The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Council of Europe Meeting in Dublin – 16 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the Council of Europe meeting held in Dublin on 16th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library of the House.

    The main issues on the agenda were the intergovernmental conference and economic and monetary union.

    The Council had a lengthy discussion on the prospects for the intergovernmental conference. Shortly beforehand, the Irish presidency had tabled a general outline for a draft revision of the treaty. That has been deposited in the House. It summarises fairly the position reached in the negotiations and the views of different member states. The views of the United Kingdom are fully reflected in it.

    The Council conclusions reaffirm the target of completing the intergovernmental conference at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 and welcome the presidency document as a good basis for the work that lies ahead. That work was in no way prejudiced by the Council’s conclusions in Dublin. We shall continue to advocate our own proposals and press our own concerns.

    In discussion, I welcomed the progress made in a number of areas: subsidiarity, a greater role for national Parliaments, making the common foreign and security policy more effective, improving the quality of European legislation and introducing greater openness into the workings of the European Union.

    I also spelled out the United Kingdom position on a number of key points. I see no purpose in a new employment chapter in the treaty. It will not create a single job. I do not accept that an enlarged European Union needs more qualified majority voting. On defence, we welcome co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union, but not merger or subordination of decision making. I will not agree to justice and home affairs issues falling under Community competence. It is unthinkable that the United Kingdom would relinquish its frontier controls. I also emphasised our requirement for progress on quota hopping in the common fisheries policy and on the working time directive.

    The outcome of the intergovernmental conference will do much to determine the future direction of the European Union. Some advocate a more integrated, centralised Europe. I respect that view, but I do not share it. It would not be right for Britain. I believe that the European Union must be a partnership of nation states, with Community competence where it is needed, but only where it is needed. This is more than a free trade area, but very much less than an embryo European state.

    There is only one way in which those competing visions can be reconciled, and that is through the development of a more flexible Europe. That is one of the most important issues before the conference. Those who wish to integrate further in particular areas should not be frustrated unreasonably although, if they wish to use European Union institutions, they can proceed only through unanimity. Those who do not must not be forced into unwished-for obligations, which build up resentment.

    I first set out the need for flexibility at Leiden some years ago, and it is now widely accepted. But we need to ensure that it is developed in a way that protects the vital interests of those who do not wish to integrate further in particular areas. There is much more work to be done here, and very little time in which to do it if the Amsterdam deadline is to be met.

    Economic and monetary union was the subject of much interest, although the European Council did not itself discuss the issues at any great length. The Council agreed a report by Economic and Finance Ministers covering three issues on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has reported to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks: the stability pact, the legal status of the euro and the new-–voluntary-–exchange rate mechanism. The conclusions, to which the Economic and Finance Council report is annexed, make it clear that those issues remain subject to our parliamentary reserve.

    If the single currency goes ahead, it is a vital British interest-–whether or not Britain is a member-–that it succeeds; so I welcome the progress on the stability pact. The agreement reached strikes the right balance between the necessary discipline and the need for the Council of Ministers to retain control of the disciplinary process if individual countries get into difficulty.

    The House will welcome the clear statements in the ECOFIN report that the arrangements for economic surveillance to be agreed for countries not in the single currency cannot lead to sanctions of any kind. I have made no secret of my doubts about whether enough countries will be sufficiently convergent to allow a single currency to go ahead on the present timetable. I repeated those doubts in Dublin. It is important that the figures themselves are not fudged, but whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day is less important than the extent of genuine economic readiness for such a far-reaching step. I am therefore pleased that the ECOFIN report makes clear the importance of not only achieving economic convergence on a particular day, but being able to sustain it over the long term.

    I should also report that the president of the European Monetary Institute presented to the Council, and subsequently publicly, designs for the proposed single currency’s banknotes. Those designs are the responsibility of the central banks-–as, indeed, such designs are the responsibility of the Bank of England in this country now. Everyone will have their own views on those.

    The decision on whether to go ahead with a single currency will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. Although we expect to meet the required economic conditions, we have the right to decide whether or not we wish to join, if it goes ahead. We will make our decision when we are clear about all the necessary issues, including, crucially, our assessment of the prospect for real and sustained economic convergence.

    The Council also discussed employment. Unemployment in this country is lower than in the other major European Union economies, and is falling faster. I circulated at the Council a paper on United Kingdom policies and their results, and commended it to our partners.

    The Council adopted a declaration on unemployment. My agreement to it was subject to three conditions: that it confirmed that primary responsibility for employment policy rested with member states; that the European Union’s approach remained based on the supply-side policies agreed at Essen in 1994; and that the declaration in no way prejudiced the question of an employment chapter in the treaty. Those conditions were agreed.

    The European Council also discussed justice and home affairs, in which we welcome greater European co-operation, as long as it remains firmly on an intergovernmental basis. The Council confirmed the priority of the fight against drugs, and endorsed an Anglo-French initiative to combat transit and production of drugs in the central Asian republics. It called for ratification of the Europol convention by the end of 1997-–achieved only by the United Kingdom so far-–and agreed that Europol, the European Police Office, should work in conjunction with national agencies to support the fight against international crime. The Council also created a high-level group to draw up an action plan against organised crime, welcomed joint actions against sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings, and confirmed the need for intensified co-operation against terrorism.

    I briefed my colleagues on the steps that we have taken to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy, notably progress under the 30-month slaughter scheme. I sought and received confirmation that future decisions on lifting the ban would be taken on the basis of science, as agreed at Florence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement a little later on the next steps.

    On foreign policy, the Council endorsed the London conference document on Bosnia as an excellent basis for work next year. On the middle east, the declaration that was issued reflected our concern about the current state of the peace process. The Council also expressed its strong interest in a smooth transition to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year and its support for the existing representative democratic institutions of Hong Kong. That was a welcome endorsement of our approach.

    The European Union is approaching some historic decisions over the next 18 months, both on a single currency and on its future direction. The result of the intergovernmental conference may well mark a crucial turning point in Europe’s development. The President of the European Commission said last week that the moment of truth lies ahead. There is one sense at least in which he is right. The choices that are made will determine not only the success and stability of Europe as a whole, but Britain’s relationship with it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Dublin – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset. The Chancellor and I had a press conference yesterday so I won’t traipse over the ground we covered then, though you may wish to raise some of those matters in questions later.

    I am not sure whether you have yet got the conclusions of the Council, but when you do have them you will see that they are shorter than usual. I think that is thoroughly welcome, we have been seeking that for some time, and I think it also reflects the professionalism of the Irish Presidency. I think it has been a very good Presidency, I don’t say that just for the sake of form, it has been an extremely good Presidency and if I may say so, John Bruton has chaired the last couple of days with great skill.

    When you get the conclusions you will find attached to them are also the conclusions of the ECOFIN report on Economic and Monetary Union, including the stability pact. And the conclusions refer to the requirement for sustainable and durable convergence, and self-evidently that is necessary.

    If EMU goes ahead, it will be in our interest – in or out – that it is based on sound finances and that the Euro money is stable. The stability pact is not a substitute for the right economic conditions, but it is a way of ensuring that once the right economic conditions are obtained, that they are sustained for the future.

    As far as the economic conditions are concerned, self-evidently they are essential for a successful Economic and Monetary Union. And equally importantly, only those member states which genuinely have the right economic conditions, and genuinely can sustain the right economic conditions, should safely join the Euro system.

    Our own position of course is fully covered by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. And the ECOFIN report and the regulations to which they refer involve no new policy obligations on the United Kingdom.

    The conclusions of the last couple of days reaffirm the intentions to take decisions on the Intergovernmental Conference by next June. They do that, but they do not pre-empt what any of those conclusions might be. We have long argued that the best way to make the European union flourish is not to keep pulling it up by its roots to see if it should be re-planted, but to build on what already exists, and we think the scope for action is already there and that is self-evident from the discussions in the last day or so.

    One area I think where that is particularly true is in the fight against terrorism and crime, and the ideas we have put forward are contained in the conclusions. We are keen to develop the role of Europol, working side by side with the national responsibilities which of course have primary responsibility. That of course can only truly happen when all the Member States have ratified the Europol Convention. We have done so, we were the first to do so, and the conclusions invite other members to follow suit as soon as possible.

    One other point I think worth mentioning. The programme which we initiated some time ago of less legislation, but better legislation, is also taken a stage further in the conclusions. This year there will have been only a dozen legislative proposals from the Commission. They have also withdrawn a further 50 proposals which have now become obsolete for one reason or another, and they have extended the process of consultation with 8 Green Papers so far this year. That I think is a welcome development in the way the legislation is produced.

    In the discussion on employment, I circulated a paper on the British employment experience and many of you may have spotted a speech by M Juppe recently in which he acknowledged the success in the United Kingdom in generating jobs and growth, and that approach is reflected in the declaration that you will see on employment.

    Finally, I would just like to draw your attention to the conclusions on Hong Kong which the Foreign Secretary discussed at dinner with his colleagues last evening, and I discussed over a separate dinner as well. There was very strong support from our partners for a peaceful transition and the continuation of Hong Kong’s prosperity and democratic traditions. And the Commission will now be preparing an initiative to intensify the links that the European union has with Hong Kong.

    So I think that covers the points that I didn’t cover yesterday, though I am perfectly content for you to return to those matters if you wish to ask any questions on them.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    You set out before this conference to defend the British veto. If you look at the conclusions, can you point to anything in that and say yes, I have held back [indistinct] Community in view of the passage that seems to think that there will have to be a strict capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum and immigration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I think we are talking about inter-governmentally there, not taking any centralised support. There has been no suggestion that the veto would be changed, it has not been a subject for discussion. What we have had has been the basis of the debates that will take place in the next six months, and it may well be that case that in the next six months some countries will wish to move exclusively to qualified majority voting, and by definition remove the veto. I suspect that will be one of the matters that they will raise in negotiation in the months that lie ahead. But our position is very clear cut on that. We are not proposing to surrender the veto and the veto can only be surrendered if there is total agreement, unanimity, consensus upon actually doing so, and our partners know there will not be such a consensus.

    QUESTION:

    The Dutch Presidency has been talking, as the incoming Presidency, of its priorities for the negotiations. Foremost among them is their desire to see the communautairisation of the Schengen Agreement on border controls, something that the government has been opposed to. If the Dutch Presidency offer the United Kingdom an opt-out from the consequences of the communautairisation of the Schengen Agreement, would you reconsider your veto on that question?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will consider very carefully any proposal put to me during the Intergovernmental Conference, but I certainly don’t wish, with respect, to negotiate them here on this occasion. What is self-evident is that our border controls are not going to be changed, not just because we are being stubborn and difficult, but we have a wholly different tradition to most of our continental partners and different circumstances. We have a common land border with the Republic of Ireland, and that has existed a good deal longer than Schengen, and is at least as open, if not more open, than any of their borders. But the rest of our partners have a continuous land mass in Europe; we don’t, we are an island, we have different circumstances. They have a long tradition and acceptance of identity cards, of police papers being readily produced, that we don’t have in the United Kingdom. So our borders are of especial importance to us because they are our mechanism for protection against abuse of immigration and protection against crime. So that is not something we are likely to alter. If people are putting ideas to us about how they may proceed in certain circumstances, without involving the United Kingdom, then it would be very ungracious of me not to examine them. But I would like to see them and examine them very carefully before I reached a conclusion on them.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    If I could take you back to the section of the draft conclusion that Elinor was referring to, when it talks about strengthened capacity for action. “In relation to asylum, immigration, crossing external borders, drugs, crime, terrorism, the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas”. Given all that you have been saying, surely you object to that particular passage. Did you make any effort to get that struck out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, we didn’t, because we didn’t need to. The circumstance in which that is being discussed is determining the intergovernmental nature of the work that will be done through Europol and other matters, and we are very keen to work with Europol. Working with Europol is not a problem. We have been one of the foremost advocates of doing so and for a very sound reason. Many of the problems of crime that afflict Northern Europe, including the United Kingdom, are international. The advantages of working together are clear. What is not proposed there is that there would be Union responsibility subordinating national responsibility. To read it that way is to misunderstand the context of the discussions and the purpose of the conclusions.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, SKY News):

    Yesterday, you were kind enough to give us your views on the chances of a single currency happening on time. The other delegations, as you know, have expressed different opinions about that. Can I now ask each one of you three what you think the chances of Britain being in that first wave are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes you can certainly ask. Next question.

    QUESTION (Paddy Smith, The Irish Times):

    Prime Minister, given your praise for the Irish presidency, can I take it then that you would support the proposition that small countries can handle the presidency and that the presidency system should remain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Irish have handled the presidency excellently; the documentation they produced was of a very high order and the quality of chairmanship that John Bruton has shown – I haven’t attended the Foreign Affairs Council or the ECOFIN Council so my colleagues can speak for themselves – has been absolutely excellent. I have no complaints whatever about the Irish Presidency, I think it has done a first-class job. I don’t know whether Ken and Malcolm want to add anything to that.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    It is no discourtesy to anybody else but my experience of the Irish presidency is that it has been as well-conducted as any presidency I can remember, it has been done very well indeed.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The question as to whether there should be some reform of the presidency doesn’t just arise from the small size of the some of the applicant countries, it also arises from the fact that there could be as many as 25 member states and whether it is wise to have a presidency for six months run by just one country.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The other point that goes with that is whether there is some reform needed of the Troika and I think self-evidently there is going to be some reform of the Troika for reasons that scarcely need spelling out.

    QUESTION (The Economist):

    Prime Minister, under your Prime Ministership, when Britain was in the ERM the British budget swung from a surplus to a deficit that approached 7 per cent of GDP at its highest point. Since you support the stability pact, do you think that this sort of irresponsible behaviour should have been punished by a fine of around 3.5 billion pounds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, nor would it have been because if you read the stability pact carefully you will see in areas of substantial recession – I think above 2 per cent, the Chancellor will confirm – those circumstances would not apply, neither are the fines now automatic, the German proposal for automaticity of fines did not receive the approval of colleagues and, as you know, it has been changed so we certainly would not have been subjected to that fine and if you look at what happened during that period, you would see that that applied to countries right across western Europe in perhaps the worst recession we have known, you will also have seen the improvement since in the United Kingdom economy.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, now the stability pact has been agreed, the French and Germans are going to start talking more about who should enforce it and they are talking about setting up a form of economic government for Europe informally. How do you feel about Britain being excluded from that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    We are not! Firstly, the enforcement – as you put it – of the Stability Council will be enforcement by the ECOFIN Council at this stage and once you go into the single currency it will be the finance ministers of those countries which are in membership who will enforce discipline on each other and nobody has proposed any change to that.

    There have been in the past some people canvassing the idea of an informal council comprising the ministers of the members states meeting in some way, not using the institutions of the Community but informally between sessions, in order to have an overall oversight of how the single monetary union is going. That has not been mentioned once in Dublin, it hasn’t been raised and the last time it was raised it didn’t get a very forthcoming response from most people at ECOFIN so if you have met the odd Frenchmen or the odd German describing it in the terms that you have described, I think they are a million miles away from any discussion that has taken place at any meeting I have ever attended.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, there would appear to be some significant differences between yourself and the Taoiseach on the time frame for the entry of Sinn Fein into the peace talks. Could you comment on that and what message would you have for Mr Adams and Sinn Fein/IRA from this Dublin summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that the message to them would especially be from the Dublin summit because this hasn’t been a matter for discussion at the Dublin summit, but I think my message to Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness is very clear-cut. Everybody wishes to see a ceasefire, they wish to see a genuine ceasefire, they wish to see a ceasefire that will last and if Sinn Fein will deliver a genuine ceasefire that will last and enable us and the other participants in the talks to be confident that it will last, then the door to Sinn Fein entering the constitutional talks is open. The only people closing the door in Sinn Fein’s face are Sinn Fein and the IRA themselves. I would welcome inclusive talks but there cannot be inclusive talks with semtex and a gun hidden under the table. Nobody is going to accept that. Once that fear is removed, the talks are open for them.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters, The Express):

    Prime Minister, why do you think there is so much more hostility towards the single currency in Britain than there seems to be in other European countries and could I ask you the question that you so uncharacteristically ducked a few minutes ago? What are our chances of being in the first wave?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, I am not so sure – although the debate is fiercer in the United Kingdom – that public opinion is necessarily more hostile in the United Kingdom. I slightly argue against myself, I don’t very often agree very much with opinion polls, but insofar as you can draw anything from them, you will find in some other countries the disagreement with the concept of a single currency is stronger than it has been shown to be in the United Kingdom.

    That is not true, of course, about the severity of the debate about a single currency which has been much more severe in the United Kingdom and I think that probably springs from several reasons: we have a much more adversarial political tradition than most of our European partners and the debate on the details and the impact of a single currency has been established for much longer in the United Kingdom than in other countries. The matters that we were openly debating over the last three or four years as far as a single currency is concerned have only just begun to be debated in the same sort of fashion in the countries of many of our European partners. Perhaps another difference is that there tends, if I may put it this way, to be a political class in some of our European partners’ countries and the political class has a broadly collective view that so far as one can see is not necessarily shared by the electors that they represent. Those are the three or four principal reasons why it seems to be so different in the United Kingdom.

    As far as the other part of your question is concerned in which you say so kindly I uncharacteristically ducked, well far be it from me to disappoint you twice but I shall uncharacteristically duck it yet again for precisely the reason we have set out in the past – we will wait and see what the circumstances are. We have an option to join or an option not to join and will make our decision upon the facts of the matter when we see the circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have been praising the Irish presidency but can I ask you a serious question? An Irish official last week, after the London summit – I am talking about Northern Ireland now – said that basically you weren’t engaged at that London summit and basically what they are saying in football parlance is that you really have your eye off the ball of Northern Ireland now because of your situation at Westminster and as I said, the quote was from the Irish official that you weren’t engaged in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find that extraordinary. I have been pretty intensively engaged in the Northern Ireland issue for the last five years and I am not going to become disattached from it. If I wasn’t engaged, we had two-and-a-half hours of pretty intensive discussion on the question of Northern Ireland and I have just indicated in the last few moments yet again exactly what the British Government’s position is. We could scarcely be more engaged and I don’t think any British Government has been as engaged and working as closely with the other constitutional parties and the Irish government as the British Government has in recent years and that remains the circumstance.

    I cannot imagine who could said what you have just reported but I will reflect upon it might have been! [Laughter].

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman, Channel 4):

    Could I just ask you to sum up what you think you have achieved at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of the summit was to determine effectively the ground rules for the negotiations over the next six months. What I wanted was the Irish text unaltered so that none of the decisions that lie ahead were prejudiced by decisions by the heads of government reached upon a brief conversation rather than detailed negotiation and that is what we have achieved.

    The Irish text, which sets out everybody’s options, remains the basis for negotiation. The debate and discussion over the past two days have not closed down any of the options and it has left open for proper debate and discussion all the issues that we wish to bring forward at the intergovernmental conference and has not foreclosed favourably on any of the issues to which we are antagonistic so we have set the ground rules for the debate over the next six months on the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and that is what we sought to do.

    QUESTION:

    Those could be your last words at a summit, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much doubt it and I will look forward to welcoming you, if you are still in the job, in June!

  • Presidency Conclusions Following the Dublin European Council – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of the Presidency Conclusions following the Dublin European Council meeting on the 13th and 14th December 1996.

    PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The European Council, meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, took a number of significant decisions for the continued development of the European Union.

    The European Council:

    – achieved further decisive progress on Economic and Monetary Union,

    – identified a broad range of measures to be implemented at national and Community level aimed at boosting employment,

    – adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment,

    – welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Irish Presidency as a good basis for the final phase of the Intergovernmental Conference which should conclude at Amsterdam in June 1997,

    – adopted an important series of measures in the area of Justice and Home Affairs and, in particular, agreed ways and means to combat the scourges of drugs, organized crime, including terrorism, and the sexual exploitation of children,

    – reviewed the Union’s action in external relations.

    The European Council began its proceedings by an exchange of views with Mr. Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, on the main subjects for discussion at this meeting. It thanked Mr. HÄNSCH, who will be stepping down from office next January, for his valuable contribution to furthering constructive cooperation between the Institutions.

    A meeting also took place today with the Heads of State or Government and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, as well as Cyprus. There was a broad exchange of views on these conclusions and on matters pertaining to the field of Justice and Home Affairs, with particular reference to the fight against drugs and organized crime.

    1. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
    2. Economic and Monetary Union

    The European Council welcomes the further decisive progress which has been made in the preparations for EMU, which will begin on 1 January 1999.

    – The structure of the new Exchange Rate Mechanism has been agreed.

    – The urgent aspects of the legal framework for the use of the euro have been finalized for early adoption.

    – The principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in EMU have been agreed.

    The European Council therefore urges the institutions, public authorities and economic agents to intensify their preparations for the starting date of 1 January 1999.

    The European Council welcomes the excellent Report by the ECOFIN Council (annexed) on preparations for Stage 3 of EMU, which is fully in line with the conclusions of Madrid and Florence, and it pays tribute to the contributions, in their respective fields of competence, from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute (EMI). The contents of this Report are subject to Parliamentary reservations.

    In particular the European Council:

    – endorses the conclusions on the new exchange rate mechanism (ERM2) as proposed by the ECOFIN Council and the EMI. It invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare for the European Council in June 1997 a draft Resolution setting out the fundamental elements of the ERM2, following the precedent set in 1978 in relation to the present ERM. The EMI is invited to prepare, in parallel, a draft for an inter-central bank agreement, for submission to the European Central Bank and the central banks of the Member States not forming part of the euro area.

    – underlines the need to ensure durable budget discipline in Stage 3 of EMU and welcomes the agreement reached on the Stability and Growth Pact. It requests the ECOFIN Council to examine intensively the Commission proposals for two Regulations, one on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary positions and the other on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure. It invites the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Regulation on non-participating Member States. Furthermore, it invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare a draft Resolution on the Stability and Growth Pact to be adopted by the European Council in June 1997, recording the commitments of the Member States, the Commission and the Council to a strict application of the Treaty and the legal provisions on budgetary stability. The European Council notes that after it has adopted the Resolution, the Council will adopt the respective Regulations.

    – welcomes the agreement by the ECOFIN Council on the two Regulations establishing the legal framework for the euro which are being made public by the Presidency. It invites the Council to adopt the first Regulation based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty without delay. The second Regulation will be adopted by the Council as early as possible in 1998, once the decision on the Member States participating in the euro area has been taken.

    The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, has taken its decision under Article 109j(3) of the EC Treaty and confirms that the procedure laid down in Article 109j(4) will be applied as early as possible in 1998, with a view to the commencement of the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. In this context, the European Council welcomes the intentions of the Member States to further reduce budgetary imbalances in 1997 with a view to achieving the high degree of sustainable convergence required for participation in the single currency and it underlines the need for durable convergence in the third stage.

    The European Council underlines the importance of exchange rate stability for the process of convergence and the smooth operation of the internal market and accordingly warmly welcomes the entry into the ERM of the Finnish markka on 12 October 1996 and the re-entry of the Italian lira on 24 November 1996.

    The European Council underscores the need to make the euro tangible for citizens. In this regard, it welcomes the designs for the euro bank notes presented by the European Monetary Institute. It also welcomes the arrangements being made by the Commission for the design competition for the coins; this will allow the choice to be made during the Dutch Presidency.

    The Heads of State or Government decided to reappoint Baron Alexandre LAMFALUSSY as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 January 1997 until 30 June 1997. They decided to appoint Dr. Willem Frederik DUISENBERG, President of De Nederlandsche Bank, as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 July 1997 until the establishment of the European Central Bank.

    1. SEM 2000 (Sound and efficient management)

    The European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 2 December 1996 on the report of the Personal Representatives Group on Sound Financial Management.

    It reaffirmed its support for the Commission’s SEM 2000 initiative and generally welcomed the recommendations in the report which constitute a substantial action programme to improve the financial management of EU expenditure in partnership between the Commission and the Member States.

    The European Council invited Council and Commission to report on progress in implementing the recommendations to its meeting in December 1997.

    III. EMPLOYMENT

    1. Growth and Employment in Europe – the way forward

    The fight against unemployment is the prime responsibility of the Member States but also a priority task of the Union. The European Council had an in-depth discussion on the growth and employment strategy, based on the joint report from the Council and the Commission on employment, the Commission’s progress report on the initiative for “Action on employment: a Confidence Pact” and the joint contribution by the social partners on the Confidence Pact which they adopted in Dublin on 29 November. In its deliberations it has also taken account of the proposals in President Chirac’s Memorandum on a European Social Model with a view to giving greater emphasis to the human dimension of the Union.

    The European Council, building on the Essen strategy, endorses the analysis contained in the Joint Report and urges the Member States to pursue this strategy with determination and consistency. It calls for continued support for this strategy by all relevant actors at European, national and local level, including the social partners and reaffirms the importance of equal opportunities.

    To underline its commitment to this strategy the European Council has adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment (annexed), which reflects the recommendations in the Joint Report on the need for:

    – a continuation of the macroeconomic strategy for economic growth and employment in line with agreed economic policy guidelines,

    – increased efforts to modernize the markets for goods and services and to exploit new sources of employment,

    – a focusing on labour market efficiency and on investment in human resources,

    – making taxation and social protection systems more employment-friendly,

    – strengthening the interplay between macroeconomic and structural policies in the Member States’ Multi-annual Employment Programmes.

    It invites the Commission and the Member States, especially in the framework of the new Employment and Labour Market Committee and the Economic Policy Committee, to develop further the instruments for the effective monitoring and evaluation of employment and labour market policies and the identification of good practice. In particular, common employment indicators should be further developed and the possibilities of benchmarking should be assessed.

    The European Council welcomes the positive reaction to the initiatives on territorial employment pacts and urges swift implementation of the 60 projects proposed by the Member States.

    The European Council stresses once again the essential role of the Internal Market in promoting growth and employment in the Union. Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises has a crucial role to play to this effect. Whilst noting the progress that has been accomplished in this area, it remains concerned with the delays in the transposition and implementation of a number of Directives. It takes note of Commission’s intention to submit before the Amsterdam European Council an action plan and a timetable covering all necessary measures that must be taken to ensure that the full potential benefit of the Internal Market is achieved before the beginning of Stage 3 of EMU.

    The European Council noted the Commission report on the development of tax systems, which was drawn to its attention by the ECOFIN Council, underlining the need for further work on this issue. The European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to continue the discussions in a tax policy group, paying particular attention to the effects of this policy on employment.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission’s plans in relation to innovation and the development of the information society as important inputs for the future development of the Union’s competitiveness. Investment in education and training are crucial for securing equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in and benefit from the information society. The European Council believes that there should be regular monitoring and evaluation of the Union’s competitiveness against world best practice along the lines of the conclusions on benchmarking adopted by the Industry Council.

    The European Council reiterates the importance of regulatory simplification and requests, in this context, the extension of the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative. It emphasizes that the effort to reduce administrative costs for enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is necessary for Member States as well as the Community institutions and invites the Council to follow up in this respect its resolution on legislative and administrative simplification in the internal market.

    Postal services form an essential component of the communications infrastructure in the Union. The development of the internal market for postal services bears huge significance in economic and social terms. The European Council welcomes the intensive efforts made to date to effect relevant measures, but notes with regret that the Council has not reached a Common Position. It asks the Council to take a decision by the end of the year, taking account of the work already done at its meeting on 28 November 1996.

    The European Council asks the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take all steps so that an immediate decision to liberalize postal services can be taken. The universal service in the postal sector must remain assured.

    The European Council recognizes the importance of the implementation of the Trans-European Networks. It agrees with the proposal by the Portuguese and Spanish Governments that priority project No. 8 in list 1 from the Essen European Council will become the Multimodal link between Portugal/Spain and the rest of Europe.

    1. Subsidiarity and Proportionality

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of ensuring that the institutions apply subsidiarity and proportionality thoroughly to all legislative proposals. It welcomes the Commission’s 1996 “Better Law Making” report on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality, on simplification and on consolidation of legislation. The European Council invites the Commission to provide a progress report before the end of 1997.

    1. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    The European Council welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Presidency. This makes it possible for the negotiations to move now into their final phase.

    The European Council has also taken note of the recent letter from the German Chancellor and the French President which will be an important contribution to the further work of the Conference.

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of completing the Conference at Amsterdam in June 1997. The Presidency document provides a good basis for the work which lies ahead. As the document makes clear, delegations remain free to advocate their own proposals and to press their concerns in further negotiation.

    As it moves now into its final decisive phase, the Conference must seek to achieve a balanced outcome in all areas which will measure up to the aims and ambitions which the European Council has set for it. It is essential that the Union be equipped to face the challenges ahead as it prepares for the 21st century.

    The European Council notes with approval the progress at the Conference in identifying Treaty changes which would make the Union more responsive to the concerns of its citizens and it reaffirms the aims which it set out at Florence in this regard.

    The European Council notes with approval the particular importance which the Presidency document attaches to the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The European Council has agreed today on a number of important decisions under the existing Treaty provisions which are set out in Section V of the present conclusions. It asks the Intergovernmental Conference, taking account of the outline draft for Treaty revision presented by the Presidency, to work to reach agreement on a strengthened capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum, immigration, the crossing of external borders, the fight against drugs and international crime including terrorism, offences against children and trafficking in persons. Europol should have operative powers working in conjunction with the national authorities to this end. These issues are of the most serious concern to citizens in all Member States and the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the aim which it set in Florence of developing the external action of the Union. The Union must enhance its capacity to ensure that its external action is coherent and effective in all its aspects, and it must improve its decision-making procedures, if it is to play a role in the world commensurate with its responsibilities and its potential. The European Council noted the approaches which the Presidency has identified in its document in relevant areas including the options for establishing a new function to enhance the visibility of the CFSP and the strengthening of links with the WEU.

    Institutional issues will be central to the next phase of the negotiations. The Union needs to improve its ability to take decisions and to act. This is already true today and it will be even more necessary as the Union moves to enlarge its membership further. The Union must have comprehensible, transparent and democratic procedures and strong and effective institutions which enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

    The European Council notes that the Presidency document, responding to a view of many delegations that certain issues can be settled definitively only at a later stage in the Conference, does not include texts in Treaty form on the issue of flexibility and on certain sensitive institutional questions, although it offers an analysis of the issues and identifies options. In the next phase of the Conference solutions must be found on all institutional issues, including in particular on the size of the Commission, the role of the European Parliament, the collective association of national parliaments, the voting mechanisms in the Council and the functioning of the Court of Justice, while respecting the balances which have always been an important feature of European construction.

    The European Council also notes the progress made thus far in examining the proposals for Treaty provisions which would permit more flexible approaches leading to enhanced cooperation in appropriate areas, subject to agreed conditions. This issue is of great importance and the European Council asks the Conference to devote particular attention to it.

    The European Council emphasizes strongly that the future of the Union and the success of the further enlargement to which it has committed itself will depend on a satisfactory resolution of all of these questions.

    The European Council asks the Conference to develop the important proposal to amend the Treaties to establish it as a clear principle that no citizen of a Member State of the Union may apply for asylum in another Member State, taking into account international treaties.

    The European Council notes also the proposal submitted jointly by three delegations, since the presentation of the Presidency document, for the Treaty to include the specific character of the outermost regions of the Union and it asks that it be examined by the Conference.

    Finally, the European Council asks the Conference, on the basis of the preparatory work already carried out, to continue to work to present a significantly simplified version of the Treaties with a view to making them more readable and comprehensible to the Union’s citizens. This must be done in a way which does not reopen the acquis of the Treaties, preserves the pillar structure and does not delay the outcome of the Conference.

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

    The European Council reaffirms its commitment to maintain and develop the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice by putting to full use all of the instruments provided for in the Treaty on European Union.

    1. Fight against drugs

    The European Council welcomes the report from the Council on the substantial progress made since its last meeting in Florence and endorses the proposals for action contained in this report.

    The European Council welcomes, as a concrete expression of a shared political will, the agreement which has been reached on a Joint Action on the approximation of the laws and practices of police, customs services and judicial authorities in the fight against drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking, and the resolutions on sentencing for serious drug trafficking offences, on combatting drug tourism and on drug production and cultivation. It also welcomes the adoption of the Programme for Community action on the prevention of drug dependence.

    The European Council stresses that this constitutes a first step and that the momentum achieved must be maintained and further developed on those bases, in particular through:

    – continued examination of further harmonisation of laws, insofar as an agreed need for it is identified, complemented by reinforced cooperation between the Institutions and the Member States. In this context, the particular dangers posed by synthetic drugs deserve special attention;

    – continued review of further cooperation between law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking;

    – full application of the Directive on money laundering and its possible extension to those relevant professions and bodies outside the classical financial sector;

    – development by the Council and the Commission of the contribution which research activities can make in addressing the medical, socio-economic and detection aspects of drug abuse;

    – energetic implementation of the action plan to combat drugs in the Caribbean, as well as the implementation of the agreed follow-up of the report by the expert mission to Latin America;

    – further development of the structured dialogue with the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe in regard to drugs issues; comparable cooperation with the Russian Federation, initiated during the current Presidency, should be pursued;

    – following a proposal by President Chirac and Prime Minister Major, to examine ways to assist Central Asian republics, utilizing the TACIS programme, to fight transit in and production of drugs.

    Cooperation with transatlantic partners in these fields has also to be continued and, where appropriate, improved.

    The European Council confirms the priority it attaches to sustained and coordinated action in the fight against drugs making full and coherent use of all the instruments of the Union.

    It invites the Council to draw up by the end of 1997 a first assessment of measures undertaken, with a view to strengthening and supplementing them.

    1. Fight against organized crime

    The European Council underlines its absolute determination to fight organized crime and, to this end, stresses the need for a coherent and coordinated approach by the Union.

    The European Council welcomes the report made by the Presidency on stepping up the fight against organized crime and decides to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work. The Group should examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. The high level group should complete its work by March/April 1997.

    In order to implement rapidly the measures proposed in the report made by the Presidency, the European Council asks the Council to reinforce its Secretariat, by setting up a team of specialized national experts and practitioners, seconded for a limited duration.

    As a practical step in combating international crime, the European Council urges the ratification at the earliest possible date of the Customs Information System, Fraud and Extradition Conventions and their Protocols, as well as, by the end of 1997, of the Europol Convention and its subsequent Protocol. It also highlights the importance of bringing to a rapid conclusion the convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

    The European Council urges the Council and the Commission to take effective and coherent action to address the abuse of new communications technologies, including the Internet.

    1. Sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings

    The European Council expresses its abhorrence at the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings and undertakes to take all necessary action to protect those most vulnerable in society. It welcomes the agreement on a joint action defining a common approach to offences against children and improving judicial cooperation. Other joint actions aimed at enhancing police cooperation by widening the competencies of the Europol Drugs Unit and creating centres of expertise in investigating such crimes were adopted. Community funds have been made available for fighting these odious crimes.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission to implement actively these instruments and to consider necessary further action.

    1. Fight against terrorism

    The European Council condemns unreservedly all terrorist attacks and continues to pay close attention to the threat posed by terrorism both internally and externally. For this reason the EU is working closely with other international partners and international organizations to review and update measures already adopted against this threat and adopt, where necessary, new measures. For this reason the Member States reiterate their will to cooperate closely on the matter; the European Council emphasizes the need to do so.

    1. Racism and Xenophobia

    The European Council welcomes the progress made since its meeting in Florence and calls on the Council to complete its work with a view to the speedy establishment of a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia which will have to work in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.

    1. External frontiers

    The European Council draws again attention to the need to resolve speedily the remaining questions regarding the draft Convention on crossing by persons of the External Frontiers of Member States of the European Union.

    1. ENLARGEMENT

    The Commission informed the European Council on its progress on the opinions and other reports related to enlargement as requested of it at Madrid. The European Council welcomes the assurance given by the Commission that these documents as well as the communication on the future financial framework of the Union will be available immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. It confirms the timetable for the enlargement process as set at its Madrid meeting. The European Council takes note of the Council’s report on the implementation of the pre­accession strategy in the second half of this year. It also notes the Commission’s endeavours to strengthen the present implementation of this strategy. Moreover it welcomes the Commission’s intention to present proposals for an overall reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy together with its opinions and other reports under preparation.

    VII. EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION

    The European Council adopted the declarations on Former Yugoslavia and the Middle East Peace Process at annex.

    RUSSIA

    The European Union expresses its solidarity with the Russian people as they implement their historic choice in favour of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy. The European Council reiterates the Union’s readiness to assist the Russian Federation in meeting the difficult challenges ahead, notably through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU/Russia Action Plan and by bringing Russia as soon as possible into the WTO and other international fora.

    The European Council warmly welcomes President Yeltsin’s important decision to withdraw all Russian troops from Chechnya and the recent agreement between Chechen leaders and the Russian Prime Minister. It notes the intention to hold elections in Chechnya on 27 January 1997. The European Council expresses its continuing support for the important work of the OSCE Assistance Group in Chechnya.

    UKRAINE

    The European Council welcomes the adoption by the Council of the Action Plan for Ukraine which demonstrates the importance which the Union attaches to its relations with Ukraine and its desire to develop closer cooperation in the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

    The European Council recalls its firm attachment to the implementation of the memorandum of understanding reached with Ukraine on the definitive closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power station by the year 2000. It welcomes the closure by the Ukrainian authorities of reactor number one as an important step in this direction.

    BELARUS

    The European Union is seriously concerned at developments in Belarus, in particular relating to the referendum on the new Constitution. The European Union wishes to see a Belarus committed to democratic principles, human rights and a market economy playing a full part in Europe. The European Council calls on the leadership of Belarus to re-establish full respect for internationally accepted democratic and constitutional principles and practices and hopes that the leadership will accept the Union’s proposal for a fact-finding mission. The absence of progress in these areas would have a negative impact on relations between Belarus and the European Union and on Union support for Belarus’s accession to the Council of Europe.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE

    The European Council believes that the Council of Europe has a crucial role in upholding human rights standards and supporting pluralist democracy.

    It sees advantage in using to the fullest, in cooperation with other international institutions, the expertise and mechanisms of the Council of Europe to advance these objectives. The summit meeting of the Organization, in 1997, will provide a significant opportunity to review the progress made in these areas.

    REGIONAL COOPERATION IN EUROPE

    The European Council notes the wider range of regional activities in Europe reaching from the Arctic to the Black Sea. In this context, the European Council welcomes the Commission’s report on the Central European Initiative presented in response to its request at Florence. It notes that the Commission will submit regular reports to the Council on these regional initiatives.

    MEDITERRANEAN

    The European Council reaffirms the high priority it attaches to the European Union’s Mediterranean dimension and expresses satisfaction at the significant and balanced developments in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership during the year since the adoption of the Barcelona Declaration.

    In the political and security partnership, work on the implementation of the principles of the Barcelona Declaration will continue, notably through the action plan, towards the adoption of a Union-Mediterranean charter.

    TURKEY

    The European Council reaffirms the importance it attaches to the further development of the EU’s relations with Turkey in both the economic and political fields. It notes with regret, however, that certain serious issues remain to be resolved in the relationship. The European Council welcomes the Turkish Government’s stated intention to take measures to improve the human rights situation. In the context of closer partnership with the European Union it emphasizes the need for the observance of the highest standards of human rights.

    The European Council invites the Presidency to continue its efforts following the Council’s declaration of 15 July 1996 to promote an acceptable solution to the situation in the Aegean area in accordance with established international norms and to pursue contacts with the Turkish Government with a view to an early Association Council.

    The European Council urges Turkey to use its influence to contribute to a solution in Cyprus in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

    EU-US RELATIONS

    The European Council notes that the EU-US Summit in Washington on 16 December will be the first anniversary of the adoption at Madrid of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan and expects it to be another milestone in EU-US relations. It welcomes the qualitative improvement which this represents in principle as well as in practice over the past year.

    The European Council reaffirms the objectives which it shares with the US in promoting human rights, democratic values and fundamental freedoms in parts of the world where these are inadequately observed, but also its conviction that such objectives should be pursued by means other than unilateral action at the expense of close partners with shared values.

    The European Council reaffirms the essential contribution which close EU-US partnership can make to international stability, security and prosperity and the importance in this context of the Transatlantic Dialogue in deepening and widening the EU-US relationship through solid cooperation between them.

    EU-CANADA RELATIONS

    The European Council welcomes agreement on the text of a Joint Declaration and an Action Plan, which will further enhance cooperation between EU and Canada in pursuit of common objectives and on the basis of deeply-held shared values.

    GREAT LAKES

    The European Council expresses grave concern about the continuing violence in the Great Lakes Region, not only in Eastern Zaire but also in Burundi. It welcomes the return of large numbers of refugees, but underlines the need to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the remaining refugees, and to initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. It recalls the considerable efforts undertaken by the EU to meet humanitarian needs. In the meantime, the continuing humanitarian emergency, particularly in Eastern Zaire, requires fast and decisive action by the international community. Underlining the need for a flexible approach in the light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground, the European Council agrees that the implications of these changes for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the establishment, for humanitarian purposes, of a temporary multinational force will need to be addressed rapidly. In this regard, the European Council restates the willingness of the European Union to contribute fully and urgently to these efforts, pursuant to the Joint Action of 22 November 1996, the associated Council Decision of the same date and the WEU Ministerial Declaration of 19 November 1996. It welcomes the Commission proposal for a strategic and comprehensive plan of action for EU assistance to the Great Lakes Region.

    The European Council welcomes the initiative of the regional leaders in seeking to resolve the problems in Eastern Zaire through dialogue. It hopes that, at the second Nairobi Summit of Heads of State of the Region on 16 December, they can build upon the principles already agreed by them, including the crucial importance of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Zaire, in pursuit of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Recognizing the importance of the electoral process in terms of the stability of the region, it reiterates the commitment of the Union to play its part in support of the successful completion of that process in Zaire by means of the Joint Action adopted on 11 November 1996 and looks forward to the latter’s early and urgent implementation.

    The European Council reiterates its view that the problems of the region as a whole can only be resolved by political means. The European Union will, in particular through its Special Envoy, continue to support the efforts of the regional leaders and to encourage dialogue between the different parties to conflict in the region. The European Council reaffirms its support for the early convening of an international conference under the joint auspices of the UN and the Organization of African Unity in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the crisis and thus bring about a peaceful, durable and comprehensive resolution of the conflicts in the region.

    EAST TIMOR

    The European Council welcomes the initiatives within the European Union aimed at improving the situation, living conditions and human rights of the East Timorese people. It reaffirms its support for all efforts which can contribute to a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution, which fully respects the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Timorese people in accordance with international law. It hopes that the talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary General will lead to substantial progress towards the resolution of the question of East Timor.

    CUBA

    The EU wishes to see progress towards a peaceful transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba, as well as economic policies calculated to bring about a sustainable recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The Common Position adopted by the Council on 2 December will be pursued through a result-oriented constructive dialogue. The EU will lend its support to progress towards democracy, including the possible negotiation of a cooperation agreement. Any agreement would, in accordance with EU practice, contain a suspension clause in the event of a serious breach of the human rights provisions.

    TRANSITION IN HONG KONG AND MACAO

    The European Council reiterated the European Union’s strong interest in the future peace and prosperity of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China to be created next July, and the European Union’s desire to do anything possible to contribute to a smooth transition. The European Union is committed to strong continuing relations with the SAR in the World Trade Organization and in all other matters where the SAR will enjoy autonomy under the Basic Law. The European Council underlined the European Union’s full support for the specific status of the SAR and its citizens in all respects, including their right to representative democratic institutions as already established The European Council requested the Commission to propose in due course during 1997 how best to ensure close economic cooperation.

    The European Council takes note of the positive way in which the transition process has been developing in Macao. It hopes that the implementation of the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration signed in 1987 will continue to contribute to the progress and social stability of the territory with a view to a smooth transfer of government in December 1999. It also hopes for the continuation of the respect for the fundamental principles of the Joint Declaration beyond that date.

    WTO

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the outcome of the first regular bi-annual WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Singapore on 9­13 December 1996 and at which the European Union demonstrated once again the importance it attaches to the multilateral trading system and the efficient operation of the WTO.

    The European Council expresses its satisfaction at the renewed impetus which the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore has given to the liberalisation of world trade. It particularly welcomes the broadening of the WTO work programme to encompass issues which the European Union had identified as priorities. It also welcomes the breakthrough on trade in information technology products and urges the fullest possible participation by third country partners in the final agreement to be reached by 15 March 1997. The European Council also welcomes the continued momentum towards a successful conclusion of the negotiations on basic telecommunications in February 1997.

    The European Council welcomes the launch by the Commission of a new market access strategy and calls for enhanced and coordinated efforts by the Community and Member States to open up third country markets.

    With regard to the report on the evolution of the trade policies and preferential agreements of the Community, the European Council took note that the Council would finalize it in its February session with a view to presenting it at Amsterdam.

    VIII. SEATS OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES

    The European Council noted the progress which has been made in the implementation of its decision taken in Brussels in October 1993 on the location of Agencies and Offices. The Council endorsed the Commission’s decision of 10 December 1996 to arrange for the early transfer of the staff of the OICVP to Ireland initially and specifically thereafter to Grange, Co. Meath in premises to be made available at that location by the Irish authorities.

    The European Council urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required resources are made available to implement the Commission’s decision.

    The Council also notes the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 18 November 1996 as regards staffing of the OICVP and urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required staffing resources are made available to enable the Union to discharge its supervisory responsibilities.

    Addendum

    The European Council has noted the following reports from the Presidency/Council:

    – Council report on achievements in the field of Justice and Home Affairs

    – Presidency report on stepping up the fight against organized crime

    – SEM 2000 (sound financial management): Council Conclusions and report of the personal Representatives Group

    The European Council also noted the following reports from the European Commission:

    1. Europe as an Economic Entity
    2. The impact and effectiveness of the single market
    3. Putting services to work
    4. Europe at the forefront of the global information society
    5. The first action plan for innovation in Europe
    6. Europe’s place in the world: fourth report of the Ciampi group
    7. Trans-European Networks
    8. Better Lawmaking (report on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, on simplification and on consolidation)

     

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, there is some suggestion that there is going to be an attempt to firm up the powers of Europol in the declaration today, what do you think about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen no such suggestion. In terms of making Europol work effectively, we are very keen to have Europol work effectively. The point at issue is that we don’t want that to come under the European Court of Justice. Working inter-governmentally to firm up Europol is very much our policy, we would very much like to do that. We think there is tremendous scope for the European nations collectively to act both against organised crime and against the drugs trade. So depending upon how it is to be done, I would strongly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    What is the important thing to get into the declaration today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the declaration will reaffirm that the text produced by the Irish in the basic text for negotiating during the rest of the Intergovernmental Conference, I think that is the important point, because that text sets out everyone’s position and does not prejudice what will be decided in the next six months.

    QUESTION:

    How worried are you that the French may try and stiffen it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think many people may try and change it, that is absolutely normal. When we normally discuss the conclusions on the last day of summits we have three or four hours with people seeking changes. We will see some changes, everyone will.

    QUESTION:

    Have you see this Mail headline?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not read the British press and I am not going to comment on stories I haven’t read.

    QUESTION:

    Did you get any insights into the summit last night at Kitty O’Shea’s?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had a very enjoyable drink with the Chancellor, well several drinks to be precise, in Kitty O’Shea’s and it was extremely enjoyable.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (II) – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made during an interview held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was a momentous day now that the design for the Euro banknotes was finalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly wouldn’t call it that. There was an inevitability at some stage that the EMI were going to produce their banknotes so I think there was nothing particularly momentous about that.

    It is a good thing to have a stability pact. If the Euro is going to proceed, whether Britain is in it or not, it is important for Britain that it is a success and if it is to be a success we need to make sure that the rules are kept so I am delighted the stability pact agreement has been reached.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he still thought the single currency would happen and whether he was still sceptical].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t a question so much of being sceptical, it is a question of whether I believe the economic conditions can be reach in time for it to start in 1999. Everybody likes to profess great certainty that that is going to happen, that is their public position. I have to tell you that is not their private position, many of them are very worried about whether the economic circumstances will be right and they are taking in many countries very dramatic moves to try and put their own economies in order. Whether it can be done in time I believe is very questionable and if the economics are not right then it would be very unwise of them to proceed. No-one can be certain whether they will reach the criteria or not but equally, nobody could confidently predict that they certainly will.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this summit was a moment of truth].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nothing has changed except that we are getting closer to the date on which a decision will have to be made. It is far more true to say that we are facing the moment of truth on some of the decisions in the intergovernmental conference that is expected to conclude in Amsterdam in the summer because there are competing visions of the European Union and some of the decisions that will be taken between now and Amsterdam will determine the nature of the European Union for many years ahead and they will be very difficult decisions; in that for sure a moment of truth is approaching.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he still expected to be Prime Minister in June 1997].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I expect to be here in June and I believe it is important that we maintain a position where the United Kingdom keeps its distinctive view. Some of the propositions that are before members of the European Union at the moment are very unappealing for Britain. I believe that we will have to say no to some of those and I intend to say no to some of them because I don’t believe they are in our interest. We have begun these negotiations, I look forward to concluding them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought other European leaders expected him to be Prime Minister in June 1997].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You must ask them that, they have no more idea than anybody else of what will happen in the British general election but they are having to deal with me now, I expect they will have to deal with me after the general election and I have a whole series of meetings arranged with them in the early months of 1997 to discuss the issues in front of the European conference.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (I) – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made during an interview held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if his policy was trying to lower the temperature by appealing to the Euro-sceptics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t. The reality is that there has been the formal determination again by our colleagues that they wish to go ahead on 1st January 1999 – and they do – and they are trying very hard to reach the circumstances in which they can.

    The real question is not whether they wish to go ahead on 1st January 1999, but whether they will be economically ready to go ahead 1st January 1999 and no-one can be certain about that. I have some doubts about whether they will safely be ready to go ahead in 1999 and I vote those frequently.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the large amount of political will to achieve the single currency timetable and if that would be enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. It is rather more complicated than that. Certainly, it is a political decision and it is taken by qualified majority vote country by country, that is certainly true but they will need to have the right economic circumstances or the political will will not be there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the political will would disappear].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they would be very unwise to go ahead without the right economic circumstances and certainly very powerful organisations like the Bundesbank would argue very powerfully against going ahead in the wrong economic circumstances. Were they to do so, they would have a weak Euro; if they have a weak Euro, that is going to damage their position very dramatically economically and if they go ahead in the wrong circumstances they are going to get very high structural unemployment in their countries and that was the subject of most of yesterday’s discussion, the high level of unemployment across Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Kenneth Clarke – 13 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, held in Dublin on Friday 13th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just set out one or two observations of what we have been doing today and what now lies ahead in the early months of next year.

    I have now attended around about 15 or 16 of these summits and almost invariably on these occasions the United Kingdom is portrayed as if it was a minority of one or a very small minority. It almost seems to have been the script since the dawn of time. Nonetheless, it may surprise many people the large number of occasions that we seem to get our own way. The United Kingdom perhaps sometimes is the grit in the European oyster, it may not look pretty from the outside but I can tell you it is very effective from the inside, and I think that is going to remain so in the months up to Amsterdam.

    Let me say a few words firstly about the discussion we had on employment this morning. There is an employment text provided by the Presidency. It embraces many of the British ideas, though not every aspect of it is a British idea. But subject to the fact that it is clear that it doesn’t prejudice the text that will be agreed at Amsterdam, subject to the fact that it makes clear that we are going to proceed down the Essen Formula, and subject to the fact that it makes clear that employment matters are for the nation states predominantly and not for Europe, it is probably a text – whilst we don’t agree with every dot and comma of it – that we can live with and that was the substance of what I said this morning.

    This afternoon we have had I think the most substantial discussion that I have yet heard on the substance of the Intergovernmental Conference. For the first time I think a number of the contributions actually got beyond stating rather general positions and looking at some of the specifics of what will need to be decided on the back of the Irish draft treaty text. The draft text, as you know, sets out accurately and very well, the Irish have done a very good job, all the positions taken by member states, both majority positions and minority positions, as the basis of the negotiations still to come. During the discussions, President Chirac suggested that we should throw away pre-prepared briefs and say precisely what we thought about some matters, and I rather agreed with him about that, so I did precisely that, and set out some of the concerns that we have.

    We British are often perceived as having many disputes with our European partners. That isn’t in fact true. We have one substantial dispute with our European partners that spreads into very many areas and keeps reappearing, and that is the fact that there is more than one vision of Europe. At stake in the Intergovernmental Conference is the future direction of policy. Jacques Santer said some time ago the moment of truth is coming, and in terms of the direction of European policy, I agree with him about that. The agreements that will be reached between now and Amsterdam, and probably reached at Amsterdam, will certainly determine the future direction of policy. And I set out to my European colleagues the fact that there is more than one vision of the way the European Union can develop.

    A number of our European colleagues advocate a much more centralist, much more integrationist European Union. Well I understand that view, I respect that view, but I don’t share that view and I made that point clear this afternoon. I would view an integrationist, centralist European Union with some dismay. I don’t think it would be in Britain’s interest and I have repeatedly made that clear. I believe it should be a partnership of nation states with Community competence where it is needed, and in some areas Community competence is needed, but where it is not needed the Community should not reach out take and take competence away from the nation states.

    I dealt also with another argument that frequently appears in European debate, and that is the view that there are only two sorts of the European Union: the one that is inevitability leading to greater political union as well as economic union; and the second view that Europe is only seen as a free trade area. Well that is not Britain’s view. Britain does not see the European Union as simply a free trade area. There are many areas where Britain’s role goes well beyond free trade – the development by consensus of a common foreign and security policy; closer intergovernmental cooperation on crime and drugs and terrorism; a common external trade policy; we need European institutions, the European Court of Justice isn’t always to our taste but it is necessary to ensure common rule is applied right the way across Europe. And I set out these as illustration of the way that Britain actually sees a European Union developing, a European Union that is not integrationist but is neither simply a free trade area.

    The key point in the discussions that lie ahead is one upon which different people have expressed views but nobody has clarified their view very clearly, and that is the question of flexibility. I touched first on this question of flexibility in the Leiden lecture some two years or so ago, and since then as a debate within Europe it has gathered pace. But of course when different Europeans speak of flexibility they often mean quite different things, one from another. Some of the ideas on the table about flexibility could create a core Europe, an inner core Europe that moves ahead on its own. Other proposals would allow action to be taken in the name of the Union with those outside the care having no say in those particular decisions. And I raised those questions and asked whether that was the sort of Europe we really wanted.

    The right sort of flexibility will ensure that those who wish to integrate are not unreasonably frustrated. But it also means that others who do not wish to integrate are not forced into unwished for obligations which are unattractive to their electorates, unappealing to them as governments and which build up resentment across Europe. The wrong sort of flexibility, as I indicated this afternoon, would blow the European Union wide apart, and so that is an area where we need to reflect very carefully. We are still doing so, we have not yet reached final conclusions as to whether the sort of flexibility we advocated is best put in the treaty or dealt with on a case by case basis, this is a very fine judgement and I hope we can reach conclusions on that fairly soon.

    There are aspects in the Presidency document where good progress has been made and where we support very strongly the progress made – on subsidiarity, on a greater role for national parliaments, on improvements to common foreign and security policy to make it more effective, on improving the quality of legislation, on introducing greater openness into the European Union, and some other areas.

    Other areas are less attractive for us. I see no point in writing an employment chapter into the treaty. Declarations of that sort will not create a single job. I see no point in that, though other partners are attracted to it. Neither do I accept the argument that an enlarged European Union would grind to a halt unless it had an extension of majority voting. I do not accept that and I think that is clear to my partners. In the external field a common foreign policy is thoroughly desirable. A majority foreign policy, determined by qualified majority against the wishes of a minority, would not carry weight internationally and frankly is not a sensible way for us to try and conduct our foreign policy. On defence, let us by all means have more cooperation, but we cannot have the Western European Union subordinated to the European Union itself. And on justice and home affairs, Communitisation of justice and home affairs, bringing it under the central pillar, I think would be very damaging indeed and is not something that we could remotely contemplate. Apart from the fact that we think it is wrong, I very much doubt whether any British parliament would ratify a treaty that transferred competence in those sensitive areas to the Community.

    In a few moments we will set out in there a number of areas where there can be more cooperation on justice and home affairs, but I think it has to be cooperation, not a Communitised policy. I re-emphasised our familiar positions on the European Court of Justice, on the Working Time Directive and on the Common Fisheries Policy and I know most people here will be familiar with those and I won’t reiterate them.

    We have not had, though I think many people present perhaps expected it, we have not had a general discussion on Economic and Monetary Union today, but let me say just a word about it in any event. The launching of Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. It will dwarf the earlier decisions that have been reached. The United Kingdom expect that we will meet the Maastricht criteria, that the Protocol that I negotiated at Maastricht gives us the right to decide whether or not we will participate at a time of our choosing. We have not made that decision yet, and nor will we, until we are clear about all the unnecessary issues, because too much of what we need to know is frankly still a mystery, including crucially our assessment of the prospects for real and sustained economic convergence in Europe. There is no point in having the right economic conditions on one particular day unless that is going to be sustained for the future.

    I have made clear before, and I have not changed my mind, of my doubts that enough European Union countries are economically ready to allow a single currency to safely go ahead. A number of European countries have made Herculean efforts to get to those criteria, perhaps they will do so, time will tell, but I myself still have doubts about it. But insisting on a particular timetable for political reasons is not sensible and can end in disaster. The really important matter is that the economic criteria are right. And whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day, and clearly those figures mustn’t be fudged, that is much less important than the degree of genuine economic readiness for such a far reaching step as Economic and Monetary Union. Because once a country is in, the only safety valve for poor economic performance would be higher unemployment and the risks are obvious. Unemployment is already too high across the Community – 1 in 10 adults, 1 in 5 of young people without work – and I don’t think anybody would sensibly wish to gain a political triumph by meeting a particular date for Economic and Monetary Union if it was followed by an economic disaster thereafter because the convergence conditions weren’t correct.

    So we haven’t had the debate on Economic and Monetary Union but my earlier remarks paraphrase what I have had to say in the discussions today and I think they have been very constructive and worthwhile discussions.

    I am afraid that is a rather lengthier statement than I normally make on these occasions, and I see Michael is anticipating I have finished – he is right, I have – but I think it was probably worthwhile to set that out and Ken and I will take any questions you may have.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Phil Murphy, Press Association):

    Could I ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, do you not feel in a way that you might be contributing to a weaker currency by backing the French and persuading the Germans to compromise in setting up the single currency?

    Secondly, Prime Minister, in the light of yesterday’s comments will you be buying the Spice Girls’ Christmas single this year?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    What we have done here is the finance ministers completed through last night the details of the progress so far on stage 3 and there is a report that is going to be attached to the Conclusions showing where we have got to and a small group of us broke away this morning to complete that report and settle the final details and it addressed what you have said.

    Two things are absolutely necessary in our opinion if you are going to go ahead with stage 3 as planned. The first is that it should be run on the basis of proper financial discipline, the convergence criteria must be met. The key thing is the countries must remain convergent because they are dependent upon each other and fiscal weakness by any one country will drive up interest rates and threaten the stability of all of them. For the reason, the report sets out the very strict basis upon which it will be run and on that we were on the German side if you wish to take this rather simplified account of a discussion between fifteen member states.

    The report makes it clear that each member state that goes into economic and monetary union will commit itself to a balanced budget or a surplus budget at various stages in the cycle and the 3 per cent is meant to be a maximum and I personally am very keen on financial discipline amongst any countries that go into a monetary union and you have to have a system to sustain that.

    The second point where we were closer to the French was the system must not be some rigid application of automatic rules; it must be a political system remaining within the control of the finances ministers of those countries who are members so that they will eventually decide whether a country is taking adequate steps to get back towards the convergence that is required in economic and monetary union and will impose penalties as ministers on a country which fails to take effective action to comply with that and if you look at the whole report, that balance has been successfully struck. Indeed, I think we took a very balanced position throughout the entire discussions. We are keen that nothing should be fudged, keen that any countries in economic and monetary union remain convergent and competitive with each other but also keen that we don’t have some incredible inflexible system dependent solely on rules that do not allow the ministers to keep proper control upon it, and that was the key issue that took longest. When you look at the report you will see a lot of other issues have been tackled by the finance ministers in order to keep this process rolling forward.

    I share the Prime Minister’s view that this is all very important, it is going forward. The more we go on, the scale of the task remains very great and I too, as I was saying only a few days ago, am not at all sure that they will make the 1 January 1999 and I continue to believe that getting all these details right matters far more than trying to strike some artificial timetable, but we are there, as we are in this entire Council, contributing very heavily. If you sit alongside the Prime Minister at a council of this type you are sitting alongside one of the three most powerful statesmen in western Europe and we are part of a team that makes a very heavyweight contribution to how these things are taken forward and that is what we have been doing.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure whether that leads me directly on to the Spice Girls but I think I had better answer your question about them and I am sure their support will ginger us up. As to whether I will be buying the single, I have a shrewd suspicion it might be brought for me now!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you accept that it is a bit of a benchmark today for Europe given that the policing of the single currency seems now to be accepted, the structure, and of course the notes have been unveiled. What do you think of the notes and do you not think, given the momentum that now seems to be in play, that despite what the Chancellor says there will be a group of countries signing up on 1 January 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the last point, I am very dubious about that. One of the things we did today was formally agree that the previous target of 1 January 1997 was not going to be met. We had formally to confirm that that wasn’t the case and we did that today.

    I am by no means certain that they will meet the 1 January 1999. There will be a huge effort to try – I agree with that – but the difficulties that there were in agreeing the elements of the stability pact that took a lot of discussion last night and today is but the first of a whole series of detailed decisions that will have to be taken that will be difficult and there is no doubt that unless the economics are right people are going to shy away from the 1 January 1999 so it comes down to a judgement of whether it can safely be done at that date. I am very doubtful whether it can. I can’t be certain, no-one can. I am very doubtful whether it can. I can’t be certain, no-one can. I acknowledge that they will try and meet that date, I am not at all certain that they will be able to meet that date.

    You say “a benchmark day”. Well, an awful lot of decisions still remain to be taken and they are pretty crucial decisions and most crucial in due course will be the assessment not just of whether the criteria are artificially set on a particular day but the assessment as to whether those criteria are substantial over the long term and if there is to be a benchmark day it will be that day when it becomes clear whether the assessment is likely to show that countries could sustain it.

    As far as the notes are concerned, I have had very little time to look at the notes yet. I had sufficient time to notice that they had left Cyprus off the map, Turkey off the map, the Balearic Islands of the map, and to learn that therefore it was only a draft map subject to some revision.

    As far as the national symbol is concerned, I hope that they will decide in due course there is going to be a national symbol – there seems some lack of clarity about that at the moment – and I will look at the notes and study them more carefully. I am not immediately any more enthusiastic about the notes than I was about the name but the important issue is the economics, not the notes.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, the fact that they did agree the notes today, that they reinforced the date, that they have set the rules, did you have a sense that they are, for good or ill, all going off now in one direction and we are rather firmly set in another direction?

    Secondly, given Barnsley, given that they know the political situation in Britain, did you feel any sense – they obviously would not say it because they wouldn’t be so rude – but did you have a feeling that they were regarding you as any kind of a lame duck?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    None whatsoever and that wasn’t remotely the feeling of the meeting and it isn’t the way that these European negotiations are undertaken.

    We have a significant contribution to make to these negotiations. There is no doubt that our European partners are keen to have Britain’s cooperation and participation wherever possible. Where it is appropriate, we are keen to cooperate and participate but it has to be where it is appropriate. There are some areas where we just take a quite different view as to the sort of European Union we need and as I indicated a few moments ago, many of the differences that there seem to be between us and our European partners spring essentially from that fundamental fact that we have a different perception of how the European Union should develop than many of our European partners and I think they understand that and there was no doubt about the seriousness with which they took that in the discussions today.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, could I press you a bit more about the politics of all this because you see, it has been reported on the wires that one of the ministers who listened to you this morning on employment came out and said it was a monologue, not a dialogue, and there are a lot of people saying when they are briefing privately that they regard the British team as a bit of an irrelevance.

    Can I just go on from that and ask you whether what we actually heard at the opening here was another wobble on Europe when we hear the Chancellor talking about “I am not sure whether they will make it before 1999!” and we hear about you talking about the possibility of blowing the Union right apart. It seems as if you are going back in the Teresa Gorman direction a bit.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are talking nonsense, with great respect, Adam. I set out the whole series of areas where we cooperated as well so let us not manufacture an artificial story today, please. Let us stick to the realities!

    As far as the employment debate was concerned this morning, I set out the position that we agreed at Essen. I don’t know which Socialist ministers you were talking to but presumably that Socialist minister agreed at Essen with the supply-side reforms and the supply-side approach to unemployment that I set out again this morning and I wonder what the unemployment level is in that particular minister’s country and whether it is going up or going down – ours is going down because we have followed the formula that was set out in Essen and clearly he didn’t stay for the whole of the debate because he would have heard the support for what I had to say from a number of other people who were actually there.

    As far as your remarks about policy are concerned, I set out very clearly this afternoon what we have said in the past about the British position, what the Chancellor said in the past. We both made the same points about the importance of the economic criteria. I have made the point on more than one occasion in the past that if we get this wrong it will make a material difference. I spoke some days ago about the moment of truth and set out the points I made again this afternoon so there is no change in the position that we have set out in the past. I have re-emphasised it so that it is not mistaken or misreported by anyone anywhere.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I didn’t take part in this afternoon’s discussions, I sat through the discussions on the intergovernmental conference and I heard the debate and could I say I think the Prime Minister firstly made by far the best speech this afternoon and the one that was listened to with more attention than that of any of other minister because of the point of views he was putting and what he was saying about flexibility and about where we are going and the big historic issues that ought to be addressed in this IGC. With great respect, one or two of the others were going into minutiae rather than facing the big issue.

    So far as our role here is concerned, I know it is very dull sitting around at the edge of these councils and you will find stray people from other delegations to gossip to, I find that is one of the problems when I go to council meetings. We are here as one of the big global economies. There are four countries here from the G7 and we are actually here representing one of the four big global-sized economies, we are the strongest performing economic nation here. We have growth, we have falling unemployment, we are competitive with them, we are attracting all the inward investment so when we speak we do actually speak with some clout and the result is therefore we take a very large part in discussions on employment. We are certainly better at creating jobs and certainly better at reducing unemployment than they are and they know that. We take a full part in economic and monetary union because this is our single market, we are drawing investment to participate in it and we have the right to choose whether we are in or out and whether we are in or out we want a Euro-zone that does not disturb our present conditions and creates more stability and more prospects for us so we take a big part in the discussions; you will find that until three in the morning I was taking a very large part in the discussions and I was in the small group that thrashed it all out this morning and what we have put together is wholly consistent with our economic policy – balanced budgets, moving towards surplus in good times, sticking to what are described here at “convergence criteria”, what we call “healthy public finances”, making sure the ministers of finance in charge of all that and keeping it on course keep some control in their hands so that we can discipline each other and make sure that all benefit if they are inside the single currency.

    I know the British press come here playing sort of soft echoes of the kind of debate we have about Europe back home but when you are really looking at a Council like this at a very key moment in the European Union, when there is a lot on the agenda, actually the team that John brings here is one that contributes powerfully and in a heavyweight way and if sometimes this upsets one or two of the ministers from some of the smaller nations it is because they know that they do have to take notice of our influence and they know perfectly well that we are showing them how to do it in quite a lot of these key areas.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I could add just one other point, the prospect of Ken taking a small part in any discussion is against nature!

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    That was one of my shorter contributions.

    QUESTION:

    The Chancellor rather famously made an assessment previously about the likelihood of EMU starting on the target date of 1st January 1999. I wonder if you would give us what your current assessment of the likelihood of that start date?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    My assessment is that I said 60/40 will go ahead at all around the turn of the century.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    What are your current views on that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I haven’t revised and updated mine.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed mine a few days ago that I still have doubts about 1999 and we will have to wait and see and the Chancellor has doubts about not only 1999 but 2000 as well it would seem.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    Let me be clear about this! You say you have doubts so on balance you think it is unlikely that it will start on 1st January 1999?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    You are asking us to forecast the course of the economy in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and quite a lot of other key countries. They are all working on the basis that a large number of them are going to be truly convergent on the figures for 1997. I hope we achieve that degree of success across western Europe because the more successful the economies of the European Union are, the more we, the British, do well, because we are probably becoming the most competitive of those economies but I have enough trouble with economic forecasting and if you look across the rest of western Europe I think it is far too soon to tell. That is one of the very very big questions still to be resolved before we get there.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 13 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Friday 13th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can we deal with Barnsley first? You have now lost your majority in the Commons, isn’t it going to be very difficult for you in the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would clearly prefer to have a majority than not to have a majority. I don’t think there is any surprise in the Barnsley result last night, it must be one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Nonetheless, I congratulate the new member on his success, but I don’t think it is going to make a material difference. We have been operating with a very tiny majority, I have no doubt, providing people behave themselves, we will get through to our preferred date.

    QUESTION:

    But can you hang on until 1st May?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to indicate any particular date to you Michael, clever though your question was. But certainly I think we will be able to hang on to our preferred date.

    QUESTION:

    Do you also expect to be in a minority of one at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will vary on different issues. There are some issues where we clearly have a different view from our European partners, that is undoubtedly true; on other issues I think we have a lot of colleagues and in some issues we are in the majority. So I think it will vary from issue to issue. But on the areas where we are in a minority, we have very cut positions and we will stick to them. Our partners know that.

    QUESTION:

    And would you therefore regard the summit a success if you managed to block any further progress in Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think this is going to be a summit in which serious decisions are going to be taken. What I would expect is that we will endorse the Presidency text as the basis for negotiations during the rest of the Intergovernmental Conference period. Now the Presidency text sets out everyone’s positions, the majority positions and the minority positions, so I don’t expect there are going to be serious decisions taken, it doesn’t look like that at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t it at least possible that no serious decisions will be taken because this has been described as a wait and see summit – in other words wait and see whether you are still here in Amsterdam?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t only the United Kingdom that don’t think it is right to take decisions at this summit, there are a lot of other countries who don’t think it is right to take decisions in advance of the detailed negotiation that is still required to be done. So I think that is a very sensible position.

    No, I think there is no doubt that some of the socialist countries would prefer to deal with a socialist government in the United Kingdom, that is certainly the case. The socialists across Europe, including Mr Blair, meet routinely before summits to try and concert their positions. Well I don’t think that the British people would like their national decisions taken behind closed doors in meetings of socialist leaders. So I am here, they will have to deal with me and I expect to be here after the election and they will still have to deal with me.

    QUESTION:

    Last night’s deal on the Stability Pact, France seems to have got its way, there will be political control over the fines, is this another fudge?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t a final deal yet, I think the Chancellor will tell you, there is still a good deal more still to be done. There is no agreement yet on figures. I am about to discuss the details of what was discussed last night with the Chancellor, so he may wish to add something. But there is no final deal on this yet, but certainly it looks as though any decisions of that sort will be subject to political control and not automaticity.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I think that the French had a good point, which we supported them on, the whole thing has to remain under the political control of the Ministers of the nation states who are taking part. But it is not part of the fudging the criteria or fudging the way it goes ahead, it is just to ensure that the Finance Ministers of the elected governments of the nation states retain political control over the whole process, and still you can combine that with a sensible Stability Pact and I think the Ministers sorted most of that out last night.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 12 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Thursday 12th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how much pressure do you think you might come under at this summit over the issue of national border controls and of the national veto.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea what pressure I will come under, but it is not really very relevant because the British position is fixed and it is not going to change.

    QUESTION:

    The European Commission President, Jacques Santer, has said that you are wrong to portray Brussels as being against national sovereignty, what is your response to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope they will prove it in the negotiations, I am very happy for them to do that. But it really is no good of Brussels to say from time to time that there are only two choices in Europe: either to have a deeply integrationist Europe, though they sometimes call it different things; or a Europe that is nothing more than a common trading area. We are a good deal beyond the common trading area now, but I think the question is precisely how it develops from now.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about Labour’s involvement in the Today programme poll?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know very little about that, to be frank, I have only heard broad rumours about it, I have been travelling for the last couple of hours. But the people in the back rooms at the Labour Party are pretty unscrupulous these days, they would frankly do anything if they thought it would gain votes, so I am unsurprised.

    QUESTION:

    Do you deplore that kind of behaviour?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think self-evidently so, but let us wait and see what we hear about it tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Can you confirm for us that Ministers are reported to have agreed on the selective beef cull going ahead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are some exchanges of correspondence going on about the issue, but we still need to have some more discussions with Brussels on the question of the science and precisely how things proceed. So I hope we will be in a position to make a statement about the way forward sometime in the next few days. In the summer we decided to delay it because there was uncertainty about the science, and of course it was perfectly clear then that the over-30 months scheme, the cull of other cattle, was going to take much longer than we thought because far more cattle were being brought forward. We have now slaughtered I think just over a million cattle. That is far more than originally anticipated and it has taken rather longer. But we have now caught up the backlog and many of the cattle that would have been in the selective cull have now come forward in the over-30 months scheme. So the selective cull is likely to be at a much lower level than previously was thought.

    QUESTION:

    It sounds as though we are prepared to go along with that provided we can sort things out with Brussels, is that the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The original agreement at Florence was that we would have the over-30 months scheme, we would then have the selective cull and then we would return for the scientists to have a look at what has happened and begin to get some lifting of the ban.

    What we are now looking at is certified herds which would enable lifting in different parts of the United Kingdom as the herds were certified. But what has delayed matters, there have been many misleading reports about it, but what has delayed matters has been the extra scientific evidence that became available after Florence, some of which is still not yet determined, and that has really been the cause of most of the difficulties.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    War Pensions

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish in the Official Report the ministerial correspondence and discussion papers that led to the change in rules for the award of war pensions for deafness and pension increases for further deterioration.

    The Prime Minister: The texts of the address and the background note given to members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions about the change in medical opinion regarding the interaction between service-related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss and subsequent hearing loss have been placed in the Library. Inter-ministerial correspondence and discussion papers leading up to a change are not normally published.