UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Hilary Benn – 2017 Speech on Withdrawal from the EU

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn in the House of Commons on 31 January 2017.

    Our relationship with Europe has run like a contentious thread through our politics for more than 60 years, and the referendum revealed a nation that remains divided. Though it pains me to say it, for the reasons so ably set out by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—the Foreign Secretary, who is no longer in his place, was shaking his head throughout that speech, probably because he did not wish to be reminded of the arguments he had included in that other article, which he chose not to publish back in June—we are leaving the European Union, and our task now is to try to bring people together. This means that, whether we voted leave or remain, we have a responsibility to hold in our minds the views, concerns and hopes of everyone in our country, whether they voted leave or remain.

    The Supreme Court decided, rightly in my view, that a decision of this magnitude should be made by Parliament and not by the Executive, but with that power comes a responsibility to respect the outcome of the referendum, however much some of us might disagree with it. This is about democracy. This is about faith in our politics, not just in the United Kingdom but across the western world, where—if we are honest—it is not in very good shape. If this Parliament were to say to the people, “You did not know what you were doing, only 37% voted leave, the referendum was only advisory and there were lots of lies”—whether or not we agree with some of those assertions—we really would have a crisis of confidence in our politics, for the reasons so eloquently set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). That is why the democratic thing to do is to vote for this Bill, and I shall do so tomorrow.

    But the referendum decided only one thing: the fact that we are leaving the institutions of the European Union. It did not determine the terms on which we leave or our new relationship with the other 27 member states. That is why we have, as a nation, to get our objectives and the process right as we start this great negotiation. The Government’s handling of this matter so far has not shown sufficient respect for Parliament—notwithstanding the number of times the Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box. For several months, Ministers appeared to believe that saying that there would be “no running commentary” and telling those asking for greater clarity that they were not, in the words of the No. 10 spokesperson, “backing the UK team” was the right approach. It was not. Commitments have eventually been made to set out objectives, to seek transitional arrangements, to publish a White Paper and to confirm that Parliament will have a vote—all things that the Exiting the European Union Committee, which I have the honour to chair, called for—but at every stage, far from being freely made, they were reluctantly conceded, usually a day or two after the Secretary of State had resisted them from the Dispatch Box.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend refers to the fact that the Government now say that there will be a vote on the eventual deal. I presume that what they mean is that, under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, there will be a single vote on an unamendable motion in relation to a treaty. I do not think that that is good enough. If the European Parliament—and, for that matter, the Irish Dáil and the French Assemblée Nationale—will have the right to consider such a treaty line by line, this House should have that right as well.

    Hilary Benn

    I agree with my hon. Friend, but the House must have a proper plan and, in the words of my Front-Bench colleague, a “meaningful” opportunity to scrutinise the agreement in draft, rather than being presented with a fait accompli at the end of the process. This is one example of how the Government have had to be pushed, cajoled and prodded at every stage into giving Parliament its proper role.

    I say to the Secretary of State—this may not be his fault—that it is extraordinary that we meet here today, and are being asked to vote on this Bill tomorrow, when not a single Government document setting out the consequences has been published. Seven months after the British people reached their decision, there has been no economic assessment, no analysis of the options, and no White Paper. That is not the way to do things and that attitude must change. The Government need to recognise that Parliament should be not a bystander but a participant in what is probably the most complex and significant negotiation that this country has ever faced. We have to unwind and recast 43 years of relationships with our neighbours. It affects every area of our national life, every part of the country, every person, community and business, and the jobs and incomes on which they depend. It is therefore essential that we have unity of purpose in trying to get the best deal for Britain, despite the inevitable uncertainty of the outcome.

    We will come to the issues of substance in Committee and subsequently. What does special access to the single market mean now that the Prime Minister has decided that we are leaving it? How exactly will seeking to remain and leave the customs union at the same time work? If ensuring a continuation of tariff and barrier-free trade is a priority for Ministers, but Europe comes back and says, “You can’t have your cake and eat it. You have to choose,” I trust that the Government will choose to remain in the customs union. The world is more uncertain now than at any time over the past 60 years, so how will we continue to co-operate with our neighbours on foreign policy, defence, security and the fight against terrorism?

    Finally, the referendum result revealed something else: two great political forces in the western world are now reflected in our politics. On the one hand, people desire greater devolution and control in a world in which many believe that we barely have any control at all owing to the pace of change in our lives. On the other hand, every single Member of the House, whether we voted leave or remain, understands that in the modern world we have to co-operate with our neighbours to deal with the great challenges that we will face in the years and centuries ahead. Leaving the European Union may change the balance between the two, but it will not change the necessity to embrace both as we look to the future.

  • Ken Clarke – 2017 Speech on Withdrawal from the EU

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Clarke in the House of Commons on 31 January 2017.

    Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that it is my intention to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, if a vote is called, and to support the reasoned amendment, which I think will be moved very shortly by the Scottish nationalists.

    Because of the rather measured position that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had to present on behalf of the official Labour party, it falls to me to be the first Member of this House to set out the case for why I believe—I hope that I will not be the last such speaker—that it is in the national interest for the United Kingdom to be a member of the European Union, why I believe that we have benefited from that position for the past 45 years and, most importantly, why I believe that future generations will benefit if we succeed in remaining a member of the European Union. It is a case that hardly received any national publicity during the extraordinary referendum campaign, but it goes to the heart of the historic decision that the House is being asked to make now.

    It so happens that my political career entirely coincides with British involvement with the European Union. I started over 50 years ago, supporting Harold Macmillan’s application to join. I helped to get the majority cross-party vote for the European Communities Act 1972, before we joined in 1973, and it looks like my last Parliament is going to be the Parliament in which we leave, but I do not look back with any regret. We made very wise decisions. I believe that membership of the European Union was the way in which we got out of the appalling state we were in when we discovered after Suez that we had no role in the world that we were clear about once we had lost our empire, and that our economy was becoming a laughing stock because we were falling behind the countries on the continent that had been devastated in the war but appeared to have a better way of proceeding than we did.

    I believe that our membership of the European Union restored to us our national self-confidence and gave us a political role in the world, as a leading member of the Union, which made us more valuable to our allies such as the United States, and made our rivals, such as the Russians, take us more seriously because of our leadership role in the European Union. It helped to reinforce our own values as well. Our economy benefited enormously and continued to benefit even more, as the market developed, from our close and successful involvement in developing trading relationships with the inhabitants of the continent.

    Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

    Mr Clarke

    I am very fortunate to be called this early. I apologise to my right hon. Friend—my old friend—but 93 other Members are still waiting to be called, so if he will forgive me, I will not give way.

    The Conservative Governments in which I served made very positive contributions to the development of the European Union. There were two areas in which we were the leading contender and made a big difference. The first was when the Thatcher Government led the way in the creation of the single market. The customs union—the so-called common market—had served its purpose, but regulatory barriers matter more than tariffs in the modern world. But for the Thatcher Government, the others would not have been induced to remove those barriers, and I think that the British benefited more from the single market than any other member state. It has contributed to our comparative economic success today.

    We were always the leading Government after the fall of the Soviet Union in the process of enlargement to eastern Europe, taking in the former Soviet states. That was an extremely important political contribution. After the surprising collapse of the Soviet Union, eastern and central Europe could have collapsed into its traditional anarchy, nationalist rivalry and military regimes that preceded the second world war. We pressed the urgency of bringing in these new independent nations, giving them the goal of the European Union, which meant liberal democracy, free market trade and so forth. We made Europe a much more stable place.

    That has been our role in the European Union, and I believe that it is a very bad move, particularly for our children and grandchildren, that we are all sitting here now saying that we are embarking on a new unknown future. I shall touch on that in a moment, because I think the position is simply baffling to every friend of the British and of the United Kingdom throughout the world. That is why I shall vote against the Bill.

    Let me deal with the arguments that I should not vote in that way, that I am being undemocratic, that I am quite wrong, and that, as an elected Member of Parliament, I am under a duty to vote contrary to the views I have just given. I am told that this is because we held a referendum. First, I am in the happy situation that my opposition to referendums as an instrument of government is quite well known and has been frequently repeated throughout my political career. I have made no commitment to accept a referendum, and particularly this referendum, when such an enormous question, with hundreds of complex issues wrapped up within it, was to be decided by a simple yes/no answer on one day. That was particularly unsuitable for a plebiscite of that kind, and that point was reinforced by the nature of the debate.

    Constitutionally, when the Government tried to stop the House from having a vote, they did not go to the Supreme Court arguing that a referendum bound the House and that that was why we should not have a vote. The referendum had always been described as advisory in everything that the Government put out. There is no constitutional standing for referendums in this country. No sensible country has referendums—the United States and Germany do not have them in their political systems. The Government went to the Supreme Court arguing for the archaic constitutional principle of the royal prerogative—that the Executive somehow had absolute power when it came to dealing with treaties. Not surprisingly, they lost.

    What about the position of Members of Parliament? There is no doubt that by an adequate but narrow majority, leave won the referendum campaign. I will not comment on the nature of the campaign. Those arguments that got publicity in the national media on both sides were, on the whole, fairly pathetic. I have agreed in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that he and I can both tell ourselves that neither of us used the dafter arguments that were put forward by the people we were allied with. It was not a very serious debate on the subject. I do not recall the view that £350 million a week would be available for the health service coming from the Brexit Secretary, and I did not say that we going to have a Budget to put up income tax and all that kind of thing. It was all quite pathetic.

    Let me provide an analogy—a loose one but, I think, not totally loose—explaining the position of Members of Parliament after this referendum. I have fought Lord knows how many elections over the past 50 years, and I have always advocated voting Conservative. The British public, in their wisdom, have occasionally failed to take my advice and have by a majority voted Labour. I have thus found myself here facing a Labour Government, but I do not recall an occasion when I was told that it was my democratic duty to support Labour policies and the Labour Government on the other side of the House. That proposition, if put to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) in opposition or myself, would have been treated with ridicule and scorn. Apparently, I am now being told that despite voting as I did in the referendum, I am somehow an enemy of the people for ignoring my instructions and for sticking to the opinions that I expressed rather strongly, at least in my meetings, when I urged people to vote the other way.

    I have no intention of changing my opinion on the ground. Indeed, I am personally convinced that the hard-core Eurosceptics in my party, with whom I have enjoyed debating this issue for decades, would not have felt bound in the slightest by the outcome of the referendum to abandon their arguments—[Interruption.] I do not say that as criticism; I am actually on good terms with the hard-line Eurosceptics because I respect their sincerity and the passionate nature of their beliefs. If I ever live to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) turn up here and vote in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union, I will retract what I say, but hot tongs would not make him vote for membership of the EU.

    I must move on, but I am told that I should vote for my party as we are on a three-line Whip. I am a Conservative; I have been a decently loyal Conservative over the years. The last time I kicked over the traces was on the Lisbon treaty, when for some peculiar reason my party got itself on the wrong side of the argument, but we will pass over that. I would point out to those who say that I am somehow being disloyal to my party by not voting in favour of this Bill that I am merely propounding the official policy of the Conservative party for 50 years until 23 June 2016. I admire my colleagues who can suddenly become enthusiastic Brexiteers, having seen a light on the road to Damascus on the day that the vote was cast, but I am afraid that that light has been denied me.

    I feel the spirit of my former colleague, Enoch Powell—I rather respected him, aside from one or two of his extreme views—who was probably the best speaker for the Eurosceptic cause I ever heard in this House of Commons. If he were here, he would probably find it amazing that his party had become Eurosceptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant, in a very strange way, in 2016. Well, I am afraid that, on that issue, I have not followed it, and I do not intend to do so.

    There are very serious issues that were not addressed in the referendum: the single market and the customs union. They must be properly debated. It is absurd to say that every elector knew the difference between the customs union and the single market, and that they took a careful and studied view of the basis for our future trading relations with Europe.

    The fact is that I admire the Prime Minister and her colleagues for their constant propounding of the principles of free trade. My party has not changed on that. We are believers in free trade and see it as a win-win situation. We were the leading advocate of liberal economic policies among the European powers for many years, so we are free traders. It seems to me unarguable that if we put between us and the biggest free market in the world new tariffs, new regulatory barriers, new customs procedures, certificates of origin and so on, we are bound to be weakening the economic position from what it would otherwise have been, other things being equal, in future. That is why it is important that this issue is addressed in particular.

    I am told that that view is pessimistic, and that we are combining withdrawal from the single market and the customs union with a great new globalised future that offers tremendous opportunities for us. Apparently, when we follow the rabbit down the hole, we will emerge in a wonderland where, suddenly, countries throughout the world are queuing up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets that we were never able to achieve as part of the European Union. Nice men like President Trump and President Erdoğan are impatient to abandon their normal protectionism and give us access. Let me not be too cynical; I hope that that is right. I do want the best outcome for the United Kingdom from this process. No doubt somewhere a hatter is holding a tea party with a dormouse in the teapot.

    We need success in these trade negotiations to recoup at least some of the losses that we will incur as a result of leaving the single market. If all is lost on the main principle, that is the big principle that the House must get control of and address seriously, in proper debates and votes, from now on.

    I hope that I have adequately explained that my views on this issue have not been shaken very much over the decades—they have actually strengthened somewhat. Most Members, I trust, are familiar with Burke’s address to the electors of Bristol. I have always firmly believed that every MP should vote on an issue of this importance according to their view of the best national interest. I never quote Burke, but I shall paraphrase him. He said to his constituents, “If I no longer give you the benefit of my judgment and simply follow your orders, I am not serving you; I am betraying you.” I personally shall be voting with my conscience content, and when we see what unfolds hereafter as we leave the European Union, I hope that the consciences of other Members of Parliament will remain equally content.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2017 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in Peterborough on 10 January 2017.

    Thank you for that introduction.

    Whether you voted to Leave or to Remain, you voted for a better future for Britain.

    One thing is clear, the Tories cannot deliver that. So today I want to set how Labour will deliver that vision of a better Britain.

    This government is in disarray over Brexit.

    As the Prime Minister made clear herself they didn’t plan for it before the referendum and they still don’t have a plan now.

    I voted and campaigned to remain and reform as many of you may know I was not uncritical of the European Union. It has many failings.

    Some people argued that we should have a second referendum. That case was put to our party’s membership last summer and defeated.

    Britain is now leaving the European Union. And Britain can be better off after Brexit. But that’s far from inevitable and it certainly won’t happen with a government that stands by whilst wages and salaries are driven down, industry is hollowed out and public services are cut to the point of breakdown.

    Because while the European Union has many problems so does Britain in the hands of Theresa May after six years of Conservative misrule.

    Our social care system is failing to provide essential care for people with disabilities and over a million of our elderly people.

    The NHS is in record deficit; nearly 4 million people are on waiting lists, the Red Cross is describing the state of our emergency health and social care as a ‘humanitarian crisis’.

    Our jobs market is being turned into a sea of insecurity, six million workers in Britain earning less than the living wage, nearly a million people on zero hours contracts, record numbers of people in work living in poverty while in fat cat Britain, the chief executives had already received more than most people will earn all year by the third day of January.

    My point is this, I don’t trust this government with social care, or with the NHS or with the labour market.

    So do I trust them to make a success of Brexit? Not remotely.

    Only a Labour government, determined to reshape the economy so that it works for all, in every part of the country, can make Brexit work for Britain.

    And there can be no question of giving Theresa May’s Tories a free pass in the Brexit negotiations to entrench and take still further their failed free market policies in a post-Brexit Britain.

    The Tory Brexiteers , whose leaders are now in the government and their Ukip allies had no more of a plan for a Brexit vote than the Tory remainers, like Theresa May.

    They did however promise that Brexit would guarantee funding for the NHS, to the tune of £350 million a week. It was on the side of Boris Johnson’s bus.

    What’s happened to that promise now the NHS and social care are in serious crisis? It’s already been ditched.
    And it’s not just on the NHS. We have had no answers from the government about any of their plans or objectives for these complex Brexit negotiations.

    At no point since the Second World War has Britain’s ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan.

    As a result they are now reduced to repeating ‘Brexit means Brexit’. They are unfit to negotiate Brexit.

    That is why Labour has demanded the government come to Parliament and set out their plan before they present it to Brussels and explain what they want to achieve for our country.

    But in the glaring absence of a government plan Labour also believes it’s time to spell out more clearly what we believe the country’s Brexit objectives should be.

    People voted for Brexit on the promise that Britain outside the European Union could be a better place for all its citizens. Whatever their colour or creed. A chance to regain control over our economy, our democracy and people’s lives.

    But beyond vague plans to control borders the only concrete commitment the government has so far made is to protect the financial interests in the City of London. Though maybe that’s hardly surprising from a government that has already slashed the bank levy and corporation tax.

    In the last budget there was not a penny extra for the NHS or social care but under the Tories there’s always billions available for giveaways to the richest.

    As far as Labour is concerned, the referendum result delivered a clear message.

    First, that Britain must leave the EU and bring control of our democracy and our economy closer to home.

    Second, that people would get the resources they were promised to rebuild the NHS.

    Third, that people have had their fill of an economic system and an establishment that works only for the few, not for the many.

    And finally, that their concerns about immigration policy would be addressed.

    Labour accepts those challenges that you, the voters, gave us.

    Unlike the Tories, Labour will insist on a Brexit that works not just for City interests but in the interests of us all.

    That puts health and social care, decent jobs and living standards first and a better deal for young people and the areas of this country that have been left behind for too long.

    First, we will open the way to rebuilding our NHS by ending the under-funding and privatisation of health care.

    Leaving the EU won’t free up the £350m a week that Boris Johnson claimed but savings in EU contributions could help close the gap.

    And we will reject pressure to privatise public services as part of any Brexit settlement. Just as we oppose the attempt to give special legal privileges to corporate interests as part of the EU’s CETA or TTIP trade deals.

    This government could have given the NHS the funding it needs but it has chosen not to. Their tax giveaways to the very richest and to big business hand back £70 billion between now and 2022.

    That is more of a priority for the Tories than elderly people neglected in their homes, patients dying on trolleys or millions waiting in pain to get the treatment they need.

    Labour created the NHS, and it is only safe under a Labour government. We will give the NHS the funding it needs. The British people voted to re-finance the NHS – and we will deliver it.

    Second, we will push to maintain full access to the European single market to protect living standards and jobs.

    But we will also press to repatriate powers from Brussels for the British government to develop a genuine industrial strategy essential for the economy of the future, and so that no community is left behind.

    Tory governments have hidden behind EU state aid rules because they don’t want to intervene. They did so again last year when the steel industry was in trouble. Other governments in Europe acted and saved their industry, the Tory government here sat back.

    But EU rules can also be a block on the action that’s needed to support our economy, decent jobs and living standards.

    Labour will use state aid powers in a drive to build a new economy, based on new technology and the green industries of the future.

    That’s why Labour has set out proposals for a National Investment Bank with regional investment banks that will decide the priorities for their areas. A massive programme of investment that will be needed to rebuild regional economies.

    This country is far too centralized. So we will take back powers over regional policy. And instead of such decisions being made in Brussels or in London, we will make sure they taken locally wherever possible. Taking back real control and putting power and resources right into the heart of local communities to target investment where it’s needed.

    Third, we will use the huge spending leverage of taxpayer-funded services to massively expand the number of proper apprenticeships.

    All firms with a government or council contract over £250,000 will be required to pay tax in the UK and train young people.

    No company will receive taxpayer-funded contracts if it, or its parent company, is headquartered in a tax haven.

    And we will not buy outsourced public services, such as care for the elderly, from companies whose owners and executives are creaming off profits to stuff their pockets at the expense of the workforce and the public purse.

    Finally, a Labour Brexit would take back control over our jobs market which has been seriously damaged by years of reckless deregulation.

    During the referendum campaign, many people expressed deep concerns about unregulated migration from the EU.

    In many sectors of the economy, from IT to health and social care, migrant workers make an important contribution to our common prosperity, and in many parts of the country public services depend on migrant labour.

    This government has been saying it will reduce migration to the tens of thousands. Theresa May as Home Secretary set an arbitrary political target knowing full well it would not be met.

    They inflamed the issue of immigration. They put immense strain on public services with six years of extreme cuts and then blamed migrants for the pressure caused by Tory austerity.

    And last week a Government minister who voted ‘Leave’ told an employers’ conference, “don’t worry, we’ll still let you bring in cheap EU labour”.
    Unlike the Tories, Labour will not offer false promises on immigration targets or sow division by scapegoating migrants because we know where that leads. The worrying rise in race hate crime and division we have seen in recent months and how the issue of immigration can be used as a proxy to abuse or intimidate minority communities.

    Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle, but I don’t want that to be misinterpreted, nor do we rule it out.

    When it comes to border controls, we are proud to say we will meet our international obligations to refugees fleeing wars and persecution.

    To those EU citizens who are already here, we will guarantee your rights.

    And we continue to welcome international students who come to study in this country.

    We cannot afford to lose full access to the European markets on which so many British businesses and jobs depend.

    Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations.

    Labour supports fair rules and the reasonable management of migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU, while putting jobs and living standards first in the negotiations.

    At the same time, taking action against undercutting of pay and conditions, closing down cheap labour loopholes, banning exclusive advertising of jobs abroad and strengthening workplace protections would have the effect of reducing numbers of EU migrant workers in the most deregulated sectors, regardless of the final Brexit deal.

    Of course migration has put a strain on public services in some areas that’s why Labour would restore the Migrant Impact Fund that the Tories scrapped.

    Sarah Champion is leading for Labour on our policies to ensure better integration and more community cohesion and part of that again will be about restoring funding for English language lessons.

    Let’s not forget it was this Tory government that slashed funding for learning English as a second language. As we’ve seen with the Prime Minister talking about the need to strengthen mental health care, while cutting funding by 8 per cent it seems the government’s second language is hypocrisy.

    It is the ripping up of workplace protections and trade union rights that has allowed unscrupulous employers to exploit both migrant and British labour, and help to keep pay low, and drive down conditions for everyone.

    But let’s be clear, public services are not under pressure primarily because of immigration – especially since many migrant workers keep those public services going.

    They are under pressure because this Tory government has cut them to fund tax break after tax break to the super rich and big business.
    That is the Tory game – low taxes for the rich, low pay for the rest, underfund public services, and find someone to blame , It’s brutal and it’s not working.

    Labour will break with this failed model and offer solutions to problems, not someone to blame.

    Labour will demand that the Brexit negotiations give us the power to intervene decisively to prevent workers, from here or abroad, being used and exploited to undermine pay and conditions at work.

    We need a drive to provide British people with the skills necessary to take up the new jobs which a Labour government and the new economy will generate. I’ve already set out at the CBI and TUC conferences that this means asking companies to pay a bit more in tax to fund more and better access to education and skills training, and government contractors always providing decent skilled apprenticeships.

    We will end the race to the bottom in pay, working conditions and job insecurity, setting up a new Ministry of Labour to get a grip on the anything goes jobs market free-for-all.

    Labour will ensure all workers have equal rights at work from day one – and require collective bargaining agreements in key sectors in a properly regulated labour market, so that workers cannot be undercut.

    That will bring an end to the unscrupulous use of agency labour and bogus self-employment, to stop undercutting and to ensure every worker has a secure job with secure pay, that’s why we’ll set the minimum wage at the level of the living wage, expected to be £10 per hour by 2020.

    Those changes should be made to benefit the whole country.

    But while we tackle low pay at the bottom, we also have to address the excess that drives that poverty pay that leaves millions of people in poverty even though they work.

    In the 1920s, J.P. Morgan, the Wall Street banker limited salaries to 20 times that of junior employees.

    Another advocate of pay ratios was David Cameron. His government proposed a 20:1 pay ratio to limit sky-high pay in the public sector and now all salaries higher than £150,000 must be signed off by the Cabinet Office.

    Labour will go further and extend that to any company that is awarded a government contract.

    A 20:1 ratio means someone earning the living wage, just over £16,000 a year, would permit an executive to be earning nearly £350,000. It cannot be right that if companies are getting public money that that can be creamed off by a few at the top.

    But there is a wider point too. 20 years ago the top bosses of the FTSE 100 companies earned just under 50 times their average worker, today that figure is now 130 times. Last year alone, the top bosses got a 10 per cent pay rise, far higher than those doing the work in the shops, in the call centres, in the warehouses.

    So what can we do?

    … We could allow consumers to judge for themselves, with a government-backed kitemark for those companies that have agreed pay ratios between the pay of the highest and lowest earners with a recognised trade union.

    … We could ask for executive pay to be signed off by remuneration committees on which workers have a majority.

    … We could ensure higher earners pay their fair share by introducing a higher rate of income tax on the highest 5 percent or 1 percent of incomes.

    … We could offer lower rates of corporation tax for companies that don’t pay anyone more than a certain multiple of the pay of the lowest earner.

    There are many options. But what we cannot accept is a society in which a few earn the in two and a bit days, what a nurse, a shop worker, a teacher do in a year. That cannot be right.

    This is not about limiting aspiration or penalising success, it’s about recognising that success is a collective effort and rewards must be shared.

    We cannot have the CEO paying less tax than the cleaner and pretending they are worth thousands times more than the lowest paid staff.

    So this is Labour’s vision for Britain after Brexit.
    Labour will not block the referendum vote when the time comes in Parliament, we will vote for Article 50.

    But as the Opposition we will ensure the government is held to account for its negotiating demands.

    At the moment they are in total disarray, on Brexit, on the NHS and social care, on the pay in your pocket.

    Labour will build a better Britain out of Brexit.

    That will start with the refinancing of the NHS and the creation of a more equal country, in which power and wealth is more fairly shared amongst our communities. A genuinely inclusive society with strong and peaceful relations with the rest of the world.

    This is Labour’s New Year pledge to the British people.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech on Exiting the European Union

    rnjmcc5y6s

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech in Davos

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Davos on 19 January 2017.

    Thank you Professor Schwab for that introduction, and thank you for inviting me to speak here at the World Economic Forum this morning.

    This is an organisation that is, as it says in the very first line of your mission statement, committed to ‘improving the state of the world’. Those of us who meet here are all – by instinct and outlook – optimists who believe in the power of public and private co-operation to make the world of tomorrow better than the world of today. And we are all united in our belief that that world will be built on the foundations of free trade, partnership and globalisation.

    Yet beyond the confines of this hall, those forces for good that we so often take for granted are being called into question.

    The forces of liberalism, free trade and globalisation that have had – and continue to have – such an overwhelmingly positive impact on our world, that have harnessed unprecedented levels of wealth and opportunity, that have lifted millions out of poverty around the world, that have brought nations closer together, broken down barriers and improved standards of living and consumer choice, forces that underpin the rules-based international system that is key to our global prosperity and security, are somehow at risk of being undermined.

    And as we meet here this morning, across Europe parties of the Far Left and the Far Right are seeking to exploit this opportunity, gathering support by feeding off an underlying and keenly felt sense among some people – often those on modest to low incomes living in relatively rich countries around the west – that these forces are not working for them.

    And those parties – who embrace the politics of division and despair; who offer easy answers; who claim to understand people’s problems and always know what and who to blame – feed off something else too: the sense among the public that mainstream political and business leaders have failed to comprehend their legitimate concerns for too long.

    This morning, I want to set out a manifesto for change that responds to these concerns and shows that the politics of the mainstream can deliver the change people need.

    I want to show how, by taking a new approach that harnesses the good of what works and changes what does not, we can maintain – indeed we can build – support for the rules-based international system.

    And I want to explain how, as we do so, the United Kingdom – a country that has so often been at the forefront of economic and social change – will step up to a new leadership role as the strongest and most forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade anywhere in the world.

    Brexit

    For that is the unique opportunity that Britain now has.

    I speak to you this morning as the Prime Minister of a country that faces the future with confidence.

    For a little over 6 months ago, millions of my fellow citizens upset the odds by voting, with determination and quiet resolve, to leave the European Union and embrace the world.

    Let us not underestimate the magnitude of that decision. It means Britain must face up to a period of momentous change. It means we must go through a tough negotiation and forge a new role for ourselves in the world. It means accepting that the road ahead will be uncertain at times, but believing that it leads towards a brighter future for our country’s children, and grandchildren too.

    So while it would have been easy for the British people to shy away from taking such a path, they fixed their eyes on that brighter future and chose a bold, ambitious course instead.

    They chose to build a truly Global Britain.

    I know that this, and the other reasons Britain took such a decision, is not always well understood internationally, particularly among our friends and allies in Europe. Some of our European partners feel that we have turned our back on them. And I know many fear what our decision means for the future of the EU itself.

    But as I said in my speech earlier this week, our decision to leave the European Union was no rejection of our friends in Europe, with whom we share common interests and values and so much else. It was no attempt to become more distant from them, or to cease the co-operation that has helped to keep our continent secure and strong.

    And nor was it an attempt to undermine the European Union itself. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU as an organisation should succeed.

    It was simply a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy and national self-determination. A vote to take control and make decisions for ourselves.

    And, crucially, to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit too.

    Because that is who we are as a nation. Britain’s history and culture is profoundly internationalist.

    We are a European country, and proud of our shared European heritage, but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world.

    That is why we are among the most racially diverse countries in Europe, one of the most multicultural members of the European Union, and why – whether we are talking about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, countries in Africa, Asia or those that are closer to home in Europe – so many of us have close friends and relatives from across the world.

    And it is why we are by instinct a great, global, trading nation that seeks to trade with countries not just in Europe but beyond Europe too.

    So at the heart of the plan I set out earlier this week, is a determination to pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement between the UK and the European Union. But, more than that, we seek the freedom to strike new trade deals with old friends and new allies right around the world as well.

    I am pleased that we have already started discussions on future trade ties with countries like Australia, New Zealand and India. While countries including China, Brazil, and the Gulf States have already expressed their interest in striking trade deals with us.

    That is why, as I said in my speech on Tuesday, I want the UK to emerge from this period of change as a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too; a country that gets out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.

    And that is exactly what we are going to do.

    Global Britain

    We are going to be a confident country that is in control of its own destiny once again.

    And it is because of that that we will be in a position to act in this global role.

    Because a country in control of its destiny is more, not less able to play a full role in underpinning and strengthening the multilateral rules-based system

    A Global Britain is no less British because we are a hub for foreign investment. Indeed, our biggest manufacturer, Tata, is Indian – and you still can’t get more British than a Jaguar or a Land Rover.

    Britain is no less British because it is home to people from around the world. In fact, we derive so much of our strength from our diversity – we are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy, and we’re proud of it.

    And Britain is no less British because we have led the way in multilateral organisations like the UN, NATO, IMF and the World Bank over many years.

    Membership of these bodies magnifies all their members’ ability to advance the common goods of peace, prosperity and security.

    I believe strongly in a rules based global order. The establishment of the institutions that give effect to it in the mid-20th century was a crucial foundation for much of the growing peace and prosperity the world has enjoyed since. And the tragic history of the first half of the last century reminds us of the cost of those institutions’ absence.

    The litany of follies of that time are mistakes that we should never forget and never repeat.

    So we must uphold the institutions that enable the nations of the world to work together.

    And we must continue to promote international co-operation wherever we can.

    One example of that is modern slavery – a scourge of our world, which we can only defeat if we work together, changing attitudes, rooting out such abhorrent practices and prosecuting the perpetrators.

    That is why at Davos this year I have convened a high-level panel discussion to continue our co-ordinated effort to save those many lives which are, tragically, being stolen.

    International co-operation is vital. But we must never forget that our first responsibility as governments it to serve the people. And it is my firm belief that we – as governments, international institutions, businesses and individuals – need to do more to respond to the concerns of those who feel that the modern world has left them behind.

    Economic reform

    So in Britain, we have embarked on an ambitious programme of economic and social reform that aims to ensure that, as we build this Global Britain, we are able to take people with us. A programme that aims to show how a strong Britain abroad can be a better Britain at home.

    Because talk of greater globalisation can make people fearful. For many, it means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut. It means having to sit back as they watch their communities change around them.

    And in their minds, it means watching as those who prosper seem to play by a different set of rules, while for many life remains a struggle as they get by, but don’t necessarily get on.

    And these tensions and differences are increasingly exposed and exploited through the expansion of new technologies and the growth of social media.

    But if we are to make the case for free markets, free trade and globalisation, as we must, those of us who believe in them must face up to and respond to the concerns people have.

    And we must work together to shape new policies and approaches that demonstrate their capacity to deliver for all of the people in our respective countries.

    I believe this challenge demands a new approach from government. And it requires a new approach from business too.

    For government, it means not just stepping back and, as the prevailing orthodoxy in many countries has argued for so many years, not just getting out of the way. Not just leaving businesses to get on with the job and assuming that problems will just fix themselves.

    It means stepping up to a new, active role that backs businesses and ensures more people in all corners of the country share in the benefits of its success.

    And for business, it means doing even more to spread those benefits to more people. It means playing by the same rules as everyone else when it comes to tax and behaviour, because in the UK trust in business runs at just 35% among those in the lowest income brackets. And it means putting aside short-term considerations and investing in people and communities for the long-term.

    These are all things that I know the vast majority of businesses do already. Not just by creating jobs, supporting smaller businesses, training and developing people, but also by working to give something back to communities and supporting the next generation.

    Businesses large and small are the backbone of our economies, and enterprise is the engine of our prosperity. That is why Britain is – and will always be – open for business: open to investment in our companies, infrastructure, universities and entrepreneurs. Open to those who want to buy our goods and services. And open to talent and opportunities, from the arts to technology, finance to manufacturing.

    But, at the same time as promoting this openness, we must heed the underlying feeling that there are some companies, particularly those with a global reach, who are playing by a different set of rules to ordinary, working people.

    So it is essential for business to demonstrate leadership. To show that, in this globalised world, everyone is playing by the same rules, and that the benefits of economic success are there for all our citizens.

    This work is absolutely crucial if we are to maintain public consent for a globalised economy and the businesses that operate within it.

    That is why I have talked a great deal about our country delivering yet higher standards of corporate governance, to help make the UK the best place to invest of any major economy.

    That means several things.

    It means businesses paying their fair share of tax, recognising their obligations and duties to their employees and supply chains, and trading in the right way; companies genuinely investing in – and becoming part of – the communities and nations in which they operate, and abiding by the responsibilities that implies; and all of us taking steps towards addressing executive pay and accountability to shareholders.

    And that is why I welcome the World Economic Forum’s ‘Compact for Responsive and Responsible Leadership’ that businesses are being asked to sign up to at this conference.

    It is this change – setting clear rules for businesses to operate by, while embracing the liberalism and free trade that enable them to thrive – which will allow us to conserve the ultimate good that is a globalised economy.

    I have no doubt at all about the vital role business plays, not just in the economic life of a nation, but in society too. But to respond to that sense of anxiety people feel, I believe we – business and government working together – need to do even more to make the case.

    That is why in Britain, we are developing a new Modern Industrial Strategy. The term ‘industrial strategy’ has fallen into something approaching disrepute in recent years, but I believe such a strategy – that addresses the long-standing and structural weaknesses in our economy – is essential if we are to promote the benefits of free markets and free trade as we wish.

    Our strategy is not about propping up failing industries or picking winners, but creating the conditions where winners can emerge and grow. It is about backing those winners all the way to encourage them to invest in the long-term future of Britain.

    And about delivering jobs and economic growth to every community and corner of the country.

    We can’t leave all this to international market forces alone, or just rely on an increase in overall prosperity.

    Instead, we have to be practical and proactive – in other words, we have to step up and take control – to ensure free trade and globalisation work for everyone.

    Social reform

    At the same time, we have embarked on an ambitious agenda of social reform that embraces the same principles. Active, engaged government that steps up and works for everyone.

    Because if you are someone who is just managing, just getting by, you don’t need a government that will get out of the way. You need an active government that will step up and champion the things that matter to you.

    Governments have traditionally been good at identifying, if not always addressing, the problems and challenges faced by the least disadvantaged in our societies.

    However, the mission I have laid out for the government I lead – to make Britain a country that works for everyone – goes further. It is to build something that I have called the shared society – one that doesn’t just value our individual rights but focuses rather more on the responsibilities we have to one another. That respects the bonds that people share – the bonds of family, community, citizenship and strong institutions.

    And that recognises the obligations we have as citizens – obligations that make our society work.

    It is these bonds and obligations that make our society strong and answer our basic human need for definition and identity.

    And I am absolutely clear that it is the job of government to encourage and nurture the relationships, networks and institutions that provide that definition, and to correct the injustice and unfairness that divides us wherever it is found.

    Too often today, the responsibilities we have to one another have been forgotten as the cult of individualism has taken hold, and globalisation and the democratisation of communications has encouraged people to look beyond their own communities and immediate networks in the name of joining a broader global community.

    To say this is not to argue against globalisation – nor the benefits it brings – from modern travel and modern media to new products in our shops and new opportunities for British companies to export their goods to millions of consumers all around the world.

    But just as we need to act to address the deeply felt sense of economic inequality that has emerged in recent years, so we also need to recognise the way in which a more global and individualistic world can sometimes loosen the ties that bind our society together, leaving some people feeling locked out and left behind.

    Conclusion

    I am determined to make sure that centre-ground, mainstream politics can respond to the concerns people have today. I am determined to stand up for free markets, free trade and globalisation, but also to show how these forces can work for everyone.

    And to do so, I turn to the words of the 18th century philosopher Edmund Burke who said “a state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation”.

    That great conservative principle – change in order to conserve – is more important than ever in today’s complex geopolitical environment.

    And I feel it is of huge relevance to those of us here in Davos this week.

    And it is the principle that guides me as I lead Britain through this period of change.

    As we build a new, bold, confident Global Britain and shape a new era of globalisation that genuinely works for all.

    As we harness the forces of globalisation so that the system works for everyone, and so maintain public support for that system for generations to come.

    I want that to be the legacy of our time. To use this moment to provide responsive, responsible leadership that will bring the benefits of free trade to every corner of the world; that will lift millions more out of poverty and towards prosperity; and that will deliver security, prosperity and belonging for all of our people.

    Thank you.

  • Philip Hammond – 2017 Speech in Davos

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Davos on 19 January 2017.

    The theme of this year’s conference is ‘responsive and responsible’ leadership.

    It’s quite clear why this title was chosen.

    That leadership has never been more necessary as we leave 2016 behind us, and face the challenges of 2017.

    At home, last year delivered the decision of the British people to leave the European Union.

    In the US, the decision of the American people to elect a President who ran as an anti-establishment outsider.

    And across Europe, a rise in support for non-mainstream parties, the effects of which may start to be seen in elections later this year.

    Clearly something is going on and governments have to respond.

    And what better way to respond than to gather the global elites for a serious discussion in an exclusive mountain ski resort?

    The most immediate challenge facing the UK is negotiating and executing our departure from the European Union.

    There have been many assessments made of, and conclusions drawn from, the referendum outcome in the UK, and the lessons will no doubt be pored over by historians and political scientists for years to come.

    But two things in particular strike me:

    First, while the drivers of global political events in 2016 may well be linked, we should be cautious about attributing motive to votes in a referendum, as opposed to an election.

    I do not doubt that a section of the population is disillusioned by the obsolence of their skills and the stagnant real wages that implies – and happy to kick the political establishment when given an opportunity to do so. And we, as politicians, need to hear that message and react to it.

    But it’s a big step to say the UK electorate as a whole is fundamentally rejecting capitalism or globalisation. It isn’t.

    Some of them were simply expressing a view on the European Union! And, of course, on immigration.

    As the Prime Minister has made clear, we need to show how we can build an economy – on the bedrock of our tired and proven system – that will work for everyone in an age, not just of globalisation but of unstoppable technological change.

    And second, the UK vote to leave the European Union was clearly not a vote to turn inwards, whatever is going on elsewhere in the world.

    The rhetoric of the referendum was not one of insularity and isolation, of protectionism and retreat.

    In fact it was quite the opposite.

    The UK takes pride in being the most open economy in the world.

    And the successful leave campaign was premised on the rapid conclusion of free trade agreements with China, with India, with Japan, with the US and the wider Anglosphere – as well as other countries beyond it.

    The argument put forward to the British people was that by leaving the EU we could do more, not less, trade with the rest of the world. And that the EU itself is too inward looking and is ill-equipped to exploit the full potential of the rebalancing of the world’s economy to the East and the South.

    Politicians on both sides of that debate have been consistent and entirely aligned since the referendum in emphasising that Britain is open for business and will remain an open economy and an outward-looking society.

    So we should react to signals of the popular mood, but we should not overreact.

    In Britain, at least, what we have heard was a rumble of discontent, rather than a nascent revolution.

    So as we move into 2017, we must define, and then deliver a new relationship with our European neighbours.

    You heard from the PM on Tuesday, that we want to maintain the closest possible relationship with them – including the most comprehensive possible free-trade agreement.

    But we must do that in a spirit of realism about the political context that we and our European partners operate within.

    It is clear for instance, that on migration we cannot continue with freedom of movement as we have it today.

    That doesn’t mean we’re pulling up the drawbridge: we must continue to attract the brightest and best to work and study in Britain; immigration from the EU will remain crucial to filling skills shortages, delivering public services and maintaining Britain as one of the most competitive places in the world to start and grow a business.

    But we must be able to demonstrate that we can control the migration process in our own interest.

    And we are equally clear that we must respect our EU partners when they say membership of the Single Market means accepting the so-called “four freedoms”.

    That’s their political reality.

    That is why the Prime Minister made clear this week that as we negotiate our future relationship with the European Union, membership of the Single Market is not our objective.

    And because we want to be able to strike our own free trade agreements with countries around the world, we may not seek full membership of the Customs Union either.

    It is on the basis of this pragmatic framework, recognising political realities on both sides, that we will set out to achieve the best possible deal for the British economy:

    A trade-maximising deal, across low friction borders: a solution that delivers for the UK and for the EU alike.

    It is clear that it is in European manufacturers’ interests to maintain access to our market, but access to our financial services should also be a priority for our EU partners.

    Thanks to their depth and liquidity, UK capital markets provide a highly efficient source of finance to European companies and, indeed, governments. So much so that 60% of all EU capital markets activity is executed through the UK.

    UK based banks provided more than £1.1 trillion of cross-border lending to the EU during 2015.

    Half of all UK private equity investments in 2014 were in mainland European companies.

    And this isn’t just about hedge funds and mergers and acquisitions.

    It’s about the loan that gives someone a leg up onto the housing ladder for the first time; the insurance that protects cars and homes; the savings pot that provides support in retirement.

    Consumers across Europe, as well as businesses, rely on our financial services industry for many of these critical services.

    London’s financial services industry is a complex ecosystem that has grown up over decades.

    In my conversations with business leaders in the sector I am told repeatedly that it is this scale and depth that has generated such strength.

    Replicating this elsewhere in Europe in a short timescale is simply not feasible. Punishing the UK, by trying to fragment that ecosystem would only mean European businesses having to go to New York for some, at least, of the financial services they need.

    Any diminution of London’s financial markets would be bad for businesses and consumers in Britain and in the EU. It would drive up costs. And it would act as a drag on the economy of this entire continent.

    It is therefore in everyone’s interest to transition to a new relationship with the EU which provides the greatest possible degree of mutual access to each other’s market for goods and services, so that we can minimise the disruption to existing patterns of business and supply chains.

    Of course, the interests we share are not solely economic.

    The continuing risk of terrorism and geopolitical instability demonstrate the need to continue our close cooperation in areas such as security. And we want to maintain our close relationships in culture, science and technology, educational exchange and research and development too.

    We recognise that we won’t achieve a deal overnight. But it is in nobody’s interests either to prolong uncertainty or for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we transition to our new partnership with the EU.

    Therefore we will seek to agree a phased process which gets us from where we are now to the end-state of our future, permanent, relationship with the EU.

    Anything else would be damaging for both UK and European economic, and potentially financial, stability.

    And a UK in a close, ongoing, partnership with the EU, will have a vital national interest in the future success of the EU. So we will do nothing that could undermine that success.

    Let me be clear: our ambition is to remain in the economic mainstream of Europe, with a comprehensive deal with our European neighbours.

    But maintaining Britain’s competitiveness is not an optional extra; it’s an existential necessity.

    So if somehow, despite our best efforts, political retribution were to triumph over economic logic and we don’t get a fair deal providing the reasonable access to each other’s markets…

    …we will have to do whatever is necessary to ensure the continued competitiveness of our economy in those circumstances.

    That is not a threat, it’s a statement of the blindingly obvious.

    Negotiating Brexit is not the only challenge of 2017. We have to understand and learn to work with a new administration in our closest ally and partner.

    We have to manage the impact of currency driven inflation after a period of stable prices.

    And we have to get our economy match-fit for the post-Brexit world that awaits us.

    I am confident we will get a sensible Brexit deal. But to take full advantage of it, we need to focus on overcoming a weakness that has plagued our economy for well over a decade: our poor productivity performance.

    The UK needs to up its game urgently.

    We lag US and German labour productivity by some 30 percentage points. But we also lag France by over 25 and Italy by 9.

    That means it takes a German worker less than 4 days to produce what a British worker makes in 5. And inevitably that means that too many British workers work longer hours for lower pay than their counterparts.

    Our upcoming Industrial Strategy consultation will address this challenge head on.

    The quality of public infrastructure, insufficient skills, and regional imbalances are all factors restraining productivity, alongside underinvestment in businesses.

    That’s why I took the decision in the Autumn Statement to allow additional borrowing to invest £23 billion in a new National Productivity Investment Fund over the next five years, specifically focused on productivity-generating infrastructure, housing, research, development and innovation.

    That means real-terms public sector set investment is forecast to be over 50% higher than the whole period of the last Labour government, and focused more clearly on the needs of the economy.

    And we are taking a long term approach by establishing the National Infrastructure Commission as a permanent body.

    I look forward to their first National Infrastructure Assessment later this year – which will offer the first comprehensive view of our long-term infrastructure needs.

    And, of course, we are making sure Britain remains one of the most competitive places to invest with corporation tax set to fall to 17%, by far the lowest overall rate of corporate tax in the G20.

    And addressing the productivity challenge is not only good for our economy – it also helps to address some of the social challenges we face.

    That is important because, over the coming years our economy, and our social structures, will have to cope not only with the impacts of globalisation and an ageing population profile, but also with a quickening pace of technological change as the fourth industrial revolution gathers speed.

    On the positive side, many of the new, disruptive technologies are being developed in the UK.

    To support that we will be investing over £8 billion of public money in R&D annually by the end of the decade, ensuring that what is invented and discovered here gets developed and commercialised here.

    And, yes, ultimately, taxed here.

    But that won’t, in itself, protect us from the impact as first unskilled, and then skilled workers, find their jobs disappearing.

    Indeed, looking at the relative speed of development of recent advances in computerised medical diagnostics on the one hand and driverless vehicles on the other, it could well be skilled workers who are under the most immediate threat.

    I only hope that I’ve left the office before they automate the Chancellor of the Exchequer!

    Of course, it is possible to mask the effects of change in the short-term: and we will certainly face demands to do so.

    But Politicians who take the populist route will find it a very short road.

    There is no sustainable future for a developed economy in protectionism, subsidy, and high debt.

    So whether it’s on restoring the public finances to health, getting the right Brexit deal for Britain or tackling the long-term productivity challenge facing our economy, this government is providing the responsible economic leadership that our country needs.

    That means facing up to the fact that we have some hard graft ahead.

    There are no easy answers. Populism is a fool’s paradise.

    I hope I have already demonstrated that I welcome suggestions from business and will act on them where I can.

    You asked us to confirm the businesses rates reductions – and we did.

    You asked us to boost spending on research and development, and at the Autumn Statement we responded by increasing public R&D spend by £2 billion a year by 2020-21.

    You asked for investment in infrastructure – and we will deliver a higher rate of public sector net investment than in every year from 1993 until the financial crash.

    But in the end, economic growth is not delivered by what we do. It’s delivered by what you do.

    So let me close by thanking the CBI and business leaders for your enduring commitment to growing our economy and creating the jobs and the ideas on which it depends.

    As we navigate our way through the unchartered waters of Brexit, the partnership and dialogue between business and government will be more important than ever.

    So let us work together, using all our networks to impress on our European neighbours how much it’s in all our interests to retain that strong trading relationship.

    Let us work together to ensure we retain the innovation, the dynamism, and the job creation that mark out the British economy from many of its competitors.

    And let us work together to secure our long term prospects by matching public sector investment in productivity with a renewed wave of private investment as the fog of Brexit begins to clear.

    Working together, we can be confident that our best days lie ahead of us.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech to the Gulf Co-operation Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Manama on 7 December 2016.

    I am delighted to be here in Manama, following in the footsteps of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in celebrating 2 centuries of relations between Bahrain and the United Kingdom. And I am very grateful to His Majesty King Hamad for bestowing on me this special honour – to be invited to address the leaders of the Gulf Co-operation Council.

    We meet at a time of great change in the world. Political change, economic change, social change; in almost every sphere we are confronted with change and uncertainty.

    The risks to our shared security are growing and evolving, as terrorists operate across national borders to plot attacks against our people; as new threats emerge from the malevolent use of the internet, and as certain states continue to act in ways that undermine stability in your region – undermining, in turn, our own security in the West and further reinforcing the need for all of us to work together.

    We, in the West, face the challenge of trying to manage those forces of globalisation that have in recent times left some of our people behind.

    Here in the Gulf you, too, are facing the challenges of securing jobs and opportunities for your peoples and building what I call an economy that works for everyone.

    In this uncertain world, people are searching for direction and leadership and we have a responsibility to provide it. I believe it is more than a responsibility. For if we work together, it is also an unparalleled opportunity to show that we understand the scale of the change people need; understand truly what lies behind it; and most importantly of all; that we as leaders are trusted to deliver.

    One of the prevailing sentiments in all my conversations with GCC leaders over the last 5 months since I became Prime Minister has been this sense that in challenging times, you turn to your oldest and most dependable friends.

    That is the spirit in which I come here today.

    We have a rich history on which to build. From the very first treaties, in the mid-17th century, which saw the East India Company reach agreements on British trade and a military presence in Oman, to our deep partnership as Cold War allies, the UK has been proudly at the forefront of a relationship between the Gulf and the West that has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity and security.

    And as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, I am determined that we should seize the opportunity to get out into the world and to shape an even bigger global role for my country: yes, to build new alliances but more importantly, to go even further in working with old friends, like our allies here in the Gulf, who have stood alongside us for centuries.

    There has never been a more important, or more challenging time to do so. In the face of growing extremism and radicalisation, not unique to this region but here in its most egregious form; in the face of threats to the rules-based order which has underpinned not just our shared security but also the foundations for our shared prosperity, the UK stands here today seeking not just to reaffirm a relationship that is of great historic value but to renew a partnership that is absolutely fundamental to our shared future.

    So in accepting the honour of addressing GCC leaders, I seek not just to offer a message of continuity, but to begin to build a bold new chapter in our co-operation; not to develop a transactional relationship but rather to forge a strategic relationship, a relationship based on true partnership and an enduring commitment between our countries and our peoples; a relationship through which together we can meet these great challenges to our shared security and prosperity, and grab this opportunity to build an exciting future for the generations that follow us.

    So let me set out some of the ways in which the UK will step up its relationship with the GCC. And let me start with security.

    Gulf security is our security

    Gulf security is our security. Extremists plotting terror attacks here in this region are not only targeting the Gulf but, as we have seen, targeting the streets of Europe too. Whether we are confronting the terrorism of Al Qaeda or the murderous barbarity of Daesh, no country is a more committed partner for you in this fight than the United Kingdom.

    Today UK servicemen and women are putting their lives on the line at the heart of the international mission against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. We are making progress. And as we are seeing with the current operations in Mosul, the days of Daesh as an occupying force are numbered.

    Through our close co-operation on counter-terrorism we are succeeding in foiling terrorist plots and a range of threats against citizens in all our countries. For example, intelligence we have received in the past from Saudi Arabia has saved potentially hundreds of lives in the UK.

    And by focusing not just on violent extremism, but on the whole spectrum of extremism, violent and non-violent, at home and abroad, we are not just going after the terrorists but working to address the causes of this terrorist threat by targeting the ideology of extremism and all those who seek to spread it.

    As we address new threats to our security, so we must also continue to confront state actors whose influence fuels instability in the region. So I want to assure you that I am clear-eyed about the threat that Iran poses to the Gulf and the wider Middle East.

    The UK is fully committed to our strategic partnership with the Gulf and working with you to counter that threat. We secured a deal which has neutralised the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons for over a decade. It has already seen Iran remove 13,000 centrifuges together with associated infrastructure and eliminate its stock of 20% enriched uranium. That was vitally important for regional security. But we must also work together to push back against Iran’s aggressive regional actions, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria or in the Gulf itself.

    We must also continue to work together to achieve a just and comprehensive settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, building on efforts such as the Arab Peace Initiative and harnessing the influence of all of us around this table to bring together those with a stake in a lasting peace, built around a 2-state solution. This remains fundamental to the long-term security and prosperity of the whole Middle East.

    In recent years we have retained the ability to defend our mutual interests when threatened by deploying UK assets to the region, as we did when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and as we are continuing to do with HMS Ocean – which I visited yesterday – as it begins its deployment here in Bahrain.

    But as part of the renewed relationship that I want to forge with you, the United Kingdom will make a more permanent and more enduring commitment to the long-term security of the Gulf.

    We will invest in hard power, with over £3 billion of defence spending in the region over the next decade, spending more on defence in the Gulf than in any other region of the world.

    Through the construction of HMS Jufair, and thanks to the generosity of the Kingdom of Bahrain, we will create a permanent presence in the region, the first such facility east of Suez since 1971, with more British warships, aircraft and personnel deployed on operations in the Gulf than in any other part of the world.

    At the same time, a regional land training hub in Oman is establishing a permanent British army presence in the region. And I am delighted to announce that Saif Sareea 3 will take place in Oman in 2018 – the largest UK-Omani exercise for 15 years.

    We will also go further in deepening our defence co-operation through a new Strategic Partnership between the UK and the GCC, supporting the development of your defence capacity and capability, including for humanitarian operations and crisis response planning.

    As part of this we will establish a new British Defence Staff in Dubai to co-ordinate our regional activities and, here in Bahrain, we will embed a dedicated military officer with the Ministry of Interior bomb disposal unit to provide bomb scene management support and training.

    We will establish a new Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism and Border Security and a new National Security Dialogue at GCC level to protect critical national infrastructure, facilitate faster intelligence sharing on suspected foreign terrorist fighters and implement traveller screening systems to detect terrorists attempting to pass through any GCC airport.

    And because we know that our enemies are increasingly using the internet against us, we will use our expertise in cyber security technologies to build our resilience, and that of our international partners.

    So we are appointing world-leading cyber experts with extensive backgrounds in delivering cyber security in the UK to provide focused advice to Gulf States on developing your own capacity – as well as a new Cyber Industry Representative based in the region who will build links between cyber sectors in the UK and the Gulf.

    In all of these ways, I am determined that the UK will be at the forefront of a wider Western effort to step up our defence and security partnership. Not just to provide greater stability and security to the region but also to protect the rules-based order that has been so fundamental to our shared prosperity.

    When I think of the growth of this region over the past 50 years, from the transformation of Dubai to the position of the Gulf as the UK’s third largest export market, I never forget that the bedrock of this prosperity and stability has been the relationship between the Gulf and the West.

    Now, in this period of uncertainty, is the time to recommit to this relationship. That is why I am here – to signal my commitment to this relationship and to build on the foundations of our continued partnership in security and prosperity for decades to come.

    Your prosperity is our prosperity

    For just as Gulf security is our security, so your prosperity is also our prosperity.

    Already the Gulf is a special market for the United Kingdom. Last year alone, trade between the UK and GCC was worth more than £30 billion.

    At the same time Gulf investment in the UK is helping to regenerate cities from Aberdeen to Teeside, and from Manchester to London.

    I am determined that we should do everything possible to build on this and elevate our trade and investment to an even more ambitious level.

    So I will continue the work that the UK has been leading over the past 3 years to make London one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world. And as Britain leaves the European Union so we intend to take a leap forward, to look outwards and seek to become the most committed and most passionate advocate of free trade in the world.

    For free trade makes us all richer. It creates jobs. It increases investment. It improves productivity. It transforms living standards and creates opportunities for all of our citizens.

    And nowhere is that more important than here with our friends and allies in the Gulf.

    So first, I am delighted that we agreed yesterday to set up a new Joint Working Group to examine how we can unblock remaining barriers to trade and take steps to further liberalise our economies for the benefit of our mutual prosperity.

    For example, we have just reached a new agreement with Saudi Arabia to allow British businesses to obtain 5-year multiple entry visas for the first time, creating new opportunities for more bilateral business. And we have agreed that in March next year, the UK will host an event on Gulf national transformation and economic diversification plans at the Mansion House – for centuries, a home of finance and trade at the heart of the City of London.

    These steps are exactly the sort of measures that we can pursue together to advance everything that is possible from business and trade for the benefit of all of our economies and therefore all of our citizens.

    Second, I can confirm that the UK will take part in Dubai’s Expo 2020 continuing the tradition started in Britain with The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations in Hyde Park in 1851.

    Dubai 2020 will offer an enormous commercial opportunity. There will be over 180 nations taking part with more than 25 million visitors expected – from the world’s top business leaders to its biggest investors. It is an opportunity which I am determined we should seize together.

    And third, I want these talks at official level to pave the way for an ambitious trade arrangement for when the UK has left the EU. And I want us to be imaginative about the scale and reach of this.

    I want us to explore whether in this dynamic and diverse market, we could forge a new trade arrangement for the whole of the Gulf area.

    I want to leave no-one in any doubt about the scale of my ambition or the extent of my determination to establish the strongest possible trading relationships between the UK and the Gulf.

    Building societies that work for all

    Just as we take every possible step to break down the barriers that are restricting our trade and prosperity; it is also important that we continue the work to bring our peoples together and to ensure that the benefits of greater prosperity are shared by all.

    In Britain I have talked about the need to create a country that works for everyone.

    In doing so, I have set out Britain’s great global opportunity to lead the way in managing the unintended negative forces of globalisation so that large segments of our society are not left behind; and so we restore trust between citizens and institutions.

    Just as we face some major economic and social challenges in the West, so in your own economies you also face the challenge of helping to secure jobs and opportunities for your peoples.

    We all recognise that there is some way to go before we can say that these economies really work for everyone. But I have been encouraged by recent economic and social reforms you have taken forward and by the bold vision set out by all of the Gulf States for more fundamental and lasting change, most recently with Saudi Arabia’s vision for 2030.

    We in the UK are determined to continue to be your partner of choice as you embed international norms and see through the reforms which are so essential for all of your people.

    And this is only possible because the strength of the relationship between our countries, and the respect that we have for each other, enables us to speak frankly and honestly as friends.

    Together we can meet the challenges of these changing times and secure greater prosperity and security. But to do so will require more than an occasional meeting or a visit every few years. It will require a strengthening of relationships between our countries at every level.

    So I look forward to the next chapter of the Manama Dialogue run by the UK’s International Institute for Strategic Studies which the Foreign Secretary will attend later this week.

    This vital strategic relationship between the UK and the Gulf – a partnership steeped in so much history and so full of potential for our future – now demands even more concentrated efforts.

    That is why I want to continue the hugely positive discussions we are having this week in this first ever UK-GCC dialogue at leader level.

    I am delighted that you have agreed to make this an annual event. And I look forward to welcoming you to London next year.

    Conclusion

    In the face of some of the greatest challenges to our security and our prosperity, we will succeed together. We will succeed through our continued commitment to the rules-based order on which our prosperity has been built. And we will succeed by deepening our security co-operation, expanding our trade and working harder than ever to build economies and societies that work for everyone.

    I believe there has never been a more important moment for us to get this right. And under my leadership, Britain will play its full part in delivering on that vision.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2016 Speech on Human Rights

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, on 8 December 2016.

    Introduction

    Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished guests, colleagues. Welcome to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is a pleasure to see so many of you here tonight.

    The theme of this year’s UN Human Rights Day is ‘stand up for someone’s human rights’. It is more relevant this year than ever, because all around the world people’s human rights are under threat every single day. Whether it is through a squeeze on civil society space, a stifling of public debate or free speech, or a ban on freedom of assembly: it all means the same thing: our human rights are at risk. A short while ago, Hannah who helps me with all my human rights work, asked me what human rights mean to me. Human rights are the right to be yourself without fear of prosecution or persecution, because that runs a theme across everything that makes human beings who they are and who they can be.

    Importance of civil society

    That is why the role of civil society is so important to ensure that human rights can be both promoted, and where they do exist, preserved. It is also why this year’s theme is so relevant to our work here in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with our focus on civil society and democracy. I share the Foreign Secretary’s belief that human rights, vital in themselves, are also good for the security, prosperity and development of countries around the world. If the Foreign Secretary were here today – as he would very much like to have been – he would tell you how much he personally values civil society as the mechanism through which all citizens can exercise their freedoms and make their voices heard.

    Today I would like to talk to you about the work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing to support civil society, and our commitment to promote and defend human rights around the world.

    Work of FCO

    Many of you are regular visitors to this building and may have attended some of our recent events – such as our ground breaking conference in October on freedom of religion or belief as a bulwark against extremism, or last month’s Week of Women events. Some of you were with us just this week for the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery; or at Australia House for the event we co-hosted an event on the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Those are just a few examples of the human rights work we do here in London.

    Overseas, our Embassies and High Commissions are also working on human rights every day. Whether it is supporting organisations that defend human rights, lobbying host governments or debating rules in international fora, our diplomats put human rights at the heart of everything they do. They promote and defend human rights not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is integral to our national interest and our international reputation.

    Their efforts are making a real and positive impact – for example, in helping to create the Human Rights Council’s first ever mechanism to combat violence and discrimination against LGBT communities – that was crucial work they did. When that mandate was challenged at the UN General Assembly, our diplomats helped rally support around the world, to ensure that challenge was defeated, as it should be.

    Our work with the UN is crucial, and the UK has been a member of the Human Rights Council for 8 of the last 10 years. I was delighted that earlier this autumn we were re-elected last month to serve a further 3-year term.

    Traditional diplomacy like this is still highly effective but we are also moving with the times and adapting how we promote human rights and democracy. Today, that means harnessing traditional and social media channels to get our messages across. They are enabling us to reach some of the most hostile and least democratic corners of our world. An example of this media diplomacy is our support via social media to the UN’s “16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence”, which concludes on Human Rights Day. Naturally, we all know that we need more than 16 days to achieve our goals. Our commitment to promote human rights is for the long term.

    Civil society space

    I mentioned earlier that one of our current priorities is to counter the “shrinking of civil society space” we are seeing happening around the world. It is a problem that has been on the rise for some time: our last 2 annual Human Rights Reports both noted the alarming rise of anti-NGO legislation and other practices that stifle basic human rights, such as public debate and freedom of assembly. The evidence is clear that shrinking civil society space harms a country’s stability, economic prospects and wider social development.

    One example of where we are seeing this is Egypt. I am concerned that the new law on non-governmental organisations passed by the Egyptian Parliament on 29 November will be used to prevent Egyptians from contributing to their country’s future, and will create obstacles for international support for Egypt. At a time of economic hardship, Egypt needs civil society more than ever before, and I hope Egypt accepts the UK’s friendly offer of support.

    Human rights defenders

    In this context of shrinking space for civil society, the work of human rights defenders has never been more important than it is now. In their efforts to stand up for the human rights of others, they exemplify the theme of this year’s Human Rights Day as well as the wider principles and values of democracy and the rule of law. They deserve our support and protection and they are going to be the focus of our social media activity on Human Rights Day this year. You’ll be able to see some of our clips being played in the background tonight.

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works with human rights defenders around the world, sharing information with them and learning from them. We hugely value their courage and dedication. They are a crucial dimension of the projects that we support. This year we are funding 129 human rights projects in over 60 countries through our Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy, and that fund is reaching some of the harder to reach communities, who are benefiting from that. But we know we can learn how to do more. Since 2014 the Fund has supported 9 NGO-led projects focused specifically on the work of human rights defenders.

    Colombia, which I visited earlier this year, remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for human rights defenders. We are running a project to open up dialogue between human rights defenders, local and national government, and the international community. It aims to foster a common understanding of the many challenges they face, and of the potential solutions.

    We are also investing in the next generation of human rights defenders, through awarding 60 Chevening scholarships for postgraduate studies in human rights. Our scholars are selected for their academic talent and their future leadership potential, and we are confident they will be a force for good when they return home. As I travel the world for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is always a joy to be able to meet our Chevening scholars and see the work they are achieving. They tell me how the opportunity offered to them is making a difference on issues of human rights in their country.

    Conclusion

    An active civil society is the hallmark of a mature society; a healthy society: one that is open to challenge and able to protect the rights of its citizens. Governments should open the space for civil society, not close it down. They should commend human rights defenders – not condemn them.

    That is our message from across the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that we will continue to promote, at home and abroad. This Human Rights Day, let’s all stand up for human rights.

    Thank you for working with us.

  • Keir Starmer – 2016 Speech at Bloomberg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keir Starmer, the Shadow Secretary of State for Brexit, on 13 December 2016.

    I would like to thank Bloomberg for hosting this speech today.

    At this time of year, it is natural to reflect.

    To look back on the year that has passed and to look forward to the year ahead.

    Years that are so full of significance that the year itself becomes a shorthand for a set of events are rare.

    But there can be no doubt that 2016 will go down as one of the truly defining years of the 21st century.

    Two years ago today – on 13 December 2014 – I was in St Pancras Church opposite Euston Station.

    I was speaking to hundreds of Labour Party members, having just been selected to succeed Frank Dobson as Labour’s candidate for my home constituency of Holborn & St Pancras.

    How different the world looked then.

    Is it any wonder that we are still attempting to understand the world as it has now become and how we got to here?

    But the real challenge is not just to interpret the past but to chart a path towards the future.

    And that is my task for today.

    Coming here to Bloomberg to deliver a speech on Britain and the European Union might be considered to be tempting fate.

    When David Cameron spoke here in January 2013 he decided – as was so often the case – to put short-term political considerations ahead of the national interest.

    My speech today will be guided by a different lodestar – our country’s interest.

    I want to talk about how Labour should respond to Brexit in the national interest.

    First, the context.

    The Labour Party campaigned to stay in the EU.

    I campaigned to stay in the EU.

    The vote was to leave.

    A high turnout.

    A relatively close result.

    But a clear result.

    Yes, there were half-truths and untruths told in the campaign – none more egregious than the promise of £350 million a-week for our NHS that was daubed on the Vote Leave bus.

    Yes, the tone of the referendum was deeply divisive, with social consequences that we all have a duty to tackle.

    But we had a referendum and we have a clear result.

    Had it gone the other way, those of us who passionately campaigned for Remain would have expected the result to be accepted and respected.

    And that cuts both ways.

    Now we face an uncertain future.

    The first step is for the Prime Minister to distil the diverse and divergent views within her own party into a model of Brexit that can be negotiated with the EU.

    I understand what a difficult position the Prime Minister is in.

    Her predecessor, leading a government in which she served as Home Secretary, oversaw one of the greatest derelictions of duty of a British government in modern times.

    The decision not to undertake any preparations whatsoever for a vote to leave has left the country without a plan and the government without direction.

    The stakes could not be higher and the risks of getting this wrong should not be underestimated.

    The Prime Minister must embark on the most difficult and complicated negotiations this country has undertaken since the end of the Second World War.

    The outcome will determine not just our place in Europe but also our place in the world.

    The role of the opposition is crucial.

    This is not business as usual.

    Setting out what Labour would do in 2020 does not suffice.

    This is real opposition in real time.

    By 2020, we will be living in a different world.

    So how should Labour approach the task?

    Some have argued that Labour should adopt the stance taken by the Liberal Democrats.

    Frustrate the process: vote against the triggering of Article 50, block the road and somehow turn the clock back to 22 June this year.

    Insofar as those advocating this course of action fear that in exiting the EU we risk becoming isolated, abandoning our values of tolerance and damaging our economy, I can understand the plea.

    But it is the wrong response for three reasons.

    First, as a matter of principle, no serious political party can claim to accept and respect the outcome of the referendum and in the next breath say that it will seek to prevent the Prime Minister from even starting the Article 50 negotiations.

    A short point; but an important one.

    Second, any political party with an ambition simply to frustrate the process cannot unify or heal the country.

    Since I was appointed to my current role, I have travelled all over the UK – including to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

    I have met groups and individuals, held public events, talked to businesses large and small and discussed Brexit with different political parties and leaders.

    From this, the evidence is clear: As a society we are more divided now than at any time in my life.

    The divide is deep and, in some instances, it is bitter.

    The surge in hate crime across the country and the reaction to the High Court judges who delivered judgment in the Article 50 case are testament to this.

    In some London constituencies, 75% of those voting in the referendum voted to Remain.

    Yet in other areas the precise opposite is the case.

    Last Friday, I was in the Midlands, where in some areas 75% of those voting voted to leave.

    A new fracture in politics has emerged.

    And it is real.

    The role of any responsible government ought to be to repair the breach.

    Bring the country back together.

    Unify.

    But from the start, the Prime Minister has only had a message for one side of the divide.

    The Conservative Party failed to act in the national interest by not planning for Brexit.

    And this Conservative Prime Minister has set aside the national interest once again by serving the interests of just one side of the divide.

    It is a double dereliction of duty.

    Extrapolating the view of a group within the 52%, who were seriously concerned about freedom of movement and immigration, the Prime Minister has issued a ‘loud and clear’ warning that control over immigration will be prioritised over jobs, the economy and living standards.

    I’m not going to shy away from the question of immigration, or to suggest that it was not a powerful factor in the referendum debate and outcome.

    But by clinging to the discredited promise to get immigration into the tens of thousands, the Prime Minister is raising Brexit expectations which cannot be fulfilled without seriously harming our economy and public services.

    Most reasonable people expect that the government should aim both for economic security and for the fair management of migration.

    Not that it would sacrifice jobs and living standards to make arbitrary reductions in immigration.

    Pursuing Brexit in the partisan interest might make Tory party management easier in the short run.

    But as David Cameron could tell Theresa May: stray too far from the national interest, and you will be found out in the end.

    The Prime Minister’s approach is also alienating the 48% of voters who voted to remain in the EU.

    They feel increasingly despondent and despairing.

    The government is treating them as if they voted themselves out of their own future.

    They did no such thing.

    And no party that proceeds against our economic interests in such a divisive way deserves to govern for long.

    The government should be negotiating in the national interest, pulling the 52% and the 48% together, imagining and striving for a future that works for the 100%.

    But those who advocate frustrating the Article 50 process are making the same mistake.

    The Liberal Democrats hold out the false promise to the 48% of being able to frustrate the process.

    But what have they got to say to the 52%?

    Absolutely nothing.

    How can their stance unify the country?

    It can’t.

    And Labour should not fall into the same trap.

    A party that can only speak to and for half a nation cannot heal the rift in our society.

    A party that can only speak to and for half a nation does not deserve to govern.

    A party that can only speak to and for half a nation cannot forge a bold inclusive vision of the future capable of working for everyone.

    The same is true of UKIP’s approach to Brexit.

    Immediate withdrawal, without even bothering to negotiate a deal.

    The hardest of hard Brexits.

    Not only would this be deeply divisive – ignoring the 48% and many more besides – it would be disastrous for our economy, for jobs and for working class communities across the country.

    That brings me to the third reason why Labour should not set its sights simply on frustrating the Article 50 process.

    That is because to do so would mean walking away from the bigger battle that we must fight.

    As we stand on the brink of profound change, it is clear that there are two versions of our future that could be negotiated.

    The first is a future that tears us apart from our EU partners.

    Standing outside and shut off from the European market of 500 million people who could buy our products and services.

    Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules, which as the CBI have said “would do serious and lasting damage to the UK economy and those of our trading partners”.

    A global race to the bottom which would not only put our economy and jobs at risk, but which would also abandon our shared scientific, educational and cultural endeavours with the EU.

    So-called ‘Hard’ Brexit.

    The second version of our future is a version where we exit the EU but build a new and strong relationship with our EU partners based on the principles of co-operation, collaboration and mutual benefit.

    A future which preserves our ability to trade in goods and services with our biggest market of 500 million people.

    A future that values joint scientific, educational and cultural work with our EU partners, and maintains our status as a global scientific superpower.

    A future that guarantees our continued co-operation in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

    A future which allows the UK to retain its leading position in the world, influencing and contributing to developments across Europe and beyond.

    The battle between these two versions of our future is the battle of our times.

    It will be fought out over the next few years.

    Labour needs to be leading that battle.

    As the opposition, we need to be fighting the battle for the future of Britain.

    If we do not, the chance to shape the future of our country will be lost.

    Future generations will not forgive us for such a dereliction of duty.

    But accepting and respecting the referendum result is not the end of the process; it is the beginning.

    The referendum answered the question of what we should do, but provided no answer to how we should do so.

    That question was not on the ballot paper on 23rd June.

    It was not in the Conservative Party manifesto.

    And it was not addressed by Theresa May before she became Prime Minister.

    But it is the now the most pressing question Britain has faced for generations.

    So what does fighting for the right version of our future entail?

    Let me start with trade.

    A good deal of ink has been spilt in the last few months on the finer distinctions of the single market and the customs union.

    I’m not sure how much clarity that has provided.

    So let me attempt to put Labour’s position succinctly by focussing on function not form.

    Put simply, Labour will push for a Brexit model which maintains and protects our ability successfully to trade goods and deliver services with and to the EU.

    That means:

    A model that ensures continued tariff-free trade for UK businesses with the EU

    A model that ensures that any new regulatory frameworks do not add bureaucratic burdens or risk harmful divergence from the EU market.

    A model that protects the competitiveness of our services and manufacturing sectors; and

    A model that ensures that existing protections at work provided by the EU are maintained.

    These tests complement the aims set out by John McDonnell earlier this year and set a blueprint against which the government’s endeavours can be measured.

    Significantly, the Government has provided far less clarity about its approach.

    It has veered between a hard, extreme Brexit and some other undefined, vaguer form of Brexit.

    The Prime Minister’s conference speech outlined the former: a UK out of any EU rules based systems altogether.

    Necessarily isolated and detached.

    When I visited Brussels shortly afterwards, it was clear this had been received by our EU colleagues as the Prime Minister wanting to take the UK out of the single market, out of the customs union and adopting the stance of a remote third party to the EU.

    Hence the description, “Hard Brexit”.

    Contrast that with the tone struck by the Business Secretary Greg Clark when he announced Nissan’s welcome investment in Sunderland.

    We were told that the Government had given private assurances to Nissan that the UK would seek to achieve ‘continued access’ to the single market ‘without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments’.

    Amid those two very different visions of Brexit we have had a range of contradictory messages from Cabinet Members, as well as leaks, hints and Boris Johnson’s never ending running commentary.

    Given the complexity of the issues before us and the deliberate lack of planning by the Cameron government, it is perhaps not surprising that we have this level of chaos and confusion.

    But it needs to end now.

    That is why Labour’s victory last week in securing a commitment from the government to publish a plan before invoking Article 50 was so important.

    During the debate last week, I set out five tests for the plan to satisfy:

    Does it end uncertainty surrounding the Government’s position on fundamental issues such the access to the single market, the customs union and transitional arrangements?

    Does it include sufficient detail to allow the Brexit select committee and other relevant Parliamentary bodies to carry out their scrutiny functions effectively?

    Does it enable the Office of Budget Responsibility to do its job properly in assessing the economic impact of Brexit?

    Does it include sufficient detail to allow the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be assured that their particular and specific concerns are being addressed?

    Will it help build a national consensus on Brexit?

    A late vague plan will not do.

    And I have put the government on notice that if no meaningful plan emerges, Labour will seek to amend any Article 50 Bill brought forward early next year.

    Anyone who thinks that the government has been handed a blank cheque is very much mistaken.

    Let me now turn to freedom of movement.

    If Labour has the ambition to bring the 52% and the 48% together and to build a national consensus on Brexit, we have to recognise that changes to the way freedom of movement rules operate in the UK have to be part of the Brexit negotiations.

    When I was Shadow Immigration Minister I spent months visiting every region of the UK to listen to views on immigration.

    I know how important the issue is to many voters.

    I know that any party that seeks to govern needs to listen to their concerns and come up with adequate and appropriate responses.

    No comprehensive approach to Brexit or response to the referendum result can ignore the issue of freedom of movement.

    As Len McCluskey recently said:

    “There is no doubt that concerns about the impact of the free movement played a significant part in the referendum result, particularly in working-class communities…We are well past the point where [this] issue can be ignored”.

    Labour needs a bold and ambitious response.

    The rules must change.

    And our new relationship with the EU will have to be one which is based on fair migration rules and the reasonable management of migration.

    If Brexit forces us to confront the appalling and enduring skills gap in the UK, that is a good thing.

    If Brexit forces us to confront low pay exploitation, that is also a good thing.

    But the status quo is not an option.

    Labour’s response must, of course, be driven by our values.

    As President Obama recently said, the rapidly changing nature of:

    “….politics in all of our countries is going to require us to manage technology and global integration…in a way that makes people feel more control, that gives them more confidence in their future, but does not resort to simplistic answers or divisions of race or tribe, or crude nationalism”.

    The Labour Party and the wider Labour movement have always been at the forefront of fighting discrimination and building a fairer, more equal society.

    Labour recognises that without the hard work and skill of migrants our public services, our businesses and our economy would suffer.

    But we have also always been the party that values strong, cohesive communities.

    It was striking that the referendum results showed the areas in the country with the highest levels of immigration voted most strongly to Remain.

    But the areas with the highest pace of change voted most strongly to Leave.

    That tells me that the British people are open and tolerant; but that they also expect change to be managed, rather than simply allowing the free market to rip through communities.

    This is not to pretend that arguing for changes to freedom of movement will not make a deal on single market access harder.

    It will.

    But in the negotiations to come, it is incumbent on the government to fight for the fullest possible market access and reasonable management of migration.

    We should demand nothing less.

    But our new relationship with the EU has to go beyond an economic argument and protecting our ability to trade in goods and services – vital though they are.

    Underpinning everything we have done with our European partners since the war have been shared values – British values.

    Of peace.
    Of co-operation.
    Of collaboration.
    The rule of law.
    Human rights.
    Shared security and safety.

    As we forge a new future outside the EU, it is vital that we re-assert these values and use them to guide us through the turbulent times ahead.

    Labour must argue for a bold, progressive domestic policy post-Brexit.

    It is true – as many of us argued during the referendum campaign – that EU legislation has been a driver of progressive UK policy in areas such the environment, consumer rights and employment rights.

    Protecting these gains is essential.

    Particularly since some Conservative MPs have already signalled an intention to use the Great Repeal Bill as an opportunity to water down or erode these vital rights and standards.

    But defending the status quo should never be the summit of Labour’s ambitions.

    Enshrining rights in our law is important, but we should also pursue more progressive, more ambitious policies than those enshrined in EU law.

    Not to match EU standards but to use Labour values to go beyond them.

    And, in doing so, to seek to address some of the underlying causes of the division in our society.

    So to conclude.

    Many of the certainties and policy assumptions we have made for more than four decades are now up for grabs.

    That is why the role of the opposition is so important right here; right now.

    The future of Britain is being decided and Labour will be at the centre of it.

    Respecting the result.

    Fighting for a confident and outward looking country and a co-operative, collaborative and values-led version of our future.

    Bringing a fractured country back together.

    Responding to Brexit in the national interest.

    That is Labour’s task.

  • Sarah Olney – 2016 Winning Speech at Richmond Park By-Election

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Olney following her by-election victory in Richmond Park on 2 December 2016.

    Let me start by thanking the other candidates for a hard-fought campaign – and to Zac Goldsmith in particular, I wish you well and assure you that I will continue your fight against the expansion of Heathrow.

    I also would like to thank the returning officer, the staff that have worked so hard today and yesterday and of course the police. I want to thank my amazing campaign team led by James Lillis and the thousands of volunteers who have taken time to support me over the course of the campaign. I want to thank my family and friends for the wonderful support they’ve given me – particularly my husband Ben and our children. I want to thank our leader Tim Farron, and all the other party members who could not have been more supportive. And I’d like to thank the Greens, More United, the Women’s Equality Party and all the other people beyond the Lib Dems who have supported me in this campaign.

    A year and a half ago, I wasn’t involved in politics. I wasn’t a member of a political party. I’d never been involved in a political campaign. I’d never thought about being a politician. But I knew I was a Liberal – I believed in openness, tolerance, compassion, working with our neighbours at home and around the world – and when I saw what happened at the General Election and I felt I had to get involved.

    I think a lot of people in this community had the same feeling this summer. Richmond Park is full of people like me who felt that something was going wrong. That the politics of anger and division were on the rise. That the liberal, tolerant values we took for granted were under threat. We were seeing the UKIP vision for Britain in the ascendancy – intolerant, backward-looking, divisive; just as we see it in America and across Europe.

    Well today we have said no. We will defend the Britain we love. We will stand up for the open, tolerant, united Britain that we believe in. The people of Richmond Park and North Kingston have sent a shockwave through this Conservative Brexit Government. And our message is clear: we do not want a ‘hard Brexit’; we do not want to be pulled out of the Single Market; and we will not let intolerance, division and fear win.