The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Edouard Balladur

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with French Leaders – 26 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Balladur, made in London on Monday 26th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had this morning a series of discussions. I have had the opportunity this morning of discussions with President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister. During the time we have held those discussions eight of our Ministerial colleagues have been discussing their own particular areas of responsibility. At the conclusion of their discussions the whole team came together for a plenary meeting and then had the opportunity of discussing matters again over lunch.

    When I became Prime Minister some time ago one of the particular objectives I had was to develop relationships between Britain and France. It seemed to me that our countries had a substantial pool of common interests, there was a great deal of scope for cooperation waiting to be tapped. I think what today’s summit shows, with a much larger participation I think than we have ever had before amongst other Ministers, is that we have travelled a very long way down that road of cooperation.

    Today’s summit follows months of intensive work, Prime Minister Balladur’s visit to London in early May, my own visit to Paris at the invitation of President Mitterrand later on that month.

    Let me set out in very brief terms prior to your questions some of the results of those discussions.

    May I turn first to foreign policy. I think it is undeniable that we are working more closely today on international problems than ever before. We have discussed Bosnia at different meetings today, we have agreed that the key points that support the efforts of Dr Owen, and Mr Sholtenberg to reconvene the negotiations in Geneva this week. We clearly are concerned to help Sarajevo, to support UNPROFOR’ s efforts to create a ceasefire, to restore water, to restore power and to secure access for the relief convoys. We also want to sustain the humanitarian relief efforts as long as conditions permit and to accelerate the implementation of the safe areas resolution, including the provision of air support.

    We discussed a number of matters relating to the European Community, including of course the joint Franco-British exercise on subsidiarity. France and Britain have now agreed a list of 24 items of Community legislation, many of them substantial, that need to be repealed, withdrawn or amended. Examples of that include tax directives on stock exchange transactions, directives on drinking water and pollution which in our judgment are much too detailed and much too prescriptive. Both our countries will also be collaborating with Germany which has drawn up a list of substantial items of its own. The aim of this work is to present the results of it, jointly, to the European Commission in the autumn as part of the preparation for the December European Council decisions.

    We have had some discussions this morning also on joint defence interests. We set up last autumn the Franco/British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine, the objective is to coordinate our approach to deterrence, to nuclear doctrines and concepts, anti-missile defences, arms controls and non-proliferation. We have decided today to make this Joint Commission a permanent standing body with a substantial amount of work to continue into the future.

    We have looked also at joint defence projects, we reviewed collaboration in defence projects, Britain and France at the moment are working together on 21 separate projects, some of them also involving other countries as well. We have more British projects with France than with any other single international partner.

    We discussed also briefly the Channel Tunnel and I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and President Mitterrand will jointly open the Channel Tunnel on 6 May 1994.

    We discussed also science and technology, we have decided to reconvene a Franco/British conference to explore fresh approaches to science policy. I think it will be a wide ranging conference, it will look at questions such as technology transfer, how to ensure that research leads to better product development and far better public explanation of scientific questions.

    We also looked at the question of D-Day and its 50th anniversary. Next year is a very remarkable part of our joint history with the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Britain and France are planning to commemorate this historic event in an appropriate way, there will be very substantial celebrations to commemorate that and Ministers have been appointed in both countries to supervise the preparations. Those Ministers will be meeting shortly in order that we can bring those preparations to fruition. I expect we will be able to announce details of the commemorative events in the autumn.

    We have covered a range of other issues but rather than running through them in great detail I will try and pick up any points of interest to you in the question period we will have shortly.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will not add anything really to the list of issues that have been discussed, what you have heard is a very complete list and this gives you an idea of the subjects we have talked about. It will be for you to ask the questions you want to ask.

    So I think it is more a question of the general spirit and atmosphere that I would like to talk about. We have had great pleasure in coming here to London and meeting our British partners and exchanging with them our positions and thinking and arguments on the problems on which we have diverging opinions and also we have been able to note that there were more and more points on which our views were the same.

    In the field of foreign policy where our two countries have very long standing experience going back many many years, in Europe in particular, well there it was easy for us to reach common conclusions. On the new problems that are coming up, new in relation to this generation, in relation to history, in other words the setting up of the European Community and its consequences, its impact, its effects, and the development of world trade, on those matters we still have to define more closely our actual positions but we are delighted with the efforts that have been made successfully by the British government in order to enable the development of the Maastricht agreement. Of course each country will operate according to its own style and on the basis of the text which is the basis of the European Agreement.

    What has just been said about the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day, well we all know what we owe to the United Kingdom and on the French side we will do all that should be done in order that people representing political and military spheres should meet with the warmest and the most grateful welcome possible. It is an important date, it was an important date in the relationship, as you know, which have become now very friendly relations, which became very friendly relations between our two countries at the beginning of the century.

    M. BALLADUR:

    At this stage I have got nothing further to add to that, thank you.

    QUESTION (La Tribune):

    Did you talk about the EMS this morning and has Mr Major any views on the chances of its survival and has Britain any particular interest in the EMS? On the French side, can we be told if the chances of escaping shall we say the British model with a more competitive currency at a lower rate of interest with more creation of jobs, is that likely to happen, or are the markets going to impose the same thing on France as it imposed on Great Britain last year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We certainly spent some time discussing this matter this morning and I think the statement issued this morning by France and Germany, the Franco-German statement, reaffirms support for the existing parity and close cooperation within the European Monetary System. I do not think it is in anyone’s interest to have continuing currency turbulence in Europe, it damages the prospect for economic recovery in everyone’s export markets so I hope the possible turbulence will settle down, but I have nothing further to say than that.

    M. BALLADUR:

    I would like to add something on that. Firstly, you asked the question in a way to elicit a certain response, I have never heard of a more competitive currency, a reference to that, what is important is that economies be competitive with one another. In France we have achieved good results on that, we are very much attached to monetary stability, we do everything we can to try and ensure it, and I note that the Prime Minister has just said that the English too want this monetary stability maintained in Europe and that they do not consider that there would be any advantage in greater instability.

    QUESTION (….Liberation):

    What did you discuss on GATT? How did both sides look to the future in the negotiating process on trade agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some discussions on the Uruguay Round this morning and our Agriculture and Trade Ministers also spent some time discussing it; it is clearly a matter of immense importance. All of us are agreed on the importance of the GATT Round and of a successful outcome on agriculture. We know that France has some particular difficulties with the Blair House Accord and it must be examined in more detail by the Community, hence the request for a Joint Council in September and I think in particular the constraints which Blair House would impose on internal management of the CAP, on growth in EC exports, erosion of Community preference, those are problems that France have raised and that the Community will have to discuss.

    We all agreed that a durable and balanced agreement is necessary. I know in the discussion between Agriculture Ministers that Gillian Shepherd emphasised that in our view the Blair House Accord was a good one for the Community but these are matters we need to discuss. What is a matter of agreement between us is the overall desirability of a satisfactory and balanced GATT agreement.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We come back to an idea which already has been expressed at least a hundred times but I think should be reiterated with strength and that is that the GATT negotiations – world trade negotiations – are not only on agriculture. I think that one of the mistakes made by people who started the discussions – I have in mind particularly our American friends – way back in 1985 was that they were totally obsessed with agriculture and that gave the impression that people wanted to get agreements which would be good agreements where it was possible for that particular country to find that beneficial leaving out areas where one might not be able to reach such favourable agreements for oneself. This was Mr. Reagan’s sign of the times – the way we interpreted it anyway. That is why France is talking about a global comprehensive agreement.

    To come back to agriculture itself, the important thing is that the agreement should be a balanced agreement. You can’t have an agreement which is one-sided. If there is a compromise solution found, it must be beneficial to all the parties concerned.

    Concerning Blair House, this is a point of friction naturally because we think that the agreement needs to be revised because it happened under conditions which we think questionable. In any case, the only thing that really counts is the political decision, the actual political decision taken by the countries concerned; that carries much more weight than the purely technical discussions that take place beforehand.

    That is why we are quite prepared to say and repeat that an overall balanced and lasting agreement would be a good thing for international trade but it would be a bad thing if it turned out that those agreements were based on a grave injustice that we just don’t want which I think people can easily understand.

    QUESTION:

    Can I just add a further question? Can one say that there has been progress today on GATT?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    It seems to me that there has been progress on two areas, firstly I feel that we better understand one another – at least I for my part better understand the British position and secondly I think we agree and consider that a meeting of Foreign and Agricultural Ministers should be held in September which will be very important and it will be there that we will be able to discuss agriculture and the general organisation of world trade so we must prepare very actively for that meeting in September. Our British friends have agreed that that would be an important date.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    I wonder, in view of the reported comments in the Sunday papers this weekend, if Mr. Major could tell us how much longer he thinks he is going to be able to cohabit with some of his Cabinet and what advice the President and M. Balladur would give on cohabitation with ideological opposites. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It seems to work very well.

    QUESTION (David Langton, Bureau of National Affairs):

    Of course, no illegitimate questions from me at all!

    On GATT, last week we had the Director-General, Peter Sutherland, hoping to knock out a conclusion by the end of this year. Have you got any good or bad news for him?

    Secondly, the French Foreign Minister, Alan Gerait [phoentic], was calling for trade policy instruments to be strengthened. Did you discuss the strengthening of trade policy instruments today, particularly in relation to, say, US anti-steel dumping provisions?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Yes, we did. Mr. Major asked me questions about that and I gave him a certain amount of detail about what we would wish. The problems, as I said, will be dealt with in the documents that we will send to Brussels in the forthcoming weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to find a solution to anti-dumping and countervailing actions – there is no doubt whatever about that. I expressed the view this morning that the long-term solution to problems of international trade in steel lies in the conclusion of a multilateral steel agreement and we will continue to stay in touch to discuss that particular matter.

    QUESTION (Tony Bevins, The Independent):

    Have you apologised to the bastards, Mr. Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been discussing Anglo-French matters this morning, Tony, Anglo-French discussions.

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell, Journal of Commerce):

    Mr. Balladur and Mr. Major, was there any discussion of the EC’s policy with regard to the import of Japanese cars and was there any discussion at all of Britain’s role in all of that, whether British-made Japanese cars might be subject to any further restrictions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that wasn’t discussed in our discussions this morning and don’t believe it was raised when the Trade Ministers met.

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC TV News):

    Given the attack on the French base in Sarajevo, was there any further discussion about the possible use of air strikes?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    It is a subject that we started to deal with several weeks ago when the so-called “safe areas” were decided upon within the UN and the point being made that respect for such safe areas is for mainly Muslim citizens in Bosnia and that the protection of such zones could require means that would be used in order to protect the populations if they were threatened and this is what is happening right now in Sarejevo in particular.

    QUESTION:

    I would like first of all to ask you about the latest escalation in the Lebanon and the latest Israeli aggression of the sovereign state of Lebanon. How do you see the effect of this on the peace process in the region?

    My second question is addressed to the French President, M. President, changes in immigration in France have created an atmosphere of uncertainty among the immigrants in France and in particular among Arab immigrants and North African immigrants. Are you aware of this new atmosphere in the immigrant community and do you envisage any change that would take account of this situation which is unstable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we did not discuss Lebanon this morning. On the second point, I will let the President respond directly.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I would have preferred to have answered the first question as a matter of fact but when people fight each other on both sides of a frontier you can’t expect the sovereignty of each country to be fully respected and once that situation obtains then it is very natural that both sides have to accept the consequences of such a conflict and that conflict will necessarily make the peace process more complicated. There is an inherent contradiction in all this which is pretty obvious.

    On the immigration legislation, you are talking about French political affairs there and I have not come here to London to talk about internal French political matters – that is rather the same as Mr. Major’s answer a moment ago when there was some mention of the necessity of talking about our Franco-British meeting and avoiding a sort of British-British discussion or a discussion internal to Britain as we say Franco-French on our side. You say the same thing? Anyway, I don’t think that the immigrants in France when they are in a completely lawful situation that is accepted, when they have been legally admitted to France following a certain number of procedures which on labour matters come under the Ministry of Labour and it can be the Ministry of the Interior when it is a question of permits and so on so foreigners who are living in normal conditions, when they are legally present on French soil, must be treated normally.

    If they are not present legally on French soil – if they are illegal immigrants – then they can hardly expect to be treated exactly in the same way so it is their natural fate to be taken back home sooner or later. Now there the discussion does start of course within France and with other countries to see what safeguards and guarantees should be granted to these men and women because they deserve respect even if they have gone against the law and we have to see with other countries too what should be done in order to respect their own individual human rights but this is an internal French affair quite honestly and there is no point in having a discussion among ourselves here in Great Britain.

    QUESTION (France Two):

    Mr. Prime Minister, have you discussed the future of the EBRD and is Britain going to support a French candidate to support M. Atteli [phoentic]?

    M. BALLADUR:

    The future of the EBRD for the moment is a matter of choosing a president for the institution. As you know, France has an excellent candidate and for the rest you must ask Mr. Major what his views are.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    If Mr. Major allows, I will recall some memories perhaps which are more personal memories for me than for him because at the time when the various seats and headquarters and offices were negotiated among a number of international bodies, including EBRD, it had been understood that if the headquarters were to be in London then at least the first presidency and the first term of office would be a French presidency. If it isn’t the same president nevertheless I think it would be right and only natural that it should be the same country and this would be accordance with the original agreements.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible] excellent candidates. The Community are seeking a unified candidate. We have expressed our view to the President of the Community and I hope will reach a conclusion shortly.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could I ask the Prime Minister and the President, given what looks like the imminent collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and all the turmoil there has been in France over Maastricht and in the British Parliament, whether they think the treaty is still relevant or should probably be torn up and the Community should start again on a more realistic and perhaps lowered-expectation treaty for European union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the treaty should be torn up. The British Parliament has passed the treaty, it is now an Act, it has got Royal Assent subject to one outstanding court case which I hope will be swiftly cleared away and it will come into effect and I welcome that fact self-evidently since we have just taken it through Parliament. I think there is much in this treaty that is good for Europe and good for the United Kingdom and I believe it was right to take it through the House of Commons.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    On my side, of course, I submitted the Maastricht Treaty to a referendum in France, in other words it is the French people that voted and who chose finally what to do and there was a political battle which was a pretty difficult one where some important and very often excellent arguments were expressed on both sides. This was a national debate of considerable magnitude but the rule of democracy was applied and France adopted the Maastricht Treaty by popular vote and now the Maastricht Treaty is our rule. I was in favour of it, as you know and therefore I was delighted that this was the decision taken and the decision that was taken I would not say was more important than a vote by Parliament because I am very much in favour of representative democracy – France is a representative democracy. Because under our legislation a referendum was perfectly possible, it was a very important way of getting this really firmly established in our history and this has been done and is behind us and the government also very much hopes that the agreement will be successful.

    Your somewhat hasty definition, if I may say so, of the fact that now the time had come to tear up the treaty and that the EMS is completely excluded I think is subject to examination. We are precisely working through this and it is difficult but France’s determination is unquestionable and we think that the future of Europe is important. We have different conceptions very often on this but we certainly will coordinate our efforts to the same goal and in my view at any rate it would be very harmful and very sad if the remarkable progress made among the Twelve should be into question whereas the prospect before us is that in a few years now we will have a single currency.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Anglo-French Relations – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Anglo-French relations, made during an interview held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the UK and France were becoming closer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our relationship with Paris has been improving over some years and I am very pleased about that. It is very good now. I think the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is as good at the moment as I can remember for very many years and I am delighted at that and I wish to see the extent to which we can extend that. I know that is the Prime Minister’s view; it is also the President’s view and a matter we have discussed in the past, so I’m very pleased with the relationship. It is good and it is getting better.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was easier with a French Conservative Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very much at ease with Prime Minister Balladur. I was very much at ease with his predecessors as well. Pierre Beregovoy in particular was a friend of mine and so I was very much at ease with him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked in what areas could the French and British work closer together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think across a whole range of issues. We have discussed this morning areas where we might do work to examine the common position in the interests of the European Community as a whole. We are looking together for example at subsidiarity, what it means, how to develop it, where to apply it. Certainly, we have a joint interest as members of the Security Council – the Permanent Five – a whole range of issues there where I wish to work very closely with France. In terms of defence co-operation, France and the United Kingdom are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe so we have a very real series of areas where we need to work very closely and that is what we are seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Anglo-French relationship would become as strong as the Anglo-German relationship].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not seeking to change in any way the relationship between Paris and Bonn. It is very close, it is very good, it is historical and it is a good thing for the whole of Europe, but I am seeking to make sure that we have a very close relationship as well with Paris and also with Bonn. I think that is in the interest of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the French would agree to sign the GATT agreement on agriculture].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was great progress made amongst the agriculture ministers the other day and I congratulate all of them on the part they played in ensuring that happened. It looks to me like a very balanced agreement. It has to be confirmed in the next few days – I think early in June – and I very much hope that it is. I think that does help us move towards an agreement on the Uruguay Round as a whole though there are still many obstacles to overcome. Some of those obstacles of course don’t relate to the Community, don’t relate to agriculture. There are problems to be overcome for example with Japan and American problems as well but I think it is a step forward and I welcome that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Balladur – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, M Balladur, held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, I would simply wish to echo what you have said over the last few moments. We have had the opportunity over the last couple of hours of covering a very wide range of matters, bilateral matters, some quite detailed matters, some matters with a very long term concern indeed. We had the opportunity of looking in particular at the Copenhagen summit, not very far away now, and what we might seek to achieve there. We have looked at problems we wish to address together like subsidiarity. We discussed the desirability of a GATT settlement and some of the difficulties that have arisen there, and we looked of course at the problems there have been in Bosnia upon which our two governments have taken a very similar view from the beginning and in which of course both of our governments have committed quite substantial numbers of troops.

    That is by no means an inclusive list of the matters we discussed. A good part of our discussion were not matters requiring immediate decisions today, they were looking at problems and difficulties and opportunities that lie on the horizon both in the short and the long term and deciding how we might work jointly to seek to address those particular problems.

    I think the Prime Minister might agree with me in saying that the relationship and the extent of bilateral cooperation that exists at the moment between the United Kingdom and France is as good, if not better, as it has been for many years and I personally am delighted about that and very pleased to have had the opportunity of continuing our discussions this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have your talks touched upon the question of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and whether by appointing a pro-European Chancellor that improves the chances of Britain re-entering the ERM?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss the monetary affairs across Europe this morning, yes we did discuss that for a while. The government’s position on the Exchange Rate Mechanism was set out some time ago by Norman Lamont, that remains the position. The circumstances for Britain to re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism do not exist at the moment, they do not exist in terms of the relationship between British and German monetary policy and are unlikely to do so in the near future. That point was made quite clear by Norman Lamont, it has been made clear in the past by Ken Clarke and others, and it is the government’s collective position.

    QUESTION:

    If the policy has not changed, why has the Chancellor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have a full press conference this afternoon and I will address domestic issues on that occasion, not now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the social chapter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I argued against the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty not just on behalf of my country but on behalf of all the European countries. And I did so for reasons that are as relevant today, if not more relevant, than the reasons when I discussed them in Maastricht. Firstly I believe that some of the provisions of that chapter would destroy jobs and not create them, and we had then, as we have now, a very high level of unemployment across the whole of Europe; and secondly, because we cannot just look at the situation within Europe, Europe has to compete with the United States, with Japan and with the Pacific countries. If Europe has costs upon their employers and consequently therefore costs upon the products that they produce, they will render themselves; less competitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific Basin, and that will cost further jobs in Europe. And it was upon those bases that I argued against the social chapter. We have differing views in the European Community about this and I respect the views of my European partners, but those are the views I held then and hold now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the situation in the former Yugoslavia]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read when I flew in yesterday evening the remarks by M. Juppe on the question of former Yugoslavia and I endorse exactly what he said, the position and concerns that we have expressed in the United Kingdom are very closely mirrored in France and the Prime Minister and I hold very similar views about them.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia have you, the French and the rest of the Western allies come to the conclusion that the Serbs have won the war and if you have not come to that conclusion what are you going to do to roll back their lands gained by force?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it clear right from the start that we do not accept Serbian gains by force, that was made clear by the Foreign Ministers again just a few days ago, we do not accept Serbian gains by force. But you have to address the question that M. Juppe put yesterday: are you prepared to put 200,000 troops into Bosnia in order to force them back by force of arms? And we know the answer to that, people are not prepared to do that, but we will maintain sanctions, we will maintain diplomatic pressure and we will not accept the land gained by force.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    [In French]

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    Could you spell out what you hope to achieve at the Copenhagen summit and what your discussions this morning touched on about that matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can spell out some of those things, certainly. We will clearly want to discuss the particular economic problems that exist within the European Community, the problems of unemployment in particular at the Copenhagen summit, that would be our wish and I think it will be the wish of all our partners as well. We will want to look in some detail at how we carry forward the proposals on subsidiarity, work is proceeding on that at present, we would like to see that work carried forward. We will certainly wish to carry forward the discussions on enlargement of the Community and precisely what that may mean. Those are some of the detailed matters, by no means all, but they are some of the detailed matters we discussed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you what assurances you were able to give M. Balladur about the future economic policy of Britain, whether there would be any change and how it will affect the preparations for Copenhagen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out our economic policy about the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which I assume is what you have in mind, a few moments ago, it has not changed in those few moments, it is as it was and as it will remain.

    QUESTION:

    And has it changed since 24 hours ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just said no.

    QUESTION:

    With a new Chancellor can the British expect accelerated interest rate cuts?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No British Prime Minister or Chancellor discusses interest rate policy and monetary policy on occasions like this and I have no intention of starting now. As ever, we will take the right judgments on the basis of what is necessary for the British economy in terms of the inflation prognosis, that is what we have done in the past under previous Chancellors, it is what we are doing now, it is what we will do in the future.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [In French]

    QUESTION:

    We have witnessed some gradual changes in the British position on the Uruguay Round in the last few weeks, could we have your comments on the style and substance of these moves?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcomed what was agreed the other day in the Agriculture meeting, we have to see what happens when we come to the further meeting at the beginning of June, but I have nothing further to say about the Uruguay Round as a whole, I hope we will be able to reach a satisfactory agreement on the Uruguay Round, I think that is in everyone’s interest and I think that is generally agreed.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Paris – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make a few introductory remarks and then I think we can really begin by taking the questions that concern you and I will attempt to answer them.

    I came here this morning at the invitation of the President of the Republic who very generously gave me lunch. President Mitterrand of course has been the longest serving French President for over a century and as such he is listened to with very great respect and I greatly enjoyed my meeting with him again today.

    I began the day earlier this morning with extensive talks with Prime Minister Balladur whom I had reacquainted when he came to dinner at Downing Street three weeks or so ago, we did of course know one another from the time we were both Finance Ministers some years ago.

    I also had the opportunity this morning of a meeting with President Giscard d’Estaing, who flew in from Strasbourg, and we were able to spend an hour or so together just before lunch.

    In each of those meetings we covered broadly similar, not identical, but broadly similar agendas. We looked at cooperation between Britain and France in international affairs, we looked at some of the main points on the European agenda and perhaps in particular the agenda that lies immediately in front of us on the Copenhagen summit, the Anglo-French bilateral that I will refer to in a few moments, and of course the European interest in the G7 summit at Tokyo later on in the summer.

    Let me make one or two general points. The first point I make is one that I make with a great degree of pleasure, and it is this. There is at the moment a great deal of common ground between people and politicians in France and the United Kingdom, and indeed in Germany and other member states, on the future of the European Community. I welcome that, I think there is an increasing concordat on many of the things we need to do in the Community and I think that is thoroughly welcome. The Community went through a period in the second half of the 1980s when there was very dramatic growth right the way across Europe. Subsequently the growth across Europe has fallen away and many of the difficulties that people have faced economically in countries right the way across the Community, international events that have swept right across the continent, have often been blamed, in many cases unfairly, on the specific activities of the Community itself.

    The second point I want to make is that I cannot myself recall a time when the relationship between the United Kingdom and France has been in better shape than it is at present. In many areas we have similar policies, we work together, we complement each other, we have joint interests. That is very welcome and I think we should maximise those joint interests in the interests of France and in the interests of the United Kingdom and both the President, the Prime Minister and I are determined that we will make the most of that.

    Of course between neighbours there are areas where we have a different shade of view, areas where there are disagreements. That I think is inevitable between neighbours and where that happens we get a great degree of publicity about it. But when one looks beyond those occasional matters, people perhaps take for granted the fact that millions of French and British visit one another each year, live and work in one another’s countries, build ships, cars, aeroplanes together as joint ventures. All that is happening and I welcome it very much indeed.

    I think they forget also that we work together, Britain and France, in a unique relationship as members simultaneously of the European Community, the Group of Seven and the United Nations Security Council. That is a very vivid illustration of the extent of common interest that exists between Britain and France and the extent to which we do work together and need to work together in the future. I think people even take for granted the fact that we are now joined by the Channel Tunnel – a massive joint engineering triumph.

    I have spent today discussing a range of matters with the President and the Prime Minister, they have not been discussing principally points of disagreement but points of agreement, points of how to develop policy further between us. we have had intensive discussion on how we can work together on issues of great importance to both of us, how to promote subsidiarity, that is to say the transfer of authority from the Community level back down to the nation state, how to promote enlargement of the Community to bring in the EFTAn states and in due course the central and Eastern European states, how to develop a closer relationship with Eastern Europe at the Copenhagen Council and how to cooperate even more closely in foreign policy, in defence and in security matters. So today has not been a day for short-term decisions but for long term planning about how to develop our joint interests together.

    Mainly because of the electoral calendar, France and Britain have not had a formal full dress British/French summit since June 1991. But I can tell you today that I have invited the President and the Prime Minister to come with a team of senior colleagues to a summit meeting in London in July. It will be held on 26 July when we will have a very extensive agenda to cover.

    I should also tell you that we have agreed this morning that the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, and M. Juppe will be meeting next week in order to take further the Washington agreement on Bosnia that was concluded just a few days ago.

    So those are broadly the areas we have been discussing this morning, I will not go into detail, you may well wish to ask me details and as far as I can I will respond to that, but those are the general areas we have been discussing this morning and I think it has been a very useful series of exchanges.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Associated Press):

    Today Alain Juppe has said that France has submitted a proposal to the United Nations calling for peace-keepers to be able to use force in Bosnia, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is one of the things that Douglas Hurd will be discussing with Alain Juppe next week. The British and the French position on Bosnia has been astonishingly close right from the outset of this whole affair, our analysis of the problem has been close, our commitment to put troops on the ground has been close, our commitment and determination on sanctions and other matters has been close and our general reading of the problem has been close. We propose to liaise with Alain Juppe about this matter and I hope we will be able to reach a concordat, that meeting will take place next week.

    QUESTION:

    There are two known areas where there is a degree of disagreement between France and Britain, two known areas connected in part with the European Community, the first is the social aspect by which I mean Britain’s known refusal to accept the social facet of the building of Europe and the second is connected to the GATT negotiations, are the British and French positions getting closer together or are they still as far apart?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think understanding of the positions is certainly getting greater in both those instances. If I can say a word about the social aspect of Europe, the social structure and in particular the social charter which presumably is what you have in mind rather than the other social elements of the Community. If you mean the other social elements, the British contribution to them and the British acceptance to them is as great as any other country in Europe. But if you mean the social charter, it is certainly true that we do not favour the social charter, not as a position of ideology, I believe the social charter is mis-named.

    It has a nice friendly ring if you call it the social charter. If you were to call it a potential job destruction charter I do not suppose it would be as popular across Europe and yet that is what I believe it to be. We in Britain have a different social structure from some of our partners in Europe and clearly therefore we have a different perspective on the social charter.

    But let me put the point specifically about the social charter. The social charter will add to the employment costs of people in Europe. If it adds to the employment costs it must mean one thing above all, there will be less jobs in Europe. We have between 17 and 18 million European citizens unemployed. I just ask the question: is it sensible when you have 17 – 18 million citizens unemployed, to add to the social costs of employment? I think you will just add to the number of people who are unemployed. That is the first point and the first reason that Britain opposes the social charter.

    The second reason is a European reason as well. Europe as a whole, all of it, faces much greater competition these days with Japan, with the United States, with the countries of the Pacific Basin. In a shrinking world for trade purposes we have to compete against those countries. If we, right the way across Europe, add to the social costs of employment and production we will diminish our capacity to win in those markets of the world, we will pile social costs on our employers and we will lose their markets to the Japanese, to the Americans and to the Pacific Basic countries.

    And I ask again: is that a sensible thing to do with 17 – 18 million Europeans unemployed? I have to tell you bluntly that I do not think it is sensible and it was for that reason that I argued so strongly at the Maastricht Council for Europe as a whole not to adopt the social charter, I do not want to see Europe as a whole put itself at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and I believe that is what it is doing and I believe you see that in unemployment right the way across Europe. It is emphatically not a question of saying let us not give new rights to workers. It emphatically is a question of saying let us get more workers back into jobs that they can stay in because the European industries can compete. That is why I argued against the social charter in Maastricht, why I would not accept it in Maastricht and why I still say for Britain and for Europe it is wrong, it is a disadvantage, the time for it is not yet right.

    On GATT, I very much want to see an agreement on the Uruguay Round, it has to be a fair agreement, I understand the difficulties that France faces. The GATT agreement extends across the whole range of industry and commerce, agriculture where I understand the difficulties in France, but there are many other industrial and other areas where a GATT agreement is very much in favour of Western Europe, very much in favour of jobs in Western Europe, prosperity in Western Europe, growth in Western Europe. And we have to find a way through this GATT tangle to reach a satisfactory settlement I believe within the terms of this year.

    If I may offer you a second reason for pushing ahead for a GATT agreement it would be this. What is one of the characteristics of Britain and France? One of the characteristics of both our countries is that we are very generous with overseas aid to countries with whom we have had a long-standing relationship. We are prepared to use a great deal of money from our own taxpayers’ revenue in order to assist those countries with direct aid.

    What on earth, what on earth is the purpose of giving them aid with one hand and not agreeing a GATT agreement that opens our markets to their products with the other? It is counter-productive. We may salve our consciences by giving them aid and we leave them in a position where they are a perpetual recipient of aid whilst denying them the opportunity of coming into our markets and make their prosperity, on their terms, for their future.

    Unusual for politicians to talk about morality maybe these days but I do not believe that is a moral policy and I think we should seek a GATT agreement for that reason. There are difficulties still in reaching a GATT agreement, they are not just French difficulties, I know France has difficulties with the Blair House Agreement, other countries have difficulties as well, the Japanese have difficulties, the Americans have difficulties with different aspects of the deal. I simply say that we need to continue to talk. Year after year we have gone to the G7 or some other great conference of Heads of Government and collectively agreed that we were going to have a Uruguay Agreement by the end of the year and year after year it has failed. I just think it is time that we actually reached a conclusion. It will to a greater or lesser extent be uncomfortable for all of us, including my country, but when you look at the recessionary situation around the world, particularly in Western Europe, and one looks at the difficulties that need to be faced, I think we all have to enter those talks with the determination of making them succeed. And in saying that I do not for a second under-estimate the difficulties that face France, I understand them, I just say collectively we must look and see how those can be solved across agriculture and elsewhere.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    Just two questions, one to follow up on GATT. Prime Minister Balladur said that you had agreed that your officials should put their heads together to try and advance agreement on GATT. Was that his initiative and what concretely would that mean? Would it be mainly focused on the agricultural side where he complimented Mr. Gummer’s help?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It followed on from the co-operation at the Agriculture Council that led to the agreement – which I hope will soon be clear is genuinely an agreement on oil seeds – just the other day. There was a great deal of Anglo-French co-operation. It advanced a cause that seemed lost.

    Maybe we can extend that co-operation in other ways. There is, as I indicated at the outset, a good deal more Anglo-French bilateral work on a range of subjects than most people perhaps realise and what we want to do is to look at the component parts of GATT. You can’t agree GATT by talking in generalities; you have to get down to the specifics. This is a “nuts and bolts” agreement. Everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is hurt by the GATT agreement in one form or another. We need to look at those sore points and see whether we can find a way round them and I have great admiration for the diplomatic and political skills of the French and I believe we have quite a lot to offer in that respect as well so all we have agreed over our meeting this morning – and it followed on from the agriculture meeting – is that we will look together at these problems and see if we can identify a way ahead. we are not seeking a bilateral fix. Let me make that clear. We are pooling our resources to see how we can advance the general trend towards a satisfactory agreement.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    A quick follow-up: Prime Minister, you talked about this being a day for long-term planning. If this Anglo-French rapprochement were to continue until 1996, which is perhaps rather an ambitious hope, would you hope that in that year when there is supposed to be another intergovernmental conference in the Community, that this would help shape the agenda for that conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know why you think 1996 is an ambition. Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are magnified and the agreements that are not magnified but we have actually been working together for generations. I know British and French attitudes are perhaps marked by William the Conquerer coming over to Britain with a certain degree of malice aforethought and Henry II coming to France to conquer half the country and marry the rest but that was, frankly, rather a long time ago and we have been working together across a whole range of issues.

    The rapprochement will go on. We have a mutuality of interests. That is real politics apart from the fact that it is something we would both wish to do. What that doesn’t mean is that we are going to agree on every subject – of course it doesn’t. There are even disagreements sometimes within individual countries as we have all seen. Of course there will be disagreements but the determination to look where we can at areas of common interest and see a way ahead I think will continue up to and way beyond 1996 and of course we will be discussing with our friends in Paris and also other friends in the Community what the agenda should be for the next intergovernmental conference. We are working on that subject now and I believe everybody else will be too.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it seems in fact that you have now a new relationship between Paris and London and mainly on the question of Europe and the shape of Europe. Could you give us some details of that? M. Balladur this morning said that the two administrations will work closely now.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are wrong in thinking it is just European matters, it isn’t.

    There is a good degree of co-operation in international affairs, Bosnia for example, Russia for example; all the matters that go through the Security Council at the United Nations, the subject of increasing bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and France. There is a very close defence relationship; we have worked together on a variety of defence projects; that remains the case; it will remain the case in the future. Britain and France are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe. There is a good deal of collective work that we have done on that so there is a whole range of issues. The Channel Tunnel is a very practical expression of that.

    It isn’t just the development of the Community. Both France and Britain must work to a greater or lesser extent with all our Community partners on that but it is across a wide range of issues that we are seeking to develop perhaps further than it has gone before the relationship that exists between France and Britain.

    Of course it involves European matters. We are both keen on making sure we get the right extension of the European Community, that we have the right arrangements when the new countries come into the European Community, that we look collectively at what actually happens after the 1996 meeting that we will have to refresh Europe and move forward. Of course we are looking together at all those things. We both have a very direct interest in it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, one of the fruits of Anglo-French co-operation has been this Washington agreement. This agreement has been rather received by the other European partners on two levels: one is that it is a way of promoting a kind of apartheid or bantostar in Bosnia; the second is that they didn’t like hearing about it on the radio without any prior consultation. We are talking about common foreign and defence policy. How do you react to this criticism to the Washington agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a good deal of the criticism of the Washington agreement has been very ill-informed, to be blunt. The Washington agreement is an action plan. The Washington agreement is not a settlement that freezes the Serb gains and says they can keep them. It emphatically is not that. It is an action plan about how in practical terms we can develop policy. The objective of making sure that sanctions continue and that other policies continue until such time as the Serbs disgorge their gains continues so there is no change in that as Douglas Hurd has made clear, as M. Juppe has made clear. What it is is a practical way in which to proceed.

    As to the concerns of other European members, what they agreed there was entirely in line with previous discussions there had been amongst the Twelve so I think the criticism that we have heard from that quarter is more based on inaccurate reports than accurate substance. I reiterate the point: emphatically not a settlement; emphatically not rewarding the Serbs for the present position; emphatically making it clear that this is the way that it is practicable to proceed in the short-term and that in the long-term we do not expect and do not wish the Serbs to keep their ill-gotten gains and that diplomatic and political pressure, sanctions pressure, is expected to continue and will have the full support of the British and French perhaps for a very long time ahead.

    QUESTION (Nelson Grays, Reuters):

    Could you tell us exactly how France and Britain could strengthen their relations in the military realm and especially as regards nuclear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear is more delicate for me to discuss here and we will need to have a great deal of discussion about that but we have had a good deal of military co-operation on the construction of military equipment and other matters in the past.

    As military demands change – and they are changing at the moment in the 1990s – we may increasingly have to look across the Western European Union, across NATO, making sure that nations do most what they do best and that does mean we have a particular responsibility to look between Britain and France in the interests of Western Europe in particular at their contribution to NATO, at the right degree of co-operation between them. Joint exercises are the sort of thing we have done for a long time; the possibility of constructing joint frigates. These are all matters of co-operation that would be both in our military interest and very probably, subject to examination, in our financial interest as well and those are the sort of things we will wish increasingly to examine.

    QUESTION:

    You said that you had met with Prime Minister Balladur and indeed then with President Francois Mitterrand and I would like to know your views of this peculiarly French phenomenon known as “cohabitation”.

    Secondly, regarding Franco-British economic co-operation, you know that the Channel Tunnel is of signal importance to France and to the French. I would like to know what Britain’s intentions are in that connection and in particular mention has been made of the possibility of France even investing in British railway networks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As far as cohabitation is concerned, I don’t find that a strange prospect at all. The Conservative Party have been cohabitating on the Maastricht Treaty for the last few months so I see no particular difficulty in the cohabitation you have had in France.

    On the question of the tunnel and the development of railway networks, we have decided that we will develop the railway network. I know President Mitterrand indicated delicately and with great charm that our trains might go a little more slowly perhaps than his. I would simply say we have some very lovely country to look at while they go slowly and I look forward to the development of those trains between now and the turn of the century and I am very delighted the decision has been made that we will proceed with the development.

    I wasn’t aware of the suggestion of French investment in those railways but perhaps that is a suggestion that has been made this side of the Channel rather than the other side.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You said this morning that there will be no change in the government’s approach both to the ERM and to possible future cuts in interest rates but if there has been no change in economic policy and if that is not your intention, why did you change the Chancellor and what did you make of the fact that he did not send you a traditional resignation letter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position on economic policy generally has been set out quite clearly and that doesn’t change with a change of personnel. It is no more likely to do that than the government’s desire for a home-owning democracy which has been there for generations will have changed with successive Environment or Housing Ministers; of course it doesn’t change.

    The policy carried out by the Chancellor is the government’s policy, has been and remains the government’s policy. It has been set out and articulated by Chancellors – very well articulated by Norman Lamont – and endorsed before he became Chancellor by Kenneth Clarke. That continues.

    It is always necessary from time to time to refresh a government, to change it round, to put the right people in the right jobs, to push forward the agenda for the next few years, to make sure that is done as effectively as possible and that is the purpose of any reshuffle not least this one.

    Secondly, as to why particularly now: we are about to begin discussions that move towards the first unified budget, a very dramatic change in British budgetary procedures, and it is necessary to have a new Chancellor in place to see that right the way through the preparation and presentation in November of the first unified budget. It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of decision and it seemed therefore the right time to do it before those discussions actually commence.

    The third reason of course is that I have in my Party a lot of talented people who have not yet served in government, who have a great deal to offer my country, who deserve the chance actually to serve in government. I wanted to bring those into the government as well as giving a lot of Ministers outside the Cabinet predominantly, but some inside the Cabinet, the chance to widen their experience and look at other portfolios. I think it is in the general interest to make sure that they do that, that they have the widest possible experience because I think that helps in conducting policy in the particular Department in which they have responsibility.

    Those essentially are the reasons for the reshuffle.

    Regarding the letter, I think that is a matter for Norman but I don’t think it can be very surprising, can it? I know Norman very well. He is a good friend of mine, he has been a good friend of mine for a very long time. We have worked closely together, we have shared the same policies, we have shared the same hopes, we have shared the same dreams about getting inflation down. He has taken a great deal of criticism as Chancellor – as any Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to do over the last two years. He has taken very bravely with a great degree of courage a great degree of criticism. The fact that it has been necessary to make a change I understand must be very hurtful to him. Even politicians are human. I quite understand the fact that he wants a little bit of peace and quiet at the moment and I hope he’ll get it.

    QUESTION:

    Could I just ask whether you have a feeling of relief now that you have finally got what must have been a reluctant reshuffle out of the way and will your new Chancellor now have the option of considering possible changes in Norman Lamont’s last budget and specifically the VAT on home heat fuel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t anticipate the present Chancellor changing what was in the budget that was approved by the Cabinet of which he was a member. I don’t anticipate changes in that regard, no.

    With regard to the sense of relief, tomorrow is always more important than yesterday. There are difficult decisions, difficult things to be done every day. There have been in the past. I have no doubt there will be other difficult decisions next week, next month and the month after – that is the business of government.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    I would just like to ask the Prime Minister in what way you think Norman Lamont’s departure will restore credibility to your government if in fact he was following exactly the same policies that the government as a whole wanted to follow including yourself?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is necessary sometimes to refresh the look of the government, to have a fresh face to look at things, to move the agenda forward. If one didn’t do that, one would never make any changes in government and I don’t think that is a credible position so have nothing more to say about that.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    Do you think it was unfortunate, though, that the world heard of it from Mr. Lamont’s mother?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the reality, not the form in which they heard of it, that really matters, isn’t it?

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Beyond being a fresh face, what other qualities does Kenneth Clarke bring to the Treasury that the previous Chancellor lacked?

    Secondly, you say you wanted to refresh the government but by my reckoning you only brought four new Ministers into the government – two others have been Ministers before. Are you anticipating further changes in July at middle-ranking level as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not; no, of course I am not. I brought back some people who had talent who served in the government before, who lost their seats in Parliament and have now come back. They are still men who have a lot to offer the government and I was delighted to be able to bring them back. I think they will make a great contribution. I was able to bring in at the junior ranks of government and promote from one rank to another rank a number of people with very distinct potential for the future but refreshing the government is more than just bringing new people into the government. It is giving people in government who worked in a particular portfolio the opportunity to go and exercise their talents on another portfolio with the special advantage of the experience they have gained in their first Department. There is nothing fresh or novel about that. That is the way governments have been operating for as far back as we can trace and it is the right way in order to develop political policy and that is what I did in the reshuffle.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    I didn’t want to disappoint you by not speaking about the polls and the polls aren’t looking frightfully good for either yourself as Prime Minister or for the government. Do you really believe that what you did yesterday will do the trick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The two things are not related and if I may say, Judith, I seem to remember you saying the polls didn’t look very bright for me four days before the last general election.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    Neither did they! [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Remind me of the result! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Jane Martenson, South Wales Echo):

    Prime Minister, what good will the appointment of John Redwood do for Wales and does his appointment mean a shift in policy for the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t. In John Redwood, what I have done is given Wales an extremely talented politician who I believe will fight very hard for Wales. I think the important thing in any Secretary of State’s position is to find someone who has real ability in order to carry out that particular job. John has a wide range of experience across government already. I believe he will bring that experience whole-heartedly to the interests of the people of Wales and I think he will do an outstanding job.

    The first priority, frankly, in choosing people for any Cabinet is to choose people of very great ability. John Redwood in my judgement has very great ability and I think he will be of immense service to the people of Wales.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Just a very simple question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If only I had known! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Do any of your Cabinet speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Any of these new people? Does the new Chancellor speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure about the new Chancellor speaking French. I do know that Mrs. Shephard, for example, is as bilingual – and maybe even trilingual – as anyone else in this room.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    It is a curious thing that after so long in Europe that we have to have an interpreter for the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do you speak French?

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Of course I do!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Excellent! Congratulations! [Laughter]

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the French Prime Minister – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, Mr Edouard Balladur, held in London on Tuesday 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very pleased this evening to welcome the Prime Minister here for talks. We have had an hour or so before dinner to talk, we will be returning over dinner and perhaps after dinner to deal with a range of other issues. I had the pleasure of congratulating the Prime Minister on his remarkable election victory and we spent some time discussing a whole range of issues. we have in fact had opportunities for discussions before, during the period I was Chancellor we have had a number of discussions.

    We have spent this evening looking at a number of matters of bilateral interest so far. Of course we have touched upon the problems in Bosnia in which both France and the United Kingdom have a very great interest and we both have a significant number of troops on the ground in Bosnia. We have looked at a range of European. Community issues and we have looked forward at how we will deal with those in the future. We have discussed how to take the European Community forward and we hope to discuss these and a range of other matters later on this evening.

    M. BALLADUR:

    I was really happy to be meeting with the Prime Minister, whom I had already met on other occasions. This gives me the opportunity of saying how deeply attached I am to the strengthening of close ties between Great Britain and France. Of course there are plenty of problems and the Prime Minister has already listed some and we have noted a broad convergence of views on many subjects, including I would say that I have great confidence in the fact that the United Kingdom will decide to ratify the treaty on European Union. And as far as Bosnia is concerned, we really share the same concerns, that is that the region should in fact be able to live under the rule of law and human rights and that the whole region will move towards peace. And we also exchanged our views on the conversations that we had, I think, with your Prime Minister on Sunday and for me this morning with Mr. Warren Christopher. And we spoke of the respective situations of our two countries from the domestic point of view and from the economic point of view and it is our intention to continue talking over dinner and afterwards.

    QUESTION:

    M. Balladur, have you perhaps considered the joint attitude if the Bosnian Serb Parliament decides to refuse the agreement, would you contemplate working together, what would your position be?

    M. BALLADUR:

    As you know, Madam, in all world affairs there are always two possibilities, there is the favourable outcome or the pessimistic outcome, and we have looked at the two possibilities, and between the two of us we have noted no fundamental divergence.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared [indistinct] a stormy agenda?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out action of that sort, we have set out our views repeatedly, we have never ruled it out, we must wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there will be an over-stretch if we commit more troops to Bosnia, will you stop the Army cuts; and are there any circumstances under which you could accept the Social Chapter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think on the first of your two questions we first have to make sure that there is a satisfactory peace, there is not a satisfactory peace, no-one has been discussing the question of putting troops on the ground in order to make a peace. If there is a peace we have to look at the question of keeping the peace and if that is so that may well be an operation by NATO, discussions are going ahead, many people would have to contribute, but I think that problem lies a little ahead and I have no more to say about that this evening, but I am sure we can cope with any problem that arises. On the second question, I have made my position about that clear often enough and it has not changed.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask M. Balladur why, as a fellow Conservative politician, he does not share Mr Major’s reservations about the Social Chapter and the impact it would have on French jobs?

    M. BALLADUR:

    Firstly I am not absolutely sure of being a Conservative, I would also say that I am a Liberal. The adjectives do not mean quite the same thing in English and in French and it is true that as far as I am concerned the Treaty on European Union contains a certain number of social elements which personally I approve of. The third is, in any case, to some extent, if I may say so, past history because the problem was discussed at length and settled during the negotiations.

    QUESTION:

    In that case are you disappointed that it is still an issue in this country?

    M. BALLADUR:

    I cannot say that I am disappointed that you should be yourself raising the issue and asking the question, you are obviously entitled to ask any question that you wish.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about GATT?

    M. BALLADUR:

    We did talk about GATT briefly and we will continue to some extent over dinner and as you know it is our intention to explain clearly to our partners the various items on which we call for greater precision. And I told the Prime Minister that I would be giving your Prime Minister the list of these questions within the next two weeks. And I said the same thing to Chancellor Kohl two weeks ago.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] Battle of Trafalgar?

    M. BALLADUR:

    The British seem to talk about the matter so often that I do not quite see what one can add on the subject.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    M. BALLADUR:

    That is a matter for the English to sort out among themselves, it is not my business.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] on the Vance/Owen plan in the next coming days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is exactly one of the matters that we are discussing within the Allies at the moment, we are discussing it with the Americans, we have had the opportunity of discussing that this evening, but I think that is a matter that is better concluded in discussion before we make the announcement..

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our position has been made pretty clear on the Social Chapter, it was not readily reached. It is a position that is very widely shared across British industry and commerce, it is not a position that is unique to the British government. We have a different structure of social provision in this country to many of our colleagues in different parts of the continent and it is partly a result of that different structure that makes us so reserved about the particular application of the Social Chapter.

    So I think our position is pretty clear, has not changed and has been consistent throughout, and as the Prime Minister said, it was accepted by all our partners when we had the negotiations at Maastricht.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I said, it was discussed and accepted by our colleagues in the negotiations in Maastricht and our position on Amendment 27 some time ago was made perfectly clear and has not changed.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear a moment ago, our position has not changed, we must wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    When you were talking about the possibility of an unfortunate [indistinct] in Bosnia did you have in mind the idea of lifting the arms embargo?

    M. BALLADUR:

    I really do not think that we can today in public look at all the possible scenarios and all the possible answers to every problem that could arise. We discussed these matters with our partners and our allies and when the time comes we will make our position known, but our allies know our position already.

    QUESTION:

    On GATT, is the French position still the same, that better no agreement than a bad agreement?

    M. BALLADUR:

    It is not only GATT, I think that in all fields you could really say that it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.

    QUESTION:

    The Bosnian Serbs have launched a new offensive against certain Muslim held places, does this strengthen the resolve of the British and French governments to strengthen their position, militarily perhaps, and what would be the possible size of a military involvement of Britain and France in Bosnia?

    M. BALLADUR:

    All I can do is to answer what the Prime Minister has already said, and I have already said it myself, we are looking at all the possible situations that could arise and how to respond to each of those possible situations, and as far as I am concerned it is not my intention to say any more.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On my part, I think the Prime Minister summarised my views very accurately. We have spent some time discussing it upstairs, I do not think it is helpful to discuss it any further at the moment. We are looking at all the possibilities, there are a range of possibilities at the moment as events move forward. Clearly we would like the peace to hold, we would like the Security Council Resolution as speedily as possible, we would like a proper ceasefire, we would then like to look at how we can actually make that ceasefire operate successfully, be successfully implemented, and deal with the problems that then begin to need to be faced after the ceasefire is in place. That is what we wish to do but I think the mechanisms between here and there are not mechanisms I wish to discuss this evening.