May 2013 | Volume 12
The Speechwriter
Newsletter of the UK Speechwriters' Guild
Welcome
Welcome to the twelfth
edition of The Speechwriter
newsletter. The purpose of
this publication is to circulate
examples of excellent speeches to
members of the UK Speechwriters’
Guild. We do this by picking out
openings, closings, one-liners
and quotations and other topical
extracts from newspapers and the
internet to identify techniques,
stimulate your imagination and
provide models which you can
emulate.
This newsletter appears
quarterly and is available to
anyone who is a Standard
Member of the UK Speechwriters’
Guild or the European
Speechwriter Network.
Contribute
Every quarter we award
the Demosthenes Pebble (£25
Amazon token) for an outstanding
speech. Please send your
speeches to:
8 info@ukspeechwritersguild.co.uk
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
EUROPEAN
incorporating
SPEECHWRITER
NETWORK
MASTERCLASS by Peggy Noonan
Don’t be sophisticated. Be
commonsensical. Speeches
actually have to say things. And
great speeches are great because
they say great things. Speeches
that consist merely of the
stringing together of pretty words
and pretty sentiments are not
great, and never live.
F ormer White House
speechwriter, Peggy Noonan,
“A great speech
wrote a book called How to Give a
Good Speech. She has some unusual
is literature”
recommendations for speechwriters.
An appropriate speech is one that Good hard simple words with
doesn’t call particular attention good hard clear meanings are
good things to use when you
to itself. There’s the Coco Chanel
story - she said that if a woman speak. They are like pickets in a
walks into a room wearing one fence, slim and unimpressive on
of her dresses and everyone their own but sturdy and effective
says: ‘What a dress!’ then she has when strung together.
failed. But if the woman walks
People like short digressions,
into the room and people say, ‘Oh,
they’re a short stop on a long
you look fabulous,’ then she has
drive.
succeeded. You want people to
say after hearing you, ‘She’s very
Use humour where you can. Why?
intelligent, she made some really
Because it makes people laugh.
interesting points,’ Not, ‘Oh, what
No one ever left a speech saying,
an interesting speech.’
‘He was too witty,’ or ‘I hated the
way she made me laugh out loud.’
Once you’ve finished a first draft
of your speech - stand up and
Reading is the collection of
speak it aloud. Where you falter,
intellectual income; writing the
alter.
spending of it. You need to read
to write, you need to take in other
No speech should last more
people’s words and thoughts and
than twenty minutes: Hubert
images. If you want to be a good
Humphrey’s wife is said to have
conversationalist, you must both
advised him: ‘Darling, for a speech
talk and listen; if you want to be a
to be immortal it need not be
good writer, you must both read
interminable’.
and write.
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12 2

Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild

BOOK REVIEWS Most provocatively, Shosky claims The Biteback Dictionary

that great speeches “bring out the
best in the audience”. I think his book of Humorous Political
by Alan Barker demonstrates a more equivocal Quotations
truth. The outstanding speeches by Fred Metcalf
here certainly “channel thinking,” Biteback Publishing, 2012, £9.99
The Words of Our Time: in his words, “moving it into new
speeches that made a
difference 2001-2011
territory.” Some are uplifting: Havel,
Robin Cook (his magnificent 2003
resignation speech), Ellen Johnson
A good book of quotations
is like a box of superior
chocolates. You enjoy one, and
by John Shosky
Sirleaf (of whom I was shamefully before you know it...
Biteback Publishing, 2012, £20
ignorant before opening this book).
Some offer shared enlightenment: Fred Metcalf’s collection of

T his new collection gathers 50

speeches that,
in John Shosky’s view,
Michael Bear, Slavoj Žiżek on
the Occupy movement,
political quotations is among
the most superior. His range is
Douglas Alexander. But remarkable, historically (from Cicero
have made history: to blog postings from 2012) and
others work more viscerally:
speeches that “won’t stylistically. He includes one-liners
Mitt Romney’s conflation
go away”. It’s a useful and slow-burners of up to 60 words;
of religion and politics;
album of insights into he quotes real people and fictional
Obama’s breathtakingly
the shocking decade characters (The West Wing is well
daring eulogy for the victims
we’ve just left behind. represented). Some of the humour
of the Tucson shootings;
Hugo Chavez’ notorious, is broad (including – perhaps a
Many of these texts few too many – American stand-
exhilarating tirade in 2006
would be significant, up comedians); some traditionally
at the UN, with its reference
even if they hadn’t witty; and some satirical (Yes
to Dubya and the smell of
been speeches. I’d have Minister is here). You’ll find writers,
sulphur.
welcomed a broader actors, activists and plenty of real
cultural range: despite politicians, many of them with their
Elsewhere – and he has
nods to religion (Pope Benedict) and own entries: quotation collages that
written a good set of blog posts for
science (Diana DeGette), the themes deliver caricatured, often surreal pen
Total Politics – Shosky talks about
are predominantly political and portraits.
“the healing power of language”. I’m
economic. (And do we really need
not sure I buy his thesis that great
four speeches by Cameron?) The entries on national
speeches by definition “make our
community and its citizens better”. characteristics brazenly celebrate
The stylistic range is broader than their own political incorrectness.
the thematic. So what does such a Metcalf is happy to include Anon,
The outstanding speeches here
varied collection reveal about how and its more recent descendant, the
weld their audiences together with
speeches work? Shosky provokes bumper sticker (“GUNS DON’T KILL
a surge of linguistic energy; but
the question by offering nine PEOPLE. ABORTION CLINICS KILL
they don’t always “appeal to our
characteristics of great speeches. PEOPLE.”) “That’s humour at work,”
better instincts”. They compel our
How do his choices measure up? For chuckles Metcalf in his introduction;
attention and our (maybe temporary)
a start, he sees speeches as literature. “ever ready to undermine your most
acquiescence, despite our more
Great speeches, he suggests, are precious and long-held beliefs. It
rational intentions. Some “keep doing
“well written”. In which case, at least thinks it’s funny!”
their job” (Shosky’s final characteristic
three speeches here noticeably fail:
of ‘greatness’); but their real claim to
Ang San Suu Kyi (14 November 2011), One quibble. The dictionary
greatness is that they did what they
Ronald Jan Heijn (6 November 2011) is arranged by subject, including
aimed to do, at the moment of their
and Sarah Palin (6 February 2010). issues, movements, philosophies and
performance, stunningly.
political parties. My pedantic side
Great speeches are “simple” (Pope would have welcomed an index of
Maybe it’s this indefinable ‘kick’ –
Benedict?); they “tell us something authors. Use this book in two ways.
which every speechwriter searches
authentic about the speaker” (Putin?); Reach for it when you want to add
for – that makes great speeches
they “change the world” (Sarkozy? the sharp tang of a ready-made
spellbinding. And Shosky, albeit
Dan Hannan? Almost any of the quotation to a speech. And study
reluctantly, seems to agree. For good
speeches by British politicians?). it closely to discover the secrets of
or otherwise, he recognises that
“these words won’t leave us alone.” being quotable.

W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K • INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
Where Do We Belong?
A Review of Luuk van
Middelaar’s The Passage
to Europe
by William Cohen
O ne of my favourite speakers
is the Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks.
He’s also a trenchant political thinker.
One of his preoccupations is his fear
that our societies are falling apart.
He wrote a book called The Home We
Build Together, which analysed British
national identity and the challenge
of multiculturalism.
He says the British define
themselves with static images - long
shadows over the county ground,
spinsters cycling to Evensong, warm
beer etc. And he explains how
British values emerge in schools,
universities and regiments, where
enthusiasm and effort are frowned
upon. The Chief Rabbi compares
this unfavourably with America,
where there is a national purpose.
America and Israel are nations built
on covenants - powerful stories
about belonging, like the building
of the Tabernacle or rituals like the
Inaugural Address invoking the
blessing of God upon the people.
The Chief Rabbi thinks that Britain
as an idea is at risk. He proposes
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
3
a programme of ‘nation building’,
that means creating institutions
and rituals that bring the different
interests: religious, academic,
political and scientific together to
remoralise the country.
Luuk van Middelaar isn’t a rabbi,
but he has rabbinical gift for telling
good stories and making ideas
accessible. He has written a book
describing how several tribes have Luuk van Middelaar– speechwriter to Herman
come together over the past 60 years Van Rompuy
to build a ‘European’ community,
state, union or nation, depending on The German way: this is based
how you want to see it. on promoting shared destiny.
The tools to do this include a flag,
He lists three forms of European symbolic coins and pantheon of
co-operation: ‘The Europe of States’, dead ‘founders’. The mechanism
‘The Europe of Citizens’ and ‘The works in the same way as Italy was
Europe of Offices’. created. The Italian parliamentarian
Massimo d’Azeglio, shortly after
The ‘Europe of States’ is the national unification in 1860 said, ‘We
principle that European politics has have made Italy. Now we must make
most to gain from co-operation Italians’.
between governments. There is
no need for institutions. Sovereign Then there is the Roman way: this
governments pursue peace and
prosperity for their peoples through
builds a union based on rights and
freedoms and material benefits like
diplomatic exchange. security, opportunities and money.
When Margaret Thatcher stated we
want ‘our money back’ she broke a
The ‘Europe of Citizens’ is the
taboo about calculating net receipts.
principle that state powers need
The concept of ‘our’ upset the
to be transferred to a European
notion of a ‘European’ we. A Dutch
government, parliament and court
Parliamentarian has argued: ‘Money
paving the way for a federation.
The model is the American republic, makes Europe visible to residents’
and is therefore, ‘a fine way to
where central bodies exercise power
generate a European consciousness’.
over citizens directly.
And then there is the Greek
The ‘Europe of Offices’ is the
way: debate, drama and democratic
principle of transferring functions to
representation. We all need to have
a European bureaucracy. A rational
a say. They created a parliament,
bureaucracy will steer the ship. There
direct elections and a conception of
doesn’t need to be a visionary goal.
citizenship to promote these ideals.
We do see drama on the European
The European Union has
stage. National politicians have to
applied all three principles in its
square agreements at the European
development of its key institutions:
table and then their electorates
the Council, the Parliament and the
back home. British MEP’s rant and
Commission.
rave at the high and mighty of the
Commission. The British referendum,
Middelaar’s book poses the
should it happen, will be an
question, how has the idea of Europe
evolved? And what path will it important test of the Greek model.
What will happen if a nation state
pursue in the future? He enumerates
decides to leave the Union?
three conceptions of the Union.
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
Is there a European identity? Is
the association durable? It wasn’t
something that emerged as a result
of the will of the peoples, it has
been built by politicians. What it is
has in common with the founding
of Israel, is that the peoples have a
habit of backsliding and complaining
that they were better off with the
fleshpots of the past.
The Chief Rabbi states often
that Europe is dying. A culture
of “consumerism and instant
gratification” has led to falling birth
rates. He says what we need is a
creative and dynamic purpose. Since
Europe is formed from the conflict
of interests among nation states
perhaps it does have a destiny.
Maybe it’s like the Biblical Tabernacle
- the sheer fact of bringing together
the creative gifts of 27 nations:
German fiscal responsibility, French
bureaucratic dexterity, British
institutional pragmatism, creates
something greater than the sum of
its parts.
This is a beautifully translated
book, rich in ideas and reflections.
It’s a meticulous chronicle of
the vacillations, setbacks and
compromises that have characterised
the European project. Luuk van
Middelaar writes with panache. He
talks of Europe being a campfire,
with the member states having
to shuffle across to accommodate
new members. He compares the
evolution of Europe with the C12th
conception of Purgatory as an idea,
just for fun. He speculates on what
might constitute a European identity,
mentioning that a writer once
claimed to be able to tell blindfold
whether he was in Europe or
somewhere else. It turns out Europe
can be heard and smelt: barking
dogs, church bells and children
playing outdoors.
As a British person I’m grateful to
Middelaar for writing an accessible
history, a valuable reference book
and an antidote to Eurosceptic
newspaper prejudice.
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
SPEECH GIVEN BY THE DUTCH MINISTER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FRANS TIMMERMANS
Policy Network, The Guildhall, London, 28 February 2013
I want to react to what
has been said earlier.
Especially by Commissioner
Rehn, when he came up
with this quote from a
professor. I don’t remember
his name, but he said:
‘What has Europe
ever done for you?’ And I
was reminded of Monty
Python’s Life of Brian
and ‘What have the Romans ever
done for you?’ We’re in the same
situation here.
The emotion is: we’re being
occupied. And the reaction to that
emotion is: rational arguments why
things that are being done are good
for you. That, in politics, will never
work. That is one of the problems
Europe’s facing today. That those
who are in favour of European
cooperation and integration, when
they are criticised on a fundamental
emotional level, their reaction is
always rational arguments: ‘But they
gave you a lower roaming fee’. You
will not win the argument for Europe
by stipulating once more that you
got a lower roaming fee. You’ll have
to make the argument on exactly
the same emotional level. Like those
who argue that Europe’s at its end,
that Europe’s turning into a new
dictatorship.
I believe in Europe because it has
brought peace. I believe in Europe
because it is the best instrument
to protect our citizens against the
negative effects of globalisation. And
to help our citizens profit from the
positive elements of globalisation,
we need the size of Europe.
We as member states individually
do not have the size to confront
the challenges society faces. But
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
4
Europe’s challenged on a
fundamental level.
Why? Because the
social contract which
underlies our societies
and which underlies
European integration is
being challenged today.
Because for the first time
in a couple of generations,
people are now looking at
their societies, be it in the UK or in
the Netherlands or elsewhere, and
are thinking: are our children actually
going to be as well off as we are? Are
we not heading for a certain decline?
Isn’t the social contract to which
we contribute out of order? Is it not
a reality that those who are asked
to pay for solidarity see that others
benefit from solidarity, but doubt
themselves when they need others
to be grateful for their contributions
they will not get the same solidarity
in return?
I think this is one of the
fundamental problems in Western
European societies. The welfare state
is no longer seen as something we
all contribute to and we all profit
from. It is seen as something we
contribute to and others profit from.
And that is why the crisis between
the North and the South in Europe
has resonated so strongly with the
European population. Because it’s
a reflection of what is happening
within societies.
In the North people will say:
look, we have to pay for people in
the South who don’t even bother
to go to work. Who retire at fifty.
And live easy lives at our expense.
And people in the South are saying:
look, we have to go through these
austerity programmes not because
it is necessary. The programmes are
killing our economies because the
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
North wants to impose its vision of
society on us.
And this is arguably the biggest
challenge European integration has
ever seen. The fact that this idea of
shared destinies is being put to the
test at a very fundamental level. Not
just of North and South, but, if I may
say so, metaphorically, North and
South within every society in the
European Union.
Now turning to the subject I was
asked to speak about. I was asked to
reflect on a speech by a conservative
prime minister in the United
Kingdom. And I must say, if you read
the speech, it is rather pro-European.
Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988
certainly had a number of things
to say that were pro-Europe. They
would probably not be said today
by most prime ministers in any
European nation. But one interesting
point she made, warning against
Europe, was listen, we want to stay
British. Just as the Dutch want to stay
Dutch. And the French want to stay
French. We don’t want Europe to sort
of take away our identity.
Now if you look back 25 years,
and you look at the situation today, I
think one could argue our identities
are more pronounced, are clearer
on a regional and on a local level
than they were 25 years ago. I don’t
think anybody is less Dutch than
they were 25 years ago. Even in the
region where I’m from in the south
of the Netherlands. A region where
local identity has amplified, has
increased over the past 25 years. Not
diminished. I think that this Europe,
at the level of identity, regionally and
locally, is not less than 25 years ago.
I think it is stronger than 25 years
ago. Of course, what happened in
the last 25 years does not have to
be repeated in the future. But I think
it’s good to realise that you can have
increased European integration,
you can have increased European
cooperation, without losing your
identity.
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
Or yourself.
I think that Europe today needs
to look at itself and needs to reform
itself. That is quite clear.
What irritates me – and I say this
openly – is the fact that Brussels
especially, the Brussels bubble – and
I would agree with Prime Minister
Cameron on this – is very good
at telling others to reform and to
change. But it’s very reluctant to
reform and change itself. We have
just had our multi-annual budget
debate over the last couple of weeks.
And I’m really, truly disappointed.
That on heading 5, administrative
expenses of the European Union, we
have a 9% increase. Most of which
will be spent on people working in
Brussels. Whereas almost all of us at
national level have to go through
very difficult austerity programmes,
limiting the salaries of our officials.
Limiting the number of civil servants,
etc. So I think if Brussels wants us to
reform – and I think they have some
strong points there – I think they
should also lead in reform. And not,
you know, raise their salaries that
have always been talked about, with
some justification. Not go onto the
streets and strike because they want
a pay rise, when the rest of the civil
servants in Europe have to accept
cuts in their pay.
I think we need to solve two
problems. First of all, and this was
debated in the first round, we need
to bring back economic growth
and jobs. For this we need to foster
innovation and competitiveness. We
need a better functioning internal
market. We need to control the debt
crisis and reform our welfare state.
I think the left, especially in Europe,
should come to terms with the fact
that there will be no welfare state in
the future without reform.
We cannot spend ourselves out of
this crisis. We have to make sure we
do reform our welfare state. There is a
lot of room for reform of the welfare
state. And it can become a good
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
5
welfare state that attends to the
needs of our population. Especially,
and this was also said in the first
round, we need jobs. We need our
younger generation to see light at
the end of the tunnel. And in many
European countries that is not the
case today.
Secondly, we have to show that
the EU can actually really help us.
Provide for protection in this era of
globalisation that also comes with a
lot of risks for our populations. I think
in many European countries, also in
mine, working people especially see
Europe as an agent of globalisation
and don’t see it as a protective
force against globalisation. We
need to change that paradigm. In
that context, too, it’s necessary for
Brussels to reform itself.
The fundamental question of ‘why
Europe?’ is never answered today.
We’re always talking about ‘how
Europe’. And ‘how Europe’ will never
win elections. Only ‘why Europe?’ will
win elections for Europe. I think too
many people today think that the
Commission and other institutions
in Brussels are a justification in and
by themselves. What they do, they
do for Brussels, not for us. I think this
is echoed not just in the UK, but in
many EU member states.
And we do have an obligation.
To clarify that the institutions we’ve
created in Brussels are there for the
people. Not for themselves. If we
talk about the democratic deficit,
we see this at three levels. First of
all, there is an output deficit. Europe
overpromises and underdelivers.
We need to change that.
Secondly there is a throughput
deficit. Nobody understands how
Brussels works. Very few Europeans
have – let me put it this way – an
affectionate relationship with the
European Parliament. And people
do not understand the mechanics
of the decision-making in Brussels.
Thirdly, there is an input deficit. In
most of our states, we don’t know
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
what happens with what we decide
in Westminster or in the Dutch
parliament, and then it’s presented in
the European Council or elsewhere.
Where is our voice going? Where is
our position going? What’s coming
out of it? We don’t see that.
So we need to fix the democratic
deficit at three levels. And because
this is so intricate, the simple solution
of more power to the European
Parliament will not fix it. We need
national parliaments to become
much more involved. To take the
responsibility we need national
politicians to stop blaming Europe
for everything. And to stop claiming
success and avoiding mentioning
sometimes that the success – believe
it or not – can really be attributed to
Brussels.
Now, does this mean we need
different forms of integration? I
would say that we already have
many different forms of integration
and within the existing treaty we
can have as much flexibility as
one would like. This has changed
recently, because this flexibility was
always intended to accommodate
people who wanted to travel at
different paces. Those who wanted
to travel fast could do that. And to
join later – Schengen is one of the
prime examples of that. I think this
is a very important, very powerful
model. And we need to work with
that. The eurozone in fact works
like that. And I think people would
be under an illusion if they believe
that the eurozone will remain at
its present membership. Very few
countries in the future will stay out
of the eurozone. By choice, of course,
people can stay out, but I think most
of them will want to join. This is a
good model.
What has changed in the debate
is that now we’re not just talking
about travelling at different speeds
in one direction. We’re now starting
to discuss the possibility of starting
travelling in different directions. And
sometimes when I follow the British
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
debate, it’s like a person in a car who
hears a message on the radio saying:
there’s a ghost rider on the M1. And
the person in the car says: One? I see
about a thousand here.
We will not head towards the
united states of Europe. That’s
one of those images that is always
adopted in this debate. We will
not lose our cultural identity. But
what will happen then? I think in
the next couple of years, we will
concentrate especially on fixing
what needs to be fixed. That is
creating a banking union. And
fixing the holes in the Economic and
Monetary Union. These holes were
created at the outset in Maastricht.
Because the French didn’t want
increased economic coordination.
So what happened was that the idea
became that convergence would
automatically lead to the closing
of those gaps in the Economic and
Monetary Union. We had never
imagined this crisis between the
periphery and the centre. Which has
increased the holes in the Economic
and Monetary Union rather than
closed them. So we need to fix that.
I believe we can fix that within the
existing treaties, the limits of which
will be explored in the next couple
of years. And probably the limits will
be indicated by other institutions
such as the Constitutional Court in
Germany. And if there the outcome
is: what we can do cannot be done
within the treaties, we might get
a debate on treaty change. But I
believe – and I have some experience
with treaty change – that we would
do everything to avoid treaty
change. If we can fix it within the
existing treaties – and I believe this
is the common opinion in almost
all member states today; if we get
out of this crisis – and as you heard
in the first panel, people are rather
optimistic about this – the call for
treaty change will not reoccur. I
think that if we can fix it within the
existing treaties, we will. Which is
going to be an interesting case for
the British government if they still
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
6
want a referendum. One would ask
a referendum on what, if you don’t
have treaty change.
This brings me to the speech of
this other prime minister. A recent
speech. If you look at Dutch foreign
policy over the last seventy years,
there’s one consistent element in our
Europe policy. We want the Brits on
board. From the very first discussion,
on European cooperation between
France and Germany, a central point,
a pivotal point in Dutch foreign
policy was to enlarge Europe by
getting the Brits on board, because in
our view, that would create a better
balance. Between those countries
who have, shall we say a protectionist
inclination, and those countries who
are oriented towards trade.
And this has served us well.
Served the Netherlands well,
and I honestly believe it has also
served the United Kingdom well. I
wonder what profits there would
be in the UK leaving the European
Union. I can’t really see them. It is
an emotional thing. It is an internal
party discussion. I understand all of
those elements. But if I try to see, will
it make Britain stronger? Absolutely
not. Look at the position of Norway.
Norway spends arguably more per
capita on the EU and still has no say
in the decision-making in Brussels.
It can only adopt what is decided
there. The EU can provide protection.
We saw it in the case of salmon from
Norway. It was creating a problem in
Scotland. The EU took measures to
prevent the Scottish economy from
suffering too much. The UK might
be in a completely different position.
That salmon from Scotland creates a
problem elsewhere in the EU. And if
you’re not a member of the EU, you
know what’s going to happen.
I think it is also an illusion to
believe that you can leave the EU
and still be part of the common
market. The common market is not
a static thing. It will develop under
the influence of the decisions we will
take on improving the euro. When
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
we fix the euro, this will create a new
dynamic. Not just for the financial
sector, but especially for the internal
market. This is what we want. This
is what the UK wants. This is what
we need to do in the next couple
of years. The danger is, if you’re not
part of the EU you will create this
dynamic, but will no longer be part
of that dynamic.
I think it would be a grave mistake
to believe that you can leave Europe
and then still profit from the internal
market. To my mind what we need
to do in the next couple of years
is reform the European Union. The
chances of reform in the European
Union are so much bigger with
the UK on board, than with the
UK outside. You will never reform
the European Union by leaving
the room. You will only reform the
European Union by sitting down
with your partners in Europe and the
institutions and talking about the
reforms we need.
I think there is a good case to
be made for reviewing Europe’s
competences. I agree with the
British government on that. But
do it together with your partners
in Europe. Do it together with the
institutions. Also the institutions.
President Barroso has made remarks
to that effect. He wants to look at
their competences. And you can call
it repatriation. You can call it what
you like. But I think there is a case to
be made on several issues. Where
you can come to an agreement
within the existing treaties. To say
yes, the Commission might have this
competence. But it’s not effective,
not useful for the Commission to
exert this competence.
We could rather give it back to
the member states and have them
exert it themselves. In my view you
can do this in a common agreement
with your partners in Europe and
the institutions without looking for
treaty change. In my view that is not
necessary.
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
The other thing I would advise
in using that approach is that you
have to give a positive answer to
at least three basic questions. First,
will it strengthen the working of the
internal market? Aiming for a highly
competitive social market economy,
which is crucial for creating European
competitiveness and is possibly the
greatest added value the EU has to
offer for its citizens.
Secondly, does it respect the
political essence of the EU as a
common project of states and
people?
Thirdly, does it ensure that
the institutional set-up of the
union remains balanced with its
carefully constructed roles for the
Commission, Parliament and Court of
Justice?
Incidentally, as someone who has
worked in these fields for more than
25 years, arguably the best people in
the institutions are from the UK.
Your nationals in the EU
institutions are arguably always
among the best professionals in
those institutions. Working for the EU
and for Britain. Yes, that is possible at
the same time.
And it would be a great loss to
Europe, to those institutions, but
specifically to the United Kingdom,
if those people were forced to leave
those institutions. That would really
weaken all of us.
Therefore I call upon the British
government to join us with other
countries to reform the Union
from within. To force the Brussels
bubble to look at itself. To make
sure we clarify the three issues with
the democratic deficit. In output,
throughput and input. We can do
this.
We can do this at a national
level and we can certainly do this
at a European level. We have to
do this, because otherwise we will
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
7
permanently lose the support of our
population.
I think the strongest part in the
speech made by Prime Minister
Cameron is exactly about that
democratic deficit. He is absolutely
right. Across the continent we’ve
lost the support of parts of our
population for the European project.
We need to regain their support.
We can’t build Europe without
the support of Europeans. And
this can be not just the argument
of lower roaming fees, but also,
especially, arguments based on a
common shared destiny. Based on a
shared idea of what a social market
economy should be.
Finally, Prime Minister Cameron
called for the application of the
principles of fairness. I agree. But
fairness is a two-way street. You
can’t just claim fairness from your
partners in Europe. You have to apply
fairness to your own attitude. Saying
to the rest of Europe: give me what
I want, or I’ll walk away will lead to
the reaction we’ve seen from certain
corners saying well, we’ll roll out the
carpets. Be our guest, walk away. And
I would advise my British friends to
look who’s saying this. And whether
they have the best interest of Britain
and other partners in Europe in mind
when they are saying it.
I would not be saying anything
else as a Dutch foreign minister,
because it’s part and parcel of what
we believe in, but I want to repeat it
finally once again. We need Britain
in Europe. We need a strong and
convincing argument for Europe in
Britain. Because as Winston Churchill
said, if you feed the crocodile of
euroscepticism – my addition to his
quote – if you feed the crocodile, the
only thing you will achieve, is that
the crocodile will eat you last.
Thank you very much.
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
CELIA JARVIS DESCRIBES HOW SHE CAME TO
WRITE A SPEECH FOR BILL CLINTON
W orking for a Nigerian
Governor was never going
to be a nine-to-five job. During
campaign season 18 to 20 hour
days were the norm, temperatures
regularly topped 40 degrees Celsius
and the culture of ‘African time’
meant morning meetings would
begin mid-afternoon, if at all.
However, amidst the chaos, there
were also wonderful opportunities.
ORATORY IN CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLITICS
T his was the second highly
successful conference built
upon the Labour Orators conference
held at the University of Huddersfield
in November 2011. Last year the
focus was on the use of oratorical
skills deployed by Conservative Party
politicians, from Stanley Baldwin to
the present day.
The conference was organised
through the Political Studies
Association Conservatives and
Conservatism Specialist Group,
convened by politics lecturer Richard
Hayton.
Members of the group, who
are specialists in the study of
Conservative politics, delivered
papers on significant figures from
the party’s history, including William
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
Perhaps the greatest was being
asked to write a speech for Bill
Clinton, former President of the
United States, and now a committed
humanitarian worker with a keen
interest in developing countries and
improving women’s rights.
I was instructed to write a short
speech for President Clinton’s
official address during his visit to
Nigeria. Due to Clinton’s packed
schedule only three minutes had
been set aside and within this time
he wanted to convey his sympathy
over the country’s fractured history,
express his hope that there would
be a brighter future and thank the
relevant dignitaries for a warm
welcome.
The timings were strict and
President Clinton still possessed a
Southern drawl, left over from his
childhood in Arkansas. The words
‘Nigeria’ and ‘plunder’ took a full
Hague, Michael Heseltine, and
Margaret Thatcher. Lord Norton
of Louth, who both sits on the
Conservative benches in the House
of Lords and is an active Professor
of Politics at the University of Hull,
took on the challenge of analysing
Enoch Powell, who used his powerful
oratory to sometimes devastating
effect.
Professor Kevin Theakston
(University of Leeds) discussed
the man commonly held up as the
greatest orator in British political
history – Winston Churchill.
Huddersfield’s Emeritus Professor
of Politics Brendan Evans gave
his insights on Harold Macmillan
– who, he confessed, he could
well remember as Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Dr Katharine Dommett
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
8
second to roll off his tongue, which,
while sounding attractive, did
nothing to help keep us on schedule.
Despite my initial excitement,
the actual speech writing process
was fairly typical. However big the
name the procedure is always the
same. A first draft was sent through
to his team in America; changes were
made to reflect his natural style of
speaking and sent back for approval.
This process was repeated only twice
before the speech was signed off and
delivered.
Although I would love to take
credit for a carefully constructed
speech with compelling content,
the reality is I was simply in the right
place at the right time. Nevertheless,
watching President Clinton deliver
the speech I wrote for him has been
my personal career highlight and,
however it came about, it still has
pride of place on my CV.
Celia Jarvis is a new member of the
UK Speechwriters’ Guild
(from the University of Sheffield)
considered the flamboyant oratorical
style of the politician tipped to be
the next leader of the party, Boris
Johnson.
As with the Labour event held
last year, the conference organisers,
Andrew Crines (University of
Huddersfield) and Richard Hayton
(University of Leeds), plan to develop
the proceedings into an edited book
with a leading academic publisher.
Together with the volume on Labour
politics, they hope that the books will
make a significant contribution to
the study of oratory and rhetoric in
British politics.
For more information on the PSA
Specialist Group, please visit:
www.psa-conservatism.org.uk
or contact Richard on:
r.hayton@leeds.ac.uk
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
FROM ANTIPHON TO AUTOCUE – A CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY
ROYAL HOLLOWAY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON by Brian Jenner
O n 25 and 26 April, 2013,
the Centre for Oratory and
Rhetoric (COR), Royal Holloway,
University of London put on a two
day conference on speechwriting
with the title ‘From Antiphon to
Autocue’.
I attended the session on ‘Modern
Speechwriting’. UK Speechwriter’s
Guild member, Professor Richard
Toye, gave a stirring talk about
Churchill’s speeches. He quoted from
correspondence to show how people
perceived Churchill’s speeches at the
time. Many of the reactions were less
flattering than later myths would
have us believe. Office workers and
people in the pub were concerned
as to whether Churchill was actually
telling the truth. Was he was using
‘rhetoric’ to create false hope? It was
a reminder of the indifference and
scepticism the general public can
show to the speechwriter’s art.
Tom Clarke, an Australian
academic from Victoria University,
Melbourne, analysed ‘The Redfern
Speech’, delivered by the Australian
Prime Minister, Paul Keating, on 10
December 1992 at Redfern Park,
Redfern. It’s regarded as one of the
LISTENERS LIKE SPEECH PHRASEOLOGY FREE FROM WAX
I n ancient
days
Roman sculptors
sometimes
sought to
conceal surface
cracks in a
statue with the
aid of melted
beeswax.
A buyer
deceived into believing that he
was purchasing a flawless piece of
marble, would place such a statue
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
greatest Australian speeches. It was
the first time an Australian Prime
Minister admitted to the crimes that
European settlers committed against
the Aboriginal communities, and the
difficulties they continued to cause.
We committed the murders.
We took the children from
their mothers. We practised
discrimination and exclusion. It was
our ignorance and our prejudice.
It’s an astonishing speech, which
can be viewed on YouTube. It later
became even more controversial
because Don Watson, the Prime
Minister’s speechwriter, claimed
authorship. This became the focus of
a feud between Watson and Keating,
with Keating quoting another
speechwriter who summed up the
difference in five words, ‘Broke the
contract, mate’.
Andrew Tolson, Professor of
Media and Communication at the
De Montfort University, Leicester,
compared the rhetorical techniques
used in Tony Blair’s first Labour Party
conference speech as leader to Ed
Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ conference
speech delivered in 2012. He
proudly in his atrium.
A few weeks later the beeswax
would dry out, crumble away, and
leave the original cracks exposed.
To such alarming proportions
did this practice of wax trickery
grow, it finally became the custom
of reputable sculptors to guarantee
their works as sine cera - literally
translated - ‘without wax’.
Our present word ‘sincere’ we owe
to a rebellion against wax.
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
9
explained how the theories of
distinguished UK Speechwriters’
Guild regular, Dr Max Atkinson were
still relevant, but evolving.
Simon Lancaster from Bespoke
Speeches talked about his work
as a professional speechwriter. He
explained how he thought most
people’s world view was formed
between the ages of 18 and 21.
By asking the speaker what they
were doing then, it was a good
way to work out what their cultural
references and ‘story’ was. He was
self-deprecating about what a
speechwriter does, ‘save the bosses’
time’ and he described a politician’s
trick to win over an audience on the
doorstep, which is also adaptable
for speeches: EVA - empathy, value,
action.
The event was organised by
Christos Kremmydas, a Greek
academic with great enthusiasm
for the subject. I also made contact
with Professor Jonathan Powell and
Professor Lene Rubinstein, who have
an ambitious programme of events
planned to promote the ‘flowers’ of
rhetoric to their students.
You are not in the business of
carving statues out of marble. But
you do something basically similar.
You carve speeches out of words.
Beware the use of wax!
Beeswax tricked the ancient
Romans. But wax never tricked
anybody. It is instantly recognised
and thoroughly despised by all
listeners.
Public Speaking As Listeners Like It by
Richard C Borden (1935)
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12
Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild
INTERVIEW WITH NERINGA VAISBRODE, A LITHUANIAN
SPEECHWRITER BASED IN BRUSSELS
How do you become a
speechwriter in Lithuania?
Actually I became one in
Belgium. When working in NATO’s
public diplomacy team, I had to
write speeches for our leadership.
Not often, but more often that in
any previous job. The feeling that
‘maybe I do it right’ came only at
a speechwriting course by Susan
Jones and Christopher Jary. They
complimented me on my skills, but
I took their words seriously only
when a speechwriting job offer came
along, almost two years later.
A speechwriter is a real ghost in
Lithuania. No one admits speaking to
it or having any issues, but I guess it’s
true for all of continental Europe.
Can you remember the first
speech you ever wrote?
Oh, that was at my first job, in a
youth organisation, more than ten
years ago. I don’t remember the
subject any longer, only that my
boss came back to me saying “this is
a really good one”. I did not see it as
breakthrough in speechwriting then,
more as recognition of my ability
to “make a point”. I never imagined
speechwriting as a separate career
path, at least not for me.
Are you employed to write
speeches in English as well as
Lithuanian? How does that work?
W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K
When writing in English, I try to
temporarily “shut-off’ Lithuanian in
my head. It’s like going with a snow
sweeper in my brain to clear the road
for English constructions. Of course,
I need to immerse myself in as much
English as I can get being neither
a native speaker nor a graduate
in English philology. Reading and
listening English texts is the only
method.
What can you tell us about
Lithuanian audiences?
Lithuanians are suspicious of
rhetoric. For 50 years it has been used
against us, to manipulate us during
the Soviet occupation. Therefore
if we spot good rhetoric, we sense
a hidden agenda. A too good
orator might also be seen as being
a less good professional. Because
Lithuanians value deeds, not words.
As a result people mistakenly
assume that speaking unprepared
but “deep from their hearts” is better.
But eventually it does not do justice
either to the speaker, or for the issue
they advocate. It’s grim, isn’t it? But
in the end words do make difference
here as elsewhere.
What’s your favorite reference
book?
Susan Jones’ book was my
first read on speechwriting as a
separate subject. Then it was Peggy
Noonan’s nicely written memoirs
with many writing tips. I read it
with great pleasure also because
it was a thoughtful gift form my
previous colleague. Third is Philip
Collins latest book, though maybe
I liked it because of his impressive
presentation at the UK Speechwriters’
Guild Conference in London. His
glossary of rhetorical terms at the
end of the book was like learning
quantum physics. Makes you think
• INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK
10
you know nothing of speechwriting
again.
Did you do debating at school?
No, I did debating at home. With
my father, every day. Sometimes a
few times a day. Seriously, I consider
him as my first teacher in persuasive
speaking. A child’s lack of authority
forced me to sharpen my arguments
like nothing else.
I joined one at University, but not
for long.
Who is your favourite English-
speaking politician?
I’ll be very boring, but Obama.
His way of speaking persuades that
the Left is right. I also like that he
presents politics as an organic part of
our lives, not something happening
‘in the other world’. Politics is about
people’s lives. He also denounces the
stereotype that political speeches
should be either boring or too
sophisticated. But as with everything
“favourite”, one has to enjoy with
moderation.
What did you think of Margaret
Thatcher?
I wonder if being her
speechwriter would have been a bliss
or a curse. Without adding much to
what has been said lately, I think that
times dictate our leaders too.
What’s your favourite book
written in English?
I like Kurt Vonnegut for his irony
and J. Saramago for style. He forces
us to read as we speak. A parallel
with speechwriting as an exercise to
write as we speak.
But the first book that comes
to my mind is by contemporary
The Speechwriter May 2013 | Volume 12 11

Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild

Lithuanian author – K. Sabaliauskaite

“Silva Rerum”. Hope it will be
translated in English one day.
Do you have a tip for writing for
multilingual audiences?
Simple words, short sentences,
sharp arguments and no information
overload. The only advantage non-
native speakers have when writing
to multilingual audiences in English
– we do not use words others might
not understand. We simply don’t
know them ourselves or find them
difficult to pronounce. Speeches
should not turn into an exercise of
checking audiences vocabulary of
English language.
How do you present your
manuscripts?
Presentably, I guess. I try to add
notes explaining why particular
angle or word has been chosen. But I
still wonder, if they really help. Words
need to speak for themselves.
RHETORBORES
..the Bank will continue to investigate
potential improvements to the monetary policy
framework, including the merits of alternative
frameworks in avoiding and exiting the zero
lower bound and the interaction of monetary
and other macro policies.
As we meet today, the combination of the
difficulty of exiting the zero lower bound and the
uncertainty over cost-benefits of unconventional
policies underscore the desirability of having a
monetary policy framework that will minimise the prospect of its attainment.
One of the core strengths of Canada’s system is the periodic review of our
monetary policy framework that leads to the renewal of our inflation-control
agreement between the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada every
five years. Further research on some of the issues I have raised in this speech will
help inform future agreements and the conduct of policy.
Sentences that don’t bode well for the new Governor of the Bank of England,
Mark Carney, who delivered these lines as a peroration to his Eric J Hanson
Memorial Lecture, Monetary Policy After the Fall, at the University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada on 1 May 2013.

EVENTS

Essentials of Speechwriting Training

6 June 2013
Institute for Government, London
To register go to: http://essentialsofspeechwriting2.eventbrite.co.uk/

Autumn Leadership & Communication Conference

19 & 20 September 2013
Résidence Palace, Brussels
To buy tickets go to: http://europeanspeechwriters.eventbrite.co.uk/

Essentials of Speechwriting Training

18 October 2013
Club de la Presse de Strasbourg
To register go to: http://strasbourgspeechwriting.eventbrite.co.uk/

europa|studio
TM

The speechwriter is edited by Brian Jenner Design by

W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K • INFO@UKSPEECHWRITERSGUILD.CO.UK