Douglas Alexander – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to the 2013 Labour Party conference in Brighton.


Conference – This has been an important debate. And it takes place after an extraordinary year for our country’s Foreign Policy.

Across the Middle East we see a region engulfed by turmoil.

In Syria a hundred thousand have been killed. Millions displaced. A nation state is melting away before our eyes.

And then last month the latest horrific chemical attack took place in Damascus

The Prime Minister announced the recall of Parliament and a Commons motion was drafted authorising British military intervention in Syria.

The UN weapons inspectors had not completed their work. The UN Secretary General was pleading for more time. And the UN Security Council was to be effectively bypassed.

Yet here the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister seemed determined to rush to military action on a timetable agreed elsewhere.

It fell to our leader, Labour’s Leader, Ed Miliband, to speak for the nation.

He upheld a basic principle: that the evidence should precede the decision, not the decision precede the evidence.

And together we set out a ‘roadmap for decision’: a clear set of tests and conditions by which our nation should reach a decision of such consequence.

Conference, it was Labour’s leadership that prevented a rush to military action on a timetable set elsewhere, without the necessary steps being taken and without due process being followed.

We have learned the lessons of the past. Intervening immediately and asking hard questions later would have ill served our country.

As Labour, we are prepared to support force where we must – as we did in Libya two years ago – but we should support diplomacy where we can.

Now, thankfully, a new diplomatic path is open to eradicate chemical weapons in Syria – in part due to Westminster’s vote.

So in the months ahead we must pursue diplomacy without illusions.

The task now is to ensure that new humanitarian efforts are made, and new diplomatic efforts are taken to get the warring parties around the table, and to end the suffering.

Now some have claimed that the Syria vote means Britain has turned its back on the world. Certainly, people across Britain are weary of conflict.

A decade of brave service by our troops in Afghanistan is drawing to a close.

And of course our economy is fragile.

But that vote told us much more about the competence of this government than it did about the character of our country.

Neither knee jerk interventionism or knee jerk isolationism is the right course for Britain in the 21st century.

It is in our national interest to upload an international rules based order.

And our country is strongest when we work with partners and allies in pursuit of shared goals.

Many on the UKIP right – whether within or out with the Conservative party – have reverted to isolationism, we know that.

So as progressive internationalists we must and will reject the isolationism that expresses itself in an anti-Europe, anti-immigrate, anti foreign aid, stop-the-world-we-want-to-get-off type of politics.

We will oppose that politics wherever we find it.

We understand that as a country we face challenges – from financial contagion to climate change to nuclear threat and conflict – that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions.

And only a progressive internationalism can answer that call.

For Britain to now try and retreat from the world would be as foolish as it would be futile.

And that Conference is why Britain’s continued membership of the EU matters so much.

The Eurosceptic fantasy of Britain as a North Atlantic Singapore is just that – it is a fantasy.

British jobs, British exports and British influence in the world all benefit from Britain’s continued membership of the European Union.

Our economy is strengthened, our interests are advanced, and our voice is heard louder on the world stage as part of the European Union.

And that is why under Ed’s leadership, we will argue for reform in Europe, not exit from Europe.

So Conference, the real problem for the Conservatives on foreign policy isn’t the Prime Minister’s incompetence – evident though that is – it isn’t even the rise of isolationism on their backbenches – evident those that is as well.

It is that these Conservatives are in hoc to an idea – an imperial delusion – that is out of balance, and out of step, with the modern world.

They believe that as America pivots towards Asia and the Eurozone consolidates, Britain should simply focus on its own business.

They don’t understand that there is nothing splendid about isolation in the 21st century.

And they don’t understand that Britain is strongest when we work alongside our partners.

Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet Union.

Britain led the development of the single market across Europe.

Britain helped create the United Nations.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation.

It is time to lead reforms of Europe and its institutions.

It’s time to strengthen NATO to better coordinate our capabilities amidst tight budgets.

It’s time to deepen our partnerships with Asia, as economic power moves east.

We need that cooperation and that engagement, because “you are on your own” is as hopeless an idea in foreign policy as it is in domestic policy.

Sadly, the Conservatives just don’t get it.

They have weakened our economy at home and they have weakened our influence abroad.

This is a government that deserves to loose.

Defeating this government is our shared responsibility and working together it can be shared achievement.

Douglas Alexander – 2013 Speech to Chatham House


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to Chatham House on 17th January 2013.


Good evening. It is a both a privilege and a pleasure to be here at Chatham House.

There could be few better settings in which to discuss the recent developments and future course of the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe.

Chatham House has developed a peerless standing as a venue for debate and discussion about international affairs, and the key challenges facing the international community.

So, ahead of the Prime Minister’s speech in the Netherlands tomorrow, I want to explore why he finds himself where he does, with reference both to party pressures and public opinion, before setting out Labour’s thinking both on why the United Kingdom should be part of the European Union and why and how the European Union needs to change.

Put simply, my argument this evening is that reform in Europe, not exit from Europe, is the right road ahead for the United Kingdom.

Let me start by acknowledging openly that my speech begins with a focus on the domestic politics of Europe – and not simply the foreign policy towards Europe.

On one level I regret this – but I can’t avoid it.

To understand both the why, and the what, of the speech the Prime Minister delivers tomorrow in fact demands an analysis rooted in politics.

So let me begin my remarks this evening with reference to last Friday, not this Friday, and with reference to America rather than Europe.

Where I want to start is not with the words of a US diplomat, but a film by a US director.

Because last Friday I attended a screening of Stephen Spielberg’s new film “Lincoln”.

It’s a great film.

It tells the story of Lincoln’s struggle to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution banning slavery.

It describes vividly Lincoln’s willingness to contemplate low politics in order to try and achieve historic change.

Now although I sit across from him each week at Prime Minister’s Questions, I have to admit to you that I do not often find myself drawing a comparison between David Cameron and Abraham Lincoln!

But stick with the parallel – however unlikely – for a moment.

Because as I reflected on Spielberg’s film it struck me that David Cameron’s approach to politics is almost exactly the opposite of Lincoln’s.

Here’s why.

To really understand tomorrow’s speech you need to start from this understanding: that the Prime Minister really is willing to contemplate historic change purely to try and achieve low politics.

So significant are the potential consequences of this speech that it is tempting, indeed reassuring, to presume a degree of strategic thought or high public purpose in its preparation.

The truth, I fear, is both more prosaic and more worrying.

This speech is about politics much more than it is about policy.

And its origins lie in weakness, not in strength.

Let me explain.

One of the domestic political consequences of the Global Financial Crisis was that David Cameron never managed to complete the modernisation of his party – whether he ever had the desire, or intention to, is another question.

But a consequence of this failure to modernise, is that he failed to change his party’s approach to Europe.

And this failure to first challenge, and then unite his party on Europe means David Cameron has been living on borrowed time since the day he walked through the door of Number 10.

These longstanding internal pressures on David Cameron have only been exacerbated by recent external electoral ones.

Many Tory MPs now see UKIP as a dagger pointed at the heart of their electoral prospects.

Deep hostility to Europe is not a marginal feature of today’s Conservative Party – it is the mainstream philosophy – both on the backbenches and within the Cabinet.

For many in his Party, getting David Cameron to commit now to an in/out referendum is not about securing consent.

It is about securing exit.

Indeed it is worth noting quite how far the Conservative Party has shifted over the decades.

This is best demonstrated by recollecting the words of a previous leader of the Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher, when she set out her opposition to a referendum on Europe in the House of Commons on 11 March 1975. This is what she said then:

“What one Minister has used as a tactical advantage on one issue today, others will use for different issues tomorrow. This will lead to a major constitutional change, a change which should only be made if, after full deliberation, it was seriously thought to be a lasting improvement on present practice. This White Paper [on a referendum] has come about because of the Government’s concern for internal party interests. It is a licence for Ministers to disagree on central issues but still stay in power. I believe that the right course would be to reject it and to consider the wider constitutional issues properly and at length.”

How accurate, indeed prophetic, a description of the judgement David Cameron now seems set to make.

So the roots of tomorrow’s speech lie much more in the politics of the Conservative Party, than in foreign policy.

And the real tragedy of tomorrow’s speech is that David Cameron’s Party won’t let him address the undoubted need for change in the EU in a sensible way.

We have a Prime Minster who simply cannot reconcile the demands of his party, with the needs of his country.

There is a very real risk that, in failing to meet the bar set by his own rhetoric, and by his own backbenchers, he stumbles into an in/out referendum and Britain stumbles out of Europe.

Unless he achieves total success in his negotiating objectives, his party will not back him.

If he demands a shopping list of unilateral repatriations by threatening exit, he will have no hope of success.

The gap between the minimum the Tories will demand and the maximum our European partners can accept remains unbridgeable.

And we will have a British Prime Minister sleepwalking towards exit, knowing he is letting down the national interest, but too weak to do anything about it.

So let me, in turn, be open with you as to where Labour stands.

Some commentators argue that Labour could make significant tactical gains, now and also at the time of an election, by being seen as a more euro sceptic party in general, and by outflanking the Tories by committing now to an in/out referendum.

They know that this might come the cost of the long term interests of the country – both in terms of the economic recovery and Britain’s place in the world – but would argue that ultimately, the electoral boost would make it worth the risk.

They argue this because they think it will help Labour to win.

I want to see Labour win.

And that is why I disagree.

Let me tell you why.

First, I don’t think it is right for any party to sacrifice what they think is in the national interest simply for the sake of advancing narrow party interest.

This is not my way of doing politics.

I don’t think this is right for a party of Government. But I also don’t think it is worthy of an effective and credible Opposition aspiring to be a Government.

But secondly, it would not work.

We don’t buy the simplistic assumptions about how the public would respond to such a shift in attitude and policy.

I think it would be to underestimate the voters if we are to assume that they judge politicians simply by what they say and not what they think they actually believe.

Were Labour to come out and call for a referendum the night before, or morning after, David Cameron makes his own speech, I think the public would see through it.

They would see the announcement for what it was – opportunistic political positioning rather than serious considered policy making.

So let me set out Labour’s position on the issue of an in/out referendum.

We are clear that to announce one in these circumstances will not serve Britain’s national interest.

As Ed Miliband set out in his speech at the CBI in November, Labour argues that the priority should be to promote growth at home and secure influence abroad.

And committing to an in/out referendum tomorrow will make it harder, not easier, to deliver on these two objectives.

It risks up to seven years of economic uncertainty which could deter potential investors and undermine the prospects for recovery.

Significant British business leaders have already come out to warn of this – and indeed, even the Foreign Secretary William Hague has told the House of Commons that “it would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”

And it undermines our influence and political capital in Europe at a time when our leverage could be most significant and the changes being contemplated are so profound.

But let me say clearly – not agreeing with the Prime Minister’s approach – is not, and cannot, be a justification for ignoring the public’s very real concerns.

Who could deny that hostility towards the institutions of the EU has grown as a consequence of the Euro crisis?

Frankly that is no surprise.

But this public hostility is too often misunderstood.

Of course there are those that are in principle opposed to our membership of the European Union.

For them no justification in terms of enhanced power, status or security would be worth the pooling of sovereignty that a union of 27 member states inevitably entails.

Let me today be clear to these people.

Labour disagrees with you and will seek to win your vote by persuading you of our case.

Then there are those that form part of what is being described as a ‘UKIP surge’.

But let me say– in my view – the UKIP surge reflects not so much a European policy problem as a British political problem.

It is a symptom of a growing sense among some that British political parties simply don’t understand their lives or share their fears.

That is why to simply insult the Party and its voters – as David Cameron has done – is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I recognise that the Conservative Party – and indeed some within my own Party – are concerned about the impact of UKIP on their electoral prospects.

But the depth of concern about UKIP is not always matched by a depth of understanding.

The most comprehensive survey of UKIP voters yet undertaken – a huge poll of 20,000 supporters done last month by Lord Ashcroft found in his words “the UKIP threat is not about Europe” – and confirmed that issues like jobs, welfare, and immigration scored higher than Europe amongst these voters list of concerns.

The UKIP vote rising does not prove to me that more people are convinced we would be better off out – it proves to me that we have to be making the case for Europe, and so much else, differently.

Then there are those who count within the often used label of the ‘majority of the public’ who are anti-Europe.

In fact this bloc is far from homogenous.

Within this bloc, most people are willing to accept that there are areas where the EU is vital to protecting and promoting British interests.

Indeed, recent YouGov polling makes that case that despite overall levels of hostility to the EU as a whole, a majority still believe that the EU should do more to cooperate on issues like international terrorism/crime, tackling climate change, reducing poverty and immigration.

But they hold this view alongside a growing sense of frustration that the EU today is simply not meeting their expectations.

That is why Labour says clearly to them – yes, the United Kingdom’s future lies in Europe, but in a Europe we will work to change and reform.

And we will not be alone: there are reforms that many across Europe support – reforms that can be secured without the risk of Britain being dangerously isolated.

I do not believe that an in/out referendum now is the right way to demonstrate to the public that you are not satisfied with the status quo in Europe.

It is simply wrong to suggest that rejecting the Prime Minister’s approach means Labour is accepting the status quo.

For Labour, unlike some Conservatives, being pro-reform is not a proxy for being anti-Europe.

Indeed, for Labour, the reform of Europe should not be seen a question mark over our commitment to Britain’s future within Europe.

Instead it not just the safest ground, but also the most solid foundation, on which a positive case about Britain’s membership of the EU can be made – and the concerns of the public addressed.

I believe the modern world provides the rationale both for the EU, and for its reform.

And it is by winning the case for reform, we can also win the case for the EU, and address the concerns of the public.

So today our commitment to Europe must be matched –

First by candour about the need for change;

And second by being clearer about its ultimate destination.

Let me address each of these in turn.

First, on the need for change:

I would argue that today there are two views that can encourage hostility towards Europe within the British public.

First, being Eurosceptic – where you firmly believe that nothing the EU does is right simply by virtue of it being done by the EU – and no amount of reforms or revisions will ever change that.

But there is another view that also risks encouraging hostility towards Europe.

And that is being uncritically pro-the status quo.

Those that believe that whatever the EU does is justified by virtue of it being done via the EU in fact pose a real threat to the future of the European project in a way that few of them would be willing to admit.

Those who believe Britain’s future lies within the European Union must see the case for change not as a threat to our politics – but as a foundation on which to win back support for that politics.

We must also, however, be clearer than in the past about the ultimate destination of the changes and reforms we seek.

For decades the EEC and then the EU have had as its goal “an ever closer union”.

This goal has in turn led to talk of “a two speed Europe” implying differing speeds of travel towards a common destination.

Others have spoken about a two-tier Europe suggesting a permanent and inflexible division between the core of ‘real Europeans’ and the second class periphery of Europe.

None of these are, or should be, our desired destination.

The future of the European Union is not – and must not – be defined as uniform progress towards a common federal government or the merging of national identities into a United States of Europe.

Instead Labour’s vision of Europe is a flexible Europe with a common political framework that can permanently accommodate varying levels of integration amongst Member States.

This is not an a la carte Europe – but one where member states choose, collectively and collaboratively, to pool sovereignty in those areas where they judge that they can achieve more together than they can alone.

That means there maybe areas where member states will in future decide to do less together – but Labour are clear that it also means there could be areas where member states might start to do more together.

So let me set out for you key components of that reform agenda to you today.

First – Labour are clear that our agenda for change in Europe should start where the need is most urgently felt – and so the economy will be our focus.

Second – Labour believes that the institutional reform agenda is more relevant now than in the past because not only does the EU need to change, but it needs to be seen to change by the public – and reform of the way the EU itself works is relevant to achieving that.

Third – Labour will not shy away from making the case for Britain when we think our interests are being challenged in specific policy areas – but we will do this by building alliances and coalitions to secure reforms, not make undeliverable demands for unilateral repatriation.

In all three, it is the national interest, not party interest, that should drive change.

On the economy, there are two overlapping but separate agendas that we must now pursue.

There is an urgent reform agenda aimed at protecting the interests of the single market, and the UK in particular, in the face of an increasingly integrated Eurozone bloc adjusting itself in response to the recent euro crisis.

And a broader pro-growth and anti-austerity agenda that a Labour government would lead on with our partners in Europe.

Let me address first of these:

The design of the Euro needs to be revisited – not least because the fate of our own economy in part depends on that.

But the Prime Minister is wrong to imply that these changes inevitably threaten our interests.

Let’s be clear – some opponents of the EU in Britain would welcome the prospect of a two tier Europe – which sees Britain’s interests constantly being undermined and outvoted by a stronger and more integrated Eurozone bloc.

They warn against it – but in reality hope that convincing people it is inevitable will effectively put us on a conveyor belt to exit.

But they are wrong.

No one knows how the changes currently being contemplated within the Eurozone will affect Britain’s relationship with the EU, or indeed the nature of our membership.

As things stand today, it seems that they may not be as far-reaching as some had hoped and others feared.

But furthermore, it is simply wrong to suggest that this process is something that will happen to us – indeed we have the power – and indeed the responsibility – to decide what happens and how it happens.

And it is certainly wrong to reach the absurd conclusion that because countries in the Euro are going to cooperate more on managing that currency, that the UK somehow needs to cooperate less with our fellow Europeans on other issues like crime and policing.

Instead we should be seeking to secure protections and safeguards that continue to ensure that the interests of the euro-ins and euro-outs are appropriately balanced within the institutions of the 27.

It is also why it is crucial that we always ensure a British seat at the negotiating table when these decisions are being made – rather than walk away from talks before they have even really begun, as the Prime Minister did in December 2011.

Negotiating institutional safeguards, and not demanding unilateral repatriations, will be the best way to protect our interests through this process of change.

Of course, the present economic difficulties afflicting Europe have caused many to question their support for Europe.

And that poses a challenge for Labour, when so many governments in the EU are currently centre-right – because we believe that the synchronised austerity being pushed by them, only reinforces the sense of alienation and frustration among many voters.

But our response is not to reject Europe.

It is to advance a reform agenda to secure growth.

That is why we have consistently called for not just restraint but also reform of the EU budget.

It may only be 1 per cent of GDP, but it could be far better used.

It should focus on those items where spending at EU level can save money at national level, through economies of scale or by avoiding duplication.

Far too much money still goes on agricultural subsidies, instead of on policies to promote growth, cohesion and development or to support the EU’s vital role in international affairs.

The CAP is an obstacle to international trade liberalisation, creates too few jobs and introduces distortions so there is not a level playing field.

Neither we, nor Europe, can afford this waste.

EU structural funds — currently used to promote growth and investment in the EU — must also be reformed if they are to deliver the vital support that Europe now needs.

These funds make up around 35 per cent of annual EU expenditure but are distributed according to overlapping and, at times, competing objectives agreed decades ago – instead that money must be spent on promoting growth and jobs in deprived areas.

Alongside reform of the Budget, Labour have also called for a new Growth Commissioner – and a new mechanism embedded within the EU and tasked with assessing the impact of every new piece of legislation on the potential to promote growth across the EU – this will improve accountability and help sharpen the EU’s focus on this vital agenda.

The EU should also be looking to reform aspects of the single market – by extending into areas like the digital, energy and financial sectors.

And the EU must work much harder to reduce the burden on business by actively removing unnecessary regulation.

Rescue of the currency, protections for the single market, and revival of the prospects for growth should be Europe’s priorities for change.

But economic reform is not the limit of our ambitions for change in Europe.

So, Labour will seek to address issues around accountability by working for credible institutional reform.

Labour would seek to agree a mechanism for ensuring that national parliaments have more of a say over the making of new EU legislation.

Currently the ‘yellow card’ system – which the Lisbon Treaty initiated – gives national parliaments the ability to push legislation into review if there is significant opposition to it from a third of member states.

This is indeed welcome.

But we will look at extending this – arguing for the introduction of some form of collective emergency break procedure –that could further amplify the voice of national parliaments within the EU law making process.

Labour would also seek ways to make the European Parliament and Commission more streamlined and effective.

And, of course, our long standing commitment to abolish the second seat of the Parliament endures – but given opposition from the French and despite other’s best efforts, change will be difficult and should not prevent us from being prepared to looking at other areas of possible reform.

So we should be looking at ways to bring down the cost of the Parliament and how the workings of the Commission could be reformed to help it operate more effectively.

It makes no sense to divide up the functions of the Commission into 27 separate pieces if in doing so we undermine the Commission’s ability to operate effectively.

But reform is needed not simply in relations to the institutions of the EU, but also in its policies.

So through the Labour Party Policy Review, Labour is already looking at ways of addressing real concerns that the public have about the lived experience of the EU.

I want to be clear about how we will approach this.

Because it means change for my party, and has risks for our country if not done in the right way.

Change for my party, because the old approach of not talking about problems with the EU didn’t make those problems any less real or indeed mitigate them.

Instead we need a real dialogue with people and the honesty to hear their concerns and when we accept them to say so.

But rebuilding trust means not just recognising their concerns. It means too realising that you undermine public trust rather than enhance it by promising what you know you can’t deliver.

So our approach must be different from our past, but very different from this Government’s.

Let me touch on some examples.

We all hear about the perceived strain that certain aspects of the EU are putting on some local communities here in the UK.

For many, this relates specifically to the operation of the Free Movement Directive.

For too long, those wanting to make the case for the EU would shy away from talking about one of its most prominent components – the free movement of people.

This must stop.

We must be clear about the advantages that many British citizens get from this Directive.

Latest figures show that over 875,000 British people are officially registered as living in another EU country, and we can all tell personal anecdotes about the benefits this seemingly abstract principle has on our day to day lives – from retirement choices to work opportunities and study abroad schemes.

But we must also recognise that in some cases it is has put pressure on communities here at home – and this must not be ignored.

It is true that far more people are moving around Europe than ever before.

Enlargement brings enlarged freedom of movement, which underpins the many benefits of the single market but also creates certain pressures.

Labour has recently recognised these pressures in a way we haven’t in the past.

Back in June Ed Miliband set out the new approach we would need in this area.

Labour has already set out that it regrets not implementing the full transitional arrangements that were available to it during the last round of EU enlargement and would do differently now.

We believe the EU should look to go further than that and look at ways of giving member states more flexibility over the transitional arrangements that they sign up to – both to relax them more when those countries see fit, but also to include the possibility of tightening them further if necessary.

But we should not promise what we cannot deliver on immigration from within the European Union.

That is why we must also manage those impacts and reform our economy, to address people’s concerns on the likes of agency workers and workplace segregation.

We will also look at what else can help.

The EU does not currently collect data on the size of the flows of people moving between member states.

This data is vital to helping us better understand the implications of the Free Movement Direct – and therefore enable all member states – including the UK – to manage its consequences.

On this the EU needs to show increased responsibility.

The interplay of EU immigration and social security provisions are a source of real and legitimate concern.

Which is why our Policy Review is considering deliverable reforms to address these real concerns people have – specifically around family related entitlements.

But Labour’s approach to delivering these reforms is different to the Conservatives’.

Our candour about the challenge of delivering them is key to us convincing the voters that we genuinely want to make progress on these areas.

And we recognise our interests are intertwined – and because of that we must work to convince, rather than coerce, our European partners.

Unlike the Conservatives’, we will argue that changes of this type are best for Britain – but we will also argue that they make sense for the EU.

This candour sadly looks set to be unmatched by the Conservatives’ shopping list of demands.

His unilateralist approach to repatriation – that presumes changes will be agreed in Europe simply by making the case that they are ‘best for Britain’ – is not just bad politics, it is bad diplomacy.

It is the wrong approach because it will fail to deliver.

Opening the door to an a la carte EU – where member states defend change based on the narrowest definition of their own national interest – doesn’t just undermine the principle of European cooperation, it could in effect undermine the interests of the United Kingdom.

It would leave open the door to other member states repatriating, reforming and renegotiating vital components of the EU that the UK benefits from – not least the single market.

Indeed it would not be hard to draw up an equivalent list of demands to match David Cameron’s shopping list of powers that say, France, Poland, or others, would seek to pursue.

It won’t be accepted.

It won’t work.

And it denies the spirit of cooperation that we believe defines – and in part justifies our continuing commitment to the EU.

The EU was originally founded on the principle not only of cooperation, but also of promoting peace after decades of a continent savaged by war.

While this peace now seems assured, it must never be taken for granted, nor the importance of this achievement diminished – as the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize reminds us.

Today, the peace that it established allows the EU to today become an effective and vital vehicle for amplifying power.

This is true in economics, in trade, in defence, foreign policy and global challenges such as climate change.

It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we lack.

And it does so at a time in our history when this has arguably never been more important.

If we accept this is a central feature of the emerging age, then, in that context, it is worth listing a few basic facts:

As of today, China has a population three times that of the whole of the EU combined.

India has over a billion people.

Indonesia is three times the size of the largest European country – Brazil is two times bigger.

Russia, Turkey, Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines and Egypt all have bigger populations today than any single EU nation.

Against this backdrop, the case for the UK’s future in Europe is not a matter of outdated sentiment.

It’s not even a matter of party ideology.

It’s a matter of simple arithmetic.

That is why the benefits of EU membership go beyond a simple ledger of accounts – an exercise of costs to the tax payer and benefits accrued.

Nor are the benefits simply about our ability to travel, work, study and live across Europe.

They have to do with Britain’s role in the changing world and place in the global race.

About what kind of nation we are.

And what kind of nation we aspire to be in the decades ahead.

In an age of countries the size of continents our membership gives us access and influence to the biggest global trading bloc – with a GDP of €12.6tn in 2011 – prizing open new frontiers that would be otherwise unreachable – including 46 vital EU trade agreements with other countries.

In an age of common threats that permeate through national borders, membership gives us the power of collective action and pooled resources that helps make us safer and more secure – whether that be through tackling climate change, cross border crime and terror, targeted EU sanctions on Iran or EU neighbourhood funds to help counter the spread of extremism.

And incidentally that is why specifically on Justice and Home Affairs – an area where the case for European cooperation is clear – it is so regrettable that the Prime Minister seems to have chosen the bloc opt out.

In a world where power is shifting eastwards, in what many predict will be the Asian Century, when the US is pivoting to Asia, the EU strengthens rather than weakens out trans-Atlantic relationship.

Britain is a top-table member of not just the EU – but also of NATO, the G8 and the G20, the Commonwealth and the United Nations Security Council – but these are overlapping and interdependent spheres of influence, not mutually exclusive power bases that we have to chose between.

On so many issues that matter – jobs, growth, trade, security in central Europe and the Middle East – the EU is an indispensable force-multiplier for all its members – including the UK.

Labour supports the EU not just as an instrument for amplifying power – but also because in the decades ahead it has the capacity to be a vehicle for promoting our values, as well as our interests.

From promoting a vision of responsible capitalism, to securing peace and security and defending democracy and human rights – Labour’s vision of the European cooperation is part of our progressive project, not distinct from it.

And as Labour, we have no illusions that part of what, in part, motivates the modern Conservative party when it comes to Europe is to bring powers home in order to take protections away.

We are proud that Labour signed up to the Social Chapter which introduced measures including four weeks’ paid holiday; a right to parental leave; extended maternity leave; a new right to request flexible working and the same protection for part-time workers as full-time workers – and we will fight to protect them.

In conclusion, let me simply say this.

Tomorrow the Prime Minister will make a speech that even before it has been delivered has caused warnings to be issued by business leaders at home and friendly governments abroad.

The warnings of the last week have been a timely reminder of the bigger issues at stake tomorrow.

Setting aside the immediate pressures of party politics and taking that longer view, Britain stands stronger in the world as part of the EU.

But the EU in changing and needs to change more. In truth if an institution for regional co-operation like the EU did not exist today – as Labour, we would be arguing for it to be invented.

In the modern world neighbourhoods matter as well as networks.

The modern world provides both the rationale for the EU and for its reform.

It is a true tragedy that David Cameron’s party simply won’t let him address this task in a serious and sensible way.

And so it falls to Labour, and to many others, to give voice to the national interest.

We will make the hard headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe and for change in Europe.

That is what we believe.

And that is where we stand.

And that is what, in the months and years ahead, we intend to do.

Douglas Alexander – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to the Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.


Conference, this has been an important debate. And as this video reminds us, it comes after an extraordinary summer.

Now I know it’s customary to close these debates by quoting past speakers – and there have been some great contributions this morning.

But I want to begin my remarks by reminding you of the words, not of a politician, or even an activist, but of an athlete.

Because the quiet but fierce pride so many of us felt about Britain this summer was best captured for me when a journalist asked Mo Farrah:

“Wouldn’t you rather have run for Somalia?”

Mo replied, “Look mate. This is where I grew up, this is my country and when I put on my Great Britain vest I’m proud. I’m very proud.”

Let’s just contrast those words with the most famous, or should I say infamous, remarks by a Conservative politician this summer, Mr Aiden Burley…..

Remember him?

And what was his reaction to Danny Boyle’s extraordinary evocation of our islands’ story that fittingly celebrated the Suffragettes and the Trade Unionists, the Windrush and our NHS?

He didn’t feel proud like the rest of us.

He called it “Lefty multi-cultural crap”.

Now the reason I remind you of these revealing remarks is that this is quintessentially Conservative. This ‘stop the modern world we want to get off’ attitude doesn’t just appear when the world comes to Britain – but alas it is also present when the British Government reaches out to the world.

Conference, modern Britain exists in a world where everyone is connected to everyone – a world of quite extraordinary interdependence.

And the fundamental weakness with this Conservative Government’s foreign policy is that they remain damagingly unreconciled to that modern truth.

Let me be clear: the Foreign Secretary – he’s not a stupid man.

Indeed he’s an intelligent man.

The problem is he, like all the rest of them, are in hoc to a dumb ideology.

‘You are on your own’ is a hopeless idea on which to base a Government’s domestic policy.

But it’s also a hopeless idea on which to base a Government’s foreign policy.

Take the issue of Europe – does it matter to Britain? Absolutely.

Does it need fundamental reform? Certainly.

Does this Government have a clue how to influence that reform? Absolutely not.

We all know real change is coming, so as Labour, under Ed’s leadership, we’ll argue for reform in Europe, not exit from Europe.


Because British jobs, British exports, and British influence all benefit from Britain’s continued membership of the European Union.

Remember this when we hear the boast and the bluster from David Cameron trying to placate his backbenchers on Europe next week.

The real tragedy is the Conservatives have marginalised Britain just when influence matters most.

Because when you start with a bunch of Aiden Burleys on the back benches you end up with the fiasco last December of a front bench that does indeed manage to unite Europe…..but the only problem is – they unite them against Britain.

Just two years into Government and that’s David Cameron in a nutshell: out of touch at home; out of his depth abroad.

But what’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the EU? Nothing, it’s a blank page.

What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the G20? Nothing, it’s a blank page.

What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the WTO? Nothing, it’s a blank page.

What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for NATO? Nothing, it’s a blank page.

The Conservatives don’t seem to understand that we are stronger and safer when we cooperate and collaborate with international partners.

And that blindness to the need to network is damaging, and indeed at times dangerous.

David Cameron came to office declaring that Afghanistan would be his number one foreign policy priority.

That’s as it should be. Our troops – still in harm’s way – deserve nothing less.

Now we have heard this morning from members of our Armed Forces. They are quite simply the best of British. And we thank them for their service.

But understand this – they deserve something more than our applause. They deserve a political strategy worthy of their military effort.

And yet the Prime Minister, that self-same Prime Minister who told us Afghanistan would be his Government’s number one foreign policy priority, has not made a speech in the House of Commons on Afghanistan in 14 months. That is shameful.

So today from this platform I say this: David Cameron, break your silence, take the risks to negotiate for a durable peace in Afghanistan, and we in the Opposition will support you.

Now, of course, such an approach will demand Britain works with partners.

And nowhere in the world is that type of coordinated joined-up approach needed more than the Middle East.

Just last week the President Abbas spoke at the United Nations General Assembly and made clear the Palestinians’ wish for enhanced status at the UN.

But where do the British Government stand on this issue?

So far all we’ve heard from them is the sound of silence.

Conference, I give you my word, as a Labour Foreign Secretary, I would not sit on the fence: I would use my voice and my vote to upgrade Palestinian representation at the UN.

Let me be clear. To continue to build settlements on other people’s land is wrong, and it is illegal.

And so too is launching rockets into Israel.

So when people ask you – which side is Labour on?

Answer them: Labour is on the side of peace and justice, and a negotiated settlement to this conflict. So we will work with our international partners to see not only a secure Israel but a viable Palestinian State.

And we must also work together with our partners on the issue of Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Let me state this plainly: a pre-emptive strike now by Israel cannot be justified, but nor can Iran’s evasion and hate-filled rhetoric.

The Iranians must face a world united against nuclear proliferation.

Britain must continue to work for a peaceful resolution to this crisis with our international partners led by Cathy Ashton.

And that must continue to be our approach to resolving the crisis in Syria.

On Syria let me say this to the British Government:

The scale of the slaughter and suffering is such that the Government must redouble its efforts to work with international partners to end this violence.

Conference, the long shadow of the last difficult decade has taught us many lessons.

We have to win back trust. I understand that.

So let me say this clearly – we will always work for peace and only ever contemplate force where we have to.

But for Britain to now try and retreat from the world would be as foolish as it would be futile.

The security and prosperity of each and every citizen of Britain now depends on the security and well-being of those who live far beyond our shores.

It’s not imperial delusions that give you strength in the modern world, it’s the capacity to cooperate and collaborate.

We get that. The Conservatives just don’t.

They are weakening our economy at home.

They are weakening our influence abroad.

They are out of touch at home.

They are out of their depth abroad.

And through our collective endeavour we will work to make sure they’re out of Government come the next election.

Douglas Alexander – 2011 Speech to Centre for European Reform


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to the Centre for European Reform on 6th July 2011.


As we meet today, the thoughts of many people across Europe will be on the Greek crisis: what will happen, who will have to pay, and will there be a spillover outside Greece?

That crisis is real and it is important. But it is fundamentally internal to the European Union – and will always seem more so when sitting in a country that isn’t a member of the eurozone.

My argument tonight is that this internal crisis shouldn’t blind Europe to the opportunities and responsibiliti es on its doorstep.

Fundamentally, countries not currencies will make history in our part of the world and the response to the “Arab Spring” will be even more important to Europe’s long term future.

In the early part of this year, from Morocco in the West to Iran in the East, we saw not a domino effect, but a demonstration effect – where the success of one set of demonstrators has given energy and inspiration to other people in other countries.

I was Britain’s International Development Secretary from 2007 to 2010 and although we worked with the poorest, most troubled nations in the world, we never saw a wave of instability of this kind in three years, let alone three months.

If anyone thought that this would be a quiet moment on the international stage while European countries wrestled with public sector debts and anaemic growth, that view has now become untenable.

In Tunisia, the demonstrators met limited resistance. In Egypt, once the army decided to side with the people, the demonstrators couldn’t be opposed. In other countries, protests have been met with –sometimes murderous – repression more often than they have been met with reform.

Where EU member states have influence – such as Bahrain and Yemen – we should be pushing for the latter and not the former. Where the EU has less influence, such as Iran, we should be just as unequivocal in our condemnation and readiness to stand in solidarity with the victims.

In Syria, I welcome the fact that the EU has acte d where the UN was unwilling to, and taken at least some steps to enact sanctions against the Syrian regime.

In Libya the protests were met with a response that was egregious in its viciousness and unique in the breadth of international clamour it created for military action.

As the Official Opposition, we made the decision to support the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and vote in the House of Commons for military force to be used to protect the people of Benghazi from imminent slaughter.

For over 100 days, Britain’s armed forces – along with those of many other countries – have undertaken difficult operations to try and protect civilians in Libya.

We want a resolution to the conflict soon. We want a post-Gaddafi Libya. The International Criminal Court last week rightly issued a warrant for Gaddafi to be sent to The Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity.

But if those wishes were granted tomorrow, would the international community – and particularly the European Union – be ready?

Neither our responsibility to the people of Libya nor our national interest in seeing stability on Europe’s southern border will end when the RAF sorties come to a halt.

Historically, 40 per cent of all post conflict situations have fallen back to conflict within a decade.

For a number of weeks now, I have been raising the concerns not just of the Labour Party but of many people in our defence and foreign policy establishment, about the lack of post-conflict planning work going into Libya.

By default rather than design, William Hague has, in his own words, ensured that “Britain is in the lead” on post conflict planning. And, uncovered in answers to Parliament, we have found that not a single official in the Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence’s grand offices in Whitehall was working full time on post conflict planning in Libya.

Of course, we welcome the work that the Department for International Development is doing to plan on humanitarian issues, but the political and military aspects of post-conflict planning are just as important and are in fact pre-requisites to any effective humanitarian efforts. I say this as a former Secretary of State for International Development, with the highest regard for those officials with whom I used to work.

In past conflicts a key problem has been that the international community had a set of assumptions that didn’t turn out to be true. The failure to challenge those assumptions, to have independent “red teams” review worst case scenarios and criticise the prevailing consensus on either side of the Atlantic, was crucial to the failures of post conflict planning, in Iraq especially. So I believe it’s our duty as the Opposition to keep post conflict planning on the agenda and, as best we can, provide thorough scrutiny of the Government’s performance on this issue.

The differences with Iraq and Afghanistan are important.

The United Nations Resolution rules out “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”. The Libyan population is a fifth of the size of that in Iraq or Afghanistan. Libya’s Arab neighbours oppose Gaddafi and have never historically seen, as in Afghanistan, Libya as a place to play out their own key strategic interests.

But after the brutalisation of the Gaddafi years, we cannot be certain what kind of Libya he could leave behind. The first concern in the hours and days after Gaddafi’s regime collapses will be security.

Chaos, looting and militia violence would critically undermine Libya’s post-conflict future.

That means we need to do all we can to help support post-Gaddafi security forces establish themselves and for the Libyan Transitional National Council to maintain civilian control over all its security operations. How the security envelope is provided is fundamentally a question for the Transitional National Council and the United Nations, but we have to start thinking about the answer now. Those in the regime who need to be brought before the International Criminal Court should be extradited as soon as possible, but a speedy assessment has to be made as to which members of the regime – for example, technocrats with no links to Gaddafi’s violence –can play a continuing role.

Libya’s economic problems will be acute.

In Egypt, where the revolution was relatively fast and the country largely remained stable, the new Government now predicts that the economy will likely contract by 1.4 percent in the second half of the current fiscal year. If food, water, utilities and parents’ ability to get their kids to school safely all can be guaranteed, it will offer the population the best reasons to buy into Libya’s future. If young men can find work they are less likely to be drawn into any nascent insurgency – making the construction sector, and European and Gulf state loans to get it going, both vital and urgent.

In Afghanistan, we are living with the centralism of a constitution designed shortly after the conflict that brings with it particular challenges in establishing a politica l process in that country. So a transitional set of arrangements, explicitly ensuring a review over time, might be a better way forward for Libya.

In Iraq, the challenge of coordination between agencies proved a major issue. In Libya, the political process would benefit from a single, empowered United Nations representative – ideally from an Arab League country – who can coordinate with the relevant UN agencies as well as being the prime interlocutor with the Transitional National Council.

But given Libya’s location so close to Europe, it would also benefit from the EU having its own special representative to lead on direct loans, providing market access and supporting private investment into Libya.

The faster Libya returns to growth, the lower the risk of a return to conflict: growth eases the zero sum conflicts between different tribes and interests. Alas, without the necessary sustained political or military involvement in post-conflict planning, without clear roles of the United Nations and European Union and without a clear ministerial lead, the Government post conflict plans in Libya remain confused and behind schedule.

Now is the time for the Government to learn lessons and accelerate progress.

The need is great – but the urgency greater still.

In the longer term, we should be clear that any post-Gaddafi Libya would be fully supported by the European Union, whether that is in terms of trade, aid or the building of civil society. This is where Libya’s two post-protest neighbours can’t be ignored. Not that they should be far from our minds anyway – Tunisia is about twice as populous as Libya, Egypt is around fourteen times more populous.

But the people of Libya will rightly judge the West’s intentions through our actions in supporting the two countries that have successfully removed oppressive leaders.

Just as no European country can afford to have a foreign, defence or development policy that is of a pre-Tahrir era, the Union as a whole must respond to this call for change.

Go back to the moment this uprising began; when the unemployed 26 year old Mohammed Bouazizi was humiliated by the Tunisian state for selling fruit and vegetables without a permit.

There you have the two biggest challenges: economic torpor and repressive state institutions.

The first challenge is the more straightforward: Europe is North Africa’s nearest wealthy neighbour. Trade barriers are already limited but some informal barriers still exist. But t he revolutions, in the short term, have made this harder.

Egypt’s economy had many causes for concern before the crisis: with roughly one in ten unemployed and over 40% of the population living on less than a day.

The Egyptian finance ministry now predicts that “Domestic activity was affected by the disruption of business activities during the weeks of massive protests. Tourism collapsed temporarily, banks and the stock market were closed, capital flows reversed rapidly, and the manufacturing, construction, and internal trade suffered […]the Egyptian economy will likely contract by 1.4 percent in the second half of the current fiscal year, and growth for 2010/11 as a whole will decelerate to a mere 2-2.5 percent.”

A report by the international institute of finance predicts across the region, real GDP growth across Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia dropping from 4.4% in 2010 to -0.5% in 2011.

The G8 at Deauville said that “multilateral development banks could provide over bn” for Egypt and Tunisia in the next two years, but it is far from clear if new money on such a scale will in fact be mobilised or indeed when.

Yet the need is immediate, great and growing.

On both money and market access, a stronger and more strategic response from the international community is needed if we are to ensure that this spring’s winners don’t lose in the months and years ahead. Certain, non-tariff barriers have been identified by Cathy Ashton as hindrances that are preventing North Africa’s economies exporting north, in particular the need for support for rural development in North Africa to raise standards to export quality.

That brings us to the question of direct support;

I am already on record saying that funds should also be redirected within the external relations budget from areas such as Latin America towards North Africa.

That would be a tough decision but if we miss this moment to support countries like Egypt and Tunisia because we avoided taking tough decisions, we will regret it for many years to come.

However, this is to miss the fact that prosperity without the rule of law is unlikely in itself and would always be insecure.

So we need to be asking ourselves, what can Europe do to ensure Egypt and Tunisia have police forces that are honest, judges that are independent and officials who are accountable for their behaviour? The promise of accession has helped in the past and is helping today to reform states on Europe’s periphery.

But given that accession is not on offer to the North African countries, we must think about what Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski has called “multiple small carrots” in respect of European support for countries in transition to democracy in north Africa.

So our strong support to build liberal states in Egypt and Tunisia should be matched by a generous but condition al approach to economic assistance.

Think of the newspaper headlines in the next few months, the crisis in Greece and the fighting in Libya are not likely to be out of them for very long.

But the less exciting but no less important events in Egypt, Tunisia and in planning for a post-conflict Libya should hold our attention just as much.

This is an extraordinary moment for the European Union – the chance to have a set of growing, more democratic countries on our southern border, rather than declining autocracies.

If we let it slip by, we will regret it for many decades to come.

Douglas Alexander – 2012 Speech to Scottish Labour Party Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to the 2012 Scottish Labour Party conference on 2nd March 2012.


It is good to be with you here today.

It is customary to begin these speeches with an amusing story. But today I want to begin, instead, with a heartfelt tribute.

Last Saturday, Thomas Watters, a Glasgow Corporation bus driver, passed away at the age of 99.

Thomas was the last Scottish Member of the International Brigade. He worked alongside the 4,000 men of the British Battalion, who in 1936, went from these islands to defend the cause of democracy in Spain.

He didn’t go as a fighter, he went as an ambulance man.

For others – the thread workers in the mills of my own Paisley Constituency – solidarity was expressed through financial and material support given willingly to their brothers and sisters in the factories of Barcelona.

From this platform today, let us pay tribute to Thomas Watters, to his fellow members of the International Brigade, and to those here at home who stood in solidarity against the tide of fascism.

Let us pay tribute because Thomas’ heroism reminds us that our story and the struggles of Scotland’s working people have long been interwoven with the stories of working people from across these islands.

But Thomas’ courage should also remind us that for, our movement, the claims of our shared humanity, and solidarity have always extended furth of Scotland.

Now there’s an old saying that charity begins at home. But that has never been Scottish Labour’s creed.

Think of Labour in the City of Glasgow – embracing Nelson Mandela in the 1980s.

Think of the tireless work of Gordon Brown to write off the debts of the world’s poorest countries in the 1990s.

Think of the Gleneagles Summit in 2005 when a Labour Government led the world by demanding that climate change and global poverty be at the top of the international agenda.

Internationalism – never nationalism – has always been our lodestar.

It’s not just about what we believe. It’s about who we are:

My mother worked as doctor in the Southern General. My father was a Parish Minister in Renfrewshire.

But like millions of their fellow Scots, my parents horizons were never limited to one community or one country.

My mother was born in China – the child of Scottish Medical Missionaries. My father graduated from Glasgow University one week but the next week travelled to New York and worked amidst the poverty of East Harlem.

So when nationalists say to me that being part of Britain cuts Scotland off from the world, I say to them: That’s not my Scotland.

And when they suggest that we’d be better to just ignore the struggle of others and instead look out for ourselves, I say again: That’s just not the Scotland I belong to.

And even if Scotland ever did succumb to such an outlook – the world is heading in the opposite direction.

From the Eurozone Crisis to the Environment, from Export Markets to Mass Migration, interdependence – not independence – is the hallmark of our age.

So, if we can’t escape from that interdependent world we have to ask ourselves: How best we can influence our world in the service of our ideals?

Let us say confidently and clearly:

There is nothing “positive” or “progressive” in retreating from the world.

And if the objective is engaging with the world, then there is nothing ‘anti-Scottish’ in acknowledging these facts:

If we want to advance international cooperation: Britain has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. A separate Scotland would not.

If we want to strengthen our collective security: Britain has a permanent seat on the Council of NATO. A separate Scotland would not.

If we want to engage the emerging economies: Britain has a permanent seat on the G20: A separate Scotland would not.

If we want to tackle disease and poverty: Britain has a permanent seat on the Board of the World Bank. A separate Scotland would not.

If we want to regulate the global financial markets: Britain has a permanent seat on the Board of the IMF. A separate Scotland would not.

As proud Scots, we may feel there’s ‘no where better’.

But we also know that there‘s something bigger.

And in the coming century our influence would be diminished, and our global reach more limited without the British Connection.

And in the months ahead it will be up to Scottish Labour, to every person in this room, and every one of us in our Party to make the case that Scotland stands taller on the world stage as part of Britain.

We are stronger together, and we’d be weaker apart.

Under Johann’s leadership we must challenge narrow nationalist politics and expose the aching gulf between the nationalist’s rhetoric and the reality experienced by the rest of us.

Take my community in Renfrewshire, where 23 unemployed people are today chasing every vacancy in the local job centre.

And here in Dundee, almost 6,000 unemployed people are competing for fewer than 400 jobs.

Every time I do my surgery I listen to the people behind these numbers – people who are crying out for help and support to make the best of who they are.

Conference, we understand that it’s not aspiration that’s lacking in our communities today – it’s opportunity.

It’s work. It’s jobs.

But what is the Nationalists’ response to this jobs crisis?

Are the Nationalists busy providing jobs or skills to the young people in Paisley or young people here in Dundee?

No. They boast about free education, but have slashed the budget of our local FE colleges, like Reid Kerr, by £54 million.

Are they protecting the vital local services that help Scottish families through tough times?

No. They’ve increased charges, sacked staff, and slashed teacher numbers.

That is why May’s elections matter. It’s why this week I’ve been out on the doorsteps in Renfrewshire with our local council candidates.

And it’s why, in the weeks ahead, we must all be urging and asking voters to support Scottish Labour on May 3rd.

Because our communities need Labour Councillors providing not just good value, but good values.

Defending services. Upholding fairness. Protecting the vulnerable.

Just as in the 80s it now falls to Labour councillors to be the last line of defence for our communities.

The last line of defence against a Tory Government with policies tearing our society apart, and a Nationalist Government determined to tear our country apart.

We face a Nationalist Government weak in principle but strong in purpose.

And, as a party, we have to understand how we find ourselves in this position, if we are to break its dynamics and so generate a different outcome.

The origins of our defeat last May were deep, not recent. And they demand an honest and painful reckoning.

Too many saw us as being more Anti-Nationalist than Pro-Scottish.

Too many saw us as a party of tribalists not a party of thinkers.

Too many felt Scotland had changed, and that Scottish Labour had not.

So here, in Dundee, our task, as a Party, is to demonstrate, by our words and deeds, that we are motivated by a sense of pride, passion, and possibility for Scotland.

With Johann’s leadership that task of renewal is now underway.

So, true to our history and alive to contemporary currents, we must be open minded on how we can improve devolution’s powers, including fiscal powers, but be resolute in our rejection of separation.

Working with other parties, with local communities and with civic Scotland – as the authors of Devolution, we must be both the defenders and developers of Devolution.

And let us tell the Nationalists with a quiet confidence that they can bully, they can bluster and they can boast, but on the issue of separation: They do not speak for Scotland.

To the Nationalists I say this: You can try and delay the Scottish people’s choice. But you will not change the Scottish people’s verdict.

At our best, Scottish Labour has been the party of not just constitutional but, also of economic and social renewal.

These are the tasks to which we must dedicate ourselves under Johann’s leadership.

But that renewal requires the contribution of each of us.

One more heave would simply guarantee one more defeat. And then another. And then another.

The threats to Scotland are too great, and the risks too real, for Scottish Labour to settle for a quiet life of decline and defeat.

We need to change and change radically – not to disavow our deepest beliefs, but to become a better expression of them.

We need to change how we identify and select our candidates, how we organise and fund our campaigns, and how we develop and communicate our policies.

We need to change so that people across Scotland who share our values but would not now consider standing as a Labour candidate will change their mind and say: That is where I want to be, and who I want to stand with.

To fail to embrace these changes would be to abdicate our responsibility to the very people and the very communities we came into politics to serve.

Remember this: Scottish Labour’s past success was not inevitable.

And neither is Scottish Labour’s future recovery.

We have to earn it.

And if we need inspiration in that endeavour then let us remind ourselves:

When Keir Hardie and the Trade Unions founded our Party they started without power, without money, and without influence.

And when, in recent times, we selected candidates of the calibre of Alistair Darling, Sam Galbraith, and Brian Wilson, and Helen Liddle they began in opposition, but in time were judged not just worthy of Government, but truly a credit to Scotland.

In their day Smith, Cook, Brown and Dewar did not feel entitled to Govern. They felt called to serve.

They stood up for their beliefs, just as, in a different time, Thomas Watters stood up for his.

So let it be said of this Party, gathered in Dundee:

We had the insight to understand, and the courage to change.

For it is only by embracing change that we can prove ourselves, once more, worthy of our Nation’s trust.

That is our urgent task.

That is our solemn duty.

And, working together, it can be our shared achievement.

Douglas Alexander – 2011 Speech to Nordic Ambassadors


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, made to Nordic ambassadors on 14th November 2011.


It is rare for a Government Minister or an Opposition Spokesman to have the chance to address the representatives of so many countries at one time and I am grateful for the chance to speak to you today.

We gather at a time when the future of the euro in particular, and the future of Europe in general, dominates our headlines.

Britain’s slowdown began at the end of last year, well before the recent eurozone crisis, and is a result of falling domestic demand not events abroad.

But that, the result of George Osborne’s decisions in the early months of this government, only leaves us more exposed to a eurozone slowdown today.

Ed Miliband, the leader of my Party, has been clear in recent days about the urgent and immediate priorities: political clarity in Italy and Greece, an end to the prevarication on the European Central Bank’s role as lender of last resort, and concrete steps to support falling demand.

Today, I would like to look to the longer view and address both how we got here and if we reject withdrawal, what reform agenda for the future we should be pursuing.

The current crises, in part, reflects the fact that Europe’s leaders over recent months have been late to act and only taken action that the market had already priced in.

That has been the short term cause, but in the long term I think something more is at work.

Taking that longer view, it is clear that in the sphere of geo-economics, the global economy has changed fundamentally since the European Union’s architecture was designed in the early 1990s.

It’s equally clear, that in the sphere of geopolitics, Britain’s relationships with the United States and Britain’s membership of the European Union have been the fundamental building blocks of our foreign policy.

Yet today, Britain risks becoming less relevant in both these relationships.

And less relevant in a European Union consumed by the crisis of and consequences of a currency we decided not to join.

Less relevant to a United States weary of ten years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and now rebalancing its priorities from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The confluence of these dynamics – a changing European architecture, an America looking to Asia rather than Europe and Britain’s separation from the eurozone – mean that the next few years risk seeing a collapse in Britain’s influence abroad.

To prevent that, in Britain we need a new European policy for a new era.

The Conservative Party’s behaviour in the House of Commons in recent weeks will have reminded many of us of the rows over the passage of the Maastricht Treaty that dogged John Major’s Government in the early 1990s.

In those days, European leaders identified a set of problems they wished to see Europe address and, with varying degrees of success, addressing those concerns dominated European thinking until relatively recently.

Passionate anti-Europeanism existed – as was shown by the Tory rebel MPs in 1992 – but it was far more limited than today.

A couple of dozen in 1992, compared to the 81 today.

Then, they were outside the mainstream of the Conservative Party and the country. Today they are the mainstream of the Conservative Party, with over half of the Prime Minister’s backbenchers defying his whip.

To my parents’ generation, the rationale for Europe was establishing peace and stability on the continent after a century scarred by two wars, a cause that had powerful emotional resonance.

For the twenty years after Britain joined the European Community, however, that emotional cause was supplemented by a somewhat drier one: that being part of Europe would help reverse Britain’s post war decline and would help boost our prosperity and productivity.

Jacques Delors’ call in the 1980s for a social Europe aimed at a broader vision, but, despite all the rhetoric, welfare safety nets have to a very large degree remained a part of the national, not the European, debate in each member state.

It is also fair to acknowledge that Britain’s rising prosperity during the long boom that began in the 1990s contributed to a growing sense of national self confidence.

Suddenly: Britain was growing faster while others were accused of being sclerotic.

So in Britain, the foundations of the traditional pro European case where under sustained pressure long before the current crisis.

And Britain was not alone in witnessing rising concerns about Europe. For different reasons, on left and right, the accusation of a democratic deficit was heard across the European Union.

One response to this rising scepticism however, not only failed but, certainly in this country, actually heightened suspicions about the intentions of Europe’s institutions.

The push for anthems, flags and the apparent aping of the symbol of nationhood left the impression of a half built superstate and provided a rallying point for Europe’s opponents.

I want to suggest today that after years of fighting to defend the ideas and institutions of Europe against attacks from the eurosceptic right, it would be familiar but fatal to retreat to the same old arguments and begin the battle anew.

For pro-Europeans, we have to recognise that those of us who see Britain’s national interest as best served within the European Union, a defence of the status quo simply isn’t good enough.

Compare two ICM polls ten years apart.

Today, according to one poll, 49 per cent would vote to get Britain out of Europe, against just 40 per cent who would prefer to stay in.

When ICM asked a slightly differently worded question in May 2001, by 68 per cent to 19 per cent the public indicated Britain should remain a member, a 49 percentage point lead for the pro-Europeans.

Rather like Labour in the 1980s, there is a tendency amongst some pro-Europeans to blame the press, or even blame the voters, for the fact support has been haemorrhaging.

Amongst some, there’s even a tendency – familiar to anyone who witnessed Labour travails in the 1980s – to say, people keep rejecting pro-European propositions, because they aren’t proposed in a pro-European enough way.

But simply shouting louder is not – and will not be – a winning strategy.

In truth, there were a lot of facets to this disenchantment: from the collapse of Tory pro-Europeanism to the wrangling in both Conservative and then Labour Governments over successive treaty changes.

And the question of referenda has come to symbolise it to a great degree.

It is still my view that the Labour Government took the right decision on the Lisbon Treaty, which with the British opt-outs, represented fairly limited changes to Britain’s relationship with the European Union when compared with its predecessors.

The Lib Dems would agree with me, the Tories wouldn’t.

I would also say that some of the red-lines at Lisbon were hard won by British negotiators and that when we have a choice in the future on whether to maintain them, such as our privileged position in deciding whether or not to opt-in to European Justice and Home Affairs decisions, we should defend them.

But leave questions of whether we shouldn’t have held a referendum and look simply at the fact that we didn’t.

The political legacy of that episode, which pro-Europeans must acknowledge, was to heighten the public’s concerns about the European Union.

But even if we never promised another ounce of European integration, being the Party intent simply on defending today’s European status quo would be wrong for Labour and wrong for Britain.

So there is a strong political case for not being simply the defenders of the status-quo.

But I also believe that, returning to those three 1990s concerns, there is a policy case for examining how relevant they appear today?

On economic harmonisation, much of the whole Western world is today in-sync, but in-sync around slow growth or stagnation, with Britain’s recovery slowing to a standstill.

On social protection, the race to the bottom happened not within Europe but across the world – and now it is matched by an equally furious race to the top on everything from hi tech manufacturing to software engineering.

And as Europe and the US have stumbled after the financial crisis, Brazil, India and China have caught up even faster and now look more robust than many countries in the West.

Meanwhile the question of legitimacy isn’t limited to unelected officials in Brussels.

Hostility towards elected politicians today reflects a deeper frustration about the capacity of elected representatives to affect the increasingly global forces that today are shaping our economies and societies.

If President Obama had to fight hard to win the argument on the debt ceiling and still can’t pass a Bill for American jobs, can we really be surprised that Chancellor Merkel struggles to persuade her voters that Germany needs to stand behind other eurozone members?

These are days of danger and risk for both the British and the European economy. It is a time for leadership – indeed statesmanship.

Yet, during this eurozone crisis, much of the Conservative Party has done a good impression of acting like a tribe of entomologists enthusiastically noting the arrival of a plague of locusts into their own neighbourhood.

Just two weeks ago, as Tory backbenchers heckled their own former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, it struck me that the struggles of any sensible voice in the Conservative Party to be heard today looked similar to the struggles of moderates Republicans in the United States to be heard in the over the noisy demands of the Tea Party movement.

But how should we respond to an era of little growth, little public money and little sense of shared purpose across the continent?

In my view, it is not in Britain’s national interest for our national discourse to be dominated by concerns about the reach of Brussels as we enter an era of international economics defined by the rise of Beijing.

So it seems to me there are two dominant arguments that still resonate in terms of Britain’s European Union membership.

The first is on access to the Single Market, and being a powerful voice in shaping the rules by which it is governed To cut ourselves off from a market of 500 million people generating £10 trillion pounds wouldn’t just say we had lost faith in Europe, it would say we had lost faith in the ability of British companies to ever outcompete, out innovate and out-think their European competitors.

Only those who want to compete on low skill, low value added production can argue that having access to the markets without a voice in shaping the rules would be sufficient for Britain.

If you compete in areas like law, business services, financial services, medical technology, education, creative industries – all of these businesses need to be underwritten by laws on common standards, educational property and competition.

Every country, of course, will be pressing for the deal on those laws that best serves their own people.

And if we aren’t in the room we won’t get a set of rules that work for the UK.

But the second argument that I find still works is the idea that, in an era of billion-person countries and trillion dollar economies, we need to find ways to amplify our voice if we are going to be heard.

As the United States shifts its attention to the Pacific, we will need to work even harder with our European allies to preserve security in Europe and its neighbouring regions.

And again, to be able to export, say, British creative industries, we need to have a strong enough voice to be listened to by players as big as the Chinese Government on issues like intellectual property.

And that is most likely to happen when the Chinese are negotiating with a £10 trillion economy rather than a £1.5 trillion economy. It is clear that the only way to change the rules of the game with these large emerging economies is to work with our European partners. Only then will we prise open markets in these countries. With WTO negotiations stalled, the EU continues to be a vital to opening new markets.

So if one of the two core reasons why we’re in the EU is to have access to the Single Market and have a role in its policymaking process, what does that mean for our European policy?

The first point is that, contra to what was thought in the 1990s but evidenced by our thirteen years in government, it is possible to be full member of the Single Market without being a member of the single currency.

In the 1990s, Labour’s policy was that we wanted to be in, but it would depend on the economic reality and a referendum vote.

More than a decade on that economic reality endures – that it is not in Britain’s interest to join a single currency.

There is no need to be dogmatic on these questions, future generations of politicians may find that the circumstances have changed, although there would still need to be a referendum in my view.

But as in the past, in the future, the economics will transcend the politics in Labour’s approach – and that means joining the single currency is not on Labour’s agenda.

In the 1990s, the political argument was advanced, if you don’t join the single currency you won’t have influence in Brussels.

Today, you hear a not dissimilar argument.

Europe will form a club within a club, so the argument runs, that pursues German levels of regulation or French levels of state involvement in the economy to the exclusion of Britain.

Some opponents of Europe in Britain secretly welcome this prospect – in the hope that it puts us on a conveyor belt to withdrawal.

Meanwhile, some proponents of the European dream say, yes, good – that’s what was planned all the way back from the Coal and Steel Community and enlargement was simply a decade long diversion.

I don’t think it has to be that way.

For a start, Germany and France are wrestling with a crisis in their currency that has already prompted a downgrade even in powerful Germany’s growth forecasts.

There is at least a possibility that German and French leadership in Europe will be focussed in the coming years on holding together the single currency, not holding back the single market.

And, in circumstances of low growth across Europe, there is also a scenario that, rather than all unifying around a Franco-German model, Euro and non-Euro members will continue to have a heterogeneous set of views on the single market.

I genuinely believe that British engagement, whether it is committed and sustained or whether it is focussed on the appeasement of domestic hardliners, could tip the scales one way or the other.

But going into those discussions, what should be Britain’s approach on the specifics?

Non-tariff barriers that prevent trade between the UK and the EU keep it at almost half the level it would be according to one study.

Completely removing those obstacles could translate into a 7 per cent increase in incomes per head in the UK according to the UK Business Innovation and Skills department.

Now that may be too big an aspiration, but by focussing on services, especially the digital economy, and energy, I think we can deliver some very big wins for British companies and British consumers and for companies and consumers in your countries.

I do not believe that there needs to be any significant transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels in the next Parliament in order to achieve our single market goals.

If there were to be such a significant transfer, it would now, by law, require a referendum.

I would rather that the coming years were not remembered for inward looking institutional naval gazing, but if – as seems likely – negotiations on European structures are to begin again, we should be clear in how we approach them.

Europe should reformed for the post global financial crisis world and the lodestar on which we should make judgements is what they will mean for jobs and prosperity in the UK.

The Conservatives have stated that repatriation is their overriding priority. They do so with little support from their Liberal partners, and less support from their European partners.

At the same time, they seem worryingly complacent at the prospect of a two speed Europe – an outcome, incidentally, that Conservative and Labour foreign secretaries have spent decades opposing.

Such an outcome would pose fundamental risks – not only to the UK’s financial services industry but more broadly to our interests within the Single Market.

A better way forward would be to engage now with the reality that Germany is seeking treaty change that enforces greater discipline within the eurozone and seize this opportunity to safeguard the rights of non-euro members.

Within that challenging but realisable agenda for reform, of course the issue of the present balance of powers can be considered, but to suggest at this time that repatriation should be Britain’s overriding priority – and to start these negotiations by threatening vetoes – reveals a Government that miss reads profoundly the risks and the realities of the present situation.

Pragmatism, not dogmatism, and a hard headed view of Britain’s national interests should be the hallmark of Britain’s approach to the coming negotiations.

For it is only on that foundation that we have a real opportunity to achieve the fundamental and necessary reforms to, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the way that the EU budget is spent.

From the unnecessary second home of the European Parliament downwards, Britain should also have the explicit goal of opposing wasteful spending that particularly undermine Europe’s credibility at time when national governments are taking austerity measures.

It would certainly not be Labour’s goal, in any upcoming negotiations, to get rid of the Social Chapter as the Government have argued.

If this Government were to scrap the social chapter, I think many people would see it as an attempt, not to limit the rights of Brussels but to limit the rights of working people in Britain.

There is, however, also a second argument that I find still works for British membership of the EU: That in an era defined by the emerging powers like India, Brazil and China, Britain needs to find ways of amplifying our voice through cooperation.

In the Libyan crisis, we discovered that although the United States is still our closest ally– and will provide support for our security – they expect us to take the lead in defending the security of our neighbourhood.

As Hilary Clinton recently argued in Foreign Policy Magazine, “As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point…One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will be to lock in a substantially increased investment – diplomatic, economic, strategic – in the Asia-Pacific region”.

The Government’s focus on bilateral mercantilism is not succeeding in its own terms, as criticisms in from bipartisan Select Committee reports show and it is fundamentally undermined by its heroic assumption that British prestige alone will win policy concessions and new business in emerging markets.

A bilateral relationship, however warm, between an economy the size of the UK’s and an economy the size of, for example, China, will never be enough to influence that country’s domestic policy in the way that a UK business needs or quickly bring an emerging power to the table in international negotiations, whether on trade, aid or climate change.

Economically, it would leave the UK trying to compete only on those good and services that aren’t affected by the domestic policy of the countries we wish to export to – chiefly low-value manufactured goods that have not provided the UK with prosperity in recent decades.

That is why the Government should make it a top priority to work with Berlin and Paris on a common strategic approach towards China.

We should also build on the Franco-British defence deal and try to work to ensure that defence spending in other EU member states is directed in ways that does not degrade Europe’s capacity to act in the world.

Of course, that doesn’t mean dropping a distinctive British foreign policy.

For example, over Libya, Germany didn’t agree with the British and French position.

But on Syria, thanks in part to the work of Cathy Ashton, who I worked alongside in the British cabinet, European cooperation on sanctions has been possible and vital.

But it should be a role based on finding consensus and maintaining focus on issues where a European cooperation is vital – such as the E3+3 process regarding Iran and the Quartet process regarding Israel and Palestine.

There is a choice involved in deciding whether to try – whenever we can – to present a united European front.

And where we have shared goals, from climate change negotiations to tacking cross border crime and human trafficking, working together in Europe makes global agreements more likely.

But there is also a choice in what strategies we pursue within Europe to develop those common positions.

Constant talk of vetoes, a tendency to empty chair those meetings that seem to be on the periphery of our interest, only to force ourselves back in – these are strategic choices but they aren’t very good ones.

But we pro-Europeans also need to develop a set of strategies that go beyond a generalised desire for “engagement”.

In finding new partnerships that match Britain’s interests as a global exporter, which may be different from the alliances we need to preserve our single market goals.

For example, while we might disagree with the French on a number of issues of the Single Market, we have the same economic interest in ensuring that Beatles songs aren’t illegally copied in South East Asia as they have in stopping Charles Trenet songs being copied.

In Europe’s broader neighbourhood, as advocates of Turkish accession, we should also be leading efforts to more effectively work with a pre-accession Turkey on diplomatic issues, like Syria, where we have a common cause.

That also means working to strengthen and build formal links with the multilateral institutions such as the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League.

And, outside the European Union, continuing the cooperation between in defence matters between Britain and France – combining hard power strength in a way that provides both countries with soft power advantages.

Faced with backbench pressure, with Coalition disagreements and the very real frustrations that come with multilateral negotiations, I worry that this Government will default to a sidelined role.

Labour need to commit now to say that yes, we know how hard it is to lead in Europe or in any multilateral negotiation – and I say this as a former British representative to the World Trade Organisation Talks and the Copenhagen Climate Talks– but that only wholehearted commitment can achieve what Britain needs.

The challenges of the coming years are real and significant.

If we cling to the assumptions of the past, our influence in Europe will decline along with our credibility with our own people.

Instead, we need to focus on the reasons why, still, Britain’s national interest is served by being an active member of the European Union.

That is a policy which is realistic about what we can achieve alone, but idealistic about what we can achieve together.

Britain has strengths that we should acknowledge, celebrate and deploy.

The only country with a seat at the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the Commonwealth.

A country that is home to the BBC World Service, and a National Health Service that remains a beacon to the world.

And it is by playing a strong and effective role in Europe, we can make the most of those strengths in the years ahead.

Douglas Alexander – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander at the Labour Party conference on 26th September 2011.


Thank you for that welcome.


We gather here in Liverpool after a year of extraordinary change across the world.

In the last year, the Arab Spring has seen the downfall of old autocrats and old assumptions.

When Ed Miliband gave me this job in January, an uprising in Tunisia was in the news, but it wasn’t yet on the front pages.

Within days, ordinary people across the Middle East – from Tunis in the West, to Damascus in the East – took to the streets.

When their governments told them to go home they ignored them.

When the batons came out, and then the machine guns, and then the tanks… they refused to retreat.

No one in the West had seen anything like this for a generation.

And so when I later met some of those young people in North Africa, I asked them “why has this wave of change occurred now, after decades of brittle stability?”

And they told me “when you’re looking at satellite TV pictures, or when you see more and more people saying online that they are part of the protests…

“… old friends, even friends in other countries…

“… all refusing to back down… ‘it gives you hope’.”

Ponder those words….”it gives you hope.”

Because that hope has changed history.

Conference, let’s be honest with each other.

Too often in the past, the West has backed stability over democracy in the Middle East.

So I’m so proud that this year, this Party, chose to stand with these young people, and against the old autocrats.

That choice meant I could stand on the street in Tunis a few months ago and look them in the eye.

And it means I can look you in the eye today and say: when there is violence in Syria, in Bahrain, and in Yeman we are on the right side of history.

And so let us say today from this conference to President Assad, we cannot and will not accept your violence against your own people, we will use every diplomatic measure to stop it. You must go, and go now.

But of course the Arab Spring has not changed everything in the Middle East.

So in opposition, as in government, we will continue to stand with and support the cause of negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

We must stand with the young people in Jericho who want to see an end to illegal settlement building, an end to blockades and, yes, the establishment of an independent viable Palestinian state recognised at the United Nations.

And we must also stand with the young people in Tel Aviv who want to go to a nightclub or get on a bus without fear and want to raise their children in a secure Israel, recognised by its neighbours across the Arab World.

Conference, since accepting this role I have been open in saying that I understand, that the loss of life, and the loss of trust that followed the Iraq war still casts a long shadow.

But in March, when it came to Libya, we debated these issues with another shadow hanging over us: the promise from Colonel Gaddafi to destroy Benghazi – a city larger than Liverpool.

It would have been open to us to say no, this is too hard, it’s not our call, we should leave well alone.

But to allow that to happen would have been wrong: wrong for Libya, wrong for Britain, and wrong for Labour.

With Ed Miliband leading us, we got that judgement right.

So Conference, let us again show our appreciation and respect for the incredible bravery of our British Armed Forces. They risked their lives to save the lives of others.

Their work is, we hope, coming to an end.

So too is the work of Britain’s forces in Afghanistan.

That conflict has been a far longer, far costlier, and far more painful conflict for Britain.

It has been part of an international effort to make Afghanistan more stable and our world more safe.

And after many years of sacrifice Britain’s task now is to manage that transition and ensure that as our forces step back, there are Afghan forces ready to step up.

Conference, our forces have already served in Afghanistan for a decade.

And just this month we remembered the horror of September 11th.

We have witnessed a difficult decade for the world – that began with a terror attack, and that ended with an economic crisis.

So my challenge as your Shadow Foreign Secretary is to set a new course: to develop a new foreign policy for a new decade.

And it is to frame that new approach, when across Europe, parties of the left are losing more elections than we are winning.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the centre left was defeating the right. Now the centre right is defeating the left.

Out of power in Germany. Out of power in France. Out of power in Italy. Out of power in Sweden.

And Labour’s new approach must be built on the understanding that Britain’s strength abroad begins with strength at home.

So we need to set out how Britain can earn its living, and pay its way in the years ahead.

The real question for the new generation isn’t about the reach of Brussels – it’s about the rise of Beijing.

For with power and money moving East, no country has an alternative but to work in partnership with other countries.

Conference, these new challenges are daunting but it is our enduring values that will be our guide.

Our party cards remind us that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.

That means urging decisive action in the eurozone when British exports, British jobs, and British prosperity are all at stake.

That means working to find shared solutions to shared problems from global climate change to global trade.

And that means having a foreign policy that is realistic about what we can achieve alone, but idealistic about what we can achieve together.

Because Conference, I am optimistic about our country’s enduring strengths.

Despite everything, despite the riots, despite the cuts and the deficit and despite the flatlining economy.

Britain today is so much better than its Government.

Britain has strengths that we should acknowledge, celebrate and deploy.

The only country with a seat at the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, NATO and the Commonwealth.

It was Desmond Tutu who said a promise made to the poor is a sacred thing. So I am proud that this is a country, thanks to the path set by Labour, that is on track to meet our aid promise to the world’s poorest people.

A country that is home to the BBC World Service, and a National Health Service that remains a beacon to the world.

Conference, just for a minute pause and consider the history of the great docks in which we stand.

Think of the men and women who worked here and the ships that set sail from here on the Mersey or the Clyde, the Thames or the Tyne.

And then try and tell me we’re a small, inward looking country that should step back from the world.

As a country, we are so much better than that.

In the years ahead it will fall, once again, to our Party to realise that promise.

That is Labour’s responsibility.

That is Labour’s obligation.

And working together, under Ed Miliband’s leadership, that can be Labour’s achievement.


Douglas Alexander – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander, the then Secretary of State for International Development, to the 2009 Labour Party conference.


Conference, let me begin my remarks by echoing the words of Bob Ainsworth in paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces.

I travelled to Afghanistan, most recently this summer, and I’ve seen for myself their dedication, courage, heroism and yes – their sacrifice.

They do us proud – and conference, they deserve all our thanks.

Now conference, I considered coming to speak to you here today and giving a conventional speech that set out a long list of Labour’s achievements in international development since 1997.

And I am proud of that record.

But instead I decided to do something different – to start with a story:

I met a man in southern Ethiopia at a World Food Programme feeding station. He was waiting for his ration, paid for by the British taxpayer.

I asked him – what was his life like in his village?

He told me, with great sincerity:

“We work hard. We eat little. But we all want a better future for our children.”

Conference, what we have in common with him, are the same values that brought all of us into this party.

Our fundamental belief in the equal worth of every human being.

That we understand that there are values beyond contracts, markets and exchange.

We are a party who hold in the highest esteem the values of solidarity, of mutuality, of co-operation, care and concern.

And as a party we have always understood, that the application of those values cannot and must not stop at our borders.

They in fact call us to show solidarity with those suffering poverty and injustice wherever they may be in the world.

We understand that when markets fail, when injustice persists – we are called upon to act.

Labour will never simply walk by on the other side.

And that is why today, in the face of a tsunami and an earthquake in the Pacific – we stand ready to assist, in whatever way we can.

But conference – I fully understand that we have travelled here from communities across this country – every one of which is being directly affected by the worst global economic downturn in sixty years.

And I know that over the last couple of years in my own constituency, indeed right across Britain – people have seen the cost of buying their weekly shopping, the cost of filling their cars, of heating their homes, of getting a mortgage – go up.

So let us pause, and take a look at each of these crises for a moment.

Food crisis. Fuel crisis. Financial crisis.

What in truth unites them all – is that every one of them represents market failure – and more importantly, that no one government, can adequately address them by acting alone.

They are also, at the deepest level, a stark reminder that our fate and fortunes, here in UK, are now bound together with people in distant lands as never before.

And if the global economic downturn threatens the livelihoods of people here in Britain, I have to tell you conference, we must recognise that it is threatening the very lives of people across the developing world.

In fact, the World Bank is estimating that as a result of the financial crisis as many as 100 million more people across the developing world will be trapped in extreme poverty by the end of next year – enduring an existence on less than .25 a day

So when the threat of global poverty is rising – we will not abandon our efforts to make poverty history.

The Labour Party does not step back – we step up for the fight.

Conference, it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who said that a promise made to the poor is a sacred thing.

And that is why I am so proud, that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown on Tuesday confirmed that just as we have led the world in legislating for legally binding climate change targets, and have legislated to end child poverty here in the Britain – that we will now legislate to meet the historic 0.7% UN target and meet once and for all our promises to the world’s poorest people.

And conference, why do we do this?

Because each and every day we see the increasing evidence that aid works.

The British people can be immensely proud that our increases in aid, our commitment to debt relief, have in just the last year – ensured that over 100,000 new teachers have been trained, 100,000 have received drugs to tackle HIV/AIDS, almost 7 million anti-malaria bednets have been delivered, and over 3 million children have been vaccinated against measles.

Each one a precious life saved or transformed.

And whatever the cynics say – even they cannot ignore the global progress that has been made.

Before the economic crisis, the number of people living in extreme poverty had fallen from one third of the global population to just a quarter. Real incomes in the developing world have doubled. And in the last decade alone, the number of children in poor countries out of school has dropped by 28 million.

Conference, we can make poverty history.

But conference, I must tell you that the progress we have made is now at serious risk.

For on top of the economic crisis, dangerous climate change threatens to roll back the advances we have made in last decade.

If I have learned one thing over the last couple of years as Development Secretary it is this – that here in the UK we tend to talk about climate change as a future threat.

But in the developing world – in country after country – it’s a contemporary crisis.

Conference, the truth remains that the people with the least responsibility for the present levels of emissions – the poorest people on earth – are being hit first and hit hardest.

Just last month I travelled with my colleague Ed Miliband to Bangladesh to see for ourselves the front line in the battle against climate change.

There we met villagers living on the exposed sandbanks, who told us that rising flood levels from the glaciers melting in the Himalayas now threaten their very existence.

These are people who are showing great tenacity in the face of fundamental changes in their local environment and their way of life – but who without our help could see their livelihoods and their homes – literally swept away.

We must remember those families – and the fact that for them – the seventy days till Copenhagen are not so much a window of opportunity – but literally a window of necessity.

Unless we now tackle dangerous climate change, it will make poverty the future for millions of our fellow citizens on this planet.

So conference, when people tell you there are no great progressive causes left, no great choices – the truth could not be more different.

I want to make absolutely clear to you now – there is no consensus on international development.

There is a world of difference between a party that would simply re-badge the aid budget as climate finance, and a party – our party, the Labour Party – who this year was the first to say that a fair deal on climate change demands additional resources for the world’s poorest people.

There is a world of difference between a party where 96% of its candidates admit that they would not prioritise keeping the aid budget, and a party – our party, the Labour Party –  that would enshrine that promise in the laws of this country.

There is a world of difference between a party who would export privatisation and assisted places to the health and education services of poor countries – and a party, our party, the Labour Party – that has committed to use British aid money to remove user fees and provide strong public services – free at the point of need.

Conference – their party halved the British aid budget – our party is trebling it.

Just a few years ago – I was privileged – along with many of you here today – to hear Nelson Mandela speak in Trafalgar Square – and he challenged the thousands of us who had gathered there that cold February morning.

He said “Sometimes it falls to a generation to be great”

So, what will our generation be remembered for? This is the choice that confronts us.

The fall of the Berlin wall – yes

The rise of the internet – sure.

But why can’t we also be the generation that secures a global deal on carbon?

Why can’t we be the generation that gives every child the chance to go to school?

Why can’t we be the generation that stops children dying from preventable diseases like malaria and diarrhoea – for which we have the cure.

We have the skills. We have the knowledge. We have the technology.

The question is – as it has always been – do we have the political will?

Well conference – I can tell you now – we do.

We are the party who understand this moment in history.

We are the party who have the values and the commitment to deliver.

We are the party who can help make poverty history.

So let us leave this conference strong in our resolve, united in our purpose, and determined to secure a victory.

Not just for the people of this country – but for all of those in need of a just and fairer world.

Douglas Alexander – 2009 Speech to Progress Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Alexander to the 2009 Progress conference.


Good morning and thank you.

I’m grateful to Progress for organising this conference today. Its often said that politics involves both a battle of ideas and a battle of organisation. Progress as an organisation has been vital to both of those endeavours for the Labour Party over recent years, a nd so let me begin by thankig progress for all of its past work, as well as the organisation of this timely and important conference.

Now this morning – in the finest traditions of webinteractivity, I want to start a discussion with you rather than simply offer a speech. And the three central premises that I want to offer, and which shapes my contribution to our discussion are these…

First, this morning I want to argue that far from being a revolutionary phenomena that has and will change everything I want to suggest that new media is in fact giving fresh impetus to old ideas.

Second, I’m going to argue that we need to use technology not as a means of control but as a tool for empowerment.

And finally, I’m going to argue that the media isn’t the message and that in fact the use of new media is not a substitute for a message that resonates with the public.

But lets start with the political context of today’s conference.

Put bluntly, as we always knew, winning a fourth term for Labour will be difficult but is definitely doable.

As Labour’s General Election co-ordinator, I’m under no illusions about the scale of the challenge we face

The polls at the moment are making for tough reading.

We will have less money to spend on the next campaign than any of the last three.

And after a decade in office, we do not have the numbers of members and activists that we had in the past.

Every election is different. But one thing we can be sure of, is that simply doing more of the same, will not be enough.

And that is a real challenge for us, because most political parties – ourselves included – only manage to innovate effectively in their campaigning after what I call near death experiences.

It’s unlikely we would have managed the scale of change we did between 1992 and 1997 had we not had the spur of repeated defeat.

So our strategy for a fourth term will be a huge test of our will, our appetite, indeed our hunger for the power we need to transform people’s lives. For we need to innovate after success, not defeat.

And here necessity and opportunity meet…for new media is going to be central to in the next election campaign.

And developing new approaches in new circumstances is not new for us – in many watys it has been the hallmark of new labour over the years.

That’s why people like Alistair Campbell, Philip Gould, and politicians like Gordon Brown and Tony Blair almost twenty years ago went over to the States to learn from the Clinton campaign about new ways of campaigning> and they came home with a suitcase full of new tools and techniques that shaped our campaigning for years – the benefits of running a campaign from an open plan war room;

– of using soundbites during media interviews;

– of issuing daily lines to take;

– of rapidly rebutting inaccurate stories, and

– of using pagers to get messages out quickly.

This kind of ‘command and control’ approach to campaigning was a key part of the campaign organisation that Millbank came to embody in 1997.

And to a certain extent we are still victims of our past election success – where too many MPs and candidates have come to rely on the national campaign, led from HQ, to assume the responsibility of securing victory.

So one of our key tasks in the months ahead is to build capacity and to create a culture change across our party and the wider progressive Labour movement.

We need MPs, candidates and local parties – more than ever – to own and feel responsible for the next campaign.

That is surely the essence of ‘Labour 2.0’.

Lets take a moment to understand why this is so possible and so necessary.

New media gives us the chance to reach out to far greater numbers of people, in a far more personalised way.

Ten years ago just one in ten people in the UK used the internet. Today, 75 per cent of people are online – part of a worldwide community of some 1.4 billion.

eMarketer estimates that there are 19.5 million men and 18.6 million women in the UK using the Internet. They project that men will retain their majority for the next five years but as more women aged 55 and older become internet users, the male bias in the UK web population will decrease.

Ofcom says that women aged 25-34 are spending more time online than men.

Men and women alike are increasingly turning away from traditional mass media. Over the last ten years the ratings for the 6 O’clock news have fallen by a third. Newspaper circulation over the same period fell by almost a quarter and the projections are that they will fall further.

In contrast, nine out of 10 graduates have broadband and three-quarters of people under 30 would rather lose their TV than their internet connection.

People aren’t just moving their reading, viewing and listening habits online, they are changing the way they interact with media. Wikipedia would not exist without its 75,000 active contributors, providing articles in more than 260 languages. There is a new blog invented every second.

And at the same time major political parties are seeing traditional forms of membership decline.

Now no doubt like all of us I’m looking forward to hearing what Joe Rospars has to say later… and for me, the Obama campaign, holds powerful lessons in how we could use digital media to campaign.

But amidst all the well earned admiration some have suggested that the Obama campaign has rewritten every rule of political engagement. But I don’t think that’s right.

The Obama campaign’s success was both more partial and more powerful. For when I met a rang of the senior team in Washington last month, they described to me how not everything was different and that in fact they had used emails, text messages and social networking as new channels to pursue old political truths.

Instead of replacing traditional campaigning activities, they used online tools to consciously create a pathway for people to get involved with traditional community activism.

Organising events, knocking on doors, making phone calls.

Because getting people to do these traditional things is still vital to winning the battle of organisation in precincts and wards, in constituencies and countries.

The battle of organisation – new media giving fresh impetus to old ideas

And like in so many other areas of our life, the internet is lowering the barrier to entry in the battle of organisation. Now if you want to organise a local campaign, you don’t need to book the community hall, raise the cash and print the leaflets and then find the caretaker with the key.

New media allows this type of organisation at almost zero cost.

It gives us new tools that help our MPs and candidates to position themselves as the centre of community hubs.

One of our candidates – Stella Creasy in Walthamstow, who is speaking later today – is building her lists of local residents and has managed to collect another couple of hundred this week alone. In all likelihood she couldn’t get 2,000 leaflets delivered each week but she can distribute 2,000 e-newsletters.

The data-capture of those email addresses is what makes cost effective and personalised communication possible. But how we use that data is also crucial.

Every piece of campaign communication needs to show people, not tell people, that our candidates are offering useful resources and helpful information about things that have resonance in the local community.

If our candidates don’t think clearly and carefully about why people would engage with them, either on-line or off-line, it doesn’t matter how stylish their websites are or how open their blogs are to un-moderated comments.

The challenge for progressives is to use the full range of digital tools to advance our causes and build our base. And, perhaps most importantly, to engage with people in a space that they already inhabit.

One of our MPs, in a marginal seat in Kent – Jonathan Shaw, MP for Chatham and Aylesford – has used digital media to support a local campaign to save commuter train services.

He ran passenger surveys and consulted constituents by standing at the train station during rush hour – collecting their comments and email addresses. He then persuaded the Managing Director of the Train Company to agree to come on a train with him and be filmed with Jonathan putting the concerns of his constituents to him.

He then posted the video to YouTube and on his website and emailed everyone who had commented to let them know that the MD had responded to their concerns and that they could watch what he said.

It was a traditional community campaign but it was brought to life by new technology and a great combination of on-line and off-line mediums.

Then there’s Liam Byrne’s ‘Rubbish TV’ – where he uses youtube to highlight the council’s poor refuse collection service. And only the other day, I recorded a film for ‘Derek Wyatt TV’ explaining the Government’s humanitarian response to the crisis in Gaza.

Nationally, we need to learn from this type of local best practice.

For let’s be honest, until the advent of the internet – and particularly social networking – national politics has suffered from a problem of scale. A problem which we met with the blunt instrument of the mass media.

We used interruption communication – forcing our message on people at the time and in the place we felt they would object to it least. Interrupting them on the way to work via a poster, or as they were doing their shopping via a leaflet, or before or after they watched the news via a Party Election Broadcast.

And so one of the many impressive things about the Obama campaign’s social networking site – – was the way it worked as a user friendly tool – providing news of events in members’ local communities. It also provided maps to find local voters and scripts to use in conversation with them. It enabled supporters to organise some 200,000 of their own events – with no central control.

It was a tool that people used to construct their own politics.

It showed that politicians no longer own politics. And I believe that’s a good thing.

By encouraging people with no formal link with the campaign to become advocates, the Obama team lent a power to their message that just can’t be matched by TV ads – word of mouth. And it lent a democratic credence to their candidate.

Trying to buy your way into a social network really does show that they just don’t get it.

Labour’s new media team – led by Sue MacMillan – is currently in the process of overhauling ‘Members-Net’. Once, just a password protected section of our website, it will soon have a full social networking capability that will be compatible with Facebook.

So if activists organise events on Facebook they can seamlessly transfer them to Members-Net and visa versa.

Another new innovation is ‘Labourspace’ – the policy-campaign social networking site which allows people to promote their own campaigns and pitch ideas for our manifesto.

Online phone banking is an innovation that Democrats used to great effect – and its good that Labour has now introduced one of our own. Already, we have hundreds of activists, making thousands of phone calls to voters in the same constituency in which they live. And they’re doing it from the comfort of their own homes.

That’s the future of telephone canvassing. And it’s a long way from my first experience of it in freezing Teamsters hall in North Philadelphia – where I volunteered on the Dukakis campaign back in 1988!

The battle of ideas – new media is not a substitute for a message that resonates with the public.

And my early experience of that losing Dukakis campaign taught me something else as well. Ideas and ideology really matter in politics. Dukakis never really got that. He declared mid campaign that “This campaign is about competence, not ideology…” and he lost.

And the same truth endures today – New media is not a substitute for a message that resonates with the public.

What matters, is the political arguments we make. Not whether we are using Facebook or Twitter but what we are saying both online and offline.

Whether we’re using email or social networking sites…

Whether we’re using surveys, street stalls or surgeries….

It’s about building relationships with voters…

And it’s about showing them how they can get involved in what we’re fighting for.

Because we fight elections not to change Governments but to change lives.

At the start of this Parliament, the Right used single issue campaign groups like the Taxpayers Alliance and the Migration Watch to run down public services and to play on people’s fears. And let’s face it. The Right were the first movers into the online space – using a host of blogs to advance their ideology.

But a lot has changed in recent month not just in the battle of organisation, but also in the battle of ideas… I was struck by how the public conversation was changing last November when I was on the Panel of Question Time in Basildon, and was being shouted at to nationalise the banks!

Since last autumn, fundamental questions have been raised about the right relationship between markets and governments, between economics and politics, between wealth and power. And in this process it is the orthodoxies of the right that have been found wanting.

Across the globe the Right has been disoriented and diminished by both the financial crisis and the global downturn. In the current climate of global economic uncertainty, our progressive ethics of fairness, stewardship and co-operation have returned to the fore.

So I am confident that Britain needs Labour responses today, even more than in 1997. Our Labour values, of solidarity and collectivism are the ones that can ensure that we come through these tough times without leaving behind the most vulnerable in society.

We are still the party of the many, not the few. The right finds itself stranded in the wrong intellectual space. You can’t privatise, deregulate or even nudge your way out of a global financial crisis.

As a response they are now smply echoing public fears but offering no solutions. They have made a tactical political calculation that they can offer a critique without an alternative.

Now the polls at present are certainly reflecting people’s very real anxieties about losing their jobs or their homes during this downturn. But beneath headline voting intentions, polling also reflects that the public can see that without Labour’s action, things would be much, much worse. And they also understand that the right have nothing to offer, other than to oppose our action and let the recession run its course.

These are unprecedented times. None of the political parties have a map for the uncharted waters that lie ahead – but on the centre left, we have a compass

We have done the right thing:

– by protecting people’s savings,

– by giving the economy a shot in the arm,

– by doing all we can to help people keep their jobs and their homes, and

– by working to claw back bonuses from bankers and prevent rewards for failure.

Now we need to keep our values front and centre, as we look to the future.

Because we will get through this recession and we will need a manifesto that builds on our achievements but also sets out a fresh agenda for the next Parliament and the next economic cycle.

Our progressive values must underpin our commitment to a low carbon, technology rich, globally competitive future for our economy

This is a moment of great challenge – domestically and internationally – but one for which the best response are provided by our enduring progressive values

So, in conclusion, lets be clear.

The next election won’t simply be won online.

But new technology is lowering the barriers to entry. It’s making organising cheaper and easier.

And because voting is and will remain a political act, it wont be the communication of the media that can win us the election, but the communication of our message.

Douglas Alexander – 2007 Speech at Chatham House Aviation Conference


Below is the text of the speech made by the then Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, at the Chatham House Aviation Conference on 6th March 2007.


Ladies and Gentlemen.

I’m very pleased to be here today alongside such a distinguished international line-up of speakers and delegates – and I’d like to thank the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, for organising such an important event.

I understand that this is the first time that Chatham House has organised a conference focused on international aviation.

Outsiders may well be wondering what aviation has got to do with inter-governmental foreign relations.  And they may be asking why aviation is of more concern to diplomats or foreign ministries than other international businesses?

To answer those questions we need to go back 60 years.

For right or wrong, the system of bilateral air service agreements which sprung up following the signature of the Chicago Convention in 1944 effectively made international aviation a tool of foreign policy.

Traffic rights became a hard-won prize to be gained through diplomatic negotiations between sovereign nations.  For many countries, protecting a weak, often state-owned, national flag carrier from foreign competition became an overriding objective.

Frequencies on a particular route were restricted to the maximum that the weakest carrier could operate.  No-one paid any attention to the needs of the passenger, or the potential of the market.  Too many passengers chased too few seats – at prices that were too high.

And there were other consequences.  As traffic rights became scarce, nations became unwilling to share them with carriers from other countries.

So the whole question of effective ownership and airline control arose.  The only airlines that benefited from a country’s traffic rights were those owned by its citizens.

At least – when most carriers were nationalised – airline ownership was transparent, and easy to understand.

But with global share ownership and the global flow of capital we’re witnessing today, the situation is far more opaque.

Increasingly, control rules have prevented the airline industry from fulfilling its full potential.

And so we continue to pay the penalty for holding on to an outdated system of regulation.

I believe that aviation should be free to operate like any other competitive, globalised business, consistent with high standards of safety and – yes – environmental responsibility.

So I’d like to talk today about the process and politics of the liberalisation of air services, and I hope dispel some of the myths you may have heard about both liberalisation in general, and the British government’s standpoint in particular.

Yesterday I know that you held an interesting and useful session on regulatory open skies.

Open skies – certainly as the United States uses the term – may well help by removing restrictions on routes and frequencies, but we need to go further, because it does nothing to deal with the issue of ownership and control.

The ultimate prize is an open aviation area – such as we have in the European Union today – with all restrictions on operations and investment lifted between participating countries.

And why is this so important?  Well, as IATA’s 2003 policy statement on liberalisation made clear, airlines need the same access to capital and the same flexibility to serve global markets as those enjoyed by corporations in other sectors.

The benefits would be enormous.  For example, as Commissioner Barrot has outlined, it has been estimated that an EU/US open aviation area could be worth up to 12 billion euros in economic benefits.

Airlines – some of the most capital intensive businesses in the world – would be able to access global capital markets, rather than being restricted to those from their home country.  And airline groupings could move beyond the fragile frameworks of today’s alliances to full co-operation and, where justified, consolidation.

I know that many airlines, including those here today, share that view.

But other commentators continue to oppose liberalisation, based on the sort of myths we heard in Europe when we started creating our own common aviation area.

Back then, we were told that liberalisation would lead to the gradual erosion of services to smaller airports.  But in Europe we have seen precisely the opposite.  The development of low-cost airlines and secondary airports has opened up a tremendous number of new routes and opportunities for travel.

Let me deal with another myth – that liberalisation is bad for employees.  In 2004, the UK Civil Aviation Authority studied the effects of liberalisation on airline employment.

They found it had paved the way for a growth in the market which far outweighed any localised job losses caused by the initial restructuring of operators to take advantage of that liberalised market.

Between 1992 and 2001, direct airline employment in Europe rose by 6%.  And there was no evidence to suggest that Europe’s higher-wage economies suffered, with France, the UK and Austria all showing some of the highest rates of growth.

Ironically, where airlines did fail, the ownership and control restrictions on non-EU national carriers probably contributed to the scale of job losses – because it reduced the potential for mergers with, or acquisitions by, other airlines.

Finally, let’s lay to rest two other popular misconceptions– that liberalisation is bad for safety, and detrimental to national security.  Of course airlines need to be regulated to ensure, among other things, their continued safe operation.

They must be registered and regulated in a place where they do a substantial part of their business, to ensure they comply with established international and national standards.  That’s our system in Europe, backed up by common EU rules, audited and checked by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

I’ve also heard some frankly outlandish arguments about the threat to national security if airline ownership or control passes into foreign hands.  Most developed nations have provisions in competition law for placing conditions on mergers or acquisitions to protect their national security interests.

And in a world where governments have been prepared to allow many other strategic assets – such as water, energy, telecommunications and even defence industries – to be owned by foreign nationals, I really don’t see why the airline industry should be any different.

So, how do we get from today’s largely-closed system to one where the benefits of liberalisation can spread beyond the borders of Europe?

I accept that much of the rest of the world does not yet share our vision.  That means – even if airlines can be opened up to foreign investment under the rules of their home state – they still face the loss of traffic rights with third countries if foreign nationals acquire a majority stake in them.

This means that unilateral action – although bravely taken by some, such as New Zealand – is not likely to be effective.  And, of course, it runs the risk of delivering commercial advantages to those who would benefit from liberalisation abroad while failing to deliver it at home.

So we need to move forward together, with concerted action at international level.  And what better example to set the rest of the world than such an agreement between the European Union and the United States?

Which brings me to the current status of EU-US aviation negotiations.  I know others have given you their views in earlier sessions; now let me take this opportunity to give you mine.  As you will appreciate, with over 40% of the EU-US market, the UK has a particular interest in the outcome of these discussions.

Last week in Brussels, EU and US negotiators held their 12th round of formal consultations.  I welcome the efforts of the negotiators on both sides, and I welcome the improvements that have been secured to the draft text agreed back in November 2005.

We’re still looking at the draft text, and yesterday I held discussions with both Commissioner Barrot and, on behalf of the Presidency of the EU, the German Federal Minister of Transport, Wolfgang Tiefensee. Amidst these discussions, I am very aware of the range of views that our stakeholders have – and which have been expressed to this conference by previous speakers.

Like Commissioner Barrot – I do not take lightly the significant economic benefits that would flow from such an agreement. But given past discussions, I also recognise that the deal on the table falls short of providing the kind of access to the US market that a number of EU carriers would like.

What we really need is a level playing field – so both European and US industries are able to compete fairly with each other.  Geographically and economically, the EU and US represent broadly equivalent markets.

And if a US carrier can operate from New York to London and on to Frankfurt, but an EU carrier can’t operate from London to New York and on to – say – San Francisco, then there remains work to be done.

Now, I am fully aware of the political and legal difficulties surrounding cabotage rights in the US.  That’s why – with the encouragement of the US – we looked at the relaxation of ownership and control restrictions.

As you all know, that process failed in the face of political opposition in Washington.  And, as Virgin Group and its US partners are finding out right now, it’s not easy for a foreign national to enter into an agreement with US investors to set up a new, domestic US airline.

Even if that person is a highly successful entrepreneur with a proven track-record in running popular airlines, it seems that certain incumbents will still encourage the Department of Transportation to use all the legal means at their disposal to block him.

The message that response has sent across the Atlantic is an unfortunate one – that many in the US would rather hold on to ownership and control rules passed more than 60 years ago than adapt to the 21st century – and enjoy all the benefits that a more open approach would bring.

The EU has recognised for some time that, with the current political climate in the US, we are not likely to get a full, transatlantic, open aviation area in one step.  That is why we have been prepared to contemplate a phased approach.

But to take forward that phased approach, we have to be satisfied that there is a clear mechanism in place, with real incentives on both sides, to reach the fully open market that we all judge to be the best way forward.

That’s the issue I and my fellow EU transport ministers will discuss in Brussels later this month.

As you will understand, I am not going to pre-empt those discussions here today.  But let me conclude my remarks by restating that the UK has been clear – right from the start – that we are prepared to end the highly restrictive Bermuda II arrangements, as part of the right multilateral deal – to open our skies, and unlock real benefits for our airlines, our passengers and our economies.