Tag: Speeches

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street, London on 13 November 2015.

Good morning. Last night, the United States carried out an air strike in Raqqa, Syria, targeting Mohammed Emwazi – the ISIL executioner known as Jihadi John.

We cannot yet be certain if the strike was successful.

But let me be clear. I have always said that we would do whatever was necessary, whatever it took, to track down Emwazi and stop him taking the lives of others.

We have been working, with the United States, literally around the clock to track him down. This was a combined effort. And the contribution of both our countries was essential.

Emwazi is a barbaric murderer. He was shown in those sickening videos of the beheadings of British aid workers. He posed an ongoing and serious threat to innocent civilians not only in Syria, but around the world, and in the United Kingdom too.

He was ISIL’s lead executioner, and let us never forget that he killed many, many, Muslims too. And he was intent on murdering many more people.

So this was an act of self-defence. It was the right thing to do.

Today I want to thank the United States: the United Kingdom has no better friend or ally.

And I want to pay tribute to all those professionals in our own security and intelligence agencies and armed forces for the extraordinary work they do on behalf of our country. On this, as so often, they’ve been working hand in glove with their American colleagues. We are proud of them.

If this strike was successful, and we still await confirmation of that, it will be a strike at the heart of ISIL. And it will demonstrate to those who would do Britain, our people and our allies harm: we have a long reach, we have unwavering determination and we never forget about our citizens.

The threat ISIL pose continues. Britain and her allies will not rest until we have defeated this evil terrorist death cult, and the poisonous ideology on which it feeds.

Today though, my thoughts, and the thoughts of our country, are with the families of those who were so brutally murdered.

Japanese citizens Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa, American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley and aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig.

And of course our own citizens. Aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning. Nothing will bring back David and Alan. Their courage and selflessness stand in stark contrast to the empty callousness of their murderers.

Their families and their friends should be proud of them, as we are. They were the best of British and they will be remembered long after the murderers of ISIL are forgotten.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet Speech held at the Guildhall in London on 16 November 2015.

Introduction

My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, My Lord Chancellor, My Lord President of the Council, Lord Speaker, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Chief Commoner, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We meet today in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in Europe for a decade.

The thoughts and prayers of this hall – and our whole country – are with the friends and families of all those affected – including the British victims.

These were innocent people going about their lives enjoying a Friday night out brutally gunned down by callous murderers.

Murderers who thought that their acts of depravity could somehow destroy everything we stand for.

They could not have been more wrong.

Britain, France and our allies around the world will never be cowed by terrorism.

We will only redouble our resolve to defeat it.

Tonight I want to talk about how.

But before I turn to the specific terrorist threat, let me first say a word about our wider approach to Britain’s national security.

Because at the heart of the National Security Strategy that we are publishing next week are some key choices which provide the foundations from which we can defeat this terrorist scourge.

Economic security

The first choice is about ensuring our economic security.

As I argued at this dinner last year, economic security and our national security go hand-in-hand.

You cannot have one without the other.

It is only because we have a strong economy that we can afford the resources to invest in our national security.

It is only because we have halved the deficit and made our economy the fastest growing in the G7 last year that we can maintain the second best funded armed forces in all of NATO – and together with France, the most capable and globally deployable in Europe.

So we will continue to see through our long-term economic plan and take the difficult decisions to deal with our deficit.

Hard power

Second, we are using our economic strength to invest in hard military power.

As I will explain later, whatever others might wish were the case, the reality is that there are times when you do need to be able to deploy military force.

And if you don’t have it, you can’t deploy it.

So in a difficult spending review where resources are tight, we are choosing to spend 2% of our GDP on defence every year for the rest of the decade.

With a growing economy this means a rising defence budget – with more money every year.

But it’s not just about the amount of money we spend or the size of our forces, it’s also about our ability to deploy them quickly with the right equipment to get things done.

We have seen how vital drones are in the fight against ISIL so with this extra money we are doubling our fleet of drones.

We know we need the ability to carry out airstrikes so this money will provide for more fighter aircraft.

We want to increase the capabilities of our brilliant special forces.

So there will be a £2 billion programme of new investments over this Parliament.

We will maintain our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

And we will also invest in a new generation of cyber defences to block and disrupt attacks before they can harm our United Kingdom.

All these measures – and more – come from the choice that we make to spend on our security to deal head-on with the wide range of threats that we face today.

Aid

But keeping our people safe in the modern world means tackling the causes of the threats we face – not just dealing with their consequences.

So the third key choice that we make is to keep our promises to the poorest in the world by spending 0.7% of our Gross National Income on aid.

I have made the argument many times before that this is the right thing to do morally and I’ve made the argument that it’s in our national interest.

But tonight I want to make a slightly different point tonight.

Our aid budget makes us the fastest in the world to react.

At the migration summit in Valetta last week, as other countries were struggling to work out their contribution to the international effort to stop this lethal trade in human beings across the world, I was able to say very quickly what we would spend, where the money would come from, what we’d do.

We don’t need to spend time deliberating wondering whether we can afford to help or not, we can focus immediately on what we can do that will help the most.

So when a typhoon hits the Philippines – British sailors were among the first to arrive.

And with Ebola in Africa, I knew we could afford to act – and act comprehensively and it was the rapid contribution of British forces, humanitarian workers and medical staff who helped to make Sierra Leone Ebola-free last week and prevent the spread of this dreadful disease around the world.

This ability to respond swiftly, flexibly, generously means that we have a big impact on the way the world responds to crises.

And we are going to enhance that capability by refocusing our aid spending so we will target at least half of the Department for International Development’s budget on stabilising and supporting broken and fragile states, and do so much more to help refugees closer to their homes.

This will make our aid spending an even more fundamental part of our strategy to keep our country safe.

And it will help to maintain Britain’s position as number one in the world for soft power.

And yes, it may be called soft power but whether it’s saving the lives of refugees by stopping them from having to make that terrible journey across the Mediterranean, helping the Lebanese build defences against ISIL, or helping countries establish the building blocks of democracy and justice and the rule of law, I can tell you that soft power packs a real punch.

Building alliances

The fourth key choice we have made in taking a comprehensive approach to our security – is to engage with countries around the world even when there are difficult issues to address.

Some people said I shouldn’t have invited the leaders of India, China and Egypt to Britain in recent weeks.

Others concluded that it’s a sort of zero sum game, with the drawbacks of engagement being balanced out exactly by the benefits to our trade.

Frankly, I disagree with both of those views.

It is not just about trade – important as that is.

It’s about influence.

It’s about using our world class diplomatic network to build relationships that mean you can work together to solve shared problems and have the ability to express concerns where you need to.

Think about the consequences of not engaging.

Is anyone really saying that I shouldn’t talk to the Egyptians on the day after an airliner is blown up in their country and when it is Britain’s national interest that we support their airport security and get our own people safely home?

The people who wanted me to raise the dumping of cheap steel with the Chinese are also often the same people who say I shouldn’t meet the Chinese in the first place.

Well, I can’t raise the issue if I’m not talking to them, just as we can’t influence their rise in the world if we’re not willing to engage.

The bottom line is this.

Yes, it is a strategic choice to engage with countries where we have concerns.

But my view is this.

You can’t conduct foreign policy by press releases and pious statements in Parliament.

You have to engage and build the alliances that can make a difference.

A deeper partnership means a deeper conversation and a greater ability to address the issues that might concern us.

So the National Security Strategy that we are publishing next week will give Britain the resources it needs to increase both its hard and soft power and build the relationships that can project and enhance our influence in the world.

And it’s against this background that I want to turn specifically to the terrorist threat that we face.

Full spectrum

The more we learn about what happened in Paris the more it justifies the approach that we are taking in Britain.

When you are dealing with radicalised European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, you need an approach that covers the full spectrum – military power, counter-terrorism expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil.

Let me take each in turn.

Military power

We have to be realistic and hard-headed about the threats we face: confronting this murderous violence requires a strong security response.

Those who say we should have somehow arrested ‘Jihadi John’, don’t get the reality of the world we are in.

The same is true of Junaid Hussain or Reyaad Khan.

There is no government we can work with in Syria, let alone that part of Syria.

There are no rigorous police investigations or independent courts upholding justice in Raqqa.

We have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots.

And there was nothing to suggest that any of these people would ever leave Syria or stop planning to murder British and American citizens.

In that situation, you do not protect people by sitting around and wishing for another world.

You have to act in this world.

And that means being prepared to use military force where necessary.

Counter-terrorism

Turning to counter-terrorism, our security services have foiled no fewer than 7 different terrorist plots right here in Britain over the past year alone.

We should all be extraordinarily grateful for the work they have done in thwarting these attacks and keeping us safe.

But we need to do more to ensure our agencies have the resources and the information they need to prevent and disrupt plots against this country at every stage.

So in next week’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, we will make a major additional investment in our world class intelligence agencies.

This will include over 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff and more money to increase our network of counter-terrorism experts in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

We will also more than double our spending on aviation security around the world with more experts overseas working side by side with host nations in the most vulnerable locations.

We also need to do more to make sure the powers we give our security services keep pace with changes in technology.

So we have published a draft Bill that will ensure that GCHQ, MI5 and our counter-terrorism police continue to have the powers to follow terrorist movements by tracking their online communications to intercept those communications under a warrant and to obtain data from computers used by terrorists and paedophiles.

Now of course there will be those who criticise these measures as an infringement of civil rights.

But I disagree.

They are about protecting those liberties from terrorists who want to take them away.

Furthermore, these are powers that have been used in every major recent counter terrorism investigation by MI5 and the police.

And they have played an important part in thwarting many attacks from a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange in 2010 to a sickening attempt to imitate the killers of Lee Rigby by murdering a soldier with a knife and a hammer in August last year.

Our legislation will get the balance right – with powers matched by strong safeguards and judicial oversight to make us world leaders on transparency and accountability.

Defeating the ideology

But military power and counter-terrorism expertise will only get us so far.

To defeat this terrorist threat in the long term – we must also understand and address its root cause.

There is far too much confusion about this.

Some say it’s wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers but this overlooks that ISIL, al-Qa’ida and Boko Haram murder Muslims in huge numbers.

Some say it’s because of the Iraq War but that overlooks that 9/11 – the biggest loss of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.

Some say it’s because of poverty and deprivation but that overlooks that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western education.

I am not saying that these issues aren’t important.

But we could deal with all of them and some people would still be drawn to extremism.

The root cause of this threat is the poisonous ideology of extremism itself.

This ideology, this diseased view of the world, has become an epidemic – infecting minds from the mosques of Mogadishu to the bedrooms of Birmingham.

And we have to stop it at the start – stop this seed of hatred even being planted in people’s minds, let alone allowing it to grow.

That means confronting the ideology with our own liberal values, exposing this extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

It means tackling both the violent and the non-violent extremism in all its forms because unwittingly or not those who promote extremist views – even if nonviolent themselves – are providing succour to those who want to commit or get others to commit violence.

It means improving integration – by moving away from segregation in our schools and communities and inspecting and shutting down any educational institutions that are teaching intolerance.

And it means actively encouraging reforming and moderate Muslim voices to speak up and challenge the extremists.

And this final point is vital.

Of course, this extremist ideology is not true Islam. That cannot be said clearly enough.

But it is not good enough to say simply that Islam is a religion of peace and then to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists. Why? Because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.

From Tunisia to the streets of Paris, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative that claims to be based on a particular faith.

To deny that is to disempower the critical reforming voices that want to challenge the scriptural basis on which extremists claim to be acting – the voices that are crucial in providing an alternative worldview that could stop a teenager’s slide along the spectrum of extremism.

We can’t stand neutral in this battle of ideas.

We have to back those who share our values – with practical help, with funding, campaigns, protection and political representation.

This is a central part of how we can defeat this terrorism in the long term.

And it is a battle of ideas that we must win – not just here at home – but together with our allies all around the world.

This will be a huge challenge.

But in Britain we have the soft power – the influence, the educational expertise and the alliances with other countries – to win this battle and defeat the causes of hatred and intolerance that threaten our security and the security of our allies across the world.

Conclusion

Lord Mayor, here in this great Guildhall is a copy of the Magna Carta signed just months before the first Lord Mayor’s Show 800 years ago and enshrining in this land the principles of liberty, justice and the rule of law.

As this Hall stood open to the sky after the bombings of London in the heat of the Second World War it was Winston Churchill who addressed this Banquet as it temporarily moved to Mansion House.

He spoke of the resolve of this ancient City of London and our determination that however long and hard the toil may be the British nation would never enter into negotiations with Hitler.

It is that historic British resolve that we celebrate here again tonight.

And it is that same resolve that will defeat this terrorism and ensure that the values we believe in – and the values we defend – will again in the end prevail.

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, London, on 5 January 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the European Council meeting which took place before Christmas.

The Council focused on 3 issues – migration, terrorism and the UK’s renegotiation.

I’ll take each in turn.

Migration

First, on migration, even in winter there are still many migrants coming to Europe, with over 3,000 arriving via the eastern Mediterranean route each day.

Now of course, Britain is not part of the Schengen open border arrangements and we’re not going to be joining.

We have our own border controls and our border controls apply to everyone attempting to enter the UK and every day those border controls help to keep us safe.

Let me repeat: these controls apply to all – including EU citizens and we have stopped nearly 95,000 people at our borders since 2010, including almost 6,000 EU nationals.

These people were not allowed to come in. What Schengen countries are now trying trying to put in place are a pale imitation of what we already have.

What they do is, of course, a matter for them. But it is in our interests to help our European partners secure their external borders.

So we have provided more technical expertise to the European Asylum Support Office than any other European country including practical assistance to help with registering and fingerprinting of migrants when they arrive in countries like Greece and Italy.

We have also focused on the root causes – not just the consequences – of the migration crisis.

That is why we continue to play a leading role in the efforts of the International Syria Support Group to end the conflict in Syria through a political process and that’s why we have backed the agreement reached in Morocco which should pave the way for a new united, national government in Libya.

We have deployed HMS Enterprise in the Mediterranean to go after the people traffickers. We have provided £1.12 billion in humanitarian assistance for the Syrian conflict – by far the largest commitment of any European country, and second only to America.

Find out about Syria refugees: UK government response
And the donor conference that I am hosting next month together with Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the United Nations will help further, raising significant new funding to help refugees in the region this year.

Mr Speaker, the Council focused on implementing the previously agreed measures on refugee resettlement.

In Britain, we said that we would resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees during this Parliament, taking them directly from the camps.

And I can tell the House that – exactly as promised – over 1,000 Syrian refugees from camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon were resettled here in time for Christmas. These people are now in homes, their children are starting this new year in our schools and they can look forward to building a new life here in Britain.

I know many in this House have called for us to take more refugees, or take part in EU relocation and resettlement schemes.

The reality is that we have already done significantly more than most of our EU partners in this regard.

Indeed the House might be interested to hear the figures. By the time of the December Council, only 208 refugees had been relocated within the EU – that was out of the 160,000 agreed. And in all other member states put together, according to the most recent statistics, just 483 refugees had been resettled from outside the EU under the EU’s voluntary resettlement scheme.

The point is clear: we’ve said what we would do – and got on and done it.

Terrorism

Turning to terrorism, the latest appalling video from Daesh is a reminder of their brutality and barbarism. It is desperate stuff from an organisation that hates us not for what we do, but for what we are – a democratic multi-faith, multi-ethnic nation built on tolerance, democracy and respect for human rights.

Mr Speaker, Britain will never be cowed by terror. We will stand up and defend our values and our way of life. And with patience and persistence we will defeat these extremists and eradicate this evil organisation.

Mr Speaker, I am sure the whole House will want to join with me in paying tribute to the British servicemen and women who have spent this Christmas and New Year away from their families.

In the last month RAF aircraft have conducted 82 strikes in Iraq and Syria. In recent weeks the priority of the international coalition has been supporting the Iraqi Security Forces’ successful recapture of Ramadi, to which our air strikes made an important contribution. They have also helped Kurdish forces repel major Daesh counter-attacks in northern Iraq.

In Syria, there have been 11 RAF strike missions, 10 against Daesh controlled oil infrastructure and 1 against Daesh terrorists near Raqqah. And we continue to fly intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, providing vital support to our other coalition partners.

In terms of the discussion at the Council, we now have a clear agreement on new rules to share passenger name records. This is a vital breakthrough but we still need to go further.

So the Council agreed to take forward urgent proposals on more systematic data-sharing on stepping up our co-operation on aviation security and on working together to do even more to starve Daesh of money and resources – choking off the oil and clamping down on firearms and explosives, to stop them getting into the hands of terrorists.

We also agreed to do more across Europe to counter the extremist propaganda and the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that is the root cause of the terrorism we face.

The Daesh threat is a threat to us all – and we must stand together to defeat it.

UK renegotiation

Mr Speaker, turning to the UK renegotiation, I have set out the 4 areas where Britain is seeking significant and far-reaching reforms.

On sovereignty and subsidiarity, where Britain must not be part of an ‘ever closer union’ and where we want a greater role for national Parliaments.

On competitiveness, where the EU must add to our competitiveness, rather than detract from it, by signing new trade deals, cutting regulation and completing the single market.

On fairness for countries inside and outside the eurozone, where the EU must protect the integrity of the single market and ensure there is no disadvantage, discrimination or additional costs for a country like Britain – which is not in the euro and which is never, in my view, going to join the euro.

And on migration, where we need to tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and deliver changes that ensure that our welfare system is not an artificial draw for people to come to Britain.

Mr Speaker, this is the first time a country has tried to renegotiate its membership of the EU from a standing start.

Many doubted it was even possible.

But at this Council we had an entire session focused on this issue, lasting several hours, and with almost every European leader contributing.

I am happy to go into detail on what was an extensive discussion.

But the key points were these.

There was strong support for Britain to stay in the EU. European leaders began their remarks not by saying Britain is better off in Europe, but that Europe would be better off with Britain staying in it. And all wanted to reach an agreement that would address the concerns we have raised.

There was extensive discussion on all 4 areas. Difficulties were raised with all 4. And the most difficult issues were around free movement and welfare. But there was a great deal of goodwill.

And at the end of the discussion the Council agreed – and I quote directly from the conclusions – that we would “work closely together to find mutually satisfactory solutions in all the 4 areas”.

I think it is significant that the conclusions talk about solutions – not compromises.

And I made clear that these solutions would require changes that are legally binding and irreversible.

So Mr Speaker, while each of these areas will require hard work, I believe there is now a pathway to an agreement.

Later this week I am continuing my efforts to secure that agreement with further discussions in Germany and Hungary.

And I hope we can reach a full agreement when the Council meets again next month.

But what matters is getting the substance right, not the speed of the deal.

If we can see this through and secure these changes, we will succeed in fundamentally changing the UK’s relationship with the EU and finally addressing the concerns that the British people have over our membership.

And if we can’t, then as I have said before I rule nothing out.

My intention is that at the conclusion of the renegotiation, the government should reach a clear recommendation and then the referendum will be held.

It is the nature of a referendum that it is the people not the politicians who decide.

And as indicated before Christmas, there will be a clear government position, but it will be open to individual ministers to take a different personal position while remaining part of the government.

Ultimately it will be for the British people to decide this country’s future by voting in or out of a reformed European Union in the referendum that only we promised and that only a Conservative majority government was able to deliver.

And I commend this statement to the House.