UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Karen Bradley – 2018 Statement on Northern Ireland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 20 February 2018.

    With permission I should like to make a statement about the current political situation in Northern Ireland.

    Over recent weeks there have been talks involving the main political parties, particularly the two largest parties, the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein, to see if there is a basis for re-establishing the Executive.

    The UK Government has facilitated and supported these intensive negotiations. We have been in close touch with all the parties, and responded to requests for advice and support

    The Irish Government have also been involved in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.

    And I would like to place on record my appreciation of the contribution made by the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and his team.

    In addition my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister has been consistently and closely involved, speaking to party leaders and visiting Belfast last Monday. I have continued to give her up-to-date reports as the talks have progressed.

    The aim of those talks has been very clear: to bring about the re-establishment of inclusive, devolved government at Stormont which Northern Ireland has effectively been without for over thirteen months.

    In doing so, we have been able to build on the progress made by my predecessor, my Right Honourable Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who I warmly welcome back to this House today.

    In the Government’s view, both the DUP and Sinn Fein participated in discussions seriously and in good faith.

    And we believe that progress towards reaching agreement on all the key substantive issues has been made.

    It became possible in the light of this progress to identify a basis for a possible agreement to allow an Executive to be formed, embracing how the parties ensured the Executive was sustainable, and how they reached a balanced and fair accommodation on the difficult issues of language and culture, and how this was reflected in a package of legislation. Many other issues were addressed too, if not always resolved. Unfortunately, however, by last Wednesday it had become clear that the current phase of talks had reached a conclusion, without such an agreement being finalised and endorsed by both parties.

    As I said then, it is important for everyone to reflect on the circumstances which have led to this and their positions, both now and in the future.

    What is important today is for me to give some direction as to next steps.

    First, as our manifesto at the last election set out, this Government believes in devolution under the terms of the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

    We want to see local politicians taking decisions over local matters accountable to a local Assembly.

    We need devolved government to help deliver a stronger economy, to build a stronger society and to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is properly heard as we leave the European Union.

    In addition we want to see all of the other institutions of the Agreement operating in the way that was intended.

    I cannot reiterate too strongly that devolved government is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland because it ensures their interests and concerns are fairly and equitably represented.

    It is also in the best interests of maintaining and strengthening the Union, to which this Government remains fully committed, consistent with the principle of consent.

    So we will continue to explore with the parties whether the basis for a political agreement still exists.

    And as my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister has re-affirmed we stand ready to bring forward the necessary legislation that would enable an Executive to be formed at the earliest opportunity.

    That is this Government’s clear hope and desire, something that I believe is shared widely across this House.

    Second, however, things in Northern Ireland cannot simply remain in a state of limbo.

    A number of challenging decisions will have to be taken.

    Ultimately the Government has a responsibility to ensure good governance and the continued delivery of public services.

    In particular, as the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service has made clear, there needs to be certainty and clarity about a budget for Northern Ireland for next year as soon as possible.

    And I intend to take steps to provide clarity on the budget and I will update the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    This is clearly not where I want to be but in the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland I will have no other choice.

    Longer term the Government will not shirk its responsibilities to take whatever steps are necessary to provide certainty and stability for the people of Northern Ireland, while maintaining our commitment to govern with rigorous impartiality in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

    But we will only do that once we are sure that all other viable options designed to restore devolved government have been properly considered, including my statutory obligation to call an Assembly election.

    In the absence of devolution it is also right that we consider the issue of salaries for Assembly Members.

    At the end of last year my Right Honourable Friend for Old Bexley and Sidcup received recommendations on this from Mr Trevor Reaney, a former Clerk of the Assembly.

    The Government will need to decide shortly on the next steps.

    I acknowledge the public concern that while a number of Assembly members continue to carry out constituency and representative functions, current salaries are maintained while the Assembly is not meeting.

    On the issue of addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past the Government has manifesto commitments to consult on the implementation of the bodies set out in the 2014 Stormont House Agreement and to support the reform of inquests.

    I would much prefer to do this in the context of an agreement that sees the restoration of a devolved Executive.

    But I am conscious of the Government’s responsibilities to make progress in this area to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who suffered most during the troubles.

    So we will continue to proceed toward a full consultation as soon as possible, so that everyone can have their say.

    Mr Speaker, as the House will recognise this April marks the 20th anniversary of the historic Belfast Agreement.

    That Agreement, along with its successors, has been fundamental in helping Northern Ireland move forward from its violent past to a brighter, more secure future.

    And this Government’s support for the Agreements remains steadfast. As does our commitment to govern for everyone in Northern Ireland.

    There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has taken huge strides forward in the past twenty years.

    In my short time as Northern Ireland Secretary I have seen a place full of wonderful talent and huge potential.

    Yet any commemorations this year will look decidedly hollow if Northern Ireland still has no functioning government of its own.

    So everyone needs to continue striving to see devolved government restored and to build a Northern Ireland fit for the future.

    That remains the clear focus and determination of this Government.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Speech on Safeguarding in the Aid Sector

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 20 February 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my Department’s response to the sexual abuse and exploitation perpetrated by charity workers in Haiti in 2011, and the measures we are taking to improve safeguarding across the aid sector.

    I’d like to start by paying tribute to Sean O’Neill of The Times and the two sets of whistleblowers – those in 2011 and later – for bringing this case to light.

    On February ninth, The Times reported that certain Oxfam staff when in Haiti in 2011 had abused their positions of trust and paid for sex with local women. These incidents happened in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in 2010, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and left millions more homeless and reliant on aid for basic needs such as food and shelter.

    This is shocking, but it is not by itself what has caused such concern about Oxfam’s safeguarding. It was what Oxfam did next.

    In chaotic and desperate situations the very best safeguarding procedures and practices must be put in to place to prevent harm, but when organisations fail to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing that occur, it undermines trust and sends a message that sexual exploitation and abuse is tolerated. We cannot prevent sexual exploitation and abuse if we don’t demonstrate zero tolerance.

    In such circumstances we must be able to trust organisations not only to do all they can to prevent harm, but to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing when they occur.

    In this duty Oxfam failed under the watch of Barbara Stocking and Penny Lawrence.

    They did not provide a full report to the Charity Commission. They did not provide a full report to their donors. They did not provide any report to prosecuting authorities.

    In my view Mr Speaker they misled, quite possibly deliberately. Even as their report concluded that their investigation could not rule out the allegation that some of the women involved were actually children.

    They did not think it was necessary to report to the police in either Haiti or the country of origin for those accountable.

    I believe their motivation appears to be just the protection of the organisation’s reputation. They put that before those they were there to help and protect – a complete betrayal of trust.

    A betrayal too of those who sent them there – the British people – and a betrayal of all those Oxfam staff and volunteers who do put the people they serve, first.

    Last week, I met with Mark Goldring, Chief Executive of Oxfam, and Caroline Thomson, Oxfam’s Chair of Trustees.

    I made three demands of them –

    That they fully cooperate with the Haitian authorities, handing over all the evidence they hold.

    That, they report staff members involved in this incident to their respective national governments.

    And, that they make clear how they will handle any forthcoming allegations around safeguarding – historic or live.

    And I stressed that for me holding to account those who made the decision not to report and to let those potentially guilty of criminal activity slip away, was a necessity in winning back confidence in Oxfam.

    As a result of those discussions, Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for any new UK Government funding until DFID is satisfied that they can meet the high safeguarding standards we expect of our partners.

    I will take a decision on current programming after the twenty-sixth of February as I will then have further information which will help me decide if I need to adjust how that is currently being delivered.

    Given the concerns about the wider sector this case has raised, I have written to every UK charity working overseas that receives UK aid – 192 organisations – insisting that they spell out the steps they are taking to ensure their safeguarding policies are fully in place and confirm they have referred all concerns they have about specific cases and individuals to the relevant authorities, including prosecuting authorities.

    I have set a deadline of the twenty-sixth of February for all UK charities working overseas to give us the assurances that we have asked for and to raise any concerns with the relevant authorities.

    We are also undertaking in parallel a similar exercise with all non-UK charity partners – 393 organisations in total and with all our suppliers including those in the private sector – over 500 organisations – to make clear our standards and remind them of their obligations, and we are doing the same with all multilateral partners too.

    The UK Government reserves the right to take whatever decisions about present or future funding to Oxfam, and any other organisation, that we deem necessary. We have been very clear that we will not work with any organisation that does not live up to the high standards on safeguarding and protection that we require.

    I will also be sharing details of this approach with other governments departments, who are responsible for the ODA spend.

    Although this work is not yet complete it is clear from the Charity Commission reporting data – and lack of it from some organisations – that a cultural change is needed to ensure all that can be done to stop sexual exploitation in the aid sector, is being done.

    And we need to take some practical steps. Now.

    We should not wait for the UN to take action. We must set up our own systems now.

    My department, and the Charity Commission, will hold a safeguarding summit on the fifth of March, where we will meet with UK international development charities, regulators and experts to confront safeguarding failures and agree practical measures, such as an aid worker accreditation scheme we in the UK can use.

    Later in the year, we will take this programme of work to a wide-ranging, global safeguarding conference to drive action across the whole international aid sector.

    And I’m pleased to say the US, Canada, the Netherlands and others have already agreed to support our goal of improved safeguarding standards across the sector.

    The UK is not waiting for others to act. We are taking a lead on this.

    I will also be speaking to colleagues across government and beyond about what more we can do to stop exploitation and abuse in the UN and broader multilateral system.

    The message from us to all parts of the UN is clear – you can either get your house in order, or you can prepare to carry out your good work without our money.

    I welcome the UN’s announcement on the fourteenth of February that the UN does not and will not claim immunity for sexual abuse cases. This sends a clear signal that the UN is not a soft target, but we must hold the UN to account for this.

    Further actions we have taken in the last week include the creation of a new Safeguarding Unit. We have also promoted our whistleblowing and reporting phone line to encourage anyone with information on safeguarding issues to contact us.

    We have appointed Sheila Drew Smith, a recent member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who has agreed to bring her expertise and her challenge to support my Department’s ambition on safeguarding. She will report to me directly.

    I have asked to meet leaders of the audit profession to discuss what more they can do to provide independent assurance over safeguarding to the organisations that DFID partners with globally.

    And I have held my own Department to the same scrutiny that I am demanding of others. I have asked the department to go through our centrally held HR systems and our fraud and whistleblowing records as far back as they exist.

    I am assured that there are no centrally recorded cases which were dealt with incorrectly.

    Separately, we are reviewing any locally reported allegations of sexual misconduct involving DFID staff. To date our review of staff cases has looked at 75% of our teams across DFID and will complete in a fortnight.

    Our investigations are still ongoing and if, during this process, we discover any further historic or current cases, I will report on our handling of these to Parliament.

    DFID, other government departments and the National Crime Agency work closely together when serious allegations of potentially criminal activity in partner organisations are brought to our attention and we are strengthening this, as the new Strategy Director at the NCA will take on a lead role for the aid sector.

    I am calling on anyone who has any concerns about abuse or exploitation in the aid sector to come forward and report these to our counter fraud and whistleblowing team. Details are on the DFID website and all communications will be treated in complete confidence.

    Later today I will have further meetings, including with the Defence Secretary, regarding peacekeeping troops, and the Secretary of State at DCMS regarding the Charity Sector.

    My absolute priority is to keep the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people safe from harm. It is utterly despicable that sexual exploitation and abuse continue to exist in the aid sector.

    The recent reports should be a wake-up call to all of us. Now is the time for us to act, but as we do so we should note the good people working across the world in this sector – saving lives often by endangering their own – and all those from fundraisers to trustees who make that work possible across the entire aid sector.

    In the last week alone UK aid and UK aid workers has helped vaccinate around 850,000 children against polio.

    And we should also recognise that work can only be done with the support of the British people.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Claire Perry – 2018 Speech on Climate Change

    Below is the text of the article written by Claire Perry, the Energy and Clean Growth Minister, on 20 February 2018.

    Cast your mind back 13 years to 2005. The world was a very different place. The phrase ‘climate change’ was not exactly a buzzword and yet an extraordinary moment occurred. A groundswell of momentum across the globe brought the Kyoto Protocol into force, a pivotal agreement committing more countries than ever to internationally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Last week the impact of climate change on sports was in the headlines. Climate change affects us all – and if it takes melting ski slopes and waterlogged cricket pitches to get people’s attention, then so be it.

    Momentum on climate action is accelerating with the UK in the driving seat. Climate change is no longer just a phrase used by environmentalists and scientists, it forms part of our everyday narrative. This is the moment not only for global efforts to reduce our CO2 output, but also for the growth of green industries and for international climate collaboration.

    Climate change crosses party political lines and doesn’t respect borders. That cross-party support for climate action and UK leadership was demonstrated in 2008 with the introduction of the historic Climate Change Act, setting an ambitious legally-binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.

    But it was the Kyoto Protocol that truly kickstarted international action in 2005. When world leaders signed up to the charter, it signalled a sea change. Left unchecked, climate change would ravage our natural environment and, along with it, our health and prosperity.

    Fast forward 10 years and in 2015 the UK was instrumental in securing the Paris Agreement, committing 175 countries to protect the world from catastrophic warming.

    Three years ago in Paris, the UK and other developed countries committed a joint contribution of $100 billion to help the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world cope with the increasing risk of droughts and floods and provide access to clean energy. We should be proud that the UK is regarded so highly for its climate action overseas as well as at home.

    I’m proud that we have got our own house in order. In 2011, the government slashed emissions from 3,000 buildings across Whitehall by nearly 14% in a single year.

    It is not only a moral imperative that we leave the world in a better place for future generations, there is an economic argument for tackling climate change. The UK has shown that reducing emissions and growing the economy can, and should, go hand in hand. Since 1990 our national carbon emissions have fallen even more and our national income has risen faster than any other nation in the G7.

    The shift to clean energy presents a multibillion-pound investment opportunity for businesses. Our low-carbon sector already directly employs more than 200,000 people. We are clear: through our ambitious industrial strategy the UK is ready to embrace the economic opportunities presented by the transition to a low-carbon economy.

    And there’s more good news. Latest figures indicate that more than half of our electricity generation in 2017 came from low-carbon sources such as wind, nuclear and solar. Just 5 years ago, dirty coal power accounted for 40% of our electricity – this figure is now 7%. The government has driven this change, investing more than £52 billion in renewable energy since 2010 and committing to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025. We now have the biggest installed offshore wind capacity in the world, and the cost of offshore wind is constantly falling thanks to government support.

    On the international stage the UK is leading the charge for clean, green energy. In November the Canadian environment minister, Catherine McKenna, and I launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance, a global coalition of countries, businesses and cities committed to ending unabated coal power. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel, emitting twice as much CO2 as gas per unit of electricity generated. Phasing out coal will not only reduce pollution and carbon emissions, it will improve our health.

    Our action at home and abroad is delivering real results and we are on track to meet or over-deliver against our first 3 carbon budgets. We have come a long way in the last 13 years, but we cannot step off the pedal now. Ambitious climate action must continue, with the UK leading the way to a low-carbon future.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech on Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at Derby College on 19 February 2018.

    I took my very first steps into elected politics as a local councillor, in south London.

    For two years I was the chairman of the education authority in Merton.

    It was an experience I will never forget.

    I saw how vital good schools and colleges are to a community. How the hopes and aspirations which parents have for their children and which young people have for their futures are bound-up with the quality of education on offer.

    And here in this fantastic setting, in a building from Derby’s proud past, which today is helping to define a fantastic future for this city and county as part of Derby College the immense value of great local institutions, providing people with an education that truly works for them, is clear.

    I drew on my experiences in south London when I first became an MP, and made my maiden speech in Parliament on the subject of education in 1997.

    I said then that the aim of education policy should be to ‘provide the right education for every child’. That ‘for some children that will be an education that is firmly based in learning practical and vocational skills. For others, it will be an education based on academic excellence.’

    A lot has changed in the last 20 years, but that core principle that the needs of every child and every young person deserve to be met still drives my vision of the education system our country needs.

    And the need for such a system has never been greater.

    First, because the new technologies which are shaping the economy of the future will transform the world of work and demand new knowledge and skills in the decades ahead.

    Technologies like artificial intelligence, biotech and new advances in data science have the potential to drive up living standards and open new possibilities for human achievement and personal fulfilment. But if we are to seize those opportunities, if we are to make Britain a great engine room of this technological revolution in the twenty-first century we need to make the most of all of our talents.

    The sixth form students I met at Featherstone High School in Southall this morning, and the young people studying here at Derby College, will be starting their careers in the new economy of the 2020s and 2030s. To give them the skills they need to succeed, we need an education and training system which is more flexible and more diverse than it is today.

    One which enriches their lives with knowledge, gives each of them a great start in life, and is there for them when they need it.

    And there is another reason why we must act now to deliver that education system that truly works for everyone. Because the Britain of the 2020s will be a Britain outside of the European Union, pursuing a new course in the world.

    I want the Britain which those young people will be living in to be a self-confident, outward-looking Britain.

    The best friend and ally of our EU partners.

    But also a Britain which is out in the world, forming even closer ties with friends and allies right across the globe. We will learn together, collaborating in research which makes new scientific breakthroughs and improves our understanding of the world.

    We will trade together, spreading opportunity and prosperity ever more widely.

    And we will stand together in support of the shared values which unite Britain with so many other like minded countries – in Europe yes, but across the world too.

    To become that Britain where a thriving economy drives up living standards and creates greater security and opportunity for everyone and where the prosperity which economic growth generates is more fairly shared in our society we need education to be the key that unlocks the door to a better future.

    Through education, we can become a country where everyone, from every background, gains the skills they need to get a good job and live a happy and fulfilled life.

    To achieve that, we must have an education system at all levels which serves the needs of every child.

    And if we consider the experience which many young people have of our system as it is, it is clear that we do not have such a system today.

    Challenges we face

    Imagine two children currently in secondary school and thinking about their futures.

    One is a working class boy from here in Derby.

    He aspires to a career as a lawyer, but he doesn’t have a social network to draw on with any links to the profession, and he doesn’t know if someone like him can make it.

    The road he will have to take to achieve his dream is much more challenging than the one his counterpart who is privately educated will face.

    Almost a quarter of the students at our research-intensive universities come from the 7% of the population who go to private school.

    And the professions which draw their recruits primarily from these institutions remain unrepresentative of the country as a whole, skewed in favour of a particular social class. For the boy from a working class home here in Derby, the odds are stacked against him and as a country, we all lose out when we do not make the most of everyone’s talents and ability.

    And now imagine a second child.

    She is a girl from a middle class background, who is privately educated.

    Her dream is to be a software developer, and she wishes she could go straight into the industry.

    But she faces another set of pressures, which tell her that studying academic A-levels and making a UCAS application to a Russell group university is what the world expects of her.

    The idea that there might be another path just as promising and better suited to her individual hopes and dreams simply doesn’t occur. In each case, the system is not working for the individual or for our country.

    Paul Johnson of the IFS recently wrote about the experiences his two sons had of leaving school. One, a natural fit at university, found the application process simple and straight forward.

    The other, who wanted to pursue a technical course, found it much more difficult because, ‘everything points to university as the default.’ Roughly half of young people go to university and roughly half do not. But in the twenty years since we introduced tuition fees, public debate on tertiary education has been dominated by a discussion of how we fund and support those who go to university, and there has been nothing like the same attention paid to how we support the training and develop the skills of the young people who do not.

    Most politicians, most journalists, most political commentators took the academic route themselves, and will expect their children to do the same. And there remains a perception that going to university is really the only desirable route, while going into training is something for other people’s children.

    If we are going to succeed in building a fairer society and a stronger economy, we need to throw away this outdated attitude for good and create a system of tertiary education that works for all our young people.

    That means equality of access to an academic university education which is not dependent on your background, and it means a much greater focus on the technical alternatives too.

    One of the great social achievements of the last half-century has been the transformation of an academic university education from something enjoyed almost-exclusively by a social elite into something which is open to everyone.

    But making university truly accessible to young people from every background is not made easier by a funding system which leaves students from the lowest-income households bearing the highest levels of debt, with many graduates left questioning the return they get for their investment.

    And for those young people who do not go on to academic study, the routes into further technical and vocational training today are hard to navigate, the standards across the sector are too varied and the funding available to support them is patchy.

    The UK’s participation rate in advanced technical education – teaching people skills which will be crucial for the future – is low by international standards. The latest annual figures show that fewer than 16,000 people completed higher qualifications through the further education system.

    That is compared to almost 350,000 undergraduate degrees which were awarded last year.

    This imbalance has an economic cost, with some businesses finding it hard to recruit the skilled workers they need.

    But it also has a social cost in wasted human potential, which we too often ignore.

    So now is the time to take action to create a system that is flexible enough to ensure that everyone gets the education that suits them.

    That’s what the review which I am launching today sets out to deliver.

    And in doing so, it will build on the enormous progress we have already made in raising standards in our schools since 2010.

    School standards

    The success of every young person in whatever they go on to do in life, is shaped by the education they receive at school and the Conservatives have put restoring rigour and high standards in our primary and secondary schools at the heart of our education reforms.

    We launched a major expansion of the academy programme, putting school teachers in charge of raising standards in their schools.

    And we also went a step further, creating free schools – to give teachers, universities and charities the chance to bring greater innovation and specialism to the mix.

    I have always believed in the great potential which Free Schools have to improve the lives of children.

    That’s why I put them in the Conservative election manifesto in 2001, as shadow education secretary. And now free schools score some of the very highest results at GCSE.

    The range of reforms which we put in place are leading to improved outcomes for young people. 1.9 million more children are being taught in schools that are good or outstanding.

    The attainment gap is shrinking at primary and secondary school.

    And England is improving internationally. The job is not yet done, but we are making excellent progress, and enormous credit is due to the teachers whose hard work has driven these improved outcomes.

    Tertiary Review

    On top of the firm foundation of a great primary and secondary education, and the reforms we are putting in place to introduce high quality T-levels we now need to ensure that options open to young people as they move into adulthood are more diverse, that the routes into further education and training are clearer, and that all options are fully accessible to everyone.

    That is why I am today launching a major and wide-ranging review into post-18 education.

    The review will be supported by an expert panel.

    And I am delighted that Philip Augar has agreed to chair that panel.

    It will focus on four key questions. How we ensure that tertiary education is accessible to everyone, from every background.

    How our funding system provides value for money, both for students and taxpayers.

    How we incentivise choice and competition right across the sector.

    And finally, how we deliver the skills that we need as a country.

    This is a review which, for the first time, looks at the whole post-18 education sector in the round, breaking down false boundaries between further and higher education, so we can create a system which is truly joined-up.

    Universities – many of which provide technical as well as academic courses – will be considered alongside colleges, Institutes of Technology and apprenticeship providers.

    There are huge success stories to be found right across the sector, at every level, and by taking a broad view, Philip and his expert panel will be able to make recommendations which help the sector to be even better in the future.

    Student finance

    Our universities are world-leaders and jewels in Britain’s crown.

    16 British universities are in the world’s top 100, and four are in the top ten.

    I want to know how we can build on that success, and at the same time ensure that people from all backgrounds share the benefits of university study. So the review will examine how we can give people from disadvantaged backgrounds an equal chance to succeed.

    That includes how disadvantaged students and learners receive maintenance support, both from Government and universities and colleges.

    But the review will also look more widely, and examine our whole system of student funding.

    There are many aspects of the current system which work well.

    Universities in England are now better funded than they have been for a generation.

    And sharing the cost of university between taxpayers as a whole and the graduates who directly benefit from university study is a fair principle.

    It has enabled us to lift the cap on the number of places – which was in effect a cap on aspiration – so universities can expand and so broaden access.

    But I know that other aspects of the system are a cause for serious concern – not just for students themselves, but parents and grandparents too.

    This is a concern which I share. The competitive market between universities which the system of variable tuition fees envisaged has simply not emerged.

    All but a handful of universities charge the maximum possible fees for undergraduate courses.

    Three-year courses remain the norm.

    And the level of fees charged do not relate to the cost or quality of the course. We now have one of the most expensive systems of university tuition in the world.

    We have already begun to take action to address some of these concerns.

    We scrapped the increase in fees that was due this year, and we have increased the amount graduates can earn before they start repaying their fees to £25,000.

    The review will now look at the whole question of how students and graduates contribute to the cost of their studies including the level, terms and duration of their contribution.

    Our goal is a funding system which provides value for money for graduates and taxpayers, so the principle that students as well as taxpayers should contribute to the cost of their studies is an important one.

    I believe – as do most people, including students – that those who benefit directly from higher education should contribute directly towards the cost of it. That is only fair.

    The alternative – shifting the whole burden of university tuition onto the shoulders of taxpayers as a whole – would have three consequences.

    First, it would inevitably mean tax increases for the majority of people who did not go to university, and who on average earn less than those who did. Second, it would mean our universities competing with schools and hospitals for scarce resources, which in the past meant they lost out, putting their international pre-eminence at risk.

    And third, it would mean the necessary re-introduction of a cap on numbers, with the Treasury regulating the number of places an institution could offer, and preventing the expansion which has driven wider access in recent years.

    That is not my idea of a fair or progressive system.

    Diversity and choice

    And Philip and his colleagues will also look beyond universities, to examine choice and competition right across the sector and recommend practical solutions.

    This will build on reforms which are already in train to increase the options which are available across further and higher education.

    Over the last few years, reforms to technical education have improved every aspect of the offer available to young people. We now have higher standards for apprenticeships and vocational courses.

    T-levels are on the way, which will provide a high-quality, technical alternative to A-levels.

    A new network of Institutes of Technology will specialise in the advanced technical skills our economy needs.

    This review will now identify how we can help young people make more effective choices between these different options. That could include giving young people better guidance about the earning potential of different jobs and what different qualifications are needed to get them, so they can make more informed decisions about their futures.

    But this isn’t just about young people.

    Retraining throughout the course of your career, to change jobs or gain promotion, will only become more necessary as new technologies have an impact on our economy.

    We need to support flexible life-long learning, including part-time and distance learning – something which the current funding system does not always make easy.

    So by focusing on these four key priorities, making tertiary education accessible to all, promoting choice and competition in the sector, delivering the skills our economy needs, and getting value for money for students and taxpayers we can give every young person access to an education that suits their skills and aspirations.

    One which opens up possibilities for their future and helps them into a rewarding career.

    Conclusion

    Almost thirty years ago, when I was in charge of that local education authority, an incoming Conservative Prime Minister, who like me went to a state school said that the great task of the coming decade should be to ‘make the whole of this country a genuinely classless society’.

    Eighteen months ago, when I became Prime Minister, I spoke of my desire to make Britain a Great Meritocracy. Today, our ambition for the Britain we will build outside the EU must be just as great.

    And it must be matched with a determination to turn that ambition into reality.

    Because by voting to leave the EU in 2016, millions of people across this country were not just choosing to leave the European Union they were sending a clear message about how our society and our economy works – or rather doesn’t work – in too many communities.

    If we are truly to make good on the instruction of the referendum, we need to reconnect everyone in our society to a sense of fairness and opportunity.

    We need to make Britain a country where everyone can go as far as their talents will take them and no one is held back by their background or class.

    Where education is the key to opening up opportunity for everyone. The vision I have for the Britain we will build is of a country which is fit for the future, delivered through bold social and economic reform.

    That is why we are building an education system which unlocks everyone’s talents, and gives them the skills they need to go as far as their hard work will take them.

    It’s why we support the market economy and back entrepreneurs and wealth creators – but step in when businesses don’t play by the rules.

    And it is why we are making the UK the very best place in the world to start and grow a high-tech business – while also making sure that new technologies work for everyone in society.

    If we get it right, we can build a country that truly works for everyone.

    A country where your background does not define your future, and class distinctions are a thing of the past. Where a boy from a working class home can become a High Court judge, thanks to a great state education.

    And where a girl from a private school can start a software business, thanks to a first-class technical education.

    That is my vision for a fairer society and how we will deliver it.

    A society where good, rewarding work is available for everyone. An economy with the skills it needs to succeed. Britain as the Great Meritocracy, a country that respects hard work, rewards effort and industry, where a happy and fulfilled life is within everyone’s grasp.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Munich Security Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Munich, Germany on 17 February 2018.

    For more than half a century, this conference has brought nations together from Europe and across the Atlantic to forge our common security.

    The fundamental values we share – respect for human dignity, human rights, freedom, democracy and equality – have created common cause to act together in our shared interest.

    The rules-based system we helped to develop has enabled global cooperation to protect those shared values.

    Today as globalisation brings nations closer together than ever before, we face a host of new and growing threats that seek to undermine those rules and values.

    As internal and external security become more and more entwined – with hostile networks no longer only rooted in state-based aggression and weapons designed not just to be deployed on the battlefield but through cyberspace – so our ability to keep our people safe depends ever more on working together.

    That is reflected here today in the world’s largest gathering of its kind, with representatives of more than seventy countries.

    For our part, the United Kingdom has always understood that our security and prosperity is bound to global security and prosperity.

    We are a global nation – enriching global prosperity through centuries of trade, through the talents of our people and by exchanging learning and culture with partners across the world.

    And we invest in global security knowing this is how we best protect our people at home and abroad.

    That is why we are the second largest defence spender in NATO, and the only EU member to spend 2 per cent of our GDP on defence as well as 0.7 per cent of our Gross National Income on international development. And it is why we will continue to meet these commitments.

    It is why we have created a highly developed set of security and defence relationships: with the US and Five Eyes partners, with the Gulf and increasingly with Asian partners too.

    We have invested in critical capabilities – including our nuclear deterrent, our two new aircraft carriers, our world class special forces and intelligence agencies.

    We are a leading contributor to international missions from fighting Daesh in Iraq and Syria to peacekeeping in South Sudan and Cyprus, and NATO missions in Eastern Europe.

    And within Europe we are working ever more closely with our European partners, bringing the influence and impact that comes from our full range of global relationships.

    And we want to continue this co-operation as we leave the European Union.

    The British people took a legitimate democratic decision to bring decision making and accountability closer to home.

    But it has always been the case that our security at home is best advanced through global cooperation, working with institutions that support that, including the EU.

    Changing the structures by which we work together should not mean we lose sight of our common aim – the protection of our people and the advance of our common interests across the world.

    So as we leave the EU and forge a new path for ourselves in the world, the UK is just as committed to Europe’s security in the future as we have been in the past.

    Europe’s security is our security. And that is why I have said – and I say again today – that the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining it.

    The challenge for all of us today is finding the way to work together, through a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, to retain the co-operation that we have built and go further in meeting the evolving threats we face together.

    This cannot be a time when any of us allow competition between partners, rigid institutional restrictions or deep-seated ideology to inhibit our co-operation and jeopardise the security of our citizens.

    We must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic in ensuring our collective security.

    Today I want to set out how I believe we can achieve this – taking this opportunity to establish a new security partnership that can keep our people safe, now and in the years ahead.

    Safeguarding our internal security

    Let me start with how we ensure security within Europe.

    The threats we face do not recognise the borders of individual nations or discriminate between them.

    We all in this room have shared the pain and heartbreak of terrorist atrocities at home.

    It is almost a year since the despicable attack on Westminster, followed by further attacks in Manchester and London.

    These people don’t care if they kill and maim Parisians, Berliners, Londoners or Mancunians because it is the common values that we all share which they seek to attack and defeat.

    But I say: we will not let them.

    When these atrocities occur, people look to us as leaders to provide the response.

    We must all ensure that nothing prevents us from fulfilling our first duty as leaders: to protect our citizens.

    And we must find the practical ways to ensure the co-operation to do so.

    We have done so before.

    When Justice and Home Affairs ceased to be intergovernmental and became a shared EU competence, of course there were some in the UK who would have had us adopt the EU’s approach wholesale, just as there were some who would have had us reject it outright.

    As Home Secretary, I was determined to find a practical and pragmatic way in which the UK and EU could continue to co-operate on our common security.

    That is why I reviewed each provision in turn and successfully made the case for the UK to opt back in to those that were clearly in our national interest.

    Through the relationship we have developed, the UK has been at the forefront of shaping the practical and legal arrangements that underpin our internal security co-operation.

    And our contribution to those arrangements is vital in protecting European citizens in cities right across our continent.

    First our practical co-operation, including our expedited extradition and mutual legal assistance relationship, means wanted or convicted serious criminals – and the evidence to support their convictions – move seamlessly between the UK and EU Member States.

    So when a serious terrorist like Zakaria Chadili was found living in the UK – a young man who was believed to have been radicalised in Syria and was wanted for terrorist offences in France – there was no delay in ensuring he was extradited back to France and brought to justice.

    He is one of 10,000 people the UK has extradited through the European Arrest Warrant. In fact, for every person arrested on a European Arrest Warrant issued by the UK, the UK arrests eight on European Arrest Warrants issued by other Member States.

    The European Arrest Warrant has also played a crucial role in supporting police co-operation between Northern Ireland and Ireland – which has been a fundamental part of the political settlement there.

    Second, co-operation between our law enforcement agencies means the UK is one of the biggest contributors of data, information and expertise to Europol. Take for example, Operation Triage where police in the UK worked extensively with Europol and the Czech Republic to crack a trafficking gang involved in labour exploitation.

    Third, through the Schengen Information System II, the UK is contributing to the sharing of real-time data on wanted criminals, missing persons and suspected terrorists. About a fifth of all alerts are circulated by the UK, with over 13,000 hits on people and objects of interest to law enforcement across Europe in the last year alone.

    The UK has also driven a pan-EU approach to processing passenger data, enabling the identification and tracking of criminals, victims of trafficking and those individuals vulnerable to radicalisation.

    In all these areas, people across Europe are safer because of this co-operation and the unique arrangements we have developed between the UK and EU institutions in recent years.

    So it is in all our interests to find ways to protect the capabilities which underpin this co-operation when the UK becomes a European country outside the EU but in a new partnership with it.

    To make this happen will require real political will on both sides.

    I recognise there is no existing security agreement between the EU and a third country that captures the full depth and breadth of our existing relationship.

    But there is precedent for comprehensive, strategic relationships between the EU and third countries in other fields, such as trade. And there is no legal or operational reason why such an agreement could not be reached in the area of internal security.

    However, if the priority in the negotiations becomes avoiding any kind of new co-operation with a country outside the EU, then this political doctrine and ideology will have damaging real world consequences for the security of all our people, in the UK and the EU.

    Let’s be clear about what would happen if the means of this co-operation were abolished.

    Extradition under the European Arrest Warrant would cease. Extradition outside the European Arrest Warrant can cost four times as much and take three times as long.

    It would mean an end to the significant exchange of data and engagement through Europol.

    And it would mean the UK would no longer be able to secure evidence from European partners quickly through the European Investigation Order, with strict deadlines for gathering evidence requested, instead relying on slower, more cumbersome systems.

    This would damage us both and would put all our citizens at greater risk.

    As leaders, we cannot let that happen.

    So we need, together, to demonstrate some real creativity and ambition to enable us to meet the challenges of the future as well as today.

    That is why I have proposed a new Treaty to underpin our future internal security relationship.

    The Treaty must preserve our operational capabilities. But it must also fulfil three further requirements.

    It must be respectful of the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. So, for example, when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice.

    And a principled but pragmatic solution to close legal co-operation will be needed to respect our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order.

    As I have said before, we will need to agree a strong and appropriate form of independent dispute resolution across all the areas of our future partnership in which both sides can have the necessary confidence.

    We must also recognise the importance of comprehensive and robust data protection arrangements.

    The UK’s Data Protection Bill will ensure that we are aligned with the EU framework. But we want to go further and seek a bespoke arrangement to reflect the UK’s exceptionally high standards of data protection. And we envisage an ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office, which would be beneficial in providing stability and confidence for EU and UK individuals and businesses alike.

    And we’re ready to start working through this with colleagues in the European Commission now.

    Finally, just as we have been able to develop the agreement on passenger name records in the face of terrorist atrocities in recent years, so the Treaty must have an ability to ensure that as the threats we face change and adapt – as they surely will – our relationship has the capacity to move with them.

    Nothing must get in the way of our helping each other in every hour of every day to keep our people safe.

    If we put this at the heart of our mission – we can and will find the means.

    And we cannot delay discussions on this. EU Member States have been clear how critical it is that we maintain existing operational capabilities.

    We must now move with urgency to put in place the Treaty that will protect all European citizens wherever they are in the continent.

    External security

    But clearly our security interests don’t stop at edge of our continent.

    Not only do the threats to our internal security emanate from beyond our borders, as we look at the world today we are also facing profound challenges to the global order: to peace, prosperity, to the rules-based system that underpins our very way of life.

    And in the face of these challenges, I believe it is our defining responsibility to come together and reinvigorate the transatlantic partnership – and the full breadth of all our global alliances – so that we can protect our shared security and project our shared values.

    The United Kingdom is not only unwavering in its commitment to this partnership, we see reinvigorating it as a fundamental part of our global role as we leave the European Union.

    As a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, as a leading contributor to NATO and as America’s closest partner, we have never defined our global outlook primarily through our membership of the European Union or by a collective European foreign policy.

    So upon leaving the EU, it is right that the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy.

    But around the world, the interests that we will seek to project and defend will continue to be rooted in our shared values.

    That is true whether fighting the ideologies of Daesh, developing a new global approach to migration, ensuring the Iranian nuclear deal is properly policed or standing up to Russia’s hostile actions, whether in Ukraine, the Western Balkans or in cyberspace. And in all these cases, our success depends on a breadth of partnership that extends far beyond the institutional mechanisms for cooperation with the EU.

    That means doing more to develop bi-lateral co-operation between European nations, as I was pleased to do with President Macron at last month’s UK-France Summit.

    It means building the ad hoc groupings which allow us to counter terrorism and hostile state threats, as we do through the 30 strong intergovernmental European Counter Terrorism Group – the largest of its kind in the world.

    It means ensuring that a reformed NATO alliance remains the cornerstone of our shared security.

    And, critically, it means both Europe and the United States reaffirming our resolve to the collective security of this continent, and to advancing the democratic values on which our interests are founded.

    Taken together, it is only by strengthening and deepening this full range of partnerships within Europe and beyond that we will be able to respond together to the evolving threats we face.

    So what does this mean for the future security partnership between the UK and the EU?

    We need a partnership that respects both the decision-making autonomy of the European Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

    This is fully achievable. The EU’s common foreign policy is distinct within the EU Treaties and our foreign policies will keep evolving. So, there is no reason why we should not agree distinct arrangements for our foreign and defence policy cooperation in the time-limited implementation period, as the Commission has proposed. This would mean that key aspects of our future partnership in this area would already be effective from 2019.

    We shouldn’t wait where we don’t need to. In turn, if the EU and its remaining Member States believe that the best means to increase the contribution Europe makes to our collective security is through deeper integration, then the UK will look to work with you. And help you to do so in a way which strengthens NATO and our wider alliances too, as EU leaders have repeatedly made clear.

    The partnership that we need to create is therefore one which offers the UK and the EU the means and choice to combine our efforts to the greatest effect – where this is in our shared interest.

    To put this into practice so that we meet the threats we all face today and build the capabilities we all need for tomorrow, there are three areas on which we should focus.

    First, at a diplomatic level, we should have the means to consult each other regularly on the global challenges we face, and coordinate how we use the levers we hold where our interests align.

    In particular, we will want to continue to work closely together on sanctions. We will look to carry over all EU sanctions at the time of our departure. And we will all be stronger if the UK and EU have the means to co-operate on sanctions now and potentially to develop them together in the future.

    Second, it is clearly in our shared interests to be able to continue to coordinate and deliver operationally on the ground.

    Of course, we will continue to work with and alongside each other.

    But where we can both be most effective by the UK deploying its significant capabilities and resources with and indeed through EU mechanisms – we should both be open to that.

    On defence, if the UK and EU’s interests can best be furthered by the UK continuing to contributing to an EU operation or mission as we do now, then we should both be open to that.

    And similarly, while the UK will decide how we spend the entirety of our foreign aid in the future, if a UK contribution to EU development programmes and instruments can best deliver our mutual interests, we should both be open to that.

    But if we are to choose to work together in these ways, the UK must be able to play an appropriate role in shaping our collective actions in these areas.

    Third, it will also be in our interests to continue working together on developing the capabilities – in defence, cyber and space – to meet future threats.

    The UK spends around 40 per cent of Europe’s total on defence R&D. This investment provides a sizeable stimulus to improve Europe’s competitiveness and capability. And this is to the benefit of us all.

    So an open and inclusive approach to European capability development – that fully enables British defence industry to participate – is in our strategic security interests, helping keep European citizens safe and Europe’s defence industries strong.

    And Eurofighter Typhoon is a great example of this – a partnership between the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain which has supported over 10,000 highly skilled jobs across Europe.

    This is also why the UK wants to agree a future relationship with the European Defence Fund and the European Defence Agency, so that jointly we can research and develop the best future capability that Europe can muster.

    Last year’s ‘NotPetya’ cyber-attack showed why we also need to work closely to defend our interests in cyber space.

    This reckless attack – which the UK and partners have attributed to Russia – disrupted organisations across Europe costing hundreds of millions of pounds.

    To contend with a truly global threat such as this we need a truly global response – with not only the UK and EU, but industry, government, like-minded states and NATO all working together to strengthen our cyber security capabilities.

    And as our lives move increasingly online, so we will also become increasingly reliant on space technologies. Space is a domain like any other where hostile actors will seek to threaten us.

    So we very much welcome the EU’s efforts to develop Europe’s capabilities in this field. We need to keep open all the options which will enable the UK and the EU to collaborate in the most effective way possible. The UK hosts much of Europe’s cutting edge capabilities on space and we have played a leading role, for example, in the development of the Galileo programme.

    We are keen for this to continue as part of our new partnership, but, as is the case more widely, we need to get the right agreements concluded which will allow the UK and its businesses to take part on a fair and open basis.

    Conclusion

    It was the tragic massacre at the 1972 Olympics here in Munich which subsequently inspired a British Foreign Secretary, Jim Callaghan, to propose an intergovernmental group aimed at co-ordinating European counter terrorism and policing.

    At the time this was outside the formal mechanisms of the European Community. But in time, it became the foundations for the co-operation that we have on Justice and Home Affairs today.

    Now, as then, we can – and must – think pragmatically and practically to create the arrangements that put the safety of our citizens first.

    For ours is a dynamic relationship, not a set of transactions.

    A relationship built on an unshakeable commitment to our shared values.

    A relationship in which we must all invest if we are to be responsive and adaptive to threats which will emerge perhaps more rapidly than any of us can imagine.

    A relationship in which we must all play our full part in keeping our continent safe and free, and reinvigorate the transatlantic alliance and rules based system on which our shared security depends.

    Those who threaten our security would like nothing more than to see us fractured.

    They would like nothing more than to see us put debates about mechanisms and means ahead of doing what is most practical and effective in keeping our people safe.

    So let the message ring out loud and clear today: we will not let that happen.

    We will together protect and project our values in the world – and we will keep our people safe – now and in the years to come.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Press Conference with Angela Merkel

    Below is the text of the press conference between Theresa May, the Prime Minister, and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, on 16 February 2018.

    Chancellor Merkel

    Ladies and gentlemen, we are delighted to be able to welcome the British Prime Minister Theresa May to Berlin today. She will go on and stand to participate in the Munich Security Conference. We have a very close exchange of views, both on Britain leaving the European Union, and on the international agenda, and our intensive cooperation on all global issues.

    We basically have not changed our stance on Britain’s leaving the European Union. We deplore it, but we want to adopt a constructive position because we want to have as close as possible a partnership with Britain even after leaving the European Union, both economically and politically. We were guided by this spirit when talking about leaving, when talking about the transition period, and in March, we will deal with the issue of the guidelines for our future relationship.

    For us as Germans, we would like to see a situation where we as 27 act together in these negotiations, but obviously bilateral talks are of prime importance in this particular phase and at this particular stage. All this is a process that is ongoing, we’re all developing our ideas about this, so we will very much look forward to Britain, again, setting out its ideas. The speech in Florence was a very important speech in this respect, and we will obviously follow very carefully what other statements will be made in the period leading up to the March Council. And then we will also try and coordinate very closely on the future guidelines as we work on them.

    We would like to initiate those negotiations because we are under a certain amount of time pressure, but obviously, we also want to be very diligent, very careful, in working on this, which means we will have frequent exchanges of views.

    Looking at global challenges, we talked about the nuclear agreement with Iran. There’s a very close coordination here, and also a common position of the European partners of Britain, therefore, also and of Germany. We also talked about Britain hosting this year the so-called Berlin Process, as a conference with the countries of the Western Balkans. I must say that I’m delighted to note that, irrespective of Britain leaving the European Union, this perspective of the Western Balkans is seen as a very important point also about Britain in order to ensure a peaceful order for the whole of Europe.

    We talked about Ukraine and the conflict there, and about how we can achieve progress there. And we also talked about Syria, we voiced our concerns about the situation there on the ground. Obviously, Turkey has a legitimate interest in ensuring its own security, but everything that can lead to tensions among NATO partners has to be avoided at all costs. And then we will coordinate very closely on this, as well. So, it was a very constructive talk guided by a spirit of friendship of partnership, so yet again, a very warm welcome to you, Theresa, here to Berlin.

    Prime Minister May

    It’s a pleasure to be in Berlin once again and I thank Chancellor Merkel for hosting these talks today. You may recall, she was the first Head of Government that I visited after becoming Prime Minister in 2016, I think underlining the importance of the relationship between our two countries.

    Our partnership is vital in defending our shared values and promoting our interests around the world. We are standing side-by-side in Eastern Europe as part of NATO efforts to reassure our allies and deter Russian aggression.

    Our Armed Forces are supporting the Iraqi Government to liberate territory in their brave fight against Daesh in the Middle East.

    And in areas such as global health, climate change, clean energy, UK-Germany cooperation has shaped the international agenda.

    Security

    In our talks today, we have discussed the speech I will give to the Munich security conference tomorrow, in which I will reiterate that the UK remains unconditionally committed to European security – and set out my vision for a unique new partnership between the EU and the UK on defence, information sharing, security and law enforcement.

    Because as the threats we face grow and evolve, our structures and capabilities must keep pace.

    Whether the challenge comes from North Korea’s attempts to nuclearise the Korean Peninsula or the Islamist terrorists that continue to seek to do us harm.

    We must work together and use all the levers at our disposal to keep people across Europe safe.

    Foreign policy

    On foreign policy, we already work very closely together.

    Today Chancellor Merkel and I have reaffirmed our commitment to the Iran nuclear deal and the need for full implementation by all sides that we made in October last year. And we agreed that as we continue to work to preserve the deal we also share US concerns about Iran’s destabilising activity in the Middle East.

    We stand ready to take further appropriate measures to tackle these issues.

    We also discussed the Western Balkans Conference, which I look forward to Chancellor Merkel attending in London in July.

    Prosperity and Brexit

    Of course, it is not only in defence of our shared values that the UK and Germany rely on one another.

    Trade between our nations secures and generates hundreds of thousands of jobs in both countries, with hard work, enterprise and innovation at its foundation.

    Our proud history of commerce goes back to at least the 12th century with the trade between the Hanseatic cities and English ports.

    And it is vital to people in both the UK and Germany that this shared tradition continues.

    And so we have referred in our discussions to the UK’s vision for a bold and ambitious economic partnership once the UK leaves the European Union.

    I want to ensure that UK companies have the maximum freedom to trade and operate within German markets – and for German businesses to do the same in the UK.

    Much progress has already been made in the Brexit negotiations and we both welcomed the agreement reached last December to secure rights for more than a hundred thousand German nationals in the UK and a similar number of UK citizens living here in Germany.

    We’re now ready to enter into the next phase of negotiations and our immediate goal is to agree a time-limited implementation period, with the latest round of talks between the UK and the Commission due to begin on Monday.

    Conclusion

    The UK and Germany’s shared history, values and culture make us vital partners and strong allies both bilaterally and through NATO, the G7 and the G20.

    And we will continue to work together to strengthen these ties for years and decades to come.

    Q&A

    Question: Prime Minister, do you understand your fellow leader’s frustration that 18 months after taking office, you’re still unable to say, beyond the words ‘deep and special’, or today, ‘bold and ambitious’, what Britain wants? Will you be able to tell Chancellor Merkel any more detail today, or must that continue to wait for your Cabinet colleagues to agree with one another?

    And Chancellor Merkel, did you again ask the Prime Minister, ‘What does Britain want?’ And did you learn anything today that you didn’t know yesterday?

    Prime Minister May: Well, first of all, we have been setting out – as I said right at the very beginning of this process, we will be setting out at different times the next sort of stage of the process. I’ve done that through the Lancaster House speech, through the Florence speech. Tomorrow, I’m going to be setting out our ambition for a security partnership between the UK and the European Union as we move forward, and we’ll be saying something in the coming weeks in relation to our future economic partnership.

    But what we’re doing – the stage we’re at is, first of all, ensuring that we agree the time-limited implementation period. This was a principle that was agreed in the December discussions, when sufficient progress was declared in that joint report. And then, of course, we go ahead to start the negotiations, to looking at that future economic partnership.

    But it isn’t just a one-way street: I think that’s what’s important. Actually, I want a future economic partnership that is good for the European Union, is good for Germany, is good for the other members of – remaining members of the European Union, and is good for the United Kingdom, and I believe that through the negotiations, we can achieve just that economic relationship, alongside us, obviously, ensuring we continue to have a good security partnership, too.

    Chancellor Merkel: Well, first of all, let me say that I’m not frustrated at all; I’m just curious how Britain envisages this future partnership, and obviously, we’ll also have our own vested interests, as regards, for example, economic commitments. We would like to preserve this close partnership, and maybe both sides, in a way, are in a process of learning, of trying to find out where we find common ground. For this, what we need is a permanent exchange, because we sometimes don’t know how our opposite number is seeing things, and I think that this is a very candid exchange that we’ve had. We will need to have further exchanges, but frustration doesn’t at all describe it appropriately.

    Question: Two questions, madam Chancellor. This is already your fourth press conference with an international guest within 24 hours, so does that mean that you are back on international stage and are trying to make a mark after a period of absence, so to speak? And what does this mean for the Brexit negotiations of your being back on the international stage being more visible? That’s my question addressed to you.

    And a question addressed to the Prime Minister in very concrete terms, particularly as regards to German business community, there is a very great concern that has been voiced because there’s a high degree of uncertainty. Could you say how you want to ensure German companies in future being able to trade freely with Britain and also vice versa? Particularly in financial industry there seem to be many open issues yet. Can you say anything in more concrete terms yet?

    Chancellor Merkel: Well, there are always, let’s say, intervals, not only now. As you know, with the former government, I had international visits, for example, the EU Africa conference or Davos. I’ve had obviously also appearances there, but when you are in coalition agreements and things – things come to sort of a head, then obviously you cannot host a foreign guest.

    But obviously the Brexit negotiations are something that we follow very closely. Even as acting government we are in contact with those who lead those negotiations. Parliament, too, is interested. We want to be an active partner. We don’t want to delay matters. We’ve always been guided by this spirit and I think we’ve been able to do this.

    Prime Minister May: I’ll take the second question. Of course the point is we’re entering negotiations with the European Union, which will determine in detail the nature of that future relationship, but as I’ve said earlier, I think it is absolutely clear that that partnership, that economic partnership, will be one and can be one that will be of benefit both to German businesses that want to continue to operate and trade with the United Kingdom, and the UK business that want to continue to trade and cooperate with Germany and with other members of the remaining EU 27.

    And what we’re looking at is, I believe, a comprehensive and ambitious partnership. One that isn’t based on an existing model, but one that actually recognises the different position of the United Kingdom as we leave the European Union, recognises the close ties we already have and recognises the importance of those trade links and those businesses cooperating that will have been – you referred to from Germany – German companies. That obviously is also important to UK companies as well.

    Question: Prime Minister, you say that this is a two-way process. Do you accept, though, that it is for the British government to set out what its plans are and not for the EU to make you an offer?

    And to the Chancellor, what the Prime Minister just said is that she wants a negotiation that is not based on any current models. Is that not cherry picking, and do you think you can accept something that is bespoke in that way?

    Prime Minister: On the first question, the point of negotiations is two parties sit down and talk about these issues and come to an agreement about those issues. As I said in – earlier in answer to the first question, we have, at different stages, set out and clarified different aspects of the future relationship that we want to have with the European Union. Tomorrow I’ll be doing that very clearly in relation to the security partnership. And that again will be a new arrangement.

    I think that’s important because we’re all facing the same challenges and threats, and now is not the time for us to reduce cooperation. Now is the time for us to look to see how we can develop on the existing cooperation in a way that’s going to be dynamic and agile for the future. Because as the threats evolve, as they grow, they don’t recognise borders, so we need to continue that cooperation and be able to adapt to the threats as they come. So I’ll be setting out tomorrow in more detail what I think that security partnership should look like.

    Chancellor Merkel: Well, it’s not absolutely – it is not absolutely a given that a situation that is already known and is not yet a traditional, a classical trade agreement means cherry picking. In the end, the outcome needs to be a fair balance that deviates, let’s say, from the single market and not as close a partnership as we’ve had, but I think one can find that. And we, as 27, will be very carefully vetting that process and see to it that it is as close as possible, but that it’s a difference to the current – to what currently Britain has as a member, which is what they want, and what the British people want. But this does not need – this does not mean that it needs to be cherry picking.

    Question: Madam Chancellor, can you tell us what, for you, the two or three remaining most difficult bones of contentions are on the Brexit negotiations? And Mr Yıldırım yesterday actually on – handed over an invitation on behalf of President Erdoğan, and has this already met with a concrete answer?

    And Prime Minister, Ireland is obviously a very tricky as regards Brexit. The Irish do not want – there is not to be a hard border, but at the same time you wish to leave the single market. So how does one shape this border in an acceptable way?

    Chancellor Merkel: You first question was, sorry? Oh, the bones of contention. Well, what’s important is that on the day after the transition period has ended, all of those different areas actually work properly, so we have to be very careful that we have the right rules and regulations in place, for example to enable tourists to meet, their planes can start, that we have proper healthcare systems in place. All of that has to be settled. And then we have to think of trade relations and services relations. Where does Britain want to participate and where not? All of that will come out in the course of those negotiations, so there is not this one single crux of the matter, this one single bone of contention. It’s a very complex structure of negotiations, and we need to come to a fairly balanced approach for both sides. That’s what I intend, at least.

    And on the visit to Turkey, I have taken note of this invitation. I also talked to President Erdoğan on the – about possible visits to Turkey, or perhaps the Turkish President coming here. But we haven’t made any specific sort of decision on this.

    Prime Minister May: On the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the Irish government, the UK government and the people of Northern Ireland are all clear that there will be no hard border. When we came to the agreement of the Joint Report with the European Commission in December, which was the basis for the agreement that sufficient progress had been made to move to the next stage of the talks, we set out various ways in which that could be addressed. As the Taoiseach said on Monday, the preference is for that to be done – the arrangement to be part of the overall agreement that the UK will have with the European Union. That is looking at that new partnership where there will be a new balance of rights and obligations that we have to – will be discussing through the next stage of the negotiations.

  • Jean-Claude Juncker – 2016 State of the Union Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, on 14 September 2016 in Brussels, Belgium.

    Mr President,

    Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

    I stood here a year ago and I told you that the State of our Union was not good. I told you that there is not enough Europe in this Union. And that there is not enough Union in this Union.

    I am not going to stand here today and tell you that everything is now fine.

    It is not.

    Let us all be very honest in our diagnosis.

    Our European Union is, at least in part, in an existential crisis.

    Over the summer, I listened carefully to Members of this Parliament, to government representatives, to many national Parliamentarians and to the ordinary Europeans who shared their thoughts with me.

    I have witnessed several decades of EU integration. There were many strong moments. Of course, there were many difficult times too, and times of crisis.

    But never before have I seen such little common ground between our Member States. So few areas where they agree to work together.

    Never before have I heard so many leaders speak only of their domestic problems, with Europe mentioned only in passing, if at all.

    Never before have I seen representatives of the EU institutions setting very different priorities, sometimes in direct opposition to national governments and national Parliaments. It is as if there is almost no intersection between the EU and its national capitals anymore.

    Never before have I seen national governments so weakened by the forces of populism and paralysed by the risk of defeat in the next elections.

    Never before have I seen so much fragmentation, and so little commonality in our Union.

    We now have a very important choice to make.

    Do we give in to a very natural feeling of frustration? Do we allow ourselves to become collectively depressed? Do we want to let our Union unravel before our eyes?

    Or do we say: Is this not the time to pull ourselves together? Is this not the time to roll up our sleeves and double, triple our efforts? Is this not the time when Europe needs more determined leadership than ever, rather than politicians abandoning ship?

    Our reflections on the State of the Union must start with a sense of realism and with great honesty.

    First of all, we should admit that we have many unresolved problems in Europe. There can be no doubt about this.

    From high unemployment and social inequality, to mountains of public debt, to the huge challenge of integrating refugees, to the very real threats to our security at home and abroad – every one of Europe’s Member States has been affected by the continuing crises of our times.

    We are even faced with the unhappy prospect of a member leaving our ranks.

    Secondly, we should be aware that the world is watching us.

    I just came back from the G20 meeting in China. Europe occupies 7 chairs at the table of this important global gathering. Despite our big presence, there were more questions than we had common answers to.

    Will Europe still be able to conclude trade deals and shape economic, social and environmental standards for the world?

    Will Europe’s economy finally recover or be stuck in low growth and low inflation for the next decade?

    Will Europe still be a world leader when it comes to the fight for human rights and fundamental values?

    Will Europe speak up, with one voice, when territorial integrity is under threat, in violation of international law?

    Or will Europe disappear from the international scene and leave it to others to shape the world?

    I know that you here in this House would be only too willing to give clear answers to these questions. But we need our words to be followed by joint action. Otherwise, they will be just that: words. And with words alone, you cannot shape international affairs.

    Thirdly, we should recognise that we cannot solve all our problems with one more speech. Or with one more summit.

    This is not the United States of America, where the President gives a State of the Union speech to both Houses of Congress, and millions of citizens follow his every word, live on television.

    In comparison to this, our State of the Union moment here in Europe shows very visibly the incomplete nature of our Union. I am speaking today in front of the European Parliament. And separately, on Friday, I will meet with the national leaders in Bratislava.

    So my speech can not only compete for your applause, ignoring what national leaders will say on Friday. I also cannot go to Bratislava with a different message than I have for you. I have to take into account both levels of democracy of our Union, which are both equally important.

    We are not the United States of Europe. Our European Union is much more complex. And ignoring this complexity would be a mistake that would lead us to the wrong solutions.

    Europe can only work if speeches supporting our common project are not only delivered in this honourable House, but also in the Parliaments of all our Member States.

    Europe can only work if we all work for unity and commonality, and forget the rivalry between competences and institutions. Only then will Europe be more than the sum of its parts. And only then can Europe be stronger and better than it is today. Only then will leaders of the EU institutions and national governments be able to regain the trust of Europe’s citizens in our common project.

    Because Europeans are tired of the endless disputes, quarrels and bickering.

    Europeans want concrete solutions to the very pertinent problem that our Union is facing. And they want more than promises, resolutions and summit conclusions. They have heard and seen these too often.

    Europeans want common decisions followed by swift and efficient implementation.

    Yes, we need a vision for the long term. And the Commission will set out such a vision for the future in a White Paper in March 2017, in time for the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome. We will address how to strengthen and reform our Economic and Monetary Union. And we will also take into account the political and democratic challenges our Union of 27 will be facing in the future. And of course, the European Parliament will be closely involved in this process, as will national Parliaments.

    But a vision alone will not suffice. What our citizens need much more is that someone governs. That someone responds to the challenges of our time.

    Europe is a cord of many strands – it only works when we are all pulling in the same direction: EU institutions, national governments and national Parliaments alike. And we have to show again that this is possible, in a selected number of areas where common solutions are most urgent.

    I am therefore proposing a positive agenda of concrete European actions for the next twelve months.

    Because I believe the next twelve months are decisive if we want to reunite our Union. If we want to overcome the tragic divisions between East and West which have opened up in recent months. If we want to show that we can be fast and decisive on the things that really matter. If we want to show to the world that Europe is still a force capable of joint action.

    We have to get to work.

    I sent a letter with this message to President Schulz and Prime Minister Fico this morning.

    The next twelve months are the crucial time to deliver a better Europe:

    a Europe that protects;

    a Europe that preserves the European way of life;

    a Europe that empowers our citizens,

    a Europe that defends at home and abroad; and

    a Europe that takes responsibility.

    A EUROPE THAT PRESERVES OUR WAY OF LIFE

    I am convinced the European way of life is something worth preserving.

    I have the impression that many seem to have forgotten what being European means.

    What it means to be part of this Union of Europeans – what it is the farmer in Lithuania has in common with the single mother in Zagreb, the nurse in Valetta or the student in Maastricht.

    To remember why Europe’s nations chose to work together.

    To remember why crowds celebrated solidarity in the streets of Warsaw on 1 May 2004.

    To remember why the European flag waved proudly in Puerta del Sol on 1 January 1986.

    To remember that Europe is a driving force that can help bring about the unification of Cyprus – something I am supporting the two leaders of Cyprus in.

    Above all, Europe means peace. It is no coincidence that the longest period of peace in written history in Europe started with the formation of the European Communities.

    70 years of lasting peace in Europe. In a world with 40 active armed conflicts, which claim the lives of 170,000 people every year.

    Of course we still have our differences. Yes, we often have controversy. Sometimes we fight. But we fight with words. And we settle our conflicts around the table, not in trenches.

    An integral part of our European way of life is our values.

    The values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law. Values fought for on battlefields and soapboxes over centuries.

    We Europeans can never accept Polish workers being harassed, beaten up or even murdered on the streets of Harlow. The free movement of workers is as much a common European value as our fight against discrimination and racism.

    We Europeans stand firmly against the death penalty. Because we believe in and respect the value of human life.

    We Europeans also believe in independent, effective justice systems. Independent courts keep governments, companies and people in check. Effective justice systems support economic growth and defend fundamental rights. That is why Europe promotes and defends the rule of law.

    Being European also means being open and trading with our neighbours, instead of going to war with them. It means being the world’s biggest trading bloc, with trade agreements in place or under negotiation with over 140 partners across the globe.

    And trade means jobs – for every €1 billion we get in exports, 14,000 extra jobs are created across the EU. And more than 30 million jobs, 1 in 7 of all jobs in the EU, now depend on exports to the rest of the world.

    That is why Europe is working to open up markets with Canada – one of our closest partners and one which shares our interests, our values, our respect for the rule of law and our understanding of cultural diversity. The EU-Canada trade agreement is the best and most progressive deal the EU has ever negotiated. And I will work with you and with all Member States to see this agreement ratified as soon as possible.

    Being European means the right to have your personal data protected by strong, European laws. Because Europeans do not like drones overhead recording their every move, or companies stockpiling their every mouse click. This is why Parliament, Council and Commission agreed in May this year a common European Data Protection Regulation. This is a strong European law that applies to companies wherever they are based and whenever they are processing your data. Because in Europe, privacy matters. This is a question of human dignity.

    Being European also means a fair playing field.

    This means that workers should get the same pay for the same work in the same place. This is a question of social justice. And this is why the Commission stands behind our proposal on the Posting of Workers Directive. The internal market is not a place where Eastern European workers can be exploited or subjected to lower social standards. Europe is not the Wild West, but a social market economy.

    A fair playing field also means that in Europe, consumers are protected against cartels and abuses by powerful companies. And that every company, no matter how big or small, has to pay its taxes where it makes its profits. This goes for giants like Apple too, even if their market value is higher than the GDP of 165 countries in the world. In Europe we do not accept powerful companies getting illegal backroom deals on their taxes.

    The level of taxation in a country like Ireland is not our issue. Ireland has the sovereign right to set the tax level wherever it wants. But it is not right that one company can evade taxes that could have gone to Irish families and businesses, hospitals and schools. The Commission watches over this fairness. This is the social side of competition law. And this is what Europe stands for.

    Being European also means a culture that protects our workers and our industries in an increasingly globalised world. Like the thousands who risk losing their jobs in Gosselies in Belgium – it is thanks to EU legislation that the company will now need to engage in a true social dialogue. And workers and local authorities can count on European solidarity and the help of EU funds.

    Being European also means standing up for our steel industry. We already have 37 anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures in place to protect our steel industry from unfair competition. But we need to do more, as overproduction in some parts of the world is putting European producers out of business. This is why I was in China twice this year to address the issue of overcapacity. This is also why the Commission has proposed to change the lesser duty rule. The United States imposes a 265% import tariff on Chinese steel, but here in Europe, some governments have for years insisted we reduce tariffs on Chinese steel. I call on all Member States and on this Parliament to support the Commission in strengthening our trade defence instruments. We should not be naïve free traders, but be able to respond as forcefully to dumping as the United States.

    A strong part of our European way of life that I want to preserve is our agricultural sector. The Commission will always stand by our farmers, particularly when they go through difficult moments as is the case today. Last year, the dairy sector was hit with a ban imposed by Russia. This is why the Commission mobilised €1 billion in support of milk farmers to help them get back on their feet. Because I will not accept that milk is cheaper than water.

    Being European, for most of us, also means the euro. During the global financial crisis, the euro stayed strong and protected us from even worse instability. The euro is a leading world currency, and it brings huge, often invisible economic benefits. Euro area countries saved €50 billion this year in interest payments, thanks to the European Central Bank’s monetary policy. €50 billion extra that our finance ministers can and should invest into the economy.

    Mario Draghi is preserving the stability of our currency. And he is making a stronger contribution to jobs and growth than many of our Member States.

    Yes, we Europeans suffered under a historic financial and debt crisis. But the truth is that while public deficits stood at 6.3% on average in the euro area in 2009, today they are below 2%.

    Over the last three years, almost 8 million more people found a job. 1 million in Spain alone, a country which continues to show an impressive recovery from the crisis.

    I wish all this was recalled more often – everywhere in Europe where elected politicians take the floor.

    Because in our incomplete Union, there is no European leadership that can substitute national leadership.

    European nations have to defend the rationale for unity. No one can do it for them.

    They can.

    We can be united even though we are diverse.

    The great, democratic nations of Europe must not bend to the winds of populism.

    Europe must not cower in the face of terrorism.

    No – Member States must build a Europe that protects. And we, the European institutions, must help them deliver this promise.

    A EUROPE THAT EMPOWERS

    The European Union should not only preserve our European way of life but empower those living it.

    We need to work for a Europe that empowers our citizens and our economy. And today, both have gone digital.

    Digital technologies and digital communications are permeating every aspect of life.

    All they require is access to high-speed internet. We need to be connected. Our economy needs it. People need it.

    And we have to invest in that connectivity now.

    That is why today, the Commission is proposing a reform for our European telecommunications markets. We want to create a new legal framework that attracts and enables investments in connectivity.

    Businesses should be able to plan their investments in Europe for the next 20 years. Because if we invest in new networks and services, that is at least 1.3 million new jobs over the next decade.

    Connectivity should benefit everyone.

    That is why today the Commission is proposing to fully deploy 5G, the fifth generation of mobile communication systems, across the European Union by 2025. This has the potential to create a further two million jobs in the EU.

    Everyone benefiting from connectivity means that it should not matter where you live or how much you earn.

    So we propose today to equip every European village and every city with free wireless internet access around the main centres of public life by 2020.

    As the world goes digital, we also have to empower our artists and creators and protect their works.Artists and creators are our crown jewels. The creation of content is not a hobby. It is a profession. And it is part of our European culture.

    I want journalists, publishers and authors to be paid fairly for their work, whether it is made in studios or living rooms, whether it is disseminated offline or online, whether it is published via a copying machine or hyperlinked on the web.

    The overhaul of Europe’s copyright rules we are proposing today does exactly that.

    Empowering our economy means investing not just in connectivity, but in job creation.

    That is why Europe must invest strongly in its youth, in its jobseekers, in its start-ups.

    The €315 billion Investment Plan for Europe, which we agreed together here in this House just twelve months ago, has already raised €116 billion in investments – from Latvia to Luxembourg – in its first year of operation.

    Over 200,000 small firms and start-ups across Europe got loans. And over 100,000 people got new jobs. Thanks to the new European Fund for Strategic Investments I proposed, my Commission developed, and you here in the European Parliament supported and adopted in record time.

    And now we will take it further. Today, we propose to double the duration of the Fund and double its financial capacity.

    With your support, we will make sure that our European Investment Fund will provide a total of at least €500 billion – half a trillion – of investments by 2020. And we will work beyond that to reach €630 billion by 2022. Of course, with Member States contributing, we can get there even faster.

    Alongside these efforts to attract private investment, we also need to create the right environment to invest in.

    European banks are in much better shape than two years ago, thanks to our joint European efforts. Europe needs its banks. But an economy almost entirely dependent on bank credit is bad for financial stability. It is also bad for business, as we saw during the financial crisis. That is why it is now urgent we accelerate our work on the Capital Markets Union. The Commission is putting a concrete roadmap for this on your table today.

    A Capital Markets Union will make our financial system more resilient. It will give companies easier and more diversified access to finance. Imagine a Finnish start-up that cannot get a bank loan. Right now, the options are very limited. The Capital Markets Union will offer alternative, vital sources of funding to help start-ups get started – business angels, venture capital, market financing.

    To just mention one example – almost a year ago we put a proposal on the table that will make it easier for banks to provide loans. It has the potential of freeing up €100 billion of additional finance for EU businesses. So let us please speed up its adoption.

    Our European Investment Plan worked better than anyone expected inside Europe, and now we are going to take it global. Something many of you and many Member States have called for.

    Today we are launching an ambitious Investment Plan for Africa and the Neighbourhood which has the potential to raise €44 billion in investments. It can go up to €88 billion if Member States pitch in.

    The logic is the same that worked well for the internal Investment Plan: we will be using public funding as a guarantee to attract public and private investment to create real jobs.

    This will complement our development aid and help address one of the root causes of migration. With economic growth in developing countries at its lowest level since 2003, this is crucial. The new Plan will offer lifelines for those who would otherwise be pushed to take dangerous journeys in search of a better life.

    As much as we invest in improving conditions abroad, we also need to invest in responding to humanitarian crises back home. And, more than anything, we need to invest in our young people.

    I cannot and will not accept that Europe is and remains the continent of youth unemployment.

    I cannot and will not accept that the millennials, Generation Y, might be the first generation in 70 years to be poorer than their parents.

    Of course, this is mainly a task of national governments. But the European Union can support their efforts. We are doing this with the EU Youth Guarantee that was launched three years ago. My Commission enhanced the effectiveness and sped up delivery of the Youth Guarantee. More than 9 million young people have already benefitted from this programme. That is 9 million young people who got a job, traineeship or apprenticeship because of the EU. And we will continue to roll out the Youth Guarantee across Europe, improving the skillset of Europeans and reaching out to the regions and young people most in need.

    The European Union can also contribute by helping create more opportunities for young people.

    There are many young, socially-minded people in Europe willing to make a meaningful contribution to society and help show solidarity.

    Solidarity is the glue that keeps our Union together.

    The word solidarity appears 16 times in the Treaties which all our Member States agreed and ratified.

    Our European budget is living proof of financial solidarity.

    There is impressive solidarity when it comes to jointly applying European sanctions when Russia violates international law.

    The euro is an expression of solidarity.

    Our development policy is a strong external sign of solidarity.

    And when it comes to managing the refugee crisis, we have started to see solidarity. I am convinced much more solidarity is needed. But I also know that solidarity must be given voluntarily. It must come from the heart. It cannot be forced.

    We often show solidarity most readily when faced with emergencies.

    When the Portuguese hills were burning, Italian planes doused the flames.

    When floods cut off the power in Romania, Swedish generators turned the lights back on.

    When thousands of refugees arrived on Greek shores, Slovakian tents provided shelter.

    In the same spirit, the Commission is proposing today to set up a European Solidarity Corps. Young people across the EU will be able to volunteer their help where it is needed most, to respond to crisis situations, like the refugee crisis or the recent earthquakes in Italy.

    I want this European Solidarity Corps up and running by the end of the year. And by 2020, to see the first 100,000 young Europeans taking part.

    By voluntarily joining the European Solidarity Corps, these young people will be able to develop their skills and get not only work but also invaluable human experience.

    A EUROPE THAT DEFENDS

    A Europe that protects is a Europe that defends – at home and abroad.

    We must defend ourselves against terrorism.

    Since the Madrid bombing of 2004, there have been more than 30 terrorist attacks in Europe – 14 in the last year alone. More than 600 innocent people died in cities like Paris, Brussels, Nice, or Ansbach.

    Just as we have stood shoulder to shoulder in grief, so must we stand united in our response.

    The barbaric acts of the past year have shown us again what we are fighting for – the European way of life. In face of the worst of humanity we have to stay true to our values, to ourselves. And what we are is democratic societies, plural societies, open and tolerant.

    But that tolerance cannot come at the price of our security.

    That is why my Commission has prioritised security from day one – we criminalised terrorism and foreign fighters across the EU, we cracked down on the use of firearms and on terrorist financing, we worked with internet companies to get terrorist propaganda offline and we fought radicalisation in Europe’s schools and prisons.

    But there is more to be done.

    We need to know who is crossing our borders.

    That is why we will defend our borders with the new European Border and Coast Guard, which is now being formalised by Parliament and Council, just nine months after the Commission proposed it. Frontex already has over 600 agents on the ground at the borders with Turkey in Greece and over 100 in Bulgaria. Now, the EU institutions and the Member States should work very closely together to quickly help set up the new Agency. I want to see at least 200 extra border guards and 50 extra vehicles deployed at the Bulgarian external borders as of October.

    We will defend our borders, as well, with strict controls, adopted by the end of the year, on everyone crossing them. Every time someone enters or exits the EU, there will be a record of when, where and why.

    By November, we will propose a European Travel Information System – an automated system to determine who will be allowed to travel to Europe. This way we will know who is travelling to Europe before they even get here.

    And we all need that information. How many times have we heard stories over the last months that the information existed in one database in one country, but it never found its way to the authority in another that could have made the difference?

    Border security also means that information and intelligence exchange must be prioritised. For this, we will reinforce Europol – our European agency supporting national law enforcement – by giving it better access to databases and more resources. A counter terrorism unit that currently has a staff of 60 cannot provide the necessary 24/7 support.

    A Europe that protects also defends our interests beyond our borders.

    The facts are plain: The world is getting bigger. And we are getting smaller.

    Today we Europeans make up 8% of the world population – we will only represent 5% in 2050. By then you would not see a single EU country among the top world economies. But the EU together? We would still be topping the charts.

    Our enemies would like us to fragment.

    Our competitors would benefit from our division.

    Only together are we and will we remain a force to be reckoned with.

    Still, even though Europe is proud to be a soft power of global importance, we must not be naïve. Soft power is not enough in our increasingly dangerous neighbourhood.

    Take the brutal fight over Syria. Its consequences for Europe are immediate. Attacks in our cities by terrorists trained in Daesh camps. But where is the Union, where are its Member States, in negotiations towards a settlement?

    Federica Mogherini, our High Representative and my Vice-President, is doing a fantastic job. But she needs to become our European Foreign Minister via whom all diplomatic services, of big and small countries alike, pool their forces to achieve leverage in international negotiations. This is why I call today for a European Strategy for Syria. Federica should have a seat at the table when the future of Syria is being discussed. So that Europe can help rebuild a peaceful Syrian nation and a pluralistic, tolerant civil society in Syria.

    Europe needs to toughen up. Nowhere is this truer than in our defence policy.

    Europe can no longer afford to piggy-back on the military might of others or let France alone defend its honour in Mali.

    We have to take responsibility for protecting our interests and the European way of life.

    Over the last decade, we have engaged in over 30 civilian and military EU missions from Africa to Afghanistan. But without a permanent structure we cannot act effectively. Urgent operations are delayed. We have separate headquarters for parallel missions, even when they happen in the same country or city. It is time we had a single headquarters for these operations.

    We should also move towards common military assets, in some cases owned by the EU. And, of course, in full complementarity with NATO.

    The business case is clear. The lack of cooperation in defence matters costs Europe between €25 billion and €100 billion per year, depending on the areas concerned. We could use that money for so much more.

    It can be done. We are building a multinational fleet of air tankers. Let’s replicate this example.

    For European defence to be strong, the European defence industry needs to innovate. That is why we will propose before the end of the year a European Defence Fund, to turbo boost research and innovation.

    The Lisbon Treaty enables those Member States who wish, to pool their defence capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation. I think the time to make use of this possibility is now. And I hope that our meeting at 27 in Bratislava a few days from now will be the first, political step in that direction.

    Because it is only by working together that Europe will be able to defend itself at home and abroad.

    A EUROPE THAT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY

    The last point I want to make is about responsibility. About taking responsibility for building this Europe that protects.

    I call on all EU institutions and on all of our Member States to take responsibility.

    We have to stop with the same old story that success is national, and failure European. Or our common project will not survive.

    We need to remember the sense of purpose of our Union. I therefore call on each of the 27 leaders making their way to Bratislava to think of three reasons why we need the European Union. Three things they are willing to take responsibility for defending. And that they are willing to deliver swiftly afterwards.

    Slow delivery on promises made is a phenomenon that more and more risks undermining the Union’s credibility. Take the Paris agreement. We Europeans are the world leaders on climate action. It was Europe that brokered the first-ever legally binding, global climate deal. It was Europe that built the coalition of ambition that made agreement in Paris possible. But Europe is now struggling to show the way and be amongst the first to ratify our agreement. Only France, Austria and Hungary have ratified it so far.

    I call on all Member States and on this Parliament to do your part in the next weeks, not months. We should be faster. Let’s get the Paris agreement ratified now. It can be done. It is a question of political will. And it is about Europe’s global influence.

    The European institutions too, have to take responsibility.

    I have asked each of my Commissioners to be ready to discuss, in the next two weeks, the State of our Union in the national Parliaments of the countries they each know best. Since the beginning of my mandate, my Commissioners have made over 350 visits to national Parliaments. And I want them to do this even more now. Because Europe can only be built with the Member States, never against them.

    We also have to take responsibility in recognising when some decisions are not for us to take. It is not right that when EU countries cannot decide among themselves whether or not to ban the use of glyphosate in herbicides, the Commission is forced by Parliament and Council to take a decision.

    So we will change those rules – because that is not democracy.

    The Commission has to take responsibility by being political, and not technocratic.

    A political Commission is one that listens to the European Parliament, listens to all Member States, and listens to the people.

    And it is us listening that motivated my Commission to withdraw 100 proposals in our first two years of office, to present 80% fewer initiatives than over the past 5 years and to launch a thorough review of all existing legislation. Because only by focusing on where Europe can provide real added value and deliver results, we will be able to make Europe a better, more trusted place.

    Being political also means correcting technocratic mistakes immediately when they happen. The Commission, the Parliament and the Council have jointly decided to abolish mobile roaming charges. This is a promise we will deliver. Not just for business travellers who go abroad for two days. Not only for the holiday maker who spends two weeks in the sun. But for our cross-border workers. And for the millions of Erasmus students who spend their studies abroad for one or two semesters. I have therefore withdrawn a draft that a well-meaning official designed over the summer. The draft was not technically wrong. But it missed the point of what was promised. And you will see a new, better draft as of next week. When you roam, it should be like at home.

    Being political is also what allows us to implement the Stability and Growth Pact with common sense. The Pact’s creation was influenced by theory. Its application has become a doctrine for many. And today, the Pact is a dogma for some. In theory, a single decimal point over 60 percent in a country’s debt should be punished. But in reality, you have to look at the reasons for debt. We should try to support and not punish ongoing reform efforts. For this we need responsible politicians. And we will continue to apply the Pact not in a dogmatic manner, but with common sense and with the flexibility that we wisely built into the rules.

    Finally, taking responsibility also means holding ourselves accountable to voters. That is why we will propose to change the absurd rule that Commissioners have to step down from their functions when they want to run in European elections. The German Chancellor, the Czech, Danish or Estonian, Prime Minister do not stop doing their jobs when they run for re-election. Neither should Commissioners. If we want a Commission that responds to the needs of the real world, we should encourage Commissioners to seek the necessary rendez-vous with democracy. And not prevent this.

    CONCLUSION

    Honourable Members,

    I am as young as the European project that turns 60 next years in March 2017.

    I have lived it, worked for it, my whole life.

    My father believed in Europe because he believed in stability, workers’ rights and social progress.

    Because he understood all too well that peace in Europe was precious – and fragile.

    I believe in Europe because my father taught me those same values.

    But what are we teaching our children now? What will they inherit from us? A Union that unravels in disunity? A Union that has forgotten its past and has no vision for the future?

    Our children deserve better.

    They deserve a Europe that preserves their way of life.

    They deserve a Europe that empowers and defends them.

    They deserve a Europe that protects.

    It is time we – the institutions, the governments, the citizens – all took responsibility for building that Europe. Together.

  • Michel Barnier – 2017 Statement on Article 50 Negotiations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michel Barnier, the European Chief Negotiator on Brexit, in Strasbourg, France on 17 December 2017.

    Thank you President,

    Thanks to Frans, and to you too, for allowing me to speak at the beginning of your plenary session on the extraordinary negotiation with the United Kingdom and on the first result we reached last Friday.

    This is an important step – and there will be many steps to take – but this agreement is important because, with the joint, detailed report – 96 paragraphs, 15 pages – we are first dealing with the difficult subjects of the separation that the United Kingdom wanted.

    And if the European Council so wishes, taking into account your own resolution, this first step will allow us to move forward with the negotiations in a calmer manner.

    We emphasise also the stability of our continent in a world which is, as we all know, uncertain. Our Union should be able to find rational solutions with the United Kingdom and should therefore, at the same time, be able to concentrate its energy on the initiatives and challenges which we face together, as Frans Timmermans has mentioned, on behalf of the European Commission.

    And we also send a message of confidence to a lot of people, a lot of stakeholders, and a lot of citizens who are worried, even distressed, following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

    In this negotiation, our state of mind has never been to make mutual concessions.

    This is not about making concessions on citizens’ rights. This is not about making concessions on the peace process or stability on the island of Ireland. Nor is it about making concessions on the thousands of investment projects which are financed by EU policy and the EU budget.

    I know that this point has always been shared by the Parliament and the Council. We owe a lot – I must admit – to the permanent cooperation we have with the Council, and the Member States for the agreement reached on Friday. We owe a lot, Members of Parliament, to your permanent and rigorous support.

    And I would like to thank you, President Tajani, and to sincerely thank your coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, the members of the Brexit Steering Group, Elmar Brok, Roberto Gualtieri, Danuta Huebner, Gabriele Zimmer and Philippe Lamberts, the presidents of the political groups and also the committee chairs.

    Members of Parliament,

    Before turning to the main points of our agreement, I want to recall that the objective that you and the European Council gave me last April was to obtain sufficient progress, on an objective basis. That does not mean 100% progress, but real sufficient progress, precise sufficient progress, which commits and forms a solid basis for the next stage in the negotiations. And this was the positive assessment that the Commission and President Juncker gave to the Joint Report.

    The political commitments made at the highest level on Friday – and which we translated precisely in the Joint Report – appear to me, in my full responsibility, to fulfil these conditions.

    I want to be clear on this point: never, ever, would I have presented this Joint Report as Chief Negotiator if we did not take note of real progress with the UK:

    o To secure citizens and their rights;

    o To secure beneficiaries of investments financed by the EU budget;

    o To secure the peace process on the island of Ireland and the conditions of North-South cooperation.

    We will never accept any backtracking on this Joint Report. This progress has now been recorded. It will have to be quickly converted into a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement on each of our three subjects, as well as on other issues which remain to be negotiated or clarified.

    This is one of the conditions for the continuation of the negotiations.

    * *

    At the beginning of this plenary debate, I want to focus principally on the subject that has been our common priority since day one: citizens’ rights.

    4.5 million European citizens, whom you represent, decided to live on either side of the Channel, on the basis of EU law on the free movement of people.

    Our Joint Report preserves their rights.

    It guarantees that European citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU before the date of the UK’s withdrawal will be able to continue living as they do today, with the same guarantees of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality – for their entire life.

    This means, for example, that an EU citizen or a UK citizen who decided to live on the other side of the Channel can continue residing there after Brexit. This right of residence will be even wider than it is today. If a citizen decides to leave his/her host country, he/she can be absent for a period of 5 years, rather than only 2 years, as is the rule today.

    A British student in one of the EU Member States will not be affected by Brexit: she will be able to continue studying and paying the same tuition fees as the citizens in the host state. She can even work there after her studies. That goes the same for European students in the UK.

    Nurses or doctors working before Brexit can continue to work in their host countries. Their professional qualifications will continue to be recognised, just like in other professions.

    Family members will maintain their reunification rights in the future after Brexit, in the UK or in the EU. All children will be protected, even those who will be born after Brexit.

    Citizens will maintain their rights to healthcare, pensions and other social security benefits, even if they leave their host country to live in another EU country. The same goes for the portability of family allowances, which was debated right up until the last moment.

    I also want to be clear on the application of these rights:

    o The Withdrawal Agrement will take precedence over national law – whether it is British, French, Slovak or Maltese;

    o The guarantees in the Withdrawal Agreement will have direct effect, for the duration of the lifetime of the people concerned;

    o There will be no ambiguity in the interpretation of the rights on either side of the Channel: current ECJ case law will be part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and future case law will apply. British courts will have to take “due regard” of case law for the lifetimes of the citizens concerned.

    o And finally, the British authorities will create an independent authority to which European citizens can have recourse in the United Kingdom, in the same way as British citizens in the EU can have recourse to the European Commission. The details of this independent authority will be included in the Withdrawal Agreement.

    For all the European citizens – 3.5 million people – living and working in the United Kingdom, there is another problem – the UK’s registration procedures. It seems to me – and I know how sensitive you are on this point – that the administrative procedure will be practical and necessary to allow citizens to effectively exercise their rights.

    But we have ensured that, as outlined in the Joint Report, the conditions for the administrative procedures will be included in the Withdrawal Agreement with the necessary guarantees. These registration and administrative processes will be for those citizens living in a country that will become a third country on 29 March 2019 at midnight.

    We have outlined in the Joint Report that the procedure that the United Kingdom will put in place must be simple to use, based on objective criteria and accompanied with the same procedural guarantees today, notably with regards to a right of appeal.

    European citizens who are already permanently resident in the United Kingdom will obtain “special status” for free. For the rest, the cost should not exceed that imposed on British citizens for the issuing of similar documents – around £70.

    But I want to repeat that the conditions for this administrative procedure that the UK authorities request will be detailed – you can verify the simplicity of this in the Withdrawal Agreement, which will be submitted to you for ratification,

    * * *

    Members of Parliament,

    We are not there yet, neither on citizens’ rights, nor on the other subjects of the orderly withdrawal. We will therefore remain vigilant.

    Theresa May made a commitment on behalf of the British government, the whole British government.

    It is now for us to decide if this result is sufficient to open – based on certain conditions – the second phase of negotiations.

    If your resolution is positive, and if the European Council on Friday also accepts that there has been sufficient progress, then I will begin – on your behalf – working on the formal drafting of the Withdrawal Agreement. And we can do this quite quickly, on the basis of the Joint Report in particular.

    o We will continue the negotiations on the subjects that need more clarification, deepening and negotiation: the governance of the future agreement, other subjects such as geographical indications, the issue of data;

    o Ireland will form part of its own specific strand in the negotiations. Each assuming their responsibility, we need to find specific solutions for the unique situation of the island of Ireland.

    On the basis of the decision of the European Council, we will also move forward on defining a transition period, which will be short and supervised during which we will maintain the full regulatory and supervisory architecture – and obviously the role of the Court of Justice – as well as European policies.

    Finally, we will pursue, if you so wish, our internal preparation at 27 – together with you – on the future relationship. We need to agree ourselves on the framework for the future relationship. I can already tell you – and I say so clearly and calmly – that there are non-negotiable points on the integrity of Single Market, the four indivisible freedoms which are the foundation of the Single Market, and the autonomy of the Union’s decision-making, which the UK has decided to leave.

    The United Kingdom will become a third country on 29 March 2019. We think that a close, future partnership remains our common horizon.

    We know where we are today; we know where we are going.

    I propose today that this important step is recognised.

    There are many more steps to make in order for the UK to leave in an orderly manner, which is much better than in a disorderly manner.

    I would like to thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, for the future also, for your support and confidence, and also for your vigilance as the negotiations continue.

  • Jean-Claude Juncker – 2017 State of the Union Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, on 13 September 2017 in Brussels, Belgium.

    INTRODUCTION – WIND IN OUR SAILS

    Mr President, Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

    When I stood before you this time last year, I had a somewhat easier speech to give.

    It was plain for all to see that our Union was not in a good state.

    Europe was battered and bruised by a year that shook our very foundation.

    We only had two choices. Either come together around a positive European agenda or each retreat into our own corners.

    Faced with this choice, I argued for unity.

    I proposed a positive agenda to help create – as I said last year – a Europe that protects, a Europe that empowers, a Europe that defends.

    Over the past twelve months, the European Parliament has helped bring this agenda to life. We continue to make progress with each passing day. Just last night you worked to find an agreement on trade defence instruments and on doubling our European investment capacity. And you succeeded. Thank you for that.

    I also want to thank the 27 leaders of our Member States. Days after my speech last year, they welcomed my agenda at their summit in Bratislava. In doing so they chose unity. They chose to rally around our common ground.

    Together, we showed that Europe can deliver for its citizens when and where it matters.

    Ever since, we have been slowly but surely gathering momentum.

    It helped that the economic outlook swung in our favour.

    We are now in the fifth year of an economic recovery that really reaches every single Member State.

    Growth in the European Union has outstripped that of the United States over the last two years. It now stands above 2% for the Union as a whole and at 2.2% for the monetary area.

    Unemployment is at a nine year low. Almost 8 million jobs have been created during this mandate so far. With 235 million people at work, more people are in employment in the European Union than ever before.

    The European Commission cannot take the credit for this alone. Though I am sure that had 8 million jobs been lost, we would have taken the blame.

    But Europe’s institutions played their part in helping the wind change.

    We can take credit for our European Investment Plan which has triggered €225 billion worth of investment so far. It has granted loans to 450,000 small firms and more than 270 infrastructure projects.

    We can take credit for the fact that, thanks to determined action, European banks once again have the capital firepower to lend to companies so that they can grow and create jobs.

    And we can take credit for having brought public deficits down from 6.6% to 1.6%. This is thanks to an intelligent application of the Stability and Growth Pact. We ask for fiscal discipline but are careful not to kill growth. This is in fact working very well across the Union – despite the criticism.

    Ten years since crisis struck, Europe’s economy is finally bouncing back.

    And with it, our confidence.

    Our 27 leaders, the Parliament and the Commission are putting the Europe back in our Union. And together we are putting the Union back in our Union.

    In the last year, we saw all 27 leaders walk up the Capitoline Hill in Rome, one by one, to renew their vows to each other and to our Union.

    All of this leads me to believe: the wind is back in Europe’s sails.

    We now have a window of opportunity but it will not stay open forever.

    Let us make the most of the momentum, catch the wind in our sails.

    For this we must do two things:

    First, we should stay the course set out last year. We still have 16 months in which real progress can be made by Parliament, Council and Commission. We must use this time to finish what we started in Bratislava and deliver on our own positive agenda.

    Secondly, we should chart the direction for the future. As Mark Twain wrote – I am quoting – years from now we will be more disappointed by the things we did not do, than by those we did. Now is the time to build a more united, a stronger, a more democratic Europe for 2025.

    STAYING COURSE

    Mr President, Honourable Members,

    As we look to the future, we cannot let ourselves be blown off course.

    We set out to complete an Energy Union, a Security Union, a Capital Markets Union, a Banking Union and a Digital Single Market. Together, we have already come a long way.

    As the Parliament testified, 80% of the proposals promised at the start of the mandate have already been put forward by the Commission. We must now work together to turn proposals into law, and law into practice.

    As ever, there will be a degree of give and take. The Commission’s proposals to reform our Common Asylum System and strengthen rules on the Posting of Workers have caused controversy, I know. Achieving a good result will need all sides to do their part so they can move towards each other. I want to say today: as long as the outcome is the right one for our Union and is fair to all its Member States, the Commission will be open to compromise

    We are now ready to put the remaining 20% of initiatives on the table by May 2018.

    This morning, I sent a Letter of Intent to the President of the European Parliament and to the Prime Minister of Estonia – whose strong work for Europe I would like to praise – outlining the priorities for the year ahead.

    I will not and I cannot list all these proposals here, but let me mention five which are particularly important.

    Firstly, I want us to strengthen our European trade agenda.

    Yes, Europe is open for business. But there must be reciprocity. We have to get what we give.

    Trade is not something abstract. Trade is about jobs, creating new opportunities for Europe’s businesses big and small. Every additional €1 billion in exports supports 14,000 extra jobs in Europe.

    Trade is about exporting our standards, be they social or environmental standards, data protection or food safety requirements.

    Europe has always been an attractive place to do business.

    But over the last year, partners across the globe are lining up at our door to conclude trade agreements with us.

    With the help of this Parliament, we have just secured a trade agreement with Canada that will provisionally apply as of next week. We have a political agreement with Japan on a future economic partnership. And by the end of the year, we have a good chance of doing the same with Mexico and South American countries.

    Today, we are proposing to open trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.

    I want all of these agreements to be finalised by the end of this mandate. And I want them negotiated in the greatest transparency.

    Open trade must go hand in hand with open policy making.

    The European Parliament will have the final say on all trade agreements. So its Members, like members of national and regional parliaments, must be kept fully informed from day one of the negotiations. The Commission will make sure of this.

    From now on, the Commission will publish in full all draft negotiating mandates we propose to the Council.

    Citizens have the right to know what the Commission is proposing. Gone are the days of no transparency. Gone are the days of rumours, of incessantly questioning the Commission’s motives.

    I call on the Council to do the same when it adopts the final negotiating mandates.

    Let me say once and for all: we are not naïve free traders.

    Europe must always defend its strategic interests.

    This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening. If a foreign, state-owned, company wants to purchase a European harbour, part of our energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate. It is a political responsibility to know what is going on in our own backyard so that we can protect our collective security if needed.

    Secondly, the Commission wants to make our industry stronger and more competitive.

    This is particularly true for our manufacturing base and the 32 million workers that form its backbone. They make the world-class products that give us our edge, like our cars.

    I am proud of our car industry. But I am shocked when consumers are knowingly and deliberately misled. I call on the car industry to come clean and make it right. Instead of looking for loopholes, they should be investing in the clean cars of tomorrow

    Honourable Members, the new Industrial Policy Strategy we are presenting today will help our industries stay, or become, the number one in innovation, digitisation and decarbonisation.

    Third: I want Europe to be the leader when it comes to the fight against climate change.

    Last year, we set the global rules of the game with the Paris Agreement ratified here, in this very House. Set against the collapse of ambition in the United States, Europe must ensure we make our planet great again. It is the shared heritage of all of humanity.

    The Commission will shortly present proposals to reduce the carbon emissions of our transport sector.

    Fourth priority for the year ahead: I want us to better protect Europeans in the digital age.

    Over the past years, we have made marked progress in keeping Europeans safe online. New rules, put forward by the Commission, will protect our intellectual property, our cultural diversity and our personal data. We have stepped up the fight against terrorist propaganda and radicalisation online. But Europe is still not well equipped when it comes to cyber-attacks.

    Cyber-attacks can be more dangerous to the stability of democracies and economies than guns and tanks. Last year alone there were more than 4,000 ransomware attacks per day and 80% of European companies experienced at least one cyber-security incident.

    Cyber-attacks know no borders and no one is immune. This is why, today, the Commission is proposing new tools, including a European Cybersecurity Agency, to help defend us against such attacks.

    Fifth: migration must stay on our radar.

    In spite of the debate and controversy around this topic, we have managed to make solid progress – though admittedly insufficient in many areas.

    We are now protecting Europe’s external borders more effectively. Over 1,700 officers from the new European Border and Coast Guard are now helping Member States’ 100,000 national border guards patrol in places like Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Spain. We have common borders but Member States that by geography are the first in line cannot be left alone to protect them. Common borders and common protection must go hand in hand.

    We have managed to stem irregular flows of migrants, which were a cause of great anxiety for many. We have reduced irregular arrivals in the Eastern Mediterranean by 97% thanks our agreement with Turkey. And this summer, we managed to get more control over the Central Mediterranean route with arrivals in August down by 81% compared to the same month last year.

    In doing so, we have drastically reduced the loss of life in the Mediterranean.

    I cannot talk about migration without paying strong tribute to Italy for their tireless and noble work. Over the summer months, the Commission worked in perfect harmony with the Prime Minister of Italy, my friend Paolo Gentiloni, and his government to improve the situation. We did so – and we will continue to do so – because Italy is saving Europe’s honour in the Mediterranean.

    We must also urgently improve migrants’ living conditions in Libya. I am appalled by the inhumane conditions in detention or reception centres. Europe has a responsibility – a collective responsibility – and the Commission will work in concert with the United Nations to put an end to this scandalous situation that cannot be made to last.

    Even if it saddens me to see that solidarity is not yet equally shared across all our Member States, Europe as a whole has continued to show solidarity. Last year alone, our Member States resettled or granted asylum to over 720,000 refugees – three times as much as the United States, Canada and Australia combined. Europe, contrary to what some say, is not a fortress and must never become one. Europe is and must remain the continent of solidarity where those fleeing persecution can find refuge.

    I am particularly proud of the young Europeans volunteering to give language courses to Syrian refugees or the thousands more young people who are serving in our new European Solidarity Corps. These young people are bringing life and colour to European solidarity.

    But we now need to redouble our efforts. At the end of the month, the Commission will present a new set of proposals with an emphasis on returns, solidarity with Africa and opening legal pathways.

    When it comes to returns, I would like to repeat that people who have no right to stay in Europe must be returned to their countries of origin. When only 36% of irregular migrants are returned, it is clear we need to significantly step up our work. This is the only way Europe will be able to show solidarity with refugees in real need of protection.

    Solidarity cannot be an exclusively intra-European affair. We must also show solidarity with Africa. Africa is a noble continent, a young continent, the cradle of humanity. Our €2.7 billion EU-Africa Trust Fund is creating employment opportunities across the continent. The EU budget fronted the bulk of the money, but all our Member States combined have still only contributed €150 million. The Fund is currently reaching its limits. We know – or we should know – the dangers of a lack of funding – in 2015 many migrants headed towards Europe when the UN’s World Food Programme ran out of funds. I call on all Member States to now match their actions with their words and ensure the Africa Trust Fund does not meet the same fate. The risk is high.

    We will also work on opening up legal pathways. Irregular migration will only stop if there is a real alternative to perilous journeys. We are close to having resettled 22,000 refugees from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and I support UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ call to resettle a further 40,000 refugees from Libya and the surrounding countries.

    At the same time, legal migration is an absolute necessity for Europe as an ageing continent. This is why the Commission made proposals to make it easier for skilled migrants to reach Europe with a Blue Card. I would like to thank the Parliament for its support on this.

    SETTING SAIL

    Dear Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Honourable Members,

    I have mentioned just a few of the initiatives we want and must deliver over the next 16 months. But this alone will not be enough to regain the hearts and minds of Europeans.

    Now is the time to chart the direction for the future.

    In March, the Commission presented our White Paper on the future of Europe, with five scenarios for what Europe could look like by 2025. These scenarios have been discussed, sometimes superficially, sometimes violently. They have been scrutinised and partly ripped apart. That is good – they were conceived for exactly this purpose. I wanted to launch a process in which Europeans determined their own path and their own future.

    The future of Europe cannot be decided by decree. It has to be the result of democratic debate and, ultimately, broad consensus. This House contributed actively, through the three ambitious resolutions on Europe’s future which I would like to particularly thank the rapporteurs for. And I want to thank all the colleagues that participated in the more than 2,000 public events across Europe that the Commission organised since March.

    Now is the time to draw first conclusions from this debate. Time to move from reflection to action. From debate to decision.

    Today I would like to present you my view: my own ‘sixth scenario’, if you will.

    This scenario is rooted in decades of first-hand experience. I have lived, fought and worked for the European project my entire life. I have seen and lived through good times and bad.

    I have sat on many different sides of the table: as a Minister, as Prime Minister, as President of the Eurogroup, and now as President of the Commission. I was there in Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon as our Union evolved and enlarged.

    I have always fought for Europe. At times I have suffered because of Europe. And even despaired for Europe.

    Through thick and thin, I have never lost my love of Europe.

    But there is, as we know, rarely love without pain.

    Love for Europe because Europe and the European Union have achieved something unique in this fraying world: peace within and peace outside of Europe. Prosperity for many if not yet for all.

    This is something we have to remember during the European Year of Cultural Heritage. 2018 must be a celebration of cultural diversity.

    A UNION OF VALUES

    Our values are our compass.

    For me, Europe is more than just a single market. More than money, more than a currency, more than the euro. It was always about values.

    That is why, in my sixth scenario, there are three fundamentals, three unshakeable principles: freedom, equality and the rule of law.

    Europe is first of all a Union of freedom. Freedom from the kind of oppression and dictatorship our continent knows all too well – sadly none more than central and Eastern European countries. Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist – a freedom we too often take for granted. It was on these freedoms that our Union was built. But freedom does not fall from the sky. It must be fought for. In Europe and throughout the world.

    Second, Europe must be a Union of equality and a Union of equals.

    Equality between its Members, big or small, East or West, North or South.

    Make no mistake, Europe extends from Vigo to Varna. From Spain to Bulgaria.

    East to West: Europe must breathe with both lungs. Otherwise our continent will struggle for air.

    In a Union of equals, there can be no second class citizens. It is unacceptable that in 2017 there are still children dying of diseases that should long have been eradicated in Europe. Children in Romania or Italy must have the same access to measles vaccines as children in other European countries. No ifs, no buts. This is why we are working with all Member States to support national vaccination efforts. Avoidable deaths must not occur in Europe.

    In a Union of equals, there can be no second class workers. Workers should earn the same pay for the same work in the same place. This is why the Commission proposed new rules on posting of workers. We should make sure that all EU rules on labour mobility are enforced in a fair, simple and effective way by a new European inspection and enforcement body. It is absurd to have a Banking Authority to police banking standards, but no common Labour Authority for ensuring fairness in our single market. We will create such an Authority.

    In a Union of equals, there can be no second class consumers either. I cannot accept that in some parts of Europe, in Central and Eastern Europe,people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical. Slovaks do not deserve less fish in their fish fingers. Hungarians less meat in their meals. Czechs less cacao in their chocolate. EU law outlaws such practices already. And we must now equip national authorities with stronger powers to cut out these illegal practices wherever they exist.

    Third, in Europe the strength of the law replaced the law of the strong.

    The rule of law means that law and justice are upheld by an independent judiciary.

    Accepting and respecting a final judgement is what it means to be part of a Union based on the rule of law. Our Member States gave final jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. The judgements of the Court have to be respected by all. To undermine them, or to undermine the independence of national courts, is to strip citizens of their fundamental rights.

    The rule of law is not optional in the European Union. It is a must.

    Our Union is not a State but it must be a community of law.

    A MORE UNITED UNION

    These three principles – freedom, equality and the rule of law – must remain the foundations on which we build a more united, stronger and more democratic Union.

    When we talk about the future, experience tells me new Treaties and new institutions are not the answer people are looking for. They are merely a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. They might mean something to us here in Strasbourg or in Brussels. They do not mean a lot to anyone else.

    I am only interested in institutional reforms if they lead to more efficiency in our European Union.

    Instead of hiding behind calls for Treaty change – which is in any case inevitable – we must first change the mind-set that for some to win others must lose.

    Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone in the long run. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise.

    A more united Union also needs to become more inclusive.

    If we want to protect our external borders and rightly so strengthen them even more, then we need to open the Schengen area of free movement to Bulgaria and Romania immediately. We should also allow Croatia to become a full Schengen member once all the criteria are met.

    If we want the euro to unite rather than divide our continent, then it should be more than the currency of a select group of countries. The euro is meant to be the single currency of the European Union as a whole. All but two of our Member States are required and entitled to join the euro once they fulfil the conditions.

    Member States that want to join the euro must be able to do so. This is why I am proposing to create a Euro-accession Instrument, offering technical and even financial assistance.

    If we want banks to operate under the same rules and under the same supervision across our continent, then we should encourage all Member States to join the Banking Union. We need to reduce the remaining risks in the banking systems of some of our Member States. Banking Union can only function if risk-reduction and risk-sharing go hand in hand. As everyone well knows, this can only be achieved if the conditions, as proposed by the Commission in November 2015, are met. There can only be a common deposit insurance scheme once everyone will have done their national homework.

    And if we want to avoid social fragmentation and social dumping in Europe, then Member States should agree on the European Pillar of Social Rights as soon as possible and at the latest at the Gothenburg summit in November. National social systems will still remain diverse and separate for a long time. But at the very least, we should agree on a European Social Standards Union in which we have a common understanding of what is socially fair in our single market.

    I remain convinced: Europe cannot work if it shuns workers.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, if we want more stability in our neighbourhood, then we must also maintain a credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans.

    It is clear that there will be no further enlargement during the mandate of this Commission and this Parliament. No candidate is ready. But thereafter the European Union will be greater than 27 in number. Accession candidates must give the rule of law, justice and fundamental rights utmost priority in the negotiations.

    This rules out EU membership for Turkey for the foreseeable future.

    Turkey has been taking giant strides away from the European Union for some time.

    Journalists belong in newsrooms not in prisons. They belong where freedom of expression reigns.

    The call I make to those in power in Turkey is this: Let our journalists go. And not only ours. Stop insulting our Member States by comparing their leaders to fascists and Nazis. Europe is a continent of mature democracies. But deliberate insults create roadblocks. Sometimes I get the feeling Turkey is deliberately placing these roadblocks so that it can blame Europe for any breakdown in accession talks.

    As for us, we will always keep our hands stretched out towards the great Turkish people and all those who are ready to work with us on the basis of our values.

    A STRONGER UNION

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I want our Union to be stronger and for this we need a stronger single market.

    When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain cases – provided the European Council decides unanimously to do so.

    I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax.

    Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively, and this also applies to the Economic and Monetary Union.

    The euro area is more resilient now than in years past. We now have the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM). I believe the ESM should now progressively graduate into a European Monetary Fund which, however, must be firmly anchored in the European Union’s rules and competences. The Commission will make concrete proposals for this in December.

    We need a European Minister of Economy and Finance: a European Minister that promotes and supports structural reforms in our Member States. He or she can build on the work the Commission has been doing since 2015 with our Structural Reform Support Service. The new Minister should coordinate all EU financial instruments that can be deployed if a Member State is in a recession or hit by a fundamental crisis.

    I am not calling for a new position just for the sake of it. I am calling for efficiency. The Commissioner for economic and financial affairs – ideally also a Vice-President – should assume the role of Economy and Finance Minister. He or she should also preside the Eurogroup.

    The European Economy and Finance Minister must be accountable to the European Parliament.

    We do not need parallel structures. We do not need a budget for the Euro area but a strong Euro area budget line within the EU budget.

    I am also not fond of the idea of having a separate euro area parliament.

    The Parliament of the euro area is this European Parliament.

    The European Union must also be stronger in fighting terrorism. In the past three years, we have made real progress. But we still lack the means to act quickly in case of cross-border terrorist threats.

    This is why I call for setting up a European intelligence unit that ensures data concerning terrorists and foreign fighters are automatically shared among intelligence services and with the police.

    I also see a strong case for tasking the new European Public Prosecutor with prosecuting cross-border terrorist crimes.

    I want our Union to become a stronger global actor. In order to have more weight in the world, we must be able to take foreign policy decisions quicker. This is why I want Member States to look at which foreign policy decisions could be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. The Treaty already provides for this, if all Member States agree to do it. We need qualified majority decisions in foreign policy if we are to work efficiently.

    And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.

    Last but not least, I want our Union to have a stronger focus on things that matter, building on the work this Commission has already undertaken. We should not meddle in the everyday lives of European citizens by regulating every aspect. We should be big on the big things. We should not march in with a stream of new initiatives or seek ever growing competences. We should give back competences to Member States where it makes sense.

    This is why this Commission has sought to be big on big issues and small on the small ones and has done so, putting forward less than 25 new initiatives a year where previous Commissions proposed well over 100.

    To finish the work we started, I am setting up a Subsidiarity and Proportionality Task Force as of this month to take a very critical look at all policy areas to make sure we are only acting where the EU adds value. The First Vice-President, my friend, Frans Timmermans, who has a proven track record on better regulation, will head this Task Force. The Timmermans Task Force should include Members of this Parliament as well as Members of national Parliaments. It should report back in a years’ time.

    A MORE DEMOCRATIC UNION

    Honourable Members,

    Mr President,

    Our Union needs to take a democratic leap forward.

    I would like to see European political parties start campaigning for the next European elections much earlier than in the past. Too often Europe-wide elections have been reduced to nothing more than the sum of national campaigns. European democracy deserves better.

    Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves.

    I also have sympathy for the idea of having transnational lists in European elections – though I am aware this is an idea more than a few of you disagree with. I will seek to convince the President of my parliamentary Group to follow me in this ambition which will bring Europe democracy and clarity.

    I also believe that, over the months to come, we should involve national Parliaments and civil society at national, regional and local level more in the work on the future of Europe. Over the last three years, as we promised, Members of the Commission have visited national Parliaments more than 650 times. They also debated in more than 300 interactive Citizens’ Dialogues in more than 80 cities and towns across 27 Member States. This is why I support President Macron’s idea of organising democratic conventions across Europe in 2018.

    As the debate gathers pace, I will personally pay particular attention to Estonia, to Latvia, to Lithuania and to Romania in 2018. This is the year they will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Those who want to shape the future of our continent should well understand and honour our common history. This includes these four countries – the European Union would not be whole without them.

    The need to strengthen democracy and transparency also has implications for the European Commission. Today, I am sending the European Parliament a new Code of Conduct for Commissioners. The new Code first of all makes clear that Commissioners can be candidates in European Parliament elections under the same conditions as everyone else. The new Code will of course strengthen the integrity requirements for Commissioners both during and after their mandate.

    If you want to strengthen European democracy, then you cannot reverse the small democratic progress seen with the creation of lead candidates – ‘Spitzenkandidaten’. I would like the experience to be repeated.

    More democracy means more efficiency. Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission.

    This is nothing against my good friend Donald, with whom I have worked intimately and seamlessly together since the beginning of my mandate. This is nothing against Donald or against me.

    Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship.

    Having a single President would simply better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens.

    OUR ROADMAP

    My dear colleagues,

    The vision of a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe I am outlining today combines elements from all of the scenarios I set out to you in March.

    But our future cannot remain a simple scenario, a sketch, an idea amongst others.

    We have to prepare the Union of tomorrow, today.

    This morning I sent a Roadmap to President Tajani, President Tusk as well as to the holders of the rotating Presidencies of the Council between now and March 2019, outlining where we should go from here.

    An important element will be the budgetary plans the Commission will present in May 2018. Here again we have a choice: either we pursue the European Union’s ambitions in the strict framework of the existing budget, or we increase the European Union’s budgetary capacity so that it might better reach its ambitions. I am for the second option.

    On 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. This will be both a sad and tragic moment. We will always regret it. But we have to respect the will of the British people. We will advance, we must advance because Brexit is not everything. Because Brexit is not the future of Europe.

    On 30 March 2019, we will be a Union of 27. I suggest that we prepare for this moment well, amongst the 27 and within the EU institutions.

    European Parliament elections will take place just a few weeks later, in May 2019. Europeans have a date with democracy. They need to go to the polls with a clear understanding of how the European Union will develop over the years to come.

    This is why I call on President Tusk and Romania, the country holding the Presidency in the first half of 2019, to organise a Special Summit in Romania on 30 March 2019. My wish is that this summit be held in the beautiful city of Sibiu, also known as Hermannstadt. This should be the moment we come together to take the decisions needed for a more united, stronger and democratic Europe.

    My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union where we stand by all our values. Where all Member States respect the rule of law without exception. Where being a full member of the euro area, the Banking Union and the Schengen area has become the norm for all.

    Where we have shored up the foundations of our Economic and Monetary Union so that we can defend our single currency in good times and bad, without having to call on external help. Where our single market will be fairer towards workers from the East and from the West.

    I want Europeans to wake up to a Europe where we have managed to agree on a strong pillar of social standards. Where profits will be taxed where they were made. Where terrorists have no loopholes to exploit. Where we have agreed on a proper European Defence Union. Where eventually a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign.

    Mr President, if our citizens wake up to this Union on 30 March 2019, then the European Union will be a Union able to meet their legitimate expectations.

    CONCLUSION

    Honourable Members,

    Europe was not made to stand still. It must never do so.

    Helmut Kohl and Jacques Delors, whom I had the honour to know, taught me that Europe only moves forward when it is bold. The single market, Schengen and the single currency: these were all ideas that were written off as pipe dreams before they happened. And yet these three ambitious projects are now a part of our daily reality.

    Now that Europe is doing better, people tell me I should not rock the boat.

    But now is not the time to err on the side of caution.

    We started to fix the European roof. But today and tomorrow we must patiently, floor by floor, moment by moment, inspiration by inspiration, continue to add new floors to the European House.

    We must complete the European House now that the sun is shining and whilst it still is.

    Because when the next clouds appear on the horizon – and they will appear one day – it will be too late.

    So let’s throw off the bowlines.

    Sail away from the harbour.

    And catch the trade winds in our sails.

  • Therese Coffey – 2018 Statement on Local Government in Suffolk

    Below is the text of the statement made by Therese Coffey in the House of Commons on 8 February 2018.

    On 7 November and 30 November respectively I told the House that I was minded to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, locally-supported proposals I had received from the respective councils to merge district councils in east Suffolk and in west Suffolk, and I invited representations before I took my final decisions on these proposals.

    Having carefully considered all the representations I have received and all the relevant information available to me, I am today announcing that I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, both proposals—that is to merge Suffolk Coastal and Waveney ​district councils to become a new single district council named East Suffolk, and to merge Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council to become a new single district council named West Suffolk.

    I have reached my decisions having regard to the criteria for district council mergers I announced to the House on 7 November. I am satisfied that these criteria are met and that both new district councils are likely to improve local government and service delivery in their areas, command a good deal of local support, and that each council area is a credible geography.

    I now intend to prepare and lay before Parliament drafts of the necessary secondary legislation to give effect to my decisions. My intention is that if Parliament approves this legislation the new councils will be established on 1 April 2019 with the first elections to the councils held on 2 May 2019.