 Mae'r ddon ni, dyma sydd yn iawn, y Dryguedd yn unig i mi'r ddablineon, credu i'r dywan. Dwi'n enfynol yng Nghaerrodd yr unrhyw, ac yna'r gyffredin hwn o'r rhaid yn掉ethan yn gwinellfa, ond maen nhw'n gallu mwyaf arbennig o fewn yn canadigol oherwydd ydy'r unrhyw gweithio'r neud. of this referendum. Some of the arguments engaged and some of the consequences of what I believe would follow if Brexit were to happen. No one should be in any doubt about the importance of the decision the UK will take in the referendum. It's going to chart our future for many, many years. It will say a huge amount about how we view ourselves and how we view the world around us and it could have a profound impact on the European Union itself. The economic case for staying is central and voters will want to know what both staying and leaving would mean for them the jobs and their families prospects but I don't believe that this argument is only about trade and jobs as vital as these issues are. It is also about values and where we stand in the world. The world and certainly the European Union faces major challenges and the question is are we to meet them by working with our partners or are we to retreat into a combination of nationalism and nostalgia to a very different future? The answer to this question matters not only to us but to our friends here in Ireland and throughout the European Union. Now our two countries joined the EU at the same time and over the 40 plus years of membership now relationships between us have certainly been transformed for the better. When I think back to my childhood the relationship between Britain and Ireland then was often one of suspicion and distance and today that's certainly not the case. We are neighbours, friends and partners. There's a high and valuable degree of trust between the two countries and very often a common view on the direction that Europe should take. That transformation is not of course entirely down to joint membership with the EU. There have been a lot of other factors too but it's certainly helped. Together our politicians have sat round the same table at the council of ministers discussing everything from the single market to finance to EU enlargement and more often than not we've been in broad agreement but although we often agree on the specifics of proposals it would be a mistake to assume that we view the European Union through the same eyes. While Ireland has never seriously questioned its EU membership since joining in the UK the story is different and a major part of that difference in recent years and a major reason why in the UK we're having this debate now is because of the different way that globalisation has affected different parts of the UK. Britain has been one of globalisation's boosters. We've seen the advantages of open markets, the tearing down of walls and barriers and although we're a medium-sized country in economic and cultural terms we still try to exercise a global view with global reach. If you walk around our capital city you can see the successes of that stance. Gleaming new towers stand as monuments to London's ability to attract investment, a global financial centre, a fertile ecosystem for start-up businesses of all kinds, an international population with well over a hundred languages spoken in the city, a diversity and religious freedom that is precious and is envied around the world, an openness that serves as a great foundation for creativity. London is a great global city and is done well in taking advantage of globalisation. But the impact of that is uneven around the country. If you walk around parts of my Wolverhampton constituency in the West Midlands or other small cities elsewhere in the country you often see a different picture. Here and in places like it in recent decades the story has often been of painful economic change, huge factories which provided thousands of jobs closed down and gone. Many smaller cities searching for a new purpose. Instead of a sense of excitement about globalisation's possibilities there's often a sense of loss not only about employment but also about pride identity and purpose. And for many people in parts of the country such as I represent globalisation has not seemed an unalloyed good. It's looked like a force that could take work away and brought competition for the work that remained. It could seem like a competition that the local population was not winning. And when I look back on the time from the mid-1990s until the Labour government of which I was a part left office in 2010 I can and do take a lot of pride in many things that that government achieved. But I also wish that we had done more to respond to the sense of loss that I'm talking about. We can never stop the tide of change. We can't just wish it would go away but we can and must equip people to succeed when change is happening. We can reassess what we want and expect from our education systems. We can remove barriers to opportunity and on that front our problem in government was not that we changed too much and somehow forgot our roots it was that we changed too little and we should have done more. And into this sense of loss about economic change stepped UKIP with a message that aligned EU membership with immigration and the accusation that the political elite didn't care about those who they felt were losing out from change. Now I reject the politics of fear and anger as a response to concerns about globalisation. Simply amplifying grievance doesn't create a single job or help a child pass an exam but it's incumbent on those of us who reject these views to do a better job of equipping people to cope with change and giving them hope for a better future. And the reason I lay this out before you today is that I think getting better answers to these concerns is at the heart of this battle over our future inside or outside the EU and these issues of globalisation and attitudes to the EU have also played themselves out inside our main political parties. In the early years of membership it was my party the Labour Party that was the more Eurosceptic. We fought the 1983 election and lost it terribly on a platform of the drawing from the EU but we changed our attitude during the long modernisation path that led us back to power begun by Neil Kinnock and John Smith and completed by Tony Blair and instead of withdrawal we had a different analysis which saw Britain as a key player in an interconnected world where on issues from climate change to trade it made more sense to work together rather than retreat into nation state responses and in the post thatcher era it is the conservatives who've been the more Eurosceptic party and the Fisher over Europe has scarred that party from the John Major government to the present day. There is a group of consistent pro-European conservatives but more and more in recent years the way to get selected in the conservative party has been to voice strong Eurosceptic opinions and of course you'll be aware that Mr Cameron in his leadership campaign one of the pledges was to withdraw the Conservative party from the European People's Party and for a time he resisted calls for a referendum but in the Bloomberg speech gave into the pressure and set us on the path that we now find ourselves. His strategy is to renegotiate the terms of membership in the four specific areas set out in the letter to President Donald Tusk late last year. Some believe we've been here before with Harold Wilson setting out a similar strategy before the referendum back in 1975 but while that referendum was more or less a ratification of entry this time the poll will take place after 40 plus years of membership. If the government gets agreement next month at the European Council the referendum is expected in June but if not of course it will be delayed and the legislation only stipulates that it has to take place before the end of 2017. On the content of the package most of the leading voices campaigning for Brexit have already made up their minds. It won't be enough and it never could be enough for them. It is clear from just about every debate in Europe that I've attended in the House of Commons in recent years that there is nothing the Prime Minister can negotiate that will satisfy many of his backbenchers. They are desperate to be disappointed. They've made up their minds long ago and they will campaign for out. Some don't quite put it in those terms. They say that all they want is an end to free movement and an individual parliamentary veto over every decision that the EU makes and if they get that they'll be happy. The Prime Minister is learning the meaning of the old Trotskyst transitional demand and the exponents of it at the moment are often the conservative Eurosceptics. For those of us who want Britain to stay in we await the outcome of the renegotiation with interest but we don't rest the whole case for Britain's continued membership upon it. The issue of most substance in the package is the future for non-Eurozone countries. It is important that countries like the UK in this position do not become second class citizens in the EU and that the currency choice we make doesn't lead to economic disadvantage or damage to our national interests. On the issue of migration which is very important to people in the UK there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the basis upon which people pay in and draw down from welfare systems particularly in a world where people move around more than they did in the past but we should be clear that the vast majority of people who come to the UK from elsewhere in the EU do not come to milk the welfare system they come to work hard pay their taxes and make a positive contribution to our country. There is a bigger broader case for EU membership far beyond the specifics of the Prime Minister's renegotiation package. The question on the ballot paper is leave or remain not just what we think of the renegotiation and it's that broader question which will be in voters minds when the referendum comes and I believe that the core case rests on our economic interests. Half of our exports go to the EU, half of our inward investment comes from the EU helping to create jobs and boost incomes for families throughout the country. Much of the inward investment from outside the EU is encouraged by the fact that Britain provides a gateway to the European single market. This is very important to our automotive industry, our international finance sector and others. If we just take the relationship with Ireland in 2014 the UK exported about 28 billion pounds worth of goods and services to here with about 17 billion going in the other direction or as the t-shirt put at the other day we do a billion euros worth of trade with one another every week. Ireland is our fifth biggest export market. We do more trade with you than we do with China and of course the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic is very important to the Northern Irish economy. I reject the idea that somehow we should make a choice between trading globally or trading with the EU. Of course we should be trying to trade more with emerging markets but it's not a choice of one or the other. We should be doing both and important as trade jobs and investment are to continue the EU membership. I don't believe the case for remaining in begins and ends there. We forget at our peril that the EU is a partnership of values as well as interests. Membership entails commitments to respect human rights, to democracy, to the rule of law and to resolving differences peacefully. Not only has the EU helped to keep the peace between the leading protagonists in the old Europe of nation states it has also helped embed the path from tyranny to democracy for the former communist countries of central and eastern Europe and this commitment to common values is now being tested in Europe as the EU struggles to cope with twin crises in the eurozone and over refugees. Both of these problems call into question assumptions that we've made about the depth of solidarity and openness. For most of recent decades the EU has been a success story it was growing economically in size and influence but here in Ireland you know well the struggle to overcome the economic problems of recent years and now Europe faces an unprecedented flow of refugees from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. Let's put the shengen system under great strain and some have also voiced fears about the religious and cultural diversity that follows from the greater movement of people. Beyond the EU's borders we have Russian aggression in Ukraine, a terrible civil war in Syria and sometimes within the EU attacks on the pluralism and openness that we hold dear. It would be the easiest thing in the world in the face of all this to say that it's too difficult and we should pull up the drawbridge and in many countries there are voices saying precisely this but that is not the leadership that these challenges demand. The truth is these problems require more cooperation, more coordination, a greater exercise of coordinated leadership and we should be strong enough to say so. I want to see the UK play a part in this leadership task, not to walk away from it. So this referendum is also about the kind of leadership that we offer to the challenges that Europe faces. Now the implications of Brexit itself, the referendum campaign has in effect begun. Polls suggest a population divided evenly between staying and going. So I want to turn finally to the implications of Brexit. The first thing that we need is confidence. Too often the European Union is discussed in the UK as a forum which always does things to us rather than a forum where we can decide things which are in our interests. Our involvement with Europe did not begin in 1973, it goes back centuries and Britain has enjoyed considerable success in shaping the modern EU. We pushed for the single market in the first place. We've pushed for its extension to services and to the digital arena and both Conservative and Labour governments pushed for enlargement. We need more confidence in ourselves and what we can achieve if we choose to lead in Europe rather than walking away from it. And after 40 years of membership, we know what being in entails, but what about being out? A referendum is not an opinion poll on one future, it's a choice between two futures. It cannot simply be about the merits or otherwise of the EU. The EU certainly has its flaws and faults and it faces serious challenges as I've set out, but the question is to remain or leave. And what would out mean or what out would mean must be a greater part of this debate. Those who advocate leaving have a duty to set out what this would mean. First the economic implications. Those who advocate leaving tell us we can have our cake and eat it. They want to keep our current access to the single market. They want us to pay no fee for such access. They want to end free movement and they want to pick and choose what regulations they will obey or not. Such a deal does not exist for any country currently outside the European Union. Market access comes with a price and in terms of adherence to common rules and standards. The question for a great trading economy is what will the price be paid and will we have a sale over the rules and standards which our economy must live by? Norway, not in the EU but part of the EEA, has to pay substantial sums to EU coffers. It has to obey the rules of the single market. It has to do so without any say in the commission, the council of ministers or the parliament and it's part of the Schengen agreement on free movement. In a similar way Switzerland through a series of bilateral agreements that took years to negotiate has to update its laws autonomously to comply with EU law. It has to again pay substantial fees for the privilege and it's currently in a standoff with the EU over free movement. I believe arrangements such as the Norwegian and Swiss have would be bad deals for Britain. We would be swapping the position of being a rule maker for adopting the role of a rule taker, a passive recipient of decisions made by others which we had to accept to maintain our access to the free trade area and if leave campaigners don't want the Norwegian or Swiss arrangements they have to tell us what it is that they do propose. The other alternative of opting out of the single market and trading under WTO rules brings in tariffs. For example 10% on car exports and other tariffs on components. What are going to be the trade implications if we were no longer part of the single market? What would it mean for a manufacturing area like my constituency which needs trade to survive? What will be the implications not just for our exporters but also for the supply chain who may not export to themselves but whose order book is dependent on companies who do? What would be the implications for our financial services industry? And very importantly what are the implications of leaving? For the employment rights agreed at EU level and enjoyed by millions of British workers. Rights such as access to guaranteed paid leave, equal rights for part-time workers, fair pay for agency workers. What's the fate of these protections when the cost of them is constantly attacked by those who would take us out? If the future is to stay in the single market with no say over its rules you have to ask what's the point and if the future is to leave the single market and have tariffs imposed on our industry you have to ask what's the price. Then of course there are the constitutional implications of leaving. The Scottish referendum in 2014 came close to breaking up the UK. The issue has certainly not gone away and the SNP is dominant both in the Scottish Parliament and in terms of Scottish representation in the House of Commons. They have made it clear that if Scotland votes to stay in the EU but the rest of the UK votes to leave there may be a second referendum on independence. Indeed the SNP developed their current policy of independence in Europe precisely to counter the accusation from opponents that Scottish nationalism was a separatist isolationist impulse. Coming soon after independence for Scotland was rejected in the referendum of 2014 the prospect of Brexit once again throws open the question of the future integrity of the UK. Then there is the position of Northern Ireland. I don't want to overstate the role that the EU played in the peace process. That process was in the main the result of patient and far-sighted leadership from governments in both the UK and Ireland and the leading players in Northern Ireland itself. But the fact that both countries were in the EU helped and the EU has supported the peace process through specific funding to help Northern Ireland recover from the economic damage of the troubles. But none of us can say with certainty what it would mean for Northern Ireland if the UK voted for Brexit. This is as you know the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another state. A border that at the moment has thousands of people crossing freely in each direction every day and between Northern Ireland and the Republic there is easy and productive trade and because of EU membership it's done on the basis of common rules. If Brexit happens and happens in large part because of a desire to restrict the free movement of people what will happen to that border? Ireland will still be a member of the EU. It will still be abiding by the free movement rules that are a condition of membership but what kind of border would there be if Britain no longer has such rules? What would be the effect on Northern Ireland if its neighbour to the south is in the EU but it is not and Scotland the part of the UK with which it has closest links is pushing for independence in part so it can remain part of the EU while Northern Ireland is not. I have no doubt that both governments would do their best to overcome these issues but the economic and other implications of such a situation are unknown. At the very least they pose a set of questions that are not there now. The point is it is complacent to assume that we can walk out of the EU and everything else stays the same. A Brexit raises major questions about economic and constitutional arrangements that leave campaigners have so far failed to address. I hope it doesn't come to any of this. I hope that we can persuade the people of the UK to vote to remain in the EU and to play a leading role in its future. I want to see a UK that is confident, engaged in the world, outward looking and determined to make the most of that stance. This really is a test of leadership. Can we set out a path for the future that explains the world and how you make the most of it? I want to see a Britain that plays to its strength in the world and seeks new opportunities and doesn't seek solace in trying to recreate a country that isn't coming back. Stumbling out of the EU would not be the exercise of strong leadership, it would signify its absence. That's why leadership is so important on this question now. The government of course has its leadership duty, but as people in this room know through your own experience, in a referendum situation where every vote counts, so do many others, including us as the main opposition party. Even when my party is further from power than we've been for many years, I believe we have a duty of leadership on this issue. To speak to voters in every part of our country and say this is bigger than Labour versus Tory or any other party battle and that it's in the interests of both our country and of Europe itself that we stay in. And for that reason, I will be doing whatever I can to advance the cause of the UK staying in the European Union in the referendum to come. Thank you.