 Formatisci, members of the Iraqis, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the Institute. My name is Barry Andrews. I'm the director general of the Institute. So John Major joins us this morning in very tumultuous times in UK politics. I have been reading his autobiography. And in 1990, when he became prime minister, by his own account, he had no track record on Northern Ireland and had to immerse himself in history and politics of Northern Ireland. The conventional wisdom was for all prime ministers of the UK to avoid Northern Ireland politics. But Sir John made Northern Ireland a priority. And together with Sir Patrick Mayhew and Douglas Hurd, he drove an agenda in Northern Ireland that led to the event that we're celebrating this morning. 25 years ago this month, the Downing Street Declaration was jointly signed by Albert Reynolds and Sir John Major. And it set and trained many of the events that culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The idea of consent, decommissioning was already underway. The three-strand approach was already very embedded in the peace process. And he had the courage to meet the leadership of the IRA, a very risky decision to take. But I think the fact that we have two TUSHIG here today really is a testament to the affection that Sir John is still held in. In terms of Europe, the Financial Times in an editorial two weeks ago noted the masterful way in which Sir John handled the Maastricht negotiations in 1992, in December of 1992, and subsequently after the general election in Westminster. And in spite of a reverse of vote against the Maastricht legislation in Westminster, the following day, Sir John tabled a motion of confidence in the government, which he won and thus rooted out the Tory rebels. So we look for portents of what might happen in the days ahead, in the hours ahead from Sir John. So I think we are very lucky and very fortunate. I can't imagine anybody better able to triangulate these issues for us this morning. So before I formally introduce Sir John, might I ask you all to place your phones on silent? Please feel free to tweet using the handle at IIEA. Both the keynote and the Q&A will be on the record this morning. So without further ado, please give a very warm welcome to Sir John Major. Well Barry, thank you very much. Timing, they say, is everything. My being here this morning proves I don't have it. But it's always a pleasure to come to Dublin and I'm delighted to be here with you this morning on such a slow news day. And it is a special pleasure to see John Brutten and Bertie Herne here this morning. Both of them were vital contributors to the peace process and thus to the well-being of the whole of the Ireland of Ireland. For me, John was an indispensable partner in negotiating the framework agreements in the mid-'90s and a central mid-step, I think, between the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement. And Bertie, of course, worked tirelessly with Tony Blair to finalize the Road to Peace established by that landmark settlement, the Good Friday Agreement. So I warmly congratulate them both on their joint endeavour and am both honoured and delighted to see them here with us this morning. Now, I doubt there's ever been a time when international and European affairs were in such a fluid state. And so it is, I think, a uniquely appropriate time to speak to this particular institute. And I propose to talk of British, Irish and European affairs shortly. But first, not least for context, I'd like to range more widely. But before I do, let me turn briefly to events last night in the House of Commons. Whether you are a remainder or a lever, no one can welcome chaos. So I think it is a time in the UK for everyone to reflect and consider. Time to turn to reality and not fiction. Time to turn to reason and not ideology. We need to calm the markets. We need to protect the economic well-being of the British people. We need to protect our national interest. And there is no shred of doubt in my mind that to do so, we now need to revoke Article 50 with a immediate effect. The clock for the moment must be stopped. It's clear we now need the most precious commodity of all, time. Time for serious and profound reflection by both parliament and people. There will be a way through the present morass. There always is. But in our national interest, we now need to take some time to find it. And I hope and I trust that we will. Now let me turn more widely. Wherever one looks, a new world is forming. It's vigorous and often contemptuous of old thinking. For a long time, democracy, free trade, and the spread of liberal politics seemed unstoppable. Now we know they were not. Democracy hasn't just plateaued. It is in modest retreat. Many democracies have relapsed over the first two decades of this century. And there is widespread dissatisfaction in many others. The United Nations reports that in 2016, the last year for which we have figures, over 60 countries saw a decline in civil and political liberties while only half that number had gains. All the signs are that that trend is continuing. And that suggests that the arguments that we believe had been comprehensively won have not. Arguments about democracy and the rule of law, about the liberal system of government, about free trade, all these must be fought and won all over again. There are no limits to change in our modern world that's true of politics. It's true of the structure of world power. It's true of how we live now and how we will live in the future. It's true of health. It's true of the world of work. Globalization, science, medicine, technology, and public expectations are all unrelenting drivers of change. Few things in life are certain, but what we can be sure of is that the world of tomorrow in which the UK and Ireland must live and trade may be very different from the world of today. Internationalism, cooperation with and understanding of others is becoming unfashionable. And intolerant nationalism is raising its ugly head in far too many countries. Too often, the art of compromise, consensus politics is condemned as weak. Agreements are more likely to be condemned than applauded, while more robust, more extreme, more antagonistic politics is attracting more and more popular support. Now capitalizing on public discontent, the worst sort of populism is beginning to thrive. Countries like China and Russia have a history of autocratic leadership. But elsewhere today, so-called strong men rise to power, or if not to power to influence, by preaching self-interest and promising national well-being. But their idea of well-being is often at the expense of minorities who may not be able to protect themselves. And this is alien to the British, the Irish and the European tradition. The risk is clear. It is that the international values-based system is under threat. A selfish form of nationalism is on the march. A trend that proclaims forget shared values, it's time for self-interest is a hazardous route of travel. And that trend is evident even across Europe. It manifests itself in xenophobia. It is anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti-Europe. It is careless of the misfortune of others. It opposes overseas aid. It lacks human empathy or compassion. The drumbeat of its motto is self, self, self. All this needs to be resisted. There is a better way to go. After the last world war, the post-war generation faced the most daunting of challenges that led by the United States, they rose to meet them. World leaders worked together across national boundaries and beyond national self-interest to build alliances and structures to oppose communism, to protect and build democracy, to promote rules-based global trade and as far as possible to secure long-term peace. It was visionary and it worked. Out of the rubble of 1945, a new world was built. Built on shared values and communal interests, self-promoting crude nationalism was defeated. It was put aside and replaced by international cooperation. But this laudable achievement is now being eroded at precisely the moment it needs to be refreshed because the post-war settlement is out of date and needs to be updated. Yet there is no sign of that happening. There is no leader looking to do so. No one looking beyond national self-interest to international cooperation. And at the same time, autocracy is thriving, not only in Russia and China, but in Turkey, in Iran, in Poland, in Hungary, in Brazil and advancing in many other countries as well. Even Europe, even Europe. Europe is the home and bedrock of democracy, yet far-right groups are growing across Europe, in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, in Austria, in Holland, in the UK. The concept of crude intolerant populism finds an echo in many countries. Even the United States, the nation which helped finance the rebirth of war torn Europe with the Marshall Plan, now advances under the nationalist slogan of America first. America, for so long, the most powerful ally to both our nations, is shifting her focus from the West to the opportunities of Asia Pacific. Anglo-Irish and American policies that have been so closely entwined for so long are beginning to diverge. We believe in free trade. America introduces tariffs. We support the Paris climate accords. America withdraws from them. We welcome China's infrastructure investment bank. America does not. We support the Iran nuclear deal. America rejects it and threatens sanctions on European and other companies if they trade with Iran. Now, Britain, as a full member of NATO and Ireland as a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, see NATO as crucial to global security. President Trump is equivocal. For the time being, upon these issues, British, Irish, indeed all European and American views are diverging. I look forward to the day when once again we are at one. That is in the European interest. And also I believe the American interest as well. Even the Great Republic needs allies it can rely upon. The most fundamental shift in world power for generations is the rise of China. In many ways, that's welcome. A Chinese economic giant in the East to match the American economic giants in the West will better balance the world economy. Together, these two countries are likely to shape the century to come. But as they do, other things change. The UK will no longer be part of a European political and trading bloc that can deal with both China and America on a more or less equal basis. And that illustrates a new dilemma for Britain and for Europe. For decades, Britain's overseas presence has been boosted. Boosted by a close relationship with the United States and their membership of the European Union. We were a more valued ally to America because of our influence in Europe. And we were more valued by Europe because of our close relationship with America. But America now appears to be moving away from us both at the same time as we British are moving away from Europe. Britain, shorn of both these long-standing allies will suddenly be seen by the world as a mid-size, middle-ranking power that is no longer supercharged by her alliances. And that will surely diminish our international influence. Now, don't misunderstand me. The UK will still matter. She's an amalgam of four proud and independent nations, but she will matter a little less than once she did. But the UK leaving the European Union is a double loss because the European Union will be weakened as well. We tend to concentrate on what happens to Britain when they leave Europe. Let me turn the telescope around and ask what happens to Europe when Britain go? Europe loses its second largest economy and one of only two European nuclear powers with a significant military capability. It loses the nation with probably the greatest and deepest worldwide foreign policy reach of any European nation. And it loses the most significant counterweight to the Franco-German policy alliance. A counterweight, let me add, that is often spoken out against policies opposed by other smaller European nations reluctant to challenge any consensus themselves because they are net beneficiaries from European funding. Any weakening of a united Europe while China grows in power, while Russia misbehaves, while America becomes more distant, cannot be in the best interests of all Europe, including the United Kingdom. Let me now turn to the United Kingdom and her nearest neighbor, Ireland. Next week is the, this week, is the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. The Declaration didn't bring peace, but it did halt violence and bloodshed and was an essential preliminary to the Good Friday Agreement. It didn't come easily. It was hard pounding. And the outcome was the work of many hands, both in and beyond politics. But it couldn't have been done, let me say here in Ireland, without the vision and commitment of your former T-shirt, Albert Reynolds. And I was delighted last night to have had the opportunity to pay tribute to Albert in his hometown of Longford. I hope and believe that his work on the peace process will have earned him an honoured place in Irish history. As Brexit draws near, Ireland must contemplate a range of issues. Among them, her changed relationship with the United Kingdom. Life in the European Union without her nearest neighbour. And her future relationship with Northern Ireland. She must also consider what must be done to reactivate the power sharing executive in Northern Ireland, a key achievement of the Good Friday Agreement. It is now around two years since Northern Ireland had a functioning government. And let me be frank, it is an indictment of both the DUP and Sinn Fein that they have not yet reached an accommodation. Few would deny that community relations have deteriorated during this time. And most would agree that the causes of the dispute do not merit ignoring the interests of the Northern Irish electorate for so long. Everyone must realise that sectarianism has not yet gone away. Northern Ireland is still far from a community that votes on policy and not on identity. History's legacy is not forgotten or put aside and no one should forget that. I understand the deep wounds of past history and how they became hardwired into the philosophies of Unionist and of nationalist politicians. There is hurt on both sides, but these wounds need to be healed and not reopened. But let me be clear, if the DUP and Sinn Fein let old wounds, old suspicions, old eminities take fresh root and live again, then the people of Northern Ireland will be the first to lose. But they may not be alone. Subsequent losers may well include the culpable politicians. Both parties are elected to take up their responsibilities and every day they find excuses not to do so is a dereliction of their duty to their electors. And that is doubly true when the executives should be jointly considering the impact of Brexit upon their electors. Now, Brexit has already inserted its very own poison into the turbulent politics of Northern Ireland. It begins with the DUP's support for Brexit, which is flatly opposed by most of their business base and by the majority of voters in Northern Ireland. It continues, I am sorry to say, with the confidence and supply agreement, the DUP have reached to support the minority Conservative government at Westminster. It may, on occasions, actually do so. But any formal support has the secondary and inevitable effect of undermining the UK government's role as an independent and honest broker in solving any problem between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. Now, let me ask two questions. Do the Westminster and Dublin governments wish to see the power-sharing executive return to their duties? Self-evidently, yes. And is the British government helped or hindered in that persuasion? In its persuasion to do so by its dependence upon the DUP in the House of Commons? Yet again, the answer is obvious. I have said before and continue to believe that for this reason, the confidence and supply arrangement is a deal that would have been better not being made. I cannot believe, despite the British government's best efforts, that many nationalists in Northern Ireland will accept the government as a fair and dispassionate arbiter, as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement, whilst being politically yoked to the DUP. Now, the enthusiasts for leaving the European Union like to present it as a great and confident liberation. It is not. It is a retreat, not a liberation. A more confident United Kingdom would remain within Europe reforming it, not complaining about Europe and leaving it. But that is not the view of the Brexiteers. They're a apparent belief that Europe, I quote, gangs up against the UK, and that the Commission, I quote again, bullies the UK. It's not only absurd, it's downright embarrassing. On one day, they boast that a global United Kingdom can successfully go it alone in the world. Well, of course we can, we'd be doing that for 300 years. The next day, they complain that the UK is being bullied by mere officials. There is a disconnect in logic here. They really must decide whether we're the United Kingdom or little England. And the European Union, they classify as a bully, is the same body, the very same body, that gave the UK budget rebate, that agreed we need not join the Euro, nor sign up to Schengen, nor the social chapter. That same European Union offered concessions to the United Kingdom that left us in a privileged position. No other government in Europe can remotely begin to enjoy some bully, the European Union, when you consider it. Of course, of course, the European Union protects its own interests, as every single country in the European Union does around the top table. But they are activated, as we all are, by a degree of self-interest, and not by maliciously wishing to do damage to the United Kingdom. Nor, actually, do they need to do so. The UK has shown we're perfectly able to inflict damage on ourselves without any help from the European Union. Now, during the referendum campaign in 2016, Tony Blair and I joined forces, not the most natural of partnerships, you may have thought, but we joined forces to point out the importance of Northern Ireland and the significance of the border if the United Kingdom left the European Union. Following our statements, we were told in effect by the then Northern Ireland Secretary and the present leader of the DUP that we clearly didn't know what we were talking about. Subsequent events suggest that we might have done. Any border between North and South risks reawakening memories of the worst of days. Nearby graveyards bear witness to how bad were those days. No sensible person can wish to return to them. A border would not just be a trade barrier. It would be a visible manifestation of us and them. In the past, it not only divided communities, it divided minds, it created sides. It was the justification for conflict and murder, and its disappearance was one of the best days in the long history of Ireland. Under the withdrawal agreement, a new border is deferred, while for the time being, the UK remains in a customs union until a technical solution is available to cope with trade formalities. But the problem isn't over. That much sought after technical solution may be a mirage, and like waiting for Godot, the wait may be forever. What then? Does the UK say in a customs union for good, or will inpatient politics drag us out? No one knows. We cannot be satisfied until a permanent solution is agreed. Now, there are further dilemmas to face as the UK leaves the European Union while Ireland remains a member state. In such circumstances, the two sides will no longer be able to bond over common causes in Europe. It was where I first met Albert Reynolds, it was where we became friends, it was where we learned to trust one another. But no longer will Irish and British ministers be able to meet and speak there privately and productively for their joint interests, and indeed vote together for their joint interests in Europe. No longer will ministers and officials meet daily in Brussels. The loss of this contact is unquantifiable but profound. Some say that familiarity breeds contempt. Our Anglo-Irish experience as partners in the European Union suggests our familiarity is more likely to breed trust, agreement, and peace. I recall being shocked in 1991 when I learned from the Len T. Shook Charlie Hockey that British and Irish ministers only met rarely and then simply to disagree. We must never return to such a distant relationship. I believe it's essential that post-Brexit, permanent forms, legislatively created, of permanent Anglo-Irish bodies be established to guarantee regular and substantive meetings between our respective prime ministers, other ministers, and senior officials inside or outside the European Union. Britain will always have much to discuss with her nearest neighbor, and so will Ireland. Both sides can benefit from institutional engagement, from close ties, from established mechanisms to promote mutual interests, from delivery systems for sectoral issues. Such institutions should be built up and kept in good repair. And nor is this just about trade. The relationship between our two countries can be good or bad. It can be close or distant. But whatever it is, it will have an impact on community relations in Northern Ireland. No one should underplay the Anglo-Irish relationship. The UK exports more to Ireland than to China. Over 7,000 Northern Ireland companies trade across the border to the south. Since 2000, the UK exports to Ireland have more than doubled, and Irish exports to the UK have risen by 80%. We have a huge market between us, a huge market that benefits both of us. We have been neighbors since the dawn of time. A huge Irish community is embedded in the United Kingdom. For nearly 100 years, we have enjoyed a common travel area that also offers other reciprocal rights in health, education and employment, which thankfully will continue after Brexit. We have offered one another unique voting rights in the host country. Our cultural links are extensive. In sport, we even feel common North-South teams in rugby, cricket and hockey. Though in cricket, we do steal your best players to play for England. It is an old, well-established British tradition. If they're good enough, they're English. Now, I could go on. Our links far exceed politics and trade, important though they are. And let me conclude with this thought. As a Britain, I say Ireland is important to us, and in or out of Europe, that will not change. Our duty, if we are to part from the European Union, is to build on our relationship and not let it fragment. We British owe that to Ireland, and we owe it to ourselves. We can do this, we should do this, and we must do this. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Sir John, for that excellent presentation, a very wide-ranging presentation, which touched on so many themes, the assumptions of the liberal order, which need to be earned by each successive generation, you emphasized, also the idea that the UK's power is based on its power in Washington, makes it powerful in Brussels and vice versa, and of course in Northern Ireland, and the value of the European Council and meetings on the margins to Anglo-Irish relations, and it certainly comes out from the discussions that you had with Albert Reynolds in that period, running up to the Downing Street Declaration, and an acknowledgement that Owen Morgan is, of course, and all those will be Irish as a cricketer. So before we open it up to questions and answers, you said at the beginning that your preferred course of action is a revocation of Article 50, which is obviously now facilitated by the decision of the European Court, as opposed to a request for an extension. That would be your preference at this moment in time, is it? That would be my preference. Always a politician. So let me throw it open to the floor. And the first question, Dahi O'Kallig is a former Irish ambassador to the UK, and a microphone is coming your way now. Dahi, thank you. Of course. Thank you very much, Sir John, for an extraordinarily stimulating, wide-reaching talk. And may I thank you in particular for the contribution you made to peace on this island and to the relationship between the two governments. It was enormous. I have to say just at the beginning that I am exceedingly worried about the situation in the North. The division between the two communities are deeper than they have been for a very, very long time. And I think the possibility of putting a devolved government together is becoming more difficult rather than easier. Having said that and having listened very carefully to what you have said, do you think at this stage that Brexit is irrevocable, that the UK might end up one way or another in remaining in the European Union? Thank you. Well, in the present morass, I don't think anything is impossible. It would clearly be quite difficult for that to happen. I think it could probably only come about if there were a second referendum and if people voted conclusively to stay in the European Union. But as other options fall by the wayside, it becomes less unlikely than it was. So I don't predict it, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out now. If you look at every conceivable form of Brexit that has been laid out, every single one of them is less healthy for the British economy and the British nation than the situation that exists at the moment as a member of the European Union. Now that of course is economically undoubted I think now. But there are other factors in play with those people who voted leave and it's very difficult to judge how powerful those are. But I don't think it's impossible now that we could stay in. I still think it is less likely than likely, but it's certainly not impossible. Thank you. Danny McCoy is the head of the Irish Business Lobby. Thank you, Sir John, as well. Welcome to Dublin. As Barry said, the Ibeck and the Federation British Industry have had joint business council in Northern Ireland for a very extensive period of time. And my question to you, given your speech, is about timing. One aspect you talked about is the relationship around the European Council. Well that was in existence from 1973, but the relationship wasn't good up late 1980s. Also the Belfast Agreement hugely important, but the actual disappearance of the physical border was actually the single market. And that prize of the single market is remarkable to us here in terms of transformation. But why was British business voices in particular absent from the debate for so long, given the prize that is the single market achievement? I have been in politics for 40 years. And sometimes there are questions that are impossible to answer. And I can't give you a rational reason why business was so silent. I can tell you what business says. Business says we thought it was a political matter and we didn't want to interfere with politics. Well, I think some of those businessmen may be wishing they did interview with politics a little more at an early stage now, but they didn't. I think it is a shame they didn't speak out. I think it's a shame they didn't say to their workforce, this is going to be the impact upon our company if we leave. But they chose not to. And I think part of the reason they chose that was because the expectation was that it was very unlikely that the British people would vote to leave. And so business rather felt, do we really want to get involved in a controversy upon which people feel so strongly and upset a lot of our customers? I suspect that was the mindset. Now, of course, we are staring down the barrel of a timescale that is quite short before we leave and business is beginning to speak out. But I suspect that is why. But leaders of business, the great captains of industry could probably explain it better than I can as a mere past politician. Simon. Thank you very much. Thanks Barry, thanks for John. Simon Carswell with the Irish Times. So John, today the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said there's no room whatsoever for renegotiation while the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, is on a tour of Europe and is seeking jury assurances on a proposed Brexit deal. What regular room is there, if any, in your view to reach a compromise that might find a majority in the House of Commons? And how great is it? How great do you see the likelihood of a hard no-deal Brexit? My goodness, that's temptation that I shall resist. I think the wiggle room in the withdrawal agreement is probably very limited indeed. I don't think the wiggle room in the political declaration is so limited. I'm not going to speculate. I don't think that would be helpful to the Prime Minister and I wouldn't want to add difficulties to what is already a difficult situation for her. But I can certainly see things that would be changed in the political declaration. That would be helpful. Whether they would be significantly helpful, I don't know. I can think of at least two things that could be done to the withdrawal agreement, though I'm not going to tell you what they are. That would be helpful, but I doubt the European Union would be prepared to offer them. But both of them, if offered, could make a significant difference. So I think there is scope in the withdrawal agreement. But I don't think that scope can be exercised because I think Europe has boxed itself into saying the deal is the deal and it is unchangeable, which I suspect is what European leaders are saying at the moment. And if that is the case, it is unchangeable. And we move on to the political declaration. That certainly is capable of being changed. And I suspect if Mrs. May asks for changes there, she may get some. Shane Harrison, BBC. Is there anything that can be done for Northern Ireland between the UK and the EU other than the backstop? In other words, countries may get a deal. And if she can't, is it time for somebody new, somebody to take over from her, a new person at the dispatch box, if you like. I think this will be a short one. I suppose there are a few things that could make the present system worse, but an election for leadership of the Conservative Party might manage to be one of those things that could make things worse. So I don't favour that. And I'm not sure that I immediately see a figure who has a fresh idea. The people who have pushed the Prime Minister into a particular position time after time after time now complain at the position she is now in. I think they wish to see the cause for that. Many of them would do very well to look in the mirror and reflect on what they said a few months ago. So I don't think that's an advance. One can never say never with negotiation. There is always a way. There is always a way. But a way does require both sides to be prepared to be flexible, to gain you must give in negotiations. That is the absolutely iron rule of any sort. You'll never negotiate with people if you don't speak to them, which was the problem with the Irish situation for decades. If you don't speak to people, you can't reach an agreement with them. And if you're not prepared to concede in one area, you can't expect to gain in another. And so if new routes were opened up, nothing is impossible. Unlikely, I think, but not impossible. My question may at first seem like a trite one, but I don't intend it to be. It's from a genuine curiosity. Come on, I was in the House of Commons for years, tried questions are perfectly all right. Well, it's coming from a different culture. It's a conversation I had last night and I've had previously. I'm wondering how much of an indictment the current pickle, if we call it that, that the UK finds itself in is as a result of public education, your education system and the public education system more specifically. Considering the main players. I don't think that's trite at all. I think that's quite a deep question. It's probably much too deep for me. I think what does have an effect is the way the European Union has been perceived and has been reported for a very long time. For a very long time, criticisms of the European Union have largely been unanswered even when they are unjustified. And for that, all of us who believe we should be in the European Union must take a share of the blame. Perhaps if we had rebutted some of the unjust, unfair, unreasonable and untrue criticisms that were made more effectively over the last 30 years or so, then perhaps they wouldn't have taken such deep root in the minds of many people. So I think there are a lot of people to blame for the state of opinion of Europe, including in some cases the European Union itself. Some of the things they have done have been extremely unhelpful over the years. I don't think they intended to be unhelpful. It's just that sometimes the translation between the continental mind and the British mind isn't absolutely right. If I can offer you an illustration of that. The first time I met Jack De Law, we decided that we had better converse in his broken English rather than my broken French. And so we did. And it was the first time we'd met. We knew we were destined to disagree, but we wished to start off on a good footing. And so we were talking generally. He began talking about a Dutch statesman of whom I'd never heard called Douglas. I'd never heard of him. I knew I was new to European politics, but I thought I might have heard of him, but I hadn't. But De Law went on and on about how good Douglas was. Now, if everybody was like Douglas, the European Union would be like a Rolls Royce purring along the street. It would all be perfectly all right. All would be harmony and sweetness and light. And he was 15 minutes into this monologue before I realized he was talking about Douglas heard, the British foreign secretary. So you can see the extent to which there is sometimes the difficulty with the language. Oh, sorry. Sorry, the microphone is back there. Philip Outcher Hayes, RTE. Sir John, while it's self-evidently in Ireland's interests that Britain remain in the EU, if not in the EU, in the single market, if not in the single market in the customs union, I wonder what is your response to the apparently growing sentiment in the other 27 member nations that, frankly, good riddance to the UK? Notwithstanding what you said correctly about the European Union being weakened by Britain's departure, there does seem to be a growing feeling that the EU might be better off without this, reluctant, quite frequently obstructionist member that's having constant crises of faith. Do you have a response to that? Well, sometimes to have a grit in the oyster is quite useful. And Britain has often been the grit in the European oyster. For example, when the euro was introduced, when it was agreed at Maastricht that there would be a euro, I declined to join because I thought the structure of the euro was going to lead to trouble. I could not see how countries like Greece could compete in the same monetary zone with the same exchange rate as Germany. And clearly, the euro should not have begun until such time as those countries were able to compete in the same currency zone. And we said that. We were alone in saying that. I decided on that basis that we wouldn't join the euro. I think in retrospect that we were right. The difficulties the euro have had because of the different competitive ability of the German economy and that some of the smaller economies is profound. And it has destabilized a large part of Europe, created massive unemployment in Southern Europe, and created also, in my experience, going around Europe, a very substantial anti-German feeling in many parts of Europe. Now, we were right about that. It is useful to have someone who will stand out against the consensus and say no, even if they are a pain in the neck, which is what very delicately you implied about the United Kingdom. So I don't apologize for that. I think it is quite useful. And I think from time to time, we were the protector of small nations who were reluctant to speak out against the broad consensus themselves and were content for Britain to do so. So I think it is quite useful. I actually believed it in terms of forming my cabinet. I had quite a few grits in that oyster, as I recall. And it is a useful thing to have. I tease a bit, but it is a useful thing to have. And if people are a little fed up about the fact that sometimes we disagree, I think they should look at the reverse side of that coin, how often we may have been right and how if we had been listened to, some of the problems that have arisen in Europe would not then have arisen in the form they now have. Names are in the autobiography, by the way, if anybody wants to check it out. Question at the back. Sir John Hugh Governey, a member of the Institute. One of the most confusing items on the agenda of Brexit has become the backstop, the definition of backstop, the understanding and misunderstandings around backstop. And I heard on our radio this morning, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I want you to speak very clearly about what the backstop is and what the backstop is not. My question to you is, do you believe that given the level of hostility which we all witnessed particularly yesterday in Parliament and the lack of trust in Parliament, that is there some way in which clarity could be given to everybody who wishes to listen about what backstop is and what backstop is not? It seems to me to be a key misunderstanding of what is driving a lot of the mistrust and a lot of the hatred. Thank you. Well, we can say what it is. We cannot guarantee it will be listened to. I mean, some people, some of us did say that during the referendum campaign and it wasn't listened to at the time. I find it rather curious the position of those who wish to leave Europe. I find their position on the backstop rather curious. For a long time, they have been saying to us a frictionless way of dealing with trade instead of having a border is perfectly possible. Why then are they now saying that we are in the EU customs union potentially forever if they don't believe a frictionless system can be devised? Either they didn't believe that before or something has happened to change their mind. Now, I find that rather curious. So I suggest that there's a good deal of politics in the opposition rather than solid logic. I think we should talk about the backstop more and why it is there. It is difficult for people to understand but I have not met anybody who lived near the border during the times of the troubles who is not perturbed at the possibility of another hard border. Hugh Ord, the former chief of police in Northern Ireland made it absolutely clear that if there were a hard border he thought there was a very high likelihood that people would return to violence and that has to be understood. The beliefs that because we have had no violence in Northern Ireland for 18 years that it has gone forever is fatuous. Peace is never definitively forever. Things can go wrong. There are people only too pleased on both sides of the Nationalist and Unionist divide who will be only too pleased to disrupt the harmony that Northern Ireland has enjoyed for the last 18 years or so. And we must do nothing to give them the opportunity of doing it. And the imposition of a hard border is an opportunity for them to do it. If I recall correctly, and I do, the start of the troubles was the murder of customs officers at the border in the 1960s. We don't want to give any conceivable chance of turning the clock back in Northern Ireland after so much has been done over so long and after there has been such an improvement, not perfect by any means, but such an improvement in the relationships within Northern Ireland and between the North and the South. It simply is not a risk that should be taken in my view. Hearing the third row, please, Owen. Thank you. Claire Odee, an Irish journalist based in Switzerland. My question is about a United Ireland. A United Ireland is now being discussed in more concrete terms than ever before. Do you think such a future with, for example, a two-state confederation of Ireland is imaginable? And would it grieve you for the United Kingdom to lose Northern Ireland? The whole of our history acquiring land, of course it would grieve me, Northern Ireland has been British for the whole of my life, so, of course, it would grieve me were that to happen. There's a lot more to unity than people immediately understand. It is, for example, I don't know how best to put this tactfully. It's quite an expensive proposition, a United Ireland, which may not be foremost in everyone's mind all the time, but believe you me, if it became close to a reality, it most certainly would be. And of course, you cannot do that sort of thing without broad consent. That has always been the position. It's been the position that successive governments have taken for a very long time. And I think the most important thing is not a United Ireland, but harmony between North and South and the freest flowing trade and life between Irishmen North and Irishmen in the South. I think that is more important than changing the map a little to incorporate the North back within the South. Questions here? Una and Alan? We have about five minutes left. Una, do I remember of the Institute? Sir John, last night I was trying to make my Christmas tree stand up straight and I looked at my bookshelves to find a thick enough volume. I just, my eye fell on the book I hadn't seen for a while. It happened to be the memoirs of Jean Monnet, quite by chance, and I looked at the front page and there was a quotation from Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the EU, which it said, we are not trying to make coalitions of nations, we are trying to unite peoples. What do you think Jean Monnet would say to what's going on today? Well, he was originally a cognac salesman, wasn't he? I think he'd have returned to his old job and enjoyed a jolly good drink. I'm not sure what else he would have to do apart from that, I think he would be distressed. Alan Dukes, Sir John, a member of the Institute and a former minister. Thank you for a very deep and I have to say empathetic reflection. I've been puzzled at the lack of debate in the UK about the reasons why the UK might want to leave the customs union and the single market. If, however, after Brexit, Britain is outside the customs union and outside the single market, there will be a border, either between the North and the Republic or between this island and the island of Great Britain. That's inevitable and the issue we have now about the backstop is a question of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Is there any prospect that the implications of being outside the customs union and the single market can really be appreciated in the UK before we get to the end of 2022? It seems to me that the only possibility of getting out of the binds that we're in now is to have as clear a statement from the UK as to how it sees the future relationship, not the current relationship, the future relationship between the UK and the EU because it's only then that we can really begin to talk about what the effects are going to be economically. Might I add one further reflection? You've spoken a little bit about United Ireland in the future. It seems to me that if we're to learn anything from this whole Brexit mess, it should be to resolve that if we ever make a fundamental political decision or contemplate a fundamental political decision like a border pole, we should plan it in advance in the way that Brexit has not been. Well, I agree pretty much with what you say. If you were free to advise in the UK, I'm sure you'd be extremely welcome. I think one thing that has encouraged many people in the UK is the argument that we will be free to go out and form our own trade deals around the world if we were outside the customs union, outside the single market. That has bitten quite deep into the British psyche because we are, by nature, a trading nation and always have been. There is, however, a flaw in that argument, if I may point it out. By leaving the European Union, we lose 53 free trade deals that the European Union have negotiated on behalf of all its members, including the United Kingdom. And we will have to renegotiate those 53 free trade deals which will undoubtedly take an extremely long time. And this does suffer from this potential disadvantage. And again, I put it in the form of a question. If we are negotiating with countries, will we get a better deal as the demandor as 65 million Britons than we already have as part of 500 million Europeans? I have leave to doubt that we would get as good a deal. And then there is the argument that we are going to have great trade deals with the United States, with China, and with India. And can we form trade deals with the United States? Of course we can. That's, I think, no doubt. But how much it is going to be a benefit to the UK? I'm less sure because the principal demands of the United States will be two-fold, access to our agricultural market, in which the big Midwestern corn dealers may well be able to undercut the East Anglian corn dealers who are one-tenth their size in acreage. I look forward to eating chlorinated chicken. I look forward to seeing what happens when the American beef market moves into the British beef market. I think all that would be disastrous for farmers and for rural communities generally if domestic British farming were damaged. And the other access they will demand will be into the National Health Service in terms of drugs and everything that goes with it. So I'm not sure how much net value a trade deal with the United States would actually prove to be. It would be quite small, I think. Perhaps there would be a net value, but I think it would be quite small and certainly wouldn't replace 53 trade deals elsewhere. And then, of course, there's India. Of course, a free trade deal with India would be extremely good, but it's quite difficult to negotiate a free trade with India at the same time as you're telling them you don't want their students or their people to actually come and live in a United Kingdom. That is not the best negotiating posture I have ever seen. And as for China, I'm not entirely sure that 65 million Britons are high on the agenda of 1.3 billion Chinese. So I am a little skeptical of the argument that we're going to go marching out as global Britain, which, as I said earlier, we have been for 300 years, and suddenly replacing 53 trade deals at speed and entering into three new trade deals. It was four, but then that wicked European Union actually did a deal with the fourth Japan. So had we stayed in the European Union, we would, of course, have got a Japanese deal already. And in due course, of course, the European Union will do a deal with India, will do a deal with the United States, and will do a deal with China, all of which we would have been able to enjoy in a few years' time, none of which will we enjoy to the same extent as the European Union, for the reasons I think I've set out. So I am a skeptic on that. Thank you very much, Sir John. So we've run out of time, I'm very sorry, there are still a few people offering questions, but I just want to thank you on behalf of everybody. It's been an absolutely excellent opportunity for us. I hope it's clear to you that for any number of reasons, we would like the UK to stay in the European Union, particularly Northern Ireland politics, but also I think it's clear from the attendance here, the high regard in which you're held for all of your legacy for Northern Ireland for an Anglo-Irish relation. So on all of our behalf, so I want to thank you very much. Thank you.