Author: admin

  • Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage

    Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage

    Below is the text of the statement made by Kelly Tolhurst, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    I am writing to inform the House that the Government are pleased to accept all of the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for the new national living wage and national minimum wage rates, which will come into force in April 2020.

    The Low Pay Commission is an internationally renowned independent and expert body which conducts extensive analysis and stakeholder research to make its recommendations.

    The Low Pay Commission has recommended that:

    The national living wage (for workers aged 25 and over) should increase from £8.21 to £8.72;

    The rate for 21 to 24-year-olds should increase from £7.70 to £8.20;

    The rate for 18 to 20-year-olds should increase from £6.15 to £6.45;

    The rate for 16 to 17-year-olds should increase from £4.35 to £4.55; and

    The apprentice rate (for apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship) should increase from £3.90 to £4.15.

    The Low Pay Commission has also recommended that the accommodation offset increases from the current rate of £7.55 to £8.20 from 1 April 2020.

    We welcome the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation of an increase to the national living wage rate such that it meets the Government’s objective of reaching 60% of median earnings by 2020.

    The new national living wage rate of £8.72 will be the highest ever UK minimum wage and benefit over two million workers. From April 2020, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their earnings increase by nearly £4,000 over the course of the year, compared to when the national living wage was introduced. This increase in the national living wage is the first step in ​meeting our commitment to raise the NLW to two-thirds of median earnings, provided economic conditions allow, within the next five years.

    The Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for increasing the national minimum wage youth rates, by between 4.6% and 6.5%, are well ahead of forecast inflation.

    These increases are due to come into effect from 1 April 2020, subject to parliamentary approval. The Government intend to lay implementing regulations before Parliament in due course.

    A copy of the response will be available from the BEIS website at: www.beis.gov.uk.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on the New Year Honours List

    Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on the New Year Honours List

    Below is the text of the statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    On Friday 27 December 2019 at 22:30, the Cabinet Office published the New Year Honours List 2020 on www.gov.uk. As part of this publication a version of the honours list was published online which contained address details of the 1,097 recipients. This was done in error. The document was accessible for approximately 40 minutes, and was available to those who had already accessed the information for a further 150 minutes via the original web link.

    This incident was a result of human error. The Honours and Appointments Secretariat is responsible for managing and publishing the Honours lists. The New Year 2020 honours round was the first to use a new IT system from which a report was downloaded to create a file for publication.

    The sensitivities around address data had been identified as a risk and previous versions of the file prepared for publication had not included address data. As part of the final checking process, further amendments were made to the file and a version of the file, including address data, was mistakenly sent for publication.

    The team was made aware of the error at 23:00 on 27 December and the link was removed from the Cabinet Office web page within 10 minutes. It took a further 150 minutes to close the link to the document and remove the page altogether. In this intervening period those who opened the link or had the web page address could still open the document.

    The immediate concern following the publication of this information was to ensure that there was no increased risk to any individuals and that their security was being appropriately managed. The Cabinet Office worked with the police and relevant authorities to identify any potentially high risk cases and put in place any necessary actions. Over 48 hours, the Department made contact with all affected individuals to inform them of what had taken place, provide contact details and to apologise for this incident. Chief Constables were briefed through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and local forces made assessments for all recipients.

    The Department has worked with the relevant organisations to ascertain the extent of the access to the data. We have no evidence that data has been exploited by a third party, or shared more widely though we continue to be vigilant.

    The Government have been informed by the police and other agencies that there is no information to suggest an increased risk in relation to any persons as a result of this data breach. This is not to underestimate the concern this incident may have caused for individuals. On behalf of the Cabinet Office I apologise unreservedly for any distress or inconvenience caused.​

    Appropriate management action will be taken in response to this incident. Changes have already been made to ensure the relevant IT system generates reports containing only data that is suitable for publication, removing the scope for further human error. I have also instructed the Government Digital Service to improve their processes to ensure all access to data can be removed much more rapidly when required.

    The Department reported the matter to the Information Commissioner on Saturday 28 December 2019 and will co-operate fully with its on-going inquiries. In addition, I am announcing today an independent review of data handling practices within the Cabinet Office. This review will focus on process, culture, policy and practice within the Department. It will establish whether appropriate controls are in place around the storage, sharing and deletion of personal data, including learning lessons from this case. More information on this review will be published shortly.

  • Stewart McDonald – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

    Stewart McDonald – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We on these Benches of course hold no candle for General Soleimani or, indeed, for the actions of the Iranian Government, but I would simply say to the Secretary of State that it is not anti-American to question and press the Government on what they are doing in relation to their closest ally. He says that the US is confident that General Soleimani had co-ordinated the 27 December attacks and was planning further attacks, but how confident is he that that is correct? There is certainly no consensus on Capitol Hill among congressional leaders that that is the case. The Secretary of State mentioned that he had seen intelligence that had perhaps convinced him, but have the UK Government done their own legal analysis of whether the strike was lawful? I ask him simply: does he believe that the strike was lawful? And why has it taken four days for the Government to convene the National Security Council, given the gravity of the situation we now face?​

    On UK forces, the Secretary of State tells the House—this is the killer paragraph—that all training has been “suspended” and “contingency planning” is going on, which can be taken to mean planning to leave Iraq, so can it be taken as read that there is now no active fight against ISIS in Iraq because of the actions of the President of America?

    On de-escalation, will the Secretary of State mount the most robust and unapologetic defence of international law and order? Does he agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross that the threat to target cultural sites, as made by the US President, would be unlawful? Will he work to ensure that the UN Security Council can finally step in and do its job? Will he condemn the fact that the Foreign Minister of Iran has been prevented, against international law, from taking part in UN proceedings? On the JCPOA, I welcome what the Secretary of State has to say, but we really need some detail as to how he will get the plan resurrected with Iran and the United States.

    We hear a lot at the Dispatch Box about the international rules-based order, but our closest ally is ripping it up before our eyes, whether we like it or not. I ask the Secretary of State to be unapologetic in standing up for it and to mount the most robust defence of it—America is a close friend, and that is what a close friend should do. If the Secretary of State does that, he will have the support of those on the SNP Benches.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. Could he tell us where the Prime Minister is, and what he is doing that is so much more important than addressing Parliament on the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, an extremely dangerous and aggressive act that risks starting yet another deadly war in the middle east?​

    On Friday, I sent the Prime Minister a letter posing a series of questions. He has not answered any of them. Instead, today he is hiding behind his Defence Secretary. Is it not the truth that he is scared to stand up to President Trump because he has hitched his wagon to the prospect of a toxic Trump trade deal? At this highly dangerous moment, we find the Government giving cover and even expressing sympathy for what is widely regarded as an illegal act, because they are so determined to keep in with President Trump. This assassination puts British troops and civilians, as well as the people of the region, in danger.

    As the Secretary of State will confirm, I have long spoken out against the Iranian Government’s human rights record, including when he and I visited Iran together in 2014. This is not a question of Soleimani’s actions or record in the region. Whatever the record of any state official, the principle and the law is that we do not go around assassinating foreign leaders. Without the clear demonstration of an immediate threat, it is illegal. So do the Government regard the assassination as legal under international law? If so, how? Do the lawyers in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence regard it as legal?

    If the Secretary of State really believes that this was an act of self-defence, what evidence has he or the Prime Minister seen of an imminent attack on the US? The Secretary of State says that the United States is confident that attacks were imminent, but US officials have been quoted in the press as saying that the evidence was “razor thin”. How would the Secretary of State describe it?

    In the past few days, the US President has threatened to target Iranian cultural sites, and to attack Iran in a manner that is—I quote him directly—“disproportionate”. Both actions would be war crimes, yet the Government still seem unable to condemn such threats. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary said that the onus was entirely on Iran to de-escalate. I wonder whether, if Iran had assassinated an American general, the British Government would be telling Washington that the onus was entirely on the US to de-escalate.

    We talk about this as a conflict between the US and Iran, but the worst consequences are likely to be felt by Iraq, a country on the brink of further terrible violence and instability. President Trump has threatened Iraq with

    “sanctions like they’ve never seen before”

    after its elected—yes, elected—Parliament voted to ask US and other foreign forces to leave their country. He has said he will not withdraw entirely unless the US is compensated for the “extraordinarily expensive air base” that was actually built by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. The Prime Minister—when he finally resurfaced from his trip—said that he was committed to the sovereignty of Iraq, so will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will respect Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi Government ask all foreign forces, including British forces, to leave?

    We know that the British Government were not consulted by the Trump Administration in advance, despite there being obvious British interests at stake. Let me also ask what the Government are doing to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals ​who are currently in detention in Iran. This must be an utterly terrifying time both for them individually and for their families.

    It is not in anyone’s interests for this to escalate to an all-out war. All sides should exercise maximum restraint and allow for meaningful dialogue, led by the UN Secretary-General’s office. To prevent war, we need a strong plan for diplomacy, so are the Government in contact with the UN Secretary-General? And let us not forget that there was a diplomatic plan: the Iran nuclear deal. It was working, until President Trump came along and tried to rip it up.

    Time and time again over the last two decades, the political and military establishments have made the wrong call on military interventions in the middle east. Many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the failed invasion of Afghanistan, and I opposed the bombing of Libya in 2011. Have we learnt nothing from those events? This House must rule out plunging our country into yet another devastating war at the behest of another state.

  • Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on Security in the Middle East

    Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on Security in the Middle East

    Below is the text of the statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    Happy new year, Mr Speaker, and it is good to see you in the Chair. With permission, I would like to make a statement on the security situation in the middle east.

    I have deep regard for the nation of Iran; I chaired the all-party group on Iran in this House for eight years and have visited the country a number of times. Indeed, the last time I visited I was with the Leader of the Opposition—we went together to visit the Iranian Government and the people. It is a wonderful place with a dynamic population, and the world owes a great deal to its culture and its history, but in recent times, Iran has felt that its intentions are best served through the nefarious use of proxies and the use of subversion as a foreign policy tool. It has provided practical military support to the murderous Assad regime in Syria, stoked conflict in Yemen, armed militia groups in Iraq and repeatedly harassed international shipping, including UK shipping, in the strait of Hormuz. It has also shown a total disregard for human rights, holding dual nationals in prison and causing unimaginable suffering not just to those in jail, but to their families at home. Such behaviour does nothing to enhance Iran’s reputation with its neighbours and has had a seriously destabilising impact in the region.

    One of the foremost architects of Iran’s malign activity was the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. One of its commanders and leading enablers was General Qasem Soleimani, who, on 2 January, was killed by a US drone strike. General Soleimani was no friend of the UK or our allies in the region. He was not an advocate of a more peaceful and prosperous middle east. His clandestine operations saw him supply weaponry to proxy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He encouraged proxies to develop weapons such as improvised explosive devices that killed and maimed UK soldiers and other western forces, and we should not forget how he fomented instability in places like Basra, where British forces were stationed.

    The United States Government have asserted that General Soleimani organised the strike on 27 December by the militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah, which targeted a US military base in Kirkuk, Iraq, and killed a US civilian contractor, and the US is confident that General Soleimani came to Baghdad to co-ordinate imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. The UK will always defend the right of countries to defend themselves. The House will want to know that since October 2019, coalition bases, which contain both United States and United Kingdom personnel, and the Baghdad international zone have been attacked 14 times. One attack on K-1 base involved 32 rockets. Our challenge now is to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. The US consistently showed restraint though all those previous attacks, even when its right to self-defence was well established.

    Since the early hours of Friday morning, the Government have responded to these events. Further conflict is in no one’s interest. The only beneficiaries would be the terrorists and extremists, seeking to use the chaos as cover to advance their abhorrent objectives, so we are urging all people—all parties—to de-escalate as soon as possible. ​Meanwhile, the safety and security of British citizens and our interests in the region are of paramount concern. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has strengthened its travel advice to both Iran and Iraq and will keep it under constant review. We urge British nationals in the region, or those intending to travel, to regularly check gov.uk for further updates.

    We have taken other urgent measures to protect British nationals and interests. The Department for Transport is reviewing the threat state and advice to red ensign shipping on a daily basis, and, supported by the Ministry of Defence, we will issue guidance imminently. At that same time, the MOD is changing the readiness of our forces in the region, with helicopters and ships on standby to assist if the need arises. To ensure the safety and security of our personnel we have also relocated non-essential personnel from Baghdad to Taji. Coalition forces in Iraq, including British forces, have suspended all training activities, and as part of prudent planning a small team has been sent to the region to provide additional situational awareness and contingency planning assistance.

    On 5 January, Iraq’s Council of Representatives voted to end permission for coalition activities in Iraq. As the vote is only one part of the process, we are discussing its implications with our Iraqi interlocutors. Today I simply remind the House that the coalition is in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi Government, to help protect Iraqis and others against the very real threat from Daesh. Our commitment to Iraq’s stability and sovereignty is unwavering and we urge the Iraqi Government to ensure the coalition can continue its vital work countering this shared threat.

    The main focus of the UK Government is to de-escalate this issue. None of us wants conflict. None of us wants our citizens, our friends and our allies to be at risk. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from the outset, has spoken to President Trump, President Macron, Chancellor Merkel and President Erdoğan and will continue to engage with other world leaders. The Foreign Secretary and I have been talking to our counterparts. Only this morning, I met with His Royal Highness the Saudi Vice-Minister for Defence, and in tandem we are working with the E3 to reboot the joint comprehensive plan of action—the nuclear deal—which we believe is a vital step to achieving a more stable Iran.

    In the coming days, we will be doing all we can to encourage Iran to take a different path. No one should be under any illusion: long before the death of General Soleimani, Iran had stepped up its destabilising activities in the region. Whether it was targeting dissidents in Europe or hijacking civilian ships, this aggressive behaviour was never going to go unchallenged. Her Majesty’s Government urge Iran to return to the normal behaviour of the country it aspires to be and to resist the urge to retaliate.

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Corby

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    Tom Pursglove (Conservative Party) 33,410 55.2% +6.0%
    Beth Miller (Labour Party) 23,142 38.3% -6.5%
    Chris Stanbra (Liberal Democrats) 3,932 6.5% +3.9%

    MAJORITY: 10,268 16.9% +12.4%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    Tom Pursglove (Conservative Party) 29,534 49.2% +6.5%
    Beth Miller (Labour Party) 26,844 44.7% +6.3%
    Chris Stanbra (Liberal Democrats) 1,545 2.6% +0.0%
    Sam Watts (UKIP) 1,495 2.5% −11.2%
    Steven Scrutton (Green Party) 579 1.0% −1.4%

    MAJORITY: 2,690 4.5% +0.2%

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Chorley

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    SPEAKER GAIN FROM LABOUR

    Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker) 26,831 67.3% N/A
    Mark Brexit-Smith (Independent) 9,439 23.7% N/A
    James Melling (Green Party) 3,600 9.0% +8.1%

    MAJORITY: 17,392 43.6% +30.1%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Lindsay Hoyle (Labour Party) 30,745 55.3% +10.2%
    Conservative Caroline Moon (Conservative Party) 23,233 41.8% +5.4%
    Liberal Democrats Stephen Fenn (Liberal Democrats) 1,126 2.0% −0.6%
    Peter Lageard (Green Party) 530 1.0% −1.2%

    MAJORITY: 7,512 13.5% +4.7%

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Clacton

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    Giles Watling (Conservative Party) 31,438 72.3% +11.0%
    Kevin Bonavia (Labour Party) 6,736 15.5% -9.9%
    Callum Robertson (Liberal Democrats) 2,541 5.8% +3.8%
    Chris Southall (Green Party) 1,225 2.8% +1.2%
    Andy Morgan (Independent) 1,099 2.5% +2.5%
    Colin Bennett (Independent) 243 0.6% +0.6%
    Just-John Sexton (Monster Raving Loony Party) 224 0.5% +0.5%

    MAJORITY: 24,702 56.8% +20.9%

     

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE GAIN FROM UKIP

    Giles Watling (Conservative Party) 27,031 61.2% +24.5%
    Natasha Osben (Labour Party) 11,203 25.4% +11.0%
    Paul Oakley (UKIP) 3,357 7.6% -36.8%
    David Grace (Liberal Democrats) 887 2.0% +0.2%
    Chris Southall (Green Party) 719 1.6% -1.1%
    Caroline Shearer (Independent) 449 1.0% New
    Robin Tilbrook (English Democrat) 289 0.7% New
    Nick Martin (Independent) 210 0.5% New

    MAJORITY: 15,828 35.8% N/A

     

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Speech to the LSE

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Speech to the LSE

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, at the LSE in London on 8 January 2020.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a great pleasure to be back here at the London School of Economics – a place which brings back so many happy memories for me. The year I spent here taught me so much – both in and out of LSE. As anyone who knew me at the time will tell you, I spent more time in Soho bars and Camden record stores than I did reading books in Senate House Library. In order to spare my own blushes, I will spare you all the details!

    But what I can say is that the time I spent here opened my eyes. I got to know a warm, vibrant, colourful, multicultural society – the likes of which I had not really experienced before. I saw people from different walks of life going out together, enjoying life, breathing in freedom. I immersed myself in this melting pot of cultures, traditions and music. And I truly fell in love with this city and this country.

    This country, strong-willed, open-minded and big hearted. Proud and patriotic. Kind and generous in spirit. Full of traditions and contradictions.

    Of course, certain things took longer for me to learn. The sense of humour for example, or the subtle meanings hidden in every sentence. But this only deepened my fascination and my admiration for the UK which remains as strong today as it was back then.

    In the period just before and after the referendum, I thought a lot about my time here in London. I say this not just because of my love for this country. But also because of what the United Kingdom has brought to Europe and the European Union.

    In a very understated British way, we do not always talk enough about this. Before the ashes of the Second World War had even settled, it was Winston Churchill who made the best case for a united Europe. I read out passages from his 1946 Zurich speech the last time I was here – it is the most eloquent and powerful case for the European Union you could ever wish to read. And while the UK initially chose to be on the outside, it eventually took its place on the inside – making us both that much stronger. The relationship may not have always been smooth or perfect – what relationship ever is. But, in my opinion, the good far outweighs the difficult.

    As President of the European Commission, I want to pay tribute today to all those British people who contributed so much to the 45 plus years of EU membership. I think of the British pragmatism and leadership when it came to opening up our Union to members of our family who had been out in the cold for so long. The successive EU enlargements were historic steps for our continent and they bear the British hallmark. I think of those who helped to build our institutions.

    People like Commissioner Arthur Cockfield who was known as the ‘father of the Single Market’. Or Roy Jenkins, President of the European Commission while I was at LSE, who did so much to pave the way for our single currency. I think of the European civil servants of British nationality who devoted their lives and careers to Europe and have done so much to build our Union.

    They will always stay a part of our family.

    I think of the British servicemen and servicewomen who have helped to keep the peace from the Balkans to the Baltics. And I think of the millions of ordinary British people who have taken to the streets in pro-EU marches in the last few years.

    Of course, for them, and for many millions more, the result of the referendum was a bitter pill to swallow. But it is people who make politics. And the decision of the British people in June 2016 was clear.

    As much as we regretted it, the European Union has always fully respected that decision. You have seen this throughout the last three and a half years. Our negotiations were hard and long but the European Union negotiated in good faith, trying to find solutions that defend our own interests and respect the UK’s choices.

    It is an agreement that we negotiated with our people and the integrity of the European Union in mind. It is one that preserves the remarkable peace and progress on the island of Ireland in the last 20 years. I will not go into the ins and outs of the negotiations on the divorce. This is done and dusted as far as I am concerned.

    Before the end of the month, I expect both the British and European Parliaments to ratify the agreement. And so, in just over three weeks, on 31 January, the UK will spend its last day as a Member State.

    This will be a tough and emotional day.

    But when the sun rises again on 1 February, the EU and the UK will still be the best of friends and partners. The bonds between us will still be unbreakable. We will still contribute to each other’s societies, like so many Brits have done in the EU, and as so many EU citizens do here every day in the UK – whether as teachers, nurses, doctors or whether working as CEOs or in NGOs. We will still have a lot to learn from each other.

    The UK is home to thriving creative and cultural sectors, to cutting-edge digital innovation and scientific excellence in some of the world’s best universities with brilliant minds, many of them from all over Europe. We will still share the same challenges, from climate change to security. We will still be allies and like-minded partners in NATO, the United Nations and other international organisations. We will still share the same values and the belief that democracy, freedom and the rule of law must be the foundation of our societies. We still share the same history and geography. And whatever happens, our continent will still share the same destiny, too. So as one door will unfortunately close, another one will open.

    Now is the time for us to look forward together. It is time for the best and the oldest of friends to build a new future together. But as only true friends can, I want to be very honest about what lies ahead of us.

    During the Withdrawal Agreement negotiation, there was always the uncertainty around whether Brexit would happen. It was an uncertainty that made the negotiation inevitably tense. This fresh negotiation will take place against a backdrop of clarity and mutual interest in making it work. The European Union is ready to negotiate a truly ambitious and comprehensive new partnership with the United Kingdom. We will make as much of this as we can. We will go as far as we can.

    But the truth is that our partnership cannot and will not be the same as before. And it cannot and will not be as close as before – because with every choice comes a consequence. With every decision comes a trade-off. Without the free movement of people, you cannot have the free movement of capital, goods and services. Without a level playing field on environment, labour, taxation and state aid, you cannot have the highest quality access to the world’s largest single market.

    The more divergence there is, the more distant the partnership has to be. And without an extension of the transition period beyond 2020, you cannot expect to agree on every single aspect of our new partnership. We will have to prioritise. The European Union’s objectives in the negotiation are clear. We will work for solutions that uphold the integrity of the EU, its single market and its Customs Union. There can be no compromise on this.

    But we are ready to design a new partnership with zero tariffs, zero quotas, zero dumping. A partnership that goes well beyond trade and is unprecedented in scope. Everything from climate action to data protection, fisheries to energy, transport to space, financial services to security. And we are ready to work day and night to get as much of this done within the timeframe we have.

    None of this means it will be easy, but we start this negotiation from a position of certainty, goodwill, shared interests and purpose. And we should be optimistic. We need to be optimistic! We need to be optimistic for those young people leaving school in the next few years who want to study and learn abroad. We need to look at how British and EU researchers could work together to find solutions to our most pressing challenges or to develop the new technologies the world needs. And we must ensure that we continue to work together on upholding peace and security in Europe and around the world. We must build a new, comprehensive security partnership to fight cross-border threats, ranging from terrorism to cyber-security to counter-intelligence. Events in recent years in Salisbury, Manchester, London and right across Europe have underlined the need for us to work together on our mutual security.

    The threat of terrorism is real and we have to share the necessary information and intelligence between Europe and the UK to stop terrorists from crossing borders and attacking our way of life.

    The nature of today’s threats means that no one can deal with these challenges on its own. This is even more true for foreign policy. Even though Britain will be outside the European decision-making structures, there will be plenty of need for common responses to address foreign, security and development challenges near and far. Be it in our immediate neighbourhood in the East and South, or in the Horn of Africa, Sahel and Sub-Saharan Africa; Or be it in the wider Middle East or different parts of Latin America and Asia. The truth is that Brexit will not resolve any of the existing challenges for the EU nor the UK. Even being apart and not bound by the Treaties, it will require intensive cooperation on our foreign and security policies. That is essential, because we share so much experience and we stand for so many of the same values. We have to uphold these values, not only when it is easy, but above all when it is hard.

    Dear Friends,

    As we embark on this new partnership with the United Kingdom, the European Union must also continue to forge its own path in today’s world. One consequence of the Brexit vote has been to strengthen the unity and the faith in Europe as a project for the common good. The truth is that Brexit has highlighted the value of being together in today’s ever more unsettled world.

    It reaffirmed our collective belief that we can do more when we do it together. Individually, the nations of Europe are becoming smaller and less influential on the world scale.

    In 1950, before our Union was formed, the UK, Italy and Germany were among the ten most populous countries in the world. Today, only one of those is in the top 20. And while Europe’s population is set to decline by the end of the century, Africa’s alone will grow by more than 3 billion. At the same time, new economies are emerging and old partners are retreating back to their own paths.

    And we face change and a new set of challenges. Climate change, for example: If there is one area where the world needs our leadership, it is on protecting our climate. This is an existential issue for Europe – and for the world. Last month we launched the European Green Deal. The European Green Deal is not only about emissions. It is about boosting innovation. It is about clean technologies. It is about green financing. It is about quality food. It is about modern mobility. The European Green Deal is our new growth strategy. It will create new businesses all across Europe and new markets across the world. The novelty and difference is that we will and can foster a growth model that is not consuming or extracting – but one that gives back more to the planet than it takes away.

    Great Britain is as dedicated as the EU when it comes to addressing climate change and taking global leadership. A whole continent has to mobilise and the whole world needs to be part of the transformation. The European Green Deal will not happen overnight, and it will be demanding. No country can hope to handle climate change alone. But if it is the right thing to do – and if we do it together, we can lead that change.

    Dear students,

    Over the next month and years, we will have to loosen some of the threads, which have been carefully stitched together between the EU and the UK over five decades.

    And as we do so, we will have to work hard to weave together a new way forward.

    I say this because Brexit does not only mark the end of something. It also marks a new phase in an enduring partnership and friendship. It will be a partnership for your generation – and I count on you all to make a success of it.

    You can choose collaboration over isolation, you can shape your continent’s destiny, you can hold your governments accountable, you can refuse to be satisfied with the status quo and can turn things into how they should be.

    I know the last few years have been difficult and divisive. I hope that by being constructive and ambitious in the upcoming negotiations, we can all move forward together. There will be tough talks ahead and each side will do what is best for them. But I can assure you that the United Kingdom will always have a trusted friend and partner in the European Union.

    This is the story of old friends and new beginnings. In this good sense: Long live Europe!

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hartlepool

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Mike Hill (Labour Party) 15,464 37.7% -14.8%
    Stefan Houghton (Conservative Party) 11,869 28.9% -5.3%
    Richard Tice (Brexit Party) 10,603 25.8% N/A
    Andy Hagon (Liberal Democrats) 1,696 4.1% +2.3%
    Joe Bousfield (Independent) 911 2.2% N/A
    Kevin Cranney (Socialist Labour) 494 1.2% N/A

    MAJORITY: 3,595 58.8% -9.5%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Mike Hill (Labour Party) 21,969 52.5% +16.9%
    Carl Jackson (Conservative Party) 14,319 34.2% +13.3%
    Phillip Broughton (UKIP) 4,801 11.5% -16.5%
    Andy Hagon (Liberal Democrats) 746 1.8% -0.1%

    MAJORITY: 7,650 18.3% +9.4%