Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.

  • But first, let us remember the past. Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart

  • by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities

  • strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions

  • dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.

  • As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from

  • war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It

  • happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never

  • to re-visit that dark past - a commitment epitomised by the Elysee Treaty signed 50

  • years ago this week. After the Berlin Wall came down I visited

  • that city and I will never forget it. The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement

  • about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those

  • wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.

  • What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely

  • banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic

  • to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.

  • And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Unionto

  • secure peacehas been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU,

  • alongside NATO, who made that happen.    But today the main, over-riding purpose of

  • the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

  • The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies

  • in the East and South. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should

  • be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is underway today.

  • A race for the wealth and jobs of the future. The map of global influence is changing before

  • our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands,

  • the worker in Germany, the family in Britain. So I want to speak to you today with urgency

  • and frankness about the European Union and how it must changeboth to deliver prosperity

  • and to retain the support of its peoples. But first, I want to set out the spirit in

  • which I approach these issues. I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes

  • seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.

  • And it’s true that our geography has shaped our psychology.

  • We have the character of an island nationindependent, forthright, passionate in

  • defence of our sovereignty. We can no more change this British sensibility

  • than we can drain the English Channel. And because of this sensibility, we come to

  • the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.

  • For us, the European Union is a means to an endprosperity, stability, the anchor

  • of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores - not an end in itself.

  • We insistently ask: How? Why? To what end? But all this doesn’t make us somehow un-European.

  • The fact is that ours is not just an island storyit is also a continental story.

  • For all our connections to the rest of the worldof which we are rightly proud - we

  • have always been a European powerand we always will be.

  • From Caesar’s legions to the Napoleonic Wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment

  • and the Industrial Revolution to the defeat of Nazism. We have helped to write European

  • history, and Europe has helped write ours. Over the years, Britain has made her own,

  • unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution.

  • And in Europe’s darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the

  • continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave

  • their lives for Europe’s freedom. In more recent decades, we have played our

  • part in tearing down the Iron Curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those

  • countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial

  • point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.

  • Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.

  • We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world… 
That

  • leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.

  • This is Britain today, as it’s always been:Independent, yesbut open, too.

  • I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.

  • I am not a British isolationist. I don’t just want a better deal for Britain.

  • I want a better deal for Europe too. So I speak as British Prime Minister with

  • a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and

  • should want, to play a committed and active part.

  • Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when

  • Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis? Why raise questions about Britain’s role

  • when support in Britain is already so thin. There are always voices sayingdon’t

  • ask the difficult questions.” But it’s essential for Europeand for

  • Britain - that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.

  • First, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe. 
Second, there

  • is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead

  • And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically

  • in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that

  • isyesfelt particularly acutely in Britain.

  • If we don’t address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British

  • people will drift towards the exit. I do not want that to happen. I want the European

  • Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in

  • it. That is why I am here today: To acknowledge

  • the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should

  • respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within

  • the European Union. Let me start with the nature of the challenges

  • we face. First, the Eurozone.

  • The future shape of Europe is being forgedThere are some serious questions that will

  • define the future of the European Unionand the future of every country within it.

  • The Union is changing to help fix the currencyand that has profound implications for

  • all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not

  • Britain is not in the single currency, and were not going to be. But we all need the

  • Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency

  • for the long term. And those of us outside the Eurozone also

  • need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not

  • in any way compromised. And it’s right we begin to address these

  • issues now. Second, while there are some countries within

  • the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe’s share of world output

  • is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness

  • challengeand much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

  • Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon.

  • Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that's been visited on our businesses.

  • These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far

  • too slow. As Chancellor Merkel has said - if Europe

  • today accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world's population, produces around 25

  • per cent of global GDP and has to finance 50 per cent of global social spending, then

  • it's obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of

  • life. Third, there is a growing frustration that

  • the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf

  • And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic

  • problems. People are increasingly frustrated that decisions

  • taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through

  • enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side

  • of the continent. We are starting to see this in the demonstrations

  • on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin,

  • Helsinki and the Hague. And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration

  • with the EU very dramatically in Britain. Europe’s leaders have a duty to hear these

  • concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in

  • the Eurozone. For just as in any emergency you should plan

  • for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis so too in the midst of

  • the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like

  • when the difficulties in the Eurozone have been overcome.

  • The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from

  • those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience

  • of heretics who turned out to have a point. And my point is this. More of the same will

  • not secure a long-term future for the Eurozone. More of the same will not see the European

  • Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring

  • the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of

  • the sameless competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.

  • And that will make our countries weaker not stronger.

  • That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.

  • So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st Century.

  • It is built on five principles. The first: competitiveness. At the core of

  • the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart

  • of that Single Market, and must remain so. But when the Single Market remains incomplete

  • in services, energy and digitalthe very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy

  • - it is only half the success it could be. It is nonsense that people shopping online

  • in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want

  • completing the single market to be our driving mission.

  • I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as

  • part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe's

  • smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.

  • These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morningand keep them

  • working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective

  • decision making that is holding us back. That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic

  • Union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete

  • In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European

  • institutions? Can we justify a Commission that gets ever

  • larger? Can we carry on with an organisation that

  • has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting

  • down programmes that haven’t worked? And I would ask: when the competitiveness

  • of the Single Market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport

  • council, an education council but not a single market council?

  • The second principle should be flexibility. We need a structure that can accommodate the

  • diversity of its membersNorth, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some

  • of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others,

  • including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

  • I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules

  • and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest

  • developments and trends. Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice

  • and openness - or Europe will fetch up in a no-man’s land between the rising economies

  • of Asia and market-driven North America. The EU must be able to act with the speed

  • and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

  • We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies

  • that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don’t

  • and we shouldn’t assert that they do. Some will claim that this offends a central

  • tenet of the EU’s founding philosophy.  I say it merely reflects the reality of the

  • European Union today. 17 members are part of the Eurozone. 10 are not.

  • 26 European countries are members of Schengenincluding four outside the European Union

  • Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. 2 EU countriesBritain and Ireland

  • have retained their border controls.   
Some members, like Britain and France,

  • are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable

  • with the use of military force. Let’s welcome that diversity, instead of

  • trying to snuff it out. Let’s stop all this talk of two-speed Europe,

  • of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the

  • whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

  • Instead, let’s start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all

  • members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than

  • the single currencyThose of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely

  • to need to make some big institutional changes. By the same token, the members of the Eurozone

  • should accept that we, and indeed all Member States, will have changes that we need to

  • safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make

  • these changes too. Some say this will unravel the principle of

  • the EUand that you can’t pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

  • But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its Members more closely because

  • such flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

  • Let me make a further heretical proposition. The European Treaty commits the Member States

  • tolay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

  • This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to

  • the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently

  • supported greater centralisation. We understand and respect the right of others

  • to maintain their commitment to this goalBut for Britainand perhaps for others

  • - it is not the objective. And we would be much more comfortable if the

  • Treaty specifically said so freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so,

  • without being held back by the others. So to those who say we have no vision for

  • Europe. I say we have.

  • We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions

  • and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European

  • civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power

  • to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe. 

  • And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our

  • energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against

  • terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

  • This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build

  • an ever closer political unionbut it is just as valid.

  • My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to Member States, not just away

  • from them. This was promised by European Leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

  • It was put in the Treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to

  • implement this principle properly. So let us use this moment, as the Dutch Prime

  • Minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do

  • and should stop doing. In Britain we have already launched our balance

  • of competences reviewto give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps

  • and where it hampers. Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a

  • deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable

  • and infinitely level playing field. Countries are different. They make different

  • choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary

  • to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European

  • Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective

  • of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

  • In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where

  • the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

  • Nothing should be off the table. My fourth principle is democratic accountability:

  • we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

  •   There is not, in my view, a single European

  • demos. It is national parliaments, which are, and

  • will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

  • It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek Parliament

  • that Antonis Samaras has to pass his Government’s austerity measures.

  • It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or

  • on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

  • Those are the Parliaments which instil proper respecteven fear - into national leaders.

  • We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

  • My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the Eurozone,

  • they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

  • That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single

  • currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single

  • market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

  • Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal

  • reason for our membership of the EU. So it is a vital interest for us to protect

  • the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

  • And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as

  • the Eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal coordination and banking union.

  • These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

  • So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.

  • Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all time high. There are several

  • reasons for this. People feel that the EU is heading in a direction

  • that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what

  • they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.

  • Put simply, many askwhy can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?”

  • They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain.

  • Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European Court

  • of Human Rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.

  • There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel

  • that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside

  • Britain’s comfort zone. They see Treaty after Treaty changing the

  • balance between Member States and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

  • Theyve had referendums promised - but not delivered. They see what has happened to the

  • Euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join

  • at the time. And they haven’t noticed many expressions

  • of contrition. And they look at the steps the Eurozone is

  • taking and wonder what deeper integration for the Eurozone will mean for a country which

  • is not going to join the Euro. The result is that democratic consent for

  • the EU in Britain is now wafer thin. Some people say that to point this out is

  • irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain’s

  • place in the European Union. But the question mark is already there and

  • ignoring it won’t make it go away. In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse

  • to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual

  • exit. Simply asking the British people to carry

  • on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring

  • that when the question is finally putand at some stage it will have to beit is

  • much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.

  • That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issueshaping

  • it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

  • Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.

  • I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.

  • But I don’t believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either

  • for Britain or for Europe as a whole. A vote today between the status quo and leaving

  • would be an entirely false choice. Now - while the EU is in flux, and when we

  • don’t know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis is

  • not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country

  • It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the

  • relationship right. How can we sensibly answer the questionin

  • or outwithout being able to answer the most basic question: ‘what is it exactly

  • that we are choosing to be in or out of?’ The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone

  • crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition

  • by the measures needed to save the Eurozone. We need to allow some time for that to happen

  • and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will

  • be a real one. A real choice between leaving or being part

  • of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market

  • but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe’s

  • competitiveness. A choice between leaving or being part of

  • a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like

  • foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.

  • A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national

  • parliaments where Member States combine in flexible cooperation, respecting national

  • differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some

  • powers can in fact be returned to Member States. In other words, a settlement which would be

  • entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today.

  • More flexible, more adaptable, more open - fit for the challenges of the modern age.

  • And to those who say a new settlement can’t be negotiated, I would say listen to the views

  • of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European

  • states. And look too at what we have achieved already.

  • Ending Britain’s obligation to bail-out Eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the

  • fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers.

  • Securing protections on Banking Union. And reforming fisheries policy.

  • So we are starting to shape the reforms we need nowSome will not require Treaty change.

  • But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the

  • next few years the EU will need to agree on Treaty change to make the changes needed for

  • the long term future of the Euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable

  • Europe that we seek. I believe the best way to do this will be

  • in a new Treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

  • My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

  • But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be

  • ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

  • The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people

  • for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners

  • in the next Parliament. It will be a relationship with the Single

  • Market at its heart. And when we have negotiated that new settlement,

  • we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay

  • in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.

  • It will be an in-out referendum. Legislation will be drafted before the next

  • election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling

  • legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this

  • negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

  • It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European

  • question in British politics. I say to the British people: this will be

  • your decision. And when that choice comes, you will have

  • an important choice to make about our country’s destiny.

  • I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be

  • a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument

  • will need to avoid exaggerating their claims. Of course Britain could make her own way in

  • the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State.

  • But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for

  • our country? We will have to weigh carefully where our

  • true national interest lies. Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions,

  • just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left NATO. But

  • we don’t leave NATO because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from

  • its collective defence guarantee. We have more power and influencewhether

  • implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burmaif we

  • can act together. If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave

  • Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical

  • neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.

  • Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live

  • or retire in any other EU country. Even if we pulled out completely, decisions

  • made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost

  • all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.

  • We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the

  • EU and its single market, as a full member. Continued access to the Single Market is vital

  • for British businesses and British jobs. 
Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for

  • one in five of all inward investments into Europe. 

  • And being part of the Single Market has been key to that success.

  • There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against

  • the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.

  • There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerlandwith access

  • to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

  • I admire those countries and they are friends of oursbut they are very different from

  • us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund

  • of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single marketand pays

  • for the principle - it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement

  • its directives. The Swiss have to negotiate access to the

  • Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rulesover which they have no sayor

  • else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial

  • services. The fact is that if you join an organisation

  • like the European Union, there are rules. 
You will not always get what you want.

  • But that does not mean we should leave - not if the benefits of staying and working together

  • are greater. We would have to think carefully too about

  • the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs. There is no doubt

  • that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful

  • player in the European Union. That matters for British jobs and British

  • security. It matters to our ability to get things done

  • in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which

  • is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.

  • We should think very carefully before giving that position up.

  • If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.

  • So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.

  • At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.

  • And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain’s

  • attitude: work with us on this. Consider the extraordinary steps which the

  • Eurozone members are taking to keep the Euro together, steps which a year ago would have

  • seemed impossible. It does not seem to me that the steps which

  • would be needed to make Britain - and othersmore comfortable in their relationship

  • in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.

  • And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should

  • want us to stay. For an EU without Britain, without one of

  • Europe’s strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and

  • which brings real heft to Europe’s influence on the world stage which plays by the rules

  • and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European

  • Union. And it is hard to argue that the EU would

  • not be greatly diminished by Britain’s departure. Let me finish today by saying this.

  • I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

  • I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve.

  • That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves

  • on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren’t comfortable being in the EU after

  • 40 years, we never will be. But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude

  • either for Britain or for Europe. Because with courage and conviction I believe

  • we can deliver a more flexible, adaptable and open European Union in which the interests

  • and ambitions of all its members can be met.  With courage and conviction I believe we can

  • achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can

  • thrive. And when the referendum comes let me say now

  • that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and

  • soul. Because I believe something very deeply. That

  • Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European

  • Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.

  • Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For

  • the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity

  • of our peoples for generations to come.

This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 英國腔

大衛-卡梅倫演講全文。英國與歐洲--2013年1月23日 (David Cameron Full Speech: Britain and Europe - January 23rd, 2013)

  • 986 74
    Frankie Why 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字