Return to Transcripts main page
David Cameron Warns Against Brexit; BBC Reporter Expelled from North Korea; Trump Says GOP Unity Not Needed; Philippines Election Examined. Aired 3-4a ET
Aired May 9, 2016 - 03:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[03:00:00] ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN NEWSROOM SHOW HOST: A dire warning, Britain's David Cameron set to make his case against leaving the European Union. He says peace is at a stake.
Expelled, a BBC reporter is being thrown out of North Korea for reports seen as disrespectful to the country's president.
And a growing divide. Donald Trump says he does not need republican unity to win the White House.
Hello and welcome to our viewers here in the United States and all around the world. I'm Rosemary Church. And this is CNN Newsroom.
And we are expecting an address by British Prime Minister David Cameron shortly. He will be making his case as to why Britain should remain in the European Union.
We're looking a live pictures there, of course, waiting for him to speak. A public referendum is set for next month over whether Britain should leave the economic bloc.
And we're joined now our CNN Phil Black at 10 Downing Street in London for more on what Prime Minister Cameron is likely to say. So, Phil, also what is likely to say and how much support he likely has from other politicians at this point?
PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Rosemary, it's six weeks now roughly until this country will vote on whether to stay in or around of the European Union. And today, we're expected to see something of an escalation in the campaigns on both sides of this question.
First, you're right, we're about to hear from the British Prime Minister. Up until now, the debate has largely centered on pretty dry stuff, economics mostly, trade, economic growth, jobs.
Today, the Prime Minister is going to be talking about war and peace. He's going to talk about how Britain's future its national interest is intimately connected to the stability of the European continent - that without Britain's direct involvement in the European Union - war on the continent becomes more likely, that's bad for the world that especially bad for Britain.
You can expect something of a sweeping historical argument, I think from the Prime Minister today talking about how Britain, its past, the wars, the sacrifices that it's taken part in have been very much connected to the wars that have taken place on the continent itself.
Now we expect the Prime minister to be speaking in a few moments and this is going to be something of a more passionate speech.
He's going to be appealing to patriotism really. And this is important because the key argument for leaving the European Union is very much based on patriotism.
It's all about the issue of sovereignty. The idea that Britain has given up its sovereignty, its ability to control its own affairs, given that up to baseless, not democratically elected officials and bureaucrats in Brussels.
It's very much the core philosophy behind the Brexit campaign. The prime minister will today be trying to boost that patriotic feeling behind the remain campaign, if you like, by talking about Britain's big, bold, influential role in the world international affairs and how Britain's part the part it plays in the European Union is intimately connected to all of that, Rosemary.
CHURCH: And, Phil, while we were listening to you of course, were saying there are some numbers because I am interested when you say this vote will take place in about six weeks or so, this public referendum.
What on the whole, what guidance are we getting from variety of poles indicating where people stand and what sort of impact is this speech today likely to have when you're talking about war versus speech. That has a lot of impact.
BLACK: Yes, the race appears to be pretty tight at the moment. The opinion poll show there's consistently there is a poll out today that shows support to leave is at about 40 percent. Support to remain, at about 42, with say, 13 percent undecided. That's pretty close.
But, as we say, we got six weeks to go. This is where the real hard selling will begin now. And the efforts to persuade those undecided voters will of course be key there.
And so, you're right. I mean, this is why the prime minister is looking perhaps for a more passionate, a motive reason for staying within the European Union.
On the one hand, you've got the Brexit campaign is campaigning very strongly on this issue of sovereignty. And that's something that British people feel and there is considerable concern about that.
And I think that you'll find that even among those who support staying within the European Union, that even they are not happy with the degree of sovereignty that Britain has sacrifice in order to be part of that grouping.
So, what we are hearing now from the prime minister today will an argument that says Britain is better, safer, stronger, very influential, and not only Britain's the national interest, but peace in the continent and indeed peace in the world that comes down to the decision that we make at the ballot box in about six weeks' time, Rosemary.
[03:04:59] It will be interesting to see how much that speech resonates with the voters. There, of course, we are waiting still to hear from Prime Minister David Cameron.
As soon as that happens, we will take you there. Many thanks to our Phil Black. We'll also bring our Phil Black back with us after that speech. Many thanks again.
All right. let's move on for now. Of course, we'll return to that when it happens. But I want to move to a developing news story out of North Korea.
The country is expelling a BBC correspondent after authorities took issue with what they called disrespectful reporting, especially about on leader Kim Jong-un.
The BBC says that Rupert Wingfield-Hayes and two other employees were held and questioned by officials for about eight hours or so. They added that Wingfield Hayes was released but only after signing a statement. The BBC is now trying to get all three journalists out of the country.
And earlier, our CNN's Will Ripley spoke to us from Pyongyang about why the reporter was being expelled. Take a listen.
WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ... in here to cover the Workers' Party Congress specifically. But he was invited in with a group of Nobel laureates who came here to have discussions with North Korean officials and they made various stops touring around the country last week and over the weekend.
They say that his reporting was disrespectful of the supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. They also say that he violated local customs and acted in an aggressive manner during the different times during his trip. This is the accusation by North Korea.
And so as he was -- actually I saw Rupert yesterday at the Yanggakdo Hotel as we were shooting the report. He said that he had been spoken to very harshly earlier by the North Korean authorities about his reporting.
He hadn't been reporting for the past few days. We believe he was at the hotel, the Yanggakdo Hotel which is different from where we're at here, we're here at different hotel, the Corio hotel. The Yanggakdo was on an island separate from the rest of the city.
Anyway, he'd been there for the past few days, not filing any reports and had told me yesterday that he wanted to get on a plane today to leave the country.
According to the North Koreans as he was at the airport, he was detained and questioned. A BBC correspondent who was at this press briefing and were just a handful of news outlets there, he actually used the word "interrogated" and tried to ask the North Korean official if and how the rest of the world would view the fact that North Korea detained and punished a journalist for reporting thing that they don't agree with?
But that question was not answered. The official walked out of the room. We have now actually just been told that I need to put on a suit, bring my passport and we need to bring our camera and go back over the Yanggakdo.
Typically, when we have to dress up and bring our passport, it means that there's some sort of an interview with an official but we don't know who our going to be speaking to or what the topic will be.
Obviously, this is very sensitive issue for all journalists who come in to North Korea to report. And the North Koreans take very seriously any comments made about their leader.
CHURCH: Will Ripley reporting there.
I want to turn to the Philippines now. Millions of voters are lining up at the polls to cast ballots for their next president and other officials. A controversial mayor was leading the presidential race ahead of the elections.
And now our Michael Holmes has more on the campaign and the candidates.
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Campaign ads line quiet streets in the Philippines. Philippine law prohibits active campaigning by the candidates in the 24 hours leading up to an election. But the mood as voting gets underway is anything but quite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARY GRACE LUZ, FRUIT VENDOR (TRANSLATED): I'm weighing up who is the best candidate that will make the country even better. A place where there is peace and order.
JINKY DESTAJO, HOPELESS MOTHER (TRANSLATED): I hope whoever becomes the president; they will help the homeless, provide work for our husbands and run the Philippines well.
JORGE MAYOR, SHOP OWNER (TRANSLATED): Someone who can make the prices of goods go down so that for us, who are poor, we can make a better living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: All right. I want to take you now to British Prime Minister David Cameron speaking now about the case for remaining in the European Union.
DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Here at the British museum. In 45 days' time, the British people will go to polling stations across our islands and cast their ballots in the way we've done in this country for generations.
They will, as usual, weigh up the arguments, reflect on them quietly, discuss them with friends and family and then calmly and without fuss take their decision.
But this time, their decision will not be for a parliament or even two. They will decide the destiny of our country. Not for five years or for 10, but in all probability, for decades. Perhaps, a lifetime.
This is a decision that is bigger than any individual politician or government. It will have real, permanent, and direct consequences for this country and every person living in it.
[03:10:03] Should we continue to forge our future as a proud independent nation while remaining a member of the European Union as we have been for the last 43 years, or should we abandoned it?
Let me say at the outset that I understand why many people are wrestling with this decision and why some people's heads and hearts are torn. And I understand and respect the views of those who think we should leave, even if I believe they're wrong and that leaving would inflict real damage on our country, its economy and its power in the world.
I believe that despite its faults and its frustrations, the United Kingdom is stronger, safer, and better off by remaining a member of the European Union. Better off certain. We're part of a single market of 500 million people which Britain helped to create.
Our goods and crucially our services which account for almost 80 percent of our economy can trade freely by right. We help decide the rules. The advantages of this far out way any disadvantages.
Our membership of the single market is one of the reasons why our economy is doing so well. Why we've created almost 2.4 million jobs over the last six years and why so many companies from overseas, from China, from India, from United States, and Australia and other common wealth countries invest so much here in the U.K.
It's one of the factors together with our superb workforce the low taxes set by the British government and our climate of enterprise, which makes Britain such an excellent place to do business.
All this is alongside, let us note, our attractive regulatory environment.
According to the OECD it is second only to the Netherlands, itself an E.U. member, giving the lie to those who claim that the British economy is being strangled by red tape from Brussels.
If we leave the only certainty we'll have is uncertainty. The treasury is calculated that the cost to every household in Britain would be as high as 4,300 pounds by 2030 if we leave, 4,300.
The overwhelming weight of independent opinion from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD, from the London School of Economics to the Institute of Fiscal Studies also supports the fact that Britain will suffer and a major economic shock and then be permanently poorer for the long term. The evidence is clear. We'll be better off in, and poorer if we leave.
To Charles Dunstone, the founder of Carphone Warehouse, an entrepreneur, not averse to risk has said, "In my experience there are calculated risks, there are clever risks and there are unnecessary and dangerous risks. And from all I can conclude Brexit sits firmly in the latter camp."
So, the onus is on those who advocate leaving to prove that Britain will be better off outside the E.U. Those advocating Brexit some of them spend many years advocating for this moment, and yet, they seem unable to set out a clear and comprehensive plan for our future outside the E.U.
Some admit there would be a severe economic shock, but assert nonchalantly that it would be a price worth paying.
Others are in denial that there would be a shock at all. And they can't agree what their plan for post-Brexit Britain would look like.
One minute we are urged to follow Norway, the next minute Canada. A few days later, Switzerland offers the path forward, until it becomes clear that their arrangement doesn't provide much access for services to the E.U.'s single market - and services, as I've said, are almost four fifths of the British economy.
Most recently, the Leavers have noticed that a number of European countries that sit outside of the E.U. have negotiated separate trade arrangements with the E.U. They called this collection of countries the European free trade zone.
But in fact, this doesn't exist. It's a patchwork of different arrangements, all of them far inferior to what we have now.
They have gone on to suggest that Britain might join this non-existent zone, just like Albania.
Seriously? Even the Albanian Prime Minister thought that idea was a joke.
The Leave campaign are asking us to take a massive risk with the future of our economy and the future of our country. And yet they can't even answer the most basic questions.
What would Britain's relationship be with the E.U. if we were to leave? Will we have a free trade agreement, or will we fall back on World Trade Organization rules?
[03:35:00] The man who headed the WTO for eight years thinks this would be and I quote, "a terrible replacement for access to the E.U. single market."
Now some of them say we would keep full access to the E.U. single market.
If so, we would have to accept freedom of movement, a contribution to the E.U. budget, and accept all E.U. rules while surrendering any say over them.
In which case, we would have given up sovereignty rather than taken it back.
Others say we would definitely leave the single market, including, yesterday, the Vote Leave campaign - despite the critical importance of the single market to jobs and investment in our country.
I can only describe this as a reckless and irresponsible course. These are people's jobs and livelihoods that are being toyed with. And the Leave campaign have no answers to the most basic questions.
What access would we try to secure back into the single market from the outside? How long would it take to negotiate a new relationship with the E.U.? What would happen to the 53 trade deals that we have with other markets around the world through the E.U.?
The Leave campaign can't answer them because they don't know the answers. They have no plan.
And yet, skeptical voters who politely ask for questions are denounced for their lack of faith in Britain, or met with sweeping assurances that the world will simply jump to our tune.
If you were buying a house or a car, you wouldn't do it without insisting on seeing what was being offered, and making sure it wasn't going to fall apart the moment you took possession of it.
So, why would you do so when the future of your entire country is at stake? The British people will keep asking these questions every day between now and 23rd of June, and demanding some answers. Because nothing is more important than the strength of our economy.
Upon it depends the jobs and livelihoods of our people, and also the strength and security of our nation.
If we stay, we know what we get - continued full access to a growing single market, including in energy, services and digital, together with the benefit of the huge trade deals in prospect between the E.U. and the United States and other large markets.
If we leave, it is, genuinely, a leap in the dark.
But my main focus today will not be on the economic reasons to remain in the E.U., important though they are. I want to concentrate instead on what our membership means for our strength and security in the world, and the safety of our people, and to explain why, again, I believe the balance of advantage comes down firmly in favor of staying rather than leaving.
Because this is a decision about also about our place in the world, about how we keep our country safe, about how Britain can get things done in Europe and across the world and not just accept a world dictated by others.
So, today, I want to set out the big, bold patriotic case for Britain to remain a member of the European Union.
I want to show that if you love this country, if you want to keep it strong in the world, and keep our people safe, our membership of the E.U. is one of the tools - one of the tools - that helps us to do these things, like our membership of other international bodies such as NATO or the U.N. Security Council.
Let us accept that for all our differences, one thing unites both sides in this referendum campaign.
We love this country, and we want the best future for it. Ours is a great country. Not just a great country in the history books, although it surely is that. But a great country right now, with the promise of becoming even greater tomorrow.
We're the fifth largest economy in the world. Europe's foremost military power. Our capital city is a global icon. Our national language the world's language.
Our national flag is worn on clothing and t-shirts the world over - not only as a fashion statement, but as a symbol of hope and a beacon for liberal values around the world.
People from all four corners of the earth watch our films, dance to our music, flock to our galleries and theatres, cheer on our football teams and cherish our institutions.
These days, even our food is admired the world over. Our national broadcaster is one of the most recognized brands on the planet, and our monarch is one of the most respected people in the world.
Britain today is a proud, successful, thriving nation, a nation the world admires and looks up to, and whose best days lie ahead of it.
[03:20:06] We are the product of our long history - of the decision of our forebears, of the heroism of our parents and grandparents. And yet, we are a country that also has our eyes fixed firmly on the future - that is a pioneer in the modern world, from the birth of the internet to the decoding of the genome.
If there is one constant in the ebb and flow of our island story, it is the character of the British people. Our geography has shaped us, and shapes us today. We are special, different, unique.
We have the character of an island nation which has not been invaded for almost a thousand years, and which has built institutions which have endured for centuries.
As a people, we are ambitious, resilient, independent-minded. And, I might add, tolerant, generous, and inventive.
But above all we are obstinately practical, rigorously down to earth, natural debunkers. We approach issues with a cast of mind rooted in common sense. We are rightly suspicious of ideology, and skeptical of grand schemes and grandiose promises. So, we have always seen the European Union as a means to an end - the way to boost our prosperity and help anchor peace and stability across the European continent, but we don't see it as an end in itself.
We insistently ask, why? How? And as we weigh up the competing arguments in this referendum campaign, we must apply that practical rigor which is the hallmark of being British.
Would going it alone make Britain more powerful in the world? Would we be better able to get our way, or less able?
Would going it alone make us more secure from terrorism, or would it be better to remain and cooperate closely with our neighbors?
Would going it alone really give us more control over our affairs, or would we soon find that actually we had less, and that we had given up a secure future for one beset by years of uncertainty and trouble with no way back?
Would going it alone open up new opportunities, or would it in fact close them down and narrow our options?
That is certainly the approach I've taken to judging whether Britain is stronger and safer inside the European Union or leaving it. And I have just one yardstick. How do we best advance our national interest?
Keeping our people safe at home and abroad, and molding the world in the way that we want, more peaceful, more stable, more free, with the arteries of commerce and trade flowing freely.
That is our national interest in a nutshell and it's the question that has confronted every British prime minister since the office was created. How do we best advance Britain's interests in the circumstances of the day?
If my experience as Prime Minister had taught me that our membership of the E.U. was holding Britain back or undermining our global influence, I would not hesitate to recommend that we should leave.
But my experience is the opposite. The reason that I want Britain to stay in a reformed European Union is in part because of my experience over the last six years is that it does help make our country better off, safer and stronger.
And there are four reasons why this is the case.
First, what happens in Europe affects us, whether we like it or not, so we must be strong in Europe if we want to be strong at home and in the world.
Second, the dangerous international situation facing Britain today, means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbors isn't an optional extra - it is essential. We need to stand united. Now is a time for strength in numbers.
Third, keeping our people safe from modern terrorist networks like Daesh and from serious crime that increasingly crosses borders, means that we simply have to develop much closer means of security cooperation between countries within Europe. Britain needs to be fully engaged with that.
Fourth, far from Britain's influence in the world being undermined by our membership of the E.U., it amplifies our power, like our membership of the U.N. or of NATO. It helps us achieve the things we want, whether it is fighting Ebola in Africa, tackling climate change, taking on the people smugglers. That's not just our view as well; it's the view of our friends and allies, too.
Now let me go through this in turn.
First, Europe is our immediate neighborhood, and what happens on the continent affects us profoundly, whether we like it or not.
[03:25:00] Our history teaches us, the stronger we are in our neighborhood, the stronger we are in the world.
For 2,000 years, our affairs have been intertwined with the affairs of Europe. For good or ill, we've written Europe's history just as Europe has helped to write ours.
From Caesar's legions to the wars of the Spanish Succession, from the Napoleonic Wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Proud as we are of our global reach and our global connections, Britain has always been a European power, and we always will be.
We know that to be a global power and to be a European power are not mutually exclusive. And the moments of which we are rightly most proud in our national story include pivotal moments in European history.
Blenheim. Trafalgar. Waterloo. Our country's heroism in the Great War.
And most of all our lone stand in 1940, when Britain stood as a bulwark against a new dark age of tyranny and oppression.
When I sit in the Cabinet Room, I never forget the decisions that were taken in that room in those darkest of times.
When I fly to European summits in Brussels from RAF Northolt, I pass a Spitfire just outside the airfield, a vital base for brave RAF and Polish pilots during the Battle of Britain.
I think of the Few who saved this country in its hour of mortal danger, and who made it possible for us to go on and help liberate Europe. Like any Brit, my heart swells with pride at the sight of that aircraft, or whenever I hear the tell-tale roar of those Merlin engines over our skies in the summer.
Defiant, brave, indefatigable.
But it wasn't through choice that Britain was alone. Churchill never wanted that. Indeed he spent the months before the Battle of Britain trying to keep our French allies in the war, and then after France fell, he spent the next 18 months persuading the United States to come to our aid.
And in the post-war period he argued passionately for Western Europe to come together, to promote free trade, and to build institutions which would endure so that our continent would never again see such bloodshed.
Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to make that assumption.
It's barely been 20 years since war in the Balkans and genocide on our continent in Srebrenica. In the last few years, we've seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine. And of this I am completely sure.
The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each other's throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries.
And that requires British leadership, and for Britain to remain a member. The truth is this, what happens in our neighborhood matters to Britain.
That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it's just as true in 2016.
Either we influence Europe, or it influences us. And if things go wrong in Europe, let's not pretend we can be immune from the consequences.
Second, the international situation confronting Britain today means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbors isn't an optional extra. It is essential for this country's security and our ability to get things done in the world.
We see a newly belligerent Russia. The rise of the Daesh network to our east and to our south. The migration crisis. Dealing with these requires unity of purpose in the west.
Sometimes you hear the Leave campaign talk about these issues as if they are - in and of themselves - reasons to leave the E.U.
But we can't change the continent to which we are attached. We can't tow our island to a more congenial part of the world.
The threats affect us whether we're in the E.U. or not, and Britain washing its hands of helping to deal with them will only make the problems worse.
[03:30:05] Within Europe they require a shared approach by the European democracies, more than at any time since the height of the Cold War.
It's true, of course, that it is to NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance that we look to for our defense.
The principle enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty - that an attack on one is an attack on all - that remains the cornerstone of our national defense.
That fundamental sharing of national sovereignty in order to deter potential aggressors. That is as valid today as it was when NATO was founded in 1949.
It is an example of how real control is more important than the theory of sovereignty.
The European Union and the close culture of intergovernmental cooperation between governments which it embodies is a vital tool in our armory to deal with these threats.
That's why NATO and top military opinion - British, American, European - is clear that the common purpose of the E.U. does not undermine NATO, it is a vital reinforcement to it.
And they are equally crystal clear. Britain's departure would weaken solidarity and the unity of the west as a whole.
Now some of those who wish us to leave the E.U. openly say that they hope the entire organization will unravel as a result. I find this extraordinary.
How could it possibly be in our interests to risk the clock being turned back to an age of competing nationalisms in Europe?
And for Britain, of all countries, to be responsible for triggering such a collapse would be an act of supreme irresponsibility, entirely out of character for us as a nation.
Others suggest that Britain stalking out could lead to and I quote, "the democratic liberation of an entire continent."
Well, tell that to the Poles, the Czechs, the Baltic States and the other countries of central and Eastern Europe which languished for so long behind the Iron Curtain.
They cherish their liberty and their democracy. They see Britain as the country that did more than any other to unlock their shackles and enable them to take their rightful place in the family of European nations.
And frankly, they view the prospect of Britain leaving the E.U. with utter dismay. They watch what is happening in Moscow with alarm and trepidation. Now is a time for strength in numbers. Now is the worst possible time for Britain to put that at risk. Only our adversaries will benefit.
Now third, the evolving threats to our security and the rise of the Daesh network mean that we have to change the way we work to keep our people safe.
Security today is not only a matter of hard defense, of stopping tanks. It's also about rooting out terrorist networks, just as it is about detecting illegal immigrants, stopping human trafficking and organized crime. And that makes much closer security and cooperation between our European nations essential.
Now I have no greater responsibility than the safety of the people of this country, and keeping us all safe from the terrorist threat.
As the Home Secretary said in her speech a fortnight ago, being in the E.U. helps to makes us safer. We shouldn't put ourselves at risk by leaving.
One of her predecessors, Charles Clarke, reiterated that only this morning.
And the message of Jonathan Evans and John Sawers, former heads of MI5 and MI6 respectively, is absolutely unmistakable. Britain is safer inside the European Union.
Now during the last six years, the terrorist threat against this country has grown. Our threat level is now at ' "severe," which means that an attack is 'highly likely.' Indeed such an attack could happen at any time.
But the threat has not only grown, it has changed in its nature.
The attacks in Paris and Brussels are a reminder that we face this threat together and we will only succeed in overcoming it by working much more closely together.
These terrorists operate throughout Europe; their networks use technology to spread their poison and to organize beyond geographical limits.
Now people say that to keep our defenses up, you need a border. And they're right. And that's why we kept our borders, and we can check any passport - including for E.U. nationals - and we retain control over who we allow into our country.
But against the modern threat, having a border isn't enough. You also need information, you need data, you need intelligence. You need to cooperate with others to create mechanisms for sharing this information.
[03:34:50] And, just as the Home Secretary said a fortnight ago, I can tell you this, whether it's working together to share intelligence on suspected terrorists; whether it's strengthening aviation security; addressing the challenge of cybercrime; preventing cross-border trade in firearms; tackling the migration crisis; or enhancing our own border security, the E.U. is not some peripheral institution, or a hindrance we have to work around - it is now an absolutely central part of how Britain can get things done.
Not by creating some vast new E.U. bureaucracy. Nor by sucking away the role and capabilities of our own world beating intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
But because their superb work depends on much closer cooperation between European governments and much faster and more determined action across Europe to deal with this new threat.
As the historian Niall Ferguson observed, it takes a network to defeat a network. And European measures are a key weapon.
The European Arrest Warrant allows us to bring criminals and terrorists, like one of the failed 21/7 Tube bombers who had fled to Italy, we could bring them back to the U.K. to face justice straight away.
Our membership of Europol gives us access to important databases that help us to identify criminals. And we have begun to cooperate on DNA and fingerprint matching across borders, too. These tools help us in real-time, life-or-death situations.
One of the Paris attackers, Salah Abdeslam, was only identified quickly after the attack because the French police were able to use E.U. powers to exchange DNA and fingerprints with the Belgians.
Before this cooperation, DNA matching between two countries didn't take minutes, it could take over four months.
In the last few months alone, we have agreed a new Passenger Name Records directive, so that E.U. countries will have access to airline passenger data to enable us to identify those on terror watch-lists.
These new arrangements will also provide crucial details about how the tickets were bought, the bank accounts used and the people they are travelling with.
And the E.U. has recently switched on a new database, called SIS II, which is providing real-time alerts for suspected Jihadists and other serious criminals.
Now I don't argue that if we left we would lose any ability to cooperate with our neighbors on a bilateral basis, or even potentially through some E.U. mechanisms.
But it's clear that leaving the E.U. will make cooperation more legally complex and make our access to vital information much slower and more difficult.
Look at. for instance, Norway and Iceland, they began negotiating an extradition agreement with the E.U. in 2001, and yet, today, it is still not in force. And of course we will miss out on the benefits of these new arrangements, and any that develop in future. Now you can take the view that we don't need this cooperation that we can just do without these extra capabilities.
But that in my view is a totally complacent view. Especially in a world where the difference between a prevented attack and a successful attack can be just one missing piece of data; one piece of the jigsaw that the agencies found too late.
You can also decide, as some on the Leave campaign seriously do, that even though working together is helpful for keeping us safe, it involves giving up too much sovereignty and ceding too much power over security cooperation to the European Court of Justice.
My view is this. When terrorists are planning to kill and maim people on British streets, the closest possible security cooperation is far more important than sovereignty in its purest theoretical form. I want to give our country real power, not the illusion of power.
Now fourth, Britain's unique position and power in the world is not defined by our membership of the E.U., any more than it is by our membership of the Commonwealth or the U.N. Security Council or the OECD or the IMF or the myriad other international organizations to which we belong.
But our E.U. membership, like our membership of other international organizations, magnifies our national power.
Britain is a global nation, with a global role and a global reach.
We take our own decisions, in our own interests. We always have done, we always will do.
In the years since we joined the EU, we've shown that time and again with British, national, sovereign decisions about our foreign and defense policy taken by British prime ministers and British ministers.
Liberating the Falkland Islands in a great feat of military endeavor. Freeing Kuwait from Iraq.
And, more recently, our mission to prevent Afghanistan continuing to be a safe haven for international terrorists.
As I speak here today, we are flying policing missions over the Baltic states. Training security forces in Nigeria. And of course, taking the fight to Daesh in Syria and Iraq.
[03:40:01] So, the idea that our membership of the E.U. has emasculated our power as a nation - this is complete nonsense.
Indeed, over the last 40 years, our global power has grown, not diminished.
In the years before we joined the E.U., British governments presided over a steady retrenchment of our world role, borne by our economic weakness. The decision to retreat East of Suez and abandon our aircraft carriers was taken in 1968.
Since then, starting with the transformation of our economy by Margaret Thatcher, we've turned around our fortunes.
In the 21st century, Britain is once again a country that is advancing, not retreating. We have reversed the East of Suez policy, we are building permanent military bases in the Gulf, we are opening embassies all around the world, particularly in Asia.
We have a new strategic relationship with both China and India, we've committed to spending 2 percent of our GDP on defense - one of only five NATO nations to be meeting that target.
Our expertise in aid, development and responding to crises is admired the world over. We are renewing our independent nuclear deterrent. Our two new aircraft carriers will be the biggest warships the Royal Navy has ever put to sea.
These are the actions of a proud, independent, self-confident, go- getting nation, a nation that is confident and optimistic about its future, not one cowed and shackled by its membership of the European Union.
On the contrary, our membership of the E.U. is one of the tools, just one, which we use, as we do our membership of NATO, or the Commonwealth, or the Five Power Defense Agreement with Australia, New Zealand and our allies in South East Asia, to amplify British power and to enhance our influence in the world.
Decisions on foreign policy are David said, are taken in the E.U. by unanimity. Britain has a veto.
So, suggestions of an E.U. army are fanciful. National security is a national competence, and we would veto any suggestion of an E.U. army.
But as we sit in Britain's National Security Council, time and again I know that making Britain's actions count for far more means working with other countries in the EU.
Let me just take three specific examples of what I mean.
When Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, there was a real risk of a feeble European response, and of a split between the United States and Europe.
I convened a special meeting of the key European countries in Brussels, agreed a package of sanctions, and then drove that package through the full meeting of E.U. leaders - the European Council - later that same evening. I could not have done that outside the E.U.
An example of Britain injecting steel into Europe's actions; delivering sanctions which have been far more effective because 28 countries are implementing them, not just the U.K. And at the same time, we maintained that crucial unity between Europe and the U.S. in the face of Russian aggression.
On Iran, again, it was Britain that pushed hardest for the implementation of an E.U. oil embargo against that country. And it was the embargo which helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately led to the UN sanctions that led to Iran abandoning its ambition to build a nuclear weapon.
Who led those negotiations? It was the EU, with Britain playing a central role.
And on Ebola, it was Britain that used the European Council to push leaders into massively increasing Europe's financial contribution to tackling the disease in West Africa, thereby helping to contain and deal with what was a major public health emergency.
If Britain left the E.U., we would lose that tool.
The German Chancellor would be there. The French President. The Italian Prime Minister. So would the Maltese, the Slovak, the Czech, the Polish, the Slovene, as well as all the others.
But Britain , the fifth largest economy in the world, the second biggest in Europe would be absent, outside the room. We would no longer take those decisions which have a direct bearing on Britain.
Instead, we would have to establish an enormous diplomatic mission in Brussels to try and lobby participants before those meetings took place, and then try and find out what had happened at them once they broke up.
Would we really be sitting around congratulating ourselves on how sovereign we feel, without any control over events that affect us?
What an abject act of national retreat that would be for our great country, a diminution of Britain's power inflicted for the first time in our history not by economic woe or but military defeat, but entirely of our own accord.
And when it comes to the strength of our United Kingdom, we should never forget that our strength is that of a voluntary union of four nations.
[03:45:04] So, let me just say this about Scotland. You don't renew your country by taking a decision that could, ultimately, lead to its disintegration.
So, as we weigh up this decision, let's do so with our eyes open.
And, of course, there is something closely connected to our power and influence that is absolutely vital, and that's the view of Britain's closest friends and allies.
Before you take any big decision in life, it's natural to consult those who wish you well, who are with you in the tough times as well as in the good times.
Sometimes they offer contradictory advice. Sometimes they don't have much of a view. That's not the case here. Our allies have a very clear view. They want us to remain members of the European Union. Not only our fellow members of the E.U., they want us to stay, and could be resentful if we chose to leave.
The Leave campaign keep telling us that there is a big world out there, if only we could lift our sights beyond Europe. But the problem is they don't seem to hearing what that big world is saying.
There is our principal and indispensable ally, the guarantor of our security - the United States - whose President made the American position very plain, as only the oldest and best friends can.
And then there are the nations to which we are perhaps closest in the world, our cousins in Australia and New Zealand, whose prime ministers have spoken out so clearly.
The Secretary General of NATO says that a weakened and divided Europe would be "bad for security and bad for NATO."
Only on Thursday, the Japanese Prime Minister - whose country is such a huge investor and employer in the United Kingdom - made very clear that Japan hoped that the U.K. would decide to remain in the E.U.
So too of big emerging economies like Indonesia.
And then there are our major new trading and strategic relationships, China and India, in whom some of the Leave campaign claim to invest such great hopes, at least when they're not saying they are going to impose hefty tariffs on them. But these countries too want us to remain in the E.U.
So from America to Asia, from Australasia and the Indian sub- continent, our friends and our biggest trading partners, or potential trading partners, are telling us very clearly. It's your decision. But we hope you vote to stay in the European Union.
By the way, so too are our own Dependent Territories, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands with whom we have such a special bond and for whom we have such a special responsibility.
And so? Next month we will make our choice as a nation. I am very clear.
Britain is stronger and safer in the E.U., as well as better off. And the E.U. benefits from Britain being inside rather than out.
This is a Europe that Britain has helped to shape. A continent that Britain helped liberate not once in the last century, but twice.
And we always wanted two things from the E.U. One, the creation of a vast single market; one we thought would benefit our economy enormously and spread prosperity throughout our neighborhood.
And two, a Europe in which Britain helped the nations which languished under Communism return to the European fold; nations who still look to us as a friend and protector and do not want us to abandon them now.
We've got both of those things. We did all that. And imagine if we hadn't been there. Who would have driven forward the single market? Who would have prevented Europe from becoming a protectionist bloc? Who would have stopped the E.U. from becoming a single currency zone?
Who would have stood up and said no to those pushing for political union? Who would have done these things?
Because the truth is that if we were not in it, the European Union would in all likelihood still exist. So we would still have to deal with it.
Now we have the opportunity to have what we have always wanted, to be in the single market, but out of the euro.
To be at the European Council, with our full voting and veto rights, but specifically exempted from ever closer union.
To have the opportunity to work, live and travel in other E.U. countries, but to retain full controls at our border.
To take part in the home affairs cooperation that benefits our security, but outside those measures we don't like.
And to keep our currency. That is, frankly, the best of both worlds.
No wonder our friends and allies want us to take it. To lead, not to quit. It's what the Chinese call a win win. The Americans would probably say it's a slam dunk.
We are Britain. No one seriously suggests any more that after 40 years in the E.U., we have become less British.
We're proud. We're independent. We get things done. So let's not walk away from the institutions that help us to win in the world.
Let's not walk away from the EU, any more than we would walk away from the U.N., or from NATO.
[03:50:04] We are bigger than that.
So I say, instead, let us remain, let us fight our corner, let us play the part we should, as a great power in the world, and a great and growing power in Europe.
That is the big, bold, and patriotic decision for Britain on June the 23rd.
CHURCH: The U.K. is stronger, safer and better off by remaining a member of the E.U.
Listening there to the Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron , making his case for Britain to stay within the E.U.
I want to bring in our Phil Black who's been standing by at 10 Downing Street in in London listening to this.
A lot of fear talking about terrorism, security sited as powerful reasons to stay and how they can share Intel. That they'll be poorer if they bailout.
So, from that, can we expect to see some voters possibly pulled over into the camp of staying within the E.U.?
BLACK: Well, fear is an interesting question in this whole debate, Rosemary. Because the great criticism of the Brexit campaign is those who want Britain to get out, they claim that much of the prime minister's rhetoric happen to this point has been based around fear.
They labeled it as project fear.
What the prime minister was probably trying to do today, we think is to try and establish, in his words, "that big, bold, patriotic case," that talks about Britain being proud and successful having that long, proud independent history being more so now and looking forward to an even greater history indeed.
So, it was interesting. It was a very emotional speech, really and patriotism was certainly at its core. It took in the sweep of history, it took in the sweep of Britain's involvement in conflicts on the European continent.
He talked about war graves of British soldiers, he talked about the Battle of Britain, the roar of the Spitfire engine and how that even makes his heart swell.
There's no doubt that this was all about patriotism and pride in Britain and where it is, where it stands and very much an answer to what is the patriotic case of the Brexit camp, that is that Britain has given up too much of its sovereignty that is a lesser nation because of its involvement in Britain.
So at every level the prime minister there was trying to turn that around. Stronger and safer, these are the key issues that he was really hammering home.
And he talked about it in various terms, even saying that Europe, you cannot be assured that there cannot be more conflict on the European continent; that he would never be so rash to say that and that in order to insure that that doesn't happen again, Europe needs Britain's engagement and leadership. Rosemary.
CHURCH: The public referendum is in about six weeks, we will know then where the public stands, but of course, there will be much discussion and debate throughout the day as people digest what David Cameron had to say.
Our Phil Back standing out there at the front of 10 Downing Street. Many thanks to you. And Russia is holding its annual military parade to celebrate victory day. Moscow is beaming with pride as the country commemorates victory over the Germans back in 1945.
There are also will be a reclaim ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier.
And our Matthew Chance is in Moscow's Red Square right in the heart of those festivities. And of course, we're seeing you again, same as last hour. Beautiful weather. Talk to us about how the day is likely to play out and what people are feeling on this day.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you're right. An absolutely scorching day and you can see the parade in Red Square has already begun. These are elements of the military equipment that have been paraded already through Red Square, then you can make out some aircraft flying over the Kremlin right now as well.
It really is a display of national pride today. And you can see tens of thousands of people have turned up lining the streets of Central Moscow to first of all, first and foremost, to commemorate the millions of people who died in the Second World War from Russia or what was called it the great patriotic war.
Estimates of the death toll from this part of the world between 25 and 28 million people.
And so, virtually every family across this region is touched by it. They still remember it very strongly and it's a deeply solemn occasion, but it's not just about the past, it's about the present as well. It's an opportunity for the Kremlin to show off their latest military hardware.
That's what we're seeing right now their latest military jets flying through the air. The Soviet air jet is as well of course.
I can see a supersonic nuclear bomber flying over Red Square right now as we speak. As the latest military tanks and hardware files past to celebratory crowds through the streets of Moscow.
[03:55:07] So, you know, this is a day of remembrance but it's also a day of national pride and triumphalism on the part of the Russian nation. Rosemary.
CHURCH: All right. Our Matthew Chance there. A glorious day in Moscow.
And just before we go, just very quickly, we haven't got a lot of time, but President Vladimir Putin will expect to see him there of course and what will his role be in this day?
CHANCE: Well, of course, he's the grand chief, that the parade has already begun. There's already been a march past Vladimir Putin, as the troops - thousands of them - saluting him. And now these aircrafts are flying past the stand where he will be standing. He's already paid tribute to the millions of war dead in acts a minute of silence before this parade went underway. But that mood of solemnity of pensionable commemoration has now given way to triumphalist nationalist feeling, which is really been one of the ways the Kremlin has bolstered support for itself during the last couple of years to join this time of economic crisis in Russia and strangulations with the west.
CHURCH: All right. Russia marking World War II victory day. It is nearly 11 o'clock in the morning there. Our Matthew Chance joining us live from Moscow. Many thanks to you.
And thanks for your company. I'm Rosemary Church. Remember, you can connect with me anytime on Twitter @rosemarycnn.
Early Start coming your way for our viewers here in the U.S. For everyone else, stay tuned for CNN Newsroom with Our Max Foster in London. Have a great day.
[04:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)