Tag: David Cameron

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech with President Obama

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on 22 April 2016.

    The text of Obama’s speech after is available here.

    Introduction

    It’s great to welcome President Obama again on his fifth visit to the United Kingdom.

    Barack has been President for more than 7 years, I have been Prime Minister for nearly 6 years.

    And our 2 countries have been working together through some of the most difficult and troubled global times.

    We’ve faced the aftermath of the banking crisis, the need to revive growth and create jobs in our economies, new threats to our security – from Russia in the east, to the rise of Islamist terrorism in the south – and of course huge global challenges like Ebola and climate change.

    And through it all, the strong and essential partnership between our nations has never been more important.

    When 70 years ago last month Winston Churchill first described the special relationship, it was not merely an enduring expression of friendship, it was a way of working together.

    It was about 2 nations, kindred spirits, who share the same values, and, so often, the same approaches to the many issues that we face.

    And just as for our predecessors, that has been true for Barack and me, whether we’ve been working to deliver economic security, national security, or new emerging challenges.

    And today we’ve been discussing all 3.

    Economic security

    On economic security, we have succeeded in getting our economies growing and creating jobs for our people.

    The global economy still faces serious challenges but last year Britain and the United States were the 2 fastest growing major economies in the world.

    And we both know just how important trade deals are in driving global growth.

    So Barack and I remain among the most determined to achieve our vision of a US-EU trade deal, and we’re working hard to push this forward because it would add billions to our economies and set the standards for the rest of the world to follow.

    National security

    On national security, together with our partners in the EU, we have used our economic muscle to avoid the calamity of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    We have delivered sanctions against Russia in response to its aggression against Ukraine.

    We have secured the first ever global and legally binding deal on climate change, being formally signed today by over 150 governments at the United Nations.

    And we have transformed the way that we use our aid, our diplomacy and our military together to make progress on some of the most difficult issues of our time.

    For example, in east Africa, we have helped to turn around the prospects for Somalia, for instance, thanks to an EU operation – led by Britain and supported by America – its waters are no longer a safe haven for pirates.

    And in West Africa, British leadership in Europe secured a billion euros to support our efforts in helping the people of the region to defeat the outbreak of Ebola, with Britain taking the lead in Sierra Leone, and the United States in Liberia, France in Guinea.

    But just as we have made important progress in all these areas, so there are many more that need a lot more work.

    There is no doubt that the situation in Libya is immensely challenging.

    But we now finally have a Government of National Accord with whom we can work.

    Defeating Daesh

    While in Syria and Iraq we are continuing coalition efforts to defeat and degrade Daesh.

    More than 25,000 Daesh fighters have now been killed, over 600 in the last month alone, with the total number of Daesh fighters now estimated to be at its lowest for about 2 years.

    The Iraqi Security Forces are steadily pushing Daesh out of its territory, this week, almost entirely clearing them out of the town of Hit.

    And in Syria, our partners have liberated the large Kurdish areas in the north-east, and cut off the main route between Raqqah and Mosul.

    We also discussed efforts to deal with the migration crisis.

    This doesn’t directly affect the United States and in the UK we have maintained our borders – and will continue to do so.

    But we both know the challenge this poses to our friends and our allies – and to the continent of Europe.

    This is the sort of challenge that can only be tackled effectively through international co-operation.

    NATO is helping to reduce the number of migrants in the eastern Mediterranean.

    And Barack and I have discussed how NATO might now contribute to the EU’s efforts in the central Mediterranean too.

    People smugglers

    We also need to do more to break the business model of the people smugglers. So together with our EU partners and the Libyan government, we will look at whether there is more we can do to strengthen the Libyan coastguard.

    Barack and I will be discussing this further when we meet with the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in Hanover on Monday.

    And this will be another opportunity to show that, how working together collectively, we can better protect ourselves from the threats we face.

    Emerging challenges

    We also covered a number of new and emerging challenges, where it will be more important than ever that we work together with our international partners to identify problems and deal with them rapidly.

    Just as we have done with Ebola, we now need the same international co-operation on dealing with the Zika virus, on the challenge of anti-microbial resistance, on cyber security, and on tackling corruption.

    Britain is holding a big anti-corruption summit here in London next month, which Secretary Kerry will attend.

    And Barack and I have talked today about some of the things we want it to achieve. One of the biggest problems is that if you are a country that wants to take action against corruption, you have to go all around the globe to lobby for help.

    So we would like to see an international anti-corruption coordination centre to help law enforcement agencies and investigators work together right across different jurisdictions.

    And if we can get international agreement on this next month – both Britain and America will contribute people to help set it up.

    Conclusion

    All this work we have done together at the same time, I think we’ve got to know each other very well. I’m honoured to have Barack as a friend. He’s taught me the rules of basketball, he’s beaten me at table tennis.

    I remember very fondly the BBQ we had in Number 10 Downing Street, serving servicemen and women who serve our countries together, here in the United Kingdom.

    I’ve always found Barack someone who gives sage advice.

    He’s a man with a very good heart.

    He’s a very good friend and always will be a good friend, I know, to the United Kingdom.

    Let me finish by saying this.

    In all the areas we have discussed today, our collective power and reach is amplified by Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    Let me be clear. When it comes to the special relationship between our two countries, there’s no greater enthusiast than me.

    I am very proud to have had the opportunity to be Prime Minister and to stand outside the White House listening to this man, my friend Barack, say that the special relationship between our countries has never been stronger.

    But I have never felt constrained in any way in strengthening this relationship by the fact that we are in the European Union.

    In fact, quite the reverse.

    We deliver for our people through all the international groups that we are part of.

    We enhance our security through the membership of NATO.

    We further our prosperity through the G7 and the G20.

    And, like those organisations, Britain’s membership of the EU gives us a powerful tool to deliver on the prosperity and security that our people need, and to stand up for the values that our countries share.

    And now I think is a time to stay true to those values, and to stick together with our friends and allies in Europe and around the world.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech to Commons on Queen’s 90 Birthday

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 21 April 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the heartfelt good wishes of the House on the occasion of Her Majesty’s ninetieth birthday, expressing its deep gratitude for Her Majesty’s lifelong commitment to the service of the country and the Commonwealth, and praying that Her Majesty may long continue in health and happiness.

    That Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, Chris Grayling, Jeremy Corbyn, Chris Bryant, Angus Robertson, Mr Nigel Dodds, Tim Farron, Hywel Williams, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Danny Kinahan, Caroline Lucas and Mr Douglas Carswell do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.

    The motion stands in my name and those of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party.

    Today we celebrate the 90th birthday of our country’s longest reigning monarch. Her Majesty the Queen—our Queen—has lived a life of service that began long before her accession to the throne. In 1940, at just 14 years old, the then Princess Elizabeth made her first BBC radio broadcast, to bring comfort and hope to children who had been evacuated from Britain’s cities during the war. At 18, she became the first female member of the royal family to join the armed forces, joining the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. At just 21, she made the exquisite and defining broadcast from Cape Town in which she uttered the famous words

    “my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”.

    Never has such an extraordinary promise been so profoundly fulfilled.

    As I said when we gathered in September to mark Her Majesty becoming our longest-reigning monarch, for all of us in this Chamber who seek to play our part in public service, it is truly humbling to comprehend the scale of service that Her Majesty has given to our country over so many years. If we think of the vital landmark in completing our journey to democracy when everyone over 21 was finally given the vote in 1928, it means that Her Majesty has presided over two thirds of our history as a full democracy. In that time, she has met a quarter of all the American Presidents since independence. She has provided counsel to no fewer than 12 Prime Ministers, and that is just in Britain. She has worked with well over 150 Prime Ministers in her other realms. If anyone can come up with a collective noun for a group of Prime Ministers, it is probably Her Majesty. I think I will leave it her to make some suggestions.

    I know that, like me, every Prime Minister has found Her Majesty’s counsel an incredibly valuable part of the job. Her perspective and length of experience are unique and utterly invaluable. Her first Prime Minister, in 1952, was Winston Churchill. Like him and all those who have followed, I can testify that she is quite simply one of the best audiences in the world. There is no one else in public life to whom any Prime Minister can really speak in total confidence, and no other country has a Head of State with such wisdom and such patience. There are some who suspect that, at times, I may have put her patience to the test. In the play “The Audience”, the character who portrays me goes on and on about Europe so long that she falls asleep, but I can guarantee that that has never happened. I may not have kept my promise not to bang on about Europe in every forum, but this is certainly the one where I try the hardest.

    As some have pointed out, Her Majesty is now entering her 10th decade and starting to take things a little easier, which is why in the last year alone she has only undertaken 177 public engagements. In 90 years, Her Majesty has lived through some extraordinary times in our world, from the second world war, when her parents, the King and Queen, were nearly killed as bombs were dropped on Buckingham Palace, to the rations with which she bought the material for her wedding dress; from presenting the World cup to England at Wembley in 1966, to man landing on the moon three years later; and from the end of the cold war to peace in Northern Ireland.

    Throughout it all, as the sands of culture shift and the tides of politics ebb and flow, Her Majesty has been steadfast—a rock of strength for our nation, for our Commonwealth and, on many occasions, for the whole world. As her grandson, Prince William, has said:

    “Time and again, quietly and modestly, the Queen has shown us all that we can confidently embrace the future without compromising the things that are important.”

    As Her Majesty said in her first televised Christmas broadcast in 1957, it is necessary to hold fast to “ageless ideals” and “fundamental principles”, and that requires a

    “special kind of courage…which makes us stand up for everything we know is right, everything that is true and honest.”

    In this modern Elizabethan era, Her Majesty has led a gentle evolution of our monarchy. From the first televised Christmas Day message, more than three decades before cameras were allowed into this House, to the opening up of the royal palaces and the invention of the royal walkabout, she has brought the monarchy closer to the people while retaining its dignity.

    Her Majesty’s role as supreme governor of the Church of England has also been incredibly important to her. She has often said that her life is inspired not only by her love of this great country but by her faith in God. As she has said,

    “I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God.”

    In standing up for Christianity, she has been clear that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in our country.

    Her Majesty always performs her constitutional duty as Head of State impeccably, but as head of our nation she is held in even higher regard for the way in which she represents the United Kingdom. It has rightly been said by some constitutional experts that Her Majesty the Queen is the only person born in the United Kingdom who is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish; she is all and none of those things and can represent all the nations of the United Kingdom on an equal basis in a way that no President ever could.

    The Queen has also constantly represented the nation when abroad. Foreign leaders from President Truman to Nelson Mandela and Ronald Reagan have all testified to her extraordinary ability both to represent this country and to understand the world. On her hugely important and healing state visit to Ireland in 2011, Her Majesty began her remarks in Irish and spoke about the history of the troubled relationship between the UK and Ireland. She did so with a kindness as well as an authority that went far beyond anything that would be possible for an elected politician.

    As a diplomat and ambassador for the United Kingdom, the Queen has represented our country on 266 official visits to 116 different countries. As I saw again at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta last year, she has made an extraordinary contribution to the future of our Commonwealth, growing it from eight Members in 1952 to 53 today. In doing so, she has helped to build a unique family of nations that spans every continent, all the main religions, a quarter of the members of the United Nations and nearly a third of the world’s population. The reach of Her Majesty’s diplomacy is without parallel—so much so that, as a result of a visit to Balmoral, she can claim to be the only woman ever to have driven the King of Saudi Arabia around in a car. I have that story sourced from both the participants.

    Through it all, Her Majesty has carried herself with the most extraordinary grace and humility. When people meet the Queen, they talk about it for the rest of their lives. She understands that, and she shows a genuine interest in all she meets. They can really see that she cares. As the constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor has said, Her Majesty understands what might be called

    “the soul of the British people.”

    Her Majesty has done so much throughout her life that when it comes to her 90th birthday, there cannot be much that is new for her to try, but I am pleased to hear that she will be sampling the orange drizzle birthday cake baked by the winner of “The Great British Bake Off”, Nadiya Hussain.

    As she lights the first in a chain of 1,000 beacons, Her Majesty will be joined, as ever, by her family, including her son the Prince of Wales and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh, who has stood by her side throughout her extraordinary reign. They have both served this country with an unshakeable sense of duty, and their work, including the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme and the Prince’s Trust, has inspired millions of young people around the world. As we see in those delightful birthday portraits released this week, family has always been at the heart of Her Majesty’s long life.

    Mr Speaker, we are uniquely blessed in our country. Her Majesty’s service is extraordinary, and it is a joy for us all to celebrate, to cherish and to honour it. In June, the whole country will share in this special milestone, with a service of thanksgiving in St Paul’s cathedral and a wonderful royal street party. But today, I know the whole House and the whole country will want to join me in wishing Her Majesty the Queen health, happiness and, above all, a very special 90th birthday.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement on the Panama Papers

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 11 April 2016.

    With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Panama papers.

    Dealing with my own circumstances first, yesterday I published all the information in my tax returns not just for the last year, but for the last six years. I have also given additional information about money inherited and given to me by my family, so people can see the sources of income I have: my salary, the benefit in kind of living in No. 10 Downing Street, the support my wife and I have received as Leader of the Conservative party, the renting out of our home and the interest on the savings that I have. Since 2010, I have not owned any shares or any investments.

    The publication of a Prime Minister’s tax information in this way is unprecedented, but I think it is the right thing to do. But let me be clear: I am not suggesting that this should apply to all MPs. The Chancellor has today published information on his tax return, in a similar way to the shadow Chancellor and the First Minister for Scotland. This begs the question of how far the publication of tax information should go. I think there is a strong case for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and for the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor, because they are people who are or who wish to be responsible for the nation’s finances. As for MPs, we already have robust rules on Members’ interests and their declaration, and I believe that is the model we should follow.

    We should think carefully before abandoning completely all taxpayer confidentiality in this House, as some have suggested. If this were to come in for MPs, people would also ask for a similar approach for those who ask us questions, those who run large public services or lead local government, or indeed those who edit news programmes or newspapers. I think this would be a very big step for our country. It certainly should not take place without a long and thoughtful debate, and it is not the approach that I would recommend.

    Let me deal specifically with the shares my wife and I held in an investment fund or unit trust called Blairmore Holdings, set up by my late father. The fund was registered with the UK’s Inland Revenue from the beginning. It was properly audited, and an annual return was submitted to the Inland Revenue every year. Its share price was listed in the Financial Times. It was not a family trust; it was a commercial investment fund for any investor to buy units in. UK investors paid all the same taxes as with any other share, including income tax on the dividends every year.

    There have been some deeply hurtful and profoundly untrue allegations made against my father, and if the House will let me, I want to put the record straight. This investment fund was set up overseas in the first place because it was going to be trading predominantly in dollar securities, so like very many other commercial investment funds, it made sense to be set up inside one of the main centres of dollar trading.

    There are thousands of these investment funds and many millions of people in Britain own shares, many of whom hold them through investment funds or unit trusts. Such funds, including those listed outside the ​UK, are included in the pension funds of local government, most of Britain’s largest companies and, indeed, even some trade unions. Even a quick look shows that the BBC, the Mirror Group, Guardian Newspapers and—to pick one council entirely at random—Islington all have these sorts of overseas investments. To give one further example, Trade Union Fund Managers Ltd, based in Congress House, has a portfolio of over £50 million of investment in the trade union unit trust, with 3% of its net assets based in Jersey. This is not to criticise what it does; it is to make the point that this an entirely standard practice, and it is not to avoid tax.

    One of the country’s leading tax lawyers, Graham Aaronson, QC, has stated unequivocally that this was

    “a perfectly normal type of collective investment fund”.

    This is the man who led the expert study group that developed the general anti-abuse rule—so much debated and demanded in this House—which Parliament finally enacted in 2013. He also chaired the 1997 examination of tax avoidance by the Tax Law Review Committee. He has said that it would be

    “quite wrong to describe the establishment of such funds as ‘tax avoidance’”

    and, further, that

    “it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that establishing or investing in such funds would involve abusive tax avoidance”.

    That is why getting rid of unit trusts and other such investment funds that are listed overseas has not been part of any Labour policy review, any Conservative party policy review or any sensible proposals for addressing tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance.

    Surely, it is said, investors in these funds benefit from their being set up in jurisdictions with low or no taxes. Again, this is a misunderstanding. Unit trusts do not exist to make profit for themselves; they exist to make a profit for the holders of the units. Those holders pay tax, and if they are UK citizens, they pay full UK taxes.

    It is right to tighten the law and change the culture around investment to further outlaw tax evasion and discourage aggressive tax avoidance, but as we do so, we should differentiate between schemes designed to artificially reduce tax and those that are encouraging investment. This is a Government—and this should be a country—who believe in aspiration and wealth creation. We should defend the right of every British citizen to make money lawfully. Aspiration and wealth creation are not somehow dirty words. They are the key engines of growth and prosperity in our country and we must always support those who want to own shares and make investments to support their families.

    Some people have asked, “If this trust was legitimate, why did you sell your shares in January 2010?” I sold all the shares in my portfolio that year because I did not want any issues about conflicts of interest—I did not want anyone to be able to suggest that, as Prime Minister, I had any other agendas or vested interests. Selling all my shares was the simplest and clearest way that I could achieve that.

    There are strict rules in this House for the registration of shareholdings. I have followed them in full. The Labour party has said it will refer me to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have already given her the relevant information, and if there is more she believes I should say, I am very happy to say it.​
    I accept all of the criticisms for not responding more quickly to these issues last week, but, as I have said, I was angry about the way my father’s memory was being traduced. I know he was a hard-working man and a wonderful dad, and I am proud of everything he did to build a business and provide for his family.

    On the issue of inheritance tax, there is an established system in this country. I believe that, far from people being embarrassed about passing things to their children—for example, wanting to keep a family home within the family—it is a natural human instinct to do so, and is something that should be encouraged. As for parents passing money to their children while they are still alive, that is something that the tax rules fully recognise. Many parents want to help their children when they buy their first car, get a deposit for their first home or face the costs of starting a family. It is entirely natural that parents should want to do those things, and, again, something that we should not just defend but proudly support.

    Let me turn to the Panama papers and the actions that this Government are taking to deal with tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and international corruption more broadly. When we came into office, there were foreigners not paying capital gains tax when selling their UK homes, private equity managers paying a lower rate of tax than the people who cleaned their offices, and rich homebuyers getting away without paying stamp duty because houses were enveloped within companies. We have put an end to all those things. In the last Parliament alone we made an unprecedented 40 tax changes to close loopholes, raising £12 billion. In this Parliament we will legislate for more than 25 further measures, forecast to raise £16 billion by 2021. No British Government, Labour or Conservative, have ever taken so much robust action in this area.

    Through my chairmanship of the G8 at the summit at Lough Erne in 2013, I put tax, trade and transparency on the global agenda, and sought agreement on a global standard for the automatic exchange of information over who pays taxes and where. Many said it would never happen, but today 129 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the international standard for exchange of tax information on request, and over 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the new global common reporting standard on tax transparency. Under that new standard, we will receive information on accounts of UK taxpayers in all those jurisdictions. In June this year, Britain will become the first country in the G20 to have a public register of beneficial ownership, so everyone can see who really owns and controls each company. This Government are also consulting on requiring foreign companies that own property or bid on public contracts to provide their beneficial ownership information, and we are happy to offer technical support and assistance to any of the devolved Administrations also considering such measures.

    As the revelations in the Panama papers have made clear, we need to go even further. So we are taking three additional measures, to make it harder for people to hide the proceeds of corruption offshore, to make sure that those who smooth the way can no longer get away with it and to investigate wrongdoing.

    First, let me deal with our Crown dependencies and overseas territories that function as financial centres. They have already agreed to exchange taxpayer financial ​account information automatically, and will begin doing so from this September. That never happened before I became Prime Minister and got them round the Cabinet table and said, “This must happen.” We need to go further, however, and today I can tell the House that we have now agreed that they will provide UK law enforcement and tax agencies with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. We have finalised arrangements with all of them except for Anguilla and Guernsey, both of which we believe will follow in the coming days and months. For the first time, UK police and law enforcement agencies will be able to see exactly who really owns and controls every company incorporated in those territories: the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Isle of Man, Jersey—the lot. That is the result of a sustained campaign, building on the progress that we made at the G8, and I welcome the commitment of the Governments of those territories to work with us and implement those arrangements.

    The House should note that that will place our overseas territories and Crown dependencies well ahead of many other similar jurisdictions, and also—crucially—ahead of many of our major international partners, including some states in the United States of America. Next month we will seek to go further still, using our anti-corruption summit to encourage consensus not just on exchanging information, but on publishing such information and putting it into the public domain, as we are doing in the UK. We want everyone with a stake in fighting corruption—from law enforcement, to civil society and the media—to be able to use those data and help us to root out and deter wrongdoing.

    Next, we will take another major step forward in dealing with those who facilitate corruption. Under current legislation it is difficult to prosecute a company that assists with tax evasion, but we are going to change that. We will legislate this year for a new criminal offence to apply to corporations that fail to prevent their representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion. Finally, we are providing initial new funding of up to £10 million for a new cross-agency taskforce to swiftly analyse all the information that has been made available from Panama, and to take rapid action. That taskforce will include analysts, compliance specialists, and investigators from across HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, and the Financial Conduct Authority.

    This Government will continue to lead the international agenda to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. That battle is important and must be combined with the approach that we take in this country—low tax rates, but taxes that people and businesses pay. That is how we will tackle these issues and build a strong economy that can fund the public services we need. That strong economy, creating jobs and rewarding aspiration is the true focus of this Government—something that would never be safe under the Labour party—and I commend this statement to the House.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Economic Security in the EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at PWC in Birmingham on 5 April 2016.

    Thank you. Thank you very much Ian. Thanks for that introduction. Thank you for the welcome. It’s great to be back in Birmingham, great to be with you at PwC.

    And, as Ian has just said, we’ve got 78 days to go before the most important political decision that most of us will make in our lifetimes: whether to stay in or to leave a reformed European Union. And it is in many ways bigger than a general election. If you don’t like the choice you make in a general election, you can change your mind in 5 years’ time and chuck them out. Obviously that’s not a bit that I particularly look forward to but nonetheless it’s a very powerful part of our system.

    But this choice about Europe, it is a choice for a generation, a choice for a lifetime: do we stay in or do we go? Now I’m very clear that the best answer is to stay in. I think we are better off in; I think we’re stronger in; I think we’re safer in, and I want to say a word about each of those.

    Safer, because of course what really ensures our safety is our police, our intelligence service, our relationships around the world, but there’s no doubt in my mind, having been your Prime Minister for 6 years, that the European Union, the work we do with our partners, the information we get about criminals, about terrorists, that helps to keep us safer.

    I believe we’re stronger in as a country because of course we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world. We get strength through our membership of NATO, through our membership of the Commonwealth, through our relationship with the United States of America where I was last week, but we do get strength as well by being part of the European Union. We’re there, able to make decisions, whether it’s putting sanctions on Iran, so they don’t have a nuclear weapon or whether it is having a united front against Putin and what he’s done in the Ukraine. We are stronger because we are in the European Union.

    I also think we have the best of both worlds. Our membership of European Union is not quite like anybody else’s. We’re in the single market but we’re out of the single currency. We can work and travel all over Europe, but we maintain our borders and we don’t have to let people into our country if we think they are a threat to us. So I think we have the best of both worlds and that has got better with my negotiation because I’ve made sure they cannot discriminate against the pound sterling, our currency. I’ve made sure we have targets for burden reduction. I’ve made sure that we’ll never be part of an ever closer political union.

    But I think the most powerful case for staying in and the one I want to mention the most before answering your questions, is that we are better off; we are wealthier; we’re more prosperous; we’ll create more jobs; we’ll create more livelihoods for people in our country if we stay in a reformed European Union.

    The European Union is effectively a market of 500 million people, and a market we can sell to without quotas, without tariffs, without taxes, without any impediment. And when you think of Britain, when you think of Birmingham, when you think of the West Midlands, we are a trading nation, we need those markets open. That is how we create jobs. Around a quarter of a million jobs here in the West Midlands are dependent on trade with Europe.

    Now of course that trade wouldn’t disappear altogether if we were to leave the European Union, but what would be in its place in terms of the rules? What sort of deal would we have? And here’s where I think your industries, and the industries you support, in the services sector need to think about this so carefully. Because the truth is this: services make up 80% of the British economy, 4 fifths of the British economy. And it’s absolutely vital for our services industries that we have full access to that European single market. Now if we leave the EU, we therefore have to have some sort of deal with the EU to give us access. Now here’s the absolutely key choice: if we went for a deal like Norway which is out of the European Union but almost a full member of the single market, you’d still have to pay into the EU, like Norway does, and accept the free movement of people from the EU, like Norway does, and yet you’d have no say over the rules that govern trade or services or standards or anything else. Now that’s not a good deal. And you don’t just have to take that from me; that is the view of the Norwegian Prime Minister as well. They say to us, ‘Don’t go for the Norway option.’

    So the alternative to that would be a free trade agreement. Now Canada has, or is about to have, the biggest free trade agreement there is with the European Union, and some of the principal proponents of Britain leaving the EU have said we should have a Canada-style deal. But here’s the rub: the Canada-style deal does not have really any good provisions about services.

    Let me just give you a couple of examples. A Canadian airline can fly between Canada and a European city, but it can’t fly within Europe. Well what would that mean for easyJet or for Ryanair, for companies like that, that are so vital in terms of the cheap air flights that we all enjoy? Let me give you another example. If you’re a television station, if you’re located in Britain, you can broadcast all the way through the European Union; not if you’re a Canadian television station under the deal. Think of financial services, and you help so many financial services companies. With our arrangements, inside the single market, if you’re located in Britain you can trade in any European country. If you’re Canada, your financial services companies won’t be able to do that. They’d have to set up in each and every European country.

    So here’s the truth; if we leave the European Union, and if we have a deal like a Canada free trade deal, it will be very bad for our economy. It will be bad for jobs. It will be bad for investment. And it will be particularly bad for services industries that need those markets open. We have a brilliant manufacturing sector in Britain; it’s important that we keep it going, not least with the huge success of Jaguar Land Rover not far away from here. But we’re also the people that design the building, that consult on the deal, that insure the premises, that provide those vital services, those sales and other services right throughout the European Union. And I think that above all is the reason why we should reject the idea of a free trade deal and recognise we are better off inside a European Union. And that’s how I hope you’ll vote in 78 days’ time.

    But I just want to make one final point before taking your questions, because I think a lot of these arguments can always be quite dry, quite technical. They’re about jobs and investment, vitally important, but there’s also something else we should always think about when we consider this question of in or out. And that is it may be 78 days until that referendum, but it is also only 70 years ago that the countries of Europe were fighting each other and killing each other’s citizens in huge numbers.

    And yes it’s frustrating, the European Union, and I can tell you, as the person who sits round that table till often 3 or 4 in the morning, negotiating complex deals, it can be incredibly frustrating. But the fact that we talk to each other, the fact that we work with each other, the fact that we try and collaborate and cooperate to tackle the problems and issues that we face as countries is so much better than what came before and we should never forget that, whereas our continent had been wracked by war and conflict, we have found a way now to talk to each other, to work together. And that is something, when we think about this vote – which is not just for our generation but it’s for our children and our grandchildren – something that I hope we’ll think about.

    Thank you again for the welcome. I look forward to the questions. Whatever you decide to do, please do vote in 78 days’ time. People say there’s a lot of issues of sovereignty at stake in this referendum. Well, this is a giant act of sovereignty. You, the British people, are going to decide: do we stay in or do we get out? I hope you vote to stay in, particularly after the negotiation I concluded, but it’s your choice. I will obey the orders you give me on 23 June. Thank you very much.

    Right, okay. Questions, points? We’ve got some from the press here as well. Let’s have the lady behind me. Here comes a microphone; you may not need it, but just so they get you all the way up there.

    Question

    Hi, Eleanor Perfect. I’m the EU grants lead for PwC UK, so I work with PwC clients to access Horizon 2020 funding. What’s the plan if we vote to leave, to mitigate the…?

    Prime Minister

    Very good point. In case everybody doesn’t know, the Horizon 2020 programme, that is the money particularly for universities, where Britain actually does extremely well out of science and technology and university funding. If we look at the West Midlands as a whole, I think there’s about £700 million worth of European regional funding coming into the West Midlands between now and 2020.

    Now of course, if we left the EU we would have to make sure we funded science in our universities, and we had the other regional funds equivalent to those things. But you know, we can’t guarantee what it would be. And in a way, it’s a question for the Out campaign to answer: would you replicate the very important funding that’s going into British universities or wouldn’t you? But it is interesting that British universities, by and large, are solidly behind staying in a reformed European Union.

    And also, there’s this point: if we left the EU, it’s pretty clear – and the Bank of England have said this – there would be a shock to our economy and we would suffer in terms of a fall in our currency, a fall in our GDP and our output, and we’d be less able to fund vital science and other projects like the Horizon programme. So if we stay in, we know what we’re going to get, and we know that we can keep on winning for British universities, for British science; if we get out, we can’t guarantee that.

    Let’s have a couple more before we go to the press. Gentleman here.

    Question

    Thank you very much. Phil Harrold, PwC. I lead our automotive practice in the UK, and the automotive industry is in the best health it’s been for over 40 years. What’s the government going to do to maintain conditions for that health?

    Prime Minister

    Well I think – look, it is a really big success story. If I think back to my childhood, and what was going on in the motor industry then and all the difficulties we had in the 70s, you can see a situation transformed. We are now the third largest manufacturer of automotive vehicles, of cars, in the European Union, after Germany and Spain. We actually make more cars in the North East of our country, principally Nissan, than they do in the whole of Italy.

    So this is a huge success story for Britain, and I would argue the success is based on great design and manufacturing skills, very good industrial relations. But it’s also based on the fact that we are part of the European Union, and so the companies that come and invest here – whether it’s an Indian company in the case of Jaguar Land Rover, or whether it is the Japanese companies Nissan and Honda and Toyota – they come and invest here knowing they have complete access to that single market.

    Now, if we went for a Canada‑style trade deal, we’d have to meet all sorts of rules about the origin of all the parts of our cars, and we wouldn’t necessarily get that tariff‑free access to the single market. So if you put yourself in the mind of the Japanese car company, or Tata’s future investment in terms of Jaguar Land Rover, what would be better? Is it better to stay in a reformed European Union, knowing you’ve got access to that market, or is it better to take a risk? It must be better to stay in. And I know if we vote to stay in, we’ll continue to support the car industry in the way that we have. I think that what we’re doing, particularly on apprenticeships and skills, is a really, really strong future for that industry, and I want to see it grow.

    And we – you know, you have to think through what would happen on 24 June and afterwards if we vote to come out. We’re then going to spend years trying to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, and that is going to lead to huge uncertainty. And if there’s one thing businesses hate, it is uncertainty and a lack of knowledge about what the access to the market is going to be. So I think it’s a good example of why we should vote to stay in on 23 June.

    Lady here.

    Question

    Sarah Marshall, PwC. The ‘Midlands Engine’ has been mentioned in the last 2 consecutive Budgets without a lot of detail being out there. If we stay in, how will you ensure that we remain top of the agenda?

    Prime Minister

    Very important point. Look, I would say – I sometimes think the West Midlands thinks that it’s going to miss out because of this thing called the Northern Powerhouse, and I think that’s mistaken thinking. I think for a long time in our country we’ve been too unbalanced in terms of too much of the economic activity has been in London and the south-east. And the Northern Powerhouse is not about favouring the north over the West Midlands, it’s about trying to rebalance the whole country, and to create an alternative centre of strength and excellence – in manufacturing, in universities, in transport and all the rest of it – to make us a more balanced country. And that actually is of huge benefit to the West Midlands, because West Midlands will then draw its strength not only from the fact that Birmingham is the country’s second city, but also its connectivity to London and the south, and to Manchester and Leeds and Liverpool in the north; it will draw strength from both.

    And at the same time, we are putting a lot of investment into Birmingham. If you think of one of the biggest investments this government’s made over the last 5 years, it’s actually the complete renewal of Birmingham New Street station; something that was absolutely vital for our country. The biggest project coming up next is HS2, which I think has got huge benefits for Birmingham, not just in terms of journey speed and capacity, but also big regeneration of key parts of Birmingham.

    So I think you’ll hear a lot more about the West Midlands Engine, and I think you’ll also see this coming‑together of the local authorities in the West Midlands to try and form one West Midlands authority with one mayoral figure, who I think will be able to help drive the investment that’s needed in the West Midlands. So I think it’s a very positive picture: if you put together transport, connectivity and the governance that’s going to change, I think it’s a very strong picture.

    Let’s have Faisal Islam from Sky News.

    Question

    Thank you, Prime Minister. The leader of the opposition has called for an investigation into your tax affairs for your own interests. Can you clarify for the record that you and your family have not derived any benefit in the past, and will not in the future, from the offshore Blairmore Holdings fund mentioned in the Panama Papers?

    Prime Minister

    Sure. Look, what we need – the investigation we need, first of all, is for HMRC, our tax authority, to use all the information that is coming out of Panama to make sure that everything is done to make sure that companies and individuals are paying their taxes properly. In many ways, what’s coming out of Panama is actually what we’re introducing in our own country, which is a register of beneficial ownership so everyone can see who owns what company.

    As for my – the 2 things I’m responsible for are my own financial affairs and for the tax system of the United Kingdom. In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as Prime Minister, and I have some savings which I get some interest from, and I have a house which we used to live in which we now let out while we’re living in Downing Street. And that’s all I have; I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And so that, I think, is a very clear description.

    The second thing I’m responsible for is, of course, our tax system and for international tax policy. And I would say that no government, no prime minister has done more to make sure we crack down on tax evasion, on aggressive tax avoidance, on aggressive tax planning, both here in the UK and internationally. So we have recovered billions of pounds in our country by changing tax regulations and rules in Budget after Budget, billions of pounds. But we’ve also led the world in making sure we have, which we’ll have in June, an open register of beneficial ownership so everyone can see who owns what in Britain.

    We haven’t just done that here in the UK, we’ve also pioneered that abroad. We’ve said, for instance, to the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that they have to have the automatic exchange of tax information, they have to have a single standard for reporting company taxation, and they too need to do registers of beneficial ownership. And we’ve made huge progress on that with the Overseas Territories, with the Crown Dependencies, and other countries as well. I started this at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, some years ago, and we’ve now got country after country sharing tax information, committing to beneficial ownership registers which we never had before.

    Is there more to do? Absolutely. Am I committed to doing it? Absolutely, and the anti‑corruption summit that we’re holding in London on 12 May will be yet another sort of mark along the way of making sure we deliver on this absolutely vital agenda. We have low taxes here in Britain, but low taxes that people must pay, and that is our agenda and we’re going to stick to it.

    Lady here?

    Question

    Thank you. Lauren McCafferty, PwC. Ian opened today talking about student talent and the importance of graduates to our business, and you’ve touched on some of the key arguments that would appeal to those. I work in student recruitment myself, so I am incredibly passionate about it. There are a lot of complex arguments coming out of both sides of the debate. What personal message would you want to give to students who are perhaps voting for the first time in their lives to summarise the key points for them that they should consider in staying in? Thank you.

    Prime Minister

    Well I think to young people it is all about the opportunities of the future. If we stay in a reformed European Union, you have the opportunity to work, to live, to travel, to study in all these different European countries, and I think that is an exciting and compelling world to live in.

    If, on the other hand, we leave, you start your working life with probably a decade of uncertainty. What is our relationship with the rest of Europe? What trade deals are we going to have with other countries in the world? What are my rights going to be if I want to go work in Spain or if I want to go travel or live in other countries?

    So I think you’re swapping the certainty of knowing that, however this – imperfect this organisation can be, there’s lots of opportunity within it, and particularly for a country like Britain that has a special status within it. You are swapping that for uncertainty and for something of a leap in the dark. And I think, for people who’ve been to university, who’ve got an opportunity or people coming through school who want to do an apprenticeship, we know that what we’ve got can work for you in this organisation. Don’t put that at risk.

    Because this is a decision – as I say, it is not a decision you take now and then you reverse in 4 or 5 years’ time if you don’t like it, like you can with a government; this is a decision for the next generation. So I think the younger generation need to think very carefully about what this all means.

    Let’s have the Express & Star. Sir.

    Question

    Thank you. Mr Cameron, have EU regulations harmed the British steel industry to the extent that we can’t compete with foreign import?

    Prime Minister

    No, I don’t believe they have. Look, we’ve got a very difficult situation with the steel industry in our country, just as other countries do, because we’ve got massive global over capacity, a collapse in global prices and this makes a real challenge for our steel industry. But we’ve got a government that’s determined to help in every way that we can. I met this morning with the Welsh First Minister to talk about all the things that we can do. We’ve already helped on energy. We’ve already helped on procurement. We now want to make sure that Tata are looking seriously at a potential buyer for this business, and all of the business; I think it’s very important to say that.

    And then you’d have to ask yourself the question, well would we be better off trying to do this if we were outside the European Union? And my answer is no, we wouldn’t. More than half of British steel goes to the European Union. We need those markets to be open for our steel. And if we were outside the European Union, we could be subject to those anti-dumping tariffs that the European Union is quite rightly applying to the Chinese and to other countries.

    So I think there is a certain strength in numbers when you’re dealing with other countries in this way. Britain is a big economy. Fifth largest in the world. But we are 60 million people, which, when added together with the other 440 million people in the European Union, means that we have serious power as a trading bloc, as a trading bloc in our negotiations with China or with America.

    And I think sometimes people can think that, just because you have friendly relations with a country, you automatically get a good trade deal from it. Now we have very friendly relations with the United States of America, no doubt about it. But right now, how much British beef or British lamb do you think they’re buying in America? Zero, none. They have put some sort of block on it for, I think, very phoney reasons. So even though you’ve got a friendly relationship, that doesn’t necessarily lead to friendly tariff and friendly trade regimes.

    It is a tough trading world out there. We need those European markets open. We need strength in numbers through Europe to make sure we crack down on the dumping of Chinese and other steel, and Britain is leading the way in making sure that happens.

    Let’s have, lady here.

    Question

    Hello. How diverse do you think the UK government is?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. We were talking about this a bit earlier. Not as diverse as it should be, but I think we have made some important steps forward. We’ve now got – sitting around the cabinet table, one third of the people round the cabinet table are women, which is a big change from when I first came into politics. When I became leader of the Conservative party, I think we had 17 or 18 women MPs; we’ve now got over 70. So that’s a big change, but as we’ve got 300 – more than 300 MPs, it’s not enough.

    In terms of diversity in terms of the ethnic diversity of Parliament, that’s changed a lot in recent years and I think that is really positive. And if I look around my cabinet table, we were just talking about the steel industry, and my Business Secretary, his dad came from Pakistan to drive the buses in London, and in one generation his son is sitting around the cabinet table responsible for one of the most important portfolios in government.

    So I think we are becoming more diverse. I think we do need not positive discrimination but positive action, you need to make sure that people can make it right to the top and you need to demonstrate that, because I think role models are so important in this, and I’m sure you find this in PwC. It’s all very well saying we’re an equal opportunities employer, we’re all based on merit, you can go as high as your talent allows. That’s great, but if you open the door and all you see is a sea of white male faces, it’s not very encouraging.

    So I have always believed, if you want to have a more diverse workforce, have a more diverse leadership, change your country in that way, you need to take some quite strong positive action to make sure that we access all of the talent of the country. And that is the key point in the end.

    This is not about political correctness; this is about effectiveness. PwC would not be half as effective as it is if it locked out women and people from Britain’s ethnic minorities into its teams. My wife would say it would be considerably less than 50% efficient if that was the case.

    Question

    Say, for example, if we do end up having to leave the EU, people vote that they don’t want to stay, for European companies who’ve invested in the – invested in the UK, what impact would it have on them, and what incentive would they have to stay?

    Prime Minister

    Well, very good question. What – in case everyone didn’t hear, for the foreign companies that invested in the UK, if we were to leave the EU, what effect would it have on them? The short answer is that you can’t say for certain until you know what the alternative arrangements are that Britain would put in place. And so it’s really a question the Leave campaign have got to answer.

    But the truth is this: if we opted for a situation like Norway, which is basically almost a member of the single market, the situation wouldn’t change very much because those companies would still have access to European markets, but Norway pays into the EU about the same per head of population as we do. So the people who say I want to get out of Europe because I want to stop contributing to the budget, well the Norway solution doesn’t help. Ditto when it comes to the free movement of people. Norway has to sign up to the free movement of people, so anyone from another EU country can go and live and work in Norway. In fact, they won’t even have my welfare deal where, under my new arrangements, you don’t get full access to our welfare system if you come from another European country for 4 years.

    So that’s the Norway answer, which would be reassuring, I think, to foreign investors and other European investors who’ve come to build plants and businesses in Britain. But that’s not what the Leave campaigners say they want, because they don’t want to pay in to the EU, and they don’t want free movement of people.

    So therefore you have to look at a free trade deal. And the longer you look at these free trade deals, the more you can see, they take a very long time to come in. The Canada one has been 7 years in negotiation and still hasn’t been passed. So you’ve got 7 years of uncertainty; 7 years of the Japanese car company thinking, ‘Shall I put more investment in Britain or not?’; 7 years of, you know, the Indian company thinking, ‘Should I invest more in this great automotive business or should I put that money somewhere else?’

    And then if you do go for a Canada-style free trade deal, you may well find that you don’t have the access to the market that you used to have. So I was looking at this Canada free trade deal, and this is relevant, I think, to your business. They don’t have automatic access to all European markets for their accountancy businesses. Indeed, in France you have to have the permission, I think, of the Finance Ministry in order to set up a bookkeeping business in France.

    And you lay yourself open as a country, and as a group of companies, and as an economy, to putting yourself into a very difficult situation, where of course the French accountancy firms will be saying, ‘Well don’t let the Brits in. Let’s favour our own accountancy firms.’ You know, you’d get car manufacturers in Spain lobbying their government, saying, ‘Well don’t give them a good free trade deal. Let’s have more cars made in Spain.’

    These are all things that cannot happen now because we have this unimpeded access to this market of 500 million people. And that is why I think for us to vote to leave the European Union would be an act of economic and political self-harm to our country, which is why I am going to campaign very hard in the next 78 days to say that we really should not take this step.

    And I’ll say again what I’ve said before. I’m not standing to be your Prime Minister again at the next election. I’ve got no other agenda here than saying what I think after 6 years of being your Prime Minister is the best thing for our country, for our economy, for our businesses, for our families. And I have no hesitation in saying, yes, there are frustrations with this organisation, but we are better off, we are stronger, we are safer if we stay inside it.

    Let’s just take a couple more and then we’ll have one more from the press.

    Question

    I think you’ve touched a – thank you. I think you touched a little bit on diversity and [inaudible] as well. I know this is about EU, but Theresa May has been making it really hard for people from non-EU backgrounds to be working here. What is your stance on that?

    Prime Minister

    Well I agree with Theresa May. I mean, that’s – we’re in the cabinet together, so we’d have to agree with each other. But look, the point is this –

    Speaker

    You haven’t always though.

    Prime Minister

    I know. The point is this, we have had very big pressure in terms of migration into the UK. It’s been running at, you know, well over 100,000 a year, sometimes 200,000 a year or more going back for around a decade now. And people want us and I want us to control immigration. Immigration is good for the country. It is good that people come and work here and make their home here and contribute, but you do need to try and have a control over the numbers and a control over the pressures.

    And so what we’ve done is say, well we’re going to attack this – deal with this problem in 2 ways. First of all, for people coming from outside the EU, we put a cap on economic migration of some 20,000 a year, and we put in place some restrictions so that students can come, but they must be genuine students to genuine universities. We’ve closed down dozens of bogus colleges.

    So that’s how we’ve approached the issue of migration from outside the EU but I know it does sometimes cause frustrations inside the EU where there is the right to go and live and work in other European countries, just as we have the right to go and work in their countries. So the approach we’ve taken there is on welfare, which is we have a very generous in-work welfare system. People can earn as much as, you know, £8,000, £9,000, £10,000 of tax credits when they come to our country. So that’s why we’ve negotiated this unique ability for the next 7 years to be able to say you don’t get full access to our welfare system until you’ve been here for 4 years. And I think that’s a very positive way of saying, yes we want people to come but we want people to pay in before they get out. No something for nothing.

    So this does create difficulties and problems, and I know there can be pressures for more people who want to come, but I think both inside the EU and outside the EU, we need to have that controlled immigration, which is what we’re delivering.

    Question

    Prime Minister, as you can see we’re a people business, so how would an in vote benefit the employment market as we run up to 2020?

    Prime Minister

    The employment market? Well I mean, first of all the good news is over the last 6 years we’ve seen something like 2.3 million more people in work, so we are a job factory. We’ve been creating a lot of jobs in our country, and this has put on some of the immigration pressure. And I would say the best thing we can do is keep going with the economic plan that we’ve got. It’s a plan that’s working and one of the things that could upset the plan is creating uncertainty. And one of the ways we create jobs is having access to Europe’s markets, making sure we complete these trade deals with North America, with India, with China, and that I think is the best way to secure jobs and secure growth.

    Whereas the uncertainty of maybe 7, maybe 10 years of not knowing exactly what your relationship is with Europe, what your trade deals are with the rest of the world, companies wondering about whether they’re going to come in and invest here, companies that are already here thinking about should we grow more in Britain or should we go somewhere else, that is uncertainty that we do not need.

    And that is why, as I said, I think there are so many good arguments for staying in a reformed EU: the argument about safety and fighting terrorism, the argument about Britain’s strength in the world and being able to get things done. But I do think the strongest single argument is this issue of our economy, of jobs, of people’s prosperity, because, in the end, that is what I think people want to know. What is my best chance of securing a good future for myself and for my family, having a job, being able to contribute and deliver in that way? That’s the most important thing, and that’s the question I think people should have in their minds as they go into the polling booth.

    Can I say you’ve been a really brilliant audience? Thank you very much for the welcome, thank you for all you do at PwC. I can see you have achieved a very diverse and very strong workforce, and it’s been great to come here to Birmingham and join you today.

    Thank you very much indeed.

    Speaker

    Thank you, Prime Minister.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Commons Statement on European Council

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 21 March 2016.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council, which focused on the migration crisis affecting continental Europe.

    Mr Speaker, the single biggest cause has of course been the war in Syria and the brutality of the Asad regime. But we have also seen huge growth in people coming to Southern Europe from Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Africa, all facilitated by the rapid growth of criminal networks of people smugglers.

    There are over 8,000 migrants still arriving in Greece every week. And there are signs that the numbers using the central Mediterranean route are on the rise again. So far 10,000 have come this year.

    Of course, because of our special status in the European Union, Britain is not part of the Schengen open border arrangements – and we’re not going to be joining.

    We have our own border controls. And they apply to everyone trying to enter our country – including EU citizens.

    So people cannot travel through Greece or Italy onward to continental Europe and into Britain. And that will not change.

    But it is in our national interest to help our European partners deal effectively with this enormous and destabilising challenge.

    We have argued for a consistent and clear approach right from the start. Ending the conflict in Syria. Supporting the refugees in the region. Securing European borders. Taking refugees directly from the camps and the neighbouring countries but not from Europe. Cracking down on people smuggling gangs.

    This approach – of focusing on the problem upstream – has now been universally accepted in Europe. And at this Council it was taken forwards with a comprehensive plan for the first time.

    As part of this plan, the Council agreed to stop migrants from leaving Turkey in the first place to intercept those that do leave, while they are at sea, turning back their boats, and to return back to Turkey those that make it to Greece.

    There can be no guarantee of success, but if this plan is properly and fully implemented, in my view it will be the best chance to make a difference.

    For the first time we have a plan that breaks the business model of the people smugglers, by breaking the link between getting in a boat and getting settlement.

    Mr Speaker, I want to be clear about what Britain is doing – and what we are not doing – as a result of this plan. What we are doing is contributing our expertise and our skilled officials to help with the large-scale operation now under way.

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Mounts Bay and Border Force vessels are already patrolling the Aegean. British asylum experts and interpreters are already working in Greece to help them process individual cases.

    At the Council I said that Britain stands ready to do even more to support these efforts.

    Above all, what is needed – and what we have been pushing for – is a detailed plan to implement this agreement and to ensure that all the offers of support that are coming from around Europe are properly co-ordinated.

    And our share of the additional EU money which will go to helping refugees in Turkey under this agreement will come from our existing aid budget.

    But Mr Speaker, let me also be clear what we are not doing.

    First, we are not giving visa-free access for Turks coming to the UK.

    Schengen countries are giving visa-free access to Turks. But because we are not part of Schengen, we are not bound by their decision.

    We have made our own decision which is to maintain our own borders. And we will not be giving that visa-free access.

    Second, visa-free access to Schengen countries will not mean a back-door route to Britain.

    As the House knows, visa-free access only means the right to visit. It does not mean a right to work. It does not mean a right to settle.

    Just because for instance British citizens can enjoy visa-free travel for holidays to America, that does not mean they can work, let alone settle there. Neither will this give Turkish citizens those rights in the EU.

    Third, we will not be taking more refugees as a result of this deal.

    A number of Syrians who are in camps in Turkey will be resettled into the Schengen countries of the EU. But again that does not apply to Britain.

    We have already got our resettlement programme and we are delivering on it.

    We said we would resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over this Parliament, taking them directly from the camps. And that is what we are doing.

    We promised 1,000 resettled here in time for last Christmas. And that is what we delivered.

    The other 27 EU countries agreed to 2 schemes.

    One to relocate 160,000 people within the EU, but by the time of last December’s Council, only 208 had been relocated.

    The second to have a voluntary resettlement scheme for 22,500 from outside the EU, but by the end of last year, just 483 refugees had been resettled.

    We said what we would do – and we are doing it.

    And Mr Speaker, Britain has given more money to support Syrians fleeing the war, and the countries hosting them, than any other European country.

    Indeed we are doing more than any country in the world other than the United States – spending over £1 billion so far, with another £1.3 billion pledged.

    We are fulfilling our moral responsibility.

    Mr Speaker, turning to the central Mediterranean, the EU naval operation we established last summer has had some success – with over 90 vessels destroyed and more than 50 smugglers arrested.

    HMS Enterprise is taking part, and we will continue her deployment through the summer.

    What is desperately needed is a government in Libya with whom we can work so we can co-operate with the Libyan coastguard, in Libyan waters, to turn back the boats and stop the smugglers there too.

    There is now a new prime minister, and a government whom we have recognised as the sole legitimate authority in Libya.

    These are very early days but we must do what we can to try and make this work.

    And that is why at this Council I brought together leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Malta, to ensure that we are all ready to provide as much support as possible.

    Mr Speaker, turning to other matters at the Council, I took the opportunity to deal with a long-standing issue we have had about the VAT rate on sanitary products.

    We have some EU wide VAT rules in order to make the single market work.

    But the system has been far too inflexible – and this causes understandable frustration.

    We said we would get this changed – and that is exactly what we’ve done.

    The Council conclusions confirm that the European Commission will produce a proposal in the next few days to allow countries to extend the number of zero rates for VAT, including on sanitary products.

    This is an important breakthrough.

    It means that Britain will be able to have a zero rate for sanitary products – meaning the end of the tampon tax.

    And on this basis, the government will be accepting both the amendments put down to the Finance Bill tomorrow night.

    Mr Speaker, my Rt Hon Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spent almost a decade campaigning for welfare reform and spent the last 6 years implementing these policies in government.

    In that time we have seen nearly half a million fewer children living in workless households, over 1 million fewer people on out of work benefits and nearly 2.4 million more people in work.

    And in spite of having to take difficult decisions on the deficit child poverty, inequality and pensioner poverty are all down.

    My Rt Hon Friend contributed an enormous amount to the work of this government and he can be proud of what he achieved.

    And Mr Speaker, let me say this.

    This government will continue to give the highest priority to improving the life chances of the poorest in our country.

    We will continue to reform our schools.

    We will continue to fund childcare and create the jobs.

    We will carry on cutting taxes for the lowest paid – in the last Parliament we took 4 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether and our further rises to the personal allowance will exempt millions more.

    Combined with this we will go on with our plans to rebuild sink estates to help those with mental health conditions to extend our troubled families programme to reform our prisons and to tackle discrimination for those whose life chances suffer because of the colour of their skin.

    And Mr Speaker in 2 weeks’ time we will introduce the first ever National Living Wage – giving a pay rise to the poorest people in our country.

    All of this is driven by a deeply held conviction that everyone in Britain should have the chance to make the most of their lives.

    And Mr Speaker, let me add: none of this would be possible if it weren’t for the actions of this government – and the work of my Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor – in turning our economy around.

    We can only improve life chances if our economy is secure and strong.

    Without sound public finances you end up having to raise taxes or make even deeper cuts in spending.

    You don’t get more opportunity, you get less.

    And it’s working people who suffer.

    So we must continue to cut the deficit, control the cost of welfare, and live within our means.

    We must not burden our children and grandchildren with debts we didn’t have the courage to pay off ourselves.

    Securing our economy, extending opportunity: We will continue with this approach in full because we are a modern, compassionate, one nation Conservative government.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement on European Council Meeting

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 18 March 2016.

    Good afternoon,

    This European Council has rightly been focused on the migration crisis affecting continental Europe.

    With over 8,000 migrants still arriving in Greece every week and signs that the numbers using the Central Mediterranean route are on the rise once again, it is absolutely vital that Europe takes the concrete action necessary to stem these flows.

    And that is what we’ve agreed here today.

    This is a plan to break the link between getting in a boat and getting settlement in Europe. It’s a plan to bust the business model of the smugglers. And it’s a plan to reduce the numbers coming from both Turkey and Libya.

    Let me say a few words on each.

    First, I welcome the agreement we have reached with Turkey today.

    We will work together to stop migrants from leaving Turkey in the first place, to stop at sea those that do leave and to turn back the boats and to return back to Turkey those that do make it to Greece.

    For the first time in this crisis, I believe that we have a plan, if properly and fully implemented, that really could help to make a difference deterring people from coming and shutting down the trade that the smuggling gangs have been exploiting.

    Now we’ve got this on paper, we have absolutely got to make it work in practice.

    This will not be easy.

    It will require a comprehensive and large scale operation.

    Britain will help. We have the expertise. We have skilled officials. Indeed, we are already playing our part.

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Mounts Bay and border force vessels are patrolling the Aegean.

    Asylum experts and interpreters are already working in Greece to help them process individual cases.

    And today I’ve said that we stand ready to do more.

    But it all needs to be part of a fully worked up plan to be drawn up – at our suggestion – in the next few days.

    Now let me be clear about the part the UK plays in this because of our special status.

    We will not be giving visa free access for Turks coming to the UK. That is a decision taken by Schengen countries for the Schengen area. We are not in the Schengen area, we are not bound by their decisions. This is a national decision by Britain and we won’t be giving that visa free access.

    Second, we will not be taking more refugees – we have our programme of resettling people direct from the refugee camps and that stays the same.

    We are already investing in the Syrian refugee camps in Turkey and elsewhere and we have been calling for others to do more – so the financial commitment agreed today is money rightly spent and our share comes from our existing aid budget.

    With this new agreement today, I do think we can significantly reduce numbers coming to Europe via the eastern Mediterranean.

    But we mustn’t take our eye off the ball and forget about other routes – particularly across the central Mediterranean from North Africa.

    Now the EU naval operation we established last Summer has had some success – over 90 vessels have been destroyed and more than 50 smugglers arrested.

    HMS Enterprise is taking part and we will extend her deployment through the Summer.

    But with a new government now in Libya, we now have an opportunity to make this operation more effective – working with the Libyan coastguard in Libyan waters so we can turn back the boats and stop the smugglers there too.

    Now this isn’t going to happen overnight – but we need to start now.

    That’s why today I brought together leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Malta to discuss how we make this happen.

    And we all agreed that we would work with the new Libyan government, that we’d commit the necessary resources and we’d look towards the next stage of the mission which is going into Libyan territorial waters.

    And we all agreed that we would:

    – work with the new Libyan government

    – we’d commit the necessary resources

    – and we’d look toward the next stage of the mission which is going into Libyan territorial waters.

    Finally, I just wanted to seize the opportunity here at this summit to address a concern of many people back at home – the VAT rate on sanitary products.

    We have some EU wide VAT rules in order to make the single market work.

    But on the specific issue of VAT on sanitary products, we have been pressing the European Commission for several months to bring forward proposals so we can apply a zero rate.

    I secured clear Council Conclusions for this and that’s exactly what they will do – with proposals in the coming days.

    What’s more, I also secured backing from all other European leaders for this plan.

    So we are now a step closer to stopping this tampon tax once and for all.

    It shows that when we fight for our interests here, we are heard and we can get things done.

    We can reform the EU to make it work for Britain.

    And at this summit we have shown that once again.

    And I believe that Britain will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed European Union.

    Thank you very much.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Vauxhall on EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Vauxhall on 10 March 2016.

    Introduction

    There is going to be lots of debate about Europe over the next 3 and a half months.

    But the biggest issue on the ballot paper on June 23rd is this: our economic future.

    And as I’ve said before, the question isn’t whether Britain could still be a great country outside Europe. Of course we could.

    The question is: where will our economy be stronger; where will our children have more opportunities; where will families have the most security; where will Britain be better off – in or out of a reformed Europe?

    I know that as people make up their minds, what they want – more than anything – are the facts and arguments.

    But I know people also want to understand more about Europe, and in particular the single market.

    So today, I want to explain what this market is, how it works, and what its advantages are – and crucially how it should change in the future, under the agreement I negotiated and what that means for you, in terms of jobs, prices, investment in our economy, and your family’s financial security.

    At the same time, I want to challenge those who advocate leaving to be equally clear about the alternatives that they propose for our relationship with this single market.

    Because if there’s one thing lacking in all they have said so far, it is specifics, particularly about this issue.

    What trade relationship would Britain have with Europe? What deals would we sign with the rest of the world? What tariffs would British business have to pay?

    There are so many people in this country who need answers.

    The farmer wondering if his beef will be subject to duties.

    The factory worker wondering if his company will cut investment.

    The young graduate wondering whether she’ll be able to get a job.

    That to me is the difference in this referendum.

    On the one side, we have facts about how a single market in a reformed Europe makes Britain better off, all drawn from experts’ projections, and other countries’ experiences.

    On the other side, we have unanswered questions.

    So as you make what will be the most important decision for this country in a generation, let me take you through the three big advantages of the single market:

    First, how it allows businesses, like this one, to trade tariff-free with the European Union.

    Second, how it removes the barriers that not even the best free trade agreements can completely tackle.

    And third, how it enables the European Union to strike the most ambitious and comprehensive trade deals with the world.

    And as I do this, I want to turn to the big questions that leave campaigners need to answer.

    Remain: Tariffs

    So first, selling to a continent full of customers – 500 million people – tariff-free.

    Before we joined, we faced extremely high tariffs:

    14 per cent on cars.

    17 per cent on bicycles.

    32 per cent on salt.

    37 per cent on china.

    Even, oddly, 20 per cent on gloves – but only 13 per cent on socks.

    This all meant higher costs for businesses and for consumers – and less choice on our supermarket shelves.

    Today, there is one tariff in the single market: and it is zero per cent.

    And what it means is this:

    A British businesswoman can sell her goods in Berlin as easily as she can in Birmingham.

    A lorry that sets off from Sunderland doesn’t have to deal with layers of bureaucracy in every country as it heads towards for instance Salzburg.

    And industries that were once struggling to survive are now thriving.

    Let’s take your industry: cars.

    For every 100 cars we make, 23 stay here in Britain, 33 are sold beyond Europe – but the biggest proportion, 44 of that 100 cars, they go to the continent.

    Why? Not just because of our proximity.

    But because those cars – made inside the single market – are around 10 per cent less expensive than if they had been subject to the tariffs that are imposed outside the single market.

    And it’s not just the selling that depends on Europe; it’s also the making.

    Because in the single market, components are tariff-free, too.

    And that is vital to Britain, where 59 per cent of car parts by value are imported.

    So as you look at the cars that are lined up here, ready to be shipped, you’re looking at an industry that is completely integrated with the single market.

    And that’s good for the people of this country – it creates 140,000 jobs in the car industry; supporting an extra 300,000 jobs; and generating £12 billion a year for our economy.

    So many industries benefit from a tariff-free Europe.

    Look at chemicals and pharmaceuticals – nearly 140,000 jobs; worth over £22 billion pounds; selling over 50 per cent of their exports to Europe.

    Look at food industry – 370,000 jobs; worth almost £20 billion; selling over 55 per cent of exports to Europe.

    So when I hear people argue that, by being in this single market, we are “shackled to a corpse”, I say: you won’t find the people in these industries saying that; or the towns whose employment depends on them.

    It’s by being in the single market that so many of our companies are growing.

    And it also helps us attract a huge amount of investment to the United Kingdom.

    Of course, businesses invest in Britain for many reasons – our skilled workforce, our flexible labour market and low taxes.

    They invest because of our effective but low regulation – one of the least restrictive in the OECD, in fact, despite our membership of the European Union.

    And they invest because our economy is strong.

    That’s worth thinking about for a moment.

    When we entered the European Community, back in the 1970s, with high inflation and frankly zero confidence in our economy.

    Today, 40 years later, our country is much stronger and better off – with one of the fastest growth rates and lowest unemployment rates in Europe.

    Now of course, we have turned round our country’s fortunes through our own efforts – not least through fundamental reforms in the 1980s.

    But when you consider the country Britain is today compared to when we joined the EU, it is hard to sustain the argument that being in has hobbled us or crippled our ability to do well.

    Far from holding us back, our membership of the EU is one reason why countries want to invest.

    And every day, foreign companies invest £142 million here in Britain, companies like BMW, Bosch, Ikea, Nissan and Siemens. And of course General Motors.

    That doesn’t just create jobs; it helps us to finance what economists call our current account deficit – meaning we can pay our way in the world.

    And it’s small businesses that are affected as well.

    Nearly a third of Federation of Small Businesses members import or export overseas, and 80 per cent of those who export sell to Europe.

    And it’s not just those trading directly with Europe; it’s those connected to that process – in the jargon, in the supply chain: the factory that makes the components for the car company; the local printer who makes leaflets for the factory; the sandwich shop that caters for the printers.

    So many businesses succeed, directly and indirectly, because of this free-trade system.

    Indeed, 3 million people’s jobs in our country are already linked to it.

    And, because of the changes and reforms I’ve secured in Europe, I’m determined that many more businesses will succeed, too.

    During that renegotiation I got some clear commitments: to complete the single market in services, in digital and in energy.

    This really matters for a country like ours because over three quarters of our economy is made up of the service sector, and we are one of Europe’s leaders in technology and renewable energy.

    So the result is clear: more jobs, more investment, lower prices, greater economic security – and hardworking families better off.

    Leave: Tariffs

    Those who want to leave aren’t clear about what sort of access that we’d have to the single market after we’d left.

    Clearly there would be a strong case for trying to secure full access.

    But as the German finance minister made clear last week, if you want that you must pay into the EU and accept complete the free movement of people – two of the reasons many people cite for wanting to leave the EU in the first place.

    Norway is one example of a country we could follow. They have almost full access to the single market.

    But they pay into the EU; accept nearly double the number of EU migrants per head that we do and still have to put up with tariffs on some of their goods.

    Crucially, they have no say on the rules of the single market, whereas we do.

    Now others will say: let’s sign a free trade agreement like Canada is doing. And yes of course – perhaps we could.

    But their free trade agreement is not anything like being in the single market and it retains a number of tariffs and quotas.

    Will Canadian farmers have unrestricted exports for their produce? No.

    Will Canadian car makers be able to sell their cars in Europe without cumbersome rules on the origin of each part? No.

    Their agreement with the EU is over 1,400 pages long – 700 of which are exemptions from free trade demanded by either side.

    Now that might work for Canada, which sends around a tenth of its exports to Europe.

    But it wouldn’t work for Britain, with around half our exports going to Europe.

    Then there are those who will argue that we could pull out of the EU and fall back on World Trade Organisation rules.

    But that wouldn’t mean tariff-free trade.

    Even with the WTO Most Favoured Nation treatment, we’d be exposed to tariffs of 10 per cent on our cars, 11 per cent on clothes and 36 per cent on average for dairy products. What would happen to jobs in those sectors?

    Of course, each of those three outcomes, access to the Single Market, but accepting fees and migration; a free trade agreement; or WTO rules, all of these are do-able. And people who want to leave the EU should decide which they favour.

    But there is another key question. Would Britain get a good deal?

    Now here I want to cut through some of the rhetoric.

    Because we have the leave campaigners saying any hint that you think Britain may not get a good deal is somehow “talking Britain down”.

    And we have remain campaigners saying it’s all very difficult and all very hard.

    So I just need to present you with the facts, so you can make up your own mind.

    If Britain was to vote to leave, we would have to enter discussions with the EU on what our trade relationship should be like.

    And these will be the negotiating dynamics:

    One nation negotiating with 27 nations.

    Britain’s market of 60 million negotiating with a European market of 440 million.

    Britain, a country which sells 50 per cent of its goods to a European bloc, compared to a European bloc which sells only 7 per cent of its goods to us.

    Those are the facts. I will leave it to you to judge who the balance favours.

    Remain: Non-tariff barriers

    Now the second big advantage of the single market is that it doesn’t just eliminate tariffs, it eliminates other barriers to trade – things that are known as non-tariff barriers.

    These are the often more technical rules but they impose hidden costs on businesses.

    Things like refusing to recognise the professional qualifications of your staff.

    Or saying that your company has to set up a separate legal entity in every single country you want to trade in.

    This is particularly important for Britain, which relies less on goods, which are hindered by tariffs, and more on services, which are hindered by these non-tariff barriers.

    We’ve already demonstrated how effective we can be at bringing down the barriers.

    In the 1980s, a lorry load of goods setting off from Manchester to Milan would be carrying 88 separate documents.

    Today, thanks to this internal market which we drove forward, they have been replaced with just one piece of paper.

    Before the 1990s, airlines could be blocked by other countries from flying where and when they wanted.

    Britain helped end that, and that spawned EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2.com, and opening up the continent to British businesses, students and holidaymakers, making travel much, much cheaper.

    Of course it’s not always easy.

    There are times when changes to these non-tariff rules can cause us problems. But frankly that’s no surprise when you have an organisation of 28 different members.

    But on the big questions, we have a seat at the table to help shape those rules and promote Britian’s industries.

    One of the biggest non-tariff barriers is the ability of countries to ban your product on the basis of often spurious concerns.

    With a seat at the table and enforceable rules, we are able to challenge those things.

    And that’s what we did in 2001 when the European Court of Justice overturned France’s bogus ban on British beef.

    Without the single market, there are obstacles to selling meat for instance to some of our biggest trading partners – even our friends, like America.

    How much British beef do you think we sell in America? None. All because of restrictions that are nearly 20 years old.

    That shows just how important it is to be able to shape the rules to suit our interests, which the single market in the EU enables us to do.

    Then there’s for instance the financial services, employing 1.1 million people in this country and adding £133 billion pounds to our economy.

    This industry goes way beyond London; two-thirds of financial sector jobs are based outside the capital.

    All have the benefit of being able to trade in the single market of 500 million people without having to set up an office anywhere else other than the UK, because we are in the EU.

    Recently, there was move that could’ve forced UK-based companies that clear euros – a bedrock of our financial services, to move inside the Eurozone.

    That could’ve been deeply economically damaging for our country.

    But we had our seat at the table, and we were able to stop it.

    And through my renegotiation I’ve made sure a proposal like that can never happen again.

    And let me be clear: I am the first to say that there needs to be further reform of the EU.

    My renegotiation isn’t the end of the road for reform.

    It’s another important milestone in our ongoing mission to make sure the EU works for us.

    Leave: Non-tariff barriers

    Now what about the alternatives?

    We need to be clear.

    If we voted to leave, we could sign the best possible free trade agreement in the world with the European Union, but it still would not come close to giving British companies the access they get to the world’s largest free trade area from the single market.

    Why?

    Because – and this is really important point – even the best free trade agreements leave many of these non-tariff barriers in place.

    For British firms like this, it would be a return to the bad old days of endless forms and burdensome bureaucracy and, along with losing out on the benefits of a more complete single market, it could cost Britain over £50 billion, according to the London School of Economics.

    That’s not all. Those who want to leave Europe claim we would be repatriating powers.

    But leaving Europe would in many ways give us less control:

    We’d still be affected by its rules if we wanted access to the single market – we just wouldn’t have any influence over them.

    Just ask Switzerland.

    There’s a reason their banks base substantial operations inside the UK: they have no agreement that guarantees their access to the single market.

    And then there is Norway.

    As their prime minister said only last week: “We lack influence in important decision-making processes in the EU. We have special arrangements on some issues, but basically we have lost our sovereignty.”

    That is what the Norwegian Prime Minister is saying outside of the EU because of the relationships they’ve signed with the EU. Now that’s a really important point.

    Remain: Trade deals

    The third big advantage of the single market is that it actually helps us to trade the world over.

    Those who imply there is some sort of choice, between trading with Europe on the one hand and trading with the rest of the world on the other hand, are wrong.

    It’s not either/or. We’ve got to do both.

    Indeed, the fact that we are part of such a huge market – of 500 million people – means our companies have the platform to grow, scale up quickly and take on the world.

    But on top of that, our membership of the single market means we are able to trade with many more countries beyond Europe, on a preferential basis, because the EU has free trade agreements with them.

    Adding those countries – like Mexico and South Korea – to EU member states means we can trade more easily with a third of the entire world.

    This really matters.

    The EU-South Korea trade deal may not sound like a big deal for Britain, but ask the people who work in this industry.

    Since it was implemented, car exports from Britain to South Korea have nearly quadrupled.

    And this is just the beginning.

    I put at the front and centre of my renegotiation clear commitments to complete more preferential trade and investment deals right across the world.

    There are another 9 on the way – from Japan to India and America.

    Take the EU-US trade deal, known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

    When complete, it will make it easier for one of the world’s richest economies to buy British products.

    But it isn’t just about the big industries that benefit. It’s also the small ones.

    A company like Amtico flooring – they could be free from tariffs of up to 12.5 per cent if they are allowed to send their stock between their Coventry and Atlanta plants.

    Think of Five Point Plus, who make car harnesses for children. They could sell their products to many more people.

    So we should see British business after business break into America – thanks to our deal through the EU…

    …which could make our economy up to £10 billion a year better off.

    Leave: Trade deals

    If we vote to stay in a reformed Europe, we know we get these preferential trade deals.

    But again, a vote to leave is a vote for huge uncertainty.

    Leave campaigners say countries would queue up to sign trade deals with us, and sign them quickly.

    But I believe that is guesswork. And guesswork at a time when we need facts.

    One fact is this: it can take years to strike trade deals. The Canada-EU deal took 7 years and it’s still not implemented.

    And that’s ignoring the fact that many of these countries may not even start negotiations until they know what relationship we have with Europe once we’ve left.

    What would happen to British jobs and business in that time?

    Here’s another fact: if Britain voted to leave, there’s a process under Article 50 of the European Treaty which would give us two years before all the trade deals we have through the EU – with over 50 countries – would fall away.

    Are those who advocate leaving saying they would’ve sorted out individual replacements with each territory and each bloc in that time?

    Fact number 3: countries like America have said they would much rather do regional trade deals like the one we are currently negotiating.

    As the US Trade Representative put it: the United States is “not particularly in the market for free trade agreements with individual countries”.

    Now look what happens to those countries who do such deals.

    When Switzerland signed a trade deal with China, they had to scrap tariffs on nearly all their Chinese imports, while some Chinese tariffs would only be dismantled over 10 or even 15 years.

    So this is the question: if we left Europe, who would we sign trade deals with? How long would that take? What would be the terms? How can we be sure no jobs would go in the meantime?

    We can’t.

    A vote to leave is a leap in the dark.

    Families’ finances

    So that’s what our membership of a reformed Europe offers: certainty.

    Tariffs abolished. Non-tariff barriers eliminated. A deeper single market completed. Trade deals with the rest of the world signed.

    Again, as Mark Carney has said, our continued membership reinforces our economic dynamism and leaving as he put it would be “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability”.

    When it comes to the single market, we can chart the sort of positive gains we will be looking at as it completes the reforms I’ve secured.

    The single market in services could see GDP increase by 2 per cent, action on e-commerce through the digital single market could be worth 1.7 per cent of EU GDP and those forthcoming trade deals could boost our GDP, too.

    These gains cannot be dismissed.

    Every one per cent increase in GDP is equivalent to more than an additional £275 per person.

    And this extra growth could also mean billions more in tax receipts to spend on our schools, our hospitals, our army and our police.

    So this is the bright future we could have in a reformed Europe.

    Let me be clear: this isn’t the whole economic case for membership; it is just the gains we can get from staying in a reformed single market – there will be fuller Treasury analysis in the coming weeks.

    But it does show the sort of gains our membership of a reformed European Union could deliver.

    And compare that to the alternatives.

    We’ve had some of the key leave campaigners admitting various things about leaving Europe in the last few weeks.

    They’ve said it might lead to job losses.

    That there would be dislocation, uncertainties and costs.

    That there would definitely be some problems, even pain.

    That they cannot offer any guarantee that jobs wouldn’t be lost.

    That there could be higher tariffs.

    And that there would be an economic shock.

    It’s worth remembering what a shock really means.

    It means pressure on the pound sterling. It means jobs being lost. It means mortgage rates might rise. It means businesses closing. It means hardworking people losing their livelihoods.

    For those who advocate leaving, lost jobs and a dented economy might be collateral damage, or a price worth paying.

    For me, they’re not. They never are. Because there’s nothing more important that protecting people’s financial security.

    That’s why I believe we are better off in.

    Conclusion

    And it’s not just me. So many who create jobs and growth in this country agree.

    Look back over the past 3 weeks.

    Carmakers, like BMW, Ford, and yes, Vauxhall.

    Telecoms companies, like BT and Vodafone.

    Aerospace manufacturers, like Rolls Royce and Airbus.

    Retailers, like Asda and Mothercare.

    Pharmaceutical companies, like AstraZeneca and GSK.

    Travel firms, like EasyJet and Tui.

    And our biggest investors, like O2 and General Electric.

    Together, along with a whole host of other businesses, all have said we are better off in.

    Now those on the other side may plead it’s all a conspiracy of scaremongering.

    I would ask yourself: is it?

    Because these companies are actually making a positive case – positive arguments about jobs and investment but they also know how fragile the global economy is – and how perilous it would be for Britain to burn bridges with our biggest trading partner.

    So this is the message I want to go out – to the eurosceptic and the agnostic; the floating voter and the first-time voter:

    Taking advantage of the single market is one of the ways this country has made itself great.

    As I’ve said before, I don’t love Brussels; I love Britain – and my mission is to make it greater still.

    Looking at what the experts say and the way the evidence points and viewing it all in the light of our financial security, and what makes our people better off, I believe the best way to do that is by remaining in a reformed Europe.

    And I hope that’s what we’ll do – for the sake of every family in our great nation.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2013 Statement on the G8

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 19 June 2013.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8.

    The government decided to hold the G8 in Northern Ireland to demonstrate the strength of this part of the United Kingdom.

    We wanted to show the success of the peace process, the openness for business and investment, and the potential for tourism and growth.

    I want to thank my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the First and Deputy First Minister for all they did to help with the conference. To congratulate the PSNI and all those responsible for delivering a safe and successful G8 and to thank everyone in Northern Ireland for giving us such a warm welcome.

    The global economy and the 3 Ts

    Mr Speaker, we set a clear agenda for this summit: to boost jobs and growth, with more open trade, fairer taxes and greater transparency.

    What I have called the 3 Ts.

    I also added a fourth T – terrorism. And we reached important agreements including on support to the Libyan government and ending ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists.

    Despite our fundamental differences, we also made good progress agreeing a way forward on working together to help the Syrian people achieve the change they want.

    Let me take each of these points in turn.

    Growth

    We started with the issue that matters most to our people – jobs, growth, mending our economies.

    First, we agreed that each country needs to press on with sorting out its public finances.

    Dealing with our debts and securing growth are not alternatives.

    The former is an essential step in achieving the latter.

    In fact the Communiqué that we agreed unanimously reflects all three parts of the plan we have for growth in Britain.

    Not just fiscal sustainability but active monetary policy to unlock the finance that businesses and families need and structural reforms to increase our competitiveness so our young people can get into work and succeed in the global race.

    The 3 T’s

    The UK’s G8 also launched a bold new pro-business agenda to drive a dramatic increase in trade and to get to grips with the problems of tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and corporate secrecy.

    This was a distinctive British agenda, to shape the way the world economy works for the benefit of everyone.

    We believe in free trade, private enterprise and low taxes as the best route to growth.

    But that is only sustainable if ambitious trade deals are agreed, the taxes owed are paid and companies play by the rules.

    This agenda has now been written into the DNA of G8 and G20 Summits for many years to come.

    On trade, we started the summit with the launch of negotiations on an EU-US trade deal.

    This could add as much as £100 billion to the EU economy, £80 billion to the US and as much as £85 billion for the rest of the world.

    Let’s be clear what these numbers mean.

    2 million more jobs.

    More choice and lower prices in the shops.

    The biggest bi-lateral trade deal in history – launched at the G8.

    On tax, the Lough Erne Declaration that leaders signed yesterday sets out simple, clear commitments.

    Tax authorities across the world should automatically share information – so those who want to evade taxes will have nowhere to hide.

    Companies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily, for example through central registries, so people can’t escape taxes by using complicated and fake structures.

    And in a world where business has moved from the offline and national to the online and international, but the tax system hasn’t caught up. We are commissioning the OECD to develop a new international tax tool that will expose discrepancies between where multinationals earn their profits and pay their taxes.

    The Declaration also makes clear that all this action has to help developing countries too – by sharing tax information and building their capability to collect taxes.

    Crucially for developing countries, we agreed that oil, gas and mining companies should report what they pay to governments – and that governments should publish what they receive – so natural resources are a blessing not a curse.

    Charities and other NGOs have rightly campaigned for years for action on these issues.

    For the first time they have been raised to the top of the agenda and brought together in one document.

    The agreements on tax made at the summit are significant but it is also worth noting what has happened on this front since I put this issue to the top of the agenda.

    On 1 January there was no single international standard for automatic exchange of information.

    Now there is such a standard – and over 30 jurisdictions have already signed up – with more to follow.

    After years of delay, the European Union has agreed to progress the sharing of tax information between member states.

    The Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies have signed up to the multilateral convention on information exchange, agreed automatic exchange of information with the UK and action plans for beneficial ownership.

    Taken together all the actions agreed with the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies will provide over £1 billion to the exchequer. Helping to keep taxes down for hardworking families in the UK.

    People around the world also wanted to know if the G8 would take action to tackle malnutrition and ensure there is enough food for everyone.

    The pledges at our Nutrition and Hunger Summit earlier this month will save 20 million children from stunting by 2020.

    But crucially at our G8 we also took action on some of the causes of these problems.

    That’s why the work we did on land, extractive industries, tax and transparency is so important.

    Fighting terrorism and extremism

    Turing to the fourth T – terrorism.

    We agreed a tough, patient and intelligent approach. Confronting the terrorists, defeating the poisonous ideology that sustains them and tackling the weak and failing states in which they thrive.

    The G8 leaders reached a ground-breaking agreement on ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists.

    In the last three years alone these have given Al Qaeda and its allies tens of millions of dollars.

    These payments have to stop and this G8 agreed they will.

    We also discussed plans to begin direct talks with the Taliban.

    Britain has long supported a peace process in Afghanistan to work alongside our tough security response.

    So we welcome this step forward.

    We also discussed support to Libya.

    We should be proud of the role we played to rid Libya of Colonel Gadaffi.

    But we need to help that country secure its future.

    So we held a separate meeting with the Libyan Prime Minister which included President Obama and European nations have offered to train 7,000 troops to help Prime Minister Zeidan disarm and integrate the militias and bring security to the whole country.

    More contributions will follow from others.

    And let me be clear the Libyan government have asked for this – and will pay for it.

    Syria

    Finally, let me turn to Syria.

    Mr Speaker, it is no secret that there are very different views around the G8 table.

    But I was determined that we should use the opportunity of this Summit to overcome some of these differences and agree a way forwards to help the Syrian people achieve the change they want.

    This did not happen during just one night in Lough Erne.

    The talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been vital.

    In the weeks before the Summit I flew to Sochi and Washington.

    And I met again with President Putin and President Obama in the hours before the Summit began.

    The conversations were open, honest and frank.

    But we were all agreed on what must be the core principle of the international approach to this crisis.

    There is no military victory to be won – and all our efforts must be focused on the ultimate goal of a political solution.

    Together with our G8 partners, we agreed almost $1.5 billion of new money for humanitarian support.

    This is an unprecedented commitment from Lough Erne for Syria and its neighbours.

    We agreed to back a Geneva II process that delivers a transitional governing body with full executive authority.

    So a core requirement for success that had been called into doubt in recent weeks – has now been reasserted unanimously with the full authority of the G8.

    We pledged to learn the lessons of Iraq by making sure the key institutions of the state are maintained through the transition, and there is no vacuum.

    This sends a clear message to those loyalists looking for an alternative to Assad.

    The G8 also unequivocally condemned any use of chemical weapons and following an extensive debate, we reached for the first time a united position, including Russia, that the Regime must immediately allow unrestricted access for UN inspectors to establish the full facts on use of chemical weapons by Regime forces or anyone else.

    All of these agreements are absolutely fundamental to saving lives and securing the political transition that we all want to see.

    Mr Speaker, let’s be clear on what is happening in Syria and what we are trying to achieve.

    We are faced with a dramatically escalating humanitarian disaster with more than 90,000 dead and almost 6 million having had to flee their homes.

    There is a radicalisation of terrorists and extremists who will pose a direct threat to the security of the region and the world.

    There is a growing risk to the peace and stability of Syria’s neighbours.

    And the long-standing international prohibition on chemical weapons is being breached by a dictator who is brutalising his people.

    None of this constitutes an argument for plunging in recklessly.

    We will not do so. And we will not take any major actions without first coming to this House.

    But we can not simply ignore this continuing slaughter.

    Of course it is right to point out that there are extremists among the Opposition.

    I am clear: they pose a threat not just to Syria but to all of us.

    And the G8 agreed they should be defeated and expelled from their havens in Syria.

    I also understand those who fear that whatever we try to do could make things worse not better.

    Of course, we must think carefully before any course of action: But we mustn’t accept what President Assad wants us to believe – that the only alternative to his brutal action against Syria is extremists and terrorists.

    There are millions of ordinary Syrians who want to take control of their own future – a future without Assad.

    That is why I made sure that the G8 agreed the way through this crisis is to help Syrians forge a new government that is neither Sunni, Allawite nor Shi’a.

    Mr Speaker, we are committed to using diplomacy to end this war with a political solution.

    This is not easy.

    But the essential first step must be to get agreement between the main international powers with influence on Syria.

    That is what we have done at the G8 in Lough Erne.

    We must now work to turn these commitments into action.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at UK-France Summit

    davidcameron

    Below is the statement given by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the UK-France Summit held in Amiens, France, on 3 March 2016.

    Thanks Francois. Very good be here today. This Summit has been about how Britain and France stand together to keep our people safe.

    And there is nowhere more fitting for us to meet today than here in Amiens – where a century ago 600,000 British and French soldiers were killed or injured fighting for our freedom.

    Visiting the Pozieres cemetery this morning brought home again the humbling scale of that sacrifice, and that’s why I will be here again in July to honour all those who gave their lives at the Battle of the Somme.

    Throughout the last century Britain and France stood shoulder to shoulder in the defence of our values and our way of life. And we do so again today.

    The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last November were – as I said at the time – an attack on us all.

    And Francois and I have talked today about the measures we must take to defeat this evil. About how we can strengthen our bilateral security relationship. And how we can work together to tackle the migration crisis. And I want to say a word on each.

    Daesh

    First, we need a comprehensive strategy to defeat the threat from Islamist extremism – both at home and abroad.

    Since the attack in Paris, British fighter pilots have joined their French counterparts carrying out military strikes against Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq.

    Our action is degrading Daesh’s capability, and they are now struggling to hold territory that they once confidently claimed.

    We also need an end to the civil war in Syria and a government in Damascus that can bring peace and stability to that country.

    We welcome the latest truce.

    It could provide an opportunity to make progress at next week’s peace talks. But these will only succeed if there is a change of behaviour by the Syrian regime and by its backers.

    That’s why tomorrow, Francois and I, along with Chancellor Merkel will call President Putin.

    We will underline that Russia needs to end its attacks on Syrian civilians and the moderate opposition. And accept that there has to be a transition away from Assad to a new leader who can reunite Syria and bring peace and stability to that country.

    We have also discussed the importance of tackling the threat of Islamist extremism in Africa, and we have agreed to step up our efforts in Nigeria, and across the Sahel, including training regional forces and supporting the Multi-National Joint Task Force in its fight against Boko Haram.

    We also need to protect ourselves from radicalised extremist Muslims here at home. So we have agreed to strengthen our counter-terrorism co-operation, particularly on information sharing, transport and aviation security.

    Bilateral defence co-operation

    Turning to our bilateral defence co-operation.

    Our ability to detect threats and act on them, including militarily, is vital if we are to defeat the scourge of terrorism.

    We have already seen how we can use unmanned aerial vehicles to protect us from this terrorist threat. And today we have agreed to jointly invest £1.5 billion to develop the next generation of a combat air system.

    This will be the most advanced of its kind in Europe, securing high-end engineering jobs and expertise in both the UK and France.

    Migration

    Finally, we have discussed the migration crisis facing Europe.

    The United Kingdom has not faced anywhere near the scale of migrants coming to Europe as other countries because we are outside Schengen and retain control of our borders.

    And in Calais, we have worked together with the French to strengthen security to deter migrants from trying to enter Britain.

    I want to thank President Hollande for this co-operation and today I can announce that we will invest an additional £17 million in priority security infrastructure in Calais to assist the work of the French police.

    The money will also go towards efforts to move people from the camps in Calais to facilities elsewhere in France, and will fund joint work to return migrants not in need of protection to their home countries.

    The real challenge is in the eastern Mediterranean where we need to break the business model of the criminal smugglers and dissuade people from embarking on a fruitless and perilous journey in search of a new life in Europe.

    That is why the NATO mission is so important and we will meet in Brussels on Monday to discuss what more we can do within the EU to tackle this problem.

    Conclusion

    So this has been an important Summit.

    We stand here today – as leaders of 2 strong nations, who will always stand together in the defence of our values and our liberties.

    That co-operation will continue for years to come, just as it has throughout our history.

    But we should be clear how our partnership within the European Union makes a tangible difference to the scale and breadth of what we can achieve together.

    It was through the European Union that we imposed sanctions against Russia when it illegally invaded Crimea almost 2 years ago.

    It was through the collective economic muscle of the EU that our sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and put a nuclear bomb beyond their reach.

    It is through co-operation and intelligence-sharing with our European partners that we best fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in what is a dangerous world.

    We both firmly believe our membership of the European Union allows us to amplify our strength, projecting great power internationally, increasing the security of our citizens and boosting the competitiveness of our economies. We are both strong proud nations who are clear about our influence in the world and clear that our membership of the European Union enhances that role, rather than detracting from it. We believe we are safer, and better off in a reformed European Union.

    Thank you Francois again for welcoming me here today, for your friendship and continued partnership in ensuring the safety, security and prosperity of all our people.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech in Slough on the EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at O2’s Headquarters in Slough on 23 February 2016.

    Thank you, thank you very much. It’s great to be here in Slough, where so many – what? Hold on a second. This is actually the town where so many businesses have their European headquarters, where so many jobs have been created, and I think it’s a very good place to start the conversation we need to have over the next 4 months about whether Britain stays in the European Union or leaves.

    As Karen said, it’s also good to be starting in a telecoms company. This is a very successful business, but in an extraordinarily successful industry. 200,000 people employed in the UK: you account for almost 2% of our economy, so a great place to start.

    Now, in 4 months’ time, we’re all going to have to make a very, very big decision: does Britain stay in a reformed European Union or do we vote to leave? Now, you make decisions at election times, and I would argue this is a much bigger decision, because at election times, you can vote in a team of people, and if you’re fed up with them after 5 years, you can vote them out. Obviously, I don’t like that bit, but you can do that.

    This is a decision, though, that lasts for life. We make this decision, and it’s probably going to be the only time in our generation when we make this decision. And I was determined to make sure the British people had the very best possible decision. So what I’ve done for the last 9 months is to try and sort out some of the things that people are frustrated with, with the European Union. Because it’s not a perfect organisation; no organisation is perfect.

    And I thought that the 4 things that most frustrated people about the European Union was that it’s been too bureaucratic and not competitive enough, so we got a proper set of actions to make sure we take burdens off business and create jobs and sign trade deals around the world. I’ve sensed – and I think many people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a political union, too much about the politics, and not about creating jobs and prosperity. So we’ve got Britain carved out of an ever closer union, so we don’t have to take part in those things anymore.

    I’ve sensed – I think a lot of people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a single-currency club. The euro is tremendously important for those countries in it, but those countries out of it like Britain, we want to make sure we’re treated fairly inside the European Union, so we have fixed that to make sure we can never be discriminated against.

    And the fourth thing I wanted to fix was to make sure that, of course we have free movement in Europe: you can live and work and travel and retire in different European countries. But we need to take some of the pressure off in terms of migration, and specifically, we need to have greater control over our own welfare system. So I’ve managed to secure the agreement that people who come to Britain and work, they’re going to have to come and work for 4 years before they get full access to our welfare systems. Now, I’m not saying I’ve solved all the problems that Britain’s got with Europe, or all Europe’s problems, but I think this is a good basis to now ask people, ‘Do you want to stay in this reformed Europe or do you want to leave?’

    And I think when we come to this, the really big question, I think there are 3 very positive reasons for wanting to stay inside this reformed European Union. The first is, that I believe we’ll be better off, that we’ll create more jobs, we’ll create more livelihoods, we’ll see more investment, we’ll see more success for Britain. Why? Well, because we’re part, inside the European Union, of the biggest free-trade single market anywhere in the world: 500 million people, bigger than the US, bigger than China’s internal market. This is the wealthiest, strongest market in the world, and we have privileged access, without tariffs, the ability to trade and invest right across the EU.

    And I think about it from O2’s point of view. Because we’ve got a set of rules about telecommunications and mobile phones and the rest of it, that’s been good for business because we’ve been able to break down barriers in other countries and set up businesses in other countries. That’s good for jobs, because we’re creating more jobs, including right here in Slough. But it’s also good for consumers, because this competition inside the single market has actually driven down prices and it’s cheaper now; much cheaper to use a mobile phone today than it was a decade ago. And also, with the end of roaming, it’s going to be – which we’re getting in 2017, it will be cheaper still when you travel.

    So point one, I think we’ll be better off. Far better off inside the European Union. Three million jobs are dependent on our trade with Europe. Now, of course, not all the jobs would go if we left the European Union; we’d still do trade with Europe. But can we really put our hands on our hearts and say all those jobs would be safe, that we wouldn’t be disadvantaged if we were on the outside? I don’t believe we can, so we’re better off.

    The second reason is, I believe that we’ll be safer inside the European Union. We obviously face, in our world today, some very big threats in terms of crime and terrorism, and obviously the primary thing we do there is we have a strong police force, we have security and intelligence services, we work with our longstanding partners like America to try and keep our people and keep our country safe. But I can tell you, as your Prime Minister, I’ve seen so many times how the border information we exchange with other European countries, how the criminal records information we exchange with other countries, this helps to keep us safe.

    Let me just give you one example. We all remember those terrible days in 2005 when London was bombed by terrorists. The second time that was attempted, on 21st July, 1 of those bombers got out of the country, but because we were part of the European Arrest Warrant, we were able to get him arrested, get him back to the UK, and he’s now sitting doing a 40-year jail sentence. Before we had the European Arrest Warrant, before we had those arrangements, it could take years, sometimes as much as a decade, to get people extradited from other European countries back here, so we will be safer inside the reformed European Union.

    I also believe we’ll be stronger. I believe profoundly that Britain is not the sort of country that simply looks inward on itself. We know that we should have a role in the world, because we will be stronger and safer and better off if we can actually get things done around our world. And as part of the European Union, just as being part of NATO or part of the United Nations, we can get things done. How did we get those oil sanctions against Iran, so they gave up their nuclear weapons? We did that inside the EU. How have we made sure we’ve had a strong response to Vladimir Putin and what he’s trying to do in the Ukraine? We’ve had sanctions set out inside the EU. How have we stopped our ships being attacked as they go round the coast of Africa and Somalia? We’ve done that through NATO, but also through the EU. So I believe we are stronger in the world if we are part of a reformed European Union. So stronger, safer, better off.

    But I think we have to recognise in this decision you’re all going to take in 4 months’ time, that it is a choice. I’ve set out the positive choice of why I think we’re better off, stronger and safer, but we also need to ask ourselves, what would it look like outside the EU? And here I think we need some answers from the people making the other case, because right now, they’re not telling us what it’s going to be like outside the EU. I’ve looked at what the models are. You can have a situation like Norway. They sign up to all the rules of the EU, so they have to pay into the EU, they have to take migration from the EU, but they have no say on what the rules are. That seems to me a very, very poor deal.

    You could go to the other end of the spectrum, and say, as I think Mr Farage did yesterday, ‘Let’s just have the World Trade Organisation rules and be a member of the World Trade Organisation outside the EU, and see what that means.’ Well, what that would mean is, you’d start having to pay tariffs every time you export a car to Europe. Britain, for instance, is now the third largest manufacturer of cars in the EU: it employs 140,000 people. So I think we’ve got to look very carefully at these alternatives, because each one of them shares a key disadvantage, which is that basically, if you leave the EU, you no longer have any say over the rules, over the laws, over the way this market works, and we are, in the end, a trading nation where our businesses need access to that market and need a say over those rules.

    When all is said and done, it’s not going to be me that makes the choice; it’s going to be all of you. This is a referendum where every single vote counts the same. But I just make 2 final pleas to you. First of all, I think what we can have now is the best of both worlds. Inside the bits of the EU that work for us, inside the single market, inside the political cooperation to get things done, inside those things that keep us safe against terrorists and criminals, but not in the single currency, not in the Schengen no-borders system, not in an ever-closer political union. We have the best of both worlds.

    Final thing from me is that I feel very strongly about this. I feel that having spent 9 months trying to get us a better deal, securing that deal, and now with 4 months to go before this referendum, I feel with all I’ve seen in the last 6 years as your Prime Minister, the right decision is to stay in a reformed EU. I have no other agenda. I’m not standing as your Prime Minister at the next election. I’m simply going to speak for the next 4 months about the advantages I see of staying in and the dangers of coming out. But in the end it will be your choice, the British people’s choice. If you choose to stay in, we know what we get. If you choose to leave, I will put in place the arrangements as your Prime Minister that you asked me to do. But my strong advice, with all that I’ve seen and all that I know, is the right thing for Britain is to stay in a reformed Europe and to cast that vote on 23 June.

    Thank you very much and look forward to your questions.

    Now, we’ve got some time for questions if you put your hand up and there’ll be roving microphones and if you wait for those. You may not need them, but just in case.

    Question

    Hi there. Thank you very much. So just a quick question. Looking at BBC News the other day I noticed that the pound had gone down about 2% against the dollar. I just wondered what your thoughts were on the impact on the British economy based on the speculation of a Brexit or a British exit from the EU? Also, the kind of long-term impact of that and also the short-term impact of that, and I guess what you’re going to look to, to rectify that.

    Prime Minister

    Well look, I think it’s a very good point. I don’t think it’s necessarily right to speculate too much about what happens on the markets one day against another, but the government will want to set out very clearly what we think the economic impacts could be. Obviously we know if we stay in a reformed European Union we know what to expect. We know how the market works, we know how to sell our goods, we know how to create jobs, we know how the systems work. If we leave, there is this period of great uncertainty. And that’s why I think there could be a bad economic effect and what we’ll do is make sure that the Treasury and the Bank of England and other authoritative organisations set out the facts, set out the figures so people can make a judgement.

    But I think the reason why there’d be a bad effect is quite simple: if you leave, the process is you spend 2 years discussing the arrangements for leaving, and at the end of those 2 years, unless there’s unanimous agreement by the other 27 members, you’re automatically out of the European Union. And as you spend those 2 years negotiating what your position will be like outside the EU, you can’t really do the trade deals with other countries that we have today. So I think there’ll be big uncertainty for businesses. And that’s why I think, if you believe in voting to leave you’ve got to really believe it. You’ve got to feel very, very strongly this is the right answer because I think there’ll be a lot of uncertainty and businesses will be saying, ‘Well what are the rules for exporting, what is our access to the single market, how certain can we be?’ And that’s why I’m so pleased that O2 today has come out very strongly in support of staying in a reformed European Union. We’ve got 35 of the biggest businesses in Britain who’ve all said that they think Britain is better off. Nissan, the car company – and we make more cars now in the north east of England than the whole of Italy because of the great success of Nissan. And they’ve said this today, ‘For us, a position of stability is more positive than a collection of unknowns.’ And I think that is worth listening to.

    Obviously we’ve got to listen to other voices as well, but when we listen to businesses we’re not just listening to what some big business chief might say, we’re actually listening to the effect on jobs, to the effect on families’ finances, to the effect on the prosperity for our country and for all our people.

    Okay, let’s have a question from up here.

    Question

    What do you see the potential advantage is for us leaving? I know you talk about advantages of us staying, but if we were to leave, what would you see as the advantages?

    Prime Minister

    I think those who want to leave should speak about those, but chiefly what they point to, I think, is this idea that obviously if you leave the EU you are able to make more decisions for yourself because you’re not taking part in the decisions in the EU that cover a lot of areas of regulation or legislation, such as the laws that for instance govern mobile phones in Europe. I think, look, that is true but you’ve got to ask yourself, does that make you more powerful? Does it make you genuinely more sovereign? Because the fact is if you leave the EU the EU doesn’t cease to exist.

    So let’s take your industry. If we were to leave, you’d still have the European Union making rules about mobile phone coverage, technology and all the rest of it. We’d be on the outside and if we wanted to sell into the EU we’d still have to obey the rules that were being written. The difference is that we wouldn’t be writing them.

    Now some people say, ‘Yes, but you never get to write the rules, you’re not that powerful in Europe.’ Well Britain is the second largest economy, the second largest net contributor and we do make a real impact on those rules. In fact, I would argue, if you take your industry, if we weren’t there I think Europe would become probably more protectionist, less open, it’d be less easy for companies like O2 to break into other European markets. So I think what you’d be left with, if we were to leave, is a sense that you might feel a bit more sovereign about making your own decisions, but you wouldn’t actually be able to make the decisions that make a difference to people’s lives.

    So I think you get more power and influence in, than you get from the illusion of sovereignty out. But I think that’s going to be one of the key questions in this campaign.

    Let’s have one from the press.

    Question

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Listen, my question is this: a former Tory leader today, William Hague who knows all about splits on Europe, warned about the dangers ahead in the coming months, and that’s partly because a man who wants to be Tory leader, Boris Johnson, will be campaigning on the other side to you. When you said yesterday you have no other agenda, and you’ve repeated that here today, we all know you were talking about Boris Johnson, will you at least admit that?

    Prime Minister

    No, look I’m saying this because I feel this so strongly. Right? I’m not standing again as Prime Minister and I just want people to know that I am speaking about this issue after thinking about it very, very deeply. After thinking about all the things I’ve learnt as Prime Minister over the last 6 years.

    I think 6, 10, 15 years ago, I don’t think that I believed that Europe was as important to our security as I believe it is today because I’ve seen with my own eyes just how important this security and intelligence and sharing of information is.

    I’m not sure that 6 maybe 10 years ago I thought that Europe was quite so important for Britain getting things done in the world. I thought obviously NATO matters, our partnership with America matters, but I see and I’ve seen this for 6 years that if we want to fix stuff, whether it is trying to stop people smugglers in the Mediterranean, whether it’s trying to stop pirates off the coast of Africa, whether it’s confronting Iran about the nuclear programme, whether it’s trying to get better results in Syria, we gain by sitting round that table with the French, with the Germans, with the Italians and getting things done.

    Look, we can do great things on our own. We’ve got amazing armed forces, brilliant intelligence services, we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re a great power. But we get more by being in these organisations and I want to speak very clearly about that because I feel this, with my experience over the last 6 years, very, very deeply.

    Now let me say about Boris, I have huge respect for Boris as a politician. He’s a great friend of mine. He is a fantastic Mayor of London. I think he’s got a lot to give to the Conservative party. I think he’s got a lot to give to this country. But on this issue I think he’s got it wrong and I think he’s reached the wrong conclusion. So we’re going to have, I hope, a very reasonable, civilised argument, both between us and between other parties, and you’re going to find people with some fairly strange bedfellows. This is one where, you know, Jeremy Corbyn and I agree. I mean, we don’t agree about many things but we agree about this one.

    So we just have to have a debate, and yes of course it’s going to be a strong and a passionate debate, and I think he’s got this one wrong. And I would say to anybody who is thinking about this and is struggling to decide, because I think lots of people, I think we all feel quite conflicted. In all of us there’s a questioning about what’s the right answer for Britain. I would say: anyone who’s finding it hard to make up your mind, and you feel it’s a very balanced decision, I would say come down on the side of security and safety and certainty. Because in this reformed European Union we know what we get. We know what we get in terms of jobs and prosperity and security. Outside, what do we get? And I don’t think the people who want us to leave are spelling it out.

    Yesterday in Parliament it was quite interesting. Not only do the people who want to leave, not only are they not sure about what they want to do when they’ve left, i.e., do you want to have a Norway-style solution or do you want a world trade solution or do you want a trade deal? They haven’t worked that one out but they’re also not sure about how they even want to leave or indeed in some cases whether they really do want to leave. Some people are suggesting, maybe if we vote no, we can have a second renegotiation, we can have a second referendum, and I think that is a complete illusion. This is a straight decision: you stay in or you get out, and I think it’s misleading people if we pretend there’s some other answer here.

    So I think Boris has got this wrong. I have huge respect for him; I think he’s got a very strong future in British politics. But on this one, I think he’s made the wrong decision.

    Now, let’s have gentleman over here.

    Question

    Welcome to O2, Prime Minister. You mentioned the European Union, and you mentioned that the UK is the world’s fifth biggest economy, it’s the second biggest economy in the EU and the second biggest contributor. There are those who say that the EU cannot credibly continue without us in it, and that if we were to vote for Brexit, it would lead to the EU’s breakup, which the UK could end up being a haven for investors and so on. How would you respond to that argument? We hear a lot about the impact on the UK, but what do you think the impact could be on the EU and the implications for the UK if we vote for Brexit?

    Prime Minister

    It’s a very good question. I think the impact on the EU, I’d say 2 points about that. One is, I think it would weaken the west at a time of great concern and conflict. We’ve got Putin to the east, we’ve got Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and problems of terrorism. This – it’s a time, I think, for strength in numbers. It’s not a time for dividing the west. So in that respect, it would make the EU weaker and make the west weaker.

    But the other thing I’d say is, I don’t believe – some people believe if Britain left the EU, the whole thing would sort of collapse. I don’t think that is the case. I think actually, what would happen is the EU would probably become more protectionist. I think it would probably become more politically integrated. I think it would probably want to take even more decisions over people’s lives, and those decisions would affect us. I think this is one of the key points; one of my cabinet ministers said at the cabinet meeting, you know, ‘We’d all like to be in Utopia, but I guess when we get to Utopia, we might find the EU’s there already.’ You know, this thing doesn’t cease to exist because we leave it, and I think it would go in the wrong direction.

    And if you take your industry specifically, you know, Britain has been a great force in Europe and continues to be a great force in Europe for opening up markets, for saying that other countries should liberalise their telecoms sectors and allow in new companies, just as we’ve done here. And I think that if we’re not there making that point, less of that will happen, and that is bad news for British telecoms companies. So I think it would be a worse Europe if we’re not there, but at the same time, I think we’d be showing disunity at a time when we need strength in numbers for the security of our people.

    Let’s have a few more questions.

    Question

    Hi, Mr Cameron. We’ve obviously had the blond bombshell of Mr Johnson coming out and supporting the ‘leave’ campaign. Also, I noticed today that almost 2 thirds of FTSE 100 CEOs didn’t sign a letter to suggest we should stay in the EU. Are you concerned there’s increasing momentum going towards the ‘leaving EU’ campaign?

    Prime Minister

    I think it’s going to be a very hard-fought contest. I think that, you know, they’re very strong arguments on both sides; there’ll be very strong figures on both sides. But I think when it comes to business and industry, the overwhelming view I am getting is that British business, particularly those that trade a lot with Europe, really want us to stay in the EU. And for 35 FTSE 100 companies to come out and say this so clearly as they have today, I think that is a very positive, very clear decision by them and a very clear message, that they’re saying, ‘We’ll be better off if we stay in.’ And, you know, for companies these days to make a statement like that, they find that sometimes quite difficult; they have to go through corporate governance proceedings, board meetings, to make those decisions. And many businesses don’t want to get involved in any political issue.

    But I would say to them: this is not like a general election. It’s not about backing one team or another team. This is a decision that we’re going to have to live with in Britain for decades to come, and so if you have a strong view, you should make it clear. But I think it’s a – I can’t remember before 35 FTSE 100 companies coming out in this way quite so clearly. So I’m convinced the strongest arguments are on the ‘remain’ side, and I’m going to use everything I’ve got in the next 4 months to put those arguments, because I believe this is so important.

    Question

    Thank you very much indeed. Prime Minister, the business letter which was raised by the previous questioner, isn’t the era of business leaders telling the British people how to vote over? Shouldn’t this be a debate about the strength of people’s arguments, not their share prices?

    And secondly, if I may, can you just be more – answer that question a little bit more fully: why do you think so few other business leaders, those other 2 thirds, didn’t sign your letter? Because I know that you were hopeful that more would.

    Prime Minister

    Well, first of all, I would say it is a huge number of FTSE 100 companies, the 100 biggest companies in the country, coming out and being so clear that Britain is better off remaining in a reformed Europe. That’s a very clear statement. As I say, one of the reasons companies often find it hard to go forward is that they sometimes have to have board meetings and sometimes don’t want to make any form of political statement. But I can tell you this: if the ‘leave’ campaign could produce 35 business leaders of this statute – of this sort of stature, they’d be over the moon. And I don’t think they have the prospect of doing that with FTSE 100 leaders in any way like what has happened today.

    Now, I would argue, this is not business leaders telling people how to vote. This is simply people running some of the largest businesses in our country that employ over 1 million people between them, saying this has real consequences for our country, and if we care about jobs, if we care about investment, if we care about a strong British economy, then the right decision is to remain in the EU, and I would encourage, not just businesses, I’d encourage trade unions to speak out, I’d encourage voluntary bodies, non governmental organisations, universities, anyone who thinks this is important. If you think it affects your business, affects jobs, affects the way that you think Britain can do well or badly in the world, speak out. This is a really, really important decision. We’re going to take it in 4 months, and it’s going to last for decades, so I don’t think anyone should hold back. I’m certainly not going to hold back, and I think that anyone who thinks this is important: speak out.

    Question

    I was wondering if you could take us back to the moment when you found out that Boris Johnson was going to campaign for the other side, as you. How did you find out, and were you irritated or were you just disappointed?

    Prime Minister

    No, I – you know, I’ve been talking to Boris for many weeks about this issue. We’ve had lots of long conversations about it, lots of text messages and emails and face-to-face conversations about it. And look, I – of course I’m disappointed, because I want everyone possible to back my side of the argument, and I believe in it very passionately, and so obviously I’m disappointed. But I understand there are lots of people who, you know, have very strong views about this.

    But I would say to anyone who’s taking time to decide, who’s thinking about it and weighing it up and trying to work out what’s best, if you’re not certain, surely the best thing to do is to back the side that has the security and the safety and the certainty of what we know. Because it is undoubtedly true that voting to leave is a risk. Even if you think there’s going to be some great future at the end of the process – and I don’t buy that – there’s undoubtedly a period of risk and uncertainty. You’ve got two years when you have to negotiate what your leaving looks like. During that period, you can’t go around signing trade deals with other countries, and when you leave, what is your relationship going to be with the single market on which so many jobs depend? What will be the decision of businesses thinking about where to invest in Europe, about whether they should come to Britain?

    Here we are in a telecoms firm, but let’s take another example, let’s take financial services, an important industry. Right now, all those businesses know what they’ve got. They know that if you are located in Britain, because we’re a member of the EU, you can sell your services in every other EU country. Now, if we leave the EU, we may not have that, and so those companies, if they’re only based in Britain, would have to move some jobs into other EU countries. Overseas companies thinking of coming here would think, ‘Well, why come to Britain? Because I don’t get that right to passport all my services throughout the rest of the EU. I’d better go somewhere else.’ So it seems to me there’s a real danger of job losses, in that industry and in many others besides.

    Plus, I think you’ve got to think something else. If you’re not in the single market, what is the danger of the countries of the single market discriminating against you? Right now, we have recourse to stop that. Europe the other day did actually try, very annoyingly, to say that if you wanted to do complex deals in euros, you had to be in a eurozone country. That was really bad news for Britain but we fought it, through the courts, and we won, and in my renegotiation we’ve set out a principal that means that can never happen again. But leave the single market, leave the European Union, yes we’d still have a great financial services industry, London’s an amazing financial centre, but they could start discriminating against us from day one. And what recourse would we have?

    So these are the questions and that’s why I say there is uncertainty, there is risk, there is a leap in the dark if you leave the single market and leave the EU, so if you’re not certain, don’t leap. Stay with what we’ve got, knowing it’s going to get better because of the deal I negotiated with the EU which does address some of the biggest concerns we’ve had in our country.

    Let’s have a few more. Lady up here. Thank you.

    Question

    Hiya, so – so my question is in terms of common man like – I am not part of Britain, I come from overseas, so I see my neighbour who’s a Polish guy who’s getting more benefits than I’m supposed to get it, so what is it like?

    Prime Minister

    I think this issue about benefits and welfare and migration, I think is a really important issue and I’ll be very level with you: part of being in the European Union is accepting the free movement of people. That we are able, in Britain, if we want, to go and work and live, travel, retire in other European countries, and other European countries can come and do that here in Britain. So there is that free movement, but what there’s not is the free movement to go and claim benefits. If someone comes to Britain, if they – under all the rules I’ve changed, if they come to Britain, they can’t claim unemployment benefit for the time they come. If they haven’t got a job after 6 months, they have to go home because they can’t sustain themselves. And what we’ve now agreed is that if you come and work, you don’t get full access to our tax credits, our in-work benefits for 4 years. And also if you claim child benefit, you can only claim child benefit at a rate discounted for the country you come from. So I think these are good changes, big changes which will have an effect on this issue about welfare claiming and migration that I think has concerned people in our country.

    But I’m not saying we’ve solved all the problems, there still is pressure from freedom of movement and that’s why we’ve made some other changes as well, to make sure that if people have – are criminals, we don’t have to let them in, if there are people trying to do sham marriages, that we can deal with that. A whole lot of changes to free movement, and I think that’s really important because people want to know there’s a basic sense of fairness. And I would say the thing people most want to know is that there’s no something for nothing. You can’t come here and start claiming benefits straight away, you’ve got to pay into the system before you get out of the system. And that’s one of the things that my renegotiation has secured.

    Okay, let’s have a few more, let’s have the gentleman right here.

    Question

    I just wanted to kind of ask a question about ourselves as O2 and try and bring it to life in that sense. You might be aware that we’re being acquired by Hutchison at the moment, and BT EE’s transaction went through the CMA, it was all fine, and then because we’re foreign-owned, it’s going through a European Commission body and they – probably it was different political or whatever agenda to us. I’m just wondering if you think that’s a proof point of success?

    Prime Minister

    Okay, first thing is, the way this works is that mergers, over a certain size, are looked at by the European Union. It’s not because you’re owned by a foreign owned country, it’s because of the scale of the merger that’s being contemplated. Now I must make no comment on it, it’s not up to me, it’s up to independent competition bodies, both here in the UK and in the EU. So they will have to decide, and I was talking to your Chief Executive about this; they’ll have to decide whether it is good for competition and all the rest of it, or not.

    What I would say though, just come back to how this impacts your industry: this has been, and is, an unbelievable success story. You think about – go back 10, 20 years, how many people were employed in mobile telephony, now we’re talking about 200,000 people, the spawning of huge numbers of different industries around what you do, with all the games and the applications and all the rest of it.

    And I would argue that, for your industry, of course we’d still have a great mobile phone market in Britain if we were outside the EU, of course we’d still have great mobile phone companies, but would we have the opportunities to use these rules in Europe to break up the monopolies in other countries and make sure that O2 can be a success in those countries too? We wouldn’t, and I think they’d go in the opposite direction. And when I look around Europe and telecoms markets, so many of them are still dominated by the old legacy nationalised company. And actually we’ve shown in Britain that a more competitive market means lower prices, better services, much more innovation. And we want to drive that right across the EU. We’ve got a chance to lead the EU in this industry. Indeed, some of the best companies have been born and bred right here in Britain and I want them to be able to, you know, paint on the larger canvas and create the jobs, more of which we want to see here.

    Last question I’m afraid. Lady here.

    Question

    You’ve talked a lot about big business but I’m interested to know, as a strong supporter of small business, do you really think that being in the EU is better for them?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. Okay we’ve done a lot of arguments about a big company like O2, and what it means. What about small companies? I’d make a couple of points. First of all, about 1 in 5 small companies export, and most of them will be exporting to Europe as well as other countries. And there the same arguments apply. If you are going to sell into Europe, you’ve got to meet the rules of the single market. So if you’re outside the EU, you still have to meet those rules, but you have no say on what they are. And I think Britain can be a force for good, in Europe, in terms of making sure the rules are fair, and making sure we cut bureaucracy. And one of the things I secured in my agreement, the special status for Britain, is that we are going to have targets to cut bureaucracy in each of the main business areas, which I think will help small business.

    I’d also make this point: many small businesses that don’t export are part of a supply chain with companies that do export, and so I think that the idea that there are two sorts of businesses, one entirely domestic and one international and exporting, I think is rather out of date.

    Now those who want to leave will argue of course if you’re outside the EU then you’ve got to meet the single market rules when you sell into Europe but you could deregulate your rules here in the UK. But there I would say: is that really worth that much? When you look at all the international surveys, they say that Britain is one of the best places in the world to start a business, to run a business, to comply with regulation and the rest of it. So I don’t think the benefit you get out of being outside the EU, on that basis, is worth anything like the giving up of the influence and the rules in the single market on which we do rely. The figures are very straight forward: 50% of what we export goes to other EU countries; 7% of what they export comes to us, so when some people say, ‘Well we’ve got a trade deficit with Europe, so they need us more than we need them,’ I think they’re making a mistake.

    We obviously are a global country, we trade all over the world, we’ve doubled our exports to China, and we need small businesses to play a part in that too. And we shouldn’t be choosing between either doing better in the Far East, the Middle East, China, America, the Commonwealth, we shouldn’t be choosing between that and doing well in Europe. We should try and do both. Let’s be in the single market, trading effectively with other European countries and increasing jobs and growth. And at the same time getting out there and taking on the world in the way that we have with China and India and other countries.

    Look I really enjoyed coming today, thank you for being so patient with me and thank you very much indeed. Thanks a lot.