The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Leiden – 7 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the William and Mary Lecture, given in Leiden at the University on 7th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    INTRODUCTION

    Britain and the Netherlands

    John Milton, the great British poet, described Leiden as “That famous University and renowned Commonwealth, a sanctuary of liberty”. I am privileged to deliver the second William and Mary Lecture in such distinguished surroundings.

    This lecture series was inaugurated by Ruud Lubbers in Milton’s University, Cambridge. It celebrates the close bonds between our two nations over hundreds of years. Bonds so old that even in the time of the first Queen Elizabeth, her Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham, declared Britain and the Netherlands to be “the most ancient allies and familiar neighbours”. Bonds epitomised in our fierce attachment to the liberty stressed by Milton. Liberty underlies much that I shall say this evening.

    The long history of the Anglo/Dutch relationship is, of course, not wholly one of unbroken harmony and friendship. I admired Ruud Lubbers’s lightness of touch in passing over four Anglo/Dutch wars as “the occasional naval battle” in last year’s lecture. And at various times in our history, Britain and the Netherlands have been fierce rivals in their pursuit of prosperity on the world’s sea lanes.

    In the post-War period, we have been staunch allies in NATO – many of whose leading figures have come from our countries. We’ve been totally committed in our support for the Atlantic Alliance. As we meet, our two Air Forces are making the largest European contribution to NATO air power in the skies over Bosnia, just as our armies have undertaken some of the most hazardous operations for UNPROFOR on the ground. Our joint amphibious force operated in Iraq in 1991 and now helps to defend NATO’s Northern region.

    The Dutch and British are not just allies; not just the inheritors of outward-looking, sea-faring, free trading, global traditions; not just bound by the history which united our Crowns in 1688; not just close neighbours; but friends, in the most genuine sense of the word. Friends from conviction and shared values. Friends by habit and instinct. Friends wherever they meet around the world.

    The challenges facing Europe

    It is from that perspective – of a candid friend – that I would like to give a British view of the challenges facing us in Europe.

    My theme is the long-term future of Europe – all of Europe – and the extent to which we are now outgrowing the concept of the original founders of the European Union.

    To some, who believe the original concept is not yet met, that may seem provocative. It is intended to be realistic. Since the 1950s and especially over the past five years, our Continent has changed in ways no-one could foresee. We live in a different Europe and a different world. The vision of the 1950s is not right for the mid-90s.

    I shall first describe Britain’s outlook on Europe.

    Then I shall look at the ways in which the European Union should be developed in the future.

    Finally, I shall set out how we can extend security and prosperity to our neighbours in Central and Eastern Europe.

    BRITAIN’S OUTLOOK AND CONTRIBUTION

    The caricature of Britain

    Let me tackle, straight away, a popular caricature.

    The caricature is that there are, in broad terms, only two approaches to the European Union – that of the Eleven on the one hand, and of Britain on the other. Britain, for these purposes, is said to be a backmarker; a country interested only in a glorified free trade area.

    The caricature is ludicrous. Many of the key developments of the past few years have been advanced by Britain’s advocacy – the Single Market; budgetary discipline; proposals for CAP reform; CFSP; deregulation and trade liberalisation. No backmarking there.

    Nor is it right to characterise Britain’s opposition to some policies as anti-European. I have argued continually that the European Union must improve its competitiveness. With over 18 million unemployed that is surely essential.

    That is why I believe we must keep social costs down. If we don’t we will lose competitiveness, lose jobs, lose prosperity.

    This, to me, is a pro-European argument. But when I first made the case, my arguments were regarded as close to heresy, and as distinctly anti-communautaire.

    The fact is that there are not two approaches to Europe among the Governments of the Union, but one and twelve. One because we are all firmly committed to a strong and effective European Union. But twelve because no two Governments have identical approaches. Issue by issue, the twelve members line up in different ways. Sometimes, the United Kingdom finds itself with the majority, sometimes not.

    Sometimes, we are on our own. But that does not happen only to the United Kingdom. Yet how often have we seen the headline “Britain isolated”; and Britain’s fidelity to the European Union questioned as a result? We don’t see this question asked when, as often happens, other Member States stand on their own, in what they see as important national interests.

    Yes, Britain – like the Netherlands, like Germany, like France, Italy, Denmark, in fact like all twelve Member States – has her own perspective on Europe. Our perspective is not wrong simply because it is different.

    The British Outlook

    So what is the British perspective?

    First, it is quite simply that Britain is irrevocably part of Europe. We are hard-headed about it but perfectly clear. The British people know that their future rests with being part of the European Union.

    But, second, it must be the right sort of Europe. One which does not impose undue conformity, but encourages flexibility. Only in that way will we achieve the Europe we want – a Europe which is free and secure, prosperous and coherent, democratic, potent and generous.

    Third, we believe that the political dimension is crucial to making the most of the development of the Union.

    Fourth, we want the European Union, – which is, after all, a unique community of democracies – to pull its full weight internationally and be a power for good in the world.

    And fifth, we want the Union’s development to be realistic, attainable, and – crucially – supported by its peoples.

    Like everyone else, we want to move forward in Europe. We cannot consider Europe complete while so many European democracies remain outside the Union. But if we are to build well, we must build carefully. We do not just want a futuristic grand design which never leaves the drawing board. Even worse would be to put up a building which fell down because we hadn’t got it right. The most constructive attitude to Europe is to plan a future that works. That is what Britain wants.

    Britain’s Contribution

    It is to this Europe that Britain seeks to make a very large and positive contribution.

    The assets Britain brings to Europe are pet haps too easily taken for granted.

    We have the world’s sixth largest economy. London is one of the world’s leading financial centres. Our trading links and global connections bring substantial benefits to Europe. We are the second largest net contributor to the European Union’s budget.

    With France, Britain is one of only two nations in the Union which still have a global reach to their foreign policies. Alone in Europe, the United Kingdom is a member simultaneously of the UN Security Council, the Economic Summit, and of the Commonwealth which now comprises one third of the world’s nations. We have a deep involvement in all of the Continents of the world.

    Our contribution to the defence of Europe, to its security institutions, to its ability to exert an influence when conflict threatens European interests – as in the Gulf – is second to none among the Member States. Far from staying separate, over 40 years ago we merged our security policy into that of the North Atlantic Alliance. We were prepared to commit ourselves to its integrated military structure. We have made a more significant contribution to NATO – and hence to the security of all Europe – than any other European nation.

    I make these points, not from national pride, but because our willingness to contribute, whether to the European Union or to NATO, is vivid evidence of the British commitment to the freedom and future of continental Europe.

    Given this commitment, it is high time that the caricature of Britain in Europe was buried. We have a commitment which surely gives Britain the right – just as others have the right – to advance her reasoned views without constant questioning of our European credentials.

    THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

    Achievements and Problems

    We should not let the European Union’s recent difficulties obscure its remarkable success over four decades.

    The European Community was born to end divisions in Western Europe. It has succeeded. With NATO, it has given us peace and prosperity in our part of the Continent, and made war literally unthinkable. The determination of the Founding Fathers has succeeded far beyond the estimations of most people in their time. Their vision was proved right for its age. But it is outdated. It will not do now. We must all adjust our vision to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

    The deep hurt of the recession and bitter divisions over Maastricht – within so many Member States have left the European Union bruised and battered. We British had a parliamentary fight unequalled in perhaps a hundred years to pass the legislation. Other Governments had to invest great effort into persuading their Parliaments of its worth. Where Member States held referenda, their results were far from a ringing endorsement of the Treaty. This year’s European Elections were another warning. All over Europe, the picture was much the same: a poor turn out, with many votes cast more on domestic than on European issues. I believe that the Netherlands were no exception.

    The European Union seems temporarily to have lost the self-confidence of the 1980s. Popular enthusiasm for the Union has waned. We need to listen to these warnings if we are to make the right moves in the future.

    The Lessons for the Future

    The European Union has come a very long way in a very short time. There is impatience to take it further, but impatience is a poor framework for building soundly. Even though the original ambitious schemes mooted were not incorporated in the Maastricht Treaty, the final outcome nevertheless strained the limits of acceptability to Europe’s electors.

    The lesson is self-evident. Harmonisation and integration will not work if they have to be forced on people. Of course it is for governments and politicians to give a lead. But our vision will only work if we carry support of our electors, if our people can see the benefits, understand them and want them. That is the fact of the matter. We need a vision grounded in reality.

    Another clear message is that Europe’s peoples in general retain their faith and confidence in the Nation State. In the European Union, Nation States have both pooled elements of sovereignty and retained their independence and individuality. We have reached a careful and effective balance, and the evidence is that our peoples are wary of over-centralisation and of overambitious blueprints for new European architecture. They do not feel that a huge, remote, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-national amalgam would be responsive to them or could properly reflect their national identities.

    Edouard Balladur said last week: “France has always wanted a Europe of nation states, which respects each country’s own personality”. So has Britain. I believe that the Nation State will remain the basic political unit in Europe.

    A third lesson is the need for greater transparency. Both the language and the institutions of the European Union can be extraordinarily difficult to penetrate from outside. They need to be made accessible to the citizens of Europe. At present they are not.

    Tasks for the Future

    I see two pre-eminent tasks for the period ahead:

    – within the existing Union, to rebuild the cohesion and confidence which has diminished in the past few years;

    – in external policy, to extend security and prosperity to the countries to our East. I shall come back to this in a few minutes.

    The European Union now needs to regain public support by making a success of what is already on its agenda.

    Let me touch on some of the key points in this process.

    Flexibility

    First, cohesion within a community of twelve to sixteen requires flexibility, as I argued consistently throughout the recent European elections.

    So I am glad a debate on this matter is now developing, and I have read with great interest recent contributions by Edouard Balladur and by Wolfgang Schauble and Karl Lamers. I welcome their emphasis on a more flexible Europe. Diversity is not a weakness to be suppressed: it is a strength to be harnessed. If we try to force all European countries into the same mould we shall end up cracking that mould. Greater flexibility is the only way in which we shall be able to build a Union rising to 16 and ultimately to 20 or more Member States.

    The way the Union develops must be acceptable to all Member States. It seems to me perfectly healthy for all Member States to agree that some should, integrate more closely or more quickly in certain areas. There’s nothing novel in this. It is the principle we agreed on economic and monetary union at Maastricht. It may also happen on defence.

    But the corollary is that no Member State should be excluded from an area of policy in which it wants and is qualified to participate. To choose not to participate is one thing To be prevented from doing so is quite another – and likely to lead to the sort of damaging divisions which, above all, we must avoid.

    So I see a real danger, in talk of a “hard core”, inner and outer circles, a two-tier Europe. I recoil from ideas for a union in which some would be more equal than others. There is not, and should never be, an exclusive hard core either of countries or of policies. The European Union involves a wide range of common policies and areas of close co-operation. No Member States should lay claim to a privileged status on the basis on their participation in some of them. For nearly forty years now, the Member States of the European Union, first six, then nine, ten, twelve, soon to be sixteen, have worked to reduce divisions in Europe. We must not see them reintroduced.

    That is why an essential component of the future European construction must be flexibility. We need a debate about it.

    By flexibility, of course, I do not advocate chaotic non-conformity. Our union depends on the rule of law. Where countries have accepted obligations, they must honour them. If they fail to honour them they must – if necessary – be made to do so. Nothing is more destructive of commitment to common European aims than the popular belief that, while some countries diligently obey the rules, others are cheating and being allowed to get away with it.

    There are areas where conformity is right and necessary – in the rules which govern international trade and the Single Market and the environment, for example. But conformity can never be right as an automatic principle. Flexibility is essential to get the best out of Europe – and to respect the wishes of our peoples.

    The European Monetary Union is a case in point. The arrangements in the Maastricht Treaty for progress towards EMU do not simply allow, but require a differentiated approach. This is essential. Whatever one’s view of EMU Stage 3 – and I have thought it right to reserve the United Kingdom’s position, and still do – the introduction of a common currency without proper prior economic convergence would be calamitous. But Maastricht recognised that. In general, the Maastricht Treaty’s flexible arrangements allow countries freedom and choice on how they decide to participate in the pursuit of our shared aims.

    The Inter-Governmental Conference

    The Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996 is likely to bring many issues into sharp focus. How, for example, can we fashion a fairer voting system? Can we develop simpler and more transparent legislative procedures? Should the Council exercise more control over the Commission? Is the number of Commissioners becoming unwieldy as the Union enlarges? Should the Commission have new powers in some areas – for example to pursue budget fraud into the Member States themselves?

    In developing Britain’s approach to the IGC, I will be guided by four considerations:

    The first is my sense of what Britain’s Parliament wants and what people actually need.

    Secondly, I shall want to see greater flexibility in the European Union, and greater tolerance of diversity.

    But that makes it all the more important, third, that Europe maintains a strong sense of shared purpose and common enterprise. The IGC must be the anvil on which we forge a stronger Union.

    And fourth, that any proposals for change are workable and effective. The European Union has never lacked for ideas for its development. But it needs ideas which work.

    The European Parliament and National Parliaments

    This is particularly evident in the approach we must take to developing the European Union’s democratic credentials.

    Within a more open, flexible and diverse Europe, what should be the respective roles of the European Parliament and the national parliaments?

    Parliaments take time to mature. Compared with the British Parliament and the States General in the Netherlands, the European Parliament is a fledgling institution. It has gained considerable powers in a short period. It plays a significant role in the legislative process: some 50 per cent of its legislative amendments are adopted, which is a far higher average than any national parliament. Yet clearly there is a long way to go before it wins respect and popular affection.

    The European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus for the Union. But this is a flawed ambition, because the European Union is an association of States, deriving its basic democratic legitimacy through national Parliaments. That should remain the case. People will continue to see national Parliaments as their democratic focus. It is national parliamentary democracy that confers legitimacy on the European Council.

    The European Parliament is not the answer to the democratic deficit, as the pitiably low turn-out in this year’s European Elections so vividly illustrated. The upshot, sadly, has been an unrepresentative and rather incoherent range of parties in the new European Parliament, in which fringe, protest and opposition groups are over-represented. We must wait to see if, over time, our electorates begin to take European Elections more seriously. But, for now, it would be premature to consider a further increase in the Parliament’s powers.

    The task for 1996 is for the European Parliament to grow into its existing powers – for it to ensure that legislation is sensible and proportionate; to avoid damage to competitiveness and jobs; and to contribute to matters such as budgetary control, market opening, and the scrutiny of spending.

    It should also do all it can to oppose fraud. Defrauding the Community budget has become a multi-billion ECU industry. It is scandalous and it does need comprehensive action. No Member State is immune from this. Indeed, it is an area in which national interests and the best interests of the European Union often conflict. The Parliament should continue to give its full backing to the Court of Auditors in waging war on fraud. In that way it can earn the strong support of European electors by lightening the load on their pockets. It could give them more confidence that their taxpayers’ money is properly spent. It’s this sort of action which will improve the status of the Parliament.

    In parallel, I believe that much more should be done to build links between national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Westminster, as I suspect is the case with most national Parliaments, is partly at fault here. We all need to develop a more cooperative effort with the European Parliament and we must examine how this can be done. In my own country, I see a case for Joint Committees (both by inviting MEPs to contribute to national scrutiny committees, and vice versa) and we will examine this in the months ahead.

    Second and third pillars

    The IGC will also consider the so-called pillars – the separate arrangements for foreign and security policy, and for home affairs and justice. They enable Europe to operate through co-operation and not compulsion in areas that are hugely sensitive to the national interest. Britain wants to see more energy put into them.

    The first joint actions in foreign policy strike us as no more than a modest beginning. They have included the elections in South Africa and Russia, humanitarian aid in Bosnia and assistance to the Middle East peace process. We should be more ambitious. There are obvious advantages in developing common policies towards Russia, Ukraine, and other countries in Eastern and Central Europe.

    Of course, for each of us, there will be areas of foreign policy where national action is more appropriate. Hong Kong is an obvious example for the United Kingdom. But when we can act together we have a diplomatic impact much greater than the sum of our parts.

    What of defence? We have NATO, we have the Western European Union. Both offer guarantees for our safety, both call for commitments, both have been a focus of British efforts over the past 40 years. We have now decided to retain and reshape NATO – that is one of the fundamental decisions of the last two years. The January NATO Summit agreed to develop new structures which will allow groups of countries to conduct operations together within the NATO framework, but without the participation of all. We have also decided, at Maastricht, to work towards a common European defence policy, based on the WEU.

    There is serious and detailed work to be done before we have turned these general propositions into reality. Britain will be at the core of this enterprise. Britain’s armed forces have the experience, skill and professionalism to meet the new challenges which we now face. The defence of Europe is not for us a luxury, but a necessity.

    The third pillar, Home Affairs and Justice, deals with threats to our societies of a different kind. There are growing risks to all of our countries from organised crime, and in particular from drug trafficking and money laundering. Cooperation in the fight against crime must become as instinctive as it is in foreign and defence policy. And our Governments must organise their work better than the criminals who oppose them. We are determined to see a success made of Europol, and the further development of the third pillar. The United Kingdom will pursue this energetically.

    ENLARGEMENT TO THE EAST

    A month ago, on a warm night in Warsaw, I sat by the Monument to the 1944 Uprising and heard a remarkable speech by the President of Germany. To anyone familiar with Warsaw’s history, it was striking that he should be there at all. He was speaking to a nation whose overriding foreign policy objective is to integrate with Western Europe’s institutions and above all with the European Union and with NATO. For all that has happened in Polish history, the Polish people want to bind themselves to Germany and to the rest of us. And for all that has happened in German history, Germany wants Poland to be a free and equal partner in our Union.

    On the following day I sat in Vilnius with the Prime Ministers of the three Baltic States. Their goal was the same. They, like the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Hungarians and other peoples on the edge of our present Union, are part of the European family.

    After the war, and through the 1950s and beyond, we had to preserve the security of Western Europe against the threat from Communism. Now we must move on. Communism has gone. For the next generation we face a different task. It is to make sure that the barriers now down in Europe’s East do not rise again in any form.

    We have taken our first small steps along that road but we have to go a great deal further. Our predecessors went to war after Poland and Czechoslovakia were invaded. But at the end of a six year war that engulfed the world, those same nations lost their freedom for half a century. By bringing the Central European States into our family of democracies, we can finally make good the damage they suffered. This must and can be done in a way which benefits the whole of Europe. Indeed, it will enhance the Union: a free, stable, prosperous and democratic Central Europe will be a huge benefit to the whole Continent.

    The process will require many changes from the countries to our East. They will need to embody our standards of democracy, law and human rights. They must adopt the economics of the free market.

    However, the change cannot be only on one side. If we expect them to make changes to join us, then we must make changes to help them do it. We must be prepared, for example, to offer periods of transition in some areas. We must also face the fact that our European Union cannot function in the same way and with the same policies with sixteen or twenty or more members as it did with six or ten or twelve.

    Two examples suffice to make this point. The Common Agricultural Policy, as at present operated, would be unsustainable and unaffordable with twenty. members. Wholesale reform will be essential. Secondly, the admission of less economically advanced countries will mean a major reform and redirection of structural funds.

    No-one can doubt that these changes will be controversial and, for some, very painful. Across Europe, we have only just begun to think about them. Member States are not yet reconciled to the policies that are necessary to bring them about. It must not be our objective to admit new members to a status inferior to other partners. They must enjoy the same options, in a flexible Union, as are open to us.

    Enlargement: Economic Cooperation and Free Trade

    We have a responsibility to help the economic development of our neighbours to the East – and it is in our own interests to do so. We must be open-minded and open-handed.

    They must be given access to our markets and not kept at bay by trade defence mechanisms. We do not want to build a Continent where economic divisions would return as the ghosts of the political barriers which crumbled in 1989.

    Enlargement: Security Relationships

    Our outward reach of course must extend to security relationships. Here, too, we must be flexible. For some countries, membership of NATO will be the the right answer, the only question is when rather than whether. For twenty-one countries now including Russia “Partnership for Peace” is making a reality of practical cooperation. The six central European countries and the Baltic states are now also associate partners in the Western European Union. The end of communism has been the biggest peacetime change in our continent for over a hundred years. It is an opportunity we have longed for, hoped for. We now have the chance to entrench democracy right across Europe. I do not believe history will forgive us if we squander it.

    Mr. President, soon we hope to be welcoming four new members to the European Union. They will not be the last. We have the prospect of a Union of increasing diversity, a Union in which difference in size, shape, economic and industrial profile, philosophy, history and culture will make varied geometry a fact whatever decisions we may choose to make about our institutions.

    This diversity, these differences, will undoubtedly make for more vigorous debate, more late nights, harder work to keep our common aims on track. We may sometimes need to take comfort in the observation of a Dutch philosopher, Spinoza, that all excellent things are as difficult as they are rare.

    We will have to balance priorities, the priorities of the smaller nations with those of the larger ones, the needs of the southern countries with those of the north, of allowing for the various weights of agriculture and industry in the national economies of our European Union. In the future, Britain will work hard to ensure the Union takes good account of these differences. We want to ensure that common policies are adopted wherever they offer common benefits; we want to ensure our Union is not a directorate of the larger countries at the expense of the smaller countries. Above all, Mr. President, we don’t want Europe to go off the road. When we see a proposal that could have this effect, then we will say so in a frank and a realistic way and when we have positive proposals to put forward, we will do so vigorously and argue our case with conviction and clarity. That is the positive attitude that we have, an attitude to help Europe towards a future, a future that works, a future that we believe can be built if we have the courage, the application and the farsightedness to take the decisions now that will shape our future not just for the months and the years immediately ahead but far beyond that to make the most of the opportunity that I passionately believe lies at hand for all of us in Europe. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 4 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on 4th September 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he was pleased with progress in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say we made some progress on Ireland and I am very pleased with that, perhaps a good deal more progress than many of my critics suspected but there is still a long way to go. The ceasefire is very welcome but we still have a long way to go before we have a permanent settlement and we can be absolutely certain about the future of Northern Ireland.

    As to why now, we have had in the last 25 years – perhaps one might almost say in the last 300 years – a diet of bloodshed, hatred and fears ranged on either side. I thought I saw the circumstances in which we could move beyond that to end the violence and provide a settlement and it was upon that basis that I decided we should try and it has been at the top of my agenda since I first went to Downing Street.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the clock was ticking].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not entirely sure about that yet. The ceasefire has now been in force for a few days. We haven’t had an absolutely unambiguous signal that this is for good, but we have had a whole series of intimations that that may be the case. I can understand why Mr Adams doesn’t want to use the British form of words by saying “Here is a formal renunciation of violence!”, I can understand the political difficulties he has in using that form of words. I don’t mind another form of words that makes it clear beyond any doubt at all that come what may there will be no return to violence. I think they are edging towards that, they certainly edged towards that over the last few days with what Mr McGuinness and others have said. I am not absolutely sure they are precisely there yet but we will review that over the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Albert Reynolds was convinced on the wording, but he himself wasn’t].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must all make our judgements but I am responsible for the security in Northern Ireland, that is the distinction. I have to be certain that there is confidence in Northern Ireland amongst all the people of Northern Ireland that this violence has ended for good. After so many years, people are bound to be uncertain about things. A huge range of frankly rather absurd things have been said; I can say categorically there have been no secret deals, no secret negotiations, no secret understandings but after all the years of bloodshed you can understand people’s uncertainty about that in Northern Ireland.

    If this is going to succeed, if we are really going to carry the present circumstances through to a satisfactory and final conclusion, then we must have the confidence of all the people in Northern Ireland and I must make sure I can carry that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there had been progress].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been progress. I am not sure it is quite sufficient yet but there has been progress and we need just a little more.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if just a few more words were needed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just a little more.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the right words were made, would he back-date the dead-lines].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us have the words first. I am going to take this matter cautiously and I don’t think that is a question of anything other than prudence. We have had 25 years of murder, that is what the people of Northern Ireland have faced. If we are to carry their confidence, I return to the same point again because it is crucial that unless there is confidence amongst the Catholics in Northern Ireland and amongst the Protestants in Northern Ireland about what is happening then the old fears will be raised, there will be plenty enough people who wish to raise those fears who simply don’t believe we can make progress. I believe we can. I don’t want to see this whole affair frozen in hopelessness any longer. I think there is a prospect of moving forward but we are more likely to sustain what happens if we take it cautiously, clearly and carry people with us as we do it. I am not going to snatch at something on the first day.

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to Billy Wright – 4 September 1994

    Below are Mr Major’s tribute comments to Billy Wright on 4th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There weren’t any other Billy Wrights. I suppose these days you would hear youngsters saying they don’t have footballers like that any more. Perhaps they don’t.

    When I first started watching soccer as a boy, I guess there were four great footballers: Billy Wright, Stan Matthews, Tom Finney and Nat Lofthouse. Billy Wright was the only defender and in any ways he was a very unique figure at that time.

    But every one of my generation will remember those early days of television, those wonderful games at Molineux when Wolverhampton played Honved, and so many other teams at the time. They were great national events. The atmosphere at the time and the way in which people remember them forty years later, people won’t forget that.

    People won’t forget Billy Wright. I can close my eyes now, forty years on, and see him play. Of course people will remember him, they won’t forget Billy Wright. He’s one of the legends of football.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland (II) – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the IRA announcement went far enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you raise an extremely important point. The fact there is to be a cessation of violence is very welcome. But what I need to know, and what the people of Northern Ireland need to know, is that this is not for a week, is not for a month, is permanent, and as soon as we know that that is permanent then we can begin to consider how to move forward. It may be that this is intended to indicate a permanent cessation of violence, I hope it is and I hope it will be made clear that that is the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA needed to use those words].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not hung up on the particular words, I would like them to make it clear that as far as they are concerned, what they have called the armed struggle is over, that they have finished with violence for good. I do not mind how they phrase it as long as it is unambiguously clear that this is the end of the violence, that is what I wish to hear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Unionists would find the IRA announcement inadequate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is still a great deal to be done, but I think if many people had said a year ago, could you reach the situation we have now reached they would have said “No”. We now have the position where there is a cessation of violence, perhaps it is permanent, I hope so, we can then move forward to a proper constitutional future for Northern Ireland. I think that is a very great prize. What concerns me is not semantic criticism but the end of bloodshed in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could measure that].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need two things, don’t we? We firstly need it to be made clear that this is intended to be a permanent cessation of violence, and then of course we need to see those words carried out, we need see the deeds, we need a period in which violence actually ceases. And as we set out in the Joint Declaration, if it is clear that it is permanent, and if the violence then ceases for a period up to three months, within that three month period we will then begin to talk to Sinn Fein about how we bring them into the constitutional talks, that is a great prize for everyone.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland (I) – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Gerry Adam’s offer of permanent peace was sufficient or what a permanent ceasefire was needed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It truly isn’t a semantic point. Firstly, let me say I think the statement that has been made today is very welcome and it is a very great advance and to have this cessation of violence is a remarkable move forward but I think we do have to be clear that this is permanent, that it isn’t a temporary cease-fire that will be turned over at some stage and the armed conflict, as the Provisionals call it, will begin again. We must be certain it has ended.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Gerry Adams had to use exact words].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no. He doesn’t actually have to use the words I did but I think he has to make it clear unambiguously that this is the end of the use of violence, that they aren’t going to return to violence in pique if they don’t get their way at some future stage and there is a very practical reason for that.

    What we have said in the Joint Declaration is that once there is a permanent renunciation of violence, after a period has elapsed in which that promise has been kept and there has been no violence we will talk to Sinn Fein about how to bring them into the democratic process. We cannot do that under the duress that they may return to armed conflict; we cannot do it and neither could any British Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Gerry Adams saying he wanted a permanent peace was not enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen what he said but I do know that it is perfectly clear he must make it unambiguously the case that whatever happens they will not return again to violence. As I have said, I am not hung up on a particular form of words but he must make that clear. That isn’t a new condition I should say; that is something that has been set out time and time again over many months and Mr Adams is well aware of that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he accepted that Gerry Adams had a political problem in getting his supporters to back him on a ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated for many months what is necessary and I have made the point just now and repeat it again. It isn’t just a semantic point, it is a very real point. It isn’t a practical proposition to move forward, begin to enter into discussions with Sinn Fein about how to bring them into the talks and then let them lightly suddenly return to using violence. That is impossible. It isn’t right. I hope and believe that what they mean by their statement is that this is a permanent end of violence, but I don’t know it. I wish to be reassured about that. The terms in which they do it, there can be many ways in which they do it.

  • Joint Doorstep Interview with Sir Patrick Mayhew and James Molyneaux – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of the joint doorstep interview with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sir James Molyneaux, given outside 10 Downing Street on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    [some sections were inaudible and are marked with …]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I retain my view which I think is broadly reflected by the … which put together the Declaration, that is the two governments plus the American Administration plus Mr. Hume for example, that there has to be a total permanent cessation of violence and that is set out very clearly and very concisely in paragraph 10 of the Declaration.

    As I said to you earlier, I am very glad that there has been a halt to the killing in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom and I hope that those who have influence with the IRA will now be able to persuade them to take the next decisive step and make the halt permanent – that is a very simple operation.

    QUESTION:

    … the word “permanent” written into the statement?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    The Declaration made that the key, it made it the trigger for the entry into the exploratory discussions and the countdown thereto so I am sure, as I say, that those who have influence with Sinn Fein/IRA will persuade them to take that second step because quite clearly they haven’t felt able to take it today.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Molyneaux, is it your view that the 90-day clock cannot start running yet and is that view shared inside No. 10?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    They will speak for themselves but after all they signed the Declaration, I didn’t, contrary to what people said at the time; the two governments signed it, it was a joint product and they knew what they were doing when they worded paragraph 10 which said hat there had to be not only a permanent cessation of violence but there had to be a repudiation of violence and from that would follow the period of cooling-off – somebody at an earlier stage said “decontamination period”, actually a Dublin minister – and at that stage then there would be exploratory discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA as to how they could enter the democratic process.

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget that they are not excluded from the democratic process because as you know they have a considerable number of councillors in the councils in Northern Ireland and you will also remember that they fielded candidates for Jim Prior’s 4-year Assembly, they got elected to that body but like the SDLP they boycotted it and didn’t take their seats.

    QUESTION:

    Can we be quite clear that as far as you are concerned the 90-day clock does not start running from today?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    That is correct because Mr. Hume would claim to be one of the joint authors of the Declaration and as Mr. Hume is a very close buddy of Mr. Adams, he will have explained precisely to him what paragraph 10 means and what is required of Mr. Adams and what is required of the IRA, namely a permanent cessation of violence and as I say, I am not making that demand today, I am simply saying that it be done today and simply saying that those who have influence with the IRA I hope will be able to persuade them to take that second modest but very vital step in the very near future because that will be for the good of all of us including themselves.

    QUESTION:

    … by saying they have not to use the word “permanent”?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I am not singling out words, I am simply saying that they meet a requirement which is not present today. It is a cessation of hostilities, that is all it is, that is not convincing, that is the problem and I think any fair-minded person would recognise that it is inadequate as it stands.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but regarding British Government’s position]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    They will be making their position clear but I think you, ladies and gentlemen, listened to the Prime Minister at an earlier stage. I didn’t hear what he said but my secretary did hear and it wasn’t very different, I think, from what I had been saying before he made the statement.

    I don’t think we are that far apart nor do I think the Irish Government is that far apart and I know for a fact – and it had better now be mentioned this point – that the White House is not very far apart from what I have just said because I had a telephone conversation with them this afternoon about thirty minutes before I came here so they are broadly in line with the attitude I have been taking.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Adams this afternoon was saying that the onus is now on the Prime Minister to seize the moment but from you are saying obviously that is not your view?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    No, the onus can’t possibly be on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister set out the Declaration and paragraph 10 with Mr. Reynolds, they stood on the steps behind me here when they made that statement and nobody quarrelled with them at that time, nobody said: “Well, you should go out now and take the initiative!” The initiative was taken; in the minds of a good many people in Northern Ireland it was too generous an initiative but it was taken, it was there, fair ‘does’ for everybody and it is up to, as I say, particularly those who would claim to have influence and those who have influence with the IRA to be the persuaders.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    My message would be what it has consistently been, that there is no justification or excuse for violence on the part of anyone and the Loyalist paramilitaries clearly understand my position; they have been making statements which are moving towards the position which we would all like to see them adopting but that is for them to decide, it is not for me to bully them into it.

    QUESTION:

    Did you get an assurance from Mr. Major that the London and Dublin governments will press the IRA now to hand over their arms as well as declaring a cessation of violence because presumably if it is permanent cessation of violence those arms will not be required

    MOLYNEAUX:

    It wasn’t a matter we were dealing with today because we had more immediate matters on our hands but that is the natural outcome. In the interests of internal discipline – if you could call it that – within any armed body if decisions are going to be implemented it is in their own interests that they should surrender arms and they shouldn’t be left lying about because we have had far too many accidental casualties.

    QUESTION:

    Would you expect the IRA to take this step publicly by saying it is permanent, not by private communication with the British Government

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I am simply saying that they can because they will be asked by and your opposite numbers in Dublin no doubt exactly what the meaning of their statement is and they will be asked if it is in conformity with the Declaration and I hope that they will feel that they can take that not unreasonable step and say: “Right! We are not playing with words, we are simply saying that the armed struggle is over for good; this is a permanent end to violence!”

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I did say when I was in America to your colleagues over there at the press conference that the ice, was beginning to crack up and that the violence could happen [cease?] somewhere within the next two years, that was in the month of April because I had that instinct and I still have that.

    QUESTION:

    If the cessation of violence is permanent, how long do you think it will last?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I have no idea but there would be a hideous risk of course to life in Northern Ireland if it were only a halt or a cessation so therefore the security forces and the chiefs of the security forces – both the RUC and the GUC – have a bounden duty to do two things: to ensure that the civilian population in Northern Ireland is not put at the risk of a sudden upsurge, a sudden mass attack by armed forces in Northern Ireland and secondly, those two commanders have a duty to their own men in both the Army and the RUC and other ancillary bodies to ensure that they are not caught in some sudden outburst of violence which could be very deadly indeed so that is why I think that it will be clearly understood by all reasonable people that there has got to be a permanence about this operation and a gradual scaling down after the permanency is demonstrated and achieved.

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    I would just like to say before I cross over to Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister has had the latest of a series of very useful discussions which are frequently held between him and Mr. Molyneaux.

    It was recognised at once that there was absolutely no question there having been any kind of private understanding or secret deal between Her Majesty’s Government and Sinn Fein that led to the statement that has been made today, that was accepted as being self-evident. It was also similarly accepted as being self-evident that there has been no weakening or dilution or adjustment in any way of any kind to the constitutional guarantee which the Government has over so many years maintained that there will be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom except with the consent of the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland, something which is written into the Joint Declaration made between the two governments for example in December last year and it therefore follows that the greater part of the conversation centred upon the important statement made by Mr. Adams in Dublin today and there was naturally enough a welcome that after so long there is from midnight tonight to be no more murdering and bombing and maiming and violence generally; that naturally is a matter to be welcomed very much.

    However, it was equally obvious as the Prime Minister’s own statement issued shortly before one o’clock this afternoon made clear, that the word “permanent” didn’t feature in the statement that was issued by Mr. Adams and I think everybody will remember that the Irish Government, the British Government with the approval of Mr. Hume and the American Government as well has expressed its approval for this, all of them had insisted that before the entry process into the talks process could begin for Sinn Fein as an elected mandated political party there had first of all to be a permanent end to violence, a renunciation of violence and a permanent renunciation of the support for violence.

    It may very well be that that is the intention of the statement that has been issued by Mr. Adams today but it will be recalled that what he said was there had been ordered as from midnight tonight a complete cessation of military operations as they put ii. and the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon just before one o’clock drew attention to the fact that they had declared a complete cessation of violence but went on to say that it needed to be made clear that this was indeed intended to mean that it was over permanency, that is to say for good. I understand that there are some who say that if you look at the whole body of that statement issued by Mr. Adams that that is the intention but this is so important a matter that the Prime Minister and we believe that it ought not to be left at large or able to be the subject of discussion and argument and if indeed that is the intention it is surely the simplest thing in the world for it to be made clear that that is indeed the intention, that it is over for good.

    This is not just a piece of pleasantry or nit-picking about a particular word. What lies behind it is the absolute essential importance that such talks and negotiations as may take place in future shall not take place under the implied threat that violence which after all has gone on for so long could be taken up again and resumed if people didn’t behave during those discussions in a way that was congenial to the IRA.

    That is what it is about and I very much hope that it is the case that the intention is that it is over for good. The Prime Minister feels and we all feel very firmly that this is something that does have to be put beyond doubt. It is a very simple matter to do and we hope that it will take place, that it will be done very quickly whereupon the British Government naturally enough will start to put in place the time-scale that has already been made public about the approach to preliminary talks and so on.

    QUESTION:

    Can I be very clear about that last sentence you just uttered. Are you saying, therefore, that the 90-day clock cannot start to run until the IRA makes clear that it is permanent, makes that statement about permanence?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It couldn’t possibly start to run until midnight tonight because violence is said to be at an end only from midnight tonight.

    There is plenty of time to make that clear before midnight tonight but it should be made clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The Prime Minister has interpreted that in the statement that he issued just before lunchtime today as an end to violence, a complete cessation of violence and of course that should include violence of all kinds not just the hideous abuses that have gone in the form of bombing but things such as punishments, shootings and the like, they are all to be included.

    QUESTION:

    Is it true to say that the clock can’t start running until the IRA has specifically said that it renounces violence permanently and used the word?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It does have to be made clear before the British Government considers that the time-scale to which it is committed in public statements and most recently the commentary that it made to the twenty questions put to it in May, it does have to be made clear first that this is intended to be, as it may very well be, a permanent ending of violence, that is to say for good. Once that is done, then that process begins.

    QUESTION:

    Have you communicated this message through any channel directly to Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Will it have to be a statement by Mr. Adams of the same nature as the statement we had earlier today and as a follow-up question can I ask you at what stage will the British Government withdraw the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It doesn’t have to be made clear in any formal way in any particular format; it just has to be expressed in a means that leave ordinary people let alone governments satisfied that that which the two governments have said will be an essential before the talks process and entry into the talks process can begin, for it to be made clear in whatever form is sufficient to make it perfectly clear to the everyday people that that actually is what is intended to be delivered and of course, as we made clear in the commentary to the twenty questions in May, after the word there does have to follow a period of what I might call conduct, deed, behaviour, whatever you like to call it, that is consistent with the word and then within three months we are into the preliminary talks which we are committed to.

    QUESTION:

    Will the broadcasting ban go during the three months or only at the end of it?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    Everything will be considered step-by–step in the light of prevailing circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    If over the next three months the IRA fires not a single shot, sets not a single bomb, is this what the British Government intends?

    PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The British Government’s position has been made very clear long before now that once there is a permanent renunciation of the use of violence and a permanent renunciation of the justification or support for violence then within three months the British Government will be prepared to enter into preliminary discussions on three topics: how they can be brought into a democratic process; how they can ultimately come into the talks process, matters of that kind; and lastly, what are the practical consequences that would flow from such a permanent renunciation. I am not going to be led into specific detail which would be hypothetical at the most.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The last question was do I intend to seek clarification and I said you could put it like that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to lift the broadcasting ban so Mr. Adams can explain himself?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    Our position is unchanged on the broadcasting ban. It is kept under continuous review in the light of changing circumstances. I don’t wish to say more than that. It doesn’t rest with me anyway, it rests with the Heritage Secretary.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with East European Prime Ministers – 2 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Lithuanian Prime Minister, Mr Adolfas Slezevicius, the Estonian Prime Minister, Mr Mart Laar and the Latvian Prime Minister, Mr Valdis Virkars, in Vilnius on Tuesday 2nd August 1994.

    MR SLEZEVICIUS:

    I would like to welcome His Excellency, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr Major, and my colleagues from Latvia and Estonia, welcome to Lithuania.

    Today we had an excellent opportunity to discuss bilateral and multilateral relations, we discussed different things. First and most important for Lithuania is economic development and of course we discussed the security problems in the Baltic States region. We all agreed that now it is most important, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Latvia and Estonia, and we are supported in this process. We exchanged views about the integration process in the European Union, we are very thankful to the British government for their support we have had both before and now in this process. Of course we are very thankful for the support we have received from the Know-How Fund and we are very happy that the British government is ready to improve the category of this fund.

    We also discussed the possibility to increase our relations in the economic field, for establishing more joint ventures and foreign capital enterprises. I will leave it to our guest from England to tell you about the possibility to use some credits from the UK and other issues.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much. Can I say firstly that I am delighted to be here this morning and to have had the opportunities of not just meeting the President of Lithuania and the Prime Minister, but also the Prime Ministers of Estonia and Latvia and it has been an extremely useful morning from my point of view.

    Of course leaders of all the three Baltic States have visited London, including President Brazauskas, all of them have visited us in London recently, but I believe that this is the first occasion that a British Prime Minister has visited Lithuania, as far as we can discover it is, and I am delighted to be here.

    We had what I suppose one might call a unilateral summit this morning in that the meetings exchanged, we all met each other and exchanged views on a very wide range of issues. What was apparent though was that a number of key themes emerged from those discussions, let me just draw a small number of them out for you in the next few moments.

    This month it is three years since the Baltic States regained their independence. A very great deal has happened in those three years, we have exchanged Embassies, exchanged hundreds of visits, and we have begun to build up trade and investment between our respective countries. All these developments are welcome but they are all in their infancy thus far and have a great deal further to go.

    In all the talks I had this morning we have discussed the closer integration of the Baltic States with Western Europe in general and the European Union in particular, and that is a common goal, a common goal amongst the Baltic State governments and in Western Europe as well. And I think the reason for that is very clear. We see the Baltic peoples as part of what we tend to call in Western Europe the European family. As independent countries, and they are and will remain I trust independent countries, the Baltic States have established links with NATO through the Partnership for Peace Programme, and with the European Union through free trade agreements recently agreed and yet to be expanded and implemented.

    But the first step, the European Union intends to negotiate Europe Agreements as well, and I think it is both natural and right, perhaps even one might say inevitable, that we should develop increasingly close relations, that threatens no-one and I think it will be of assistance to the three Baltic States and of assistance to Western Europe as well.

    It would have been extraordinary this morning if we had not discussed the relationship between the Baltic States and Russia. I believe it is very important to establish a partnership with Russia based on common interests and based on respect for the same international principles. And I believe that the intention of the Baltic governments is to establish stable neighbourly relations with Russia and that is very much to their advantage and to everyone else’s advantage that that is successful. I am delighted that the last of the troops which once occupied the Baltic States will leave, by agreement, by the end of this month.

    One of the areas of course of interest to the Russians is ensuring the fair treatment of ethnic minorities, that is important to the international community as a whole and it is important to Baltic stability, and I welcome for example the revisions that have been made to the citizenship law in Latvia.

    We spent some time this morning with all three of my colleagues discussing trade matters between Britain and the Baltic States. Trade is growing, it is helped by the progress there has been with economic reform, and investment by British companies, although not yet remotely at the level it can and I believe will reach, that investment equally is beginning to grow. I have informed my Lithuanian hosts of our decision to extend export credit cover to Lithuania so it is now available for all three of the Baltic States and I hope that will be taken as a sign of our confidence in their economic success and in their future political independence.

    We are also steadily building up a large number of projects under the British Know-How Fund, all of those are designed in separate ways across a whole range of different endeavours to help the reform process that has been gathering pace in the three countries. For example, we have projects to help small and medium size enterprises right across the Baltic States, to develop agricultural advisory services in Latvia and Lithuania, and to help banking and investment in all three countries. And there are a large number of other examples of this kind.

    If there is one quality that has shone through in my discussions with my colleagues this morning, but also shone through all of the contact we have had with Baltic people over the past three years, it is determination. There is I believe an unshakeable determination to succeed among the Baltic people and I have no doubt that they will do so. It is a difficult task to build a modern democracy, to restructure a distorted economy after half a century of communist occupation. It is a huge huge task to undertake and it is a task I think that has been undertaken very bravely by successive governments in the three Baltic States.

    They have by their efforts put themselves already well on the road to success.

    We discussed a range of other bilateral matters also this morning and a range of other security matters. The discussions I had this morning though were necessarily brief because of the brief period I am able to stay here, but the Foreign Office Minister of State, Douglas Hogg, is here, he will be remaining and will also be visiting the other Baltic States to carry those discussions forward over the next day or so.

    In conclusion, let me just say this. I do not have any doubt about the prospects for the Baltic States and I have even less doubt about the importance of their relationship with the United Kingdom both now and in the future and I very much look forward to developing that relationship.

    MR LAAR:

    I would just mention some issues which were raised during our bilateral meeting, those were of course the withdrawal of Russian troops and all situations in Estonia now between Estonia and Russia, the problems of discriminating questions, what Russia is using against Estonia and Lithuania at the same time. And we talked about our bilateral cooperation in the military field which is very successful from our point of view , and our cooperation among the Partnership for Peace Programme to help support a peace-keeping battalion to develop and we are having increasing bilateral contacts between Great Britain and Estonia in this field as well. One of the main issues was of course our economic and help more investment to come to Estonia. And we are very thankful for the support we have received from the United Kingdom in our talks with the European Union, treaty and now starting negotiations to sign the Europe Treaty.

    MR VIRKARS:

    I would like to start with the point that the Baltic States had a success so far involving political and economic confidence in their transition to a democratic society and a market economy. And I suppose really what all three of us have achieved is macro-economic stabilisation with a low inflation rate and stable and convertible national currency. And we thank the United Kingdom, we pay due regard to the continuous support of the United Kingdom in our comprehensive reform process. We are in a new situation, the withdrawal of the Russian military force is taking place after the conclusion of an agreement with the Russian Federation and I must congratulate my colleague, the Estonian Prime Minister, with this agreement. It is an important step towards strengthening security in the whole Baltic region.

    Nevertheless, current circumstances require the constant attention of the world community. I suppose after the completion of the withdrawal of Russian troops new regional security setting will require new responses from international organisations and I suppose we had today a very truthful discussion about these new responses. I suppose free Baltic States after 31 August will have the next step three Baltic States in the new unified Europe.

    We had discussions about economic issues. The Latvian government, as well as Lithuania and Estonia, has concluded the free trade agreement with the European Union. This is a first step towards integration into the EU and will make a strong impact on political and economic development of the Baltic States and on security issues. All of us are interested this year under the German Presidency to sign the European Agreement and I suppose the United Kingdom will be very helpful in this process. We have planned to submit a trade policy memorandum this summer and then to become a party to GATT as soon as possible, and again I must say the same about my colleagues, and again the UK’s support in this process is very important and will be a determining factor. And of course Latvia has concluded military technical cooperation agreements with a number of NATO countries and we would very much appreciate one with the UK as well and I suppose this process has started too.

    In any case, I am very happy to be here together with my colleagues and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and we really had a good conversation. But what is most important, all of us have good futures.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask the British Premier what he thinks about the prospects of the Baltic countries eventually becoming fully-fledged members of the European Union and NATO and I would like to ask the Latvian Premier about the referendum and the support which he has given for the arrangement of that referendum here in Lithuania.

    LATVIAN PRIME MINISTER MR. VALDIS BIRKAVS:

    That is the referendum about indexation. I don’t know who had this idea about compensation and about indexation but I suppose this idea if adopted will work against Lithuania. That is not the way in which to solve economic problems.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Shall I pick up those two earlier questions? The first one was of course about the relationship with the European Union both in the short and the long term. Let me try and set out the process as I see it.

    The European Union have just agreed a free trade agreement with each of the three countries individually. I think that is a very important step in the relationship with the European Union and the first priority is to make full use of that once it comes into force at the beginning of 1995.

    The second point would be to build upon something that was agreed by the European Heads of Government at the Corfu summit just a few weeks ago and that was to establish a Europe agreement that is broadly an association agreement with the European nations that would have two practical implications: the first would be to open up trading barriers and increase trade, a very necessary part of moving towards membership of the European Union; and the second practical aspect would be to open up the prospect – the certainty – of regular political dialogue collectively with the European Union, that would be what would come with a Europe agreement.

    The Europe agreement itself would open up the prospect of accession to the European Union itself at a later stage. It isn’t possible to put a time scale on these developments. The principle is clear, the direction is clear but there is a great deal to be done on both sides; the European Union itself is expanding at the moment, it has a great deal to absorb itself and there is a great deal to do to help the three countries prepare themselves for closer integration with Western Europe and a closer trading relationship with them. It is a very fierce, competitive world inside the European Union and one needs to prepare oneself for that or the individual economies of the Baltic states would suffer some damage so there is a march towards that end but it is impossible to put a time scale on it.

    As far as defence is concerned, let me firstly make the point that bilateral defence links are growing quite rapidly between the United Kingdom and the Baltic states. We have been very pleased, for example, to be able to assist with the development of the Baltic peacekeeping battalion with infantry training and with English-language training and I was able to confirm this morning that that will continue.

    I think a very important move was made with the development of Partnership for Peace and the accession to Partnership for Peace of each of the countries represented here today and, of course, Latvia also is now an associate partner of the Western European Union.

    Those measures are quite significant measures to undertake in the short term. Growing trade relationships have their own security implications but I think one has to take it at a measured pace and that is what we are seeking to do at the present time.

    ESTONIAN PRIME MINISTER MR. MART LAAR:

    If I can comment on the proposals about indexation, I think if this will be voted for in the referendum it will have extremely negative results on the Lithuanian economy and I have some suspicion that most of this work what is made to this point to get the reforms forward will be lost just now.

    QUESTION (LATVIAN NEWSPAPER):

    I would like to ask His Excellency John Major how the change of Latvian government can influence the integration of Latvia into Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think the most important thing for the governments, whether Latvian or any of the others, is to continue to work to integrate themselves both in the international institutions – the Western European Union, the CSCE, moving towards European Union membership, Partnership for Peace – and also to begin to integrate the nature of their economies and the general free-trading impetus that dominates Western Europe, I think those are the best ways to develop but it seems to me that that is what is happening. Some of the economic progress that has been made has been quite staggering and that economic progress needs to continue if there is to be a greater and other relationship in the future.

    I should just say one thing because there is sometimes a tendency I know when talks of the Baltic states to talk of the Baltic states as though they were all the same. The reality is you have got three independent countries each with their own interests; many of those interests overlap understandably so but they are different interests, they are independent countries and I believe they would wish to be seen as independent countries and I perhaps ought to make that point but I think the general direction is the one I set out a moment ago.

    EDWARD LUCAS (BALTIC INDEPENDENT):

    Prime Minister, there is a lot of concern here about the Kaliningrad region of Russia which is host to many tens of thousands of Russian troops. Would Great Britain like to add its voice to that of Sweden and the Baltic states in urging Russia to demilitarise this region very speedily so as to reduce the potential instability that this concentration of forces presents to the whole Baltic Sea basin?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    We are certainly very keen to see an agreement reached between Lithuania and Russia over Kaliningrad and I believe from my discussions this morning that that agreement is now within reach. I think that is of interest not just to Lithuania and Russia but of interest to a number of other Central and East European states as well as the other two Baltic states. I don’t think I wish to go further than that.

    EDWARD LUCAS:

    It was on militarisation.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I understand that point very clearly and I am just coming to that. I don’t wish to go further than that. I think it is right for them to reach an agreement – that is what Lithuania and Russia are doing – and I don’t believe it is for us to go further than that.

    Nobody is in any doubt that Kaliningrad is Russian territory and the important thing therefore is to make sure that there is a proper transit agreement in the first place and at this moment I don’t propose to go beyond that.

    LATVIAN PRIME MINISTER, MR. WALDIS BIRKAVC:

    Of course, this is not only a Lithuanian question or a Lithuanian problem, it is a problem for the two other Baltic countries as well and as we have seen during last year, both Latvia and Estonia gave very strong support on the question of the withdrawal of Russian troops so we are very clear that Estonia and Latvia will support the Lithuanian activity to find some solution to the Kaliningrad problem and they are of course afraid after the withdrawal of troops from Estonia and Latvia of the important problems this will raise and of course, as I said before,. we will support fully Lithuania in trying to find solutions which are acceptable for Lithuania and that means those that are acceptable for us.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, there were some aspects about military relations with Russia discussed. That is still a big topic in all three Baltic states with different aspects of the question but in your stay in Warsaw recently you strongly spoke of Britain’s help for Poland becoming a full NATO member. I guess most of the Baltic people still want to hear some answers about our prospects of becoming NATO countries.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I set that out both in Poland and here. The implication of Partnership for Peace is that NATO will expand its membership. The question is not whether NATO will expand its membership but when, how and how far and one can’t be clear about precisely when that will be. We certainly wish to do that without destabilising the peaceful circumstances that now exist in Central and Eastern Europe so I think these are matters that need to be taken gradually and by agreement and I think that rather than setting out ultimate aims with the disruptive implications that self-evidently that could have, it is better to proceed with the Partnership for Peace agreement and the Partnership for Peace arrangements that have been established.

    Each of the Baltic states are members of Partnership for Peace. think people have perhaps underestimated the medium and long-term significance of this development. There is a changing shape across Europe at the moment, that changing shape is moving quite satisfactorily and it needs to continue. What nobody needs to do is to disrupt that by pushing too fast or too hard in a way that may disrupt what looks like a satisfactory development of security arrangements.

    QUESTION (RUSSIAN AGENCY):

    I would like to ask the British Premier to once again go back to a very pressing problem here in Lithuania and that is the problem of Russian military transit through Lithuania. There have been voices treating the intention of Lithuania to sign an agreement with Russia on transit as treason. This is an important thing not only for Lithuania but also for the region itself. What would your opinion of that be?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think my opinion of that would be one shared by most of my European partners and that is that it is in everyone’s interest that a satisfactory transit agreement to Kaliningrad is reached and I believe that one is now within sight. I am sure it is right.

    I understand very clearly, given the history and background of Lithuania and indeed of each of the three Baltic states, the concerns that arise in many people’s minds about that transit agreement of troops and material through to Kaliningrad. Nobody could fail to understand the concerns that people may feel based on history about that but I think the circumstances have changed and we have moved on and I believe it is right to reach such an agreement. I think it is a statesmanlike decision to reach such an agreement and I strongly believe that that would be the view of most of my European Union colleagues as well. I hope such an agreement will be reached. It will take some courage to reach such an agreement but I believe it is the right decision.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, you said earlier today that you were optimistic about Baltic security in the future but if things don’t go so well, say Russia turns more belligerent and turns on its neighbours, then will Britain will be willing to stand by the Baltic states? Should the Baltic states have the confidence that Britain will stand by the Baltic states if such a thing happened?

    I would also like to ask the Baltic prime ministers what their degree of confidence is that the West will come to their aid.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    We have taken a consistent position that the Baltic states are independent, should have remained independent, thankfully are independent again and I believe the greatest security that the Baltic states can get will come not least by their increasing trade and other integration with Western European institutions and Western European trading patterns.

    You erect a doomsday scenario and ask what would happen in the event of that doomsday occurring. I don’t think people are likely to answer that question in those terms but I have to say to you that I believe that the Western European countries and the Western states generally would feel strongly about maintaining the independence of the Baltic states but we see no threat to them at the moment. Perhaps if I were a Balt, I would see it differently and I absolutely understand that and I do not dismiss the concerns that many people feel but I believe matters have moved on. The departure of the Russian troops is a very significant step from within the Baltic states and I both hope and expect they will not face the sort of scenario you set out but certainly it is a very strong wish of the United Nations and everybody else that the Baltic states should retain their political and economic independence.

    ESTONIAN PRIME MINISTER, MR. MART LAAR:

    The most important thing is to avoid the possibility of such a scenario and I totally agree with Prime Minister John Major that the best thing for us is to integrate as fast possible with all Western institutions open to us and just now we can see that all European institutions are open to us. This is maybe the most important thing that is happening to us now.

    LATVIAN PRIME MINISTER, MR. VALOIS BIRKAVC:

    I can add that a very important thing in this connection is to be very cooperative amongst the Baltic states and to continue our efforts and step-by-step process of integration in all the European international organisations – step-by-step but fast.

    LITHUANIAN PRIME MINISTER, ADOLFUS SLEZEVICIUS:

    I agree with my colleagues on the principle of an umbrella for the security of the region. In my understanding and the understanding Of our government it is speeding up the integration into the European economic and security structure. We are moving this way, the [indistinct] is very good and after 31 August when we have a completely new situation in the Baltic states this process will move very fast.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me just add a point to that. what I said here today about the necessity for the independence of the Baltic states is not something we just say to the Baltic states; that is a message that the United Kingdom has consistently delivered to Russia over the last few years. I delivered that message in the past to President Gorbachev and also to President Yeltsin and I believe many other Western Heads of Government have done the same thing as well.

  • Government Statement on Bosnia – 2 August 1994

    Below is the transcript of a Government statement on Bosnia, released on Tuesday 2nd August 1994.

    We welcomed the statement by President Milosevic supporting this Contact Group proposal and calling on the Bosnian Serbs to accept it. It was important that all Serbs should realise what was at stake and that the Bosnian Serbs should reconsider their position. The latest Bosnian Serb statement suggesting further negotiations with the Contact Group did not provide the clear acceptance of the Group’s proposal which was a prerequisite to any further discussions. We now looked to President Milosevic to exercise decisive influence on the Bosnian Serb leadership to accept the proposal so that the peace process could go forward.

  • Mr Major’s Remarks in Reply to President Brazauskas – 2 August 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s remarks to President Brazauskas on 2nd August 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Prime Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    I am very grateful to you, Mr President, and to the Lithuanian Government, for your generous hospitality.

    Prime Minister Laar and Prime Minister Birkavs have kindly travelled from Estonia and Latvia to join us.

    This may be the first visit ever by a British Prime Minister to Lithuania. It has certainly been the first visit of its kind in over half a century.

    For over fifty years we, like you, held firm to the idea that the three Baltic States would again be independent. You never lost hope. Your determination brought you back to independence.

    I had the pleasure of nominating the first three British post war ambassadors to your countries, and of greeting the first Baltic leaders to visit London again. Now I have the even greater pleasure of coming here to one of the Baltic States and of meeting the Prime Ministers of all three.

    We have had an intensive morning of talks. We have discussed individually the different problems of each of your countries, and the particular relationships which you have with the United Kingdom. But there have also been some common themes, and I would like to say a few words about them.

    First, let me say that your independence is no less important to us now that you have regained it.

    You rightly insisted – with our support – that occupying forces had to withdraw. Your persistence will see the Baltic States free of uninvited foreign forces by the end of this month – for the first time in 54 years.

    The way this has been achieved testifies to the good sense of your governments and of the Russian Government under President Yeltsin.

    Second, you want a greater sense of security. We live in an uncertain world, and your countries have had a turbulent and uncertain history.

    I cannot hold out certainty for the future, but I am optimistic about the prospects for the Baltic States.

    Your sovereignty is a recognised fact. You have the rights and status of members of the United Nations and the CSCE. Violation of that status would carry a heavy cost.

    You have developed links with NATO through Partnership for Peace – links which threaten no other country.

    You now have a network of bilateral relationships with your friends in Europe and elsewhere. For example, Britain’s defence cooperation with you and the establishment of the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion is a sign of practical cooperation which ties in well with Partnership for Peace.

    But I am optimistic also about Russia. I take nothing for granted. The huge changes under way in Russia will take years to work through. But both you and we have shown the desire to develop stable and modern relations with Russia, as sovereign partners and in your case as neighbours. The leaders of Russia, for their part, know that this meets their country’s interests, too. They know, I hope, that the last thing we want is to create new barriers in Europe, now that we have erased the post war dividing line.

    This brings me to my third point. The Baltic peoples are members of the European family. Britain has always been the foremost advocate of an outward looking European Union. I cannot at this stage predict exactly how the European Union will develop in the years ahead. You have taken a first step with your Free Trade Agreements with the European Union. At Corfu, the European Council agreed that Europe Agreements should be the next step of the Baltic States.

    I want the European Union to go on building up its relations with your countries, step by step, matching the development of your own economies and political systems.

    Mr President, fellow Prime Ministers, I have come here at an encouraging time.

    Estonia has now reached agreement with Russia on troop withdrawals.

    Latvia has resolved the problem of her citizenship law. I hope that Lithuania will soon be able to find agreement with Russia on military transit.

    You are making progress with economic reform. This has been reflected in increasing trade with Britain, and investment by some of our largest companies such as Shell and Cable and Wireless.

    Rebuilding your countries after half a century of Communism and foreign occupation is a huge challenge.

    You and your peoples have risen to that challenge. I have no doubt at all that you will succeed.

    We wish to play a part in that success, and will continue to offer our enthusiastic support.

     

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Warsaw – 1 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at Krasinski Square in Warsaw on Monday 1st August 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. This year and next in many of the countries in Europe we commemorate the inspiring but tragic events of 50 years ago, we honour the bravery and sacrifices of those who fought in a just cause, and we celebrate half a century of peace and reconciliation. Your guests from abroad today, Mr President, embody that spirit of reconciliation.

    I am proud to represent my country here today. Britain stood with Poland in 1939. Your government then found refuge in London. Through the war Poles and Britons served side by side in the air, on land and at sea.

    It was in a broadcast from London that the world first heard of the 1944 uprising. Winston Churchill declared that Britain felt itself responsible for the restoration to the Poles of their own country. He was deeply moved by what he called “the martyrdom of Warsaw”. In his “History of the War” he later gave a moving account of the struggle by Warsaw’s people to save their city, of their hardships and of how they saw it almost totally destroyed.

    Britain tried to help, though no country could do enough. During the fighting 186 sorties were flown from British bases on the other side of Europe in the south of Italy. One in three aircraft did not return.

    Earlier today I laid a wreath at the spot where one of them crashed in the Sharasevenski Park, just across the river. I met there veterans from Britain and other Commonwealth countries and allies who risked their lives so that Poland might be free. They are a living witness to the values which bind our free nations, and so are the thousands of Polish veterans who today live in my country of Britain.

    The uprising was Poland’s decision to assert her sovereignty and independence. But Poland’s tragedy was that the outcome of the war, and of the uprising, left her under another occupation. It took 45 years fully to reassert your country’s independence and sovereignty.

    After the destruction of Warsaw in 1944, the people of Warsaw and of Poland rebuilt this capital city. The world can see your success and your pride in the old town, the Royal Castle, the streets and stones of Warsaw.

    Now you grapple with another challenge – to rebuild your economy and society after the devastation of communism. With your other friends we are taking part in the rebuilding of Poland, through trade, through investment, through transfer of Know-How. And now a democratic and independent Poland has made the sovereign decision to apply for membership of the European Union. I welcome that. Europe will not be complete without Poland as a full member of our Union. The values of the Union are those values for which your citizens and ours fought and died 50 years ago.

    This evening we remember and we honour those dead, we honour also all those who lived through time of pity and terror. Soldiers and civilians, men and women and children symbolised by the statue of the little boy soldier with the helmet, the brave people of Warsaw. Let the past be an inspiration for the future, for the new challenges of peace and freedom.

    Perhaps those, like me, who were not there cannot fully understand, but we can stand beside you now, as we stood then, and offer thanks and honour.

    Let me quote from the words of one of the last broadcasts from Warsaw in October 1944. It goes as follows:

    “In Warsaw is the nation that can muster such universal heroism. For those who have died have conquered and those who live on will fight on, will conquer and again bear witness that Poland lives when the Poles live”.