU programme which it has executed with great courage and skill. In her handling of the financial crisis, Ireland has been an example to all of Europe.

    It hasn’t been easy – or painless. Tax rises and spending cuts are not abstract economic potions: they hurt people’s lives, and Ireland can be proud of how social cohesion has been maintained and the country prepared for a return to better times.

    But, in a global market, an open economy such as Ireland’s requires more than domestic economic virtue: in particular, it needs its main trading partners – the US, EU and, above all, the UK – to grow as well.

    The US, despite her huge debt, is in growth and, despite her much vaunted “pivot to the East” will not neglect her Irish market: both logic and affection bind Ireland and the US together.

    The UK, too, is beginning to recover and – I think – may do so faster than expected. For two decades, the swing towards either recession or growth has been greater than forecast, and I believe the present return to growth will out-perform expectations once again. As it does, the Cameron-Kenny agreement will help both economies.

    Europe, I fear, will recover more slowly, and its future policy is less clear. Nonetheless, I do not expect the Euro to collapse – it has too much political will behind it for this to happen – but a Eurozone recovery may be slow and muted. One aspect of UK/European policy is, I imagine, of deep concern to Ireland: will the UK remain in the EU following the referendum on membership?

    The reasons for Irish concern are potent. Would a UK withdrawal diminish UK/Irish mutual interest and undercut the improved relationship? Would the UK pay less attention to Ireland if the two countries were not working together on EU trade and competitiveness issues? And – above all, perhaps – would the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland harden with new border controls for the movement of goods or people? And, if so, would this unsettle the Catholic community in the North?

    These are rational concerns but, I believe, they are phantoms: I do not expect the UK to leave Europe. It is not the moment for a complex explanation of why I take that view but – in brief – departure would hurt, isolate and weaken the UK, and diminish the EU. It’s easy to demonise Brussels. The EU can be irritating and frustrating: believe me, I know! But those in the UK who want us out have never articulated a viable alternative, let alone a better one.

    This is the black hole in their argument – because the truth is that the alternatives would be bleak. As for the EU – it would lose its second-biggest economy; the nation with the longest foreign policy reach; and one of only two member nations with a significant nuclear and military capability. Whilst the rest of the world is binding itself more closely together, if the UK were to leave it would fly in the face of commonsense, self-interest and the drift of history. I cannot believe we would be so foolish.

    Let me touch on one further contentious issue where the UK and Ireland must put right an old injustice. Next year is the 100th Anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. That war prompted the suspension of efforts to introduce Home Rule. It was the backdrop to the Easter Rising, its military suppression, and the moves – eventually abandoned – to introduce conscription to Ireland in 1918; all of which had a profound influence on the course of Irish history once the war ended.

    As we mark this Anniversary, we must be prepared to face the past in as open and honest a way as possible, however uncomfortable some of it may be. As Santayana said, 150 years ago, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. So, in the UK, young people will be at the centre of these commemorations. Our hope is to build an enduring legacy, so that future generations remember the war and how it came about.

    In Ireland, the challenge is slightly different.

    Your former President, Mary McAleese, who did so much to promote peace in Northern Ireland, called the Irish soldiers of the First World War doubly tragic.They fell victim to a war against oppression in Europe. Then, at home in Ireland, their memory fell victim to a war for independence.

    The failure to remember them in Ireland is all the more remarkable when one considers the huge numbers involved. Well over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the British army in the First World War and, of these, some 50,000 were killed.

    Those figures mean that most Irish families will have had a grandfather or a great uncle who fought in the war. It is therefore no surprise that, in these less inhibited times, there is so much interest here in Ireland in finding out more about this lost generation.

    Our two governments in Dublin and London are working closely together on the Great War Anniversaries, which form part of a wider decade of commemorations of the events that led to Ireland’s independence.

    As emotions have cooled with the passage of time, I am hopeful that these commemorations will provide an opportunity to reflect on the tumultuous events of a century ago in a calmer, less emotive way.

    Of course, there is a risk that people of ill will might try to use this opportunity to re-open old wounds and deepen divisions. But we must not let our shared history be hijacked for nefarious purposes when the two Governments are working so closely together in a spirit of historical accuracy, mutual respect, inclusiveness and reconciliation. Twenty years ago, that might not have been possible. But today, thank God, it is.
    Conducted in the right way – and the Taoiseach’s and Tanaiste’s presence at Remembrance Ceremonies in Northern Ireland last month were exactly the right way – these commemorations should allow us to honour different traditions, overcome any divisions that remain, and inspire harmony in our future relations.

    Let me sum up my message with a quote from that great Irish author, clergyman and satirist, Jonathan Swift:

    “A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying …. that he is wiser today than yesterday”.

    At times in the past we have all been in the wrong. And today, I believe we are wiser than yesterday.

    That is why I have such optimism for the future, and why it gives me such enormous personal pleasure to be here twenty years on from those first steps towards peace. The full fruits of this peace may lie ahead, but the path has been set and, I hope, future generations in Britain and Ireland will enjoy a relationship that – although once thought to be impossible – is now fact.

    Ireland’s relationship with the UK and its future – both North and South – has never looked so bright as it does here this evening.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 5 February 2012

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 5th February 2012.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We were looking at that extraordinary Irish visit there. And of course the process began when you were Prime Minister, although Tony Blair picked it up and went further forward with it. How conscious were you when you were doing that, that this might be difficult for the Royal Family? They’d lost Lord Mountbatten, they’d seen these terrible scenes of carnage not very far from Buckingham Palace in the old days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well of course when we began it in the early 1990s with Albert Reynolds, who was then the Irish Prime Minister, of course I discussed it with the Queen at our private meetings. I have no intention of telling you how it went, but of course the Queen was aware of what we were doing. And we had two objectives, both of which I think the Queen approved of. The first was to stop the slaughter that we were seeing in Northern Ireland, the indiscriminate murder that had gone on for far too long; and, secondly, to normalise relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland and North and South within Ireland. And I think the Queen approved of both of those. And the visit she made to Ireland, I think set the final seal on a relationship that has wholly changed in the last twenty years. Ireland are our nearest neighbour, they should be a close and enduring friend, and I think that is the circumstance we now have.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the things that certainly I came across a lot was people talking about the Queen’s religious side of her character, and therefore forgiveness being absolutely central to what she is for.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Queen’s a wise lady. She understands different views. She’s never been perturbed by people who’ve had different views to her. She understands them, she has her own clear view, so certainly she would have understood that point very well. And I think the fact she is Head of the Church in the United Kingdom, she would fully understand other people’s convictions in a different church. That wouldn’t phase her in the slightest.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So she understood and in fact she was encouraging those very, very difficult early talks with the IRA?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ve no intention of telling you what was said privately. Let me simply say the Queen was fully informed and you have seen from the visit and what others have said how she feels about the outcome.

    ANDREW MARR:

    A lot of people are very interested about not what is said during those meetings, but are they really useful to Prime Ministers? David Cameron said that you know it was a chance during the week to really ask himself what he was up to in a sense because he was just in front of one person.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They’re very useful. I mean where else can you talk to one person in total certainty that it’s entirely secret; that nobody is going to talk to anybody else about what is said? So they’re very free, they’re very frank, they’re very useful. And of course the Queen has been there for sixty years, her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill. Most of the present cabinet weren’t born when the Queen became monarch. So there’s very little she hasn’t seen and very little she doesn’t understand, and anyone who doesn’t listen to her view and consult her where necessary is missing a huge opportunity.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well we’re allowed just a little clip of you with the Queen. I think you’ve just come back from Russia at this moment. Let’s look at that.

    [Clip from Elizabeth R shown which was broadcast in the 1990s]

    ANDREW MARR:

    A nice little clip there. So these things are terribly important. You know she’s obviously very interested in her constitutional role, so that’s the Irish side. What about Scotland now because you know we’re at the edge of some difficult decisions about Scotland? I mean whatever happens, she will be Queen of Scots. I just wondered what you thought of Alex Salmond’s kind of comment that the United Kingdom would carry on because the union of crowns would carry on?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I’ve no intention of mixing the Queen and politics and I think you know that, but I think I heard Alex Salmond say last week that whatever may happen in Scotland – and I have my clear views about what should happen, that whatever may happen in Scotland, the Queen would remain Queen as far as the Scots are concerned, and I think that is absolutely the view of, I would imagine, the vast majority of Scots.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Unlike any other country, we have someone therefore at the apex of the system who’s been there for sixty years. Does she have a sort of reasonable recall of the previous crises, all the ups and downs? I mean she’s been through the Cold War, she’s seen all this you know.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Andrew, you don’t forget crises, believe you me. You don’t forget crises and neither does the Queen.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    She remembers them very well. And in some cases within the Commonwealth, I mean she has this special affinity for the Commonwealth, and I think for two reasons. Firstly because King George VI, her father, to whom she was evidently very close indeed, was significant in setting up the Commonwealth in the first place. And, secondly, because she has grown up with the Commonwealth. When it began, it had eight members. It now has fifty-four. So she’s very close to it. And often when we discussed, she would not only know something about the country in the Commonwealth we were talking about or the head of state, but their father or their mother and often there were occasions where background information was extremely useful.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. We saw Prince William in that quote, in that clip earlier on there, speaking very, very eloquently about the Queen and Ireland. He’s of course now down in the Falklands in his helicopter. But you’ve in some respects watched him grow up because you were involved when he was younger. Just give us your sense of how he’s evolving in the role that he’s got now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Oh I think if you travel abroad, you can see a different perspective and you can see that the Duke of Cambridge and the Duchess are becoming iconic around the world. I think they’re a tremendous bonus for the Royal Family at the present time and I think the way they have conducted themselves has been absolutely without fault, and I think most people can see that. Clearly his career is very important to him, as it is to Prince Harry. He’s carrying out his role extremely well and I think that’s what people admire and respect.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But for all those people who kind of perhaps rather glibly open the papers and say “Oh well, can we not have him as our next King?” …

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no.

    ANDREW MARR:

    As a constitutionalist explain why not.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no. Constitutionally not. The Queen took an oath at the Coronation that she would remain as Queen for the rest of her life. When, hopefully many years hence, the Queen is no longer with us, Prince Charles will become King. There can be no question of skipping a generation. It simply isn’t going to happen. It’s a piece of newspaper sophistry from time to time. After the Queen will come Prince Charles. After Prince Charles will come Prince William. That is I think a matter that is settled and is beyond doubt.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now tomorrow I think, you are going to be launching a huge charitable project: the Diamond Jubilee Trust. Can you tell us a little bit about that? I don’t want to spoil your fire for it, but tell us a little bit about it and what you hope to achieve.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We’re establishing tomorrow the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. It was agreed that it would be set up by all the Heads of Government at the Commonwealth at their recent meeting in Australia, and I’m greatly honoured to have been asked to chair it.

    The purpose of the trust is to raise money across the whole of the Commonwealth, I hope governments, companies, individuals will all contribute. We will raise this money just for a single year and then we will spend it on appropriate projects across the whole of the Commonwealth, including of course the United Kingdom. We’ll enter I hope into partnerships with people, so that we can leverage, so we can increase the amount of money we have had donated, to use it for the sort of projects I think that most people would approve of.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So we’re talking about projects involving children and disadvantaged groups?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, no detailed decisions have been taken, but that sort of project. And it will all be there specifically as a legacy to the Queen and her long reign and her long service to the Commonwealth. I don’t think people who haven’t seen her with the Commonwealth, heads of government, can possibly understand what it’s like. There’s a very good relationship, she is iconic to them. And she and the Duke of Edinburgh – and the Duke has been quite superb of course throughout her reign – she and the Duke of Edinburgh are enormously popular across the Commonwealth and it’s unsurprising that when there was a suggestion from the heads of government of a tribute that the Queen would like the sums raised to be dispersed across the Commonwealth, including – as I say – the United Kingdom.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Of course the Falklands are part of the Commonwealth. Prince William down there at the moment and a huge amount of kind of jumping up and down and shouting in Buenos Aires.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there’s bound to be a certain amount of shouting. I think that’s what it will amount to – shouting and no more.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And no more. Alright, for now thank you very much indeed, Sir John Major.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    [Break for news]

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major is still here and we’re going to talk a little bit just at the end about Syria because we’ve used enormously strong language at the United Nations yesterday, as have the Americans, about the Russians and the Chinese. I just wanted you know your perspective on actually what can happen, because it seems that the international community is now badly stuck.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there are two things that are happening. Certainly we’ve seen the enormous changes across the whole of the Middle East. The democratic genie is out of the bottle and I don’t think it’s going to stop at the borders of Syria. So I think this is an issue that is going to continue. I think two things are happening at the moment. First, we are moving perilously close to a full-scale civil war. Secondly, I think Syria is becoming a pariah state. And if I can add a third thought. I don’t think in these circumstances that the Assad regime will survive. How much damage it will do in the short-term, I can’t say. How long it will survive is unknown, but I don’t think it will be a credible government for all that much longer. It has no support, except no doubt for Iran and for China and for Russia, beyond that no-one can possibly sanction what they’re doing.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And is there anything more do you think that a country like Britain can do, you know to avoid the break-up and the fall of the regime – if that’s what’s going to be happen – being too bloody, being too disruptive – not least I suppose to Israel which is next door, of course?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think there are several thoughts related to that. Firstly, I think those in China and Russia might search their consciences about their veto. They are effectively giving a green light to a pretty bad regime to murder people, and I think one needs to put it bluntly so they understand what they have done and so the world understands what they have done. As far as what other nations can do, it’s possible to apply sanctions through the European Union, it’s possible to apply sanctions through nation states, it’s possible to use diplomacy. I think all those measures should be used and used as a matter of urgency and I don’t think the United Nations should leave this matter. If China and Russia have vetoed it once, let us see if they will at some stage veto it again as public pressure and international condemnation builds up.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Good final thought. Sir John Major, thank you very much indeed for joining us today.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to Trinity College Dublin Historical Society – 21 November 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made to the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society on Wednesday 21st November 2007.

    Mr Chairman, Mr Auditor, Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen of College Historical Society, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My privilege to propose “that the Best Thanks of the Society are due to the Auditor for his Paper”.

    Well done, Tim.

    Chancellor, Provost, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin and doubly so to be at this famous University.

    As you know, Albert Reynolds is unwell and can’t be with us this evening. However – the good news is – he’s recovering and will be out of hospital in a few days. I visited him this afternoon and he was in fine form. I know I speak for Albert Reynolds as well as myself in thanking you for the privilege of receiving this Award for our work on the Irish Peace Process. Timothy Smyth has presented a Paper full of insight and I am delighted to respond to it.

    Let me begin with a disclaimer: many people – some acknowledged, many not – contributed to the Irish Peace Process. They came from the Civil Services – I am delighted to see Roderic Lyne and Martin Mansergh here this evening – both of whom were pivotal figures in the whole process. They were crucial. When tempers heated, they cooled them. Tempers cool – they backed us in a way that rose them. They were magisterial. So were members of the Catholic and Protestant communities; the Churches; as well as figures from local and national politics.

    Paddy Mayhew, Peter Brooke, Dick Spring, John Bruton come to mind, as significant contributors. So – in different ways – do Jim Molyneaux and John Hume. And – it must also be acknowledged – individuals within the paramilitaries on both sides who realised violence was failing and opened their minds to a political settlement.

    Before I arrived at Downing Street, I had very little contact with Ireland – North or South – despite the presence of an Irish grandmother in my family. But, once there, Northern Ireland became a priority, and for long periods the priority. I held meetings beyond number in Westminster and in Belfast. Some were friendly. Some were rancorous. Some were full of hope. Some were interminable. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress. I knew from the outset that progress would be two steps forward – and one back: and so it proved.

    Invariably, I was struck by the disparity between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland Troubles lay deep in history, and were made worse by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots were ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning fiercely.

    And that loathing had led to carnage that, by the early 1990’s, seemed a permanent and irreversible way of life in Northern Ireland, with violence spinning off to the British mainland. Another atrocity. Another hooded victim. Another soldier dead. Such violence seemed to be so common-place, it often lost its place in the daily news. Shock receded to acceptance. Familiarity stilled the horror of butchery.

    But I did not believe the situation was irreversible. Nor, when I met him, did Albert Reynolds. I will now embarrass Albert. I’m sorry, Albert, but what I’m about to say is true. When I met Albert, I liked him instantly – not always the case among politicians. The man I came to know was a pragmatist with convictions – never an ideologue. He was a deal maker: a man who would offer something to gain something. It felt as though I was looking in the mirror. There was hope.

    At our very first meeting in No. 10, Albert and I agreed to put a peace process at the forefront of our political agenda. We knew we might well face hostility. Deep-rooted scepticism was certain. Political setbacks were likely. At worst, our careers might end. But at best, innocent people would no longer be killed. During the nearly seven years I worked on the Peace Process, that was the easiest decision I had to take.
    In his Paper, Timothy Smyth observed that there were lessons learned that might offer sign-posts to solving other conflicts. He is right: there is one, above all.

    Any Peace Process means dialogue: dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and dialogue – indirect at first – with the paramilitaries. That point about peace making is absolute: you cannot reach an agreement with someone to whom you do not – or will not – talk.

    That was my view – and Albert’s too. Yet it was not received opinion.

    For years, the IRA had sought a political objective through violence. For years, they had been resisted. It was a dance of death -interminable and pointless. It was also a stand-off that was convenient to the warriors of each side. The IRA could say they were not cowed by the power of the British – and would fight continuously for a United Ireland. The British Government could parade its strength by refusing to talk until the IRA disarmed which, without progress, they would never do. These so-called “strong positions” – these “positions of principle” – merely served to entrench the violence and the killing. And – as Mr Smyth observes – there was a cumbersome baggage of ideology on every side.
    Albert Reynolds and I approached the problem in the belief there would be a settlement because there must be. That ideology must give way to common sense. Some thought that was a triumph of hope over experience: we did not.

    It seemed to me the groundwork for a settlement was obvious:-

    (i) We had to agree objectives between London and Dublin for – if the two Governments had opposing agendas – the chance of a settlement was minimal.

    (ii) We needed to get inside the mind of the paramilitaries. People would be astonished at how many hours I spent trying to think myself into their minds – particularly those of the leaders of the IRA. What were their motives? Why did they act as they did? What constraints did they face within their own organisation?

    (iii) We knew we had to address the grievances that made it so easy for mischief makers to stir up hatred and foment disputes between the two communities.

    (iv) And we had to offer an end product that would encourage those within the paramilitaries, who had begun to realise violence would never succeed and were looking for a political settlement.

    (v) We also had to address contradictory ambitions and fears. Unionists feared a united Ireland. Nationalists favoured it. Both communities needed reassuring.

    Returning to Mr Smyth’s observation about lessons learned: the above approach, with modifications, has to be the bed-rock of any approach to end violent conflict.

    Putting together a Peace Plan in the early 90s was like playing multi-dimensional chess. It was a Rubik’s cube in Gaelic. What pleased London often worried Dublin. What was acceptable to the Unionists was anathema to the Nationalists. What was welcomed by some in Parliament was condemned by others. A peace process was never going to be a smooth ride – and it wasn’t.

    The Joint Declaration

    In his Paper, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Mr Smyth refers to “elements of mistrust” on both sides. He is absolutely right. Mistrust was a serious impediment to progress. Time and again committed advocates on both sides used leaks to the Media – often half-truths – to highlight fears and submerge progress. Everything that emerged from a Republican source (or was welcomed by Republicans) was poked at suspiciously and denounced by Unionists. The reverse was also true. The history of the Joint Declaration is a classic illustration of this tendency.

    In retrospect, the Joint Declaration stands out. But – in the early 1990’s – other avenues were being considered too.

    There was, of course, the three-stranded talks between the constitutional Parties; London and Dublin and North and South. They had many frustrations and deficiencies and ended up as a blind alley, but they were a source of ideas to determine what was acceptable to all sides, and what was a show-stopper. One point we learned was crucial for later: the political Parties would talk to the British Government but not to each other – yet we learned they would do so if elected to the same body. Years later, that led to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the unexpected partnership of Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness. In the 1990’s that would have seemed impossible, yet it is only when extreme positions are isolated, or neutered or brought together that a solution is possible.

    There was also the “back-channel” communication between the British Government and the Provisionals – a crucial clearing house and test bed. It was politically risky for the British Government, but also – let us not forget – for the Provisionals as well. When a newspaper “leaked” the existence of this channel, many were affronted by its existence – but making peace is a messy business and neither then nor now do I have any apologies to offer on this score: it advanced the Peace Process; it spelled out to the Provisionals what was – and was not – on offer; it removed misunderstandings; it helped save lives. To my mind, that is ample justification for it.

    It was in February 1993, through this “back channel”, that I received the following message:

    “The conflict is over but we need your 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.”

    In London, we gave this message a very restricted circulation. Even so, amongst close colleagues, some were suspicious. Some saw a political trap to lure the British Government into concessions. Few thought it would yield anything worthwhile. Doubt, as well as distrust, was ever-present on all sides throughout the process.

    The advice I received from the Security Services was that the message was from the Provisional Army Council – more specifically, they thought, from Martin McGuinness – although I should place on record that he has always denied sending it. This is a pity since – even in the darkest days – those words encouraged me to believe a settlement was possible. And there were many dark days.

    In his Paper, Mr Smyth reminds us of the bombs at Bishopsgate, Shankill Road, and Warrington to which he could have added the Loyalist murders at a pub in the village of Greysteel, in revenge for the IRA’s bungled bombing at Shankill Road. These atrocities were pivotal in hardening the public mind against violence, and boxing in the paramilitaries.

    I remember those bombs with the clarity of yesterday. I was in my garden in Huntingdon on a bright and beautiful Easter Saturday when I heard news of the Warrington bomb which fatally injured two little boys. It came only days after I had received assurances of progress from the Provisionals through the “secret link”. It was the only time I seriously considered breaking off the Peace Process. I did not – for two reasons: – firstly, I did not want any more loss of life – not least those of children: and secondly, I had begun to understand the psyche of the IRA. They believed they had to show themselves to be “strong” to placate their volunteers: that meant violence would accompany progress as, in their own way, they sought to show they were not making concessions, not – in their own mind – giving ground. Blood and progress marched together. It was a bitter assessment, but I believe it was the right one.

    The concept of a Joint Declaration had been around for some years. John Hume and Gerry Adams had pioneered the idea in 1988. Various private enterprise and Government texts had been floated but none was remotely likely to gain the support of the Unionist community. They were seen as too “Green” in complexion. Therefore – to the Unionists – they were flawed. Therefore, they were denounced. As so often in Irish politics, a sound idea was spoiled by its parentage – only a text jointly negotiated and agreed by the British and Irish Governments had any chance of acceptance North and South of the Border. And any negotiated text was bound to be very different from the early cock-shies. Nonetheless, the Hume-Adams’ dialogue was important and opened a window.

    It was not easy to agree a text. Officials – North and South – worked at it incessantly. Road-blocks were common. Disputes were frequent. I had innumerable hours of meetings with my own Officials, as no doubt, did Albert on his own side. Frequently we met – or resolved points over the telephone lines. I recall a meeting at a European Summit that dwarfed the importance of the Summit itself. And a stand-up row – in private – in Dublin Castle, when Albert and I deserted our Officials for one of the fiercest rows I ever had in Government. We survived it and returned to negotiation: that afternoon, I knew we’d reach a settlement.

    Albert Reynolds and I resolved the final points in the text of the Joint Declaration over the telephone on 14th November 1993 and announced it publicly sixteen hours later.

    What was the Declaration about? Was it worth all the effort?

    I believe it was. After 74 years of partition and almost 25 years of violent conflict, the British and Irish Governments – for the first time – had agreed principles upon which they could both unite.

    The Joint Declaration promised fair play to both communities. The Unionists were guaranteed there would be no imposition of a United Ireland, and the Republicans were guaranteed their traditions and aspirations would be respected. It was implicit that if there were ever to be a majority in the North for unification, that the British Government would not stand in the way. In addition – and crucially – the Paramilitaries were promised a full place in democratic politics once they abandoned violence. It was a powerful symbol that pointed the way to a very different future for Ireland.

    The impact of the Joint Declaration was immediate. It received massive public support at home – and worldwide. It isolated the men of violence. Encouraged the IRA to offer a cease-fire. And drained from all the paramilitaries the subliminal sympathy that earned them funding, recruits and public tolerance from their own communities. I believe, too, it offered hope where none previously existed.

    Much work still needed to be done. Political restrictions on the paramilitaries were eased. The Joint Framework Documents, negotiated with Albert Reynolds and finalised in 1995 with John Bruton, bridged a gap towards a final settlement. Indeed, re-assembled they were the basis for The Good Friday Agreement – when a new future was finally put in place for all Ireland.

    Prior to 1990, the Prime Minister and The Taoiseach met irregularly as sparring partners, often playing to their own gallery: today, the political relationship between London and Dublin is a relationship of allies – of friends; old opponents – once viscerally at war with one another – now work together.

    Ireland saw a new future and grasped it – putting an end to a black history that cost too many lives and dashed the hopes of too many generations. The pessimists were confounded. Reason prevailed – and the winner was – is – Ireland.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Children for Peace Dinner – 23 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Children for Peace Dinner, held at the Granada Studios in Manchester on Friday 23rd June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [First section Sir John Major thanked everyone for coming and for Wendy and Colin for organising. Sir John Major explained why he was involved, he recalled the day he heard that Tim and Johnathan were murdered, and it nearly ended the peace process, but it didn’t because others might be killed.]

    In the interim I met Colin/Wendy and have seen their extra-ordinary response to a tragedy that, even now, is heard to come to terms with.

    They set up this Charity – and it has grown. They set up the Tim Parry Scholarship.

    They built a dedicated Peace Centre.

    They set up a range of learning programmes to meet the needs of 5-6 year olds up to young adults – and programmes working with adults.

    We will never end terror by force of arms or policing alone. We have to attack causes, win minds as well as territories.

    That’s what the Trust does: its learning programmes are focussed on understanding causes of conflict and resolving them peacefully.
    Governments can try and change attitudes but they need help: organisations like Children for Peace.

    Terror is at its weakest when the Community turns against it – rejects bigotry and violence – sets up “Ambassadors” for peace: this Charity does all of that. That is why I’m involved.

    When the Peace Process began in the early 90s, Albert Reynolds and I both shared the view that terrorism could not prevail and that the better aspects of human nature would be bound to win. I won’t reproduce all the many twists and turns of the Peace Process but let me simply say I believe we are nearly there and we need to build on what has been achieved in Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons, of course, why the Peace Centre is so important although its remit is wider.

    Over the years, we have become used to Irish terror but now the threat is much wider.

    Terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now, like the economy, terror is globalising. Terrorism is Al Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; Pattani United Liberation Organisation; GIA … the list goes on.

    Groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as their minds are closed.

    Today, terrorism is a threat we can’t ignore. It is not targeted only against the Governments of the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide. Around the world – other Tim’s and Johnathan’s.

    Most people find violence abhorrent and yet, terrorism has never been short of apologists. Over many years, it has grown bolder and more deadly. Many nations have suffered.

    And for no purpose because terrorism has not been effective in the post-Colonial world.

    When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped Fascism – it was not because of terrorism.

    When Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – it was not because of terrorist pressure.

    When Apartheid ended – terrorism played no part in its demise.

    Nor have the IRA gained from terror. Their political end is unrealised and their Community has seen through them.

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – immoral.

    What is the purpose of terror? It varies. For many Terrorist Groups the predominant aim is to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim; to play upon prejudice; to foster hatred. For others, as in Northern Ireland, it is to pursue specific political agendas or to unsettle democracies.

    In Northern Ireland, the intent was to absorb the North into a united Ireland. Always, the effect is to create chaos.

    And it does. The economic impact of terror is to de-stabilise markets and interrupt the flow of commerce. The political effect is to undermine Government by consent and civil order.

    So, whatever reservations there may be about how this War on Terror is being fought – these are sound reasons why it must be fought – and why it must be won.

    Terrorism and democracy are fundamentally opposed. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    The oxygen for terrorism is hatred: hatred of specific countries and their values or – sometimes – resentment of long-standing grievances. We know, too, that social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation.

    In considering terror, one question must be asked: can a war against terror be won at all? Is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated?

    My answer is – Yes, it can.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so?

    The answer to that question is complex. It involves action against existing terror groups now, and political measures to prevent such groups obtaining support today and spreading their contagion tomorrow.

    To win, all those nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. This coalition of the willing must embrace every country that is – or wishes to be – democratic. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes. And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    International co-operation is vital: we will win more speedily if we co-ordinate action against terror; inhibit the movement of terrorists; outlaw them in every respect; attack money laundering; penalise States that are known to fund terror; act to reduce their supply of weapons; agree world-wide extradition of terrorist suspects. So much, I think, is obvious – although not all of it is done.

    But these measures are simply policing action against existing terror groups. We need to know – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable – but they must be faced.

    Inequalities – poverty, AIDS; injustices – political repression, social exclusion. All these play a part.

    In much of the world ideological radicalisation has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant to fuel their cause. Events such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fed this perception as has the failure to bring the Middle East Peace Process – or the Kashmir conflict – to a successful conclusion.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of morning coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people, with the life of someone in richer countries – even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support.

    The rich nations do much to help – and, at the recent G8 meeting, pledged to do more. I welcome that. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    I believe that common humanity suggests that – 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 and fill bellies that are empty.

    In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we increase demand, we begin to create tomorrow’s market – and we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    There are many reasons why the action promised by the G8 must be delivered: undermining hate campaigns is only a side issue but an important one. If we under-perform, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion.

    Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish to sustain a free market in a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if the world acts early, acts now, acts out of conscience – not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, is such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    Over the years, terror has so unsettled the political climate that trust has gone and a lasting solution is elusive. This plays entirely into the hands of the terrorist for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse: it is used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    Sometimes, it has been difficult to see how this could ever be brought to a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief – but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward.

    I want to say something here about politics and terror. It is based on my own experience in dealing with the IRA.

    For years, the IRA had bombed and murdered in Northern Ireland – and on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Successive Governments reacted strongly and gave no ground to terrorism. But – whilst not conceding their objectives – we did look for a peace process to wean them off violence and to undercut their support in the community.

    It took a long time – and there were many setbacks – but it was right. We are now near a political settlement, without conceding the united Ireland that the IRA sought through bomb and bullet.

    The lesson is clear: never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate. It is tempting just to denounce terrorism. But if you wish to save lives, you must sometimes engage with them as well.

    That is what the Peace Centre does: why it is so vital; why it is important to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing to Journalists on Northern Ireland – 21 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing on Northern Ireland to journalists, held on Thursday 21st September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly welcome you here this afternoon and I hope we can have a useful exchange.

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about where we are in the process, how we led up to where we are, and I suppose most importantly, where we go from the present situation. And I have no doubt that you will have questions certainly about the third of those points and maybe the others as well.

    Let me give you some personal thoughts about the pursuit of what we have come to know as peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We are pretty close now to the second anniversary of the Joint Declaration. I don’t think many people would dissent from the view that we have travelled a good deal further on the road towards peace since that Joint Declaration than most people imagined at the time.

    A lot of people didn’t believe that Albert Reynolds and I would reach agreement on it. When we did reach agreement on it they didn’t think it would move forward any further and thanks to the cooperation between the governments and others we have, and I think that is a considerable advance.

    When I first came into Downing Street in 1990, I remember very vividly sitting here and listing in front of me a small number of priorities for the future. One of those priorities on the first occasion I came in here was Northern Ireland. At the time I think it is probably fair to say that wasn’t universally welcomed as a wise move. The history, as told by the cynical, was that the burden of history was too great, that age-old animosities were too deeply ingrained for there to be any practical and worthwhile move forward. Too many people had come to grief on the Irish question, was the familiar refrain from very many quarters.

    I didn’t agree with that. I didn’t agree with that then, I haven’t agreed with that on the good days we have had since then and I certainly haven’t agreed with it on the days when things have been difficult either. It was repugnant to me then that people were killing one another in Northern Ireland and beating one another up in Northern Ireland, and it was as repugnant to me in Northern Ireland as it would have been if it was happening locally in Westminster, in Surrey or in Durham or anywhere else. So I felt that it was worthwhile making a fresh and original effort to see how far we could get with a peace process.

    If I ever needed any reinforcing in the belief that that was the right thing to do, I have to say that every single visit that I have made to Ulster over the last five years, and there have now been rather a lot of visits to Ulster, has reinforced me in the view that it was beyond any doubt the right thing to do.

    It is quite striking if you go into Northern Ireland, and one has seen before the external image of the disputes in Northern Ireland, to actually then go into Northern Ireland in the streets and feel the atmosphere and meet the people, whether Catholic or Protestant. And what struck me very forcibly in those early visits was the clear willingness of the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, whatever their religion might be, to give their support to a peace effort that they believed was based on fairness, transparency and democracy. I have found that to be a consistent theme whenever I have gone there, whether I have spoken to special interest groups or people with no particular special interest other than being a citizen of Northern Ireland.

    And when things have run into difficulties from time to time, you might perhaps be surprised by the weight of letters and messages that have come here from Northern Ireland from people who by and large in their own different ways have had the same simple straightforward message – stick with the process and don’t be put off by the setbacks.

    If anybody believed that we could move from where we were to a final agreement in Northern Ireland without setbacks, then they are an incurable romantic and a dreamer. It was never going to be that way, it hasn’t been that way and there may yet be setbacks as well as advances in the future.

    One of those setbacks was just a few days ago when we postponed the summit that John Bruton and I were to have had at Chequers. But I think we need to put this in context. It was a setback, it was not a crisis. And those people, whenever there is a setback, who talk as though it were a crisis and the peace process itself were doomed are doing no good to the process and simply talking up their own negotiating position. Setback is one thing, crisis is another. What we have had is a setback and it is a setback I hope and believe that we will overcome.

    Progress is going to be uneven. We are not suddenly going to wake up one morning, rub our eyes and find the whole thing is finally sealed and settled. That is not I believe the way it is remotely likely to be. It will evolve, this settlement, just as it has been evolving since the Downing Street declaration.

    In the year after the Downing Street declaration we made pretty dramatic strides in a whole series of fronts. That will not always be the case, though I think that we will be able to carry this process a good deal forward.

    At the moment, for the last few weeks, we have been in a bit of a pause period. But with patience, a degree of imagination and I think perhaps from time to time steady nerves as well, I think we will be able to move this process forward. If we are going to do that, as I believe we can, one absolutely indispensable element will be the continued close cooperation between London and Dublin. I have found it a very good working relationship, first with Albert Reynolds and subsequently with John Bruton. We haven’t always agreed on everything, we haven’t always approached things entirely from the same angle, but it has been a good working relationship and it remains so with John Bruton as the present Taoiseach.

    Let me add just a couple of points about the future. Firstly, all-party round table talks – the sooner that I can convene all-party round table talks on a constitutional settlement the better, the happier I will be when we can get there. I would be perfectly happy to do so this afternoon if that were feasible. But in the reality of politics, there is no purpose whatsoever in calling all-party talks unless there is a pretty good chance that all the parties are going to be there if we were to do so, and if parties began to absent themselves, perhaps permanently, perhaps in large numbers, then we would have made a mistake in our move forward.

    I can’t force people to the conference table, I can’t coerce them to the conference table, I can encourage them to go to the conference table. The principle of consent, which I think we one stage was not universally accepted, is and must remain at the heart of the efforts of London and Dublin combined. And it applies to all-party talks, just as much as it applies to anything else in the peace process.

    Let me just say a word about decommissioning. Decommissioning is raised from time to time because it is an extremely important issue. What it is not is a British obsession, it is emphatically not a new condition cooked up by Perfidious Albion after the IRA ceasefire, and I think a cursory glance at your cuttings will confirm that that is so. If anybody doesn’t have the cuttings to hand I think it is quite probable that I might be able to find them for you. So it is not something that we have suddenly cooked up and I very much welcome the editorials in some of your newspapers recently which have emphatically made that point.

    As far as decommissioning is concerned, well frankly I don’t care how it is done so long as it is credible and verifiable. I am not looking for surrenders, I am not looking for people coming out, throwing their weapons down at the feet of the British. That is not remotely what I have in mind. All I am concerned about is getting those arms out of commission because that is the key point in getting people to the all-party round table talks that are so essential, and ultimately getting people to accept an agreement that will be willingly accepted by all the people concerned.

    The principle of decommissioning comes smack out of the core of the Joint Declaration. And the plain truth is just simply this. The majority parties in Northern Ireland, representing the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, just will not come to the conference table until Sinn Fein / IRA have begun the process of actual decommissioning.

    Now I can see no other way of generating the confidence necessary to draw the relevant parties into substantive talks. And neither is it just stubbornness by the UIster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists political parties, that is not the situation in the North. I daresay everyone present will have seen the poll in the Irish News recently, I think it was late August, which showed that 90% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, believe that the decommissioning of IRA arms should be a precondition for the inclusion of Sinn Fein in all-party talks. And when you broke that down into party allegiance, not only did you find perhaps unsurprisingly that that was over 90% of the DUP and Ulster Unionist support, but it was I think 73% of Alliance Party support and a substantial figure, I think 33%, of SDLP and Nationalist support. So it runs right across the North, it isn’t simply a fresh condition generated and invented by Unionist leaders in the North.

    The Irish Times I think made that point very forcibly and I don’t generally quote newspapers editorials so perhaps it is a bad principle to start, it wouldn’t always work in my favour. But on this occasion the Irish Times set it out very clearly in April earlier this year.

    So what next from the present situation? I continue to believe that the twin track approach – preparatory talks involving all the parties on one hand, and an international commission on decommissioning on the other hand – offers the best way forward from where we are at present. Now I don’t know, I can’t know whether this approach will get off the ground because the answer to that depends on other people. What I can say is that I will continue to work patiently to try and ensure that it does get off the ground, off the ground with the constitutional parties. I saw David Trimble and John Taylor earlier this week, I will be seeing John Hume and Ian Paisley – separately, not together – some time next week, and I hope to see John Alderice as soon as we can agree a mutually convenient date.

    We will continue to work also with the paramilitaries on both sides in exploratory dialogue, and with our colleagues in America with whom we have remained in the closest touch for a very long time. And of course with John Bruton whom I will be seeing tomorrow and on Saturday in Majorca. We mustn’t expect great announcements at the end of these discussions. John and I talk a great deal on the telephone, privately, in the sidelines of international meetings that we attend. Our points of contact are not just on the great setpiece summits, it is a regular and continuing dialogue, and frankly it is a dialogue on a scale that I don’t believe has existed between London and Dublin at any stage before, I don’t believe that has ever been anything like that. And my office and his office are in direct contact, I think it is fair to say if you add in the contacts between offices, on a daily basis and have been for a long time. So the contact is very close. There will be differences of approach but we try and work them out when we can and the working relationship with John Bruton is one of the reasons for encouragement that we will be able to carry this process forward.

    I am sorry to burden you with that lengthy introduction but I thought it might put one of two things in content before we turn to your questions. I am happy to take your questions, we will see what you have to ask and where I think it is prudent for the process to answer the question, I will answer the question, if I don’t think it is prudent I will tell you it is not prudent and not answer the question.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Irish Independent):

    Prime Minister, you referred to your hope that the international commission might get of the ground. Earlier today Mr Ancram remarked that it was not envisaged that the commission would actually oversee the decommissioning of arms. To whom do you envisage that arms would actually be handed up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the things that the decommissioning commission will look at will be questions like that. The commission will look at the modalities, the mechanism for actually determining how arms are decommissioned. We can consider late further matters on the basis of their recommendation. We need to take this one step at a time. What I am conscious of, I do understand, perhaps better than people will sometimes give the British government credit for, some of the inhibitions and difficulties that face Sinn Fein as well. I do sit here and try and put myself forward into Mr Adams’s head to see the difficulties that he faces in order to determine what he is going to do. So I understand those difficulties. We are not seeking to pile embarrassment and difficulty upon Sinn Fein. What we are seeking to do is to find a way in which they are able to come forward and accept the decommissioning of arms. I think if we proposed how that was going to be done, that would be less likely to be accepted than if it were done by an independent commission. It was out of that thought that the concept of an independent commission, very probably chaired by a distinguished American, I think that is overwhelmingly likely and a name has been in circulation, I think that is the best way to proceed and I think that we will continue to go down that route.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    You said in your remarks that progress is going to be uneven, and I think we would all accept that. But winding up the debate in the British/Irish Interparliamentary Union yesterday afternoon, Michael Mates said, “We might even have to contemplate a short term return to violence to break the impasse, otherwise appeasement goes on”. Is that British government policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say, I haven’t seen the transcript of what Michael said and long experience has taught me to be very careful about responding to things that I have not myself seen in black and white or heard. Subject to that, let me set out what the British government’s position is.

    Of course no-one wants a return to violence, no-one wants a return to violence in any circumstances or for any reason. What we do want is a lasting peace. That can’t be a peace at any price because that is the sort of peace that isn’t going to last. And from the moment Albert Reynolds and I first decided that we would go down this route, we were looking not for a ceasefire, welcome though a ceasefire is, but a peace that was going to be enduring. And the reason we need that is self-evident. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last year. You have seen huge economic changes in Northern Ireland. What we have not yet seen in Northern Ireland is a degree of international investment that can come from abroad, into the north and into the south in my judgement, once it is clear we have got over the arms problem and we are moving towards a proper settlement. That is why a short term peace settlement is no good, the prize is much bigger than that. But we don’t want to return to violence under any circumstances and I don’t really think I need say very much more than that, that is the British Government’s position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you then believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are bluffing when they say that they cannot contemplate handing over arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I find their position, I have my own judgement of what is bluff and what is negotiating tactics and what isn’t, but I don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if I was to unburden that thought to you. What I do say is that we do get conflicting noises from Sinn Fein publicly. It is very difficult on one hand to accept that their comments about them being dedicated to look for peace, this is a permanent peace, there is absolutely no doubt that they are determined to have peace, and all the other statements that have been made by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, and their view that that represents the view of their movement, and then to find them so resistant to beginning the decommissioning of arms. If they are permanently committed to a democratic future then they do not need an armed army at their back. I can understand that they do not want embarrassment or humiliation, as they would see it, of handing over their arms to the British. I do understand that, and that is why we moved down the route of an independent commission.

    But if what they say about entering the democratic process fully and being permanently committed to peace is truly their position, then I think it is hard for any dispassionate observer to understand why they wouldn’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body. I won’t repeat the point about understanding the pride of their movement, I think I do, but that doesn’t stand up when they are not being asked to hand their arms over to the British but they are being asked to hand them over to an independent commission.

    QUESTION:

    Michael Ancram, speaking to journalists this morning, seemed to be suggesting that both governments are now looking at the issue of decommissioning [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think almost however you answer that question you would be apt to give someone a misleading impression. There is no hidden depth in our examination of decommissioning, it is actually a very straightforward concept. We are interested in decommissioning because without decommissioning we cannot convene successfully the all-party talks that will enable us to reach a proper settlement and put that settlement, agreed by the constitutional parties, including Sinn Fein and including the Loyalist paramilitaries, to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and then legislate for it. I daresay one can keep approaching this from a different angle but it is really rather straightforward, it is as simple as that.

    QUESTION:

    One supplementary. Kevin McNamara yesterday said that he felt it would eventually come to a form of words.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Kevin McNamara has always taken that view. I don’t think that is the view of his party any more and I don’t think that is the view of any – or hardly any – of the mainstream democratic parties in Northern Ireland either. It is, I fear, an uncomfortable reality for some people that the people of Northern Ireland – and I quote again the figures I used in the poll a moment or so ago, it is not just the politicians – do appear to feel very strongly that there is a need for decommissioning of arms if they are going to feel secure in agreements that have been reached and if I may personalise the matter a little, if you were entering into constitutional negotiations with someone would you not wish to know in those constitutional negotiations that they were not going to stamp out of the negotiations themselves and then return to an armed struggle having kept arms for the purpose? I think you would have a certain reserve about that. I think you would want to see some evidence that they were in the business of staying in constitutional politics for good, which is what we wish.

    I have said to Sinn Fein: “the door is open to you as constitutional politicians; you can march through that door as a constitutional party properly recognised and treated in the same way as the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP but if that is to be the case, then you must operate on the same basis as those other parties and you must not have an armed force at your back in the case of dispute!” and I do not think that that is anything other than a statement of plain common sense that most people in the north – almost everybody in the north and outside the north – will accept.

    QUESTION (OTE News, Belfast):

    On the one hand we have your Ministers in Northern Ireland saying that nobody wants a surrender and indeed if I am not mistaken consciously avoiding the use of the word “surrender” in any interviews or speeches and yet you say that you can’t understand why the IRA won’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body.

    I live in Northern Ireland, for my part I think it highly unlikely that there will be any surrender. I think there could be some movement on the general principle of decommissioning but why has your Government stopped on the concept of arms actually being handed over, being surrendered?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me correct it. If I used “surrender”, let me make it clear what I mean.

    I don’t care if they are not handed over providing they are destroyed, they are decommissioned. As I tried to indicate vividly, I don’t expect them to come out and throw their arms down at the feet of other people. That has never been my position. All I am concerned about is that the arms are removed from possible use, from circulation. I don’t mind, frankly, whether they decide that they would wish to hand their arms over to an independent body; I don’t mind whether their arms are destroyed in their presence by an independent body or by themselves in the presence of an independent body.

    All that matters to me is that the arms are taken out of use. It isn’t a question of surrendering. If I used that it was an inadequate term and a slip of the tongue. What I am concerned about is to make sure that the arms are not available for use. I am not seeking to embarrass or humiliate Sinn Fein in that fashion, that wouldn’t be a productive or sensible thing to do. I just want the arms taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    And what the about the argument that you are not prepared to talk to Sinn Fein if they have 100% of their munitions? 95%?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need to show that they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning. If they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning, then they will begin to decommission. Once they have done that, then I think it is reasonable to ask the other political parties to sit down with them and I think some of the other political parties have said that once they begin to do that there is no reason not to sit down with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein and the Loyalist paramilitaries, to begin to discuss how we move forward. That is what we are working for but I repeat pedantically the substantive point, there is no point in my pretending that they don’t need to move down that route of taking arms out because even if I were to take that position, which I am not, the other parties would not and there would be nobody sitting at the table at all and that is useless for the process.

    QUESTION:

    Are you persuaded from your recent conversations with David Trimble that if Sinn Fein began the process of decommissioning as outlined by the British Government and particularly by Sir Patrick Mayhew in Washington, that if they did that and if they began the process of decommissioning their arms and explosives, that the Ulster Unionist Party would sit down to all-party talks with Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Emily, that is a question you must ask David Trimble. I can’t definitely answer for David Trimble or John Hume or any of the others.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    That was central to your discussion with him presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole range of things. I wouldn’t say that any individual thing was central to the discussion. We ran across the whole field in the hour and a half we had and we will have a good deal more meetings in the future to run across more so I don’t think I am prepared to put my words into Mr Trimble’s mouth or anybody else’s mouth. What I can say is once there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein are beginning to decommission, then the probability of all-party talks will be accelerated beyond belief and I think myself that we would get all-party talks.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think that the official Unionists or indeed the DUP would put further road blocks in the way of all-party talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope nobody is going to put further road blocks. I understand the suspicions that have existed on both sides. There has been a long legacy of one political party having a mistrust of another political party, it operates on both sides of the divide.

    In local government a few years ago we would have found it incredible that they would have worked together; they are working together in local government. What has been done as local government can be done at leader level in the parties in Northern Ireland as well and the sooner we are able to get in that position, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and by the “better it will be for Northern Ireland”, I don’t only mean that they will have a more secure reason for believing there will be no more violence though that certainly would be true but that I believe once you have got to that position it is actually going to unlock that avalanche of investment that I think is waiting abroad to come into the whole of Ireland once they are certain this process is going to be irreversible and the difference that is going to make to the living standards of people north and south is going to very remarkable, and one great gain we have had in the last year is that people have seen in the last year the speed with which ordinary circumstances can change as a result of the ceasefire. It is as nothing in my judgement to what will happen when there is a universal conviction that that ceasefire is going to become a permanent end to violence.

    QUESTION (John Cooney, Dublin Correspondent of the Glasgow Herald):

    In your ongoing talks with Mr Bruton, do you believe that both of you can convince Sinn Fein, the IRA, of the principle of decommissioning or do you think you will need the pressure from Washington and the Clinton Administration to effect that end?

    Secondly, just to clarify a point earlier, when you said you are having greater cooperation and contact with Dublin, is your relationship with John Bruton now more intimate than it was with Albert Reynolds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure of the way you expressed the question! We had a very close political relationship and that was true with Albert and it was true with John Bruton as well. To give you a very practical illustration, I was in very regular contact with Albert Reynolds as well. To be brutally honest, you cannot conduct this sort of exercise at arms length. You can’t do it through interlocutors; there is a certain amount that can be done but at the end of the day you are going to have to do a certain amount of it yourself so I had very regular contact with Albert Reynolds on the telephone and directly. When Albert first came here, we agreed that we would institute the proposition of six-monthly summits alternating not rigidly but broadly alternating between London and Dublin but with Albert it still wasn’t just every six months.

    We meet regularly in any event at what seems to be an interminable number of European Union meetings and beyond that we have very close telephone contact so it has been very close in both instances, it really has. With Albert we had to sit down and negotiate bits of the Joint Declaration together, to call it a haggle I think would not be an unfair description and similarly with John Bruton with parts of the framework document. I don’t want to give you the impression we wrote all of it ourselves sitting in conclave just the two of us waiting for white smoke to come out. A huge amount of work of course was done by many other people.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it will require American intervention to get Sinn Fein to accept the principle of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that. There is no doubt that President Clinton is clear about the need for decommissioning, he has said so repeatedly. I think the Americans have made that point directly to Sinn Fein, they have said so publicly on a number of occasions as has John Bruton, as have an awful lot of other people, as has Dick Spring and many others.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    On the three-stranded relationship, the position of your Government was that nothing should be agreed until everything was agreed under that formula. Is that still the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, that is still the position.

    QUESTION:

    Can I take you one step back to Emily O’Reilly’s question, if Sinn Fein accept the commission…

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to or back from?

    QUESTION:

    Back one step beyond where she… If Sinn Fein accept the commission and the terms are agreed, are you in a position to guarantee that the Unionists would at least participate in the exploratory bilateral and trilateral talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the misconceptions there has always been in Sinn Fein’s mind and in many other people’s minds is that the British Government can guarantee the particular position of the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionists parties and the Alliance parties and others; that has never been the position.

    I cannot guarantee that they are going to respond. I can encourage them to enter into the talks, I can point out the advantage of entering into the talks and all these things but it just is not the case, as Sinn Fein so often think, that all I have to do is to say to the Unionists in Northern Ireland: “I would like you to do this!” they would do it. That isn’t the case so I am not in the position of being able to offer guarantees any more than John Bruton can offer me guarantees about the way Sinn Fein or the IRA behave. That isn’t the case.

    What I am seeking is to bring both sides together, to have the talks bilateral, trilateral, more if they wish it on the one hand and to have the decommissioning commission operate. We just talked about Sinn Fein but of course they would be looking at the surrender of arms from the Protestant paramilitaries as well so I am not in a position to give guarantees, I am not the leader of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I will use my best auspices to persuade them to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you make of the change in the Unionist leadership, the Unionists have a new leader? Do you think that is a good sign for the future, do you think that Mr Trimble is somebody who can come and sit round the table and do a deal eventually?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Any Unionist leader is going to have to carry the Unionist parties with him. Mr Trimble has been duly elected by the Unionist parties; he is therefore in a good position if he reaches an agreement, to carry his party with him in that agreement. I have to persuade him if I can that there is an agreement that it is possible to do and I will endeavour to do that. If I am able to persuade him, then I think that he will be able to bring his parties with him. He is an intelligent and an able man. Much of what I read about David Trimble in the last few weeks in the paper I don’t entirely recognise from the David Trimble I know in the House of Commons. He is a very shrewd and forthright politician. I don’t mind dealing with shrewd and forthright politicians, it is part of the way of life in Downing Street!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if it is so difficult to form the conditions to allow people to get around the table, is it not going to be impossible to form the conditions for any agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may say so without wishing to produce a smart-alec answer, that is what people said to me when we tried to get the Joint Declaration and it is what people said to me when we tried to form the framework documents. None of this is easy. If it had been easy, it would have been done a very long time ago. That is why I said to you it isn’t going to suddenly come together as a single solution signed, sealed and delivered overnight in a series of dramatic meetings. It is going to be a continuing process of confidence-building and edging forward so that people being to trust those with whom they are dealing more and more.

    The answer to your question is yes, I believe we can. If I did not believe that we could carry this process from beginning to end, then I would not have embarked upon this process in the beginning. It has not always been easy, it has not always been friction-free, but I think it can be carried from beginning to end and I think although people tend to look at the impasse when it suddenly seems to be created between one political bloc and another, there is an undercurrent which people would be very ill-advised to ignore and the undercurrent is the pressure of opinion in the north and in the south that compels the politicians, all of them, me included, to move on towards a settlement. Whomsoever stops this progress in its tracks now will have a lot to answer for to history and will have a lot to answer for to their contemporaries, so the answer is yes, yes, yes, I believe we can carry it forward.

    QUESTION:

    Given that the answer is yes, have you any vision of what that settlement could be or is that a mystery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a mystery, but if this settlement is going to stick it is not a settlement that is going to come out of the mouth of the British Prime Minister. It has got to be a settlement that is going to come out after discussion with the political parties. Of course I can see where I think they will end, but I think we must have their discussions, we have their inputs, we must consider that, we must see what they have to produce. At the end of the day it is going to be their settlement approved by the people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    What time-scale do you envisage or when do you think the parties will get down to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know. I don’t wish to put a time-scale on it. The sooner the better. I do not wish to see any undue delay but I do not think it prudent at the moment to put a short-term time-frame to something. I don’t think that would be productive at the moment. That is not to suggest that I am expecting a long delay, simply that I think it would be counter-productive for me to suggest short-term time-frames by which certain things needed to be done. What we need now is coaxing and persuasion and encouragement, not the constraint of a short time-frame.

    QUESTION:

    You have been talking a lot about how good the relationship is between the two governments. At a certain point in the week when the summit was cancelled it seemed anything but that; there was a lot of misunderstanding and certainly the spin that came from the British officials and the British media was that John Bruton is running scared of Sinn Fein and that it was the IRA who had effectively vetoed the summit. Would that have been your view of what happened given the British Government seemed determined [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read a lot of that in the press, certainly in the Irish press as well if I may say so. I am not even sure, Emily, that you didn’t write it! [Laughter]. There you are, you see the interest I take in your writing!

    I think John Bruton is a brave and forthright politician. I like doing business with him and I am not going to say anything that going to lead you to believe anything to the contrary.

    QUESTION (Bernard Persil, Irish Independent):

    Are you confident that you can deliver all of your party with this settlement because as you are aware a lot of people haven’t really come this far before, they are quite nervous about that it may entail, there is an awful lot of misrepresentation of positions not least within your own party, not least amongst some of your own backbenchers. Will that be a particular obstacle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may fall back on parliamentary tradition, I refer you to the answer I gave to the gentleman here just a moment or so ago! [Laughter]. If I can move it forward satisfactorily, I think I will be able to carry on.

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick, in his speech last night, said that if the international commission brought forward proposals for an alternative approach on decommissioning the Government would look at those proposals and judge them by their merits. Could that be taken to mean that if the commission proposed that you scrap Part 3 of the Washington test that you would do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sir Patrick said “on their merits” and we will look at things on their merits.

    I emphasise again that this “Washington 3” condition is not a condition invented by the Government after the ceasefire. I just emphasise that point again. It is a statement of the political reality and one thing we cannot do in these negotiations is avoid political reality and I think Patrick was emphasising that point again yesterday.

    I think unless there is anything terribly fresh and original or anyone is burning with something…..

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Twenty-five years in politics suggests to me it is always a mistake to take the last question! [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick has also said that he is very worried and very conscious of the fact that the IRA allegedly are recruiting and restructuring all the time. Presumably, that would give you pause for thought and would not be too hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course we are concerned about the IRA’s activities. We are concerned about the punishment beatings that go on. One thing that the ceasefire has done is draw the veil up so that people have actually looked at the punishment beatings that have gone on as well and they have continued during this period and of course we are concerned about activities like that, of course we are.

    I think we had better call a halt. Thank you very much for coming. I hope as events proceed that we have the opportunity of another meeting discuss further progress. I will look forward to that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 24 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Albert Reynolds, held at Chequers on Monday 24th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I would like firstly to say how pleased I am to have had the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste with us today. We have had a very useful opportunity and some very useful discussions.

    As I said when I spoke in Belfast on Friday, I think we have now entered a new phase in the peace process, a phase that should lead to exploratory talks with Sinn Fein before the end of the year.

    We are going to have to work extremely hard to make up for all the opportunities that have been lost in the last twenty-five years but what we have now is a real opportunity to move forward and say that I look forward to taking and it is that opportunity in the future that the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, Paddy Mayhew and I have been discussing in our talks over the last few hours.

    The Joint Declaration that we signed last December opened the way for a ceasefire. We have now had nearly two months without any acts of terrorism by the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries have called off their violence and I thought to myself in very vivid fashion indeed last week in Belfast, in Dungannon, in Nurian, in Lisburn that there is a truly remarkable change in the atmosphere of normal life for people in Northern Ireland. There is a new buoyancy, there is a wave of support from both Unionists and Nationalists for the peace process and we are determined to build upon it.

    This morning, the Taoiseach and I have taken stock of the developments and have looked at the way ahead for the joint framework documents and the talks process that will follow. We are both clear that stability is vital for Northern Ireland’s future development and it must be based on an accommodation agreed by the political parties and that of course is the purpose of the joint framework document; it is to offer our joint understanding of what is most likely to secure widespread acceptance by the parties; it is not a blueprint to be imposed but they are ideas to be discussed by the parties and by all the people of Northern Ireland.

    We are making steady progress with the document and we have had another extremely useful discussions about it this morning. It addresses very important issues and for each side there are still some very important issues that remains to be resolved. We can’t yet set a final date for completion of the document by let me say that we are both determined to conclude this exercise successfully and at the earliest possible time. No-one is dragging their feet and we are both confident of being able to reach agreement.

    Let me say a word about security and weapons.

    Close cooperation – unprecedented cooperation to be frank – between the two governments has been a very big contribution to cross-border security in recent years. Both the Taoiseach and I want to deal effectively with the serious problem of weapons and explosives. Peace won’t finally be assured in Northern Ireland until the paramilitaries on both sides of the divide have put their weapons away; that will permit a democratic debate between law-abiding parties.

    We also, in addition to that, want to put an end to the racketeering, the drug-dealing and the other crimes which so frequently are a by-product of terrorism and so frequently used to fund the activities of terrorism so we have an entirely common interest in this area and I think the action taken by the Garda over the weekend illustrates that far more clearly than anything either the Taoiseach and I could say this afternoon. We have discussed this morning ways of coordinating our approach to deal with this particular problem. We spent some time on it and we have given a remit to our officials to develop this approach and report back to us as speedily as they can and their report will clearly be an important document for us to consider – I hope we will be able to consider it before very long.

    Let me just say finally a brief word about the economy:

    We need to move quickly to show the people in Northern Ireland, especially those in the worst-affected communities and particularly those who have been without jobs for a long time, the benefits for them of a peaceful way of life and that is the reason I launched two initiatives on Friday, firstly to hold an investment conference in Belfast in December and secondly to gather ideas right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland on the new projects which we and the European Union will back financially and I look forward to that conference moving ahead.

    I would like now to ask the Taoiseach to say a few words, but before he does let me say in conclusion that we will continue to keep in very close touch as we have done throughout the period immediately behind us, so will Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring and so will the officials of the two governments. I myself do not believe we could have reached the present hopeful stage in Northern Ireland without absolutely unprecedented cooperation between our two governments; that cooperation is precisely what we have had over the last two years, it has become an ingrained habit and I think it will assist us as we move forward from now on.

    PRIME MINISTER REYNOLDS:

    Thank you, Prime Minister. Your statement indeed has outlined the matters that we discussed today at our meeting. First of all, we spent up to almost three hours in discussion, reviewing the peace process, where it is at in the light of two ceasefires now in place which indeed nobody believed was possible a few short months ago. After the Prime Minister’s statement in the north of Ireland at the weekend, it is quite clear that a very significant impetus has been given to the peace process and it is now moving along and today we reviewed where we had come from and how we are going to proceed in the future and of course we are going to proceed together, we always did up to now and we are going to continue that excellent relationship and keep in close touch as we move along step by step.

    It also gave us the opportunity to review progress on the framework document and allowed us the opportunity to give political direction to our officials as they restart their work on it. The Liaison Committee meets tomorrow to start work in the light of the directions given to them today.

    We have made further progress at this meeting today both at the meeting and over lunch and I have no doubt that we are all very well satisfied with how well the peace process is progressing and we aim to conclude successfully the framework document as soon as possible because we recognise that the momentum behind the peace process in Northern Ireland is so strong and so palpable on the ground that we are not going to delay or in any way hinder the development of that process which indeed will bring normality back to every family in Northern Ireland in both communities; they have suffered long enough, they have suffered for twenty-five years and the great sense of relief that has now permeated all the families in Northern Ireland has to indeed be built on by us and we are not going to be found wanting in that regard.

    As I say, it has been very sold progress today, I am absolutely satisfied that we have made good progress and that we will continue to make good progress from hereon in and that the two governments will continue that excellent cooperation between us and that great understanding between us. There is no question that this was a do-or-die effort here today, it was never envisaged to be that and it was a good solid working meeting albeit an informal meeting and indeed sometimes at those meetings more progress is made than at formal meetings.