The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Brexit

  • Sir John Major’s Message to Vote for Final Say Rally – 6 December 2019

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s message to the ‘Vote for Final Say’ rally held in London on 6 December 2019.

    I’m sorry not to be with you in person this evening, but grateful to have this opportunity to speak to you.

    In a few days’ time, we will be choosing our next Government and our next Parliament. The choice of Members of Parliament that we all make will make a big difference.

    At elections, political tribes join together to promote their own policies, and criticise those of their opponents. That’s the nature of elections.

    But there are always individuals who enhance Parliament.

    And there are always policies upon which every Party can agree.

    One is democracy, and the right of every adult to vote.

    At every election the future of our country is at stake.

    But on this occasion even more than usual.

    When the nation voted on Brexit they did so on a diet of fiction and undeliverable promises.

    As the facts become known, it’s extraordinary that a new vote is denied: extraordinary, and frankly undemocratic.

    People have strong views on Brexit. Mine are very clear.

    I believe that leaving the European Union is the worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime.

    It will affect nearly every aspect of our lives for many decades to come and it will make our country poorer and weaker, and the individuals within it.

    It will hurt most those who have least.

    Never have the stakes been higher, especially for the young.

    Brexit may even break up our historic United Kingdom.

    Within a few years, Scotland may leave the Union. Northern Ireland may unite with the South.

    Both may do so in order to remain within the European Union.

    Your young generation has already recognised this – by registering to vote in record numbers.

    And your vote is absolutely crucial – for you have the longest lease on our country’s future, and our place in the wider world.

    So my message to you this evening is very clear: don’t allow your future to be shaped by others, with no input from yourselves.

    You – every single one of you – can make a difference to the election result.

    So don’t hang back. Don’t wait until Friday, 13 December and then regret that you didn’t make a choice.

    To vote means to choose.

    So choose the future that you believe in – for your own generation and the next….

    Vote for the candidate who you believe will best represent your own views and your own aspirations in the next Parliament.

    I was in politics for many years, and – believe me – no single Party has a monopoly on wisdom.

    I am a Conservative, but there have always been policies of other Parties with which I agreed.

    That is politics as it truly is – not politics as tribal politicians pretend it to be.

    Tribal loyalty has its place. It can be good and honourable.

    But sometimes you need to vote with your head as well as your heart.

    To vote for your country and your future.

    This is such a time.

    But, whatever you do, don’t let your vote be wasted. Never has it been as important as it is now.

    * * * * *

    Now, I am simply the warm-up act this evening ….. but I’d like to say a few words about those who will be joining you shortly:

    First, Michael Heseltine.

    Michael is a giant of the Conservative Party, a giant of successive Conservative Governments – including my own when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

    He has always been fearless in protecting the best long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

    Michael is, truly, one of a kind – and a very wise one of a kind.

    Secondly, you will hear from David Gauke.

    He, Dominic Grieve, and Anne Milton – all of them principled, decent, talented human beings – were forced out of the Conservative Party, and are now fighting this election as Independent candidates.

    But let me make one thing crystal clear: none of them left the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party left them.

    Without such talent on its benches, Parliament will be the poorer, which is why – were I resident in any of their constituencies – they would have my vote in this election.

    And now to my third guest….

    Politics throws up some strange alliances – and never more so than in this debate over Brexit….

    The third guest may once have been my political opponent – but even as I say that let me add we were never personal enemies.

    And on the perils of Brexit – and our joint fervent hope that the younger generation will engage in politics, and exercise its vote next week – upon that we are absolutely at one.

    It seems ironic to me that, due to scheduling difficulties, I am forced to speak to you on screen – since he was always so much better at doing that than I was.

    I daresay he still is.

    So, with four words that – once upon a time – would never easily have passed my lips, tonight I can say with great pleasure: “Tony, over to you……”

  • Sir John Major’s Comments to Alastair Campbell – 26 October 2019

    Below are the comments made by Sir John Major in an interview with Alastair Campbell in preparation for a video shown at the People’s Vote rally. The comments were published by the New European on 26 October 2019.

    When I became prime minister, the people of Northern Ireland found themselves living with bombings, shootings, murders, beatings, kneecappings, month after month. It was a way of life that would have been utterly intolerable in any other part of the United Kingdom. Murder was so routine that it was no longer headline news.

    Violence also came to the British mainland. In London, the City, Oxford Street, Knightsbridge were bombed. So was the House of Commons, and 10 Downing Street. Bombings in Manchester, Birmingham, Guildford and Warrington, where two little boys were murdered while buying cards for Mothering Sunday. For those who never lived through those times, it must be almost impossible to imagine. For those of us who did, it’s still difficult to comprehend.

    Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds and I both shared a view that it was intolerable, that the 30 years of violence that killed 3,000 people simply could not be permitted to continue. We decided to look for common ground. We were working against a backdrop of tremendous support against the men and women of violence from whichever community they came. There was a genuine sense of people power and it grew.

    Bit by bit, culminating in the Good Friday Agreement, the peace process transformed the lives of all those on the island of Ireland, north and south. Violence ended, friendships were nurture, old hatreds faded. The relationship between London, Belfast and Dublin became better than at any time in history. A key part of this transformation was our mutual membership of the European Union. It broke down borders across Ireland. It increased and simplified trade. It brought north and south closer together. And London and Dublin became close allies, not least around the European table. Brexit will significantly weaken those links and damage the economies of both our countries.

    But the Good Friday agreement was about far more than trade or jobs or profits. It replaced violence with peace. That peace is still fragile. It cannot and must not be a mere afterthought. My fear and that of many others is that Brexit may put that peace at risk. Having been so hard won, and it is to Tony Blair’s eternal credit that it was, it must surely never be allowed to be lost. It is worth remembering that no one under the age of 20 would have any memory of the violence and deaths that once engulfed their neighbourhoods. I hope and pray they never do. It would be the most recklessly irresponsible act to risk losing what took so long to achieve. And a gamble that no British government should ever take, whatever political policy they wish to pursue.

    I totally supported Tony Blair in what he did and for the referendum we liaised. A fool could have seen the difficulties there was going to be with a border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, which would be on the southern end of Northern Ireland. We remembered that when the violence began. It began with the murder of customs officers at a customs border. We went to Ireland together to warn of the difficulties there would be. And I’m sad to say that many of the people in Northern Ireland just shrugged their shoulders and said, what did they know of Ireland? And that, I’m afraid, was also true of the of the then British cabinet. I was disappointed that people could not see the dangers that would be likely to arise.

    I am unsurprised at the end that the Democratic Unionists appear not to be able to support the agreement that has been reached. It was rejected by precisely the people who are now promoting this particular agreement. But I do think there is going to be a real difficulty in Northern Ireland being treated differently. I think there are many reasons for a confirmatory referendum and making sure that you have the support of the people in Northern Ireland is certainly one of them.

    A border down the Irish Sea splits Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. And that, of course, always plays on the inherent fears of Northern Ireland, that they’re being ignored, that they’re being maltreated. And those fears are very real. There is now not a shred of doubt in my mind that the integrity of the United Kingdom, both in terms of Scotland and in terms of Northern Ireland, is at greater threat. Leaving Europe, carrying Brexit through, will raise strains we know of and strains we haven’t yet thought of. That may well end up with dividing a United Kingdom that has been together for a very long time. It is a thoroughly bad idea.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at the March Together for the Final Say – 19 October 2019

    Below is the text of the comments made by Sir John Major which were shown at the March Together for the Final Say in London on 19 October 2019.

    Leaving Europe, carrying Brexit through, will raise strains we know of and strains we haven’t yet thought of. That may well end up with dividing a United Kingdom that has been together for a very long time. It is a thoroughly bad idea.

    I find it very difficult to understand, as a former leader of the Conservative Party, why it is the Conservative and Unionist Party taking action that may lead to the breaking up of the United Kingdom. This seems quite extraordinary. I cannot imagine any previous generation of Conservatives putting our Union at risk.

    On Northern Ireland, Sir John says:

    There’s a whole generation of people in Northern Ireland who have no memory of what life was like before the Good Friday agreement. No one under the age of 20 would have any memory of the violence and death that once engulfed their neighbourhoods. I hope and pray they never do.

    To risk losing what took so long to achieve is a gamble that no British government should ever take – whatever their political policy might be.

    I am not surprised this has come down to the issue of the Irish border, nor that the Democratic Unionists say they will not be supporting the Prime Minister’s deal.

    The Government have refused to publish their economic risk assessments but – according to independent analysts – the agreement Parliament will be debating will be far more economically damaging to the UK than the agreement reached by Theresa May, and rejected by precisely those who are now persuading others to vote for this particular agreement. It is an utterly baffling act of national self-harm.

    A border down the Irish Sea also has many difficulties. It splits Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. And that, of course, always plays on the inherent fears of Northern Ireland that they’re being ignored. Those fears are very real. And they need to be addressed and assuaged.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Centre for European Reform – 26 September 2019

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Spanish Embassy on Tuesday 26 September 2019.

    Your Excellency, may I thank you for your warm welcome and your generous hospitality here this evening.

    21 years ago, Charles Grant founded the Centre for European Reform – an organisation that still continues to grow and flourish under his leadership.

    At a time when it is difficult to separate fact from fiction, the need for the CER’s rigorous, realistic, impartial and authoritative analysis is now greater than ever, and I am delighted to see so many of its friends and supporters here tonight.

    * * * * *

    When John Kerr invited me, some months ago, to speak about Europe this evening, I imagined we would be much clearer about how events were to unfold:

    Clearer about how the UK will face post-Brexit challenges;

    Clearer about our future relationship with Europe;

    Clearer about our alliances and interests once our nation is divorced from the European Union.

    We are not.

    Nothing is clear, and it seems our country is to be hauled away from our present moorings, and set adrift to an unknown and uncertain future.

    Since so much is unclear, I would like to talk for a few moments about European policy – and then turn, since it is unavoidable after the events of recent days, to the conduct of politics. The Prime Minister does not mince his words and – though with a little more decorum – nor will I.

    At the moment, our country is more unsettled, more divided, than I can ever recall. Because our future direction is unknown, supporters and opponents of the European Union are still arguing over principles, while practical preparations make little progress.

    Ministers assure us they are moving towards a deal. The European Union tells us they are not – because no new or viable proposals have been put forward by the British Government.

    The Prime Minister tells us he wishes to have a deal with Europe. But we don’t see him sitting down in Brussels, hammering out an agreement.

    Instead, we do see him wrestling with bulls in Scotland; inspecting eggs in Wales; and arguing with the public in high streets – for all the world as if an election campaign was already in full swing.

    We see him denying his visit to a hospital is a photo opportunity, because “there are no reporters or cameras present”.

    Oddly, at the same time, these non-existent cameras stream pictures of him onto our television screens, while photographers crowd the corridor.

    It is difficult to know what to say about such contradictions. But more serious disparities are at hand.

    Ministers tell us, with a straight face, “We obey the law” while the Prime Minister insists we will leave the EU on 31 October – even though an Act of Parliament has been passed forbidding that to happen without a deal.

    I will return to this later.

    Lip service is paid to the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court – that it was unlawful to prorogue Parliament for five weeks – whilst the Prime Minister tells us the Court was wrong and he was right: that is the cry of those found guilty of misdemeanours throughout the ages.

    Meanwhile, Ministers continue to offer fantasy outcomes of what a post-Brexit future holds for people in every corner of our United Kingdom.

    Even if – at this late stage – some deal is cobbled together with the European Union, it is likely to be flimsy and partial. As day succeeds day, it seems more likely – not certain, but more probable – that we will end up leaving the European Union without any deal at all.

    Last night, the Prime Minister wilfully destroyed any hope of cross-Party agreement.

    Of course, in those circumstances, we will still have to reach an agreement with our European partners about our future relationship. But we will do so in a far more hostile atmosphere.

    The price of such a negotiating failure will be widespread and will affect rich and poor alike – with one difference: the poor will be far less able to protect themselves.

    I do not wish – yet again – to focus on the short-term chaos of a “no deal” Brexit; nor on the sour atmosphere a no-deal outcome would create; nor on the economic cost of abandoning so much that has given us prosperity; nor on the myriad difficulties business and individuals will face; nor on the disbelief at our folly of so many of our long-term friends and allies around the world.

    What I do wish to focus on is the impact of our leaving without a good deal will have on our country, our citizens, and our future.

    Far more is at stake than simply our relationship with the European Union. At stake also is our relationship with the wider world and – because of the nature of our Brexit debate – very probably the future of our domestic politics as well.

    I don’t believe, after the schism Brexit has created, that we will be able to return to the status quo ante.

    The Government constantly tells us that everyone is fed up with Brexit. So am I. They tell us everyone wants an end to Brexit. So do I.

    But no-one should believe that Brexit will end on the day we leave – whether that is on 31 October …. or beyond.

    Far from it. The impact of Brexit – both internally and externally – will be felt negatively for a very long time.

    From the outset, the Government’s whole negotiating strategy – if such it can be called – has been driven by a desire to win the support of the anti-European hard Right of the Conservative Party, together with like-minded media.

    It was always likely to be a fruitless task. They were utterly hardline on Europe: always committed to Brexit at any and all cost – and were an unpersuadable audience: uninterested, unwilling to compromise and – as is now only too clear – dismally unprepared to abandon their fond simplicities for the realities of our modern world.

    They were appeased too much; for too long; and by too many. But they held to their convictions and spread them – often without reason and beyond scruple.

    Their opposition has made a deal almost impossible to obtain. But we still need to reach an agreement with our partners.

    But – if the Government is to get a deal; if the House of Commons is to approve it; if the scars of Brexit are to be diminished; then there must be compromise in the negotiations.

    And not only compromise, but understanding – from both sets of negotiators.

    Little of that has been forthcoming.

    British Brexiteers promised the earth and misled themselves – and worse, the nation. But they failed to understand the concerns of the European Union, or even the very basics of negotiation.

    It is equally fair to point out that the European Union have failed to take account of what the European Union loses when Britain departs.

    They lose:

    – the second-largest economy;

    – one of only two nations with a nuclear capacity and a military capability;

    – the long reach of British foreign policy;

    – access to our intelligence, counter-terrorist and policing expertise.

    These losses are serious for both sides. Diminishing British access to the Galileo Navigation System, or Europol, or the European Arrest Warrants, was a petty and short-sighted approach.

    The European Union needs to understand that diminishing the UK will inevitably diminish the European Union as well.

    The effect of Brexit may leave a long-term impact on our political system.

    Both our main political parties are in disarray – split fundamentally over the European question and the future direction of policy.

    At present there is much talk of a General Election. In the present atmosphere it would be likely to become the most unsavoury election of modern times.

    All Parties profess to believe an election is necessary to clear the air. I disagree.

    Until Brexit is resolved, a general election would solve nothing. It would merely fuel the current feeling of disillusionment and disunity. Far from healing the nation, it would scratch away at open wounds.

    It may also be pointless, as the most likely outcome is another fragmented Parliament – even more bitterly divided than it is now.

    So why is the Government so keen to put our country through that?

    There may be a political calculation behind their thinking:

    They believe the Labour Party is unelectable under the present leadership, and are keen to ensure no new Leader is put in place before the next election;

    Ministers have read the unredacted version of “Yellowhammer”. They know how serious the problems will be for the people of this country after a “no deal” Brexit, and wish to have the election out of the way before the reality of the mess that lies ahead becomes clear.

    Let me put it another way:

    If the Government was truly confident in the aftermath of their Brexit policy, they would wait for next Spring; take credit for the success of Brexit; rejoice – even gloat – that all fears about it were unfounded; and propose a few popular “One Nation” policies to restore the fortunes of the Conservatives.

    But instead, to reinforce their electoral appeal, the Government seems intent on whipping up dissent by using highly emotional and evocative language that can only provoke fear and anger, and fuel grievances against Parliament and the Law.

    Consider what this means.

    It means this Government wishes to win re-election, by inciting opposition to the most important bulwarks of our State and its freedom.

    Their approach is profoundly un-Conservative and – whatever its short-term effect – will do permanent damage to the reputation of the Conservative Party.

    I cannot believe any previous Government – in our long history – would have even considered such reckless and divisive behaviour.

    We were promised, during the referendum campaign, that Brexit would – and I quote: “… restore Parliamentary Sovereignty and the supremacy of UK Law”.

    For that reason, I am assuming there will be no further political trickery from this Government.

    I referred earlier to the contradiction between the Act prohibiting the UK leaving the EU without a deal, and the Prime Minister’s continued assertion that he will leave on 31 October.

    My fear is that the Government will seek to bypass Statute Law, by passing an Order of Council to suspend the Act until after 31 October.

    It is important to note that an Order of Council can be passed by Privy Councillors – that is Government Ministers – without involving HM The Queen.

    I should warn the Prime Minister that – if this route is taken – it will be in flagrant defiance of Parliament and utterly disrespectful to the Supreme Court.

    It would be a piece of political chicanery that no-one should ever forgive or forget.

    * * * * *

    Like many in my Party, who have been expelled for voting with their conscience, I am a life-long Conservative.

    I hope our millions of traditional, moderate, middle-of-the-road supporters understand that this Conservative Government’s present position is an aberration.

    Most Conservatives are not a Brexit Party tribute band, nor have we abandoned our core values to find compromise, seek allies, and strive for unity, rather than division and disarray.

    We do not believe we have the right to ignore the voices of millions of others, whose opinions differ from our own.

    And we abhor the language of division and hate – and words such as “saboteur”, “traitor”, “enemy”, “surrender”, “betrayal” have no place in our Party, our politics, nor in our society.

    It is emphatically not who we are as a people. And must never be seen as so.

    I hope that the Conservative Parliamentary Party will regain its sense of balance, and rein in the faction of a faction that now prevails in Cabinet.

    Now that Parliament is sitting again, it has the opportunity to prove its quality, its strength, its purpose and its power.

    I hope that every Member of Parliament – from all Parties – will unite together, and rise to that challenge.

    Only then can we – the United Kingdom and the European Union – forge a new beginning and a new future – with hope and prosperity – and in friendship, together.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement on the Supreme Court Ruling – 24 September 2019

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sir John Major following the Supreme Court ruling on 24 September 2019.

    I am enormously grateful to my legal team, led by The Rt Hon The Lord Garnier QC, and Andrew Lidbetter (Herbert Smith Freehills LLP), on whose counsel and professionalism I have depended these past few weeks. I am also most grateful to the Supreme Court for their calm and detailed examination of this Appeal.

    I am delighted that the Court has ruled the Prime Minister’s lengthy and contentious prorogation of Parliament to be unlawful. This was a case that should never have had to be considered, and it gave me no pleasure to be pitted against a Government and Prime Minister of my own Party.

    Parliament must now be recalled immediately to recommence its work, and to receive the Prime Minister’s unreserved apology.

    I hope this ruling from the Supreme Court will deter any future Prime Minister from attempting to shut down Parliament, with the effect of stifling proper scrutiny and debate, when its sitting is so plainly in the national interest.

    No Prime Minister must ever treat the Monarch or Parliament in this way again.

  • Sir John Major’s Written Submission to Supreme Court – 19 September 2019

    Below is Sir John Major’s written submission to the Supreme Court hearing on 19 September 2019.

    Written Submission (in .pdf format)

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at CBI Annual Dinner – 5 September 2019

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the CBI dinner in Glasgow on 5 September 2019.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here this evening.

    This is not the speech I intended to deliver. But we are not living through normal times ……

    In Westminster, Ministers who wish to leave Europe without a deal are playing fast and loose with the future of our United Kingdom.

    To achieve his aims, the Prime Minister even announced plans to prorogue Parliament – to be clear, that means to shut it down – to prevent MPs voting against a “no-deal” Brexit.

    I cannot believe any previous Prime Minister – from Pitt, to Disraeli, to Churchill, to Thatcher – would have even contemplated such an action.

    They regarded Parliament as Sovereign, not a rubber stamp – useful only to approve the Prime Minister’s wishes.

    To thwart a “no-deal” Brexit, Parliament is now about to agree legislation that will prevent the UK from leaving without a deal.

    In retaliation, the Prime Minister removed the Whip from 21 Conservative Members of Parliament who opposed the Government.

    This is a rare, but valid, discipline, and one I used myself – but with a difference. Usually, the Whip is restored before an Election, as I did in the 1990s after promises of good behaviour.

    But, this time, the punishment goes further. Conservative MPs are being de-selected and thrown out of the Party – their careers ended for voting with their conscience, and for what they believe is the right policy for their constituents and their country.

    These MPs are not wild, fringe figures. Some are long-term loyalists, like my friends Ken Clarke, Nick Soames and Alastair Burt.

    Others are younger MPs, prepared to sacrifice their political future for their country.

    That takes character and courage. Such men and women adorn Parliament, and the millions whose views they represent will not forgive or forget that they have been treated so brutally, whilst the Brexiteers – who voted regularly against Mrs May – now sit in the Cabinet, and reside at No 10.

    The legitimate concerns of those who have been banished from the Party; their sturdy independence; their repeated support for a Brexit deal; their long and loyal public service to the Party; seem to be worth nothing – unless they become cyphers, parroting the views of a Prime Minister influenced by a political anarchist, who cares not a fig for the future of the Party I have served all my life.

    We have seen over-mighty advisers before. It is a familiar script. It always ends badly. I offer the Prime Minister some friendly advice: get rid of these advisers before they poison the political atmosphere beyond repair. And do it quickly.

    There is no need for them to be led out of Downing Street by armed police, but go they should. And now.

    And, Prime Minister – at the same time – reinstate those Members of Parliament you have expelled because, without them – and others like them – we will cease to be a broad-based national Party, and be seen as a mean-minded sect.

    The Government must change its tone.

    Ministers routinely insult half the electorate as “Remoaners”. The surgeon who drew up the Yellowhammer risk register of epilepsy and neurology drugs is told he is a “fear-mongering Remainer”.

    Businessmen are warned that a negative attitude on Brexit will lead to their companies being frozen out of any future Government consultation.

    This is behaviour I never thought to see from any British Government, and it must stop.

    The abuse comes from Cabinet Ministers; and the threats from No 10 Special Advisers.

    I repeat: it must stop.

    Ahead lie many challenges. If we are to meet them we need Government of the highest quality, not Government by bluster and threat in a climate of aggressive bullying.

    Without decisions in the long-term British interest, we will fail future generations. We need our four nations to come together as, perhaps, they have never done before.

    And yet, at this very moment, when unity is so crucial, our United Kingdom is being torn apart by the divisions of Brexit.

    My view of Brexit is no secret. It has never changed. For me, it is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of practicalities.

    I believe Brexit will be bad for our four countries: bad for our future, bad for industry and commerce, and bad for millions of individuals – most notably, the young and those who have very little.

    One of Brexit’s most pernicious effects is that those with the least will be hurt the most. Wealth will not trickle down, but hardship will. For many – myself included – that offends to the core, and transcends old instincts and old loyalties.

    Many supporters of Brexit declare proudly that they are prepared to bear an economic hit if we leave Europe. I am sure they are sincere.

    But I ask them to think more of those – the majority – who cannot afford to take such a hit. Do they not matter? Of course they do. Are they really to be ignored? For, if they are, the divisions in our society will only fester and grow.

    Our world today has three dominant influences: the United States, China and the European Union. Their size and power means they will be pre-eminent in addressing global problems such as climate change, trade rules, technology standards and control of financial markets.

    The giants of our world will decide these issues. Once outside Europe, we British will have little or no voice. We are not used to being outside the inner circles of decision-making – and we will hate it.

    Until Brexit, the world has seen the UK as a leading member of the EU, able to shape its policy, and as the closest ally of the United States.

    But now, as we leave the EU, the United States is turning away from Europe and towards the Pacific.

    The EU gone: America looking elsewhere. Once that happens, our ability to advance our national interests will fall. No “ifs. No “buts”.

    But there is a wider mischief. By leaving the EU, we weaken it.

    Anti-Europeans may cheer, but a weaker Europe leaves the UK more at the mercy of decisions taken by a – I hope temporarily – dysfunctional United States, and a long-term autocratic China.

    It also leaves the UK more vulnerable to Putin’s aggressive and assertive Russia. None of that will be welcome, but it is the inevitable legacy of Brexit.

    Our new UK Government knows this to be true. Yet they ignore it – and pursue our exit from Europe on an artificial date, without a deal.

    Some do so for ideological reasons. Others for political and personal advantage.

    Neither the ideologue nor the self-interested Brexiteer appears to put our national wellbeing first.

    Our new Cabinet has no majority and no mandate. Governments change personnel – even their Prime Ministers – within the normal term of a Parliament, but not like this: the composition of the present Cabinet is more than the usual changing of the guard.

    It more resembles an entirely new Government after a General Election: but this Government was not elected.

    The lack of its own mandate is not the only impediment to its moral authority to change the whole direction of our country. The new Cabinet is chalk and cheese in character to the one elected two years ago.

    It is not a Cabinet of all available talents. It is a faction of a faction, with no counter-balance of opinion to hold it back. Upon Brexit, the Cabinet non–believers are mere window dressing. They will not be listened to, and will always be out-voted.

    This is a Cabinet committed to deliver Brexit “do or die”, “come what may”, as the Prime Minister puts it. They are pledged to this. Their seat at the Cabinet table depends upon accepting whatever deal the inner core of “hard-line” Brexiteers decide upon.

    The campaign that won the Referendum, with undeliverable promises and assertions that were then – and are still – false, are now in Downing Street, and in power.

    They have not, as promised, united the nation. Far from it.

    Instead, they have locked out half the electorate. Whilst pleading the “will of the people”, they have redefined Brexit into the hardest and most uncompromising breach with Europe.

    This is not what was pledged when people voted to leave the EU. Back then, a deal with Europe was promised. As it was in the Conservative Manifesto for the last election. And in Parliament ever since.

    Let us be absolutely clear on this point: there is no electoral mandate – nor has there ever been – for a “no deal” Brexit.

    So, when Cabinet Ministers tell us that is what our four nations voted for we, the electors, know that is emphatically not the truth.

    In Scotland, in Northern Ireland, and in many parts of England – the majority view has been utterly ignored. So have the young.

    And so have the many minority communities who, quite rightly, were offended and repelled by the anti-immigrant sentiment that powered the “Leave” campaign.

    Once the Brexit blindfold falls away there will be a heavy price to pay for these factional politics.

    The Prime Minister tells us he is a “One-Nation” Conservative – except, as we see, when it is convenient for him not to be so.

    Yet his strongest support has come from colleagues who could never be described as “One-Nation” Tories, and who would be aghast if they thought he would genuinely govern in that tradition.

    ***

    My fear is that Brexit will unsettle the unity of our UK. The Union is not England writ large. It belongs to Scotland too, and has served both our nations well.

    Today, the risk of separation is growing – but it is not inevitable.

    The core ambition of the Scottish Government is an independent Scotland – free of the Union with England. In England, the Brexit campaign has promoted English nationalism.

    The English Nationalists affect not to care about separation. They care more about leaving Europe. But the collapse of Unionism in England, and ambition for independence in Scotland, could lead to a calamitous outcome for us both.

    If she will bear the cost, I have never doubted that Scotland could govern herself.

    But I believe Scotland and England together are greater than the sum of their parts. That is why I am a Unionist.

    If Scotland secedes, it will weaken every part of the United Kingdom – including Scotland.

    By weaken, I don’t simply mean losing the disbursements of the Barnett Formula. I mean losing trade without barriers. Trade without borders. Trade without tariffs. Today, trade across the Union is as simple as trade between Glasgow and Edinburgh. This would not be so after separation.

    The risk for Scottish prosperity is that the volume of trade with England is three and a half times larger than trade between Scotland and the EU. But if Scotland abandons the Union, those tariff-free, barrier-free, border-free advantages could be lost.

    But the Union is also about culture and identity.

    It is about mutual benefits to our way of life, our international influence, our world profile, our defence and security, our research and learning, and all the aspects of our long and close relationship.

    For 300 years, England and Scotland have faced the world together with shared values and mutual interests. That should be cherished, not thrown away.

    Yet, it could be, if Nationalists – in England and Scotland – focus on “England First” and “Scotland First”, rather than both nations in harmony.

    I fully understand why Scotland has reasons for grievance.

    Five years ago, Scots voted to remain in the UK and, with it, the EU: but they now see English votes taking them out of Europe.

    But even legitimate resentment is no basis for wise and thoughtful policy. Nor does it overcome the problems of independence.

    The fiscal gap. Higher taxes. Lower spending. The vulnerability of greater isolation. They will affect every Scot: but all of this is avoidable if good neighbourliness replaces the bitter hostilities of nationalism.

    England and Scotland have long united around a common patriotism. Nationalism is not patriotism.

    If we let nationalism divide us – Scottish nationalism or English nationalism – we will create a schism that cannot be bridged. And, if that comes to pass, we will all be the losers – in this generation and far beyond.

    ***

    I come back to business – and what lies ahead. In the run-up to Brexit, there were glowing promises of milk and honey in a future “Global Britain”. It is a brilliant and enticing slogan but yet another fable.

    The deceit is breathtaking. It turns truth on its head.

    Brexit will reduce our global reach, not enhance it.

    On the day we leave the EU, we will lose trade deals with over 70 countries. These were negotiated by the EU but only for its members. All our present trade advantages will go with them.

    It will take many years to replace them. And – if/when we do so – will British business get the same advantages as now? Of course not. How can we?

    The European market is the richest free trade market ever known. Our British market is one-eighth its size – and one-eighth its attraction.

    Any bilateral deal we strike will never match the deal the EU can obtain on our behalf.

    Since the referendum, the EU has new deals with Japan, South Korea, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. All of these could have benefited the UK. Post Brexit, none of them will.

    Our Brexiteer Cabinet knows this, but won’t admit it: instead they try and hide it. Ignoring what they have thrown away, they promise deals with America, India and China.

    That is the right ambition. But it may not be achievable and – where it is – it will involve the UK making concessions.

    While Mr Trump makes extravagant promises of a “great deal” – and no doubt it would be for America – Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary scorns the UK’s trade ambitions as “delusional”.

    America is poised to demand deep access to our agriculture and the NHS. The Prime Minister says that won’t happen – but there again he said he would “lie down in front of the bull-dozers at Heathrow Airport”, and we have yet to see that …….

    In any event, any deal requires the approval of Congress, and Republican and Democrat leaders have said they will block it if our Brexit departure harms Ireland – as it undoubtedly will.

    So we should not rely on a deal any time soon.

    And what deal is likely with India if they demand freely available visas? Or with China if they demand acquiescence in their policy towards Hong Kong: even the most supine Cabinet could not accept that.

    Far from “Global Britain” post Brexit, my fear is that we will become less global than we have been for generations.

    ***

    There will be people here tonight of all political persuasions, and of none.

    I am a conservative by conviction, not background, and have been since I first began to think for myself. As a boy, I learned the old adage about speaking truth to power. Today, I assert that it is just as important for power to speak truth to people.

    But, at the moment, it is not.

    Too often – instead of uncomfortable truths – we are offered false hopes and undeliverable promises. The public deserves to know what lies ahead without optimistic embellishment.

    And if they discover – too late – that they were misled, then distrust for our politics will grow, and millions of disillusioned voters may find themselves politically homeless.

    Many businesses, many people, are fearful of the short-term turbulence of Brexit. They are right to be so, although the scale is unknown. But, however turbulent, we will come through the initial shock – even if we do leave without a deal.

    But I am far more concerned about the long-term.

    The danger that our United Kingdom will become less relevant year after year. The fear that we are being led out of the mainstream and into the slipstream. That we will become followers and not leaders.

    That is no place for nations with a history as rich and as proud as our own.

    We need to be side by side with our neighbours on the Continent – not face to face in confrontation.

    The Government continues to use deeply insensitive language in its pursuit of Brexit.

    The Bill that was introduced on Tuesday, with the sole purpose of allowing our Sovereign Parliament to take back control – which, as I recall, was one of the central planks of the Vote Leave campaign – has now been, quite shamefully, re-branded by the Prime Minister as the “Surrender Bill”.

    The irony of this is breathtaking. Nor is it true.

    What is true is that a hard Brexit will most surely “surrender” advantages the UK has worked so hard to gain – over very many years.

    This week, Westminster has flexed its muscles, and done what every democratic Parliament has a duty to do: call the Government to account.

    Over recent days, some Conservative Members have put their conscience above all else – at tremendous personal cost.

    It is time for others – of all Parties – to dig deep into their souls and answer one question: am I here to serve the interests of my Party, or the wellbeing of my country?

    Upon their answer, all our futures depend.

  • Sir John Major’s Written Submission to High Court – 2 September 2019

    Below is the text of the written submission made by Sir John Major to the High Court on 2 September 2019.

    Written Submission (in .pdf format)

  • Sir John Major’s Witness Statement to High Court – 2 September 2019

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s witness statement to the High Court, issued on 2 September 2019.

    Text of witness statement (in .pdf format)

  • Sir John Major’s Statement on a Judicial Review – 30 August 2019

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Sir John Major on 30 August 2019.

    I promised that, if the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to prevent Members from opposing his Brexit plans, I would seek judicial review of his action.

    In view of the imminence of the prorogation – and to avoid duplication of effort, and taking up the Court’s time through repetition – I intend to seek the Court’s permission to intervene in the claim already initiated by Gina Miller, rather than to commence separate proceedings.

    If granted permission to intervene, I intend to seek to assist the Court from the perspective of having served in Government as a Minister and Prime Minister, and also in Parliament for many years as a Member of the House of Commons.

    I will be represented by The Rt Hon The Lord Garnier QC and Tom Cleaver, who will be instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.