Tag: Speeches

  • William Hague – 2001 Speech in Perth

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, in Perth, Scotland on 4 June 2001.

    In just four years the Scottish Conservatives have been has been refreshed, revived and reinvigorated.

    It has been transformed by the inspired leadership of people like Malcolm Rifkind, by Raymond Robertson and by David McLetchie.

    And it has been turned around because of the hours of dedication and commitment put in by people like you.

    You have ensured that our party is now firmly back on the political map of Scotland.

    You have re-established our Party as a Party of Scotland, speaking with a genuine Scottish voice, with distinctively Scottish policies.

    Scottish Conservatives understand what devolution means. It doesn’t just mean taking your orders from London. It means standing up and fighting for what’s right for Scotland. And at the same time it means making sure that Scotland’s voice within the Union remains strong.

    In three days time we can take our revival in Scotland a stage further.

    We can do it by helping to give Tony Blair his marching orders from Downing Street.

    We can do it by putting Scottish Conservatives back in Westminster.

    And we can do it by helping to elect a Conservative Government that will govern for all the people of the United Kingdom.

    Scottish Conservatives have never been as hungry for victory as we are in this General Election.

    And don’t let anyone tell you that this election doesn’t matter. Don’t let anyone tell you that all parties are the same.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether we want to live in an independent Britain.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether we want to carry on determining our own destiny at future general elections.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether to hand on intact to future generations the freedoms that we inherited from our parents.

    And don’t let anyone tell you this election doesn’t matter in Scotland. Don’t let them tell you that because Scotland now has a Parliament of its own, that elections to Westminster are irrelevant.

    This election matters as much to Scotland as it does to every other part of the United Kingdom.

    Of course the Scottish Parliament controls many areas that are of crucial importance to the people of Scotland.

    But taxes, pensions, the amount of money the Scottish Parliament has to spend on things like hospitals, schools and the police, defence, relations with Europe, whether we keep the pound; all of these things are not decided in Edinburgh, but in Westminster.

    The decisions taken in Westminster will continue to affect every single person who lives in Scotland.

    So I say to the people of Scotland. Don’t allow taxes to be raised even higher; don’t allow Scotland’s voice within the Union to be weakened even further; don’t allow more of the independence of the United Kingdom to be given away; and don’t allow the pound to be abolished.

    Don’t allow any of these things to happen just because you were told that this Election didn’t matter.

    Say whatever else you like about this election. But don’t say it doesn’t matter. Don’t say that all parties are the same.

    This election is about values. Our values as a party, and our values as a country. The values that make up the British character: tolerance and freedom and indignation at injustice; civic pride, patriotism and respect for the law.

    These are not, as some politicians seem to think, just words to be dropped into speeches during election campaigns. They ought to be reflected in public policy. And how this is done is what defines us as a nation. That is what is at stake on Thursday.

    I say this to the government. It’s no good talking about personal responsibility when more and more of our people are being driven into means-tested dependency.

    It’s no good talking about the importance of family when the last recognition of marriage has been removed from th e tax system.

    It’s no good talking about law and order when we have a criminal justice system that is more frightening for victims than for criminals.

    And it’s no good talking about patriotism when you are handing away in peace-time the independence which previous generations defended in war.

    I want to talk tonight about our Conservative values. I want to talk about how our principles will guide our practice. And I want to talk about what it is we are asking you to vote for.

    Let’s start with the question of honesty. I don’t just mean the integrity of individual politicians. I mean something much bigger. I’m talking about whether parties as a whole keep faith with the country. Whether spin is more important to them than substance. Whether they are elected in order to govern, or whether they govern in order to be elected.

    Four years ago, Tony Blair won office with a big majority and even bigger promises. All of you here will know people who voted Labour: people who wanted to give them a fair crack of the whip. Yet after four years in which Labour have dominated public life in Scotland many of those people are feeling let down and conned.

    They voted for a party that had ‘no plans to increase taxes at all’. But they’ve been taxed for marrying, taxed for driving, taxed for wanting to own their own home, taxed for putting a little aside each month, taxed for growing old.

    They voted for a party that promised to be tough on crime, but they’ve seen violent crime in Scotland rise and nearly 800 criminals turned on to the street while police are taken off the street.

    They voted for a party that said it would ‘save the NHS’ and that promised to make ‘education, education, education’ its top three priorities. But morale in our public services is at rock bottom.

    They voted for a party that tried to portray itself as the ‘political wing of the British people’. But they’ve seen how they arrogantly dismiss the views of anyone who disagrees with them like Britain’s farmers or the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland who wanted to keep Section 2A or 28 as it’s usually known.

    They believed Tony Blair when he said he loved the pound. But now they know he intends to scrap the pound at the first opportunity.

    They were promised a Government that would be ‘purer than pure’. But they’ve had Lord Simon and his shares, Lord Irvine and his wallpaper, Formula One and tobacco advertising, Robin Cook and Sierra Leone, Geoffrey Robinson and his offshore trust, Stephen Byers and his non-existent writ, Peter Mandelson and his undeclared loan, and, of course, Keith Vaz and everything you’ve ever heard about him.

    They’ve seen Labour break its word again and again, whether it’s with a huge majority in London or in Coalition with the Liberals in Edinburgh. And now they can only watch in astonishment as Labour comes back and says: give us another chance. This time we’ll keep our promises. This time we really mean it.

    More than that, Tony Blair has already decided to claim victory. He talks arrogantly about having a mandate for change. I see no mandate. I see no change.

    Instead I see a Government which has squandered a massive Commons majority, plenty of public goodwill and the best economy ever bequeathed by a predecessor. “The epitaph on this past four years of New Labour will be: Never has a Party had so much and achieved so little.

    So you don’t need a crystal ball to see what Labour would do with a landslide, you can read the book. It is a litany of false promises, higher taxes, more spin and the triumph of style over substance.

    Labour doesn’t deserve another chance. Scotland and Britain deserve another Government.

    I am not going to stand here tonight and offer you the Earth. I’m not going to wave fancy pledge cards around. I am only going to promise what I know I can deliver.

    So to everyone who has had enough of spin; to everyone who is sick of politicians who ta lk big and then don’t deliver, I say: come with us. If you value honesty in politics, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to people who believe in personal freedom. If freedom means anything at all, it means being able to live with dignity, without having to depend on the state. It means being able to provide for a secure retirement. And it means being allowed to spend your own money, rather than having it confiscated from you and spent on your behalf by Gordon Brown.

    There is nothing inevitable about rising tax. Tax levels are up to you. You can vote Labour, Liberal or SNP for higher taxes, or you can vote Conservative for lower taxes.

    Everyone accepts that decent public services need to be properly funded. People don’t object to paying for roads or schools or hospitals. But they do object when the money going into the NHS is spent, not on improving patient care, but on preparing hospital accounting systems for the euro. They object when hundreds of millions of pounds of their taxes are squandered on keeping the Millennium Dome open, or on the ever spiralling costs of the new Parliament building at Holyrood. They object when Labour is spending over £100 million a year on Government advertising.

    I say that if the Government has got enough of your money left over to spend £100 million a year on telling you what a good job it’s doing, then it’s taxing you too much.

    That’s why the next Conservative Government will give you a refund.

    We will cut taxes for small businesses and married couples and savers and pensioners and people with children.

    We will abolish taxes on savings and dividends. People who try to put a little aside each month are doing the right thing. They’ve already been taxed for earning the money; they shouldn’t be taxed again for wanting to save it.

    We will cut tax for pensioners. The men and women of my parents’ generation, who have spent a lifetime supporting and helping others, have the right to dignity, comfort and independence in retirement. So we will raise pensioners’ tax allowances, lifting a million pensioners out of tax altogether and cutting the tax paid by millions more. Pensioners have already paid tax throughout their working lives; they shouldn’t have to go on paying in retirement.

    And we will tackle the problem of the state confiscating the life savings and homes of those who have put money aside for their long term care. We will look to protect the assets of people who have tried to make reasonable provision for themselves. It cannot be right that those who have spent their lives building up something to pass on to their children and grandchildren risk losing nearly everything they have, while those who haven’t saved a penny are paid for by the state.

    With the Conservatives it will pay to do the right thing.

    And we will cut taxes for drivers. Just because John Prescott treats his two Jags as a luxury, that doesn’t mean the rest of us can afford to. For many people, especially here in Scotland, there is simply no alternative to driving. For disabled people, for elderly people, for parents needing to ferry their children to school and back, for women who don’t like to walk home from the station after dark, for people who live in rural Scotland, the car is not a luxury but a necessity.

    John Prescott may regard petrol duty as an ethical tax. But I don’t see anything ethical about a tax on disabled people, on elderly people, on young families, on women and on the countryside. That’s why the next Conservative Government, in its first budget, will cut petrol tax by 6 pence a litre, 27 pence a gallon.

    So to everyone who believes that taxes are too high; to families trying to stretch their budget just that little further; to pensioners who want independence in retirement; to people who need to drive; to everyone who thinks they can spend their own money more wisely than Gordon Brown, I say: come with us. If you value self-reliance, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to all those who believe in law and order.

    Did you see the response that Jack Straw got when he tried to address the Police Federation of England and Wales just over two weeks ago? He was jeered and slow handclapped.

    Over the past four years, police officers in Scotland have seen nearly 800 serious criminals let out of prison early. Under the English scheme, that Labour and the Liberals want to introduce here, 35,000 criminals – some of them convicted for assaults on the police – have been set free before completing even half their sentences. Many of those criminals have gone on to commit monstrous crimes while out on early release: burglaries, muggings, even rapes.

    In Scotland under Labour, many officers, fed up with being pushed around and blamed, are taking early retirement.

    We cannot fight the war against crime if police officers have one hand handcuffed to their desks.

    I fully appreciate the fact that criminal justice is a devolved issue in Scotland. But I know I speak for the whole of our Party when I say that the next Conservative Government will lead a war on crime and allow the young men and women who join the police to get on with protecting the public.

    That means offering the police political backing instead of political correctness so that they can become the strongest, most professional and best-respected force in the world.

    It means scrapping Labour’s early release scheme, and taking back the get-out-of-jail-early cards.

    It means, as an immediate step, reversing Labour’s cuts in police numbers.

    It means winning back the trust of the public in the forces of law and order, not trying to silence their anger.

    So to everyone who feels that the balance has again swung too far towards the offender; to everyone who wants to see a police patrol on their street again; to everyone who feels that their city centre is closed to them on a Saturday night, I say: come with us. If you value law and order, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to people who are worried about the abuse of our asylum system.

    Throughout the United Kingdom there are many people who had the courage and the spirit to leave their homes and begin again in a new country. People who have brought that courage and that enterprise to Britain, contributed to our national life, and enriched our sense of what it means to be British.

    Many of these people have told me that they are especially worried about the break-down of our asylum system. They have played by the rules. They have often had to wait patiently to be joined by a spouse or a fiancée. And they can see that something is going wrong when tens of thousands of people are now evading our immigration rules altogether.

    The British people are not ungenerous; but they do not see why we should have an asylum system that is unfair. Unfair particularly to genuine refugees who are elbowed aside in the mismanagement and chaos we see at present.

    So we will introduce secure reception centres where asylum applications are dealt with quickly. Those with genuine claims will be given help and support to stay in our country, but the current trade in human beings will not be allowed to pay.

    And so to everyone who wants to see the rules obeyed; to everyone who wants to distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal migrants, I say: come with us. If you want Britain to be a safe haven, not a soft touch, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to everyone who believes in the British countryside.

    Labour Ministers in London and the Lib-Lab Coalition in Edinburgh seem to have no grasp of how serious things have become in rural Britain. The foot and mouth crisis, which has been particularly devastating in areas like Dumfries, has come in the middle of the worst agricultural depression in generations. Families who have managed their land for generations are being forced to se ll up.

    The epidemic has driven many people living in rural Britain over the edge. Coming after so much hardship, even strong men and women have given in to despair. I do not choose my words lightly when I say that under Labour the British countryside faces at best a bleak and uncertain future and at worst a slow and painful death.

    The next Conservative Government will move immediately to implement our Strategy for Recovery, containing steps to stamp out Foot and Mouth once and for all, to help struggling rural businesses and firm action to prevent this terrible disease entering Britain again.

    We are going to give British farmers a fair chance to compete by applying to imported food more of the food hygiene and animal welfare standards we expect of our farmers here at home.

    Our farmers are among the most dedicated and innovative in the world. On a level playing field, they’d acquit themselves against all comers. But they cannot compete properly as long as they are confined by the current Common Agricultural Policy. Just as our fishing industry, especially in Scotland, cannot compete properly under the disgraceful Common Fisheries Policy.

    The next Conservative Government will re-negotiate the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy so that many decisions currently taken at EU level would be taken by at national level.

    To everyone who wants to see the rural economy thriving and prosperous. To everyone who wants a fair deal for our farmers and our fishermen I say: come with us. If you value the liberty and livelihood of the countryside, vote for what you value.

    That is my message for everyone who is registered to vote on Thursday. Vote for the things you believe in. Make your voice heard.

    If you value a responsible society, vote for what you value.

    If you value the family, vote for what you value.

    If you believe that individuals and communities can achieve more than politicians, vote for what you value.

    If you value rural Britain vote for what you value.

    It is your choice; and it is your responsibility.

    Above all, I carry that message to everyone who believes in Britain. To everyone who believes that we have achieved things that are worth preserving. To everyone who believes in strengthening the United Kingdom.

    Our opponents often give out the impression that they are embarrassed about the United Kingdom, ashamed of its past and indifferent about its future.

    The SNP wants to separate Scotland from the rest of the Union. The Liberals see the relationship between England and Scotland as a kind of conditional alliance within a federal Europe. And Labour, with their determination to put party before country, have created constitutional imbalances that risk breaking the Union apart.

    When Scotland voted clearly and decisively in the referendum for devolution we accepted that democratic verdict as the settled will of the Scottish people. It is now the settled will of Scottish Conservatives that the Parliament must be made to work.

    Scottish Conservatives are a party of devolution. But we are also a Unionist Party. The Conservative and Unionist Party. And we always will be a Unionist Party.

    So, while supporting devolution, we will also ensure that Scotland’s voice in the Union remains strong. That is why I have pledged to retain the position of Secretary of State for Scotland, with an enhanced United Kingdom role.

    We are proud of the United Kingdom, its values and of what our four great nations have achieved together. We opened the world to free trade. We brought law and freedom to new continents. Twice we fought for the cause of all nations against tyranny. We are confident about what the United Kingdom can go on achieving in the future.

    At this Election only the Conservative and Unionist Party offers a government that will unashamedly and full heartedly make the case for the United Kingdom.

    Only we are w ill make the case for a United Kingdom in which our distinctive identities can flourish but which at the same time enables us to come together under one flag as British.

    Only we will make the case for a United Kingdom that together is able to pack a punch in the world that far outweighs that of its constituent parts.

    And only we will make the case for a United Kingdom that values and includes Northern Ireland.

    So to everyone who believes in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to everyone who wants to strengthen the United Kingdom, I say: come with us. Vote for what you value. And I say the same to everyone who believes that Britain should be in Europe, not run by Europe.

    Last week, Tony Blair called for an honest debate about European integration. This week, he got one.

    Last Monday, Lionel Jospin, the prime Minister of France, spoke with exemplary honesty. He wants an operational EU police force; a common criminal justice system; uniform asylum and immigration policies; a European foreign policy conducted by an EU diplomatic corps; and full economic union, including a mechanism for fiscal transfers.

    On Tuesday, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, was no less candid. He called for the EU to be allowed to levy its own taxes.

    Well I’m going to be equally honest tonight. The next Conservative Government will reject that agenda lock, stock and barrel.

    We will not accept a European Army or a European police force or a European criminal justice system. We will renegotiate the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, so that many of the decisions now taken at EU level can instead be taken by the nations. And we will pass a Reserved Powers Act, to ensure that our Parliament cannot be over-ruled by activist European judges.

    Be in no doubt as to the importance of the choice we will face in three days’ time.

    This election is not just about who will form the next Government. It’s also about whether we continue to have a Government that is sovereign in this country. It’s about whether we carry on deciding our own affairs at future general elections.

    Tony Blair has made his intentions clear. If he is re-elected, he will speed up the process of European integration. He plans to scrap the pound within two years.

    In order to meet his timetable, Mr Blair would have to launch the transition process right away. Businesses would have to prepare for the changeover, throwing out their tills, changing their software, retraining their staff, adopting new accounting methods. The public and private sectors would need to find £36 billion for the conversion.

    £36 billion. The equivalent of £55 million in this and every other constituency. The equivalent of £1,500 for every household in the United Kingdom. The equivalent of building a whole new Millennium Dome every month for the next three years.

    And it’s not just a question of the money that would be wasted on scrapping the Pound. It is also the fact that our interest rates would be set at a level that was almost always wrong for Britain. This would put economic stability and British jobs at risk. It would threaten our schools and hospitals every bit as much as it would threaten homeowners, businesses and pensioners.

    Think about it; a recession in other European countries squeezing government income and forcing a cutback in investment in our public services.

    We could not spend the money to improve our schools and hospitals if our economy was not earning the money in the first place. So we now have a Prime Minister who says he wants to put our public services first, when in fact his obsession with scrapping the Pound would put them last behind the whims of bankers in Frankfurt.

    And the process would have to begin right away. It’s not a question of waiting until the referendum – even if you believe that the referendum would be free and fair. A Labour Government elect ed on June 7 would begin to scrap the pound on June 8.

    Tony Blair wants us to believe that Labour can now be trusted on the economy. But why should anyone else trust him when he so obviously does not trust himself? This must be the first time that a party has sought office by promising to give up the right to govern. If re-elected, Labour would contract out the management of our economy: our interest rates would be set in Frankfurt and our taxes in Brussels.

    Here in Scotland I find it extraordinary that Labour, Liberals and the SNP who spent years campaigning for powers to be transferred to a Scottish Parliament now want to scrap the pound and hand ever more powers over to Brussels.

    So I am not choosing my words lightly when I say that this could be the last general election of its kind. The last time that the people of the United Kingdom are able to elect a Parliament which is supreme in this country.

    This is an issue that ought to transcend party politics. I know that there are many decent, patriotic people, who are not natural Conservatives, but who are just as concerned as we are about preserving our self-government. People who may be lifelong Labour or Liberal voters, but who want to keep the pound.

    I am appealing to those people this evening. Lend us your vote. Lend us your vote this time, so that your vote will still mean something next time, and the time after, and the time after that. Vote Conservative this one time, so that we can carry on having meaningful general elections in an independent Britain.

    This is a question, ultimately, of self-confidence. Do we have faith in our capacity to thrive as an independent country? Or do we feel that we must go along with every new Brussels initiative for fear of being left out?

    Labour and their Liberal allies seem to have no confidence in Britain. They evidently believe that we are too small to survive on our own.

    Too small? We’re the fourth largest economy in the world. We’re the fourth greatest military power on Earth. We’re one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and one of the Group of Eight industrialised nations. We have unparalleled links with the United States, the Commonwealth and the rest of the English-speaking world. How much bigger do we have to be before we can run our own affairs in our own interest?

    I believe in Britain. I don’t believe that we have to be part of a single currency to prosper. That’s why I will keep the pound.

    Three days to save the pound. Three days to secure our independence. Three days to decide whether our children and grandchildren will inherit the same freedoms that we inherited in our turn.

    And so to everyone who believes in keeping the pound, to everyone who wants to preserve our democracy I say: come with us. If you value Britain’s independence, vote for what you value.

    The Conservative Party is ready to govern for all the people. For people in the countryside, who have almost given up on ministers ever understanding them. For people in our inner cities, struggling to bring up families on crime-ridden estates with failing schools

    We will govern for taxpayers wanting to see some return on their taxes. For public servants not be snowed under with paperwork. For people who believe that the countries of the United Kingdom have achieved more together than they would separately, and who refuse to feel ashamed about our history.

    And so I say to the people of Britain: vote for what you value on Thursday.

    If you believe in a country where your taxes are wisely and carefully spent.

    If you believe in a country where pensioners who have built up an income for retirement are rewarded, not penalised.

    If you believe in a country whose criminal justice system is frightening to the criminal, not to the victim.

    If you believe in working hard, saving hard and trying to be independent of the state.

    If you believe in the unity of the Uni ted Kingdom.

    And if you believe in an independent Britain.

    Come with me, and I will give you back your country.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2001 Speech on Setting Public Services Free

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 6 June 2001.

    My political roots lie in the Sixties, at a time when rules and values were often seen as not only being irrelevant but positively dangerous. If you were young at that time, you were led to believe that the world owed you a living, and all you had to do was to shout loud enough or demonstrate long enough and it would be handed to you on a plate. It won’t come as much of a surprise if I tell you that I saw things rather differently.

    I went into politics from a sense of vocation. I suspect I might have had a far more comfortable life if I had gone into the City or into PR or anyone of a hundred different professions, but the Sixties were after all about passionate convictions and I suppose I must have picked up something.

    Doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Many of you will know that I’ve thought long and hard about my religious views, and some time ago that caused me to change my Church. But I haven’t changed my Party, not because I’ve stopped thinking about my political values but because I’ve tested them, and challenged them, and found Conservative values as relevant today as they have ever been.

    And that’s about making sure that Government serves, and doesn’t end up so grand and so overbearing that it stifles the very service it aims to give. Which, of course, is what’s happening today. Don’t take my word for it….

    · Ask any doctor or any nurse, and they will tell you – they spend more and more time sitting in front of computers and filling in Government forms rather than sitting with patients.

    · Ask any teacher. If you’re lucky they’ll come out from behind a mountain of Ministerial directives just long enough to tell you how every day they have to wade through a swamp of red tape before they get anywhere near a classroom.

    · And our police, too are filling in forms. Or job applications.

    I entered politics from a sense of vocation, just as others – our doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen and the rest – also followed their sense of vocation. But that’s where the similarity ends, because in politics you expect to find obstacles thrown in your way at every turn. It goes with the territory.

    But that wasn’t the deal for those who’ve devoted themselves to caring for our sick, our elderly, our young, or keeping our law and order. They’re not politicians, and they shouldn’t find their careers turned into an obstacle course by politicians. Or otherwise they will turn away, as tens of thousands have turned away in recent years.

    I don’t blame them. A country in which clinical decisions are made not on the basis of medical priority but on the basis of some politician’s pledge card is a sick country. A country in which schools get Ministerial directives before they get new books is a neglected country. A country in which our police are fighting red tape rather than criminals is a country that has been cheated by its government.

    The Sixties were all about passion. Some invested their passion in –shall we say – quite exotic areas, while I invested my passion in politics. Because I wanted to change things.

    And things need changing, nowhere more so than in our public services.

    That is our commitment. To set our public services free, to do their jobs as they know best. It’s a commitment that will be there long after those tawdry little pledge cards that others hawk around have become no more than a pile of litter.

  • Michael Ancram – 2001 Speech at South Bank

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Ancram, the then Conservative Party Chairman, on 6 June 2001.

    So three very distinctive reasons why we are all here today on this platform. Not because of ideology, but because of ideals – individually expressed but actually shared.

    Michael’s passionate belief in the responsibilities of the individual. Ann’s deep sense of vocation and duty. Francis’s dedication to the bonds of mutual obligation. All fundamental to the complex tapestry which is the Conservative Party. We have always been a party of diversity and breadth – and we still are.

    Each of us has come a different path but we are all pursuing a common destination. I am a Conservative for all the reasons my colleagues have given, but there are some other reasons too.

    I believe in that old concept of public service, of working for one’s community or one’s country not for what one can get out of it but for what one can contribute to it. It is a very Conservative concept, the concept of caring not because you’re told to but because it is an instinctively Conservative thing to do. The concept of undertaking public office not because it gives something to you but because you can repay something to the community which nurtured you. And into all this is naturally tied the whole concept of integrity in public life.

    But these concepts are under threat today. Under threat from a new culture which seems to believe that public office is simply the reward for services rendered not to your country but to the party of government in whose hands lies the patronage.

    Under threat from a political philosophy which believes that the state always knows best, and that we should be caring because we are told by the state to be caring – and how.

    And under threat from the new political culture in which spin is more important than truth and where as long as you are not caught out – anything goes.

    I genuinely believe that this new culture is a cancer which will eat away at the foundations of our democracy. I believe we must fight it and that is why I am a Conservative here today.

    And I am a Conservative too because I love my country. I believe passionately in the United Kingdom. I am totally with Francis in his determination to defend it from the dangers of further integration into Europe.

    But I am also determined to fight the threat that seeks to unravel it from within – the creeping growth of nationalism and of regional and cultural division which New Labour have set in train.

    For me the United Kingdom is a most remarkable phenomenon, an extraordinary amalgam of different cultures and different traditions and indeed different nations. And these have come together through history with a common purpose and a common flag to create a sovereign nation which is far stronger than the sum of its various parts. This United Kingdom stands as an example to the world and to ourselves of how different, often very different, traditions and beliefs can – while retaining their distinctiveness – be voluntarily brought together into One Nation with all that that implies. It is that which we as Conservatives must fight to preserve.

    We have always been and will remain the Party of and for the United Kingdom. Our unionism is real. And when that United Kingdom is under threat as it is today, then as a party we will fight with all the strength available to us to defend our country and all that it stands for. I will never be told that it is politically incorrect to love my country and to be proud of it. And that too is why I am a Conservative.

    But there is one other reason which brings us all here together today. It is someone who throughout these last four years has never lost his sense of purpose and his clarity of vision. It is someone who in the face of political adversity and partisan hostility has never lost his determination or his sense of mission. He is a leader we are all prou d to serve.

    Our leader – William Hague.

  • Francis Maude – 2001 Speech on Fighting for Britain’s Interests

    Francis Maude
    Francis Maude

    Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 6 June 2001.

    I was, almost literally, born into the Conservative Party. My father went into politics in 1950, having spent some of his prime years as a prisoner of war. I and my brother and sisters grew up believing that politics is a high calling; built on deep beliefs and high principles. In my family the idea that you went into politics for yourself was laughable.

    So it was pretty easy for me to be a Conservative. My brother and I went to a direct grant school; a school independent of the state but where most of us were paid for by the state: a real public/private partnership.

    I grew up with the notion that a strong society is one bound together by the bonds of mutual obligation; that the strong have a duty to help the weak. Family tragedy can bring home to you how much we depend on each other.

    Is it bad that we have a hospice movement that is supported by the voluntary work of families and communities, rather than depending on the government?

    I was proud to serve in Conservative Governments that were prepared to be unfashionable; that were ready to take on the received wisdom. We may not have got everything right but we always did what we thought right. We did what we did not for ourselves but for our country.

    And I find it hard to understand why you would come into politics if you don’t believe in your country. I spent part of my childhood in Australia; and when I was on my sabbatical from politics in the mid-nineties I lived the global economy as an international investment banker. I know better than most how interconnected today’s network world has become. Britain can never be isolationist; can never turn her back on the world.

    We must be an internationalist country, yes. But we must above all be a country. How can we remain a proud independent country if we have lost the power to govern ourselves? When we have become nothing more than a province of a United States of Europe?

    In the sixties and seventies people like my father resisted the sad assumption that Britain was condemned to an inevitable decline. They fought the defeatist notion that the socialist ratchet was irreversible. It is for our generation to resist the sense that it is inevitable that we lose our power of self-government. It is for our generation to fight for the return of some powers from Brussels, to reject the idea that the ratchet of EU integration can never be reversed at all.

    It is for our generation to fight for it. And we will.

  • Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech on Trusting the People

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6 June 2001.

    As a very young man I was attracted to the Labour Party. The idea of high tax and high government spending seemed socially responsible. But over time I saw that Labour’s way didn’t work. The combination of the government’s spending more than the nation could afford, high taxation and devaluation just dragged the country down.

    The greatest single difference between Labour and Conservatives is the same today as it has always been. Labour believes that society changes for the better because of what government does; we believe it is people themselves who bring about social improvement.

    That’s why Labour talk of how much Government will take from the people and spend, and all their recruitment targets, as though the Government always spent our money well, and as though extra people could be recruited to public service like turning on a tap.

    We believe in trusting people, their aspirations and instincts. Labour believes in government and bureaucrats, we believe in people.

    Labour believes it’s compassionate and socially responsible to take money away from the people who earned it and spend it on their behalf. Well it depends. Not when Labour takes it from the poorest people. Not when it comes from hitting their pension funds. And not when the government complacently tolerates waste and inefficiency.

    But worse than that, it’s not morally defensible if we weaken people’s resolve to take responsibility for themselves. We believe that our society is better if people believe that their first duty is to be independent if they can, and to build up their sense of self-worth. People who take responsibility for themselves are better able to take responsibilities for their families too, and more willing to recognise their responsibilities towards their neighbours and their community.

    Those obligations to oneself, family, and community cannot be subcontracted to government. We believe that when a person has paid his taxes that is not the end of his obligations towards others, but the beginning. And indeed the greater your success in life, the greater is your personal obligation to put something back.

    A society that overtaxes and penalises success, leads people to believe that once they’ve paid their taxes, they’ve done their bit. A society that overtaxes the poor leads them to believe they can never escape poverty by their own efforts.

    A society that forces too many into means-tested benefits deepens the poverty trap and embitters those who tried to be prudent and thrifty.

    Whether Britain can compete in the coming decades will depend on whether we free people from excessive tax and regulation. Whether we have a society of which we can be proud, depends on whether we can convince more people of their inalienable responsibilities.

    Under Labour we are headed in the wrong direction: away from the responsibility society towards the dependency society.

    Our approach to public services also rests on trusting people. When we say that we want head teachers to control all the school budget, that’s not just because we think people close to the ground make better decisions than those in distant bureaucracies. It’s also because when you trust someone, when you give them the power of initiative and authority, you bring out the best in them. They flourish and exceed all expectations even their own. I saw what a head teacher in a grant-maintained school could achieve with children from underprivileged homes, who learnt self-esteem and the value of hard work.

    Labour has always believed in centralisation, but New Labour’s control fetish has made it still more intolerant of diversity. Uniformity is the enemy of improvement. We passionately believe freedom and diversity deliver progress.

    Governments must not be resentful of, or hostile to diversity. We can only walk when we allow one foot to move in front of the other. The other foot then catches up and passes by. And it is only by allowing those with good ideas to edge ahead, and helping others to catch them up, that our country can move forward.

    Governments without a deep-rooted commitment to freedom and diversity, are Governments wedded to mediocrity. Public services will never get better under Labour because they believe Government is the only engine of improvement. They are incapable of letting go: incapable of trusting people. Labour is intellectually timid, too bound up in ideology. Conservatives will be the party of progress and reform.

  • William Hague – 2001 Speech on Two Britains

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 6 June 2001.

    Thirty days ago, I began this campaign by saying we would show the nation a better way.

    We have done that. We have set out how we will bring taxes down, how we will hit crime hard, how we will bring discipline, standards and choice to schools in every town and city, how we and we alone will keep the Pound. We have shown how we will deliver lower taxes while safeguarding spending on the vital public services.

    Labour by contrast has ducked and weaved on tax and spending. They promise more money for services but refuse to say where it will come from. They cloak their plans for more stealth taxes on petrol on National Insurance on pensions in weasel words and arrogant evasions.

    We have spelt out what it means to be genuinely tough on crime. Our support for the police will be as unflinching as our hostility to criminals. They will serve the sentence they are given, they will not be released on to our streets to offend again before they have served even half their time. Labour has had nothing to say about crime short of promising new police officers when they can’t even keep hold of the ones they’ve got. We have demonstrated how our schools can become places where children learn, where teachers teach and where heads are given the responsibility and authority to lead.

    Labour can only repeat the mantra of ‘education, education, education’ while we put forward practical plans to deliver discipline, standards and choice to everyone.

    We have shown we can make Britain a safe haven instead of a soft touch, by introducing reception centres that will speed-up the claims of genuine refugees. Labour and their Liberal allies have tried to avoid the subject and have offered no alterative plans of their own.

    We have set out our plans to rescue the countryside, by ensuring that proper help is given to the rural businesses and farmers hit so badly by foot and mouth. All Labour have to offer are further attacks on our rural way of life

    And we have shown how Britain can be in Europe, not run by Europe, how we can play our full part in the EU without surrendering our independence or our currency. Labour meanwhile plot to scrap the Pound without telling us how much it will cost, at what rate we would go in to the Euro or how a referendum in which they would set the question and determine the funding could ever be a fair one.

    Issue by issue we have made and won our case. We have put forward answers that Labour have been unable to question and raised questions that they have been unable to answer.

    I am proud of the campaign we have fought. I am proud of what my colleagues have said and done. I am proud of the campaign you have fought. We alone have set the agenda in this campaign.

    But elections are fought on more than just issues alone. They are also about values, beliefs and commitment – the iron in the soul of a political party that can see it through bad times as well as good.

    We have shown that iron. What a contrast to New Labour. What a contrast to Tony Blair’s endless convolutions that lead him to praise Margaret Thatcher in one breath and try to bury her in the next. Unlike him and them, we know who we are and we know what we stand for.

    We have never campaigned to pull out of Europe.

    We have never campaigned for higher taxes.

    We have never campaigned for greater union powers.

    We have never campaigned to scrap our nuclear deterrent.

    But I will tell you who has, Tony Blair. No belief is too important for him to abandon it when circumstances dictate, No policy is so essential that Labour will hold to it no matter how temporarily unpopular it may be. No value is too central for it not to be jettisoned when the going gets rough.

    That is not my way, nor is it the way of the Conservative Party.

    Our core beliefs in freedom, justice, and tolerance, of respect for the individual, decency, a reluctance to meddle and interfere and above all our fierce belief that a country is happiest and most prosperous when the people and not the politicians rule have stood the test of time.

    That is why in this Election we are clear about what we want.

    We want people to keep more of what they earn, to be self-reliant and independent, to plan for their future.

    We believe our society is stronger when people have the authority and responsibility to shape their own futures and those of others.

    It is why we set such great store by upholding the rule of law and defending those who work hard and play by rules.

    It is why we will fight to keep our country as a self-governing nation with the ability to control its economy.

    These are the same principles I joined the Conservative Party to defend all those years ago, the principles I stood up and spoke for when I was 16, the principles I am proud to put forward as leader of the Conservative Party today.

    They are principles not learned from books or seminars or pollsters, but forged from the people I grew up with, the community we shared and above all the family whose love and support has always been unconditional. They are principles that have never changed and never will.

    I grew up in the 1970s, a decade torn by industrial strife and inflation. A decade when people seriously questioned whether Britain was even capable of being governed. In Rotherham, politics was never very far away because the evidence of the government was everywhere from the council estates where a lot of my friends at school lived, to the nationalised pits and steelworks that their fathers worked in.

    But whether they were miners, factory workers or small businessmen like my own dad, they were decent hard-working people with standards who wanted their children to have a better life than they themselves had had.

    We all went to the same schools, used the same family doctors and hospitals and wanted the same things, but it wasn’t a Labour Government, the supposed people’s party that made it possible to fulfil those ambitions. It was because of Conservative Government that my friends and neighbours eventually saw a real improvement in their lives.

    Slowly but surely better jobs and more opportunities came the way of our country as the Conservatives ended union tyranny, brought down taxes, and widened home ownership. For the first time in decades there was a real sense that we were no longer the sick man of Europe.

    The people I went to school with are now doing many different things. They own their own homes, they save for their pensions, they enjoy wider choice in their lives. Many now have families of their own. I took my own route to Oxford, business school in Europe and leading the Opposition. But the values we shared then are the same values we share now: pride, directness, generosity of spirit and, if I’m honest, a certain stubborn streak.

    A lot of them voted Labour at last election. They did do in spite of their values not because of them. They did so because they wanted what their own parents had wanted for them: better schools for their children, better hospital care for their families and because they believed Tony Blair when he said he would keep their taxes down and make their streets safer.

    So imagine first their disappointment, when he broke those promises, and then their anger when he blamed them for his own failure to deliver. His attack on the forces of conservatism and his attempt to heap all the ills and evils of the 20th century on the heads of decent people must rank as one of the most ill-judged political comments of all time.

    Tony Blair may have retreated in the face of the Women’s Institute and others, but they still remember, we still remember. And tomorrow the world will find out that the forces of conservatism are on the march.

    I have met them by the thousand during my Election campaign.

    They are farmers laid low by a foot and mouth outbreak which has lasted longer and bitten deeper than it need have done because of the dither and delay of this Government.

    They are the small businessmen and women crippled by Labour’s taxes and new bureaucracy.

    They are the teachers, the police, the doctors and the nurses who have been weighed down by red tape and political interference when they simply wanted to do their job.

    They are the market traders I met in Smithfield this morning who shouted at me ‘Whatever you do William, win’. Or in many cases, ‘Go on William, wipe the smile off his face’.

    They are down-to-earth people who in a quiet way love their country and are privately appalled by Labour’s plans to scrap the Pound and to undermine Britain’s independence.

    Above all they are people who don’t always think of themselves as Conservatives, who don’t always vote Conservative, but who are in the end the backbone of this nation.

    Tomorrow they have a choice. And tomorrow, I know they will be marching with us. They know the stakes are too high to risk another term of Labour Government. They know that, above all, because of Mr Blair’s plan to scrap the Pound and surrender to Brussels, this could be the last General Election in Britain when we can still run our own affairs in this country.

    Because tomorrow is a choice not just about who will run this country for the next five years, but about the country that their children and grandchildren will inherit.

    I am in no doubt about the kind of country people want.

    They want a Britain that is in control of its own destiny and a society where they can be in control of theirs.

    A Britain whose streets are safe for families and the vulnerable; not a Britain safe for convicted criminals.

    A Britain where basic values and discipline are taught in our schools and where doctors and nurses, police and teachers are respected for what the work they do; not a Britain where the rule of law is denigrated and the people running our public services are demoralised.

    A Britain where people keep more of what they earn and are encouraged to be independent the better to help themselves and others; not a Britain where families and retired people are taxed and taxed again until they are left depending on the state for their very existence.

    An independent Britain with its own currency; not a Britain so lacking in self-belief that it gives up the right to run its own affairs or its own economy.

    These are the two Britains on offer, and tomorrow is the last chance to choose between them.

    The more widely I have travelled, the more people I have met during these last 30 days, the more I am certain of the kind of Britain the vast majority of people want.

    So if you have had enough of arrogance and spin and broken promises, if you want a Government that offers you only what it can deliver; I say vote for what you value.

    If you have had enough of higher taxes and creeping dependency, if you want a Government that values self-reliance and believes you can spend your money more wisely than it can, I say vote for what you value.

    If you have had enough of being told that we should be ashamed of our history and cannot govern ourselves, if you want a Government that believes in the future of our country, I say vote for what you value.

    Vote Conservative tomorrow and on Friday we will begin the work of making this nation once again the equal of the people who live in it.

    Vote Conservative tomorrow and Britain will again be a place we can all be proud to call our home.

  • Edward Timpson – 2014 Speech on Adoption Support

    timpson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Timpson at Somerset House in London on 13 May 2014.

    Thanks Sheila (Durr, Chair of the London Adoption Board), it’s good to be here.

    Just a month ago, I was pounding the streets of London in the marathon, sporting a T-shirt with the words “I’d adopt” on it in the hope that if that got just a few people thinking about the possibility of offering a child a loving home, then it will have done the job.

    Because, with 6,000 children – and around 800 in London alone – still waiting to be adopted, we must take every opportunity to bring them and prospective parents together – and to be there for them every step of the way.

    And the good news is we’ve made really important progress this year.

    Progress

    The Children and Families Act is sweeping away many of the identified barriers to adoption and there’s been a much stronger focus on wider recruitment and better support for adopters.

    And thanks to your hard work and dedication – for which I’m naturally hugely grateful – we can see this determined drive from government beginning to pay off.

    Adoptions are at record levels following a 15% increase between 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013. There’s also been a 34% increase in the number of adopter approvals.

    Huge numbers – over 96,000 people in 12 months – contacted the First4Adoption online information service that we fund – and whose phone number was splashed all over my marathon T-shirt. And over 6,800 of these people went on to look at an adoption agency’s website – a vital next step to becoming an adoptive parent.

    We’re already aware of one couple who have gone from contacting First4Adoption to being approved as adopters and having a child placed with them. It shows what can be done if we all pull in the same direction.

    Three new voluntary adoption agencies also opened last month with a commitment to attract over 300 adopters and offer hope to more children – just the latest advance in a massive £217 million push to improve the system and boost recruitment.

    And there have also been welcome developments on adoption breakdowns. Professor Julie Selwyn’s recent report showed that far fewer adoptions fail than previously thought – around 3% as opposed to a 20 or 30% breakdown rate.

    But this very timely and important research also reveals that we need to do much more to support adoptive families who are struggling with the fallout from earlier abuse and neglect – something I’ve seen first-hand, whilst growing up with my own 2 adopted brothers.

    So there’s a lot to do, but also a lot of great work that we can build on.

    Good work in London

    And, the reason I’m here today is because, in many ways, London is leading the way.

    Research shows that Londoners – particularly single women and those aged over 40 – are more likely to adopt than people anywhere else in England. Londoners are also more likely to contact First4Adoption’s phone line than any other group.

    And this is in the face of many of the same challenges as other parts of the country, particularly when it comes to finding matches for BME children.

    As we know, black children spend, on average, a year longer waiting to be adopted than white children. I know that this is as unacceptable to you as it is to me – which is why, through the act, whilst continuing to recognise its clear validity as a factor to be taken properly into account, we’re ending the undue emphasis on finding an ethnic match between adopters and children whose chances of being adopted diminish with every day they have to wait.

    And we can see some really excellent and innovative practice beginning to tackle this and wider recruitment challenges head-on.

    Like Redbridge’s partnership with the children’s charity Coram, which, with its keen focus on reducing delays and on tracking children’s progress right through the process, has sent adoptions through the roof – by an astonishing 175% – and, in the process, attracted a wider pool of adopters.

    Southwark too has excelled with its Find 40 Families campaign to attract BME adopters, driving up the number of adopters by 50% since its launch a year ago. A fantastic achievement.

    Traffic to its website has also soared by 70% through a combination of work to raise awareness and myth-bust in local communities along with imaginative approaches to publicity – for example, by adding personal touches to its website, such as profiles of children waiting to be adopted.

    We’re keen to do all we can to support these kind of inspirational ventures and see many more children gain from the wonderful gift of adoption.

    Adoption reforms

    Which is exactly what our adoption reforms aim to do, with a strong focus throughout on boosting recruitment as well as support for adopters at every stage.

    There’s no question that the 2 things go hand in hand. People are far more likely to consider adoption if they’re confident they can count on good support – not just in the early days, but years down the line if needed, which I know from my own family, can often be the case.

    So, through the act, through the new Adoption Support Fund, the new Adoption Leadership Board, chaired by Sir Martin Narey, as well as through the significant funding we’re injecting into the system, we’re simplifying and improving the process every step of the way. And, crucially, giving prospective parents much more choice and control over the support they get.

    So what does this mean in practice? For adopters, it means they’ll get much clearer information about their entitlements, the same pay and leave rights as birth parents and will no longer face the ‘cliff edge’ of support provided while the child was in care suddenly being withdrawn.

    We’re also giving them a more active role in finding a match by opening up the Adoption Register. We’ll start testing access to the register in the summer to see how this might help adoptive families come together much more quickly. And how it might highlight, at an earlier stage, what support is needed.

    Adoption Support Fund

    And this support is about to ramp up as families access much-needed therapeutic services through the Adoption Support Fund.

    Last year, I announced that we’ll be contributing £19.3 million to help kick off this new fund. I launched this during a visit to the highly impressive Family Futures in Islington, an adoption support service where I met several adoptive families and heard from them how successful therapeutic interventions had been the difference between them sinking and swimming.

    In fact I’ve recently received a letter from one of the parents I met on my visit updating me on the terrific progress her son is making after years of, as she put it, “firefighting.”

    It’s one of the main reasons why we’re currently working with 10 local areas, including Lewisham, to trial a smaller version of the fund and using the insights gained to shape the national fund, which will be fully up and running in 2015.

    We’ll also be testing personal budgets, with the input of social workers to really put adoptive families in the driving seat – families, for whom, these vital therapeutic services have often remained out of reach, despite their potential to change lives.

    Adoption Leadership Board (ALB)

    Better support is also a big focus for the new Adoption Leadership Board, which Mark (Owers, CEO, CVAA), of course, manages.

    It’s early days for the ALB, but I’m confident that the board will thrive under Sir Martin Narey’s leadership and will galvanise real improvements by bringing together local and central government, the voluntary sector and academics as never before.

    Its success will rest, in large part, on effective regional boards. London, with its regional set-up, is especially well-placed to take this forward. Indeed, the London model has been discussed at Adoption Leadership Board meetings and is likely to form the blueprint for boards in other regions.

    Andrew Webb at the ADCS is currently setting these boards up. Each will have a designated lead ADCS member for the region, representatives from the voluntary sector and a ‘sponsor’ from the national board.

    Universal services playing their part

    It’s also, of course, vital that universal services like education and health play their part. Adoptive families rely on them as much as specialist services.

    An Adoption UK survey from last year, for instance, found that two-thirds of adoptive parents felt that their children faced specific challenges at school due to past trauma and neglect.

    And it’s with this in mind that we’re providing extra support for adopted children through our education reforms.

    From 2014, children adopted from care will be eligible for the pupil premium plus and for free early education under the programme aimed at the most disadvantaged 2-year-olds.

    This comes on top of our move to extend priority school access to children adopted from care.

    And I can announce today that, from now on, this will apply to all children adopted from care, not just those adopted under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

    We’ve issued new guidance about this and have asked admissions authorities to apply it with immediate effect. We will amend the School Admissions Code at the earliest opportunity.

    There’s also significant work underway to improve the understanding of adopted children’s needs among health professionals. Their support is critical for adopted children, given their known high level of mental health needs.

    So it’s great to see pioneering approaches like the work being done at The Maudsley, where specialist services are provided for young people who are fostered or adopted. These are highly rated by parents who report improved relationships with their children, a reduction in difficult behaviours and improved wellbeing – things we want to see many more parents achieving through improved support.

    But there’s clearly more to do.

    Which is why we’ve commissioned the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce clinical guidelines on attachment.

    And why we’re encouraging national and local health service commissioners to consider adopted children’s needs when developing integrated services for vulnerable groups.

    Adopted children are now recognised as a key group by the NHS Commissioning Board and in statutory guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies – which are important steps forward.

    Improving the access that adopted children – indeed all children – have to CAMHS is high on the agenda across government at the moment and we’re working closely with the Department of Health to see what more we can do.

    I have to say that this is a particular priority for me, as is ensuring that social workers are well-equipped to meet the needs of looked after and adopted children.

    Which is why we commissioned Research in Practice (RiP) to produce new training materials for social workers who work in these areas. These are currently being rolled out and are now available on the RiP’s website – so would encourage you to take a look.

    Conclusion

    So we’re on the right track. And, together, are overturning expectations of what can be achieved when the ambition and commitment is there.

    But we need to keep up the pace and continue to push the boundaries to drive up performance even further.

    Adoption scorecards that show how long it takes for each local authority to place children for adoption are vital to this endeavour.

    As is access to real time performance data by region – and I’m hugely grateful to the north London consortium of local authorities for helping the Adoption Leadership Board develop its new data collection arrangements to provide continued focus and insight into what works and how we can do better.

    Because it’s only by continuing to inspire, support and challenge each other that we can really raise our game – on both adopter recruitment and also improved support for adoptive families.

    I know just how critical this support is from seeing how my elder adopted brother Oliver continues to struggle with issues stemming from the mental and physical abuse he suffered before he came to live with us, over 30 years ago, as a 6-year-old foster child.

    In those days, therapy was neither well-known, never mind easy to access. And while Oliver has gained a great deal from his adoption – as we all have in our family – I’m sure that these issues wouldn’t be affecting him as much if he’d had the therapeutic support he needed.

    Which is why I’m so determined to ensure that other adopted children and their parents get the help they need, when they need it.

    They deserve our utmost support, so let’s continue to work together to make sure that’s exactly what they get.

    Thank you.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech at All Energy Conference

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the then Scottish Secretary, in Aberdeen, Scotland, on 21 May 2014.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the start of the All Energy Conference.

    This is a fantastic opportunity to get together at the UK’s largest renewable energy gathering – to share experiences, see new technologies and celebrate the success of this ever-growing industry.

    Because as we all know Scotland is fast becoming a world energy hub – not just in oil and gas, but in renewables too.

    Scottish renewables are now providing enough electricity to meet roughly 40% of Scotland’s consumption. A third of all renewable generation in the UK is now in Scotland.

    The latest figures show that between the third quarter of 2012 and the third quarter of 2013, renewable electricity generation is up 20% on the previous 12 months.

    Together we are now around half way to our ambition of meeting 30% of the UK’s electricity needs from renewables by 2020.

    And our prediction is that with the framework we are putting in place, we’ll do even better than 30%.

    Investment

    Between January 2010 and February 2014, we saw private sector investment in large scale UK renewable electricity projects exceed £34 billion. This investment supports over 37,000 jobs.

    Over £14 billion of this is in Scotland, supporting around 12,000 jobs, here at home.

    And our reform of the Electricity Market will ensure the UK remains a leading destination for investment in the electricity sector and could support as many as 25,000 jobs in the power sector in the UK.

    This record is in stark contrast with the rest of Europe, where renewables investment halved between 2012 and 2013.

    The UK Government is committed to supporting and investing in our renewables technology to make sure that we retain our position as Europe’s renewable investment hotspot.

    Projects such as the Dorenell Wind Farm in Moray which is estimated will generate at least £93 million in direct benefits for the Scottish economy.

    And The Speyside Biomass Combined Heat and Power Plant at the Macallan Distillery, which would represent an inward investment of £60 million to the local area.

    I am delighted to confirm today that the Eskdalemuir Working Group has progressed very well. Through constructive discussions, the MoD’s concerns on wind farm development have been met and opposition to the project will be removed, opening up extra capacity for renewables deployment.

    Renewable potential

    And for the first time we have created a tailored strike price for Scottish Islands which will help to unlock their renewable potential as cost effectively as possible, and increase the likelihood of a number of Scottish offshore wind projects coming forward.

    As MP for Orkney and the Shetlands I can tell you that enthusiasm for exploiting renewables potential on the islands is very high.

    The UK Government is currently in talks with Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles ‘our islands out future’ campaign in recognition of their incredible potential and to overcome obstacles to development.

    This whole positive picture, right across Scotland is down to your hard work – and collaboration.

    The Energy Act 2013 – supported by all parties in the UK Parliament: Labour and SNP as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has put in place the legal, financial and political framework that is designed to last.

    Not just for the next few years, but it reaches out ten, twenty, thirty years into the future. Certainty, stability, predictability.

    Going green

    By creating the world’s first low carbon electricity market, we are going green at the lowest cost.

    Demonstrating that carbon reduction and economic growth can go hand in hand.

    Let me be crystal clear, the government’s commitment to renewables as part of our diverse energy mix is undiminished.

    But to succeed we need to keep showing that this vision of a competitive low carbon market isn’t an ideological, or even just an environmental one. We can keep energy bills as low as possible as we decarbonise.

    We need to provide certainty, stability and fair returns for investors, generators and suppliers

    So the positive case for Scotland’s energy future in the UK is the protection of the integrated market. Sharing support, sharing benefits and sharing costs.

    Scottish renewables, just like renewables in other parts of the UK, are an integral part of our vision for a low carbon future.

    Investment, consent, construction and generation.

    Scotland – a world-leading renewables hub. The United Kingdom – the best place to do business.

  • David Davis – 2016 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis at Institute of Chartered Engineers in London on 4 February 2016.

    It has been over 43 years since Britain joined the European Economic Community. For all that time there have been calls for Europe to reform. For Europe to be more democratic, more competitive, more functional. And for Britain to lead that reform.

    The result? If anything Europe has become less democratic, less competitive and more dysfunctional. And Britain has become more side-lined.

    The EU has been in decline for some time now. There is no change of course in sight. The risks involved in staying are clear for all to see – low growth, high unemployment, and waning influence.

    In 1975 the EU was the bright future, a vision of a better world. Now it is a crumbling relic from a gloomy past. We must raise our eyes to the wider world.

    The UK has been a persistent advocate of reforming and modernising the EU.

    Even a decade ago there was hope of radical reform, as the EU expanded from 15 nations to 28. Some thought the new members, only recently independent themselves, would shift the EU away from its centralising, statist destination, and towards a more democratic, more trade-focussed direction.

    The hope was that Europe would become ‘wider, not deeper’. With hindsight, this hope now looks ridiculous. The siren calls for ‘more Europe’ have only increased.

    The UK also proselytised for a ‘two-tier’ or ‘two speed’ Europe, with a loose decentralised group around a more centralised Franco-German core. With the Eurozone, we now have a de facto two-tier Europe, but one that works to the detriment of the non-Eurozone countries.

    Centred on Germany, the EU’s largest and most powerful nation and the paymaster of Europe, the Eurozone constitutes a dominant majority.

    This is downright dangerous. The core Eurozone countries will not accept any curtailment of the decisions they need to make to save the Euro. At the same time, the non-Eurozone countries cannot accept decisions that are against their interests, imposed on them by the Eurozone core.

    It will only lead to conflict, conflict that can only be prevented by veto procedures that would be unacceptable to either side.

    Economic growth on the continent has ground to a halt. Since the turn of the century, the EU has grown at a third of the rate of the global average, and the Eurozone has grown even more slowly than that. Europe’s share of global GDP is falling, as is its share of global trade. This trend is expected to continue.

    When we last voted on our membership in 1975, trade with Europe was the vast majority of our total trade. This has fallen since then, and in 2008 the UK started to trade more with the rest of the world than with Europe. The fact is that Europe is becoming less and less important.

    The Euro has become a destroyer of jobs. Unemployment across the continent is running at almost 10%, with youth unemployment double that at 20%. For individual countries, these figures are even worse.

    Greece and Spain are suffering from youth unemployment rates of nearly 50%, and Italy almost 40%. Unemployment is destroying the prospects of a whole generation of young Europeans.

    The Euro is an experiment that has failed. In its short life it is already responsible for sovereign debt crises in several European countries, high unemployment, and dramatic trade imbalances across the Eurozone.

    But then the European project has been a litany of failures. From economic catastrophe, the collapsing single currency experiment, a poor record on increasing trade, the damage done by merging home affairs, to the undoubted foreign policy failures.

    Then there is the Schengen Zone. The passport-less travel area once held up as the pinnacle of European integration is crumbling before our very eyes. The migration crisis that has brought more than a million refugees to Europe’s shores, with many more expected to come, is a stake in the heart of a borderless Europe.

    The strength of any policy can only be judged by how it copes with crisis. Schengen, just like the Euro, is failing under the pressure.

    Even with justice, the EU causes conflict.

    From the faulty European Arrest Warrant, that has led to innocent Brits being detained for months overseas in terrible conditions without trial, to the slow steady creep of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we are increasingly finding that our justice system is incompatible with the one on the continent.

    So the problems facing the EU are mounting up. Economic stagnation, high debt, high unemployment, high regulation, ineffective foreign policy and failing internal policies.

    This is the backdrop to the Government’s renegotiation of our term of membership.

    Government’s Negotiation

    The Government has four strands to its renegotiation:

    • economic governance, ensuring that the Union operates for the benefit of all 28 members;

    • competitiveness, and a target to cut the regulatory burden for business;

    • sovereignty, and an opt-out for Britain from ‘ever closer union’;

    • and finally immigration, and the proposed ‘emergency brake’.

    This renegotiation is a once in a generation opportunity. Unfortunately, the Government has spent ed this opportunity on demands are so unambitious as to be a waste of time.

    The concessions outlined by the Prime Minister on Tuesday will have little, if any, impact on the nature of the EU. They will do almost nothing to address the very issues that the Government itself has identified.

    Take immigration.

    265,000 people migrated to the UK from the EU in the last year. Many of them from poorer, Eastern European countries.

    Such high levels of migration are to be expected given the enormous wage differentials across Europe. There are 6 EU members where the average wage is less than a third of the UK’s minimum wage, and a further 8 countries where it is less than half.

    Given such incentives, it is surprising that more people are not making the journey.

    This has consistently been a top issue for voters for over a decade.

    The Government’s answer? That an ‘emergency brake’ system be put in place, that would allow member states to partly deny in-work benefits to new arrivals for up to four years.

    But the big caveat is that it would be necessary to prove that services were under strain, and secure the approval of a majority of other EU states.

    It is rumoured that a French negotiator told his British counterpart that they were, “happy to give the British anything they wanted, so long as it was nothing of substance.” He must have had the emergency brake in mind when he said it.

    When you look at the figures, it is clear that even should the measure be introduced, the emergency brake will have no impact whatsoever.

    This is for two reasons.

    The first is that very few EU arrivals claim in-work benefits in their first four years.

    In the first year after arrival, only 10% of EU nationals claim tax credits. This number jumps to around 20% by the fourth year.

    Take up of Tax Credits by EU Nationals
    Thanks to: Michael O’Connor & Stronger In Numbers​

    This is because 50% of migrants from the continent are single and childless, with a further 25% not single but also childless. This means that 75% of EU migrants will only be eligible for very low levels of in-work benefits, if at all.

    By the time the referendum takes place, a single earner without children on the minimum wage will be entitled to less than £10 per month in tax credits.

    Not even with a very generous leap of imagination can anyone believe that the loss of this amount would dissuade people from coming to this country.

    The other problem with the brake is that the Government’s own policy to dramatically raise the minimum wage in the form of the national living wage will have the effect of abolishing in-work benefits.

    By 2020, when the living wage is due to be £9 per hour, and the personal tax allowance has risen further, in-work benefits will be minimal. And the minimum wage in this country will be an even greater multiple of the average wage of the poorest EU members.

    Average Wages in Eastern Europe and the UK Minimum Wage

    The Government has said that ‘no calculation has been done on how much the proposed brake will cut EU immigration’. This is hardly surprising given the number will be very close to zero.

    Then there is the matter of Parliamentary sovereignty.

    The primary reason that I believe Britain should vote for Brexit is not economic, it is political.

    It is so that the United Kingdom, the first great liberal democracy of the modern era, the fifth largest economy in the world, can recover control of her own destiny.

    The renegotiation does not call for any repatriation of powers. It offers no confirmation of Parliament’s sovereignty. All the Government has demanded is an exemption from ‘ever closer union’, and the Government’s proposed ‘red card’ system to block unwanted laws.

    Given the ‘ratchet’ nature of the European Union, the exemption from ‘ever closer union’ is not worth the paper it is written on. And the ‘red card’ proposal is worth even less.

    The ‘red card’ system only operates on draft laws, only works if there is a ‘subsidiarity’ argument, and needs the agreement 55% of EU Parliaments.

    This is the much the same as the old ‘yellow card’ system, that was also unworkable and which William Hague previously claimed is too difficult to satisfy.

    Just consider: a blocking minority in the European Council is 35%. If this 35% cannot be reached, then it is inconceivable that there will be simultaneous rebellions in 15 European Parliaments on the same issue.

    The red card is not, on any interpretation, a parliamentary veto. It returns no power to Parliament, does not help us protect our national interests and offers no protection from EU lawmakers.

    On the Government’s calls for greater competitiveness, there has not been a single year that has gone by without European council meetings concluding with rallying cries to cut regulation and increase competitiveness.

    Yet year after year the regulatory burden increases and Europe’s competitiveness declines. No specific regulations have been identified to be culled. No pro-competitive measures have been unveiled.

    There is no reason to think that President Tusk’s almost detail-less commitment to greater competitiveness will be any different to all the other commitments that have gone before.

    In summary, the Government’s renegotiation boils down to a few vague measures that either won’t have any effect, or will change so little as to not be worth the effort.

    The most common reaction from the press and the public seems to be, “is that it?”

    We have squandered our only opportunity to gain any meaningful reform for Europe.

    Given the disastrous direction of Europe, its 40 year long inexorable and irreversible trend to more centralisation, and the lack of meaningful change, in my view the safest option for Britain is to leave.

    It is not just that exit from Europe is nothing to fear. For Britain to remain as a member of the European Union would be to bind us to an institution that is creating a slew of unnecessary risks, would be to forgo control of our own destiny, and to give up on real opportunities to improve the lot of our people.

    Economic Consequences of Brexit

    So given that the safe course for Britain is to leave, it is vital to set out how we will leave, and what sort of relationship we can expect once we do.

    There are some who are nervous of laying out in detail how we see it playing out. I am not.

    This is the biggest question we will face in a generation. It is our democratic duty to make the consequences clear. The options are very good ones. And you cannot beat something with nothing, even if that something is membership of the creaking edifice that is the EU.

    In 2006 Professor Patrick Minford assessed that the net effect of the EU on costs and competitiveness was so detrimental that departure from it was likely to prove beneficial even if all the government managed to negotiate in Brexit was WTO terms of trade – ie. the minimum legally possible.

    At the time I thought that was an optimistic view of Brexit. However, that was before I took a hard look at the numbers.

    The starting point is to ask what benefits we derive from our membership of the EU, namely trade, investment and access to global markets.

    It has long been claimed that membership of the EU increases trade, and with it wealth and welfare, among its members.

    Well let us just assess how accurate that is.

    Now understanding and explaining movements in trade is difficult. They can be effected by bank crises, oil shocks, global disruptions like the collapse of the Soviet empire, new members joining the community, new competitors and so on. The best way to assess whether we got an advantage from entering Europe is to compare our export performance into Europe against that of a comparable group of similarly developed competitor countries who did not enter.

    This exercise has been done by Michael Burrage in an exercise for the Civitas think tank. He took the European export performance of the UK and measured it against the European export performance of a group consisting of America, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland.

    The three graphs below show this performance in three distinct periods. Before entry into the EU, then after entry in what you might think of as the Common Market period, and then in what might be termed the Single Market period.

    Given that the stated intent of the Single Market was to improve on the trading performance of the Common Market, you would expect our performance to get progressively better in each graph. The actual facts are illuminating. Red is the UK, black is the OECD group.
    Growth in Value of UK Exports 1960-1972
    Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

    Growth in Value of UK Exports 1973-1992
    Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas
    Growth in Value of UK Exports 1993-2011
    Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

    The first graph shows how, prior to our entry into the European Community, we actually performed worse than our non-EU OECD competitors, at least until we were about to enter when we had a sudden sprint.

    Then, as the second graph shows, once we were inside the Common Market, our trade with Europe performed better, as you would expect.

    The final graph is the most telling. In the Single Market period our exports grew if anything slower than our OECD competitors, despite our membership. During the Single Market period, despite all the costs incurred, the treaties signed, the regulations implemented, despite all the controversies of the European project, our performance in selling to Europe was worse than our competitors outside the EU.

    Why is this?

    There are two possible reasons. One is that the burden of the Single Market bureaucracy handicapped us against our competitors. This is almost certainly true to some extent, but the far bigger reason is that during the common market period there were high external tariff around Europe.

    Trade tariffs during the 1980’s and 1990’s were far higher than they are today, before they were reduced by the World Trade Organisation and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our success in the 80s and early 90s was the result of being inside a trade protectionist barrier, and little else. That is now largely gone, and with it we are now at a disadvantage to our global competitors.

    European Common External Tariff 1988-2013
    World Bank Data

    Foreign Direct Investment

    Another benefit that we have supposedly derived from our membership is increased foreign direct investment in our economy.

    It is certainly true that at the beginning of the Common Market period there was a spike in foreign investment in this country.

    However, since the barriers have come down we have received far less foreign investment than either Norway or Switzerland, both outside of the EU, even once we have accounted for their oil industry and financial services.

    Growth in FDI 1983-2012 compared with 3 independent countries
    Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

    So there seems to have been no discernible benefits to our trade or to foreign direct investment.

    The final supposed benefit of our membership is how the EU ‘increases our influence on the world stage’, and increases our ‘clout’, allowing us to secure more favourable trade terms across the world.

    Put to one side how our adding our ‘clout’ has not improved the EU’s dreadfully weak foreign policy.

    We can test out how well that ‘clout’ has served our interest if we look at the EU’s performance on trade agreements.

    When negotiating trade agreements with other countries, the EU has to balance the interests of the 28 different member states. This has had dire consequences for the UK.

    To start with trade agreements negotiated by the EU take a very long time to conclude. We still don’t have free trade agreements with China, India or the US. The talks with India have been ongoing for almost a decade.

    Our interests are not well represented in trade negotiations. The majority of free trade agreements that have been successfully negotiated by the EU are with North African or South American countries, with far more historical and cultural links to Mediterranean countries than to us.

    The only Commonwealth country to enjoy a free trade agreement with the EU so far is South Africa, and that has more to do with Nelson Mandela than the UK’s ‘clout’. Other than that the first will be Canada, which is just pending.

    This is all a function of how marginalised Britain’s interests are within the EU. It is no surprise than we have been outvoted in the Council more than twice as often as any other country.

    The consequence of this is that these trade deals are not tailored to our requirements.

    Much has been made of how hard it would be for a single country to negotiate successful trade deals on its own. But if we compare the EU’s trade deals to those that Switzerland have negotiated, with its small population and limited global influence, then we see something interesting.

    Free Trade Agreements

     

    Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

    Switzerland have seen an increase in growth rates in trade as a result of two thirds of their free trade agreements. The UK has only seen an increase in growth rates in trade from one third of the EU’s free trade deals.

    So little Switzerland, with its population of 8 million, is able to negotiate better trade deals for itself than the EU does on our behalf.

    Does anyone seriously believe that Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world, would not be able to negotiate by itself at least as successfully as Switzerland?

    Just as damning is that the majority of these trade agreements do not include services. Services account for over three quarters of all the UK’s economic activity. They have provided much of our economic growth in recent years, as well as most new employment.

    Our creative industries, our financial services and legal services are some of the best in the world. It seems certain that they would be included in any trade deal negotiated by the UK.

    So on trade, on investment, and on access to overseas markets the benefits we have supposedly derived from the EU are far less than commonly understood. They may well be negative.

    As I said, I was initially doubtful of Professor Minford’s assessment that we would be better off outside of the EU irrespective of the EU’s response. But he is very likely to be right.

    Those business groups such as Goldman Sachs and the CBI, who have warned of catastrophe should we leave, are likely to be wrong.

    It is not surprising that these business are making the argument to stay in.

    At the end of the day these businesses are arguing for their own, very narrow interest. Indeed, I think we should all raise an eyebrow at the tremendous concern that these companies are showing for our national welfare, given that at least six of Britain’s ten biggest multinationals pay no corporation tax at all.

    Nevertheless, we should pay attention to their concerns. They have huge sunk costs in distribution and supply networks, and worry about losing access to existing EU markets. And whilst they are not job creators or particularly good innovators, they still represent an important component of our economy.

    Employment by size of company 1998-2010
    Thanks to University of Aston

    These businesses can relax. There is no doubt that such access would continue in the event of British exit. No-one can reasonably say that the UK would cease to have access to European markets.

    The worst case scenario is that the UK would revert to trade on a World Trade Organisation basis, with tariffs imposed on our exports into the EU.
    WTO Trade Position

    WTO Trade Position
    Thanks to Open Europe

    Let us leave aside cars and food for the moment. Everything else has relatively small barriers, and these are almost certainly negotiable down to zero.

    If Europe wants to stick to trading on a WTO basis, they are very badly positioned to do so.

    Everyone knows that the balance of trade is in Europe’s favour.

    UK Trade Balance with EU and non-EU Countries 2000-2014
    ONS Data

    We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.

    To see our importance to Europe, you only need to walk down the street. More than a quarter of all cars sold in this country are Mercedes, BMWs, Audis or VWs. And those are just some of the German brands. We are Europe’s second largest, and fastest growing car market.

    This negotiation will primarily be about politics, and our European colleagues pre-eminently concerned about their national interest.

    We are too valuable a market for Europe to shut off. Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.

    And while they are at it they will be demanding that those British companies that they own will have uninterrupted access to Europe. We are talking Mini and Rolls Royce, owned by BMW, and Bentley, owned by Volkswagen. Premium brands with healthy demand across Europe.

    And this is not just German cars. The same will happen with Shell and Unilever in the Netherlands, EDF, EADS and the viticultural trade associations in France, Seat in Spain, and Fiat and the fashion designers in Italy.

    The pressure from European companies for a free trade deal between the UK and the remaining member of the European Union would be huge.

    We have far more to gain than we have to lose, while the opposite is true for the EU. People have spoken, wrongly, about 3.3 million British jobs being ‘linked’ to our membership of the EU. Well there are over 5 million jobs on the continent that are linked to trade with Britain.

    Trade and Jobs into UK
    Thanks to Daniel Hannan

    Access to our market is more important to Europe than our access to theirs.

    To put it bluntly, the most powerful country in Europe needs this negotiation to succeed to the tune of a million jobs, on cars alone. The second most powerful needs it to the tune of half a million jobs, on wine and cheese alone. The first few months may be hysterical, but the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, Italy Poland and the rest know that the way to lose elections is to destroy your own industries. That is a powerful advantage for us.

    And then there are the absolute benefits that Britain would gain. Our food imports would be cheaper outside of the common external tariff. We would be free to reduce our regulatory burden, making our businesses more competitive. We would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, opening up new markets.

    And then there is the City.

    The prevailing thought seems to be that the City would be damaged should we leave the EU. This is extremely unlikely, and it would be perfectly possible to negotiate proper protection for any significant areas at risk.

    There are two obvious examples where the City might gain.

    TTIP, the upcoming EU-US trade deal looks likely to exclude financial services, due to a tiff between American and French film makers, and American concerns about having to recognise .

    Any UK-US trade deal would not omit one of the UK’s most important sectors.

    And then is the Financial Transaction Tax. Within the EU we would face the circumstance where French bonds sold in the City would have to have the tax charged on them, and then remitted to the French Treasury.

    Outside the EU, the city would be free to work as before, such as trading in euro-denominated bonds, while ensuring that it is free of the threat of an FTT, as well as being free of all the other stifling European legislation.

    And any action taken against an independent City would de facto be also against New York and Hong Kong, which would be too stupid for words.

    In total, it is easy to see Britain could be better off out, even on such terms. And this is the very worst case scenario.

    Some people have suggested that we should look to Norway, or to Switzerland, to see what terms we can expect once we have left.

    The idea that we have to fit our future into some Procrustean bed created for far smaller countries is nonsense.

    Key Negotiation Aims

    The conventional options are laid out in the table, with a reminder of what they involve. We do not need to disappear into the details – always a problem with discussions on Europe – but let me outline what we should take from them.

    The first one, EEA membership, often called the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.

    Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have to accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not!

    Nevertheless, as it stands this model would not work for us. To make it viable it would need an arbitration court (not the ECJ), a dispute resolution procedure, and a number of other institutional changes. It would be possible to design and even negotiate such a structure, but it would take much more than 2 years.

    The Swiss option, EFTA membership plus a host of bilateral treaties, is the best starting place and is informative in many ways.

    It is not perfect for us however. It incorporates ‘free movement of people’ for the moment, although there is a clash coming on that, after a Swiss referendum was carried in favour of applying an emergency brake – a real one this time!

    However, understand the comparative negotiating position.

    Switzerland is a small country surrounded by the EU. Its trade is absolutely dominated by the EU – over 62% of its exports go to Europe. It runs a large trade surplus, and it is not big enough to be a critical market for any EU nation.

    The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.

    The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.

    If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.

    It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.

    This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.

    At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.

    Trade Targets

    If you read as many assessments of Brexit as I have, you can easily come to the conclusion that each side of the argument tends to get exaggerated. I am certain that the catastrophic predictions of the Europhiles are simply nonsense. That is why Toyota, Nissan, Airbus, even BMW, Opel and Volkswagen have now said that Brexit will not hinder their investments in Britain, sometimes in reversal of previous positions.

    On the pro Brexit side, too, there are a range of estimates from modestly to dramatically better off. The difference here depends most upon exactly what we choose to do with the country and its new found freedoms. The greatest improvements will come if we grasp the opportunities for free trade with both hands.

    That means immediately seeking Free Trade Agreements with the biggest prospective markets as fast as possible. There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years. We can pick up the almost complete agreement between the EU and Canada, and if anything liberalise it. We can accelerate our component of the TTIP deal with the USA, and include financial services.

    Trade Targets

     

    Diverting our current contributions to the EU will help to smooth the transition period following the referendum.

    The most effective policy would be to continue, in the short term, all of the EU’s current spending within the UK.

    This means continuing to support agriculture, separate from the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as continuing research grants and regional funding.

    But this would not come near to accounting for our total contributions – around £18 billion gross and £9 billion net.

    We should find a way of improving the global trade performance of our economy. The companies that find it hard to export are the small and medium ones, for obvious reasons. They do not have the huge international sales and transport departments of the biggest companies.

    We could afford to fund a new Board of Trade, dedicated to helping British businesses create new links to countries with which we achieve trade deals.

    The funding would be available to set up an office in every major commercial centre and capital, completely separate from the Foreign Office, staffed with experts who know the language, the customs and the regulations and are on hand to help British businesses develop links in the country.

    Imagine an 0800 number and an email address where a small manufacturer in Lancashire can call Shanghai or Mumbai or Sao Paolo, and find out in English how to negotiate the import regulations, find a freight forwarder, hire a warehouse, translate a brochure, the simple things that stop too many small businesses from operating abroad. They may be small companies, but this is not small beer: I am talking a billion pound project here.

    We must see Brexit as a great opportunity to refocus our economy on global, rather the regional, trade. This is an opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.

    These parts of the world are growing faster than Europe. We share history, culture and language. We have family ties. We even share similar legal systems. The usual barriers to trade are largely absent.

    The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that we are a trading nation with global horizons. This is undoubtedly true. So it is time we unshackled ourselves, and began to focus policy on trading with the wider world, rather than just within Europe.

    We would also have the opportunity to reform our economy, pushing through the changes necessary to create a dynamic, modern economy. Competitive tax rates, a competitive labour market, and effective, rather than burdensome, regulation. After Brexit we can put all that right without asking Brussel’s permission.

    The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history. A history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction.

    Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.

    Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny. Portugal from Caetano. Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels. And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.

    Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being. It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.

    But this history is not our history. Britain has its own proud tradition of fighting tyranny, of protecting liberty and democracy both at home and abroad.

    For us, Europe has always been about trade. For the continent, it is about so much more. This does not mean either side is wrong. But the European Project is not right for us. The Global Project is.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement in Copenhagen

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Copenhagen on 5 February 2016.

    Thank you very much Lars, it’s very good to be here in Copenhagen today with you. We have a very good relationship, a very good friendship.

    Our discussions have focussed on 3 issues: on our bilateral relations, on EU reform, and on the migration crisis.

    And I just want to say a few words on each.

    Bilateral relationship

    Our bilateral relationship is particularly close. We are firm NATO allies – indeed HMS Ramsey is taking part in a NATO exercise here right now.

    We also co-operate closely on counter-terrorism and in the fight against Daesh.

    And I saw for myself the bravery of Danish soldiers as our 2 countries served alongside each other in very close quarters in Afghanistan.

    Trade in both directions between our 2 countries is worth £6 billion a year. And over 600,000 Brits visit Denmark annually.

    We work very closely together in the EU. And again, as you’ve just heard with a similar outlook. We share a lot in common. Proud nations. But outward-looking.

    EU reform

    On EU reform, as you know, I’m working hard to secure reform in 4 areas – economic governance, sovereignty, competitiveness and welfare.

    And on welfare, let me explain why the British people have concerns and what I’m trying to fix.

    I support the principle of free movement and I greatly value the contribution that many make when they come to Britain.

    But the challenge we’ve identified is the scale of movement we’ve seen from across Europe to Britain over the last decade and the pressure that has put on public services.

    Now these are problems that we can share.

    For example, I know as we’ve just heard that in Denmark you have concerns about paying child benefit for children not living here.

    And that’s why the reforms I’m seeking can benefit other countries too.

    I’ve now secured a commitment from the commission to address this.

    So the text the Council has put forward shows real progress in all 4 areas, including on protecting the legitimate interests of non-euro member states, which of course is so important to Denmark too.

    Now as Lars has just said, this deal must be legally binding. The Danish model – negotiated in 1992 – has set a powerful precedent for that. As the Prime Minister has just said, over 20 years later, it still stands.

    But as I’ve said, there is still important detail to be nailed down if we’re to get a deal in February.

    And that’s why the hard work continues.

    Migration crisis

    We’ve also discussed the Syria donors conference that I hosted yesterday with others in London.

    And I want to thank your Prime Minister and the Danish people for the very generous pledge that you made.

    I’m proud to say we brought together world leaders, we raised records funds and identified crucial long-term assistance through the creation of jobs and crucially the provision of school places for refugee children.

    This will give those in desperate need real hope for the future. But this should only be the beginning.

    The more we do to create the opportunity for people to stay in the region, the less likely we are to see them making the treacherous journey to Europe. A journey that has sadly resulted in so many deaths.

    So we’ve had good discussions here today and I want to thank you Lars again for giving me such a warm welcome.