Category: Speeches

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (06/04/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (06/04/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 6 April 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    Today I will not take away much of your attention. The day was very informative. I will only briefly walk through the main points of my work this Tuesday, the 41st day of the invasion of the Russian Federation.

    I continued my active diplomatic work. Addressed the UN Security Council, which convened for a special meeting on Russia’s war crimes in Bucha and in the occupied territories of Ukraine in general. I said what should have been said in this format a long time ago.

    The UN Security Council exists, and security in the world doesn’t. For anyone. This definitely means that the United Nations is currently unable to carry out the functions for which it was created. And only one state is to blame for this – Russia, which discredits the UN and all other international institutions where it still participates.

    Well, not exactly participates… Tries to block everything constructive and use global architecture in order to spread lies and justify the evil it does.

    I’m sure the world sees it. I hope the world will draw conclusions. Otherwise there will be only one institution left in the world to guarantee the security of states. Namely – weapons.

    I offered to the members of the UN Security Council and to all other states that respect international law specific things that could change the situation. In particular, a global conference already in peaceful Kyiv to determine how the world’s architecture can be reformed given all the actions of Russia, which is still occupying the seat of a permanent member of the UN Security Council received from the Soviet Union.

    I also addressed the Parliament and the people of Spain. A state that supports our struggle for freedom and for the preservation of democracy in Europe.

    I also spoke today with President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron about the humanitarian situation in the temporarily occupied regions of Ukraine. About how we can help people in the blocked Mariupol. We also agreed that France would provide the necessary technical and expert support in the investigation of the crimes of the Russian occupiers in Bucha and other cities of our country.

    We are preparing a new package of powerful sanctions against Russia for everything it has done to our people.

    Now is a crucial moment, especially for Western leaders. And this is no longer about how our people will evaluate the new sanctions and what I will say about them. This is about how decisions on sanctions will be assessed in Western societies themselves. After what the world saw in Bucha, sanctions against Russia must be commensurate with the gravity of the occupiers’ war crimes. If after that Russian banks will still be able to function as usual… If after that the transit of goods to Russia will continue as usual… If after that the EU countries will pay for Russian energy resources as usual… Then the political fate of some leaders will develop not as usual. My advice to everyone: feel now that the moment is really crucial.

    We are preparing to welcome President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell in Kyiv in the near future. Working together in Kyiv is something that will be praised by many nations of the world. And not only in Europe. Because now Kyiv is the capital of global democracy, the capital of the struggle for freedom for all on the European continent.

    And I want to thank all our defenders for making this possible. For the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine hold most of the areas where the enemy tried to break into the country.

    The most difficult situation, as in previous days, is in Donbas, in the Kharkiv direction. But we continue to do everything to ensure that our defenders have something to stop the Russian troops with.

    We are aware that the occupiers outnumber us. That they have more equipment. We are aware of the attempts by Russian leaders to recruit new fools all over Russia among cadets of military schools, people with combat experience and conscripts to send them all to slaughter in another offensive.

    But we have no other choice – the fate of our land and our people is being decided. We know what we are fighting for. And we do everything to win.

    Today in the Mariyinsky Palace I presented the Golden Star Orders to the servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who were awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine, and to the members of families of those who were posthumously awarded this title.

    Now it is in the Mariyinsky Palace, in the White Hall, where we always meet foreign heads of state, that such important ceremonies will take place. We will demonstrate every time that our defenders deserve respect and honor at the highest level.

    And the White Hall of the Mariyinsky Palace will henceforth be called the White Hall of the Heroes of Ukraine. I also handed over the Order of Courage to the family of the deceased documentary photographer Maks Levin who was viciously killed by the occupiers in the Kyiv region. During his life, he made a significant contribution to making us all see and know what is happening in our country.

    Traditionally, before delivering the evening address, I signed decrees awarding our military. 292 servicemen, 57 of them posthumously.

    Eternal memory to all who gave their lives for Ukraine!

    Eternal gratitude to each of our defenders!

    Everything for the victory. Everything for peace. Everything for Ukraine.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech at the UN Security Council

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech at the UN Security Council

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 5 April 2022.

    Dear Mrs. President!

    Dear Mr. Secretary General!

    Dear members of the Security Council and other participants of the meeting!

    Thank you for the opportunity.

    I am sure that all the representatives of the UN member states will hear me today.

    Yesterday I returned from our city of Bucha, recently liberated from the troops of the Russian Federation.

    It is difficult to find a war crime that the occupiers have not committed there.

    The Russian military searched for and purposefully killed anyone who served our state.

    They executed women outside the houses when approaching and simply calling someone alive.

    They killed whole families – adults and children. And they tried to burn their bodies.

    I am addressing you on behalf of the people who honor the memory of the deceased everyday. Everyday, in the morning.

    The memory of the killed civilians.

    Who were shot in the back of the head or in the eye after being tortured. Who were shot just on the streets.

    Who were thrown into the well, so that they die there in suffering.

    Who were killed in apartments, houses, blown up by grenades. Who were crushed by tanks in civilian cars in the middle of the road. For fun.

    Whose limbs were cut off, whose throat was cut. Who were raped and killed in front of their own children.

    Their tongues were torn out only because they did not hear from them what they wanted to hear.

    How is this different from what the ISIS terrorists were doing in the occupied territory?

    Except that it is done by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

    It destroys the internal unity of states.

    Destroys state borders.

    Denies the right of more than a dozen peoples on two continents to self-determination and independent state life. Pursues a consistent policy of destroying ethnic and religious diversity.

    Inflames wars and deliberately wages them in such a way as to kill as many ordinary civilians as possible. To destroy as many ordinary peaceful cities as possible. To leave in the country where it sends its troops only ruins and mass graves. You’ve seen it all.

    Promotes hatred at the state level and seeks to export it to other countries through its system of propaganda and political corruption.

    Provokes a global food crisis that could lead to famine in Africa and Asia, and will certainly end in large-scale political chaos in countries where food price stability is a key factor of domestic security.

    So where is the security that the Security Council must guarantee? There is no security. Although there is a Security Council, as if nothing happened.

    So where is the peace that the United Nations was created to guarantee?

    It is obvious that the key institution of the world, which must ensure the coercion of any aggressors to peace, simply cannot work effectively.

    Now the world has seen what the Russian military did in Bucha while keeping our city under occupation. But the world has yet to see what they have done in other occupied cities, in other occupied areas of our country.

    Geography may be different, but cruelty is the same. Crimes are the same.

    And responsibility must be inevitable.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    I would like to remind you of the first article of the first chapter of the UN Charter. What is the purpose of our organization? To maintain peace. And to force to peace. Now the UN Charter is being violated literally from the first article. And if so, what is the point of all other articles?

    Today, it is as a result of Russia’s actions on the territory of my state, on the territory of Ukraine, that the most heinous war crimes of all time since the end of World War II are being committed.

    Russian troops are deliberately destroying Ukrainian cities to ashes with artillery and air strikes.

    They are deliberately blocking cities, creating mass starvation in them. They are deliberately shooting at columns of civilians on the roads who are trying to escape from the territory of hostilities.

    They are even deliberately blowing up shelters where civilians are hiding from air strikes. They are deliberately creating conditions in the temporarily occupied territories so that as many civilians as possible are killed there.

    The massacre in our city of Bucha is just one, unfortunately, of many examples of what the occupiers have been doing on our land for 41 days.

    And there are many other such places that the world has yet to find out the full truth of: Mariupol, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Okhtyrka, Borodyanka and dozens of other Ukrainian communities, each of which is like Bucha.

    I know, and you know very well, what the representatives of Russia will say in response to the accusations of these crimes. They have said this many times. The most illustrative was after the downing of a Malaysian Boeing over Donbas by Russian forces with Russian weapons. Or during the war in Syria.

    They will blame everyone, just to justify themselves. They will say that there are different versions, and which of them is true is allegedly impossible to establish yet. They will even say that the bodies of those killed were allegedly “planted”, and all the videos are staged.

    But. Now is the year 2022. There is conclusive evidence. There are satellite images. It is possible to conduct a full, transparent investigation.

    That is what we are interested in.

    Maximum access of journalists. Maximum cooperation with international institutions. Involvement of the International Criminal Court. Full truth, full responsibility.

    I am sure that every state in the UN system should be interested in this. For what? In order to punish once and for all those who consider themselves privileged, consider themselves unpunished. Hence, to show all other potential war criminals in the world that they will inevitably be punished as well. If the biggest is punished, everyone will be punished.

    Why did Russia come to Ukraine, tell me?

    I will answer. Russia’s leadership feels like colonizers – as in ancient times. They need our wealth and our people. Russia has already deported tens of thousands of our citizens to its territory. Then there will be hundreds. It abducted more than two thousand children. Simply abducted thousands of children. And continues to do so. Russia wants to turn Ukrainians into silent slaves.

    The Russian militaries are openly looting the cities and villages they have captured. This is looting of the highest scale. They steal everything from food to gold earrings they just rip out with blood.

    We are dealing with a state that turns the right of veto in the UN Security Council into a right to kill.

    Which undermines the whole architecture of global security.

    Which allows evil to go unpunished and spread the world. Destroying everything that can work for peace and security.

    If this continues, the finale will be that each state will rely only on the power of arms to ensure its security, not on international law, not on international institutions.

    Then, the UN can simply be dissolved.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Are you ready for the dissolving of the UN? Do you think that the time of international law has passed?

    If your answer is no, you need to act now, act immediately.

    The power of the UN Charter must be restored immediately.

    The UN system must be reformed immediately so that the right of veto is not a right to kill. So that there is a fair representation of all regions of the world in the Security Council.

    The aggressor must be forced to peace immediately. Determination is needed. The chain of mass killings from Syria to Somalia, from Afghanistan to Yemen and Libya should have been stopped a long time ago to be honest.

    If tyranny had ever received such a response to the war it had unleashed that it would have ceased to exist and a fair peace would have been guaranteed after it, the world would have changed for sure.

    And then, perhaps, we would not have a war, a war in my country. Against our nation, the Ukrainian nation. Against people.

    But the world watched and did not want to see the occupation of Crimea, or even before – the war against Georgia, or even earlier – the alienation from Moldova of the entire Transnistrian region. It also didn’t want to see how Russia was preparing the ground for other conflicts and wars near its borders.

    How to stop it?

    Immediately bring the Russian military and those who gave them orders to justice for war crimes in Ukraine.

    Everyone who gave criminal orders and fulfilled them by killing people will face a tribunal similar to the Nuremberg trials.

    I want to remind Russian diplomats that a man like von Ribbentrop has not avoided punishment after World War II.

    And I also want to remind the architects of Russia’s criminal policy that punishment has reached Adolf Eichmann as well.

    None of the culprits will escape. No one.

    But the main thing is that today is the time to transform the system, the core of which is the United Nations. To do this, we propose to convene a global conference. And we ask to do it already in peaceful Kyiv – in order to decide.

    How we will reform the world security system.

    How we will really guarantee the inviolability of universally recognized borders and the integrity of states.

    How we will ensure the rule of international law.

    It is now clear that the goals set in San Francisco in 1945 during the creation of a global international security organization have not been achieved. And it is impossible to achieve them without reforms.

    Therefore, we must do everything in our power to pass on to the next generations an effective UN with the ability to respond preventively to security challenges and thus guarantee peace.

    Prevent aggression and force aggressors to peace. Have the determination and ability to punish if the principles of peace are violated.

    There can be no more exceptions, privileges. Everyone must be equal. All participants in international relations. Regardless of economic strength, geographical area and individual ambitions.

    The power of peace must become dominant. The power of justice and the power of security. As humanity has always dreamed of.

    Ukraine is ready to provide a platform for one of the main offices of the updated security system.

    Just as the Geneva office specializes in human rights, just as the Nairobi office specializes in the field of environmental protection, the Kyiv U-24 Office can specialize in preventive measures to maintain peace.

    I want to remind you of our peaceful mission in Afghanistan. When, at our own expense, we Ukrainians evacuated more than a thousand people from this country. And it was the hottest phase. But people needed help – and Ukraine came. Just like other states.

    We evacuated people of different nationalities, different faiths. Afghans, citizens of European countries, USA, Canada. We did not distinguish who needs help, whether these are our people or not. We saved everyone.

    If every time there was a need everyone in the world was confident that help would come, the world would be definitely safer.

    Therefore, Ukraine has the necessary moral right to propose a reform of the world security system.

    We have proven that we help others not only in good times, but also in dark times.

    And now we need decisions from the Security Council. For peace in Ukraine. If you do not know how to adopt this decision, you can do two things.

    Remove Russia as an aggressor and a source of war from blocking decisions about its own aggression, its own war. And then do everything that can establish peace.

    Or show how you can reformat and really work for peace.

    Or if your current format is unalterable and there is simply no way out, then the only option would be to dissolve yourself altogether.

    I am convinced that you can do without the third option.

    Ukraine needs peace. We need peace. Europe needs peace. The world needs peace.

    And finally, I’m asking you to watch the video. A short one.

    A video of what has come to replace your power because someone alone can abuse his rights.

    This is what impunity leads to.

    If possible – watch this video. Because there is no opportunity for everyone to come to us and see it. So watch it.

    Thank you.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Comments on Inclusive Britain Strategy

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Comments on Inclusive Britain Strategy

    The comments made by Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Levelling Up and Communities, on 7 April 2022.

    Our landmark Inclusive Britain strategy makes clear that we are a welcoming country whose strength lies within its communities. So, when people try to create divisions amongst us, we must be unwavering in our resolve to stay united.

    By sharing your views, you will be helping ensure that our work to tackle extremism continues on the right track – so that risks in our communities are easily recognised and swiftly dealt with, and we can build resilience and promote social cohesion.

    Our levelling up mission includes empowering communities – and this call to action is a great example of that ideal in action.

  • Maggie Throup – 2022 Comments on New Calorie Labelling Rules

    Maggie Throup – 2022 Comments on New Calorie Labelling Rules

    The comments made by Maggie Throup, the Public Health Minister, on 6 April 2022.

    It is crucial that we all have access to the information we need to maintain a healthier weight, and this starts with knowing how calorific our food is. We are used to knowing this when we are shopping in the supermarket, but this isn’t the case when we eat out or get a take-away.

    As part of our efforts to tackle disparities and level up the nation’s health, these measures are an important building block to making it as easy as possible for people to make healthier food choices.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments in Response to REACT-1 Report

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments in Response to REACT-1 Report

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 April 2022.

    Thanks to our plan to tackle COVID-19, we are leading the way in learning to live with the virus. We have made huge progress due to the success of our world-leading vaccination programme, access to antivirals for vulnerable people and increased scientific and public understanding about how to manage risk.

    Despite high infection rates, the population now has much stronger protection against COVID-19 than at any other point in the pandemic.

    Vaccines remain our best defence and we are now offering spring boosters to the elderly, care home residents and the most vulnerable – so please come forward to protect yourself, your family, and your community, and continue to follow public health guidance if you test positive.

  • Austen Chamberlain – 1922 Speech on the Coalition Government

    Austen Chamberlain – 1922 Speech on the Coalition Government

    The speech made by Austen Chamberlain, the then MP for Birmingham West, in the House of Commons on 5 April 1922.

    If I rise thus early in the Debate, it is because I am anxious that this Resolution having been moved, there should not be given by myself or by any friend or supporter of this Government any occasion for anyone to believe that there was not time for the House to give a decision upon it. Whether the House is being occupied as usefully as it might be, whether the discussion is as edifying as it should be, these may be matters upon which opinion may be divided, but since my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has moved this Motion, by all means let the House divide. A fortnight ago my hon. Friend was the envied of all observers. He had achieved the ambition of the private Member. He had drawn the “gros lot” in the Parliamentary lottery. He had secured first place for a Motion.

    Mr. J. JONES

    Now he is an also-ran.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    There was a moment of hesitation in his manner. You, Mr. Speaker, called upon him to name the subject which he wished to bring before the House. Any careful observer, as I am of my hon. Friend’s Parliamentary proceedings, could see that he had been taken by surprise. My hon. Friend is not one of those earnest seekers after reform who bring down to the House every day an attaché case full of recipes for a new and better world, nor had he taken the precaution, which I believe is sometimes taken by Members, of procuring from the Whips one of those anodyne Resolutions which soothe the House, even to the point of a count, and give wearied legislators an occasional rest from their labours. No, Sir, you named the hon. Member, and for a moment he stood in hesitation. Then he had a happy thought—to call attention to the position of the Government, and to move a Resolution. My hon. Friend, remembering he was a leader of a party in this House—

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    No, no!

    HON. MEMBERS

    Prospective!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    More than that, actual. He remembered he was the leader—

    Mr. J. JONES

    And the party.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    and the only leader of our party in the House, since the whole of my 10 colleagues, myself included, have departed from the true faith, and are no longer worthy of support. Accordingly, he gave notice that he would call attention to the position of the Government, and that he would move a Resolution.

    Mr. J. JONES

    He would move anything.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Who could say what might and what might not happen from this great determination. The Government might be shaken to its foundations, it might be overthrown, and a new Government might be needed—and a new Prime Minister too! He hoped that one of the small pebbles he had picked up from the brook would slay Goliath, hence forth the path would be clear—

    Mr. J. JONES

    For the London General Omnibus Company. [HON. MEMBERS: “Order!”]

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —and the highest authority in the land would have no difficulty in determining to what quarter to entrust the formation of a really great and principled Ministry. My hon. Friend must, indeed, have been happy, and none of his old comrades in this House will grudge him the enjoyment of those sweet hours. Then a new dilemma arose. He had not merely to call attention to the position of the Government, but he had undertaken to move a Resolution. What was the Resolution to be? He had not thought about it. He did not know, and 11 days passed before the Resolution could be framed. But I do not doubt that the new Cabinet was in constant and daily session. For 10 or 11 days it was framing—

    Mr. GWYNNE

    How many days did you take to frame the Genoa Resolution? [HON. MEMBERS: “Order, order!”]

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —was framing the Resolution which was to be the foundation of honest government.

    Mr. DEVLIN

    Say something about this leader, the hon. Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer).

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    There must be a leader, primus inter pares, if no more, and if I diverged and examined the difference between all the prospective leaders, well, I should prevent that Division which I am anxious to secure. I am a little surprised that it took so long for this new Cabinet to frame their Resolution, for, after all, their task was a simple one. They were not cunning politicians, crafty tacticians, seeking a platform on which they could gain votes. They were not old Parliamentary hands trying to devise a Resolution which would secure support from discordant elements within this House. No, Sir. They were honest, simple citizens—

    Mr. J. JONES

    More simple than honest.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —acting under a profound sense of responsibility, an impelling consideration to duty, determined to put before this House and the country a clear, specific definition of principles, which challenged everyone who did not agree with them, in what ever quarter of the House he might sit, on which, if their Motion succeeded, they would form their Government and conduct the business of the country. What was required was not confused criticism of other people’s acts, which is so easy, so simple—we all give any amount of it; what was wanted was a clear statement of their own views, showing exactly where they differed from the present Government, wherein their present leaders had failed, and differentiating sharply between them and those sections of the House from which, I suppose, they are still even further divided, than from those whom they took to be their leaders. What was wanted was a new Athanasian Creed, outside of which there was no political salvation. Their course was perfectly clear. They stood for perfect unity of thought in the councils of the nation, for purity of principle, in which we have been sadly and deplorably deficient—

    Mr. GIDEON MURRAY

    Hear hear!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I cannot say how I rejoice when I find that I correctly interpret the opinions and arguments of my critics. I think that particular critic has had a note of warning from the Unionist Association in his own constituency, but my hon. Friend need not think that I attach the less importance to his opinions on that account; I only remark that they have a less representative character. These Gentlemen, a little restive even under my anticipatory criticism, were above all to avoid all entangling alliances, such as I have unfortunately fallen into with the Prime Minister. They were to have a splendid isolation indeed. We could all draw that Resolution. With a little thought, say an hour’s reflection, we could have found a Resolution for them that would have challenged everybody who did not agree with them. The only trouble is that they would not have agreed about it themselves. But, alas! a serpent crept into their paradise.

    Mr. THOMAS

    Who was it?

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Ah! That I do not know, but look at their Resolution. They stand for purity of political faith. There is to be no alloy. There is to be no corrupt co-operation—not even a chance meeting in the Division Lobby, unless underlain by a real unity of conviction. But what is the Resolution they have drawn? Is there a single principle in it? Is there any definition of their faith? No, Sir. This new Cabinet, after sitting for ten days in constant and anxious consideration, produces a Resolution for which every critic of the Government can vote because it condemns the Government for which every supporter of every alternative Government can vote, because all that it demands is an alternative Government. Was there ever a greater sham? My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution and who thinks my course devious, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who thinks I have no regard for principle—what are they doing? Asserting their own principles? Not a bit. Currying the favour, seeking the support, bidding for the vote—

    Mr. GWYNNE

    Not of murderers!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Of anyone whom they can get.

    Mr. J. JONES

    Give them socks!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    These critics of the Coalition that exists make their first step in condemnation of the Coalition by a Motion deliberately drawn to get into their Lobby the maximum of support from those with whom they have not one thing in common, except dislike of the Prime Minister and contempt for myself. I congratulate them on their first effort to break our party and to establish a new Coalition.

    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

    The Labour party often vote for you.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    The Resolution does not help me to an understanding of their principles. No mention is made of their principles, lest principle should interfere with practice. I turn, therefore, to their speeches. I thought I had got a little light—it was not very much—from the speech which I see my hon. Friend addressed to his constituents in Twickenham last night. I read it in the “Morning Post.” It is remarkable, incidentally, that the first observation which the “Morning Post” thought it well to report was that someone in a high position should go to the great manufacturing centres, and tell the workmen that they would have to work harder, and produce more goods.

    “Someone in a high position.”

    To whom did my hon. Friend look for counsel that would really be listened to?

    “Someone in a high position like the Prime Minister.”

    He could not keep the Prime Minister out the moment he wanted to do business. When my hon. Friend forms his Government, I shall be on that bench, but I can clearly see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be holding some high office and employed in all the most difficult and the most thankless jobs. But really that was not what interested me most, because I was in search of principles. Here is my hon. Friend’s declaration:

    “Though the Die-hards might have their political future at stake, though they might die politically, yet the principles for which 1hey stood would never perish. They were built on a belief in God, King and Empire. Such principles could never die.”

    That was good enough for Twickenham. He did not repeat it in this House to-night, and he did not for obvious reasons. How is he going to define it? How is he going to indicate it to the Whips? Is he going to say to the Whips—I believe there are Whips in that party—”Go down there below the Bar and say, ‘In this Lobby for God, King and Empire,’ and in that Lobby for” What? Oh, what a difference there is between a peroration at Twickenham and the Floor of the House of Commons! No, Sir, he did not repeat that. I have sought to divine what was the crucial issue on which the Government had gone wrong, and, above all, the crucial issue which made my hon. Friend resolve to challenge on the Floor of this House, in the presence of opponents, for whom he has provided a merry holiday—

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    You have helped towards it.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    but the action of every one of the Unionist Members of the Cabinet, from my right hon. Friend the veteran leader of our party, the Lord President, downwards. I am not sure that I have got it right, but I gather that Canadian store cattle have something to do with it. “God, King, and Empire” have disappeared, and Canadian store cattle have taken their place.

    My hon. Friend, I think, committed himself in a moment of surprise, when he was overwhelmed by his unexpected success in the Ballot, into raising a subject and moving a Motion which, in calmer moments, he would have reserved for discussion elsewhere. My hon. Friend has differed from the great bulk of his party before. He has challenged Divisions in this House, or he and his friends have. No hard words have been said; no irrevocable division has been made, and we have looked forward to re-uniting, as has often happened before, the moment a particular subject of difference has disappeared. He has now chosen to make the present difference of opinion between a small fraction of the Unionist party in this House and the great bulk of the Unionist party in this House a subject for public and formal discussion in the presence of those who, whatever be the differences between my hon. Friends and me, are the opponents of us both. He seeks to magnify those differences, while I seek to minimise them.

    Lord HUGH CECIL

    Hear, hear!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I knew that would appeal to my Noble Friend, who calls himself a Conservative, but who is anarchistic if he is anything. When my Noble Friend goes into the Lobby with his avowed political opponents he is happy, because he knows that nobody agrees with him. He votes with his political opponents for reasons which are alien to them. He separates from his political friends for reasons which only he himself can understand. The only thing which could distress my Noble Friend is that he should find himself in agreement with anyone, above all with members of the party to which he professes to belong. He is constantly astonishing and surprising us. He always delights us, but he never influences us. But the ironical cheer of the Noble Lord for the moment turned me from my argument. My observation was this; as the man selected by all the members of the party to be their Leader in this House, I have done my best to minimise the differences, and to promote union. I wonder if my hon. Friend really is sensible of what he is doing, and whether he considers he is serving the party to which we belong, and the causes which that party is bound to serve, by such action as he has taken to-night in this Motion.

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment. I think he is a little unfair. I do not like to mention private conferences, but my right hon. Friend will allow me to say, I am sure, to tell the House that my friends who have been supporting and working with me in this matter had a private conference with the leaders of the party some few weeks ago—with my right hon. Friend himself—and they allowed us to put our case before them, I hope with fairness and courtesy to them. They received us. What happened it is not for me to say; but it is a little unfair to us to say that we have not taken any other course than that of coming before the House.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I have not suggested that my hon. Friend did not take any other course. The meeting, it was agreed, should be private, and it became public by an indiscretion which was regretted by those who met us, and by myself. I am not going to refer to what took place. What I was saying was that. I wondered whether he really considered what would be the effect upon the party to which he belonged, and upon the cause which that party is bound to serve, by the action which he has taken and the Motion he has laid before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) seconded. He and the mover sit in what, I suppose, are under any circumstances safe Conservative seats—at any rate, they were, and I hope they are still. Have they given a thought to the position of their colleagues elsewhere?

    Mr. N. MACLEAN

    Vote catching—selfish!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Have they given the slightest thought to opinion elsewhere within our own party? Have they considered what is the opinion of Unionists in St. Rollox, Glasgow? Have they considered the effect on Conservative opinion in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Bristol, or in any of the great industrial centres? My hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Resolution are going counter to the great mass of opinion in the Unionist party throughout the country. They are living in little coteries in their own constituencies and in their own circles in London and they do not realise what is the movement of the world. For the sake of narrow party spirit and old party jealously, they are wrecking the great causes for which we are working. They have been unable either in the country or on the Floor of this House to-night to state the principles of our party to which we have been unfaithful. They have deliberately refrained from putting forward such principles in the Motion as a challenge to the House. What did my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury say I He talked about how in the old days—I do not quite understand what happened—but he said a Minister resigned because he did something—I am not sure what. In those days what did a Minister do? He would come out if he resigned. A very remarkable observation! I am bound to say it is all the more remarkable because of the kind of speech that resigning Ministers have lately shown us. What are these luckless ex-Ministers to do? They have no alternative principles. What does that mean?

    Mr. R. McNEILL

    I did not say anything of the sort.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I beg your pardon, I took it down. “They had no alternative set of principles.” What does that mean? That resignations from the Government have not been on the question of principle—that there is no division on the question of principle. My hon. Friends who were responsible for this Motion have either been unable, or what is worse, they have deliberately refrained from stating, either in speech or Resolution, the principles of Unionist policy to which they allege that I and all my Unionist colleagues have been untrue. There are only two explanations. Either they are unable to find such principles, and we stand justified, or they have deliberately refrained from doing so in order to get a bigger vote in the Lobby, in order to swell the small section of our own party which has split away from us, by a large section of men with whom they have nothing in common. In either case, I say, they stand condemned.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Message to the Russian People

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Message to the Russian People

    The message to the Russian people made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 5 April 2022.

    The Russian people deserve the truth, you deserve the facts. [Spoken in Russian]

    The atrocities committed by Russian troops in Bucha, Irpin and elsewhere in Ukraine have horrified the world.

    Civilians massacred – shot dead with their hands tied.

    Women raped in front of their young children.

    Bodies crudely burned, dumped in mass graves, or just left lying in the street.

    The reports are so shocking, so sickening, it’s no wonder your government is seeking to hide them from you.

    Your president knows that if you could see what was happening, you would not support his war.

    He knows that these crimes betray the trust of every Russian mother who proudly waves goodbye to her son as he heads off to join the military.

    And he knows they are a stain on the honour of Russia itself.

    A stain that will only grow larger and more indelible every day this war continues.

    But don’t just take my word for it.

    All you need is VPN connection to access independent information from anywhere in the world.

    And when you find the truth, share it.

    Those responsible will be held to account.

    And history will remember who looked the other way.

    Your president stands accused of committing war crimes. [Spoken in Russian]

    But I cannot believe he’s acting in your name. [Spoken in Russian]

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on NHS Ambulances Donated to Ukraine

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on NHS Ambulances Donated to Ukraine

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 April 2022.

    The UK government has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and provided them with the lifesaving medical equipment they need.

    The invasion has damaged key medical infrastructure and the generous donation of four ambulances by South Central Ambulance Service will ensure people in Ukraine can receive urgent care. It marks the first of many ambulances the UK government and the NHS is donating to Ukraine in the coming days.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on the Health and Social Care Levy

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on the Health and Social Care Levy

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6 April 2022.

    This Government will not shy away from the difficult decisions we need to take to fix our social care system and slash NHS waiting times. The Health and Social Care Levy will fund a third more elective care, over 17 million extra diagnostic tests and a cap on the cost of care so people no longer live in fear of losing everything to pay for care.

    The British people deserve the best health care in the world and delivering that is our top priority.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on the Health and Social Care Levy

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on the Health and Social Care Levy

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 April 2022.

    The pandemic put unprecedented pressure on the NHS and is causing the Covid backlogs. This investment will go into tackling those backlogs and will help make sure everyone can get the care and treatment they need.

    We can’t have business as usual, which is why we are rolling out Surgical Hubs and Community Diagnostic Centres up and down the country to deliver millions more scans, checks and operations.

    This vital funding will ensure the NHS is equipped to not only reduce waiting times but also tackle the big challenges we face – from cancer to heart-disease and dementia. We will also reform the adult social care system, invest in the workforce and protect people from catastrophic care costs.