Author: admin

Michael Ancram – 2003 Speech During the Opposition Debate on the European Convention

The speech made by Michael Ancram in the House of Commons on 11 June 2003.

I beg to move, – ‘That this House believes that any Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union should only be ratified by Parliament once it has received the consent of the British people, democratically given in a referendum.’

This is a straightforward and democratic motion that I hope will win widespread support across the House. It is also a timely motion, as it is being debated on the eve of the national referendum on a referendum that is being conducted by the Daily Mail. I congratulate the Daily Mail on its initiative, and it is not alone. A referendum is also backed by The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, the Yorkshire Post, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman and many other newspapers, but, most importantly—as shown in opinion poll after opinion poll—it is massively backed by the British people.

The terms of the motion are simple and straightforward. They are as politically neutral as possible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his position when we reach the end of the debate.

I hope that as many people as possible will register their opinion tomorrow, if only to show the Government that the British electorate will not readily be sidelined on major issues that involve the transfer of powers from this country.

At a time when referendums have become an instrument of our political system, and when popular involvement in decisions has become part of our national culture, it would be wrong for an important decision affecting the future of our country to be taken without reference to the people. We should provide them with the opportunity to choose, “And then the people will decide”.

Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Wales on the “Today” programme on 27 May when he thought, perhaps unguidedly—until he was required later to unthink—that next year’s elections could be used as some sort of surrogate referendum.

The words of the Secretary of State for Wales are important, because they reflect the purpose of this motion, which is to enfranchise the people, not through the European elections but through a referendum. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who—I am sad to see—is not in his place today, will have the intellectual integrity to support us in the Lobby later.

What of the Liberal Democrats? I was pleased to hear the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife say that “If Convention proposals have constitutional implications, there should be a referendum.” That sentiment is broadly reflected in the amendment that they have tabled today. Our motion refers to a “Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

It is impossible to see how a constitutional treaty providing a constitution can, by definition, be said not to have constitutional implications. I cannot see how even the Liberal Democrats can, with integrity, avoid supporting our motion today.

We will be told that when we were in office we did not propose referendums on European matters of constitutional significance—that attack has been made on previous occasions—but was not it John Major who promised a referendum on the single currency? After six years of commitment from this Government, we are still waiting for that referendum.

We are told that we will still get a referendum on the euro, but we will have to wait and see. All that we are getting at the moment is the Tony and Gordon roadshow—the Government’s answer to our ill-fated Eurovision entry Jemini, being ill matched and out of tune. After six years of being told that the single currency was simply an economic decision, with no constitutional significance, suddenly we are told that it has achieved constitutional significance again.

The Prime Minister said in Warsaw on 30 May that “if we recommend entry to the euro, it would be a step of such economic and constitutional significance that a referendum would be sensible, and right, which is why we have promised one.”

The Prime Minister used the phrase “constitutional significance”, but what about the Convention? At Question Time today, the Prime Minister said again that he did not believe that the Convention was constitutionally significant, but I ask the question again: if a constitutional treaty providing a constitution for the EU is not of constitutional significance, what on earth is? Surely it would be as sensible and right to have a referendum on the constitution as on the euro?

I am sure that we will also hear the usual attacks for not backing referendums in the past. The answer is straightforward. Ten or 12 years ago, we did not have referendums. Even Labour Members argued in many debates—and I can give the House examples, if necessary—against referendums. However, nowadays we do have referendums, and that is because this Government have made them readily available as a political and constitutional device for allowing people to decide. There has even been legislation on the systems of referendums.

The Government have used referendums with gusto. There have been 34 referendums since 1997, on matters ranging from the Belfast agreement and devolution for Scotland and Wales to the London Mayor and Assembly and the much-canvassed mayor of Hartlepool; many more are promised on regional assemblies. This Government love referendums, as they have shown over and over again—but not on this matter, the most important and far-reaching issue of the lot. It is their instant ruling-out of one on the European constitution that stands out.

Why this matter? What are the Government afraid of? If the people’s consent to set up a mayor of Hartlepool is so important, why is it to be denied for the setting-up of a European president of a European political Union? The answer, we were told by the Prime Minister again in Warsaw, is that neither the Convention nor the IGC represents “a fundamental change to the British Constitution and to our system of parliamentary democracy”.

How does the Prime Minister know what an IGC that has not yet begun is going to represent? On that basis, how can he rule out a referendum now?

Today’s amendment changes the criteria. Out goes the phrase “a fundamental change to the British Constitution”, and in comes the phrase “do not involve a fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and its Member States”.

Those are two very different sets of criteria. In a sense, it is perhaps all about words, but what matters is the reality. It is the reality that matters, not the words. We are at the moment part of an albeit imperfect Europe of nations. I believe that the European Union is in need of reform, but if the Convention proposals as they stand were ratified in a treaty we would be part of something fundamentally different.

I do not mind whether we call it a superstate, a federal power or—the Prime Minister’s preferred option—a superpower. I do not care whether we call it a politically united Europe or even Romano Prodi’s “advanced supranational democracy”. All I know is that it will not be what we have now. It will be a step change away from that. I do not understand how can the Government can claim that that does not involve a fundamental change of the relationship between the EU and its member states, because it changes that relationship: member states would go from being partners to being subservient components.

If we look at the overall result of the Convention’s proposals, we begin to see what is happening. The proposals will lead to a legal personality, a constitution, a president and a foreign secretary. It will involve fundamental rights, including the right to strike, legally enforceable at a European level. There will be a common foreign and security policy, and a European prosecutor. European law will have explicit primacy, and it will have an increasing role in criminal law, especially in procedure. There will be shared competence over immigration and asylum, with no veto, and Europe’s powers will be expanded into vast areas, from transport to energy. There could even be—who knows?—a common currency.

Each of those elements diminishes our existing national sovereignty in one way or another. Together, they build a new and distinct political entity that has many of the attributes of a country. That is the truth, however hard the Government seek to disguise it. To call this a tidying-up exercise is laughable, and simply not true.

One of the Convention’s leading members, the former Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, said in The Sunday Telegraph of 1 June: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives . . . and eventually will become an institution and organisation in its own right.”

That may not suit the Government’s agenda, but Lamberto Dini is on the Convention, and that is what he believes will happen. That is the reality.

If we look at the totality of what is being done. I used to practise in the courts, and one could take little bits of evidence and say that none of them amounted to much on its own. What matters is the eventual result of putting them all together. I am suggesting to the House that what is being created, whether one wants it or not, is very different from what we have now. If that is the case, it is of constitutional significance, and it should be the subject of a referendum.

I believe that those components will change the nature of the EU. An EU foreign secretary and a common foreign and security policy would mean that the circumstances of the EU would be very different from what they are at the moment. We must consider that point as we determine whether a referendum is necessary or not.

The Government know that the proposals are far reaching. The Treasury’s own single currency assessments published on Monday state: “Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not.”

That means us, and it does not sound to me like tidying up. It sounds much more like the Prime Minister’s criteria of economic significance as well as constitutional significance, about which he spoke in Warsaw, where he said that they make a referendum sensible and right. His words also apply to what we see coming from the Convention.

My party opposes the constitution, but that is not the point of the motion. The point is to give the British people the right to decide whom they believe and what choice they want to make about how this country goes forward in Europe. That is why we are pressing for a referendum. Parliament is sovereign, but, in my view, that sovereignty is granted to it in trust by the people. Parliament should not be able to alienate sovereignty permanently and irreversibly without the express consent, democratically given, of the electorate. In the absence of a general election, such authority can be given to Parliament only by a referendum.

Authority has not been given, nor have the Government sought it. There was no mention of a European constitution in their manifesto. That is another reason why a referendum is necessary. That is not just the view of the Conservative party or our country: the hon. Member for Moray reminded us of the origins of the Convention, and I shall quote what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said on 28 February 2002 when he launched it: “Treaties are made by states and agreed by Parliaments, but constitutions are created by citizens and adopted by them in referendums.”

That was his view then; I believe it remains his view today. The Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen, was reported as saying on 28 May: “What is at stake is so new and so big that it is right to hold a referendum”.

From all corners of the debate in Europe, people are telling us that the constitution is a significant move forward and that it is a subject fitting for a referendum. The case for a referendum is compelling.

The motion refers carefully and deliberately to “a treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

That makes it even more difficult for me to understand how, without their knowing the eventual shape and contents of the treaty, the Government are able instantly to rule out a referendum. If they do not know what they will be looking at in the long term, how can they say that there will be no referendum? Why are the Government so frightened? Are they frightened that their smokescreen will be blown away, and is that why they dare not let the British people decide? Other countries will let their peoples decide. Denmark and Ireland will let the people decide. France, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and Austria may, in various ways, let their people decide. The Netherlands has just decided on a non-binding referendum. Only Britain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece refuse point blank to let the people decide.

The Government’s position insults the British people. They continue to play what I call the “big lie” card, saying that the debate on Europe is about going right in or coming out of Europe, and that they want in and we want out. That is dishonest spin of the worst sort—the kind of spin that has already brought them into disrepute, a lesson from which I hope they learn. The real Europe debate, which the Government are so keen to avoid, is the debate about the sort of Europe that we want to be in. Is it a Europe of sovereign nations that we seek, or is it a European superpower that the Prime Minister proclaimed in Poland in October 2000 and in Cardiff in November 2002? That is the real choice.

This motion is about trusting the people. It is a democratic motion. It exposes the arrogance of a Government who will not let the people have their say. What is the betting that the Leader of the House will shortly tell a newspaper that there are rogue elements in the electorate, let alone in the House, who are seeking to undermine the Government, and that that is why we cannot have a referendum? Only six years ago, the Government asked us to trust them. What we are saying is: “Trust the people.” Why do they continue to say no?

We will trust the people. We will not take no for an answer. We will let the people decide. I call on the House to support the motion.

24/08/2022
Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech on the European Council in Thessaloniki

The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 4 June 2003.

Mr President,

I congratulate you, President-in-Office, on the progress that has been made during the Greek Presidency on progressing enlargement. The special Athens Council in April was a landmark in the history of Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we look forward to the ten applicant states taking their rightful place in the new Europe.

However, looking at the priorities which were set out by the Presidency, two of them in particular have, sadly, been a disappointment.

First, the Lisbon process. After three years, this agenda is stalled, indeed going backwards. It is disappointing that the Presidency has been unable to persuade Governments to get their act together on an issue that is fundamental to the prosperity of people across the Union. As a result, many EU countries are looking to a future of economic stagnation and deflation.

Second, the Presidency wanted to see “the new Europe as an international motor for peace and co-operation”. Of course, the Iraq crisis was a difficult one. However, the way in which, during the Greek Presidency, the ‘Gang of Four’ convened in April in Brussels to consider alternative defence structures to NATO, merely reinforced anti-American sentiment.

Thessaloniki will also mark the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe, when former President Giscard presents the conclusions of eighteen months of discussion. The Convention still has work to do in the coming two weeks, but I wanted to comment today on the emerging draft Articles published last week.

At Laeken, Heads of State and Government said: “Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens”. Having looked at the draft Articles in this Convention document, I fear that this noble ambition has fallen somewhat short of the mark. Indeed, I would say that, in many ways, it heads in precisely the opposite direction.

The Convention is proposing a European Union that is more centralised, more bureaucratic, in many ways less democratic and certainly more federalist than is currently the case.

I am a long-standing supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union. But, the document that Heads of Government are likely to see in Thessaloniki is one that does, in my view, change the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European Union.

In summary:

A Constitution

Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Legal status for the Union

A President for the EU

A Foreign Minister for the EU

The collapse of the second and third pillars

A Common Foreign and Security Policy

The eventual framing of an EU defence policy

A requirement for economic policies to be co-ordinated

Harmonisation of certain taxes

The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

The British Government has called the Constitution a “tidying-up exercise”, and therefore not worthy of being put to the people in a referendum. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister is to submit the Constitution to a referendum because: “the EU’s constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it”. 80% of the British public agrees.

The former Prime Minister of Italy, Lamberto Dini, who also sits in the Convention, has said: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives … “.

This is not just a case of the British Government dismissing the right of the British people to have a say on their own future, it is also that the Convention proposals fundamentally change the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the way in which we are all governed.

For those who have cherished the concept of a United States of Europe, the blueprint has been set out by Giscard, and the debate on the consequences of this draft Constitution should be based on this fundamental fact so honestly and sincerely articulated by President Prodi and many speeches in this debate.

When the Inter-Governmental Conference begins its work later this year, my Party is determined to see that the accession states not only have a right to contribute to the discussion, they must also have a vote in Council on the crucial decisions it will take. The outcome of the IGC will impact on people in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, just as much as London, Paris and Berlin. It is unacceptable for the EU 15 to impose a radical new Constitution on these new Member States without them having a proper, democratic role in the outcome.

We have long been the most ardent supporters of enlargement and the rights of the accession states to take their place at the European top table. But our Europe is one where diversity is celebrated, not one where countries are forced into an institutional straightjacket. We want a Europe that is democratic, prosperous, works with the United States to defend our freedoms and confront common threats. The Convention takes us down a different route to a Europe where the nation state is no longer the foundation on which the Union rests.

24/08/2022
Michael Ancram – 2003 Speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies

The speech made by Michael Ancram on 13 June 2003.

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today at the Centre for Islamic Studies.

Already in its short lifetime since being set up in 1985 the Centre, and the work of its Director Dr Nizami, have acquired an unsurpassed reputation in the academic world and indeed beyond. Its mission in helping to bring the Islamic and Western worlds closer together through increased understanding is more important than ever. Dialogue is central to that understanding, hence the title of my lecture tonight.

The “Clash of Civilisations” idea was advanced by Samuel Huntington in his 1993 article in the journal “Foreign Affairs”. In that article, in a nutshell, he “posed the question whether conflicts between civilisations would dominate the future of world politics”. He further developed his theme in his subsequent book in which he stated that not only were “clashes between civilisations (the) greatest threat to world peace” but also that basing an international order on civilisations would be an effective way to prevent war.

Understandably his thesis generated, and continues to generate, considerable debate and the whole spectrum of reactions. Some have chosen to interpret it as meaning that following the end of the Cold War a new, ‘civilisational’, dragon must be found to replace the defeated Communist enemy. Even before 9/11, but more so afterwards, an ill-informed minority seem to be suggesting that Islam could be that dragon.

That is as offensive as it is wrong. Wrong because it is not true. Wrong because the need for dragons is the stuff of fairytales and not of real life. And offensive because Islam is not an enemy of the West. Crudely to transpose the acts and views of a tiny minority as being representative of the entire religion is both inaccurate and dangerous. Such assertions find easy root in the fertile soil of misunderstanding. The more difficult terrain of understanding is much harder to cultivate, but cultivated it must be. And the only way is through dialogue.

The unacceptable alternative is to yield to the doctrine of conflict, the clash of civilisations dragons and all.

Conflicts between “civilisations” have occurred in the past. Differences of culture, religion, politics have led to conflict. The Crusades were one such example, although there were many other factors at play in that conflict. Similarly in more recent times we see the Israeli-Palestinian clash. We see the Kashmir dispute, and a host of other conflicts worldwide. While however the world will always find issues that divide, we are united by a far greater factor – we all share this small planet. The differences and diversity around us should be a source of pride. It is up to us to learn from each other’s cultures, and to achieve greater understanding. Understanding is not grown in a vacuum chamber. It must be watered constantly by dialogue.

In November 1998 the UN General Assembly passed a Resolution declaring 2000 the “Year of Dialogue Among Civilisations”. Since then a team of academics and experts has examined how best to promote this, presenting a paper to the UN last year. They too have recognised, as do I, that dialogue is essential. I was the Political Minister in Northern Ireland for 4 years during the time that we moved from conflict to dialogue. In Northern Ireland there are two distinct cultures, fundamentally opposed to each other on religion, on allegiance and on territory. It was a microcosmic example of the clash of cultures, but none the less of a clash for that. 3000 people out of a population of 1.5 million lost their lives over 30 years of clash.

I was immediately faced on arriving in Northern Ireland with how to get a dialogue to work, when there was no dialogue and no will for dialogue. The answer for a start was ‘slowly’, but I learned early that the key is to begin to understand each other’s fears.

Fear is at the core. Fear on each side of being dominated by the other. Not the desire to conquer each other, but the fear of being overwhelmed and run by the other. Extremists on each edge of these fundamental clashes of civilisation often appear to be motivated by the rules of conquest. The paradox is that, certainly in my experience, those who allow them to operate by giving them succour, shelter and support are not. One way or the other they are motivated by fear.

So I believe it is between Islamic Fundamentalists and the West. Their mindset is not one of conquest but of fear. They fear what has been called “Westoxification”.

The fear of “westoxification” is the fear that another culture, in this case that of “the West”, can seduce followers of other cultures or ways of life, in this case followers of Islam, away from their Faith and the way of life which goes with it. “Westoxification” is a particularly apposite term for it is both addictive and seductive, and yet at the same toxic.

Viewed through this prism, the idea of a clash of civilisations is in fact a defensive reaction to events that people do not sufficiently understand. So we must strive to understand what each side, or each group, is trying to protect, and then demonstrate that they do not need to be at risk, that their fears are unfounded.

Dialogue is not only the first step but also the continuing staircase to the understanding and tolerance we must build. But to engage in a truly open and productive dialogue one must understand the fears that drive people. To do that requires a real knowledge of history and backgrounds. In Northern Ireland my first step was to read as many history books on the subject as I could find, to talk to as many people as I could – to understand the background to the fear and how it had reached that stage. Without understanding our past it is very difficult to appreciate our present, or project our future.

My firm view was and is that an understanding of the past provides the background that is necessary to inform dialogue. It discloses the sources of the fears that in turn have given rise to the bitterness and the hatred. It rapidly becomes the basic building block of discourse. Knowing how and why the knots of hatred and mistrust came to be tied is the only route to loosen, to unravel, and eventually to undo them.

In Iraq we cannot hope to see a stable and successful post-Saddam Iraq without the Iraqi people themselves leading the way. And without understanding the history of that country, the attitudes that are prevalent, the ethnic and religious tensions and balancing all these we cannot be much help in assisting the Iraqi people in that task. Iraq certainly today is full of division and mistrust and consequent fear. They certainly need dialogue amongst themselves and urgently. And for us too. It is only through dialogue and interaction that we can help to make the new Iraq which we all wish to see a reality. There must be no creation of permanently disenfranchised minorities who can never expect to share in power. History teaches us the cost of such mistakes. The fears of the Iraqi people of such inequalities internally, or of Western domination externally, must gradually be laid to rest through dialogue.

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the inevitable backdrop to most of the long-term tension in the Middle East. It is in many ways the key to Arab, and indeed Muslim, attitudes towards the politics of the region and towards the West in general.

I know that many Muslims view the West’s and America’s attitude to the dispute as Israeli-centric. I know too that many in the Muslim world feel that the West has often shown over-scant regard for the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people every day. The Palestinians are stateless, and they feel both dispossessed and humiliated. They fear remaining permanent refugees with no future for their children and no home of their own. They fear that Israel will never allow them their own State.

On the other side the Israelis also feel threatened. They feel immediately vulnerable to the indiscriminate horrors of suicide bombings. Some fear that the Arab nations still wish to drive them in to the sea, to destroy the State of Israel. They fear the military vulnerability of Israel that could result if a Palestinian State were to be used as a springboard for an attack.

Fear is therefore at the heart of the perceptions on both sides. That fear can and must be dispelled. I believe it can be. I do not believe that the Arab nations have any real remaining desire to destroy Israel. I do believe that today they realistically recognise Israel’s right to exist. Crown Prince Abdullah’s Saudi plan last summer, endorsed by the Arab states, signalled a welcome willingness to accept this. Similarly I do not believe Israel to be fundamentally opposed to the creation of a Palestinian State. Camp David and Taba showed that the template for the two state solution was and is there, even though on these occasions it was not made to stick – partly because the fear was not sufficiently dispelled, the trust not sufficiently established, and the dialogue not sufficiently deep.

What is certain is that dialogue, not conflict, is the only way that these underlying fears can be assuaged. The vast majority of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians want peace, but a peace which is both just and secure. The recently published Roadmap is a significant step on the road to resuming dialogue, backed by a real international political will to make that dialogue work.

The Roadmap is not a magic talisman that will solve the problem overnight, but we saw at Taba that on issues such as the Right of Return, the Borders, Settlements and even Jerusalem the two sides can be brought far closer by dialogue than previously thought possible. The Roadmap provides a framework for taking that dialogue further.

A two state solution is the only way forward and dialogue is the only way to achieve it. But dialogue and negotiation involve give and take on both sides. If the two sides are too rigid or too many conditions are set, then the power to derail the dialogue passes to the extremist and fear takes over again.

The active assistance of the USA and the UK in the Middle East Peace Process is vital. I am confident that we will see a sustained and balanced contribution by the international community to the eradication of fear and the underpinning of peace. We all on every side have a political, and indeed a moral, duty to do everything in our power to help settle this long-running dispute.

Then there is Kashmir, an area where fear has also come to dominate the two sides in the dispute. Once again there are two “civilisations”. For once the West is not one of them. Instead we see predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan engaged in a dangerous game of brinkmanship and escalating tension, with the nuclear threat always thinly veiled in the background, centred in or on the breathtaking highlands of Kashmir located in between.

Although ostensibly a territorial dispute, fear of domination by either side underlies the concerns of many Kashmiris. Both sides fear the others weaponry and the domestic impact any deal might have on their own political positions. Yet by studying the origins of the dispute and engaging in a dialogue, both parties can begin to build that level of understanding and trust which are vital to progress and de-escalation of tensions. I welcome the tentative steps towards resuming dialogue of the last few days. We must give them every encouragement we can.

There is another important aspect to dialogue. In the West when we talk of dialogue we must be careful. Too often we appear to preach, to approach dialogue from a morally superior position. This is not only wrong in itself, but it also immediately undermines the genuine interaction of dialogue.

Our tendency to do so has sometimes made dialogue more difficult. It has been seen as a sign of arrogance, and arrogance is the enemy of genuine dialogue. It is important therefore that we in the West do not adopt a position whereby we assert the idea that Western civilisation is somehow more advanced and inherently superior to other civilisations. Nor must we seek to impose our way of life on other cultures and societies.

To assert that one civilisation is naturally superior to another, to the exclusion of all others, is the road away from dialogue and towards the clash of civilizations. It ignores the historical reality that the interaction of civilisations in the past that has produced much of value which we take for granted as our own today.

At the height of Islamic power, in the age of the Caliphates, the Muslim world was the most powerful force militarily and economically. It came in to contact with the Christian West at many points, perhaps most notably in Spain, Al Andalus. Its trading networks, stretching across Asia, Europe and Africa brought a wide-range of exotic commodities to the West, it had assimilated the skills of Ancient Persia, Greece and the Middle East, and this placed Islamic civilization at the forefront of the arts and sciences. Indeed many great advances in medicine and science were brought about, or based, on ideas that originated in the Islamic world and were carried to the West by contacts in Medieval Spain.

The Islamic world’s transport and communications links supplemented this knowledge with knowledge and skills from outside, such as the art of paper-making from China and decimal positional numbering from India.

As the author Bernard Lewis writes: “It is difficult to imagine modern literature or science without the one or the other”. The Age of the Caliphates was by no means an age without conflict but there was considerably more dialogue between civilizations than many people might suspect. The massive literary, scientific and artistic steps forward by the West at this time owe a great deal to constructive contacts and dialogue with Islam & are an indication of the progress that can be made for human civilization in general through dialogue.

There is an aspect of dialogue which is important, and that is the layered approach to it. To be successful it should never just be carried forward at a single level. It should not simply take place at great power level, heads of state to heads of state, governments to governments. Big Power settlements and solutions with no grassroots support or participation lead far too often to hollow structures and empty agreements.

An effective dialogue between civilisations or to end a conflict must of course be a dialogue between states. But if the outcome is to take root, it must equally be a dialogue between academics, between journalists, between communities, between neighbours and even a dialogue between individuals.

In Israel and the Occupied territories if a peace is to last it must be believed in by the ordinary Palestinians and Israelis who see each other every day. I believe the overwhelming majority wants peace. I believe that by giving ordinary citizens a stake in the peace process, by carrying them along, then that peace becomes more durable. I believe also that the trust needed to underpin a successful peace begins with dialogue leading to understanding at each and every level.

And so it must be between the West and Islam in general. Each and everyone one of us has a duty to attempt to understand each other more. In our ever more interconnected world, where cultures intermingle and ideas can be exchanged across the world at the push of a button on a laptop, it is more important than ever that we build trust and tolerance, through an understanding of where each of us is coming from.

The fear of the unknown, or the insufficiently understood remains at the core of many problems facing the West, the Islamic World and indeed the whole planet today. Dialogue above all else can counter this fear. That is why we must ensure that it does ultimately triumph over the clash of civilisations that can only bring darkness and yet more fear. It is often not the easiest way. It can itself be full of pain and frustration. It requires immense patience and self-control. But the storms it may in the short-term generate will be nothing as compared to the seismic and cataclysmic movements that would be created by the tectonic collisions of the clash of civilisations.

Although in a different context, President Kennedy’s message is still applicable when he said: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate”. Dialogue is the path of the wise. Let us take it.

24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : Boost for UK economy and rail industry through new Israel partnership
The press release issued by the Department for Transport on 24 August 2022.
- UK to secure new business opportunities as Transport Secretary signs partnership with Israel, offering potential jobs for nation’s rail industry
- new UK-Israel Memorandum of Understanding to extend the benefits of Crossrail expertise overseas, promoting global Britain and enabling British engineers to team up with companies abroad
- move follows successful launch of the Elizabeth Line bringing an estimated £42 billion to UK economy
Fresh business opportunities and potential new jobs will be unlocked for the UK’s rail industry thanks to a new partnership signed by the Transport Secretary with Israel today (24 August 2022).

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be signed by the two countries to share expertise on large scale rail projects, following the successful launch of the UK’s Elizabeth Line earlier this year.

The benefits of the state-of-the-art line will be extended overseas, through the Department for Transport’s Crossrail International advisory company. This follows the introduction of the Elizabeth Line, which slashed fares by over a third for commuters across London and massively reduced journey times. The project is also estimated to pump £42 billion into the UK economy and has created more than 55,000 jobs and 1,000 apprenticeships while expanding central London’s rail capacity by 10%.

It is now hoped business opportunities with Israel, the UK’s third biggest transport goods trading partner, will not only enable firms to share valuable expertise, but boost economic growth and could lead to more jobs being created.

In July, the UK launched negotiations with Israel to upgrade the current trade deal, currently worth £5 billion and supports 6,600 UK businesses. The upgraded agreement would establish a modern, revamped trading relationship between two of the world’s services superpowers.  This includes seeking improved access to major public sector contracts for UK businesses and boosting opportunities for the services sector.

In 2021 alone, the UK imported £144 million of transportation services from Israel, highlighting the close relationship between our two nations.

As part of the Transport Secretary’s visit to Israel this week, he has visited the building site of Tel Aviv’s new light rail line and will meet with the Israeli Transport Minister Merav Michaeli.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“Today’s partnership further ingrains our commitment to a global Britain, helping our world-leading rail industry to extend its expertise to friends overseas, while unlocking fresh business opportunities to boost the UK economy. 

Following the successful launch of our iconic Elizabeth Line earlier this year, this memorandum is a fantastic opportunity for our British engineers and advisors to share their ingenuity with Israel as they undertake their largest ever rail project in Tel Aviv. 

It was a pleasure to visit the project site this week to see first-hand the ongoing work to build such a revolutionary transport hub which will help millions of passengers get from A to B quicker, easier and more sustainably. ”

Minister of Transport and Road Safety, Merav Michaeli:

“Transport is a national security issue. This is accepted and understood around the world, and I am happy to strengthen ties and enter into agreements with other countries that make Israel stronger.

I would like to thank my colleague Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps for his visit to Israel and for the ground-breaking cooperation we have created together. I am confident that the know-how we have shared and the agreements we have signed will result in better transportation in both countries, and particularly greener, shared transport that the world needs so much as we face the climate crisis. These steps contribute to strengthening the relations between Israel and the United Kingdom and are a cornerstone of our important bilateral ties.

This is how we are moving Israeli transport several steps forward.”

The UK-Israel MOU comes as Israel undertakes a multi-billion-pound mass transit project in Tel Aviv – the country’s largest and most complicated infrastructure project to ever exist.

The scheme is being supported by the Department for Transport owned Crossrail International, a specialist advisory company which offers its expertise across the globe to deliver complex rail projects. The project will see the build of 3 light rail and metro lines to serve 27 local authorities and 3 million passengers daily.

The new memorandum will allow both countries to share experience and best practice in relation to large-scale transport projects.

For example, the UK’s Crossrail International will offer advice to Israel on design, safety and standards of new train lines across the country. Expertise will also be shared on ensuring the build of transport projects is as green and sustainable as possible.

Chief Executive Officer of Crossrail International Paul Dyson said:

“Our aim is to share good practice, lessons learned and innovation to provide better outcomes and wider benefits for our respective societies.

Crossrail International is extremely proud to be a partner of this MoU and to act as a conduit of UK knowledge, skills and expertise that will support the Israeli Ministry of Transport in the delivery of its transformational rail transit portfolio.”

The memorandum between the Department for Transport and the Israeli Ministry of Transport and Road Safety is set to boost the UK economy by offering British engineers the chance to provide bespoke advice in relation to Tel Aviv’s new metro line.
24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : Drivers to benefit from £20 million EV chargepoint boost
The press release issued by the Department for Transport on 24 August 2022.
- more than 1,000 new electric vehicle chargepoints to be installed in a new pilot, as part of a wider £450 million scheme
- chargepoints will be built across 9 local authorities across England, including Durham, Nottinghamshire, and Suffolk
- nearly £20 million from government and industry funding for pilot winners and further £10 million for existing chargepoint scheme
Drivers will have better access to electric vehicle chargepoints across the country, through a new pilot backed by £20 million of government and industry funding announced today (24 August 2022).

Through the innovative Local EV Infrastructure (LEVI) pilot scheme, local authorities and industry will work together to create new, commercial EV charging infrastructure for residents, from faster on-street chargepoints to larger petrol station-style charging hubs.

The rollout supports the government’s drive to encourage more motorists to go electric, which can save drivers money on fuel and running costs, and improve air quality as the country moves towards net zero.

The winners of the pilot fund are:
- Barnet
- Dorset
- Durham
- Kent
- Midlands Connect (with Lincolnshire as a lead authority)
- North Yorkshire
- Nottinghamshire
- Suffolk
- Warrington
The funding is expected to deliver over 1,000 public chargepoints across the areas.

The scheme will help residents without private driveways to have better access to EV chargers, as well as growing the charging network across the country, supporting the nation’s uptake of zero emission vehicles and enabling more people to drive and charge without fear of being caught short, no matter where they are.

The pilot is backed by £10 million of government funding shared among the 9 winning local authorities in the first tranche of the planned £450 million scheme, with winning pilot bids supported by an additional £9 million in private funding. A further £1.9 million will come from public funds across local authorities.

Decarbonisation Minister Trudy Harrison said:

“We want to expand and grow our world-leading network of EV chargepoints, working closely with industry and local government, making it even easier for those without driveways to charge their electric vehicles and support the switch to cleaner travel.

This scheme will help to level up electric vehicle infrastructure across the country, so that everyone can benefit from healthier neighbourhoods and cleaner air.”

Edmund King OBE, AA president, said:

“It is essential that more on-street chargers are delivered to boost the transition to zero emission vehicles for those without home charging.

This injection of an extra £20 million funding will help bring power to electric drivers across England from Durham to Dorset. This is one further positive step on the road to electrification.”

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said:

“We know that there are many drivers who do not have driveways or any form of off-street parking, so investing in streetside charging is an absolute necessity. Drivers can also look forward to the prospect of local charging hubs which will give them somewhere to quickly charge their vehicles without needing to drive any considerable distance. The goal must be to spark electric vehicle uptake by creating an excellent charging infrastructure that caters for everyone’s needs.”

The scheme will allow local authorities to provide feedback on how to grow the network and the role the private sector can play.

The new LEVI fund builds on the success of the On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme (ORCS) which has seen nearly 2,900 chargepoints installed so far with funding provided for approaching 10,000 additional chargepoints in the future.

Following growing demand from local authorities, we’re also announcing a further £10 million in funding which has been brought forward for this year, bringing this year’s ORCS funding to £30 million to help maintain ongoing installations.
24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : Public urged to ‘represent the very best of British community spirit’ and sponsor people from Ukraine
The press release issued by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 24 August 2022.
- Today marks the 31st Anniversary of Ukraine Independence Day and 6 months since the start of the war
- More than 115,000 people from Ukraine have arrived in the UK under the government’s Ukraine visa schemes
- As war rages on the government is calling on more people to volunteer a home as sponsors
As the people of Ukraine celebrate their Independence Day, the UK government is calling for more people to come forward to help house Ukrainians fleeing the war.

Thanks to the good will and generosity of tens of thousands of people, more than 115,000 Ukrainians have been given safety in the UK so far through both the family and sponsorship schemes. This huge collective and community effort represents the UK’s biggest offer to shelter for people fleeing war since 1946. But with the Putin’s barbaric invasion continuing, many Ukrainians are still looking for a place of safety in homes right across the UK.

Those interested in becoming sponsors for the Homes for Ukraine scheme can find out more information and record their interest online.

Those interested in finding somebody to host can contact recognised providers listed online who help provide support and guidance on becoming a sponsor, and can help people safely find a match. A record of interest will also be shared with the local authority who may make contact to discuss where there is a need for sponsors in the area.

Alison Edwards, host said:

“We are delighted to have met our lovely Ukrainian guest, even though the opportunity arose for the worst reasons. We feel so grateful that our guest has joined us; by chance we share many interests and our children have so enjoyed spending time with our guest. We feel we have a new honorary family member from Ukraine. Our lovely guest has brought warmth and humour. Our thoughts are with her relatives in Ukraine and we have so many hopes for our guest’s future.”

This country has committed to providing Ukrainians with a home while they are here in the UK. Some guests may need a new place to stay after 6 months and new sponsors who step forward will help local authorities ensure people have somewhere to plant roots in the community.

The government is providing £10,500 per person under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme to councils to enable them to provide support to families to rebuild their lives and plant roots in the community. Within the £10,500 is a one-off £200 payment that councils will provide to each Ukraine guest upon arrival plus the £350 ‘thank you’ monthly payment for sponsors for costs associated with helping out.

Around 3 out of 4 existing hosts say they want to continue supporting their Ukrainian guests but where people cannot continue hosting new offers of places to live are needed for Ukrainians already in the UK. In these cases councils are offering a rematching service to find a new sponsor in cases under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

Refugees Minister Lord Harrington said:

“Today marks two sombre and important chapters in Ukraine’s rich history – 31 years since the proud nation declared independence and 6 months since Russian tanks rolled across the border.

The United Kingdom has been unwavering in its support and we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder as more than 115,000 people arrive from Ukraine, our biggest offer of sanctuary to people fleeing war since 1946.

Those who have chosen to sponsor Ukrainians represent the very best of British community spirit and generosity and I would urge anyone who has the room to come forward and join thousands of others in providing a safe haven for people forced to leave their country.

The ONS recently surveyed sponsors about their experiences with the Homes for Ukraine Scheme and the results show the vast majority of people want to provide support for longer than 6 months, which is a testament to the goodwill and generosity of the British people. They will of course continue to receive £350 ‘thank you’ payments up to 6 months and the Ukrainians they sponsor have the right to work and to access benefits and public services, including education and healthcare, from day one.”

Devolved governments, charities, faith groups, businesses, councils and communities have all worked in lock step to provide much needed support to those arriving from Ukraine.
24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : UK and Ukraine launch talks on digital trade deal to support Ukrainian businesses
The press release issued by the Department for International Trade on 23 August 2022.
- New agreement will remove barriers to digital trade, providing much needed support for Ukrainian jobs and livelihoods following Russia’s invasion
- Announcement follows a direct request from Ukraine’s government and comes on Ukrainian Independence Day [Wednesday 24 August]
- Move follows UK’s decision to cut tariffs on all goods from Ukraine to zero under existing UK-Ukraine free trade agreement
The UK and Ukraine have announced their intention to pursue a new digital trade agreement to help Ukraine rebuild its economy and protect livelihoods following Russia’s invasion.

International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan met with First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy of Ukraine Yuliia Svyrydenko and Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine Mykhailo Fedorov virtually and Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Vadym Prystaiko in person in London [on Tuesday 23 August] to reiterate the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine and begin talks.

The digital trade agreement will aim to support Ukrainian businesses by cutting red tape and helping them to trade with the UK more efficiently through technology such as electronic transactions, e-signatures, and e-contracts.

It will also make it easier for UK companies to work with Ukrainian businesses and support with their economic recovery. Total trade between the UK and Ukraine was worth £1.9 billion in 2021 and UK exports of digitally delivered services accounted for 73% of all UK services exports to Ukraine in 2020.

International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

“Putin’s brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has had devastating human consequences. The UK stands shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and will use trade as a force for good to help the country rebuild its modern economy after this barbaric war.

Our partnership with Ukraine will help them seize the brighter days ahead, and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect Ukrainian jobs, livelihoods and families.”

Vadym Prystaiko, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom said:

“The United Kingdom has shown unwavering support throughout this illegal invasion and the ties between our governments have never been closer.

While we fight fearlessly for the freedom of our nation, many Ukrainians also look ahead to how we will rebuild our country. Strengthening our economic ties through this landmark digital trade agreement will support our IT industry, which is set to become a major driver of economic growth for our businesses and cities.”

Today’s announcement comes following a direct request from President Zelenskyy’s government. The Ukrainian government has identified supporting the digital economy as one of its areas of focus for the recovery and reconstruction of the country. The UK, as a global leader in digital trade, is well placed to help with that.

It follows the UK’s removal of all tariffs under the existing UK-Ukraine free trade agreement in May, supporting Ukrainian businesses and producers to export goods and rebuild their economy. A new digital trade agreement would further strengthen our trading relationship, providing additional and much-needed economic support for businesses in Ukraine.

In July the Trade Secretary also launched a new UK-Ukraine Infrastructure Taskforce, which is building partnerships between UK and Ukrainian businesses to help repair damaged and destroyed infrastructure including bridges and homes in and around Kyiv.

The UK has also introduced one of the largest and most severe packages of economic sanctions against Russia. Measures cover over £18 billion worth of products that were traded with Russia in 2021, as well as over 1,000 individuals and over 100 entities in key sectors such as defence.
24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : Calling on Russia to return full control of all Ukraine’s nuclear facilities to their rightful sovereign owner – UK statement at UN Security Council

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 23 August 2022.

Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki at the Security Council briefing on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

Thank you Mr President and thank you to Under-Secretary-General Di Carlo for this briefing.

The United Kingdom remains gravely concerned about the implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion has disrupted the operation of nuclear facilities across Ukraine, posed a grave threat to operational safety, and prevented Ukrainian authorities from carrying out routine safeguards tasks.

Instead of calling yet another meeting on the crisis at Zaporizhzhia, Russia could resolve it immediately by withdrawing its forces from the plant, and all of Ukraine, and ceasing its senseless aggression. As well as causing untold suffering to the Ukrainian people, the simple fact is that Russia’s invasion – and its efforts to seize by force Ukraine’s nuclear plants – has jeopardised the safety of millions in the region who would be affected by a nuclear incident in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, important nuclear safety and safeguards activities at the site are needed more than ever. We welcome progress towards an IAEA technical visit. Any visit should take place in a manner that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territory. The Secretary General has been clear that the UN can facilitate a visit from the Ukrainian side, and we welcome his and the UN’s engagement. We also welcome the efforts of the Ukrainian administration, and of IAEA staff to plan and support a mission, and call upon Russia to provide appropriate security guarantees.

We commend the heroic efforts of Ukrainian staff operating the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, despite the great pressure they are under. They must be allowed to carry out their duties without threats or further disruption. Cutting off a major supply of electricity to the people of Ukraine would cause further immense suffering. As USG Di Carlo said today, the electricity at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant belongs to Ukraine.

Russia’s war is reckless and irresponsible. A nuclear disaster should be unthinkable, and no member of the United Nations – let alone a permanent member of this Council – should bring about that threat by seeking to take another country’s nuclear facilities by force. Russia’s actions are contrary to the principles of the Convention of Nuclear Safety and other international nuclear safety conventions. So we call once more upon Russia to return full control of all Ukraine’s nuclear facilities to their rightful sovereign owner to ensure their safe and secure operation.

24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : British Ambassador visits Huehuetenango and Quiche

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 23 August 2022.

UK Ambassador to Guatemala, Nick Whittingham, addressed prosperity, human rights and climate change with local leaders during a visit on 7-11 August.

In Huehuetenango, Ambassador Whittingham met with the Governor, Jose Juan De León, and the Major of Huehuetenango, Gustavo Cano, to address the economic portfolio in the Department. They discussed challenges and possible opportunities offered in services, tourism and other areas for UK companies wishing to invest in this region in the future.

Ambassador Whittingham invited local leaders to continue seizing the opportunities of the UK-Central American Association Agreement, which is now under its second year of implementation and has helped to increase Guatemalan exports to the UK. He also stressed the importance of continue improving transparency and rule of law to create a proper environment for investors to come.

While in Huehuetenango, the Ambassador also visited the local offices of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which has the objective of expanding attention to the population requesting refugee status, refugees, in transit, host communities and Guatemalan people in vulnerable situations.

In Quiche, the Ambassador met with the association of local journalists “Prensa Comunitaria”, to highlight the UK’s commitment to promoting media freedom and the importance of community and investigative journalism in real time from the different regions of the country. The Ambassador also held a meeting with the Governor of Quiche, Ervin Macz Hó.

While in Quiche, the Ambassador visited Bosques de Lemoa Reserve, a forest reserve in Quiche, which has approximately 30,000 trees and was one of the four initiatives recognised by the British Embassy and Prensa Libre in 2021 for its positive impact on environmental protection. Tackling climate change remain a global top UK priority and the Embassy wants to continue working with Guatemalan partners on this issue.

Ambassador Whittingham held meetings with indigenous leaders from both departments to understand more about the challenges and opportunities they seek to promote their participation, development and inclusion and how the British Embassy can support these efforts. The continuous coordination between the local government and the indigenous authorities is fundamental for the development of the communities and the prosperity of this region.

24/08/2022
PRESS RELEASE : Platinum Jubilee Rug unveiled at Ulster Carpets

The press release issued by the Northern Ireland Office on 23 August 2022.

Dundonald Primary School pupil Emily McMullan (11), was announced as the winner of the competition by Minister of State Conor Burns in June, and met with Ulster Carpets designers to learn how her design was being turned into a special gift for Her Majesty the Queen.

Emily’s design, featuring some of Northern Ireland’s most iconic landmarks such as Samson and Goliath in Belfast and the North Coast’s Giant’s Causeway, was woven into a rug by Ulster Carpets’ expert team, and unveiled by Emily and Minister of State Conor Burns at the manufacturing company’s Portadown headquarters on Tuesday 23 August.

Emily’s postcard to the Queen was chosen from over 2000 colourful and creative entries, with primary schools across Northern Ireland offered the opportunity to take part in a unique design competition as part of this year’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

The specially designed Jubilee rug will be delivered to Her Majesty the Queen as a gift from the children of Northern Ireland in her Jubilee year and Emily will also receive her own copy of the rug as a lasting memory of the important role that she has played in helping Her Majesty celebrate her Platinum Jubilee.

Speaking about seeing the rug, competition winner Emily McMullan said:

“It’s amazing to see all of the places that remind me of home being made into a gift for Her Majesty the Queen. I still can’t believe that something I designed in art class is now being delivered to the Queen!

“It has been great learning from the designers at Ulster Carpets about how they turn art into rugs and carpets. It is something that I will never forget and I think I would like to be a designer in the future.”

Speaking after the visit, Minister of State Conor Burns said:

“It seems like only a few weeks ago when I was on the phone to Nick from a primary school in Bournemouth. I told him I’d had an idea and asked him to tell me honestly if it was crazy. Thankfully Nick and his team at Ulster Carpets are as open minded as they are creative. Nick said let’s do it. So the Platinum Jubilee Rug Competition was conceived.

Little did I imagine then that it would be embraced so wholeheartedly by Northern Ireland’s young people. Yet the entries flooded in – over 2000 from schools of every kind in every county. Emily, her fellow finalists and indeed every child who entered can be incredibly proud of their designs.

They have captured the natural and built wonder of this amazing place. Today I have seen the finished product and it is beyond my wildest dreams. We asked the young people to design a rug on the theme ‘a postcard from Northern Ireland’. What they did and Ulster carpets have produced is literally a gift fit for the Queen.

I am bursting with pride in what these wonderful young people – the future of Northern Ireland – have done and I thank them sincerely.”

Group Managing Director of Ulster Carpets Nick Coburn said:

“It has been a great privilege to be involved in the NIO’s Platinum Jubilee design competition and to have the honour of manufacturing a rug for Her Majesty the Queen, particularly in the same year as we received the Royal Warrant.

“The designs created by schoolchildren from across Northern Ireland demonstrate the immense artistic talent that we have in our country. As we look to the future, it is reassuring to know that Ulster Carpets can transform this potential into the carpet designers of the future.”

24/08/2022