Tag: Speeches

Lord Bourne – 2016 Speech on the Paris Agreement

Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Bourne, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Climate Change, in New York on 22 April 2016.

I am delighted to be here today on this auspicious and historic occasion and to be signing the Paris Agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This is an agreement like no other: today an unprecedented number of countries will sign, indeed have signed, the landmark deal that we made in Paris. A deal by which each and every one of us will take action to reduce the risks and impacts of dangerous climate change, take action to increase our ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience, and take action to mobilise all finance flows towards sustainable growth.

This deal proves that the transition to a climate-neutral and climate-resilient world is happening. This deal has made it universal and irreversible.

The requirements for every Party to pursue domestic mitigation measures, to submit – every five years – progressively more ambitious nationally determined contributions, and to transparently track their progress toward achieving those contributions are what makes this deal so special.

So the Paris Agreement starts a race to the top; a race in which every country will strive to do everything it can to achieve our shared goals.

Britain has a proud record here. We have in place domestic legislation requiring us to reduce our emissions by at least 80% by 2050. We’ve ruled out more coal fire from 2025. Britain’s of course part of the European Union which tabled one of the most ambitious INDC’s and did so before any other major economy.

So we have signed up to doubling the EU’s economy-wide emissions reduction target to at least 40% by 2030 – a target that is in line with the global goal of keeping the temperature rise to well below 2°C.

Britain and the EU have strong record of setting and delivering on ambitious climate targets.

Of course, we are not waiting to act: we are acting now, to deliver our 2020 20% target, to work with colleagues around the world to implement their climate plans, and to foster the development of innovative solutions and green markets.

We’ve increased our public funding for climate finance; the Prime Minister announced a £6 billion pound budget when he went to New York–when he came here in September.

As part of this, I am very pleased to announce today that the UK will provide £10 million pounds to the new Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency. We recognise it’s necessary specifically in developing countries to meet the requirements that we’ve set.

We are using our position as leaders in the global financial markets to work with industry on greening private finance and investment flows. The Bank of England, as you know, is at the forefront of international regulators. We’re working with the Climate Disclosure Taskforce. Businesses are gathering in London this June at the Business and Climate Summit, so we’re doing much.

Today, ladies and gentleman, is historic. I’m proud and honored to be a part of it. The United Kingdom is proud and honored to be a part of it.

Thank you.

April 26, 2016
Anna Soubry – 2016 Statement on BHS

Below is the text of the speech made by Anna Soubry in the House of Commons on 25 April 2016.

Thank you very much Madame Deputy Speaker and with your permission I would like to make a statement to update the House on the latest position following the announcement this morning that British Home Stores has filed for administration.

This is obviously a very difficult time for all the employees, somewhere between 8,500 thousand perhaps as many as 11,000 people work in their many stores across the UK. Of course we bear in mind the fact that it’s also very difficult time for the many creditors who will be concerned especially with those with small businesses.

BHS, is a name synonymous with British high streets for over 80 years and has been an important player in the history of British retail. The company still has a significant high street presence with 164 stores nationwide, as I say with somewhere around 8,500 to 11,000 employees. I recognize that consumer trends are changing moving away from high street shopping and increasingly towards online retail channels, which continues to see the retail landscape change.

Today – and the last few days of media speculation – as I say have been particularly troubling for BHS’s workers and their families. There is a clear message going out to all staff today, and that is that BHS is still open for business as usual. There are no plans for immediate redundancies or store closures, and that the administrators are looking to sell BHS as a going concern.

If this proves not to be possible, then the Government will obviously stand ready to offer its assistance, including through Jobcentre Plus’ Rapid Response Service, to help people move into new jobs as quickly as possible.

Now there has been a lot of comment and speculation about the BHS pension scheme. It is the fact the pension regulator is investigating a number of concerns and indeed allegations. I understand the BHS scheme is in the early stage of a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment, during which time the PPF will determine the final funding position of the scheme and whether it should assume responsibility for it.

Madame Deputy Speaker the retail sector is a crucial one for the UK economy. The total value of retail sales (excluding fuel) in 2015 was £340 billion. The value of retail sales has increased every year for the last twelve years, though in 2015 volume of sales grew faster than values indicating a decline in prices overall. The sector accounts for 3 million jobs; almost a third of those employees are under 25.

We intend to ensure that this success continues. In the budget this year the Government announced the biggest ever cut in business rates in England, worth £6.7bn over the next 5 years.

But with that and other matters I commend this statement to the house.

April 25, 2016
Barack Obama – 2016 Speech on the UK and the EU

Below is the text of the speech made by Barack Obama, the President of the United States, on 22 April 2016.

The text of David Cameron’s speech before is available here.

Thank you, David. And as always, it is wonderful to be here in London, and to meet with my good friend, David Cameron. I confess I’ve also come back to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday. Earlier today, Michelle and I had the honor to join Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as their guests at Windsor Castle, where we conveyed the good wishes of the American people.

I have to say I have never been driven by a Duke of Edinburgh before. (Laughter.) And I can report that it was very smooth riding. As for Her Majesty, the Queen has been a source of inspiration for me, like so many people around the world. She is truly one of my favorite people. And should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She’s an astonishing person, and a real jewel to the world and not just to the United Kingdom.

The alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom is one of the oldest and one of the strongest that the world has ever known. When the U.S. and the UK stand together, we make our countries more secure, we make our people more prosperous, and we make the world safer and better.

That’s one of the reasons why my first overseas visit as President more than seven years ago was here to London, at a time of global crisis. And the one thing I knew, as green as I was as a new President, was that it was absolutely vital that the United States and the United Kingdom, working together in an international forum, tackle the challenges that lie ahead. Our success depended on our ability to coordinate and to be able to leverage our relationship to have an impact on other countries.

I met with David on that visit. He wasn’t yet Prime Minister. But just as our nations share a special relationship, David and I have shared an extraordinary partnership. He has proven to be a great friend, and is one of my closest and most trusted partners. Over the six years or so that our terms have overlapped, we have met or spoken more times than I can count. We’ve shared our countries’ beers with each other — he vouches for his, I vouch for mine — (laughter) — taken in a basketball game in America.

David I think you should recall, we were actually partners in that ping-pong game. (Laughter.) And we lost to some school children. (Laughter.) I can’t remember whether they were eight or 10, but they were decidedly shorter than we were, and they whooped us. (Laughter.)

Samantha and Michelle, our better halves, have become good friends as well. And it’s the depth and the breadth of that special relationship that has helped us tackle some of the most daunting challenges of our time.

Around the world, our joint efforts, as David mentioned, have stopped the outbreak of Ebola, kept Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, forged a climate agreement in Paris that hopefully will help to protect our planet for future generations.

And today, on Earth Day, our governments, along with about 170 others, are in New York to sign that agreement. The U.S. is committed to formally joining it this year, which should help it take effect years earlier than anybody expected.

We also discussed the full array of challenges to our shared security. We remain resolute in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our people, and to continue the progress that we’ve made in rolling back and ultimately defeating ISIL. Our forces, as David mentioned, are systematically degrading ISIL’s finances and safe havens, and removing its top leaders from the battlefield. We’ve got to keep working to improve security and information-sharing across Europe, and to stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of Syria.

We discussed our efforts to resolve political conflicts in the Middle East, from Yemen to Syria to Libya, in order to increase the prospects for stability. In Libya, going forward, we have an opportunity to support a new government and help Libyans root out extremist elements. In Syria, as challenging as it is, we still need to see more progress towards an enduring ceasefire, and we continue to push for greater humanitarian access to the people who need it most.

We have to continue to invest in NATO so that we can meet our overseas commitments, from Afghanistan to the Aegean. We have to resolve the conflict in the Ukraine and reassure allies who are rightly concerned about Russian aggression. All NATO allies should aim for the NATO target of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense — something that David has made sure happens here in the UK to meet that standard.

We discussed new actions we can take to address the refugee crisis, including with our NATO allies. And because a strong defense relies on more than just military spending but on helping to unleash the potential of others to live freer and more prosperous lives, I want to thank the people of the United Kingdom for their extraordinary generosity as one of the world’s foremost donors of humanitarian aid.

We talked about promoting jobs and stronger growth through increased transatlantic trade and investment so that our young people can achieve greater opportunity and prosperity. And, yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of the European Union.

Let me be clear. Ultimately, this is something that the British voters have to decide for themselves. But as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think. And speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner. And the United Kingdom is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe. It leverages UK power to be part of the European Union.

As I wrote in the op-ed here today, I don’t believe the EU moderates British influence in the world — it magnifies it. The EU has helped to spread British values and practices across the continent. The single market brings extraordinary economic benefits to the United Kingdom. And that ends up being good for America, because we’re more prosperous when one of our best friends and closest allies has a strong, stable, growing economy.
Americans want Britain’s influence to grow, including within Europe.

The fact is, in today’s world no nation is immune to the challenges that David and I just discussed. And in today’s world, solving them requires collective action. All of us cherish our sovereignty — my country is pretty vocal about that — but the U.S. also recognizes that we strengthen our security through our membership in NATO. We strengthen our prosperity through organizations like the G7 and the G20. And I believe the UK strengthens both our collective security and prosperity through the EU.

In the 21st century, the nations that make their presence felt on the world stage aren’t the nations that go it alone but the nations that team up to aggregate their power and multiply their influence. And precisely because Britain’s values and institutions are so strong and so sound, we want to make sure that that influence is heard, that it’s felt, that it influences how other countries think about critical issues. We have confidence that when the UK is involved in a problem that they’re going to help solve it in the right way. That’s why the United States cares about this.

For centuries, Europe was marked by war and by violence. The architecture that our two countries helped build with the EU has provided the foundation for decades of relative peace and prosperity on that continent. What a remarkable legacy — a legacy born in part out of what took place in this building.

Before we walked out, I happened to see Enigma on display. And that was a reminder of the incredible innovation and collaboration of the allies in World War II and the fact that neither of us could have won that alone. And in the same way, after World War II, we built out the international institutions that, yes, occasionally constrained us, but we willingly allowed those constraints because we understood that by doing so, we were able to institutionalize and internationalize the basic values of rule of law, and freedom, and democracy, that would benefit our citizens as well as people around the world.

I think there’s a British poet who once said, “No man is an island” — even an island as beautiful as this. We’re stronger together. And if we continue to tackle our challenges together, then future generations will look back on ours, just as we look back on the previous generation of English and American citizens who worked so hard to make this world safer and more secure and more prosperous, and they’ll say that we did our part, too. And that’s important. That’s important not just here; that’s important in the United States, as well.

Thanks.

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Thank you very much.

All right, we’ve got some questions. We’re going to start with a question from the British press. We’ll have Chris Ship from ITV.

Q Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Chris Ship from ITV News.

Mr. President, you, yourself, acknowledge the controversial timing of your comments on the EU referendum and the spirited debate that we’re having here. And I think you’re right. In the weeks before your arrival here, Leave campaigners have said that you’re acting hypocritically. America would not accept the loss of sovereignty that we have to accept as part of the EU. America would not accept the levels of immigration from Mexico that we have to accept from the EU. And therefore, in various degrees of politeness, they have said to you that you should really keep your views to yourself. With that in mind, Mr. President, do you still think it was the right decision to intervene in this debate? And can I ask you this — truthfully, what happens if the UK does decide in June to leave the European Union?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, firsts of all, let me repeat, this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I’m offering my opinion. And in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less. And you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made. That’s not a threat. That should enhance the debate.

Particularly because my understanding is that some of the folks on the other side have been ascribing to the United States certain actions we’ll take if the UK does leave the EU. So they say, for example, that, well, we’ll just cut our own trade deals with the United States. So they’re voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do. I figured you might want to hear it from the President of the United States what I think the United States is going to do. (Laughter.)

And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line, there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon, because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done, and the UK is going to be in the back of the queue — not because we don’t have a special relationship, but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries — rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.

Now, to the subject at hand, obviously the United States is in a different hemisphere, different circumstances, has different sets of relationships with its neighbors than the UK does. But I can tell you this. If, right now, I’ve got access to a massive market where I sell 44 percent of my exports, and now I’m thinking about leaving the organization that gives me access to that market and that is responsible for millions of jobs in my country and responsible for an enormous amount of commerce and upon which a lot of businesses depend, that’s not something I’d probably do.

And what I’m trying to describe is a broader principle, which is, in our own ways — I mean, we don’t have a common market in the Americas — but in all sorts of ways, the United States constrains itself in order to bind everyone under a common set of norms and rules that makes everybody more prosperous.

That’s what we built after World War II. The United States and the UK designed a set of institutions — whether it was the United Nations, or the Bretton Woods structure, IMF, World Bank, NATO, across the board. Now, that, to some degree, constrained our freedom to operate. It meant that occasionally we had to deal with some bureaucracy. It meant that on occasion we have to persuade other countries, and we don’t get 100 percent of what we want in each case. But we knew that by doing so, everybody was going to be better off — partly because the norms and rules that were put in place were reflective of what we believe. If there were more free markets around the world, and an orderly financial system, we knew we could operate in that environment. If we had collective defense treaties through NATO, we understood that we could formalize an architecture that would deter aggression, rather than us having, piecemeal, to put together alliances to defeat aggression after it already started. And that principle is what’s at stake here.

And the last point I’ll make on this — until I get the next question, I suspect — (laughter) — is that, as David said, this magnifies the power of the UK. It doesn’t diminish it. On just about every issue, what happens in Europe is going to have an impact here. And what happens in Europe is going to have an impact in the United States.

We just discussed, for example, the refugee and the migration crisis. And I’ve told my team — which is sitting right here, so they’ll vouch for me — that we consider it a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into Europe — not because these folks are coming to the United States, but because if it destabilizes Europe, our largest trading bloc — trading partner — it’s going to be bad for our economy. If you start seeing divisions in Europe, that weakens NATO. That will have an impact on our collective security.

Now, if, in fact, I want somebody who’s smart and common sense, and tough, and is thinking, as I do, in the conversations about how migration is going to be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion, and recognizes that immigration can enhance, when done properly, the assets of a country, and not just diminish them, I want David Cameron in the conversation. Just as I want him in the conversation when we’re having discussions about information-sharing and counterterrorism activity. Precisely because I have confidence in the UK, and I know that if we’re not working effectively with Paris or Brussels, then those attacks are going to migrate to the United States and to London, I want one of my strongest partners in that conversation. So it enhances the special relationship. It doesn’t diminish it.

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Let me just make, Chris, one point in response to that. This is our choice; nobody else’s — the sovereign choice of the British people. But as we make that choice, it surely makes sense to listen to what our friends think, to listen to their opinion, to listen to their views. And that’s what Barack has been talking about today.

But it’s also worth remembering as we make this choice, it’s a British choice about the British membership of the European Union. We’re not being asked to make a choice about whether we support the German style of membership, or the Italian style of membership. Britain has a special status in the European Union. We’re in the single market; we’re not part of the single currency. We’re able to travel and live and work in other European countries, but we’ve maintained our borders, because we’re not in the Schengen no-border zone.

And on this vital issue of trade, where Barack has made such a clear statement, we should remember why we are currently negotiating this biggest trade deal in the whole world, and in the whole world’s history, between the European Union and the United States — is because Britain played an absolutely leading part in pushing for those talks to get going. Indeed, we announced them at the G8 in Northern Ireland, when Britain was in the chair of that organization. We set the agenda for what could be an absolutely game-changing trade deal for jobs, for investment, because we were part of this organization.

So I just want to add those important points.

I think we have a U.S. question now.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Justin Sink.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. Following on that, do you think that between Brexit and the migration issue, European unity is at a crisis point? What do you hope leaders gathering in Germany can concretely do about it? And do you expect those nations to militarily support, including the possibility of ground troops, the new government in Libya to keep that situation from further straining Europe? While we’re talking about future summits, I’m also wondering if maybe you could talk about whether you plan to go to Hiroshima when you visit Japan, and —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Oh, come on, man. You’re really stretching it. (Laughter.)

Q This one is for Prime Minister Cameron, and it’s short. I promise.

Prime Minister Cameron, the President has come here to tell the UK that, as a friend, and speaking honestly, they should stay in the EU. As a friend and speaking honestly, what would you advise American voters to do about Donald Trump? Thanks. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That was so predictable.

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: I’ll let you take the first six —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes, exactly.

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: — and then I’ll pick up that last one. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I wouldn’t describe European unity as in a crisis, but I would say it is under strain. And some of that just has to do with the aftermath of the financial crisis and the strains that we’re all aware of with respect to the Eurozone. I think it is important to emphasize, as David points out, that the UK is not part of the Eurozone, and so the blowback to the British economy has been different than it is on the continent. But we’ve seen some divisions and difficulties between the southern and the northern parts of Europe. That’s created some strains.

I think the migration crisis amplifies a debate that’s taking place not just in Europe, but in the United States as well. At a time of globalization, at a time when a lot of the challenges that we face are transnational, as opposed to just focused on one country, there is a temptation to want to just pull up the drawbridge, either literally or figuratively. We see that played out in some of the debates that are taking place in the U.S. presidential race. And that debate I think is accelerated in Europe. But I’m confident that the ties that bind Europe together are ultimately much stronger than the forces that are trying to pull them apart.

Europe has undergone an extraordinary stretch of prosperity — maybe unmatched in the history of the world. If you think about the 20th century and you think about the 21st century, 21st century Europe looks an awful lot better. And I think the majority of Europeans recognize that. They see that unity and peace have delivered sustained economic growth, reduced conflict, reduced violence, enhanced the quality of life for people. And I’m confident that can continue.

But I do believe that it’s important to watch out for some of these fault lines that are developing. And in that sense, I do think that the Brexit vote — which, if I’m a citizen of UK, I’m thinking about it solely in terms of how is this helping me, how is this helping the UK economy, how is it helping create jobs here in the UK — that’s the right way to think about it. But I do also think that this vote will send a signal that is relevant about whether the kind of prosperity that we’ve built together is going to continue, or whether the forces of division end up being more prominent. And that’s why it’s — that’s part of the reason why it’s relevant to the United States, and why I have had the temerity to weigh in on it.

What were your four other questions? (Laughter.) I’ve got to figure I’ve knocked out two through that answer.

Q Libya —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to Libya, both David and I discussed our commitment to try to assist this nascent government. And it’s a challenge, but there are people in this Government of National Accord that are genuinely committed to building back up a state. That’s something we desperately want, because both the United States and United Kingdom, but also a number of our other allies, are more than prepared to invest in helping create border security in Libya, and helping to drive out terrorists inside of Libya, and trying to make sure that what could be a thriving society — a relatively small population, a lot of resources — this is not an issue where we should have to subsidize Libya. They’re actually much better-positioned than some other countries that we’ve been helping, if they can just get their act together. And we want to help provide that technical assistance to get that done.

There is no plans for ground troops in Libya. I don’t think that’s necessary. I don’t think it would be welcomed by this new government. It would send the wrong signal. This is a matter of can Libyans come together. What we can do is to provide them our expertise. What we can do is provide them training. What we can do is provide them a road map for how they can get basic services to their citizens and build up legitimacy.

But I do think that the one area where both David and I are heavily committed is, as this progresses, we can’t wait if ISIL is starting to get a foothold there. And so we are working not just with the Libyan government but a lot of our international partners to make sure that we’re getting the intelligence that we need and, in some cases, taking actions to prevent ISIL from having another stronghold from which to launch attacks against Europe or against the United States.

And I think you have to wait until I get to Asia to start asking me Asia questions. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: The question you asked me — this is not a general election. This is a referendum. And as Barack has explained, it’s a referendum that affects, of course, the people of the United Kingdom very deeply, but it also does affect others in the European Union; it affects partners like America, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand. And as I look around the world, it is hard to find — so far, I haven’t found one — a country that wishes Britain well that thinks we ought to leave the European Union.

And I think that’s — again, it’s our choice. We’ll make the decision. We’ll listen to all the arguments. People want the facts. They want the arguments. They want to know the consequences. And I’ll try to lay those out as Prime Minister as clearly as I can. But listening to our friends, listening to countries that wish us well, is part of the process and is a good thing to do.

As for the American elections, I’ve made some comments in recent weeks and months. I don’t think now is a moment to add to add to them or subtract from them. (Laughter.) But I think, just as a Prime Minister who’s been through two general elections leading my party, you always look on at the U.S. elections in awe of the scale of the process and the length of the process, and I marvel at anyone who is left standing at the end of it. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Fortunately, we’re term-limited. (Laughter.) So I, too, can look in awe at the process. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: We have another British question from Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC.

Q Thank you. Mr. President, you’ve made your views very plain on the fact that British voters should choose to stay in the EU. But in the interest of good friends always being honest, are you also saying that our decades-old special relationship that’s been through so much would be fundamentally damaged and changed by our exit? If so, how? And are you also — do you have any sympathy with people who think this is none of your business?

And, Prime Minister, to you, if I may, some of your colleagues believe it’s utterly wrong that you have dragged our closest ally into the EU referendum campaign. What do you say to them? And is it appropriate for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to have brought up President Obama’s Kenyan ancestry in the context of this debate?

PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Well, let me — this is a British question – let me go first. I mean, first of all, questions for Boris are questions for Boris. They’re questions for Boris, they’re not questions for me.

I don’t have some special power over the President of the United States. Barack feels strongly about this and has said what he’s said. And, as I said, it’s our decision as a sovereign people, the choice we make about Europe, but I think it’s right to listen to and consider the advice of your friends.

And just to amplify one of the points that Barack made, we have a shared interest of making sure Europe takes a robust approach to Russian aggression. And if you take those issues of the sanctions that we put in place through the European Union, I think I can put my hand on my heart and say that Britain played a really important role, and continues to play an important role, in making sure those sanctions were put in place and kept in place. I’m not sure it would have happened if we weren’t there.

Now, if it’s in our interest — and it is in our interest — for Europe to be strong against aggression, how can it be an interest not to be at that table and potentially to see those sanctions not take place? And I think it’s been that working between Britain and the United States over this issue that has helped to make a big difference.

I would just say about the special relationship, to me — and I’m passionate about this, and I believe it very, very deeply, for all the reasons of the history and the language and the culture, but also about the future of our country — and the truth is this: The stronger Britain is, and the stronger America is, the stronger that relationship will be. And I want Britain to be as strong as possible. And we draw our strength from all sorts of things that we have as a country — the fifth largest economy in the world; amazing armed forces; brilliant security and intelligence forces — that we were discussing about how well they work together; incredibly talented people; brilliant universities; the fact that we’re members of NATO, the G7, the G20, the Commonwealth. But we also draw strength, and project strength, and project power, and project our values, and protect our people, and make our country wealthier, our people wealthier by being in the European Union.

So I want Britain to be as strong as possible. And the stronger Britain is, the stronger that special relationship is, and the more that we can get done together to make sure that we have a world that promotes democracy and peace and human rights and the development that we want to see across the world.

So, to me, it’s simple: Stronger Britain, stronger special relationship — that’s in our interest, and that’s in the interest of the United States of America, as well.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me start with Winston Churchill. (Laughter.) You know, I don’t know if people are aware of this, but in the Residence, on the second floor, my office, my private office is called the Treaty Room. And right outside the door of the Treaty Room, so that I see it every day, including on weekends, when I’m going into that office to watch a basketball game — (laughter) — the primary image I see is a bust of Winston Churchill. It’s there voluntarily, because I can do anything on the second floor. (Laughter.) I love Winston Churchill. I love the guy.

Now, when I was elected as President of the United States, my predecessor had kept a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. There are only so many tables where you can put busts — otherwise it starts looking a little cluttered. (Laughter.) And I thought it was appropriate, and I suspect most people here in the United Kingdom might agree, that as the first African American President, it might be appropriate to have a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King in my office to remind me of all the hard work of a lot of people who would somehow allow me to have the privilege of holding this office.

That’s just on Winston Churchill. I think people should know that, know my thinking there.

With respect to the special relationship, I have a staff member, who will not be named — because it might embarrass her a little bit — who, generally, on foreign trips, does not leave the hotel or the staff room because she’s constantly doing work making this happen. She has had one request the entire time that I have been President, and that is, could she accompany me to Windsor on the off-chance that she might get a peek at Her Majesty the Queen. And, gracious as she is, Her Majesty actually had this person, along with a couple of others, lined up so that as we emerged from lunch, they could say hello. And this staff person, who is as tough as they come, almost fainted — (laughter) — which was — I’m glad she didn’t because it would have caused an incident. (Laughter.) That’s the special relationship.

We are so bound together that nothing is going to impact the emotional and cultural and intellectual affinities between our two countries. So I don’t come here, suggesting in any way that that is impacted by a decision that the people of the United Kingdom may make around whether or not they’re members of the European Union. That is there. That’s solid. And that will continue, hopefully, eternally. And the cooperation in all sorts of ways — through NATO, through G7, G20 — all those things will continue.

But, as David said, if one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in it. Or at least I want to be able to tell them, you know, I think this makes you guys bigger players. I think this helps your economy. I think this helps to create jobs.

And so, ultimately, it’s your decision. But precisely because we’re bound at the hip, I want you to know that before you make your decision.

Margaret Brennan.

Q Thank you very much, sir. Mr. President, Vladimir Putin hasn’t stopped Assad, as he led you to believe he would, and the ceasefire in Syria appears to be falling apart. Will you continue to bet on what looks to be a losing strategy?

Mr. Prime Minister, the UK today warned its citizens traveling to North Carolina and Mississippi about laws there that affect transgender individuals. As a friend, what do you think of those laws?

Mr. President, would you like to weigh in on that? And, sir, if you’d indulge us —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Indulge — what do you mean?

Q Well, indulge all of us back in the U.S., sir, Prince passed away. You were a fan. You had invited him to perform at the White House. Can you tell us what made you a fan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m trying to figure out which order to do this. (Laughter.) Maybe I’ll start with North Carolina and Mississippi. I want everybody here in the United Kingdom to know that the people of North Carolina and Mississippi are wonderful people. They are hospitable people. They are beautiful states, and you are welcome and you should come and enjoy yourselves. And I think you’ll be treated with extraordinary hospitality.

I also think that the laws that have been passed there are wrong and should be overturned. And they’re in response to politics, in part; in part, some strong emotions that are generated by people — some of whom are good people but I just disagree with when it comes to respecting the equal rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, whether they’re transgender or gay or lesbian. And although I respect their different viewpoints, I think it’s very important for us not to send signals that anybody is treated differently.

And I think it’s fair to say that we’re not unique among countries where — particularly under a federal system in which power is dispersed, that there are going to be some localities or local officials that put forward laws that aren’t necessarily reflective of a national consensus. But if you guys come to North Carolina or Mississippi, everybody will be treated well.

The second question with respect to Syria. I am deeply concerned about the cessation of hostilities fraying and whether it’s sustainable. Now, keep in mind that I have always been skeptical about Mr. Putin’s actions and motives inside of Syria. He is — along with Iran — the preeminent backer of a murderous regime that I do not believe can regain legitimacy within his country because he’s murdered a lot of people.

Having said that, what I also believe is, is that we cannot end the crisis in Syria without political negotiations and without getting all the parties around the table to craft a transition plan. And that, by necessity, means that there are going to be some people on one side of the table who I deeply disagree with and whose actions I deeply abhor. That’s how oftentimes you resolve conflicts like this that are taking an enormous toll on the Syrian people.

The cessation of hostilities actually held longer than I expected. And for seven weeks we’ve seen a significant reduction in violence inside that country. And that gave some relief to people.

I talked to Putin on Monday precisely to reinforce to him the importance of us trying to maintain the cessation of hostilities, asking him to put more pressure on Assad, indicating to him that we would continue to try to get the moderate opposition to stay at the negotiating table in Geneva.

But this has always been hard. And it’s going to keep being hard. And what David and I discussed in our meeting was that we will continue to prosecute the war against Daesh, against ISIL. We are going to continue to support those who are prepared to fight ISIL. And we’re going to continue to target them. We’re going to continue to make progress. But we’re not going to solve the overall problem unless we can get this political track moving.

I assure you that we have looked at all options. None of them are great. And so we are going to play this option out. If, in fact, the cessation falls apart, we’ll try to put it back together again even as we continue to go after ISIL. And it’s my belief that ultimately Russia will recognize that, just as this can’t be solved by a military victory on the part of those we support, Russia may be able to keep the lid on, alongside Iran, for a while, but if you don’t have a legitimate government there, they will be bled, as well. And that is not — that’s not speculation on my part. I think the evidence all points in that direction.

And finally with respect to Prince, I loved Prince because he put out great music and he was a great performer. I didn’t know him well. He came to perform at the White House last year and was extraordinary, and creative and original and full of energy. And so it’s a remarkable loss.

And I’m staying at Winfield House, the U.S. Ambassador’s residence. It so happens our Ambassador has a turntable, and so this morning we played “Purple Rain” and “Delirious” just to get warmed up before we left the house for important bilateral meetings like this. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER CAMERSON: As a fan of great music, the Ambassador has brought a lot of brilliant talent.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.

PRIME MINISTER: Let me just answer, I’ve been to North Carolina many years ago and enjoyed it. I have not yet made it to Mississippi, but one day I hope to. The guidance that we put out, the Foreign Office, gives advice on travel, and it obviously deals with laws in situations as they are, and it tries to give that advice dispassionately, impartially. But it’s very important that it does so. It’s something that a lot of attention is given to.

Our view on any of these things is that we believe that we should be trying to use law to end discrimination rather than to embed it or enhance it. And that’s something we’re comfortable saying to countries and friends anywhere in the world. But obviously, the laws people pass is a matter of their own legislatures. But we make clear our own views about the importance of trying to end discrimination, and we’ve made some important steps forward in our own country on that front, which we’re proud of.

With that, thank you very much.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)

April 25, 2016
Theresa May – 2016 Speech on the EU

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in London on 25 April 2016.

Thank you. Today I want to talk about the United Kingdom, our place in the world and our membership of the European Union.

But before I start, I want to make clear that – as you can see – this is not a rally. It will not be an attack or even a criticism of people who take a different view to me. It will simply be my analysis of the rights and wrongs, the opportunities and risks, of our membership of the EU.

Sovereignty and membership of multilateral institutions
In essence, the question the country has to answer on 23 June – whether to leave or remain – is about how we maximise Britain’s security, prosperity and influence in the world, and how we maximise our sovereignty: that is, the control we have over our own affairs in future.

I use the word ‘maximise’ advisedly, because no country or empire in world history has ever been totally sovereign, completely in control of its destiny. Even at the height of their power, the Roman Empire, Imperial China, the Ottomans, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, modern-day America, were never able to have everything their own way. At different points, military rivals, economic crises, diplomatic manoeuvring, competing philosophies and emerging technologies all played their part in inflicting defeats and hardships, and necessitated compromises even for states as powerful as these.

Today, those factors continue to have their effect on the sovereignty of nations large and small, rich and poor. But there is now an additional complication. International, multilateral institutions exist to try to systematise negotiations between nations, promote trade, ensure co-operation on matters like cross-border crime, and create rules and norms that reduce the risk of conflict.

These institutions invite member states to make a trade-off: to pool and therefore cede some sovereignty in a controlled way, to prevent a greater loss of sovereignty in an uncontrolled way, through for example military conflict or economic decline.

Article 5 of NATO’s Washington Treaty is a good example of how this principle works: NATO member countries, Britain included, have agreed to be bound by the principle of collective defence. An attack on any single member will, according to the treaty, be interpreted as an attack on all members, and collective defence measures – including full military action – can be triggered. Britain could find itself bound to go to war because of a dispute involving a different country – a clear and dramatic loss of control of our foreign policy – but on the other hand, NATO membership means we are far more secure from attack by hostile states – which increases our control of our destiny. This is an institutionalised trade-off that the vast majority of the public – and most political leaders – think is worthwhile.

Looking back at history – and not very distant history at that – we know what a world without international, multilateral institutions looks like. Any student of the way in which Europe stumbled its way to war in 1914 knows that the confused lines of communications between states, the ambiguity of nations’ commitments to one another, and the absence of any system to de-escalate tension and conflict were key factors in the origins of the First World War. The United Nations may be a flawed organisation that has failed to prevent conflict on many occasions, but nobody should want an end to a rules-based international system and – so long as they have the right remits – institutions that try to promote peace and trade.

How we reconcile those institutions and their rules with democratic government – and the need for politicians to be accountable to the public – remains one of the great challenges of this century. And the organisations of which the United Kingdom should become – and remain – a member will be a matter of constant judgement for our leaders and the public for many years to come.

Principles for Britain’s membership of international institutions
We need, therefore, to establish clear principles for Britain’s membership of these institutions. Does it make us more influential beyond our own shores? Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Can we control or influence the direction of the organisation in question? To what extent does membership bind the hands of Parliament?

If membership of an international institution can pass these tests, then I believe it will be in our national interest to join or remain a member of it. And on this basis, the case for Britain remaining a member of organisations such as NATO, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, for example, is clear.

But as I have said before, the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights – which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights – is not clear. Because, despite what people sometimes think, it wasn’t the European Union that delayed for years the extradition of Abu Hamza, almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada, and tried to tell Parliament that – however we voted – we could not deprive prisoners of the vote. It was the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.

I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.

I also know that others will say there is little point in leaving the ECHR if we remain members of the EU, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Court of Justice. And I am no fan of the charter or of many of the rulings of the court. But there are several problems that do apply to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, yet do not apply to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Strasbourg is in effect a final appeals court; Luxembourg doesn’t have that role. Strasbourg can issue orders preventing the deportation of foreign nationals; Luxembourg has no such power. Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Treaties are clear: ‘national security,’ they say, ‘remains the sole responsibility of each member state’.

And unlike the ECHR, which is a relatively narrow human rights convention, our membership of the EU involves co-operation – and, yes, rules and obligations – on a much wider range of issues. The country’s decision in the referendum is therefore a much more complex undertaking. So I want to spend some time to go through the most important issues we need to consider.

Arguments that do not count

But before I do that, I want to deal with several arguments that should not count. The first is that, in the 21st century, Britain is too small a country to cope outside the European Union. That is nonsense. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, we are growing faster than any economy in the G7, and we attract nearly a fifth of all foreign investment in the EU. We have a military capable of projecting its power around the world, intelligence services that are second to none, and friendships and alliances that go far beyond Europe. We have the greatest soft power in the world, we sit in exactly the right time zone for global trade, and our language is the world’s language. Of course Britain could cope outside the European Union. But the question is not whether we could survive without the EU, but whether we are better off, in or out.

Neither is it true that the EU is the only reason the continent has been largely peaceful since the end of the Second World War. Nor is it about ‘the kind of country we want to be’, as the cliche is usually put. Nor is the decision we face anything to do with our shared cultural heritage with Europe. Of course we are a European country, but that in itself is not a reason to be an EU member state.

And nor is this debate about the past. Really, I cannot emphasise this enough. We are not in 1940, when Europe’s liberty was in peril and Britain stood alone. We are not in 1957, when the Treaty of Rome was agreed, Europe was a Group of Six and the Cold War was a generation away from its conclusion. We are not in 1973, when Britain was the ‘sick man of Europe’ and saw the European Economic Community as its way out of trouble. We are not even in 1992, when Maastricht was signed and the reunification of Germany had only just taken place.

We are in 2016, and when we make this important decision, we need to look ahead to the challenges we will face – and the rest of Europe will face – over the next ten, twenty, thirty years and more. Those challenges – about security, trade and the economy – are serious, complex and deserve a mature debate. We need our decision to be the result of a hard-headed analysis of what is in our national interest. There are certainly problems that are caused by EU membership, but of course there are advantages too. Our decision must come down to whether, after serious thought about the pros and the cons, we believe there is more in the credit column than in the debit column for remaining on the inside.

Security

So I want to talk now about those 3 big, future challenges – security, trade and the economy.

A lot has been said already during this referendum campaign about security. But I want to set out the arguments as I see them. If we were not members of the European Union, of course we would still have our relationship with America. We would still be part of the Five Eyes, the closest international intelligence-sharing arrangement in the world. We would still have our first-rate security and intelligence agencies. We would still share intelligence about terrorism and crime with our European allies, and they would do the same with us.

But that does not mean we would be as safe as if we remain. Outside the EU, for example, we would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which has allowed us to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last 5 years, and bring 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals to Britain to face justice. It has been used to get terror suspects out of the country and bring terrorists back here to face justice. In 2005, Hussain Osman – who tried to blow up the London Underground on 21/7 – was extradited from Italy using the Arrest Warrant in just 56 days. Before the Arrest Warrant existed, it took 10 long years to extradite Rachid Ramda, another terrorist, from Britain to France.

There are other advantages too. Take the passenger name records directive. This will give law enforcement agencies access to information about the movements of terrorists, organised criminals and victims of trafficking on flights between European countries and from all other countries to the EU. When I first became Home Secretary, I was told there wasn’t a chance of Britain ever getting this deal. But I won agreement in the Council of Ministers in 2012 and – thanks to Timothy Kirkhope MEP and the hard work of my Home Office team – the final directive has now been agreed by the European Parliament and Council.

Most importantly, this agreement will make us all safer. But it also shows 2 advantages of remaining inside the EU. First, without the kind of institutional framework offered by the European Union, a complex agreement like this could not have been struck across the whole continent, because bilateral deals between every single member state would have been impossible to reach. And second, without British leadership and influence, a directive would never have been on the table, let alone agreed.

These measures – the Arrest Warrant and PNR – are worthwhile because they are not about grandiose state-building and integration but because they enable practical co-operation and information sharing. Britain will never take part in a European police force, we will never sign up to a European Public Prosecutor, and 2 years ago we took Britain out of around a hundred unhelpful EU justice and home affairs measures. But when we took that decision, we also made sure that Britain remained signed up to the measures that make a positive difference in fighting crime and preventing terrorism.

The European Criminal Records Information System, financial intelligence units, the prisoner transfer framework, SIS II, joint investigation teams, Prüm. These are all agreements that enable law enforcement agencies to co-operate and share information with one another in the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism. They help us to turn foreign criminals away at the border, prevent money laundering by terrorists and criminals, get foreign criminals out of our prisons and back to their home countries, investigate cases that cross borders, and share forensic data like DNA and fingerprinting much more quickly.

In the last year, we have been able to check the criminal records of foreign nationals more than 100,000 times. Checks such as these mean we have been able to deport more than 3,000 European nationals who posed a threat to the public. The police will soon be able to check DNA records for EU nationals in just 15 minutes. Under the old system it took 143 days. Last year, the French used information exchanged through the Prüm agreement to locate one of the suspected perpetrators of the November attacks in Paris.

These are practical measures that promote effective cooperation between different European law enforcement organisations, and if we were not part of them Britain would be less safe.

Now I know some people say the EU does not make us more secure because it does not allow us to control our border. But that is not true. Free movement rules mean it is harder to control the volume of European immigration – and as I said yesterday that is clearly no good thing – but they do not mean we cannot control the border. The fact that we are not part of Schengen – the group of countries without border checks – means we have avoided the worst of the migration crisis that has hit continental Europe over the last year. It means we can conduct checks on people travelling to Britain from elsewhere in Europe. And, subject to certain rules and the availability of information, it means we can block entry for serious criminals and terrorists.

I have heard some people say – especially after the terrorist attacks in Brussels last month – that the very existence of extremists and terrorists in Belgium, France and other EU member states is reason enough to leave. But our response to Paris and Brussels cannot be to say that we should have less co-operation with countries that are not only our allies but our nearest neighbours. And anyway leaving the EU would not mean we could just close ourselves off to the world: the 9/11 attacks on New York were planned in Afghanistan. The 7/7 attackers trained in Pakistan. And most of the international terrorism casework that crosses my desk involves countries beyond Europe’s borders.

So my judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.

But now I want to turn to the other challenges we face in the coming decades: trade and the economy.

Trade and the economy

The headline facts of Britain’s trade with Europe are clear. The EU is a single market of more than 500 million people, representing an economy of almost £11 trillion and a quarter of the world’s GDP. 44% of our goods and services exports go to the EU, compared to 5% to India and China. We have a trade surplus in services with the rest of the EU of £17 billion. And the trading relationship is more inter-related than even these figures suggest. Our exporters rely on inputs from EU companies more than firms from anywhere else: 9% of the ‘value added’ of UK exports comes from inputs from within the EU, compared to 2.7% from the United States and 1.3% from China.

So the single market accounts for a huge volume of our trade, but if it is completed – so there are genuinely open markets for all services, the digital economy, energy and finance – we would see a dramatic increase in economic growth, for Britain and the rest of Europe. The Capital Markets Union – initiated and led by Britain – will allow finance to flow freely between member states: the first proposal alone could lead to £110 billion in extra lending to businesses. A completed energy single market could save up to £50 billion per year across the EU by 2030. And a digital single market is estimated to be worth up to £330 billion a year to the European economy overall. As Britain is the leading country in Europe when it comes to the digital economy, that is an enormous opportunity for us all.

These changes will mean greater economic growth in Britain, higher wages in Britain and lower prices for consumers – in Britain. But they will not happen spontaneously and they require British leadership. And that is a crucial point in this referendum: if we leave the EU it is not just that we might not have access to these parts of the single market – these parts of the single market might never be created at all.

The economic case for remaining inside the European Union isn’t therefore just about risk, but about opportunity. And it isn’t just about fear, but about optimism – optimism that Britain can take a lead and deliver more trade and economic growth inside Europe and beyond.

There are risks we need to weigh, of course. And there are risks in staying as well as leaving. There is a big question mark, for example, about whether Britain, as a member state that has not adopted the euro, risks being discriminated against as the countries inside the Eurozone integrate further. When the European Central Bank said clearing houses dealing in large volumes of euros had to be located in the Eurozone, it could have forced LCH.Clearnet to move its euro business out of London, probably to Paris. That was struck down by the EU’s General Court, but the threat was clear. And that is why it was so important that the Prime Minister’s negotiation guaranteed a principle of non-discrimination against businesses from countries outside the Eurozone.

If we were not in the European Union, however, no such deal could have been agreed. There would be little we could do to stop discriminatory policies being introduced, and London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre would be in danger. The banks may be unpopular, but this is no small risk: financial services account for more than 7% of our economic output, 13% of our exports, a trade surplus of almost £60 billion – and more than one million British jobs.

But this is all about trade with Europe. What about trade with the rest of the world? It is tempting to look at developing countries’ economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading relationship with China – with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly 3 times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.

And anyway, this apparent choice is a false dichotomy. We should be aiming to increase our trade with these markets in addition to the business we win in Europe. Given that British exports in goods and services to countries outside the EU are rising, one can hardly argue that the EU prevents this from happening. Leaving the EU, on the other hand, might make it considerably harder. First, we would have to replace 36 existing trade agreements we have with non-EU countries that cover 53 markets. The EU trade deals Britain has been driving – with the US, worth £10 billion per year to the UK, with Japan, worth £5 billion a year to the UK, with Canada, worth £1.3 billion a year to the UK – would be in danger of collapse. And while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now. There would also be a considerable opportunity cost given the need to replace the existing agreements – not least with the EU itself – that we would have torn up as a consequence of our departure.

Inside the EU, without Britain, the balance of power in the Council of Ministers and European Parliament would change for the worse. The liberal, free-trading countries would find themselves far below the 35% blocking threshold needed in the council, while the countries that tend towards protectionism would have an even greater percentage of votes. There would be a very real danger that the EU heads in a protectionist direction, which would damage wider international trade and affect for the worse Britain’s future trade with the EU.

So, if we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade. But the big question is whether, in the event of Brexit, we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms.

Some say we would strike deals that are the same as the EU’s agreements with Norway, Switzerland or even Canada. But with all due respect to those countries, we are a bigger and more powerful nation than all 3. Perhaps that means we could strike a better deal than they have. After all, Germany will still want to sell us their cars and the French will still want to sell us their wine. But in a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44% of our exports is more important to us than 8% of the EU’s exports is to them.

With no agreement, we know that WTO rules would oblige the EU to charge 10% tariffs on UK car exports, in line with the tariffs they impose on Japan and the United States. They would be required to do the same for all other goods upon which they impose tariffs. Not all of these tariffs are as high as 10%, but some are considerably higher.

The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would have access to the single market. We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all 3 combined. It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.

All of this would be negotiable, of course. For the reasons I listed earlier, Britain is big enough and strong enough to be a success story in or out of the EU. But the question is not whether we can survive Brexit: it is whether Brexit would make us better off. And that calculation has to include not only the medium to long-term effects but the immediate risks as well.

The union with Scotland and the other risks of Brexit
Now it is sometimes suggested that Brexit could lead to other countries seeking to leave the European Union. Some even believe that Brexit might be a fatal blow to the whole EU project. And some, I know, think that this would be a good thing. But I’m afraid I disagree. The disintegration of the EU would cause massive instability among our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partners. With the world economy in the fragile state it is, that would have real consequences for Britain.

But if Brexit isn’t fatal to the European Union, we might find that it is fatal to the union with Scotland. The SNP have already said that in the event that Britain votes to leave but Scotland votes to remain in the EU, they will press for another Scottish independence referendum. And the opinion polls show consistently that the Scottish people are more likely to be in favour of EU membership than the people of England and Wales.

If the people of Scotland are forced to choose between the United Kingdom and the European Union we do not know what the result would be. But only a little more than 18 months after the referendum that kept the United Kingdom together, I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious union, the union between England and Scotland.

Brexit also risks changing our friendships and alliances from further afield. In particular, as President Obama has said, it risks changing our alliance with the United States. Now I know as well as anybody the strength and importance of that partnership – our security and intelligence agencies have the closest working relationship of any 2 countries in the world – and I know that it would certainly survive Britain leaving the EU. But the Americans would respond to Brexit by finding a new strategic partner inside the European Union, a partner on matters of trade, diplomacy, security and defence, and our relationship with the United States would inevitably change as a result. That would not, I believe, be in our national interest.

We should remain in the EU

So I want to return to the principles I set out to help us judge whether Britain should join or remain a member of international institutions. Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores.

Of course, we don’t get anything like everything we want, and we have to put up with a lot that we do not want. And when that happens, we should be honest about it. The Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the free movement of people: none of these things work the way we would like them to work, and we need to be smarter about how we try to change these things in future. But that does not mean we have no control over the EU. Britain can and often does lead in Europe: the creation of the single market was driven by Mrs Thatcher, the competitiveness and trade agendas now pursued by the commission were begun at the behest of Britain and Germany, and I can tell you that on matters of counter-terrorism and security, the rest of Europe instinctively looks towards us. But it shouldn’t be a notable exception when Britain leads in Europe: it should become the norm.

And turning to the final test: to what extent does EU membership bind the hands of Parliament? Of course, every directive, regulation, treaty and court ruling limits our freedom to act. Yet Parliament remains sovereign: if it voted to leave the EU, we would do so. But unless and until the European Communities Act is repealed, Parliament has accepted that it can only act within the limits set by the European treaties and the judgments of the Court of Justice. The freedom to decide whether to remain a member of the EU or to leave will therefore always be in the hands of Parliament and the British people.

I do not want to stand here and insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything about the EU is perfect, that membership of the EU is wholly good, nor do I believe those that say the sky will fall in if we vote to leave. The reality is that there are costs and benefits of our membership and, looking to the years and decades ahead, there are risks and opportunities too. The issues the country has to weigh up before this referendum are complex. But on balance, and given the tests I set earlier in my speech, I believe the case to remain a member of the European Union is strong.

A different European policy

For each of the principles I set out earlier, however, I cannot help but think there would be more still in the credit rather than debit column if Britain adopted a different approach to our engagement with the EU. Because we should be in no doubt that, if we vote to remain, our relationship with the European Union will go on changing. And that change – with new treaties on the horizon – might be for the better or worse.

And to those who say Britain cannot achieve what it needs in Europe, I say have more belief in what Britain can do. I say think about how Britain built the single market, and let’s be that ambitious – in the British national interest – once again.

Let us set clear objectives to complete the single market, to pursue new free trade deals with other countries, to reform the European economy and make it more competitive. Let’s work to ensure the countries of Europe can protect their borders from illegal immigrants, criminals and terrorists. Let’s try to make sure that more of our European allies play their part in protecting western interests abroad.

We need to have a clear strategy of engagement through the Council of Ministers, seek a bigger role for Britain inside the commission, try to stem the growth in power of the European Parliament, and work to limit the role of the Court of Justice. We need to work not only through the EU’s institutions and summits, but by also pursuing more bilateral diplomacy with other European governments.

And it is time to question some of the traditional British assumptions about our engagement with the EU. Do we stop the EU going in the wrong direction by shouting on the sidelines, or by leading and making the case for taking Europe in a better direction? And do we really still think it is in our interests to support automatically and unconditionally the EU’s further expansion? The states now negotiating to join the EU include Albania, Serbia and Turkey – countries with poor populations and serious problems with organised crime, corruption, and sometimes even terrorism. We have to ask ourselves, is it really right that the EU should just continue to expand, conferring upon all new member states all the rights of membership? Do we really think now is the time to contemplate a land border between the EU and countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria? Having agreed the end of the European principle of ‘ever closer union’, it is time to question the principle of ever wider expansion.

Stand tall and lead

So this is my analysis of the rights and wrongs, the opportunities and risks, of our membership of the EU – and the reasons I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.

And I want to emphasise that I think we should stay inside the EU not because I think we’re too small to prosper in the world, not because I am pessimistic about Britain’s ability to get things done on the international stage. I think it’s right for us to remain precisely because I believe in Britain’s strength, in our economic, diplomatic and military clout, because I am optimistic about our future, because I believe in our ability to lead and not just follow.

But I know what a difficult decision this is going to be for a lot of people. I know, because of the conversations I have with my constituents every Saturday. Because of the discussions I’ve had with members of the public – and members of the Conservative Party – up and down the country. And because I myself have already gone through the process of carefully weighing up what is in Britain’s interests, now and in the future, before making my decision. Ultimately, this is a judgement for us all, and it’s right that people should take their time and listen to all the arguments.

So as we approach polling day, and as the country starts to weigh up its decision, let us focus on the future. Instead of debating the peripheral, the ephemeral and the trivial, let both sides of the argument debate what matters. And let us do so in a serious and mature way. Let us concentrate on Britain’s national interest. Britain’s future. Our influence around the world. Our security. And our prosperity. Let us make our decision with the great challenges of the future in mind. Let us have more confidence in our ability to get things done in Europe. This is about our future. Let us, Great Britain, stand tall and lead.

April 25, 2016
King George VI – 1948 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 26 October 1948.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

The Session beginning to-day opens in a troubled world still suffering from the ravages of war. To spend all our energies on repairing these ravages has been our constant desire, but we have been hindered by distrust and dissension between the nations. Yet, with mutual confidence and goodwill, the problems now facing us would not defy solution, and the peoples of the world would be able to live in peace and enjoy the fruits of their labours. Meanwhile, as the recent meeting in London of Prime Ministers and their representatives has shown, the peoples of My Commonwealth offer an example of voluntary and useful co-operation.

My Government will continue to work closely and harmoniously, within the framework of the Treaty of Brussels, with the other Governments which are parties to it; to give full support to the United Nations, and to strive to fulfil the aims of world peace and well-being set forth in the Charter.

In the Western Zones of Germany, economic revival has begun. Currency reform has brought stability and renewed faith in the value of money. The Germans themselves are working hard to design a democratic constitution for Western Germany.

In Berlin, however, a difficult situation has arisen as a result of the action of the Soviet Government in cutting surface communications between the city and Western Germany. My Government hold the view that this action constitutes a threat to peace and therefore referred the matter to the Security Council of the United Nations. The resolution of the Security Council has been vetoed by the Soviet representative, and the situation thus created is under consideration by My Government in consultation with the two other Governments concerned. Meanwhile, Berlin is being supplied by air; and aircraft from the United Kingdom, some of them flown by crews from other Commonwealth countries, are combining with those of the United States to keep Berlin linked with Western Europe.

The Queen and I look forward with pleasure to visiting Australia and New Zealand next year. We shall welcome this opportunity of meeting again My peoples of those countries, whose generous support both in war and peace has never failed us.

Legislation will be laid before you to give effect to whatever decisions may result from the negotiations for admitting Newfoundland to the Canadian Confederation.

My Ministers will continue to devote themselves to the problem of the balance of payments. Fortified by the generous aid of the United States, and working together with the other members of the Commonwealth and of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, we shall hope to progress further towards paying our way abroad and restoring the prosperity of our country and the world. It is only by our continued exertions and self-restraint that we shall win through. Inventive thought matched to hard work is necessary to enable workers and management, in common effort and counsel, to make the fullest use of our available resources. By increasing the individual contribution of skill and labour, we must build up our production still further.

My Ministers are taking steps to ensure that My Armed Forces shall be efficient and well equipped, and that the best use shall be made of men called up under the National Service Act. Recruiting for the Regular Forces will be stimulated, and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces will also be built up. A Bill to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act will be laid before you.

You will be asked to consider a measure for the future organisation of Civil Defence.

Members of the House of Commons:

The Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

You will be asked to consider further the Bill to amend the Parliament Act, 1911, on which during the last two Sessions your Houses have disagreed.

A measure will be laid before you to bring under public ownership those companies extensively engaged in the production of iron ore, or of pig iron or steel, or in the shaping of steel by a rolling process.

Legislation will be introduced to establish national parks in England and Wales; to improve the law relating to footpaths and access to the countryside; and to ensure the better conservation of wild life.

You will be asked to consider proposals for making legal aid and advice more readily available to persons of small or moderate means.

Legislation will be introduced to improve the organisation of Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales and to amend the law relating to Justices of the Peace.

A Bill will be laid before you to provide for the payment of jurors and for the abolition, with limited exceptions, of special jurors.

Measures will be laid before you to extend the powers of local authorities in regard to new housing, and to promote the improvement of existing dwellings by local authorities and by private owners. You will also be asked to pass a measure to provide for reviewing the rents of shared rooms, and of houses and flats let for the first time since the war.

Legislation will be introduced to change the constitution of the General Nursing Council and to provide for the better training of nurses.

A Bill will be laid before you to amend and consolidate the law of patents and designs.

Legislation will be introduced to protect the coast from erosion by the sea.

Bills will be laid before you to modify the constitution and powers of producers’ marketing boards; to encourage the development of the white fish industry, and to provide for safer milk.

You will be invited to pass a measure to enable My Government to ratify an international convention on safety of life at sea.

You will be invited to consider Bills to improve water supplies in Scotland, and to amend the Scottish criminal law.

Other measures will be laid before you if time permits; and it is hoped to make further progress with the task of consolidating and revising the Statute Law.

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

April 25, 2016
King George VI – 1947 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 21 October 1947.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

In the Session which opens to-day the nation is faced with grave economic difficulties affecting almost the entire world. Upon their successful solution depends the well-being of My people. My Government are determined to use every means in their power to overcome these difficulties.

I am confident that in these times of hardship My people will demonstrate once again to the world their qualities of resolution and energy. With sustained effort this nation will continue to play its full part in leading the world back to prosperity and freedom.

The first aim of My Ministers will be to redress the adverse balance of payments, particularly by expanding exports. This will demand increased production and the sale abroad of a larger share of output. The task to be performed by each industry has been set out and, in conjunction with all those engaged in industry, My Government will do their best to provide the means to carry out these tasks.

My Ministers will give all possible help to those who work on the land, in order to increase still more the home production of food. Legislation will be introduced to provide for the improvement and development of Scottish agriculture so that Scotland may play its full part in the campaign for higher production.

With a view to increasing exports and saving imports which can be replaced by home products, steps will be taken to ensure that man-power is used to the best national advantage, and, in particular, to expand the numbers employed in the coal-mining, agricultural and textile industries. The working of the reimposed labour controls will be watched closely and My Government will take measures to bring into essential work those who are making no contribution to the national well-being. They will also encourage in every way the close joint consultation in industry which is necessary if the greatest volume of production is to be secured.

My Government will continue to devote their earnest attention to securing from overseas the essential foodstuffs and raw materials for My people. They will do all in their power to find new sources of supply and they will seek to enter into further long-term agreements with overseas countries. A measure will be laid before you designed to promote the expansion of production of all kinds within the Empire.

My Government will continue to participate in the work of European reconstruction put in hand in the recent conference in Paris and will do their utmost to forward the projects formulated at that meeting for the benefit of Europe and of the world as a whole.

The present obstacles to co-operation and understanding between the peoples of the world have strengthened the determination of My Government to support the United Nations and to seek by that means to promote the mutual trust and tolerance on which peaceful progress depends.

It is My earnest hope that the forthcoming conference of Foreign Ministers will result in a measure of agreement leading towards a democratic and self-supporting Germany which will not threaten world security, and to the satisfactory settlement of the international status of Austria.

I trust that a Treaty of Peace with Japan, which will contribute to the welfare of all countries in the Far East, may be concluded at an early date.

A measure will be laid before you to enable the future governance of Burma to be in accordance with the free decision of the elected representatives of its people.

I hope that the discussions now in progress will enable legislation to be laid before you to confer on Ceylon fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth.

Members of the House of Commons,

Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course, and you will be asked to approve supplementary financial measures at an early stage of the Session.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My Ministers will accelerate the release of men and women from the Armed Forces to the maximum extent consistent with the adequate fulfilment of the tasks falling to the Forces.

They will press on with the reorganisation of the Forces on their peace-time basis and with the task of obtaining the necessary voluntary recruits to build up the Regular Forces and the Auxiliary Services.

Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act, 1911.

A Bill will be laid before you to reform the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales.

You will be asked to approve legislation to abolish the Poor Law and to provide a comprehensive system of assistance for all in need. This will complete the all-embracing scheme of social security, the main lines of which have been, laid down in measures already enacted.

A Bill will be laid before you to bring the gas industry under public ownership in completion of the plan for the co-ordination of the fuel and power industries.

A measure will be laid before you to extend the scope of public care of children deprived of a normal home life and to secure improved standards of care for such children.

Legislation will be introduced to provide a new and more equitable basis for the distribution of general Exchequer grants to local authorities. Provision will also be made for centralizing the machinery of valuation for rating purposes and amending the law as to the valuation of small dwelling-houses in England and Wales.

You will be asked to approve a measure to reform the franchise and electoral procedure and to give appropriate effect to recommendations of the Commissions appointed to consider the distribution of Parliamentary seats.

A Bill will be laid before you to enable a common national status to be maintained throughout the Commonwealth and to amend the existing law governing the national status of married women.

You will be asked to approve a measure for the establishment of river boards to take over from existing authorities certain responsibilities for land drainage, fisheries, and the prevention of pollution.

You will also be invited to pass a Bill to amend the present scheme for securing the exhibition of a fair proportion of British films.

A measure will be laid before you to reform the law relating to actions for personal injuries.

It is hoped that various measures consolidating important branches of the law will be introduced during the Session; and other measures will be laid before you if time permits.

I pray that Almighty God may give His blessing to your counsels.

April 25, 2016
King George VI – 1945 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 15 August 1945.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

The surrender of Japan has brought to an end six years of warfare which have caused untold loss and misery to the world. In this hour of deliverance, it is fitting that we should give humble and solemn thanks to God by whose grace we have been brought to final victory. My Armed Forces from every part of my Commonwealth and Empire have fought with steady courage and endurance. To them as well as to all others who have borne their share in bringing about this great victory and to all our Allies our gratitude is due. We remember especially at this time those who have laid down their lives in the fight for freedom.

It is the firm purpose of my Government to work in the closest cooperation with the Governments of my Dominions and in concert with all peace-loving peoples to attain a world of freedom, peace and social justice so that the sacrifices of the war shall not have been in vain. To this end they are determined to promote throughout the world conditions under which all countries may face with confidence the urgent tasks of reconstruction, and to carry out in this country those policies which have received the approval of my people.

At Berlin my Ministers, in conference with the President of the United States and Premier Stalin, have laid the foundations on which the peoples of Europe, after the long nightmare of war, may restore their shattered lands. I welcome the establishment of the Council of Foreign Ministers which will shortly hold its first meeting in London and will continue the work begun at Berlin in preparation for a final peace settlement.

My Ministers will submit to you the Charter of the United Nations which has now been signed without reservation by the representatives of all the fifty States who took part in the Conference at San Francisco and which expresses the determination of the United Nations to maintain peace in accordance with justice and respect for human rights and to promote the welfare of all peoples by international co-operation. The devastating new weapon which science has now placed in the hands of humanity should bring home to all the lesson that the nations of the world must abolish recourse to war or perish by mutual destruction.

It has given me special pleasure to meet the President of the United States on his brief visit to my country after the Conference at Berlin. I have also been glad to express the gratitude of this country to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force for his inspiring leadership in the campaign for the liberation of Europe.

My Forces in Europe continue to discharge the duties entailed in the occupation of enemy countries and the, repatriation of the many thousands of persons who were deported from their homes by the enemy. My Navy, aided by the Navies of my Allies, is clearing the seas of mines so that merchant ships and fishing fleets may once more sail in safety.

In the Far East my Ministers will make it their most immediate concern to ensure that all prisoners in Japanese hands are cared for and returned to their homes with all speed. The bringing of relief to those who have suffered under Japanese tyranny and the disarmament and control of the enemy will continue to impose heavy demands on my Forces.

Members of the House of Commons,

You will be asked to make further financial provision, not, happily, for the continuance of the war, but for expenditure on reconstruction and other essential services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My Government will continue the orderly release of men and women from the Armed Forces on the basis of the plans announced in the autumn of last year and will take every step to secure that these plans are carried out with the greatest speed consistent with our military commitments and fair treatment to serving men and women. The arrangements already in operation for the resettlement in civil life of men and women released from the Forces and from war work, including those who have been disabled during their service, will be continued and, where necessary, expanded.

The continuing shortages in the supply of many necessaries, especially houses, food, clothing and fuel, will call for the same spirit of tolerance and understanding which the nation has displayed during the past six years of war.

It will be the aim of my Ministers to see that the national resources in labour and material are employed with the fullest efficiency in the interests of all and that the standard of living is progressively improved. In the pursuit of this aim the special problems of Scotland and Wales will have the attention of my Ministers.

My Government will take up with energy the tasks of reconverting industry from the purposes of war to those of peace, of expanding our export trade, and of securing by suitable control or by an extension of public ownership that our industries and services shall make their maximum contribution to the national well-being. The orderly solution of these difficult problems will require from all my people efforts corn-parable in intensity and public spirit to those which have brought us victory in war.

In order to promote employment and national development machinery will be set up to provide for the effective planning of investment and a measure will be laid before you to bring the Bank of England under public ownership. A Bill will also be laid before you to nationalize the coalmining industry as part of a concerted plan for the co-ordination of the fuel and power industries.

Legislation will be submitted to you to ensure that during the period of transition from war to peace there are available such powers as are necessary to secure the right use of our commercial and industrial resources and the distribution at fair prices of essential supplies and services.

An urgent and vital task of my Ministers will be to increase by all practicable means the number of homes available both in town and country. Accordingly they will organize the resources of the building and manufacturing industries in the most effective way to meet the housing and other essential building requirements of the nation. They will also lay before you proposals to deal with the problems of compensation and betterment in relation to town and country planning, to improve the procedure for the acquisition of land for public purposes, and otherwise to promote the best use of land in the national interest.

You will be asked to approve measures to provide a comprehensive scheme of insurance against industrial injuries, to extend and improve the existing scheme of social insurance and to establish a national health service. Legislation will be introduced to repeal the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act.

My Ministers will develop to the fullest possible extent the home production of good food. To this end they will continue, with suitable adaptations, those war-time policies under which food production has been organized and the efficiency of agriculture improved, and will take all necessary steps to promote a healthy fishing industry. The ravages of war have made world food supplies insufficient to meet demands, but my Ministers will do all in their power to provide and distribute food to my peoples at prices which they can afford to pay; and they will keep in being and extend the new food services for the workers and for mothers and children which have been established during the war.

A measure will be laid before you for the reorganization of air transport.

It will be the aim of my Ministers to bring into practical effect at the earliest possible date the educational reforms which have already been approved.

My Government will continue to work in close consultation with the other members of my Commonwealth on all matters of mutual concern.

In accordance with the promises already made to my Indian peoples, my Government will do their utmost to promote in conjunction with the leaders of Indian opinion the early realization of full self-government in India.

They will also press on with the development of my Colonial Empire and the welfare of its peoples.

I pray that Almighty God may give His blessing to your counsels.

April 25, 2016
King George VI – 1944 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 29 November 1944.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

The United Nations look back on a year of resounding achievement. They now look forward with greater confidence than ever to those final victories which will give to the peoples of the world the just peace which is our chief desire. In Western Europe My Forces from, the United Kingdom and Canada and their comrades from the United States, with the valuable aid of the Armed Forces of My European Allies and of the peoples who have risen to meet them, have routed the enemy in a series of decisive battles and are now pressing him on the borders of his own country. In Italy the Forces of the United Nations have advanced to the northern plains and in Greece and Yugoslavia the Germans are being driven from the countries which they have oppressed for three bitter years. In the East the massive achievements of My Russian Ally have deprived the Germans of vast stretches of territory which they hoped would feed their armies and provide an impassable barrier to prevent the soil of Germany from becoming a battle-ground. Both in the East and in the West, Germany is invaded. The plight in which her armies now find themselves is a measure of the success which by God’s grace has crowned our arms.

In the war against Japan the enemy has been thrown back from India and My American Ally continues to reduce the shrinking area still under Japanese control in the Pacific. We intend to reinforce as rapidly and powerfully as possible the United Kingdom Forces who are now sharing with their comrades from all parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire and from the United States, China, the Netherlands and France the burden of the struggle against Japan.

My Navies everywhere have maintained their mastery over the enemy and have achieved great successes, in which My Air Forces have fully shared, in driving his surface and submarine forces from the seas. My Air Forces, in concert with the Air Forces of the United States, have delivered increasingly heavy blows against Germany and have maintained their support of military and naval operations in all theatres.

The successes of My Armed Forces would not have been achieved but for the devoted labours of those throughout the Commonwealth and Empire who have striven ceaselessly to arm and equip them. It is over five years now since My peoples first took up the struggle to free the world from aggression and the contribution of the civil population is beyond all praise.

The United Nations await with sober confidence the unrolling of future events. Joined in an unbreakable alliance and fortified by constant collaboration between the Governments concerned and by frequent personal meetings between their leaders, they look forward to that day on which the aggressor is finally defeated and the whole world can turn to the rebuilding of prosperity and the maintenance of an unassailable peace.

Members of the House of Commons:

You will be asked to make further financial provision for the conduct of the war and for the other necessary services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

Victory remains our supreme aim and to this end you will be invited to pass such further legislation as may be required for the effective prosecution of the war.

Once, however, the war in Europe is over, the transition from war to peace will begin; and My Ministers are actively preparing plans to ensure that, without in any way prejudicing the active prosecution of the war against Japan, an increasing part of our resources is made available for civilian production. They will try to create conditions favourable to the expansion of our export trade and the re-equipment of our industry and to maintain a high level of food production at home. They are considering the methods by which the policy for the maintenance of a high level of employment can be implemented, especially with regard to the distribution of industry in the Development Areas. Progress will be made in fulfilling the urgent tasks of providing additional housing accommodation and of increasing supplies of civilian goods. My Ministers will continue their policy of ensuring a fair distribution of the necessaries of life so long as there is any scarcity.

My Government intend that, as opportunity serves, progress should be made with legislation arising out of the proposals already made public for a comprehensive health service, an enlarged and unified scheme of national insurance, a new scheme of industrial injury insurance and a system of family allowances. They will also invite you to approve measures embodying proposals for a national water policy which have already been presented to you.

A Bill will be laid before you dealing with electoral reform based on the recommendations of Mr. Speaker’s Conference, and a Bill providing for the resumption of local elections at the appropriate time. You will be invited to pass measures relating to the provision of finance for the capital expenditure which local authorities will incur after the end of hostilities in Europe and proposals for the adjustment of local government areas in England and Wales will also be laid before you.

You will be asked to approve legislation designed to extend export credit facilities and to conserve, subject to appropriate safeguards, the use or value of assets created at the public expense on requisitioned and other land.

Measures will also be laid before you making further provision for the regulation of wages and conditions of employment and for the development of the public educational system in Scotland.

There will be presented to you legislation making further provision for assistance towards the development of the Colonial Empire both by prolonging the period covered by the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940 and by substantially increasing the provision of funds authorised to be made under that Act.

I pray that the Almighty may give His blessing to your counsels.

April 24, 2016
King George VI – 1943 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 24 November 1943.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

In the fourth year of war the Forces of the United Nations assumed the offensive in all theatres of war. The enemy has been cast out of Africa; freedom has been brought to Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica; and in Italy my Forces and those of my American Ally are now engaging the enemy on the mainland of Europe. On his eastern front the enemy has given ground before the massive and unrelenting advance of the Russian Armies, whose magnificent achievements we have watched with ever-deepening admiration. The captive peoples of Europe are everywhere preparing to throw off the yoke of the oppressor; and we shall continue to afford them such help and encouragement as lies in our power. On the frontier of India and in the Pacific, Japanese aggression has been halted, and the Forces of the United Nations are now moving to the offensive. At sea my Navies and those of our Allies continue to maintain their mastery over the enemy, and important successes have been won in the struggle against the enemy’s U-boats. The Air Forces of the United Nations have maintained their ascendancy in all theatres of war, and have increased the weight of their blows at the enemy’s heart.

The mounting scale of our offensive is the fruit of the devoted and untiring efforts of my peoples throughout the Commonwealth and Empire; and in the coming year we shall, with God’s help, be able to bring to bear upon the enemy a still greater weight of attack. With the growing help of our great American Ally, and together with the other United Nations, we shall go forward with confidence in our cause until we have delivered the peoples of the world from the fear of the aggressor.

My Government, taking counsel with my Allies and building upon the foundations laid at the recent Conference in Moscow, will devote continuous attention to the study of plans for the future settlement of Europe.

Members of the House of Commons,

You will be asked to make further financial provision for the conduct of the war and for the other necessary services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My Government will continue to concentrate their powers and energies upon the prosecution of the war; and, until final victory is won, that will be their primary task. You will be invited to pass such further legislation as may be necessary to provide for the needs of the war and to meet abnormal conditions arising from the war.

At the same time my Ministers are resolved that, so far as the future can be foreseen, they shall be ready to meet the different tasks that await them when victory has been won. They have undertaken a special review of the problems which are likely to arise as hostilities in Europe come to an end and of the adjustments which will have to be made when we turn to prosecute with fresh vigour the war against Japan; and in the months to come my Ministers will complete their provisional plans for the period of transition through which we must pass before the troubled times of war give place to settled conditions of peace. It will be the primary aim of my Government to ensure that in this period food, homes and employment are provided for my people, that good progress is made with the rebuilding of our damaged cities, and that in industry, mining and agriculture a smooth transition is made from war to peace. For some of these purposes fresh powers will be needed; and, as the preparations proceed, proposals for the necessary legislation will be laid before you. You will, in the immediate future, be asked to make provision for the training and employment of disabled persons, and to amend the law regarding the reinstatement in their civil employment of persons discharged from the Armed Forces.

In certain fields it is already possible to look beyond the transitional period and to frame proposals for social reforms designed to confer lasting benefits on my people.

A measure embodying my Government’s proposals for the reconstruction of the national system of education in England and Wales will be laid before you. An Advisory Council is now preparing reports which are expected to form the basis for educational developments in Scotland.

My Ministers will present to you their views and proposals regarding an enlarged and unified system of social insurance, a comprehensive health service and a new scheme of workmen’s compensation; and they will decide, in the light of your discussions, what specific proposals for legislation on these matters can be brought forward at this stage.

You will be invited to pass legislation conferring special powers for the redevelopment of areas which, by reason of enemy action, overcrowding or otherwise, need to be replanned as a whole.

My Government will lay before you the results of their examination of the Reports which have been made recommending the assumption of further powers to control and direct the use of the land of Great Britain.

It is the desire of my Government that full consideration should be given to various proposals which have been put forward for changes in the existing franchise law, and you will be invited to give your early attention to this question.

My Ministers will maintain and develop the measures for promoting the health and well-being of my people which, by God’s providence, have been so successful during the past four years of war.

I pray that the Almighty may give His blessing to your counsels.

April 24, 2016
King George VI – 1942 King’s Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by King George VI in the House of Lords on 11 November 1942.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

In this fourth year of war My Peoples look forward with unshakable courage. They are determined to fight on to complete victory, with no thought of parley. Whatever the future may hold, I know that they will respond wholeheartedly to every new demand made upon them.

I look with gratitude and pride upon the great and ever-growing war effort of my loyal subjects throughout the Empire. Their comradeship and unity in war will be an inspiration and source of power in the years to come.

In the last few days Providence has blessed our arms and those of our American Allies. The brilliant victory in the Western Desert and the great operation forestalling the attack of our enemies upon the French territories in Northern Africa, are notable steps towards final victory.

My Forces by sea, land and air continue to meet with courage and devotion the calls which the extension of the war has made upon their resources. Aided by the powerful support of the Armed Forces of My Allies and sustained by the growing output of our munition factories, they are now bringing an increasing weight of attack against the enemy.

The declaration of the United Nations endorsing the principles of the Atlantic Charter provides a foundation on which international society can be rebuilt after the war. As a first step My Government have entered into consultation with the Governments of the United Nations in preparation for the urgent needs which will arise when the victims of oppression regain their freedom. When the time comes, these tasks will, I am confident, be faced with the same spirit of comradeship and resolution as has been shown in the war.

My Government desire to do their utmost to raise the standards and to improve the conditions of My Peoples in the Colonies, who are playing their full part in the united war effort.

Members of the House of Commons,

You will be asked to make further financial provision for the conduct of the war and for the other necessary services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My Government’s first concern must be to seek and secure the means of achieving complete and speedy victory; and they will put before you such proposals for emergency legislation as may be necessary for the effective prosecution of the war or for meeting conditions arising out of the war. You will be asked to pass legislation with respect to war damage suffered by public utility undertakings.

A start has, however, been made in working out the measures which will be necessary when peace comes. My Government have already received and are examining Reports upon compensation and betterment in respect of public control of the use of land and upon land utilization in rural areas. Renewed consideration will be given to the position of old age and widowed pensioners and further measures will be laid before you.

Conversations are taking place between My Ministers and others concerned with the provision and conduct of education in England and Wales with a view to reaching an understanding upon the improvements necessary. My Ministers hope that these discussions will result in such a wide measure of agreement being reached that further progress can be made with plans for the better education of My people. The system of education in Scotland is also under review.

My Ministers will continue to take all measures open to them to promote the health and well-being of My people in war-time by securing the better care of young children, by the prevention of disease, by the treatment of the sick and by the alleviation wherever possible of the housing difficulties consequent upon the war.

Our enemies yet remain powerful and we can look forward to no easy task. All our fortitude and all our determination will be needed to win through to victory. But I know that nothing will shake your purpose or cause your steps to falter on the way.

I pray that the Almighty may give His blessing to your counsels.

April 24, 2016