19/09/2016 - Live Morning Session Liberal Democrats Conference

Is, and welcome to the emergency motion for today, which is the

nuclear power at Hinkley Point. If you haven't seen the text of that,

you can get it from Conference Daily from the students. There is of

shall take -- we don't take shall take -- we don't take

amendment on emergency motions. Tomorrow morning at nine o'clock we

will be doing an emergency motion on local communities welcoming

refugees. You will find the motion on page five but also in Conference

Extra, if you got that, on page 22. So I'm going to call Martin Horwood,

who is moving the motion, and would Doody and Amos please stand by. Good

morning, conference. Good morning, conference. Good morning. Are you

feeling nostalgic for coalition yet? Go wrong, you are. Never mind equal

marriage and tax cuts, just in energy and the Roman we reduced the

biggest tax cuts, and looked investment in low carbon energy to

the energy act, created 200,000 green jobs, planted 1 million trees

and more than doubled renewable energy in the UK. And Chris Hughton

and Ed Davey 's secretaries of state sent powerful signals to investors

that took us into the top ten places in the world to invest in

renewables. It is a green record we promised, we delivered and we should

be proud of. APPLAUSE On nuclear, though, both Liberal

Democrat and coalition policy was guarded. The deal was nuclear could

be part of the low-carbon mix but only alongside investment in

renewable energy, energy efficiency and storage, and crucially without

public subsidy. What has happened since the Tories took power on their

own has been heartbreaking for Liberal Democrats, bad for the

environment and potentially disastrous for energy bill payers.

They've ditched the green deal without replacing it, scrapped

support for carbon capture and storage, and encouraged local

opposition to wind farms while stamping on local opposition to

fracking. Just the kind of policy inconsistency, contradictory

approach, and mixed messages that have damaged investor confidence and

taken us out of the top ten places in the world to invest in

renewables. Just in the last ten days, the same select committee have

said we are now on course to miss our renewable energy targets. That

is half the deal that would have broken, that we would back

renewables too. The other half? National Audit Office report earlier

this year spilled out the looming British built the British bill

Feijen fleecy, nearly 30 billion Feijen fleecy, nearly 30 billion

projected now. The problem is the contractor difference, a guaranteed

energy price designed to help the new, innovative and competitive

renewable industry. Renewable costs have fallen faster than anyone

imagined, and there is more innovation coming in wind, solar,

geothermal, wave, biogas, tidal lagoons fences and float lines and

more. Because their contracts the difference are shorter, bill payers

will benefit from these falling costs on time. The contract for

Hinckley by contrast, was awarded to electricity to France on a

staggering 35 year timescale. So we will be paying this state owned

French energy company and its state owned Chinese partner for a

generation. The final bill could reach ?40 billion. It will burden

our children and grandchildren with higher energy bills for decades,

quite possibly giving some into fuel poverty. The nuclear industry is not

new, innovative or competitive. In 60 years, there has never been a

single nuclear power station built anywhere in the world on time, on

budget and without public subsidy. The Hinckley si model of an EPR

reactor has not been built at all yet. Just in progress, France and

Finland, are billions over budget and years behind schedule, so the

contractor difference wasn't enough EDF, an astonishingly the

have approached them. In a footnote have approached them. In a footnote

to a statement last October, they officially dropped the coalition's

pledge to no public subsidy. Just the previous day, energy Minister

Andrea Leadsom, remember her? She said it was vital energy company

stood on their own two feet, but she was justifying cutting renewable

subsidies. For Hinckley, the cheque-book was open. George Osborne

estimated at ?200 billion now but likely to rise over time. The

Hinckley deal already included a funded decommissioning deal that

promised that future taxpayers would foot the bill if the cost of closing

it down and cleaning it up over Iran as well. George Osborne will be

history by then. He already is really. Recent reports concluded a

mix of existing energy resources and mix of existing energy resources and

interconnection with other countries would save the UK ?1 billion a year

while keeping the lights on and meeting climate targets. Just Fer

new large wind farms would bring us as much energy into the grid as

Hinckley. As the motion says, Hinckley si is a bad deal. We need a

UK policy based on energy efficiency, renewable energy and

that proud green record in that proud green record in

government and support this motion. Thank you very much. The

mic that was Martin Horwood from Cheltenham, who is having and we are

hoping will regain that seat for us. Could Councillor Jane Lock stand by

and I now call Gideon aims. -- Gideon Amos. I am here again this

year because I want to talk to you about carbon reduction and how one

of our most important carbon reduction projects in this country,

the Hinckley Project, cannot be completely opposed and attempted to

be stopped by Liberal Democrats. My suggestion to you today is that in

this short half-hour emergency motion debate, it is not the way to

change our long-standing policy that this party has debated at great

length. For many of us, many environmentalists like James

Lovelock, the environmental scientists, like George Monbiot, for

our party, we have come to recognise the importance of nuclear in our

energy mix, as a way, first and foremost, of achieving the

low-carbon road we have to go down. Achieving the 80% reduction in

emissions by 2050. That is a target that is apparently being abandoned

by the Conservatives, not a target that this party should be willing to

abandon. It is essential of course not just for our carbon emissions

targets, our environmental targets, this is essential for the

communities around the world who will suffer most from carbon

emissions, and climate change, and they are of course the poorest

countries, like Bangladesh and other countries that also the most if we

emissions reductions targets. I emissions reductions targets. I

welcome the opportunity to debate this and I am grateful that this

motion has been brought forward, and much of what it has to say is

valuable. But to simply oppose Canute like faintly project, and I

would suggest a separate vote should be taken on those if possible, is

not a realistic policy to be made on the basis of the evidence. It is not

correct to say that the project is entirely dependent on public

subsidy. It has a huge amount of five at investment. It is not the

case, it is not true to say it is an contractor will, there are two in

China nearing completion at the moment. I could go on. But the most

important point for me is that we need a transformation in our energy

provision in this country. We need to see a transformation which was in

Leeds led by Ed Davey, Aberdeen Secretary of State, who travelled

renewable energy in this country, who brought about the beginning of a

transformation we need to see, more renewables, more low carbon energy,

backed up by baseload that clean, safe nuclear power can provide. The

one irony of this motion is if it was past we would end up as a party

more antagonistic to the peaceful use of nuclear power than we would

to the use of nuclear weapons. Let's get our priorities right,

conference, and back the low-carbon agenda. By all means, we must

criticise the policies coming out of the government and the way they have

been handled, but complete opposition to this policy, to this

project, instead of an agenda which is about transforming our energy mix

and basing that on a zero low-carbon energy supply is the route we have

to go down. Thank you. Thank you, Gideon. Let me just point

out that we can't take a request at this stage, they have to be

submitted in writing the day before. Sorry about that. Can I ask John

shoesmith to and I now call Councillor Jane Lock, the leader of

Somerset County Council. Good morning conference, slight

correction to that, we're pre-empting about a few months, I

will be leader of Somerset County Council next May. I was first

selected as available Democrat councillor in 1987. In that election

we were funding the developer of Hinckley C. As Liberal Democrats --

we were fighting the development of think Lisa. -- of Hinckley C. Here

we are 30 years later building a nuclear power station using the same

technology as then. That is why I am supporting the motion for this

motion to conference to oppose the construction of think Lisa. --

Hinckley C. The construction of similar power stations in France and

Finland are years behind schedule and substantially overbudget and

clearly not working. On the very reasonable assumption that these

issues will apply to the proposed Hinkley Point power station, it

seems unlikely it will be operational until at least 2030. And

it will cost far more than the current budget, the estimated final

cost is 25 billion. The cost of the seven barrage, less than 20 billion.

Hence, Hinckley C any electricity it does generate

will be far more expensive than solar and wind generation when it

becomes operational. By 2030, smart management of electricity supply and

demand will enable a far higher contribution of intermittent

renewables to be relied upon than at present. The power plant will be out

of date before it is overturned on. Another consideration is that of the

safety of this plant. One of the last tsunamis to hit the UK was in

Bridgwater Bay, the very sight of Hinckley. A daily newspaper reported

only yesterday that another tsunami of this scale could hit within the

next few years. I think it does depend on part of one of the Canary

Islands trotting off. When Somerset County Council was asked about their

preparations for a tsunami, the council informed me that there are a

number of places where effective barriers had Oreo been instructed.

One of the examples given to me was the nuclear power plant at Fukushima

in Japan. Clearly, no local authority north central government

can know how big the next Toon Army will be. My experience working in

close quarters with the Tories is they are completely unprepared for

the impact of this project. As always, they know the cost of

everything and the value of nothing. Finally, we must question how many

of the 25,000 jobs will be filled by the local workforce. Somerset does

not have the people now and with our impending exit from the European

Union, where will these skilled workers come from? Too many

unanswered and unconsidered questions about this project. We

cannot allow it to be the next white elephant in the UK. But let me make

it clear, when we do retake control in Somerset in May 2017, we will

work with the decision taken by government, and in the best

interests of the people of Somerset, because we have to. Thank you.

APPLAUSE Thank you, Jane, who is, as

corrected, group leader of Somerset County Council. Could I ask Becky

Forrest to please stand by. I call John Shoesmith from Mid Derbyshire.

Good morning. I'd like to explain in the next three minutes why Hinkley

Point is essential to your future, and essential moreover to your

children's future. More importantly, I should say, to your children's

future. I'd like to start off by looking at energy. Our current

energy use is perhaps there. Over the next 30 years we face a

desperate struggle to bring down that level of energy use by

insulating all our buildings, by electrifying those things currently

operated by fossil fuel. That is a huge task, not cheap. Over here and

like to talk about energy supply. The current level of renewable

energy supply is way below that and over the next 30 years we need to

put in a desperate effort to bring up that level of renewable energy

supply to try to match the level of demand. There have been lots of

studies done of that over the past few years, and mostly they end up

with a bit of a gap to fill. And the crucial political issue for us to

how that gap is filled. There are two ways to do it. The first is to

bring down the level of demand by asking people to make lifestyle

changes. To. To cycle, to walk, to turn down their heating, to eat less

meat. Those are fine. A few people do them, I do them myself. But

asking the whole country to do them is virtually impossible in a

democracy. The other way to fill that gap is by the use of nuclear

power. Even if we put renewables everywhere week sensibly can, there

is still a gap to be filled and nuclear power is the only sensible

way to do it. So when you look at Hinkley Point, consider this. If you

kill that project, then your children have little option, have a

very difficult task to do to bring our energy into balance and reduce

our self to a zero carbon state. If we fail to achieve a zero carbon

state, by 2050 Bayonne though they missed it and they'll know they face

runaway climate change. That is an awful prospect. I urge you to reject

it. Because Hinkley Point, once it's gone, will be very difficult to

bring back. Will face a virtually no nuclear future and that is very,

very difficult thing to live with. So please reject this motion.

Thanks. APPLAUSE Thank you, that was John shoesmith

from Derbyshire. Could I ask Ed Davey to stand by and I call Becky

Forrest from Bolton. Good morning conference. My name is Becky

Forrest. I only joined the party on the 24th of June so this is my first

time speaking at conference. APPLAUSE

I speak to you today having expected to oppose this motion. I am actually

in favour of an interim use of nuclear power, at least until we are

able to develop affordable and economically viable renewable energy

that everyone can access. Until Theresa May put it on hold I hadn't

paid that much attention. So at the time, the first decision of the new

Prime Minister, I read a couple of articles around it. And, as I

understood it then, there were to be no government or taxpayer subsidies.

It was being wholly funded by foreign private investment and my

first instinct was to wonder why she was jeopardising a project that

provided vital infrastructure at potentially no public cost. Based on

this I was ready to oppose the motion, however, as a teacher, I

like evidence and experts. So I looked into the matter further. I

was astonished to realise that in the real terms of the contract,

consumers and taxpayers would effectively end up funding this

project. The fixed wholesale energy cost negotiated and guaranteed by

the Tory government is much more than today's market price. This

means that if Hinkley C doesn't get that from price its consumers the

taxpayer will make up the difference. Where still that price

is fixed for 35 years of energy provision. In retrospect I believe

Theresa May was right to review Hinkley C but in failing to take the

brave decision to withdraw from the contract she is once again playing

an active part in a Tory government which is once again letting the

public down. In my naivety I believe Tim -- I believed Hinkley C was

subsidy free without the related expense of the infrastructure.

However this is clearly not true. We will gain the expense without any of

the control and as such I ask you to support this motion that Hinkley C

be opposed in its current form. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Could I ask Fiona Hall to stand by, the last three speakers

have in fact all been first-time speakers at conference but I can

assure you that the next one isn't! I call Ed Davey. I spent nearly

three years by life looking at this deal but I promise you that if you

vote for this motion I won't take it personally. I want to convince you

to vote against this motion the and many speakers say that the price

that Hinkley C is very expensive. Having looked at many, many more

models of future prices linked to this decision, I'm always astonished

that people can assert with such certainty that they know it's very

expensive or good value for money. Why? Because to know that, you have

to know the price of electricity between 2025 and 2060. If you know

that you are really, really clever. Because, guessing the price of

electricity next year is a mugs game. You also have denied the price

of carbon between 2025 and 2060. Carbon markets and working very

well, I certainly don't know what those prices up and nobody does.

This is the problem with energy policy. Uncertainty. We don't know

the future, we don't know the future on prices, we don't know the future

on technology, but we have to make decisions about things that have to

be tackled. Like climate change. I'm bloody sure that climate change is

happening and we have to take measures to do that and Hinkley

Point C does that. The first deal I signed for a major offshore wind was

at ?140 per megawatt hour, far higher prices than Hinkley Point C.

After an auction of getting the price down the best deal was ?117,

and I think we might just get below ?100, still much higher than Hinkley

Point C. Much higher subsidies going to offshore wind. We won't see a

motion against that, here, and nor should we. Even though I was

criticised by the National Audit Office for that decision, they were

wrong. In taking that decision we are now a world leader in offshore

wind. We have an offshore wind industry with green jobs in Hull. I

believe eventually that technology will become cheaper than Hinkley C,

but I can't know because it's not certain. The world, and energy

policy, is an certain. I am certain the Tories are making a complete

mess of things because they are taking off the table low carbon

technologies like solar, onshore wind, they are not doing tidal

lagoons in the way I proposed. They are taking low carbon technologies

of the table, but is responsible given climate change. Conference,

nor should we take a low carbon technology of the table. We

shouldn't be taking nuclear off the table, given the risks posed to our

children and their children by climate change. Because we don't

know whether this is expensive, logically, what do we know? We know

we have to prepare our country and our world for the dangers of climate

change and turn that around, and Hinkley Point C plays a small part

in that. Please oppose this motion. APPLAUSE

Thank you Ed Davey from Kingston. I could ask Duncan Brack is to stand

by and I call Fiona Hall from Berwick. It's extraordinary, this

debate about Hinkley. It reminds me of the moment after the referendum

when we found that even some of the Leave campaigners didn't really want

to leave. With Hinkley, we have an energy company and the Prime

Minister who are really not sure that they want this nuclear plant.

And yet, we face the stubborn, face saving decision to go ahead. Let's

just take a step back and consider what else we could do with the ?30

billion of public money which will be paying for this. What if we were

to spend that money in a more Liberal Democrat way, focused on

people and a commitment to sustainability, and a better quality

of life? Well, we could generate the electricity from a handful of big

offshore wind farms instead. We could build dozens of interconnected

so we could use Norwegian hydropower as back-up and storage. Or we could

increase public spending on energy efficiency 30 times over. Or any mix

of the above. The big difference is that all of these alternatives just

mean doing more of what we are already doing. Wind,

interconnection, insulation. We are doing this safely, reliably, on-time

on budget. When I was first in the European Parliament, the new EDF

French and Finnish reactors were just about to start according to my

Tory colleagues in the European Parliament. That was in 2004. And

they are still not open. The crucial point is that we absolutely can't

rely on Hinkley, however much money we throw at it. So isn't it time we

listen to the International energy agency instead, and made energy

efficiency are first fuel? Think of what we could so easily achieve,

modern, comfortable, zero carbon homes, fit for the 21st century.

Healthy people breathing cleaner air inside and outside, an end to fuel

poverty, a steady stream of local jobs across the UK, and no more

dependency on imported gas. This is what an energy policy should look

like. Fair, people focused and truly sustainable. Please support the

motion. APPLAUSE Thank you Fiona, who of course was

one of our MEPs. I now call Duncan Brack, the vice chair of the federal

policy meeting. Conference, this is a straightforward motion based

around a straightforward argument. It is not a motion about the role of

nuclear power in Britain's energy supply and it does not change party

policy. At some point before 2020 SBC will publish a new policy paper

for you to debate and that is when we decide what we think about

nuclear energy more broadly. This is about the government 's decision to

build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point. In 2013 we decided new

nuclear stations could play a limited role in UK electricity

supply provided they could be built with public subsidy. In September

last year, the Conservative government announced they would

provide a 2 billion loan guarantee to underpin construction and a month

later confirmed but it was "Not continuing the no public subsidy

policy". Hinkley is being subsidised. This is not in line with

party policy and we should therefore oppose it. We subsidise renewables

because they are immature technologies. We know that in time

their costs will come down. Nuclear power isn't an immature technology,

it's costs have gone up in 60 years. Apart from subsidies it is also

spectacularly poor value for money. The lifetime cost of the Bill payer

has increased by a factor of six. By the time Hinkley might be built in

2025, the cost of onshore wind is projected to have fallen by 26%,

offshore wind by 35% and solar by 59%. By the middle of next decade

renewables will compete without subsidy with fossil fuels. The

argument we need a nuclear base is a total fallacy. Nuclear stations have

faults, they go off-line, which means you have to build an

equivalent amount of back-up. There are many alternatives to supplement

wind and solar, tidal lagoons, pump storage, battery storage, where

costs are currently falling faster than solar. Energy efficiency can

take up the demand in the first place. Some states in Germany and

Australia are now 100% renewable, relying on wind and solar and

trading with neighbouring states where they

need to. The UK could be, too. We are against subsidy for nuclear.

Hinkley is subsidy. Lynne Featherstone argued on Friday that

failing to pull the plug on Hinkley will prove costly mistake, not just

a financial cost to consumers and the public purse, but the

opportunity cost to renewables. Would all those in favour of the

motion please show? Thank you. And all those against the motion please

show. I think that's clearly in favour of the motion, so the motion

is past. Can I thank my AIDS and I now handover to Zoe O'Connell.

Vice-chair of the conference committee. -- thank my aides.

Good morning, conference, and welcome to Britain in the European

Union. As we had a late deadline for this motion, it's not in your

agenda. You can find it on page 14 of Conference Extra and page six of

Conference Daily. There are some drafting amendments, one amendment

that we will be voting on later. Federal conference committee did

receive a separate vote request online 56 to 57. Federal conference

committee decided not to take a separate vote request as it was

tantamount to voting against the motion. We have also received a

request for a nonparty member to speak, a sister party, that request

was accepted. We have a lot of cards to this debate, I can probably call

about a quarter of people who have put in cards. Apologies in advance

to all those I can't call. Thank you for your cards anyway. However, we

will be having interventions, short one minute speeches from the

microphone on your left of the auditorium. If you wish to put in

speak for those, there is still time. Small yellow cards, which you

can also get from the speakers desk to my left. We are very tight on

timing, so I will be harsh on the timing, three minutes. I now ask

Ruby Ziegler from Oxford East stand by, and called Tom Brake, MP for

Carshalton and Warrington and foreign affairs spokesman to move

the motion. Thank you. Conference, we shouldn't be having this foreign

affairs debate. There is a crisis in Syria. Climate change threatens

global irreversible change and the USA might be about to elect their

own home and tans Nigel Farage. But are foreign policy is as well,

Davis, Fox, Johnson, Farage and Colbourne, have all forced the whole

of the government's diplomatic and economic machine down a Brexit

cul-de-sac. But at least it gives me the opportunity to proclaim I am

English, British and European and proud of it. When I was a teenager,

I went to school near Paris. Some of the teachers were wounded in the

Second World War, and in the case of one teacher at least, he had a metal

plate in his skull to prove it. They had lived in Europe pre-Common

market and the European Union. They had experienced war, they understood

the point of the European Union. It was, it is about building and

preserving peace. That is what the vainglorious Brexiteers have put in

jeopardy. To anyone who says in Europe's war will never happen

again, remember Bosnia. I have friends who live in Croatia who

remember all too well hiding in cellars when the air raid sirens

went off. The 1940s? No, the 1990s. Zeljko, my friend, served in the

Croat army during that were. How has our new Prime Minister responded?

She has appointed the three leading Brexiteers, Johnson Koch Fox, and

Davies to lead the Brexit negotiations. Is she serious? They

have gotten us in this fine mess in the first place. They are already

making their suitability for their role playing. Fox is leading the

charge for British business by a blasting them for being fat and lazy

and telling them to invest outside the United Kingdom. Davies has

broken his first major deadline, the pledge that the Prime Minister would

have initiated a round of trade negotiations with our major trading

negotiation partners by the 9th of September, that was ten days ago.

What about Johnson? He has had more flip-flops on his stance on the

European Union than he has had flip-flops in his Daily Telegraph

column on his stance on the European Union. Our Prime Minister, since she

was anointed by that exclusive electorate, Tory MPs, hasn't had

many Master strokes, but allocating Chevening to be shared between the

three Brexiteers was a genius ploy. I can imagine them sitting around an

open fire, with the swords and Lance fanned out above the stone

mantelpiece, broaden the Fox, a whiskey for the others in hand, each

boasting mine is bigger than yours. It is too sickening to contemplate.

I doubt even Chevening is capacious enough to accommodate those three

massive egos. And as they downed glass after glass, they scoff at how

easy it was to hoodwink people into believing post Brexit ?350 million a

week would be pumped into the NHS. At Prime Minister's Questions a

couple of weeks ago, I put in a bid that the first two weeks, in other

words 700 million, should be reserved for the reconstruction of

my hospital, St Helier hospital. I'm afraid to say that the Prime

Minister did not even offer a new polymer ?5 note the St Helier.

Corbyn Canet escape criticism either, while Tim Farron of the

Liberal Democrats and even Cameron were on the stronger in barricades,

where was called in? Deliberately sabotaging Labour's Remain campaign,

according to leaked e-mails. I am critical of Cameron too of course,

this is a man so sure of his powers of persuasion that he was deluded

enough to think that in four months he could overturn the previous 30

years of vitriol that he and senior Tories had dripped on the European

Union. Always blaming it, never commending. APPLAUSE

But people did vote for Brexit, and I respect that, and I respect

Parliamentary sovereignty, the battle cry of many a Brexiteer, and

Parliament's right to debate and vote on the government's propose

negotiating stance before it seeks to invoke Article 50. And I respect

the people's right to vote on our destination at the end of the

Article 50 deliberations, a destination, which could be the

Brexit deal or the status quo. We will fight to ensure people's voices

are heard. Conference, since the referendum and the Liberal Democrats

have not been idle in Parliament. We're due ten minute rule Bill, for

the EU citizens and the UK right to stay Bill. To try to provide

certainty from the government of the millions of hard-working EU citizens

here whose lives have been upturned more quickly than you can say take

back control and Lance the racist boil the Leave campaign has given

permission to grow and fester. And we have helped establish an

all-party group on the freedom of movement. Both initiatives will also

help support the 1.54 2 million UK citizens in the EU, who are faced

with being used as bargaining chips by other countries in the way that

the UK Government is using EU citizens here. The country is

yearning for a party that is united, open, tolerant, and equipped to deal

with the ructions caused by Brexit. The Tory party, the nasty party, can

never satisfy that need. Labour is too focused on internal purges. The

Liberal Democrats are that party. Join us. Conference, support this

motion. APPLAUSE Thank you, Tom. Could I ask Kelly

Marie Brundle from Lewes to stand by. Think you'd chair, I am honoured

to be speaking in this radical debate my very first conference.

APPLAUSE I am a universal -- university

lecturer and I entirely subscribe to all we have heard from the propose

of this motion. It generally reads pretty bulb but the reason I have

put forward this amendment, the language and scope of section nine A

are not quite right on four accounts, which I want to

illustrate. The first is that this motion is set in the present, 19

September 20 16. Today all UK citizens are EU citizens, so it is

wrong to draw the distinction, which the motion does linguistically,

between the UK citizens and EU citizens. Secondly, this motion is

couched as a prerogative, it stipulates individuals will be

allowed to remain, not that they will have a right to remain, and I

think that is important to change that. Sadly, the motion uses the

term settled, which is unnecessarily exclusive, so the amendment adopts

the language of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which, in a

report published in late August, recommends grunting indefinitely to

remain for the estimated 3.1 million citizens of other EU countries

residing in the UK. Fourthly, the motion is unnecessarily limited in

its scope to the question of residence. Individuals have acquired

various rights, including housing benefits, access to the NHS. So the

proposed amendment, the language of the amendment, emphasises all of

these issues. It says that we are calling for the protection of

acquired rights, including the right to remain, all citizens of other EU

member states residing in the United Kingdom and of UK citizens residing

elsewhere in the EU. Conference, this provision has three core

rationales, the first is simple as. It is not just -- symbolism. This

party and as will not play into the rhetoric that already does away with

the EU citizen ship of everyone in the UK. We are part of a community.

The second rationale is that this party stands for the politically

disenfranchised, it is at the core of liberal values. We need to

remember that the two groups most adversely affected by the outcome of

this referendum are actually the precise Fiorentina groups denied a

vote this referendum. EU citizens living in this country and UK

citizens living long-term outside this country. And so now there is

great anxiety amongst members of these groups about their and their

families future, of adopting this motion, we say we feel that the

Liberal Democrats are their voice. Finally, this is a rights -based

approach, as liberals would withstand the individual rights are

cried in good faith, and we need to distance ourselves from the

bargaining chips language. This is 2016, not 1919, this is not the

treaty of acai or the protection of minorities. We should insist that

these rights of individual should be protected. Conference, this

amendment makes this important motion more accurate, more inclusive

and more protective of individual rights. I beg to move. APPLAUSE

Could I ask Peter Fein to stand-by. Conference, on 3rd of September, 40%

of us marched all around the country for Europe. And why was 3rd of

September important? Not just because it was my birthday! The 3rd

of September is important because that is the day Britain declared war

on Germany in 1939. The day that born Second World War. The one thing

the European Union has done, as it has guaranteed more 70 years of

peace. We do not have just an urge to campaign for the EU, we have a

duty to campaign. Not just for British citizens but for European

citizens as well. APPLAUSE I recently found a piece of paper at

home that I had done when I was 11 years old, that set out the values

of the EEC and the Maastricht Treaty. We were so proud to be part

of those 12 stars. And 24 years on, the single market is the cornerstone

of the European Union. The government is lurching from the

accurate statement to vacuous statement, and the one thing that is

clear is that they have no plan. I'm proud to campaign on issues I know

we must fight for. When they decide what Brexit actually means. We must

protect the right to remain the EU citizens, we must protect investment

in science and research, and we must protect our environment. And perhaps

most importantly, when the government decides what Brexit

actually means, we must demand a referendum on those terms. It is the

right of both Remain and Leave to have that vote on what Brexit

actually looks like. APPLAUSE Thank you. Because I ask Hilary

Myers to stand by. I now called Peter Fane from South

Cambridgeshire. Conference. We voted for Brexit and he respects that. But

what does Brexit mean? What does it mean in particular for our trading

terms with our closest neighbours? The Leave Campaign couldn't tell us

that. We had suggestions for a trading relationship based on that

of Norway, of Switzerland, of Turkey, of Canada, even famously of

Albania! Mrs May's cabinet has still to decide. When they do decide they

went tell us, they certainly don't plan to consult parliament. I think

may be making that crucial decision about the future of this country and

our relationship with our neighbours on the basis of the Royal

prerogative is perhaps stretching our support of royalty a bit too

far. In any case, when we know what it means, we have to agree that with

the EU 27 it's not going to be simple. So what should Brexit mean?

It should mean what it said on the ballot paper. We voted to leave the

EU, no more, no less. It does not mean that we voted to leave the

single market. The manifesto which set out the Conservative commitment

to the referendum also set out clearly in terms of support for the

single market. Yes to the single market, it said. That is still valid

today. The single market is so much more than just tariff free access.

We mean membership of the single market not access to the single

market. Anybody can get that. We've built that up over the last 20

years, led initially by British governments and a British

commissioner. And we have done so much over that period to reduce the

transaction costs of trade, not just the non-trade barriers and tariffs

but the transaction costs. So the continued single market membership

is crucial in reducing the damage to UK business, but also the damage to

the business of the EU 27. We need to ensure that as this motion says,

that the UK remains a member of the single market when we leave the EU.

APPLAUSE Thank you Peter. Could I ask Dr

Joseph Garcia to stand by, I now call Hilary Myers from Herefordshire

who wishes to speak against the motion. Conference, I want to talk

to you about the law. The law of unintended consequences. I want to

suggest that if you vote in favour of this motion you will be obeying

that law and at the same time sleepwalking away from our shared

vision of building an open, tolerant and united Britain. The law of

unintended consequences. When a member of the PLP nominated Jeremy

Corbyn in the first Labour leadership ballot, they were obeying

the law of unintended consequences and opening the floodgates to a

repressed anti-new Labour backlash. When a member of Parliament for

Whitney pledged his party to a referendum on Europe, he was

unwittingly obeying that same law of unintended consequences. The very

consequences we are grappling with in this hall and across the country

today. But just as the laws of the realm are no match for the

all-powerful laws of nature, so to the law of unintended consequences

is no match for the irresistible law of destiny. Conference, we need to

see the bigger picture here. Let us step back from whether a small but

influential island people in the northern hemisphere should remain a

member of a particular economic power bloc, however attractive the

advantage of membership may be. Let us step back and notice capitalism

is almost on its knees. Displaced people in their millions on the

move. Let us step back and notice that the ice is melting, the seas

are rising and the climate is changing. And, in the face of all

this global upheaval, the people of this small but influential island

nation in the northern hemisphere deeply worried. If, as section seven

of this motion sets out, we are to truly recognise that our priority

should be to address that justifiable sense of grievance and

alienation, that this referendum has so demonstrably exposed, then

seeking ways to challenge, to change or to reverse the will of the 52% is

not the way to achieve that priority. Rather, it is the way to

greater division, discord and desperation. Fellow Liberal

Democrats, old members and new. I urge you to think again. Think about

the law of unintended consequences. Let us be open, tolerant and united,

yes. Open to the hopes and dreams and nobler instincts of the majority

as well as those of the minority, tolerant of their anger, fear,

confusion, prejudices and the world and. But most of all let us be

united as a country, as a people of fastly unequal regions in a shaky

but historical union. Building a tolerant society starts with

listening to our own people not shunting them down. A liberal, be

democratic, be open, tolerant, United, but above all, be wise.

Reconsider our offer to the British people. Conference, I urge you to

reject this motion. APPLAUSE Hillary was a first-time speaker at

conference. Thank you Hillary. Could I ask Liz Lynne to stand by and I

now call Dr Joseph Garcia. Doctor Garcia is deputy Chief Minister of

Gibraltar and leader of the Liberal party of Gibraltar. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Thank you fellow liberals. I want to thank the

conference committee for giving me the opportunity to address you to

date on what is a fundamental issue as far as Gibraltar is concerned. I

do so with a sense of pride as a liberal and also as a deputy chief

minister of the territory. Right because in 2014 in the European

elections, Gibraltar was the highest polling area for the Liberal

Democrats in the whole of the United Kingdom. APPLAUSE

With 67% of the vote. The referendum we topped that with 96% voting to

remain in the European Union. APPLAUSE

The motion speaks of the risks, and the reality is I want to stress

there are some very immediate and real risks. Freedom of movement is

very important to us. There is a debate in the UK about the effects

that has and there are other sectors more concerned than we are. But

certainly the risks to us is very real because we depend on free

movement of workers. There are 12,000 people, mostly Spaniards, who

live in Spain and working Gibraltar. Across the border every morning and

across back every evening. Without free movement we risk losing half of

our entire labour force. Let me also say that Gibraltar generates 25% of

the economy of the neighbouring region of Spain. 25% of their GDP is

based on the economic impact of Gibraltar and of an open border. We

are the second highest employer for the region of Andalusia in Spain.

First of all you have the regional government of Andalusia and then

Gibraltar itself as an entity. Free movement is fundamental to us, as is

access to the single market. For our financial services industry who can

operate in the entire European Union. Our risks are based entirely

on the statements made by the Foreign Minister of Spain that all

the options will be open to Spain in the event of us leaving the EU

including closing the border completely. All said they are

rejecting the idea of shared sovereignty which was rejected

unanimously by 99% of the people of Gibraltar in 2002. We urge

conference to think of the consequences this would have an

Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a shining example, proud to be British,

wrapping itself in the union Jack. We can show there is no conflict

between being British and being European. APPLAUSE

That is a message we need to have delivered before the 23rd of June,

and it is a message delivered today. There is no conflict between being

British and being European. Thank you conference. APPLAUSE

Thank you Dr Joseph Garcia. We do have many more speakers. Could I ask

Alan Reid to stand by and I now call Liz Lynne from Mid Worcestershire

who wishes to speak for the motion. I think one of our major mistakes

during the referendum campaign was not to point out that it was a

consultative referendum only, as stated in the European Union

referendum bill. Many people are saying that people have spoken so we

must now just leave. This of course creates difficulty for those of us

who want to see a vote in parliament before Article 50 is triggered. But

however difficult it is, we must stick to our guns. We have to have a

Parliamentary vote on the terms of the negotiation at the very least.

And the views of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar had

to be listened to. The Leave Campaign was based on so many lies.

But one of the worst things was that a large number of people were given

permission by the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson

and the gutter press to give vent to their hatred. I have taken part in

many campaigns over the years. For me it was one of the worst campaigns

I have ever been involved in. Taking part in some of the panel

discussions was bad enough. But it was nothing, nothing compared to the

vitriol I encountered on the streets in certain parts of this country.

The viciousness and hatred was something I felt that was getting

out of control. It was only after the death of Jo Cox, the more

outwardly aggressive behaviour died down. But the hatred was still there

underneath. Many people were just using the referendum to vent their

anger and the vast amount of them had no idea what they were voting

for. They just believe the lies. But despite that, Theresa May keeps on

repeating the mantra "Brexit means Brexit". And then they are saying

whatever the outcome of the negotiations, they will take us out

of the EU without giving the electorate a final say on the

package that has been negotiated, however disastrous the consequence

will be for the UK, and I believe they will be disastrous. Our party

and our voice is needed more than ever now. How some of them think we

can have tariff free access to the single market without free movement

defies belief. We are the only party that is united in our views.

Whatever the shortcomings of some aspects of the EU are, our future is

better off in. Not being on the outside and isolated. I urge you to

vote for this motion to demonstrate that we are going to continue the

fight. APPLAUSE Thank you. Could I ask Hugh Annand

to stand by and I now call Alan Reid from Argyll and Bute. Conference,

the Tories have landed us in a shocking mess. Brexit means Brexit

is all that they seem to be able to find to say. I think this inane

comment covers up the truth about Brexit. The truth is, they haven't

got a clue. The only certainty is that the Leave Campaign's promises,

like an extra ?350 million a week for the NHS, will be broken.

In the same breath, they promised that the only land's border would

remain open and unguarded. The only way that that could happen would be

if we stay in the EU Customs union. But being part of the EU customs

union means EU would negotiate a lower international trade agreements

for us. That hardly qualifies as taking control. It would also mean

Theresa May summons in international trade secretary Liam Fox and saying,

sorry, Liam, no job for you, you're fired.

That would certainly be popular. It has also given a

Nicola Sturgeon clearly hopes to use Brexit as an excuse for a replay of

the independence referendum. But she too is ignoring the realities of

Brexit. Exit means leaving the EU customs union and the introduction

of tariffs and bureaucracy, selling goods across the borders of the EU.

That would be the Tweed if the SNP got their way. Not to mention past

four controls -- passport controls and now the threat and ?40 holiday

tax. That is not the future we want. Scotland is a member of two unions,

the UK and EU. I want keep it that way. We must oppose the narrow

nationalism is of the Tories and Ukip and the SNP that seek to add

borders across these islands. Instead, let's supports the positive

case for a referendum on the Brexit deal and work for a progressive

European future without the divisions that nationalists

threaten. Thank you. Thank you. Could I ask Peter Price from Cardiff

and the Vale to stand-by, and I now call Hugh Annand from Brussels and

Europe. Thank you, chair and good morning conference. I used to say

David Cameron was the most inept Prime Minister since Anthony Eden

when it came to foreign policy but then he put me I was being unkind to

Anthony Eden. I am now inclined after recent events to agree with

them. This is the most part a good motion. It sets out the benefits of

EU benefits and reasserts our commitments to internationalism,

including cooperation with our European neighbours. I have

reservations, however, about the call for a new referendum on the

proposed Brexit deal. APPLAUSE On rather technical grounds. The

government comes back with a deal and the people vote yes to it, OK,

that's fine, that's clear, but what if they don't know? Is that no, we

were quite happy with the ordeal, thank you very much, no, we want a

hard Brexit, no, we want something in between, and you are opening the

way for a never ending debate and you end up back where you started

and nobody being happy. And also whenever the EU gets a referendum

result it doesn't lie, it just asks people to vote again and again until

they get the right answer. It was an argument often repeated during the

campaign and we cannot allow it to fester. The right answer is to have

another general election, whenever that is. And our message should be

clear. If you seriously think that leaving the European Union is the

right thing to do, vote Ukip, and let them deal with it and let them

take the responsibility for the consequences. If you want to remain

within the European Union, vote for us, and we will work within the

European Union to get the best deal for the British people, and by

cooperating openly without European neighbours. If you want another five

years of the billing and dithering and uncertainty, with all of the

economic harm that will do to our country, by all moans -- all means

about Labe-servative. On that note, let's not spend ?350 million on a

new referendum that spend it on the NHS instead. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Could I ask Bailey Cooper to stand-by please. I now call Peter

Price, the Welsh rep on federal policy campaign. Harald you like a

government of the future to run Britain? What are your ideas for the

way we should run the NHS, transport, education, housing, and

all the rest? Imagine today is your lucky day. You have a vote. You can

choose between the future you want to see or keep the realities of

policies as they are today. Now vote. That's what the British people

were asked to do on 23rd of June. The Leave side didn't offer any

particular alternative. The relationship between Britain and the

mainland was what you chose to imagine it might be. In the best of

all possible worlds. The choice was between your dreamland and the

reality of Europe. Now, the trouble with dreamland is that you can't

stay there when the alarm sounds in the morning. By the spring of 2019,

it is likely to become clear that the many benefits of being part of

the European Union far outweigh any of the various things that you could

find wrong with the EU as it currently is today. But the alarm

clock, if the alarm clock does not sound until then, it may be too

late. In the spring of 2019. Before then, we need to build public demand

for a second referendum, one in which the choice would have to be a

clear one. And I go further than Hugh Annand in making clear what

that choice should be. It should be between leaving on the science of

what terms would be in the future, and remaining in the European Union

as it is today with all the chances of an influential country like

Britain being able to influence its future. We can't leave it until 2019

to get moving. In creating public demand for real public democracy, we

have to get moving and we need to start today. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Could I ask Katie Gornall to and from Glasgow South to

stand-by, and I now call Daisy Cooper, who wishes to speak against

line 26. Daisy? Conference, I submitted an amendment to this

motion, which was unfortunately rejected. I appealed it, and it was

also rejected, so I am grateful that I can speak here today. In absence

of my amendment, I will support the motion but I want to speak against

line 26, because I don't think it goes far enough. Line 26 calls for a

Parliamentary vote on the terms of negotiation before Article 50 is

triggered. The motion is silent on the triggering of Article 50 itself.

We must push for a Parliamentary vote on Article 50, and we must

pledge that we will vote against it. To explain how absurd it is to

remain silent, imagine a group of flatmates. They say to their

landlord, we would like to hand in our notice but we're not quite sure

when, but if we do decide, can we please keep all of the deposit? The

landlord says I'm not having that, session now, hand in your notice and

then we will talk about it. Line 26 amounts to nothing more than the

group of flatmates sitting around on a sofa saying, all right, then,

which one is actually want to keep the deposit here? It doesn't amount

to a, session about whether you want to hand in your notice or not. All

we would be saying is we would really like to keep that deposit but

we've also like the landlord that we would like to move back in again

some day on the same terms. You can't, because if you want to move

back into that house, the rent will go up, the deposit may cost more,

there may be different terms, and we don't know what those are. Before

the howls of pain that we must respect the vote, let me say this: I

will not be lectured on democracy by a bunch of people who spread

misinformation and lies. I will not be lectured on democracy by people

who stirred up hate, and I will not be lectured on democracy by a bunch

of Brexiteers who set themselves a few weeks before the referendum

result that if it was a close loss for them, they would be campaigning

I will vote for this motion because I will vote for this motion because

I think it is incredibly important that we set out to the public

precisely what is at risk. Could I ask Mike Brydon from

Winchester to stand-by. After Mike we will move to a series of

one-minute interventions, so could I ask the following people to stand by

the intervention Mike on your left, the left of the auditorium, Barbara

Smith from Islington, take a, Steve Bolter from Braintree and Witton,

Donlon banned from North Somerset, Paul Hindley from Blackpool. Jaclyn

Bell from Ed north-east only. Neil McCulloch from Oxford and West am in

good. Nick Watt from Chippenham, Fiona Woolf from Olic and Graham

Bishop from Bexhill and Battle. The first speaker after the intervention

will be Nick Clegg. I now call Katy Gordon from Glasgow South. So I work

for a leading Scottish university, and I run the careers service, and a

huge amount of what graduate employers say to us as they

desperately want students with that global mindset, and yet what we've

done is we've denied them, or we are in danger of denying many of our

students opportunities to gain those international experiences by the

vote to leave. It is just one of the many consequences I see in both my

work and my personal life. So the day after the referendum, one of my

extended families is Austrian, and also works in higher education. She

has been here for about 15 years, and she was so distraught, and so

afraid, by the fear that this was her being rejected, this was her

being told we don't want you any more. She has settled, she has been

here, a long-term relationship. I went to Latvia on holiday about two

weeks after the referendum, and we were at one of the historic Latvian

castles wandering around, and a 17-year-old schoolboy guide we were

talking to cover the first question he asked us was why on earth do you

want to leave us? And it was a real feeling of rejection. This is from a

17-year-old schoolboy. I wish we had 17-year-old schoolboys and

schoolgirls who could have voted in the referendum. APPLAUSE

Because they might have helped us make the point that we are damaging

the chances for our young people by this vote. I do think when I came

back, I came back to work, my work colleagues, one of them we were

sitting around in a meeting again, she is Swedish and she was talking

about how she had felt rejected ever since. Now I work in higher

education, I live in Scotland and I don't actually know anybody who

voted to leave. And clearly in Scotland we did vote to remain, that

there are still a fair amount that voted to leave. So you may think I

am living in this bubble but actually it is not a bubble. There

are millions of us. It was so close as a result, and what scares me is

in universities we have a triple threat now, we have a threat of

funding to our research funding, and I'm involved in an international

project and already the questions were, what impact is it going to

have? We have the threat of EU students that still want to come and

stay and study with us, and we have the threat to our EU staff. In

Scotland we also have the fourth threat of the Scottish independence

referendum rearing its head again. Alex Salmond was at it again

yesterday, talking about a referendum in 2018. And I don't care

what people should say, you should just get on with it, that was the

vote, actually I want some day to stand up for me and my family and

work colleagues, to stand up for my country, and who is going to do

that, if not the Liberal Democrats? Vote for this motion and vote for

the incredibly well argued detailed a moment as well. But above all make

sure we retain our place in Europe. APPLAUSE

Could Barbara Smith stand by and I now call Mike Beaden from

Winchester. I keep it in a number of amendments and I am grateful to the

conference committee for calling me to the stand. I want to share why we

need a vote on the terms of Brexit. Whilst we respect those that voted

to leave, we should not accept the democratic decision of the people.

My answer to that is simple. The people have not spoken because there

simply weren't enough who voted to leave. On May the 4th of the trade

unions act 2016 came into law introduced by this current

government. It was introduced to prevent the abuse of democracy

caused when a strike is approved by a ballot with too few supporters.

The act set a threshold of 40% of eligible voters voting for a strike

action for that strike to be legal. In the referendum, just 36.7% of

voters voted to leave. If it's too few for a strike, it is too few for

major constitutional change. APPLAUSE

It simply wasn't good enough, and the people have not spoken. An abuse

of democracy cannot be the final word. More importantly, leaving it

is not in the UK's national interest. The coalition government

conducted a balance of competence review and 32 reports examined every

aspect of Britain's relationship with the EU. There were two clear

conclusions. First, subsidiarity was operating well, matters executed

nationally and the EU only acts and those needing agreement. Second,

membership of the European Union was overwhelming any in the country's

best interest. Theresa May said this herself when campaigning and I

quote, "It is clearly in the national interest to remain a

member". Since the Leave Campaign began, the pound has slumped. From

$1 56 to $1 32. A drop of 24 cents, a sick of its value. It's even more

against the euro. Today, every home in the UK is worth less, every way

each and every pension is worth less. Every foreign investor has

seen their investment lose value. The NHS budget has not been

increased, but its costs have. From drugs and prescriptions to new

medical equipment, all are going up in price. So we have the evidence,

leaving the EU is clearly not in the national interest. And further,

Brexit threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom. Brexit is

already damaging our universities, as science research programmes, our

wealth, our standard of living. When we have a Prime Minister determined

to act against the UK national interest, she must not trigger

Article 50. Until the national interest is turned by a vote on the

terms of Brexit, I remained defiant, we should not unite... INAUDIBLE

Can I ask Nick Clegg to stand by. Our first intervenor speaker is

Barbara Smith from Islington. As much as I enjoy holidaying in the

UK, occasionally I venture across the Channel. When applying for

travel insurance I am advised I must have a European health insurance

card. Travel insurers base their premiums and the ability to recover

medical costs via the card. If we lose that card for the likes of me,

who is in her 70s and who has had cancer within the last five years,

I'm afraid it's going to be a case of buy by Paris, buy by Rome and

hello Bognor Regis. Thank you. My maternal grandfather fought in and

was injured in the First World War. He survived only to father a son who

died at the age of 17 on the beaches of Dunkirk. I was born in 1950 and

my early childhood was overshadowed by my parents war experiences

because they were both in the Army. My commitment to Europe is founded

on my family history. And I was shattered to find that so many of my

generation have so easily forgotten the bloodstained history of the 20th

century and voted for Brexit. Fellow Liberal Democrats, we must not

forget and we must work with our fellow citizens in Europe to secure

peace. APPLAUSE Conference, I am one of the people

who asked for a separate vote on paragraph ten. I consider it very

rash. We have had the experience of MPs making commitments without

knowing what the future would hold. This got us into trouble and the

student tuition fee issue. We should learn from that. This promise of a

referendum is actually, we could find ourselves with ten and 11

contradicting each other. Because should Theresa May decide that she

can't go ahead with negotiations and stop herself, we shouldn't commit

ourselves to a referendum whatever the circumstances. We should have

deleted that line and left the party to make up their mind about a

referendum if the situation arose. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Conference, I would like to suggest

that we cannot simply respect the result of the last referendum. But

like many people here, I am sure we cannot understand how 17 million

votes can lead an electorate of 46 million over a cliff. To put all our

hopes to a second referendum demanding that, depends on the

Conservative Party playing our game. And I simply don't see that that is

a possibility. We have so much evidence that the Conservative Party

is concerned with only one thing, two things. Getting into power and

maintaining power at all costs. No matter what the effect on the

country. We cannot disregard the referendum that has taken place and

we must back the nation that it was not a mandate for any government to

take this country out of the EU. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Paul Hindley from Blackpool.

Conference, if we are to win a future referendum on the Brexit

deal, we must advance social justice. We cannot foster a sense of

international community without first ensuring a sense of local

community, too. In the absence of hope, fear prevails, and fear

prevailed on June 23. To win on the EU in the future we Liberal

Democrats must deliver better living standards, decent jobs and social

housing that people need. Liberals are the agents of hope. We can

deliver that hope for communities that have been left behind. Hope

allows liberal internationalism to thrive, we must create it, support

the motion and the moment. APPLAUSE Thank you. Conference, I'm British

and European. My family and I value our freedom of movement to live,

work and study in Europe. We own a house in Latvia that Katy Gordon

stayed in. My husband works part-time in Estonia. His alarm to

Leave landscape architecture academic and relies on EU research

grants. His students benefit from Erasmus. Brexit brings uncertainty

is. The uncertainty of the union as the SNP renew a cry for independence

which retracts from how poorly they are running public services. There

is presently no clear yellow Brick road to the Emerald city of Brexit

land. Government clarity is essential and what is really

important is the freedom of movement, otherwise Britain will be

isolated socially, economically and intellectually. Support the motion.

APPLAUSE A former Prime Minister once told

this party to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't work out so well

for him or the country. But while it may be heresy to say so I wonder if

he might have had a point. We Lib Dems are passionate

internationalists and feel bereft by the result. But by going on and on

about Europe we simply sound like bad losers. Of course we have a

nuanced position, but to be honest very few outside this wall can tell

the difference. I propose we collectively talked less about

Europe. The Tories will mess it up all by themselves. And that we focus

on talking to believers to find out what are the issues that angered

them and how we can help them take back control of their own futures.

APPLAUSE Thank you. Conference, a European

leader after the leave vote was quoted as saying British people had

been brainwashed by the press. This is an intervention about old school

communications. I think we have to take head-on the fact that although

you will find in the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Torygraph,

stories supportive of the Lib Dems. There have been over the years many

unsubstantiated stories that have been challenged. You will encounter

people on doorsteps influenced by these stories and it's important to

much time on the Daily Express, much time on the Daily Express,

they've gone into broken record on their front pages, invoke Article 50

out. Thank you. This is divorce and the mood has changed in the European

Parliament and the EU 27 states. Increasingly, rightly or wrongly,

the UK is being blamed for having held the EU back. Once Article 50 is

triggered, it's the EU 27 in the European Parliament who hold all the

shots. Call all the shots. And there's absolutely no guarantee that

we want to tear up Article 50 we would be allowed to do so. So please

can we be very clear, that our Liberal Democrat commitment is to us

being a member of the European Union not only if that's a question of

remaining, but also if that actually is a question of reapplying to join.

APPLAUSE Thank you. I want to make you aware

of the speed with which some of the implications of Brexit will happen.

Look at lines 35-37 on passporting the city's financial activities. One

third of the city's activities at the nominated in euros. On the day

of legal Brexit we will certainly not have those passporting rights

and banks in the UK will not be able to make payments in euros. The

president of the European Central Bank said it again at the weekend.

The significance of these rules is simple. When we have left, or even

before that two-year deadline occurs, the banks of the city.

Moving off. And with it will go their tax revenues and foreign

exchange earnings. In the two years the Brexiteers fantasies forced

labour, revealed for exactly that and the real costs would hit the UK

very hard, not only in the city but all the places that support

activities in the city. I ask you to support this motion wholeheartedly.

APPLAUSE We now return to the main

three-minute speeches. Can I ask Doctor Mick Taylor to stand by and I

now call Nick Clegg who is our spokesperson on Brexit. APPLAUSE

Conference, Brexit means Brexit. Have you ever heard a more inane and

disingenuous phrase in modern British political discourse? You're

supposed to say no at this stage! It is used of course robotically by

Theresa May to cover up, to camouflage the indignity of the

paralysis at the heart of this Conservative government.

Lots of commentators have said the government are in this state of

paralysis because the intention of their wish to true freedom of

movement and their wish to have access to the single market. I

actually think it goes much deeper than that. The paralysis lies in an

argument between the two sides of the Conservative brain. One part of

the Conservative brain as browsers free trade, and the great exporting

prowess of the United Kingdom. Untrammelled access into major

markets, particularly in Europe on our doorstep. The other side of the

Conservative brain argues for a return to the days of gunboat

diplomacy and 19th century Parliamentary sovereignty. These two

things are un-negotiable, they are mutually incompatible. You cannot

have untrammelled access to a single market, which remember is a single

market of rules, with about abiding in one form or shape by those rules.

That is what will lead to gridlock in the next few years under this

hopeless government. That is why they find themselves up this Brexit

Creek, never mind that they don't have a paddle, they don't have a

canoe, they don't have a map, they have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

In my view, there paralysis is about to take a very serious turn and it

is this. I think under pressure from them or swivel eyed backbenchers,

under pressure from the Brexit press, under pressure from their own

internal contradictions, they will remove the master slid towards a

hard Brexit, not only taking it out of the European Union but taking us

out of the single market as well. And when they do that, they will do

untold damage to the British economy. They will undo an

extraordinary British achievement, the creation of the world's largest

borderless marketplace anywhere, and at that point, that is why I urge

you to support this motion, particularly paragraph nine B about

the importance of retaining the single market, because when the

Conservatives do that, we must remorselessly remind them that they

can never dare say again that they are the party of business, and more

importantly they can never say again, having done so much damage to

our great country because of their obsession about Europe, they can

never again say that they are a responsible party of government.

Thank you. APPLAUSE Thank you, conference. I now call Dr

Mick Taylor from Calderdale who wishes to speak against line 56 and

57. Conference, I oppose Brexit, I don't accept it. The result was

based on lies, deception. The people who want us out of Europe never

accepted the 1975 referendum, and which was far more clear, and I

seemed no reason whatsoever to accept the one we have just had. But

referenda are the tools of despots. And they are not a substitute for

representative democracy. We have Parliamentary democracy in our

country, where sovereignty rests with Parliament. The referendum was

a dangerous copout by Cameron and must not be repeated. It is clear

that people almost never answer the actual question posed in a

referendum, and they did not understand the consultative nature

of the referendum we have just had. They expected that we would leave

the EU immediately, that the day after the referendum, the EU would

be gone. That simply is not acceptable to me, and it should not

be acceptable to our party. No. The way forward is to have a general

election, and to elect a new government with a mandate to stay in

the leave the EU on whatever terms have been negotiated. The problem

is, as well, that these two lines in our resolution don't tell us

anything about how the referendum is going to be run, what the rules are

going to be. There is no voting threshold suggested, no required

majority, no rules about people telling downright lies, there are no

powers for the Electoral Commission to stop distribution of fake

literature and literature which deceives, and there is no way of

enforcing people to obey any rules that are agreed. A referendum is a

bad idea. I wish we could reject it today. But we should not support it.

Could I ask Menzies Campbell to stand by and now

good morning conference, I am speaking today against lines 58 to

60 of the motion, particularly against our proposal to campaign to

remain a member of the EU. I think we have a very important choice to

make today, do we be pragmatic, or do we stick our heads into the

ground? I was absolutely devastated on the morning of 24 to June, but I

understood that we have to move on. I am a liberal and I am a

pragmatist. I was on the stronger in Europe campaign across the

north-east and a few other parts of the country. I realised that the

many people we spoke to on doorsteps, a vote to leave was not

about our southern tree, autonomy, democracy except. A vote to leave

was about a rebellion against the establishment. We fought and pain

but it really divided the country. Further campaigning to rejoin the

EU, I fear, will just simply continue this division. These are

divides that will heal if we act now but we cannot leave it too late.

Referendum is simply divide the country and liberalism I feel is

about Corporation and unity, which we must focus on at this very

turbulent time to stop Winnie to focus on making more accountable and

more open. In such times of labour and Tory division, we should be

working on providing a stable and accountable way out. Foreign

investors should be persuaded with promise of EU membership,

strengthening the economy, with freedom of movement, goods and

services that Norway, Lichtenstein, Iceland enjoys. There is simply no

turning back, even if we want to. If we really an internationalist

country, we should realise and we should understand other countries

have the right, the intention and their liberties, and those liberties

and intentions should be respected. So I urge you to vote against the

motion, so we can revise line 58 to 60 to support EASA. Conference, I

urge you to be pragmatic. Thank you. Thank you. That was his first speech

at conference. APPLAUSE Could I ask Sophie Thornton from

Sheffield to stand by and I now call Menzies Campbell. Liberal Democrat

leaders kicking about Europe are like London buses. When you want

when you can't find one, and suddenly two, long together. But for

the avoidance of doubt, and perhaps to be accused of plagiarism, I agree

with Nick. APPLAUSE In three minutes, I cannot voice the

extent of disappointment and frustration I feel about the result

on 23rd of June. And I will tell you why. Because looking round, I am

among the diminishing band of liberals, yes liberals, who

campaigned successfully in 1975 for Britain to remain within the

European Union. But like others, my disappointment and frustration has

now been replaced by defiance. And what about the defiance of 16

million people who voted to remain in Europe? What about them? Who will

speak for them? We alone can do so. Not to labour, consumed by its own

self-destruction, not the Conservatives, mouthing the gnarled

mantra that Brexit means Brexit while the three unwise men fight not

only over Chevening, but over the extent of the departmental response

buses. Lysander fired? And hope I do because I am. I was particularly

disappointed by the debate, not one moment was devoted to the hall

yesterday -- the whole issue of the political value of being part of the

European Union. And not one individual examined the geopolitical

consequences of doing so, for which Mr Putin would no doubt have a very

satisfied smile on his face, because Putin's twin objectives are the

undermining of Nato and the destabilisation of the European

Union. Donald Trump is probably going to do the first, and the

United Kingdom has helped to do the second. My defiance is based on

this. Until you know the terms of withdrawal, how can you possibly

decide if they are acceptable? And I ask you to think this: supposing you

were about to take a major decision in your own personal lives, would

you take it without understanding what the consequences might be? Of

course you wouldn't, and that is why we should be defined. And one last

point, supposing the result had gone the other way, would Johnson and

Gove and Farage pack their tents and silently go away? Of course not, and

neither should we. APPLAUSE Thank you. Could I ask Gareth

Roberts to stand by, and I now call Sophie Thornton from Sheffield who

wishes to speak against lines 56 to seven.

Hello, conference. When I woke up after the referendum, I was

devastated, and right now there is a situation we have to salvage, which

is why I want to be clear about my own view on this motion. Protecting

the rights of EU citizens of the UK and vice versa, then Bishop of the

single market, maintaining the four freedoms, he Nick and Erasmus, they

are all things I support, but -- EHIC. But I do not support a second

referendum. The meet, the huge rise in hate crime after the referendum

was the worst part of the loss, it showed the type of country we were

set to live in. A second referendum would only be viewed by leave photos

as an assault on their democracy and we are more likely to see this than

motivate the 70% of remain in client young voters who could not be

bothered to turn out in the first place. The minority groups will only

suffer again and a mandate that is harder to challenge than that of

Brexit government. Quite frankly, I do not believe that these people

should have the legitimacy of their citizenship brought to the fore

again because of my principles. I believe this is not only selfish but

an pragmatic. We cannot keep playing with people's lives until we get a

result in our favour. APPLAUSE I feel we need to consider also how

we would get a second referendum. The main way we would get one is if

we were in fact in government. And if we were in government we would

not need a second referendum, we would stop this Brexit madness.

APPLAUSE So let's not waste our time. We are

calling for another referendum, we may not have the resources for, and

nor do we have any guarantee that the EU would accept its terms. If

the public vote for hard Brexit, where does that leave us? We are not

the opposite of Brexit fighting for a EU referendum, we are so much more

than that. Now is the time for pragmatics and not pipe dreams and

that is why I urge you to vote against this motion. Thank you. Mic

thank you and Sophie was a first-time speaker. Could I ask Dr

Kirsten Johnson from Oxford East to stand by and I now call Gareth 's

Roberts. Earlier Hughes spoke about the

importance of allowing Ukip to get hold of Parliament and take all its

decisions. Things which make me wait in the middle of the night is the

thought of unelected chamber which is crammed with Ukip MPs, something

we cannot possibly allow. What we need to do however is talk about

Amendment one. Amendment one speaks a lot of sense. What we need to have

is the retention of rights which are currently enjoyed by those people

who are EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in Europe.

Importantly, we need to make sure that they retain the right

franchise. The right to vote. We are Democrats and we support people's

writes to have a say on the matters which affect them. Whether it is at

national level or at local level. I am a council group leader for

Richmond-upon-Thames, where we have an openly Europhobic leader. We have

an openly Europhobic MPs that Goldsmith and they are not

interested in speaking up for the rights of those citizens of the EU

currently living in Richmond-upon-Thames. This is

replicated up and down the country. If we are to have any form of

Brexit, if we are to have any form of leaving the EU, we must not only

look after those people who have chosen to come and work here and

live here, but we must look after their democratic rights in order

that they may have their say still on issues which will be affecting

them. There's an old line which comes up regularly in America which

is "No taxation without representation". We should be

fighting for that for those people, that they should be allowed the

right to have their say. Local government is not exciting. Nobody

will ever claimed that talking about streetlights, pavements, schools,

what night beans is, is going to be exciting. But people who are going

to come and live in this country should have the right to get rid of

those councillors, those people who seek to represent them, and they

should have the rights to whether they elect them or whether they

choose not to. We are the party who is going to be looking after those

people. We will be speaking out. Because frankly nobody else is. I'd

urge you not only to support the motion as it is but also to support

the amendment one. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Thank you. I now call Dr Kirsten Johnson from Oxford East. I'd like

to thank the previous speaker for catching that the wording for nine A

wasn't quite right and drafting this excellent amendment. I would like to

briefly summarise the amendment. Ruvi has already unpacked it for me.

In tabling this amendment conference we wish personally to correct the

inaccuracy which distinguishes between the UK and European

citizens. We are still EU citizens. Yes. And as this motion is set in

the present the language needs to reflect what our present and current

state of affairs is. Secondly the draft is couched in terms of EU

citizens being allowed to remain. In fact, they currently have the right

to remain and they don't need our permission. Thirdly we wish to amend

the wording from settling to residing. As Ruvi explained,

residing is the term that should be used because the Institute of Public

policy research recently used this term in its recent report calling

for indefinite leave to remain for citizens of other EU countries

residing in the UK. And lastly, the section as drafted only protects the

right to remain. Whereas individuals have acquired the rights. Let us

remind ourselves that EU workers from other countries bring a net

benefit to this country. They put in more than they take out. But this is

not just an economic dimension. It's also a human rights point. EU

citizens from other countries who live and work it should continue to

have the acquired rights which they currently access as residents of the

UK. And likewise it is only fair that UK citizens who are resident in

other EU countries should have the right to remain in those countries,

and the protection of any other rights that they have acquired as

resident in those countries. So I'd like to thank... INAUDIBLE

From other EU countries who are directly affected by this EU

referendum vote. The University of Oxford is greatly concerned about

staff retention as many citizens from other EU countries are

exploring their options and there is so much uncertainty about the right

to remain. We need, we must get this policy right. So I urge you to

please accept this amendment and please vote for the motion as a

whole. Thank you. APPLAUSE Can I remind those who are standing

that after this speech we will be moving to a vote. You need to be

seated if you wish to vote. There are seats in the middle of the

central block and further towards the back. If you do intend to vote

could you find a seat. I now call Baroness Sarah Ludford. Conference,

I agree with Tom and Tim and with Nick. How great it is to be able to

say that again. Although even neck with his huge expertise on EU single

market and trade issues, he's been round the block in all the main EU

bodies, could not magic out of a hat a Brexit deal other than worse than

what we have now as an EU member state. As he and Peter have made

clear, we must remain in the single market but we must also campaign to

remain. We must have some kind of relationship with the EU so how much

better to stay in, forcefully speaking up for it to deliver more

for citizens, than passively depending on it. Brits deserve

better than the three Brexiteers, as Tom said. The golf playing Liam Fox

damning British business as fat and lazy, David Davis who doesn't know

his single market from his customs union, and nor does Jeremy Corbyn.

OK, it sounds arcane, but it makes a huge difference to how much red tape

small firms as well as big will have to deal with. A potential tsunami,

as Nick has put it. What was all that about not only taking back

control but slashing bureaucracy? And then we have bouncing Boris.

Remember that wonderful photo of him suspended in a harness waving his

flag. He wants to bring back the Royal yacht. No doubt another white

elephant like the London cable car on which he wasted ?60 million of

taxpayers money. Brits have been conned. And they are finding that

out, some sooner than others. One of the questioners to Tim yesterday

said a friend of hers who voted Leave has realised that her dream of

retiring to France may be in tatters. The fact is that the EU,

far from being an exercise in bossy technocratic bureaucracies,

simplifies your life and protects you. We want to allow Barbara Smith

to holiday elsewhere than Bognor. Through the EU health card,

abolishing roaming charges, compensation for flight delays if

that happens. But if she does holiday in Bognor, the EU is making

sure that her bathing water is clean! APPLAUSE

And I say to Mr Dyson, the EU also helps ensure that your vacuum

cleaner is energy-efficient. Now I would love us to be able to stop

banging on about Europe. But it's the fault of Tories and Ukip that we

have do do that. Instead of wasting up to a decade and masses of dosh on

the folly of Brexit, let's invest in this country to address the

divisions, discontent and grievances felt by so many people. Tackling

public services pressures as Norman Lamb proposes on the NHS, and the

gross inequality. We need to deliver on jobs, an affordable housing,

equipping people with necessary skills. I agree with Hillary Myers

and others on those priorities, but I don't agree on the conclusions. I

don't always agree with bankers but the head of the German central bank

is spot-on. For many of its citizens Europe has indeed lost its shine and

become a projection screen for the downsides of globalisation and

migration. Likewise the usual instincts of the EU institutions to

answer crises with more brussels, more integration, no longer

resonates with the public. Integration cannot be an end in

itself, it has to make sense. Our aim has always been to make Britain

in Europe makes sense for everyone. And we will carry on with that. I

think everyone who has spoken in the debate, and I thank those for the

drafting improvements in the motion on fair voting. The amendment which

we accept brings welcome precision to the issue of acquired rights. How

in moral to threaten to rip people from their lives, contributing in

their communities. Liz Lynne rightly stresses the need for Parliament to

vote on Article 50 and we insist that must be on the basis of full

information from the government. Tissue, I should stress that a vote

against a Brexit deal means staying in the EU. With, as Peter Price

explained, the chance to influence it. To Daisy Cooper and other

speakers, I stress that we are fighting to stay in the EU but also,

and it is not contradictory for the best Brexit deal. We have made clear

that the Parliamentary vote on Article 50 will be determined by the

government's proposed negotiating terms. They must come clean. To

Fiona Hall, I say, note the wording, says "Commits the Liberal Democrats

to continue to campaign to remain in the EU". We ain't going nowhere.

We've been doing this for more than 70 years. It ain't time to stop now.

To Mick Taylor and Sophie from Sheffield, I point out that we might

not have a general election in time for the public to express a view on

the Brexit deal. And nor might it be with Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader

in the right conditions. And vote they must, as Ming stressed. We are

not calling for a second referendum. We are asking for people to vote for

the first time on the terms of a Brexit deal. APPLAUSE

Alex Hamilton said that the Tories in partnership with Ukip have

inflicted an act of political vandalism on the United Kingdom. It

is not only in Scotland but also in Ireland as Alan Reid highlighted,

and in Gibraltar, and it was great to hear from Dr Garcia, we face

adverse repercussions. The Conservative and Unionist party,

what a bad joke! I am proud to confirm that the Liberal Democrats

remain a proudly pro-European party. There is a wonderful picture in

today's i with Tim Farron head-to-head with Nigel Farage.

That's how we like it. We are the only real voice of opposition to the

Tory Brexit government and the only party fighting to keep Britain, all

together now, open, tolerant and United! One more time for a gold

star! Open, tolerant and United! Conference, please support this

notion and the amendment. APPLAUSE Mic thank you very much conference.

Overwhelmingly passed. Can I say sorry to have the votes I cannot

call. We have a massive stack of cards. We would have been here all

day if we did. Can I think might aid the stage Jeremy Hargreaves and I

now: handover to Joe off for the next section.

Thank you, conference, good morning, if you are leaving the hall please

do so quietly and promptly. We are about to move to a speech so if you

are staying please sit down. Thank you very much.

Good morning, conference. Hello. Good morning, conference, are you

there? It gives me very great pleasure to welcome the next

speaker, a transport minister under the coalition and other party's

Treasury spokesman, please give a warm welcome to Susan Kramer. Thank

you very much, conference, and I do understand those who feel desperate

to leave the hall, what a exciting debate that was and what a superb

outcome. Conference, a few years ago in 2014, a man by the name of George

Osborne stood up at the Tory party conference and announced that the

Conservatives had a long-term economic plan. It was a plan built

on sorting out the financial mess and showing that Britain is open for

business. Well, as they say, that went well, didn't it? The reality

was the moment Osborne was left on his own devices, come May 2015, he

doubled down on a strategy that was anything but long-term. It was a

plan based on short-term targets the short-term political gain, focused

on giveaways on the very richest, one deeper increasingly unnecessary

cuts in welfare and support for the working poor. On slashing support

for renewables, undermining our green, British industry revolution,

and on setting economic targets that required severe cuts in spending on

infrastructure. On the roads, rail, broadband schemes and hospitals, the

very tools people need to keep our economy competitive. From May 2015

onwards, George Osborne hollowed out the economic recovery. He turned

away from the work of the coalition to put the economy on a path to

recovery and instead embarked down a road he hoped would lead him to

Downing Street. Unfortunately for him it led directly off a cliff. He

suffered a backlash led by the Liberal Democrats over his plans to

cut tax credits, he proposed plans to hit disabled it was so hard that

even Iain Duncan Smith could not stomach it, and while job figures

and headline economic figures continue to flatter him, underneath

the surface we saw the construction centre enter recession, housing

stocks flattened and the Bank of England downgraded forecast for

wages, growth and inflation. And then Brexit happen. Now let's be