The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Brexit

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Evening Standard – 30 October 2018

    Below is the text of the article by Sir John Major which was published in the Evening Standard on 30 October 2018. Mentioned in the article is the ‘Our Future, Our Choice’ report.

    Our decision to leave the EU is one of the most divisive in British history. Brexit has divided the component parts of the UK, placing England and Wales (as “Leavers”) in opposition to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    It has divided our mainstream political parties, business and commerce, communities, friends, families — and generations. In many cases, these scars run deep, and will not be easily healed.

    People who voted for Brexit did so with high hopes — most of which will be unrealised. We were told we would keep the advantages of the single market. We will not. That we would be better off. We will not. That we would get cash back to fund the NHS. We will not. That trade deals could be negotiated overnight. They will not. That the Irish border would not present a problem. But it has — and it will continue to do so.

    The public were offered pipe dreams, not realities. The industrialist, the financier, the fisherman and the farmer will come to realise that, as will the health worker, the scientist, the businessman or woman, and the family member guarding the household purse.

    We were told that there were “no downsides” to Brexit. Reality checks from expert opinion were dismissed as fearmongering by the “elite”.

    This was misdirection on a classic scale.

    Under every scenario that has been independently modelled — even by our own government — the UK will be poorer and weaker, and the poorest regions and the least well-off will suffer the most. No-one could — or should — be complacent about that.

    A fresh analysis by Our Future, Our Choice, a group of young people who are campaigning for a vote on any Brexit deal, now sets out with great clarity the implications for young people. The report indicates that the younger generation can expect a big loss of earnings, at or around £76,000 by 2050 under a World Trade Organisation-terms exit.

    On this basis, a hard Brexit would cost young people three times what they pay for university, or double the deposit needed to buy a house. I do not believe that those who voted Leave intended for their own children and grandchildren to be worse off.

    As negotiations have proceeded — and the downsides become clear — the inevitable question arises: how could the UK have voted to enact such a policy of self-harm? And how can the fervent Brexiteers in Parliament continue to ignore and dismiss every warning — even when those warnings seem ever more likely to be true?

    History may well judge that, for a time, the world’s most pragmatic nation lost her gift of promoting national self-interest. Once more we must look to Parliament to safeguard our interests. As the facts become known, Parliament — our ultimate sovereign power — will need to decide whether the deal presented to them meets the promises made to the British people. If it does not, I believe Parliament would be right to order a “binding” referendum.

    Such a further — and final — referendum would be controversial, especially among those who fear they may lose it. I accept it is not an easy option. But the moral — and democratic — case for voting upon proven facts, rather than peddled fiction, is rock solid. The reverse is also true: how can it be right to hold people to a decision made upon so many false promises?

    It is neither right nor wise, especially for our young. Their recent report — published last week — is poignantly entitled Our Future, Our Choice but of course it was never the choice of the young, who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU while many elders voted to leave.
    And there is something unjust that so many of the younger generation — who will have to live with the fallout from Brexit for the longest period — are to be denied any say in the process.

    Since June 2016, there are now nearly two million more young people who are eligible to vote, a large majority of whom intend to vote in any potential second referendum. Of those certain to vote, an astonishing 87 per cent would opt to stay in the European Union.

    One final thought: I have a word of caution for the fervent Brexiteers that is kindly meant — even though they will not wish to hear it. If, in pursuit of the “no deal” Brexit they favour, they vote to delay approval of any other options by Parliament, or deny the nation a binding referendum, they will have nowhere to hide if — as so many forecast — Brexit harms our national wellbeing.

    Those responsible for forcing through a policy that impairs the prospects of the British people will be held accountable for many years to come. They will not be forgotten — and may well not be forgiven — by those they misled.

    It is, therefore, in the Brexiteers’ own interests to support a final decision by a Parliament unhampered by political coercion, or by a nation in possession of all the facts on how the lives of its citizens will be impacted by the decision that is taken. This is hardly a novel proposition: it is democracy — and our own sovereignty — in action. One might even call it the will of the people.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Quinlan Lecture – 16 October 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Michael Quinlan Lecture held in London on 16 October 2018.

    When Mary Quinlan invited me to deliver this lecture I was flattered – and fearful; flattered by the opportunity, and fearful about whether I could do justice to such a remarkable man.

    I first met Michael over 30 years ago and he left me with two over-riding impressions. First, he was an easy man to like; and second, he was even easier to admire. He had a distinguished career as a civil servant, and – to me – exemplified the ideal of public service.

    It was my experience in Government that, taken as a whole, the best of the Civil Service was the equal of talent in every other sphere of activity and, in Michael’s case, he was not only a public servant – in the true sense of that term – he was also a world-class authority on his subject.

    Public service matters because, without it, Government is paralysed. Its efficiency is as relevant to public wellbeing as policy itself.

    This is not universally understood, but it should be: those who use “bureaucrat” as a term of abuse simply don’t understand the wider role of public servants.

    I hope to speak of this more fully at a later date but, for now, let me observe merely that the State needs its fair share of our brightest and best talent, and it is important we continue to attract them. Michael Quinlan is an exemplar of who and what we need.

    And, at this moment, our country is in need of all the expertise it can get. We live in a world of flux. Power structures are changing.

    Allegiances are changing. Little is as it was: even less will remain as it is.

    For many millions, the financial crash of a decade ago destroyed their faith in the political and financial world. I am not surprised. The innocent were hurt. Since then, the global market, the on-rush of science, of medicine, and all forms of technological advance, continues to move the world on at an ever–faster pace.

    Government is a serious and complex business. It is far more important than the trivia of who is “up” and who is “down” in the political stakes – intriguing and newsworthy though that may be.

    Government is about enhancing our status in the world. Our security. Our economic well-being. Our national reputation. Our future prospects.

    It is about selecting priorities between Government programmes; between business and civil society; between rich and poor.

    It involves choices between competition and compassion; between young and old; or between the component parts of our (currently not very) United Kingdom. Sometimes, the choices are straightforward but, all too often, they can be hideously complex.

    What Government is not about is cheap grandstanding. It’s not about deceiving the electorate with slogans, or soundbites, or untruths or half-truths. It’s not about windy oratory that says nothing. It’s not about simplistic solutions to intricate problems. It’s not about scapegoating one part of our population to earn the plaudits of another.

    And – most emphatically – it’s not about princelings fighting for the political crown of Premiership. Coded messages that shriek “I’m the One” are about as subtle as a punch on the nose.

    Such self-interest is politics at its least attractive. It does not deliver sound government. It destabilises Government.

    As a general rule, those whose focus is on self-advancement are rarely the most suitable to be entrusted with power.

    Talk of power moves me on to the post-Brexit role of diplomacy and the Foreign Office. Here – in the Locarno Room – I feel a little inhibited.

    I recall Harold Wilson speaking in the 1966 Election and asking, as he moved to his peroration:

    “ … and why do I talk about the Royal Navy?”

    to be told by a heckler:

    “Because you’re in Chatham.”.

    But I plead “Not Guilty” to that charge. I talk of diplomacy because it is vital to our national interests and, once we leave the EU, we will need to become ever more forceful in pressing those interests.

    The blunt truth is that – as a nation of 65 million – our voice is going to be less resonant than as a leading member of a Union of 500 million.

    We need, therefore, to compensate – as far as we can – by increasing our foreign policy capability.

    That must mean more proactive diplomacy. If we retreat solely to our own interests; to Fortress Britain; to our own national boundaries; to the role of on-looker and not innovator – then greater isolation will surely lead to greater irrelevance.

    But being proactive requires an expansion of our Foreign Service capacity. As an internationalist, I believe such a posture is desirable in all circumstances. Post-Brexit, it will be essential.

    For decades, our foreign policy has been bolstered by our membership of the EU, and our closeness to the US. Now, we are on the verge of leaving the EU, while the US continues to move towards Asia-Pacific – and away from Europe and the UK.

    Until now, every US President I have known has considered our relevance to America to be enhanced by our membership of the European Union. Yet very soon – on our current course – we will no longer be able to argue from within the EU for Anglo-American beliefs in free trade; open markets; and strong defence.

    Our value – as an ally of America – will decline. Our friends, the Americans, are hard-headed about power. It is romantic folly to think otherwise. Be in no doubt – if the UK can no longer serve America’s interests in Europe, she will look elsewhere for someone who can.

    Of course, our relationship won’t collapse: ties of blood, trade and security will remain. But the UK will be even more clearly America’s subordinate and dependent junior partner.

    No “ifs”, no “buts”: we will be less relevant. No-one should be bedazzled by folksy talk of our “special relationship”: it is becoming less “special” year by year.

    At this moment our country needs to focus on policy, not personality; on substance, not show; on the national interest, not ideology. Because decisions that must soon be taken will shape the futures of our children and grandchildren for many years to come.

    You will assume that I am referring to Brexit – and I am. But my concern runs far wider than that.

    However, first Brexit …

    For centuries, our State schemed and plotted to prevent all Europe uniting against us. Our Monarchs even married off their children and bribed our foreign adversaries in order to maintain alliances.

    Now, we have chosen to turn our back on all Europe. A long line of former Statesmen will be turning in their graves.

    Europe gone ….. America going.

    We are told our future aim is to be “Global Britain”: that is certainly the right policy, but it is hardly new. It has been the reality for 300 years.

    What is new is that much of the world will now perceive Britain to be a middle-sized, middle-ranking nation that is no longer super-charged by its alliances. Suddenly, the world will be a little chillier.

    If the art of negotiation is to obtain what you seek, then the intention must be to give a little to (hopefully) gain a lot more.

    Such a negotiation is difficult. It benefits from a trusting relationship. From goodwill. It is most likely to succeed if respect is evident on both sides.

    I cannot know how the Government has conducted negotiations in private with the European Union: very possibly they have met the tenets I have set out.

    But, even if they have (and not all the signs are good), belligerent noises-off – on a daily basis – have built up ill-will, and made the Prime Minister’s task even more difficult.

    We know the post-Brexit world will be very different from now.

    It cannot be otherwise, because no form of Brexit will remotely match up to the promises made by the Leave Campaign in the referendum: they were vote-gathering fantasies, not serious politics.

    I have no constituency vote clouding my view of Brexit. I have no ambition driving my support for it. I have no Party Whips demanding loyalty before conscience.

    I have made no false promises about Brexit that I must pretend can still be honoured, even though – in my heart – I know they cannot.

    I am free to say absolutely and precisely what I believe about Brexit.

    And it is this:

    I understand the motives of those who voted to leave the European Union: it can – as I well know – be very frustrating.

    Nonetheless, after weighing its frustrations and opportunities, there is no doubt in my own mind that our decision is a colossal misjudgement that will diminish both the UK and the EU.

    It will damage our national and personal wealth, and may seriously hamper our future security. It may even, over time, break up our United Kingdom. It will most definitely limit the prospects of our young.

    And – once this becomes clear – I believe those who promised what will never be delivered will have much to answer for. They persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer.

    That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven.

    Our domestic focus is on the impact leaving Europe will have on the UK. That is quite natural but, to the world at large, the bigger question is how the EU itself will be affected. The answer is – badly.

    Most obviously, the EU will lose their second largest economy; one of only two nations with a nuclear capacity and significant military capability; and the nation with the longest, deepest, and most effective foreign policy reach.

    But it goes further than that. Without the UK, the dynamics of Europe may change. Once the UK leaves, the balance of the EU changes. The free market majority may be at risk: protectionists will be encouraged and, perhaps, empowered.

    The UK will no longer be a buffer between the Franco-German steamroller and smaller nations. Germany will be more isolated, and friction may grow.

    The UK may have been an irritant to the Commission and some of our European partners, but it has also been the anchor to windward against precipitate, or unwise, or unaffordable policies.

    There is irony here: over 70 years ago, Britain stood alone to fight for Europe – now we freely choose to stand alone and, in so doing, undermine Europe.

    “So what?” committed Brexiteers say, “We won’t be Members: it’s Europe’s problem”. But that ignores reality. How can it not be our problem, too?

    Whether we are “in” or “out” the EU is in our neighbourhood; is our predominant economic partner; and our wellbeing is inexorably linked to their own wellbeing.

    In the hot heat of debate it should not be forgotten that we ignore the EU, disdain it, or stand aside from it, at our own risk.

    * * * * * *

    We live at a time when America is showing withdrawal symptoms, and China is growing in economic, political and military power. Whenever the US leaves a vacuum around the world, it will be filled by China, or Russia, or regional players.

    Already, Russia is a far more significant presence in the Middle East than would have seemed conceivable a decade ago.

    The fundamental point is simple: if America withdraws from international obligations, then Europe can best protect her own interests if she is united.

    It is easy to demonstrate why this is so. When China joined the WTO, it was hoped she would conform to accepted trade practices. Thus far, she has not.

    Instead, the evidence suggests that she still appropriates other countries’ intellectual property; forces technology transfer; closes out competitors’ investment to favour her domestic – often state-run – industries; and still subsidises to succeed.

    None of this meets WTO rules.

    China also smothers complaints about her trade practices by judicious economic investment: this shows that, rules notwithstanding, economic power and a deep national wallet can by-pass accepted international behaviour.

    All this undermines the rules-based world trading system.

    No-one seeks a dispute with China. But rules made – must be obeyed.

    China may be powerful enough to ignore, isolate and punish individual critics. But she cannot ignore or punish the whole of Europe.

    And unfair trade practices can no longer be excused with the argument that China is an emerging economy and we should therefore turn a blind eye to her activities. We should not.

    She is now an economic superpower dramatically increasing her defence capability. Expenditure on land, sea, air and submarine capacity is soaring.

    China now has the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America – and she continues to build them at pace.

    It is time to remember that – in the late 16th Century – China was the pre-eminent global power. China has not forgotten this: and nor should we.

    * * * * *

    It is impossible to talk of Michael Quinlan without considering defence and, in particular, nuclear weapons. We may wish they had never been invented – but they were.

    Today, nuclear capability is in the hands of certain undesirable States, and is sought by yet more – including non-State actors.
    The UK has Trident. It is our nuclear insurance: a weapon to deter. It is hard to see the circumstances in which we would initiate a nuclear strike but, if attacked, our enemy can and should expect us to retaliate.

    To this end, every Trident submarine carries instructions on what to do with its payload were the UK to be destroyed in a nuclear attack.

    Because of that, such an attack is unlikely.

    But no Government can ignore the demands of non-nuclear defence and security expenditure. I don’t only mean combat aircraft, or destroyers, or frigates, or submarines, or tanks, or manpower: I mean the growing threats of new technology and cyber warfare.

    The misuse of new technology is almost impossible to control. The fear of rogue States or terrorist groups gaining a nuclear capacity obsesses many – and rightly so.

    But so should bio-technology.

    Consider this quote from the American National Academy of Sciences:

    “A few individuals with specialised skills … could inexpensively and easily produce a panoply of lethal biological weapons …”

    That is truly terrifying – especially if one accepts that technical expertise is as likely to lie with the fanatic as it is with a sane and balanced citizen.

    It is not the only novel threat. Many States – and, most probably, terror groups as well – are developing offensive cyber capabilities that could be targeted anywhere at anytime.

    Conceivably, we might not even know we were under attack – or from where the threat had come.

    But we know where it might go. Malicious cyber activity could hit anything from missile defences; to civil nuclear power plants; to water supplies; to innovative research; to corporate interests; or to Government secrets.

    One successful cyber attack at a civil nuclear plant could release radiation, disrupt energy supply, and create havoc.

    But attacks on the fabric of a nation can go far beyond the physical infrastructure.

    Take information, which is now being weaponised.

    America has been examining whether her Presidential election was perverted. Some believe there may have been external influence in our own recent referendum and General Election.

    Whether or not such fears are justified, external interference in internal matters must be on everyone’s list of rising dangers. And democracies are vulnerable targets since they have open societies, a free press, and an active social media widely available to the mass of the populace.

    Attack comes through weaponised information, and mis-information, pumped into public news broadcasts and social media. In this way, the reputation of individuals and organisations can be trashed; opponents can be undermined; and public opinion can be manipulated.

    The purpose is to sow confusion and create distrust. To weaken opponents – whether individuals, or Governments, or countries – and put them on the defensive.

    This can reinforce and strengthen extreme views or populist insurgencies. It is very difficult to defend against, and inflicts damage well before its victims realise what is happening.

    Russia is the present master of this tactic, although other nations have a similar capacity. It is a threat to beware. It is effective, and may – probably will – grow.

    Other big questions arise. What happens to security and defence cooperation when we leave the EU? And what is the future of NATO?- Time and again, our Government has affirmed its commitment to European defence. This is an area of the Brexit negotiations where both sides should drop their red lines and their posturing and agree a mutually beneficial arrangement.

    It would be a mistake for the EU to treat the UK as simply another “third country”.

    A mutually beneficial deal should reinforce information sharing; involve the UK in planning and key decisions; tie in a British commitment to joint operations; and encourage co-operation in research, development and military hardware.

    Such an outcome is in the interests of British and European security and – if it is not agreed – will be a failure of negotiation.

    The whole agenda of risks is extraordinarily difficult to navigate, even with unlimited resources.

    But we don’t have unlimited resources – nor will we. So choices must be made that will be painful and controversial.

    This becomes doubly important because, since he took Office, President Trump has repeatedly made disobliging references about NATO.

    He has derided it as “obsolete”, and its funding as “unfair” (to America), for whom it is a “great financial loss”.

    Whether this is playing to the gallery (since America does have a legitimate grievance over funding, and the President is right that Europe should up its game); or a prelude to withdrawing American troops from Europe; or a ploy to encourage a greater contribution from EU countries – is mere conjecture.

    What is clear is that – since NATO was formed – the world has changed, and so have the risks it must guard against. In view of present concern over the future of NATO, there is a case for a new Treaty to include an updated commitment to collective security and action.

    The present Article 5 – the famous agreement that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all – has served us well for almost 70 years.

    Is it still solid? Can we rely on it? Does President Trump’s public hectoring of NATO encourage ill-wishers to believe Article 5 may be vulnerable if a weak financial contributor to NATO were attacked?

    Old commitments are a comfort. Renewed commitments reassure.

    It is not clear – certainly not to me – whether this worrying American tone is simply a ploy to encourage higher defence expenditure across Europe, or indicative of a future policy drift.

    Should we sit out President Trump, or prepare now for a less engaged America?

    I don’t know the answer but, upon defence, we have surely learned the lesson of history – if in doubt, prepare.

    * * * * *

    Let me turn finally to politics.

    As I look at the political scene now, I feel both hope and concern.

    My hope is two-fold: first, in the proven capacity of our country to rise to challenges; and, second, in the depth of talent that has entered politics in the last two Elections, and is now working its way up the greasy pole. This talent exists across the floor of the Commons.

    But the immediate scene is less attractive. None of the mainstream political Parties is in a healthy condition. Both the Conservatives and Labour face pressure from fringe opinion within their own membership.

    Voices from the extreme wings of both Parties – in and out of Parliament – are often the most committed, most noisy – and most likely to stir dissent. I admire their passion, but not their policies.

    My fear is that the extremes of Right and Left will widen divisions and refuse to compromise, whereas more moderate opinion will often seek common ground.

    The risk of intransigence – “My way or no way” – is that the mainstream Parties will be dragged further Right and further Left.

    We should not be complacent over this: extreme views are already driving policy in many countries.

    A famous line of Yeats comes to mind:

    “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

    I am deeply concerned that the “Centre” vote – the moderate vote that is shared among all the main Parties – will not be able to hold its traditional influence over policy.

    It is crucial that it does. At heart, we are a tolerant, compassionate, and kindly nation. I feel privileged to have been born into it.

    Our nation should not tolerate the unreasoning antipathy of the extremes – to the EU, to foreigners or to minority groups. Such antipathy is repellent, and diminishes us as a nation. Softer, more reasonable voices should not be drowned out by the raucous din of the loudest.

    I freely confess to a taste for compromise. I have always preferred good old British pragmatism to rigorous ideology. Politics is real life. It isn’t warfare. It isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about people. It’s about four nations who deserve more than an ideological tug-of-war.

    And the advocates of the extreme Right or Left must understand those with different opinions may well be opponents – but they are still our countrymen and women. To treat them as “enemies” or “saboteurs” or “traitors” is to poison both the political system and our way of life.

    Respect and civility would do much to help lift politics out of the dog days in which it is now living.

    More compromise – less confrontation.

    In our world of change, that is one change I would dearly wish to see.

    And so, I believe, would Michael Quinlan.

  • Sir John Major's Podcast with Nick Robinson – 11 October 2018

    Below is the podcast with Sir John Major and Nick Robinson, released on 11 October 2018.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 22 July 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show broadcast on Sunday 22 July 2018.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John, for a lot of people this is not really a problem in the British political system generally, it is still a problem inside the Conservative Party.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it is a problem inside the Conservative Party, that’s entirely true, but it is wider. Had it not been for some Labour anti-Europeans some of the amendments passed in the House of Commons last week would have failed. So it certainly spreads beyond the Conservative Party, even though I agree, it’s principally a Conservative Party problem.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Can I put it to you that there are – there’s lots of different kinds of Conservatives, but there’s two in particular. There’s, as it were the more traditional Conservatives who think that they are in politics to preserve jobs and business and national prosperity. And there are those who think the overwhelming duty and the great cause is breaking away from the European behemoth at all costs, at all events, and those are two different kinds of politicians. And my question to you is for how long can they continue to reside inside the same party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I wish I knew the answer to that. I mean there are a large number of – I say large – maybe 30, maybe 40, I don’t know precisely, but a considerable number of Conservative MPs who on the subject of Europe are irreconcilable. It is absolutely the most important issue of all.

    Nothing else matters to the same extent. They were there in the 1990s; many of the same people are there now, but they have been added to by new members who’ve come in in the interim. And the difficulty we face at the moment is that has boxed the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, into a corner. They are a minority of the House of Commons. A substantial minority of the House of Commons but they’re larger than the government’s majority. And that means to a substantial extent they have a much greater ability to frustrate policy than any small group really ought to have. And the danger at the moment is that they will frustrate every move that the government seek to make and that by accident, because nothing can be agreed, we will crash out without a deal. And that has a very material effect on everyone in this country. You touched on it earlier. But there’s a whole range of things. If we crash out without a deal the people who have least are going to be hurt most. It would be a terrible betrayal of the interests of everyday people who really are not political.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And yet that is where we are heading at the moment unless something changes. Now I know it was, in some respects it was easier for you as Prime Minister because there were fewer rebels inside your party and you could stand and challenge them openly. If Theresa May did that we both know what would happen. What can she do?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t think she should do that. I mean it was a limited success when I did it in the 90s. It wasn’t a wholly successful. It preserved a position, it dampened things down but it didn’t really solve the problem, so I wouldn’t advise the Prime Minister to do that. But I do think the point about the way in which people will be affected. I mean if I had my way I would put a sign on every Member of Parliament’s desks.

    People, people, people. Because that is what matters at the end of these negotiations. Now the people who are going to be affected may be represented by Conservative MPs or Labour MPs or Liberal MPs or ScotNats, or whomsoever. And I think the majority of the House of Commons should not let this irreconcilable minority within the Conservative Party determine what happens in these negotiations. Now I was encouraged by what Dominic Raab has said about being pragmatic and trying to persuade those who are not yet persuaded that they need to build on the Chequers compromise. I don’t much like the Chequers compromise, it isn’t what I would have preferred to see, but it is –

    ANDREW MARR:

    But it’s about as much as she could have got from the Conservative Party now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is. It is a compromise. Now both the European Union and the UK are going to have to compromise if we get a deal. Nothing unusual about that, it’s the very nature of negotiations. You set out your position, the other side sets out theirs and you compromise and you reach a deal. But if every compromise reached by the Cabinet is blocked by this minority of irreconcilable hard line, utterly committed, anti Europeans, anti Europe on all occasions then we will not actually get to negotiations, we will fall out without a deal and it will be catastrophic – damaging for Europe, but catastrophic for us. And not only catastrophic for us, it is the people who have least who will end up being hurt most.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There are various possible ways out of this that people talk about, including a second referendum, a so called ‘people’s vote.’ Now you have said this is not a terrible idea but you haven’t yet committed yourself completely to the idea that it’s a good idea.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No. It has downsides. I mean frankly a second vote has democratic downsides. It has difficulties. But is it morally justified? I think it is. If you look back at the Leave campaign a great many of the promises they made were fantasy promises. We now know they’re not going to be met. It’s painfully –

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well, both sides told some whoppers let’s be honest.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t deny that both sides got it wrong, but it was the Leave side that said, this is going to be the easiest trade deal in history, we can get it in an afternoon. We will easily be able to get trade deals around the world. Many of the things that they said were absolutely pie in the sky and if you look at any possible deal we’re going to get and compare it to what people were promised with Brexit, there will be a gaping gap. Now that is a reason why people might want a second referendum. I mean if for example – let me give you an illustration. Would you buy a house without knowing the price? No, you would not. Should we finally decide to leave Europe without knowing the cost of doing so? And by the cost I don’t just mean to the government, to the nation, I mean to the lives of individual people in every constituency in the land.

    Now I think it’s arguable that once the cost is known, if it is as damaging as I believe it will be – it may not be, the negotiations may be a success but I have my doubts. If it is as damaging as I believe it to be then you either face the question of letting the public endorse it or not or five years down the road when it is blazingly apparent how much has gone wrong, there will be a huge amount of disillusion. Much greater disillusion than we’ve yet seen with the British political system. So a referendum isn’t an easy option, but it’s not one at this stage that I would rule out.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Because you said in terms during the first referendum, this is it. There’s only going to be one referendum, it’s a once in a lifetime chance, there will be no more referendums. And now you’ve changed your mind. And that’s why some of your critics on the Brexiteer side of the party are so angry with you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    If circumstances change you change your mind. I think that was said by a very wise man.

    ANDREW MARR:

    JM Keynes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Absolutely, Keynes, and we now know that circumstances have changed. The promises made are not going to be met. And if the promises made are not going to be met, there is a justification for changing your mind on letting the public decide whether the Brexit they’re offered after the negotiations is going to be remotely like the Brexit that was promised by the Leave campaign during the referendum. I do not believe it will be remotely like the promises that were made.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Another way of possibly resolving this, and we came very close to it earlier in the week, is another General Election.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think we could stumble into that by accident. If the House of Commons continues to be deadlocked, if the irreconcilables remain unmoveable and the whips of the other parties decide to take political advantage of the government’s voting weakness in the House of Commons, if they decide to do that and put party politics before the national interest, then there is a possibility of the Commons being unable to reach an agreement and a General Election ultimately becoming unavoidable. I would hope not. It would be a very unpleasant General Election if we had it. This campaign, the referendum campaign, and afterwards, frankly, has not been a glorious episode in British Constitutional history. It’s been very ugly with many of the things that have been said, particularly if I may say so, about the small number of Remain MPs in the Conservative Party who to my mind have been extraordinarily brave and have been insulted uphill and down dale because they have expressed their concern for what will happen to our country if we go down the Brexit route.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you know Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that is all just embittered bile from a failed Prime Minister in your terms. I think he said even worse than that, but I won’t read the entire quote out.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I don’t read very carefully what Mr Rees-Mogg says, but I believe he said something like that. It was very statesman like.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right, Let’s turn to Theresa May herself. As I said at the beginning you have been in this position, you know what it’s like sitting in Number 10 trying to find a way forward. Do you think she can survive at this point?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, I do. Yes I do. I do for a range of reasons because a General Election would be catastrophic because a leadership election would be absolutely absurd for the Conservative Party. For the Conservative Party again to decide suddenly they were going to get rid of a Prime Minister –

    ANDREW MARR:

    But she can’t afford to lose her Brexit vote in the House of Commons, can she? Losing a big vote in the House of Commons or having her plan turned down by Brussels would leave her with no options really left at all.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think we’ll have to wait and see whether people come to their senses by realising what the implications of a leadership election or a General Election might actually be. What is our purpose at this moment? Our purpose at this moment is to engage with the European Union and get the best deal we can. Any deal, any deal is going to be less good than the deal we currently have as a member of the European Union. This is not me as Mr Rees-Mogg put it, as an embittered Remainer speaking, this is what the government said in its own calculations and a no deal Brexit is the worst of all. The North East for example, an area not full of bounding prosperity might lose 16% of its GDP if we crash out without a deal.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it not possible that the Brexiteers are right? I mean there’s lots of ifs, there’s lots of projections, there’s lots of crystal ball gazing. It is possible that after no deal we do strike new trade arrangements, we become a slightly different kind of economy, a slightly different kind of county and we find a good future?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s possible the earth is flat, but not very likely. I mean if you look at the deals they’re seeking to do with big economies, the European Union has just done a deal with Japan, another deal that would have been available to us had we remained in the European Union. They want a deal with America, the Brexiteers with America, with China, with India. Well, I think we know an American deal can be done but I don’t think it would be especially to our advantage. We would get minor advantages perhaps but lots of downsides, particularly for agriculture, particularly for services. Doing a deal with India, where we really want a deal in their services sector seems to me a very distant prospect indeed at the moment. And a deal with China, I don’t think we are particularly on China’s radar for a deal at the moment, and when we leave, Andrew, when we leave, we lose over 50 trade deals that we have because we are a member of the European Union and we will have to renegotiate them all. That will take years and years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One very final quick question on a related but not identical matter. If your Chief Whip was breaking pairing arrangements, what would you do?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would certainly wish to decide exactly how it had happened and what had happened.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it appears that the Chief Whip has been telling Conservative MPs to break their pairing arrangements because of the tightness of a vote. That sort of smashes all parliamentary conventions and a lot of people think it’s just not decent.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not in the Commons, I don’t know the Chief Whip, I don’t know the details, I’m not going to comment on it. But I think it has to be cleared up and cleared up within the House of Commons. But what that will throw up I really am not in a position to judge.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Irish Assembly – 10 May 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Irish Assembly on 10 May 2018.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This History is a magisterial undertaking and it’s a privilege to be here on this special occasion.

    We are living history at the moment.

    This evening’s focus on Ireland comes at a moment when I view the emerging situation between our two countries with a great deal of trepidation.

    England and Ireland have endured a turbulent relationship for nearly 1,000 years. It has been studded with unrest, repression, rebellion, reprisals, mistrust, betrayal and violence. In times past, there is much to repent.

    Now, today – we are again at a moment when decisions made might once more unsettle our relationship.

    During the 1990s, the Peace Process prospered as the construct of many hands: governments, politicians, the Church, peace movements, whilst war weariness – and the recognition by the men of violence that armed conflict would never achieve their aims – also helped forge the search for agreement.

    The whole Peace Process was spurred on and cemented by the obvious wish of Irish men and women – North and South – to work together to end violence.

    No-one wished to see the lives of yet another generation damaged by “The Troubles”.

    When commonsense, and common humanity triumphed, the Good Friday Agreement ushered in two decades in which the British/Irish relationship moved to a higher and more co-operative level than at any time in our joint history.

    And this is how it should be: the UK and the Republic of Ireland are one another’s nearest neighbours, and the relationship should be one of mutual consideration and harmony.

    And – as one of millions of Britons with Irish antecedents – I was delighted to see our relationship mature and grow closer.

    Brexit – depending on the final deal – may now put this in reverse. When Tony Blair and I went to Ireland together to warn of the implications of the UK leaving the EU – for the whole island of Ireland – we expected opposition from Brexit supporters.

    What we didn’t expect was a complete failure of understanding about its impact by leading Brexiteers.

    There are serious issues to address:

    How the UK can minimise the damage to Ireland of Britain leaving the European Union.

    Whether a new Customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will divide communities that are now united, and complicate bilateral trade with the UK, which totals over one billion pounds a week.

    Whether such a border could – I emphasise could – yet be a focus for both Unionists and Nationalist fringes to recreate violent friction.
    If one of the British ambitions after leaving the European Union is to “go global” to increase our trade and influence, distancing ourselves from our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners is a curious way to begin.

    I, myself, deeply regret that Ireland will feel the impact of the UK’s departure more negatively than any other European State.

    A former Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, put it more bluntly noting that: “Brexit is the greatest economic and social challenge to [Ireland] in 50 years”. Sectors like agri-foods and fishing, tourism and energy, are among those that face particular challenges. The UK Government neither can nor should ignore that.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the British Government wishes to hurt Ireland: far from it. I simply observe that preventing collateral damage to Irish interests doesn’t appear to feature prominently in the concerns of those who press for Brexit. I believe that the obligations of history – and sheer good neighbourliness – suggest that they should.

    It is not only the Border question – or the need to avoid impediments to the trade flow. Many other issues must be considered. Some can, at least in part, be solved.

    I have in mind the Common Travel area, where I’m sure an agreement will be reached. There is also the scale of co-operation set up under EU frameworks where both Governments are committed, in principle, to maintain co-operation –although there must be doubt whether it will be fully replicated post-Brexit.

    The problem of the North/South border is more intransigent. Once a hated symbol of division, it was abandoned without regret under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It may yet return as the border between the UK and the European Union.

    At the very least, a new Customs border will harm trade: East-West as well as North-South. Ten thousand commercial vehicles travel back and forth across the North-South border each day, carrying a vast range of goods.

    Were there to be a Customs Border, this weight of commerce is bound to face delays, queues, and administrative obligations that will lead to higher costs for companies and consumers, North and South.

    No doubt many goods can be cleared in some invisible, frictionless way – as yet unidentified – but not all. Some, such as animals and animal feed, which cross the border every hour of every day, will probably have to be examined for health and safety reasons, in order to avoid infections and diseases such as BSE.

    If so, a physical border seems unavoidable. And, since the border winds through over 300 miles of countryside, this may require a number of border posts to be erected.

    The very words “Customs Union” seem to have become toxic in Brexit circles. They do not seem to understand what is at stake for the Irish economy and Anglo-Irish trade flows.

    The benefits of a Customs Union are crucial to trade. It abolishes tariffs on goods between Member States. It offers common rules of origin, and common standards for products.

    It has ancillary benefits: a common tariff for third country exporters, and no customs checks at borders – all designed to simplify trade between Member States. No sensible alternative exists.

    Ingenious options – well-meaning options – have been proposed but rejected by Cabinet sub-Committees, with the limp promise that further ideas will be sought.

    No doubt the search will intensify – but I doubt it will be successful.

    There has been talk of “frictionless” trade to avoid a physical border. But, so far, the delivery of this has proved illusory.

    There is no “frictionless” trade model anywhere to copy. The only certain way to avoid border checks is a Customs Union.

    Of course, a Customs Union isn’t perfect. It does have ancillary downsides although, in my view, these are heavily exaggerated. But it does soften some of the economic fallout of Brexit, and remove the need for a North-South border in Ireland.

    That alone is a significant gain – but even full membership of the Customs Union will not compensate for leaving the Single Market, or retaining full membership of the EU.

    A new Border may carry a further risk. There is a complacent belief that, because violence has largely disappeared over the last 20 years, it is unlikely to return. I hope that is true but am not wholly confident that it is.

    I do agree that it may not return on the scale of “The Troubles” – but I do not agree that we can be sure it is banished for good.

    The introduction of a “hard” border – with all its unpopular symbolism – may provide a focus for protests from fringe groups – either Unionists or Nationalists.

    What if demonstrations against a new border are followed by attacks on it? Would it then be protected? If so, how? Would security be brought in? If so, what? What would be the reaction to that? Would it re-activate old disputes and begin a downward spiral towards violence?

    Past history warns us how this might play out. I don’t wish to overplay this but, at the very least, it increases the potential for conflict.
    Some Brexit supporters dismiss this as scare-mongering; an anti-Brexit tactic. It emphatically is not. It is simply trivial to suggest so.
    Sir Hugh Orde, the former Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, has warned that the political consequences of Brexit may: “play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed…”.

    He added that customs posts “could be a target for dissident para-militaries”. And that risk cannot be blithely dismissed.

    There are also other risks to long-term stability.

    The British Government’s deal with the DUP for Westminster votes must surely be seen by Nationalist opinion to destroy their impartiality as an independent “honest broker”. This will weaken the Government’s hand in dealing with disputes between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, and healing fractures in the Peace Process.

    The collapse of the Northern Ireland Power Sharing Executive, if not re-established soon – and it won’t be – may also be a provocation to dissidents – and will lead to campaigns for a border poll. There is no Executive. No direct rule. And the Civil Service hold the line. Despite all Parties claiming they want an agreement, none is making concessions to achieve one. The risks are obvious.

    I have never hidden my view that leaving the EU – for all its frustrations, which are many – is an historic mistake.

    The negotiations to leave were always going to be hugely complex and expensive – and are ever more proving to be so.

    Thus far, progress is modest at best. Every advance seems to involve retreat, and every agreement delivers less than expected.

    The costs are mounting. The exit bill is likely to be £50 billion. The costs to industry are incalculable. The staff costs to the Civil Service – and, therefore, the British taxpayer – are huge.

    Yet, as the bills mount, and the negotiations falter, the advocates of Brexit become more entrenched.

    Some of them – let us be frank – would be quite content to see the talks fail and no agreement reached. That would be the worst possible outcome.

    That said, there is goodwill everywhere to solve the “border question”, and that is a hopeful sign.

    But to do so, originality and flexibility are essential – together with mutual respect and understanding.

    This is much more than a political squabble between Brexiteer and Remainer; it is a battle for the future direction of a policy that will affect all the people of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    Its resolution may help us grow closer – or drift apart. There is no doubt in my own mind which is the best outcome for both our countries.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Brexit – 28 February 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Somerset House in London on 28 February 2018.

    I would like to express my thanks to the Creative Industries Federation, Somerset House Trust, and Tech London Advocates for the opportunity to speak here today.

    Brexit matters to our creative industries. They express our culture and values – but give so much more.

    Nearly 10% of our national workforce is in creative industries. They are often the young – and overwhelmingly in small units up and down the UK.

    Job growth outpaces every other part of industry – especially in the Midlands and Yorkshire.

    Their exports total over £35 billion a year, but their added value to our country – both economically and socially – is incalculable … and far beyond cash.

    Our decision to leave the EU faces the creative industries with a variety of threats that could harm their future, both in financial and human terms.

    So I am delighted to be their guest here this afternoon – to talk of Brexit.

    ********

    For years, the European debate has been dominated by the fringes of opinion – by strong supporters of Europe or convinced opponents. But, as we approach Brexit, the voice of middle opinion mustn’t be overlooked.

    I am neither a Europhile nor a Eurosceptic. As Prime Minister, I said “No” to federal integration, “No” to the Euro Currency, and “No” to Schengen – which introduced free movement of people within the European Union but without proper control of external borders.

    But I am a realist. I believe that to risk losing our trade advantages with the colossal market on our doorstep is to inflict economic self-harm on the British people.

    Of course, the “will of the people” can’t be ignored, but Parliament has a duty also to consider the “wellbeing of the people”.

    No-one voted for higher prices and poorer public services, but that is what they may get. The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have least. Neither Parliament nor Government wish to see that.

    The “will of the people” – so often summoned up when sound argument is absent – was supported by only 37% of the electorate. 63% voted either in favour of membership – or did not vote at all.

    There was a majority for Brexit, but there was no overwhelming mandate to ignore the reservations of 16 million voters, who believe it will be a harmful change of direction for our country.

    Brexit has been the most divisive issue of my lifetime. It has divided not only the four nations of our UK, but regions within them. It has divided political parties; political colleagues; families; friends – and the young from the old.

    We have to heal those divisions. They have been made worse by the character of the Brexit debate with its intolerance, its bullying, and its name-calling. I welcome rigorous debate – but there must be respect for differing views that are honestly held.

    In this debate there are no “remoaners”, no “mutineers”, no “enemies of the people” – just voices setting out what they believe is right for our country.

    In recent weeks, the idea has gained ground that Brexit won’t be too bad; that we will all get through it; that we’re doing better than expected – and all will be well.

    Of course we will get through it: life as we know it won’t come to an end. We are too resourceful and talented a nation for that. But our nation is owed a frank assessment of what leaving Europe may mean – for now and the future.

    I fear we will be weaker and less prosperous – as a country and as individuals. And – although it grieves me to admit it – our divorce from Europe will diminish our international stature. Indeed, it already has.

    For decades, we British have super-charged our influence around the world by our closeness to the US (which policy divisions are lessening); and our membership of the EU (which we are abandoning).

    As a result, we are already becoming a lesser actor. No-one – Leaver or Remainer – can welcome that.

    We are all urged to be “patriotic” and get behind Brexit. But it is precisely because I am patriotic that I oppose it.

    I want my Country to be influential, not isolated; committed, not cut-off; a leading participant, not a bystander.

    I want us to be richer, not poorer. Yet every serious international body, including the IMF, the OECD, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research – as well as Nobel prize-winners – forecast we will be poorer outside the EU.

    Such forecasts could be wrong, but to dismiss them out of hand is reckless.

    Our own Government has assessed our post-Brexit position upon three separate criteria: that we stay in the Single Market; or reach a trade deal with Europe; or fail to do so.

    Each option shows us to be worse off: and disastrously so with no trade deal at all. And the poorest regions will be hurt the most.

    If, as negotiations proceed, this analysis appears to be correct, that cannot be brushed aside. I know of no precedent for any Government enacting a policy that will make both our country and our people poorer. Once that is apparent, the Government must change course.
    Meanwhile, we are yet again told all will be well. Certainly, the recent fall in the value of Sterling has temporarily boosted our exports. The strength of the world economy may even increase our forecast growth this year.

    But this sweet spot is artificial. It won’t last. Prosperity isn’t built on devaluation of the currency. More exports on the back of other countries’ economic growth is not a secure position.

    The UK has been at the very top of European growth.

    We are now the laggard at the bottom. We have become the slowest of the world’s big economies, even before we surrender the familiar advantages of the Single Market.

    Our negotiations, so far, have not always been sure-footed. Some agreements have been reached but, in many areas, only because the UK has given ground.

    Our determination to negotiate the divorce bill and a new trade deal at the same time was going to be “the fight of the summer” – but instead became an immediate British retreat.

    There was to be a “points based” immigration system. There isn’t, and there won’t be.

    We were to become the “Singapore of the North”. No more: we have retreated from a policy of lower taxes and de-regulation.

    No transition period was going to be needed. But we have now asked for one – during which we will accept new EU rules, ECJ jurisdiction, and free movement of people.

    I don’t say this to be critical.

    I do so to illustrate that unrealistic aspirations are usually followed by retreat.

    That is a lesson for the negotiations to come.

    They will be the most difficult any Government has faced. Our aims have to be realistic. I am not sure they yet are.

    We simply cannot move forward with leaving the EU, the Single Market, the Customs Union and the ECJ, whilst at the same time expecting à la carte, beneficial-to-Britain, bespoke entrance to the European market. It is just not credible.

    A willingness to compromise is essential. If either side – the UK or the EU – is too inflexible, too unbending, too wedded to what they won’t do – then the negotiations will fail.

    The very essence of negotiation involves both “give” and “take”. But there are always “red lines” that neither side wishes to cross. In successful negotiations those “red lines” are traded for concessions.

    If our “red lines” are held to be inviolable, the likelihood of no deal – or a poor deal – increases. Every time we close off options prematurely, this encourages the EU to do the same – and that is not in our British interest.

    A good Brexit – for Britain – will protect our trade advantages, and enable us to:

    – continue to sell our goods and services without disruption;

    – import and export food without barriers and extra cost; staff our hospitals, universities and businesses with the skills we need – where we most need them;

    – be part of the cutting edge of European research, in which British brains and skills lead the way;

    – continue with the over 40 FTAs we have with countries only as a result of our membership of the EU.

    A bad Brexit – for Britain – will surrender these, and other, advantages.

    For the moment, our self-imposed “red lines” have boxed the Government into a corner.

    They are so tilted to ultra Brexit opinion, even the Cabinet cannot agree them – and a majority in both Houses of Parliament oppose them. If maintained in full, it will be impossible to reach a favourable trade outcome.

    Alarmed at the negotiations so far, the financial sector, businesses, and our academic institutions, are pleading for commonsense policy to serve the national interest and now – fearful they may not get it – are making their own preparations for the future.

    Japanese car-makers warn they could close operations in Britain unless we maintain free access to the EU. That would be heart-breaking for many people in Sunderland or Swindon or South Wales.

    This isn’t “Project Fear” revisited, it is “Project Know Your History”.

    Any doubters should consult the former employees of factories, now closed, in Bridgend, Port Talbot and Newport, where jobs were lost and families suffered.

    In 1991, employment by Japanese firms in Wales was about 17,000 people: today, it is 2,000. If free access to Europe is lost – that scale of impact, across the UK, could lose 125,000 Japanese jobs.

    Over many years, the Conservative Party has understood the concerns of business. Not over Brexit, it seems.

    Across the United Kingdom – businesses are expressing their wish to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. But “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Businesses wish to have the freedom to employ foreign skills. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Business and academia wish to welcome foreign students to our universities and – as they rise to influence in their own countries – we then have willing partners in politics and business for decades to come. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    This is not only grand folly. It’s also bad politics.

    The national interest must always be above the Party interest, but my Party should beware. It is only fear of Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell that prevents a haemorrhage of business support.

    Without the comprehensive trade deal the Prime Minister seeks, we risk economic divorce from the EU, and the chill embrace of a “hard” Brexit with WTO rules.

    Leading Brexit supporters believe there is nothing to fear from losing our special access to the Single Market.

    But that is profoundly wrong. Swapping the Single Market for WTO rules would mean our exports facing the EU external tariff, as well as hidden nontariff barriers that could be adjusted to our disadvantage at any time.

    A Minister has speculated we might face tariffs of 3%. Not so.

    It is more likely that we will face tariffs on cars (10%), food (14%), drinks (20%), and dairy products (36%). Even if a successful negotiation were to halve these tariffs, our exports would still be much more expensive to sell – and this would apply far beyond agriculture and the motor industry.

    And if, in retaliation, the UK were to impose tariffs on imports, this would result in higher prices for the British consumer.

    If we and the EU agreed to impose nil tariffs – as some have speculated – WTO rules mean we would both have to offer nil tariffs to all countries. That isn’t going to happen.

    This is all very complex. But it is crucial. And none of it has yet been properly explained to the British people.

    There have been attempts to reassure business by claiming that other nations trade with the EU on purely WTO terms. That statement is simply wrong.

    China, the US and Japan all have side agreements with Europe on standards, customs co-operation, mutual recognition and investment.

    These economic giants did so to protect their own trade even though none of them is exposed as we are – still half our entire exports go to Europe.

    Ultra Brexit opinion is impatient to be free of European relationships; to become – in their words – a “global player”, “sovereign”, “in control”. I believe they are deceiving themselves and, as a result, they are misleading the British people.

    Before the modern world took shape – their ambition would have been credible. But the world has changed, the global market has taken root, and – if we are to care for the people of our nation – philosophical fantasies must give way to national self-interest. We cannot prepare for tomorrow by living in the world of yesterday.

    I don’t doubt the convictions of those who long for the seductive ambition of British exceptionalism. But these sentiments are out-of-date and, in today’s world, wrong.

    It is not my purpose to stir controversy, but the truth must be spoken. The ultra Brexiteers have been mistaken – wrong – in nearly all they have said or promised to the British people.

    The promises of more hospitals, more schools, lower taxes, more money for transport were electioneering fantasy. The £350 million a week for the NHS was a ridiculous phantom: the reality is if our economy weakens – as is forecast – there will not only be less money for the NHS, but for all our public services.

    We were told that nobody was threatening our place in the Single Market. That tune has changed.

    We were told that a trade deal with the EU would be easy to get. Wrong again: it was never going to be easy, and we are still not sure what outcome will be achieved.

    We were told “Europe can whistle for their money” and we would not pay a penny in exit costs. Wrong again. Europe didn’t even have to purse her lips before we agreed to pay £40 billion to meet legitimate liabilities.

    I could go on. But suffice to say that every one of the Brexit promises is – to quote Henry Fielding – “a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true.”.

    People should pause and reflect: if the Brexit leaders were wrong in what they said so enthusiastically before – are they not likely to be wrong in what they say now?

    The Prime Minister is seeking a “frictionless” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. She is absolutely right to do so. This is a promise that must be honoured, and I wish her well. But, so far, this has not materialised – nor, I fear, will it – unless we stay in “a” or “the” Customs Union.

    Those of us who warned of the risks Brexit would bring to the still fragile Peace Process were told at the time that we “didn’t understand Irish politics”. But it seems we understood it better than our critics. We need a policy to protect the Good Friday Agreement – and we need one urgently. And it is our responsibility to find one – not the European Union.

    Although the referendum was advisory only, the result gave the Government the obligation to negotiate a Brexit. But not any Brexit; not at all costs; and certainly not on any terms. The true remit can only be to agree a Brexit that honours the promises made in the referendum.

    But, so far, the promises have not been met and, probably, cannot be met.

    Many electors know they were misled: many more are beginning to realise it.

    So, the electorate has every right to reconsider their decision.

    Meanwhile, our options become ever narrower.

    We have ruled out full membership. Ruled out the Single Market and Customs Union. Ruled out joining the European Economic Area. Dismissed talk of joining EFTA.

    A Norway deal won’t do. Nor will a Swiss deal. Nor a Ukraine deal; a Turkey deal; or a South Korea deal. No, to them all, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    So, little is left, except for “cherry picking” – which the EU rejects. Or a comprehensive deal – which will be very hard, if not impossible, to get. So compromise it must be – or no deal at all.

    It is now widely accepted that “no deal” would be the worst possible outcome. The compromise must, therefore, focus around our accepting Single Market rules (as Norway does) and paying for access.

    Or an enhanced “Canada deal” – and it would need to be enhanced a very great deal to be attractive. The Canada deal largely concerns goods – whereas the bulk of UK exports are services.

    But what we achieve to protect our interests may depend on what we concede: it is, as I say, “give” and “take”. If our “red lines” dissolve, our options enlarge.

    Our minimum objective must be that “deep, special and bespoke” trade deal the Prime Minister has talked about.

    So, some unpalatable decisions lie ahead – with the cast-iron certainty that the extreme and unbending Brexit lobby will cry “betrayal” at any compromise. But it is Parliament, not a small minority, that must decide our policy.

    I spoke earlier of the “divisiveness” of Brexit across our United Kingdom. But, in due time, the debate will end and – when it does – we need the highest possible level of public acceptance for the outcome. It is in no-one’s interest for the bitterness and division to linger on.

    I see only one way to achieve this.

    It is already agreed that Parliament must pass legislation giving effect to the deal. A “meaningful vote” has been promised. This must be a decisive vote, in which Parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum.

    That is what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

    But, to minimise divisions in our country – and between and within the political parties – I believe the Government should take a brave and bold decision. They should invite Parliament to accept or reject the final outcome on a free vote.

    I know the instinct of every Government is to oppose “free votes”, but the Government should weigh the advantages of having one very carefully. It may be in their interest to do so.

    There are some very practical reasons in favour of it.

    Brexit is a unique decision. It will affect the lives of the British people for generations to come. If it flops – there will be the most terrible backlash.

    If it is whipped through Parliament, when the public are so divided, voters will know who to blame if they end up poorer and weaker. So, both democracy and prudence suggest a free vote.

    The deep divisions in our nation are more likely to be healed by a Brexit freely approved by Parliament, than a Brexit forced through Parliament at the behest of a minority of convinced opponents of Europe.

    A free vote would better reflect the reality that – for every 17 voters who opted for Brexit – 16 opted to remain in the EU.

    But, regardless of whether a free vote is offered, Parliamentarians must decide the issue on the basis of their own conscience. Upon whether, in mature judgement, they really do believe that the outcome of the negotiations is in the best interests of the people they serve.

    By 2021, after the likely two-year transition, it will be five years since the 2016 referendum. The electorate will have changed. Some voters will have left us. Many new voters will be enfranchised. Others may have changed their mind.

    No-one can truly know what “the will of the people” may then be. So, let Parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people.

    And what is true for the House of Commons must apply to the House of Lords. Peers must ignore any noises off, and be guided by their intellect and their conscience.

    I have been a Conservative all my life.

    I don’t enjoy being out of step with many in my Party and take no pleasure in speaking out as I am today.

    But it’s as necessary to speak truth to the people, as to power.

    Leaving Europe is an issue so far-reaching, so permanent, so over-arching that it will have an impact on all our lives – most especially on the young and the future. With only 12 months to go, we need answers, not aspirations.

    This is far more than just a Party issue. It’s about the future of our United Kingdom, and everyone who lives in it.

    That is what matters. That is why I’m here today.

  • Sir John Major’s Responsibilities of Democracy Speech – 6 November 2017

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Westminster Abbey in London on 6 November 2017.

    As a boy, in the 1950s, encouraged by close friends, I cut my teeth as a public speaker on a soapbox – across the river in Brixton Market.

    In those early days none of my friends would have imagined that – one day – my soapbox would be upgraded to a lectern in this beautiful and historic Abbey.

    I doubt that I imparted much wisdom from my Brixton soapbox, but I did learn about people. No-one barracked. No-one told me – as surely they could have done – to go away and come back when I knew something about … well, anything.

    Even in a crowded and busy market, some took time to stop and listen or question. No-one seemed to resent me or my views. No-one was hostile, although many must have disagreed with what I said.

    Today – as politics has become more rancorous – I have often thought back to that time, and wondered how we lost that tolerance of opposing views.

    Certainly, tolerance was missing from the EU Referendum Campaign, when honest and thoughtful political debate was abandoned in favour of exaggeration, half-truths and untruths. No-one seemed ashamed or embarrassed by this.

    Indeed, some revelled in it, which suggests that mendacity is acceptable if it panders to a popular prejudice. Then, it is sanctioned by many who know it to be untrue, and welcomed by others whose prejudices are supported by it. And, if delivered with wit and panache, it may even be believed.

    Some of the media reported what was said – even when they must have known it to be improbable (at best) or untrue (at worst). In this way, the Referendum showcased a deterioration in both the conduct and reporting of our politics.

    There will be those who think that my subject, “the Responsibilities of Democracy” is inappropriate for Westminster Abbey – that it is a secular concern, and that the arts and practice of democratic politics are far removed from the higher concerns of the Church.

    They are wrong – as wrong, or misguided, as those who argue that the Church should stay out of politics: it should not. Both Church and State care for the wellbeing of people, and if one institution is failing them, the other has a duty to say so. Two-way constructive criticism, if conducted civilly, is healthy – and no-one should shrink from it.

    In years gone by, the Church was criticised as “The Tory Party at Prayer”. Today, it is often told it is too Left-wing. I doubt the first was ever true; and the charge of Left-wing bias is trotted out whenever the Church talks about poverty.

    But the Church should talk of poverty. So should we all. Poverty is not the sole preserve of the Left. Conservatives from Wilberforce to David Cameron – who made overseas aid to the very poorest a signature policy – have focused upon poverty.

    On occasions such as this there are two kinds of Lecture. One is uplifting and intellectual. It enlivens the conscience and leaves us pondering the higher purpose of Man.

    My purpose is more prosaic. It is to provoke thought about democracy – both generally and in our own country. Democracy is very precious but – how is it performing in a new world that is changing at bewildering speed? Is it doing its job? Is it at risk? Where is it failing? What is its future?

    In many countries, I see a distaste for politics that runs deep. That is a danger to democracy. So, inevitably, my theme – in part – is a cry for action where there is none; and of warning where there is peril.

    What is democracy? It is surely more than electing a government through a universal franchise. Elections are an expression of democracy, but the ballot box alone is insufficient.

    President Putin wins elections – is Russia a democracy? No – it is not. Is Turkey? Is Egypt? Even on the narrowest and meanest of definitions the answer is – No. Nor are many other countries that hold elections – sometimes rigged – but, voting apart, have few of the attributes of a genuine democracy.

    My worry is that democracy is in retreat; stifled by its own virtues. Democracy operates on consent. That being so, it is slower to make decisions than autocracy or outright dictatorship. Democracy must cajole. Must persuade. Must seek consensus. Not so autocracy.

    This can make autocracy seem more efficient than democracy, more decisive, more able to deliver its promises, more swift to act in crises.

    The rise of non-democratic China to economic super-stardom is one of the great stories of history, but there is a price to pay for her success.

    The price is a lack of personal freedom for the masses.

    For now, countless millions of Chinese are grateful for that economic improvement. But human nature suggests that as their individual wellbeing grows, they will demand greater personal liberty. If that happens, autocracy must yield – or repress. This choice lies ahead for many countries.

    At the heart of true democracy is liberty under the law. Democratic government must be freely elected for a fixed period in a universal franchise, untainted by coercion.

    There must be checks and balances to its authority. The rule of law must apply. The judiciary must be independent, and there must be a free media, an independent academia, and a functioning Opposition free to oppose without sanctions. Only then can freedom of speech and action be protected.

    But these attributes are merely the trappings of democracy. Democracy in action is more than satisfying the material demands of the majority, or honouring the promises of an election manifesto.

    Democratic government must govern for the future as well as the present. A Governing Party must govern for political opponents who did not vote for them – and may never do so.

    It must govern for the unborn, and the country they will inherit. For minorities. For the wider international community. And all Governments have a responsibility to themselves for the manner in which they govern.

    One has only to set out these responsibilities to see that no Government, perhaps ever, has met this ideal – Government by men and women, not saints, is an imperfect vehicle for perfection. But that does not mean their imperfections should be ignored or accepted.

    Yet, today, they often are, as a disillusioned, disinterested, preoccupied or – in some cases, a cowed or misled – electorate shrug their shoulders and turn away.

    In such a climate, democracy faces a threat from the rise of nationalism. This is not theoretical: in many countries that is a reality. In others, a clear and present danger.

    *******

    In the democratic West, we have come to believe that our liberal, social and economic model of democracy is unchallengeable. It is not. Last year – as the United Nations has reported – 67 countries suffered a decline in political and civil liberties while only 36 had gains. What has happened there can happen elsewhere.

    Over 20 democracies have collapsed during the last two decades, and there is widespread public dissatisfaction in many others.

    Across Europe, nationalism has gained more than a foothold. It begins with a populism that masquerades as patriotism, but morphs into something far less attractive.

    In many countries, nationalist parties have significant support. They can attract true patriots – but are also a political vehicle for those who flavour that patriotism with xenophobia.

    Nationalism is authoritarian. It turns easily towards autocracy or – at worst – outright dictatorship. Nationalists hide their threat under an exaggerated love of country, an unthinking patriotism: “my country, right or wrong”. Its leaders view other countries – and sometimes other races – as inferior.

    Nationalism is suspicious of foreigners. It accuses immigrants of “stealing jobs” or, in some other way, undermining the indigenous population. This has been so for hundreds of years: it is often wrong, and – let it be said in this House of God – un-Christian.

    There is a great difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is more than pride in country. A mature patriotism concerns itself with the condition of the People, as well as the prestige of the Country. Such a patriotism worries about deprivation, opportunity and incentive.

    It asks itself: how can we spread our wealth and opportunity more evenly around our country? And it is as concerned with the growth of food banks as it is with a shortage of aircraft carriers.

    I now fear for these broad, socially liberal attitudes.

    The financial crisis – less security, low or no growth, and rising taxes – has created public dissatisfaction with the old, albeit fallible, politics.

    Anger about its shortcomings replaces cool, dispassionate judgement. Despair gives a credibility to promises of easy solutions when – in truth – there are none.

    Our social and economic liberalism may be fallible but it is not some mish-mash of woolly headed do-gooders. It protects individual liberties and human rights. It promotes market freedoms, ownership of property, and freedom of movement.

    We dare not take these familiar values for granted. We need to celebrate them, protect them and practice them: Politics must not become a playground for demagogues.

    *******

    Capitalism and free trade are the bulwark of democracy. They have lifted millions of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. As trade has grown, wealth has grown, literacy has risen, and fatal diseases have been eradicated.

    But free trade is under attack.

    When growth was buoyant, all was well. But, after the financial crash of 2007/8, many workers see global trade as a threat. So do companies exposed to foreign competition.

    There are problems that must be dealt with. Globalisation has distributed its gains unevenly.

    Individuals have gained wealth that Croesus would have envied.

    Global companies have driven out competitors, and become mega-rich.

    But, to protect itself, capitalism must be ethical. If it is not, then opposition to it will grow. Business must confront malpractice and eliminate it.

    Capitalism must reform itself – or Government must make it do so.

    “Anything Goes” capitalism is not acceptable: it can only damage free trade and open markets, and encourage protectionism, less trade, slower growth and greater poverty. If that happens, everyone loses. But those with least will lose most.

    *******

    Our British democracy is seen as honest, not corrupt; and free, not repressive. Our legal system is widely admired and respected. Our elections are acknowledged as fair, not fixed; and Governments leave and enter Office without violence – and within a few days.

    Our Parliament has been a democratic model. As a nation, we can – and should – be proud of all this, and I am … but …I will come to the “buts” in a moment ….

    First, let me say, I’m not among that minority of Britons who disparage our country and side with our critics. I am, and always will be, proud to be British.

    However, having seen our democracy at work – over many years – from the inside, and for the past sixteen as a reasonably informed outsider, not all is as it could be – or should be. We can do better.

    Our present Parliament faces an extraordinary range of complex problems. Brexit – an historic blunder in my own view, although it is not my theme for this evening – will consume the time of this Parliament, and crowd out domestic issues that are crying out for action.

    It would be better were Parliament free to focus its attention on health, social care, housing, education and transport.

    But until Brexit has been resolved – which may take years – few, if any, of these subjects will get the attention they deserve.

    Nor will constitutional issues over Scotland and Northern Ireland; or the social problems of income disparity and the North/South divide – which surely cannot be permitted to continue as it is. All of these – each vital to the future wellbeing of our country – will be secondary to the fallout from last year’s Referendum.

    Let me now turn to that list of “buts”.

    *******

    To cynics, the words “service” and “duty” are old-fashioned, yet they are virtues that deserve praise, not scorn. Our Public Service embodies them.

    The Civil Service is a fundamental engine of our democracy. It has an historic memory, which protects against the errors of the past. It is politically independent. It brings balance to our system of government. And yet, in the last 20 years, it has been undermined by its own masters.

    When things have gone wrong, a small number of Ministers – against all past practice – have blamed the Civil Service for the failure – and not themselves. Political advisers have undermined civil servants and usurped their role. The Freedom of Information Act has hampered the dispassionate advice offered to Ministers.

    Ministers may decide policy, but the Civil Service must deliver it. To do so, it trawls for ideas; delves deep into potential pitfalls; advises; cautions; and prepares legislation.

    It is in our national interest that public service should remain a career that attracts some of the very best brains in our country. We should value it, not disparage it.

    I hope Government will rethink recent practice on special advisers.

    Ministers have a right to non-Civil Service advice. But, as advisers are paid from the public purse, they should be men and women of experience and ability. Many are – but not all. Their role needs redefining. Good special advisers, with expertise and political nous, can make for better government and better liaison with the civil service.

    But, over the years, a handful of advisers have acquired unjustified power that has been misused. At times they have driven wedges between Ministers and their civil servants. Some have been used as attack dogs – on both their political opponents and their colleagues. The culprits were often protected by their Ministers, when they should have been dismissed without ceremony.

    Some advisers – with intellect but little judgement – are easy prey for the media. They are flattered, wined and dined; and the naïve among them talk unguardedly, whilst the more unscrupulous leak stories that create feuds between senior Ministers, and complicate policy.

    Any special advisers that behave in this fashion should go: a “one leak and you’re out” policy would be a worthwhile discipline for the Prime Minister to institute across all Government departments.

    *******

    It is a strength of our democracy that debate on policy is fierce. That is as it should be: policy affects people’s lives. Passions can rise – and sometimes it is right for them to do so.

    But policy disagreement is not only across the floor of Parliament. Too often, members of the same Party are seen as opponents: not “one of us”, to echo an unfortunate phrase from the 1980s, and this leads to rival camps being formed.

    These factions – opposing wings of the same Party – fight one another more vigorously than they do their opponents. This is potentially destructive to the Party system, which is the main operating structure of our democracy. The old political adage: “My opponents are opposite – my enemies are behind”, is currently apt for both our main Parties.

    There is a reason for this. The anti-European Right wish to control the Conservative Party: the neo-Marxist Left wish to dominate Labour.

    Both are making headway in a battle for the soul of their respective Parties.

    These ideological battles have dangers for our democracy. The rebellious radicals of Right and Left argue for partisan policies that appeal to the extremes of their Party base. As they do so, political divisions widen, consensus shrinks, and a minority of the Party begins to manipulate the majority.

    This is dangerous territory. The malcontents should remember that, without some give-or-take, without some effort at consensus, our tolerant Party system can become ungovernable. In politics, as in life, consensus is wise, not weak; and tolerance is a virtue, not a failing.

    If fringes begin to dominate a political Party, the middle ground of their support will turn away in disgust, as the shrillest voices and the most extreme views begin to dominate debate.

    Where that risk arises, democrats should worry. Indeed, they should do more than worry: they should fight back.

    *******

    Politics has always been a tough trade. It arouses strong feelings, and plain speaking which – sometimes – can turn into abuse. The hard-boiled professional would say: “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

    Well, maybe …. but the language and tone of politics matters. It can enthuse or repel. Excite or deflate. Uplift or cast down. Clarify or confuse. Examine the truth … or ignore it.

    In the 1930s, Oswald Mosley used his oratory to stir up violence. During World War II, Churchill – in Ed Murrow’s memorable phrase – “mobilised the English language and sent it to war”.

    In the 1960s, the Conservative Enoch Powell inflamed opinion on immigration – and the Dockers marched in his support.

    Oratory can change public opinion – for good or ill.

    Today, we need it to explain complex policy in a way that is easily understood.

    It is decades since the popular press fully reported speeches in Parliament. The speeches may have been dry, often dull; but, perhaps by osmosis, policy was understood.

    Today’s media world is more complex. The written press can’t be a public service. It is losing readership and fighting for its very existence. In its struggle for survival, it favours sensation – because that’s what sells newspapers. This entertains – but may not inform.

    Many political stories are spiced up by “informed sources”. This is often self-interested malicious comment, and should be read with many a pinch of salt on the side. It may excite and intrigue, but leaves no-one any wiser.

    Television news is more informative, but not always so. Often, interviews are brief and confrontational, and focussed on securing a headline for the next news bulletin.

    Political news programmes have longer interviews and can be a better source of information but they, too, often slip into confrontation.

    In each of the above charades, the electorate is left confused and uninformed.

    We cannot only blame the media. “Spin” and “soundbite” replaced informed argument with meaningless phrases: Labour’s “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”; and the Conservatives’ “Take Back Control” serve as memorable examples of pitch-perfect absurdity.

    They convey nothing. They explain nothing. And they are worth nothing.

    And they can mislead. I once used the phrase “back to basics” and it was taken up to pervert a thoroughly worthwhile social policy.

    A low point was reached when politicians were offered a daily “form of words” to be trotted out in every interview. This is not only undignified, it is self-defeating. As voters hear our elected representatives uttering puerile slogans instead of explaining policy, it is no wonder if respect for them melts away.

    Slogans and soundbites are a deceit. Electors deserve the truth in plain English, not in fairy tales. When trust in our elected representatives falls, democracy fails.

    There are rare occasions when public interest demands “an economy of the truth”; but, in the main, clarity – and honesty – really is the best policy.

    And by honesty, I mean more than simply straight-talking. I mean honesty in facing up to challenges; honesty in acknowledging fears or dangers; honesty in action; and honesty in admitting the limitations of Government. Honesty can be politically inconvenient, but less so than concealing the truth.

    Honesty commands respect. Slogans do not. Soundbites do not. Spin does not. Honesty is essential in a functioning democracy. It is infuriating to listen to interviews where every question is side-stepped, or answered with obfuscation. Such conduct treats the electorate with contempt – and no-one should be surprised if they return the compliment.

    I don’t wish to be prissy about this by suggesting that there was some past, mythical age in which everything was perfect. There certainly wasn’t. I wasn’t. But politicians can do better to serve the electorate – and they must do so.

    *******

    The essence of our democracy is “One Man, One Vote”. But, except in the ballot box, no democracy offers equal influence to every citizen.
    Anthony Trollope, honoured here in Poets’ Corner, wrote in his biography of Cicero:

    “The power of voting was common to all citizens: but the power of influencing the electors had passed into the hands of the rich.”.

    That was, of course, two millennia ago in Ancient Rome, but the same “power of influencing” lingers on in modern democracies. The very rich, if they assert themselves, may be able to influence government.

    In America, big money perverts the system. The sheer cost of their elections – with most of it spent on advertisements attacking their opponents – is enormous.

    A Member of Congress seeking election every two years is perpetually fundraising. Even if donors ask nothing in return for their generosity, it is likely to be in the mind of the politician as he or she considers policy – and it ought not to be.

    In the UK, money is far less damaging to the system, but still manifests itself through Party funding.

    Party funding is an acute dilemma. All political parties must raise money to campaign, to run their organisations, to pay their staff – and none can hope to fund all this through membership subscriptions alone.

    There are only two ways to fund the balance, and neither is attractive.

    At present, the bulk of funding is by wealthy individuals, business, and the Trades Unions. This is bound to give rise to obligations – whether sought or not by the donor – and is intrinsically unhealthy.

    In my experience, many donors are altruistic and give money simply to support their Party; but others may seek to exact a price. Whether that price is a policy promise; an appointment; or an honour – it is undesirable.

    An alternative is more funding through the public purse. This would be deeply unpopular and I share the general distaste for it. Nonetheless, it may be the least bad option.

    A compromise might be more State funding than at present but, in return, a legal limit to donations from individuals or business or Trades Unions. This should be set at a level where no-one could reasonably argue that it influences policy.

    Such a scheme is not perfect. But, on balance, it would be beneficial for our democracy.

    Here tonight, in this magnificent and hallowed place, we are surrounded by the spirits of many historical figures who were elected to represent us.

    Over many centuries. Many generations. Through times of strife and turmoil. Of uncertainty and change. Through times of national crises. Times of celebration. They are commemorated here, for the service they gave to our nation.

    Whatever their political beliefs – they were all elected by the people to serve the people – and it was the people who had the power to dismiss them.

    As a boy, I read what Edmund Burke said:

    “To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider.

    But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”

    I agree with that implicitly.

    As that young boy across the river, I would never have believed that the weight of that responsibility would ever fall upon my own shoulders.

    It was a privilege, but a burden too – as it is for all those who bear it.

    All must ask themselves:

    – Did I do what I believed to be right?

    – Did I speak up – and not be afraid to speak the truth?

    We are blessed to live in this land. But each and every one of us has a responsibility to keep democracy alive and kicking and never stifle free speech or freedom of action if it is within the law.

    Earlier, I spoke of my soapbox in Brixton, and the tolerance that was shown to me in the salad days of my political life – by many who would have quite reasonably taken an opposite view.

    “I do not like what you say” said Voltaire, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

    Indeed so. That is the responsibility of democracy.

  • Sir John Major’s Chatham House Speech – 27 February 2017

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Chatham House in London on 27 February 2017.

    BRITAIN AND EUROPE – A REALITY CHECK

    Eight months ago a majority of voters opted to leave the European Union. I believed then – as I do now – that was an historic mistake, but it was one – once asked – that the British nation had every right to make.

    The Government cannot ignore the nation’s decision and must now shape a new future for our country.

    Some changes may be beneficial: others may not. A hard Brexit – which is where we seem to be headed – is high risk. Some will gain. Others – will lose.

    Many outcomes will be very different from present expectations.  We will find, for example, that – for all the social pressure for immigration control – economically, we will need their skills.

    The Referendum was one of the most divisive votes in British history. It not only divided the four nations of our United Kingdom, but opened up divisions within those nations, within political parties, within neighbourhoods, within families, between age and income groups, and among friends.

    It will not be easy to heal those divisions and unite our nations. Yet that is what we must do.

    In Scotland, I believe a hard Brexit will encourage a second referendum on independence. This may seem improbable at the moment, but it would be reckless to ignore the risk.

    As we saw last June, emotion and national pride can overcome economic self-interest. If Scotland were to become independent, both she and the UK would be diminished. That cannot be ignored as Brexit evolves.

    The same is true of Northern Ireland. Many years of painstaking effort went into the Irish Peace Process which, even apart from Brexit, is at a fragile moment. Uncertainties over border restrictions between Ulster and the Republic are a serious threat – to the UK, to the peace process, and for Ireland, North and South. A special deal will be necessary.

    I will return to these issues on another occasion.

    As I voted on the losing side, I have kept silent since last June. This evening I don’t wish to argue the EU is perfect. Plainly it isn’t. Nor do I deny the economy has been more tranquil than expected since the decision to leave was taken.

    But I do observe we haven’t yet left the EU, and I have watched with growing concern as the British people have been led to expect a future that seems to be unreal and over-optimistic. Obstacles are brushed aside as of no consequence, whilst opportunities are inflated beyond any reasonable expectation of delivery.

    I am no longer in politics. I have absolutely no wish to re-enter it in any capacity. I don’t seek publicity – more often than not, I shy away from it.

    But I can’t ignore what I learned in Government. Nor can I forget the people who voted to leave Europe in the belief it might improve their lives. If events go badly, their expectations will not be met, and whole communities will be worse off. The particular fear I have is that those most likely to be hurt will be those least able to protect themselves.

    So, I have two objectives this evening: to offer a reality check on our national prospects; and to warn against an over-optimism that – if unachieved – will sow further distrust between politics and the public – at a time when trust needs to be re-built. It would be better to underplay than overplay expectations.

    The post-referendum debate has been deeply dispiriting.

    After decades of campaigning, the anti-Europeans won their battle to take Britain out of Europe. But, in the afterglow of victory, their cheerleaders have shown a disregard that amounts to contempt for the 48% who believed our future was more secure within the European Union.

    Remain voters are of all political persuasions, and of none. Over recent months, many have written to me in dismay –even despair.

    They are people from every walk of life who have every right to their view, every right to express it, and every right to have their opinion represented and tested in Parliament.

    This 48% care no less for our country than the 52% who voted to leave. They are every bit as patriotic. But they take a different view of Britain’s future role in the world, and are deeply worried for themselves, for their families, and for our country.

    They do not deserve to be told that, since the decision has been taken, they must keep quiet and toe the line. A popular triumph at the polls – even in a referendum – does not take away the right to disagree – nor the right to express that dissent.

    Freedom of speech is absolute in our country. It’s not “arrogant” or “brazen” or “elitist”, or remotely “delusional” to express concern about our future after Brexit. Nor, by doing so, is this group undermining the will of the people: they are the people. Shouting down their legitimate comment is against all our traditions of tolerance. It does nothing to inform and everything to demean – and it is time it stopped.

    Our Parliament exists to scrutinise the Executive. That is its job. So, it is depressing to see “Leave” enthusiasts in Parliament acting against their own principles. To win the Referendum, they asserted the sovereignty of our own Parliament: now, they speak and vote to deny that same Parliament any meaningful role in shaping, in overseeing, or in approving the outcome of our negotiations in Europe. Our Parliament is not a rubber stamp – and should not be treated as if it were.

    As a former Parliamentarian, I believe the negotiations to come are so crucial to our nation’s future that the Government would be wise to take frequent account of public opinion through Parliamentary debate.

    Of course, neither Parliament nor public can micro-manage the negotiations. We must trust Ministers to do so. And they must have flexibility.

    But Parliament must be free to debate and comment and advise. For it not to do so would be wrong in principle: it would also be unwise politically if – as it might – the will of the people evolves, and the reality of Brexit becomes unpopular.

    The hopes of those who favoured leaving the European Union are sky-high. We are told that countries “are queueing up to do trade deals with us”. That “our best days lie ahead”.

    It all sounds very enticing. And – for the sake of our country – I hope the optimists are proved right. But I’m not sure they will be. My own experience of international negotiations – and the national self-interest that accompanies them –makes me doubt the rosy confidence being offered to the British people.  

    Negotiations are all about “give” and “take”. We know what the Brexiteers wish to take: yet we hear nothing about what our country may have to give in return. If anyone genuinely believes that Europe will concede all we wish for –and exact no price for doing so – then they are extraordinarily naïve.

    As I consider the complexities that lie ahead, the words of Kipling come to mind:

    “I keep six honest serving men

    (They taught me all I knew);

    Their names are What and Why and When,

    And How and Where and Who.”

    It is the detail – the what and the why, the when and the how, and the where and the who – that is key. To avoid later recriminations, the British public needs to be made aware now of the hurdles ahead – and what different outcomes will mean for their future.

    Let me turn to the politics of exit.

    Leaving the European Union is not just about trade. It will have political consequences. For over forty years, British foreign policy has been based upon the twin pillars of our relations with the United States and the European Union. To be straddled between these two economic and political giants has served us well.

    Outside the European Union, we become far more dependent upon the United States and – for four and possibly eight years – upon a President less predictable, less reliable and less attuned to our free market and socially liberal instincts than any of his predecessors.

    As a boy, I was taught that America was our greatest ally and – throughout my life – I have seen her as so.

    But America’s size and power means we are, by far, the junior partner: mostly we follow – only rarely can we lead. Despite the romantic view of committed Atlanticists, the “special relationship” is not a union of equals. I wish it were: but it isn’t; America dwarfs the UK in economic and military power. That, sadly – is fact.

    Once we are out of the EU, our relationship with the United States will change. She needs a close ally inside the EU: once outside, that can no longer be us.

    That may not be the only change. If we disagree with American policy, we may weaken our ties. But if we support it slavishly, we become seen as an American echo – an invidious role for a nation that has broken free from Europe to become more independent.

    And – inevitably – there will be disagreements: the US wish to contain China and engage Russia; we wish to contain Russia and engage China.

    We seem likely to disagree also on refugees, free trade, the legality of Jewish settlements, and climate change. How many disagreements can there be before even the closest of ties begin to fray?

    Until now, the world has seen the UK as a leader within Europe. We are the second largest economy, with hopes of one day overtaking Germany. We are one of only two nations with significant nuclear and military power. We have the widest, and deepest, foreign policy reach of any European nation.

    In Europe, we have often set policy: the Single Market; enlargement to the East; restraints upon expenditure –together with a host of less prominent policies. Our role within Europe has magnified the power of our nation state: once we leave, that will no longer be so.

    The Prime Minister knows all this: her policy to maintain a good relationship with Europe is surely right. But, at some time, she will have to face down those who favour total disengagement – and who have never accepted our role within Europe.

    For some, a total divorce has been a decades-long ambition. I believe they are utterly wrong. And although – today –they may be allies of the Prime Minister, the risk is that – tomorrow – they may not.

    I am no dedicated Europhile. I said “No” to the Euro and “No” to Schengen on open borders. But I have never doubted the importance of co-operation with a successful Europe.

    And – in voting to leave – we have done the EU great harm.

    For the loss of the UK will weaken the EU – especially when set against the superpowers of America or China. For the first time, the EU is contracting not expanding. It is about to become smaller and less relevant. And, without the UK, it may change in character, becoming more protectionist and less of a pillar of free trade. Such a Europe would be damaging to British interests.

    Our departure is also adding to domestic political problems across Europe. Britain has rejected the colossus of the EU. This has energised the anti-EU, anti-immigrant nationalists that are growing in number in France, Germany, Holland – and other European countries.

    None of these populist groups is sympathetic to the broadly tolerant and liberal instincts of the British. Nonetheless, their pitch is straightforward. If Britain – sober, stable, moderate, reliable Britain, with its ancient Parliament and anti-revolutionary history – can break free of a repressive bureaucracy in Brussels, why, then “so can anyone”. It is a potent appeal.

    I caution everyone to be wary of this kind of populism. It seems to be a mixture of bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. It scapegoats minorities. It is a poison in any political system – destroying civility and decency and understanding. Here in the UK we should give it short shrift, for it is not the people we are – nor the country we are.

    Whatever grievances exist, the UK and Europe cannot ignore one another without mutual damage. As the Prime Minister has intimated, our future self-interest is to co operate on all aspects of security; on terrorism; on crime.

    We should take a common position on climate change; on human rights; and on representative democracy. We should continue to co-operate over the migrant surge to Europe and contain Russian misbehaviour.

    The plain truth is this: irrespective of Brexit, the UK benefits from engagement with Europe – not isolation from Europe – and both parties have an interest in ensuring that is maintained.

    My hunch is that, over the years ahead, the political price of leaving the EU may turn out to be greater than the economic cost.

    That said – to protect our interests – the trade negotiations will require statesmanship of a high order. There is a real risk the outcome will fall well below the hopes and expectations that have been raised: I see little chance we will be able to match the advantages of the Single Market.

    In my own experience, the most successful results are obtained when talks are conducted with goodwill: it is much easier to reach agreement with a friend than a quarrelsome neighbour.

    But, behind the diplomatic civilities, the atmosphere is already sour. A little more charm, and a lot less cheap rhetoric, would do much to protect the UK’s interests.

    The negotiations will begin with the costs of disengagement. These could be politically explosive.

    During the Referendum, the “Leave” campaign promised to “take back control” of huge sums of money, and pay an additional £350 million a week to the NHS.

    Many believed this, yet the bitter irony is that the “divorce settlement” – that is, the cost of leaving Europe – may involve paying out much larger sums of money than that.

    The EU Chief Negotiator has estimated that our bill for exit may total between €40 billion to €60 billion.

    I find this figure very contentious. But the bill will be substantial: billions, not millions, and very unpalatable. It will come as a nasty shock to voters who were not forewarned of this – even in the recent White Paper.

    One MP has referred to the estimated divorce payment as “a threat”, his argument being that “you pay to join a club but not to leave it”.

    Of course that is true: but when you leave any club, you are obliged to settle your debts, and that is what the European Union is going to expect the UK to do.

    There are liabilities to be met: pension costs, legacy costs, contingent liabilities, a proportional share of work-in-progress. The EU will argue we have a legal obligation to pay these bills.

    They may be right – but the issue is not clear-cut. Some of the EU’s claims are highly questionable and – unless there is a political agreement – any dispute may have to be resolved in Court. An agreement would be preferable and, if she sanctions one, the Prime Minister will deserve support.

    The EU Chief Negotiator has also warned that the separation costs must be agreed before any detailed trade negotiations can begin. However, I doubt he will be able to sustain such a hard line if we are prepared to engage in constructive talks: we shall see.

    But if there is a stand-off – perhaps because of a backlash against the size of the exit bill – then trade talks may have to await a Court decision, be delayed indefinitely – or scrapped altogether. In either event, the faint hope of a comprehensive trade deal by Spring 2019 will have gone.

    Without such a deal with Europe, three options arise:

      – we can leave the EU with a flimsy, inadequate deal; or

      – we can seek a transitional relationship – perhaps for 3-5 years – for which, as non-members, we would have to pay. A minimum option would involve staying in the Customs Union and submitting to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; or

      – we can trade with the EU on a WTO basis.

    The more one examines probabilities, the more contentious becomes the task of leaving.

    Some of the most committed Brexit supporters wish to have a clean break, and trade only under WTO rules. This would require tariffs on goods – with nothing to help services, and nothing to inhibit non-tariff barriers. This would not be a panacea; for the UK – it would be the worst possible outcome.

    But – to those who wish to see us adapt to a deregulated, low-tax enterprise economy – it is an attractive option, and wholly consistent with their philosophy.

    However, it has worrying implications for public services such as the NHS – and for the vulnerable who, I’m delighted to say, the Government has pledged to help …. and I know how personally committed the Prime Minister is to this.

    So there is a choice to be made, a price to be paid; we cannot move to a radical enterprise economy without moving away from a welfare state. Such a direction of policy, once understood by the public, would never command support. It would make all previous rows over social policy seem a minor distraction.

    A new trade deal with Europe will be hugely complex. No-one should envy the Secretary of State and his negotiators. Some industries – cars and aerospace for example – hope for special, perhaps industry-to-industry, deals for their exports to Europe. The difficulties of this are legion: the chances of success are slim – not least since the German Chancellor is likely to rule out sectoral deals. Even if she does not, WTO rules expect agreements to cover all trade, not a few handpicked sectors.

    Many practicalities arise: even a partial customs deal with Europe would not eliminate the need for country-of-origin certificates. Or border checks. Or certification that regulations are met. Or other frustrations. And any deal must be agreed by 27 nations, each with their own national interests. No-one can be certain how long this will take: a conclusion within two years is very, very optimistic. Business needs to factor this in to their plans.

    Domestic political hurdles arise, too: if cars and aerospace were to get favourable deals, why not textiles and widgets? How would the Government soothe the ire of those not receiving preferential treatment?

    Nor will free trade deals with third countries be straightforward. Even the most attractive options come with political hazards.

    In Washington, the Prime Minister discussed a deal with President Trump. Both Leaders were keen, which is excellent. But the omens are mixed.

    Early actions confirm that President Trump has put protectionism at the heart of his trade policy. “America First” is more than a slogan.

    Tariffs between the US and the UK are already minimal: there is little scope for lowering them even further. The UK runs a healthy trade surplus with America: President Trump may wish to narrow – or eliminate – that gap. That being so, British hopes should not be set too high.

    Nor will it be easy – or quick – to reach agreement on contentious issues such as medicine, or cars, or beef raised with growth hormones. In comes American beef: Out go European subsidies. That won’t be an easy sell to the beef industry.  

    China and India are both attractive candidates for enhanced trade. But, in negotiation, India will seek immigration concessions for students and non-students alike which, prima facie, is in direct conflict with Government plans.

    China, as I know from experience, is a tough negotiator, and will strike a hard bargain. As she is the largest trading partner to 120 countries, and the largest export market for 70 of them, a trade agreement with the United Kingdom may not be one of her main priorities.

    The Government must also replicate the 53 deals struck on our behalf by the European Union. So far, only 12 are in play. There is a very, very long way to go, and the question arises: are 65 million Britons likely to get the same favourable outcome as 500 million Europeans?

    I set out these difficulties, not because I don’t think deals can be done – some certainly can – but to be realistic about the timescale and complexity of the huge undertaking that lies ahead. It is crucial to business and the public – that our expectations are consistent with what can be delivered. It matters to the Government, too: Ministers must not over-promise.

    In two years’ time, the UK will be the first nation to leave the EU. This will be a real irony, as the first proposal for a European Union came not – as is generally supposed – from the Frenchman, Jean Monnet, but from an Englishman.

    Three and a quarter centuries ago, in 1693, William Penn advocated a European “Dyet 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.

    43 years later, the British people reversed that decision.

    Let us hope – for the futures of our children and grandchildren – they were right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Let me explain.

    First, Scotland.

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

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

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

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

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

    But it is a very big qualification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I was convinced that, however intractable the Troubles seemed…

    …however routine the daily cycle of violence became…

    …however deeply the hatred was felt….

    …that a solution could and must be found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please don’t put that at risk.

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

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

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

    And with that, let me hand over to Tony.