The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Party Conference – 8 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool on 8th October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam President, as I walked through the Winter Gardens during Conference Week, I passed the bookstalls and what do I see, I see memoirs, memoirs to the left of me, memoirs to the right of me, memoirs in front of me, volley, volley and thunder. Madam President, let me say right away I’m not about to write my memoirs, not for a long time.

    There’s a job to be done, a job of service to this nation and I believe in service. There’s a job to be done, a job I was elected to do and I propose to go on doing it. Madam President, there’s one aspect of the memoirs that I may write in future that you needn’t wait for – I can tell you now, straight away, precisely what I think of my Cabinet.

    Do you think any of them look worried? Apprehensive? Touch concerned? They needn’t be, they’re a first-class team, they’re steady under fire, they’re united and they’re serving Britain superbly.

    And isn’t it good to see Michael back?

    Did you see those exercises? I dare say they’re going to enliven quite a few Cabinet meetings in the future.

    Madam President, I’ve been coming to this conference on an off for about 30 years. It’s a very great event in the political calendar, but it’s something else as well. It’s a family gathering and like all families, from time to time, we have our squabbles. So today, before I turn to other matters, I want to say something to you, specifically as leader of the Conservative party. Our party has served our country in Government more often and better than any other democratic political party in the world. We’ve done so because we’re the broadest based political party this country has ever seen. Our support comes from all classes, all income groups and all parts of the United Kingdom. Madam President, I know our party. It can bear many things – unpopularity, deep controversy, setbacks – we’ve seen it all before, but there’s one thing that demoralises our workers and that breaks apart our support in the country and that is disunity.

    We’ve always known where it leads, and so, in this private gathering we have today, we might as well state it plainly. Disunity leads to opposition. Not just opposition in Westminster, but in the European Parliament and in town halls and county halls up and down this country. Of course we won’t agree on every single aspect of policy. No one expects that. We’re a democratic party with a whole range of lively ideas. But I think you’ll agree with me upon this – people look to us for commonsense and for competence and we have a responsibility to you and to the people who put us in Parliament to show those qualities day after day. And that means we have to have our agreements in public and our disagreements in private.

    And if agreement is impossible, and sometimes on great issues it is difficult, if not impossible, then I believe I have the right, as leader of this party, to hear of that disagreement in private and not on television, in interviews, outside the House of Commons.

    Madam President, the last year has shown how hard every part of our party can fight for what it believes in. Let the next year show that we can channel all that energy together in a common effort against our opponents and for the policies we care about.

    This week, an unusual week, this week we had two conferences for the price of one. First, there’s the one we’ve been at.

    And then there’s the one we read about.

    You know, I’m not absolutely sure that everyone’s caught up completely with the current mood of our party, so I’m going to ask you three questions and I want to hear the answers loud and clear so that no one can doubt where you stand. They’ve very simple questions and very straightforward.

    Aren’t you fed up with people running our country down?

    Aren’t you fed up with people writing our party off?

    When people ask, “Will the Conservatives win next time?”, what do you say?

    I didn’t quite catch that.

    Yes. Yes. And yes again. And you don’t need shorthand to get that down.

    You see, Madam President, this is a family gathering, just as I said. But now I want to reach out a little further to speak not just to you, but to those outside this hall who may be listening. I want to share some thoughts with you and see if they strike a chord with your own experience. I think that many people, particularly those of you who are older, see things around you in the streets and on your television screens which are profoundly disturbing. We live in a world that sometimes seems to be changing too fast for comfort. Old certainties crumbling. Traditional values falling away. People are bewildered. Week after week, month after month, they see a tax on the very pillars of our society – the Church, the law, even the Monarchy, as if 41 years of dedicated service was not enough. And people ask, “Where’s it going? Why has it happened?”. And above all, “How can we stop it?”.

    Let me tell you what I believe. For two generations, too many people have been belittling the things that made this country. We’ve allowed things to happen that we should never have tolerated. We have listened too often and too long to people whose ideas are light years away from common sense.

    In housing, in the ’50s and ’60s, we pulled down the terraces, destroyed whole communities and replaced them with tower blocks and we built walkways that have become rat runs for muggers. That was the fashionable opinion, fashionable but wrong. In our schools we did away with traditional subjects – grammar, spelling, tables – and also with the old ways of teaching them. Fashionable, but wrong. Some said the family was out of date, far better rely on the council and social workers than family and friends. I passionately believe that was wrong.

    Others told us that every criminal needed treatment, not punishment. Criminal behaviour was society’s fault, not the individual’s. Fashionable, but wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Madam President, on all these things, received opinion with the wisdom of hindsight, received opinion was wrong. And now, we must have the courage to stand up and say so and I believe that millions and millions of people are longing to hear it.

    Do you know, the truth is, much as things have changed on the surface, underneath we’re still the same people. The old values – neighbourliness, decency, courtesy – they’re still alive, they’re still the best of Britain. They haven’t changed, and yet somehow people feel embarrassed by them. Madam President, we shouldn’t be. It is time to return to those old core values, time to get back to basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state.

    Madam President, I believe that what this country needs is not less Conservatism, it’s more Conservatism of the traditional kind that made us join this party.

    This week, this week we’ve made a start. Now we must see it through. It’s time for this party to return to its roots. Madam President, our economic roots are clear. We’re the party of Adam Smiths, not John Smith.

    And Adam Smith was the apostle of free markets and that is why we regard the present world trade talks as so important. At meeting after meeting, we have battled to keep those trade talks alive against difficulty after difficulty, because nothing will do more for growth, nothing will do more for jobs, nothing will do more for confidence in our future than agreement in those trade talks. But if other governments don’t play their part, if they hold back, if they won’t face up to their domestic difficulties, then those talks could collapse and the dangers of that happening are devastating. They could unlock protectionism, poverty and unemployment on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s. A great deal is at stake. And because a great deal is at stake, I don’t believe we ought to be mealy-mouthed about the dangers. Today, on this issue, is not a time for holding back. So let me say to some of our European colleagues, “You’re playing with fire”. Or, to put it more bluntly, “Get your tractors off our lawn”.

    People accuse us – accuse us – people accuse us of being the business party. Well, you bet we are. We’re for small business and we’re for large business. We’re for more business, not less business. When business booms, Britain booms, so we’re for private enterprise and we’re proud of it.

    Over the last three years, the whole country has sweated and slogged and suffered to turn this economy around. Now, steadily, it’s happening. Recovery is under way. That’s the message from British business. The economy’s growing. You may not see it yet, but it clearly is growing and it will show. And as the economy grows, the family budget will follow, so people have every reason to begin to start feeling better again. Inflation’s down. Interest rates are down. Exports are up. Productivity’s up. Retail sales are up. Manufacturing output is up. And the number of people in work is up. Madam President, it’s the opportunity cocktail we’ve been wanting for years and it gives this country a head start on prosperity for the rest of this decade.

    So, let’s try and build up that confidence, instead of forever seeing it knocked down. Why don’t we try something different? Why don’t we tell people about Britain’s successes? And let me tell you about them, in the strictest confidence…

    … so they’re sure to leak out.

    Who says we can’t make things in this country? Manufacturing industry is one of our great national assets.

    Three weeks ago – sometimes it seems longer – three weeks ago I was in Japan, the industrial wonder of the world, and there with me were British manufacturers, selling solutions to problems that Japan hadn’t solved. Successful British firms, international leaders in their own fields, firms at the leading edge of technology, selling successfully to the world technology leader. Two days later, I was in Malaysia, and we came back with £1 billion worth of orders for British companies. They didn’t buy British to do our companies a favour. They did it because we made what they wanted and we made it better in this country than anyone else in the world.

    Fourteen years ago, Britain was going nowhere. Now it’s going everywhere and selling everywhere. We’re making goods, making profits, making waves, right across the world. But despite that, despite the growth we’ve had there and the growth to come there, I must warn you, it’s still going to be tough and everyone in business here today, or everyone who listens to what I say today, knows how hard they have to compete. At present, Europe, our biggest market, is stuck deep in recession. It’s held back by social costs it can’t afford. It’s losing markets to Japan and to America and to the Pacific Basin. And that, Madam President, that, amongst other reasons, is why I refuse to accept the Social Chapter. It’s not a chapter of rights, it’s a charter for unemployment and we don’t want it here.

    What we do want is more of our best brains going into manufacturing industry. Let’s see them give politics, the City, journalism a miss and go into manufacturing industry where their skills can be so badly needed.

    And let’s see our great manufacturing centres humming with activity as we move towards the millennium. Let’s turn British inventions into British industries, British factories and British jobs. Let them make pounds for us, not dollars, marks, and yen for other people. Ministers are told, whenever they go abroad, part of your job these days is to open the door for British business. We’re backing exports with cheaper credit, more Government muscle and a new breed of diplomat – people who know as much about exports as they do about etiquette.

    At home, at home we’re taking the ridiculous burden of red tape off business and off citizen alike. And I can tell you, in the next session of Parliament, there will be a big deregulation bill to show how seriously we take that.

    Here’s a good old British maxim you can all remember: if the price is right and the goods are good enough, then sell abroad and buy at home. That’s the way to make sure that British industry continues to boom.

    But there are other things we need to do for industry. Industry isn’t asking us for handouts and special help. It’s asking us, as the Government to play our part in creating the right economic environment for industry to let loose its own energies and compete on a level basis with the rest of the world. So here, Madam President, is another ambitious target for our country: not months but years and years and years of sustained growth without the curse of inflation. That is at the heart of our economic policy for the 90s. It’s a prize for which British Governments have struggled for 30 odd years and yet now, it’s within reach and we are not going to throw it away.

    Just remember, only three years ago, inflation was over 10%. Now it’s under 2% and it must be kept low. Inflation is in check but it’s never in checkmate. Back in the 70s, soaring prices destroyed savings. We all remember that. We all want to make sure it never happens again. But to do that, to make sure it never happens again and destroys businesses and livelihoods and savings, sometimes we may have to hold back our ambitions for tax and spending.

    Madam President, let me get one thing entirely clear. Our views on tax are different from those of the other parties. What the Conservative Party is aiming for is a Government that lives within its income and without your income. Other parties tax because they want to. We tax only because we have to. So come rain or shine, taxes will always be lower under us than any other kind of government.

    But success has another vital ingredient, getting public finances back under control. At the moment, largely because of the recession with the great collapse in come than that created, we have a huge gap between what Britain spends and the tax we take in. We have to narrow that gap. It is true – Government has spent more over the last two years. We had to help the weak and protect the vulnerable through the recession. And that, Madam President, is an important part of Conservatism as well.

    But now Britain’s recovering so we have to cut the deficit. We all agree on that but it’s no good agreeing on the principle unless you take the action and it’s no use people urging us to take the action unless they are prepared to back us when we have taken it for it may often be difficult.

    There are tough choices ahead and we must make them and we will make them because it is in the interest of our country to make them and we have that responsibility.

    Of course, people’s opinions will differ. Some say tax more, some say tax less, some say spend more, some spend less but stay out of my backyard. All that’s perfectly okay for the opposition but it won’t do for the Government party. We can’t have a lobby against every difficult decision. Decisions are what government is for and we have to take them.

    So, once the debate is over, once Ken Clarke has announced out budget proposals, we Conservatives must work together and take that message to every single part of the country. But there is one thing I can tell you that you can take with it: high income tax is no part of this party’s programme.

    It never has been and, as far as I’m concerned, it never will be.

    Madam President, high on every Conservative list is raising standards in our schools. That’s why John Patten’s first concern is with what parents think and what our children need. There are tens of thousands of excellent teachers up and down the country and I’m proud to pay tribute to all they do on behalf of our children. But there is bad teaching as well and many parents and many pupils know that only too well. Our children must be taught what they need to know. That’s why we need a national curriculum. It’s why we need national testing. Not just for the sake of it but to find out what our children have learnt and what they have failed to learn. And when we know what they’ve failed to learn, we can put it right. But without those testing, we fail those children because we never learn what they haven’t understood at an early stage in their school career.

    The principle of tests is not negotiable. We don’t need reams and reams of complex papers that take hours for teachers to handle. What we do need is those simple pencil and paper tests that this party has always asked for and that is what John Patten is going to deliver for us. Because unless we teach a child to read, to write and to add up, then we hobble that child for the rest of his life. Take John Prescott. For the audience at Brighton last week, his speech was a religious experience, mainly because it passes all understanding.

    But push him to one side. I saw a letter recently from over 500 university teachers of English. And they say in their letter that it’s disastrous and harmful to teach standard English, great literature and Shakespeare in our schools. Apparently, teaching Shakespeare threatens to reduce a living language to a dead one. They say – and believe it or not, this is a quite – they say, “It would do serious damage to the moral and social development of our children and to the cultural life of society as a whole and all who are concerned with such matters should oppose in the strongest possible terms.” What claptrap!

    Well, I’ll answer them in words, perhaps, they might approve of. Me and my party ain’t going take what them on the Left says is okay, right.

    Madam President, over the past few months, in meetings with party workers – many of them I think will be here today – I’ve made it clear in private that the attack on crime would be the centrepiece of next year’s legislation. On Wednesday, after one of the best conference debates I have ever heard, Michael Howard delivered the first instalment. Lord Archer, if I may call him that…., made it clear how much we’ll have the support of the whole country in that programme. But don’t let’s pretend that we’ve been idle over the last 14 years; we haven’t. We’ve increased sentences, built more prisons, spent more, recruited more police, and those police have served us magnificently. And no other party would have done as much.

    But we know now, it was not enough. In many parts of the country, crime figures have risen remorselessly. Crimes once confined to the cities have spread out into the rural areas, bringing alarm where alarm was never before. And that is the reason for our new approach. We have tried being understanding. We have tried persuasion. Madam President, it hasn’t worked.

    I know criminals are a problem in a cell but they’re much more of a problem on the street. And policy must be dictated by the needs of justice, not by the number of prison places we happen to have available on any given day. If someone belongs in prison, when that is where they should be and that’s why we’re building more prisons. Better the guilty behind bars than the innocent penned in at home.

    Let me tell you how I see things. We need tougher rules on bail and no bail for the worst offenders. An end to the right to silence, as Michael Howard announced earlier this week. And more information for the police from DNA testing. We’re going to use science to help catch the criminal and not let silence protect the criminal.

    Here too it’s back to basics. For some, punishment seems to be a dirty word. Well, you’ll find it in my dictionary and I strongly suspect that it’s in yours.

    Some time ago, I said we should condemn a little more and understand a little less. And I meant that for this reason; if we let young people at an early age think crime is a normal part of growing up, if we let them off with a caution, a caution and a caution, it is small wonder if they feel there is no peer pressure turning them to law and order, and they turn to bigger crime later.

    And if we extend those parameters of leniency so far, we betray our children, for we do not give them the values that we expect them to live up to when they become an adult part of our society.

    There’s one other issue in the range of measures that Michael announced in his remarkable speech the other day that didn’t find room for it, for there was, even for the Home Secretary, a limited amount of time at this conference. But it’s an issue upon which I feel very strongly and I can tell you today that we plan a big crackdown on the loathsome trade in pornography that offends so many people in this country.

    There will be new powers of arrest and search, new powers to seize videos and other material, and – something I personally particularly support – a new offence to make the possession of child pornography a crime that can lead to imprisonment.

    Yes, Madam President, it’s tough. And so it should be. There’s no place in a civilised society for that sort of exploitation of our children.

    But don’t let us delude ourselves. Fighting crime is not just a matter for the police or for the Government. We can legislate, we can provide the resources. We can do all that and the police can perform miracles on the resources they have. But Governments can’t make people good. That is for parents, for churches, for schools, for every single citizen.

    Like many people in this hall today, as a boy I knew people who had nothing, who expected nothing. They didn’t commit crime because they did have something. They had values, dignity, pride, respect for their neighbours, and, above all, respect of the old.

    And in the long-term battle against crime, that respect needs building every bit as much as Michael Howard’s new prisons. Madam President, let me make it clear beyond a doubt. I simply do not accept that crime can be excused and under this Government, I give you my word, it never will be.

    Madam President, from the serious to the less serious: our opponents. Our opponents can’t string two policies together but they can cook up a scare. And of course there’s a ready market for scares. Every day I’m told what I think that I don’t think, what I’ve done that I haven’t done, what I’m planning that I’m not planning. Hearing the news day after day is a voyage of discovery for me.

    Voyage of discovery for me, but very unsettling for many others, many of them elderly, more of them, not very rich, and most of them very worried. So let me offer some reassurance, not rumour, fact. Next time Labour and the Liberals say we’re going to charge for visits to the doctor, you can tell them confidently, “No, we won’t”.

    Next time they say we’re going to charge for stays in hospitals, tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    And when they say we’re going to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, you can get right out on the doorsteps and tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    They say we’re going to force older people to go to the bank, not the post office, to collect their pensions. Well, really. I have 500 square miles of Huntingdonshire in my constituency and heaven knows how many rural post offices. I know their value to local village life. I know their value to the community. I know how much pensioners rely on them and that’s why I promise you they’ll be able to go on picking up their pensions at the post office.

    So go out and knock all that nonsense on the head. And yes, I know the concerns – nobody could possibly have missed them – the concerns that people have about their fuel bills. They believe they’re going to face massive rises. They aren’t. And the most vulnerable fear they’re going to be left without compensation. They aren’t. Kenneth Clarke made that clear yesterday and I’m happy to repeat it today.

    This nation owes a huge debt to its pensioners. it’s something this Conservative Party will never forget. So, it’s our duty to keep our country a place in which they feel both safe and secure.

    So when you hear people saying this, that or the other, don’t always swallow it wholesale. Remember, in the immortal words of Sporting Life in Porgy and Bess, “It ain’t necessarily so”.

    Madam President, scares take me naturally to the Labour Party. I’m not going to be savage about Labour, I think the people of this country would welcome an end to the bad-mouthing between politicians.

    So, as a man damned every Sunday for his moderation, I think I shall stick to my own civil instincts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have a bit of fun. Did you hear John Smith’s speech last week? He’s a good man, is John, but Lord doesn’t he go on about it?

    He rather reminds me of a Scottish Buddha, the very essence of immobility with a faint smile of perfect self-contentment upon his face. And the Buddha has watched his Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, Labour’s gift to melancholia, he’s watched him run from not sure about taxes, to no more taxes, to lots and lots more taxes in just six weeks, and there’s a long time before the next election. And the Buddha said nothing. The Buddha has left his Northern Ireland spokesman say, “Stop tests, cover up school results and scrap A Levels”, and what did he say? The Buddha said nothing. One hears that the only sign the Buddha ever gives is a slight shake of the head… if anyone proposes a new idea.

    Madam President, we saw something rather remarkable in Brighton last week. They called it a “famous victory”. Famous victory? I would call it John Smith’s political Munich. Here it is, composite – I beg his pardon, composite 55 and 56. Let me read you the victory roll – the trade unions will now only make 70% of policy and choose on third of the leader.

    Which one third is unclear. Perhaps they don’t think it matters. After all, they’ve long had the bit above the neck.

    What we have out of last week is a minor reduction in union influence in the Labour Party and the promises of a huge increase in union power in Britain, if there was a Labour Government. One small step for the Buddha, one giant step leap for the brudders.

    Whatever the trade unions ask for, they got. And they asked for was unconditional surrender. Remember what Mr Smith said, “The country needs strong unions today, as never before”. Madam President, after all we fought for over the last 14 years, I think this conference would beg to differ with that judgment.

    Madam President, there’s another strange party in British politics. It gives a different answer to the same question in Cornwall or London, in Ryedale or Eastbourne, on Monday or Tuesday. They’re against VAT on fuel in the morning, and for a carbon tax in the afternoon. But they are consistent about two things, the first of them is tax. They are the other high tax party – income tax, local income tax, carbon tax, regional tax, Scottish tax, Welsh tax, and given half a chance, Euro tax as well. If they thought it would raise money, they’re produce revenue from syntax and tin tacks.

    And the second thing they’re consistent about is federalism. Centralism in Europe. The Liberal Party is a federal party. Don’t take my word for it, this is their conference agenda – “The autumn”, it says, “the autumn conference of the federal party” – that is the Liberals in their own words. And look what they called for in this conference for a federal Europe – turn to page 99, though I would not recommend to you pages 1 to 98….

    This is what they called for on page 99. They called for sensible application of the social protocol and they had an amendment – “delete sensible” was the amendment.

    I agree. Sensible stands out like a sore thumb in every Liberal conference. But their leaders are fanatics for federalism. They have been out of government for so long, they have forgotten how to take decisions. The only decision they can take is that they want someone else to take the decisions for us in this country.

    Next June, we will have European elections in Britain. Let me say to all our candidates who are present, and everyone here who will work in that campaign, that will be a national campaign. We are going to fight those elections on a clear and distinct British Conservative manifesto for the future of Europe.

    Madam President, I have risked and sacrificed more than most for what I passionately believe in, a strong Britain playing a leading role in a strong and growing Europe, a wider Europe, a free trade Europe, a less intrusive Europe, our vision of an independent confident Britain, giving leadership with our partners in the European Community. And in our elections, in this country, next year, we will be the only mainstream party that is not prepared to move towards a centralised Europe and take that message to every doorstep in the country.

    And tell them this too, tell them that any vote against us, for whatever party – Labour, Liberal, makes no difference – any vote against us for whatever party would be seen in every capital in the Community as a signal that the British people want a centralised Europe. We know they don’t. You know they don’t. They know they don’t. We must make sure the people of Britain vote to show the rest of Europe that we don’t.

    The Liberal leader says, rather nervously I thought, that the guns are turning on him. Too right they are, and not before time. Let the Liberals loose and the prospect of a federal Europe could be a reality again. In this country, they are federalism’s fifth column. Away with them next June in the elections.

    Madam President, before I leave the Liberal leader, I want to say a word about his posturing on Bosnia. I find it distasteful. No, no words suffice for the sheer dreadfulness of Bosnia.

    The violence that has torn apart what used to be Yugoslavia has deep and bloody roots. They go back to the Middle Ages and beyond. People there have suffered great wrongs and unimaginable cruelties. We have given, as we always will, help, food, medicine, technical aid. We have sent British troops with humanitarian aid; the first country to do so. And those troops have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, men, women, children who would be dead from cold and starvation, are still alive, thanks to the activities, the skill and the bravery of those troops we sent to Bosnia.

    Madam President, right at the start of this war, I said that I was not prepared to put British troops into combat to hold the various sides apart. It’s my responsibility, my responsibility as the Queen’s first minister, to advise when soldiers should be sent to fight and to risk being killed. It’s all very well to call from the sidelines for a huge military commitment to Bosnia but I listen with respect to the views of the senior professional soldiers and airmen. They know the depth of the problem. They know what we would be asking their men to do. They know that while the threat of air strikes is a good deterrent, you cannot finally settle a guerilla war by bombing. They know that. We saw it in Iraq after the biggest Armada of bombing for week after week after week. it was not until we sent in ground troops that Saddam Hussein finally lost. And those senior servicemen warn me against trying to separate three sides, three sides that hate each other, in a cruel civil war, in some of the wildest hill and forest country in Europe.

    There is another form of intervention, which we may have to contemplate. Intervention, not to impose a settlement on parties at war, but to implement a negotiated peace. Right now, alas, the peace prospects are thin and speculative. Too speculative to risk the life of a private in the Cheshires or the Prince of Wales’ Own. The negotiators will go on trying. I earnestly hope they will succeed, but I shall not ask a British private to risk leaving his mother without a son his wife without a husband unless there is a real settlement.

    Unless there is a real will by the people of Bosnia to stop fighting, not some ploy to suck outsiders in and then start the war again. I have never been in doubt about Bosnia. Though one cannot always speak one’s mind plainly, I have understood that to intervene is to risk an intolerable number of British dead. A war is easily started. The boys are always going to be back for Christmas, but wars, particularly wars in the Balkans, have other ideas.

    So, let me make clear. I leave the talk of a quick away-day outing for the commandoes with everything sorted out in a couple of weeks to the commentators, and to the royal corps of columnists. Yugoslavia is tragic. I consider all the options but I must think first of the lives of British soldiers.

    And I will not put them at risk for the sake of talking big and striking attitudes. I will not rush into war.

    Emotion says yes, logic says no. I say no.

    Madam President, an unstable Yugoslavia is one thing. An unstable Russia would be quite another. So, let me say a few words about the events of the past week. We should be under no illusions about the real motives of the rebels in the Russian Parliament. They were out for blood, the blood of democrats and reformers and, had they won, the consequences for Russian and for the rest of the world would not have borne thinking about. Yesterday morning, Boris Yeltsin told me that the courts would now deal with his opponents. Madam President, that is not how they wanted to deal with him.

    The Russian people have twice voted for President Yeltsin and for reform. Now he plans further election, free elections, not rigged Communist elections. He invited me, yesterday, to send British observers to ensure those elections were fair. I agreed and promised that we would certainly do so. Those elections in December will be the surest test that democratic reform remains on track. We backed Boris Yeltsin against the 1991 coup. We were the first to do so. We backed him last weekend and I promise you this, we shall go on backing reform in Russia in the months ahead.

    When we speak of the threat of violence, there is one other place that is never far from our minds. Each day, every day this week, whilst we’ve been gathered here in Blackpool, thousands of young men and women risk their lives in the Army and in the security services in Northern Ireland. They stand in the defence of democracy and of the rule of law. Under a Conservative Government, they will continue to have all the support that they need.

    Northern Ireland is part of our democracy. We are not going to bargain away the people’s democratic rights, or any part of them, in order to appease those who seek to rule by bullet or by bomb.

    Do to do, to do so, would betray the people, and, in particular, those of every party, many of them brave, who take a part in constitutional politics in Northern Ireland. So, no Government that I lead will negotiate with those who perpetrate or those who support the use of violence.

    There is only one message for them to send. We have finished with violence for good. Madam President, we are and we will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    At the heart of our philosophy is an abiding belief in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Unlike the Labour Party, we are not in the business of securing the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    For us, the union and all it means is immensely important. In all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, the union has the decisive support of those who live there. So, I give this assurance to the brave and resilient people of Northern Ireland, for our part, we will always back your democratic wishes.

    Madam President, before I sit down, I want to congratulate all of you in the hall, all of you who are the backbone and the strength of our party, for your cool, your warmth and yes, your resilience during a remarkable and, how shall I put it, most diverting week in Blackpool.

    Throughout the 1980s, the political energy of this country came from the Conservatives. That energy must go on through the 90s and not only go on, but grow and develop, driven not just by those in Government but by you who work on our behalf for our philosophy, for our party, in each and every part of the United Kingdom. And if you feel, as I do, refreshed and recharged by our work in Blackpool this week, then go home and help us restore the fortunes of our party, through hard work and a passionate belief that what we Conservatives stand for is more true, more deep, more enduring, more in touch with the basic instincts of the nation we love, than all the words of all the other political parties rolled together. We stand for self-reliance, for decency and for respect for others, for wages that stay in the pay packet and don’t drain away in tax. We stand for money that keeps its value, for a country united around those old, commonsense British values that should never have been pushed aside.

    The message from this conference is clear and simple, we must go back to basics. We want our children to be taught the best, our public services to give the best, our British industry to be the best and the Conservative Party will lead the country back to those basic rights across the board. Sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family and respect for the law. And above all, we will lead a new campaign to defeat the cancer that is crime.

    Carry out that message. Reach out, not only to those who already think as we do but to all those with no special party allegiance who care for what we care for and who love this country as we do, for the same reasons we do. Do that. The fight goes on, the waverers will return and yes, a fifth victory will be ours.

    And one final word. Thank you, thank for for something that has been quite fantastic, your loyalty to this party and your loyalty to me.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Russian Ambassador – 4 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Russian Ambassador, Mr Boris Pankin, held in London on Monday 4th October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I invited the Ambassador to come in and talk to me this morning and brief me on the latest position in Russia. There is no doubt that this is a critical moment for the reform process and a critical moment for the future of Russia.

    Over the last few months there has been a consistent and determined attempt by a number of people, many extremists, all hardliners, to try and undermine in whatever way they can the reform process. We have seen that developing month after month. I do not believe over the last day or so that President Yeltsin had any choice but to act as he did and I very much admire his restraint over recent months. There should be no doubt that he has our total and unequivocal support for the action that he has taken.

    What we now need to see is full support internationally for the line that President Yeltsin has taken and the reform process. I shall be sending within the next few minutes messages not only to my European colleagues but also to Prime Minister Hosokawa and every member of the G7 a message inviting them also to state their public support for the reform process and for President Yeltsin.

    What we need to see at the end of this affair is a return to orderliness in Russia and the continuation of the Parliamentary elections that are planned for December.

    MR PANKIN:

    I would like to confirm once again that we appreciate the support show by the Prime Minister for President Yeltsin and his policy of democracy. The Prime Minister restated once again his support and this support is consistent and continuous. I would like to confirm it on behalf of my President, my government and myself.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to add one thing. I will be keeping in touch with the situation as it develops today both in London and at Blackpool when I go there later on. I have no doubt that Douglas Hurd will be developing this matter, we have been in very close touch, in the meeting that he has in Luxembourg at the moment. I have nothing more to say at the moment but certainly as events unfold I may well have more to say.

    QUESTION:

    Was Mr Pankin able to reassure you that Mr Yeltsin can contain this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe President Yeltsin can contain this, that has been the Ambassador’s advice, it is our judgment as well, we very much hope so.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We very much hope that he can contain it, it is beginning to look as though he can, I certainly hope that is the case.

    QUESTION:

    Have you been able to speak to President Yeltsin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope to speak to President Yeltsin later on today, our offices have been in touch and I hope we will be able to speak directly later on today.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think Britain can help in any way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the best thing that Britain and other countries can do is to make it absolutely clear publicly that the reform process and the way President Yeltsin is handling it has our total unequivocal support. I think that is something the whole of the international community can do and I invite them to do it.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the Situation in Russia – 3 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the situation in Russia, issued on 3rd October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Yeltsin has my sympathy and support in dealing with the difficult situation in Russia. He has received a democratic mandate from the Russian people at the ballot box in this year’s referendum and last year’s Presidential election.

    He deserves the support of all democrats, inside and outside Russia. Those who have mounted today’s ugly attacks in Moscow have no respect for civilised and democratic behaviour.

    I hope that law and order will soon be restored. This will allow Russia’s progress towards new Parliamentary elections and stable democracy to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI – 28 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the CBI on Tuesday 28th September 1993 in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madsen, thank you for that stimulating series of suggestions. I was wondering what we would be doing over the next seven years! [Laughter] I now have a fairly clear agenda and I am grateful to you for that. I am sure all my colleagues who are present this evening will have taken very careful note.

    I noticed when I came in that I committed one of the gravest sins in the Madsen Pirie Lexicon by not having changed my tie before I arrived. I apologise for that but I think the direction of Madsen’s proposals of policy give a clear indication of the direction that I feel the general thrust of thought should go both now and in the future.

    I am pleased to be here not just because of the convivial company but also because of the work that Madsen and his five colleagues – the Magnificent Six – have done in terms of policy promotion over the last few years and policy promotion for the next few years.

    It is immensely invaluable to have someone galloping ahead of the pack with ideas that it is worth examining that will change the face of what is happening at present. We couldn’t have had a more powerful advocate for liberalisation and privatisation than the Adam Smith Institute; it has been an immense boost to have their support for – if I can say this in the secrecy and discretion of this room before somebody starts a tape recorder running! [Laughter] – I have to tell you that privatisation has not always been universally popular in every quarter and there have been moments when it hasn’t wholly carried even the hearts and souls of every single member of the Conservative Party but it is right and it is working and I think if people were just to look back at ten years ago and ask themselves, for example, what the tax level might be if we were still subsidising all those former industries in the public sector that are now profit-making in the private sector, they may begin to contemplate whether they were right when they criticised privatisation or whether those who privatised were right.

    But there is more to be done. British Rail, perhaps not the most popular Bill at present, is undoubtedly right. I have, I must tell you, not a shred of apology about the policy to privatise British Rail and when I occasionally see opinion polls saying 87% of people are opposed to the privatisation of British Rail, I think they should ask people how many people are satisfied with the service they get from the present nationalised railway and I suspect the figure would be a deal less than 87%.

    A great deal has been done with privatisation and with liberalisation and I think there is a good deal more to be done. I think there is not only more to be done directly in those policies. I think the introduction of private capital, first cousin perhaps to privatisation, into a whole range of endeavours – the infrastructure of course but way beyond it – is something else that I think we need to promote as much as we can over the period of the next few years.

    What we surely seek, what I surely seek, is the minimum size of public sector and the maximum size of private ownership. That must be the right way ahead for us; it must be the right way for a whole range of reasons that I have no need to set out to this particular audience and the outriders in that argument have consistently been the Adam Smith Institute – for that I am deeply grateful. I am equally certain that they will remain the outriders for a whole series of ideas in the years immediately ahead.

    Where Madsen, I am sure, is right is that people as yet have not begun to sense the underlying change that I believe is taking place in the economy and will become apparent over the next two years or so. Undoubtedly we are clear out of recession; we are back in growth when the rest of Europe isn’t; we are back in growth with the prospect of low inflation and continued growth for quite a period; we are hugely competitive, not just because of the changed exchange rate of sterling but also for other good practical reasons, productivity and unit cost improvement for example being first amongst them; the increasing capacity of employers to resist unreasonable wage demands and be sensible about containing their costs. All these are practical reasons making up a steadily more competitive nation.

    I have to say to you that in the last week you may conceivably have noticed that I was in Japan and Malaysia; it possible it was brought to your attention and I have to say to you if anybody doubted the attractiveness of this country as a trading partner for a country to invest in, they should have been with me in Japan and Malaysia and seen the perspective that they had there of what is happening here for I have to say to you it was immensely encouraging. They recognise the opportunities that exist. Not only do they recognise them, I don’t have a shred of doubt that they are going to take those opportunities and I very much wish to see them do so.

    So I think our prospects are a good deal brighter than many people would imagine. We propose to build on those prospects in the next few months and the next few years and I know as we do so we will be constantly prodded – perhaps where necessary with a pitchfork – by Madsen and his colleagues to make sure we head in the direction that I believe we should go, the direction that maximises private ownership, minimises public ownership, maximises the capacity of people to spend their own money in their own way on their own families – for they will spend it a good deal better than even the most benevolent state will – and maximises the opportunity for people to become, in Madsen’ s phrase, a nation of entrepreneurs. I think there is no doubt that that is the right way for this country to go, no doubt that that is the way that offers the greatest possible prosperity in the future and no doubt at all, I hope, that that is the way the Conservative Party, united perhaps as never before on an issue, will be able to carry policy forward in the next few years and I look forward to coming back at the end of those seven years, Madsen [Laughter] to hear what you have in store for us in the first decade of the new Millennium. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President de Klerk – 26 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President de Klerk, held in London on Sunday 26th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very worthwhile and constructive meeting this afternoon, we have been able to touch on a wide range of bilateral matters and some other matters as well.

    I wonder if it would be helpful, before I ask President de Klerk to say a few words, if I could just fill in some of the background of our discussion and the present circumstances.

    The South Africa Parliament adopted a few days ago legislation to set up a transitional executive council. I think it would be difficult to over-estimate how important a step that was, it has placed South Africa now very firmly on the road towards full non-racial democracy, it is what many people have sought for a long time and it is now well in hand. And I think the progress that has been made within South Africa has now opened the way for her to take her place in the international community, that is now much more widely recognised and I very much welcome that.

    The trade, the economic and the financial sanctions imposed by the European Community have already been lifted. The Commonwealth Secretary General has announced that Commonwealth sanctions are being lifted and South Africa should now have access to the international financial institutions, access to resources from the World Bank, and that is immensely helpful.

    We shall support lending both by the World Bank and of course the International Monetary Fund to South Africa, we will support other steps to encourage investment in South Africa, including the conference on South Africa which the CBI is holding on 12th October.

    I warmly welcome the lifting of economic sanctions. The South African economy has huge potential, I do not think anybody should have any doubt whatever about that, and outside help to regenerate it and to create more jobs will be absolutely vital to the transitional process and to future prosperity and employment for all South Africans.

    One of the questions that will lie there for a future South African government and for the Commonwealth will of course be South Africa’s future relationship with the Commonwealth. I speak personally now, for this will be a matter for a future South African government, but personally I very much look forward to seeing South Africa playing a full part in all international bodies and I hope returning in due course to the Commonwealth.

    There is still quite a lot to be done before we reach that goal, of course. The next step will be to reach agreement on an interim constitution governing next year’s elections and I hope that all South Africans, without exception, will support the process of transition and participate fully in the future democratic life of their country. I hope no-one will be encouraged to continue with any form of violence in South Africa.

    The opportunities that have been so carefully crafted over the past two years or so are remarkable. I hope that everyone will take the opportunity of taking advantage of the opportunities that now lie immediately ahead.

    As for the United Kingdom, we will do whatever we can to support the transitional process, we and our partners in the European Community and in the Commonwealth are ready to offer help in the holding of elections, we will continue to support South Africa with development aid and will continue to keep in close touch with all of South Africa’s leaders.

    I am delighted this afternoon to have heard of the changes that have been made at first hand from President de Klerk, if I may say so they owe much to his courageous leadership, often in very difficult circumstances. The Foreign Secretary and I have had meetings this year with Chief Buthelezi and I shall be seeing Mr Mandela again in another fortnight’s time, and I much look forward to that discussion.

    We will take all those opportunities to register our commitment to help the transition which is now beginning. It is a remarkable moment in time for South Africa, they are poised after a most difficult period to return fully to the community of nations and I think that is a source of great hope, not just for South Africans but for many people beyond South Africa who wish the country well.

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. From my side firstly a public thank you for a very warm reception, I valued the opportunity to discuss important matters of bilateral interest with you, to inform you of the dynamic process in South Africa to bring you fully up to date on a first-hand basis, to discuss some of our regional problems in southern Africa with you, and also to share with you a few thoughts with regard to future developments as we see them.

    May I say that the historical week which is ending today, the week in which South Africa has really returned to the international fold, can be regarded also as a vindication for the foreign policy which your government has followed over a number of years. When it was not popular to accept that the process was irreversible your government, and you Mr Prime Minister, have accepted our assurances in that regard and took a lead in opening doors for South Africa and in helping the normalisation of our international relations along. And we say thank you to the United Kingdom for this constructive approach which it has constantly followed with regard to South Africa.

    We are confident that the process which we have started will be taken through to its logical conclusion, namely the acceptance of a new constitution by Parliament before the end of this year, hopefully during November, a constitution in terms of which the first general election will be held in which all South Africans will vote and which will result in the establishment of a government of national unity which will for a period of five years focus on reconciliation, on ensuring economic development, on ensuring stability in our country. Violence continues to plague us, hopefully the transitional executive council which has as one of its main tasks to create an atmosphere conducive to free and fair elections will, with the multi-party cooperation which will take place within that transitional executive council, also make a valuable contribution towards bringing down the levels of violence.

    I sincerely also believe that when we produce final agreements, when the package is on the table and there for everybody to see, the mere fact that we have reached agreement will also have a marked effect on the levels of violence, because some of the violence which we have in the political sphere is aimed at derailing or delaying the constitutional negotiations, when the agreements are finalised I expect that those who are trying in a last gasp effort to interfere with the negotiations will obviously be in a position of having failed to do so.

    I have no doubt and I am confident that we will reach agreement and that those agreements will be inclusive also of some of the major role players who are at the moment not directly part of the multi-party negotiations, we are making good headway with bilateral discussions with the Inkatha Freedom Party resulting from an eight and a half hour meeting which I had a little bit more than a week ago with Chief Minister Buthelezi and my latest information is that in the bilaterals which results from our meeting, good progress is being made and constructive discussions are taking place.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Why should Britain invest in a country which many will still say is far less stable, far less peaceful than others markets such as those nearer home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Britain is perfectly prepared to invest and I think the prospects for South Africa over the medium and long term are very good indeed, I think that is well recognised by United Kingdom investors. And I have no doubt once the confidence in the political settlement is clear that there will be a substantial amount of investment from this country and I suspect from many other countries as well.

    QUESTION:

    President de Klerk, what place will there be in the new South Africa and new constitution for those who claim still to want some kind of white homeland?

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    I do not think there is any place for any form of race discrimination in the new South Africa. I think it is fundamentally necessary in South Africa to accommodate the fears and anxieties of cultural minorities in the cultural sense and therefore already in the draft bill of rights which is taking shape we are reaching consensus on issues such as the protection of the right of cultural groups with regard to culturally based and religiously based education, there must be effective protection of vested language rights and in the constitution provision will be made, it is taking shape at the moment, for the devolution of power to strong regional governments. In that I think also the aspirations of our many cultural groups, the many nations which together compose the South African nation, can to a great extent be fulfilled and most of those aspirations can, within a system of regional government, based on federal principles, be reasonably accommodated. But there is no place for racial discrimination, we dare not ever consider again in South Africa to have first and second class citizens.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] talks between the ANC and the Afrikaaner [indistinct].

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    We are also having bilaterals with them, I welcome the fact that such talks are taking place. I also welcome the fact the progress is registered if one analyses what Mr Mandela recently said and what General Fulyun [phon] is reported to have said about them. Also in our bilateral discussions with General Fulyun and a team from his organisation we are making some progress, slow progress. I am convinced that we can find a reasonable basis within the framework of the demographic realities of South Africa, the economic realities, as I have just in the previous reply stated, to lay a foundation which can offer a feeling of security to the various cultural groupings in South Africa and which can offer a form of self-determination with regard to that which is dear to the various cultural groups, which should satisfy any reasonable demands in that regard. So I welcome the progress which is being made.

    One must remember that until very recently we were called traitors because we were talking to the ANC and I welcome the fact that people who took up the attitude that they would not ever talk to them are now actually negotiating with them, negotiation is the only way to ensure peaceful solutions.

    QUESTION:

    Are we contemplating any concrete help to South Africa in the run-up to the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by concrete help, there has been a certain amount of help and aid in the past and certainly we will continue to look at that. But I think both concrete and I suppose you may say ephemeral help, we are certainly there to help ensure that there is a satisfactory settlement, that has been an objective of British foreign policy for a long time. I am delighted that with the frankly courageous decisions taken both by President de Klerk and by Mr Mandela and others from time to time, we are now reaching the prospect of a genuine settlement and elections for a non-racial government, I welcome that very much. We will help in whatever way we can to help bring that about.

    QUESTION:

    No doubt President de Klerk will have told you that for democracy to work in South Africa there will have to be a lot of aid, new funds, I noticed Mrs Chalker was around, were you able to assure him that you will be able to increase aid to South Africa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did not discuss that in particular. What we did discuss of course is something far more important than bilateral aid, however important that may be, and that is of course of availability of resourcing from the international financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF in particular, I suspect there will be an IMF programme at some stage, very possibly a structural adjustment programme, we will have to wait and see, but that will be of critical importance. But I would strongly suspect that the President will agree with the next point – the point of greatest importance is the fact that South Africa will be open again to investment from the international community and the availability of resourcing from the financial institutions, the impact of that is likely to dwarf any bilateral or multilateral aid, though I would strongly suspect there may well be significant multilateral aid in the years ahead.

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    Yes, I fully associate with that reply, we really are not asking for handouts from anybody, we just want to qualify for schemes and facilities which are available to all countries throughout the world and we are prepared to meet the conditions which are set before you can qualify for such aid.

  • Mr Major’s Article on the European Union – 25 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on the European Union, published by The Economist on 25 September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the past year there has been a sense of malaise within Europe. The recession has played a large part in this. So has the debate in many countries about the Maastricht Treaty. So has Bosnia. But I believe the causes go deeper. The European Community has become ill at ease with itself and, for the time being, uncertain about its future course.

    A powerful view–still dangerously fashionable among some continental politicians–is that the fault of Maastricht lay in not going far enough; that economic problems require corporatist solutions that the free market cannot supply; that instability, East and West, requires faster progress towards integration; and that full federation is the grand vision of the future around which public opinion can unite.

    I believe profoundly that this view is wrong. It does not carry the hearts and minds of the electorates of Europe. They believe that decision-making in the Community must be brought closer to the people, not taken further away. Unless the Community is seen to be tackling the problems which affect them now, rather than arguing over abstract concepts, it will lose its credibility. Last year the Maastricht process nearly divided the Community. We cannot run that risk again.

    The debate over Europe has too often been conducted in extremes. Inevitably, those who take an extreme position for or against Europe do not discuss how best to improve the Community. For them it is too bad or too good to be properly considered–to some an article of faith, to others anathema. Yet the Community is no more than an instrument for improving the security and prosperity of European citizens. When it fails to measure up to that task, it lacks purpose.

    So I believe it is time to look afresh at the Community and consider the way ahead. Time to put away the old slogans, dreams and prejudices. All over Europe, what are people worrying about? Not to reduce the number of currencies, but to increase the number of jobs.

    We should focus first on the objectives of Europe, before debating its institutions. The concept of the Community has commanded support from right and left, right across Europe. The objectives of peace, stability, growth, prosperity and employment are shared by sceptics and enthusiasts alike.

    But from there on paths diverge. I do not want to caricature a debate full of subtle shades of opinion. But the prevalent view within the Community has been that unless the Community continued to march forward to ever tighter political and economic integration, ever greater uniformity, then its existing achievements would be eroded. The demons of nationalism would reassert themselves. Europe’s ability to compete with the United States, Japan and the Pacific rim would be undermined. The very future of the enterprise would be in jeopardy. Clinging to a false transatlantic analogy, they wanted to create a “United States of Europe”.

    There are, of course, some in Britain too who hold that view. There are, however, many more, myself among them, who do not; and not only in Britain. I believe it is that centralising vision that alarms so many voters in the applicant countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria. If their governments were to negotiate entry into the Community and then their electorates were to reject it, that would gravely damage the credibility of the Community and wreck–for a time–the development of a wider Europe.

    Community leaders should recognise that danger, and work to avoid it; not imply–as they sometimes do–that these EFTA (European Free Trade Area) countries are lucky to be able to apply. The Community is not Europe. A true European Community needs the EFTA countries and others.

    For the vast majority in Britain, the Community is still the best means of advancing Britain’s interests, political and commercial. After 20 years of membership, the overall balance sheet is positive. The disadvantages have been outweighed by the benefits: political stability throughout the Community and an economic prosperity in which we have shared.

    Successive Conservative governments have therefore supported the European Community as a way of securing peace, ensuring stability and increasing our standard of living. But we have opposed the centralising idea. We take some convincing on any proposal from Brussels. For us, the nation state is here to stay.

    Some differences in the Community are stark and simple. We counted the financial cost of our membership. Others counted their financial gain. We subjected each proposal to the scrutiny of Parliament. They relaxed in the sure knowledge that their public opinion uncritically endorsed the European idea. Hang the detail. Never mind the concession of power to Brussels.

    Maastricht changed all that. For the first time, the sort of questions that Britain had been asking were asked in other Community countries as well. The Danes wanted the safeguards for Denmark that I had secured for Britain. The German people did not want their government to sacrifice the D-mark. The French came within a whisker of saying “no” to the treaty their government had signed.

    Since then, the old complacency has taken a further jolt. Last autumn, when the pound left the ERM, I warned of the fault lines throughout the system. Some scoffed. The fault line was in British policy, they said. Not so. These policy fault lines lie across Europe; the ERM as a whole has foundered.

    I take no satisfaction in that. Exchange-rate stability is in the interests of business and thus of prosperity. But I am not prepared to sit down in Brussels in a few weeks’ time and pretend that Humpty Dumpty is whole and well. I care too much about the European Community to pursue sellotape policies–patching together the unmendable–or to play the politics of illusion–pretending that it was never broken. The good European does not cling to old nostrums, but seeks solutions to new problems.

    The most pressing item on the Community’s agenda is the GATT negotiations: the world’s last chance to complete the Uruguay round. Much now depends on the Community. The costs of failure would be very high. It is not only that we would pass up the benefits of a new, far-reaching and overdue trade agreement: lower prices, new markets for our exporters, a double boost to output and jobs. We stand to lose what we have now: international commitment to resist protectionist pressures. Only our joint interest in success in the Geneva negotiations on GATT has kept Europe and America back from trade war. Breakdown in those talks would threaten a repeat of the protectionism and isolationism of the 1930s when production fell by a fifth, investment by a half.

    Failure would lead to an immediate crisis within the European Community, and in its relations with the United States, countries of the Cairns Group and the whole developing world. It would fly in the face of Europe’s liberal economic principles; its commitment to free trade. It would confound the instinct for prosperity which drove us to break down national trade barriers and create our own single European market.

    The need for a new agenda

    In these circumstances, we cannot assemble for a special European Summit in October on the same, old, stale agenda. I hope my fellow heads of government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union as if nothing had changed. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance and about the same potency.

    The troubles in the ERM are just a foretaste of the difficulties in moving to a full monetary union. There can be no question of Britain going back into the exchange-rate mechanism in the foreseeable future. And–while I always believed Europe’s ambition for monetary union later this decade was unrealistic–by now the folly of the artificial timetable has become glaringly apparent to many across Europe. The plain fact is that economic and monetary union is not realisable in present circumstances and therefore not relevant to our economic difficulties.

    So let us have a very serious debate based, not on wishful thinking, but on the real situation in Europe and the world. Let us look at workable ways of promoting economic convergence. Let us, above all, concentrate on people’s real economic concern– Europe’s shortage of jobs. To do that, we must address the decline in our competitive position.

    In June, I urged this on my colleagues at the European Summit at Copenhagen. The facts spoke plainly. Long-term unemployment is higher in the European Community than in either Japan or the United States. There is now increasing agreement that these problems stem from the inflexibility of European labour markets, from the tangle of regulations, from wasteful systems of welfare, from the burden of too high taxation, which Europeans have imposed upon themselves in the last 40 years.

    European labour costs rose by 4% a year during the 1980s, while barely changing amongst our major competitors. Europe spends proportionately nearly twice as much as the Japanese on public social security and health care, and over 60% more than the Americans. The problem will be compounded as the proportion of old people in our population increases. Unless we take action to contain costs, Europe’s taxpayers will be paying 30% more for social security and health–in real terms–by 2020. Unless we act to deregulate our economies, there will be too few earners in Europe to pay those tax bills.

    There has been increasing recognition from my colleagues since the Copenhagen European Summit that this analysis is correct. The Community must take practical decisions: to complete the single market for goods and services and make it work; to review and repeal many of the burdens on business and industry; to play our part in the conclusion of crucial world trade negotiations.

    A wider Europe

    Some critics may say that this is a typically British agenda: climbing the foothills when we should be scaling the peaks. This criticism is puerile. It ignores the arguments. The Europe I believe in extends far beyond today’s Community.

    The vision of the founders of the Community was a fine one. What we have seen in the last two years is not so much a swing against Europe as a demand for a different kind of Europe. The structures and strategies envisaged in the Treaty of Rome are the product of Europe in the 1950s. It is natural they should be clung to by a generation of European politicians whose views were moulded in the 1950s and 1960s. But the new mood in Europe demands a new approach.

    The new mood reflects new realities. The Treaty of Rome was designed for the countries of Western Europe; to enable them to compete with each other, not fight against each other. It was designed to help them stand up to that illusory economic might of the Soviet empire; to complement Western Europe’s defences against the real fear of nuclear war.

    The challenge to this generation of European leaders is to build a Community for the whole of Europe. That is a bigger vision. They must address three questions. How should the West Europeans organise their security? How should the Community extend its embrace to the EFTA countries and to Eastern Europe? And what do these questions imply for the Community and its institutions?

    During the Cold War, defence was costly but relatively simple. We knew what the threat was and where it came from. We could measure its military strength, and see what we had to do to meet it.

    Today the threats to our security are harder to define. But they are no less real for that. There is instability inside Europe and beyond. Some countries are collapsing into chaos, remain under the rule of dictators, or are pushing to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The North Atlantic alliance will remain our only effective instrument against the remote contingency of a direct attack against us. It will remain the only credible vehicle for a tangible American commitment to the security of our continent.

    But the alliance will have to adapt. It is already devising more flexible structures, developing its relationships with its former opponents from the Warsaw Pact. The West Europeans will take on greater responsibility for the European pillar of the alliance. There is a heavy agenda for the NATO summit this winter.

    In the 1970s Greece, Portugal and Spain turned to the European Community as the only firm anchor for their newly-founded democratic systems. Europe has been stronger and more authentic as a result. We have an equal duty towards the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. Not even the most advanced of them, of course, is yet ready for membership. Before they can sustain its obligations they must complete an economic as well as political revolution. But we can–and must–get ahead with dismantling the barriers to their exports. In the short term that will cause us difficulty. But freedom to trade is essential to the success of economic reform; and will in turn create opportunities for our own investors and exporters.

    The present Community is but a fragment of Europe. If we fail to bring the democratic countries of Eastern and Central Europe into our Community, we risk re-creating division in Europe–between the haves and the have-nots. Through Community membership we can consolidate democracy and prosperity across our continent. Without it, we risk turmoil among our neighbours in Eastern and Central Europe and endanger our own long-term prosperity and stability.

    This is an historic agenda. And it is for Europe’s leaders, not its bureaucrats. The heads of government should give a stronger lead through the European Council. They should set the priorities, as they did at Copenhagen. The commission should then get on with implementing that agenda. No decision should be taken in Brussels which can better be taken at national or local level: that is the principle of subsidiarity, endorsed by all, which we need to develop.

    I believe that this would reduce the scope for friction between the commission president and member governments. The president of the commission could play a more, rather than less, important role on behalf of the Community if he were seen to be operating more clearly within a framework laid down and supported by the elected heads of government.

    The role of the other commissioners should also change. They are people of high seniority and ability. But there are already 17 of them. This is too many, if we are to find space around the commission table for new EC members.

    We must ensure that Europe has the flexibility to tackle new problems–which means acting in different ways. The Community institutions do not have a monopoly on European co-operation. For example, we should provide the impetus, through the inter-governmental provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, for more effective common mechanisms to frustrate the criminals who are no respecters of borders: drug traffickers and financial swindlers.

    People are moving more freely, with fewer formalities, around Europe than ever before. However, partly because of changes outside the Community, partly because of the Community’s expansion, Europe faces migratory pressures which were not even envisaged a few years ago. We have to find an orderly way of dealing with them, and of managing our frontiers. And we have to find answers that respect national identities and concerns.

    A Europe of nation states

    The Treaty of Rome called for union among the peoples of Europe. After a phase in which “Europe” was too narrowly defined, and the peoples were taken too much for granted, we now have the opportunity to move back towards this founding principle.

    Britain successfully used the Maastricht negotiations to reassert the authority of national governments. It is clear now that the Community will remain a union of sovereign national states. That is what its peoples want: to take decisions through their own Parliaments. That protects the way of life, the cultural differences, the national traditions which the French and Germans, the Greeks and the Danes, hold as dear as the British. If anyone still thinks the Commission’s first Maastricht blueprint was the way to go, they will have learnt nothing from experience. And they are closing their minds to the future.

    It is for nations to build Europe, not for Europe to attempt to supercede nations. I want to see the Community become a wide union, embracing the whole of democratic Europe, in a single market and with common security arrangements firmly linked to NATO. I want to see a competitive and confident Europe, generating jobs for its citizens and choice for its consumers. A Community which ceases to nibble at national freedoms, and so commands the enthusiasm of its member nations.

    Such a Community would be a more genuine and lasting European union than anything we have now. It offers peace. It promotes security. It widens free trade. It preserves and enhances infant democracies. It marches with the instincts of free people in free nations. It is an ambition for the new century that dwarfs the dreams of the founders of the Community. The Treaty of Rome is not a creed. It is an instrument. We must tune it to the times.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview after IOC Olympics Announcement – 23 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview, made outside Downing Street on 23rd September 1993, on the announcement of the site of the 2000 Olympics.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you by the decision?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone is disappointed – in the United Kingdom – the Manchester bid was a very good bid, I don’t think they could have done it better. I’m very disappointed for them. That being said I congratulate Sydney. I think they’ll provide an outstanding games.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it’s worth having a second go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Manchester have had a second go. The question is whether they have a third go. That’s a decision they’ll want to take. I can only say I don’t think they could have presented the bid better. They may well wish to try again.

    QUESTION:

    Would you like to see another British bid in 4 years time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Most certainly.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, why do you think China didn’t get the Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    More people voted for Sydney.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think, Prime Minister, this is going to fuel Australian’s demands to become a Republic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t think it will make any difference at all. I really don’t think it will make any difference. I think this ought to be seen in a sporting context; that’s where I believe it’s best placed. Sydney produced an extremely good bid as well, and on the night they won.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be going?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what will your message be to the people of Manchester?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think my message would be they can be extremely proud of the bid Bob Scott and his colleagues put forward. Extremely proud. I think it’s given Manchester a remarkably good profile and I hope they’re not too downhearted.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Support of Olympic Bid – 23 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in support of the Manchester Olympics bid. The speech was given in Monte Carlo on Thursday 23rd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President and Members of the IOC:

    We are all here today in our different capacities because we care about the Olympic Games. We know it to be the greatest sporting festival in the world. You must decide where it will be and I wish to help you make that decision.

    The Millennium Games will be a unique occasion, a time of hope, optimism, the beginning of a new century, a time for looking forward, a time to bring together young people from every corner of the globe skilled in athletic achievements and striving every muscle to prove themselves the very best in the world and television will take that friendly competition before the largest sporting audience in history. I want you to see that unique occasion at that unique time in that unique city in my country, Manchester.

    The city may be Manchester, one of our great cities but this is a British bid, not just the city but the whole country stands foursquare behind it. It has the full and utter support of the Government.

    Twice in this century – in 1908 and 1948 – Britain has hosted the Games. Each time it did so at short notice to save the Games, otherwise they could not and would not have been held but my country has never been awarded the Games, never had the chance to plan for them but we hope to be able to have that chance at the turn of the century and why? Why do we want the Games in Great Britain in Manchester?
    My country has a passion for sport and it is a passion I freely confess to you that I share. Past sporting events are planted indelibly in our minds. I can close my eyes now and see the White City when Chataway went thataway and beat the seemingly invincible Vladimir Kutz; I remember that incomparable Bob Beaman leap, the Fosbury Flop, all of it across a whole range of athletics memories could close our minds and bring back pictures of the past.

    But it is not just the past; it is the anticipation of the future as well and anticipating future sporting events to me at least is one of the great pleasures of life. Scratch a Briton and you will find a sports lover. In my country, new sports are taking root, old sports are growing in popularity.

    I believe that sporting endeavour represents much of the very best of life – the will to win, the determination to compete and to finish; it is about individual efforts and team excellence; it provides drama, romance, pathos and memories. In such an environment, the Olympic Games will thrive but to do so needs more than enthusiasm, much more than simply a love of sport.

    Organising the Olympic Games is a truly massive undertaking. No-one doubts that Manchester can do that spectacularly well. It has the right communication links, the right international access, it can offer excellence in television and in communications. The sporting facilities already are superb and those still needed will be provided. Even as we speak, the construction of future Olympic facilities is under way.

    Mr. President, I spent some time at the Barcelona Games. I went there to look and to learn. Barcelona was a success for the Olympic Movement and a success for Spain and I was happy to play a small part in that in helping athletes from the former Yugoslavia to compete in those Olympics. Today, I am delighted to support the IOC in its bid for observer status at the United Nations and in its efforts to secure an Olympic truce and I do so because I want the Olympic Movement and the Games to succeed, to go as it has done from strength to strength from year to year.

    Sport binds together the best of friends and the worst of enemies but it binds them more securely than any other endeavour and the world should use that gift.

    Mr. President, Members of the IOC, you have a difficult task. I for one don’t envy you for one second in the choice that you have to make. You have candidates of high quality each wishing to host the Games in the year 2000. To do will be an immense privilege and a very great responsibility. Whatever you decide today, we will readily accept and play our part in making the Games a success. I hope you will decide to have that success in Manchester. If you do, I can promise you that a very warm welcome awaits you and I am utterly confident that a great Games lie in store.

    I am grateful to you for listening.

  • Mr Major’s Public Message to President Yeltsin – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s public message to President Yeltsin, issued on 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of the latest developments in Russia soon after my arrival in Kuala Lumpur, and have been following events as closely as I can from here. I am sorry that, because of my programme here, I have not so far had a chance to speak to you on the telephone.

    When we met in Tokyo two months ago, you explained your intention to bring in a new, democratic constitution following the strong backing you received in the April referendum. In calling for elections this December to a new Parliament, you are giving them the chance to have their views properly represented. This is what they voted for in the April referendum. This deserves the backing of democrats, both inside the outside Russia. I would like to assure you of our full support for your determined and courageous efforts, in the face of great difficulties, to surmount the challenges to your reform programme, and to create a democratic framework for Russia and the Russian people.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Kuala Lumpur – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Kuala Lumpur, held on Wednesday 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted that Jim Prior is here – he is the leader of an extremely high-powered business delegation here with me in Kuala Lumpur – and also that I have Richard Needham, the Minister for Trade, with me. Richard has worked long and hard to make sure that we are able to increase our exports and our trading relationship with Asia and he will be returning to Malaysia with a large business delegation in November to follow up the numerous openings that have been identified in various meetings today.

    I think there is no doubt that the trip has proved very fruitful with the signing this afternoon of five very important agreements. These involve potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of business for the United Kingdom. Overall at the moment business currently under discussion is worth at least a billion pounds over the forthcoming years and our current and continuing exports to Malaysia are estimated to support around 25,000 jobs. Today’s contracts of course should secure many more jobs in Britain in due course.

    I think it is worth remembering that South East Asia is one of the most rapidly-growing economies in the world and Malaysia, as a result of policies over many years, is in the forefront of that growth. We have doubled our exports to Malaysia over the last four years but I think we can and will do a good deal better.

    It is equally true to make the point that the trading relationship has expanded in the other direction with a very substantial growth of Malaysian exports to the United Kingdom.

    Within the Community, we will continue to fight very hard indeed for the vision that we have of a free, open, outward-looking Community and the relevance of that is that it will ensure that countries like Malaysia will have access to the Single Market which is worth around £350 billion even before enlargement.

    To perhaps give you a practical example in concrete terms, the Community provides a massive market for Malaysian products like the Proton car that I was able to have a look at this morning.

    I also had the opportunity of looking at the Connaught Bridge power station, a very impressive example of Rolls-Royce’s capabilities. Today, British Gas have signed an agreement for a joint venture for an even bigger power plant and the project overall is worth around £550 million. What staggered me was that the plant is expected to start producing power by the end of 1994 and that is very remarkable progress indeed – no wonder British Gas refer to it as “Project Maserati”.

    Our pursuit of business, of course, and our wider social and educational links inevitably go hand-in-hand. There are at the moment around 13,000 Malaysians studying in the United Kingdom and possibly a good deal more who have gone there privately where we don’t necessarily have an indication of the numbers. John Laings are planning to increase the number of students we can help by establishing a college of the University of London here in Kuala Lumpur and Laings are also about to construct twelve hospitals here so there is a substantial amount of work there as well.

    As we approach the end of my trip to Tokyo and Malaysia, I am absolutely certain that we were right in our decision to give greater priority to our policies relating to the Asia Pacific region. I think this trip alone demonstrates what that means in practice and what more can be achieved in the future.

    It was equally clear from my discussions this afternoon that there is a very wide range of international and bilateral issues that are of concern to both countries. In my discussions with Dr. Mahathir this afternoon, we spread very broadly our discussions and it was remarkable that we had so many areas of joint concern and interest. The primary purpose, however, of this meeting was to expand and make clear to everyone the sheer scale of the economic and trading relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Malaysia and I will, if I may, ask Lord Prior, as leader of the business delegation, just to give his impressions of the trip and then we will be happy to take any questions you may have.

    LORD PRIOR:

    As most members of the British press will know, I am not given to sycophancy in my remarks about prime ministers but I would just like to say that I believe that the efforts made by the Prime Minister both here in Malaysia and in Japan as well and in a number of other places are an enormous help and example to British industry and I think you will find that all the industrialists who have been on both these really quite difficult tours are full of praise for the attitude of the Prime Minister and welcome enormously the efforts he, Richard Needham and others are making for British industry.

    The Prime Minister has mentioned a number of important projects and he has been, quite rightly, very conservative in the figures he has put on them. If I can just add a little to, for example, the airport, it is a British consortium which has been given the task of organising and carrying through this massive project which is a real prestige project in south-east Asia; it is the biggest single project which Malaysia has ever undertaken and which we hope will be a great credit to a nation which has made such marvellous progress in the last few years. That project, which will be carried out predominantly with Malaysian contractors and Malaysian labour but at the same time with project management and technical help from both British and Japan, will bring to Britain a large quantity of work, for example to my own company GEC Marconi it will bring at least 100 million pounds and probably more and the figure for Balfour Beatty and Trafalgar House Gannon [phonetic] will probably be in excess of something like £500 million so that alone is a very big project.

    The Prime Minister has already mentioned the two power station projects, one of which he opened this morning. Sir Desmond Pitcher of the North West Water. Board has a project that he would like to mention to you a little later on which again is a very big project and he has a press kit to hand out for those who would wish to have it.

    So altogether, Prime Minister, we think this has been a very successful tour from your point of view. You have opened a number of doors for us and it is up to British industry now to get their feet in so that they don’t close again and manage to get some very big orders. We think we will.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask Sir Desmond Pitcher to take up Jim’s invitation and perhaps say a word on some other events that have occurred today.

    SIR DESMOND PITCHER:

    We formed a consortium with our Malaysian partners a few years ago to study the sewage problems in this country. We made a recommendation to the Government for a national sewage programme to provide sewage for 14 million people, which is roughly double the number of people who live in the north west of England. As a consequence of that, the Malaysian government this year have passed a special act to privatise all sewage activity and transfer responsibility of that to our company. We are in the final details of signing the so-called “Consortium Agreement” as a franchise agreement and we have to make a privatisation agreement. In effect, the capital investment for starters is 1.25 billion pounds. We have the contract for 28 years and by the time we have done the main construction work, we will have changed the whole dimension of sewage and environment in this country. We have done it of course with tremendous help from our Malaysian colleagues and more particularly all the money is coming from Malaysia with a small amount of investment in equity from our country.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Webster, ITN):

    Prime Minister, if I could first ask you a question on the international stage, today President Clinton, like yourself, has given support to President Yeltsin in Russia. However, he added a proviso that he didn’t want to see President Yeltsin use force in order to put down his opponents. Do you make the same condition, despite your support for him, that he must keep the troops….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several points to be made. Yeltsin is the first, indeed the only leader in Russian history to be elected freely. He is carrying forward a reform process, he wants a properly elected parliament that actually can express the will of the people with clarity and with a fresh mandate.

    Since President Gorbachev gave them the chance some time ago, the Russian people have consistently acted to show that they believe in the reform programme; that is the reform programme that President Yeltsin is trying to carry forward.

    We have given consistent support to the reformers. At the time of the 1991 coup, it was Britain that denounced it first and made it clear we were on the side of reform. We have made it absolutely clear right the way through that we are on the side of the reform process and the reformers will need to operate by rule of law and with parliamentary sanction so I think it is our view that we want it to proceed peaceably but let there be no doubt whatsoever that the reform process is best likely to go ahead under President Yeltsin, that he has our support and we very much hope that that will be acknowledged by people throughout Russia and the process can continue.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    But how likely do you think it is that President Yeltsin will be overthrown and that Russia will revert to totalitarian rule?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Consistently in the last few years the Russian people, when asked, have acted with very considerable maturity. I don’t think there is any conceivable doubt that given the chance they will continue to act with maturity and that does mean a democratic reform process so I both hope and believe that President Yeltsin will continue and will be able to carry that reform process forward.

    I not only believe that that is very much in the interest of the Russian people; I don’t have a shred of doubt that it is very much in the interest of the rest of the world to have a stable Russia settling down as a secure democracy not just for months but for years ahead, decades ahead. That is what all of us wish to see. I believe it is achievable but I believe now is the moment for the rest of the world to make it absolutely clear that they support the continuation of this reform process and they do not support any attempts illegally to knock it off course.

    QUESTION (Richard Bestick, Sky News):

    From your remarks at lunch-time today about the rearguard Soviets, it would seem that if Mr. Yeltsin isn’t successful you would be prepared to see a return to the Cold War rather than accept a dialogue with his successors.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I have made it clear in the past, if I may refer back to the remarks I made about the potential coup some time. Britain didn’t sit back and consider what might happen if things went wrong; we were out there first making it clear that the reform process had to continue. That is the first prize for the rest of the world. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. It is clearly our policy that it is in everybody’s interests – Britain’s, the rest of the world’s, Russia’s – for there to be the maximum amount of support for those people who will carry on the reform process and I will rest my answer on that.

    QUESTION:

    When Lady Thatcher was here about two weeks ago, she said that the situations in Iraq and in Bosnia should be treated exactly in the same manner. How does your Administration see the difference between the two situations and should they be treated differently by your Administration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what may have been said on that occasion and I am not going to comment directly on remarks I didn’t myself hear and haven’t seen in context. I think I have learned over the last ten years or so that it is very unwise to do that.

    As far as Iraq is concerned, I think the whole world remains appalled at the behaviour of Saddam Hussein. Both in the north with the Kurds and in the south in the marshlands, his attitude continues to be repressive, dictatorial and wholly repugnant to the rest of the world.

    Insofar as the UNSCOM investigations are concerned, until and unless he actually removes these weapons of mass destruction, he cannot expect in any way the sanctions to be removed so our position on that has been perfectly clear.

    On Bosnia, I think it is right for me to say that everyone shares very hot feelings – very emotional feelings – about the dreadful circumstances that have arisen in Bosnia. We were the first country to put in troops on a large scale to help the humanitarian aid. It is certainly the view of the United Nations that without the British effort it could not have continued and many thousands of lives would have been lost. We have continued to do that. We have continued to seek a peaceful process. We believe a peaceful political settlement is desirable because it is more likely to be enduring and I think that is the prize everyone wishes to seek so in Iraq we sought peace, in Bosnia we seek peace but we have to determine the way to achieve it dependent upon the individual circumstances.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, later today you are off to Monte Carlo to bang the drum on behalf of Manchester. How confident are you that the city can win the Olympics for the year 2000 and do you think China’s human rights record disqualifies Peking from holding the Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have always been concerned throughout the whole of this to promote the aims of Manchester rather than comment on the aims of other countries. I think Manchester’s bid is technically excellent. Manchester has the total support of the Government. I believe that were the Games to come to Manchester in the year 2000 they would be memorable Games matched against any we have seen in the past so I have no doubt about Manchester’s willingness or capability of producing the Games.

    As to whether they will win or not, we are now within a few hours of the 90-odd members actually making up their minds. I don’t know what individual motivations they will have in that decision. I can only say that on merit I think Manchester will be very hard to beat and I would be delighted to see them win.

    QUESTION:

    How do you see the US refusal to renegotiate the Blair House Accord reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe if you have entered into an agreement you don’t re-open it and the European Community collectively and the United States reached an agreement on Blair House. The United Kingdom don’t want to re-open Blair House.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    How is your morale at the end of the second leg of this trip? You have obviously had a lot of success with the business side of the trip over here but there are still some rumblings back home from what we hear. How is your morale tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My morale is very high, John.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Have you talked to President Yeltsin yet and do you intend to try before you take off tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I haven’t talked to him yet. We have been in touch with Moscow but I haven’t spoken to President Yeltsin yet. I think it is very likely I will over the next few days but I have had meetings continually through today, they go through till late tonight, I will then be flying off later on this evening to Nice. I think it is unlikely I will speak to him before tomorrow but I have no doubt over the next few days I will.

    QUESTION (Colin Brown, The Independent):

    Will you be suggesting any initiative that world leaders can take in addition to giving vocal support to President Yeltsin and given that his Foreign Minister in Moscow called in all the G7 ambassadors is there anything that they are asking for in addition to support, for instance financial support?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. The G7 ambassadors were called in so that it could be explained to them what President Yeltsin had in mind. It was a question not of asking for assistance but of passing on information.

    This is a matter that is going to be determined within Russia but I think the role of other countries around the world is to make it clear what they believe is the right thing to happen and we have done that and a large number of other countries have as well; I hope more will.

    QUESTION:

    Sir, you said earlier that the UK was not likely to allow a renegotiation of the Blair House Accord but France has managed to get the EC to open further discussion on the Blair House Accord. How does the UK feel about this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is outside Blair House. It is not a question of renegotiating what was agreed at Blair House. It was agreed there are other areas outside Blair House that people can look at it but it isn’t a renegotiation of the agreement that was reached at Blair House.

    QUESTION (Stephen Cook, Financial Times):

    Dr. Mahathir made a very strong speech last night about Bosnia in particular. Were you surprised at the strength of Malaysia’s feeling on Bosnia and were you able to reassure him at all in your private discussions today or what was your feeling of the Malaysian policy today during your private discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone can be surprised about the fact that people across the world have an emotional feeling about what is happening in Bosnia, that impact exists in the United Kingdom as well. Certainly, Dr. Mahathir and I discussed the matter and I think we both have a very clear understanding of each other’s position.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, do you think that the ball is at the Bosnian Muslims’ feet now that the three factions have agreed to give them some kind of an outlet to the sea?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think an outlet to the sea is needed perhaps at Flotje [phonetic]. I don’t see immediately where else it would be. I think there will need to be an outlet to the sea in the negotiations but I think the responsibility for reaching a conclusion rests not just with the Muslims but of course with each of the groups. What we have seen over a number of occasions in the last few months is putative agreements that have been broken very shortly after they have been entered into. We need all sides to reach an agreement, they need to stick to the agreement.