Ben Kelly

About Ben Kelly

Posts by Ben Kelly:

Heathrow: We need to stop gazing at our navels and think of the future

Ben Kelly / Inter-Generational Fairness / 0 comments

26/06/2018

Finally, a third runway at Heathrow has been approved in parliament. Next comes the legal challenges and likely consequent delays. The longer the delays, the longer our economy suffers from our procrastination. A supposed outward looking ‘global Britain’ takes twenty years or more to build a single runway and expects to be taken seriously.

If Britain wants to compete in the global marketplace, the government needs to think of the future and take action. Look around the world, Amsterdam Schipol Airport has six runways, Madrid has four, Paris has four and in the US JFK in New York has four, Chicago has six and Boston has six. Our supposed ‘hub’ airport has two; compensate residents and build the damn runway!

We need to stop gazing at our navels and think of the future. The third runway at Heathrow will boost our economy, but its only sufficient for the medium term. Within a couple of decades of its construction there will likely be demand for an additional runway, then what? Another 20 years of talking?

The independent Airports Commission issued a report in 2015 which pointed out that London’s airport system would be using 90 percent of available capacity by 2030. Even under pessimistic forecasts, it said, by 2040 all London airports except Stansted would be full. We shouldn’t be pussyfooting around about building one runway, we should be looking to build more!

The debate about airport expansion saw Heathrow and Gatwick compete for investment, the answer to this is to expand both. They both cater primarily for different needs, with Gatwick catering for short haul and leisure and Heathrow for business and long haul. They both connect to different regions of the UK and have a different international network. For real, sustained economy growth; build a new runway at Heathrow and Gatwick. Not only would this be a major boost to the economy, it would likely lead to better services and lower costs for consumers as the two compete.

Environmentalists who wish us all to live in yurts and adopt a vegan diet will complain, but aviation technology will continue to advance and get cleaner. The advancement of cleaner and greener technology is the key to tackling climate change, not destroying our growth prospects without making a dent in global climate change targets.

The strongest argument is concerns about increasing the north/south divide, but this is a strong argument for allowing expansion and development of Northern airports when the necessity and demand is clear in the future.

In response to the Cabinet’s approval of Heathrow expansion, Andrew Cowan, CEO of Manchester Airport, said:

‘Manchester Airport is investing more than £1bn in transforming its facilities and unlocking the spare capacity on its exiting two full-length runways […] Government must now match its support for a third runway at Heathrow with specific and practical proposals to maximise the potential of airports like Manchester in the period to 2030 – the earliest the third runway is likely to be delivered – and beyond that.’

Hear, hear! Britain must be a country of action and dynamism if it wants to flourish after Brexit.

It is patently absurd that a substance that can help a sick child is banned

Ben Kelly / Prohibition / 0 comments

18/06/2018

Billy Caldwell went 300 days without epileptic seizures thanks to medicinal cannabis oil. Since his cannabis oil was seized at customs he has had five. This is madness.

Thanks to the quick actions of Sajid Javid the Home Office granted a 20-day licence for the use of the banned substance, stabilising Billy’s condition.

His mother, Charlotte, said: “The fact that Billy has been discharged is testimony to the effectiveness of the treatment and underlines how vital it is that every child and every single family affected in our country should have immediate access to the very same medication.”

It is patently absurd that a substance that can help a sick child is banned, it has nothing to do with misuse of drugs as we’re not talking here about a psychoactive substance here. In hospitals up and down the country patients are being given pain relief using powerful opiates, but the medical use of cannabis is banned. It’s illogical and cruel. This is a matter of health policy, not criminal justice.

Billy Caldwell’s cannabis oil treatment will run out by the end of June unless the government allows his mother to import more. There is no good reason not to legalise its use.

There must be an urgent and rapid review of policy to allow for a Licensing scheme for medicinal cannabis use, managed by the Department for Health, to allow sufferers of epilepsy to get the treatment they need.

The government has claimed that cannabis has no medicinal benefits, despite the evidence in front of their eyes. Despite this the UK the UK is the biggest exporter of medicinal Cannabis in the world. What a bizarre situation.

As ever, tone deaf Theresa May is slow to understand the seriousness of the issue, both as a basic matter of principle and morality, and a matter of politics. Sajid Javid repeatedly tried to raise the issue in Cabinet this morning, only to be told by the PM that it wasn’t on the agenda. Another reminder that the illiberal Maybot is a hindrance to the Conservative Party.

Luckily an increasingly confident Sajid Javid is growing in stature and beginning to flex his muscles in the Home Office, showing an intrinsic understanding of how important this issue is.

Leaving the European Arrest Warrant is a benefit of Brexit

Ben Kelly / Rights and Freedoms / 0 comments

25/05/2018

According to senior EU officials, the UK cannot be in the European Arrest Warrant after Brexit. Although this does create immediate issues in that we must now consider what extradition arrangements we want post-Brexit and work towards negotiating a new treaty, it is a positive thing that we are leaving the EAW.

Conservatives for Liberty campaigned hard against the European Arrest Warrant, and we were extremely disappointed when Theresa may announced her intention to negotiate staying in it. We highlighted the case of Alexander Adamescu as a chilling example of the injustices the UK becomes implicit in due to the EAW, but there are many such examples:

https://www.fairtrials.org/case-study/garry-mann … https://www.fairtrials.org/case-study/deborah-dark … https://www.fairtrials.org/case-study/natalia-gorczowska … https://www.fairtrials.org/case-study/edmond-arapi …

Not all legals systems across Europe are equal, and the UK’s is quite distinct from those of the continent. The European Arrest Warrant is a threat to liberty, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Good riddance!

Resisting the nanny state – An interview with Christopher Snowdon

Ben Kelly / Prohibition / 0 comments

09/05/2018

When I interviewed you previously in September 2015, you struck rather a pessimistic tone at the increasing power of the public health lobby and the nanny state, is it safe to say things have got worse since then?

Very safe. Things generally do get worse. All you can do is hope to slow down the speed at which liberty is eroded.

The sugar tax has finally come into effect and Scotland has introduced minimum pricing. Wales will probably follow Scotland next year. Plain packaging for tobacco came in last year. Public Health England has gone completely berserk and is in the process of systematically degrading the entire food supply. A number of popular soft drinks, including Ribena, Irn-Bru and Lucozade, have been taken off the shelves and replaced with products which are, in effect, artificially sweetened forgeries.

It’s a dismal state of affairs and it’s only the start. The moment the Supreme Court allowed minimum pricing to become law, the temperance lobby started campaigning for warning labels on alcohol and a total advertising ban. A ban on so-called ‘junk food’ advertising is the number one priority of the anti-obesity brigade. The goal is, quite obviously, to copy anti-smoking legislation and apply it to what we eat and drink. It is endless.

In a recent Newsnight piece, you said ‘for the first time in a century the temperance movement is winning the political battle’. What is it about this point in our history that’s driving the latest rise in influence for this prohibitionist movement? What are the roots of this cultural phenomenon?

The temperance lobby had a bad reputation after Prohibition collapsed and it took them decades to recover. When public health went through its metamorphosis and became a movement for coercive paternalism in the 1970s, temperance campaigners wormed their way in and portrayed themselves as ‘public health’ experts. Few people realise how prominent gospel temperance groups are in the ‘public health’ movement, both here and in Europe. The EU gives them money, needless to say.

They’ve gone about it in quite a clever way by inventing what they call the ‘whole population approach’. The theory is bullshit, but it is convenient bullshit because it states that the amount of dangerously excessive drinking rises and falls in line with the amount of alcohol drunk by the whole society. Therefore, if you want to tackle hazardous drinking, you don’t have to get your hands dirty by dealing with alcoholics, you just make moderate drinkers consume less and the alcoholics will magically follow. This allows them to follow the anti-tobacco playbook; with tobacco, overall consumption of cigarettes is a pretty good proxy for tobacco-related harm. And so, you end up with taxes, graphic warnings, advertising bans and all the other things which are supposed to reduce per capita consumption of alcohol but which actually do nothing to help people who are dependent drinkers.

Why are they and their ‘public health’ colleagues getting so much traction now? I think it reflects the mediocrity of political thought and the lack of a well-developed vision of the future. Introducing these policies makes politicians feel brave and important. On the Conservative side, I think there is a failure to understand that ‘public health’ is a fundamentally political movement that hates the market. It is a way of controlling industries without the hassle of nationalising them.

If there was to be a major change of policy, one would expect it to come from a centre right government. However, a Conservative chancellor (George Osborne) introduced the sugar tax, and this week hailed it as a success and called it ‘progressive policy in action’. With no political Party in the UK opposed to the nanny state, is resistance futile?

David Cameron was the absolute worst for this stuff. If you look at his record, he makes Gordon Brown look like Ayn Rand. After opposing the tobacco display ban in opposition, his party introduced it almost as soon as it took office. He introduced plain packaging at a time when no other government apart from Australia was showing much interest in it. He introduced the sugar tax. He set up Public Health England, which was only ever going to be a giant nanny state lobby group. He wanted to introduce minimum pricing and was only stopped because of Cabinet opposition.

It’s a shameful record. Whether it’s because he is a patrician Tory or because he thought that detoxifying the Tory brand meant caving in to the trendy authoritarianism of the ‘public health’ racket, I don’t know. I am slightly – but only slightly – encouraged that the current wave of lifestyle regulation is the legacy of the Cameron era and Theresa May has not added anything else to the pile. I don’t think May has any interest in nanny state politics but I fear she is too weak to stand up against a well-organised campaign.

Why is the government so quick to implement public health policies that fly in the face of the evidence? Is it just virtue signalling or part of the “band wagon effect”?

It’s kind of hard for politicians to resist it. There is an absolute army of state-funded campaigners and activist-academics working night and day to control people’s lifestyles. Take plain packaging, for example. I don’t think Cameron cared what colours were on cigarette packs and I’d be amazed if he thought plain packaging would make any difference to the smoking rate, but he made the mistake of holding a public consultation on it. This was a sign of weakness and that is what the nanny state vermin feed off. They scour the globe for weak and egotistical politicians. Once they see a glimmer of hope, they pour all their resources into it. So, they flooded Cameron’s consultation and spent the next few years accusing the government of doing a U-turn by not introducing it. They ran the usual line about caving in to the tobacco industry and made up all this kind of stuff about Lynton Crosby, and so, in the end, it was easier for Dave to pass the legislation than not.

If you have no principles – which Cameron doesn’t – it comes down to the simple question of whether the political costs of doing it outweigh the political costs of not doing it. Same with the sugar tax. The costs are widely dispersed. How many Tory voters are going to switch to Corbyn because their can of Coke costs an extra 10p? Approximately none, so if you’ve failed to meet your economic targets yet again – as George Osborne had in 2015 – what’s the harm in pulling a sugar tax out of your hat and getting the media to focus on Jamie Oliver’s gormless face instead of the size of the national debt?

Then you have the problem that Tony Blair created the pointless position of Minister for Public Health which gives junior politicians an opportunity to make a name for themselves by trampling all over personal freedom. These people have essentially nothing to do all day except be lobbied by single issue pressure groups and so they go native almost overnight. The position is currently occupied by Steve Brine whose Twitter photo shows him with Deborah Arnott (head of Action on Smoking Health) stood behind him with a big grin on her face. You couldn’t ask for a better visual metaphor of how that department operates. He’s currently trying to persuade his followers that the new Ribena “delivers the same taste”. It’s really quite pathetic to see a politician spouting corporate slogans which are patently untrue in an attempt to get people to buy products that have been ruined by their own policies.

From Public Health England down to local councils, you have this swarm of nanny state ideologues whose raison d’etre is taxing and banning. They then lobby politicians who have all the wrong incentives. It’s a recipe for disaster.

The British public can be quote conformist and seem content to grumble under their breath about the constant infringements on their freedom of choice rather than express the sort of displeasure that makes politicians think twice. Might there eventually be a straw that breaks the camel’s back?

2018 is the year when the nanny state gets real for a lot of people. We’re already seeing a backlash against the reformulation scheme with the few soft drinks that have been ruined. At the moment, not enough people realise that it is the government that is behind this. Public Health England are being deliberately secretive – they call it ‘health by stealth’. But eventually people are going to work out what’s going on.

I also expect to see a backlash against the sugar tax and, in particular, minimum pricing. It’s going to be a big shock to Scottish drinkers when they see how much prices go up. They’ve been sold the lie that it’s only the super-strength products that will be affected. That will change when they go to buy a slab of beer on May 1st.

I’m realistic. I know we’re never going to see people marching on the streets against this kind of stuff, but growing discontent should at least make politicians think twice about future policy gimmicks. In Westminster, support for nanny state policies is wide but shallow. Most politicians really don’t care either way and will go along with them for a small gain. Equally, though, they will go against them if there is a small cost.

Without a public backlash, do we risk sleepwalking into a nanny state dystopia of the kind advocated by Sarah Conly or Nick Cohen’s barmy vision in a recent Guardian article?

The Nick Cohen article is what you get when people start seeing the government as the solution to everything. Not just the solution, but the first port of call when anything irritates or upsets you. So, Nick’s given up drinking and started running. Good for him. There are no policy implications from a journalist going on a health kick, but it’s very important to him and so, being a statist, he thinks the government should act on his new preferences.

It’s amazing how often seemingly reasonable newspaper columnists embrace totalitarian health measures. David Aaronovitch struggles with dieting and so he wants sugary products banned from supermarkets. Janet Street-Porter recently demanded rationing be reintroduced to tackle the fictitious childhood obesity ‘epidemic’. A few years ago she wanted rationing for alcohol. These people don’t mind the idea of having a massive, intrusive government because they imagine themselves being in charge of it.

All Cohen was doing was taking the arguments about smokers and obese people being a drain on the NHS to their logical conclusion. If it is our duty as citizens to keep demand on the NHS to a minimum, there is no limit on what the government can do to us. People become servants of the NHS rather than the other way round. This is a terrifying outlook and the people who make this argument are not, I think, arguing in good faith. For a start, the economics of it are all wrong. It is the ageing population, not the prematurely dying population, that is really placing a ‘burden’ on public services. People like Cohen may not know this because the ‘public health’ racket routinely lies about it, but if you explained it to him I bet he’d still support coercive lifestyle regulation. It’s not about economics for these people. It’s not about the NHS. It’s about control. It’s about that weird, creepy characteristic that some people have of wanting to impose their own way of doing things on everybody else.

If the entire public health lobby were to be defunded, how would recommend spending the money saved?

On healthcare. On social care. On something that people actually want and need.

People in the ‘public health’ racket claim that their policies pay for themselves in spades a few years down the line because they prevent diseases. In fact, most preventive medicine costs more in the long run because people live longer and run up more bills, but that’s almost irrelevant because nanny state policies generally don’t work in the first place. Sugar taxes have not worked. Plain packaging has not worked. We can say that categorically. The jury is in. The only place where they work is on a spreadsheet on an activist’s computer. Bone-headed attempts to make people fundamentally change their lifestyles by obstructing the market simply do not work. They do not address demand. They do not address the reasons that people making unhealthy lifestyle choices. They just punish people for making them.

It’s a disgrace that we are spending more than £4 billion a year on so-called ‘public health’ in this country. Not all of that money is squandered but a hell of a lot of it is. The government has essentially created a slush fund for a bunch of fanatics to play at being scientists and for a bunch of lobbyists to play at being doctors. Spend it on the health service.

How do you think issues of childhood obesity and other public health issues caused by poor diet, inactivity etc should be addressed in government policy, or should the state just leave us alone?

Obesity is not a public health issue. It’s not contagious and it does not require collective action. I am not obese and it makes no difference to me whether the obesity rate is twenty per cent or two per cent. By contrast, the government’s anti-obesity policies have a very real effect on me and on the rest of the three-quarters of the population who are not obese. Why should we put up with having our favourite drinks taken off the shelves and our favourite foods shrunk or degraded in a doomed attempt to make a bunch of couch potatoes lose weight? Why should obese people put up with it, for that matter? Who voted for this? How many people really want it?

As usual, it’s all being done under the pretext of think-of-the-children, but Public Health England have pretty abandoned that cover story now and admit that children and adults generally eat the same things so the entire food supply has to be ‘reformulated’.

I would accept that the state has more of a role to play in tackling childhood obesity because most children go to state schools, but the problem is vastly overstated anyway. The claims about how many kids are obese are simply fraudulent. If you look at the way they measure child obesity, it’s just laughable. It’s a classic Emperor’s New Clothes scenario. Anybody who picks their kids up from school or spends any time around children can see that very few of them are overweight, let alone obese, but we are told endlessly that a third of them are dangerously overweight and so we assume that there are corners of the country where entire schools are made up of little Billy Bunters. There are not.

There’s so much doublethink required to believe the narrative of ‘public health’. We can be told one minute that kids are going to die before their parents because of the crippling effects of the obesity ‘epidemic’ and the next minute we are told that one in six people are going to live to 100 and that social care can’t cope with the rising number of geriatrics. The majority of the claims made by nanny statists are at least partially inaccurate and a lot of them a demonstrably false. We’re being lied to. That’s what it comes down.

WHO FUNDS YOU??

*Sigh*

The sugar tax: Another win for the nanny state

Ben Kelly / Prohibition / nanny state, sugar tax / 0 comments

06/04/2018

The sugar tax is a bad policy being introduced for bad reasons and, worst of all, it’s another push down a slippery slope. Public health lobbyists have yet another win under their belt and they won’t stop there. You were warned.

It’s a regressive tax and, like all consumption taxes, will hit the poorest the hardest as a greater proportion of their income is spent on “sin taxes” and VAT. The poorest 10% of households already pay more than 20% of their gross incomes on duties and VAT – more than double the average household.

Our Online Director Ben Kelly writes on the sugar tax today for Reaction, read here.

The reshuffled Cabinet

Ben Kelly / News / 0 comments

11/06/2017

Philip Hammond: Chancellor of the Exchequer

Amber Rudd: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Boris Johnson: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

David Davis: Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Michael Fallon: Secretary of State for Defence

Damian Green: First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office

Greg Clark: Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

David Gauke: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Liz Truss: Chief Secretary to the Treasury, attending Cabinet

Liam Fox: Secretary of State for International Trade

Justine Greening: Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities

Sajid Javid: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

David Lidington: Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Alun Cairns: Secretary of State for Wales

Jeremy Hunt: Secretary of State for Health

Gavin Williamson: Chief Whip

Chris Grayling: Secretary of State for Transport

Priti Patel: Secretary of State for International Development

James Brokenshire: Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

Karen Bradley: Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Andrea Leadsom: Lord President of the Council and Leader of the Commons

Michael Gove: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Brandon Lewis: Minister of State in the Home Office, now attending Cabinet

Jeremy Wright: Attorney General

Baroness (Natalie) Evans: Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

Patrick McLoughlin: Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Conservative Party Chair

Jeremy_Corbyn,_2016_Labour_Party_Conference_5

I’m uninspired; but I’m voting to oppose the Far Left extremists

Ben Kelly / Elections / 2 comments

08/06/2017

When I cast my vote in this general election I will, for the most part, be voting against something rather than for anything. I don’t endorse Theresa May’s illiberal instincts, her paternalistic philosophy or desire for economic interventionism; nor do I think her Brexit strategy is grounded in what’s best for the economy. During this campaign, she has proven to be poor performer who is uncomfortable with scrutiny and weak under pressure. It has all been very unimpressive.

In truth, no political party commands my unconditional loyalty; politics is not football. If there was an optimistic, leader prepared to defend Neoliberalism and globalisation, who believed in a market based relationship with the EU, leading a capable Party they would have my enthusiastic vote, but there isn’t. I feel so uninspired that in the past I may have just stayed at home.

There is however a VERY large but. As in: but what about the alternative? I feel compelled to cast a vote against the Far Left Labour leadership and their zealous acolytes. I detest their ideology and i’m repulsed by their numerous questionable affiliations and sympathies. The populist Labour manifesto is based on a utopianist economic policy which is economically ridiculous in its profligacy and cynical in its attempt to promise the world to every voter group. It may be chock full of sellable doorstep policies but it’s rife with terrible ideas, from the National Education Service to the National Investment Bank and nationalisation program.

Worst of all, I don’t believe for a moment that if given the chance to consolidate their power, the Corbynites won’t go much further than suggested in their manifesto and attempt to implement their long cherished socialistic economic beliefs and ride roughshod through Britain’s institutions. I dread to think of what state the country would end up in.

Every vote for Labour will be perceived by the leadership as an endorsement of Corbyn and the Party’s current direction and I want to see them ousted so that Labour can become a competent and reasonable opposition and a government in waiting. That’s better for this country and its political system, and this may be the last chance to prevent Labour becoming permanently captured by extremists.

I don’t buy into the image of Corbyn as a kindly old man with some eccentric beliefs; he is a dogmatic extremist with a warped moral compass. It seems tedious to go over it again, we’ve all read a hundred articles laying out the case against him but it bears repeating until there is no longer any threat of this man becoming our Prime Minister.

This is a man who supported the IRA and is now lying about supporting the peace process ; he talks as if he was an integral part of it but he was nothing of the sort. This is a man who expressed sympathies with Hamas and Hezbollah by inviting them to Parliament and called them his ‘friends’. Who took money to appear on the propaganda channel of the Iranian regime five times. The Iranian regime, it should be remembered, is a totalitarian theocracy that executes dissenters and gays and is vehemently anti-Semitic, not to mention oppressive of women. None of that matters though, he is happy to be a useful idiot for anyone who is against the West.

So many hardcore Corbynites are frothing at the mouth anti-Semites which is disconcerting and very telling. There is something very wrong when a large poster featuring Theresa May wearing Star of David earrings in unfurled as if this was completely normal and acceptable, and not something reserved for neo-Nazis. The problem is, Corbyn doesn’t just tolerate this; he is one of the root causes. He whitewashed the investigation into this clear issue within the Labour Party so he can hardly be that concerned.

Here we again have to look at the people and causes he associates himself with. He has supported Raed Salah, a Jew hating Islamist who spreads the Blood Libel myth and claims they were behind 9/11. This kindly old socialist has praised him repeatedly, saying ‘’Salah’s is a voice that must be heard’, really? Seriously? Not surprising from a Hamas sympathiser I suppose, the group with an explicitly genocidal charter that rules out a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestine issue and makes it clear that killing Jews is an express aim of their supporters. A man who invited them to Parliament and praised them as “serious and hard working” is our potential Prime Minister… crazy times.

The team working under Corbyn are a sorry lot that shouldn’t be anywhere near government. We have the utterly vile extremist Marxist John McDonnell, a ‘bad, bad, bastard’ in the thoroughly apt words of Reaction editor Iain Martin, looking to take control of the UK’s economy. The decision to choose Diane Abbott, yet another IRA supporter as well as a Mao apologist, has proven to be disastrous. As his Communications Director he appointed a Stalinist, Seamus Milne, an enthusiastic apologist for the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic. He then judged it reasonable to hire Andrew Murray, a Communist who has defended Stalin and North Korea, as a campaign advisor.

Beyond that the dregs of the Labour Party make up his Cabinet because most of his MP’s can’t stand him and don’t believe he should be their leader, never mind Prime Minister.

Aside from the people, it’s the policies I cannot endorse. The Conservative’s baffling failure to run a campaign based on the economy left an open goal for Corbynite Labour to promise the world to the electorate. These longstanding admirers of the socialist alternative as exemplified by basket cases like Venezeula and Cuba, have an opportunity to transform Britain in ways they have dreamed about for decades. It’s the road to ruin. In their quest to remould Britain into a socialist country they plan to borrow billions; it will be an expensive failure. The size of the deficit and the national debt after achieving so many bad outcomes from their good intentions does not bear thinking about.

The putrid Far Left cannot be allowed to govern Britain. This catastrophe must be averted. They need to lose and lose badly to prove how unpopular they are, to expose their failures and increase the chances of loosening their grip on the Labour Party. That is why I am casting my vote against them.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

It begins! The Article 50 letter in full

Ben Kelly / News / 0 comments

30/03/2017

Dear President Tusk,

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the ‘acquis’) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.

i. We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no ‘cherry picking’. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

ii. We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.

We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.

The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.

Yours sincerely,

Theresa May.

The real threat to Labour in the North is not Ukip; it’s the Conservative Party

Ben Kelly / UK Politics / 0 comments

27/02/2017

The universal agreement that Copeland was a huge win for the Conservatives and a disaster for Labour ensured the focus of debate was mainly on the significance of the result in Stoke. Ross Clark disagrees with the emerging consensus that Ukip are finished, citing their robust vote share (which increased in Stoke from 22.7 per cent to 24.7 per cent) despite their raison d’être being achieved in the vote for Brexit.

I this Ross is missing the point. Since their victory in the 2014 Euro elections we have awaited the much-discussed great electoral surge of the purple populist movement; it has disappointed every time. Ukip are always the bridesmaid and never the bride. It might have been a decent second place but it’s still yet another electoral failure, and not an honourable one either; the campaign was pathetically shambolic.

The Ukip leader and three-time Olympic gold winner Paul Nuttall has been exposed as a serial liar. His biggest policy announcement was the embarrassing sloganeering nonsense to make the “traditional British dinner of fish and chips cheap as chips again”; a true dad’s army policy that patronises the working class.

Nuttall accepted no responsibility for his duplicity and instead threw one of his loyal aides under the bus before bemoaning a “coordinated, cruel and almost evil smear campaign” and crying on the podium at Ukip’s spring conference last weekend… this is one of Ukip’s big hitters and we’re supposed to believe they’re not finished?

This by-election was heralded as a precursor to the great Ukip blitzkrieg on Northern England. Stoke isn’t in the North, but they were considered honorary Northerners because of the post-industrial vibe and the 69.4% vote for Brexit. Well, the people of Stoke were canny enough to spot a hapless charlatan who offered them little and duly withheld their votes.

Therein lies the real lesson of the week. Ukip is not a serious party. They don’t have the professionalism, resources, candidates or the ground operation to launch that all-out assault of the North that Nuttall is apparently aiming for. So perhaps while we were getting distracted by the Stoke result we should have been looking to the collapse in the Ukip vote share in Copeland, which fell from 15.5 per cent in 2015 to a mere 6.5 percent, with the Conservatives being the main benefactor.

Received wisdom has long dictated that the Conservative Party is dead in the North. Although it’s still very much the case that many Northerners would rather flambé their grandmother than vote Tory, and many constituencies will never turn blue even if the Labour candidate beheads puppies in the town hall, the Conservatives should still be taken very seriously as an electoral force.

The tribal voting instinct is strong but not unbreakable; and the loathsome socialist Jeremy Corbyn is just the man to facilitate that. According to a Yougov poll commissioned by the Times, Labour polls at 31% in the North and the Conservatives beat them by 5 points at 36%, with Ukip on 19%. The real threat to Labour is not Ukip, but a resurgent Tory Party.

Looking back at the Tory performance at the 2015 General Election provides some intriguing data. In the North-East, the party increased its vote share in almost 60% of seats. In the North-West the party finished in first or second place in more than 80% of seats. In Yorkshire and Humberside it won 19 seats (35.8%).

Clearly, that the much ballyhooed rise of Ukip in Northern England has not significantly harmed the Tories. Labour remains dominant, but they are in very serious trouble and a significant number of Northern voters are attracted to the Conservative Party. Theresa May has banished the posh boy image of the Cameroons and can detoxify her Party. She polls over sixty points ahead of Corbyn in favourability ratings and is perceived to be in touch with ordinary people. We should expect more political upsets in Northern constituencies.

To achieve that aim, the Conservatives just need to make the North feels like it matters. That’s why George Osborne championed the “Northern powerhouse”. Northerners are the same as any other voters; they want jobs, opportunity and investment in their area. Deliver that and it will pay off in droves.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Photo by David Wilson Clarke licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license

Palace_of_Westminster,_London_-_Feb_2007

It is right that parliament should vote on triggering Article 50; but the decision to leave was definitively made on June 23rd

Ben Kelly / Blog / 2 comments

24/01/2017

It was inevitable that the Government would lose the Supreme Court appeal and now that Theresa May has been ruled against by a majority of 8 to 3; the appeal looks like an unforced error by the prime minister. Triggering Article 50 not only requires changes to legislation; it will fundamentally change the future course of this country and it is absolutely right that parliament should debate and vote. The process should have been started long ago and this debacle could have been avoided.

Many Brexiteers, no doubt led by Farage and his merry men, will be tediously ranting and raving about this for the rest of the day; I would urge them to re-think. Please, let’s now be hypocrites, you wanted parliamentary sovereignty, you wanted empowered MPs, you wanted a grown up democracy debating serious future altering decisions; well now you’ve got it. This is what taking back control really looks like.

I don’t want an unaccountable supranational government ruling over us but neither do I want an over mighty Executive forcing its will on parliament. So rejoice, parliament is reasserting itself!

One thing is overwhelmingly clear; the result of the referendum has given the Government a mandate to leave the EU and Theresa May has the support of the British people to get Article 50 through parliament. Thus, any attempt to stop Brexit would be a violation of our democracy and risks turning British politics severely toxic. If people feel that they are being ignored their resentment will build up and eventually boil over and come back on those who chose to ignore them.

It is when the people feel that their elected representatives are unaccountable that apathy sets in, which will then be exploited by demagogues promising easy answers from a hardline approach. The danger is that the backlash will manifest itself in people turning to the extremes to express their frustration. Ignoring the referendum and trying to block Brexit would be playing with fire. MPs must remember who they work for and peers must not discredit the House of Lords.

As long as that is fully accepted, as I expect it will be, Brexiteers should have no complaints about MPs having their say on Brexit. This is not a violation of the “will of the British people” but rather the joyous sight of an awakening democracy. This is what it’s all about. We can expect to see many more great debates in the future as MPs consider international treaties and trade agreements after parliament has taken back control from Brussels. This is step one on the path to a renewed parliamentary sovereignty. Isn’t this what we voted for?

The ranting and raving of those who object to the Supreme Court ruling will only make Brexiteers appear hypocritical and unreasonable. The referendum gave a mandate to leave, but now on how to leave. We are not handing our notice to end a golf club membership; seceding from the EU is going to be mind bogglingly complex and difficult and the discussion over our approach is necessarily nuanced. This isn’t something that should be forced through rashly by the unconstrained Executive without a reasonable explanation of Government policy.

Now parliament will debate the intricacies and possibilities as we come to a solution that has the support of the house. This, incidentally, makes support for the final exit deal more likely. Far from being a setback, the Supreme Court ruling will be beneficial and makes a successful Brexit more likely.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

WARNING: Eating roast potatoes may seriously harm your health (says nannying quango)

Ben Kelly / Blog / 0 comments

23/01/2017

My name is Ben Kelly and I’m a roast potato addict. It started with just the occasional spud, you know, a few boiled or mashed at social gatherings. All the cool kids were eating them. Then I moved to roasted and eventually I could barely imagine a roast dinner without them. Before long I began “fluffing” them to enhance the high.

Now, i’m a 20 a day man. I fluff every time, roast them in goose fat until they’re nice and brown, and crunch into them in a delicious frenzy of culinary ecstasy. It’s a hard life, the life of a roastie addict. I’ve tried the patches, but they did no good. I even tried an E-potato but I got scared by reports of them blowing up in people’s faces. In any case public health activists say they’re nearly as bad as the real thing anyway and their advice is completely impartial and not tainted by ideological zeal at all.

There is a point behind this facetiousness of course. Britain collectively furrowed its brow and rolled its eyes today at more piffling, nannying advice from a Government agency we all fund telling us to introduce more needless worry and misery into our lives by wringing our hands over acrymalide in foods which, of course, will give you all cancer.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has launched a new campaign against the scourge of our age; crispy roast potatoes, toast that has been toasted too much and crisps. “Go gold” is the laughable slogan some marketing exec, collecting a salary from the taxpayer no doubt, has come up with to warn against what they deem to be overcooked food.

So, don’t “fluff” your potatoes to make them extra delicious; it will increase the risk of cancer. Don’t brown your toast to give it a lovely crunch; it will increase the risk of cancer. Probably best to avoid crisps altogether (unless you want cancer). All due to a chemical reaction in high carb foods that takes place when you choose to fry, roast, bake, grill or toast them and forms the basis of the campaign which will, i’m sure, transform lives in a very meaningful way.

Personally my recommendation would be to put pictures of cancerous tumours on plain packaged potatoes, emblazoned with bold letters reading: “WARNING: ROAST POTATOES WILL INCREASE THE RISK OF CANCER”, the bags should then be stored behind closed doors in all shops to try and reduce their consumption. This should be swiftly followed up by a potato tax and restrictions on advertising.

There really is no other way to responds the FSA campaign other than ridicule. We are now bombarded with so much advice from nannying quangos and “public health” campaigners that it all becomes white noise. The hysteria over what we eat, how we cook it, and what will increase the risk of cancer is undermining the more serious health advice we really should be heeding. Advice that can be taken from genuinely important scientific research will fall on deaf ears because of bizarre scaremongering overreactions such as this “go for gold” nonsense.

How many times must we do this? This tedious scenario plays out over and over and over. Britain is becoming a timid country beset by irrational public health scares; please, let’s get a grip.

First, some quango or public health body publishes some research with their latest advice on what we shouldn’t eat and how we are increasing the risk of cancer. Then the media sensationalises it to fill an empty news day and whips up a health scare frenzy with every single newspaper reporting on it, every newsreader announcing it it, morning radio talk shows discussing it and journalists with apparently nothing better to do writing about it (oh, wait…). Finally, a few people note the advice, most ignore and forget about it and we all move on… until the next time.

Look, everything in moderation, okay? That advice is mind numbingly clichéd but we should all live by it because it’s common sense. No taxpayer money was diverted into my bank account for reminding you of that advice. People of Britain I urge you to have roast potatoes with your dinner this weekend; and fluff them up before cooking to make them extra crispy. Don’t worry, be happy.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Theresa May lays out her vision for Brexit: Full speech

Ben Kelly / News / 0 comments

17/01/2017

A little over six months ago, the British people voted for change.

They voted to shape a brighter future for our country.

They voted to leave the European Union and embrace the world.

And they did so with their eyes open: accepting that the road ahead will be uncertain at times, but believing that it leads towards a brighter future for their children – and their grandchildren too.

And it is the job of this Government to deliver it. That means more than negotiating our new relationship with the EU. It means taking the opportunity of this great moment of national change to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be.

My answer is clear. I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country – a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.

That is why this Government has a Plan for Britain. One that gets us the right deal abroad but also ensures we get a better deal for ordinary working people at home.

It’s why that plan sets out how we will use this moment of change to build a stronger economy and a fairer society by embracing genuine economic and social reform.

Why our new Modern Industrial Strategy is being developed, to ensure every nation and area of the United Kingdom can make the most of the opportunities ahead. Why we will go further to reform our schools to ensure every child has the knowledge and the skills they need to thrive in post-Brexit Britain. Why as we continue to bring the deficit down, we will take a balanced approach by investing in our economic infrastructure – because it can transform the growth potential of our economy, and improve the quality of people’s lives across the whole country.

It’s why we will put the preservation of our precious Union at the heart of everything we do. Because it is only by coming together as one great union of nations and people that we can make the most of the opportunities ahead.

The result of the referendum was not a decision to turn inward and retreat from the world.

Because Britain’s history and culture is profoundly internationalist.

We are a European country – and proud of our shared European heritage – but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world. That is why we are one of the most racially diverse countries in Europe, one of the most multicultural members of the European Union, and why – whether we are talking about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, countries in Africa or those that are closer to home in Europe – so many of us have close friends and relatives from across the world.

Instinctively, we want to travel to, study in, trade with countries not just in Europe but beyond the borders of our continent. Even now as we prepare to leave the EU, we are planning for the next biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018 – a reminder of our unique and proud global relationships.

And it is important to recognise this fact. June the 23 ^rd was not the moment Britain chose to step back from the world. It was the moment we chose to build a truly Global Britain.

I know that this – and the other reasons Britain took such a decision – is not always well understood among our friends and allies in Europe. And I know many fear that this might herald the beginning of a greater unravelling of the EU.

But let me be clear: I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interests of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain’s decision to leave.

So let me take this opportunity to set out the reasons for our decision and to address the people of Europe directly.

It’s not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world.

There are other important reasons too.

Our political traditions are different. Unlike other European countries, we have no written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement. We have only a recent history of devolved governance – though it has rapidly embedded itself – and we have little history of coalition government. The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life.

And, while I know Britain might at times have been seen as an awkward member state, the European Union has struggled to deal with the diversity of its member countries and their interests. It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility. David Cameron’s negotiation was a valiant final attempt to make it work for Britain – and I want to thank all those elsewhere in Europe who helped him reach an agreement – but the blunt truth, as we know, is that there was not enough flexibility on many important matters for a majority of British voters.

Now I do not believe that these things apply uniquely to Britain. Britain is not the only member state where there is a strong attachment to accountable and democratic government, such a strong internationalist mindset, or a belief that diversity within Europe should be celebrated. And so I believe there is a lesson in Brexit not just for Britain but, if it wants to succeed, for the EU itself.

Because our continent’s great strength has always been its diversity. And there are two ways of dealing with different interests. You can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening a vice-like grip that ends up crushing into tiny pieces the very things you want to protect. Or you can respect difference, cherish it even, and reform the EU so that it deals better with the wonderful diversity of its member states.

So to our friends across Europe, let me say this.

Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member states. We do not want to turn the clock back to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely. It was a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.

We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship.

So today I want to outline our objectives for the negotiation ahead. 12 objectives that amount to one big goal: a new, positive and constructive partnership between Britain and the European Union.

And as we negotiate that partnership, we will be driven by some simple principles: we will provide as much certainty and clarity as we can at every stage. And we will take this opportunity to make Britain stronger, to make Britain fairer, and to build a more Global Britain too.

You will still be welcome in this country as we hope our citizens will be welcome in yours. At a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies, Britain’s unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism. And at a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.

We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

And that is why we seek a new and equal partnership – between an independent, self-governing, Global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU.

Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.

No, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. And my job is to get the right deal for Britain as we do.

1. Certainty

The first objective is crucial. We will provide certainty wherever we can.

We are about to enter a negotiation. That means there will be give and take. There will have to be compromises. It will require imagination on both sides. And not everybody will be able to know everything at every stage.

But I recognise how important it is to provide business, the public sector, and everybody with as much certainty as possible as we move through the process.

So where we can offer that certainty, we will do so.

That is why last year we acted quickly to give clarity about farm payments and university funding.

And it is why, as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.

This will give the country maximum certainty as we leave the EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as they did before. And it will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate.

And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.

Our second guiding principle is to build a stronger Britain.

2. Control of our own laws

That means taking control of our own affairs, as those who voted in their millions to leave the European Union demanded we must.

So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.

Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country.

Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws.

3. Strengthen the Union

A stronger Britain demands that we do something else – strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.

At this momentous time, it is more important than ever that we face the future together, united by what makes us strong: the bonds that unite us as a people, and our shared interest in the UK being an open, successful trading nation in the future.

And I hope that same spirit of unity will apply in Northern Ireland in particular over the coming months in the Assembly elections, and the main parties there will work together to re-establish a partnership government as soon as possible.

Foreign affairs are of course the responsibility of the UK Government, and in dealing with them we act in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom. As Prime Minister, I take that responsibility seriously.

I have also been determined from the start that the devolved administrations should be fully engaged in this process.

That is why the Government has set up a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, so ministers from each of the UK’s devolved administrations can contribute to the process of planning for our departure from the European Union.

We have already received a paper from the Scottish Government, and look forward to receiving a paper from the Welsh Government shortly. Both papers will be considered as part of this important process. We won’t agree on everything, but I look forward to working with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Part of that will mean working very carefully to ensure that – as powers are repatriated from Brussels back to Britain – the right powers are returned to Westminster, and the right powers are passed to the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As we do so, our guiding principle must be to ensure that – as we leave the European Union – no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created,

That means maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world, and protecting the common resources of our islands.

And as we do this, I should equally be clear that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them.

4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland

We cannot forget that, as we leave, the United Kingdom will share a land border with the EU, and maintaining that Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland will be an important priority for the UK in the talks ahead.

There has been a Common Travel Area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland for many years. Indeed, it was formed before either of our two countries were members of the European Union. And the family ties and bonds of affection that unite our two countries mean that there will always be a special relationship between us.

So we will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom’s immigration system.

Nobody wants to return to the borders of the past, so we will make it a priority to deliver a practical solution as soon as we can.

The third principle is to build a fairer Britain. That means ensuring it is fair to everyone who lives and works in this country.

5. Control of immigration

And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.

We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country’s most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest.

So we will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU.

Because while controlled immigration can bring great benefits – filling skills shortages, delivering public services, making British businesses the world-beaters they often are – when the numbers get too high, public support for the system falters.

In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people. As Home Secretary for six years, I know that you cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe.

Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration, we will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends. But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver.

6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU

Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.

Many of them favour such an agreement – one or two others do not – but I want everyone to know that it remains an important priority for Britain – and for many other member states – to resolve this challenge as soon as possible. Because it is the right and fair thing to do.

7. Protect workers’ rights

And a fairer Britain is a country that protects and enhances the rights people have at work.

That is why, as we translate the body of European law into our domestic regulations, we will ensure that workers rights are fully protected and maintained.

Indeed, under my leadership, not only will the Government protect the rights of workers’ set out in European legislation, we will build on them. Because under this Conservative Government, we will make sure legal protection for workers keeps pace with the changing labour market – and that the voices of workers are heard by the boards of publicly-listed companies for the first time.

But the great prize for this country – the opportunity ahead – is to use this moment to build a truly Global Britain. A country that reaches out to old friends and new allies alike. A great, global, trading nation. And one of the firmest advocates for free trade anywhere in the world.

8. Free trade with European markets

That starts with our close friends and neighbours in Europe. So as a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement with the European Union.

This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states. It should give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets – and let European businesses do the same in Britain.

But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.

European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the Single Market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.

It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.

And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the Single Market.

So we do not seek membership of the Single Market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement.

That Agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.

But I respect the position taken by European leaders who have been clear about their position, just as I am clear about mine. So an important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the Single Market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.

And because we will no longer be members of the Single Market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget. There may be some specific European programmes in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution. But the principle is clear: the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.

9. New trade agreements with other countries

But it is not just trade with the EU we should be interested in. A Global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too.

Because important though our trade with the EU is and will remain, it is clear that the UK needs to increase significantly its trade with the fastest growing export markets in the world.

Since joining the EU, trade as a percentage of GDP has broadly stagnated in the UK. That is why it is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.

This is such a priority for me that when I became Prime Minister I established, for the first time, a Department for International Trade, led by Liam Fox.

We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe. Countries including China, Brazil, and the Gulf States have already expressed their interest in striking trade deals with us. We have started discussions on future trade ties with countries like Australia, New Zealand and India. And President Elect Trump has said Britain is not “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with the United States, the world’s biggest economy, but front of the line.

I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU’s Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals.

Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.

Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

And those ends are clear: I want to remove as many barriers to trade as possible. And I want Britain to be free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation, meaning we can reach new trade agreements not just with the European Union but with old friends and new allies from outside Europe too.

10. The best place for science and innovation

A Global Britain must also be a country that looks to the future. That means being one of the best places in the world for science and innovation.

One of our great strengths as a nation is the breadth and depth of our academic and scientific communities, backed up by some of the world’s best universities. And we have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting-edge research and innovation.

So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

From space exploration to clean energy to medical technologies, Britain will remain at the forefront of collective endeavours to better understand, and make better, the world in which we live.

11. Cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism

And a Global Britain will continue to cooperate with its European partners in important areas such as crime, terrorism and foreign affairs.

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states. All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

With the threats to our common security becoming more serious, our response cannot be to cooperate with one another less, but to work together more. I therefore want our future relationship with the European Union to include practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies.

I am proud of the role Britain has played and will continue to play in promoting Europe’s security. Britain has led Europe on the measures needed to keep our continent secure – whether it is implementing sanctions against Russia following its action in Crimea, working for peace and stability in the Balkans, or securing Europe’s external border. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.

12. A smooth, orderly Brexit

These are our objectives for the negotiation ahead – objectives that will help to realise our ambition of shaping that stronger, fairer, Global Britain that we want to see.

They are the basis for a new, strong, constructive partnership with the European Union – a partnership of friends and allies, of interests and values. A partnership for a strong EU and a strong UK.

But there is one further objective we are setting. For as I have said before – it is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability, as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the EU.

By this, I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory. That would not be good for Britain, but nor do I believe it would be good for the EU.

Instead, I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.

This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.

But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.

So, these are the objectives we have set. Certainty wherever possible. Control of our own laws. Strengthening the United Kingdom. Maintaining the Common Travel Area with Ireland. Control of immigration. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU. Enhancing rights for workers. Free trade with European markets. New trade agreements with other countries. A leading role in science and innovation. Cooperation on crime, terrorism and foreign affairs. And a phased approach, delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit.

This is the framework of a deal that will herald a new partnership between the UK and the EU.

It is a comprehensive and carefully considered plan that focuses on the ends, not just the means – with its eyes fixed firmly on the future, and on the kind of country we will be once we leave.

It reflects the hard work of many in this room today who have worked tirelessly to bring it together and to prepare this country for the negotiation ahead.

And it will, I know, be debated and discussed at length. That is only right. But those who urge us to reveal more – such as the blow-by-blow details of our negotiating strategy, the areas in which we might compromise, the places where we think there are potential trade-offs – will not be acting in the national interest.

Because this is not a game or a time for opposition for opposition’s sake. It is a crucial and sensitive negotiation that will define the interests and the success of our country for many years to come. And it is vital that we maintain our discipline.

That is why I have said before – and will continue to say – that every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for Britain. Our opposite numbers in the European Commission know it, which is why they are keeping their discipline. And the ministers in this Government know it too, which is why we will also maintain ours.

So however frustrating some people find it, the Government will not be pressured into saying more than I believe it is in our national interest to say. Because it is not my job to fill column inches with daily updates, but to get the right deal for Britain. And that is what I intend to do.

I am confident that a deal – and a new strategic partnership between the UK and the EU – can be achieved.

This is firstly because, having held conversations with almost every leader from every single EU member state; having spent time talking to the senior figures from the European institutions, including President Tusk, President Juncker, and President Schulz; and after my Cabinet colleagues David Davis, Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson have done the same with their interlocutors, I am confident that the vast majority want a positive relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit. And I am confident that the objectives I am setting out today are consistent with the needs of the EU and its Member States.

That is why our objectives include a proposed Free Trade Agreement between Britain and the European Union, and explicitly rule out membership of the EU’s Single Market. Because when the EU’s leaders say they believe the four freedoms of the Single Market are indivisible, we respect that position. When the 27 Member States say they want to continue their journey inside the European Union, we not only respect that fact but support it.

Because we do not want to undermine the Single Market, and we do not want to undermine the European Union. We want the EU to be a success and we want its remaining member states to prosper. And of course we want the same for Britain.

And the second reason I believe it is possible to reach a good deal is that the kind of agreement I have described today is the economically rational thing that both Britain and the EU should aim for. Because trade is not a zero sum game: more of it makes us all more prosperous. Free trade between Britain and the European Union means more trade, and more trade means more jobs and more wealth creation. The erection of new barriers to trade, meanwhile, means the reverse: less trade, fewer jobs, lower growth.

The third and final reason I believe we can come to the right agreement is that cooperation between Britain and the EU is needed not just when it comes to trade but when it comes to our security too.

Britain and France are Europe’s only two nuclear powers. We are the only two European countries with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Britain’s armed forces are a crucial part of Europe’s collective defence.

And our intelligence capabilities – unique in Europe – have already saved countless lives in very many terrorist plots that have been thwarted in countries across our continent. After Brexit, Britain wants to be a good friend and neighbour in every way, and that includes defending the safety and security of all of our citizens.

So I believe the framework I have outlined today is in Britain’s interests. It is in Europe’s interests. And it is in the interests of the wider world.

But I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe. Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.

That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.

Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.

Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the Single Market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.

But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds. It would mean a loss of access for European firms to the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year. And it would disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which many EU companies rely.

Important sectors of the EU economy would also suffer. We are a crucial – profitable – export market for Europe’s automotive industry, as well as sectors including energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture. These sectors employ millions of people around Europe. And I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point.

For all these reasons – and because of our shared values and the spirit of goodwill that exists on both sides – I am confident that we will follow a better path. I am confident that a positive agreement can be reached.

It is right that the Government should prepare for every eventuality – but to do so in the knowledge that a constructive and optimistic approach to the negotiations to come is in the best interests of Europe and the best interests of Britain.

We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success.

Because we are a great, global nation with so much to offer Europe and so much to offer the world.

One of the world’s largest and strongest economies. With the finest intelligence services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power, and friendships, partnerships and alliances in every continent.

And another thing that’s important. The essential ingredient of our success. The strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen.

Because after all the division and discord, the country is coming together.

The referendum was divisive at times. And those divisions have taken time to heal.

But one of the reasons that Britain’s democracy has been such a success for so many years is that the strength of our identity as one nation, the respect we show to one another as fellow citizens, and the importance we attach to our institutions means that when a vote has been held we all respect the result. The victors have the responsibility to act magnanimously. The losers have the responsibility to respect the legitimacy of the outcome. And the country comes together.

And that is what we are seeing today. Business isn’t calling to reverse the result, but planning to make a success of it. The House of Commons has voted overwhelmingly for us to get on with it. And the overwhelming majority of people – however they voted – want us to get on with it too.

So that is what we will do.

Not merely forming a new partnership with Europe, but building a stronger, fairer, more Global Britain too.

And let that be the legacy of our time. The prize towards which we work. The destination at which we arrive once the negotiation is done.

And let us do it not for ourselves, but for those who follow. For the country’s children and grandchildren too.

So that when future generations look back at this time, they will judge us not only by the decision that we made, but by what we made of that decision.

They will see that we shaped them a brighter future.

They will know that we built them a better Britain.