Below is the text of the statement made by Sir John Major on 28 August 2019.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister’s motive in seeking prorogation is to bypass a Sovereign Parliament that opposes his policy on Brexit.
As events unfold, I will continue to seek advice on the legality of this and other matters, but will be making no further comment for the time being.
Below is the text of the statement made by Sir John Major on 22 July 2019.
I read Gordon Brown’s speech this morning with interest and agreement.
It is a timely moment to note that whoever becomes our Prime Minister this week, he will be far more than Leader of the Conservative Party.
As for every Prime Minister, he must act for our nation as a whole – not just one part of it. He must also remember that no-one born this century voted for Brexit – let alone a “no deal” Brexit.
Words and actions have consequences, and never more so than when they are those of the Prime Minister. As the evidence mounts of the probable economic and social damage of a “no deal” Brexit – and of the rising opposition to it – the new Prime Minister must choose whether to be the spokesman for an ultra-Brexit faction, or the servant of the nation he leads. He cannot be both, and the choice he makes will define his Premiership from the moment of its birth.
As the most powerful politician in the four nations of our United Kingdom, any Prime Minister has the right to expect support but – if he acts as the spokesman for one hard-line faction only – he cannot complain if he faces uncompromising opposition from those who believe they have had their views ignored.
I hope our new leader understands this, and is fully prepared for the enormity of the task before him.
Below is the text of the interview with Sir John Major which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 10 July 2019.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Sir John Major, former Prime Minister, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for the leadership, is in our Westminster studio. Good morning Sir John.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Good morning.
MISHAL HUSAIN
This is the first time that we’re speaking to you during this leadership contest and I wondered what you feel about it in the round and what you think it has told us about your party.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
To be brutally honest, I don’t think it has been terribly illuminating and in some ways it hasn’t been very appetising. The way in which some of the candidates who have been eliminated seemed to have changed their position in order to join up with one candidate or the other hasn’t been something I think that the public would have looked on with great favour.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Who are you thinking of?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I’m bothered about the two final candidates.
MISHAL HUSAIN
And you’re supporting Jeremy Hunt?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I am supporting Jeremy Hunt, but let me make it clear at the outset that I am not of his campaign, I am not here today to speak for Mr. Hunt, I am here to speak for myself about the campaign, about Brexit and the incredible risks that I think now lie ahead of us.
MISHAL HUSAIN
I understand what you say about not being part of Jeremy Hunt’s campaign, but I wonder whether you’re supporting him because of his position or because he is not Boris Johnson, because you have said that you could not support anyone who was part of the Brexit campaign, which in your words ‘misled the country’.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
That is true, but I would have supported Jeremy Hunt in any event. I think that he has the serious attitude to Government that I think is necessary. I think he does look at the facts before he reaches a decision, I think he looks at reality and not public reaction and I think it’s very important in a Prime Minister that they do that.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Let’s talk about the key points of difference, particularly those which we heard about last night in the TV debate, one of them being their attitude to proroguing Parliament. Now, Boris Johnson’s reason for refusing to rule that out was because he said that it would be bizarre to take anything off the table, to weaken the UK’s position in negotiations.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think that the idea of proroguing Parliament is utterly and totally unacceptable from any British Parliamentarian or democrat. Let’s strip away the jargon of proroguing and contemplate on what this actually means. What it means, and Prime Minister Johnson presumably, because he cannot persuade Parliament to agree with his policy will close down Parliament so that he can bypass it until his policy comes into operation.
Nobody has done that since King Charles in the 1640s and it didn’t end well for him, and it shouldn’t end well. You cannot and should not bypass Parliament in this fashion and I cannot imagine how anyone can conceivably think that is right.
There is a secondary point to that as well as in order to close down Parliament, the Prime Minister would have to go to Her Majesty the Queen and ask for her permission to prorogue. If her First Minister asks for that permission then it is almost inconceivable that the Queen will do anything other than grant it. She’s advised by her First Minister and she is then in the midst of a constitutional controversy that no serious politician should put the Queen in the middle of.
I think that this is completely and utterly against Parliamentary tradition and against the way in which our Government should work. If that were to happen I think that there would be a queue of people who would seek judicial review. The Queen’s decision cannot be challenged in law, but the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen can, I believe, be challenged in law and I, for one, would be prepared to go and seek judicial review to prevent Parliament being bypassed.
I served in Parliament for over twenty years, I’m very proud to have done so, I have huge admiration for our Parliamentary traditions and I am not going to stand by and see them disregarded in this fashion. It is utterly and completely the wrong way to proceed.
MISHAL HUSAIN
You would seek an immediate judicial review of a Prime Minister’s decision to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament in these circumstances?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
That is correct.
MISHAL HUSAIN
In terms of her own position, you are essentially saying that she would be honour bound to act on the request of her Prime Minister, but the difficulty then is that there is a competing democratic mandate, which is that we would know a Prime Minister is doing that because they can’t get what they want through Parliament.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
That is the reason that the Prime Minister would be doing it, in order to pass a policy that is hugely controversial and is certainly opposed by a vast majority of people in Parliament. The vast number of MPs are perfectly well aware that Brexit is a very bad idea for the future of the United Kingdom and the well-being of its business and citizens, but they feel hamstrung by the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister would be bypassing Parliament and that is simply not acceptable.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Do you think that Boris Johnson as Prime Minister would actually be prepared to do that?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I can only take him at his word, perhaps he’s not telling the truth. That is certainly what he has said and he has repeatedly refused to rule it out. It’s a very easy thing to say no to, ‘no, I am not going to try and bypass Parliament’, but Mr. Johnson has failed to do so. I would be delighted if he said later today that ‘I have reflected, it is a completely inappropriate way to proceed, I will not bypass Parliament’ and that would be the end of the matter. Until he says that it is a live risk based on what he will not say.
MISHAL HUSAIN
He should say that should he? The way that he is declining to say that is essentially saying that he doesn’t want to get into it is because we are going to again be in a state of negotiation with the EU and this is not the time to get into that.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
There is no conceivable justification, wherever we are, to close down Parliament to bypass its sovereignty. I seem to recall that the Brexiteers, led by Mr. Johnson, actually campaigned in the referendum for the sovereignty of Parliament. If they’re concerned about the sovereignty of Parliament they can’t be concerned for the sovereignty of parliament except when it is inconvenient to Mr. Johnson.
MISHAL HUSAIN
On your first point of objection to the idea that it’s wrong to bypass Parliament, in 1997, you were accused by Labour of effectively setting the date of that election to suit yourself because there was a forthcoming report about cash for questions. That was the accusation that you were bringing the General Election forward and having that report published after the election.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Mishal, I didn’t bring the election forward. We carried the election until almost the very last date and Labour criticised us for that.
MISHAL HUSAIN
It was nineteen days earlier than it could have been.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Nineteen days right at the end of the date that we could have had. The Labour charge was one of many absurd charges they made in order to undermine our position as part of their General Election campaign.
MISHAL HUSAIN
What do you think then is the most likely scenario that we are going to face with Brexit in the autumn?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I wish I knew because we hear and see so many conflicting things. What I am absolutely clear about is that rushing to an artificial date on 31 October could be disastrous if people are not ready, if business is not ready, if individuals are not ready and the corporate sector collectively is not ready.
It is an artificial date and it could lead to a great deal of chaos. The argument that it will bring things to a conclusion is, to a substantial extent, a bogus argument. You can bring a business difficulty to a conclusion by going bankrupt, but it’s not the conclusion that you’d wish to have. We need to put the country in the right position if we’re to have Brexit with the minimal of difficulty.
It will be difficult in any event, but this date of 31 October has a great deal more to do with the election of the Conservative Party leader than it does for the interests of the country and that is the wrong way round. The interests of the country must come first, before the interests of the Conservative Party and before the interests of any candidate in that election.
MISHAL HUSAIN
But it is the members of the Conservative Party who are going to make this decision now which matters to the entire country.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
But that is exactly the point.
MISHAL HUSAIN
I appreciate what you’re saying about the interests of the country being at stake, but your own party is under so much pressure now from the Brexit Party. We could see that in the results of the European elections and we can see that in people who go to their rallies and say that they used to vote for the Conservatives. Having failed to deliver Brexit according to the first timetable, your party could be far away from power and even towards an irreconcilable split if they do not deliver Brexit according to this second deadline.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Mishal, I have been in the Conservative Party for sixty years, I joined on my sixteenth birthday. But I’ll tell you this without any equivocation. If you have to choose between what is in the interests of the country and its future or the short-term interests of the Conservative Party, then I would unhesitatingly choose the interests of the country as a whole.
A small number of Conservative members will choose who the next Prime Minister is. Assuming 70,000 votes will get the winning candidate, then that is one Conservative vote in the leadership election for every 175 Conservative votes in a General Election. So even the membership under any circumstances aren’t representative. It is unrepresentative of the Conservative vote, let alone the interests of the country. And I repeat the same point again, national leaders look first at the interests of the country, not first at the interests of themselves and appealing to a particular part of a small electorate for a particular post, however important that post may be.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Is Boris Johnson putting his own interests before the interests of the county?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
You must judge. I must say that it is my view that it is a mistake, and I put that mildly, to produce a fixed date in advance for spurious reasons for the date of which we must leave the European Union when we cannot be sure that we will be ready to do so.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Even the candidate that you’re supporting, Jeremy Hunt, seems pretty wedded to that date. It might go a little bit over, but he’s also prepared to prefer to leave the EU without a deal at that point rather than extend.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I said at the outset that I’m not here to speak for Jeremy, I’m here to speak for myself. Of the candidates available us, Jeremy is the one that I would have chosen at the beginning to be our Prime Minister. That does not mean that on every conceivable issue I am absolutely at one with any of the candidates, including the one I favour.
MISHAL HUSAIN
I wonder how you would deal, or how the Government and the next Prime Minister, should deal with the issue that arises from Sir Kim Darroch’s position as ambassador in Washington given the way that Mr. Trump has been talking about him. Again, last night Boris Johnson did not guarantee to keep the Ambassador in post if he became Prime Minister. How do you think this should be handled?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Kim Darroch is her Majesty’s ambassador more than the Government’s, that is his position. He was sent to Washington as a very senior, and I may say respected, diplomat to report his unvarnished views in private to the British Government, just as every American ambassador does about our country and every other country. Someone extremely malicious has leaked his view, but he was doing in Washington precisely and absolutely what he was instructed to do when he went there, which was to report fairly to the Government. If he does not do that, he is not doing his job. We really cannot have our ambassadors chosen by the host governments, however eminent those host governments may be. I know Kim Darroch, I know him to be a very able and distinguished civil servant and he should not be forced out of his office, however hostile they might be.
There is a secondary point which Mr. Johnson and everyone else should ponder. The whole of the diplomatic service, which is vital to the interests of this country, will have seen that one of their most senior diplomats was prepared to be thrown to the wolves because of the criticism of a non-British Government. I do not think that is good for the morale of the civil service and I do not think anybody who does that will endear themselves in obtaining the loyalty of the civil service in future. Loyalty is a two-way street and Mr. Darroch has not misbehaved, he has behaved exactly as he was expected to behave, indeed probably how he instructed to behave, and he deserves the support of the British Government.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Diplomacy requires access. We can already see that there was a meeting that should have taken place between Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, and Liam Fox which did not take place in Washington yesterday. Now that this has happened, how useful can Sir Kim Darroch be?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
He’s still a very able diplomat. I repeat the point that we cannot have our diplomats frozen out by Governments who are hostile to a private report that a diplomat has made. Once that happens it may happen elsewhere and you undermine the whole of our diplomacy. If that means a short-term freeze in relationships then that would be very unfortunate, because America are a very important ally of this country and always have been. But, none the less, there comes a time when principle has to come first and the principle that we stand by our ambassadors when they have acted entirely properly cannot be changed.
MISHAL HUSAIN
Finally, the cricket world cup. Famously you went to the cricket on the day that you left office in 1997. In some ways it doesn’t really feel that this country is hosting an international tournament at the moment because we haven’t been able to see those matches on terrestrial television. I imagine you’ve got to quite a few of them, but do you think it’s a shame that because we’re not seeing those matches in the way that we might see football matches that it’s not as much of the public consciousness as it should be.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think it’s a shame that cricket has for many years not been shown to the extent that it should be on terrestrial television. But my understanding is that the BBC declined to bid for the cricket as they said they didn’t have enough money to do so. It was an open bid and cricket, like most sports, requires money and that is the root of progress. That is what determined the decision and I’m very sorry about it, I would give a great deal to see cricket on terrestrial television and even more to see it reintroduced into mainstream secondary education for everyone, because I think it would do a great deal to boost our sport. I do regret that it isn’t there and I hope that your question means that the BBC will bid for it next time.
MISHAL HUSAIN
I’m not sure that I could answer that question, but apparently it didn’t bid for the highlights package because of scheduling issues I’m told!
SIR JOHN MAJOR
You’re very good at asking questions and I ask you just merely one and I wouldn’t wish you to dodge it!
MISHAL HUSAIN
Sir John Major, former Prime Minister, thank you very much.
Below is the text of the interview between Stephen Sackur and Sir John Major, broadcast on BBC’s HARDTalk on Friday 5 July 2019.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Sir John Major, welcome to HARDtalk.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Good morning.
STEPHEN SACKUR
The Conservative Party leadership is in its final lap. You have been watching it very closely. What is it telling you about the state of your party?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party since my sixteenth birthday. It’s been a very large part of my life, I owe a great deal to it and I hope I’ve given quite a lot to it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen our party so divided or in such difficulty as it is at the moment.
We need, as we look forwards, to look at what is right for the country. Let me make that point absolutely clear, the country is infinitely more important than the party. If asked to choose between the two, I would unhesitatingly choose the interests of the country. We do need a Prime Minister who can bring the country together. We need a Prime Minister who can negotiate with Europe, we need a Prime Minister who we can trust and we need a serious man for serious times.
STEPHEN SACKUR
The Justice Secretary in this current Conservative Government, David Gauke, said this just a very short time ago talking about the political atmosphere. He said “there is a willingness for politicians to say what they think the public wants to hear and there is right now a willingness from the public to believe what they are told by populist politicians.” Do you think that those words apply to this race?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think those words were intended to apply to this race. In many ways, they do apply to this race. We do need people to understand what really is at stake with Brexit. Thus far, from the very outset of the campaign, there’s been a great deal of misunderstanding and, frankly, a great deal of misinformation that was peddled to people about what Brexit is going to mean.
Nobody should be in any doubt of my position, I have not changed it. I voted to remain in the European Union, it is an imperfect organisation, it needs reform, it’s very frustrating, it’s a bit out of date and there’s a lot wrong with it. All that is true, but to leave the biggest, richest, free trade market in the world on the grounds that you’re going to go global is absurd.
The damage that will be done to us both in the short-term and in the long-term, people of my vintage are fine, we’re OK, we’ve finished our working lives, we’re perhaps quite comfortable in many cases, but our children aren’t and our grand-children aren’t and we are making a choice at the moment in leaving the European Union that I think is the worst foreign policy choice that Britain has made in my lifetime and a long time before. I think people need to understand that.
STEPHEN SACKUR
We’ll get to the big picture, what Brexit means for Britain and its place in the world, but you, as a Conservative, face a choice right now, in fact you may have received your ballot paper already. Many Tories have already received their ballot papers, many have already voted. Have you voted?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I haven’t received any ballot papers yet.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Who will you vote for?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
A ballot is private, but it’s fairly evident from my views that I cannot vote for someone who was part of the Brexit campaign which misled the country. So I shall offer my vote to Jeremy Hunt, and I don’t think anyone will be in any doubt about that. I hope that everyone, before casting their vote, will wait a little while. We need to see the two candidates properly examined by the media, we need to see both candidates appearing before the media, answering the difficult questions, explaining what they will do and explaining how they will do it.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Boris Johnson has refused to engage in a head to head debate with Jeremy Hunt thus far. The only one he’s agreed to will take place after many Conservatives have voted.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
In that case, the wise Conservative will wait until after Mr. Johnson has appeared before they make up their mind on which of the two they will vote for.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Does character matter in this race between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think character matters in politics, let alone just in the race for who is Prime Minister. Of course character matters and everyone will make their own particular judgements about character. It’s very important. The choices that you make, particularly as Prime Minister, are crucial.
A proper leader will make a choice that is right for the country, even if it is wrong for himself and for his party. The wrong leader will make a choice for his party or himself rather than for his country. People have to make a judgement about everybody in politics as to where their priority lies.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Do you trust Boris Johnson?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t know him very well. But, I do find many of the things that have been said by Boris Johnson, and by many others, to be in conflict with reality as I understand it.
STEPHEN SACKUR
In conflict with reality, also in conflict with the truth?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think the truth is reality, don’t you?
STEPHEN SACKUR
Are you saying to me?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
No, I’m not, and I’m not having those words put in my mouth. I’ve indicated for whom I’m voting and I think that Jeremy Hunt is the better choice for our country. I’m not here for character assassination on Boris Johnson. My preference is Jeremy Hunt for the reasons I’ve set out and the much bigger issue is not just who has misled us but how, but what the misleading is, what it will mean for our country and what it will mean for the people in our country.
STEPHEN SACKUR
On the key issue that I think it’s fair to say that most Conservatives are voting upon, that is who is best equipped to deliver the Brexit that the overwhelming number of Conservatives want. It seems that Boris Johnson’s fundamental message of Brexit ‘do or die’ has coloured this whole campaign. Indeed, it’s arguable that Jeremy Hunt has signed up to the very same message.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Before I come directly to answer that question, you say the Brexit that the majority of Conservatives want. Let’s not forget that an awful lot of people in this country, when you look at the interests of this country, are not Conservative. I find it very difficult for any Prime Minister wishing to lead the whole of our country can entirely ignore the views of 48% of people who passionately do not want to see Brexit at all because they believe it is bad for their country. They cannot be ignored, it’s not only wrong constitutionally, I think politically it’s crazy. Those 48% of people are going to remember that they were completely ignored and they will remember that at the next election and for a very long time to come.
STEPHEN SACKUR
You seem to becoming very close to saying that this process, where of course the next Prime Minister is being chosen by between 120,000 and 160,000 Conservative members, and we know from all of the survey evidence that they are 97% white, they are an average age of 57 years old. You seem to be suggesting that for that to be the way of appointing Britain’s next Prime Minister, the man who will have to deal with the Brexit challenge, is not legitimate.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think you have to look at a number of other things as well. If you look at the electorate for this particular election, not only does it have the deficiencies that you suggest, because we are choosing a national leader, not just the leader of the Conservative Party, but the next Prime Minister. It’s not only a narrow electorate in the sense that you set out, but a very large part of that electorate appear to have joined the Conservative Party within recent months or within the last year.
I have not seen any great successes by the Conservative Party that should have created a flood of members coming into it over the last year. I wish I had, I really wish I had, but I haven’t. So you have to ask yourself why these people are coming in? They’re certainly not life-long Conservatives, they’re people who have flooded into the party recently and, from all one can gather, they have flooded into it because they wish to take a firm view on Brexit. They’re people in many cases, I suspect and I cannot know this, who have their boots in the Conservative Party but have their hearts in Brexit or UKIP. That is a very odd way to choose the next leader of the Conservative Party.
STEPHEN SACKUR
You haven’t used the word, but if they are entryists or infiltrators, then one can only assume that you believe that whatever happens in the leadership election that the only genuine way to put this before the people is to go for a General Election before Brexit happens.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
No, I don’t think a General Election would at all be the right way for several reasons, and for practical reasons for the country. If we had a General Election at the moment we would not get what ideally we would need, which is a Government with a clear majority that can determine its policies, argue it in Parliament and have a majority to carry its policies out.
If we had a General Election, we would get a very fragmented Parliament indeed, with some very curious people being elected and the Government in an ever weaker position than this Government is currently in with because of its lack of a majority and that is not in anyone’s interests and certainly not in the interests of good government in the United Kingdom. So a General Election would be a very bad idea from the point of view of everyone in the country.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Surely, as Jeremy Hunt has put it, the most fundamental requirement right now is to show the British people that having given them the decision to make on whether to remain or leave the European Union, that decision, in the referendum of 2016, will be followed through on by those who govern the country.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Parliamentarians are in an extraordinarily difficult position that we have not seen before. I would guess that 70% to 80% of Parliament believe that Brexit is a disaster, that we should not be leaving Europe and that it’s damaging to our country and damaging to our future. But they feel hamstrung in carrying their conscience and their belief through to action because of the result of the referendum.
STEPHEN SACKUR
A referendum which David Cameron, who ordered it, said would be the once in a lifetime opportunity for the people.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
You can deal with that point, call it semantic or not, or you can deal with what is in the interests of the people of our country and their future. It’s not just people who believe we should remain like me who say it’s going to be a disaster. The World Bank do, the IMF do, Moody’s ratings do, the British Government does.
The British Government itself is saying that we will be worse off. We will lose in growth, there will be innumerable problems and I have never seen a time in history when a British Government was in a position in permitting a policy to proceed that they know will be bad for the working people of this country. Which is the primary responsibility of Parliament? I would argue, however unpopular it may be, that the primary responsibility of Parliament is to speak for the well-being of the country. If they have to say to the country ‘you were misled during the referendum campaign’, as they were repeatedly day after day, ‘you were misled and we now know the facts of what Brexit means and therefore you should have the opportunity to reflect’, now that is really what I would like to see Parliament do.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Why will you not accept the word from both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt that they will go back to Brussels and they will negotiate a better deal that the one Theresa May got. Precisely because they are serious and they are genuine about leaving the European Union by 31 October, even if the EU does not give them a better deal. With that negotiating strategy in hand, they say, they will get a better deal. You know the EU well, they always in the end make last minute compromises.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
They’re not going to compromise in the withdrawal agreement itself.
STEPHEN SACKUR
With respect, how do you know?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
They’re a rules based organisation and in the past when they altered at the last moment they were a much smaller European Union. They’re now, even without Britain, 27 nation states who would have to agree to a change. They will not all agree to a change, particularly with the problems with the Irish backstop. The point with the Irish backstop is not just trade. The true point underlying it is blood.
The troubles in Northern Ireland started with the murder of customs officers at that very same customs point. Go and ask the Northern Ireland Police Service, go and ask the Taoiseach, there are plenty of people both on the nationalist side and on the republican side who would be only too willing to have an excuse to restart violence. Let us not just concentrate on one aspect of that. That is a huge impediment, I spent a large number of years of my time in Downing Street beginning the Irish Peace Process, which to his eternal credit Tony Blair picked up, carried on and finished with an excellent final deal with the Good Friday Agreement. You cannot start infringing that, you cannot risk returning to the problems we had before when over 3,000 people were killed.
STEPHEN SACKUR
I have never seen you so exercised, frankly so passionate and even angry. Are you at a point where you are prepared to say to your own party, which you say you’ve been in since your sixteenth birthday, that if the party elects a Prime Minister who in the end commits to leaving on October 31 with no deal if necessary, are you saying that ‘I will recommend to Conservative MPs that they bring down that Prime Minister?’
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t necessarily think that is the way that it is going to evolve. There are some things, such as the absurd suggestion of bypassing Parliament by proroguing it for example, there are things like that which simply must not be permitted to happen. I have no personal ambitions, I’m not in politics, I’m not going back into politics and there’s nothing the Government can offer me. I’m not interested in any of that.
All I am doing is saying that on behalf of the people who do not have a voice to speak, the 48%, that what we are doing is bad for the future of our country and Parliament, and I’m not in Parliament, Parliament must decide how to protect that. It’s not for me to tell Parliament how to do it.
STEPHEN SACKUR
People would be interested if you were prepared to give a pathway to thwarting and blocking a no-deal Brexit. Surely it is incumbent upon you as a former leader of the Conservative Party and a former Conservative Prime Minister to say, whether like Ken Clarke, a former colleague of yours, and Dominic Grieve, you believe it would be right, if it comes to it, for Conservatives to vote no confidence in a Prime Minister and a Government which is committed to a no-deal Brexit.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think I said earlier quite clearly, if you have to choose between your country and your party, then you choose your country. That applies in all circumstances with none put to one side.
STEPHEN SACKUR
So you would leave the Conservative Party?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
No, no, it’s not a question of me leaving the Conservative Party. I’m a centre-right one nation Conservative, I have been since my sixteenth birthday. I haven’t moved. I’m not moving from the Conservative Party, if they move away from me then that is a choice they can make, but I’m not moving. I shall stay where I am inside the Conservative Party fighting for the sort of Conservative Party that genuinely is one nation, that genuinely does not cast aside the interests of 48% of the people in this country without reflecting upon what their needs and concerns are.
That is the sort of Conservative Party that I wish to see and there are many Conservative MPs inside the House of Commons who feel exactly as I do. It is not the whole of the Conservative Party who are absolutely obsessed with the question of Brexit, it is a portion of the Conservative Party.
STEPHEN SACKUR
As you say that, I am so mindful of your own Premiership and that moment when in 1993, in an unguarded moment, you referred to some of your Cabinet colleagues who were the diehard Euro sceptics as “bastards”. It seems to me that, here we are at this very point, where you are having to acknowledge that “the bastards” have won. They now represent your party.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Firstly, it was entirely wrong of me even privately to call them bastards, true, but wrong. As far as today is concerned, there are more of them, some of them are the same people. But, there are more of them.
STEPHEN SACKUR
Can I add one detail? This adds to the pressure upon you. 60 something percent of Conservatives told Yougov, a credible survey, of the party membership that they regard Brexit as more important than the survival of the party itself.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
What do they mean by Brexit? On the day on which the Brexit referendum was held there were opinion polls saying that majority of people, including Conservatives, actually wanted to stay inside the single market. The interpretation of what Brexit is is an interpretation which was not made in the referendum. Nobody in the referendum said ‘we will have a no deal Brexit’, nobody said that, not Boris Johnson, not Michael Gove, not anyone. That is something which emerged after the Brexit result when they began to harden their position and that position has been hardened and hardened ever since.
The right-wing of the Conservative Party, the anti-Europeans more accurately, will push and push and push, whenever there’s a concession and whenever they’re appeased, they’ll push a little more. The idea of a completely no deal Brexit was not what people thought they were voting for. Whatever some people may say now, that was not on the referendum ballot paper, it was not what the referendum was about and it was not what people thought on the day on which they voted.
If Parliament had actually picked up that point straight away and said ‘you have said we must leave this because you dislike the bureaucracy, you wish to restore the sovereignty or whatever it may be, we are leaving the political elements of the European Union, but we will keep the single market that Margaret Thatcher entered into in the 1980s because it is in our economic interests to do so”, and that would have been a fairer reflection, a more accurate reflection of what most people had in their minds, I believe, at the time they voted.
STEPHEN SACKUR
You believe your view. I now want to invite you to look at a bigger horizon. Politics across the world is changing, look at Donald Trump’s style of politics in the United States. Boris Johnson has just said that if he is elected as British Prime Minister, he will make the country the greatest country in the world. That sort of message appears to be the style of politics, the sort of message, that people want. They want energy, they want positivity, they are fed up with people like you telling them of the problems of Brexit.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
They might also want some indication of how it is to be done, might they not? To just simply say that ‘I’m going to make this the greatest country in the world’ is fine, we would all like to do that, nobody could possibly object to that as an aim. But it’s a very curious way to do it, to leave the richest, largest free trade market that the world has ever seen.
In the last period, when we’ve been saying how we can become global Britain and have failed ourselves to negotiate new trade deals or even set them up for negotiation, the European Union has now done a free trade deal with Japan, a free trade deal with Canada, a free trade with Brazil and the rest of Mercosur. All of which Steven, we would have benefitted from had we had remained inside the European Union.
That trade is the sort of thing that makes prosperity to make us the greatest country in the world. We have thrown away over 50 trade deals across the world totalling 70 countries and now these big new ones. It will take us ten years, twenty years, thirty years to replicate that.
STEPHEN SACKUR
I can hear Boris Johnson in my ear saying ‘why are you so negative about the prospects for a Britain outside of the European Union? We can get a great deal with the United States, we can make trade deals across the world which will work for our economy. Our future is bright is outside of the EU.’
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I am not obsessed with Boris Johnson, and with great respect, you seem to be. I do not believe that you make this country great by diminishing its relationship with the rest of the world. We are diminishing our relationship by leaving the European Union.
Take one example. In terms of foreign policy, whenever we’ve made a foreign policy démarche of any sort, the world looks at Britain and on one side they see our long-term relationship with the United States as their closest ally, and on the other side, they see us as a leading member of the European Union of five hundred million people. Diplomatically we marched out into the world with a billion and a half of the most organised people in the world metaphorically at our sides when we did so.
We now leave the European Union at exactly the moment that America is pivoting away from the west, away from the UK and towards Asia, for reasons that are perfectly proper from an American point of view. Not because they are disinterested in us, but because there is a bigger market there and it’s in their interests to do so. So suddenly, Britain on its own is shorn of the two great bulwarks of its foreign policy, its relationship with America and its relationship with the European Union.
I spend a large part of my life travelling the world. Go and speak to business leaders and politicians privately around the world, and they will tell you, and it breaks my heart to say it, but they will say that we have diminished ourselves and our prospects by leaving the European Union. And to be brutally frank, there’s a very large part of the world that think the pragmatic, cool and to be trusted Britons have taken leave of their senses in the policy they are now following.
If you want to know why I feel passionately about it, that is why. I would like to be part of the greatest nation in the world, but you don’t become the greatest nation in the world by running away from the rest of the world and breaking your connections with them. It’s absolutely the wrong way to proceed and simply to say ‘we’re going to be the greatest nation in the world’, without any indication of how you’re going to do it, and please don’t feed me the pap about how we’re going to do all these wonderful trade details.
The Prime Minister went to India on Monday and said I’d like a trade deal, and on Wednesday said we don’t want any Indians to come to the UK and that was the end of that discussion.
STEPHEN SACKUR
We have to end this discussion right there.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Thank you.
The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the inaugural lecture of the John Smith Centre for Public Service, held at the University of Glasgow on Tuesday 19 February 2019.
When Elizabeth Smith invited me to deliver this lecture I was delighted to accept.
It seems to me to be in the best traditions of Scottish enlightenment that a Centre – whose mission is to restore faith in public service – should be housed in one of Europe’s most ancient and venerable Universities.
So, it is – truly – a privilege to be here.
I’m here, too, because of John Smith. John was a rare talent: the sort of tenacious politician that our country could ill afford to lose. If the fates had allowed, he would have been a Prime Minister of distinction.
* * * * *
Some might think it odd that I’m speaking at an event that implicitly honours the legacy of a political opponent.
But I am proud to be doing so. Democracy – and concern for our national wellbeing – is not the preserve of any one Party or philosophy. It is our common heritage, fought for by our predecessors.
Today, it is the safety valve through which we debate differing views: but debate doesn’t mean we must disagree on everything. Because we don’t – and we shouldn’t.
Politics isn’t warfare: it’s about deciding what is in the best interests of the four nations of our United Kingdom.
And the idea that politicians should talk only to their own tribe, speaking only for – or to – those who agree with them, explains much that is wrong about modern politics. It’s a bunker attitude that has to change. The public don’t like it – and the public are right.
* * * * *
John and I were political opponents, but never personal ones. I admired his ability and conviction – even when I disagreed with him.
At PMQs, adrenaline propelled both of us to remarks that, perhaps, were best not made but – when the ritual was over – we withdrew occasionally to my room in the Commons to enjoy a drink – or two.
Our conversations ranged far beyond politics – although we did muse upon whether we could swap troublesome members: a “Skinner for a Redwood” was one proposition.
It was a joke, of course – born of the frustrations of Party Management.
One truth about mainstream politicians is that they have more in common with each other than not. Yet they hide agreement from public view, as if consensus were a betrayal of Party philosophy – when, to most people, it seems simple commonsense.
I am a Conservative. John was committed to Labour. As a Conservative, I prefer pragmatism to ideology; negotiation to confrontation; consensus to conflict; and public service to self-service.
With which of these choices would John Smith have disagreed?
Not one I think.
* * * * *
Ahead of us lie some crucial decisions for the four countries of our United Kingdom and our political system.
So, this evening, I shall talk of politics and public service – and the vital role of the Civil Service in delivering policy.
First, politics.
At the moment, our Kingdom is not contented. Our four nations are not in harmony. Respect for politics is at a very low level. Politicians may be praised individually, but collectively the public appears to have lost trust in them.
This is an unhappy state of affairs, helpful only to those who wish us harm, or to undermine our pragmatic system of government.
It has many causes.
A decade of uncertainty, at the end of which too many people are worse off than they were in 2007.
The 24-hour news cycle, that exposes politics to more intensive – and immediate – scrutiny than ever before.
The widespread use of social media, that enables a lie to gain traction before the truth is even sought.
The rise of populism, fake news, and unscrupulous leaders on the fringes of democratic politics.
And also the referendum on Europe, during which – to our national shame – truth was a casualty.
Facts were dismissed as “Project Fear”. Fiction was treated as fact. Assertion was presented as cast-iron proof. As a result, the public was left baffled and bemused: lost between truth and falsehood.
We now know there will be no £350 million a week to the NHS.
In fact, the reverse: estimates of the loss due to Brexit have already risen up to £800 million a week, or £40 billion a year.
The taxpayer will also be paying £39 billion to divorce ourselves from the EU, and unknown further amounts to pay for whole departments of staff to manage Brexit; to compensate special interest groups for lost European revenue.
And – I strongly suspect – literally billions – billions – more to protect our economy from the lost advantage of the European market.
In addition, the private sector is already spending huge sums to relocate people, offices and technology away from the UK to the Continent.
This was always the likely outcome of Brexit, but was not believed because the “Leave” campaign convinced the public that “experts” and the “elite” were conspiring together to create “Project Fear”.
Sadly – as each day passes – it is becoming ever more apparent that the “experts” were speaking only the truth.
This tactic of destroying faith in expertise has helped create a greater distrust in public life.
Once trust is broken, it is difficult to resurrect – and politics will be the loser for a very long time to come.
In the midst of all this, a fundamental truth has been lost.
It is that the vast majority of our politicians are diligent public representatives, who fight and vote for what their conscience believes and their philosophy dictates.
It is precisely these people that politics needs – not the chancers and rogues who stray into politics believing “House of Cards” is political reality – and the truth is nothing more than a plaything.
A second casualty of the referendum was Britain’s reputation for civilised debate and rational action. That has gone.
Political conduct during the referendum wrecked our reputation for civilised debate.
And there was nothing rational about triggering Article 50 before knowing what we wished to negotiate, or were prepared to concede to obtain it.
The referendum also divided opinion within – and between – the political parties, and coarsened political debate. It unleashed a poison into our political system that has caused wounds to open up and flow. These will not heal easily, even if – miraculously – a consensus deal emerges.
Opponents of Brexit were condemned as “traitors” or “saboteurs” or “wreckers”. Judges were “enemies of the people”. There is no truth, no fairness, no logic, in these charges; they were merely intended to abuse those who opposed Brexit, and to discourage others from doing the same.
Foreigners have been made to feel so unwelcome, that many have already chosen to return home. The hostility directed at them will not be forgotten, and may grow into a distaste for our country that – one day – will rebound on us.
The referendum was peppered, day after day, with anti-immigrant stories. At its conclusion, hostility to migrants had increased, and was made to seem acceptable. It is no coincidence that hate crimes have grown in number.
The voice of Britain that immigrants heard – which resonated around the world – was not that of the moderate majority. To me, who grew up alongside migrants in Brixton, it sounded like the voice of bigotry.
None of it reflected the tolerance for which our country has long been admired.
It is not the voice of the Britain that I know and cherish.
This tone of debate is not unique to our own country.
Across Europe, the Far Right has been flourishing against a backcloth of low growth, high unemployment and static or falling wages.
The “establishment” – everywhere – is seen to have failed, and fresh new voices crammed with negatives – anti-foreigner; anti-immigrant; anti-Europe; anti-elite; anti-everything – are winning support, with policy promises that can never be delivered.
In our own country, mainstream politicians are having to fight hard for a hearing. And whether they are Conservative or Labour or Liberal Democrat, it is vital they are given one.
As we face an uncertain future, our voters would be wise to aim for a new “Age of Reason”, and elect politicians able to rebut the extreme views of those who howl at the moon whilst promising the earth.
Our politics needs advocates leading by explanation and example, not by stigmatising others, not by soundbite – and never by deceit.
At the moment there is much talk of a new Party in politics.
You will all be familiar with the famous line of Yeats:
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;”
Well, in our ancient democracy, the centre of our politics has held – and been an example to the wider world. Our duty is to ensure that it continues to do so – and to be so.
In this era of “fake news” and populism – that is a momentous challenge.
When I refer to “the Centre”, I don’t mean some amorphous new Party of “moderates” and “centrists”.
Even if such a Party were elected, what would unfold when it fell out of favour? For all Governments are mortal.
With mainstream opinion sidelined, the country’s only choice would be between the extremes of Left or Right. That would be an awful outcome. Our electorate needs a choice between Parties that are demonstrably rational, realistic – and sane.
So, when I speak of “the Centre”, I mean that our three main national Parties – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – must each retain a mainstream majority of their own.
I hesitate now before saying what I believe I must…..
Currently, both the Conservative and Labour Parties are being manipulated by fringe opinion. The rationale for extremists joining mainstream Parties is logical: from within them, they can influence policy; from without, they very rarely can.
At the moment, there are people who – for now – may have their boots within the Conservative or Labour Parties – but not in their minds, nor their hearts.
The Conservative Party membership appears to be “hollowing out” traditional Conservatives, while former UKIP members strengthen the anti-European Right of the Party.
In Parliament, the European Research Group has become a Party within a Party, with its own whips, its own funding and its own priorities. Some of its more extreme members have little or no affinity to moderate, pragmatic and tolerant Conservatism.
The ERG does not represent a majority view but – with a minority Government – as now – can determine policy simply by being intransigent: which is precisely what it is doing.
Some – who can fairly be called zealots – seem incapable of looking beyond the one issue of Europe. It’s not just that it dominates their thinking – it seems to obsess them.
The Labour Party has a different dilemma, but with a similar outcome.
It has enjoyed a vast growth in membership that has captured many constituency organisations; their National Conference; important Party positions; and has left control of policy at the mercy of a passionate, active, far-Left base rather than the centre-Left.
Yesterday, seven moderate MPs left the Labour Party. I admire their courage and their conviction. But I hope they have not cut themselves adrift forever. Labour needs moderate MPs, and the country needs a moderate Labour Party.
Complacent voices dismiss the chances of fringe opinion gaining control of the political agenda. Britain is too pragmatic, they say. Too stable.
Our political system is too mature. I hope they are right.
But, in the recent past, much that once seemed impossible has come to pass. The election of Donald Trump, the growth of the Far Right in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Germany, France …..
Complacent voices expected none of that – nor did many predict Brexit. They regarded UKIP as a joke, an outlet for frustration, and a harmless home for anti-immigration sentiment. It proved to be far more than that.
In the referendum I voted to remain: we lost. But I have not changed my view that the fall-out from Brexit will be long and painful.
It will not end on 29 March.
The result divided our four nations. It will weaken our overseas influence; undermine our economic prospects; and impoverish those who have the least.
Many people seem to be relaxed about Brexit. I am not.
I cannot rid myself of fears that we are about to move from a position of power and influence around the world, to one of relative isolation and weakness.
Also, as a Briton, I find it painful to come to terms with the possibility that, within my lifetime, I could – I repeat could – see the break-up of the UK. I hope I am wrong, but the agonies of Brexit have the capacity to do just that.
Some argue that a break-up won’t happen, because economic logic is against it. But sentiment and emotion is a potent mix: economic logic was against Brexit – yet look where we are now …..
I am not suggesting it is pre-determined that Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave the UK: it is not.
But I am suggesting that leaving the EU will make an independent Scotland and united Ireland more likely than if we remained in the EU.
In 2015, Scotland voted to stay in the UK – and in Europe. Yet English and Welsh votes are now taking Scotland out of Europe against their will. Scotland cannot apply to re-join unless they gain independence. The incentive to try again is clear.
As for Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein are already calling for a new Border Poll on a united Ireland. This call will become more compelling if there is a “hard” border, with all the risks of a return to violence.
I don’t believe a Border Poll would succeed in the near future – but, within a few years, who can be sure?
It is astonishing to me that English Unionists are so avid to leave the European Union, that they are willing to put at risk our far more historic union with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
* * * * *
As of this moment, the world’s economy is dominated by the three great economic powers – America, China and the European Union.
As the UK leaves the EU, and the European economy stutters, that trio may shrink to a duo.
That is not in our national interest – nor in that of our Continental neighbours.
I don’t wish to see Europe – the cradle of democracy – as a subordinate power to President Xi’s autocratic China, or Mr Trump’s dysfunctional America.
I worry, too, about Britain’s diplomacy. For generations, it has been super-charged by our close alliance with America and Europe. But we are now leaving Europe – at exactly the moment the US is moving away from us … to the Far East.
“Punching above our weight” – as Douglas Hurd once put it – may no longer be so easy.
It may be good old British grit to hail Britain for “going it alone” but – as Churchill noted – “The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them”.
That applies just as much in peacetime as it does in war.
The many challenges before us must be faced by our Governments and our Public Service. We take public service for granted. We shouldn’t.
It’s an enormous undertaking, embracing – as it does – Parliament; the Armed Forces; the Home and Foreign Service; Local Government; the Judiciary; the Emergency Services; and so much else.
We need them all to perform well if we are to protect the society in which we wish to live.
But that raises a question: what sort of society do we wish to live in?
I see no attractions in an over-mighty State, whether it is benevolent or restrictive – and it could be either. Such a State takes decisions and choices away from individuals or families. Liberty of choice is too much part of our national DNA to be happy with such a situation.
Nor do I favour a minimalist State: the so-called “Singapore of the North” option.
This may work for Singapore – but surely not for us. It is usually advocated by those with little or no understanding of how important public service is to the majority of our nation.
Its virtues of low taxes, low regulation and maximum liberty of personal choice are enticing, but the price to be paid for them is too high.
A minimalist State may be fine for the successful, the wealthy, and the self-confident – but would prove a nightmare for the majority. It is not a route our welfare state should take.
In a Lecture like this, it is rather un-enterprising to admire the status quo – but I do.
The second half of the 20th Century gave us a mixed economy and the welfare state. That seems to fit comfortably with our British instinct for fairness, tolerance and choice.
We have enjoyed this for decades, and we should stick with it. We can all acknowledge the role of the Public and Private Sectors, even as we dispute precisely where the boundaries of each should lie.
But the success of such a choice depends upon more than political willpower: the role of public service is crucial – almost no-one can be wholly independent of it. It matters to us all – and so does its efficiency.
In our future world, in which people will change jobs – even careers – faster than ever before, and in which whole industries will rise and fall, we need the Civil Service to protect and enhance the quality of all public service.
The Civil Service once worked under a strict code that all mishaps, all errors, were the responsibility of their political masters.
Of course, this was a fiction, but it was a fiction with a purpose. It recognised the separation of powers between politicians and civil servants.
It protected civil servants who were unfamiliar with – and unequipped for – the savage cut and thrust of modern day politics.
For many years it was an accepted and effective modus operandi, and I was saddened when Ministers began to place public blame on those who served them.
Even when it was justified, it was unwise and unfair.
Civil servants act under Ministerial direction and, whilst that remains the case, they deserve to be protected by those they serve.
Civil servants are enablers. They work with Ministers to turn policy into reality. In doing so they are not merely handmaids to the mighty, but fully-fledged partners. Their role is crucial.
Departments of State have an historic memory no Minister can match. And often, of course, the civil servant can be more experienced – perhaps even more able – than the Minister: discretion forbids my offering up examples of this …..
The work of civil servants can be fiendishly complex.
Consider social security reform and the delivery of social benefits. Or the work of Ambassadors representing our country – often in hostile environments. Or the Treasury, where spending misjudgements can change the lives of millions.
This is also true of other parts of public service. It is true of our Armed Forces, who put their lives at risk for the common good. And our Emergency Services, who face the risk of injury or death on any day.
The point is this. We need to recruit talent to every part of public service and, in return, we need to give public service the respect it deserves.
Government – who are elected public servants – need unelected public servants to make their administration effective.
Too often, events leave Governments – all Governments – struggling even to catch up. And yet, if we are to achieve our future national ambitions, Governments must be ahead of the game, planning for what will happen rather than being overwhelmed by what is currently happening.
That needs efficiency across all public service.
Some people disparage public service as a well-paid, well-pensioned sinecure. It is far from that. Public servants are participants in the battle for a better future – and their role – often unrecognised – is crucial.
* * * * *
Let me summarise.
Within a few days, Members of Parliament will make decisions that will determine all our futures. I believe we have a right to expect them to vote for an outcome that best protects the future welfare and prosperity of our nation – without fear or favour, and without deference to Party allegiance.
And, before they cast that vote, I would make this plea – to each and every Member of Parliament:
Do not ignore the 63% who did not vote for Brexit.
Do not ignore the businesses who have announced their intention to leave the UK.
Do not ignore the investments that have already been pulled.
Do not ignore the jobs that are at risk.
Do not ignore the impact of staff shortages on the Health Service, the Caring Services, Transport, and much of the public service.
Do not ignore the social and economic impact on the young – nor on those who have the very least.
Do not ignore the risk of a hard border leading to violence in Northern Ireland.
Do not ignore the risk of a break-up of the United Kingdom.
Let me close by reading a poem which I learned as a young boy:
For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
For the want of a rider the message was lost.
For the want of a message the battle was lost.
For the want of a battle the war was lost.
For the want of a war the Kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
This is a classic illustration of how one small act can have unforeseen and far-reaching consequences.
The decision Parliament takes next week can undermine or revive the reputation of representative politics.
And from that flows so much of our whole way of life.
The night before he died, John Smith said this: “The opportunity to serve our country – that is all we ask”. John was referring to the Labour Party. But his sentiment applies equally to all those who serve in a democracy.
Every so often, in our long history, there has come a moment when Parliament has had to dig deep into its soul.
Now is such a moment.
Let us hope that the House of Commons has the wisdom and the will to exert its democratic right – and secure the best possible outcome for the nation it is so privileged to serve.
Extracts from the speech made by Sir John Major to the North-East England Chamber of Commerce event held at Newcastle Cathedral on 7 February 2019.
BREXIT
Our relations with Europe have divided opinion more than any other policy in my political lifetime.
I – more than most – can empathise with the frustrations and shortcomings of the EU: I lived with them for years.
But there are bigger issues at stake that are being ignored, or brushed aside, or dismissed as so-called “Project Fear” when – as we are discovering – they are all too real.
I believe Brexit is regressive. The campaigners for “Leave” promised better times, yet Brexit will deliver far worse times.
This is not just my view.
The Centre for European Reform estimates Brexit is already costing our public finances £320 million a week. And this, of course, excludes the “divorce bill” of £39 billion, and the growing cost across Government of managing our exit from Europe.
In addition, almost every sector of business has warned of trouble ahead – and every independent study of every conceivable Brexit – even by our own Government – shows that once we leave, the UK will be worse off, year after year after year ……
I can recall nothing to match this.
It is the first time in our long history that any British Government has embraced a policy of self-harm, despite their own advisers warning that it will make our nation weaker – and our people poorer.
And what makes this even more extraordinary is that we are a welfare state society. Those who will suffer the most are those who have the least.
This includes the less affluent regions of our United Kingdom; those on low incomes; and our young – who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU – but will have to live longest with the consequences of leaving it.
Over time, the young may prove to be the biggest losers.
In advance of Brexit, they fear for their future. Post Brexit – if they turn out to be right – they may neither forget nor forgive those responsible.
A FAIR SOCIETY
Over recent decades, the global economy has lifted two billion people out of absolute poverty – but, as it has done so, it has also widened the gap between “the haves” and the “have nots”.
Britons know they live in a democratic country, but many no longer believe they are living in a fair society.
And, in this, they are right. I entered Number 10 twenty-nine years ago with an ambition to build a country “at ease with itself”. I failed. So have all my successors.
But, today, the need to build such a society is even greater.
In the 1840s, Benjamin Disraeli wrote of Britons being divided into two nations: the rich and the poor.
Over 170 years later, events have entrenched far too wide a disparity. In incomes. In opportunities. In prospects. In social investment.
As a society, we have a moral duty to reduce inequality – not tolerate it. We must eradicate the roots of resentment.
Yet, to cure the ills of inequality, we need money. Money is as essential to create a fair society, as medicine is to create a healthy one.
I know of only one source of continuing wealth, and that is a healthy, growing economy. We cannot achieve that without investment to build a booming business sector.
And, as we achieve that, we must share the proceeds of growth more evenly.
I don’t wish to overstate this.
The poverty of today is not the grinding poverty of yesteryear. At the height of our Empire, millions of Britons struggled to eat. But relative poverty – the invisible poverty that often bypasses social safety nets – is still a potent issue.
It cannot be right that – in the fifth or sixth richest nation in the world – food banks have become essential in the lives of so many people.
And poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. The human spirit can endure great hardship; but inequality gives it a bitter edge.
We see poverty as a social evil which, of course, it is. It destroys lives. But I would argue that it is far more than that – it is an economic evil, too.
It wastes talent. It thwarts ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair, and communities in decline.
The case against poverty is unanswerable. Ending it may be expensive but – in the long-term – it may be more costly not to do so.
Poverty isn’t only about money. About empty pockets.
Even in the Britain of today, the lifespan of the poorest in some of our great cities is 20 years shorter than that of the comfortably well-off.
Is that acceptable? Of course not – and every part of the political spectrum – Left, Right and Centre – should have an equal ambition to end it.
The good news is that progress is being made. A record number of people are now in work.
The counterpoint – as the Resolution Foundation has reported – is that over 70% of the new jobs are self-employment, or zero hours contracts, or agency worker contracts. These tend to be low paid without any security of employment.
The minimum wage – which, wrongly, I once opposed believing it would destroy jobs – is rising faster than inflation, which remains modest.
Taxes have been cut on low incomes.
We should welcome these modest advances even as we work towards a high productivity/high wage economy – which is surely the Holy Grail of employment.
This can be achieved – but is more likely to be so if Government and the market work together. The Government, alone, is insufficient. So is the market. But, together, they can be a formidable force for good.
I have focused on fairness – and inequality – because the lack of it is eating away at our social fabric, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
We British have a conscience and – as our country becomes richer – relative poverty: of income, of resources, of opportunity, of equity, becomes even less acceptable.
To minimise these disparities – and to end them where possible – will boost national health and wealth, and also ease hardship and exclusion. All of this is essential if we are to become a contented nation.
INVESTMENT IN THE NORTH
The Left of politics must accept the role of the market. And the Right must accept that the State is a player, not a bystander, in building up our business strength.
The private sector, alone, cannot deliver the level of capital investment our nation needs. Public Sector investment is crucial and – large though that contribution is – it has halved as a share of total investment over the past forty years: this is too great a fall.
Outside London, only the South East and East Anglia are net contributors to the Exchequer. That cannot be in our national interest.
What is in our national interest is to promote the regions and sell their advantages – which is why public investment is so vital, and policies such as the Northern Powerhouse are so important.
Consider the attractions of the North: it has more space and less congestion. Fewer hours are lost in the daily commute which, in any event, is less expensive. Land and buildings are cheaper – as is housing. All this helps minimise labour costs.
And, to add to its attraction, the towns and cities of the North are within easy reach of some of our most beautiful countryside.
A new body, Transport for the North, has been set up to improve transport links between the main cities of the region and – between 2015 and 2020 – a total of £13 billion has been allocated to improve them.
If we are truly to lift up our regions we have to create more wealth within them.
That requires an up-to-date infrastructure that improves production, and encourages business to invest. With interest rates at their present historic low, there has never been a more cost-effective environment in which to do so.
Of course, there are always arguments against too much Government spending. Today, it is the size of the fiscal deficit. Tomorrow, it could be the cost of borrowing. There is always a reason for inaction.
But, sometimes, Government has to be bold – and I believe that time is now.
To those who disagree, I simply ask: “If not now, when?”.
And, I ask, too: what will be the long-term economic and social cost of allowing the present disparity of investment and opportunity to continue? I can tell you – it will be far too high.
Some will argue we should be cautious. I would argue there is a distinction between caution and inertia.
Is there an element of risk? Of course. Is it manageable? I believe so: it is essential we inject some hope and optimism into our future.
Without that – hope will remain the missing ingredient in the lives of too many people.
Why do I choose this moment to press so hard for this?
Because – next month – we are due to leave the known benefits of the European Union, and head into an unknown post-Brexit future. As Japan – with its large UK investments, including in the North East – has already made clear, this will attract less foreign investment and may imperil existing investments.
So the case for action is compelling – and immediate.
In recent decades – through no fault of its own – the North-East has lost shipyards, coal mines and glass manufacturing.
Analysis by the Department for Exiting the EU has forecast that – under the most extreme “no-deal” post-Brexit scenarios – the North-East economy could contract by up to 16%.
No Government could – or would – stand by and watch that happen – but even the fear of it suggests that measures to protect the North-East must be put in place – and quickly.
Business isn’t just a matter of profits and dividends. It’s a crucial part of any community. No business: no jobs. No jobs: real personal hardship and emotional despair.
So, helping business to succeed is not only economically essential, it is politically – and morally – the right thing to do.
THE WAY AHEAD
I would like to see a Secretary of State being given specific responsibility for the Regions, with far-reaching powers.
He or she should work closely with regional Mayors and all areas of local government to co-ordinate their activities; to fight for more investment; more effective connectivity; and to create an environment attractive to investors – both from within the UK and overseas.
But improving infrastructure, although essential, is insufficient on its own.
I would like to endorse – and add to – the excellent report by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership on “Educating the North”.
Any increase in business activity will need a workforce with academic and technical skills. Education and training is not only the route to higher incomes, it is the engine-room of our collective futures.
By education, I mean not only academic education, but vocational and technical education which is, socially, still undervalued.
We need to act on the reality – which is that the man or woman in overalls often has skills more valuable to our national wellbeing than many of those in suits.
Such skills include technology, engineering, electrics, plumbing, bricklaying, carpentry and roofing. The age of robotics may destroy many jobs, but will not destroy these.
And if we are to lose immigrant skills – which, mistakenly in my view, appears to be the public will – then developing our own skilled workforce becomes a matter of economic life and death.
A whole-hearted approach to re-skilling our nation requires a full reform of our school curricula, more technical colleges, and a continuing expansion of non-academic education. It also requires high-quality apprenticeships, and more post-school training.
Ministers know this, and are acting on it. But we have no time for a long-term roll-out, we need a skills revolution – and we need it now.
The cry of “Action this Day” is as important in an economic war as it is in a military campaign. Our country will not succeed – cannot succeed – without the skills that investors need.
The text of Nick Robinson’s interview with Sir John Major, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 19 January 2019.
NICK ROBINSON
Sir John, good morning to you.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Good morning Nick.
NICK ROBINSON
As well as a little sympathy and a little empathy perhaps for Theresa May, what advice would you give her this morning?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I have more than a little sympathy, I think that she was handed a poisoned chalice and it has been extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult, apart from the substance of the issue, because of the divisions blocking one particular movement by her or another, as you set out a moment ago. So her position has been all but impossible, and I think the country recognise that. But we are now reaching a critical few weeks, we’re due to leave on 29 March and so we’re running out of time.
If we leave in chaos and without a deal, that seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes and the Prime Minister is going to have to find a way round that. Her problem is that there are some people in Parliament, some anti-European enthusiasts, who would actually prefer no deal and will stand in the way of compromise. So the task for the Prime Minister is to find a way to go around them and there are only limited options to do that.
NICK ROBINSON
She says that her duty, and she said it the other day outside Number 10, is to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people. She may disagree with you might she not? She might say no, I have a duty to make sure we do leave on whatever terms. Is she wrong?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Any Prime Minister has many duties. Of course she needs to look at the result of the referendum, but she mustn’t forget the 48% of the people who voted, who actually voted to stay inside the European Union and whose views cannot lightly be brushed aside as though they didn’t exist. But the Prime Minister has other duties as well, it has become evident in the two years since 2016, much clearer than it was, what the impact of that is going to be on the lives of everyday people in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Government and Parliament have a primary duty also to look after the people’s future well-being, their well-being and the well-being of those young people coming onto the register who weren’t there in 2016, and those in future years, so there are a whole series of responsibilities that the Prime Minister must weigh.
NICK ROBINSON
Just to be clear, before we move onto how she might do what you want her to do. If she thinks that there is only one duty, the duty to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people as she puts it, you would say no, there is something that trumps that, more important, even if that means breaking your word, if it means delay or if it means changing your mind?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I would say that there are other duties that are equally important that stand alongside it, if I may put it that way. Let me come back to the question of the result of the referendum, before we move on to what we might do. I think the argument that because that there was a majority on one day, under a particular set of circumstances, that must stand absolutely sacrosanct for ever, even though public opinion may change and facts may change, is a very difficult one to accept.
Democracy is always nuanced, 48% wish to remain, and yet the leavers, who quite frankly won the vote with dubious tactics and downright falsehoods in some cases, totally ignore them. It’s even more bizarre if you actually look at the figures, only 37% of those eligible to vote actually voted to leave, 63% either voted to stay or did not vote.
NICK ROBINSON
I’m keen, and I know you are, to look forwards.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Absolutely, but let me finish this sentence. It will be 100% of the population who may be hurt if we leave or if we leave with the wrong deal. That is a very clear responsibility for the Prime Minister.
NICK ROBINSON
The point I merely wanted to put, and then let’s go forwards as you say, is about how the Prime Minister gets round those people, your phrase, who are a block. I need to put it to you, because it’s only fair, you say what the leavers said, but at the time of the referendum, you said and I quote, if we come out, we are out, that is it, if we vote to stay out, we are out and we’ll have to get on with it. You too can eat your words can’t you?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I am happy to eat my words. The most important thing at the moment is what it is actually going to mean for everyday people. People like you and I Nick, to be frank, whatever happens we’ll be OK. We may be hurt a bit, we might gain a bit, but we’ll be OK. I’m no longer in politics, I have no axe to grind, I’m not part of the remain campaign and I’m certainly not part of the leave campaign and I can look at it quite dispassionately, I don’t have to get elected, I don’t have an executive, I don’t have whips telling me what to do.
I will tell you my fear. My fear is that millions of people who do not deserve to be hurt, businesses, individuals, families and young people with prospects are going to be hurt. If I have to eat my past words because I now realise that is the case, then I will make a meal of them every single day, because it is the future and those people who I believe are the primary responsibility of Parliament. If Parliament does not address that responsibility, then Parliament in my view will have failed in its duty.
NICK ROBINSON
Two things that you’re advocating this morning. First, that the Prime Minister should, to return to that phrase, get round those critics who you say want to crash out without a deal, in your words, leaving Britain in chaos. How can she get round them without producing a mass walkout of the Cabinet and a catastrophic split in her own party?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I’ll come to that, but may I make some suggestions as to what might happen? Some will be more difficult for the Prime Minister to swallow than others. The obvious one is that the Prime Minister lifts some of her red lines, which would put us in a completely different situation. There’s no sign that she’s going to do that, but that in the national interest is an option that is worth her considering. But, if she won’t, I think that there are only three other options. Let me take them and consider how likely they are.
The first is that the Cabinet decides the way ahead. Frankly, I think that is now impossible, the Cabinet is too split and there are people in the Cabinet who have made it clear that they would prefer no deal. I don’t think they will be moveable and she cannot move with a united cabinet and I am afraid that she is trapped, and it’s very unfortunate for her, but that is the position.
The second is that Parliament decides. Parliament is also split, but I think that there are signs that Parliament may be able to reach a consensus and there is hope there. We might come back on how to do that a little later.
If neither of those produces a policy, if the Cabinet can’t agree and Parliament can’t agree, there is only one option left standing and that is a second referendum, now that more facts are known than were known in 2016.
NICK ROBINSON
Let’s take the second of your options, and then come back to the referendum, let’s take it that Parliament will decide. As a former Prime Minister, is it constitutionally proper, is it sustainable in truth, for Parliament to in effect become the executive? To become the body that forms policy and then takes it abroad, takes it to the European Union to negotiate, it’s not actually doable is it?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I think that is extremely difficult and that wasn’t what I was going to propose. The Prime Minister argued valiantly for her deal, she fought for it, she got a deal, but the House of Commons killed it and killed it comprehensively. So her deal is dead and I don’t honestly think that tinkering with it is going to make very much difference, if any difference at all. So the Prime Minister still needs a deal. If she can’t deliver one that Parliament accepts, then she will need to become a facilitator, a mediator, to find out what Parliament will accept. I think there is a way she can do that, I personally would hope that she puts down a series of motions so that Members of Parliament can indicate their preference. We can then see whether there is a consensus in Parliament that is possible, that Parliament would accept.
Ideally for that, all party leaders would permit a free vote, so we can get an honest representation of Parliament. That is in the Prime Minister’s interests for this reason, it’s the only way to get an absolutely honest answer from Members of Parliament and if it is a free vote, it removes the danger of resignations from Government or the opposition front bench because they disagree with their leader’s policy.
NICK ROBINSON
A free vote with significant political history, which you and I will know, but this is what Ted Heath did back in the 1970s when there was a pretty catastrophic split about whether to join what was called the Common Market. Why do you believe that the free vote is an essential part of this?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
For many reasons. Firstly, if there’s a whip then many Members of Parliament would follow the whip out of loyalty to their party or their leader, rather than loyalty to their conscience and their constituents. That’s not necessarily because they’re bad people, I don’t think they are, that’s just the way things are in Parliament. You are part of the Conservative tribe, the Liberal Democratic tribe, the Labour tribe. Wherever you can, you prefer to stay with the leadership view on issues.
This is such a unique issue that I think it would be an act of statesmanship by the party leaders to say, because of the very strong opinions held on either side, we are going to lift the party whips so that Parliament and the country can get a genuine view of exactly what it is that Members of Parliament think is best for our country, or perhaps, least bad, for our country. It’s a unique way of doing it, but I think it is justifiable.
NICK ROBINSON
You’ve set out at some length exactly what you think should happen. Allow me to put it to you, what some people will be saying, not least within your own party, as a recent poll showed that 76% of grassroots Conservatives would vote in another referendum, if it were offered, for leaving with no deal at all. What they’ll say is that we know what Sir John Major thinks, he wants us to stay in. He doesn’t want any sort of deal, therefore they would argue that what you are doing is coming up with what Boris Johnson said the other day is shameful, was dishonest, and is weakening our negotiating position, as it is ripping up promises made to the electorate and statements made to the EU.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I must say that being called dishonest by Boris Johnson is a rum thing to happen. If I may counter with your statistic, 56% of people in the latest polls say that they would prefer to remain in the European Union. So, I think these ancient statistics really don’t enlighten things very much. I think we have to concentrate solely on what is right for the people of this country.
NICK ROBINSON
But clearly what they think is right for the country is to leave the European Union as people voted for, there is not a single view of what is in the national interest. If there were, we wouldn’t have the problem.
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Of course there isn’t Nick, but there is clear evidence that people’s views are beginning to change, not dramatically, but there is growing evidence that is continuing that people would like a second referendum and their views about what the right outcome is may have changed.
NICK ROBINSON
Would you stomach your second option? If you’re going to have a series of indicative votes in the House of Commons, I know you won’t be taking part, but it means people like you who would like to remain, like you who want a second referendum, might have to accept that they can’t get their way for the sake of compromise. They might have to back a deal for some sort of Brexit that they don’t like, they don’t want, but they’d bite their lip and agree to. Would you urge people who share your views to be prepared to make that sort of compromise if necessary?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
Everyone may have to compromise as in a circumstance such as this, no-one is going to get their way. Many people think compromise is weak, but I think compromise is often very wise. We had to compromise at the beginning of the Northern Ireland peace process. I had to consult, if not compromise, when we actually went to war with the first Gulf War, it is wise to consult and to compromise. If we can reach an agreement which avoids the country being as bitterly split as it might, is it not worth swallowing some new ideas and swallowing some things you might not like? I would much prefer to stay in the European Union, I voted that way and I have not changed my mind that that is in our interests as a country and is in our interests for commerce and is in the interests of the well-being of millions of everyday people.
NICK ROBINSON
What about an election to resolve this?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t think an election is going to do a great deal. Mrs. May has been committed to we must honour the Brexit deal, which means leave, and so is Mr Corbyn, so I’m not sure that will prove anything. One of the more stupid things I’ve heard Ministers and others say recently is that 80% of the public in the last election voted for parties who wanted to leave. That is completely stupid, as people would have voted for 100 different reasons, not only on Europe. I voted for the Conservative Party at the last election, but it doesn’t mean that I want to leave the European Union.
NICK ROBINSON
I was speaking to voters last night in Milton Keynes, some remain and some leave, and what was striking was that every single one of them believed that we would delay leaving the European Union. Is it your conclusion that delay is now inevitable?
SIR JOHN MAJOR
I don’t think that it is inevitable, but I think it would be wise and it is now probable that we will actually have to delay. I think that is right, because even if the Prime Minister doesn’t put down these facilitating motions, then it maybe that other people will. The opposition could on an opposition day, and even if they don’t, perhaps senior Members of Parliament could put down early day motions covering different issues simply so that Members can sign them and give an indication of where Parliamentary opinion is.
So there are a whole range of events that could happen that are pushing us to delay article 50. I think that, in many ways, is wise. It may be that we end up leaving, but it is better to leave when we are prepared to leave, and in a position to leave, than when we are patently not prepared which will be the position on March 29, barring a miracle that I personally cannot see coming about. So, I think it is probable that we will have to delay.
The text of the article written by Sir John Major for the Sunday Times, published on 13 January 2019.
We are at a seminal moment in our nation’s history. First, let me say something about the prime minister. At the referendum she voted — albeit without enthusiasm — to remain in the EU. The nation voted to leave. Yet, despite her personal preference, Mrs May has deployed every ounce of her energy to honour the result of that vote. She does not deserve the personal venom directed at her, nor the bile of fair-weather political colleagues who have turned from supportive flatterers to would-be assassins.
Our country is now in an unhappy state of mind. Far from bringing the nation together — as the prime minister hoped — the divisions unleashed during the 2016 referendum have become ever more bitter and entrenched.
Brexiteers are keen to pin the blame on others. But we are only in this sorry position because of the false pledges and undeliverable promises they made to the British people in 2016. The “leave” voters were marched up to the very top of the Hill of Expectation, and it is hardly surprising they now feel a sense of injustice at having to be marched back down again.
The easy promises made by the Brexiteers have been exposed as the fantasies they always were. All voters — be they “leave” or “remain” — feel cheated, ignored and thoroughly ground down by the whole process.
Those who led the country into this chaos have much to answer for. But, at least, we are now in a better position to judge what leaving the EU will actually mean for the United Kingdom. Even the government has admitted that — under any and every form of Brexit — every part of the UK will be worse off. Our country will also be weaker and less influential; and those in our society who have the least will suffer the deepest deprivation of all. It would be morally reprehensible to allow this to happen.
The majority of MPs know this but, astonishingly, the most diehard of the Eurosceptics still refuse to accept it. To them, the EU will always be the “enemy”, and our nation should be prepared to pay any price to leave. In human terms — as prices rise and jobs are lost — this will be a very high price indeed, and end up being paid by the very people who should not be expected to bear it.
The Labour leadership has added little or nothing to the European debate. Yet, having expressed no clear policy position whatsoever during the negotiation process, Jeremy Corbyn now proclaims that a general election is the only way forward. He speaks of his wish to “heal divisions”, while at the same time using language that can only foster further feelings of social disquiet.
In any event, what would a general election solve at this particular time? As things stand, the Conservative and Labour leaders would both be campaigning for Brexit. So the country would have to endure yet another election campaign — which would no doubt prove even more divisive than the last — before parliament ends up exactly where it started. How would that, by any stretch, serve the national interest?
Crucial decisions have to be made now, not later. But there is no consensus on what they should be. Any government should think very carefully before forcing through a vote that has few real supporters within parliament, widespread opposition from without, and one that would leave the country vulnerable to decisions made by others. The Labour Party has had two years to propose a credible alternative. As we move into the 11th hour, it still has nothing more to offer than political games. The people of this country deserve so much better than this.
We must avoid doing more harm than has already been done. Divisions can only be healed if common ground is sought. And common ground is, now, emerging. One majority view — from parliament, business, trade unions and electors — is that it would be deeply harmful for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal. I agree. The cost of a no-deal Brexit to our national wellbeing would be heavy and long-lasting. The benefits are close to zero. Every single household — rich or poor — would be worse off for many years to come. Jumping off a cliff has never had a happy ending.
Shrill Brexiteer voices continue to tell us that it would be “disrespectful” to the British people if we do not leave the EU on March 29; that it would be a “betrayal” to propose another referendum. What nonsense they speak — yet another pithy slogan from those who fear that the victory they obtained two years ago, by such dubious tactics, is slipping from their grasp. How can asking the people to make a decision based on facts ever be a betrayal of democracy? Facts that, as each month passes, further disprove the fantasies that were once so shamefully peddled.
Moreover, it must never be forgotten that 63% of those eligible to vote during the referendum either voted to stay or did not vote at all; 37% of the voting public hardly constitutes the overwhelming “will of the people” they speak of: yet another facile soundbite.
The real betrayal and disrespect to the British people is not the prospect of a second referendum — this time definitive and binding — but the promise of leading them to an economic and social utopia that never has, never will and never could exist. During the last referendum, deception was the leave campaign’s weapon of choice: “Win by any means — fair or foul.” And how foul it has been.
Amid the overall confusion, we are now invited to explore alternative options. Some now seek a “Norway” deal, others a “Canada” deal, or even an “Efta” deal — not one of which is better than the status quo.
At the same time, we are told that there are “only two options on the table”: the prime minister’s deal or no deal. But this is yet further obfuscation. There is a third deal on the table, which is the one we currently have. Why would any country — least of all our own great country — accept a “least bad” option, when a far better one is already in play?
In the midst of chaos, it is sensible to pause and think. To review all possible options and seek a majority consensus.
Article 50 was triggered — and the deadline of March 29, 2019 was set — before we knew what we wished to do. Two years later, we still have no agreement on that.
The only sensible course now is for the government to revoke article 50 and suspend any decision on departure. This may be politically uncomfortable, but any short-term political disruption pales into insignificance when compared with the long-term damage that could be wreaked on our country as a whole.
The choice between a “bad deal” and “no deal” was never one that our country should have had to accept. A mature democracy should be prepared to remain with the status quo until we reach as much of a national consensus as possible. No true democracy should deny a considered choice to its people.
But we may need a new process to enable this, and that process needs to go far beyond self-interested party politics.
One option would be a consultative process — led by parliament — to report on the intricacies of our future relationship, which is far more complex than a simple “yes” or “no” about our membership of the EU. Properly organised, this could be completed well within the timescale of a transitional pause.
I accept that many “leavers” will be frustrated by this delay, and suspicious of it. But only a minority of the voting population voted to leave. Unless we seek a more consensual policy, 100% of our present and future population may have to live with the bitter consequences of a bad deal.
I would therefore suggest that, while there remains no consensus in parliament about how best to proceed, the government should, without delay:
● Ask parliament to rescind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act;
● Withdraw the article 50 notification;
● Establish a national consultation process;
● Agree “headline” points on our future relationship with the EU and put that outcome to a binding referendum, with the option of maintaining the status quo. The binding nature of this should be enforced by the confirmation from each party leader that the outcome of this further referendum would be definitive. Only this will provide voters with the facts and reassurance they need to reach a final decision on where best our country’s future — and their own personal future — lies.
The ramifications of the 2016 referendum have led us into a territory way beyond party politics, tribal loyalties and personal ambition.
Across the UK, there are many people who feel unsettled: uncertain and worried about their jobs, about debt, about how they will house their families — and how they will feed them. They are fearful of what the future holds. The dominance of Brexit in our political debate has done nothing to alleviate that fear, and much to fuel it.
The intolerance, belligerence, vituperative language, threatening conduct that this debate has spawned; the families, friends, neighbours and communities that have been fractured — sometimes beyond repair — due to opposing political views, has not only been an unedifying spectacle, but also profoundly un-British. It is not who we are as a nation.
One of the most hackneyed mantras of the leave campaign was that our sovereign parliament should “take back control”. Another absurd slogan, of course, for she has never lost it.
But now is the time for the Mother of Parliaments to exert all the power and control within her means — before it’s too late.
Only then can the healing process begin, and our country be put back on track to the long-term prosperity that promotes social cohesion and national unity.
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.
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.