The speech made by Sir John Major on 18 November at the Maurice Fraser Lecture held at the LSE European Institute on 18 November 2025.
BRITAIN IN A CHANGING WORLD
Thank you for that very kind introduction ‒ and for the invitation to deliver the Maurice Fraser Lecture.
Maurice was a Special Adviser at the Foreign Office during my brief tenure as Foreign Secretary in 1989 – between the much longer tenures of two great public servants ‒ my predecessor, Geoffrey Howe, and my successor, Douglas Hurd.
He was to work with all three of us – for a total of six years from 1989 to 1995 ‒ making him, or so I was told, the longest-serving Special Adviser in the recent history of the Foreign Office. He was that near-mythical creature: a round peg in a round hole. Few – if any – Special Advisers have been awarded the Legion of Honour by France.
He had a formidable knowledge of world affairs, a tireless enthusiasm, a wicked sense of humour – and a total commitment to his country.
It was for that – and so many other reasons – that I asked him to join me at No10. But Maurice’s allegiance to the Foreign Office was too great to tempt him away from it.
Maurice studied at this university, and it was where he chose to return to share his experience after he left Whitehall ‒ first as a Lecturer, then as a Fellow and finally as a Professor. In many ways, the LSE was his spiritual home.
So it is a great pleasure to be here at the European Institute with his family, friends and former colleagues, to celebrate his remarkable – but too short – life through this Annual Lecture.
* * * * *
This evening, I wish to look at Britain’s future role in our changing world.
That world has undergone many changes over the last fifty years and – whilst a large number of those changes are welcome – others are not.
Globalisation has retreated. Free trade has given ground to Protection. Tariff barriers have risen. Theft of intellectual property has become more blatant.
The stability of the rules-based post-war system is crumbling. No country, no organisation, no Leader has stepped forward to seek a new consensus – to repair what is damaged, and replace what is lost.
Adherence to the written and unwritten rules of international conduct has fallen away. The moral principles of politics are losing out to transactional arrangements.
As power shifts, and alliances are re-arranged, much that we once took for granted is no longer certain. Current American policy has even upset calculations once believed to be settled about our future security and economic wellbeing.
Our world today is unsettled, grumpy, fractious, changing in character as economic hardship bites, populism increases, and America and her allies grow apart. For nearly two decades, democracy has been retreating as autocracy rises.
Basic expectations have been broken.
In the post-war years, it was the experience of most that improvements in our lifestyle had either been delivered – or were on the horizon.
Downturns came, of course, but these were overcome and better years followed.
Slowly, if irregularly, democracy offered hope – even to those at the back of every queue. Nations in the democratic West came to believe this improvement was an unbreakable trend: it wasn’t.
Since the financial crisis of 2007, too many people have seen little or no improvement in their living standards. Taxes have risen, Pay packets buy less. National and personal debt has soared – and hope has become anxiety. All this has added to the disillusion with democracy.
There is now a significant war in Europe, for which the outcome is uncertain – and the aftermath even more so.
The language of politics has changed. It is harsher, more aggressive, more focused on the battles of politics than the welfare of nations.
A form of populism has taken root that builds its support by condemning others: its target could be migrants, or minority religions, or people of another race – or any vulnerable group.
It seems that if anyone is “different” and can be scapegoated – then they are fair game. The late Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, noted that “Antisemitism is the best warning sign of a wider threat to a free and tolerant society”.
I agree with that: venom directed at one source will be directed at others too.
This mode of attack is not restricted to individuals or groups. Populists use it against all authority and so-called “elites”.
“Elites” are treated as if they were “the enemy within”, and Governments as if their shortcomings were the root of all ills.
Even the Judiciary is attacked, as if it were a subversive body, seeking to undermine the State. No-one should be complacent about this. If the Law loses its authority, the bully walks tall – and the lawless walk free.
The objective of the populist is as old as time: if someone else is in the dock of public opinion, those who denounce them must surely be on the side of the majority. The outcome of all this is to set citizen against citizen.
Such behaviour debases all who practice it. It is ugly, divisive, and racist – and daily on display.
RUSSIA
In the midst of our unsettled world, President Putin has turned Nation against Nation. The invasion of Ukraine had no credible or justifiable cause.
Across Europe – and within his own country – Putin’s “3 Day War” is now over 3 years’ old. So far, 400,000 Russians and Ukrainians have been killed – and many more are suffering from life-changing injuries.
Only one man is responsible for this slaughter.
The innocent civilians, who have died under bombs and drones, are considered by Putin apologists to be simply “collateral damage”. They are not. They are victims of mass murder and, when the fighting is done, this should not be forgotten.
There is a price to pay for mass murder and, if justice has any meaning, Putin will be brought face to face with it.
It is vital for future peace in Europe that Putin does not gain from his War Crimes – either on the battlefield or in an enforced deal.
Putin claims all of Donetsk, knowing Ukraine cannot cede it to him. And President Zelensky must not be pressured to do so in return for promises that Putin is unlikely to keep.
Western support for Ukraine has suffered from not being full-hearted. The allies, generally, have provided enough for Ukraine to fight on and keep Russia at bay – but not enough for Ukraine to drive Russia back and end the conflict.
There are three ways in which this war can develop.
It can continue indefinitely – in more or less a stalemate – if the democratic West holds back on increased support for Ukraine.
But – if Russia gains the upper hand because Western support has dropped – then a compromise deal may be forced upon Ukraine.
That would be a shameful outcome, and one all of Europe – and beyond – would come to regret.
Putin would claim a victory, and be likely to re-group and test Western resolve again: a bad outcome could be the preliminary to another war on a future date and a wider terrain.
The third option is that Western support increases, Ukraine advances, and Russia retreats.
If Putin loses, or is forced to withdraw, he loses face. Conceivably, he may even fall from power. If so, we cannot know if a successor will be more tractable – but it would be surprising if he were not more cautious.
America and Europe must weigh these alternatives. Only one is likely to ensure peace. They should take it.
One final point: this conflict is not against the Russian people: it is against Putin and his regime.
Putin has no scruples about creating chaos in other countries. We should have none in telling his people how he deceives them ‒ and loots their assets.
The prize of his departure would be the much safer and more stable Europe that Western democracy longs to have.
CHINA
Russia and China are allies against democracy, and friends only when it is mutually convenient. There is no doubt that China has usurped the influence of the former Soviet Union and is the dominant state.
Today, there seems to be no limit to Xi Jinping’s power or tenure of office. He is supreme, and building up a more assertive China both economically and militarily ‒ especially in and around the South China Sea. He is very much aware that China is America’s only Superpower rival.
China now boasts the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America ‒ and she continues to build them.
In the late 16th Century, China was the pre-eminent global power. China has not forgotten this ‒ and nor should the world.
President Xi is consolidating Chinese influence with diplomacy. China offers development finance through loans and grants to nations across the globe.
Xi is presenting China as a champion of multilateralism ‒ in sharp contrast to President Trump’s arbitrary increase in tariffs on imports from friends and allies that has caused a great deal of anguish.
It seems an upside-down world, in which America offends her allies, while China embraces them.
This “embracing” was very much the visual from the recent Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, hosted by China, and attended by India, Turkey and Egypt ‒ all of whom have been more generally considered as allies of the United States.
A wise America would gather them close, not push them away. A friendship broken can be hard to regain.
China is a strong opponent of liberal democracy, believing it to be inefficient and a potential risk to her authoritarian ways.
Nonetheless, we must work with China, but set parameters to what we will accept. We should not overlook her shortcomings: her treatment of the Uighur Muslims; her failure to honour promises over Hong Kong; her threats to Taiwan; her theft of Western technology.
China will resent criticism, but may respect it. She will scorn weakness – and we should remember it is weakness that encourages over-reach.
Nor should we be gullible. China is a great power, but can be chillingly repressive. Her philosophy is not inhibited by democratic instincts, or individual human rights. If China believes actions are set against the interests of the State – she will crush them.
As China says ‒ “We believe no comments challenging national sovereignty and social stability fall within the scope of freedom of expression.”. That restriction is the very antithesis of democracy.
It is a sentiment we should not ignore.
BREXIT
In an act of collective folly, the UK voted to leave the EU. Across the world, our enemies celebrated. Our friends despaired.
We left Europe on a minority vote of 37% of the electorate, after a Referendum Campaign that was packed with misinformation and misjudgement. It left our country poorer, weaker and divorced from the richest free trade market in history.
The national interest was brushed aside by false hopes and promises, that even a Cabinet dominated by frontline Brexit enthusiasts was unable to deliver.
The gains – from Brexit – that were promised so confidently can now be seen to be illusory, while the forecast damage of leaving the EU has become only too apparent.
The nation soon saw “project fear” become “project reality”. It is no consolation that a majority of the public now – overwhelmingly – recognises that it was misled.
In their moment of triumph, Brexiteers predicted other countries would follow their lead and leave the EU. None has ‒ all saw only too clearly that Brexit was packed with disadvantages.
As we meet, nine further nations now wish to join the EU which is an apt comment on the world view of Britain’s decision to leave.
The UK once revelled in being a leading member of a EU, with half a billion citizens and the undoubted first ally of the United States – the world’s most eminent super-power. Today, we know we are neither ‒ and so does the world.
As we plan for the future, we must see ourselves as we now are: and what we are is
70 million people in a world of 9000 million.
The UK has a proud history, a wealth of talents and a role in the world that continues to be significant.
So, we have much to offer our partners. Our national assets would make the European Union stronger and better equipped to face an uncertain future.
Our collective future demands a Europe that conducts itself as an economic super-power alongside America and China: the alternative is to be ever subordinate to their political and economic whims.
As I look to the future, I have no appetite for that.
I know the shortcomings of the EU ‒ I lived with them for many painful years. But, in a dangerous and uncertain world – with two unpredictable super-powers – I believe Britain’s future is safer and more economically secure inside a powerful bloc of neighbour nations than outside.
But we cannot simply knock on the door and rejoin the European Union. Too much political and diplomatic blood was spilt for that to be an easy option. There are many barriers to a return to full membership that will be difficult to overcome – perhaps for many years.
That said, there are areas where we can make a start and – looking forward – the plain truth is that the EU is too important for the UK not to be part of its decision-making process.
My immediate ambitions are limited, but a necessary beginning. The changing public mood will help.
The Polls tell us that well over half the electorate believes it was a mistake to leave the EU, and less than one-third now supports having done so. Among the young, support for Brexit falls as low as 13%. The trend is inexorable.
That is why it is disappointing that both Government and Opposition are so wretchedly timid in their ambition. Both Labour and the Tories are terrified of the residual Brexit vote.
Our economic and political interests could not be clearer, but short-term Party political calculation is given priority over the national interest.
Brexit is a flop. It will not leap up from its death bed. It is losing our country £100 billion of trade every year – as well as the tax revenue that trade would deliver.
Just think about that. Every year – every year – the loss of billions of European trade is damaging our finances. The loss is made far greater by decisions the present Government has taken. That is one reason why we are facing a difficult Budget later this month.
Serious economists forecast a cumulative loss to the economy of £311 billion by 2035, together with 3 million fewer jobs and a fall in trade levels with the EU.
As of now, many small and medium-sized firms have been defeated by post-Brexit bureaucracy, and simply stopped trading with Europe. It is baffling that – at a minimum – we are not looking at how to negotiate away such frustrations.
New trade deals – supposedly to cover lost European trade – have not done so. Most are simply roll-overs of past deals. Some are positively damaging.
The much-promised “mega” trade deal ‒ swapping additional American trade for lost European trade ‒ has never happened – and shows no sign of doing so.
Much though I wish otherwise, I do not foresee an early return to full membership of the European Union. We have lost the unique and advantageous deals we gained in negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s – and I do not believe they can be regained.
Without them, a full return to Europe is almost certainly unobtainable in any likely Parliament until a younger generation of pro-European politicians come to power and the Brexiteer voice retreats again to the fringes of debate.
In the post-Brexit years, it has become glaringly obvious that it is in our self-interest to rebuild a better relationship with the EU as an institution and bilaterally with individual Member States.
The Government has made some modest steps that are welcome: none is dramatic – but all will play a small part in building trust.
More collaboration is under discussion ‒ such as youth mobility schemes, and integration into the Electricity Market. Hopefully, they can be agreed.
I hope ambitions can be raised to examine rejoining the Customs Union and, thereafter, the Single Market. Neither will be easy or painless ‒ and both will face political opposition and negotiating hurdles.
But ‒ if a fair deal can be struck – it will be welcomed by trade and commerce, by a majority in Parliament, and by pragmatists everywhere. And it can be achieved.
We may even be helped achieve an improved relationship by the evident wish of our European neighbours to build an expanded military presence across Europe, but within NATO. British military capability is important to Europe.
If we try – and are rebuffed, we must try again. The prize is worth the effort. And, although those within the EU are tough negotiators, they must know that their long-term interests – and ours – are coming into alignment. A deal can be done – and it must be done.
UK
Politics is a tough trade ‒ perhaps more so today than at any time outside of war.
The commentariat, media, and social media give politicians little or no slack, even when dealing with novel and complex challenges.
Let me turn to some of these challenges relevant to British politics ‒ though not necessarily unique to us.
The cost of servicing our public debt is now over £100 billion a year, and the Chancellor’s second Budget in a few days’ time promises to be a painful lesson in what happens when nations spend too much and earn too little.
We are told constantly that “the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden” –
as, of course, a progressive tax system should ensure they do. But it cheats the nation to pretend “the rich” can bear all the burden – or have not been bearing an increasing portion for a long time.
In the late 1970s, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid 11% of the total income tax take:
last year, they paid not 11% ‒ but 29%. The Chancellor should beware: to force the rich away will place a far greater burden on “the average tax payer”.
We are not alone in our problem. The scale of national debt is reaching crisis levels in rich countries as well as poor.
Already, 60% of the world faces debt-to-GDP levels of over 100% ‒ including most of the world’s largest economies.
This is an indictment of governments offering “Jam today” and “a bitter pill” tomorrow. It’s now “bitter pill” time.
No-one can be sure when the crisis will be triggered ‒ or what the catalyst will be ‒ but the world cannot continue to overspend and expect economic security. And nor can we.
IMMIGRATION
A word about immigration.
No-one should blithely assume this is a short-term problem that will easily go away: it won’t. Last year, 950,000 migrants arrived ‒ 50,000 illegally by boat.
This is obviously socially unsustainable. But the lure of our country will not disappear. The long-term demand to come here will continue.
The scale of this demand – although unwelcome – is a back-handed compliment. No-one clamours to enter Russia, China or Iran. Even so, there is a practical limit to how many the UK can absorb.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary presented new plans to Parliament that are controversial – but also more comprehensive than anything we have previously seen.
They deserve careful study – not instantaneous acceptance or rejection.
But – however the Home Secretary’s plans proceed – a long-term solution is likely to include a pan-European effort. All of Europe faces this problem.
One aspect of reducing migration would be to make it more palatable for migrants to remain in their own countries.
The policy of cutting aid and investment to poor countries is very shortsighted: it will accelerate demand to migrate as hardship increases. This is a policy that acts completely against our own interests.
It is morally wrong, politically wrong – and heartless.
There have been hints that the Government will now re-think this policy: it should do so as soon as it can.
POPULISM
Let me return briefly to populism.
Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians: it is now mainstream and professional, and we should recognise the threat it poses to democracy. If we do not – and it gains power – it will not tolerate its opponents.
It is not easy to defeat populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems. After all, if the established politicians have seemingly “failed” in finding solutions, it is human nature to look elsewhere.
But populism is a dead end. I offer two antidotes to its appeal.
The most effective – is policies to remove deeply felt grievances and regain political support.
Contented nations rarely support populism. A return to stable growth would end much of the public dissatisfaction that gives life to it. Such a recovery would also ease the minds of many people worried about their future.
The second defence against populism is to expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions.
I do have a warning though: over-the-top attacks on populist Leaders – as opposed to their policies – can be counter-productive. Unworthy attacks can offer them the oxygen of public support: a dissection of harmful and undeliverable policy can take that support away altogether.
The truth is that the only side populism is on is its own. It cares for no-one else. And if it flourishes, democracy declines.
Democracy has a lot to lose. The established political Parties need to defeat populism – not copy it. The sooner they raise their game the better.
SUMMATION
I would like to end on a personal note.
I talk about the risks we face, because we dare not ignore them.
I talk of the future, because the present must prepare for it.
In modern politics, multiple challenges and day-to-day crises crowd in so fast, that it sometimes seems the future is crowded out by the immediacy of now.
We must stop that, or we will simply drift, and events – rather than our national interest – will forge our future. If that were to happen, it would be a profound failure of Government.
My worry, to put it bluntly, is this: the future seems to be secondary to the frustrations of today. But it shouldn’t be. Future problems can become today’s problems very quickly.
If we don’t face up to the risks of war; of national debt; of climate change; of long-term migration; of the health – even survival – of our political system; then we fail in the duty we owe to our history, our present, and our future.
I believe in our nation: in its history, its values, its natural sense of fairness and justice, its essential kindness and tolerance – and I admire the way in which it has always risen to existential challenge.
We must look to the future without fear of change, or timidity of action, but with the conviction that we can build the welfare of our nation, and sustain our place in the world.
We have faced far more difficult times than now, and come through them. The choices and challenges of today may be more complex, but they are less stark than we have faced before. They can be overcome – and must be.
But, to do so, we must abandon the cacophony of spin, soundbite, and empty noise – that so often substitutes for political debate about the well-being of our nation.
It is time to turn our back on complacency, on pessimism, on short-termism, on the second rate, on the fear of failure, on artificial divisions – and raise our ambitions to bring substance to the fore in politics, pride back in to our nation, and hope back into our lives.
This is the principle by which Maurice lived, worked and taught.
And the principle which – I believe – runs deep within us all.
We owe such an approach to the future.
It is my fervent hope that, together, we can work towards that outcome.