John Major Briefings

on Friday, he will find out that

what we need is a hard-headed

leader, not a fairy godmother. Thank

you very much.

And thank you very much and good

afternoon everyone.

I would like to express my thanks to

the Creative Industries Federation,

Somerset House Trust,

and Tech London Advocates

for the opportunity

to speak here today.

I must confess when I excepted, I

hadn't imagined it was good to be

quite such a busy week for Brexit,

but perhaps that is appropriate.

Brexit matters to our

creative industries.

They express our culture and values

? but give so much more.

Nearly 10% of our national workforce

is in creative industries.

They are often the young ?

and overwhelmingly in small

units up and down the UK.

Job growth outpaces every other part

of industry ? especially

in the Midlands and Yorkshire.

Their exports total over £35 billion

a year, but their added value

to our country ? both economically

and socially ? is incalculable.

And far beyond cash.

Our decision to leave the EU faces

the creative industries

with a variety of threats that

could harm their future,

both in financial and human terms.

So I am delighted to be their guest

here this afternoon

to talk of Brexit.

For years, the European

debate has been dominated

by the fringes of opinion ?

by strong supporters of Europe

or convinced opponents.

But as we approach Brexit,

the voice of middle opinion

mustn t be overlooked.

I am neither a Europhile

nor a Eurosceptic.

As Prime Minister, I said no

to federal integration,

no to the Euro Currency,

and no to Schengen ?

which introduced free movement

of people within the European Union

but without proper control

of external borders.

But I am a realist.

I believe that to risk

losing our trade advantages

with the colossal market

on our doorstep is to

inflict economic self-harm

on the British people.

Of course, the will of the people

can t be ignored, but Parliament has

a duty also to consider

the wellbeing of the people.

No-one voted for higher prices

and poorer public services,

but that is what they may get.

The emerging evidence suggests

Brexit will hurt most

those who have least.

Neither Parliament nor

Government wish to see that.

The will of the people -

so often summoned up

when sound argument

is absent ? was supported by only

37% of the electorate.

63% voted either in favour of

membership ? or did not vote at all.

There was a majority for Brexit,

but there was no overwhelming

mandate to ignore the reservations

of 16 million voters,

who believe it will be a harmful

change of direction for our country.

Brexit has been the most divisive

issue of my lifetime.

It has divided not only

the four nations of our UK,

but regions within them.

It has divided political parties;

political colleagues; families;

friends ? and the young

from the old.

We have to heal those divisions.

They have been made worse

by the character of the Brexit

debate, with its intolerance,

its bullying, and its name-calling.

I welcome rigorous debate ?

but there must be respect

for differing views that

are honestly held.

In this debate there are no

remoaners, no mutineers,

no enemies of the people ? just

voices setting out what they believe

is right for our country.

In recent weeks, the idea has gained

ground that Brexit won't be too bad,

that we will all get through it,

that we're doing better than

expected ? and all will be well.

Of course we will get through it.

Life as we know it

won't come to an end.

We are too resourceful

and talented a nation for that.

But our nation is owed a frank

assessment of what leaving Europe

may mean ? for now and the future.

I fear we will be weaker

and less prosperous ?

as a country and as individuals.

And ? although it grieves me

to admit it ? our divorce

from Europe will diminish

our international stature.

Indeed, it already has.

For decades, we British have

super-charged our influence around

the world by our closeness to the US

- which policy divisions

are broadening - and our

membership of the EU.

which we are abandoning.

As a result, we are already

becoming a lesser actor.

No-one ? Leaver or Remainer

? can welcome that.

We are all urged to be patriotic

and get behind Brexit.

But it is precisely because I am

patriotic that I oppose it.

I want my country to be

influential, not isolated.

Committed, not cut-off,

a leading participant,

not a bystander.

I want us to be richer, not poorer.

Yet every serious international

body, including the IMF, the OECD,

the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

the National Institute of Economic

and Social Research ?

as well as Nobel prize-winners ?

forecast we will be

poorer outside the EU.

Such forecasts could be wrong,

but to dismiss them out

of hand is reckless.

Our own Government has

assessed our post-Brexit position

upon three separate criteria -

that we stay in the Single Market,

or reach a trade deal

with Europe, or fail to do so.

Each option shows us to be worse

off - and disastrously

so with no trade deal at all.

And the poorest regions

will be hurt the most.

If, as negotiations proceed,

this analysis appears to be correct,

that cannot be brushed aside.

I know of no precedent for any

Government enacting a policy that

will make both our country

and our people poorer.

Once that is apparent,

the Government must change course.

Meanwhile, we are yet again

told all will be well.

Certainly, the recent fall

in the value of sterling has

temporarily boosted our exports.

The strength of the world economy

may even increase our

forecast growth this year.

But this sweet spot is artificial.

It won't last.

Prosperity isn't built

on devaluation of the currency.

More exports on the back of other

countries' economic growth

is not a secure position.

The UK has been at the very

top of European growth.

We are now the laggard

at the bottom.

We have become the slowest

of the world's big economies,

even before we surrender

the familiar advantages

of the Single Market.

Our negotiations, so far,

have not always been sure-footed.

Some agreements have been reached

but, in many areas, only

because the UK has given ground.

Our determination to negotiate

the divorce bill and a new trade

deal at the same time

was going to be "the fight

of the summer" - but instead became

an immediate British retreat.

There was to be a "points

based" immigration system.

There isn't, and there won't be.

We were to become the

"Singapore of the North".

No more: we have retreated

from a policy of lower

taxes and de-regulation.

No transition period

was going to be needed.

But we have now asked for one -

during which we will accept new EU

rules, ECJ jurisdiction,

and free movement of people.

I don't say this to be critical.

I do so to illustrate that

unrealistic aspirations are usually

followed by retreat.

That is a lesson for

the negotiations to come.

They will be the most complex

and most difficult any

Government has faced.

Our aims have to be realistic.

I am not sure they yet are.

We simply cannot move forward

with leaving the EU,

the Single Market, the Customs Union

and the ECJ, whilst at the same time

expecting a la carte,

beneficial-to-Britain,

bespoke entrance to

the European market.

It is simply not credible.

A willingness to

compromise is essential.

If either side - the UK or the EU -

is too inflexible, too unbending,

too wedded to what they won't do -

then the negotiations will fail.

The very essence of negotiation

involves both "give" and "take".

But there are always "red lines"

that neither side wishes to cross.

In successful negotiations

those "red lines" are

traded for concessions.

If our "red lines" are held to be

inviolable, the likelihood of no

deal - or a poor deal - increases.

Every time we close off

options prematurely,

this encourages the EU to do

the same - and that is not

in our British interest.

A good Brexit - for Britain -

will protect our trade

advantages, and enable us

to continue to sell our goods

and services without disruption,

import and export food

without barriers and extra cost,

staff our hospitals,

universities and businesses

with the skills we need -

where we most need them,

be part of the cutting edge

of European research,

in which British brains

and skills lead the way,

and continue with the

over 40 FTAs we have

with countries only as a result

of our membership of the EU.

A bad Brexit - for Britain -

will surrender these,

and other, advantages.

For the moment, our self-imposed

"red lines" have boxed

the Government into a corner.

They are so tilted to ultra Brexit

opinion, even the Cabinet cannot

agree them - and a majority in both

Houses of Parliament oppose them.

If maintained in full,

it will be impossible to reach

a favourable trade outcome.

Alarmed at the negotiations so far,

the financial sector, businesses,

and our academic institutions,

are pleading for common-sense policy

to serve the national

interest and now -

fearful they may not get

it - are making their own

preparations for the future.

Japanese car-makers warn

they could close operations

in Britain unless we maintain free

access to the EU.

That would be heart-breaking

for many people in Sunderland

or Swindon or South Wales.

This isn't "Project Fear" revisited,

it is "Project Know Your History".

Any doubters should consult

the former employees of factories,

now closed, in Bridgend,

Port Talbot and Newport,

where jobs were lost

and families suffered.

In 1991, employment by Japanese

firms in Wales was about 17,000

people - today, it is 2,000.

If free access to Europe is lost -

that scale of impact, across the UK,

could lose 125,000 Japanese jobs.

Over many years, the Conservative

Party has understood

the concerns of business.

Not over Brexit, it seems.

Across the United Kingdom -

businesses are expressing their wish

to stay in the Single Market

and Customs Union.

But "No", say the

Government's "red lines".

Businesses wish to have the freedom

to employ foreign skills.

"No", say the Government's

"red lines".

Business and academia wish

to welcome foreign students

to our universities and -

as they rise to influence

in their own countries -

we then have willing

partners in politics

and business for decades to come.

"No", say the Government's

"red lines".

This is not only grand folly.

It's also bad politics.

The national interest must always be

above the Party interest,

but my Party should beware.

It is only fear of Mr Corbyn

and Mr McDonnell that prevents

a haemorrhage of business support.

Without the comprehensive trade deal

the Prime Minister seeks,

we risk economic divorce

from the EU, and the chill embrace

of a "hard" Brexit with WTO rules.

Leading Brexit supporters believe

there is nothing to fear

from losing our special access

to the Single Market.

But to me that is profoundly wrong.

Swapping the Single

Market for WTO rules

would mean our exports facing

the EU external tariff,

as well as hidden nontariff barriers

that could be adjusted

to our disadvantage at any time.

One Minister has speculated

we might face tariffs of 3%.

If only.

Not so.

It is more likely that we will face

tariffs on cars 10%,

food 14%, drinks 20%,

and dairy products 36%.

Even if a successful negotiation

were to halve these tariffs,

our exports would still be much more

expensive to sell - and this

would apply far beyond agriculture

and the motor industry.

And if, in retaliation, the UK

were to impose tariffs on imports,

this would result in higher prices

for the British consumer.

If we and the EU agreed to impose

nil tariffs - as some have

speculated - WTO rules mean

we would both have to offer nil

tariffs to all countries.

That simply isn't going to happen.

This is all very complex.

But it is crucial.

And none of it has yet been properly

explained to the British people.

There have been attempts to reassure

business by claiming that other

nations trade with the EU

on purely WTO terms.

That statement is simply wrong.

China, the US and Japan

all have side agreements

with Europe on standards,

customs co-operation,

mutual recognition and investment.

These economic giants did

so to protect their own trade

even though none of them is exposed

as we are ? still half our entire

exports go to Europe.

Ultra Brexit opinion is impatient

to be free of European

relationships, to become -

in their words - a "global player",

"sovereign", "in control".

I believe they are deceiving

themselves and, as a result,

they are misleading

the British people.

Before the modern world took

shape - their ambition

would have been credible.

But the world has changed,

the global market has taken root,

and - if we are to care

for the people of our nation -

philosophical fantasies must give

way to national self-interest.

We cannot prepare for tomorrow

by living in the world of yesterday.

I don't doubt the convictions

of those who long for the seductive

ambition of British exceptionalism.

But these sentiments

are out-of-date and,

in today's world, simply wrong.

It is not my purpose

to stir controversy,

but the truth must be spoken.

The ultra Brexiteers have been

mistaken - wrong - in nearly

all they have said or promised

to the British people.

The promises of more hospitals,

more schools, lower taxes,

more money for transport

were electioneering fantasy.

The £350 million a week for the NHS

was a ridiculous phantom -

the reality is if our economy

weakens - as is forecast -

there will not only be

less money for the NHS,

but for all our public services.

We were told that nobody

was threatening our place

in the Single Market.

That tune has changed.

We were told that a trade deal

with the EU would be easy to get.

We could do it in an afternoon.

Wrong again - it was

never going to be easy,

and we are still not

sure what outcome will be achieved.

We were told "Europe can whistle

for their money" and we would not

pay a penny in exit costs.

Wrong again.

Europe didn't even have

to purse her lips before

we agreed to pay £40 billion

to meet legitimate liabilities.

I could go on.

But I think the point is made.

But suffice to say that every one

of the Brexit promises is - to quote

Henry Fielding - "a very wholesome

and comfortable doctrine

to whichthere but one objection:

namely, that it is not true.".

People should pause and reflect.

If the Brexit leaders

were wrong in what they said

so enthusiastically before -

are they not likely to be wrong

in what they say now?

The Prime Minister is seeking

a "frictionless" border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic.

She is absolutely right to do so.

This is a promise that must be

honoured, and I wish her well.

But, so far, this has not

materialised - nor, I fear,

will it - unless we stay in "a"

or "the" Customs Union.

Those of us who warned

of the risks Brexit would bring

to the still fragile Peace Process

were told at the time that we

didn't understand Irish politics.

But it seems we understood it

better than our critics.

We need a policy urgently to protect

the Good Friday Agreement -

and we need one urgently.

And it is our British

responsibility to find one -

not the European Union.

We need to provide a solution and

not simply oppose what other people

suggest.

Although the referendum was advisory

only, the result gave

the Government the obligation

to negotiate a Brexit.

But not any Brexit, not

at all costs, and certainly

not on any terms.

The true remit can only be to agree

a Brexit that honours the promises

made in the referendum.

But, so far, the promises

have not been met and,

probably, cannot be met.

Many electors now know

they were misled - many more

are beginning to realise it.

So, the electorate has every right

to reconsider their decision.

Meanwhile, our options

become ever narrower.

We have ruled out full membership.

Ruled out the Single Market

and Customs Union.

Ruled out joining the

European Economic Area.

Dismissed talk of joining EFTA.

A Norway deal won't do.

Nor will a Swiss deal.

Nor a Ukraine deal, a Turkey deal,

or a South Korea deal.

No to them all, say

the Government s red lines.

So, little is left,

except for cherry picking,

which the EU rejects.

Or a comprehensive deal ?

which will be very hard,

if not impossible, to get.

So compromise it must be

? or no deal at all.

It is now widely accepted

that no deal would be

the worst possible outcome.

The compromise must, therefore,

focus around our accepting

Single Market rules, as Norway does,

and paying for access.

Or an enhanced "Canada deal" -and it

would need to be enhanced

a very great deal to be attractive.

The Canada deal largely concerns

goods - whereas the bulk of UK

exports are services.

But what we achieve to protect our

interests may depend

on what we concede -

it is, as I say, give and take.

If our red lines dissolve,

our options enlarge.

Our minimum objective must be that

"deep, special and bespoke" trade

deal the Prime Minister

has talked about.

So, some unpalatable

decisions lie ahead -

with the cast-iron certainty

that the extreme and unbending

Brexit lobby will cry

betrayal at any compromise.

But it is Parliament,

not a small minority,

that must decide our policy.

I spoke earlier of the

divisiveness of Brexit

across our United Kingdom.

But in due time, the debate

will end, and when it does

we need the highest possible level

of public acceptance

for the outcome.

It is in no-one's interest

for the bitterness and

division to linger on.

I see only one way to achieve this.

It is already agreed that Parliament

must pass legislation

giving effect to the deal.

A meaningful vote has been promised.

This must be a decisive vote,

in which Parliament can accept

or reject the final outcome -

or send the negotiators back to seek

improvements, or order a referendum.

That is what Parliamentary

sovereignty means.

But to minimise divisions

in our country - and between

and within the political parties -

I believe the Government should take

a brave and bold decision.

They should invite Parliament

to accept or reject the final

outcome on a free vote.

I know the instinct of every

Government is to oppose free

votes, but the Government should

weigh the advantages

of having one very carefully.

It may be in their

interest to do so.

There are some very practical

reasons in favour of it.

Brexit is a unique decision.

It will affect the lives

of the British people

for generations to come.

If it flops, there will be

the most terrible backlash.

If it is whipped through Parliament,

when the public are so divided,

voters will know who to blame

if they end up poorer and weaker.

So, both democracy and prudence

suggest a free vote.

The deep divisions in our nation

are more likely to be healed

by a Brexit freely approved

by Parliament, than a Brexit forced

through Parliament at the behest

of a minority of convinced

opponents of Europe.

A free vote would better reflect

the reality that, for every 17

voters who opted for Brexit,

16 opted to remain in the EU.

But, regardless of whether a free

vote is offered, Parliamentarians

must decide the issue on the basis

of their own conscience.

Upon whether, in mature judgment,

they really do believe

that the outcome of the negotiations

is in the best interests

of the people they serve.

By 2021, after the likely

two-year transition,

it will be five years

since the 2016 referendum.

The electorate will have changed.

Some voters will have left us.

Many new voters will

be enfranchised.

Others may have changed their mind.

No-one can truly know what the will

of the people may then be.

So, let Parliament decide.

Or put the issue back to the people.

And what is true for the House

of Commons must apply

to the House of Lords.

Peers must ignore any noises off,

and be guided by their intellect

and their conscience.

I have been a Conservative

all my life.

I don't enjoy being out of step

with many in my Party and take no

pleasure in speaking out

as I am today.

But it's as necessary to speak truth

to the people, as to power.

Leaving Europe is an issue

so far-reaching, so permanent,

so over-arching that it

will have an impact on all our

lives - most especially

on the young and the future.

With only 12 months to go,

we need answers, not aspirations.

This is far more than

just a party issue.

It's about the future

of our United Kingdom,

and everyone who lives in it.

That is what matters.

That is why I'm here today.

Thank you very much.