 Roedd yw'r dewis cyfarad ddyliau amddangos. Roeddi'n wedi'ch ddweud, roeddi'r ddweud, fel y ddweud yw'r ddweud yw ddweud chym yma. Dw i'r ddweud o'r ffaith ahol y gallwn iawn o'r nodi amser a'r piell. Shoddi'n mwynhau am y ques i'r rhaid oedd i'n gwneud o'r wybod arwod yma. Don yw i'r ddweud yw ddweud. roedd dros bwysigodd Rojahol i'r porffordd roedd o'r CEO CBI. Rojahol, yna'r cifr bod yw'r last CEO CBI yn ysgrifennu. Roes arno efallai ymddech chi'n gweld ei wneud fod y ddechrau'r bobl. Roedd yna'r cydolion John Cridlwn yn mynd i'r cydolion, gofyn yn ysgrifennu ar ddylch yn gynghwilio'r CEO CBI, ac mae'n mynd i'n fwy fyddai'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. A dyma'n ddod am y dyma'r wych yn y dyma'n ysgrifennu y Brindig. Dyma'n ymwynnig aa'r tyfnodau'n ddwy ar gyfer. Dyna'n ddwy yn ysgrifennu sy'n ddwy'r tyfnodau'n ddwy. Yn gwybod eu cyfrifennu sy'n ddylai'r cyfrifennu, mae rai ffordd i'r cyfrifennu ar y dyfynod ar gyfer cyfrifennu, a ddwy'r gweithio'r gweithi, ac yn ddwy ar gyfer y gwaith, yw'r anodd o'r llwyd i'n ymgyrch yn y pethau. Dyna'r anodd o'r cyfeirio ar gyfer y pethau ar y dyfeddoriaeth a gweldio'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd o'r cyfeirio. Ac mae'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd o'r cyfeirio am y dyfeddoriaeth, gallwch i'r ysgol y gofnwyr ar y Bank of England, yr anodd, Mervyn King. Mae'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd o'r anodd, dim ond y bydd ydy, y maes i na oeddon ar gyfer gwneud. Byddwn i'n cynnwys am y hainiad ardegon yn ei bobl yn dweud. Roeddwn i'n cwrs yn mwybod instance i'r oeddon. Roeddwn i'n golygu e sinusio a'r cyrdedau a'r cyfanyddor. Roeddwn i'n cyfrwng ar hynod, dominol, a'r cyfrwyngiaeth. Roeddwn i'n cyfrwng gyfrwyng iawn ar hynny. Doeddwn i'n cyfrwyng i gafodd yr cyfrwng ar y cyfrwng. gyda'r hyn sydd wedi wneud i'r gweithio. A gyd yna, 5 ym 5 yma, yments i'r pinc yn ymgyrch, ac yn ymgyrch gael agor, a oed hynny'n hynny ddych chi'n gwybod yn llan. Ac'r dweud, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio, wrth gwrs, yn ymgyrch i'r cyfwyr ymgyrch yma, ond, dwi'n rheswm, mae'n rhaid i'n gwneud i'r gweithio, rydyn ni'n byw, ac rydyn ni'n gweithio'n gweithio. I said, is it the cricket schools that you're after? He said, no, he said, it's like this. The first message said, do ask Edmilliband, whether it's a good idea to stay at the Four Seasons Hotel in Palo Alto, California. And I said, well, Governor, what did the second message say? He said, well, that's the embarrassing part. It said, please apologise to Edmilliband. It was David Milliband who stayed at the Four Seasons Hotel in Palo Alto, California. That is a true story, ladies and gentlemen. Now, look onto the serious remarks of the day. I talked a few weeks ago about the idea of one nation. And one nation for me is about sharing wealth fairly, but it is also about how we create the wealth, how together, business, people and government, we have a long-term vision for how we can pay our way in the world and succeed as a nation. And there are so many issues that I think we could be talking about today. How we transform vocational education in our country. And this is something that the CBI has published a report on today and put you in the driving seat of changing the qualifications for our young people so you can get the qualified young people that you need. How we change our banking system so that it can properly serve small business and small and medium-sized business can help to be the motor of job creation in this country. How we reform corporate governance so that you can plan ahead and take the long-term decisions and we crack a problem that has frankly bedeviled the British economy for decades. And also how, even in the next parliament, we can take the difficult decisions to pay down the deficit. So there are a huge range of issues that I want to have a dialogue with you on in the coming months. But there's one issue in particular that I'm going to concentrate on today, which I think is too often in danger of being ignored in British political debate. And that is our relationship with the European Union. Our relationship with the European Union on which so many other things in our country actually depend. And frankly, I think you will be looking on the debate about the European Union with concern. For the last three decades or so, there's been a settled consensus in this country that our future lies within the European Union. My party stood in 1983 on a manifesto for getting out of the EU. I'm pleased to see we saw the error of our ways. But increasingly, we see Euroscepticism on the rise among the British public. We see Cabinet ministers in this government openly calling for Britain to leave and we see our partners in Europe frankly deeply concerned because they think Britain is heading for the departure lounge. But for those of us like me who care passionately about our place within the European Union, we cannot therefore remain silent. I will not let Britain sleepwalk towards exit from the European Union because I think it will be bad for prosperity. It would hamper us in building the one nation economy, I believe in, for reasons I will explain. And above all, it will be a betrayal of our national interest. And I want to put out and set out the case today in a new way, because I think that's necessary to win people to this cause. But let me start by talking about the causes of Euroscepticism. Because I think it's so important that we understand why we've seen the change in the public mood that we have. Something happened a few weeks ago which I think illustrates my point. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, to many in Britain, it seemed frankly absurd. And then think about the contrast with my parents' generation. My parents' generation, your parents' generation would have understood. They would have understood why the EU got the Nobel Peace Prize. My parents came to this country as refugees from the terror of the Nazis. They saw what a murderous continent Europe was, going to war four times in 130 years. They would have understood. And they understood the ideal what they thought was a noble ideal of economic and political cooperation, paving the way for peace and prosperity in place of war and terror. But the reality is that the war, a war between the great powers of Europe, the prospect of that has thankfully faded. And therefore so has the ideal that founded the European Union or what led to the European Union. But my argument, and this is so important for the pro-European side of the case, my argument is it's not just the fading of that ideal that has led to Euroscepticism. Nor is it simply stories about Bendy Bananas and Bands on British Chocolate in tabloid newspapers. The failings of Europe are real. The failings of the European Union are real. And I think this is what the pro-European side of the case needs to come to terms with. Across Europe at the moment, there are 25 million people unemployed. Five million young people without work. And therefore scepticism about the Euro and that project undermines the wider case for the European Union. Look at the European Union budget, which we did reform in government. But currently GDP in Europe is accounted for, 1.5% of it is accounted for by agriculture. But nearly 40% of the budget is spent on agriculture. It's a European Union budget that seems to owe more to the 1950s than the 21st century. And then think about the strategic project of enlargement, which was part of the pro-European cause over the last 15 years. It was the right strategic project for our country for reasons that I will explain. But it definitely had domestic effects, which were unwanted. Our decision to have free movement of labour without transitional controls increased scepticism. So my point in this debate is as follows. That the scepticism, the reasons for scepticism have been real. Doesn't mean I agree with the sceptics, but it does mean that the failings are real. And it's no wonder that some people feel angry and frustrated with the European Union. And the pro-European side of the cause has I think too often responded by turning a blind eye to the failings. If you like confusing passion for the European Union with passion for the institutions of Europe, and often in government people would say to us, you should state the case for the European Union more loudly. Well, I am going to state the case today, but it can't just be the same old case in the same old way. So that's my first point. The second point is this. What is the reason for us to be in the European Union? Let's not treat it as an article of faith. Let's argue the case. Let's argue the cause. And you know this much better than I do. Because it starts with a single market of 500 million people. 500 million people across Europe are market for our goods, producing and selling one-third of the world's goods and services, where, of course, we do 50% of our trade, perhaps more. And then think about our aspirations for the British economy. High skills, high wages, high productivity. I think it's easier, not harder to achieve that within the European Union than outside. Because take our car industry, an incredible British success story. Nissan, Tata, Toyota, I'm sure there are representatives here today. They invest in Britain partly because there is a European market of high-income consumers wanting high-value-added products. And that means, because they produce high-value-added products, high skills and high wages. And then think about the fantastic technology clusters here in Britain, in Cambridge or in London. And we have people from all over Europe coming here to Britain to be part of these technology clusters. In part it's because of the single market. So, the case starts with the economics, but it isn't just about the economics. It's also about this reality, which is a reality that our country must face up to. Frankly, there are problems in the world today that are too big, too complex, too international in scope for a nation state on its own to deal with. And to deny that reality is to heart back to an age that is not coming back, frankly. And take the issue of organized crime and terrorism, a huge issue facing us. This doesn't respect borders and actually cooperation within Europe helps us and doesn't hinder us in tackling it. It was the European arrest warrant that brought one of the people who tried to bomb London on the 21st of July 2005 to justice. Take climate change and energy, something that the CBI has been passionate about and I applaud their leadership on this. Britain is 2% of global emissions. Europe is about 13% of global emissions. I know that from my time in government. Negotiating as part of the European Union is easier not harder than being Britain standing alone. And it's true on a range of foreign policy issues as well. From the current crisis in the Middle East to sanctions against Iran to all of the issues we can have more influence as an engaged partner within the European Union than outside. And there's one other reason, one other strategic reason that I think argues for our presence in the European Union. And it's this, the old idea that my parents would have understood of preventing war between the great powers no longer holds. But there is benefit to Britain in the project of enlargement. Bringing countries from Eastern Europe over the last decade or more into the European Union. They get economic benefits from being in the EU in exchange for a commitment to political freedom, the rule of law and free and fair elections and we're seeing it with some Balkan states as well. So, second part of my argument, there is an economic, a political and a strategic case for us remaining within the European Union and we need to say it. But there is also an urgent imperative to reform the European Union and you know that better than anyone. And what is that case? For me that case starts with the collective austerity that we see in Europe. Europe isn't working for its people and it hampers our ability to export and prosper. A Labour government would seek to build alliances for a different approach, a more pro-growth, pro-jobs approach. We would also seek to build alliances for changing the way the European budget works. Think of what the European budget could do for your businesses if it was actually invested in public goods like infrastructure and energy and innovation. Now, some of the European budget is spent on that, but not nearly enough and it could make a huge difference to your businesses. And by the way, just on the subject of the European budget, I don't think it's pro-European to say in advance of negotiations about the European budget we want an inextrably rising European budget where there are cuts happening here at home. And then the other things that matter to Britain, extending the single market into digital services and energy, and also in my view reforming EU industrial policy too. You have your issues that I totally understand about European regulation and they need to be dealt with. And there are wider issues too because I remember from our time in government if the first question was during the banking crisis as we tried to help particular sectors of the economy, if the first question was what policy should we follow, the second question was too often, will EU state aid rules allow it to happen? And that partly explains the delay in many of those things happening. So, there is an urgent imperative, not just for us to state the case for remaining in the EU, but also reforming it. But what about the case for exit? I think we need to take the case for exit seriously. Some people will say Britain could survive outside the European Union. And they're right. Britain could survive outside the European Union. But I believe we will be far weaker, not stronger as a result. Think about the single market that I talked about earlier. Some of the people who want to exit say well we could still be in the single market and they're right. But who would set the rules? Not us. It will be the people within the European Union. Norway, for example, contributes to the EU budget, but actually doesn't get to set the rules on the single market. So it wouldn't be good for Britain. It will be the terms of trade dictated by others, Britain voiceless and powerless to affect the rules. And then think about the European economy. The European economy affects us. Whatever view we take about the policy being pursued across the Eurozone, it has an effect on us. Now the question is do we want to at least have a chance of being in the room, affecting what happens, or do we guarantee ourselves a place outside the room? And then think about the world trade talks. I think we should be under no illusions. Britain outside the European Union would mean the people at the talks would be the EU, the USA and China. They would be in the negotiating room, literally you might say, eating our lunch. And we would be on the outside in the overflow room. That would be the position for Britain. And I think we need to be absolutely clear about the dangers of that. And here's the other thing. How would Britain compete and succeed outside the European Union? What would our equivalent be of Norwegian oil and gas, or Swiss tax advantages? I fear, listening to some of those who advocate exit, that it would be as an offshore low value added, low wage Britain. I don't think that is a future for Britain that we should contemplate. So I think the causes of Euroscepticism are real. I think the case for staying in the European Union is overwhelming. I think it needs to be reformed. But of course Europe is changing before our eyes, and we need to acknowledge this. The European Union is changing as countries of the Eurozone engage in deeper political and economic union. And Britain is outside that. Britain is outside the Euro, and will in my view rightly remain so. But is that an excuse to exit the European Union? No, it is a reason to make this more flexible Europe work for those inside and outside the European Union, the Euro, so that we can get the benefits of the European Union without being in the Euro. And we know what that means. That means protecting our influence, making sure that we are part of the decision making process that affect us, and working for a successful European economy. And what about the issue of the referendum? Of course Europe is changing before our eyes. But I believe that the question for now is should we have a referendum now? And I don't believe that is in Britain's economic interests. Because I believe at this moment, of all moments, when you are as businesses struggling with the most difficult economic crisis of our lifetime, it would hold us back. Think about a business and some of these will be your businesses deciding whether to invest in Britain. If we embarked on a one or two year process of a referendum now, I think it would deter that vital investment. It would not serve the British people in terms of jobs, living standards and prosperity. Now, my party, as I said earlier, is united in this view that our future lies within the European Union. And I think that's good for our country. I also give David Cameron and Nick Kledd credit. I think they want us to stay in the European Union as well. But here is the crucial question for us and absolutely crucial question for business and government in the years ahead. What is the right strategy to make sure that happens? What is the right strategy to ensure that we do not drift towards the exit door of the European Union? Now, the conservative part of the current government says that repatriation of powers is our priority and should be the priority for Britain. Of course, we will look at what they propose. But here is my view on this. We've got to be incredibly careful as a country that we don't use up our energies and waste our alliances in promises that fail to deliver. For example, the government proposes opting out of the directive on justice and home affairs. I believe to please the skeptics in the party because they also want to opt back in to a whole series of measures, including the European arrest warrant. I don't think that can be the right priority for our country. We don't have the political capital in Europe for that to be the priority, just as with the veto that wasn't last December. So, our priority must be to build alliances and keep our eyes on the prize of reforming the European Union economically and ensuring that we have influence in a changing European Union. That must be the priority for Britain. Anything else would, I believe, endanger us in the following way. It would increase the drift towards exit at home because people would say there were promises that we'd fail to deliver. And it would increase our isolation abroad and reduce our influence as people, frankly, wrote Britain off as they're in danger of doing as not a serious player. Let me end on this point. Your businesses, many of your businesses rely on our place within the European Union. I understand that you'll have concern about the debate that's taken place in Britain over the last couple of years and the drift of this debate. I share your concern. There's one other reason which I think argues against exit from the EU, and that is to do with the character and nature of our country and how we have succeeded in the past. I believe we have succeeded as a country that looks outwards, not inwards. That trades with others doesn't put up barriers. That engages with others doesn't stand away from them. That opens itself to new influences and doesn't shrink from them. An ambitious Britain has always been an outward-looking Britain. An inward-looking Britain cannot be an ambitious Britain. And, of course, reforming the EU is hard. It's frustrating. It has difficulties. Winning allies is hard, but it's the right thing to do and it is far better than leaving. So I say to you as representatives of British business that if you believe your future lies within the European Union, I will fight your corner. I will fight your corner for Britain to remain within the European Union. I will fight your corner to reform the European Union so it works for our economy. I will do it because it's in our national interest to do so. It will help us to build the outward-looking one-nation Britain I believe in. And it's what I commit to today. Thank you very much.