The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Union

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

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

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

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

    On Northern Ireland, Sir John says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * *

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

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

    Clearer about our future relationship with Europe;

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

    We are not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will return to this later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Little of that has been forthcoming.

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

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

    They lose:

    – the second-largest economy;

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

    – the long reach of British foreign policy;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There may be a political calculation behind their thinking:

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

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

    Let me put it another way:

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

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

    Consider what this means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Government must change its tone.

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

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

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

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

    I repeat: it must stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But the Union is also about culture and identity.

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

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

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

    I fully understand why Scotland has reasons for grievance.

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

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

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

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

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

    ***

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

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

    Brexit will reduce our global reach, not enhance it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ***

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

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

    But, at the moment, it is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Upon their answer, all our futures depend.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme – 19 January 2019

    The text of Nick Robinson’s interview with Sir John Major, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 19 January 2019.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Sir John, good morning to you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning Nick.

    NICK ROBINSON

    As well as a little sympathy and a little empathy perhaps for Theresa May, what advice would you give her this morning?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I have more than a little sympathy, I think that she was handed a poisoned chalice and it has been extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult, apart from the substance of the issue, because of the divisions blocking one particular movement by her or another, as you set out a moment ago. So her position has been all but impossible, and I think the country recognise that. But we are now reaching a critical few weeks, we’re due to leave on 29 March and so we’re running out of time.

    If we leave in chaos and without a deal, that seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes and the Prime Minister is going to have to find a way round that. Her problem is that there are some people in Parliament, some anti-European enthusiasts, who would actually prefer no deal and will stand in the way of compromise. So the task for the Prime Minister is to find a way to go around them and there are only limited options to do that.

    NICK ROBINSON

    She says that her duty, and she said it the other day outside Number 10, is to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people. She may disagree with you might she not? She might say no, I have a duty to make sure we do leave on whatever terms. Is she wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Any Prime Minister has many duties. Of course she needs to look at the result of the referendum, but she mustn’t forget the 48% of the people who voted, who actually voted to stay inside the European Union and whose views cannot lightly be brushed aside as though they didn’t exist. But the Prime Minister has other duties as well, it has become evident in the two years since 2016, much clearer than it was, what the impact of that is going to be on the lives of everyday people in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Government and Parliament have a primary duty also to look after the people’s future well-being, their well-being and the well-being of those young people coming onto the register who weren’t there in 2016, and those in future years, so there are a whole series of responsibilities that the Prime Minister must weigh.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Just to be clear, before we move onto how she might do what you want her to do. If she thinks that there is only one duty, the duty to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people as she puts it, you would say no, there is something that trumps that, more important, even if that means breaking your word, if it means delay or if it means changing your mind?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I would say that there are other duties that are equally important that stand alongside it, if I may put it that way. Let me come back to the question of the result of the referendum, before we move on to what we might do. I think the argument that because that there was a majority on one day, under a particular set of circumstances, that must stand absolutely sacrosanct for ever, even though public opinion may change and facts may change, is a very difficult one to accept.

    Democracy is always nuanced, 48% wish to remain, and yet the leavers, who quite frankly won the vote with dubious tactics and downright falsehoods in some cases, totally ignore them. It’s even more bizarre if you actually look at the figures, only 37% of those eligible to vote actually voted to leave, 63% either voted to stay or did not vote.

    NICK ROBINSON

    I’m keen, and I know you are, to look forwards.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Absolutely, but let me finish this sentence. It will be 100% of the population who may be hurt if we leave or if we leave with the wrong deal. That is a very clear responsibility for the Prime Minister.

    NICK ROBINSON

    The point I merely wanted to put, and then let’s go forwards as you say, is about how the Prime Minister gets round those people, your phrase, who are a block. I need to put it to you, because it’s only fair, you say what the leavers said, but at the time of the referendum, you said and I quote, if we come out, we are out, that is it, if we vote to stay out, we are out and we’ll have to get on with it. You too can eat your words can’t you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I am happy to eat my words. The most important thing at the moment is what it is actually going to mean for everyday people. People like you and I Nick, to be frank, whatever happens we’ll be OK. We may be hurt a bit, we might gain a bit, but we’ll be OK. I’m no longer in politics, I have no axe to grind,  I’m not part of the remain campaign and I’m certainly not part of the leave campaign and I can look at it quite dispassionately, I don’t have to get elected, I don’t have an executive, I don’t have whips telling me what to do.

    I will tell you my fear. My fear is that millions of people who do not deserve to be hurt, businesses, individuals, families and young people with prospects are going to be hurt. If I have to eat my past words because I now realise that is the case, then I will make a meal of them every single day, because it is the future and those people who I believe are the primary responsibility of Parliament. If Parliament does not address that responsibility, then Parliament in my view will have failed in its duty.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Two things that you’re advocating this morning. First, that the Prime Minister should, to return to that phrase, get round those critics who you say want to crash out without a deal, in your words, leaving Britain in chaos. How can she get round them without producing a mass walkout of the Cabinet and a catastrophic split in her own party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ll come to that, but may I make some suggestions as to what might happen? Some will be more difficult for the Prime Minister to swallow than others. The obvious one is that the Prime Minister lifts some of her red lines, which would put us in a completely different situation. There’s no sign that she’s going to do that, but that in the national interest is an option that is worth her considering. But, if she won’t, I think that there are only three other options. Let me take them and consider how likely they are.

    The first is that the Cabinet decides the way ahead. Frankly, I think that is now impossible, the Cabinet is too split and there are people in the Cabinet who have made it clear that they would prefer no deal. I don’t think they will be moveable and she cannot move with a united cabinet and I am afraid that she is trapped, and it’s very unfortunate for her, but that is the position.

    The second is that Parliament decides. Parliament is also split, but I think that there are signs that Parliament may be able to reach a consensus and there is hope there. We might come back on how to do that a little later.

    If neither of those produces a policy, if the Cabinet can’t agree and Parliament can’t agree, there is only one option left standing and that is a second referendum, now that more facts are known than were known in 2016.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Let’s take the second of your options, and then come back to the referendum, let’s take it that Parliament will decide. As a former Prime Minister, is it constitutionally proper, is it sustainable in truth, for Parliament to in effect become the executive? To become the body that forms policy and then takes it abroad, takes it to the European Union to negotiate, it’s not actually doable is it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think that is extremely difficult and that wasn’t what I was going to propose. The Prime Minister argued valiantly for her deal, she fought for it, she got a deal, but the House of Commons killed it and killed it comprehensively. So her deal is dead and I don’t honestly think that tinkering with it is going to make very much difference, if any difference at all. So the Prime Minister still needs a deal. If she can’t deliver one that Parliament accepts, then she will need to become a facilitator, a mediator, to find out what Parliament will accept. I think there is a way she can do that, I personally would hope that she puts down a series of motions so that Members of Parliament can indicate their preference. We can then see whether there is a consensus in Parliament that is possible, that Parliament would accept.

    Ideally for that, all party leaders would permit a free vote, so we can get an honest representation of Parliament. That is in the Prime Minister’s interests for this reason, it’s the only way to get an absolutely honest answer from Members of Parliament and if it is a free vote, it removes the danger of resignations from Government or the opposition front bench because they disagree with their leader’s policy.

    NICK ROBINSON

    A free vote with significant political history, which you and I will know, but this is what Ted Heath did back in the 1970s when there was a pretty catastrophic split about whether to join what was called the Common Market. Why do you believe that the free vote is an essential part of this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    For many reasons. Firstly, if there’s a whip then many Members of Parliament would follow the whip out of loyalty to their party or their leader, rather than loyalty to their conscience and their constituents. That’s not necessarily because they’re bad people, I don’t think they are, that’s just the way things are in Parliament. You are part of the Conservative tribe, the Liberal Democratic tribe, the Labour tribe. Wherever you can, you prefer to stay with the leadership view on issues.

    This is such a unique issue that I think it would be an act of statesmanship by the party leaders to say, because of the very strong opinions held on either side, we are going to lift the party whips so that Parliament and the country can get a genuine view of exactly what it is that Members of Parliament think is best for our country, or perhaps, least bad, for our country. It’s a unique way of doing it, but I think it is justifiable.

    NICK ROBINSON

    You’ve set out at some length exactly what you think should happen. Allow me to put it to you, what some people will be saying, not least within your own party, as a recent poll showed that 76% of grassroots Conservatives would vote in another referendum, if it were offered, for leaving with no deal at all. What they’ll say is that we know what Sir John Major thinks, he wants us to stay in. He doesn’t want any sort of deal, therefore they would argue that what you are doing is coming up with what Boris Johnson said the other day is shameful, was dishonest, and is weakening our negotiating position, as it is ripping up promises made to the electorate and statements made to the EU.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I must say that being called dishonest by Boris Johnson is a rum thing to happen. If I may counter with your statistic, 56% of people in the latest polls say that they would prefer to remain in the European Union. So, I think these ancient statistics really don’t enlighten things very much. I think we have to concentrate solely on what is right for the people of this country.

    NICK ROBINSON

    But clearly what they think is right for the country is to leave the European Union as people voted for, there is not a single view of what is in the national interest. If there were, we wouldn’t have the problem.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Of course there isn’t Nick, but there is clear evidence that people’s views are beginning to change, not dramatically, but there is growing evidence that is continuing that people would like a second referendum and their views about what the right outcome is may have changed.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Would you stomach your second option? If you’re going to have a series of indicative votes in the House of Commons, I know you won’t be taking part, but it means people like you who would like to remain, like you who want a second referendum, might have to accept that they can’t get their way for the sake of compromise. They might have to back a deal for some sort of Brexit that they don’t like, they don’t want, but they’d bite their lip and agree to. Would you urge people who share your views to be prepared to make that sort of compromise if necessary?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Everyone may have to compromise as in a circumstance such as this, no-one is going to get their way. Many people think compromise is weak, but I think compromise is often very wise. We had to compromise at the beginning of the Northern Ireland peace process. I had to consult, if not compromise, when we actually went to war with the first Gulf War, it is wise to consult and to compromise. If we can reach an agreement which avoids the country being as bitterly split as it might, is it not worth swallowing some new ideas and swallowing some things you might not like? I would much prefer to stay in the European Union, I voted that way and I have not changed my mind that that is in our interests as a country and is in our interests for commerce and is in the interests of the well-being of millions of everyday people.

    NICK ROBINSON

    What about an election to resolve this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think an election is going to do a great deal. Mrs. May has been committed to we must honour the Brexit deal, which means leave, and so is Mr Corbyn, so I’m not sure that will prove anything. One of the more stupid things I’ve heard Ministers and others say recently is that 80% of the public in the last election voted for parties who wanted to leave. That is completely stupid, as people would have voted for 100 different reasons, not only on Europe. I voted for the Conservative Party at the last election, but it doesn’t mean that I want to leave the European Union.

    NICK ROBINSON

    I was speaking to voters last night in Milton Keynes, some remain and some leave, and what was striking was that every single one of them believed that we would delay leaving the European Union. Is it your conclusion that delay is now inevitable?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think that it is inevitable, but I think it would be wise and it is now probable that we will actually have to delay. I think that is right, because even if the Prime Minister doesn’t put down these facilitating motions, then it maybe that other people will. The opposition could on an opposition day, and even if they don’t, perhaps senior Members of Parliament could put down early day motions covering different issues simply so that Members can sign them and give an indication of where Parliamentary opinion is.

    So there are a whole range of events that could happen that are pushing us to delay article 50. I think that, in many ways, is wise. It may be that we end up leaving, but it is better to leave when we are prepared to leave, and in a position to leave, than when we are patently not prepared which will be the position on March 29, barring a miracle that I personally cannot see coming about. So, I think it is probable that we will have to delay.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Sunday Times – 13 January 2019

    The text of the article written by Sir John Major for the Sunday Times, published on 13 January 2019.

    We are at a seminal moment in our nation’s history. First, let me say something about the prime minister. At the referendum she voted — albeit without enthusiasm — to remain in the EU. The nation voted to leave. Yet, despite her personal preference, Mrs May has deployed every ounce of her energy to honour the result of that vote. She does not deserve the personal venom directed at her, nor the bile of fair-weather political colleagues who have turned from supportive flatterers to would-be assassins.

    Our country is now in an unhappy state of mind. Far from bringing the nation together — as the prime minister hoped — the divisions unleashed during the 2016 referendum have become ever more bitter and entrenched.

    Brexiteers are keen to pin the blame on others. But we are only in this sorry position because of the false pledges and undeliverable promises they made to the British people in 2016. The “leave” voters were marched up to the very top of the Hill of Expectation, and it is hardly surprising they now feel a sense of injustice at having to be marched back down again.

    The easy promises made by the Brexiteers have been exposed as the fantasies they always were. All voters — be they “leave” or “remain” — feel cheated, ignored and thoroughly ground down by the whole process.

    Those who led the country into this chaos have much to answer for. But, at least, we are now in a better position to judge what leaving the EU will actually mean for the United Kingdom. Even the government has admitted that — under any and every form of Brexit — every part of the UK will be worse off. Our country will also be weaker and less influential; and those in our society who have the least will suffer the deepest deprivation of all. It would be morally reprehensible to allow this to happen.

    The majority of MPs know this but, astonishingly, the most diehard of the Eurosceptics still refuse to accept it. To them, the EU will always be the “enemy”, and our nation should be prepared to pay any price to leave. In human terms — as prices rise and jobs are lost — this will be a very high price indeed, and end up being paid by the very people who should not be expected to bear it.

    The Labour leadership has added little or nothing to the European debate. Yet, having expressed no clear policy position whatsoever during the negotiation process, Jeremy Corbyn now proclaims that a general election is the only way forward. He speaks of his wish to “heal divisions”, while at the same time using language that can only foster further feelings of social disquiet.

    In any event, what would a general election solve at this particular time? As things stand, the Conservative and Labour leaders would both be campaigning for Brexit. So the country would have to endure yet another election campaign — which would no doubt prove even more divisive than the last — before parliament ends up exactly where it started. How would that, by any stretch, serve the national interest?

    Crucial decisions have to be made now, not later. But there is no consensus on what they should be. Any government should think very carefully before forcing through a vote that has few real supporters within parliament, widespread opposition from without, and one that would leave the country vulnerable to decisions made by others. The Labour Party has had two years to propose a credible alternative. As we move into the 11th hour, it still has nothing more to offer than political games. The people of this country deserve so much better than this.

    We must avoid doing more harm than has already been done. Divisions can only be healed if common ground is sought. And common ground is, now, emerging. One majority view — from parliament, business, trade unions and electors — is that it would be deeply harmful for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal. I agree. The cost of a no-deal Brexit to our national wellbeing would be heavy and long-lasting. The benefits are close to zero. Every single household — rich or poor — would be worse off for many years to come. Jumping off a cliff has never had a happy ending.

    Shrill Brexiteer voices continue to tell us that it would be “disrespectful” to the British people if we do not leave the EU on March 29; that it would be a “betrayal” to propose another referendum. What nonsense they speak — yet another pithy slogan from those who fear that the victory they obtained two years ago, by such dubious tactics, is slipping from their grasp. How can asking the people to make a decision based on facts ever be a betrayal of democracy? Facts that, as each month passes, further disprove the fantasies that were once so shamefully peddled.

    Moreover, it must never be forgotten that 63% of those eligible to vote during the referendum either voted to stay or did not vote at all; 37% of the voting public hardly constitutes the overwhelming “will of the people” they speak of: yet another facile soundbite.

    The real betrayal and disrespect to the British people is not the prospect of a second referendum — this time definitive and binding — but the promise of leading them to an economic and social utopia that never has, never will and never could exist. During the last referendum, deception was the leave campaign’s weapon of choice: “Win by any means — fair or foul.” And how foul it has been.

    Amid the overall confusion, we are now invited to explore alternative options. Some now seek a “Norway” deal, others a “Canada” deal, or even an “Efta” deal — not one of which is better than the status quo.

    At the same time, we are told that there are “only two options on the table”: the prime minister’s deal or no deal. But this is yet further obfuscation. There is a third deal on the table, which is the one we currently have. Why would any country — least of all our own great country — accept a “least bad” option, when a far better one is already in play?

    In the midst of chaos, it is sensible to pause and think. To review all possible options and seek a majority consensus.

    Article 50 was triggered — and the deadline of March 29, 2019 was set — before we knew what we wished to do. Two years later, we still have no agreement on that.

    The only sensible course now is for the government to revoke article 50 and suspend any decision on departure. This may be politically uncomfortable, but any short-term political disruption pales into insignificance when compared with the long-term damage that could be wreaked on our country as a whole.

    The choice between a “bad deal” and “no deal” was never one that our country should have had to accept. A mature democracy should be prepared to remain with the status quo until we reach as much of a national consensus as possible. No true democracy should deny a considered choice to its people.

    But we may need a new process to enable this, and that process needs to go far beyond self-interested party politics.

    One option would be a consultative process — led by parliament — to report on the intricacies of our future relationship, which is far more complex than a simple “yes” or “no” about our membership of the EU. Properly organised, this could be completed well within the timescale of a transitional pause.

    I accept that many “leavers” will be frustrated by this delay, and suspicious of it. But only a minority of the voting population voted to leave. Unless we seek a more consensual policy, 100% of our present and future population may have to live with the bitter consequences of a bad deal.

    I would therefore suggest that, while there remains no consensus in parliament about how best to proceed, the government should, without delay:

    ● Ask parliament to rescind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act;

    ● Withdraw the article 50 notification;

    ● Establish a national consultation process;

    ● Agree “headline” points on our future relationship with the EU and put that outcome to a binding referendum, with the option of maintaining the status quo. The binding nature of this should be enforced by the confirmation from each party leader that the outcome of this further referendum would be definitive. Only this will provide voters with the facts and reassurance they need to reach a final decision on where best our country’s future — and their own personal future — lies.

    The ramifications of the 2016 referendum have led us into a territory way beyond party politics, tribal loyalties and personal ambition.
    Across the UK, there are many people who feel unsettled: uncertain and worried about their jobs, about debt, about how they will house their families — and how they will feed them. They are fearful of what the future holds. The dominance of Brexit in our political debate has done nothing to alleviate that fear, and much to fuel it.

    The intolerance, belligerence, vituperative language, threatening conduct that this debate has spawned; the families, friends, neighbours and communities that have been fractured — sometimes beyond repair — due to opposing political views, has not only been an unedifying spectacle, but also profoundly un-British. It is not who we are as a nation.

    One of the most hackneyed mantras of the leave campaign was that our sovereign parliament should “take back control”. Another absurd slogan, of course, for she has never lost it.

    But now is the time for the Mother of Parliaments to exert all the power and control within her means — before it’s too late.

    Only then can the healing process begin, and our country be put back on track to the long-term prosperity that promotes social cohesion and national unity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This was misdirection on a classic scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    to be told by a heckler:

    “Because you’re in Chatham.”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    However, first Brexit …

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

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

    Europe gone ….. America going.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it is this:

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

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

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

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

    That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

    None of this meets WTO rules.

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

    All this undermines the rules-based world trading system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * *

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

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

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

    Because of that, such an attack is unlikely.

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

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

    But so should bio-technology.

    Consider this quote from the American National Academy of Sciences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Take information, which is now being weaponised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Old commitments are a comfort. Renewed commitments reassure.

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

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

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

    * * * * *

    Let me turn finally to politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A famous line of Yeats comes to mind:

    “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More compromise – less confrontation.

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

    And so, I believe, would Michael Quinlan.

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    JM Keynes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    We are living history at the moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There are serious issues to address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There are also other risks to long-term stability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I don’t say this to be critical.

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

    That is a lesson for the negotiations to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – continue to sell our goods and services without disruption;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Meanwhile, our options become ever narrower.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I see only one way to achieve this.

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

    That is what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

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

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

    There are some very practical reasons in favour of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I have been a Conservative all my life.

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

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

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

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

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