UK-US Bilateral Relations

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which reinforces my point. Having worked with the BBC in Northern Ireland many years ago, I well understand his points. At state level, New York trades more with the United Kingdom than with any other US state. New York and the UK are inextricably bound together. If we believe that that is important for our economy, the Americans know how important it is for theirs, too. Let us not forget that the United States is the world’s largest economy, even after the economic crisis, and that British business is its biggest investor. UK investment in the US is 116 times greater than China’s investment in the US, 90 times greater than India’s, and 88 times greater than Brazil’s. We are almost back to 2008 levels, having suffered a global economic crisis, and we have overtaken Germany to become the US’s fifth largest trading partner.

If a special relationship were based on trade alone, the relationship between the UK and the US would be more than special, given those figures, but we know that the relationship enjoyed by our two countries is about more than just trade. Something pushes that trade. The figures I quoted should be shouted from the rooftops. We are not some minor mid-Atlantic island, as President Putin’s spokesman said, that the US flatters occasionally; we are its biggest investor and it is our biggest investor. That has happened not by accident, but because we are friends, because business and entrepreneurial endeavour thrive in our shared culture, and because we use a shared language, have a shared history, and use a shared common law. Those are not bygone assets of a long-forgotten empire or age, but real assets that we share, and which our people use to their advantage every second of every day.

Throughout the US, local radio stations and national public radio rebroadcast live BBC news for US listeners. The BBC’s news is considered to be as reliable, if not more reliable, than that of some domestic news broadcasters. Where else in the world would a nation routinely rebroadcast live news, which cannot be edited, from a so-called foreign power? Only the US does that with the BBC news.

Even the US national anthem owes much to Britain—perhaps more to Britain than to the US. That is not just because the words were written by an American, Francis Scott Key, as he witnessed, from the deck of a Royal Navy ship, the British bombardment of Baltimore—we all know that—but because the very tune of the “Star-Spangled Banner” was, in fact, a bawdy and popular London drinking song written by a Brit, John Stafford Smith, from Gloucester, and I mean Gloucester, England, not Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Here in the UK Parliament, we have tiles made by Minton in Stoke-on-Trent, and the US Congress has identical tiles. I was told that 20 or 30 years ago, when the tiles in the US Congress needed to be replaced, it contacted Minton. The people there said, “The order is not big enough for us to set up a manufacturing plant for the special manufacturing needed for the tiles,” so the Serjeants at Arms of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US Congress contacted the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons and Black Rod, as we archaically call him, in the House of Lords, and said, “Can we place a joint order for the tiles?” That was duly done. Of course, we must not forget that the US Congress and the new Palace of Westminster, as it is officially known, were built roughly at the same time, although in rather different styles.

As I say, the relationship is not only about history; there is the travel between the two countries. The routes between London Heathrow and John F. Kennedy international airport and Newark, serving New York, are the busiest air links between any two cities in the world, with close to 3 million people a year travelling between the two.

The alliance, however, goes way beyond being just financial and cultural: it extends to the protection of British and American citizens. The United Kingdom and the United States are the closest of allies militarily. Where else in the world would a country allow another to test its nuclear weapons on its territory? I am not talking about the UK allowing the United States to do so, but about the United States allowing Britain to test its Trident missiles in the Nevada desert.

British and American troops have fought side by side in almost every theatre for the past century, for the same cause and in the same spirit. British territory welcomes American servicemen as though they are our own—not as foreign soldiers, but as kindred spirits. When foot and mouth disease prevented the Royal Marine Corps performing exercises in the United Kingdom, the US Marine Corps invited its counterparts to train in Virginia. Those regular visits continue, and I am told that the Post Exchange is a darn sight cheaper than the NAAFI. Our network of intelligence sharing, military co-operation and joint diplomacy in the United Nations and elsewhere never ceases.

Perhaps the vote on Syria was surprising for those who question whether the special relationship is right, but the vote demonstrated, actually, just how close we are, and that we do not often take different decisions, because we have similar goals and a similar global view and aspirations. In the end, what did President Obama do? He followed in the footsteps of David Cameron and referred the matter to the US Congress. Despite the US having the constitution that Britain did in the 18th century, in which the President is Head of State, with what we would call the royal prerogative—the right to wage war—he, too, went to Congress seeking a vote, and he delayed it when he saw that Congress might well echo the will of Parliament across the ocean.

In conclusion, at every level of co-operation, the relationship that the United Kingdom shares with the United States is unprecedented between two countries. President Obama remarked, on a visit to Britain, that the relationship is the “essential” one, and do you know something? He is right. A million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic depend on it. The special relationship is economically, socially and historically beyond single events.

What I have aimed to do today is demonstrate that our two countries are as interlinked and as co-dependent as any the world has ever seen. Both countries benefit from that, and we should aim to build on that. The Prime Minister has shown his dedication to pushing for an EU-US free trade deal as soon as possible. That would increase trade by at least a further $100 billion, and even the US Congress has speculated on the many benefits to the United States if the UK were to enter the North American Free Trade Agreement—even if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU. Sometimes, when people talk about these things, they think it is just madness on the British side. Actually, I do not think it is madness at all; I think it is a view of the future.

As a prop, Mr Dobbin, I raise this weighty document, which was published by the US Treasury in 2000, outlining the benefits to NAFTA if the United Kingdom were to join, and the effect on the UK if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Has the United States not clearly indicated that its primary interest in trade negotiations—rightly so, given that it represents some 40% to 45% of world gross domestic product in aggregate—is the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, or TTIP? The US has indicated that it wants that to be a partnership with the EU as a whole, rather than having 28 separate negotiations. Does that not show the real direction that trade talks will take?

[Michael Fabricant]

Indeed, as long as the UK is part of the EU. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is much easier to negotiate with one body than with many different bodies. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this document was produced by the US Treasury. I might even add to his argument by saying that the US is very keen for us to remain in the European Union. However, that is partly because, as some US diplomats have said privately, they think that the United Kingdom is the only sane voice in the EU on some issues. I rather suspect that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), may have a view on that.

I profoundly believe that Britain’s place in the world is as an outward-looking global trading nation, doing what it does best: being open to the world and building alliances with those who believe in freedom and the advancement of its people. Our alliance with the United States has done that for centuries, and it will continue to do so, for the benefit of the United States, the United Kingdom, and, I believe, the peace and prosperity of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

That neatly anticipates the point that I wanted to make, because it shows up one of the slight weaknesses that tend to crop up from time to time in the Hollywood view of the Anglo-American relationship. Quite unnecessarily, quite gratuitously, in the course of the film’s dialogue, there is a throwaway line, “Well, this country turned them away, that country turned them away, and the Brits turned them away.” At the time of the academy awards, I remember that they interviewed the British diplomats who had, at huge risk to themselves, taken the six escapees in and transported them hazardously to the Canadian ambassador’s residence. That enabled the whole story, which was eventually unpacked in this hugely adventurous tale, to transpire.

I do not know why Hollywood sometimes does that sort of thing. It is not the first time that it has done it. Something similar happened a few years ago when there was a rather splendid film called “U-571” about the American seizure of an Enigma machine from a U-boat in the course of the battle of the Atlantic. It was perfectly true that that had happened in 1944 with an American operation, but it had happened twice previously through the good offices of the Royal Navy. I had particular reason to know that, because my esteemed constituent Lieutenant-Commander David Balme was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for descending into the depths of U-110 on the first occasion on which such a seizure was made. When a bit of a fuss was made in the media, the film company backed down. It took him on as an adviser and put in a tribute at the end of the film, pointing out that there had been two earlier seizures.

One must not extrapolate too much from that, because of course the Hollywood view of the Anglo-American relationship should not be relied on any more than, shall we say, the more partisan, chattering-class, luvvie views of politics in certain sections of British society should be relied on. The truth is that the United States and the United Kingdom are at their best when the chips are down. Like people in all sorts of good, valuable and, indeed, invaluable relationships, they bicker and disagree, but when it really matters, they are always there for each other.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

I mentioned that I would say a word or two about the intelligence relationship, and I will after giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Spellar]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also wanted to quote Winston Churchill’s apposite phrase that the United States would always do the right thing, having exhausted all the other possibilities.

[Dr Lewis]

Yes indeed, and that puts me in mind, of course, of another thing that the two countries have in common, which was also encapsulated by Winston Churchill when he said that

“democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others”.

I see something common there because the United States is a great democracy and the United Kingdom is a great democracy and, as I said, when we get to what really matters, we can always count on each other.

The intelligence relationship no doubt goes back a good deal further than the first world war, but the period that I know something about is the 20th century, and of course in the first world war we had a classic example of the work of the intelligence services in this country with the discovery of something called the Zimmermann telegram. This was a revelation of a conspiracy in which the Germans had offered, if I remember correctly, the Mexicans some great tranche of US territory if they would co-operate with them in hostilities against the United States. It was the discovery by the British intelligence services of that correspondence that finally showed the Americans where their interests lay and helped to precipitate their entry into the first world war, from which time the outcome of the conflict could no longer be in doubt, because arguably—I would say that it is probably beyond argument—it was the entry of the United States that forced the Germans to embark on their last-ditch attempt in March 1918 to break the stalemate on the western front, and that led to the sequence of events, including the battle of Amiens later in the year, that ultimately led to the allied victory.

Similarly, with regard to the military relationship in the second world war, it is well known that the Americans helped us with lend-lease. The “Destroyers for Bases” deal is also well known. These were all methods of helping the British war effort while the United States itself was still not a belligerent. Less well known is the “Shoot at Sight” policy whereby the Americans undertook, if there were any interference on the high seas by Hitler’s U-boats, to engage them militarily if they sought to attack convoys going from the United States to the United Kingdom.

In other words, the Americans did, given the limitations of their constitutional system, everything that they possibly could do to help Britain in its hour of need until such time as the political situation in the United States—because it was no easy decision for them—facilitated the entry of the United States into the war; and of course to that, the contribution of the Japanese in their treacherous attack at Pearl Harbor was decisive. Again, once America had entered the conflict, the outcome could not be in doubt, even though many months—indeed, several years—of desperate conflict had to ensue before victory was obtained.

Scrolling forward rapidly into the post-war years, we see the occasions on which Britain backed the American initiative—unusually, for once, with the support of the United Nations, because the Russians at that time were not participating in the Security Council—in the Korean war; but there have been hiccups as well, and this is germane to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made about not reading too much into the vote on Syria and the divergence of policy between the two countries. If people forget everything else in my contribution, I hope that they will seek to remember this one point. Even among the closest of allies, there may be genuine disagreements from time to time. The Americans genuinely disagreed with British action and French action in Suez in 1956. Harold Wilson genuinely disagreed with the Americans, and most people think that history has vindicated him in not joining with the Americans to participate in the conduct of the Vietnam war.

As my hon. Friend eloquently pointed out, there was a genuine disagreement in this country with the proposal to take military action against the Assad regime a few weeks ago. So far, although it is far too early to tell, if the objective of our Government and the American Government was, as stated, to stop chemical weapons attacks, as things are unfolding, we are in a better position at the moment to stop chemical weapons attacks than anyone might have dreamed possible. So at the moment, it looks as though the system has worked.

As my hon. Friend rightly stated, it was fascinating and entirely praiseworthy that having seen what the British Government had done in putting the matter to Parliament, and knowing that there was just as much disquiet in American public opinion as there was in British public opinion, President Obama decided to do the same thing by putting the matter to Congress. That is where it would have lain, but for the—what shall we say?—fortunate slip of the tongue by Secretary of State Kerry when he said, “Well, of course, if Assad doesn’t wish to be attacked, he could always offer to give up his chemical arsenal.” Never have words made off the cuff and in such an offhand fashion borne such fruit. Perhaps our diplomats and Foreign Ministers should throw away the prepared script a little more often in the future.

[Mr Spellar]

I just wonder whether Hansard will put the words “off the cuff” and “offhand” in quotes or inverted commas to convey the sense of what the hon. Gentleman was saying—what he was trying to get across.

[Dr Lewis]

I am sure that Hansard will be equal to the occasion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman meant that Hansard would convey the good sense of my somewhat convoluted prose. Sometimes it is better to be right than simply to be tidy.

During the Falklands conflict, we saw the constructive tension in the relationship between the UK and the US at its most interesting. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was wholly hostile to the British position over the Falkland Islands, while Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger was very sympathetic. In the end, the Weinberger view prevailed with President Reagan. It is now widely acknowledged that the covert assistance that the Americans supplied to the British, particularly in the field of intelligence, was of great value to the country and to our campaign, notwithstanding the competing attractions and incentives that the United States experienced at that difficult time, which might have encouraged them not to assist us.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield has done the House a service by securing the debate, the House has not done him a service in that, unusually for a Tuesday, it will sit only at 2.30 pm, so many people who would otherwise have contributed to the debate are sadly not here. In other circumstances, I am sure that there would have been many more participants. The best laid plans always suffer the occasional hiccup, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our relatives living in Los Angeles, let alone those living in Toronto, Sydney and so on, which tells a story in itself.

May I welcome the Minister if not to the Department, then to this portfolio? I cast no reflection on him when I say how much we will miss the previous Minister with responsibility for dealing with the United States, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He impressed colleagues throughout the House and in the wider world with his diligent attention to his portfolio, and with how he engaged with Members of Parliament to ensure that we were kept updated on current developments and to facilitate contact with Foreign Office officials to enable us to have well-informed debates in this House and the wider public domain. I do not intrude on the affairs of the reshuffle, but I think that his contribution will be greatly missed in this House.

[Mr Swire]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that comment on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) did an excellent job in the Foreign Office in relation to many parts of the world. For the record, I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on behalf of the Government, but the United States has not been added to my rather wide portfolio. It will be handled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), but, given that he was appointed only last night, it was thought better that an almost vintage Foreign Office Minister—of just over a year’s standing—should handle this debate in his stead.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister. From my knowledge of the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), I think that he will be in the mould of Ministers who see that there is a British national interest running across party lines and, indeed, across Parliaments.

I know that we are not supposed to mention people in the Gallery, Mr Dobbin, but if the American ambassador is listening to the debate, I am sure that he will very much welcome the bipartisan support for the long-term depth, and the understanding of the importance, of the relationship to both our countries.

I declare an interest as the joint-treasurer of the British-American Parliamentary Group, which is one of the few groups to be established, in effect, as a statutory body in Parliament. It does an enormous amount of work to foster Anglo-American understanding. Indeed, only last month, we had an extremely good conference, in Winchester, which is pretty close to the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We had good exchanges with Senators led by the estimable and formidable Senator Leahy, and that debate showed that there is a huge degree of common understanding and interest; if there is not necessarily common agreement on all the issues, there is much shared ground.

When the debate was chosen, I was a little uncertain what direction it would take. I am sure that colleagues would agree that, with its being introduced by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), that was perfectly understandable. May I, however, congratulate him not only on securing the debate, but on the main thrust of his argument?

I was interested in how the hon. Gentleman introduced the Syria vote. Some ill-informed and ill-intentioned media comment has sought to take partisan advantage, which has sometimes been a feature of our debates, and to try to undermine the relationship with the US. That has come from various strands, as we all know: although there is broad agreement on and widespread appreciation of the relationship’s values, there are hostile strands in both parties. There is what I describe as the post-imperial League of Empire Loyalists tendency—it is now less strong in the Conservative party, but it still exists—who really resent the change in the balance of forces, although that change is inevitable, given the size and strength of the United States. In some cases, there is also an elitist snobbishness towards the United States, which, by the way, appears on the left of the political spectrum as well. There are also those who still hanker after the times when they supported the losing side in the cold war.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

May I put it on the record that even at the time of the most anti-American phase of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Minister, never signed up to that point of view?

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. However, people often talk about a party taking one position or another, but, in reality, there is always a balance of opinion within a party. The difference is that the balance shifts. The Labour party did not overwhelmingly go from being unilateralist to multilateralist. The balance shifted from being 55:45 one way to 55:45 the other way, so there were always many colleagues on both sides of the argument still holding those views. Indeed, as we saw recently in the debate on Trident, there was a strong level of agreement between the two serious parties in this Parliament on the importance of maintaining a nuclear deterrent at the minimum level necessary. Furthermore, as he rightly stressed, there was an understanding of the importance of our transatlantic relationship in ensuring the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of that deterrent.

[Dr Lewis]

I welcome the suggestion by the shadow defence team, which I hope will remain its position under its new head, that given that even the Liberal Democrats now claim to want to have two replacement Trident submarines, we should get on with making that decision irreversible as soon as possible so that Trident does not become a political football in coalition negotiations after the next election, as, regrettably, it was after the last one.

[Mr Spellar]

That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to discuss with his own party. He is right to allude to the fact that the Liberal Democrats want a deterrent as long as it is not one that actually works.

All those views that I have just described are the flotsam and jetsam of this debate, because the deep tides in British public and political opinion run strongly in the direction of the relationship between our countries. The hon. Member for Lichfield rightly stressed the real strength and depth of that relationship.

It is important that, in such difficult times, we focus on not just current issues and interests, but values, culture and language that have bound us over generations. Of course such a discussion will focus to some extent on our joint military actions, especially in two world wars, and the vital role played by our shared intelligence capabilities, which are crucial to the security of this country, especially in a world where all of us face threats from international and internal terrorism. We should also focus on the way in which we have drawn on each other on constitutional issues, our legal framework, common law and political issues. Sometimes such issues start in one state in the United States or in the UK and then become part of a common dialogue, driven even more now by the advent of the internet, which allows people readily to access such arguments. Furthermore, both of our countries have, separately and in international forums, campaigned round the world for freedom of the seas, free trade, free speech and free communications.

The hon. Gentleman stressed the enormous depth of our financial relationship and of the joint investments in each of our countries, which, interestingly, are followed only in the UK’s case by the joint relationship with Australia and the substantial investment there. Australia is a deep ally of both countries, and, as the hon. Member for the New Forest East said, it has always been there for us, and we, I hope, have always been there for them.

[Mr Swire]

And a member of the Commonwealth.

[Mr Spellar]

Yes. Even in today’s newspaper, we read about Britain’s cultural export of television programmes. Some £450 million is coming into this country, which is probably balanced, and rightly so, by quite a lot going in the other direction, from TV shows being taken by the United States. There is no need to recite and revisit all the statistics that were quoted by the hon. Member for Lichfield, as we can all see them in everyday business. Again, such trade is not a recent phenomenon. Look at the firms that are seen to be long-standing British companies. Vauxhall, for example, which is actually expanding its production in Ellesmere Port and bringing in new models, has been under the ownership of General Motors for nearly a century now. It is a significant long-term interest, not just a recent phenomenon.

Of course that does not mean that there is always complete concurrence of views or interests between the UK and the US. Geography determines history and influences politics. Sometimes, though, individuals and groups on both sides of the Atlantic seek to exaggerate such differences, but those differences have been there all the way through the relationship. Read the masterly work of Alan Bullock on the life of Ernest Bevin and his period as Foreign Secretary. Huge amounts have been done between our countries, such as the Marshall plan and the foundation of NATO. The Marshall plan, which might have been a casual remark by a US Secretary of State and then picked up very effectively by the British Foreign Secretary, transformed the economic outlook for Europe and highlighted graphically the whole difference of approach between the United States and the Soviet Union in their views on how Europe could develop at the end of the cold war. It was an argument that the Anglo-American alliance clearly won. In those discussions, there were some significant differences and real arguments. The fact that one is a long-term ally and friend does not mean that one does not fight one’s corner. Indeed it is a derogation of duty not to fight for one’s own interest, but it should be done within the right framework and context. Such a stance can be seen in a number of international forums, such as in the permanent five of the United Nations, where we work enormously effectively together, the G8, the G20 and NATO. We are seeing it in the discussions that are taking place over the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and also in the discussions on the trade in services agreement.

There will be areas in which domestic interest lobbies will want to push a particular point of view. In some cases, they will need to be fought for strongly and in other cases there will need to be trade-offs. None the less, they indicate strongly the main thrust, which is to try to bring about the reduction of trade barriers across the world, the increase in world trade and the growth that arises from the ability of companies and individuals to exploit their talents, innovations and improvements to sell in a wider market. That is an enormously important role. There is the question of whether those trade negotiations will, to some extent, undermine the World Trade Organisation. There is a wider agreement that, if agreement cannot be brought to a conclusion, as was the case after the Doha rounds, it would be extremely welcome if there could be this development in freeing up world trade, taking into account the interests and views of other countries—a development in which the roles of the United Kingdom and the United States are not only consistent but working well together.

There are some—the hon. Member for Lichfield veered towards this, or tiptoed towards it—who will try to pose this issue as a dichotomy; they will say that Britain must either be allied with the United States or be part of the EU. In Winston Churchill’s words, we must either look to “Europe” or to “the open sea”. Of course, it was quite interesting that in that quote Churchill said:

“If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea”.

Notice, as always with Churchill, the careful use of words: “If Britain must choose”. However, this is not a choice that we have to make, because it has never been the view of the US that it should just have a bilateral relationship with Britain to the exclusion of its relationships with Europe. Right the way through—indeed, it goes back to the Bevin discussions—there has always been an encouragement from the US for Britain to be involved in and to have a beneficial effect on debates in Europe. Also, at the time of the Marshall plan, when the future of Europe was in the balance, it was absolutely vital that Britain was part of that European economic revival and not standing outside Europe while the future of Europe fell to the Soviet Union to decide.

[Dr Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to that period in the immediate post-war years, and I do not think that the harshest Eurosceptic would dispute the fact that Britain needed to be involved then. However, surely that period also shows that it is possible to be heavily involved in shaping the future of Europe without being a member of a European Union.

[Mr Spellar]

Actually, at the time that those discussions were taking place, there was not a European Union; there was not even a European Coal and Steel Community. When President Obama launched the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks—unfortunately, the latest discussion this week had to be postponed because of events in Washington—he made it clear that the likely time scale for securing a trade agreement would not be possible with a multiplicity of individual countries. Therefore, in bringing together the two major trading areas of the world, it is not in the interests of the United States for one of them to be broken up and divided.

Interestingly enough, that is the view not only of the United States but of Japan, another major trading partner of ours and a massive investor in this country. The Japanese also see our engagement in Europe as part of their investment in the UK; they use the UK as their base within Europe. Also, earlier I mentioned Australian business, and the Japanese view is exactly the view of the Australian business community too. Therefore, the attempt to create a sharp dichotomy between the two and to make it a binary choice between them—either involvement with the United States or with Europe—is not only a false choice but a choice that is not welcomed by our partners.

[Michael Fabricant]

Just for clarity, I want to make it clear that I have never said, nor do I think that others think, that there is mutual exclusivity. I was referring to the document produced by the United States International Trade Commission, which investigated whether it would be beneficial for the North American Free Trade Agreement if the UK was a member. It took the view that the UK could be a member only if we were to leave the EU. We may or may not have a referendum on this issue in 2017; I hope that we will. But the UK is a global trading nation, and that includes trading with Europe as well as with the United States and Australia. The US and the EU are not mutually exclusive. And while we are bandying around Churchill quotes, I will just throw this one in. He said that the UK is in Europe “not of it”.

[Mr Spellar]

I am not sure that that exactly—

[Michael Fabricant]

But it is a good quote.

[Mr Spellar]

As I was saying, I am not sure whether that quote undermines my argument or even contradicts it. However, I am sure that if the Government Whip—the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne)—was still here, he would be very pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is committed to 2017 rather than to 2014. I am sure that a note has been taken for him.

Finally, I want to look a little more widely, because, as I have alluded to before, some consider it fashionable to blame America for much of the world’s ills. I counsel them to beware of what they wish for. It was very well summed up by President Obama in his address to the UN, in which he said:

“The danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or to take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.”

I believe that our relationship with the US helps to secure, facilitate and support that US engagement with the rest of the world, which is in the interests of Britain, Europe and the wider world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

Indeed. We were having a cross-border discussion earlier, so I got confused between Strangford, Shannon and the hon. Gentleman’s name. He knows me well and I know him well, as I served as the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office for two and a half years.

I am glad to say that I understand that His Excellency the American ambassador has already visited Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the interest shown in the Northern Ireland peace process by successive American Presidents alongside British Prime Ministers. Equally, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not long ago had a successful trip to the United States to attract inward investment. That relationship is incredibly important, too.

Achieving all those objectives in and with the United States is important. We have a high-performing network of posts across the United States. As well as the embassy in Washington, we have nine consulates-general, one consulate and a UK Government office in Seattle.

[Mr Spellar]

I want to reinforce what the Minister said about the excellent work performed by our representatives in not only Washington but other parts of the US, which, although less visited, are enormously important to our economic and political relationship.

[Mr Swire]

The shadow Minister is entirely correct. Too often when we think of countries, we think of the capital and a few other cities, but the United States is absolutely huge. British businesses do business right across the United States, and I was attempting to illustrate that our footprint is well extended to reflect those interests.

Recently, I saw for myself the work of our incredibly dynamic consul general in New York, Danny Lopez. That included the promotion of British menswear at Bloomingdale’s the week before last, which was themed around the GREAT campaign. I also met the brilliant finalists from the GREAT tech awards. My brief says they were brilliant, and they were: they spoke a language completely unknown to me, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is tremendously technical, would have understood everything they were talking about. However, I understood absolutely nothing, and I felt extremely old talking to them. The finalists were all from incredibly dynamic start-up companies. Five innovative US companies have won prizes, including a visit to the UK and custom support to help them establish themselves in Tech City, in London. One UK tech company was recognised for the impact it has had since establishing a US presence.

There was some discussion when the GREAT brand was introduced, because Northern Ireland was left off the posters, but I am glad to say that the majority now refer to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GREAT continues to be an incredibly good marketing brand, showcasing the best of what is on offer from the UK, and it continues to have a strong identity across the world, particularly in the United States. Our embassies and high commissions around the world are still doing a lot of work to support the campaign.

I was not sure that we would fill the time allotted for this debate, and we might have had to look to our American cousins for a refresher on how to extend debates. I would not use the word “filibuster” to describe what happened in Washington the other day, because I was told it was not a filibuster, although it was certainly what I understood to be one. Unfortunately, the days of filibustering are over in this place, as we have all been drilled into speaking for limited amounts of time, and our terrible fixed hours do not allow us to recount our life stories, or talk about our favourite foods and bands and our travel itineraries, to extend debates.

I would not, however, call this a debate, because that suggests that there is some disagreement, confrontation or contrary view. I hope everyone would agree that we have been as one this morning in recognising the enduring importance of our American friends and allies, and in recognising that the relationship has to be balanced, rather than being one of slavish obedience, because we need to respect each other’s differences, as I believe we do. At the end of the day, ours is the most enduring relationship, although it may not be the United States’ oldest relationship, which may well be with France. France is a great country, but it is not, I believe, as important to the United States as the United Kingdom is.

In conclusion, I want to take right hon. and hon. Members back to May 2011. Next door in Westminster Hall, during his state visit to London—not Paris—President Obama addressed Members of Parliament and Peers. He described the US-UK relationship as

“one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.”

I believe unequivocally that that is still the case, and this Government will continue to ensure—with the support of the Opposition, I am sure—that the relationship remains strong, close and frank, so that both our countries and their peoples continue to benefit from our shared partnership.