UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Tony Blair

  • Tony Blair – 1997 Speech at the Royal Ulster Agricultural Show

    Tony Blair – 1997 Speech at the Royal Ulster Agricultural Show

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 16 May 1997.

    It is no accident that this is my first official visit outside London. I said before the election that Northern Ireland was every bit as important for me as for my predecessor. I will honour that pledge in full.

    In his more than six years as Prime Minister, John Major came to Northern Ireland many times and talked to countless people. I know the respect in which he was held here. After only a few days as Prime Minister, I also begin to appreciate fully the scale of his effort and of his devotion to peace and a political settlement. We offered him bi-partisan support in doing so, because it was the right thing to do. But if there is a new opportunity for progress now, it is in large part thanks to him.

    People often ask me if I am exhilarated by our election victory. Of course I am excited by it. But most of all I feel the most profound humility at the trust put in me; and with it, an equally profound sense of responsibility. I feel it, perhaps especially, about Northern Ireland. This is not a party political game or even a serious debate about serious run-of-the-mill issues. It is about life and death for people here. An end to violence and there are people, young men and women particularly, who will live and raise families and die in peace. Without it, they will die prematurely and in bloodshed.

    It is a responsibility that weights not just upon the mind, but the soul.

    We know the situation here is fragile and fraught. There may be only one chance given to a new government to offer a way forward. Our very newness gives possibilities. But governments are not new forever. There are times when to calculate the risks too greatly is to do nothing; there are times too when a political leader must follow his instinct about what is right and fair.

    Our destination is clear: to see in place a fair political settlement in Northern Ireland – one that lasts, because it is based on the will and consent of the people here.

    It is a long march, and every footstep has its pitfalls. But where there is not movement, hope falters and we are left surrounded by the ancient grievances returning to destroy us.

    I am convinced that the time is right finally to put the past behind us and meet the deep thirst of the people of Northern Ireland for peace, normality and prosperity.

    My message is simple. I am committed to Northern Ireland. I am committed to the principle of consent. And I am committed to peace. A settlement is to be negotiated between the parties based on consent. My agenda is not a united Ireland – and I wonder just how many see it as a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as a majority here wish.

    What I want to see is a settlement which can command the support of nationalists and unionists. That is what the people of Northern Ireland rightly demand of me and of their political leaders.

    We should not forget there has been progress. Fair employment legislation and equality of opportunity have improved the lives of ordinary people. More change must come. But Northern Ireland in 1997 is not the same place as it was in 1969.

    The benefits of economic growth and investment have also begun to make themselves felt. During the last ten years, unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly. Though Northern Ireland still lags behind the rest of the UK in many ways, again the situation is better than for years.

    The quality of life has also improved immeasurably since the 1970s, particularly in the period after the IRA ceasefire of August 1994. The opening of the Waterfront Hall earlier this year symbolised a new determination to get on with living life as it should be.

    The prospects for Northern Ireland are excellent if we can get the politics right. If. I concede it is a big if.
    But confidence about the future is heavily masked by continuing divisions, and by feelings of great insecurity in both communities. People on each side fear for their identity. They still react instinctively, and retreat into the comforting certainties of tradition. We saw this in full measure after the dreadful and depressing events of Drumcree last year. Many have been tempted to conclude that the gulfs cannot be bridged, that one side or the other does not really want a settlement, or at least is not ready to make the compromises necessary to achieve one.

    It is a counsel of despair and I am not prepared to accept it. I believe the forces pushing us all towards a settlement are stronger than those that stand in our way. I aim to harness those forces more effectively than in the past. And I want to assure both communities that they have nothing to fear from a settlement and everything to gain.

    The Union

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, alongside England, Scotland and Wales.

    The Union binds the four parts of the United Kingdom together. I believe in the United Kingdom. I value the Union.
    I want to see a Union which reflects and accommodates diversity. I am against a rigid, centralised approach. That is the surest way to weaken the Union. The proposals this government are making for Scotland and Wales, and for the English regions, are designed to bring Government closer to the people. That will renew and strengthen the Union.
    I support this approach for Northern Ireland too, with some form of devolution and cross-border arrangements which acknowledge the importance of relationships in the island of Ireland. This is what the negotiations are about. We must of course devise arrangements which match the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Domination by one tradition or another is unacceptable.

    But let me make one thing absolutely clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because that is the wish of a majority of the people who live here. It will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that remains the case. This principle of consent is and will be at the heart of my Government’s policies on Northern Ireland. It is the key principle.

    It means that there can be no possibility of a change in the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom without the clear and formal consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Any settlement must be negotiated not imposed; it must be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and it must be endorsed by the British Parliament.

    Of course, those who wish to see a united Ireland without coercion can argue for it not least in the talks. If they succeeded, we would certainly respect that. But none of us in this hall today, even the youngest, is likely to see Northern Ireland as anything but a part of the United Kingdom. That is the reality, because the consent principle is now almost universally accepted.

    All he constitutional parties, including the SDLP, are committed to it, which means a majority of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland is committed to it. The parties in the Irish Republic are committed to it. The one glaring exception is Sinn Fein and the republican movement. They too, I hope, will soon come to accept that vital principle.

    So fears of betrayal are simply misplaced. Unionists have nothing to fear from a new Labour government. A political settlement is not a slippery slope to a united Ireland. The government will not be persuaders for unity. Unionism should have more confidence in itself and its future. The wagons do not need to be drawn up in a circle. Instead, we offer reassurance and new hope that a settlement satisfactory to all can be reached.

    A Political Settlement

    This government is fully committed to the approach set out in the Downing Street Declaration. I believe the Joint Framework Document sets out a reasonable basis for future negotiation. We must create, through open discussion, new institutions which fairly represent the interests and aspirations of both communities.

    The challenge, simply put, is to arrive at an agreement with which all the people of Northern Ireland can feel comfortable, and to which they can all give lasting allegiance; one which reflects and celebrates diversity and the traditions and cultures of both communities; which can provide the opportunity for local politicians of both sides to take local decisions as they should.

    This is achievable. I know it is. And it can be combined with sensible arrangements for co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, practical and institutional, which will be significant not only on the ground, but also politically for the nationalist community.

    If such arrangements were really threatening to Unionists, we would not negotiate them. Any fears would of course be much reduced if the Irish Constitution were changed to reflect their Governments strong support for the consent principle. That must be part of a settlement, and would be a helpful confidence-building step in advance of it.

    Nor should nationalists fear for their future. Agreement to any settlement must be clear on both sides. There can be no question of their views being ridden over rough-shod. Their involvement must be complete and full-hearted.
    The British and Irish Governments have worked together in the past to make progress. This is a key relationship. I have every confidence we can work together closely in the future, whatever the result of the Irish elections.

    Democracy and Violence

    These political issues should be addressed in the talks which are due to resume in just over two weeks. Many will share my deep frustration that they have not already been addressed. Discussion has not progressed beyond questions of procedure and participation. The parties have been unable to agree on a way of dealing with decommissioning. We continue to support the parallel approach proposed by George Mitchell. But why has decommissioning been so difficult to tackle successfully?

    The truth is that there is no confidence on either side about the motives and intentions of the other. The procedural problems are a product of this deep distrust. Each part often seems utterly convinced of the duplicity of all the others. What gives these suspicions their uniquely corrosive character, on both sides, is the current prominence of violence in the equation.

    Violence has no place in a democratic society, whatever the motivation of those practising it. Terrorism, republican or so-called loyalist, is contemptible and unacceptable.

    The people here have stood up to terrorist violence for 25 years. They have not been destroyed by it. But the legacy of bitterness has made normal political give and take difficult, at times virtually impossible.

    In Britain too we have had our share of terrorist violence from the IRA.

    But what struck me about their attempts to disrupt the elections above all was the pathetic futility of these actions, real or hoax. These words are perhaps not new. But they more than ever accurately describe current terrorism in Northern Ireland: not just abhorrent, but pathetic and futile.

    What today is the aim of IRA violence:

    – Is it a united Ireland? Violence will not bring a united Ireland closer, because now all the parties in Northern Ireland, save Sinn Fein, and the parties in the Republic of Ireland agree consent is the basic principle.

    – Is it to defend the nationalist community? It is hard to see, to put it no higher, how killing people and damaging the Province’s economy and local services helps the nationalist community from any point of view.

    – Is it to force a way into talks? This is manifestly absurd, since the only obstacle to Sinn Fein joining the talks is the absence of a credible and lasting halt to the violence,

    – Do the hope a loyalist backlash or a security crackdown would justify their violence and lead to communal trouble where republican aims might have more chance of flourishing? Such an approach would be the height of cynicism. I hope the Loyalists will not fall for it. The Government certainly won’t.

    Any shred of justification terrorists might have claimed for violence has long since disappeared.

    Not only does this violence achieve nothing. There is nothing it can achieve, save death, destruction and the corruption of more young lives. Progress can only be made through genuine negotiation and agreement. Violence makes both more difficult and more distant.

    Since last June we have had multi-party talks in being – talks which Sinn Fein above all others pressed for, where all parties are treated equally, with a comprehensive agenda, and no predetermined outcome. But the IRA broke their ceasefire just at the point when the conditions for getting everyone round a table were coming together. That violence automatically excluded Sinn Fein from the talks.

    They could still have joined on 10 June by declaring a ceasefire. They did not do so. They have continued to miss every opportunity since then.

    I want the talks process to include Sinn Fein. The opportunity is still there to be taken, if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. Works and deeds must match, and there must be no doubt of commitment to peaceful methods and the democratic process.

    I want the talks to take place in a climate of peace. If there is an opportunity to bring this about, I am ready to seize it. This Government will respond quickly to genuine moves to achieve peace.

    But we will be correspondingly tough on those who will not make this move. The IRA and Sinn Fein face a choice between negotiations and violence. Violence is the failed path of the past. I urge them to choose negotiations, once and for all.

    If they do not, the talks cannot wait for them but must and will move on. And meanwhile the police and armed forces will continue to bring their full weight to bear on the men of violence.

    I am ready to make one further effort to proceed with the inclusive talks process. My message to Sinn Fein is clear. The settlement train is leaving. I want you on that train. But it is leaving anyway, and I will not allow it to wait for you. You cannot hold the process to ransom any longer. So end the violence. Now.

    I want to hear Sinn Fein’s answer. And to make sure there is no danger of misunderstanding, I am prepared to allow officials to meet Sinn Fein, provided events on the ground, here and elsewhere, do not make that impossible.

    This is not about negotiating the terms of a ceasefire. We simply want to explain our position and to assess whether the republican movement genuinely is ready to give up violence and commit itself to politics alone. If they are, I will not be slow in my response. If they are not, they can expect no sympathy or understanding. I will be implacable in pursuit of terrorism.

    Loyalist terrorism is equally contemptible, equally unacceptable, just as futile and counter-productive. The Loyalist paramilitaries have so far maintained their ceasefire in formal terms. I welcome that signal of restraint, as far as it goes, and urge them and those with influence on them to hold fast to it. The Loyalist parties participation in the talks has been welcome and constructive.

    But let us have no illusions. Commitment to democracy means no violence or threat of violence. There can be and will be no double standards.

    The last few weeks have seen an appalling rush of killings, beatings, arson and intimidation. The vast majority are horrified by these dreadful acts. But they continue in your midst. They are crimes against humanity, which must be stamped out. The police have my full support in taking the firmest possible action against those responsible. And I appeal to the people of Northern Ireland to give their full-heated support too.

    Parades

    Lurking behind these terrible deeds is the shadow of this summer’s marching season. This is where the clash of identity and allegiance can so easily emerge most directly and most brutally; where the conflict of rights is hardest to resolve: the right to march and the right to live free of disruption and apparent intimidation; where the rule of law is most difficult to uphold, as it must be.

    Local agreements solve the vast majority of problems over marches. With minimal goodwill and flexibility, they could solve the rest too – as long as neither side insists on using a particular parade to make a broader political point. That is a dangerous game to play, as last summer showed only too clearly.

    The North Report recommended changes to the way marches are handled. We will implement those recommendations quickly, although the new arrangements cannot be in place this summer. The legislation will be able to take account of any lessons from this summer. But the key remains in the hands of the local people on both sides. No-one with any sense wants more Drumcrees. I call on all with any influence on the process to use it for reconciliation, not confrontation.

    Security Forces

    Those in the front line this summer are not only the marchers and local residents. The police and armed forces will be there to hold the line if necessary, to uphold rights, saves lives and protect property. They get precious little thanks from any quarter. All too often, their reward is to be vilified and attacked from all sides.

    So I thank them for their resolution and professionalism, and assure them of my support for the job they do. And I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland no longer needs troops and the police can focus exclusively on ordinary police work.

    The Future

    I have said Northern Ireland has a bright future if only we get the politics right and the gun out of the picture. You all know that to be true. Look at the advantages you have:

    – dynamic and enterprising businesses and businessmen
    – a record of success on inward investment, despite the violence
    – a workforce ready to take every opportunity
    – a potential quality of life second to none in the United Kingdom
    – huge tourist potential

    This Government will be building on that potential. The raising of education and training standards, and measures to put the unemployed back to work, will be particularly relevant here. We will be introducing further measures to promote equality of opportunity in the labour market.

    We are also determined to build trust and confidence in pubic institutions. Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law will help protect basic human rights. We want to increase public confidence in policing through measured reform based on the Hayes Report on the complaints system and last years consultation paper on structural change.

    All this will help to make Northern Ireland a more prosperous, more democratic part of Britain, where opportunities really are equal for all. Yet governments cannot deliver without the help of the people themselves.

    Overcoming violence and prejudice, and learning to compromise and live together, is your responsibility as much as it is ours. The politicians of Northern Ireland, who show great courage in accepting positions of prominence, will have to show leadership and vision. They need and deserve your support. The business community of Northern Ireland have a vital role to play. Some are already doing so. But too many hang back and blame the politicians rather than helping them find a way forward. It is no good just hoping peace will come. Everyone in a position of authority or influence will need to use that authority and influence in the direction of reconciliation and co-operation.

    Let me add a word on BSE, an issue bound to be of huge concern to many of those here today. I will not promise you progress I cannot deliver. It is a grim inheritance from the previous government.

    I am fully aware of the importance of the beef industry in Northern Ireland and the desperate need to get the export market re-opened. As you all know, Northern Ireland is better placed than other parts of the United Kingdom, because of your foresight and efficiency, to benefit from any relaxation of the export ban. The certified herds proposal before the Commission and our partners is one way forward which can bring early cheer to Northern Ireland. There may be others. We are looking at the options.

    What I can say is that I will leave no avenue unexplored. I know how vital this is.

    Conclusion

    Northern Ireland is safe in the hands of this Government.

    But I want to see it peaceful and prosperous as never before.

    You all remember the 17 months of the ceasefire, and the joy of calm and normality they brought. That is what I want to recreate, this time for good.

    I and my Government have five years ahead of us to do this. With your help, we can. The chance is there, for now. It will not be there forever.

  • Tony Blair – 2001 Doorstep Interview During Visit of President Musharraf

    Tony Blair – 2001 Doorstep Interview During Visit of President Musharraf

    The doorstep interview at Downing Street with Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, during the visit of President Musharraf on 9 November 2001.

    PRIME MINISTER

    First of all, can I welcome President Musharraf here in Downing Street, and say how pleased we are to see you here, and to thank you once again for your strong and courageous support of the coalition against international terrorism, and to say how much we admire the stand that Pakistan has taken and to say, I think in particular, that we understand the difficulties that that has posed for you, and you can be assured of our complete and total support in the development of Pakistan in the future. And as you know there have been both initiatives taken both at a bilateral level between Britain and Pakistan, but also at a European level, and at an international level as well. We also know that the humanitarian problems have caused you difficulties as well, and as I said when we met before in Pakistan, and I will repeat to you again, Mr President, that we will do everything we can to help in those as well.

    The purpose of the campaign in Afghanistan, as we know, is to close down that terrorist network there, to make sure that the extremists can no longer use Afghanistan as a training ground for exporting extremism around the world, and we are acutely aware of the fact that any successor regime, to the regime headed by Mullah Omar at the moment, has to be a broad-based regime, it has to include the Pushtun element, it has to be one representative, in other words, of all the different groupings, it has to take account of the need for stability in the region, and it has to be able, in concert with the international community, of providing for the reconstruction of Afghanistan for the future. And the aim which I am sure we share, and the vision which I am sure we would both endorse, is of an Afghanistan that is a stable partner in the region, that is a government representative of all the different people and groupings within Afghanistan, and of an Afghanistan that as a country dependent on the resources and intelligence and creativity of its people for its prosperity, rather than the drugs trade or the various factional in-fighting that has characterised the government of Afghanistan over these past years, and in all those endeavours we need Pakistan as a strong partner. We appreciate well that this cannot be achieved without it.

    So, Sir, thank you very much for your support and your help and once again let me repeat our very warm welcome to you here.

    PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

    Thank you very much. Let me say it is a great pleasure for me to have received the Prime Minister in Pakistan some days back and then for me to come here now and to have interacted with the Prime Minister. It was a special pleasure and satisfaction to see that we have total unanimity of views as far as the issue of addressing terrorism and addressing the situation in Afghanistan is concerned.

    We discussed the situation in its entirety, we discussed that there is a requirement of addressing the triple issue of the military aspect, and then the political aspects in a futuristic way, about the political dispensation that is required in Afghanistan and also the United Nations, UNHCR humanitarian and rehabilitation effort required in Afghanistan.

    It gives me a lot of satisfaction also to see that there is a concern and understanding of the realities and the difficulties that Pakistan faces. I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for showing concern towards Pakistan and Pakistan’s problems. I am sure that with the co-operation that we are showing with each other, being part of the coalition fighting against terrorism, I am sure we will keep moving forward. I will take this opportunity also of stating that Pakistan has taken a very deliberate, considered decision to be a part of the coalition. And let me say with total conviction that we will remain a part of the coalition till the attainment of the strategic objectives that we have set for ourselves. And within this I have been saying that we are for a short and targeted military campaign. One does understand that the duration of the campaign is very much relative to the attainment of strategic objectives. But however one hopes that these strategic objectives are achieved as fast as possible.

    I would also like to touch on one issue and that is a domestic issue. Pakistan is a moderate Islamic country. The opposition to the decision that we have taken in Pakistan is by a very small minority. And may I also add that the Pakistani community in Britain also is a moderate Islamic community. I am very sure that they understand that Pakistan’s interest and the rationale behind Pakistan’s participation in the coalition in its fight against terrorism and in the action in Afghanistan. I am very sure that the community will understand the realities on the ground and they are supportive of the world unity and also the UN Security Council decision and decisions in support of fighting terrorism. Thank you very much.

    QUESTION

    A question for you, Prime Minister. As much as the President of Pakistan says that the action is going to be short, swift and targeted, but it is an extended one, and the economic difficulties which Pakistan is facing right now, were they discussed in your meeting? And of course, keeping in view the President’s position, the continued bombing of the coalition during the month of Ramadan, the chances are that the backlash will fall on the President from the extremist Islamic elements and of course possibly the Islamic bloc.

    PRIME MINISTER

    Well, first of course the economic difficulties of Pakistan were discussed, although I think there is a very great sense in the international community, quite apart, incidentally, from the support that Pakistan has given to the coalition against international terrorism, there is a great sense that Pakistan is making moves forward on the economic front now. The completion of the first phase of the IMF Programme was immensely important, and it is for that reason that I think the international community can respond, quite apart from the interests of the coalition, can respond positively to Pakistan. And in respect of the campaign itself, I would entirely agree with what the President has just said. We want this campaign brought to a conclusion as swiftly as possible, but it has to be to a successful conclusion, in other words with the attainment of our objectives. And of course we have to be aware of the sensitivities of Ramadan, and are aware of the sensitivities of Ramadan, though of course the Taliban will continue to fight during that time. And we must therefore take account, as we pursue our campaign, of those sensitivities. But in the end I think everyone understands that the campaign has to continue, ultimately, until the objectives are secured, but it is our desire to work as closely as possible with everyone, including strategic partners like Pakistan, to make sure that that campaign is successful and as swift as possible.

    QUESTION

    You are taking [measures] to cut terrorism in Afghanistan but what steps do you want to take for targeting terrorism in occupied Kashmir where 70,000 have been killed in the last 10-12 years.

    PRIME MINISTER

    I think as I said when I was asked similar questions in Pakistan, we understand the huge concern there is over Kashmir. We want to do everything we possibly can to reduce the tension there. And I think that is the obligation on everyone, whether it is the international community, or India or Pakistan, and I am sure that we will.

    QUESTION

    Mr President, do you think it will be real mistake if the coalition continues with bombing through Ramadan as indeed it now appears that they will do?

    PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

    One would certainly hope that the military operation comes to an end as fast as possible as the Prime Minister has said as swiftly as possible before the month of Ramadan. But beyond that I would just like to say that the sensitivities of the month of Ramadan have to be considered in the decision of the military campaign.

    QUESTION

    General Musharraf, you are military man. You know Afghanistan well. You say you want this campaign to be short and targeted. Have you seen any evidence to suggest that it can be, or will be? Do you see any evidence to suggest that there is military progress being made in Afghanistan? And if I could also ask the Prime Minister. You say you are pleased to see General Musharraf, but it is true to say that 2-3 months ago he wouldn’t have been here. He is now our friend, but he was certainly not regarded as such before, and some people see that as a sign of a kind of cynicism in the campaign. What do you say to them?

    PRIME MINISTER

    He gets two questions.

    PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

    The first part regarding the campaign being short, whether I am seeing any indications of that. Frankly, from a military point of view, when we think of the strategic objectives, the strategic objective in magnitude is not such that it will take a long time to achieve. What is missing is accurate intelligence which is delaying the issue. With an accurate availability of accurate intelligence the physical attainment of the objective could be done in a very short time. So therefore the moment that accurate intelligence is available, I am sure that the operation can be curtailed to the minimum.

    PRIME MINISTER

    I agree very much with that, and that is exactly what we are working on. But if I could just say to you about our relationship with Pakistan. I think it is worth pointing out that even before the 11th of September, the first district elections had been held, the process of the road map to democracy had been outlined by President Musharraf and there is a real sense in which people, as I say, quite apart from the coalition and the terrible events of the 11th of September, recognise the strides that Pakistan is making at the moment. Now it is of course the case that the aftermath of 11th September has brought us together in a different way. But I think you would be wrong in suggesting that nothing was moving in our relationship before that time.

  • Tony Blair – 2001 Speech at Lord Mayor’s Banquet

    Tony Blair – 2001 Speech at Lord Mayor’s Banquet

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 12 November 2001.

    First let us offer our deep condolences and sympathy yet again to the people of New York and to the families of the victims of the latest air tragedy. Our hearts go out to the brave people there who have been through so much and with such dignity and courage.

    Meanwhile, following the outrage of 11 September, we pursue those responsible for it in Afghanistan. It is clear the Taliban are unravelling. But they are not beaten yet or Al Qaida yet hunted down. We must continue until they are. We must use the territory gained in and around Mazar-e-Sharif to get supplies and food to refugees and the starving inside Afghanistan. Let us show we are as committed to alleviating human suffering as the Taliban are to creating it.

    After the conflict, we must make good our promise to help bring in a broad-based Afghan government, representative of all peoples, including the Pushtoon and enable the reconstruction of that sorry land to take place.

    This mission is important in all its aspects, military, humanitarian and diplomatic.

    The terrible events of 11 September have made the case for engagement not isolationism as the only serious foreign policy on offer.

    The atrocities in New York and Washington were the work of evil men. Men who distorted and dishonoured the message of one of the world’s great religions and civilisations. Their aim was to stimulate militant fundamentalism; to separate the United States from its allies; and to bring our way of life and our economies to their knees.

    In those objectives they have already failed.

    But one illusion has been shattered on 11 September: that we can have the good life of the West irrespective of the state of the rest of the world.

    Once chaos and strife have got a grip on a region or a country trouble will soon be exported.

    Out of such regions and countries come humanitarian tragedies; centres for trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; havens for criminal organisations; and sanctuaries for terrorists.

    After all it was a dismal camp in the foothills of Afghanistan that gave birth to the murderous assault on the sparkling heart of New York’s financial centre.

    The war against terrorism is not just a police action to root out the networks and those who protect them, although it is certainly that. It needs to be a series of political actions designed to remove the conditions under which such acts of evil can flourish and be tolerated. The dragon’s teeth are planted in the fertile soil of wrongs unrighted, of disputes left to fester for years or even decades, of failed states, of poverty and deprivation.

    In April 1999, at the height of the Kosovo crisis, I spoke in Chicago about a doctrine or idea of international community, where we took a more active and interventionist role in solving the world’s problems.

    I elaborated on this idea in my Leader’s speech this year in Brighton.

    Some say it’s Utopian; others that it is dangerous to think that we can resolve all these problems by ourselves.

    But the point I was making was simply that self-interest for a nation and the interests of the broader community are no longer in conflict. There are few problems from which we remain immune. In the war against terrorism the moralists and the realists are partners, not antagonists. The fact we can’t solve everything doesn’t mean we try to solve nothing.

    What is clear is that 11 September has not just given impetus and urgency to such solutions, it has opened the world up. Countries are revising their relations with others, pondering the opportunities for re-alignment. New alliances or deeper alliances are being fashioned, new world views formed. And it is all happening fast. There is a shortcut through normal diplomacy. So we should grasp the moment and move, not let our world slip back into rigidity. We need boldness, grip and follow through.

    The starting point is to make a leap of imagination from this grand hall and splendid banquet to the streets of the Arab world where bright, angry, disaffected young men – by no means always from poor families, but still with neither work nor prospects – seek outlets for their feelings of betrayal and frustration. They fall for dogmas that tell them to blame their troubles on a distant Satan, and gives their lives meaning by committing themselves to relentless struggle.

    We can add to that an extremist and perverted version of Islam which seeks to shoulder aside or overthrow moderate counsels; a failed state in Afghanistan pulled down by poverty and desperation, whose rulers have made common cause with mass murderers; accusations from the Arab world of double standards in the Middle East peace process; in Africa, grinding poverty, pandemic disease, a rash of failed states, where problems seldom leave their stain on one nation but spread to whole regions.

    More broadly we should work to develop inter-faith understanding. Already much is being done to bring the faiths together, like George Carey’s initiative on the World Faiths Development Dialogue. And who can forget the poignant scenes of reconciliation when the Pope went to pray at the Grand Omayyad Mosque in Damascus? Soon George and I hope to convene a seminar of scholars on furthering Christian/Muslim dialogue.

    Systematically in each case we should seek redress.

    The Middle East Peace Process must be re-started. We should contrive the first steps in mutual confidence and security on both sides, one of which would be action by the Palestinian Authority against suspected terrorists and Israel withdrawing fully from Area A. Then after those critical steps, we should reconvene proper negotiations based on two fixed principles: a viable Palestinian state; and the state of Israel accepted fully by its Arab neighbours. If Israel is to recognise that the Palestinians will have their own state, it is only right that the Arab world explicitly and clearly recognises Israel’s right to exist secure within its own borders. Everything else is negotiation and the sooner it starts, the better.

    On Iraq, the time has come for a new UN resolution to provide for the arms inspectors to return and for the Saddam-induced suffering of the Iraqi people to be ended.

    We should offer Syria, Iran and other nations in the same position a new relationship if they will work with us to end violence and promote a solution that is just for both Palestinians and Israelis and if they will join the international consensus on weapons of mass destruction. There can be a new beginning to their relations with the West. The opening is there now; I hope they will take it.

    These countries all have an interest, too, in fighting religious extremism. It is quite extraordinary that Usama Bin Laden should claim over the weekend that Afghanistan is the only Islamic nation in the world. His aim is clear: to Talibanize all Islamic countries around the world. The time has come for the voices of mainstream Islam to take on the extremists. This is not a battle we in the West can fight. We cannot impose our own models on very different societies. But we can help and we can offer support for the vast majority of decent Muslims in that battle. It needs to be made clear again and again that our quarrel is not with Islam but with extremism and fanaticism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Islam.

    In respect of Russia, we should mark the fact that in Afghanistan we have worked together; in the war against international terrorism, we stand together; and that both Russia and the US and EU have much to gain from us being partners. Central to that new relationship should be a change in Russia/NATO relations.

    In Africa, I hope that in the New Year we can put forward a new initiative to tackle emerging conflicts before they develop, and offer the help needed to develop their economies and allow them to provide good governance and democracy for their people; and that a plan for Africa will be agreed at the G7/8 Summit in Canada.

    Success in the talks to launch a new WTO round in Doha is vital. Seattle was a lost opportunity. The negotiations will be tough and with the Conference ending tomorrow, time is now running short. But at this time of economic uncertainty it is essential we agree on the agenda for a new trade round. Success means increased trade flows and rising living standards around the world. Failure would mean a retreat into protectionism and isolationism. All parties should show the necessary flexibility to achieve this.

    Closing down the terrorist network in Afghanistan will not be the end of terrorism. We need to find a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction to prevent their proliferation both to states and to terrorist organisations. We, in the EU, should offer advice, training and equipment to the countries of central Asia to help them introduce the strongest possible controls on sensitive exports and we should consider increasing our present programmes of support for safe storage and secure destruction of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials.

    We are working hard to find a global solution to the problem of climate change and the agreement in Marrakesh shows that we can come together to tackle one of the most significant environmental challenges of today. We need to continue to improve international co-operation on poverty and the environment in the run up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next year.

    And if we are going to have a doctrine of international community we need to strengthen the UN as the body that helps put it into practice.

    In the UN we are lucky to have the leadership of a highly talented and reforming Secretary-General on the threshold of a new term of office. We need to back him in his reforms and give him the practical support he needs. For example, bringing to a close the long drawn out negotiations on UN Security Council reform so that it becomes truly representative and truly effective in its operation.

    In the aftermath of the disasters of the 1930s and the Second World War our predecessors took a number of fundamental courageous and far-reaching decisions. Above all they decided to find collective responses to the scourges of war and economic slump which individual national actions had done more to foment than to resolve. And they established a number of international structures and organisations to provide these collective responses – the UN, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank – that have lasted to this day.

    After the Cold War, despite the talk of a new world order, we failed to renew these institutions or create new ones. Perhaps the euphoria that accompanied the crumbling of the Soviet bloc reduced the incentive to take a hard and radical look at the conduct of international affairs. Now it is time to do so.

    As for Britain, we have much to offer and much to gain, in the changing world taking shape around us. Once again the vital role in foreign policy that our Armed Forces play has been demonstrated. They give us a standing which few can match and we should be very proud of them.

    I hope, too, we have buried the myth that Britain has to choose between being strong in Europe or strong with the United States. Afghanistan has shown vividly how the relationships reinforce each other; and that both the United States and our European partners value our role with the other. So let us play our full part in Europe not retreat to its margins; and let us proclaim our closeness to the United States and use it to bring Europe closer to America.

    The solidarity of our European partners in this present crisis has been total. It will remain so; and that is a real cause for hope.

    Let us in Britain use the strengths of our history – our place in Europe, our alliance with the United States, our traditional ties with the Arab world, India, China or the Commonwealth – to build a solid future of influence for our nation. As I found in South America earlier this year, people respect Britain and want us engaged. We should not disappoint them.

    Above all, I know the British people recognise the link between what happens in the outside world and what happens on our own streets in Britain. The 11 September was an attack on us all. Defeating those responsible is essential to our security; to economic confidence, so badly hit by terrorism; to the stability of our society, from the reduction of external threats down to the drugs trade – 90 per cent of the heroin in Britain originating in Afghanistan.

    Our jobs and living standards depend on confidence in our way of life. Today world events can lift or shatter that confidence. We have much to do at home. But now, more than ever before what we do abroad can affect our homeland. For years, you in the City know the impact of global markets. Now we see the impact of global politics. So let us seize the chance in this time, to make a difference. Future generations will thank us if we do; and not forgive us if we fail.

  • Tony Blair – 2001 Speech on Afghanistan

    Tony Blair – 2001 Speech on Afghanistan

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 13 November 2001.

    Good afternoon everyone. The military strategy aimed at defeating the Taliban is clearly succeeding. They are in disarray and retreat. However our job is not yet done by any means. We need urgently to put in place the next political and humanitarian moves that the changing military situation now permits. The speed of the Taliban retreat is a tribute to the skill and the professionalism of the coalition forces who have been engaged both in bombing from the air and in supporting and guiding the Northern Alliance on the ground. This has been a US-led operation and I would like to pay tribute to the leadership that President Bush has given. I would also, if I may, offer personal thanks to the British forces who have been engaged in this action.

    But whilst the military strategy is vindicated, and whilst we join of course in the celebrations of the people of Kabul and the other towns and villages from which the Taliban have fled, our forces know, and I know, that this is only setting the conditions in place for our objectives to be achieved. Osama bin Laden remains at large, so do his closest associates. The Taliban regime are not yet fully dislodged from oppressing the people of Afghanistan and shielding Al-Qu’eda. However that task will now be eased by the scale of defections taking place, the ground being gained, and the intelligence being gathered.

    In addition, however, two crucial things. First we need to step up now the humanitarian effort. The World Food Programme objective of 1,700 tons a day is being met. In fact at the present time it is being exceeded, but we need urgently to ensure that with Mazar-e-Sharif secured, we can get the food and aid to those that really need it. I have just spoken to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, on this issue. I told him that he would have Britain’s full support, practical and logistical, in ensuring that the humanitarian effort succeeds, but we both agreed of the urgent need to make sure that that food aid is actually delivered in with the shelter that people need.

    Secondly, of course, I have spoken to him about the requirement to push on with Mr Brahimi’s efforts to establish a broad-based government and successor to the Taliban regime, and that of course must include all the various elements in Afghanistan, including the Pushtun. That process is well advanced. It is only now, with the military direction so clear, that I think that we are in the right position to be able to bring together the various ethnic and other factions likely to be involved in the formation of any successor government. I believe that we can, therefore, make real progress towards the filling of the current power vacuum in Kabul, but we need a UN presence there as soon as possible, and we need obviously to make sure that we are making as quick progress as we possibly can on assembling all the different elements that need to go to make up that broad-based successor regime.

    And finally, I would simply say to the people of Afghanistan today, that this time we will not walk away from you. We have given commitments. We will honour those commitments, both on the humanitarian side and in terms of rebuilding Afghanistan. We are with you for the long term. You, the people, must agree your own government, and your own future, but we the coalition must give you the help and support that you need as you seek to rebuild your troubled country, and that support will be forthcoming.

    QUESTION

    Do you now believe that the Taliban are beaten, or do you believe that there is a regrouping going on in the South and that there is a lot more to be done on the ground before you can say that.

    PRIME MINISTER

    Well, they are clearly in retreat, and indeed in some places in a state of collapse, but it is too early to say that the objectives have been met. And that is why we need to press on, we need to make sure that we are engaging with any resistance that we find and at the present time, because it is changing literally on an hour by hour basis, the short answer is that we simply can’t be sure, but there is no doubt at all that there has been a fundamental change in the position of the Taliban regime, and you can see by the attitude and rejoicing, frankly, of the Afghan people, that this has been welcomed widely in many parts of Afghanistan.

    QUESTION

    Prime Minister, you and President Bush made it quite clear that you did not want the Northern Alliance to take Kabul. They appear to have ignored that. How confident are you that they will be prepared to play a minority role in a new broad-based government in Afghanistan.

    PRIME MINISTER

    Well, it is not that they ignored that. The situation in Kabul obviously changed when the Taliban left and there was no authority there in Kabul at all, but we have always made it clear, and we make it clear again, that the successor regime to the Taliban regime, led by Mullah Omar, has to be a broad-based regime. It has to include all the various ethnic groupings in Afghanistan, and that obviously must include the Pushtun element, so I think that is very clear and that indeed I believe is accepted by the Northern Alliance. Now of course it is the United Nations that has the authority to take this process forward and I think you will find from the next steps which are taken by Mr Brahimi, who is the UN envoy given the task of assembling people in order to discuss the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan, I think you will find that that is clearly understood.

    QUESTION

    Mr Blair, what more can you tell us about the involvement of British troops? What sort of scale that involvement was, perhaps. And also do you anticipate that British forces will be involved in any interim policing presence which may be necessary, or will that be Moslem nations such as Turkey.

    PRIME MINISTER

    We obviously have been intimately involved with the contact of the coalition campaign, and we certainly stand ready to help in any way that we can in the future. But I face the difficulty, I always do, in discussing what troops we might deploy and where. There are reasons of security, and there are also reasons of diplomacy why these things should be discussed with others first. But I can certainly tell you that the British forces, as you would expect, have acquitted themselves brilliantly in this, and in any other capacity that they may be used, I am sure they will do the same. But I simply can’t speculate on the details of that at the present time.

    QUESTION

    The reports from Kabul, apparently, that 2,000 people from the Northern Alliance have moved in to Kabul and that they say that they don’t want any interference from outside, and there are also reports from other sources of people within Kabul being massacred. Doesn’t this suggest that the military is now out of step with the diplomatic.

    PRIME MINISTER

    No, and I think you need to treat all these reports, frankly at the moment, with some caution. Of course it is a very difficult situation there, and it is changing, as I was saying a moment or two ago, literally hour by hour. But I think the broad outlines of the point the coalition has been making throughout are very, very clear, that we need to make sure that any successor government to the Taliban regime is broad-based. The UN obviously are going to be closely involved, and the other thing that I would say to you is that for us, and for the coalition, our objectives of course were to close down the entire terrorist network in Afghanistan. And those objectives, although they have been partially successful so far, although we have succeeded in them partially, we have not yet completed that task, and we need to make sure that we can. So there will be all sorts of reports coming out of Afghanistan at the moment, and I would wait until they are confirmed to see exactly what the situation.

    QUESTION

    What sanctions do we have over the Northern Alliance?

    PRIME MINISTER

    None.

    QUESTION

    Are you sure that if the Northern Alliance does indeed partake in this broad-based coalition allow you to have a say when they are clearly in Kabul, and there are people evidently saying that we won’t take orders from foreigners.

    PRIME MINISTER

    Well I think that throughout, the Northern Alliance have realised that their success, because after all this is a military situation that hasn’t started with the 11th of September, it was going on for many, many months, even years before then. It has changed dramatically in the last two months or so. Now that is because there has been a combination of the Northern Alliance forces, supported both by people on the ground from the coalition, and by bombing from the air. The basis on which that support was given was very clear, and that remains the case. And I think you will find as the situation progresses over these next few days, that everybody understands that the successor regime in Afghanistan has to be broad-based to be successful because there are large numbers of Pushtun people, particularly in the South of the country who have to be involved in any successor regime. And it is necessary also to make sure that any successor regime is a stable partner for the surrounding countries in the region. Now I believe that that is very clearly understood.

    QUESTION

    Prime Minister, are you still convinced that Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan. And also, in light of the speed and surprising progress you have made, that you have a greater chance of either catching him or killing him.

    PRIME MINISTER

    We believe that he is still in Afghanistan, yes. And as for our ability to catch up with him, that has obviously increased as the power and authority of the Taliban regime that was shielding him is destroyed, but I can’t really say any more than that at this stage. Obviously, one of the reasons why as we said ? if you go back to the objectives we set right at the beginning. We set as our objectives, closing down the Al-Qu’eda terrorist network, indeed the entire terrorist network in Afghanistan, and bringing bin Laden and his associates to justice. We gave the Taliban a choice: you either help us in that, which the entire world community wants you to do, or you are treated as an enemy. They refused to yield up bin Laden, or the al-Qu’eda network ? Indeed they came closer together with them ? and that Taliban regime has now disintegrated. Obviously, therefore, we have a better chance with a different regime in place, of pursuing that primary objective, but it still remains to be achieved, and that is why I say to you that there is a new dimension now, and a new urgency given to the political and humanitarian moves. But the military campaign is not yet over until the objectives are fully secured.

  • Tony Blair – 2020 Comments on Keir Starmer’s Leadership of the Labour Party

    Tony Blair – 2020 Comments on Keir Starmer’s Leadership of the Labour Party

    The comments made by Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister between 1997 and 2007, to the PA news agency on 24 July 2020.

    Keir’s doing a good job, a very good job actually. I think he’s put Labour back on the map and he has made them competitive again. He will know, and we all know, that there’s a long way to go before a General Election and many things to be done. But, in these months since he’s become the leader, he’s completely changed the image of the Labour leadership amongst the public and he deserves respect and admiration for that.

    There are a whole other set of questions around policy that in time that I’m sure and know he will come to. But, has he made it politically competitive again which it hasn’t really been for quite a long period of time? Yes, and that’s a huge step forwards for the Labour Party.

  • Tony Blair – 2019 Speech on the General Election

    Tony Blair – 2019 Speech on the General Election

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the former Labour Prime Minister, at Reuters on 25 November 2019.

    Britain is home to a unique political experiment. We are testing – hopefully not to destruction – whether it is possible for a major developed nation to turn its politics into chaos and survive without serious economic and social damage to its essential fabric.

    Round the world where political leaders are gathered, there is often a conversation about whose politics is crazier. I agree that right now the competition is fierce. But I still believe British politics is unfortunately ahead of the pack.

    Populism of all sorts is rampant world-wide. My Institute has outlined the causes elsewhere. But in most cases the populism is focused on a Leader. Leaders are transient. In Britain our populism focused on a policy – Brexit – which may be permanent.

    This policy has become the defining feature of the main Party of Government in Britain for around 200 years, the Conservative Party.

    But then there is a populism of the left, and here the main Opposition Party in Britain of the last 100 years – the Labour Party – has been taken over by left wing populism.

    In June 2016, we were a reasonably successful and influential power, our economy the fastest growing in the G7, London possibly the premier financial centre of the globe, our technology sector the strongest in Europe, our society riven with inequalities and unacceptable levels of poverty due to austerity post the financial crisis; but nonetheless a country able to ease itself out of austerity and repair its social cohesion should it choose to.

    Fast forward to today and we’re a mess. The buoyancy of the world economy has kept us going up to now, but should that falter, we will be in deep trouble. Investment is down; jobs in certain sectors are already moving; our currency stays devalued sharply; and market sentiment swings between anxiety and alarm. And across a range of international issues which matter to us, we’re irrelevant, too preoccupied to spare over-stretched bandwidth of attention.

    Our politics is utterly dysfunctional. As proof, in the latest instalment of such dysfunction, we have a Brexit General Election; and in December to boot.

    If Brexit is blocked in Parliament, the way to unblock it is to go back to the People who originally mandated it. It is a specific issue and should be decided specifically.

    A General Election by contrast is about who runs the country for the next 5 years and is about many different issues.

    The two should not be mixed up together in one vote.

    But the reason why they have been mixed up is itself further evidence of the breakdown in politics.

    The Conservatives calculate that they can force people to elect them, despite worry over Brexit, because Jeremy Corbyn is the alternative.

    The Labour Party leadership calculate they can combine traditional Labour support around issues like the NHS, with Remain voters who hate Brexit, despite fear about the Labour Leader.

    In other words, both parties want to win on the basis that whatever your dislike of what they’re offering, the alternative is worse.

    And not forgetting the Lib Dems who, because of all this, thought they could turn a General Election into a by-election.

    The polls predict a Conservative victory; and put the chances of an outright Labour majority as negligible. But rightly, many like me don’t trust Boris Johnson with a blank cheque.

    The result is an Election where, despite the headline polls, there is unprecedented volatility and indecision, born both of uncertainty in the electorate as to what they want, and uncertainty as to how on earth they get it.

    Of course, there are those who love the Corbyn leadership and those who passionately believe Brexit is the most important thing in the world for Britain to do.

    But outside of these two extremes, a lot of people are scratching their heads, changing their minds, floating and unsure.

    The unifying sentiment is a desire, bordering on the febrile, to end the mess, to wake from the nightmare.

    This desire, though completely understandable, is in danger of leading us into a big mistake; and frankly we cannot afford another of those.

    Sometimes with a knot, you think that if you pull the string harder, the knot unravels; you pull it and discover its become even tighter; and then finally, you recognise you have to unpick it and however irritating and time consuming, it is the only way the knot gets untied.

    This is where we are today in British politics.

    The truth is: the public aren’t convinced either main Party deserve to win this Election outright.

    They’re peddling two sets of fantasies; and both, as majority Governments, pose a risk it would be unwise for the country to take.

    The Conservative Party say vote Tory and Brexit will be done; it will be over.

    They even add – do it and we can get back to dealing with the important issues.

    The cheek is quite breath-taking. So, having visited this debacle upon us, which has distracted us from those big issues for over 3 years, they now use the distraction as a reason for doing Brexit, not abandoning it.

    But it appeals.

    It is, however, a fantasy.

    Brexit isn’t over on 12 December, nor even on 31st January next year. We immediately begin the new phase of Brexit negotiation. Only this time, we are negotiating the future relationship of Britain with Europe, not simply the Irish border question, and without the leverage which comes from still being a member of the EU, since, legally, we will have left the Union and are in the transition period supposed to last up to the end of 2020.

    What has become apparent in the last weeks, is that this negotiation has no chance of being concluded in that transition period. None. Except in circumstances where, as Boris Johnson effectively did in respect of Northern Ireland, we concede that Britain stays in the trading system of Europe, the Single Market.

    It is belief that this might happen which motivated Nigel Farage to threaten to stand against the Conservative Party.

    But more likely is that a Conservative Government will be obliged to go for the Hard Brexit i.e. a 3rd Country FTA, like Canada, with divergence around tax, regulation and trade.

    This is what Ministers who are pro Brexit are already saying and the position Boris Johnson recently praised in the USA.

    If this is so, this negotiation is going to be horrible. I have spoken to many people in Europe over the past few weeks. Not a single person believes that there is any prospect of Britain reaching agreement with Europe on this timeline, if its position is divergence on rule making.

    On the contrary, they assert that Europe would be vigilant to ensure there was no ‘unfair competition’, particularly around tax and regulation.

    On Canada, I learnt two things. First, the Europeans, faced now with a Johnson Government, regard the Canada deal as a problematic analogy for the British deal. Trade with Britain is roughly six times that with Canada and whereas Canada is the other side of a large ocean, Britain is next door, geographically and physically linked. They are not going to allow a Brexiteer led British Government to establish a competitor with access to their market but undermining their rules.

    Second, despite being agreed 18 months ago, the Canada deal is not yet ratified and indeed is now facing considerable problems in various European legislatures. Should any of them block such ratification, the deal falls.

    The risk is obvious once this is understood. We will be back in the exact, same argument as we had over Ireland. One side of the Conservative Party will be demanding we leave without a deal if Europe refuses the access we want; the other will be wanting to compromise to get that access.

    This could last for YEARS!

    Yet though Brexit is a distraction, it is also the vital determinant of the nation’s future. It remains the single most important decision since 1945. Because of its effect on the economy, it impacts every one of the non Brexit promises the Parties are making.

    Doing it matters. How it is done matters. And exhaustion is not the frame of mind in which to do it.

    No Deal Brexit is not off the table. It is slap bang in the middle of it and if they mean their manifesto commitment to no extension past 2020, it is the probable outcome.

    When people hear the phrase No Deal, they often think we just mean failure to agree; which in Brexiteer language means we haven’t surrendered.

    What it really means is throwing our economy off a cliff and hoping it finds a parachute on the way down.

    It is a risk no responsible leader would take. Yet we may be about to empower a Leader – Boris Johnson – to take such a risk.

    The Labour Party manifesto is heralded by its leadership as the most radical ever.

    This is true. It promises a revolution; and if implemented it would indeed amount to one. I won’t go through the list of spending pledges, but they’re combined with renationalisation, repeal of union laws, new taxes on business, taking parts of a company’s shareholding into Government mandated Funds, a stack of new corporate and private sector regulation, and virtually every demand that any pressure group has ever submitted chucked in for good measure.

    The problem with revolutions is never how they begin but how they end.

    Meanwhile we have a policy debate devoid of rational analysis of the real challenges facing modern developed countries: the technological revolution; reform of the public realm as well as investment in it; and the rising power of China which is the biggest geo-political shift of modern Western history.

    So, the challenge is: we know the problem with both Parties manifestos, yet we want out of the paralysis. We crave clarity.

    But tugging on the knot harder isn’t going to bring it; we must unpick the knot.

    We should look at this election seat by seat. There is one General Election but 650 mini elections and each one matters.

    There are good, solid mainstream, independent minded MPs and candidates in both parties. Like many, I have been campaigning for great Labour candidates because we know Parliament will be poorer without them. I am sure the same is true of the Conservative Party and there are those who were expelled for their moderation also standing.

    The Lib Dems can’t form a Government; but they can play an important role in who does govern.

    Once we acknowledge all the above, and vote accordingly, yes untying the knot will take longer. The new Parliament will be obliged to let the country decide Brexit on its merits, in a referendum, whether in the light of what we now know, we want to proceed with exit from Europe and if so, on what basis.

    And then we will have a fresh Election to decide who governs.

    This is counter-intuitive. It will be resisted with all the force that the extremes can muster – extremes whose narrative runs through much of our present politics and media, reinforced by the scourge of social media, but the alternative is a choice between two risks, whose consequences we live with for a long time.

    This Election is the weirdest of my life time. But once you realise it is not conventional, you are liberated to think unconventionally.

    This is a moment to set aside the fatigue; to understand we’re taking a decision not just about a Government but about a future. So, we should think deeply.

    Then, at some later point, and not too later, we must set about the urgent task of reconstructing the sensible mainstream of British politics. Otherwise, this laboratory experiment in populism running riot, will end very badly for our nation.

  • Tony Blair – 1986 Speech on the Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Labour MP for Sedgefield, in the House of Commons on 29 January 1986.

    The question whether the United Kingdom should join the EMS is not an ideological argument but a practical one. Although the present level of the exchange rate makes the argument for joining stronger than it has been for some time, the balance of advantage still lies against our joining.

    One reason for saying that is that we think that insufficient attention has been paid to the obligations of ​ membership of the EMS. We should treat with extreme caution claims about the stability which membership would bring to our currency. The EMS is essentially a means to an end and for it to succeed there must be a clear and common area of agreement between members on economic policy and objectives. We are not convinced that policy objectives that are currently pursued in the EMS converge sufficiently with those which we would want to be pursued domestically.

    The first thing that we should do when discussing the EMS is to debunk some of the mythology surrounding it. There is a risk of it being seen not as a palliative, which is what it would be at best, but as a panacea that can cure the problems of instability in the exchange rate. It is important that our choice is informed and not a careless embrace of anything with the word “European” in it.

    We should start by examining what the EMS is. It is a club that can yield benefits to the participants, but only at the expense of certain obligations. The stability arises not by natural process but by the agreement of the members to keep their exchange rates within agreed boundaries. It is essentially a statement of intent to act individually or collectively to ensure that the value of currencies is maintained within agreed margins of a set of bilateral central rates.

    Three types of action can be taken. It can be done collectively through mutual support from the pool of reserves—it can also be taken under various short-term financing facilities—it can be taken through members intervening individually and it can be taken through the use of interest rates. France virtually controls its exchange rate by the use of interest rates. The latter two methods of control might be chosen by countries outside the EMS, but they are methods of obligation within it.

    The proponents of the EMS say that those obligations are worth carrying because of the stability that will accrue to our currency. Stability can be long-term or short-term. I do not believe that there is compelling evidence that long-term stability has been brought to the exchange rates of currencies in the EMS. The long-term stability will to a considerable extent be contingent upon policy convergence. Such stability as there has been would equally have occurred if the exchange rates had been outside the EMS.

    It is worth remembering that, when we talk about the medium term, because there are several realignments in the EMS, it is still possible to get considerable variations in the exchange rate. It is worth examining the two major realignments of the past few years—that of the French franc in March 1983, and that of the Italian lira in July 1985. When the French franc came under sustained speculative pressure in March 1983, there was a realignment, but it occurred as a result of the French agreeing much tighter budgetary fiscal measures. We can disagree about whether that was right or wrong, but it is important to emphasise that it was part of a package.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

    Has the hon. Gentleman understood that, whatever might be the arguments for or against membership of the EMS, currencies that are in it and that are exposed to speculative pressure have the support of the entire monetary authority system of the member countries? That is why the speculators were seen off against the French franc in ​ March 1983 and why the devaluation was relatively controlled. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite grasped that point.

    Mr. Blair

    With respect, I have grasped it. I said that one of the courses of action available to members of the EMS was collective action from the pool of reserves. France effectively keeps its median line against the deutschmark through the use of interest rates, so the pool of reserves alone is not sufficient to ensure against currency speculation. More important is the fact that the realignment, took place in conjunction with other policy measures. Exactly the same thing happened when the Italian lira was subjected to an 8 per cent. devaluation in July 1985. The price for the realignment was considerable other measures demanded of the Italian Government.

    The two lessons to be learnt from those examples are, first, that realignment can occur, but only when combined with other policy packages — that means yielding up some freedom of action in the EMS — and, secondly, that, although short-term fluctuations in currency might be smoothed out by membership of the EMS, some companies say that that short-term risk can be borne by covering oneself in the forward market whereas a much greater risk, to which one is subjected in the EMS, is realignment where volatility can be intense, sudden and unpredictable.

    The only compelling argument in favour of membership of the EMS is that it provides a hedge or some certainty against short-term instability in the currency. There has been considerable short-term instability in Britain during the past few years. I accept that there is a strong argument to the effect that being in the EMS might cut such speculative pressure, but I would put qualifications even on that claim. There is no clear evidence, for example, that day-to-day volatility of exchange rates damages trade flows. There have been numerous attempts to find such evidence, but it has not been found.

    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

    What about the Confederation of British Industry?

    Mr. Blair

    I shall deal with its stance shortly.

    The level at which we fix the exchange rate is obviously extremely important, and there is still tremendous disagreement about what its level should be. The most important qualification on our ability in the EMS even to withstand short-term pressures is that Britain has a petrocurrency. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), he has not dealt fully with the consequences of that provision.

    The first consequence is that the EMS is essentially a deutschmark bloc. It could be said that we would be putting Herr Pöhl of the Bundesbank in 11 Downing Street. He might be preferable to the present incumbent, but we should yield our freedom of action. With regard to Britain as an oil exporter, cheaper oil for Germany would put up the deutschmark. If there is a drop in oil prices, cheaper oil prices mean that the deutschmark lifts and, conversely, that the pound is subject to downward pressure. That tension would be built into the system once sterling joined the EMS.

    Perhaps most important of all is that we do not prevent speculation as a result of oil price fears by joining the EMS. Much of the clamour for joining the EMS during the past few months results from people thinking that the ​ exchange rate crisis in January last year and the flutters of the past few weeks would be cured by joining the EMS. That is quite definitely not so.

    The alliance says that we should go into the EMS forthwith. It said that we should go into the EMS forthwith last year. It has been saying that we should join the EMS forthwith for years. If we had joined the EMS last year, the best rate that we could have got in against the deutschmark was DM 3·60 or DM 3·50. Many suggest that we would not have been able to negotiate such a rate.

    The current rate is DM 3·33. When the oil price exerted pressure on the pound last week, the Government, as a member of the EMS, would have been shoving up interest rates and I guarantee that if interest rates had gone up last week, we would have had an alliance motion criticising the Government for raising interest rates. They cannot have it both ways. Penalties are involved and those penalties should be clearly understood.

    The problems is not merely the lack of a guarantee that we will not have interest rate crisis of that type. I would go further than that. If the price of oil falls, it is rational that our exchange rate should be allowed to fall, because the price of a major export item is falling. That difficulty, which faces Britain because of its petrocurrency status, does not fit into the circumstances of the other nations in the EMS.

    Contrary to what has been said, criticisms of the Government’s interest rate policy could be made irrespective of membership of the EMS. January 1985 is the obvious example. The Government appeared to be giving the lie to the market that they would not intervene to prop up the exchange rate. Currency speculators had a one-way bet against our currency. The exchange rate plummeted and the Government had to compensate for that initial period of inaction by jacking up interest rates by 4 per cent. The Government can be legitimately criticised for not cutting rates last summer. They had the opportunity to cut them and their starting base would have been that much less.

    When we consider the Government’s policy during the past week, we cannot criticise them for not being in the EMS and also for allowing the exchange rate to slide. In many ways is is easier to understand the case for the Government, rather than the Opposition parties, wanting us to join the EMS. Joining the EMS implies a fiscal and monetary policy convergence. The fiscal and monetary polices of the German Bundesbank are tight. One would have thought that the alliance, which proposes a fiscally expansive policy, would be the last party to want to join the EMS. There is a clear argument for the Government wanting to join the EMS.

    The argument for the EMS is much stronger if there is an agreement, or the prospect of an agreement, on the fundamentals of macro-economic policy between the member countries. The exchange rate is important, but it is a residuary, not a fundamental. If we join the EMS, it is much better to be certain of the agreed, common policy objectives between the member countries. In relation to the importance of international monetary stability, the initiatives of the Group of Five are of greater significance than what has happened within the EMS. The G5 initiative that forced down the dollar was more important than what was happening in the EMS. The G5 countries criticised Germany for pursuing too tight a fiscal policy, but that is the fiscal policy with which we would be aligning ourselves if we were to join the EMS.

    Whether it be the EMS or the G5, acronyms are no substitute for analysis of Britain’s economy and its problems. The central and fundamental problem is how to prepare for post-oil Britain. Flutters of speculation against our exchange rate are warning signals. We either build up our manufacturing industry to generate the wealth that we shall need when oil production declines, or we face a poor and unstable future. No amount of juggling at the margin will eliminate the central dilemma. The Labour party, and only the Labour party, has the political will and economic sense to address the dilemma.

  • Tony Blair – 1985 Speech on Lifting the Burden

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Labour MP for Sedgefield, in the House of Commons on 16 July 1985.

    It is obviously not possible to give a detailed response at this stage, but we hope that there will be a full debate on the White Paper in due course. In general terms, we would, of course, support the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy in the interests of small businesses, but the test that will be ​ applied to the White Paper is whether it deals with the real problems of the economy and unemployment or whether it is just another Government gimmick designed to distract attention, and in particular whether we are talking about cutting unnecessary bureaucracy or about subordinating vital protections for the consumers and employees in the interests of ideological obsession with deregulation.

    Turning to the substance of the White Paper, why do the Government identify the one major problem of regulation and then proceed to deal only with the minor ones? Is it not the case that the only area of regulation mentioned by more than one in five of the Department’s own survey was value added tax? Is not that the main problem faced by small businesses? Is it not correct that the White Paper proposes no new action of any substance on that? Why, in particular, did the Government block Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill that would have eased the bad debt relief on small firms?

    Secondly, will the Minister undertake that there will be no less environmental protection from the changes in planning procedure? Will he tell us why they are given such prominence when only a minute percentage of his survey said that they were a major factor?

    Thirdly, any loss of standards—and I think there may be—in fire regulations or health and safety regulations would be a wholly unacceptable and wrong price to pay. How on earth can it be right for the Government to impose different rights and duties in regard to safety for the public and employees based on the size of the firm? Is the Minister saying that the risk of mishap is less with small businesses? If so, may I tell him that all the evidence indicates the contrary, and that small businesses give rise to the most safety risks?

    We shall oppose vigorously the suggestions about unfair dismissal law and wages councils. What philosophy is it that says that fair play and fair rights of employment are a constraint on proper business activity?

    Many of the proposals seem to have been derived not from business experience but from political doctrine. Why is it that the scrutiny which gave rise to the White Paper received views from the organisations representing employers but not from a single organisation representing employees? Why were the Institute of Directors and the Adam Smith Institute so closely involved with the proposal? Is it not the case, as the survey itself found, that

    “most small businesses see problems with finance and sales as more serious than problems with compliance costs”?

    The same survey said:

    “The main reasons for business being good are individual effort and good demand.”

    If those are the main problems, why have not the Government dealt with them? Why create an agency to cut red tape but not agencies for industrial development? Why do we end planning protections but cut back on local authority initiatives which would create more jobs? Why do we cut back on unfair dismissal but not give proper training in the face of skill shortage? Why do we worry about the cost of meeting health and safety regulations but decline to lower interest rates?

    At first blush, the White Paper is a shabby and irrelevant document from a Government whose ideology is unable to solve the real problems of our economy. Will a single job be created by the scheme? If not, of what use is it?

  • Tony Blair – 2018 Article on Brexit

    Below is the text of an article by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, published on 22 May 2018.

    We publish today a comprehensive guide to the issues around the Customs Union or Customs Partnership as a means of unlocking the deadlock of the Brexit negotiation. It is the work of Dr. Andy Tarrant, a recognised expert on EU affairs.

    It shows conclusively that:

    There is no Customs Partnership which will deliver the same benefits as staying in the Customs Union, even if the EU were prepared to accept such a Partnership.

    However, the Customs Union will not, on its own, deliver frictionless trade between the UK and the EU and therefore is neither good enough for British business nor a full answer to the Ireland question.

    Only membership of the Single Market or signing up to EEA comes close to genuine frictionless trade.

    Even that unless combined with a Customs Union would still have some friction attached.

    The ‘freedom’ to pursue trade deals is unlikely to result in any substantial benefit to Britain, involves very difficult choices, and in any event if it worked, would take a decade or more before any benefit was realised.
    The Government now know this. So, they’re again reverting to postponement rather than resolution of the Dilemma.

    The Dilemma, as I have described previously, is whether we stay in a close economic relationship with Europe to avoid economic damage, in which case one way or another we will end up abiding by Europe’s rules; or whether we break from Europe decisively, to have ‘freedom’ from those rules, in which case the economic damage at least short and medium term will be considerable.

    There is no way round this Dilemma. These are the two competing versions of Brexit. They aren’t ultimately capable of fudge. The Customs Partnership is just the latest failed attempt at fudging.

    Therefore, the Government have reverted to postponing the decision by agreeing to extend the period by which we will keep to Europe’s rules after the transition should that prove necessary.

    This is a very dangerous strategy. If this Dilemma is not resolved prior to March 2019, then Britain will be leaving Europe with no clear idea of what the future economic relationship entails. After March 2019, we will have no negotiating leverage. We will have left. We will be completely dependent on what we are given by the EU, with no say in Europe, no representation, no bargaining power.

    The Government should be obliged to decide which version of Brexit they want for any vote in Parliament to be meaningful before March 2019.

    But what is also now clear is that the leadership of both main political Parties are engaged in the same sleight of hand, namely pretending that we can have frictionless trade whilst leaving the Single Market.

    As our paper shows, this is simply wrong. The Single Market is a unique trading area where not only is trade tariff free, it is free of non tariff barriers, through regulatory alignment. It therefore allows complete freedom of trade for goods and a substantial amount of free trade in services where Europe has adopted common sets of rules.

    Membership of the Customs Union alone does not solve the problem of friction, because if Britain wants freedom to diverge on product regulation then there will still need to be checks. And, of course, if Britain is part of a Customs Union then it cannot make its own trade deals.

    The Customs Union option in any event does not at all address the question of services, particularly financial services where we have a huge surplus with the European Union.

    At some point the Dilemma must be resolved by a choice. And here is where the case for sending the issue back to the people is now overwhelming. Either option is a form of Brexit. Supporters of Brexit are to be found on both sides of the Dilemma. Brexit could mean either of these two very different outcomes. How then can it be said that the British people in June 2016 decided for one option over the other?

    The only right method of resolution is to give to the people who made the original choice to leave Europe, the choice of which Brexit they prefer or whether given that choice, in the light of what we now know, they want to proceed with Brexit or stay in Europe.

    Here is the challenge to both Party leaderships.

    The Conservative Party believes that if they ‘deliver Brexit’ they have fulfilled their mandate and the British people will be grateful that at least Brexit is done.

    This is a fundamental strategic error. The so-called ‘soft Brexit’ which will see us still tied to European rules in some form or another, will not satisfy the most ardent Leavers. They’re already shouting betrayal.

    So, if the Conservative Party thinks it has solved its European problem if it goes for a mishmash of theoretical freedom from, but practical alignment with, European rules, it is profoundly mistaken. It is just another route to disillusion.

    For the Labour Party the position is even more stark. As was entirely predictable and predicted, we now find ourselves in the worst of both worlds.

    The Leavers think we’re not really for Leave because we want to stay in the Customs Union and as I say for many Leavers that is an unacceptable compromise.

    The Labour Party position is also contradictory. If the reason for being against EFTA or the Single Market is we don’t want to be merely rule takers, then the Customs Union solution has the same objection. We will be taking the trade rules Europe negotiates. Go and talk to the Turks. They are bound by Europe’s trade agreements, and they are forced to align with a lot of European rules to minimise friction. Even so, their arrangement doesn’t work well.

    The Remainers, however, have now cottoned on to the fact Labour is not really for remaining either, except in the very limited sense of the Customs Union, and so, unsurprisingly, they’re losing faith in Labour as a route to avoid Brexit.

    The Labour Party will pay a heavy price for the leadership’s closet Euro-scepticism.

    The tragedy is the price the country will pay for Labour’s failure to lead.

    It would be a straightforward and in my view electorally winning position if the Labour Party were to say: we accepted the referendum verdict; we gave the Government the opportunity to negotiate a good deal; it is now apparent they can’t; it is equally apparent that this is not only because of division and incompetence but because there is no resolution to the Dilemma; therefore, we reject the deal but you, the British people, should have the final decision. You began Brexit, you mandated the negotiation and you should decide how it ends.

    45 years of European membership with all the intricate trading arrangements born of geography, common interest and then the Single Market means that Leaving Europe is economically painful. Look at the chart in our paper of how in 50 years our export relationships have been transformed.

    Labour cannot argue for a ‘jobs first’ Brexit and then oppose what is plainly the only way of protecting British jobs which is to remain part of Europe’s economic structures. It is greatly to the credit of those MPs both Labour and Conservative that they are prepared to put the country’s interests before their Party whip and support an EEA type amendment.

    The reality of the choices we face is what we now know in a way we did not in June 2016. It is a choice of two futures. They contrast starkly. There is no ‘having our cake and eating it.’ We must choose as a country in the light of two years of – let’s face it – inconclusive and unsatisfactory negotiation.

    We can all speculate as to which future the British people would now choose once they know the outcome of the negotiation.

    But there is only one sure way to find out and that is to ask them. The Labour Party should be leading that case.

  • Tony Blair – 2017 Speech at EPP Meeting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, at an EPP Meeting in Wicklow, Ireland on 12 May 2017.

    There is a consensus, fortunately, within British politics that the consequences of Brexit on the border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK and on the peace process should be minimised as far as possible.

    Such a consensus will be crucial.

    Brexit uniquely impacts both the Republic and Northern Ireland. There has never been a situation where the UK, including Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, had a different status in respect of Europe. We have either both been out or both been in.

    The Common Travel Area has meant ease of going back and forth across the border, vital for work and family connection has been in place for almost 100 years. And the absence of customs controls – both countries being in the Single Market and Customs Union – have meant a huge boost to UK-Irish trade.

    Some disruption is inevitable and indeed is already happening. However, it is essential that we do all we possibly can to preserve arrangements which have served both countries well and which command near universal support.

    A hard border between the countries would be a disaster and I am sure everyone will and must do all they can to avoid it.

    In addition, the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement was formulated on the assumption that both countries were part of the EU. This was not only for economic but also for political reasons, to take account particularly of nationalist aspirations. Some of the language will therefore require amendment because of Brexit. Again, with goodwill, including from our European partners, this should be achievable with the minimum of difficulty.

    If the UK and the Republic were able to agree a way forward on the border, then we would have the best chance of limiting the damage. It is in the interests of us all, including our European partners, for this to happen.”

    The truth is that the sentiments and anxieties which gave rise to the Brexit vote are not and never were limited to the Britain.

    I am delighted that there will be President Macron and not President Le Pen. But the doubling of the far right vote compared to over a decade ago, plus the surge of support for anti-European parties across Europe should make us all think. Back in 2005 I gave a speech to the European Parliament in which I warned specifically that Europe was moving further away from the concerns of its citizens, all the time whilst proclaiming that it was moving closer. This was in the aftermath of the referendums on the Lisbon Treaty in France and the Netherlands.

    Since then, following the global financial crisis and then the Euro zone crisis, this challenge has only deepened.

    The world is changing fast through technology and globalisation. This poses an economic challenge.

    Large scale migration from Africa and the Middle East poses cultural challenges, particularly with the refugee crisis. People see their communities change around them with bewildering speed, they worry about their identity and they’re anxious also over security.

    Now the reality is that none of these challenges are more easily dealt with by nations alone or by a Europe which is weak.

    But it is the obligation of mainstream politics – centre left and centre right – to provide answers otherwise those on the far right and left will successfully ride the anger.

    During the course of the Brexit negotiation Britain will be evaluating its future relationship with Europe; Europe has an opportunity to evaluate its own future.

    The European Commission White paper is a necessary start.

    I remain totally convinced that nations such as ours, coming together as we have done in the European Union, goes with the grain of history. As the new power brokers of the world emerge in the high population countries, particularly China and India, all those comparatively smaller in size will need to form alliances to protect not only interests but values.

    But we need to show that necessary integration does not come at the expense of desired identity, that Europe can deal firmly and expeditiously with the challenges upon it, and that it is both sensitive enough to understand the concerns, cultural and economic, that our people feel so strongly, and capable enough to overcome them.

    An open and honest debate about how Europe reforms can play a positive part in how Britain and Europe approach Brexit. Whatever relationship the future holds for us both – as you know I was and remain a passionate supporter of Britain staying with our European destiny – we have too many mutual interests, too much shared history, too profound a sense of common values for us to do other than strive for success for that relationship.

    So let us keep lines of communication intact. Let us explore together the options as we go forward. Let us – where possible – always choose flexibility over rigidity and solutions which are about the long term flourishing of the people not the short term exploitation of the politics.

    We are only at the beginning. There is a long way to go to, particularly for the negotiations.