The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Andrew Marr Show

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 11 April 2021

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 11 April 2021.

    ANDREW MARR:

    1992 was famously the Queen’s annus horribilis. The failure of three of her children’s marriages, and then the fire at Windsor Castle. Now, the prime minister at the time, the man who had to help support the royal family and sort of difficult financial problems was my next guest, Sir John Major. He was later appointed special guardian to princes William and Harry, and from all of that, of course, he dealt with the late Duke of Edinburgh pretty regularly. Sir John, welcome. Fondest memory?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are so many, but perhaps for this moment I could give you an early memory. I had just been elected leader of the Conservative Party and I bumped into Prince Philip and he came up looking extremely mischievous and he said, “I see your party are electing outsiders now.” He knew what it was like to be an outsider.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Of course he did.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And he often came out with very cryptic remarks like that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, one thing that you shared, I know, is an enthusiasm for cricket, which involves sitting down for many, many hours and watching test matches, sometimes together. What kind of conversations were you having? I think it could be fairly intimidating to be sitting next to the Duke of Edinburgh for that long?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It wasn’t intimidating at all, because we either talked about cricket or we watched the cricket. Nothing is more irritating in life than somebody sitting at your side babbling away when you’re trying to enjoy a cricket match. I felt that way and so did the Duke. But what did happen about cricket, frequently, when we met on occasions, he would sidle up to me with a grin on his face and say, “what’s the cricket score?” if there was a test match or an important game on. He was an off-break bowler, he had an interest in it. He’d been President of the MCC twice, I think, and he maintained that interest in cricket, as in other sports, throughout his life.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, I mentioned the annus horribilis there of course. 1992. You had a lot of engagement with the royal family, lots to talk about, lots of difficulties happening, including over money, and I wonder to what extent, people talk about this being almost like a joint monarchy, he was very involved in its decisions. Did you get an impression that he was engaged from the palace side in taking decisions, in negotiating a way through?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    He wasn’t so indiscreet as to talk about it in quite that clarity, but I had not the slightest doubt from my discussions with the Queen and with him that he was very much involved with what was happening. It was of course an annus horribili, there was more than one of them. He had them and they rather coincided with mine. I had the odd difficulty at the same time, I recall, with a little help from my friends. And of course we discussed those issues and there was no doubt about the depth and concern of Prince Philip for what the monarchy was facing, and in particular, the Queen.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, he was very involved, as you said, in understanding politics, took a close interest in politics. There was a famous moment, I think, in Ghana, when he was asked about the Ghanaian parliament, and he was told there were 200 Ghanaian MPs and he said something like – I’ve got it here – said, “quite right, that’s about the right number. We have 650 and most of them are a complete bloody waste of time.” Does that really reflect his view of parliament, do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not sure. You’d have to ask someone who knows him better than I do. But I rather agree with him about the number of MPs, I think there are too many and there are certainly far too many in the Lords. I think that is self-evident. But often those remarks that he made, those that were regarded as gruff and sometimes caused offence, I think they were remarks to put people at ease more than anything else. It wasn’t intended to be offensive. He was trying to put people who were nervous at meeting him at ease. If you’re meeting the Queen or Prince Philip for the first time, if you’re a normal person you’re nervous. His determination was to put people at ease and by saying something from left field, something that’s a bit anti-establishment, because parliament is the establishment of course, that does create a different perception in the mind and eyes of the people he’s meeting. It relaxes them, and I think that is what he’s about. He often suffered extremely bad headlines and stories as a result of that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And offended people too presumably?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Indeed, and I think that is what he was about.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, apart from cricket and apart from some of the aspects of politics, what do you think really drove him in terms of his, as it were, broader political passions? What excited him?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think he was excited by things that worked and things that had an element of compassion underneath them. I think that was the driving force for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. It really was a remarkable thing that he began, and of course it was aimed, not exclusively, it was aimed at all young people, but I think it was particularly aimed at young people who weren’t sure they could meet their potential. He wanted to show them that they could meet their potential, here were things that they could learn to do that perhaps they thought they couldn’t do. And if in doing that it gave them confidence, helped them mark out what their future might be, well so much the better. It was amazingly successful and his compassion for that was absolutely genuine. And of course it spread, I think, probably far further, far wider and for far longer than he possibly imagined. But it was indicative of what lay underneath the gruff, the occasional gruff manner. It was the real
    Philip, I think, who appeared when he pursued that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There’s one phrase that everybody uses about him, they said he was great support to the Queen. But, I wonder, what could that actually mean?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Consider the position the Queen is in, she is the head of state. That is a very lonely position in many ways. There are a limited number of people to whom she can really open her heart, to whom she can really speak with total frankness, to whom she can say things that would be reported by other people and thought to be indelicate. Of the handful of people to whom she can speak frankly, her husband Prince Philip was obviously the first one, and I am sure that happened. That is why, I think, the Queen said at a later stage that he was her great stay and support.

    At times of difficulty, he was the person who was there. He was the person to whom she could unburden herself. When you’re facing a sea of problems as she so often was, and sometimes when you’re overwhelmed by what has to be done, someone who understands that, someone who can take part of the burden, someone who can share the decision making, someone who can metaphorically, or in the case of Prince Philip, I think probably literally, put their arms around you and say, ‘it’s not as bad as you think. This is what we have to do, this is how we can do it. This is what I think.’ I think when you talk of him being a great support, that was it.

    If you saw them at receptions together the Queen would lead, Prince Philip would be behind her, but it would be Prince Philip who would often bring people up to meet the Queen who were too nervous to meet her. So in every way I think he was an astonishing support.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Which leads sort of inevitably to the question how will she manage without him?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, it will be difficult. There are no doubt millions of people watching this programme who have lost a partner, a spouse and it is a very lonely time. The Queen and Prince Philip had 73 years of marriage together. That is extraordinary, I can think of no one else who’s had a marriage of that length, in my experience. So it will be an enormous hole in her life that suddenly Prince Philip isn’t there.

    How will the Queen manage? I think there are several things to say about that. Firstly, I hope she will be given some time and space. I know she is the monarch, I know she has responsibilities, but she has earned the right to have a period of privacy in which to grieve with her family. After that I think there are two things effectively to say. Firstly, Prince Philip may physically have gone, but he will be in the Queen’s mind as clearly as if she was sitting beside him. She will hear his voice, metaphorically, in her ear. She will know what he would say in certain circumstances, he will still be there in her memory.

    ANDREW MARR:

    His loud echo is there still.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The echo will be there and it always will be, it is with very close relationships. I think after that the Queen is both a stoic and a remarkable public servant. She will return to her work, but I do hope she’s given a little space and a little time and a little freedom to grieve in the way anybody else would wish to do so after having lost their spouse.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let me ask you about him as a father and as a grandfather. You were special guardian for Harry and William during a very difficult time. Tell us a little bit about the support he offered them.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I saw more of Prince Charles and the boys than I did of Prince Philip. But, of course, he spoke to me about it and he was deeply concerned to make sure that they were getting proper care, and they were. The first time I went to see Prince Charles in the capacity of guardian ad litem, the two boys were there, they were very young still. If you remember, it was a tragic time in 1997, so they were still quite young, but the affection between Prince Charles and the boys was evident. In terms of being a guardian, I had nothing to do with their emotional care, that was in very good hands with their family, and that included Prince Philip.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now of course there’s been a lot of trouble since then and there is now a funeral coming where the whole family will be together. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Roman Catholic cardinal, has said that “many a family gather and get over tension and broken relationships at the time of a funeral, something very profound unites them all again, and that will be true for this family, I am sure.” Do you agree with him?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m sure he’s right, I hope he’s right. I believe he is right and I certainly hope so. The friction that we are told has arisen is a friction better ended as speedily as possible. They share emotion, they share grief at the present time because of the death of their father, of their grandfather, and I think it’s an ideal opportunity. I hope very much that it is possible to mend any rifts that may exist.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, he was a reformer of course, the Duke of Edinburgh, at the beginning of his time. Very active and challenging when he thought it was stuffy protocol in the way things were done now. Do you if somehow he could be back now as a young man again he’d be reforming the monarchy again? Is this an institution that has to keep changing to survive?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think he was an evolving reformer. He didn’t want to tear things down and start again, he just wanted to ensure that it kept pace with modern times. If you consider not all your listeners will remember the monarchy as it was in the early 1950s, when Her Majesty became Queen, but it has moved an enormous amount, faster in the last 50 years than in any previous 150 at any stage. I think Prince Philip would have been one of the guiding forces behind that. But the Queen too of course. I remember when it was made evident in the time I was Prime Minister, that the Queen thought it was right for her to pay tax. So there is a constant consideration of reform, and I think the Duke, the Duke as a young man, were he still a young man, would be keen to see the monarchy evolve so that it retains its rationale, it retains its centrality, its importance to British life. It is extraordinarily important. You’re seeing it now with the number of people who had never met the Duke, who had never dreamed of meeting the Duke, but they are upset that the Duke has died.

    You have probably had the same experience that I have. People have phoned Norma and I from abroad to express their condolences to us because the Duke has died, because they know us and they don’t know the Duke. Now, that will have been multiplied right across the United Kingdom, and only I think damped down by the wretched effect of this virus at the present time.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now one thing which doesn’t unite us is that I wasn’t invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding and you were. I wonder will you be attending the funeral?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I have absolutely no idea. I think funerals tend to be family occasions but I have absolutely no idea who will be attending at all.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We talked about change and reform. Because nature takes its course, inevitably takes its course, we are probably living through the final act of the great Elizabethan age, of this Elizabethan age. Have you any reflections on how the monarchy might have to change in the next period?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think and hope they’re going to be quite a lot of curtain calls over the next few years. I think it is evolving, the central portion of the royal family has become more evident in the last few years. You can see that gradual change occurring.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So a smaller royal family at the core perhaps?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    A smaller core taking a higher profile and I think over the next few years, for a raft of reasons, not least the Queen’s venerable age, you will see Prince Charles and Prince William and other members of the family taking a greater role. The burden will be spread a little wider, a little deeper than it has been in the past, I think those changes will come. People often overlook how much the royal family has opened up in the last few decades. I think that is going to continue. I don’t think we’re going to become a bicycling royal family, if I can put it in that way, but I do think they are becoming more open, more evident, more aligned to what happens these days. Particularly as the wider members of their family make that difficult step away from the royal centrality and form lives of their own amongst the grandchildren. That will speed it up, I think.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now you are no longer Prime Minister and therefore when the House of Commons resumes you will not be speaking for the nation as it were about this, but if you were, what would you be saying now to the country about the Duke of Edinburgh?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would be expressing my admiration for the way he has behaved as Consort to the Queen for so long. I would recall a point I made earlier about him being her stay and strength. That is absolutely true and now that stay and strength is no longer there, but the people they have cared about for the last 70 years, the four nations of the United Kingdom, the 50 nations of the Commonwealth, the people within it, their family, they’re still all around. I think it might be a nice legacy for Prince Philip if we began to return to the Queen some of the support that she has given to the country, to the Commonwealth, to the family, to the nation during this difficult period of time. I think it is something we owe the Queen. I think it would be a good legacy for Prince Philip. I very much hope that that is what happens, I think it would be a wonderful tribute to him were it to do so.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major, thanks very much for talking to us this morning.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 5 June 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast on 5 June 2016.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So to the main event part one. Sir John Major, who’s struggled through every day of his premiership against rebellious anti-Brussels Tories. He’s described the Leave campaign as an ‘unforgiveable fraud’ on the British people. And he joins me now. Those are strong words, Sir John. Are you referring, when you talk about that and the deceit of the Leave campaign to Boris Johnson in particular?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not particularly to Boris, no. I think it goes much wider than simply the leader. Of course, as the leader, Boris is in a position to stop it. But I felt that for several reasons. Firstly on the economy and what would happen if we actually left. The Leave campaign have said absolutely nothing to the British people, and what they have said about leaving is fundamentally dishonest and it’s dishonest about the cost of Europe. And on the subject that they’ve veered towards, having lost the economic argument, of immigration, I think their campaign is verging on the squalid, and I’ve said so before and I’m happy to say so again.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it not possible that these are thoroughly honourable men who have taken a big political risk, risked their own political reputations, their own political futures standing for something they fundamentally believe in, and which is agreed with by a huge number of British people? That these are the good guys in essence?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ve no doubt that there are many people in this country, including members of the Leave campaign, who thoroughly believe what they say. I’ve never questioned that. But I must say in Boris’s case it was a rather late conversion. I don’t know whether he had a day trip to Damascus and came back, but until the very last moment everyone thought he was in favour of staying. But he’s made up his mind and I respect that. But I think what they have done now they have begun the campaign is to feed out to the British people a whole galaxy of inaccurate and, frankly, untrue information. And what they have not done is tell us what would be the position if we were to vote to leave. I think it would be chaotic and damaging, and I think the people who would suffer most would be the ordinary everyday man and woman in the street. They need to tell us, if they wish us to leave, what it would be like and how they would then meet some of the objectives they’ve set out.

    ANDREW MARR:

    They say this morning an extra 300,000 jobs would be created because we’d be free to strike our own trade deals with America, Australia and China and other countries.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, it’s fantasy. Firstly, we have something like three million jobs connected – I’m not saying they’re wholly reliant – but connected to our present trade with Europe and essentially with the single market. I gather their current policy today is that they will leave the single market.

    There would also be a socking great hole, according to every commentator, in our public finances. So these promises of expenditure on the national health service, or elsewhere, are frankly fatuous. They are a deceit.

    We would lose a huge amount in terms of national income through trade, the small businesses who sell their goods to Europe, who would sell less because if we left the single market we would face a tariff barrier of probably around ten per cent. So we would sell less, people would lose their jobs, we would find ourselves in a much worse position. The Leave campaign can turn to no serious organisation who believes what they have said about the economy and about the future of Britain and the single market.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So to be clear, you’re saying this is a deceitful campaign? To call a spade a spade, are you saying that Boris Johnson is lying?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not personalising this. Though I do find it very difficult to understand how Boris can justify the 350 million that he has on his battle bus, that he and Michael Gove in particular have defended time and again. You know, I know, the IFS knows, everyone knows, Boris knows, that the real net amount that we send to Europe is about one third of that. After the rebate and after the money paid back to our fishermen, to our farmers, to our researchers, the amount we send to Europe is about one third of the amount that they claim. Now, if they can’t be straightforward and honest on a clear cut matter of fact like that, upon what else can we trust them?

    ANDREW MARR:

    You keep using words like ‘straightforward’, ‘honest’, ‘deceitful,’ and yet you say you’re not personalising it. You are accusing people of lying.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m talking of the Leave campaign; I’m not necessarily talking of individuals. I’ll tell you exactly. I think throughout the whole of my political life people have regarded me as being guilty of understatement. I am angry at the way the British people are being misled.

    This is much more important than a general election. This is going to affect people, their livelihoods, their future for a very long time to come. If they are given honest, straightforward facts and they decide to leave, then that is the decision the British people take. But if they decide to leave on the basis of inaccurate information, inaccurate information known to be inaccurate, then I regard that as deceitful. Now, I may be wrong, but that is how I see their campaign. This is so important for once I’m not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to other people, I’m going to say exactly what I think, and I think this is a deceitful campaign. In terms of what they’re saying about immigration, a really depressing and awful campaign. They are misleading people to an extraordinary extent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well, let’s move to immigration if we could. When you were Prime Minister, I think when you left immigration was still below 50,000, around 48,000 something like that. It’s now a third of a million and rising fast. It’s not racist or xenophobic to be really worried about that, to be worried about the effect on all of us.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no. I’m worried about it. Everybody is worried about that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But your side don’t seem to have an answer.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t think they have an answer. We’ll come directly to that if you wish. Let me take the immigration point absolutely head-on. Yes, immigration is very high, and yes, this causes great troubles for us. Not only for us, but all across Europe. Half the world is on the move at the moment because of what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East, because of fears about Russia in Eastern Europe, because of the economic difficulty within the eurozone, there are a lot of people on the move. They come here because we are a great and successful country. The nonsense we hear from Leave about let’s get our mojo back and be a great country, we are a great, successful country, that is why people are coming to us. Now, how long will this last? It is a serious problem, you are going to see a diminution as the eurozone recovers, and it is recovering, it’s now growing pretty much as fast as us, the eurozone. But it isn’t just us.

    The point that really angers me is the utterly false suggestion, repeated more than once, not in a single offhand remark but in scripted, carefully prepared speeches, that we face the risk of 88 million Turks coming here. Firstly Turkey are not in the European Union. They’re unlikely to be in the European Union in the next decade or two. Even if by some chance they were, we are outside Schengen. In any event, is it seriously suggested, as they do, that all 88 million Turks would come here? Apparently for a higher national living wage. On the one hand they’re saying migrants are depressing wages, and on the other people are flooding in to get our higher national wage. It’s nonsense.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s be clear, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Nonsense on stilts.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The EU wants Turkey to join, the British government wants Turkey to join, the Prime Minister has said he’d pave the way from Brussels to Ankara. So this is not a complete fantasy, it’s quite possible. This choice in this election, this decision, could be with us for 20 or 30 or 50 years’ time.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Turks have been negotiating for the best part of 30 years a whole series of different things that have to be negotiated. They’ve negotiated one of about 30. Even if they were able to reach agreement with the European Union, any one nation in the European Union could veto their joining. The French have already said they would have a referendum on that issue. The Germans almost certainly will follow suit. Turkey will not be in the European Union for a very, very long time, if ever, for a whole series of practical reasons. And the Leave campaign know that. That’s the point, they know that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There are people watching this who will say, hold on a second, this is Sir John Major, this is the man who negotiated the Maastricht Treaty and at that time you got your opt-outs and so forth – I remember it very well, I was there at the time, in the rain, in the dark and so forth. But nonetheless we were being told at the time that the European Union was not going to evolve into a very centralised super-state and sprawl and spread. And actually your critics then were right, because that’s what’s happened.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No. No, it hasn’t. Firstly, you’re quite right, I did negotiate the opt-out of the single currency. I’m told by the Leave campaign I’m wrong on everything on Europe. Well, I certainly wasn’t wrong on that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What about those other treaties which followed, which followed nonetheless, in a direction of travel?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not under my premiership they didn’t. We were also out of Schengen because I declined to join it in 1996. Now, what happened, we negotiated at Maastricht a safeguard, the subsidiarity safeguard, which was then bypassed. David Cameron has now effectively reinstated that with his red card system. So it has been reinstated. Any more power in a treaty – now, this is very important – any more power in a treaty to Europe would have, by British law, now to be approved in a referendum. So if there is a grab towards a super-state, which they may integrate further inside the eurozone, but we’re not in the eurozone and we’re not going to integrate further.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Does that not live us a bit like a kind of rickety sidecar stapled to the side of a vast Mercedes going to a place we don’t want to go?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Only if you think we’re a little country. We’re not a little country, we’re a big country. We’re one of the biggest countries in the European Union. We are outside the eurozone, we are not responsible for their debts, we are not going to be responsible for their debts. We are not going to enter the eurozone. We’re staying in a wider Europe and we’re going to continue to trade with Europe if we are wise, but we are not involved in what is happening in the part of Europe that is in difficulty. But if we cut ourselves adrift, we will become a vastly diminished country.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We’re talking about the world after Brexit, if that’s what happens, and you’ll have seen a whole series of pledges now, about 100 million a week for the NHS, about an Australian-style points system, about new farming subsidies and much else. It’s beginning to look like another manifesto isn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, it’s certainly very ill thought-out. I mean, the concept that the people running the Brexit campaign would care for the national health service is a rather odd one. I seem to remember Michael Gove wanting to privatise it. Boris wanted to charge people for using it. And Iain Duncan Smith wanted a social insurance system. The NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be with a hungry python. So I don’t think that’s very wise. As far as immigration is concerned, what they’re planning is immensely difficult. Let us suppose that they win, let us suppose that for a moment and that’s possible, and their policies on immigration were implemented. Firstly, as you know, the Scots may hold another referendum. We might end up with Britain out of the European Union and Scotland out of the UK. If Scotland is out of the UK –

    ANDREW MARR:

    England alone?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, England and Wales. But you, Andrew, you will be a –

    ANDREW MARR:

    I’ll be sent back.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You’ll be a migrant.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I’ll be sent back over the border, I’m sure.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    How are they going to reduce their numbers? There are more people coming into this country from outside the European Union than inside. Who are the people they’re going to send back? The 52,000 doctors in the national health services, doctors and nurses? The 80,000 care workers?

    ANDREW MARR:

    To be fair, they’re not talking about sending anybody back. Because of the Luxembourg Agreement, they can stay.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    How are they – we won’t be in the European Union if we leave. How are they going to reduce their numbers? Who are they going to stop coming in? The footballers who enchant us? I think we need some practical information and we’re not getting it. People are being invited to vote for a pig in a poke.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Two final thoughts just before we finish. Do you think this is about Boris Johnson’s personal ambition?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’ve no idea. I can’t see inside Boris’s mind, and I wouldn’t attempt to try and do so. But I would just offer this piece of friendly advice – I like Boris, I don’t know him well, but what I’ve seen of him I like.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well you took him off the candidates list, didn’t you once a long time ago?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, I did not. No, that’s utterly untrue. No, I did not. He’s a very engaging and charming court jester and a very engaging and charming public figure, and he’s very likeable and people like him. But I think I would offer him this piece of advice. If the Leave campaign led by Boris continue to divide the Conservative Party as they are doing at the present time, and if Boris has the laudable ambition, for it is a laudable ambition, to become Prime Minister, he will find if he achieves that that he will not have the loyalty of the party he divided. Iain Duncan Smith was serially disloyal in the 1990s. When he became leader he was surprised that no one was loyal to him. Now, Boris should learn from that. And I think Boris – all his instincts in the past have been those of a One Nation Tory, which is where I stand. He seems to have drifted away from that, with the way in which they’re approaching immigration and some of the other things. I’d like to see him get back, because if he gets back he is an engaging Conservative, important engaging Conservative figure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think the Conservative Party is in danger of dividing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, we’ll have to wait and see. All I can say is that whether the Conservative Party divide or not is one thing we must look at in the future. But that is not as important as the decision that we have to make. This is not about political parties, it’s not about the elites, it’s about the everyday men and women in the street and their children and their grandchildren. It is their future that will play Russian roulette with if we leave the European Union.

    ANDREW MARR:

    My last question. Given what you’ve said about Boris Johnson today and in the past, do you think he’s fit to be Prime Minister?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not making judgements about whether anybody is fit to be Prime Minister. That’s a matter for a much wider view than mine. It’s a matter for the Conservative Party, ultimately it’s a matter for a whole electorate. So I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to have a suggestion either way. I merely say that whether Boris is Prime Minister is no doubt a very important matter for Boris and many other people, it is less important than the decision we have to take in less than three weeks’ time. That is crucial. And I must say, if I may put it this way, of all the participants there is nobody on the Leave side of the campaign who has, as I have, sat at the top table in Europe for seven years, and I know from what I have seen inside the European Union that what they say about unelected elites is absolute hogwash. The Commission, for example, are answerable to David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the others. They’re appointed for a limited period of time, they’re told to produce legislation which then has to be approved by ministers, the European Parliament, the Westminster Parliament. The belief an unelected elite is running wild is yet another piece of copper-bottomed Leave nonsense.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major, thank you very much for talking to us this morning.