 Lleidio'r ddechrau, wrth gwrs, yn ymgyrch. Rwy'n rogi Mosey, y Maesfer o Selwyn Colleg. Rwy'n rydyn ni'n fawr o'r cyflawn i'r ddweud o'r Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth yn ymgyrch i'r holl bryd i'r hyn. Mae'r ddechrau wedi'u cyd-feydd yn 1973, ac yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, a gwn i'r hybrid gennym ni chi'n d bienio gwag amsfwrdd yn ymgyrchor, hyn y rydyn ni'n meddwl yma i'r hyn. Yn mynd i'r hyn, mae'n teimlo y Lord MacKenzie Stewart, yng Nghymru yn ymgyrch yr Unedig Cymru, yr ymddian nhw'n gallu gweld i'r ein canfod i Lwcis Lleidio, ac yn cael eu pari ddechrau Cymru, ac rwy'n rhaid i'r Chyflol sy'n ddim yn yr rywbeth. Mae'r ddim yn cynllun i'r ymgwrs môr hyn tu wedi'r hyn, ..Williamt my sense is that wether or not you think this should work in practice... ..the integration has generally worked despite the diversity in the legal systems involved. But now in 2014 we may be just three years away from a referendum about whether the UK should leave the European Union. Europe remains a heated subject for politicians... ..even though it's still relatively low on the list of public concerns. I will confess that, as a journalist myself for many years, we sought to enliven many a quiet morning on the BBC Today programme by the tactic of bringing together a Eurosceptic and a pro-European and lighting the blue touch paper, though I sometimes confess I wish we generated less heat and more light. However, our guest tonight can't complain too much about journalists because she was one herself on the Luxembourg Award. I would also confess that if I was still editor of the Today programme, I would be booking her as often as I could because she's a very feisty and interesting guest on the programme. Viviane Redding is one of the most lively contributors to the European debate and she does not pull her punches. She recently chastised David Cameron. What is leadership, she asked, if you just try with populistic movements and populistic speech to gain votes. You are just destroying the future of your people. But she was then rebuked herself by a Conservative MEP. When Mrs Redding says populism, he said, what she means is politicians doing what their constituents want, or as we call it in English, democracy. Mrs Redding herself is actually towards the right of the political spectrum in that she has been a leader of the Christian Democrats in various institutions beginning in her native Luxembourg and her distinguished career has taken her from the European Parliament to the Commission and some of its toughest roles. Now she is the pioneering European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. In her published mandate she says, the European Commission wants to make life easier for you by building an EU-wide area of justice. As she concludes, I am grateful for the exciting task I have been given to fill a blank page, a new policy area with life. We are delighted to welcome Mrs Redding to Cambridge and to give this year's Mackenzie Stuart Lecture, which is kindly supported by Shimon and Sterling. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear students, well I am delighted to be here with you tonight to deliver the 2014 Mackenzie student lecture and I am particularly moved because although I am the Minister of Justice for the European Union, I might be the first speaker without legal training to whom the honour has been given. I am pleased to speak here in front of you and I hope I can bring you a different perspective from somebody who has been in lawmaking during 35 years now and rather than being one who is used to the colleges and the temples of law, somebody who is just doing law and seeing also the consequences. Last day, President Paroso, when he was speaking in London on Friday, said, the European Union would not have become what it is today if it weren't for British politicians and entrepreneurs, British thinkers and ideas. Now scholars from this university and from its centre of legal studies have contributed enormously. And just looking at the European Union's courts, judges Lord Mackenzie Stuart, David Edwards, Conrad Shimon, Christopher Wajda, Nicholas Ford, advocates general Francis Jacob, Eleanor Sharpton are true architects of our union. And it is truly inspiring to come to a university that has very strongly been linked to excellence and to culture and this for century and which has, as is a tradition in this country, put great value on acquiring and passing knowledge and encouraging people, especially young people who are so many in this room today, to question and to debate. And by doing this, your university is nurturing that great British debating culture. I admired it in the past because it pervades not only academia and politics, but the whole British society. And because people in this country love to scrutinise, to challenge the established, to hold the powerful, to account, and for you it comes naturally not to accept but to probe, not to shout but to reason, not to walk away but to engage. So independent minded, yes, but usually settling for the rationale, for the pragmatic view. And this is a great strength of this country, something to be proud of. And then when you know this, it's very astonishing that the most important questions we are faced within the European Union are debated so differently in this country nowadays. As soon as the issue of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union is raised, a strange reflex seems to kick in, pushing the public debate away from the facts. I personally believe to make this clear from the start that United Kingdom should be central part of the European Union because this country has so much to gain from being in our union and the EU benefits from having the UK as a confident member. And to my mind all the arguments, the hard facts indicate that it is in the UK's national interest to remain part of the EU. Yet what we are seeing during the last couple of years is the sense that the UK is gradually in explore inexorably drifting away. Other countries, in particular the members of the Eurozone, have moved to integrate in a much stronger way. The UK is staying apart. And it is even preparing to loosen its ties to the rest of Europe in a number of policy areas. Will it cut them in the coming years? I personally hope not. And I believe it can be avoided. It can be avoided if the politicians and the people of this country make the crucial choices they have to make. Do you still want to be part of the union? How closely do you want to work with the other member states? And how do you want to define your relationship with the European Union? Of course we continental Europeans also have to find answers because if you are in a relationship it's never one sided. It's always two or more who have to come in. And most importantly we will all have to find a way to reconcile the closer integration of the Eurozone countries with the wish of others like the UK who want to stay away at least for the time being from the new architecture being set up. So the first question, which I answered at once, is it in the interest of the UK to remain part of the EU? I have said yes. Why? The UK benefits enormously from the EU membership both economically and politically. The confederation of British Industries estimates that 4-5% of your GDP is due to your fact that you are a member of the European Union. If you would not be a member that would cut the yearly income of each household by 3,000 pounds. For this very simple reason that half of your trade is with the European Union. The European Union membership brings the British companies a very high price. Unfettered access to the single market of more than 500 million people. Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to this market. That is around 1 in 10 jobs in this country. And the EU's cloud allows to negotiate valuable trade deals with other trading partner around the world there by opening a plethora of future markets for British businesses. Only as a member of the EU can the UK safeguard these privileges. Because as President Barroso also rightly said, size matters. Leaving our powerful trading bloc would severely restrict British companies access to the gold mine and make the UK a much less attractive trading partner for third countries. I think the example of the financial sector demonstrates this very clearly. I do not need to tell you that this sector is vital for the British economy employing more than 1 million people providing 10% of the government's tax income. And it is often underlined rightly so that the city competes with financial centres outside the European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore, New York. And it is in this context that the UK's membership matters because the city would most definitely lose its unhindered access to the single market in the case of an exit. Because EU Member States would obviously not be interested in supporting what they would consider then a foreign offshore financial centre competing with their own financial centres. And companies from third countries would find London a much less attractive location to do business since they would no longer have a gateway to the EU's internal market. I can see why the leading NGO for keeping Britain in the EU was given the name British influence. The truth is that outside the EU the UK would lose influence. Look, every day banks and other financial services in the city carry out a huge number of transactions with their counterparts in the rest of Europe. In 2012 the city's trade surplus with the EU was £16.8 billion more than a third of the UK's total finance sector surplus. Now this trade in financial services is extremely valuable for the British economy and this is why it is in the UK's interest also to have a say on the kind of rules that are made to govern the financial service. And if you are not sitting around the table where the rules are made well you do not have a say in how the rules are going to look. In the end if you don't sit around the table you have to live with the rules decided by the EU countries and these countries which have very little incentive to take account of the city's need. But that is a very hard truth but truth it is. So why if you know all this do some Eurosceptics in this country say that the UK would be leaner and meaner on the outside rid of all the alleged red tape imposed by the EU. After Britain's exit they say a special access to the EU single market would be negotiated this time at an advantage and they add that focus shall shift to trade with other parts of the world maybe the Commonwealth could be revived. So many ideas so many lazy assumptions and the centre of European reform says fatally flaked. First to get access to the single market you have to apply its rules. Just ask the Norwegians they are going to explain you. It's difficult to see why the other member states would grant the UK unfettered access to their markets without requiring it to apply the EU rules. The equation would be very simple. The more rules you apply the more access you will get. And second the share of the UK straight with the rest of the world is rising just because the UK is a member of the EU. It is testament to the effectiveness of the EU straight policy in opening new markets for EU export. The UK alone would not have the cloud and as for the Commonwealth it represents 8% of UK's trade. I would like to echo the words of Prime Minister Cameron who said very recently the following. The plain fact is we met a more in the world together. He meant it for Scotland the same goes for the EU. The second element the Eurozone integrates the UK shuffles away. Now despite the business case for the UK membership of the EU there is a clear sense not just that the UK is semi detached but that it is really drifting away. Disatisfaction has moved well beyond the traditional back bears like the traditional working time directive whose impact on the private sector is limited by the way as even business representatives say because you have an exception to the rule and you can go beyond the regulated 48 hours a week. While we are used in this country hearing the fretting about issues like this one the unease in other areas is more unexpected. Take the issue of free movement of citizens. You would think that a country traditionally open to the world as the UK is would embrace this fundamental freedom wholeheartedly and for a long time it did. Let me give you a concrete example. Lord Mackenzie Stewart was one of the sitting judges in the famous judgment van dyne. In this judgment it was a UK jurisdiction the Chancery division of the High Court of Justice England that had asked the European Court for the first time whether the provisions of the treaty on free movement of workers were directly applicable. While the court established that the workers of the union can directly prevail themselves of the freedom of movement without any discrimination that was in 1974 so it's not a real new happening. The commission is of the impression that something has changed that here openness is no longer seen as an opportunity but it is seen as a threat and across political parties talk is of curbing immigration of closing doors. Politicians have even abundant their traditional policy of pushing for ever more enlargement of the EU and now taking a very cautious stand while I applaud to this because I always thought that this enlargement enlargement enlargement was not the right way to say it to do. But what the British government is now saying is a perfect and a remarkable U-turn. The commission, the council and the parliament are united in underlining the four freedoms enshrined in the EU treaties come as a package. You either enjoy them all or none. And those who benefit from the free flow of capital of goods and of services must also accept that our citizens are free to move in the EU, to travel, to study, to work. And European rules, like always, put to a right obligations. They allow member states to fight abuse of the rights. I understand and this we see very often that in difficult, in economically difficult times people are worried about jobs, about opportunities for their children, about their ability to access public services and that is why all of us, particularly politicians and business people in this country need to reassure people. Well, the people have a right to know the fence. For instance, that 77% of those European citizens coming to the UK are in employment, a higher share than the British nationals and a much higher share than immigrants from outside of the EU. They also deserve to hear that the UK hurts itself by making it more difficult to bring bright young people to come here to study and to work by hampering the many employers who are looking to fill vacancies but cannot find suitable employees in the British workforce. What is the answer to this? Well, the answer is to work on the quality of education and welfare so that people in this country can find employment and enjoy reasonable social standards. Escaping political responsibility and reform by trying to project all problems on the supposed issue of too many foreigners moving into the country is certainly not the answer. The discussion on EU policy in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters shows the same pattern as well. Of course it is a very challenging area because it's a new one. It is one in which the UK's common law tradition must interact with the civil law heritage of the majority of European member states. Yet all the elements that should ensure the UK's participation are in place. At present the UK is only bound by instrument it has decided on voluntarily. All measures were adopted under protocols which give the UK a broad opt-out rights and most of these measures are not developments of the Schengen are key meaning that the UK can decide whether or not to participate on a case-by-case basis. In this sense I think it is astonishing to see the caution gripping the UK in this area. After all the principle of mutual recognition which underpins all European collaboration like for instance European arrest warrant was advocated by the UK itself. Far from being an aligned concept fostered in the UK by the EU it is actually a system which originates in this country and it still applies between different parts of the UK. Even more than this the principle of mutual recognition was introduced for the first time in the European history by the famous judgement Cassiste Dijon. Lord Mackenzie Stewart to which this lecture is dedicated was one of the sitting judges. So why does the prospect of a full judicial control by the court of justice shake these foundations? The UK's government has notified the intention to opt out of 135 measures in this area. This has raised considerable concerns in this country voiced by practitioners, police chief and even the former director of MI5. Cambridge's Centre for European Legal Studies has warned that the UK could become, and I quote, the Brazil of the EU where it's to opt out. Now, regardless of these warnings the government is pressing on. It has announced that it will request maybe to opt back into certain measures but this is a very uncertain process because you can opt out as a whole and then you have to negotiate each single possible opt in with a qualified majority of the member states. And you will not participating in the debate. Now this will lead to a very big uncertainty in an area where clarity is needed to ensure our mutual security. So in the moment as these examples show the UK is clearly drifting away from the EU. And it is in the same moment when on the other side you have a clear drifting together of the Eurozone member states. Actually this integration has been extraordinary and the crisis brutally exposed how incomplete and inadequate governance of the Eurozone was before. And as a consequence major reforms were undertaken. The economic and fiscal policy is strongly coordinated and supervised at EU level now. The aim is to spot difficulties early and to stop some spreading from one country to another. The European Commission has even become responsible for analysing the budgetary plans of the EU countries before national parliaments have their say. A development unthinkable of some years ago. Stronger integration does not merely concern fiscal policy it goes much further. The key plank is the European semester. A yearly cycle of economic policy coordination. Member states draw up programmes for economic and structural reform designed to improve competitiveness and drive economic growth and job creation. The Commission then analyses them and issues detailed recommendations for the next 12 to 18 years. The scope of these recommendations is broad. It covers taxation, pensions, public administration, labour market. Suggested reforms include initiatives as diverse as improving companies' access to finance, promoting research, adapting wage bargaining systems and making it easier to set up a business. Similarly, huge leaps are being taken in the financial sector to make our banks more stable and to ensure they fulfil their role of responsibly lending to the real economy. We are building a banking union. We have already set up a central supervisor. We will soon be complimenting by a common system for restructuring and resolving failing financial institutions that involves pooling money at EU level to be used in such cases. Again, a few years ago, no one could have imagined member states being prepared to seed important parts of sovereignty in such sensitive areas. But we have learnt a lesson of the crisis and we created the necessary instruments to avoid problems in future. In order to strengthen the single currency, the union had to address the causes of the crisis, which lay in member states' fiscal basis, their financial sectors and the potentially fatter link between the two. After all these reforms, serious implications for the EU's single market followed. Whereas in the past, the single market and the single currency developed parallel side by side, the crisis made it clear how interconnected the two are. For the members of the Eurozone, the ultimate goal is to ensure the stability of the Euro. They view and approach the new rules and architecture within this objective first and foremost in their minds. While a stable currency union is obviously also essential for member states outside the Eurozone, their main interest may lie elsewhere. For example, in preserving the single market for all 28 EU countries and their unimpeded access to it. Now those are two very different starting points and those different starting points create tensions. And these tensions are likely to grow as the process of stronger integration of the Eurozone advances further. We have made great strides, but more bold reforms will be needed. There is a strong case for a true fiscal and ultimately political union. In my opinion and in my political striving, the Eurozone should be a kind of United States of Europe. And like Winston Churchill, I believe that the UK will not be part of this, but should remain a close ally with the Federated Eurozone, with which it could continue to share a common market, common trade policy, common security agenda. Now how do we then ease the tensions and reconcile the interests of member states who share a currency with the interests of the others? This is a crucial challenge. We will have to master over the next five to ten years. Given the UK dependence on its financial sector, resolving this measure, this issue is a key to the UK's future in the European Union. And I believe that the separation is avoidable, that we just have to find the right connection between the single market and the single currency. And this will require two preconditions. The first one. The UK should accept that it is in its interest to allow the Eurozone members to do what it takes to strengthen the Euro. This was not immediately clear to British politicians. The UK opposed the proposed fiscal compact, forcing then the remaining member states to proceed on an intergovernmental basis to save the single currency, but they proceeded without the UK. And since then the tone and the policies have changed. The Chancellor has said very clearly that a stable Euro on the UK's doorstep is good for growth and jobs of the UK. That should be then also translated into policy measures. Second, it's always too, too tango, the Eurozone members must acknowledge that in areas where their interests are different from those of the member of other member states who do not share the single currency, there is a need to be going for solutions. Otherwise, we risk to push the UK out of the EU before it decides as it might to jump. And striking this balance is not going to be easy. That might be the reason why the views of the European Court of Justice are in such a high demand. Take the lawsuits against the EU rules, curbing bonuses and against the plans by some member states to introduce a financial transaction tax or the latest one concerning the short selling. Obviously it is neither in the UK's interest nor in that of the other member states to negotiate relationships through court cases. And there are signs that when the two sides are willing to find solution, progress is possible in a positive tone. The area of banking regulation offers some very interesting examples of how the two sides can come together and can accommodate the UK's interests and concerns. Take the rulings governing the European Banking Authority, the EBA, in London. By developing a single rulebook for Europe's financial institution and promoting consistency of supervision across all 28 member states, the EBA has a crucial role in ensuring a playing field for European banks and preserving the single market in financial services. While the Eurozone countries were setting up the single supervisory mechanism, the UK was worried that they would form a bloc to outvote the UK in the EBA sport of supervisors, which is the main decision-making body of the institution where each national supervisor is represented. So this problem was solved by intelligent lawyers through the creation of a double-majority voting system. With the EBA deciding now for instance on binding technical standards, a majority of the Eurozone and a majority of the non-Eurozone countries need to agree to those standards so before they come into force. So you see there are ways to bring conflicting positions together. I give you another example. The Eurozone countries agreed to insert a non-discrimination clause in the regulation setting up the single supervisory mechanism. It states that, and I quote, no action, proposal or policy of the ECB, the European Central Bank, shall directly or indirectly discriminate against any member states or group of member states as a venue for the provision of banking or financial services in any currency. This clause simply recognises that London has a role as leading financial sector and it is based in part on the Euro-denominated banking services. The purpose of the clause is to prevent any restriction of London's role as a financial centre in the single market through measures connected through the euro. So you see, even in complicated affairs, it's possible to find a solution if there is goodwill. Also when we were drawing up the proposal for a structural reform of the banks, the European Commission took the situation in the UK into account. One of the key elements of the draft regulation would give supervisors the power to require large banks to separate certain potentially risking trading activities from their deposit-taking business. If the pursuit of such activities threatened financial stability in the context of the banking union, the ECB would be the supervisor taking this decision for the countries taking part in it. Unusily, for a regulation based on the single market legal basis, the proposal opens up ways for a member state to apply its own rules on this particular point, which means it has a derogation which may be granted to individual banks that are already subject to equivalent measures in another member states. Translate UK. So you see, there are possibilities to find a way out. And this brings me back to what I said in the beginning. The debate in this country about the UK's place in the EU is completely distorted. All that talk about opt-outs and negotiations and referenda destruct from the real issue, the real issue is finding workable solutions like the ones I have described. It is what we should be focusing on and where we should put our energy and creativity into. Unfortunately, the debate covers up the real challenge in the relationship between the UK and the EU. And it is even creating wider damage by holding back the EU as a whole. We don't need this. What we need are more solid arguments on how we can strengthen the EU, make it more competitive on the world stage. What we need is pushing for policies, creating a stronger single market in services for example, strengthening small and medium size enterprises, boosting free trade with other parts of the world. The UK could make a real difference here and this is one of the reasons why I say that the EU is stronger with the UK in it. I also want to say if this country decides one day to be part of a stronger integration, the door will be opened. There is a seat at the table. Right now, however, we have a problem. The potentially constructive forward looking arguments are overshadowed by negative debates on the relationship between the UK and the EU. Mark Cornay, Governor of the Bank of England, made it very clear in a recent statement. Replace a current debate which leads to uncertainty for business and hold off on investment by constructive proposals that bring about certainty, investment and progress. That's what he says and I agree because that would be beneficial both to the UK and to the European Union. So the solution is in the politicians hand, in the hand of the people and in the hand of their leaders. They have every right to be critical, to scrutinise and to questions, but I hope they can do it in the true British way of debate. Thank you. I'm Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law and Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies. Madam Vice President, Vice Chancellor, distinguished guest, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much this evening for your lecture this evening. It has been a very interesting and, as I thought, provoking contribution to the European debate. The Mackenzie Stewart lecture was inaugurated in 1997 to provide an opportunity for reflection on the key legal and political issues facing Europe. The lecture has been delivered over the years by key political and legal figures who, in their own professional capacities, have had the greatest influence on European affairs, including the UK's relationship with the European Union. And I'm particularly delighted that tonight to former lecture givers, Secretary Shaman and Advocate General Jacobs are here with us tonight. I'd also like to thank members of the Mackenzie Stewart family, Amanda and Judith for being with us tonight. The subject of tonight's lecture could hardly be more of topical. Many of you would have been here last week for Lord Newberger's Freshfield's lecture in which the President of our Supreme Court reflected on the relationship between Britain and Europe. Now, as a very senior member of our judiciary, he was very careful to make clear that it was for politicians and not judges to chart the course for the UK's future relationship with Europe. Tonight, one of Europe's most senior politicians has given us a glimpse into her political compass as to how that journey may be navigated in the future. Now, as director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, I take very seriously our responsibility to inform, engage public debate, and this will be central to our mission in the years ahead, whether it's the referendum on Scotland and the EU, Scottish independence, or whether any future referendum on the UK and the EU. But be rest assured that Cambridge will continue to be a place for debate, for deliberation on these and the other pressing issues of the day. It only remains for me to thank Sherman and Sterling again for their continued support of this event and I'd like to invite you all now to the reception which follows outside. But please put your hands together once again and thank our speaker for this evening.