Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chatham House. Great to see a full room. I’m delighted to welcome the Prime Minister back to Chatham House. Before I do any formal introductions, let me just give you a quick sense of the process for today. This meeting, as you can see, is on the record, even though we’re at Chatham House. It is in fact being livestreamed as well, so I would want – welcome all of our members, and others who are joining us on the livestream.
I will say some words of introduction, the Prime Minister will follow, make her remarks, take some questions from you, from the Press, from members of Chatham House, as well, and then I would ask, after that, please make sure you all remain in your seats at the end of her remarks, so that we can get everyone out appropriately in the right pace. So, if I could just ask you to please observe those elements of process.
I mentioned that I wanted to welcome the Prime Minister back to Chatham House. She was with us three and a half years ago, on an occasion of a discussion with Loretta Lynch, then Attorney General, when you were Home Secretary, Prime Minister, on a discussion of counterterrorism. This time, as noted on the remarks, she will be talking about The State of Politics, a critical theme, I think, across the world today, given the turbulent state of domestic and international politics.
Theresa May, as you all know, became Prime Minister in July 2016, very shortly after David Cameron’s resignation, and, inevitably, her Premiership has been dominated by the process of trying to negotiate Britain’s withdrawal from the EU while, I would say, overcoming deep divisions in her own party, in the Opposition and, really, across the country as a whole. This is a process, as we all know, which is yet to be completed, but it certainly gives her a unique perspective on the challenges facing democratic Governments the world over, and we look forward to her remarks, in particular, for this reason.
Before becoming Prime Minister, Theresa May served as the longest-serving Home Secretary, 2010-2016, also as Minister for Women and Equalities for the first of those two years. First elected as a Member of Parliament at Maidenhead in 1997, going on to be the first of that intake to join the Shadow Cabinet, holding a number of Shadow Portfolios, and being the first woman to serve as Chair of the Conservative Party.
I should also note, in closing, that 1997 was the year that you became a Member of Chatham House. So I certainly hope you’ll find a little more time, in the coming months, to be able to spend a little more time with your fellow members at our events and activities, and our membership tell me – Team tell me that your dues are up to date, so that will not be a problem. The wonders of Direct Debit.
Prime Minister May, welcome back to Chatham House. We look forward to your remarks [applause].
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Thank you. Thank you very much, Robin, and it’s very good to be here at Chatham House today. This will, most likely, be the last time that I will speak at length as Prime Minister and I would like, today, to share some personal reflections on the state of politics in our country, and around the world.
Now I’ve lived politics for half a century, from stuffing envelopes, for my local party, in my school years, to serving as a Local Councillor, fighting a by-election, winning a seat, serving for 12 years on the Opposition frontbench and for nine years in the Cabinet, as you’ve just heard, as Home Secretary and Prime Minister. Throughout that time, in every job I’ve done, I’ve been inspired by the enormous potential that working in politics and taking part in public life holds. The potential to serve your country, to improve people’s lives, and in however big or a small a way, to make the world a better place. Looking at our own country, and the world, of which we form a part, and there’s a great deal to feel optimistic about. Globally, over the last 30 years, extreme poverty and child mortality have both been halved. Hundreds of millions of people are today living longer, happier and healthier lives, than their grandparents could even have dreamed of. As a world, we have never cared more deeply about the ecology of our planet’s environment. From treating the earth as a collection of resource to be plundered, we have, within a generation, come to understand its fragile diversity, and taken concerted action to conserve it.
The UK is leading the way in that effort, with our commitment to net zero emissions. Social attitudes in our country, and many other western countries, have transformed, in recent decades. There are more women in senior positions today than at any time in history. When I was born, it was a crime to be a gay man, legal to discriminate on the basis of sex or race, and casual bigotry was a socially acceptable fact of daily life. All that has changed, and greatly for the better. There remains a long, long way to go to achieve what we should rightly seek, an economy, a society and a world that truly works for all of its people. Where everyone has the security of a safe home and enough to eat, the opportunity to get a good education and a satisfying job to support their family, and the freedom of thought, speech and action to do and be everything their talents and hard work fit them for.
The generation of young people, growing up today in the UK and around the world, have it within their grasp to achieve more in the decades ahead than we, today, can imagine. They will have the chance to harness the great drivers of change in the world today. From artificial intelligence and the data economy, cleaner forms of energy and more efficient modes of transport, to the technological and medical advances that will extend and improve our quality of life. The 21st Century has the potential to be a pivotal point in human history when economic, social and technological progress reach a combined apogee with the benefits multiplied, and with everyone sharing – enjoying a share. It will not come about without effort. We will all have to work hard, individually and collectively, to reach that better future. Crucially, the full power and potential of a small, but strong and strategic state, must be brought to bear in that effort, establishing and maintaining the legal and economic structures that allow a regulated free market to flourish, co-ordinating its own interventions, to maximum effect. Supporting science and innovation, supplying crucial public services and infrastructure, leading and responding to social progress.
At our best, that has been the story of the democratic century that we celebrated last year, when we marked the first votes for women and working men in 1918. It has been democratic politics, an open market economy and the enduring values of free speech, the rule of law, and a system of Government founded on the concept of inviolable human rights that has provided the nexus of that progress in the past. And a healthy body politic will be essential to consolidating and extending that progress in the future.
It is on that score that today we do have grounds for serious concern. Both domestically and internationally, in substance and in tone, I’m worried about the state of politics. That worry stems from a conviction that the values on which all of our successes have been founded cannot be taken for granted. They may look to us as old as the hills. We might think they will always be there, but establishing the superiority of those values, over the alternatives, was the hard work of centuries of sacrifice. And to ensure that liberal inheritance can endure for generations to come, we today have a responsibility to be active in conserving it. If we do not, we will all pay the price, rich and poor, strong and weak, powerful and powerless.
As a Politician, my decisions and actions have always been guided by that conviction. It used to be asked of applicants at Conservative candidate selection meetings, “Are you a conviction Politician, or are you a pragmatist?” I’ve never accepted the distinction. Politics is the business of turning your convictions into reality, to improve the lives of the people you serve. As a Conservative, I’ve never had any doubt about what I believe in: security, freedom and opportunity, decency, moderation, patriotism, conserving what is of value, but never shying away from change. Indeed, recognising that, often, change is the way to conserve. Believing in business, but holding businesses to account if they break the rules. Backing ambition, aspiration and hard work. Protecting our union of nations, and being prepared to act in its interest, even if that means steering a difficult political course. And remaining always firmly rooted in the common ground of politics, where all great political parties should be.
I didn’t write about those convictions in pamphlets, or make many theoretical speeches about them, I’ve sought to put them into action. And actually getting things done, rather than simply getting them said, requires some qualities that have become unfashionable of late. One of them is a willingness to compromise. That does not mean compromising your values. It does not mean accepting the lowest common denominator, or clinging to outmoded ideas out of apathy or fear. It means being driven by, and when necessary, standing up for, your values and convictions. But doing so, in the real world, in the arena of public life, where others are making their own case, and pursuing their own interests. And where persuasion, teamwork, and a willingness to make mutual concessions are needed to achieve an optimal outcome. That is politics at its best.
The alternative is a politics of winners and losers of absolutes and of perpetual strife, and that threatens us all. Today, an inability to combine principles with pragmatism, and make a compromise when required, seems to have driven our whole political discourse down the wrong path. It has led to what is, in effect, a form of absolutism, one which believes that if you simply assert your view loud enough and long enough, you will get your way in the end. Or that mobilising your own faction is more important than bringing others with you. This is coarsening our public debate. Some are losing the ability to disagree, without demeaning the views of others. Online, technology allows people to express their anger and anxiety, without filter or accountability. Aggressive assertions are made, without regard to the facts, or the complexities of an issue. In an environment where the most extreme views tend to be the most noticed.
This dissent of our debate into ranker and tribal bitterness and, in some cases, even vile abuse at a criminal level is corrosive for the democratic values, which we should all be seeking to uphold. It risks closing down the space for reasoned debate, and subverting the principle of freedom of speech. And this does not just create an env – unpleasant environment, words have consequences and ill words that go unchallenged are the first step on a continuum towards ill deeds. Towards a much darker place, where hatred and prejudice drive, not only what people say, but also what they do.
This absolutism is not confined to British politics, it festers in politics all across the world. We see it in the rise of political parties on the far-left and far-right in Europe and beyond. And we see it in the increasingly adversarial nature of international relations, which some view as a zero sum gain, where one country can only gain if others lose. And where power, unconstrained by rules, is the only currency of value. This absolutism at home and abroad is the opposite of politics at its best. It refuses to accept that other points of view are reasonable. It ascribes bad motives to those taking those different views and it views anything less than 100% of what you want all the time, as evidence of failure, when success, in fact, means achieving the optimum outcome in any given circumstance.
The sustainability of modern politics derives, not from an uncompromising absolutism, but rather through the painstaking marking out of a common ground. That doesn’t mean abandoning our principles, far from it. It means delivering on them, with the consent of people on all sides of the debate, so that they can ultimately accept the legitimacy of what is being done, even if it may not be the outcome they would initially have preferred. And that is how social progress and international agreement was forged in the years after the Second World War. Both at home, with the establishment of an enduring National Health Service, and internationally, with the creation of an international order, based on agreed rules and multilateral institutions.
Consider, for example, the story of the NHS. The Beveridge Report was commissioned by a Coalition Government. The Health Minister, who published the first white paper, outlining the principles of a comprehensive and free Health Service, was a Conservative. A Labour Government then created the NHS, engaging in fierce controversy, both with the Doctors, who would work for the NHS, and with the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons, which supported the principles of an NHS, but disagreed with the methods. But the story does not end there. Just three years after the NHS was founded, Churchill’s newly-elected Conservative Government was faced with a choice. A choice between going back over old arguments, or accepting the legitimacy of what had been done, and building on it. They chose to build on what had been established. Today, because people were willing to compromise, we have an NHS to be proud of, an institution, which unites our country.
Similarly, on the international stage, many of the agreements that underpinned the establishment of the rules-based international order, in the aftermath of the Second World War, were reached by pragmatism and compromise. The San Francisco Conference, which adopted the United Nations Charter, the cornerstone of international law, almost broke down, over Soviet insistence that the Security Council veto should apply not just to Council resolutions and decisions, but even to whether the Council should discuss a matter. It was only a personal mission to Stalin in Moscow from US President Truman’s envoy, Harry Hopkins, that persuaded the Soviets to back down. And many states, who were not permanent Members of the Security Council, did not want the veto to exist at all. But they compromised and signed the charter, because of the bigger prize it represented, a global system, which enfranchised the people of the world with new rights, until then only recognisable to citizens in countries like ours.
It’s easy now to assume that these landmark agreements, which helped create the international order, will always hold. That they are as permanent as the hills. But turning ideals in practical agreements was hard-fought, and we cannot be complacent about ensuring that they endure. Indeed, the current failure to combine principles with pragmatism and compromise, inevitably risks undermining them. We are living through a period of profound change and insecurity. The forces of globalisation and the pursuit of free markets have brought unprecedented levels of wealth and opportunity, for the country and for the world at large. But not everyone is reaping the benefits. The march of technology is expanding the possibilities for humanity in ways that once could never have been conceived. But it is changing the nature of the workplace and the types of jobs that people will do. More and more working people are feeling anxious, over whether they and their children and grandchildren will have the skills and the opportunities to get on. And although the problems were building before the financial crisis, that event brought years of hardship, from which we are only now emerging.
Populist movements have seized the opportunity to capitalise on that vacuum. They have embraced the politics of division, identifying the enemies to blame for our problems, and offering apparently easy answers. In doing so, they promote a polarised politics, which views the world through the prism of us and them, a prism of winners and losers, which views compromise and cooperation through international institutions as signs of weakness, not strength.
President Putin expressed this sentiment clearly on the eve of the G20 summit in Japan, when he said that “The liberal idea has become obsolete, because it has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.” This is a cynical falsehood. No-one comparing the quality of life or economic success of liberal democracies like the UK, France and Germany, to that of the Russian Federation, would conclude that our system is obsolete. But the fact that he feels emboldened to utter it today, indicates the challenge we face, as we seek to defend our values. So if we are to stand up for these values that are fundamental to our way of life, we need to rebuild support for them, by addressing people’s legitimate concerns, through actual solutions, that can command public consent, rather than populist promises that, in the end, are not solutions at all. In doing so, we need to show that, from the local to the global, a politics of pragmatic conviction that is unafraid of compromise and co-operation, is the best way in which politics can sustainably meet the challenges we face.
Take the example of how we address some of the concerns and fears over globalisation. The far-left, including the leadership of our once proud British Labour Party, would argue that we should scrap an open market altogether. And we should be in no doubt, that if we cannot successfully reform the free market system, to create an economy that works for all, then people will increasingly reject it in favour of an alternative, no matter what the wider economic and social consequences. But we know it is free and competitive markets that drive the innovation, creativity and risk-taking that have enabled so many of the great advances of our time. We know it is business that pioneers the industries of the future, secures the investment on which that future depends, and creates jobs and livelihoods for families up and down our country. And we know that free enterprise can also play a crucial role in helping to meet some of the greatest social challenges of our time. From contributing to the sustainability of our planet, to generating new growth, and new hope, in areas of our country that have been left behind for too long.
But you do not protect the concept of free market capitalism by failing to respond to the legitimate concerns of those who are not feeling its full benefits. You protect free market capitalism, and all the benefits it can bring, by reforming it, so that it works for everyone. That’s why I’ve introduced reforms to working practice and workers’ rights, to reflect the changes in our economy. It’s why I launched the Taylor Review into modern forms of employment, like the gig economy, and why we’re delivering the biggest improvements in UK workers’ rights for 20 years, in response to it. It’s why I’ve advanced changes in corporate governance, because business must not only be about commercial success, but about bringing wider benefits to the whole of our society, too. And it’s why we’ve put in place a modern industrial strategy, a strategic partnership between business and Government, to make the long-term decisions that will ensure the success of our economy. But crucially, a strategy to ensure that as we develop the industries of the future, so the benefits of the trade and growth they will give rise to, will reach working people, not just in some parts of the country, but in every part of our country. These are steps rooted in my Conservative political convictions. They are not a rejection of free enterprise, but rather, they are the very way to restore the popular legitimacy of free enterprise and make it work for everyone.
I believe that taking such an approach is also how we resolve the Brexit impasse. The only way to do so is to deliver on the outcome of the vote in 2016, and there’s no greater regret for me that I could not do so. But whatever path we take must be sustainable for the long-term. So that delivering Brexit brings our country back together, that has to mean some kind of compromise. Some argue, I should’ve taken the United Kingdom out of the European Union with no-deal on the 29th of March. Some wanted a purer version of Brexit. Others to find a way of stopping it altogether. But most people across our country had a preference for getting it done with a deal. And I believe the strength of the deal I negotiated was that it delivered on the vote of the referendum to leave the European Union, while also responding to the concerns of those who had voted to remain.
The problem was, that when it came time for Parliament to ratify the deal, our politics retreated back into its binary pre-referendum positions, a winner takes all approach, to leaving or remaining. And when opinions have become polarised and driven by ideology, it becomes incredibly hard for a compromise to become a rallying point. The spirit of compromise, in the common interest, is also crucial in meeting some of the greatest global challenges of our time, from responsibly harnessing the huge potential of digital technology, to tackling climate change. And from preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, to upholding and strengthening international rules in the face of hostile states.
During my Premiership, the UK has led the way, both domestically, and internationally, in seeking a new settlement, which ensures the internet remains a driver of growth and opportunity, but also that internet companies respond more comprehensively to reasonable and to legitimate demands that they take their wider responsibilities to society more seriously. That’s why we’re legislating in the UK to create a legal duty of care on internet companies, backed up by an independent regulator, with the power to enforce its decisions. We’re the first country to put forward such an approach, and such a comprehensive approach. But it is not enough to act alone. Ultimately, we need a realistic global approach that achieves the right balance between protecting the individual freedoms of those using the internet, while also keeping them safe from harm.
And that also holds the key to further progress in the fight to protect our planet. Here, in the UK, we’ve recently built on the 2008 Climate Change Act, by becoming the first major economy to agree a landmark net zero target, that will end our contribution to climate change by 2050. Of course, there were some who wanted us not just to make that net zero commitment, but to bring it forward even earlier. And there are others who still question the science of climate change, or the economic costs of tackling it. But we were able to come together to agree a target that is supported across the political spectrum, across business and civil society, and which is both ambitious and also deliverable.
Just as the nations of the world were able to come together and agree the historic Paris Agreement of 2015, a settlement which, if unravelled, would damage us all and our planet. And just as we seek to protect the hard-fought Paris Climate Agreement, so I also believe we must protect the similarly hard-fought JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran, whatever its challenges. Once again, it took painstaking pragmatism, and compromise, to strike that deal. Of course, there are those who fear a reduction in sanctions on a country that continues to pursue destabilising activity across the region, and we should address that activity head-on. But, whether we like it or not, a compromise deal remains the best way to get the outcome we all still ultimately seek, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to preserve the stability of the region. Being prepared to compromise also means knowing when not to compromise and when our values are under threat, we must always be willing to stand firm. Just as we did when Russia deployed a deadly nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury, and I led international action across the world, to expel more than 100 Russian Intelligence Officers, the largest collective expulsion of Russian Intelligence Officers in history.
We are here today, at St James’s Square, the location from which Dwight Eisenhower led the planning for D-Day. It was standing on the beaches of Normandy, with other World Leaders last month, remembering together all that was given in defence of our liberty and our values, that most inspired me to come here today to give this speech. Eisenhower once wrote, “People talk about the middle of the road, as though it were unacceptable. Things are not all black and white, there have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” I believe that seeking the common ground, and being prepared to make compromises, in order to make progress, does not entail a rejection of our values and convictions by one iota. Rather, it is precisely the way to defend them. Not by making promises you cannot keep, or just by telling people what you think they want to hear, but by addressing the concerns people genuinely hold, and showing that co-operation, not absolutism, is the only way to deliver for everyone.
For the future, if we can recapture the spirit of common purpose, as I believe we must, then we can be optimistic about what, together, we can achieve. We can find the common ground that will enable us to forge new, innovative, global agreements, on the most crucial challenges of our time, from protecting our planet, to harnessing the power of technology for good. We can renew popular support for liberal democratic values, and international co-operation. And in so doing, we can secure our freedom, our prosperity, and our ability to live together peacefully, now, and for generations to come.
Thank you [applause]. Now, I will take some questions. I’ll take some questions from the media first, and then from the wider audience. John.
John
Prime Minister, you’ve spoken of your concern about a trend in politics away from compromise and towards populism and factionalism, to what extent have your concerns been borne out by the contest to follow you as leader? And, if I may, would an extension to Brexit be, to you, preferable if it meant avoiding the immediate harm of a no-deal Brexit?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Well I know you got two questions in there, John, for your one. First of all, no, this – these are ideas that I have been forming for some time now and they reflect what I have seen in politics across Europe and across the wider world. I think that – and it’s – I have, in many international fora, since I became Prime Minister, repeatedly raised the importance of the rules-based international order, for example. Of us working together, of us working within frameworks that have enabled us to work peacefully together on some of the great challenges that we face.
And, on the second question, you know full well that my view is that the best route for the UK is to leave the European Union with a good deal. I believe we negotiated a good deal, sadly, Parliament did not take that view and did not come to a majority. It will be up to whoever my successor is, to find a way through that, and to ensure that we can deliver on the vote of the 2016 referendum, leave the EU, and do it in a way that is good for the United Kingdom.
And Gary.
Gary
Thank you, Prime Minister, and can I just ask you a couple of quick ones, if I may? The – Philip…
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
We’re all counting.
Gary
…Hammond has just said in a tweet that he’s terrified of people who look like they could be close to the next administration, who think that no-deal brings with it no short-term, or medium-term losses, only gains. Do you share that terror? And, could I ask you another one on the broader point of what you’ve been saying here? Do you bear any responsibility yourself, for some of the corrosive language, which you were attacking in your speech? I’m thinking of attacks on political elites, ‘citizens of nowhere’, and maybe glib language like, ;red, white and blue Brexit’. And, when you look back over the three years as Prime Minister, is running through a wheat field still the naughtiest thing you ever did?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
I have to think, I think one of the silliest things I ever did was answering that question, when – but there we are.
On the – and I think that was three questions, actually, rather than the two you promised us, but there we are. On the first point that you made, as I’ve just said in response to John, I’ve consistently said that I believe that the best route through for the UK is for us to leave the European Union with a good deal. I also stand by what I have consistently said that no-deal was better than a bad deal. But I think we had a good deal, it will be for the – but Parliament wasn’t willing to come behind that with a majority. It will be for whoever succeeds me to find a way through that, and I believe that the aim must still be to leave, i.e. to deliver on the vote of the referendum, but to do so in a way that is in the national interest.
On the issue of language, look, has every, sort of, phrase I used always been as perfect as it should be? No. I mean, there will be phrases that people will have both interpreted in different ways from what was intended. But, in overall sense, what I’m saying is, that what we now see, and I’ve seen it developing over time, is a coarsening of the language in our political debate. And I worry, I mean, to take it to, if you like, one, sort of, further end of the spectrum, that the way in which, for example, we have seen, often particularly female MPs, being attacked, you know, people have been charged with criminal offences for the abuse, the bullying, the harassment that they have given to female MPs, because of particular views that they have held. And that’s happened – it has happened to some male MPs, that sort of abuse, and to others and I think, what we need, is to ensure that our political debate – people have different opinions. People want to deliver things in different ways, but let’s have proper and reasoned debate about those. Yes, let’s make clear why we disagree with people, but don’t get into the stage, which we see all too often, of ascribing bad motives to somebody who happens to disagree with you, or about the way to do something.
Rowena.
Rowena
Boris Johnson has described your deal with the EU as dead, and the Northern Ireland backstop as dead, and he said he wants to sort out the Northern Ireland border issue after leaving the EU on October the 31st. Is that a sensible course of action, as a strategy, or is he going to collide with reality, as one of your colleagues has put it? And do you think that there could be a threat to the Union if he does purse this path?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Well, first of all, the – whoever succeeds me as Prime Minister will have to determine with their discussions with – within Parliament, and their discussions with the European Union, as to how they take that – those negotiations forward, and to what end. I mean, if I just explain why I thought it was important to have the backstop, why we negotiated the backstop. At the heart of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement is a – an essential compromise, that people who are Irish can live in Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, but on a day-to-day basis. In their business and their own personal activities, operate without any encumbrance on their operation across that border. I believe it’s important that we’re able to sustain that into the future. There are various descriptions, as you know, of how that could be done and people are working actively on alternative technological solutions to the border issue, but that was why I thought that was important.
Tom.
Tom
Thank you, Prime Minister. Just quickly, Manchester Police have confirmed Hashem Abedi has been extradited back to Britain, in relation to the Manchester bombings. Did you play any part in that, and how important was it for you to see that on your watch before you go next week? And with relation to your speech, you talk about absolutism at home and abroad, who are you referring to, particular names in that? And can you rule out, you meant no reference at all to either Donald Trump or Boris Johnson?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
One the first point that you raise, Tom, we all know that the attack that took place in the Manchester Arena was an appalling attack and senseless attack, and this is clearly an important moment in the investigation. I hope it is a welcome step for the loved ones of all of the victims, those people who have commanded themselves with such dignity, through what has been a deeply distressing and difficult time for them, and conducted themselves with that dignity as they search for justice. It – I want to thank all of those who’ve worked so hard to come to this point, and no doubt, will continue to work hard. I think what we all now need to see is to see that all involved in this case are able to see that case progress and that case brought to the courts.
And on the issue of absolutism, no, this is a general observation that I have. I’ve seen it in politics across the world and I think – I wanted to speak about it today, because I think it is important that we try to bring debate generally back into a more reasoned area so that people, as I’ve just said, people holding different views, can have serious debate and discussion with each other. They may continue to disagree, but actually having that serious and reasoned debate is an important part of our politics and that is when politics can be at their best and can actually deliver for people.
Now, I’ll take some questions from the rest of the audience. There’s one right at the back, there.
Virginia Crosbie
Thank you. I’m Virginia Crosbie, Director of Women2Win. You set up Women2Win in 2005 with Baroness Anne Jenkin, when there were just 17 Conservative women MPs. Progress has been glacial. We have four out of five Conservative MPs are male, and we’ve never had a Conservative woman MP in Wales. We need your help, will you come back and help us?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Well, I’m bound to point out, despite the fact that, yes, we still want to see more women in Parliament, we want to see more women Con – I want to see more women Conservatives in Parliament, but we are the only party that has two fem – has had two female Prime Ministers, which I think is quite important for the female. And you’re asking me – I will continue to champion the need for getting more women into politics. I think that’s an important part of the debate as well. If you have a politics where people have the same sorts of backgrounds, and therefore tend to have the same sorts of views, and the same sort of experience, you don’t get the, I think, the contribution to decisions that you do when you have a more diverse Parliament, more diverse experience coming into Parliament, the same goes for business as well. I think you get better decisions with that greater diversity.
Member
I’m [inaudible – 38:11] from Japanese investment bank from Daiwa Securities, second largest investment bank group in Japan. And considering the very important ties and relations with, not only Japan, but with investors around the world, what, Prime Minister, would be your message for investors who are considering their next destinations for the investments? Thank you.
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
I think my message is, come to the UK, this is. But, look, the – I think, what is interesting is the way in which investment in the UK has held up, over the past three years, despite the fact that we’ve been going through the Brexit negotiations and those haven’t come to a fruition yet, and I think that is a sign of the underlying strength of our UK economy. I think we’ve seen that underlying strength further in the employment figures we saw this week. We had some major announcements, a week or so ago, about in – continued investment in the next stage of the automotive sector, the electric vehicles. I think the strength that we have in our democracy, our rule of law, the ecosystem that we can provide for investors, remains there, and will remain there, and I think there will be huge opportunities for investors in the future.
The gentleman at the front, here.
Dominic Dudley
Hi, Dominic Dudley. Would you say you’ve left the country, and indeed your party, in a better or worse state, since when you became Prime Minister? And in relation – a related point to that, you’ve talked a lot about responsibility and irresponsibility of different political actors these days, yet, you don’t seem to take any responsibility for the affects your own words have, phrases like ‘queue jumpers’, and so on, which are hurtful and give sucker to a lot of bigots and xenophobes out there. So, should you not take a bit more responsibility for your own actions and words? Thank you.
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Yeah, well, on the second point that you made, I actually, I did make clear that I recognise I should not have used that particular phrase that you quoted. And, you know, yes, I shouldn’t have used it in the first place, but I made clear that I recognised that after the event. We do all – I mean, I’ve said, in answer to – sometimes I don’t claim that I get every single phrase I use right. But I think we all, in politics, do have to think carefully about what we – how we express things, and about the degree of debate that we have, and the type of debate that we have.
On the question of the party and the country, I mean, I’m disappointed, as I say, it’s a matter of deep regret to me that I haven’t managed to get Brexit over the line. I think that the overwhelming view of the public in the UK is that they just want it to be done, and us to be able to get on to the next stage, if you like, of the country’s life. And there are huge opportunities for us, as I’ve just said, once we deliver Brexit. So, I’m deeply disappointed that I haven’t been able to deliver Brexit and, look, you know, I did everything I could to do that. I put my own job on the line, in order to do that. I was told that if I said I would stand down, then the votes would come behind the deal. I said I’d stand down, and I’ve done – I’m doing so, the votes didn’t come. That’s politics. But I tried everything I could to ensure that we got that over the line, because I thought it was right for the United Kingdom, and that’s what driven me, the national interest. And if you look at the Conservative Party today, we have rising membership, we have particularly more younger members coming into the party, so I think there is a strength there in the party across the country, which I’m very pleased to see.
I’ll take another question, perhaps right at the back, the gentleman there.
Shah
Hello Prime Minister, I’m Shah from Chinese Embassy. During your tenure of office, you have been developing relations with China. But at the same time, there are some also disputes concerning, like, Hong Kong, or Huawei, etc. So what’s your advice to your successor, when they deal with China?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Well, first of all, I would say that the relationship that we’ve been developing with China has been an important one. And we see that, I was very pleased to take a trade delegation to China, to see further investment coming into the UK, but also, British companies see – we were able to get some extra markets in China opened up for British companies, which is important. There are issues on which, though, we need to be very clear with China, and the continuation of the Joint Declaration in relation to Hong Kong is one of those. That declaration continues to be in force and we would say to China that it needs to be abided by. It needs to be respected, and continue to be respected. So, in a sense, it’s like all relationships. I mean, we look to develop those economic ties, but we also are very clear, when we feel that there are messages that we need to give, and I’m sure that will continue into the future.
Now, I said that was the last question, but, actually, I think I probably ought to allow Robin the last question.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you very much, Prime Minister, and I think I would say on behalf of all of the members of Chatham House who are here, we’re very pleased that you would come here, share these last thoughts with us. As you said, your last major speech, likely to be. So we appreciate it very much and, as I said, we hope to be able to welcome you back.
One question, the United States has come up, but maybe only tangentially, and you’ve spoken particular in your speech about the importance about the rule of law, multilateralism. The UK relationship with the US has been one of those pillars, holding that particular rules-based order, to use the phrase, together. How concerned are you, to be frank, about the future of the United States that is worried about itself and its own future that has quite a tribal and polarised debate internally, if White House is difficult to convince in these areas? You’ve done a lot of work with the Congress, your first visit, before seeing President Trump was to visit the Congressional Republicans in the Senate. How do you think your successors should be handling this relationship at this critical time?
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Well, the first thing I would say is that that special relationship we have with the United States remains, and that is there, regardless of who sits in Number 10, or who sits in the White House. And, of course, at its core is that the strongest and deepest security and defence relationship that we have around the world. And that has been a bedrock of NATO, it’s been a bedrock of maintaining peace in Europe, and it will continue to be that for the future. And as we look at the question of multilateral institutions, and yes, I mean, I quoted – obviously, we’ve had the example of the Paris Agreement, with the US pulling out of that. I consistently say to President Trump, I hope one day the US will go back into the Paris Agreement, and we’ve had our – a disagreement about the JCPOA, and we continue with France and Germany to work to maintain the JCPOA, because we believe that it is an important part of stopping Iran from getting those nuclear weapons.
But what I would say overall to people in America is that there isn’t a, sort of, dichotomy between having a country that is strong, and an economy that is strong, and being part of multilateral institutions. Indeed, it is, you know, that the two are – I’m going to say, sort of, symbiotic, but you can, you know, being part of a multilateral institution, being part, around the world, of a framework of rules that operates, can be an important part of helping countries to maintain their strength and their – the strength of their economies.
Thank you [applause].
