The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Donald Trump

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Attlee Foundation Lecture – 18 March 2026

    The Attlee Foundation Lecture 2026, delivered by Sir John Major at King’s College London on 18 March 2026.

    ATTLEE FOUNDATION LECTURE 2026

    A PIVOTAL YEAR FOR DEMOCRACY

    First of all, I would like to thank the Attlee Foundation for inviting me to deliver this Lecture.  I am privileged to be here this evening, and delighted to be at King’s, where I feel very much at home.  

    It is a quarter of a century since I left front line politics, but I still have an observer’s interest in our world and our country.  Both are in an uneasy state, and actions – or in-actions – this year may be pivotal to the future.

    Let me do a little ground clearing.

    Some may be surprised that a former Conservative Prime Minister would deliver a lecture in honour of a former Labour Prime Minister.  

    They shouldn’t be and, in a world of grown-up politics, they wouldn’t be.  

    It is easy to admire Clement Attlee for his record of achievement;  his political courage;  his resolute defence of our country’s values;  his creation of the NHS;  his commitment to public service;  and the manner in which he put the interests of his country before his own – or those of his Party.  

    Of course, were he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy.  We are political opponents.   But mark this:  Opponents, Yes.  Enemies, No.  

    Democratic Parties do have enemies in politics, but they are populist insurgents who seek to divide and not unite.  

    They are careless of the strife they cause.  They trade on grievances in our society.  Where ills exist – they exaggerate them.

    They then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion.  It is ugly politics that deserves no place in our country.

    Our political system would work to better effect – and be more honest – if mainstream politicians acknowledged that their priorities – I emphasise priorities – have far more in common than they wish to admit. 

    That may surprise you, but consider this:  all our three main Parties are in favour of greater economic wellbeing;  secure defence;  decent public services;  thriving health provision;  affordable housing;  flourishing education;  and healthy employment.  

    This is what we expect in our liberal democracy, and when these priorities are not delivered the nation becomes disenchanted ‒ as it is now.

    We are not alone.  

    Over the last two decades, democracy has been retreating around the world.

    Nearly three-quarters of our world live outside democratic protection.  

    Autocrats undermine democracy to entrench themselves in power.  If we do not recognise the dangers of that, and protect ourselves against it, autocracy may, one day, overwhelm us.

    At my age I have a limited lease on the future, but let me say with all the force I can muster:  if we were to cast aside our mainstream politicians – as polls suggest we may do – then a gap would open up, and that gap may not be filled by democrats.  

    So – if you rejoice at the dire polling of Labour and the Conservatives ‒ beware of what you wish for.  

    If they were to fall, who knows what will rise:  you may find that autocrats-in-power do not share the democratic instincts of the politicians you have discarded.  

    Many people worry about what lies ahead.  Some are bewildered, even frightened, by the changes in our world.  It would be a self-inflicted wound if they turned to the extremes of politics because democracy was not speaking for them.

    We know democracy can succeed in the most unpromising circumstances:  the Attlee Government proved that eighty years ago.  

    After a crippling war, our country was near bankrupt.  The War had enhanced our reputation for courage and persistence, but left our immediate prospects in tatters.  Six years of conflict had left families bereaved, cities destroyed, and the Exchequer bare.  

    The British people had endured years of hardship.  The age of deference was on its death bed – and our battle-weary predecessors demanded a brighter future.

    In retrospect, 80 years on, the 1945-50 Government, and its Prime Minister, are held in high regard.  The problems they ‒ and their successors ‒ faced, and overcame, should be an inspiration for what could be achieved today.

    But there is no room for complacency.  No reason for the careless assumption that democracy is so entrenched it cannot be undermined.  It can – and around the world – it is.  

    Electors should treat with suspicion rash promises from infant Parties that have never experienced the complexities of democratic government.

    Our liberal-democracy is not perfect, but it is far preferable to any of the alternatives.  It has checks and balances unknown to other systems.  It has the ability to dismiss the inadequate, and haul down the over-powerful.  

    It exists to serve the nation.  It does not compel the nation to serve the State.

    Our political system is an enabler.  Its policies enable peace, resists war whenever possible, and promotes justice, wellbeing, growth, care where needed, enhanced life expectancy, and transformation of life opportunities.  

    Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.

    But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.

    People have faced higher costs and rising taxes.  They have seen no real increase in their post-tax income – nor in their standard of living.  

    When – over a period of many months – our three mainstream Parties collectively register barely 50% in opinion Polls it is time to be concerned over what may lie ahead.

    In a bid to reassure electors, politicians talk of “reform” to come.  It’s a useful word – reform.  It can mean everything or nothing.  Reform means change.  Change means upheaval.  Upheaval provokes opposition.  

    Upheaval may be necessary but – sometimes – it is better to make progress on the everyday issues of politics.

    Is policy strangling initiative or encouraging it?

    Are tax levels deterring savings and investment?

    Is planning holding back housing for the homeless and the would-be home owner?  

    Does the benefit system encourage or discourage unemployment?  

    Can the triple lock be targeted to pensioners who really need it?  

    Can Parliament act more strongly against the misuse and abuse of social media and, if so, how?

    Can we fund the Armed Forces we need?  

    Will this mean more spending – or savings elsewhere?

    There is certainly no shortage of issues to settle.  But it is not only policy that needs updating:  so does our political system.

    Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy.  

    We need a spring clean.

    Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?  

    Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence?  I believe the answer is – yes.

    Should the House of Lords be elected or appointed?  An elected Upper House would meet democratic aspirations, but would be a monumental mistake.  It could – and would – challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion.

    It would not retain the wisdom and lifetime experience to enable it to discharge its primary function of revising legislation.  It would not be a partner to the Commons:  it would be a rival.

    Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.  

    As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results.  The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.  

    Should Members of Parliament who defect to a different Party be compelled to face a by-election?  Constitutionally, no – as they are deemed to be elected as individuals.  

    But, in the real world, they are elected as representatives of a political Party.  So – yes:  logic and common decency suggest they must face the electorate again in a by-election.  

    If the House of Commons wishes to regain the respect it has lost, it must justify the status-quo – or change it.    

    And one further thought:  is it not time to recognise that Brexit has failed to deliver its many promises, and the loss, each year, of £100 billion of European trade, and £40 billion of tax revenue is doing enormous damage to the lives and livelihoods of the British people – and their future?  

    Money is the root … of good public services.  Imagine how much better they – and our military power – might be if that money was still available to the Exchequer, instead of being thrown away with such a casual disregard of the consequences.  

    I do not believe we can fully rejoin the European Union in the near future.  But economic wellbeing tells us we should re-build relationships with our closest neighbours as swiftly and as comprehensively as possible.  

    When we left the EU, we broke up a European alliance of 500 million people.  We did so as America – with its 340 million citizens – pivoted away from us towards the East.  

    Suddenly, our closeness to the European and American power blocs was reduced.  This left the UK more solitary and vulnerable.

    My father was brought up in America, and taught me to admire the virtues of that great Republic.    

    Our two countries saw the world through similar eyes, and had much in common.  But our relationship, once rock solid, is now more nuanced – and more distant.  

    After WWII, the Marshall Plan helped rebuild shattered European economies and – in the post-war years – America was the rock upon which democracy prospered.

    America’s influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”

    America’s purpose, echoed by later Presidents, was to secure a freer – and safer – world, in which the strong pledged their protection of the weak.  No fee was asked.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  It was altruistic policy in a harsh world.  

    It was what made America great.  

    I saw this first hand at meetings in the White House and Pentagon, when the most senior Military personnel of both countries were present.  Their mutual respect and friendship was self-evident.  Trust was instinctive and total.  Nothing was held back.

    Our political and military relationship was one of shared values – on every issue from human rights to free markets.  So I know what we had, and deeply regret that it seems to be falling away.

    Since the turn of the century, America has economically out-paced both the UK and the European Union.  At the millennium, the GDP of America and the EU was similar.  Today, America is half as big again.

    There is now a new tone from America.  President Trump argues that America is being “ripped off” by trading partners and – without consultation – he raised tariffs on imports from wealthy and poor countries, whether friend or foe.

    When the Supreme Court ruled these to be illegal, he reimposed a 15% general increase using different powers not yet tested in Courts.

    Uncertainty was reinforced by the President’s dismissive attitude to Europe, his demands for the ownership of Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – and his expressed view that the incursion of Ukraine by Russia was solely a problem for Europe.

    This is not the America we have known.  

    Vice-President Vance also accused Europeans of being a greater threat to freedom in Europe than Russia.  That was offensive and absurd in equal measure.  

    It was President Putin who sent Russian troops to invade Ukraine ‒ not vice-versa.  It is Russia and Putin that conducts a “shadow war” of mis-information;  takes cyber action aimed against Western Europe;  and murders political opponents within Russia and – as we saw at Salisbury – in other territories, too.

    When President Zelensky visited the White House to seek support, he was “ambushed” – no other description suffices – by President Trump and Vice-President Vance.  It was Zelensky – not Putin – who was accused of “gambling” with World War III.  This turned truth on its head.

    Yet when President Putin arrived in Washington, he was greeted with full honours.  Putin revelled in his red-carpet reception, and appeared able to persuade President Trump that black was white.  

    President Trump’s priority is set out in two alluring slogans:  “America First” and “Make America Great Again”.  This explicitly puts self-interest before the wider international interest, and has begun to further pry apart the “rules based” system that was built and led by America herself.  

    That system was fraying ‒ but is now fracturing.  If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation breaks down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle with which no country should be content – and in which no country is safe.

    My fear is the risk of stepping into a world in which “might is right”, and the mighty behave in an unprincipled and lawless manner.  

    In such a world the rights and prosperity of weaker nations are subordinate to the will of the strong;  greater powers are deferred to – not because they have justice on their side – but because they have the power to compel acceptance of their will.

    Such a concept is truly terrifying.

    How different that is from our expectations.  In 1949 – one year after the Marshall Plan was put into action – the NATO Treaty was signed.  

    The Treaty included an Article 5 Agreement that an attack on one Member will bring all others to their defence.  

    But is that still so?

    Will America – with all her military power – still be willing to come to the defence of a NATO ally?  NATO is, of course, a defensive – not an offensive alliance.

    I hope so.  But the Vice-President is on record as saying “I just hate bailing out Europe again”.  The American Defence Secretary added:  “I fully share your loathing”.

    Were these remarks merely frustration?  Or were they voicing future policy?  

    It is striking that neither comment was disowned by the President.

    If America did resile from Article 5, it is hard to see how an American could remain as Supreme Allied Commander.  Yet it is inconceivable – given America’s great military power – to imagine anyone other than an American leading NATO, as it is currently constituted.

    I suspect that, underlying all this, is America’s determination that Europe should bear a higher share of NATO’s overall costs.  That would be fair.  The burden has fallen too heavily – and for too long – on America’s shoulders.  

    American power was vital in winning both World Wars in the last century, although history tells us that she joined World War I only in 1917 after German submarines sank American ships.  

    And, in World War II, only after Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941. 

    The worry for the future – to voice the private fear – is that past American Presidents only gained the support of their public to enter the two World Wars after America herself was attacked.  In future, without that imperative, can we be utterly confident of American participation?

    President Trump – against his own campaign oratory – has shown himself prepared to use America’s muscular power on overseas missions.

    I am conflicted by the American-Israeli attack on Iran.  

    In one sense, this was a wholly understandable response to Iran’s behaviour over many decades.  

    I have no illusions about the distasteful nature of Iran’s clerical leadership.  They unleash terror ‒ and fund murder and mayhem through their proxies.  

    This brutal regime has shown it is willing to murder any of its own citizens who are brave enough to protest at the mis-government that scars their lives.

    So ‒ why am I conflicted?

    It is because of what was not done ahead of any military action and ‒ crucially ‒ the wider implications beyond that.  

    There was no diplomatic attempt to obtain a UN Resolution to give legality to the war.  No nation – other than Israel – was even consulted.

    This was despite the fact that the war was bound have much wider repercussions across the Middle East – and beyond.

    Many nations will pay a price for this war.  

    Hostilities will not end when bombing stops.  Old hatreds will linger.  New hatreds will have been born.  A new generation may have been radicalised.  Retaliation may be deferred – but it is likely to come.  

    This war will have a long tail.

    Its aims have never been clear and – since the conflict began – they have been changing by the day.  No exit strategy is known.

    The President demanded surrender.  He is unlikely to get it.  

    For Iran, one should think Persia, and remember her history.

    Persia was a dominant world power when America and the UK were still living in mud huts.  She will not admit defeat.

    Neither America nor Israel were prepared to put “boots on the ground”.  This comforted their domestic audiences, but made regime change – always unlikely ‒ completely impossible.

    Whilst they restricted conflict to the air, American leaders encouraged Iranian citizens to take to the streets and confront well-armed Basij volunteers.  These are part of the Revolutionary Guard, which murdered 30,000 demonstrators only weeks earlier.  

    Unless – and until – the regime is seriously tottering, that encouragement to rise up is an invitation to suicide.

    In due time, the war will end.  

    What will it have done for the rule of law and the protection of the rules-based-system of behaviour that has served the world so well in the aftermath of World War II?

    The American Defence Secretary was contemptuous of …. “vague notions of international law” and the “…. stupid rules of engagement”.  

    Such disregard of law is a shameful example for a law maker to set.

    If the international rule of law is dismissed so casually, what are we left with?

    I can only speculate, but I believe we will be left with a more fearful world, in which wars may be more numerous and alliances less secure.  

    A world in which disputes are settled ‒ not with diplomacy or adjudication or agreement ‒ but by force:  the victor being the most militarily or economically powerful.

    This heralds a playground for the strong, perhaps Russia or China – or even America ‒ and a future of unease, even fear, for the weak.

    That would be a wretched legacy to pass on to the next generation.

    The mercurial nature of President Trump upends the accepted norms of diplomacy.  

    But the message for the UK and Europe is clear and unmistakable:  we must plan and enact policies to improve self-dependence.

    This will require us to raise budgets to enhance our military capacity for defence and offence.  That effort must be within NATO and not separate from it.  

    It will be an expensive and long-term commitment.  After decades of peace, Governments must now persuade their electorates that military spending must rise – perhaps at the expense of social expenditure or higher taxes?

    Assuming that can be done, countries must agree to purchase arms collectively.  And, in doing so, the weapons must be inter-operable on land, air, sea – and below the sea.  That will mean purchases from national suppliers may be less easy.

    Matters such as these – complex as they are – cannot be left undecided if NATO is to be battle ready and a credible deterrent to any hostile intent.  

    Do not misunderstand me.  I do not – in any way – wish to push America aside.  She remains the most important ally to the whole of Europe.

    For the UK, the Trans-Atlantic partnership is key to our security and intelligence.  It is in our national interest to sustain this relationship even if we are in dispute on other issues.  

    At No10, during Gulf War I, I experienced first-hand what could be achieved when working closely with one of the finest foreign policy teams America has had:  George H W Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft.  President Bush and I never held back from speaking truth to each other, and never once did that impair our relationship.

    But today, there is a tendency to tip-toe around the President to avoid upsetting him.  Although I understand that, I do not agree with it.  

    Sovereign States that demean themselves will be seen as subordinates and not allies.  That is not a role for the UK.  

    If we disagree with American policy we should say so – as a friend that cares for the wellbeing of an ally.  Statesmen do this in private ‒ not in public.

    Our frankness may cause uncomfortable interludes, but we must never lose sight of what is morally decent and right, and stand up for what we believe.  

    In all our years of history, this is what the UK has done:  it was right then – and it is right now.    

    Let me return to the words of Clement Attlee:

    “…. peace does not come about through wishful thinking.  Peace is not just a negative absence of war;  peace means that you get rid – as far as you can – of the causes of war.”

    What do we mean by “Peace”?  It seems an easy question – but is not.  

    To fully enjoy peace, men and women need to be free.  By free, I don’t only mean to be at liberty.  I mean to be free of war;  free of fear;  free of want.  I mean freedom to worship without persecution, and freedom to speak against injustice and oppression.

    The concept of peace is wide-ranging.  Peace of mind is very precious but ‒ in the 21st Century ‒ a majority of people in the world don’t enjoy it:  the growth of stress, of pressure, of mental health, tell us that we are far from that ideal.

    There has been progress.  Many diseases that killed or crippled have been overcome.  Child mortality has fallen dramatically.

    Hundreds of millions have moved out of dire poverty;  similar numbers now have fresh piped water and electricity.    

    But, as rich nations reduce their aid budgets, poor nations continue to struggle – and the international liberal order loses its attraction … and its potency.

    There is an ancient responsibility upon every generation to leave behind a better world than they inherited.  We are not doing well on that front.  

    Our young generation has no direct experience of war.  They have grown up in a better environment.  They travel more.  Intermingle more.  Inter-marry more.  They are blind to colour and ethnic background.  They are free of many of the inhibitions and prejudices of their forebears.

    They do not view ancient enmities through the same eyes as previous generations.  They welcome communal action on issues like climate change that can only be overcome by working together.

    “Peace” ‒ said Attlee ‒ “does not come about through wishful thinking …”

    Indeed not….. not in any form.

    It comes about by working together – with civility, respect, fortitude, and mutual understanding – to diminish the causes of dispute and strife.  

    If we truly wish to create a safer world, that is the route we must take. 

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Lord Lothian Lecture – 15 October 2025

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to the inaugural Lord Lothian lecture at the Global Strategy Forum on 15 October 2025.

    When Clare and Mary asked me to deliver this inaugural lecture on behalf of the Global Strategy Forum, it was easy to say “Yes”.  

    Michael and I became friends – and allies in politics – from the moment we met 50 years ago.  We came from different backgrounds, mixed in different circles, had different leisure pursuits ‒ but we shared the same political space, and beliefs about the purpose and practice of politics.  

    Michael was an easy colleague.  Loyalty and moderation were at the very core of his politics.  He believed in the power of persuasion, and the essential decencies of human behaviour ‒ even when faced by adversaries that denied both of those virtues.

    He was clever, compassionate, sensitive and intuitive and – where he saw wickedness or hardship – he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    Michael carried his compassion as a shield against bigotry.  He preferred to offer a hand up not a put down.  He wished to understand rather than condemn, and to face up to challenges rather than pass them by.

    His focus was progress, not regress;  the future not the past;  and his aim was to put right what was wrong.

    When, in the early 1990s, I was trying to build a Peace Process to end violence in Ireland – North and South – I knew I would benefit from the abilities of Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram.  They were both custom made for the task, and never once did they disappoint.  

    Michael and Paddy had extensive private contact with all the Northern Ireland Parties:  often a frustrating experience, but both had the gift of listening – amid, of course the occasional Paddy eruption ‒ and, slowly, progress was made and early trust established.

    It was essential preparation for more challenging meetings that were to come.  When we reached the stage of face-to-face discussions with the IRA Michael ‒ as Minister of State ‒ was the obvious choice for the initial contact.  

    This was at a time when such responsibilities carried great personal risk and thus ‒ before appointing Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office ‒ I would always ask if their families were content.

    It is to their credit, and that of their families, that no colleague invited to serve stepped away from the challenge.  And so it was with Michael, who didn’t hesitate.  

    There was deep suspicion of the Peace Process from many of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and their allies in Parliament and Press.  Michael was an arch-comforter, damping down Unionist fears of “secret deals” or “unadmitted concessions” to Sinn Fein or the IRA.  Progress was not easy.

    I recall briefing John Smith, the then Labour Leader, in my office in the Commons.  Whisky in hand, John offered “help in principle” and chuckled as he added “but you do know there are no votes in it”.  Nor were there – but that was never the purpose.

    A Belfast without bombs, with blood ties not blood flowing, a generation able to grow up without inheriting the hostility and hatred of community division.  That was the purpose.  And Michael’s instinctive character of peacemaker made him perfect for the job.  

    His brief was tough as the IRA peered suspiciously at every proposal.  History was a bar to progress.  The memory of past grievances was ever present:  the Black and Tans, the Hunger Strikes and Bobby Sands ‒ these, and much more, were always a block to trust.  

    But Michael’s efforts were brave and unrelenting.  The progress he made with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness paved the way for Paddy Mayhew to join him for more in-depth discussions.  

    He, Paddy and I were hugely frustrated that we were unable to complete the Process ‒ but were comforted in the knowledge that – against all predictions – we moved the dial from conflict towards peace:  and delighted that Tony Blair and New Labour completed the work.  

    Today, in Ireland – North and South – we are at a place where none of us dared to hope we would be.  

    Michael truly deserves his place in the pantheon of Irish peacemakers.

    * * * * *

    There are times ‒ and now is one such time ‒ when change seems to come at a gallop.  Between Ancient Greece and the 15th Century no-one challenged the wisdom of the ancients until the Renaissance.  

    A 10th Century European would easily have recognised 15th Century European life:  a child today would barely recognise the way of life 50 years ago.  

    As we meet, our world is in an unsettled state.  Liberal Democracy is in retreat.  Autocracy is thriving and spreading.  Globalisation is fraying.  The post-war consensus is weakening at best and – at worst – may be on its way to breaking up.  

    As for our own country, we now have fewer committed friends than once we had.  We need to remedy that.

    As these trends thrive, I hope nation states recognise the risks, step up, urge conciliation and begin the repair of our failing institutions.  Leaders need to be proactive – not locked in a defensive crouch.

    In our unsettled world, only an unpredictable America, and a hard-to-read China, are political, economic and military super-powers:  no other country comes close.  Their future behaviour and bilateral relationship are critical to us all.  

    Both countries know they are destined to be rivals ‒ and allies only on individual issues.  The world needs them to find an accommodation with each other, while they must persuade their domestic audiences they are hard-nosed defenders of their own philosophy and national interests.

    There are trip-wires ‒ most obviously Taiwan ‒ but, if diplomacy and self-interest prevails, with trade and regular contact uninterrupted by threats of high tariff impositions, then a long-term, and mutually beneficial relationship is entirely possible ‒ but only if they will it.

    If they do not, and lapse into serious conflict, then they could set the world aflame.  

    But I don’t foresee that.  Sensible diplomacy and pragmatic self-interest should be able to prevent full-fronted confrontation whenever – as is likely – frustrations and disputes arise.  

    CHINA

    Historically, China has been the victim of military conflict, not the aggressor.  That said, she has been dramatically increasing her military capability, at an extraordinary pace.  No-one should underestimate the scale of this, nor her growing capacity to enforce her will militarily.  

    Events ‒ and American policy ‒ may determine the future:  if America withdraws from her post-war role in favour of more isolation ‒ will China step up and try to fill it?  The answer to that is likely to be “Yes”.

    There is much we neither know, nor understand about China.  She is an enigma.  The first verse of her National Anthem is encouraging:  telling citizens to “Arise, you who refuse to be slaves”.  

    It’s an enticing invitation, but not to be taken too literally.  Perhaps my view is cynical, but I have vivid memories of Tiananmen Square.  Those who did arise were soon silenced – and none too gently.  

    As China has grown in power, she has begun to assert herself in Asia, and increase her influence worldwide.  She is an avowed opponent of democracy, which she considers an alien and inefficient form of government.

    China is sufficiently self-confident to break international Treaties.  Persecute the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Threaten Taiwan with a military assault.  Ignore promised freedoms to Hong Kong.  

    All that ‒ and multiple cyber threats and industrial larceny – may be laid at her door.  These are the actions of an ambitious nation prepared to bend others to her will.

    Her trade and investment grows each year.  A majority of countries around the world now conduct more trade with China than America ‒ in some cases, far more.  Apparently blind to the implications of this, current American policy on tariffs may widen that lead.

    I have no doubt our government wishes to have a good relationship with China.  Who would not?  But it cannot be a subservient one.  China would not respect that.

    AMERICA

    For most of the post-war years, America has been the rock upon which democracy prospered.

    Her influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to:  “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”.

    So was it when, over a decade later, President Kennedy committed to confront: “the common enemies of man ‒ tyranny, poverty, disease and war.”.

    The purpose behind these noble sentiments was to create a freer and safer world, in which the strong pledged their help to the weak.  No price was asked for this.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  

    It was high politics in a harsh post-war world, when to help others was not seen as a business opportunity.  This approach, it seems, is now out of fashion.

    Today, America has a less altruistic policy.  The President’s ambition is to “Make America Great Again” – although it is puzzling that being the richest and most powerful nation in the world is not already seen as an indication of greatness.

    In the MAGA quest, America has embraced national self-interest.  The President ‒ with the support of the world’s richest man ‒ abruptly cut off aid to the poorest people in the world and those organisations whose role is to cure the diseases that most afflict them.  

    Forecasts of the long-term implications of this are dire.

    A Report in the Lancet tells us that US aid alone prevented over four million deaths ‒ one third of them children ‒ in every year of the first two decades of this century.  That support has gone.  

    It is a harsh policy that ends such a benevolent approach, despite the pain and loss it will cause.  But America is not alone in turning her face away from the human rights of the weak.

    Other countries, including the UK, have cut aid.  I know that times are tough for us and many others, but we are not facing mass hunger, and our sick are not going without medicine or care.  

    In reflective moments one may wonder:  where is the Good Samaritan when he is most needed?  

    I believe the scale of cuts to aid is wrong on practical as well as moral grounds.  In due time, whenever more people flee poor countries for richer pastures – as they will – we may regret how little we did to keep them settled where they are.  

    President Trump has also imposed tariffs on imports from most of the world in pursuit, as he cheerily puts it, of:  “making America richer and richer by many billions”.  

    This not only hurts allies, some wealthy, some not – but also countries that are poor and, in some cases, very poor indeed.

    Apart from filling the US Treasury coffers, the tariffs are justified by the claim that they are imposed upon countries which had allegedly been “ripping off America” for years.  If that were so, they were remarkably unsuccessful given America’s economic pre-eminence.  

    It may be ‒ when American consumers realise that the tariffs are raising prices in their own High Streets – that they might consider it is they who are being “ripped off”.  American taxpayers please note:  rising prices are a regressive tax.

    I was brought up to admire America.  I still do:  there is much to envy.  But I don’t admire her present approach.  Nor should the American people.  It comes at a high cost to her reputation for free trade and sensible economics.

    Many countries will be bruised by the new tariffs, and resentful that they felt forced to accept for fear of more severe impositions if they did not do so.  

    In what passed for “negotiation” I do wonder what negotiating power smaller nations had to deploy?  “Little or none” is my guess.  They faced a choice of submitting – or a worse deal.  If nothing else, the tariffs showcased the raw power of America.

    Our flexible English language has a word for pressure imposed by the powerful on those who are weaker.  It is a good old word:  we call it “bullying”.  We may fear the bully.  We may accommodate the bully.  But we never forget the bullying.

    There is no doubt that America is a great power.  But with that power comes great responsibility about how it is used.  

    The President needs to understand that any casual disregard of long-standing international mores risks undermining – to the point of destruction – the rules-based system of laws and behaviours that have been a shield and guardian to the world over the last seventy years.

    Leaders who do not make that clear – preferably privately, but unmistakably – are betraying their responsibilities.

    Allies and opponents alike are baffled by the President’s inconsistency.  

    Such unpredictability may be a useful enforcement tactic in negotiations – as we have seen – but it carries a dangerous risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements that could be very damaging in the longer-term.  Trust and certainty matter in Statecraft.    

    RUSSIA

    I wish to turn – but briefly – to Russia.  She is a real and present danger to democracy.  The war in Ukraine is indisputably Putin’s war.

    Putin has moved from being an authoritarian Leader to a totalitarian one.  There seems to be no domestic check on his behaviour.  Outspoken opponents disappear or die mysteriously.  Planes fall from the sky.  So do opponents from high windows.  National assets are looted to support Putin’s cult of personality.

    In war, Russia shows no restraint.  The civilian is as much a target as the soldier.  Even Ukrainian children are stolen and indoctrinated against their own family and country.  Let me not mince words:  that is wicked to the core ‒ no other description suffices.

    We should not be surprised.  Russia has become a repressive rogue State, hostile to democracy.  The controlled media feeds civilian Russia with untruthful propaganda that includes bare faced lies about the West.  The truth – in Russia – is whatever Putin wishes it to be.

    Russian citizens – patriots by instinct – are fed untruths throughout their lives and, because that is all they hear, they believe it.   

    By any yardstick, Putin is a warmonger, not a peacemaker, and little will change in Russia until he is gone ‒ at which time someone will be brave enough to list his many crimes.

    It was revealing that, when Prigozhin, Leader of the Wagner group of mercenaries marched on Moscow, no-one of influence spoke up for Putin conscious that he ruled by fear ‒ nor against him knowing it would be life-threatening to do so.

    I hope no Western policy maker forgets that Ukraine is our battle as well as theirs:  even though it is Ukrainian blood that is being spilled, our own interests are also at stake.  If Putin gains from war, his demands will grow and not diminish.  

    The present outlook is that, unless America and Europe combine, in a far more powerful response to Russia’s aggression, the war will continue – perhaps for a long time.  

    Hopefully, President Trump will see Ukraine through the eyes of his Western allies, and use America’s power to protect Ukraine and deter further Russian adventures.  If Russia loses, the world wins.    

    And what a boost it would be to confidence and the global economy if wars in Ukraine and Palestine were to end.    

    Conflict, of course, takes me to Gaza.  

    GAZA

    It would be a miserly mind that does not welcome the ceasefire that has been agreed.  The killing has stopped, the hostages freed and – I hope – aid will swiftly alleviate suffering in Gaza.  

    I warmly congratulate President Trump, Qatar, Egypt – and, I suspect, contributors here in the UK – for this advance.  On this occasion, the President’s unconventional approach succeeded where others had failed, and a breakthrough to a better future may have begun. 

    But – it is a beginning not an end.  A ceasefire – not a certain and continuing peace.  Ahead lie serious questions, the answers to which will require good luck, good intentions and a herculean effort over a long period.    

    Wars have consequences that endure.  

    The bombs may stop, but will Hamas surrender weapons?  Who will rebuild the bombed-out wreckage and pay for it – with years of construction at a cost of many billions?  

    Will any Israeli Government accept Palestinian aspirations and, if so, can it be delivered against domestic opposition?

    Is a “Two-State” solution still even possible if Israel sets her face against it?  If not, what is the future for Palestinians?

    What, under any final agreement, will happen to the illegal settlements?  

    Will land be returned?  Or compensation offered?  Will future settlements be prevented?  

    Can Israeli-Palestinian relations be restored?  The Hamas attack on Israel killed 1200 people, and took many hostages – many of whom have since died in miserable circumstances.  It was an act of profound evil that led to an unrelenting response.

    In pursuit of Hamas, Gaza was turned to rubble.  The stated objective was the complete destruction of Hamas, which was never likely, and has not been achieved.  

    What was “achieved” was over 60,000 civilian deaths and many life-changing injuries that will not be easily forgotten.

    Nor will the blockage of aid;  the harrowing sight of starving men, women and children;  the image of dead bodies in ruined streets;  or the displaced families being herded around from place to place.  

    It will be hard for both sides to find forgiveness.  The Palestinians dreamed of a homeland.  Israeli Ministers wanted (I quote) to “bury the idea of a Palestinian State”.  

    This is not easily reconciled.  The risk of a legacy of hate passing down to future generations is very real.  Over time, war damage can be re-built.  But can minds be changed?

    Israel must also repair relations with much of the world.  Her approach – including the colossal misjudgement of banning the media from the war zones – lost the Israeli Government the benefit of any doubt over its actions. 

    The whole world knows the history of the Jewish people.  They have been treated cruelly throughout the ages.  But some of the actions of the Israeli Government lost them the sympathy and understanding they had earned throughout the post-war period.

    I have Jewish friends whom I cherish, and it is heart-breaking that antisemitism and fear has been returned to their lives so unfairly in so many countries ‒ not least our own.  

    Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people around the world have shown their dismay at the conduct of the war.  They do not deserve to be treated as complicit in what has been happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

    It is the Israeli Cabinet – and they alone – who must answer for their decisions.

    LOOKING OUTWARD

    As more nations look inward I see opportunities to look outward.  The UK’s relative “hard power” has fallen in recent decades and, even though events suggest that will be repaired – as it must – it is still wise to build up our “soft power”.

    Our links to Europe and America may be looser now than once they were – and that is a loss – but it does free us up to be a far more independent voice in our troubled world.  

    An Age of Reason is badly needed, and we can help usher it in.

    Let what we say about international policy echo for its good sense:  let it have a clarity beyond pious statements issued for the sake of form.  I wish our voice to be heard and our nation to earn respect in a role that no other nation has taken up.

    There is ample scope and appetite for such a voice.  Much of what should be said is held back ‒ and why?  Is it because of diplomatic niceties;  an unwillingness to stir controversy;  or common or garden plain funk?

    Meanwhile, the post-war institutions are failing to deliver what the founders expected of them.  Self-evidently, hampered by its own rules, the United Nations is not delivering peace and security. 

    The membership of the Permanent Five is out of date and needs reform.  A credible option is to enlarge it to embrace countries such as India, Germany, Brazil, and end the single nation veto on action that so often leaves the UN looking powerless when a powerful lead is vital.    

    As a founding Member of the Permanent Five, the UK is well placed to argue the advantages of such a change.

    Our worldwide reach and assets leave us in a position to be a candid friend, a conciliator, a conscience in support of those who have no voice of their own.

    We should dust off our “soft power” assets.  Our voice, our global spread, our language, the BBC World Service, our Universities, our culture – especially our theatre.  Until recently, I would have added our leadership in Overseas Aid.  I hope, soon, to be able to do so again.    

    I hear the objections ringing in my head.  It’s altruistic.  It’s pointless idealism.  It will come to nothing.  It will gain us nothing.  Perhaps not.  

    But it will gain us respect.  Friendship.  It will help our voice resonate far and wide.  More than anything, it is also the right thing to do.  In our mercenary world, is that too naïve a reason?

    We British are 70 million people in a world of 9 billion.  We are not the mighty power that once we were.  We cannot compel as once we could.  But we can offer the world an example, and speak out for the decencies and civilities that lie deep-rooted in the British instinct.

    What do we stand for as a nation if not for that?

    I will close as I opened.  

    I spoke of Michael’s belief in the power of persuasion and the decencies of human behaviour.  I reminded myself that where he saw wickedness or hardship, he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    I believe – throughout our world – there is audience crying out for such qualities of leadership.  

    Let us show that it can be done. 

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Sir Edward Heath Annual Lecture – 26 June 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major on 26 June 2025 at Salisbury Cathedral.

    THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

    AT HOME AND ABROAD:  A REALITY CHECK

    This occasion is intrinsically linked with Ted Heath and – with my memories of him – I am honoured to speak to you today.

    Ted was not an easy man to know.  He was a mass of contradictions ‒ and not always “user-friendly”.  He could be brusque, wooden, charmless, and yet had the gift to make friends for life, and supporters who admire and sustain his legacy.  

    A complex man, he wasn’t born to privilege, but rose to prominence by sheer ability.  His metier was policy, not presentation.  Facts – and logic – were his political weapons of choice.  

    His priority was country first.  Party came second.  And he led, not followed public opinion.

    Essentially an Englishman, his service during the Second World War forged his belief in the closest possible relationship between the United Kingdom and our neighbours in Europe.  

    A principled politician, he fought for this throughout his political life – and was right to do so.  Europe is a cause, temporarily in obeyance, but not lost.  It is still in play.  

    Ted had an active life beyond politics.  

    In his talent for sailing, classical music, the piano, and his love of conducting, he filled his life with passions far removed from the battleground of Westminster.  He loved – as Yehudi Menuhin put it:  “the wind, the land and the sea”.  

    There is a fascination about Ted’s career ‒ his rise, his rule, his fall ‒ that would have challenged even Shakespeare’s magical pen.

    I’ve no doubt the discerning eye of history will treat him more generously than his contemporaries and – with that judgement – I concur.  

    Which is why it is such a pleasure to be with you this afternoon.  Here, where Ted called home.

    *****

    Among the advantages of age is the experience of mistakes ‒ your own and those of others ‒ and the ability to learn from them.

    Advancing years allow time for reflection, and eases us from the bonds of political correctness and Party self-interest.  

    In that spirit, I would like to conduct a reality check.

    Imagine our world as a jigsaw, each piece in its place, laying before you, familiar and settled.  

    And then, of its own volition, the jigsaw begins to break up and take a new shape.

    This is our world as it changes, and it has not yet assumed a shape we can rely on ‒ nor with which we can be comfortable.  Nor can we be sure it will do so.

    We Britons are a piece of that jigsaw puzzle.  We fit where fate – and our own endeavours – take us.  

    For 80 years, we have been lucky to have lived under a rules-based system;  been spared long and costly international wars;  and – until recently – enjoyed a steady growth in national wellbeing.  

    Beyond any question America and China are the dominant forces in our modern world ‒ no other nation state comes close.  

    But neither of these two powerful nations offer the assurance of an ordered and peaceful future.  They are rivals in trade.  Opponents in politics.  

    What they are not are allies in building a better world.

    The elevation of Presidents Xi and Trump to great power ‒ the first not a democrat, and the second not always behaving like one ‒ helps explain the uncertainties that now exist.  

    Of these, there are many.  Moderate Parties of Left and Right are in crisis in France, where the extreme Right may win the next parliamentary and presidential elections.  

    The UK and Germany, too, face an insurgency from the intolerant Right. 

    Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has erased the global peace dividend the West enjoyed after the fall of the Soviet Union.  

    We – among others – are now to spend more on defence, and to finance that by cutting aid to the world’s most wretched and helpless.  

    Many people, with voices that will never be heard, will suffer and die because countries have made this change in budgetary priorities.   

    It is short-sighted and – to my mind – callous.  And the fallout, over time, will be greater migrant demand to live in the richer countries.  

    The switch from care to conflict comes courtesy of Putin’s military ambitions.  He was, is, and will continue to be a menace to European peace.

    As a newly-minted super power, China seeks to dominate the international order and is using military and commercial muscle to expand her interests – and increase her influence.    

    China is not a democratic country ‒ indeed, she is an avowed opponent of democracy, being first amongst a rising number of nations that see democracy as an alien ‒ and inefficient ‒ form of government.

    For a long time the United States has been our closest, most trusted ally.  Twice, in the last century, her entry into a World War has been decisive.

    The display of American power in Iran a few days ago was awesome, but the situation is so dynamic that – if required – this matter is best addressed over questions.    

    For over 80 years, history and shared interests have kept America and the UK in lockstep.  But, we are on notice that we can no longer depend on that.  

    It is fanciful to believe the America of today is still the America we knew from Eisenhower to Obama.  But, demonstrably, she is not.

    After the Second World War, the hands that exercised power were working within a rules-based-system that is now being questioned and ‒ in part ‒ rejected, by voices within and beyond the Trump Administration.

    President Trump believes that enhancing American power takes precedence over the wellbeing of the wider international community.  

    Under her current leadership, America will not “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend” if it conflicts with the President’s policy to “Make America Great Again.”

    His Vice-President rammed the new priority home:  “Europe is no longer a primary focus” for America.  It was a harsh truth.  

    If that is a settled judgement ‒ it tells the British and Europeans that we can no longer rely absolutely on the support – in all circumstances – of the nation that, for so many years, has been our strongest ally.

    Nor can we, with justice, simply blame America for this uncertainty.  For decades, Europe – collectively – has under-performed on defence expenditure, and must now repair the shortfall.  

    The President’s new approach was evident when he negotiated directly with Russia over the Ukraine war.  He did so without consulting NATO allies ‒ nor even Ukraine.  It was as though allies were irrelevant.  

    It has been an unsettling time.

    President Trump claimed the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been President ‒ but did not explain why not ‒ nor how it would have been averted.  

    He promised to end the war on “Day One” of his Presidency.  He did not.

    He believed he could bring “his dear friend” Putin to a deal to end the war.  He has not.  

    I accept President Trump wants peace.  But on what terms?  He demanded concessions from Ukraine – the attacked, and then proposed a settlement to aid Russia – the attacker.  

    Ukraine has been threatened, bullied, and had military and intelligence withdrawn as if she were the aggressor.  It was as though America had her arms around Putin’s shoulders, and her hands at Zelensky’s throat.  

    This turns reason on its head.  Such a posture may well encourage would-be aggressors everywhere, and bring fear to potential victims.

    Shifts in established American policy continue to cause uncertainty and confusion.  

    No-one envisaged a President:

    • threatening to take over nations like Canada or Greenland against their will;  
    • casting doubt on the US commitment to NATO;  
    • introducing tariffs that disrupt the world economy;  
    • withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement;  or 
    • treating immigrants ‒ even if illegal ‒ like trash to be thrown away.

    Whatever frustrations she may feel, does America realise how all this is viewed around the world? 

    Will uncertainty over future policy cause our allies in the East – Japan, South Korea, Philippines – to consider building their own nuclear capacity?  

    Will Saudi Arabia or Turkey?  Or, perhaps, others?

    The answer to those questions may unsettle our world.  The unwelcome vision arises of a dramatic increase in nuclear States.  The implications of that are truly terrifying.

    President Trump may achieve extraordinary things.  His very unpredictability promotes uncertainty – and sometimes fear – of what he might do next.  In this fashion, he gains compliance with his wishes.  

    The timid may crumble, the cautious may appease, but I hope the President understands that agreement under duress is false and unreliable.  

    If someone has their foot on your neck, you may comply with their wishes ‒ but you will never forget the foot.

    America is, by far, the most powerful nation in the world.  What she does will be followed by others.  Government by threat will create resentment and chaos.  It will not create calm.

    This is not America as I have known her.  This is not democracy as I understand it.  

    For every action in life, there is a reaction.  

    When President Trump speaks publicly – to chide or to threaten, he does not do so in a vacuum.  

    His voice echoes around the world, and what people hear has consequences to how they behave.

    What does Mr Putin think?  He is delighted.  So is President Xi.  Autocrats are thrilled to see the democratic world at odds with itself.  

    After all, if President Trump threatens to seize Canada, why should not Putin seize Ukraine?  Or Xi take over Taiwan?  

    Why should not other autocrats judge that world opinion will no longer react to a coup or a land grab?

    How many countries does that imperil?  How many lives does that sentence to a hopeless and miserable future?

    Much of the world accommodates America and China, hoping not to become victims to superpower malevolence.  

    Is this the rules-based world we have known?  Or is it to become Kipling’s Law of the Jungle?  

    Politics is about people, their hopes, their fears, their lives ‒ it is not just about deals or money or mineral wealth.  

    Perhaps I am too old and out of time, but should not politics – at its heart – be about high moral purpose?  Is the concept of “MAGA” – of widespread national self-interest – going to poison the well of decency in international relations?

    How did you feel when Elon Musk – the richest man in the world – removed aid from the poorest people on the planet?

    And how far does this negligence stretch?

    No-one lifted a finger a few months ago when the Venezuelan election was stolen.  Is democracy so shrivelled it no longer objects to the theft of a nation?

    In Gaza, is Israel solving a problem – or creating one?  

    How will the dis-possessed, the injured, the bereaved see Israel when the present fighting is done?

    Will not today’s death and destruction boost recruitment for tomorrow’s terror?

    I do not believe it is possible to totally eliminate Hamas:  it is an “idea” – a “doctrine” – as well as a terror group.  

    But every Palestinian ‒ man, woman and child ‒ is not a Hamas terrorist.  What compassion and help will be given to those whose homes and lives have been wrecked?  

    What of the crises in Syria and Sudan and the Congo?  Or the plight of the Afghan women?  Are they simply to be forgotten?

    Is starvation now a legitimate weapon of war?  If so, to whom can the helpless turn?  

    Who will lead the world in helping those who cannot help themselves?  Will our modern world cynically walk by on the other side?  

    Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough – or the victim without friends.  

    Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion?  Is might now right?  Has the law, human decency, and political morality been cast aside?  

    Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this:  that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest?  

    If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, by-pass diplomacy, forego enlightened self-interest – 

    then heaven help us all.

    I daresay the questions I have asked will be thought to be unworldly.  If so, I despair ‒ because political action and political morality should be allies, not strangers.

    And, if we are not concerned for ourselves, is this really the world we wish to hand on to the next generation?

    I think not – and am encouraged by the aid given to Ukraine:  for Ukraine is also fighting for our own future.

    It is evident that we must enhance our own defence capability.  

    A welcome increase in defence expenditure has been announced but, I fear, it is only the first instalment of what will be required.  

    My guess is that, over the next few years, core military expenditure will have to rise way above 3½ % of GDP.  That is a significant burden, requiring a reassessment of priorities.  

    We will not be alone:  other European countries face a similar dilemma if Europe is to rebuild her own defences with weapons appropriate to tomorrow’s challenges.  If they do not ‒ they will be culpable.

    I admit to a concern about this.  Will countries maintain higher defence expenditure if the current crisis eases?  History suggests some may not.  Self-protection tells us they must.

    UNITED KINGDOM

    Let me turn to our own country.

    Britain is at a low ebb.  Our economy has been near stagnant for almost two decades, and relatively weakening since the Second World War.  The Pound Sterling is worth one-third of its post-war value against the mighty American Dollar.

    Countries with large populations have risen in economic influence simply because of their size.  That continues – and is inexorable.

    Growth at home has been feeble since the 2008 sub-prime crisis.  Productivity is half the level of the 1990s.  We are deeply in debt.  Taxes are too high, and confidence and investment too low.  

    Our military capacity has fallen steadily.  Our Armed Forces are inadequately funded, ill-equipped for present risks, and diminished in manpower.

    Our great institutions ‒ Parliament, Politics, The Church, Police, Press, Public Services no longer have the respect they once enjoyed.  

    This is a sad litany, but a sobering reality.  

    Is our position recoverable?  Of course, it is ‒ but the task will require a supreme national effort.  

    Our country needs a climate of hope and help ‒ not hindrance.

    The past can offer us some comfort.  I grew up in the 1940s/50s when our country was all-but-bankrupt, and facing an even more challenging future than now.

    It was the mid-1950s before food rationing ended.  

    A new house then was less expensive than a second-hand car is today but ‒ to put that in perspective ‒ my weekly salary, in 1959, would not now buy two cups of coffee at Pret.

    So it has not been 80 years of failure.  We have come a long way.  

    Living standards are immeasurably improved.  So is healthcare and life expectancy.  

    I hope past success can encourage policy makers to believe that the problems before us can be overcome ‒ but with the caveat that yesterday’s solutions will not meet tomorrow’s challenges.

    To hear modern politicians channelling their inner Attlee or Thatcher is not leadership:  it is nostalgia.  

    The lessons of Attlee and Thatcher are that acute difficulties can be overcome ‒ but not by looking backwards:  that is for historians.  Politicians must look forward.

    Governments have a duty to convey reality to the electorate.  Promises that are undeliverable will only add to national disillusion.

    We cannot recover without growth.  We cannot have growth without public and private investment.  And we cannot have that, without incentive and reward.  We know this, but appear to ignore it.

    The UK has many attractions ‒ an open economy;  an incorruptible legal system;  some worldclass universities;  high-level capability in dispute resolution;  life sciences;  finance;  the service sector;  AI;  space technology, and much else.

    More can be done:  lighter touch regulation;  much more skill training;  a closer relationship with Europe;  and ‒ please ‒ a reformed tax system that does not penalise success.  

    We have to make an attractive offer to investors and traders, and offer hope and opportunity to our disillusioned young.

    We need to applaud success and innovation.  We need to encourage entrepreneurs to enter our country, and not leave it taking their ideas and their money elsewhere.

    If we crush ambition and initiative we will sink into long years of slow growth or no growth.  To avoid sclerosis we must open our mind to every path to wellbeing.  

    And so I come to Europe.

    EUROPE

    Here lies a difficulty.  One whiff of collaboration with Europe and voices cry out we are “betraying the cause”, “surrendering”,  throwing away Brexit “freedoms”.

    What nonsense this is.  The only Brexit “freedom” I’ve yet seen is the freedom to be poorer.  And we’ve not only seen that:  we’re experiencing it.

    I don’t seek controversy ‒ merely reasoned debate.  One obvious contribution to higher growth is to improve our trading relations with our nearest neighbours.

    My views on leaving Europe are no secret.  

    Our exit was a gift to countries that wish us ill, and a shock to those that wish us well.  It has scarred the body politic, and may yet be written on the tomb of the Conservative Party.  

    I am no longer in politics.  No more at the centre of events.  But it breaks my heart that the Brexit saga has so poisoned our politics, damaged our economy, and undermined our national standing in the world. 

    I continue to search for the “benefits of Brexit” but they are as elusive as Lord Lucan.  Some politicians talk of them ‒ but are unable to tell us what they are, or where they may be found.

    What is ever-present are the dis-benefits of Brexit.  Any overall assessment of them is a damning indictment of the policy.

    Eminent economists – the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Office of Budget Responsibility, Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs among them – have on average estimated the long-term loss to our GDP to be about 4%, resulting from a fall in trade volumes.

    The loss builds up to that percentage over time.  But, even if our national income didn’t rise at all between now and the mid-2030s, a loss of 4% would amount to over £100 billion pounds.  

    Consider that for a moment.  One hundred billion pounds less of each year’s national income.  Say it quietly and it’s just a statistic.  But it isn’t – it’s real.

    One hundred billion of our future income that we threw away when we left Europe.

    That GDP loss leads to a fall in government income.

    So, Government’s share of this loss – at present tax rates – would be nearly 

    £40 billion pounds.  

    That’s £40 billion of more taxes, or less spending, or most probably more borrowing.  

    Of course, as members of the EU we paid a contribution to Brussels – just under £10 billion pounds a year when we left.  And, to be sure, that might have risen.  But it would still leave us with a very big fiscal loss.

    Indeed, if you allow for the spiral of loss – extra interest payments to finance the extra borrowing, and so on – you quickly get to some very big numbers indeed.

    In 2018 – after we had decided to leave – the Treasury estimated the extra borrowing at £72 billion by 2035, if we didn’t do a deal that gave us market access.   

    That same Treasury report suggests that – if we had negotiated a European Economic Area scenario – with UK membership of the Single Market – the long-term loss would fall to £22.5 billion.

    And, if the Government had managed to meet the negotiating ambitions of its own White Paper, the loss would be a mere £1 billion.

    But these ambitions were simply tossed aside to “Get Brexit Done” and a “hard” Brexit was rushed through at great future cost.

    Bad choices won.  The British people lost.

    I am glad to see that Keir Starmer is slowly and painfully beginning to work his way back into a better trading relationship with the EU.

    Anything that helps to bring that £72 billion threat down is welcome – especially at a time when other tariff barriers are rising.  

    But the Prime Minister’s unwise pre-election disavowal of the Single Market means we are still suffering a substantial fiscal penalty – far bigger than the controversial claim that the Government “inherited a £22 billion “black hole””.  

    That claim is arguably illusory – and certainly exaggerated:  the Single Market “black hole” is very real.

    And that’s not all.  

    Before we left the EU, we received loans from the European Investment Bank for capital investment.  We did well.  

    In our final years, we received about £6.8 billion a year.  For comparison, France – despite her bigger economy – received some £6.6 billion.

    Brexiteers claimed we’d fill the gap from our own replacement public investment institutions.  

    But we haven’t.  So far, these institutions have been lending about £2.3 billion a year.

    The effect is clear:  if we had not left the EU, our annual public sector investment could have been far higher.  

    But it wasn’t ‒ so we lost tens of billions in investment ‒ amid a deteriorating infrastructure in pothole Britain.

    I will not bother to cost the employment of tens of thousands of additional civil servants to handle Brexit – nor the exit costs of leaving the Union.

    In response, Brexit supporters may say:  “Ah!  But we have new trade deals”.  That is true ‒ but to offset the loss?  Hardly.  

    The new trade deals are welcome, but modest, and nowhere close to compensating for the loss of European trade.

    In the last five years, our trade grew at a miserly 0.3% a year ‒ one-fifteenth of the growth between 1980-2008.  Is Brexit the problem?  In part, yes.

    In one respect, the Brexit agreement was unique:  it is the first ever trade deal to erect new trade barriers rather than eliminate them.  

    Ted Health would never have been deflected from the importance of European trade.  Nor would Margaret Thatcher:  it is why she entered the Single Market.  

    That is the distinction between statesmanship and showmanship.

    Even in retrospect, it is hard to comprehend what we have done.  

    We – the UK – are a trading nation ‒ more so than any of our competitors.

    International trade contributes one-fifth of our economy – more than China or America – or the EU.  Yet we, the world’s pre-eminent trader, walked away from the richest free trade area the world has ever seen when it was on our very doorstep.  

    No wonder our competitors thought we had taken leave of our senses.

    We lost more than money.  In diplomatic terms, Brexit achieved an outcome that our governments had sought to avoid for centuries:  it united Continental opinion against us, making it hostile to British interests, and less open to British persuasion.  

    We still face a choice.  One day, we will either have to accept change ‒ or offer our country a lower standard of living ‒ perhaps permanently.  

    What should we do?

    I am not emotionally a European ‒ I am too British for that.

    I do not advocate re-joining the EU as a full Member.  This is politically unrealistic at present, and will be a decision for a later generation.

    But, for now, we can recover lost trade by moving towards re-entering the Customs Union and the Single Market.  I know for some this is a big and contentious decision.  But ‒ if we think small we will be small.

    As I look forward, I see good, practical reasons for building up our relationship again.  We British are a mere 70 million people in a world of nine thousand million.

    I believe, in every way, our four nations will be better off, more secure, safer and richer, as part of a much larger and more powerful bloc.  That is true now – and will become even more so in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren.  

    Of course we will survive economically on our own:  perhaps, in due time, we will even thrive.  But my fear is wider.

    In a world dominated by the United States and China, a dis-united, weak Europe will forever be a subordinate demandeur;  an on-looker of great events;  a follower not a leader.

    And Britain, France, Germany, Italy and all Europe will no longer have the confidence, the security, the achievements that should be our legacy to our successors.

    My affection for Europe is not for what it was, or is, but what it can be.

    The world is changing, and we must change with it.  

    I don’t wish to see our world dominated by two self-interested super-powers.  

    All of Europe ‒ with the UK as an ally ‒ can be a counter-weight.  Events are pushing us towards greater self-dependency, and we must embrace that.  

    I do not underestimate the difficulties of enhancing our relationship with Europe.  

    But – as we look ahead – Europe will need us as we will need them.  We are not supplicants, we are partners.  And a joint partnership will strengthen the whole of Europe.

    When we left the EU, the Europeans – feeling unwanted – left the UK, only to be replaced by a far greater number of migrants from around the world.

    Of course we must reassure our nation about freedom of movement and migration.  But note this:  the Brexit promise was that ‒ by leaving the EU ‒ we could control our borders:  we have not.  The situation has worsened not improved.  

    This migrant problem is wider than our own country.  It is most likely to be solved with European-wide co-operation, not British isolation. 

    But all our ills did not originate with domestic errors.

    Brexit was certainly self-inflicted.  But the financial collapse in 2007/8 over sub-prime mortgages was not.  Nor was Covid.  Nor was the Ukraine war.  Nor was the shifting relationship with America.

    * * * * *

    Let me close as I opened – with the image of that jigsaw puzzle.  

    A puzzle which – through the ages – has been broken up, rearranged, refashioned – and then re-moulded all over again.

    For 80 years, that puzzle was familiar.  We knew where the pieces fell.  There was order.  

    It is now breaking up again, and where the pieces will fall is uncertain.      

    But no jigsaw can be completed by looking at each piece in isolation.  They must all fit together to create the desired tableau.

    Each one of us – from my generation down – needs to understand where the world is now, and where each piece of that new jigsaw needs to fall to secure harmony and economic security.  

    That is the reality.  It is work in progress.  

    And, for all our sakes, that endeavour must not fail.