The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Conservative Party Conference – 13 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1995 Conservative Party Conference, held in Blackpool on Friday 13th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Today is Friday the Thirteenth. Remember it. This is the day I’m going to tell you how we’ll win the next election.

    And if anyone is superstitious they shouldn’t be.

    This is Margaret Thatcher’s 70th birthday and she won three elections in a row.

    So the omens are good.

    Many happy returns to Maggie today, and it’ll be many happy returns for us at the Election.

    We’ve won four and we’re going for five.

    All elections are important.

    But the next is a watershed.

    Because whoever wins will inherit the strongest economy for decades.

    We built that economy.

    It wasn’t easy.

    And I don’t know about you but I’m not in the mood to hand it over to Labour to wreck.

    So, Mr Chairman, we’re going to mount the fight of our lives. And when the time comes, we’re going to deliver the win of our lives.

    Leadership

    But first a bit of housekeeping.

    As you know, in June I resigned as Leader of our Party and called a leadership election.

    I did so because speculation was drowning out everything we were trying to do.

    How could you argue our case on the doorstep with that sort of thing going on?

    Well of course, you couldn’t.

    It had to end – whatever the risk.

    I might have lost. If I had I would still have been at this Conference. Still offering my full support to the Party, I believe is best able to govern this country.

    But I won.

    And today, face to face, I’d like to thank you – for your support – when the going was rough.

    Thank you, too, to my campaign team led so ably by Robert Cranborne.

    And there’s someone else who has always been there when the stakes were high.

    She’s here today too.

    Of course – I mean Norma.

    Labour

    But, that was yesterday.

    Today, we meet united, healed, renewed – and thirsting for the real fight – with Labour.

    Last week the Labour leader predicted that we’d wave the Union Jack. Of course. This Party has never waved any other flag and we never will.

    To win, Labour must persuade people this country is on its knees. Clapped out. Beaten up.

    They shouldn’t find that too difficult. That’s the way it always is – under Labour.

    But they know it isn’t true under the Conservatives. And the world knows it isn’t true.

    The world knows the only way our country would match their deception would be if they were running it.

    I don’t question Labour’s patriotism.

    But is a funny patriotism to rubbish our achievements – how shall I put it? – before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner, and then get up and do it again before breakfast – on the Today programme.

    I don’t doubt Labour’s good intentions : the road to hell is paved with them.

    They say they want to help businesses – so they’ll clobber them with the Social Chapter.

    They say they want to help the unemployed – so they’ll destroy jobs with a minimum wage.

    They say they want to treat the unions fairly – so they’ll give them privileges even Michael Foot didn’t dream of in the 1970s.

    I think Labour has been re-reading “1984” – the book that introduced “Doublethink”.

    You remember – doublethink is the trick of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same tine – and accepting both.

    It was the brain-child of another public school-educated Socialist. His name was George Orwell.

    But actually it wasn’t. That was his pen name.

    His real name – was Eric.

    His surname?

    You’ve guessed it. It was Blair.

    Eric Blair.

    He changed his name. I can’t say the same thing about my opposite number.

    He’s changed everything else. His politics. His principles. His philosophy.

    But – to the best of my belief – he hasn’t changed his name.

    At least not when I got up to speak.

    But he’s abandoned so much, so fast you never know.

    The Liberal Democrats support all Labour’s nonsense.

    But they’re neither here nor there.

    Because as we saw the other day, they’re the only party in British political history that has had its entire battle plans wiped clean off the media – by a goldfish.

    The Great Divide – Us Versus Them

    Mr Chairman, around the world, people now believe Britain is winning.

    But don’t let’s fool ourselves.

    I’m looking to the future.

    There’s still a lot to be done.

    The new Millennium will bring longer, fuller lives.

    Shifts in world power.

    More and more competition.

    Changes in technology, fast and furious.

    And, even with growing wealth, new welfare problems.

    That is the Millennium challenge. We have to respond to it.

    Explain to people the opportunities within their reach. Tell them what can – and cannot be done – and what the price will be.

    By telling them I mean really telling them. I don’t mean insulting them by trivialising issues for instant media consumption.

    I believe the public will respond to the plain truth.

    I believe they’re as sick as I am of politics by soundbite, by nudge and wink.

    No wonder people are turned off politics. The way some politicians conduct the debate would disgrace a nursery.

    There are only two ways to the future. Labour’s way. And there’s ours.

    Scratch beneath Labour’s rhetoric and you see the reality. Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett, Dobson, Cook. They believe a socialist state can do it all.

    If that were true the past 50 years would have been quite different. Cradle to grave socialism – I always thought that rather constrained way to go through life.

    But the State can’t do it all – and, what’s more, the State shouldn’t do it all.

    Beat Labour one more time, and we’ve beaten socialism for good.

    Our way – the Conservative way – is very different.

    We believe the Government should choose what Government should do – and do it better.

    Beyond that we should help individuals shape their own future. Help them – but not nanny them.

    Conservatism is choice.

    Choice is liberty.

    Blazon it on your mind.

    We should offer choice whenever we can.

    But there’s one thing in our Tory tradition that has inspired me, it’s our historic recognition that not everyone is thrusting and confident and fit. Many are not: and they deserve protection. With a Conservative Government they will always get it.

    Individual rights will be defended.

    Ownership will be encouraged.

    And, above all, we will stand for – and will protect – one United Kingdom, unbroken and undivided.

    The Enterprise Centre of Europe

    We Tories often talk of business and the need for success.

    It’s worth remembering why. It’s quite simple.

    If business makes profit, it provides jobs and pays taxes.

    And those people with jobs pay taxes too. Taxes pay for our teachers, our nurses and our public services.

    So we must make business more successful.

    We are in Europe – and rightly so. It’s the richest home market in the world.

    Half of our trade goes there.

    But half does not. And both halves are equally important.

    That’s why Malcolm Rifkind will actively pursue the vision of Atlantic Free Trade – refreshing our vital links with the Americas.

    If we’re to compete with America, Japan and the Pacific Basin, we must be the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Let me spell out precisely what that means.

    It means high spending and high taxes are no longer an option. The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    If the State spends too much, it taxes too such.

    In the recession, we had to put taxes up to protect the vulnerable.

    Now the recession is over, as soon as prudent, we must get taxes down again.

    And – be in no doubt – I don’t only mean income tax.

    I mean the taxes that damage investment and stultify wealth creation. I mean inheritance tax. I mean capital gains tax.

    We must cut them, and then – when affordable – we should abolish them.

    We receive more investment into Britain than any other European Country.

    This very day, the Queen will open Samsung’s massive new development in the North East.

    Fujitsu, Daewoo, Nissan, Black and Decker, NBC, Siemens have all decided their future is here.

    You don’t hear Labour talk of this.

    Of course not. These companies didn’t invest in a socialist Britain.

    They set up here because it’s a Conservative Britain.

    And they’ll only be followed by others if we keep Britain Conservative.

    Labour say they know how to run a market economy.

    I asked Humphrey the cat about that.

    I’ve the first time I’ve seen him move so fast.

    It took all the resources of the Royal Army Medical College to get him over the shock.

    Labour have stood in the way of everything we’ve done.

    Where were they when we cut inflation?

    When we faced down union power?

    When we fed life back into the corpse of so many nationalised Industries?

    Humphrey could answer the question. Humphrey knows. Like Macavity, Labour wasn’t there.

    They were the advocates of the easy options and they opposed every tough decision we took.

    Interest Rates up? Disgraceful, said Labour.

    Interest Rates down? Not enough, said Labour.

    Interest Rates the same? The Chancellor must act, says Labour.

    Always, always, always the easy option.

    So when they criticise us, just remind them of this.

    If we’d followed their advice, we’d have been in Carey Street.

    Unemployment has been coming down for two and a half years.

    But it’s still far too high.

    The best route to more jobs is more small businesses.

    We are the Party of small business. When I was a small boy, my bread and butter was paid for by my father’s small business. He made garden ornaments 40 years ago and some fashionable people find that very funny.

    I don’t.

    I see the proud, stubborn, independent old man who ran that firm and taught me to love my country, fight for my own and spit in the eye of malign fate. I know the knockers and sneerers who may never have taken a risk in their comfortable lives aren’t fit to wipe the boots of the risk takers of Britain.

    When my father’s business failed – because his health failed – I saw the price the small businessman may have to pay.

    I know the sacrifice they make for the dreams they have.

    They don’t know whether they’ll succeed.

    But they work as hard as they can.

    That’s why, as Ian Lang told you, we’ve set up the biggest consultation with business ever seen in this country – to find out what more we can credibly do to help then.

    Frankly, Mr Chairman, I think they’re heroes.

    Europe

    I know one thing: we mustn’t pile burdens on business.

    So let me say this to our friends and partners in Europe.

    Don’t ask me to sign the Social Chapter. I won’t do it.

    I don’t look for popularity abroad – I prefer to protect jobs right here.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m for Europe, not against it.

    And I intend to argue for policies that will help it succeed. Pressure to stop arguing and go with the European consensus is strong. It’s difficult to set rational argument against the last movement of Beethoven’s Ninth.

    We must be sympathetic, but we must stand our corner.

    We must ask our partners to understand our thinking and we must understand theirs.

    Against the background of the traumas Europe suffered over the past 60 years – war, dictatorship, civil war, military occupation – it’s not surprising to me that they look towards European unity as a guarantor of political stability. Of their decision never to go to war with one another again.

    Only twenty years ago, Greece, Spain and Portugal – new partners in Europe – were ruled by men in dark glasses and epaulettes.

    Now these countries are secure in the European Union.

    In a few years’ time – thanks in large part to British policy – they will be joined by Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and others, now liberated from Communist dictatorship.

    They are knocking on the door to entry and we want to tie them in to the democratic family of Nations.

    Because it’s in our British interest: a further guarantee that our children and grandchildren will never face the conflicts than cost the lives of so many of our fathers and grandfathers.

    Unoccupied, undefeated, the war left Britain with a very different perspective from the rest of Europe.

    If we want to persuade our partners that their policies for Europe are wrong – as I believe many of them to be – we must use our imagination to understand their feelings and their motives.

    We entered Europe,

    For prosperity.

    For co-operation.

    For a louder voice on that great Continent.

    But we did not enter it for a new tier of Government.

    We did not enter it for Socialism through the back door.

    And we did not enter it for a federal Europe.

    It wouldn’t work for us. Our partners must understand that it’s politically and constitutionally unacceptable.

    But that’s what Labour would agree to and I believe they are profoundly wrong.

    We will advance our arguments firmly and courteously in Britain and in Europe.

    For Britain for Europe.

    But underneath the rational argument we should not be misunderstood.

    If others go federalist, Conservative Britain will not.

    Welfare spending

    Mr Chairman, providing quality care for those most in need is a strong part of the Tory tradition.

    Shaftesbury and Disraeli were doing it when socialism was just a distant nightmare in most people’s minds.

    We are proud of our free National Health Service. We have fought to make it the best in the world in the next century. We have put more resources into health. Not just once, but year after year. And we are modernising it, so that it remains the best in the world.

    But, Mr Chairman, we are succeeding. People are living longer. And that success in health creates new challenges for our welfare system.

    The easy way out is to load the bills onto future generations – issuing blank cheques for our children to pick up.

    In other words, living on tick. I wasn’t brought up to do that. And I don’t think that it’s right for the country.

    We have already done more than anywhere else in Europe to build up massive pension funds.

    But because we live longer, we need to develop similar approaches to long term care – encourage new forms of savings, new kinds of insurance, more flexible use of pensions.

    That’s the next step forward in our welfare system, and one we are examining right now.

    We don’t have all the answers yet. But it is important that people know we’re addressing their long-term problems.

    It’s a huge challenge but it’s one we can’t duck and one we must get right. And it’s one that will only be met by recognising the money we spend has first to be earned through an enterprise economy.

    It’s a strong Tory tradition that you and I look after ourselves and our families before we turn to others to pay our bills.

    That’s why we need to target our welfare spending on those who need it.

    I don’t need anyone to tell me that the welfare system matters.

    I know what it’s like when the money for the week runs out by Thursday.

    But welfare should offer people a ladder back to the pride of self-reliance, not a trap for the poor.

    That’s why we’re designing a welfare system for the twenty-first century.

    Targeting benefits. Reforming pensions. And helping people from welfare back into work.

    But not tolerating those on welfare who won’t work.

    From next autumn, everyone who is unemployed will need to undertake a contract for work.

    A contract that makes it absolutely clear that they have obligations to accept paid work when it is available.

    Mr Chairman, we’ll continue to shape a welfare system that is generous to those in need. We can do no other.

    But it must be one that also reflects the basic Tory instincts of rewarding prudence, thrift and family responsibility.

    Education

    Education affects not just careers, but people’s whole lives. That’s why, when I became Prime Minister, I put education at the top of my agenda.

    I haven’t changed. But education has.

    Since then we’ve introduced regular tests. Made school inspection more rigorous. Given parents more choice and information.

    Today, three times as many young people become students as in 1979.

    Last year I told this Conference that we would make nursery education available to all 4 year-olds.

    We’re doing just that with vouchers: to put power and choice where it belongs: not in the hands of bureaucrats. But in the hands of parents.

    Choice. Choice. Choice. And all opposed by Labour.

    I still want to widen choice in education.

    Some years ago, we set up the Assisted Places Scheme. It helps children from low income homes to go to our best private schools.

    It’s been a great success.

    But Labour hate it.

    That’s true to form – they always claim to want to help people – but in return they demand that people know their place.

    And in Labour’s view there is no place for children of low income families in private schools. So they want to abolish the scheme outright. Labour’s message to them is: no choice for the poor.

    One of the schools that offers places to pupils on this scheme is in Edinburgh. It’s one of Scotland’s most famous private schools – Fettes.

    Quite a lot of famous politicians went to Fettes including – Iain Macleod.

    Iain Macleod was a One Nation Tory and wouldn’t he have been proud to see pupils of poor families at his old school – sent there by a One Nation Government.

    So am I. So I’m going to give more children that opportunity.

    We’re going to double the Assisted Places scheme.

    But I want to widen choice still further.

    So if parents want specialist schools, we should let them have them.

    And if they want religious schools, we should let them have them too.

    This isn’t a dogma. It isn’t elitist. It’s based on the belief that children are first and foremost the responsibility of parents: and they know what is best for their children.

    We also want excellence in education, so I believe we should let good schools expand.

    Bad schools should be closed.

    Of course, closing bad schools means a row. But it’s the right row to have and Gillian Shephard is prepared to have it.

    Not every child can benefit from the Assisted Places Scheme or private education.

    Real choice will come when every state school offers the highest standards – when every state school prizes discipline, when every state school puts learning before political correctness. Gillian is going to work with every good head and teacher to deliver that.

    Many parents believe they’ve found a way to higher standards already. They’ve chosen for their schools to become independent, self-governing schools: what we call grant maintained.

    These schools are in the state sector. Run by the Head and the Governors. They get their money from government to spend as they think fit.

    Their results have been outstanding.

    That’s why I want to enable all schools to become grant-maintained.

    But Labour want to destroy them – wipe out their freedoms and take away their budgets.

    These schools became self-governing after a ballot of parents. Parents chose independence. Labour want to wreck then without a ballot. Labour hate independence.

    So, parents at the next election – choice or no choice. That’s the choice.

    VE/VJ Day

    This year we have all remembered with gratitude the sacrifice our predecessors made for our forbears.

    VE Day and VJ Day were very special.

    Most of you would have attended some of the events or watched the remarkable television coverage.

    I was there. I found it immensely moving.

    The sense of pride was tangible.

    But Mr Chairman, unlike others, I didn’t hear people on VJ Day shouting out party political propaganda.

    For me, it was a day in which a free people paid tribute to those who kept them free.

    Back in June you will remember the huge commemoration which took place in Hyde Park.

    Let me tell you a story of that day.

    At the entrance to one stand was an elderly man trying to get in.

    He had no ticket – so the security guard was about to turn him away.

    But luck would have it, a brigadier was passing by. Not any old brigadier, but one of the organisers of VE Day. He saw something pinned to the chest of this elderly man.

    Not all of us would have known what it was. But the brigadier did.

    It was the highest award for gallantry in our armed forces: the Victoria Cross.

    The elderly man was immediately given a seat of honour on the platform.

    Later that day, I had the privilege of meeting him – and the other Victoria and George Cross holders.

    I learned that they receive a small annual payment.

    It was £100 a year. A figure set 40 years ago, before many years of inflation. It has never changed.

    It seemed to me that, in this year of all years, it should be changed;

    So to show that this country has not forgotten the bravest of the brave: it will be changed.

    From August this year that payment will be uprated to its original value. It will increase from one hundred pounds a year to one thousand three hundred pounds a year.

    Northern Ireland

    In the last year, life has changed in Northern Ireland.

    I want to make those changes permanent. To see the next generation there growing up in prosperity – and peace.

    Patience, determination and fairness have carried us a long way.

    No one has shown these qualities more consistently than Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram – Northern Ireland has been well served by them.

    But we’re not there yet. There are still some who, in one breath, say they’ve given up violence for good – and in the next warn that it could return. It needn’t, and it won’t, unless they themselves pick up the gun.

    But if it is to last, it must be a just peace. One that is fair to all sides.

    And a peace that is constructed away from the shadow of the gun.

    However long it takes, building this peace in this part of our United Kingdom will continue to stand at the top of our priorities.

    Britain in the World

    Mr Chairman, Britain has big interests in the world.

    We are the only nation at the hub of the European Union, the Commonwealth, NATO and the United Nations. We are a nuclear power and a member of the Permanent Five of the Security Council.

    Our armed forces are today serving in more than forty countries including Bosnia.

    I sent troops there in 1992. Not everyone approved but I believe it was right.

    They went to the Balkans for two reasons – to protect men, women and children from starvation, rape and genocide and to prevent a full scale war at the crossroads of Europe.

    They have succeeded superbly – often at great risk to themselves. We can be proud of what they have achieved.

    It now seems possible we may soon have an uneasy peace. I hope so.

    But our role will not end there.

    Help will be needed to monitor the peace and we will play our part in this.

    International influence creates international obligations – and we will meet them.

    The Constitution

    Mr Chairman, we can only continue to be a big player abroad if we remain one United Kingdom at home.

    We recognise that Scotland and Wales are Nations in their own right.

    Of course, if they insist they could ultimately go their own way. We could not properly stop them.

    At the moment there is a clamour for constitutional change as many see the Westminster Parliament as a long way away.

    Some say we would be more popular if we bent to this clamour: if in Wales we set up Labour’s expensive talking shop, or in Scotland we said:

    “OK. You want your own tax raising Parliament you can have it. Don’t blame us when it all goes wrong.”

    But that is not our way.

    We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    I will not trade easy votes today for constitutional chaos tomorrow.

    We are sensitive to people’s concerns in Scotland. So we are looking at more ways of giving people more say over decisions affecting their day to day lives.

    But it’s my duty to warn of the effect of Labour’s plans for the constitution.

    Labour are proposing changes to our Constitution for their own party political advantage.

    In Scotland they are running scared of the SNP – so they have promised to impose a tax raising Parliament in their first year.

    In Wales they are not so worried about Plaid Cymru so Wales would just get an Assembly.

    And in England they can’t make up their minds so there they might – or might not – impose regional assemblies.

    There is no demand for these in England. Labour only promise them in an attempt which fails to justify the over-representation of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster.

    It is a straightforward gerrymandering and we might as well say so.

    In Scotland, the new Parliament would raise income taxes.

    I hope Scotland realises what this means.

    People in Scotland, uniquely, will pay higher income tax on the same income than people in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. To start with, a tartan tax of an extra 6 pounds a week for the average family.

    Let me ask you a question: if you were a businessman, wanting to invest and create jobs, where would you invest: in Scotland, where you’ll have to pay higher wages to compensate for higher taxes, or somewhere else? You know the answer to that.

    The Tartan Tax will do two things: it will pay for more bureaucrats and more politicians and it will begin the decline of Scottish prosperity. Neither of them are in the interests of Scotland.

    All that is only the start. Conflict with the Westminster parliament would be inevitable.

    And then – the siren voices of the separatists will foment mischief and demand an independent Scotland cut adrift from the UK.

    These are not distant problems. These are Labour’s plans for the first year of a Labour government.

    Mr Chairman, opinion polls tell us the Scottish people are not fond of the Government at the moment. But I’m fond of then and they are being deceived by Labour.

    Labour’s plans are an immediate threat to Scotland and a threat to the United Kingdom.

    We will continue to look for ways to improve the Government of Scotland. That is our duty.

    But we will resist these damaging plans with all our strength. That too, is our duty, and the Conservative and Unionist Party will fulfil it.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country I talk to people about crime. What they want is to feel safe – at home and on the street.

    In the past two and a half years, recorded crime has fallen.

    Well and good. Now we must make sure that the fear of crime starts to fall, too.

    People want crime reduced and criminals caught and convicted. And so do I.

    So today, let me add to what Michael Howard told you yesterday.

    We’re going to step up the fight against crime. To hit it harder and harder and harder.

    Organised crime is big business on an international scale. And – at its centre – is drugs.

    When I see the sheer evil of the drugs trade I am devoid of sympathy for the men around the world who run it.

    They live lives of comfort, often of outward respectability, while they pour poison into the veins of millions.

    Today, no parent, however safe and prosperous their home, can be entirely easy in their mind that their children won’t be offered drugs.

    And that is true in some of our market towns as well as our big cities.

    Two weeks ago, here in Blackpool, a 17 year-old died having taken drugs.

    That boy’s whole future was snuffed out for profit.

    Let me tell you what we shall do.

    First, there can be no question of lifting our border controls. We are an island and we need them. Those controls are vital. They are not negotiable. And they are staying.

    Secondly, our tradition has always been to have local police forces.

    But local forces alone aren’t equipped for this sort of crime.

    So for the first time ever, we’re discussing with the police the establishment of a national squad. This will have one mission: to take on organised crime in this country and break it.

    The police will lead on this. They will have the support of the new National Criminal Intelligence Service, working with Customs, MI6 and GCHQ.

    But all our available skills are not yet involved in this battle.

    For many years the Security Service has protected us against espionage and terrorism.

    But they can’t help the police because it is illegal for them to do so.

    I think that’s absurd. And in an age when our children are more likely to be killed by a drug dealer than by an enemy missile, I think it’s indefensible.

    So this autumn, we will change the law. It’s time to let the Security Service into the battle for the public and against organised crime.

    Day by day, we are making more use of modern science against the criminal.

    We are already using Closed Circuit Television in public places across the country.

    This has been hugely successful. More cameras mean less crime.

    So over the next three years we will add 10,000 more cameras in town centres, shopping malls and public places in every part of the country. They will improve security for the shopkeeper and safety for the shoppers.

    But the most effective eyes are the policeman’s eyes.

    I want to make every street safe.

    Since 1979, we have recruited an extra 16,000 policemen – 500 in the last year

    That’s helpful. But not enough.

    I want to send an unmistakeable message to every criminal that there are going to be still more police on the streets.

    So let us tell Chief Constables now so they can plan ahead.

    So, Chief Constables, begin to plan. Because in the overall arithmetic of this year’s public expenditure settlement we have found the resources over the next three years to put, not 500 but an extra 5,000 police officers on the beat.

    Mr Chairman, I said we intended to intensify the fight against crime – and I mean it.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, after four terms, why a fifth?

    Because in a shifting world only we will build a safe future for our people and heal the scars of the past.

    Because we are building a more secure economy as the enterprise centre of Europe.

    Because we are reforming public service to make it more accountable to the public who pay for it.

    Because we stand for choice and excellence in education, and in the midst of the biggest revolution since Rab Butler.

    Because we will retain the old rock solid guarantee of the health service that care will be free at the point of delivery, and where improvement is necessary it won’t be treated as a sacred cow.

    Because defence and security of the realm and the safety of our streets are paramount concerns of our Party.

    We Conservatives are:

    – for the individual, not the state

    – for choice, not direction

    – for ownership, not dependence

    – for liberty, not control.

    These are the enduring things, the cornerstones of our beliefs. We have worked for them, cared for them, fought for them.

    We are building the greatest success for this nation that we have known in our lifetime.

    We will not surrender them to a light-weight alternative.

    We carry the scars of battle, yes, but they’re honourable scars. We know no other Party can win the battles for Britain that lie ahead.

    So when you go home – refreshed and uplifted, I hope, by our Conference – remember these things, and ask the people on the doorstep:-

    – Would taxes be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would inflation be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would there be more or less choice under Labour?

    – Would our defence be more secure under Labour?

    You and I only have to ask the question to know the answer.

    We stand for a wise and kindly way of life that is rooted in our history.

    Our hopes from our country are not tired.

    Our ambitions are not dimmed.

    Our message to our fellow country men is clear. Millions have still to make up their minds.

    The choice is theirs. Our Nation’s Future is at stake – and we stand ready to serve.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Conservative Party Conference – 9 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made at the start of the Conservative Party Conference, on 9th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last week we heard a lot of crass platitudes, this week I think we’re going to be dealing with hard policy, policy that is going to effect for the better millions of people in this country, that’s what this week is all about.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Cambridgeshire Euro-Constituency Business Lunch – 29 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Cambridgeshire Euro-Constituency Business Lunch, held on Friday 29th September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Europe is a Jekyll and Hyde for most people. There are some things about Europe that are undeniably frightening. But there are things that are undeniably right, such as the single market. A single market is immensely important. Half our trade goes to Europe. Half our trade these days actually goes to Europe. But we shouldn’t forget the half that doesn’t. The single market is a great achievement, a great bonus to British business and British commerce and a great opportunity to British prosperity. Though it isn’t yet a proper single market. It is still closed to telecommunications where by and large we lead Europe.

    We haven’t opened up the insurance and banking industries. The areas where we earn such huge invisibles and the City of London is still closed to much of Europe, that still needs to be overcome.

    We still need to do a great deal to turn the embryo single market that we have that broadly exists for manufacturers into a proper single market right across Europe. When that happens it will be an enormous bonus for overseas earnings and overall prosperity in the United Kingdom. Don’t ever underestimate it. Don’t underestimate either the importance where it is appropriate of Europe working together politically as well as economically. It is a typical criticism of the most federalist of our partners in Europe that all the United Kingdom has ever been interested in is a free and open market, but we are interested in a free and open market and they aren’t and we’re winning and they’re going to have to give way and we’ll get there.

    But that isn’t all we are interested in. We are interested in co-operation across Europe with our European partners. Co-operation on the basis of agreement and consensus. Not co-operation on the basis of a qualified majority vote against the interests of a nation state on matters of great importance.

    One of the issues that comes before the Intergovernmental Conference in a year or so’s time will be whether our common foreign policy should be determined by unanimity with every nation state freely agreeing to a common policy or whether it should give the qualified majority vote with every country being bound by the qualified majority vote. It sounds very communitaire to have a qualified majority vote on foreign policy but we have not agreed, and I will tell you why we will not agree. It is not because we are anti-European but I think the absolute and total absurdity that a common vote in Europe can change a British policy for Hong Kong is as stated in those terms, self-evident. In any event it is impracticable. Can by common vote in Europe mean that Europe can decide that British and French troops could go to Bosnia against perhaps the opposition of the British Prime Minister and the French President? You only have to think to see that it may be an idealistic aspiration and it is desirable for us to work together but the concept of that being imposed is absolutely and totally unworkable and unacceptable to us and I believe unacceptable to others in Europe. But so many of the other nation states in Europe used as they are to Britain fighting the good fight while they stand on the sidelines and say “Tut tut, how anti-community you are” while privately agreeing with us. It is very convenient to have Britain fighting on those issues and we will.

    That is one issue for the Intergovernmental Conference where the more federalist enthusiasts will argue that a common foreign policy – that is to say the present one – is not workable, whilst knowing in our hearts that there is not a snowball in hell’s chance that any British Conservative Prime Minister would agree to sacrifice the direct control of the British Cabinet and the British Parliament over foreign policy matters outside the United Kingdom. They might as well know that now, and I had the opportunity of mentioning it last weekend in Mallorca. But because we have these fears, do not get sucked into this feeling that everything that happens in Europe is against the British nation. It is not true.

    Let me make a couple of points not often made. Some of the nations in Europe 10 years ago, some of the nations inside the European Community are now becoming a good market for this country and embryo industrial nations such as Spain and Portugal. Fifteen years ago before they joined the Community they were governed by men in dark glasses and epaulettes. In fifteen years they have been brought into the Western democratic family of nations and prepared for industrial status in a democratised Western Europe. Don’t underestimate the importance of that to our security.

    Suppose we had, as we envisaged, extended the European Union some years ago further to the East across Europe beyond, for example, Italy. Imagine we had actually achieved the ambition of enlargement right across Europe. Suppose we had actually done it. Would Yugoslavia or Bosnia be such a mess today if it had been brought within a Western free trading area 15 or 20 years ago? Would we have hundreds of thousands of people brutally murdered? Would British, French, Greek, all sorts of other countries – though not the United States – have soldiers actually on the ground there in Yugoslavia if we had actually extended the concept of a free trade area and Western democracy further across Eastern Europe?

    The objective that will deliver the certainty of security in Europe not just for this generation but for our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren is to take the opportunity of developing the European Union much further across Europe. Wars this century started in Western Europe. Western Europe and Central Europe like Sarajevo and Bosnia. That’s where they started. Inconceivable for that to happen now in Europe if you can spread the inter-relationship of trade and political interest and influence further across the European Community through the Balkans, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania. Let us think that will happen in our lifetime. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that it will. And there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that when it happens there are future generations that will be more secure in their lifetime that ever we could be in ours. That is the long-term point of our aim in British foreign policy to secure the safety and security of the British nation. Despite the disagreeable views of our press about Europe that is our goal.

    Let me talk about some of the issues. Why is the European Union that has helped safeguard democracy in Western Europe, that is helping to enhance the prosperity of security and democracy in Europe and has opened up the richest market, British business and commerce we have ever known, richer by far than the old Empire, why is it so unpopular? There are people whose ambitions are more visionary than most. I do not accept for one second that it would be sensible today or in 10 or 20 years time for us to have what many people feared we might have, a European Government taking most of the effective decisions involving Europe and taking them in Brussels and not taking them in Britain. For all its deficiencies and difficulties in Westminster where you can support the Government and your directly elected members and you can have direct contact with your MP. I do not believe we will ever accept such a transfer of fundamental authority but people fear and they see the changes that have been made and they say is there is a European government inevitable?

    I remember in the 1960s the feeling that existed at the time. Socialism was inevitable. I remember the argument ran very strongly until people actually saw what socialism was like and it became anything but inevitable. It has found itself out of government for 16 years already and I hope please God for a long time. So we are not going further down that road but it is because people fear that they poke suspiciously at everything that emerges from Europe and ignore as a matter of right all the things that are of interest and worth in it, that is essentially the competitiveness of Europe.

    How much more expensive it is to employ people in Europe. This is an argument I have repeated again and again. If you take the graph of unemployment across Europe for the last 25 years, it goes steadily down. For 25 years in good years and bad years, in boom and in dust, the underlying level of unemployment right across Europe and beyond is rising. There are 20 million European citizens unemployed, 20 million. In France, the country nearest and most comparable to us, there is just around 13 per cent unemployment and no sign of it decreasing. In the mighty German economy their unemployment is rising above us for the first time that most people can remember since the Marshall plan brought back prosperity to Germany. It is Britain that is bringing unemployment down in a changing world today. The labour skills of so many millions are no longer required in the way they were before. It is Britain that is providing them and the reason it is providing the new jobs is partly what Robert said earlier. It isn’t just the Social Chapter. Were we to sign the Social Chapter or were any future Government to sign it, all those social costs across Europe that at present lie outside the Social Chapter would rise. They would be brought into the Social Chapter and it would add something like 20-40 per cent to the average labour costs of more people in British industry.

    At the moment we are taking markets in Germany, taking markets in France, taking markets as we should for this is a competitive European Union right the way across Europe and beyond. Because we are more positive and efficient than the other nations. We want to stay that way and that means no Social Chapter. It means no other extra artificial burdens on employers because the burden on an employer means more people unemployed and out of work and that is the principal, single, economic problem of Western Europe.

    I despair sometimes when I sit around the European table and I hear my European partners talking about competition between France and Britain and Germany and Italy. Can they not understand that France and Germany and Britain and Italy must compete with the United States and Japan and the countries of the Pacific Rim? It is an argument we are determined that Europe accepts and wins. We understand it here and I have every intention of following policies here that will make Britain better, even if our European partners disagree with what we are doing and regard us as being very uncommunitaire for trying to keep our nation in work, while their coalition governments buy popularity for the majority of their people in work by giving them more benefits in work at the expense of the minority who are not in work who will be joined by others not in work and who will have less and less chance of getting work if they particularly go down that route.

    And then there is the single currency. I know of no issue that has so torn apart the sinews of British politics. In all our long history there are about two illustrations of the sort of deeply damaging divisions in our Party. First the corn laws of the 1840s and the second example is tariff reforms at the turn of the century.

    A single currency across the whole of the European Union will only work by changing the Union out of all recognition. So there is no question of a single currency across the whole of Europe. You may safely rule it out. All you would get is massive structural unemployment, social difficulty in for example Greece and a demand for huge transfers of money from the more wealthy Northern European nations straight to Greece to deal with that social difficulty and social unrest. Perhaps a small group of nations could go ahead with a single currency. They had ambition for 1997. I said I would not believe those ambitions would be realised. They had ambitions for 1999. I believe that when we get closer to 1999 they will increasingly see that is not safely achievable. In our discussions over the weekend at Mallorca, I believe I saw the dawnings of understanding of this. So perhaps 2001 or thereabouts might be possible? But only for a small minority.

    But the European Union must weigh the arguments very carefully indeed. It would be the biggest economic and political change in the structure of Europe that Europe has ever seen. Do not be in any doubt about the scale of change. If a small group of say six go ahead with a single currency, what does that do to the whole of the European Community? What does it do to the other 21, for we will be 27 nations within 15 years time? What will it do to the other 21 who are outsiders? How do you run a single market? How do you deal with structural funds? What happens if the countries outside the single currency devalue competitively against the single currency? Do they really believe that Greece and Portugal and the others are going to enter a new rigid, unmoving exchange [indistinct]. It cannot be done. Those are the problems. A huge number of problems. I can stretch them to the door and back again and then up to the far corner but have not remotely begun to be understood by the people who passionately care for the best of reasons about building a single Europe whose slogan is “If you have a single market you must have a single currency”. Economic codswallop. But not because we are anti-Europe.

    I think I can say in public and in private I have taken more pain because I am trying to take a middle road that I think is right for the long-term of this country on Europe than any other British politician in this country. So I think I have a right that almost nobody else has to lay out in crystal clear terms the problems that I actually see if they move down that road. It might one day be right. We would be mad to say it would never happen, one never knows what is going to happen in the future. We could not and should not rule it out for ever as some are urging us to do. But we should prod very cautiously at this beast with a very long stick, and we should not rush at it because of the impact it will have on every citizen in Europe.

    What would be the feeling in Scotland if we were to abolish the Scottish pound and replace it only with pound sterling? And yet that we are familiar with that example and situation. The Scottish pound is acceptable in Manchester as it is Dundee. I must say I look forward to the sight of French farmers as they finally realise the franc has gone for ever and I must say I find that extremely amusing. And what about the gentlemen of the Bundesbank when they realise that the mark is no more?

    We have got to discuss these things. They have been the undiscussable subjects of Europe. It has been politically correct not to say that the emperor just possibly may have no clothes. Or if he is not naked he is hardly dressed for a ball. And it was those matters that I was starting to put with delicacy and charm to my European colleagues in Mallorca. My arguments got more support there than many previously would have thought possible. For they know as I know. Is Belgium going to be in deficit and going for a single currency by the year 2000? It is no more enlightening than Old King Cole galloping out of his nursery rhyme to their rescue. And what about Italy? Or France?

    They will have to change. I passionately believe that because I wish Europe to succeed. But when I continue to raise these problems in Europe it will not be because I want Europe to fail. It will be because I want Europe to succeed.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks at the Cambridgeshire Euro-Constituency Business Lunch – 29 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks at the Cambridgeshire Euro-Constituency Business Lunch, held on Friday 29th September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I’d just like to do today is share a few private thoughts with you about some of the things relative to Europe. They are private thoughts, it is a discreet meeting, I do not expect to read about it anywhere else. This is not a meeting of Cabinet. What was referred a moment ago to Helmut Kohl, I have known Helmut for a long time, since he was a young, slender figure. I am in fact going to Germany on Sunday, Helmut and I are going to drive around in a Kohlmobile. I must tell you I have rarely met a man so unlike the public and artificial image as Helmut Kohl. I like him very much. He is an extremely good friend.

    He invited me a year or so ago, two years ago, to go and join him at a health hotel that he goes to once a year. It’s not quite a health farm it is just over the hill where one of his predecessors used to go, a place called Berchtesgarden, I believe. Whenever he goes there he fasts for 13 days. When I got there on the 8th day, I thought he’s going to be in a foul mood, but he wasn’t, he was in an extremely good mood. On Saturday afternoon there were three of us, Helmut, myself and his interpreter, Dorothea, who is one of the best interpreters, as she has to be translating to one another. She is one of the best interpreters I have ever come across. And Helmut had ordered a six course lunch, he sat there drinking what looked very much like diluted lemon-juice. He walked out of the hotel, he got into his car, he drove up a mountain after this huge lunch, he got out, he went straight into a restaurant and he ordered cheesecake. Cheesecake for Dorothea who ate it, cheesecake for me, given to Dorothea, who ate it. We then came out of the hotel, we got back into the Kohlmobile and drove back down, we got out and went back in the hotel and told the press what a wonderful walk we had had. And I look forward to a similar walk and since I believe it is not one of the times of his annual fast, I look forward to lunch with Kohl on Sunday and I think it will be very agreeable.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 29 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon on Friday 29th September 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Question related to Northern Ireland]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The circumstances we have set out about decommissioning are, I think, a statement of the real political position. The reality is that the people in the North and the Unionists in the North – and I do not just mean the Unionist leadership, I mean the Unionists across the board in Northern Ireland – believe it is necessary for there to be some decommissioning before there can be round-table talks.

    QUESTION:

    Have the two recent court rulings against the Government damaged the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The peace process is entrenched. Anybody who seeks to damage it, anybody who seeks to end the ceasefire which has existed, will have to answer to two very severe audiences.

    Firstly, the audience of Irish men and women north and south of the border. They do not want this to end. They want it to carry on and they believe everyone has an obligation to make it carry on. I think they would have to answer to the audience of history, which sees an opportunity here that has not been seen before.

    We have heard over the last year repeatedly from Sinn Fein that they are seriously seeking peace. If they are seriously seeking peace, there can be no question of the IRA returning to violence. If there is no question of them returning to violence, then there is no need for them not to make this start on decommissioning their weapons. It is a very straightforward and very easy point for everyone to understand. And I think it is a very important point.

    QUESTION:

    [Question related to the National Grid]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is clear what the public opinion is on this matter.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Yasser Arafat – 27 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Yasser Arafat, held in London on Wednesday 27th September 1995.

    MR ARAFAT:

    First of all, I have to thank His Excellency for giving me this opportunity to come here and to offer His Excellency the whole brief of our very difficult and long discussion until we had achieved what has been achieved between us and our partners and cousins, the Israelis in Gaza and I offered to His Excellency a copy of this agreement and at the same time we can’t forget and I have to offer to His Excellency in my name and in the name of my people our thanks for what he has done to facilitate and push forward these negotiations by all means and in all directions so I have to say to your country from my heart “Thank you very much! Thank you very much!” and at the same time we had the opportunity to speak about the next text and the economic issue concerning the meeting at Barcelona and the meeting which took place in Amman for [indistinct] Conference and help to coordinate together and at the same we cannot forget that His Excellency was the first G7 leader who came to visit us in Gaza which for us meant a lot; it gave us a very big push in our very difficult circumstances so I have to repeat again and again in front of all of you: “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much indeed! Perhaps I can say that the Chairman is a very welcome guest here at Downing Street today. I have been delighted to renew the discussions that we were able to have in Gaza earlier this year and also delighted to congratulate him most warmly on the remarkable agreement that he has reached with Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Secretary Peres on the future of the Occupied Territories.

    We hope very much – and the Chairman is very confident – that it will now be possible for elections to go ahead perhaps in December, perhaps in January – the date is to be decided – but it clearly is a very remarkable step forward and I know the Chairman looks forward to signing this agreement in Washington tomorrow.

    I am very pleased indeed that the European Union will play a significant part in monitoring these elections and that the Crown Agents will also be playing a significant role in various matters. We have been able to provide a certain amount of assistance to the Chairman in the difficult circumstances he faced; that will continue. We will look to see where we are able to increase that as a very tangible indication of the please that we have at the progress that has been made towards what has been a very intransigent problem for so very many years.

    I know the Chairman has some very heavy negotiations still ahead of him next year but they have already determined the time-scale at which those talks will start and I think the prospects for the future look a good deal brighter than any that might have been imagined just a short while ago so for those reasons I have been very pleased to welcome the Chairman here today, very pleased to continue the dialogue that we had in Gaza and I look forward to that dialogue continuing both directly between the Chairman and myself and also between my Ministers and his representatives.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Humphrey, the Downing Street Cat – 26 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Humphrey, the Downing Street cat, made on 26th September 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Humphrey had killed three robins].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am afraid they are dead, but it’s natural causes, Humphrey has been unjustly accused, but I can tell you beyond any doubt at all, Humphrey is not a serial killer.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Majorca EU Summit – 23 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Majorca EU Summit, made in an interview on 23rd September 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if his view on the future of the European Union went down well with other EU leaders].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it went down extremely well. The point that I was making to colleagues was that the European Union is changing. Nothing is going to stop some of that change, it is growing. It was 6 members at one stage, it is now 15; within a decade or so it is going to be 27. That means there are going to be changes in the European Union itself, inevitably so.

    No-one supposes that every member of the European Union can move towards a single currency. If they do not, then we need to consider what that means with some members within a single currency if that happens and other members outside it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if other EU countries understood Mr Major’s political constraints that a Conservative leader could not join the single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make these assertions but those are matters that lie some years ahead. What we have been discussing here is how we actually proceed from the present circumstances and the point that I was making to my European partners is that there are many things that need examining before decisions should be taken and the examination of those matters simply hasn’t begun. What is to be the relationship between the inner core and the outer core?

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference Interview in Majorca – 23 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Majorca, held on Saturday 23rd September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We came here this weekend without a set agenda, without pre-prepared positions, with the opportunity of having a look at some of the problems and opportunities in front of Europe over the next few years. And I have to say I think the meeting was all the better for not having been pre-prepared and not having large scripts in front of one on each and every subject that might be raised. I think we have had a much better, freer, franker exchange of views than I can recall on many occasions in the past. And by frank, I do not use that as a euphemism for rows. It has not been a bland meeting, it has been a very good meeting, but it has certainly been conducted in an excellent spirit on every side throughout the weekend. And I think that Felipe Gonzalez has had a very considerable success in calling this meeting and having so many things examined so thoroughly.

    Let me just say very briefly a few words about the three component parts of the meeting we have had over the last day or so. Yesterday we spent the majority of the time discussing the challenges and the opportunities that lie immediately ahead of the European Union. The old slogans and the old prescriptions won’t do any longer. We are now coming to a position where it is not sufficient just to hold out an aspiration of doing this or that at some stage in the future. We are now reaching the position where clear-cut decisions will need to be taken on a whole range of things – enlargement, a little later the single currency, the financial perspective again at the turn of the century and of course the matter we discussed this morning, defence architecture and all the other matters that will be discussed in the IGC. I think most of you know what I had to say yesterday so I won’t bother to repeat it on this occasion, though I am happy to take your questions on it in a few moments.

    Last evening over dinner we had a discussion that divided into three parts: firstly, a discussion on Russia, the internal position, relationship with the European Union, prospects for its future; secondly, a discussion on the Middle East, again its relationship with the European Union, prospects for the peace process in the Middle East, relationship with particularly the Palestinian authority, I think a number of people are very concerned about the difficulties that they face; and the third part of the discussion last evening was on Bosnia and the prospects for moving from the present position to a ceasefire right across Bosnia and then after a ceasefire a settlement, and then what would happen after the settlement.

    No-one should assume that if we get a ceasefire and then a settlement that that is going to be the end of Western Europe or United States involvement in the former Yugoslavia, self-evidently it will not and we spent some time discussing those matters last evening. Again, rather than elaborate on a very complex discussion I will answer any questions you may have.

    This morning I was asked to open a discussion on defence and security architecture in Europe, clearly an important part of the Intergovernmental Conference. Things have changed more dramatically, I think, than most people realise until they sit back and think about it over the last few years. Ten years ago, if we had met here, we would not have been discussing the future architecture of European defence, we would have been discussing the difficulties there were between East and West, SS20s pointing in one direction, Cruise missiles pointing in the other. So we have come a very great distance in the last 10 years or so, but we need to look at the problems that lie immediately ahead of us.

    The fall of the Iron Curtain creates the prospect of re-uniting Europe and of enlarging our institutions, but it has also created quite a substantial arch of instability, from the north-east down to the south-east, from the Baltics to the Balkans. And those were the areas that we were actually discussing this morning and how we adapt to that new environment, how we extend and develop both the security and the prosperity that we have, NATO enlargement being a key part of that discussion this morning.

    The over-arching objective, self-evidently, a Europe whole and free. Beneath that general aspiration a great many difficult and tricky decisions to be taken, some of them to be taken perhaps at the Intergovernmental Conference, others to be taken over the years ahead, bearing in mind always the sensitivities and the importance of Russia and also of course of the Ukraine. So those really are the areas of discussion we have been involved in over the past couple of days.

    I should say also, in the high-ways and by-ways of those discussions I have had three separate discussions with the Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, on circumstances and prospects in Ireland. It was not an occasion for us to come here and make clear cut decisions about what was going to happen in the immediate future. We have been looking at the present situation, trying to discuss the best way in which we might proceed. We have determined some ways that we may examine a little more carefully in the future. We have decided to look more carefully at what we have called Strand Three of the process, that is the relationship between east and west, between Dublin and London. And by and large we had a pretty satisfactory series of exchanges. I should just say, because people tend to think that whenever the Taoiseach and I get together we do nothing but discuss the peace process in Northern Ireland. Of course that is of great importance to us and we spent a great deal of time discussing it, but we also discussed other European Union and bilateral matters as well.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    President Chirac has indicated he wants to see the IGC concluded quickly, Chancellor Kohl has suggested it could well be delayed until the second half of 1997, taking it well beyond the next British general election. Which camp do you belong and do you fear that your veto has been weakened by the election timetable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think the British capacity to veto if we think it is necessary has been weakened, whatever the timetable may be. I am personally relaxed about the timetable. What concerns me is the substance of the discussions. We will have a clear cut British position on a range of matters and it matters not to me whether those matters are determined before the election or after the election, I am relaxed about that. But we have many complex matters to do. I don’t think this is going to be a very short and speedy affair, this Intergovernmental Conference, it has got a great deal to look at. It is not going to be earth shattering in its implications, I don’t believe. Many of the matters to be discussed are quite detailed, quite difficult, and they will probably take quite a while. But I don’t wish to put an artificial constraint, either a short term constraint or a constraint of delaying decisions to put it out a long way. I am relaxed. We will take the decisions when we are in a position to take them and the British position will not change, whether we are this side of the election or the other side of the election.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    Going back to your meeting with the Taoiseach, are you confident that you will be able in the near future to announce the date of another summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did not discuss the date of another summit. I should say that the Taoiseach and I speak a good deal more regularly than most people realise and I would think our offices are probably in touch almost on a daily basis. I do not know when we will reassemble for a formal summit. But the lack of a formal summit will not stop the discussion and the developments going on, that will continue. As soon as we are in a position to have a summit, we will have one, but I do not wish to set a date for it today, and neither did we discuss a date at all over the weekend,

    QUESTION (George Brock, Times):

    You talked about the enlargement of both the European Union and NATO. From your discussions which of these two organisations would you prefer to see enlarged first and did you get any impression about which way it would happen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone knows yet is the strictly accurate answer to that. I think both of those enlargements are going to proceed by stages. Anyone who thinks there is suddenly going to be a date upon which the European Union is going to dramatically expand, I think misjudges the complexities of expanding the European Union. The present intention is that discussions with the Visegrad countries, and possibly with one or two others, will begin 6 months after the conclusion of the intergovernmental Conference. So there is broadly a date, I guess, sometime by 1993 at the latest they will begin the enlargement discussions with them at that stage.

    As far as NATO is concerned, that is not of course just a matter for the European Union and we did not discuss the specific timetable for the enlargement of NATO in detail over the weekend. But again, NATO I think will enlarge incrementally. There is not suddenly going to be a date upon which there is a huge and dramatic enlargement of NATO, that is not how I believe it will work. I think it will enlarge at a relatively relaxed speed and it will begin to enlarge from the centre of Europe, moving eastwards.

    QUESTION:

    You said just now that the negotiations with the Visegrad countries would begin 6 months after, is that an agreement that was reached here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that has been the understanding from a couple of summits ago, it is not a novel piece of agreement, that has been the working assumption for some time.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    I was interested to hear that because certainly the other governments say the only formal agreement on 6 months is Cyprus and Malta, with the timetable for the others left open, but you say there is a political consensus that that will be the case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is certainly my understanding, yes. My understanding is that we are going to start looking at this 6 months after. How soon they get in, of course, there is no agreement upon how soon they get in. But there has been very considerable pressure from the Visegrads to continue discussing and I hope we will be able to do it six months afterwards, and I have not heard anyone veto that, my understanding is they will be able to do that.

    QUESTION:

    Could you elaborate on how far you pushed forward the thinking on European security architecture and do you now envisage the very real likelihood that at least some East Europeans may find themselves in the EU and in the WEU before they are in NATO, is that now because of Russian attitudes more likely to happen.

    And also, you are quite relaxed about the timetable for finishing the IGC and you say it will not make any difference to British policy, do you have the assurances of Mr Blair about that as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t need them, he won’t be here to discuss it. So I was referring to British Conservative government policy before the election and British Conservative government policy after the election, and I shall look forward to discussing it you on both occasions, both before and after the next general election. It is something we will both look forward to.

    On the earlier point. It is not possible to say whether they would join WEU or the European Union before NATO, it simply is not possible to say. I certainly would not rule out that in some circumstances there would be an enhanced relationship with NATO before the European Union, but that is not a view we have agreed and discussed. But it is certainly possible that it will fall out that way. It is at the moment too early frankly to say.

    QUESTION (BBC Wales):

    In your bilateral discussions with Mr Bruton did you talk about the public concerns in Ireland and in Britain about the dangers from nuclear power stations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of WILFA [phon] was briefly mentioned but it was not a substantive discussion. Beyond that we didn’t, no.

    QUESTION (Tony Bevins – The Observer):

    Could you give us your assessment of the risk of allowing the deadlock in Ireland to continue for much longer please and can you also tell us what areas you are looking at with Mr. Bruton for breaking this deadlock?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, I don’t think it would be wise to go into that in detail at the moment.

    On the earlier point of how risky is the deadlock, I think that too many people read too much into each setback and there is a great danger that whenever there is a setback like the postponement of the summit, up pops someone to say as surely as Christmas comes around every year that the process is in crisis and all sorts of dreadful things are about to happen. I have heard that before on a number of occasions and the reality that there is an undertow that all the politicians have to take account of whether they are British, Irish, Northern Irish, Sinn Fein, whoever it may be, and that is the huge undertow of public opinion in Ireland that wants this process to continue. No-one is readily going to be able to say they are going to stop this process without having to answer not just to history’s judgement which I think would be severe but also to the judgement of people today in Northern Ireland so when people jump up and say: “This is in crisis, the peace process is doomed!” and other nonsense of that sort, I think they are entering into their own negotiating position rather than stepping back and understanding the realities of what actually is going on at the present time.

    I remain optimistic about the process. It isn’t going to suddenly produce a conclusion. Anyone who thinks that we are suddenly going to wake up one morning, rub our eyes and have a final agreement to the problems of Northern Ireland misunderstands both the nature of our discussions and the nature of the problem. The solution will evolve. You may notice movements as you go along, others you won’t but the changing perception of what people demand to which the politicians have to respond is continuing all the time and anyone who goes to Northern Ireland today and compares the atmosphere in Northern Ireland, the way of life in Northern Ireland, the economic activity in Northern Ireland, the aspirations in Northern Ireland to twelve or eighteen months ago will find a wholly different situation and frankly, this old-style oratory doesn’t help and we really ought to be looking together to find a way through the present setback and I will continue to do that. I know John Bruton will, I think many of the Irish politicians will as well in the north and I hope and believe we will find a way through.

    QUESTION (Paul Meray – Reuters):

    Are you concerned about comments from Gerry Adams that he feels the process could slip back into violence if there is not progress fairly soon?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Who is going to be violent? Mr. Adams says it can slip back into violence; whose violence will it be? It doesn’t have to slip back into violence if Mr Adams doesn’t want it to slip back into violence, that is a matter that is in Mr. Adams’ hands and I hope he will tell us that it isn’t going to slip back into violence. It isn’t all that long ago that Mr. Adams was saying to us: “Violence is ending! We are on our way to a settlement!”

    I don’t think this suggestion that you slip back to violence every time something doesn’t proceed at a rapid pace is remotely helpful. When Mr. Adams next says that, I suggest the people to whom he says it ask him: “Who is going to return to violence? Are you, Mr. Adams, going to return to violence? Are the IRA going to return to violence?” That is the question Mr. Adams needs to answer and on the basis of what Mr. Adams has been saying in the last year his answer to that question should be no and if it isn’t no, how does he explain all the things that he has been saying over the last twelve months?

    QUESTION (James Mates – ITN):

    Prime Minister, on a different subject can I ask you about Chris Patten’s remarks that Hong Kong British passport holders should be given the right to live in the UK. Do you agree with these remarks? Did he discuss them with you before he made them? Is it going to be Government policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the remarks and I will comment on the remarks when I have seen them and when I have discussed them with Chris. I have not seen them, I have been here, I don’t know when or how they were made or in what context so I am not in a position to discuss them at the moment.

    QUESTION (Sarah Holmes – The Independent):

    Prime Minister, has there been any progress at all in deciding what the name of the single currency should be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    None whatever. It wasn’t mentioned.

    QUESTION (Sarah Holmes – The Independent):

    Can you tell us what your favoured thought is at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I can’t. I haven’t given it any thought at all. The name of a single currency that may be some time ahead doesn’t frankly seem to be the most important issue. The most important issue is what are the implications of a single currency and I spend a lot of time thinking about that but I confess to you in the privacy of this meeting I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about the name of the single currency yet and as I said, it simply wasn’t mentioned.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Prime Minister, you have said that the European Union has got to accommodate itself to a world in which some members will be in a single currency and some will be out. What precise accommodations do you think are necessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am pointing out that the position of the European Union has changed and what I have said I have not said for the first time this weekend though it seems to have struck more of a chord this weekend. It is a message I have delivered elsewhere and to my colleagues in Europe on a number of occasions in the past.

    Let us look at what most people think is a possible future. Many people will say to you that a small core of the European Union may be able to go ahead with a single currency in 1999 or perhaps a little later. Let us take as a base for discussion the belief that that might happen, that half a dozen might go ahead.

    There are fifteen members now, half a dozen go ahead, nine don’t. Within ten years, there could be as many as twenty-seven members of the European Union. If six have gone ahead, what about the other twenty-one, what is the relationship between them going to be? What happens if one or other currency that is not part of the inner core devalues against the inner core? What do the inner core feel about that? They are very worried about that. Do they have a mechanism for dealing with that? They do not.

    What happens about the fact that the inner core, might integrate more speedily than elsewhere? Have they considered either the political or the economic implications of that? The answer is they haven’t considered that.

    What are going to be the circumstances in which countries not in the inner core might subsequently join the inner core? That, too, is undetermined.

    What happens to the direction of structural funds and the determination of structural funds? If the idea of a single currency is that it would help improve integration and growth, are those countries going to make a greater contribution to the structural funds of the less well-off nations in the European Union that wouldn’t be sharing in that extra spurt of growth?

    There are a whole range of other questions like that. I could spend twenty minutes listing for you the questions that have not yet been examined.

    We know the aspirations for a single currency, people have set out what they seem to think are the advantages of a single currency but the realities of what it means, how it would be bought out, what its market impact would be, what it would do both to the political and the economic structure of the European Union have not been fully examined and the whole basis of it thus far is that the European Union has tended to move forward broadly together – easy when you have six members, less easy frankly with fifteen, almost impossible when you get to nineteen and then twenty-seven – and this is why for some time we have been talking – it is a dreadful jargon phrase and I apologise for it – about “variable geometry”. The concept that fifteen or nineteen or twenty-seven countries would move together on a broad front at a united pace in the same way, at the same time, with the same objectives simply isn’t economically or politically credible.

    The European Union has to address all these questions and decide how it is going to deal with them and it was those questions and others that I put to my European partners in the discussion yesterday. It was not an attempt to cause a row, not an attempt to create a blockage in discussions; it was laying before them practical questions that will need to be examined in the near future and I am delighted to say that there was very general agreement that those matters did need to be examined before irrevocable decisions were taken.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    Could you ever envisage as Prime Minister leading Britain into a single currency in the period you would expect to be in that office?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That begs several unknowns, Robin. Firstly, I think it is too early to say. I will look at the circumstances. As I have always said, I do not think a single currency is imminent. Some people believe it may happen for some in 1999 – well perhaps. I am not certain about that, I think there are very real difficulties that we British have been talking about for some time that have not yet been properly examined and I think the Monetary Committee discussions that have been taking place will begin to sharpen some of those difficulties so although there is an aspiration for 1999, I think at the moment that is what it is, an aspiration.

    QUESTION (John Palmer):

    Just a clarification on your last answer to Robin, Prime Minister. The Commission, as you know, are already looking at just the questions that you have raised with your colleagues today and their preliminary conclusions seem to embrace the strong view that non-participating countries, basically a minority of the fifteen, should remain committed to convergence irrespective of whether they are in and secondly, that exchange rate stability should be helped to be assured by a re-entry into a strengthened EMS for countries who choose not to participate in EMU.

    Do both of those strike you as practical answers to the questions you raised?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the three points:

    Firstly, the convergence criteria. We invented the convergence criteria, it was British determination that got the convergence criteria into the Maastricht Treaty. The convergence criteria are first and foremost sensible and practical economic aims so of course people should continue to aim for the convergence criteria of low inflation and the other things that go with it. The answer to that is self-evidently yes.

    On the second point, frankly, I would be very surprised if it was a majority of the fifteen that were able to move ahead in the first tranche going to a single currency. I wouldn’t be surprised, I would be absolutely dumbfounded if that turned out to be the case.

    Thirdly, the monetary relationship between the inner core and the outer ring. One of the ideas that has been floated is that the inner core of course will be a single currency so within the inner core there is no exchange rate fluctuation, there is only the one currency. Outside, the proposition is that there should be a strengthened EMS in order to maintain the value of the external outer-ring currencies against the inner core. Well, a strengthened EMS didn’t turn out to be all that successful in the early 1990s! One of the problems that caused so-much currency turmoil then – and not only for the United Kingdom – was that the flexible Exchange Rate Mechanism that Britain entered became a more rigid Exchange Rate Mechanism as people moved towards the aim of a single currency – that was one of the problems.

    Is it going to be attractive to the countries in the outer ring to find that they don’t have what many of them would perceive to be the advantages of being in the inner core but they would have the discipline and responsibility of having to maintain the same exchange rate against the inner core without the advantages of being a member? I wonder how politically saleable that is going to be in all of the countries outside the inner core. It is, again, a worthy aspiration but when you get down to the reality of whether it is politically deliverable in all the countries of the outer core, then I begin to wonder about its practicality and these are the matters that needed to be examined.

    On the substantive point, the convergence criteria are self-evidently right, we invented them, we adhere to them. I have no doubt, if we choose to, we will be in an economic position to enter. I don’t have any doubt about that. I think we are entering into a future in which the inflationary psychology has changed and when we can look forward in the United Kingdom to a low-inflation future and a future of sustained growth and of course that will apply providing we follow sensible economic policies and the convergence criteria are precisely that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that might be practical [inaudible]?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it will not.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Majorca – 22 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Majorca, held on Friday 22nd September 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you like fireside chat summits, what do you want the chat to be about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly think it is a very good idea to have this discussion. There are several things I think we need to address. Many people have great aspirations for one or other aspect of European policy. I think we have to look at some of those aspirations with a very cool and very clear eye, to consider what they are, where they are leading, what they mean and how they might be brought about. None of these aspirations is easy, we need to examine the difficulties as well as the aspirations.

    QUESTION:

    Officials say you are in a mood to confront your fellow European leaders with some realities, Are we expecting blunt words and what would those realities be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am neither looking, nor expecting, that there is going to be a great argument or row on this particular occasion. But certainly I propose to set out, as I see it, some of the difficulties ahead in the policies that are being pursued. I think the European Union has lost much of the affection of the people right across Europe that once it had. Well that is in no-one’s interest and I think people think that it often concentrates on the wrong things. Well we have to confront that problem, we have to talk about the things that are really relevant to the everyday lives of the people in Europe. I will most certainly say that. I will talk about the difficulties of competitiveness and what it means for job creation across Europe. I will certainly talk about some of the inherent difficulties of moving on the mainstream policies that Europe has been concerned around for some time. But it is not a question of looking for an argument, it is a question of saying there are realities not yet confronted that must be confronted before policy can be determined.

    QUESTION:

    Do you want them to get away from constitution-mongering?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think many people would think, so soon after Maastricht, that we spend far too much time on institutional matters and far too little time on the things that would really matter to the people across Europe, that is certainly my view.

    QUESTION:

    The new Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, has made a controversial speech suggesting that British interests will always come first in European matters, is this a signal that you and the Cabinet are all Euro-sceptics now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think I am very happy about labels being tied to speeches. I find nothing controversial in the British Foreign Secretary saying the purpose of British foreign policy is to advance British interests and to protect British interests. That is the government’s position, the Foreign Secretary set it out very clearly yesterday and with the full support of the Cabinet.

    QUESTION:

    How do you think your fellow leaders here should interpret Mr Rifkind’s speech in terms of Britain’s attitude to Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think my fellow leaders in Europe will be remotely surprised by what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, they have heard that message from me on innumerable occasions, in private and in public in the past, so I don’t think they will be surprised about it. Moreover, I think if you were to ask the Germans, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italians, they would say that they are concerned about their own individual national interests. That is the way the world is. The Foreign Secretary spelt that out very clearly.

    QUESTION:

    You are hoping to see Mr Bruton, at least in the sidelines here, do you think that you are going to be able to do anything after your recent difficulties to take on the Irish peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is more of a brainstorming discussion. John Bruton and I have very regular contact, so do our officials. I think after the postponement of the summit we will need to look at a whole series of options. I don’t expect great announcements and great decisions to come out of my discussions with John Bruton, that is not the nature of this process. We will be looking at the present situation, looking at the opportunities, looking at the choices and deciding the best way to carry matters forward. So I think that will be the nature of the discussion, and there may well be more than one of them over the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    Can there be any concession from your side on the question of arms decommissioning by the IRA?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one needs to bear in mind what Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness and Sinn Fein have been saying for some time. They have been saying we are concerned about peace, the peace is going to be permanent. Well if the peace is going to be permanent, then they have no need of an armed force at their back when they begin to discuss matters with the other constitutional political parties. I think that is an uncontroversial statement that everyone will accept.

    The reality is not British intransigence or anyone’s intransigence. The reality is that the other mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland will not sit down with Sinn Fein until they are satisfied that Sinn Fein and the IRA are going to begin to disarm. Now that is the reality of life and there is no point in ducking that reality, it is there. I see no purpose in all-party talks if no-one is going to come to the table to talk. If there is intransigence everywhere, the intransigence must be removed. And the principal stumbling block at the moment is that despite all they have said thus far, we have no concrete evidence that Sinn Fein are going to begin to decommission their weapons.

    That is the blockage at the moment. Once that is removed we can move forward speedily I hope to all-party talks and then onward to an agreement that would be put in a referendum to the people of Northern Ireland, and then to Parliament. But the blockage that needs to be overcome is to give confidence and belief to the people in Northern Ireland that violence really is over, that the weapons really are no longer needed, and the only way in which that can credibly be done is for Sinn Fein to make it clear that they would begin to decommission their weapons.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Finally, do you think that some of your fellow leaders will be urging you here to press on with economic and monetary union and if they are urging on the prospects of a single currency, what will be your message to them on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one has to look firstly at the economic realities of economic and monetary union, and then of course one has to look at the constitutional and political realities of it. I will be saying to my fellow Heads of Government over the next day or so that it is perfectly clear that a large number of countries are simply not going to be economically ready to move forward. If that is the case, they are going to have to confront a different situation. What actually happens if a small core decide to go ahead and the larger core remain outside? That raises a whole series of questions not yet addressed by the European Union, and it needs to be addressed. They need to know, and we need to know, how those matters are going to be dealt with.