The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: France

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 30 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are becoming increasingly fed up with the unlawful activities– [Interruption.] –with the unlawful activities of French farmers and French fishermen? Does he further agree with me that their actions are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom, its people and our trade?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is true that the recent action by French farmers and fishermen is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the whole House will have seen that the French ambassador made clear yesterday beyond doubt his condemnation of their activity in the clearest possible terms. I very much welcome that. My hon. Friend may also know that the French authorities have undertaken to provide safe passage for any consignments of which we notify them. We are pursuing the recent fisheries- related incidents actively with the French authorities and we look to them to restore order, to bring the perpetrators to book and to guarantee unfettered access.

    Mr. John Smith : I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the British film industry on its further success in winning five Oscars last night. Does the Prime Minister not agree that our film industry could be even more successful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries?

    The Prime Minister : The success of the British film industry in the private sector owes a great deal to the fact that it is in the private sector, and to the individual skills of writers, actors and directors.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that the number of films made in Britain has plummeted from 50 to 12, and that the minimal help offered to the industry in last year’s budget does not in any way make up for the abolition of capital allowances, the Eady levy or the malign effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does the Prime Minister not understand that if real encouragement were given to the industry, we could increase jobs and overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers’ money without giving any indication of whether there would be corresponding reductions elsewhere–an increase in borrowing and perhaps higher interest rates or higher taxation. When he asks for more expenditure, he owes it to the public to say from where the money is coming.

    Mr. Smith : But does the Prime Minister not understand that we have in this country a fabulous pool of talent in our film industry– [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.

    Madam Speaker : Order. These interruptions are a total waste of the time of the House. In addition, they are an abuse of the House. The House will now come to order.

    Mr. Smith : It is remarkable that Conservative Members find it a matter of humour when we are talking about jobs, British films and overseas earnings. Does the Prime Minister not understand that a modest investment in our industry would give us a huge return in employment and vital overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point, which is that our arts generally–I include the film industry in that–are among the best, if not the best, in the world. That has repeatedly been shown to be the case. I hope that, in the light of that, he and his hon. Friends will support the National Lottery Etc. Bill, which provides greater support for the arts than ever before.

    Mr. Coe : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dramatic reduction, announced only a couple of days ago, in the number of cot deaths in this country, of about 60 per cent. in the first nine months of this year? Does he agree that that is testimony to sensitively targeted health education, “The Health of the Nation” strategy and the Anne Diamond campaign?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has put his finger on the key reasons for that. It is a very remarkable achievement and I am delighted about it, as everybody else will be. I wholeheartedly congratulate both Anne Diamond and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the measures they have taken.

     

    Q2. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Kirkwood : Now that the Prime Minister is himself a year and a day closer to collecting his old age pension, he may be interested to know that the Post Office is at the moment considering plans which could remove entitlement by pensioners to collect their pension payments by way of DSS giro over post office counters. Is he aware that post offices derive 30 or 40 per cent. of their total income from those transactions and that any alternative method of payment–perhaps by way of banks or building societies–could eventually lead to a charge being made for the payment of that service? Will the Prime Minister summon the Ministers involved in those discussions, irrespective of what other damage or problems may flow from the privatisation of the Post Office, and make it clear to them and the House that the payment of pensions by means of automated credit transfer will not be made compulsory?

    The Prime Minister : I am well aware of the sensitivity of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and it is one of many matters that will need to be considered in the future.

    Mr. Harris : The whole House will have welcomed my right hon. Friend’s remarks regarding the dispute with France. Will he go further and make it perfectly clear to his opposite number, the French Prime Minister, that the Royal Navy will not stand idly by if there is any attempt to repeat the disgraceful incidents of the weekend by French fishermen?

    The Prime Minister : As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), we have made perfectly clear to the French ambassador our very strong condemnation of recent incidents. He has made it equally clear that such action is not acceptable to the French Government, and we have made it clear to the French Government that we look to them to deal with those incidents.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Byers : As council tax demands are being sent out, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, under the system of financing local authorities, his constituency of Huntingdon, according to the Government, suffers greater poverty than Blyth Valley? Is he aware that, even under that unfair system of local government finance, the average council tax in Labour authorities will be £14 less than in Conservative authorities? Does the Prime Minister agree that the message to council tax payers is clear : Labour councils cost you less and serve you better?

    The Prime Minister : I award the hon. Gentleman the prize for the cheekiest question this year. Let me tell him that the 10 highest taxes in band C are Harlow–Labour ; Newcastle–Labour ; Greenwich–Labour ; Manchester–Labour ; Haringey–Labour ; Liverpool– Labour ; Hendon–Labour ; North Tyneside–Labour ; Salford–Labour ; and Derwentshire–Labour, all at band C. The lowest are Wellingborough– Conservative ; Westminster–Conservative ; Isle of Scilly–Independent ; City of London–Independent ; Hambleton–Conservative ; Hinckley and Bosworth–Conservative ; Huntingdonshire–Conservative ; Basingstoke–Conservative ; South Cambs– Independent, and Fareham–Conservative.

    Mr. Trotter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyneside is very grateful to him for his decision to go ahead with the order for the helicopter carrier, the largest and most important ship to be ordered for the Royal Navy in years, which will give Swan Hunter the chance to win four years’ work? Will he visit the yard while the ship is being built, as we are confident that our team will win the order?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly must not pre-judge the outcome of the tender, but I agree with my hon. Friend that confirmation of the helicopter carrier in the defence programme is very good news indeed for the British shipbuilding industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has argued long and hard for this particular vessel to be in the programme. I am sure that there will be very keen competition for the order. I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow its progress with the same interest that he will.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sheerman : Is the Prime Minister aware of the remark made by one of his Ministers in another place who said–

    Hon. Members : Reading.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not quote.

    Mr. Sheerman : She said that although she is responsible for 804 public appointments, she cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter. Given the sad state in which this country finds itself, is it not time that the Prime Minister started appointing people on the basis of competence and ability– [Interruption.] –on the basis of competence and ability, rather than according to the corrupt political patronage for which his Conservative Government are notorious?

    The Prime Minister : We most certainly do appoint on competence, and there are people of all political persuasions who hold public appointments and have been appointed throughout the period of this Government since 1979. My hon. Friend whom the hon. Gentleman quotes used the word “knowingly” to indicate the fact that the political persuasion is not relevant to the competence and the appointment.

     

    Hartley

    Q5. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Hartley.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency last Friday.

    Mr. Dunn : Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Hartley are fully behind the Government’s plans to reform the National Union of Students and that they are interested in knowing his views on the role of trade unions in our modern political society?

    The Prime Minister : Trade unions do have an important and mature role in our society. Their role ought to be to look after the interests of their members–not to align themselves particularly with a political party, not to throw votes behind the leadership of that party, not to provide the finance for that party, and not to sponsor every Front-Bench Member of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Wright : Does the Prime Minister recall that he told the House some time ago that a referendum on the Maastricht treaty would be unnecessary as the country had decided that matter in the general election? Does he accept that that was a foolish statement–that, whatever was decided in the general election, it was not the Maastricht treaty? Does he understand that it is both foolish and dangerous to tell people that they have decided something when they have had no part in the decision?

    The Prime Minister : The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question is no. The hon. Gentleman knows very well why I think that it is right that this House should decide the fate of the Maastricht treaty in all its aspects. That is the basis of parliamentary democracy, and, as I understand it, it is the position of his own Front Bench.

    Q7. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support, in all quarters of the House, for the United Kingdom’s early return to UNESCO, which has been greatly reformed in recent years? Bearing in mind the fact that President Clinton is about to take the United States back into that organisation, would it not be prudent for my right hon. Friend to secure this country’s return beforehand?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends made me well aware of the strength of their feelings on this matter when they came to see me recently. As I indicated to them, we are keeping the matter under review, and no final decisions have been taken. I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s concern in mind when we make our decisions.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following French Referendum – 20 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement following the French referendum result, made in London on Sunday 20th September 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good evening. I want, first, to congratulate President Mitterrand on the outcome of the French referendum today. We now need to consider the way forward and there are a number of important matters in that consideration. We firstly await Denmark’s conclusions on how she will deal with the particular problems of ratification that she faces. Secondly, I believe we need to deal with the very particular problems in the foreign exchange markets in recent days that have revealed short-comings in the Exchange Rate Mechanism System. And thirdly, I think we do have to take account in public debate of many of the concerns that have been raised throughout the Community over recent weeks.

    In the light of all that I propose to call a Special European Council of Heads of Government in early October to consider those issues. In the light of the outcome of that Council the Community can decide how to proceed in a way that carries the support of member states right the way across the Community.

    As far as Britain is concerned, let me say that progress with the Maastricht Bill in the House of Commons must await firstly the clarification of Danish intentions and secondly, the outcome of the Special European Council that I have just announced.

    There is of course a vast weight of other Community work that will need to continue, we will need to continue with the completion of the Single Market, the enlargement of the Community, there is an urgent need for a GATT settlement, we need to look at future financing of the Community and there are a range of other issues that need urgent attention during the British Presidency. We will continue with those matters quite apart from the earlier problems I raised.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Is Maastricht no longer good for Britain, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the situation is as it was before, we must wait and see what the outcome is of the special Council and then we will have to decide how to go forward.

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Given the narrowness of the votes both in France and in Denmark, can you really press ahead with enthusiasm the ratification of the Bill in this country ever?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to take account of the concerns that have been expressed right the way across Europe and that of course is one of the reasons for calling the special European Council, clearly that is important.

    QUESTION:

    Are you personally still behind the Maastricht Treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I am.

    QUESTION:

    Will not the monetary elements of the Maastricht Treaty now have to be re-written in view of the course of the ERM mechanism?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think that is the case, we are examining that but it seems at first glimpse that that is not so.

    QUESTION:

    Do you still think that this is a good treaty for Europe and a good treaty for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do. There is much in the Maastricht Treaty, the areas of development which enable us to develop outside the Treaty of Rome that we have sought as British policy for a long time and that will enhance cooperation right the way across Europe. That cooperation is valuable for Europe and it has been an object of British policy for the last quarter of a century. So I think there is much in the Maastricht Treaty of value and I very much hope that those elements will go forward.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Edith Cresson – 24 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, Mme Edith Cresson, in London on Tuesday 24th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon, we have had the opportunity over the last two and a half to three hours of a very wide ranging and free discussion over matters of mutual concern. We have been able to discuss the present position on the two inter-governmental conferences on economic and monetary union and political union, we have been able to discuss a number of bilateral matters, Yugoslavia and a series of other issues both bilateral and international that are of concern to both of us.

    I think both the Prime Minister and I have found it a very useful exchange of views, we had the opportunity in France some weeks ago of a brief exchange, this was a much more substantial opportunity to discuss current matters and we have agreed that we will continue this dialogue up to the Maastricht IGCs where we both hope we will reach a satisfactory conclusion and of course on bilateral matters beyond that.

    MADAME CRESSON:

    Thank you. Our conversation has indeed been very useful and instructive. It has enabled us to clarify our positions in relation to the Maastricht summit at the end of the year. Regarding the two main points of economic and monetary union and political union, we have noticed that we agree on many points. In any event, we are very determined to advance on these two issues during the Maastricht summit.

    It has been a friendly and warm conversation, in a very pleasant atmosphere; we have been able to get to know one another better and move forward on these issues. Our respective teams are in contact and will have further talks on the last text of the Dutch presidency which needs closer study from both sides.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Prime Minister has indicated, there is a very strong agreement between us that it is highly desirable to reach a conclusion at Maastricht on the intergovernmental conferences providing we can. I think that is something we both feel very strongly, a great deal of progress has been made, there is a little more progress still needed, but we will be working together to see if that is achievable.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Do you think you have Madame Cresson’s support in opposing further powers for the European Parliament at Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a mistake, Eleanor, to assume that we are opposing all the powers for the European Parliament, we think there are areas where the European Parliament should have greater authority, we are discussing that with the European Parliament and with our partners and we had made some proposals for the political union text. So that is the British position but I will invite the Prime Minister to respond on behalf of France.

    MADAME CRESSON:

    Yes, the French position is very similar. That is to say, the powers that the European Parliament might gain are part of a whole package. In this context, we will have to assess what extra responsibilities will be given to the European Parliament. we are of course very open on that topic.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Prime Minister indicates, the question is determining what extra responsibilities must go to the European Parliament.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Mme Cresson, could we ask you about the situation we have at the moment with French farmers and the import of English lamb, what action do you propose to take on that to allow the import of British lamb on to your market?

    MME CRESSON:

    I have noticed that both the British and the French Press have covered this issue in many articles. I would like to say that French agriculture is at present in a situation that is very worrying. Our farmers, and in particular the beef and sheep breeders, find themselves in a very difficult situation.

    Next Sunday a very large demonstration organised by the farming world will take place in Paris, to express its worry about the future. We cannot ignore this. Regarding your question on British lamb and the attacks on British lamb imports which have taken place, we are of course very shocked by such incidents. The French population is against such actions in general. Measures are of course taken to sanction such incidents. But one has to take into consideration the anguish of French breeders, Also, these British losses are being reimbursed. I know that moral prejudice is difficult to compensate but as far as financial prejudice is concerned, the French side is dealing with this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister has indicated just now that she is concerned about that but there are very real problems in France and she set those out but that she does not condone the difficult problems that have been faced and that there will be compensation for the damage that has been caused. This is a matter that we were able to discuss at some length over luncheon and it is a matter I know the Prime Minister proposes to take a very direct interest in.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have not the Dutch today called your bluff by insisting on continuing with a federal Europe in their draft treaty on political union and how do you react to the news that we expect Jackie Mann to be released at 6.00 tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the second point about whether the British hostage, Jackie Mann, will be released at 6.00, I very much hope that that will prove to be the case, I do not think it would be of any help to Mr Mann, Mrs Mann or anyone else for me to comment until that happens except to say just this. I hope very much that it is true, it has been an agonising time for Mr Mann, an equally agonising time I suspect for Mrs Mann, and it would be my fondest wish and believe everybody else’s as well that he would be released very speedily and returned to his family, I very much hope that will be the case but we must await events, I hope we will not have to wait too long.

    On the earlier point which is the revised Dutch text on political union, I have not yet seen the revised text on political union, have heard rumours of what it said, I gather it will be available to me later on this afternoon and I will examine it very carefully on that occasion.
    But I have made it perfectly clear to the Dutch Prime Minister and others the areas where we saw very grave difficulty when we had a meeting last week. They can be in no doubt about those difficulties, I set them out clearly, they are still there.

    But even apart from that, once the text has been received it is a basis for further negotiation, it is not a fait accompli, there will be many people across the whole of Europe who would have reservations about part of almost any text that any Presidency could produce, so what it is is a basis for further discussion and when we have the text we will discuss it and we will set out the reservations we have.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, everyone is very keen for there to be great disagreements but there is great agreement in the Conservative Party about the fact that we need to be in the centre of Europe, that we need to carry the debate forward. I do not have any doubt at all that we will be able to reach satisfactory conclusions. This is the way Europe operates, a proposal comes forward, it is often controversial, it is often a matter of very great controversy among some member states, but after discussions a conclusion is reached that is satisfactory for all the member states.

    At the moment we are in the preliminary stage, by the time we get to Maastricht I hope we will be in a position to reach agreement, I cannot tell yet, there are certain reservations beyond which we cannot go but at the moment I still anticipate that the will to reach a collective agreement at Maastricht will prevail and that clearly is the best answer for us and the best answer for the whole of Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Meeting with President Mitterrand – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments after the meeting with President Mitterrand, made in an interview in Paris on Wednesday 11th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the talks had progressed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With President Mitterrand, as ever very friendly, very constructive and very worthwhile. We covered a wide range of subjects. As we meet and speak so frequently, much of the background can be pushed aside and we can deal with the matters of immediate important so we dealt at some length with the present circumstances in the Soviet Union, what is happening and we believe will happen. We have a very similar view on the present problems in Yugoslavia and the importance of the peace conference and the arbitration process; we spent a good deal of time on that. We discussed also the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to move forward and try and reach an agreement in Maastricht later on this year. We discussed the Association Agreements with the Eastern European nations and we both believe that a solution to the present difficulties will be found for that within this month, so it was very useful and very constructive and we were able to touch on a number of other matters as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was still division between France wanting to deepen the European Community and him wanting to widen it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a whole series of matters to be considered about both deepening and widening the Community. We are considering deepening in the two Intergovernmental Conferences and I think we will reach satisfactory conclusions on that at Maastricht though precisely what they will be at the moment is unclear. There is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of hard talking, a great deal of negotiation before that occurs but my position for a long time has been that I don’t want a girdle thrown around the Community. Nobody in the Community wants to say: “Here we are, nobody will join us in future!”. That isn’t what the construction of the Community is about; we want to see it widen as well. Half of Europe after the War turned out to be free and that became part of NATO by and large and it became part of the Community; the other half is increasingly free; I think they will want to play an increasing role in the economic process in the West. Over time, I think we would wish to see that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Mitterrand – 24 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Dunkirk on Monday 24th June 1991.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Ladies and Gentlemen. We are very happy to welcome Mr Major and several of his Ministers today here in Dunkirk, it is in the framework of the regular talks that we have between our two countries. Mr Major and myself have had a conversation and then Edith Cresson, the French Prime Minister, joined us and at the same time the Ministers had started meeting in the middle of the morning in order to work out the conclusions which they then put to us later.

    The talks revolved around Europe of course, the preparation for the Luxembourg European Summit which as you know will be beginning next Friday. There were a certain number of agreements, we are understood for example on the need to terminate the intergovernmental conference by the end of 1991 at Maastricht in the Netherlands, but considering that the Luxembourg text on political union I should say as the basis of our work. We also talked about defence and the structure of the future treaty on economic and monetary union with the transition from one stage to another.

    There were other questions which we also talked about, in particular the WEU, GATT and the Schengen agreements. And then moving further away from Europe we discussed several international matters, still in connection with WEU, the preparation of the forthcoming meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers on 27 June and then for Iraq we noted considerable convergence of views on the vigilance that had to be deployed in northern Iraq, in Kurdistan, so as not to have the past beginning again, guarantees have to be given to the Kurdish populations. On the one hand the [indistinct] if necessary the means for such vigilance to be set up. There are certain questions which have been put to the Iraqi government and replies to those questions will to a large extent determine the steps that have to be taken. We also talked about the Atlantic Alliance and the preparation of the forthcoming Summit on 15 July and bilateral cooperation in defence matters.

    But I will leave it to Mr Major to pursue this presentation and I would like to say to him once again that for we the French it is always fairly pleasant and certainly extremely useful to be able to take into greater depth our conversations because our two countries to such an enormous degree are associates in the broader areas of political affairs for Europe and for international affairs generally. So I wish to thank you, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much indeed and thank you for those opening remarks.

    President Mitterrand has set out in the last few moments the breadth of our discussions this morning and I have very little really to add to that. It has been a very useful and I think a very timely meeting with the European Council immediately ahead of us, the World Economic Summit in July and with our joint intention to reach agreement on the two inter-governmental conferences by Maastricht at the end of this year.

    So I am most grateful today both to President Mitterrand and to the Mayor of Dunkirk, Minister of State Delobar [phon] for their hospitality and for the warmth of their welcome here today. This is of course a town with very historic connections for both of us. It was also a very pleasant opportunity this morning to meet for the first time Madame Cresson. the new French Prime Minister, I very much enjoyed that and I know my colleagues have had very useful discussions with their opposite numbers over the last few hours.

    The relationship that the United Kingdom has with France is very important to us, it is one of constant meetings, constant exchanges, it is a fluid, long-standing and vitally important relationship both within the European Community, within NATO and bilaterally, it is one we treasure very much indeed. And although this is the first formal Summit for a year, the President and I have met on a number of occasions over the last 6 months and there is frequent contact and frequent meetings between Number 10 and the Elysee, I know that will continue and I welcome that very much indeed.

    It is vital I believe to both our countries to reach agreement on European defence. We need to reconcile the desire to spell out long term concepts and concerns with the need to be certain what they mean in practice in the near term and we have instructed our officials to work on this problem with the intention of taking an agreed position at the Council at Maastricht.

    On Friday and Saturday of this week we should in Luxembourg take stock and give guidance for the future work of the two vitally important inter-governmental conferences. Very considerable progress has been made under the Luxembourg Presidency and I am very happy to congratulate them on the work that they have done. The President and I have agreed this morning that we can build on that progress to reach decisions at the European Council at Maastricht in December. What we cannot do at Luxembourg this week is to take partial decisions half-way through a negotiation on subjects which can only be judged as a whole at the end of the negotiating process.

    We touched on a wide range of matters in our discussions. On economic and monetary union, for example, it was agreed that strengthening the Ecu was a very important part of Stage 2 and that monetary policy should remain in national hands during that period. There are many matters still to be discussed both at the European Council and in ECOFIN before we are able to finalise decisions on economic and monetary union towards the end of this year.

    We discussed also a number of the important matters that are dealt with in the political union treaty and found there were areas of clear agreement and other areas where there was still more work to be done. But I hope and believe again that it will be possible [indistinct].

    We touched very briefly on the prospect of welcoming President Gorbachev to London next month at the end of the Economic Summit, I think that will be a useful meeting, I believe it will be an opportunity to hear from President Gorbachev of his commitment to democratic institutions in the Soviet Union and for the development of a genuine market economy. Those are discussions both the President and I look forward to.

    And finally on bilateral issues we are intensifying our discussions on possible areas of cooperation in the defence field. Britain and France played a very notable part in the liberation of Kuwait and in the establishment of safe havens in Iraq. We believe that there is room to enhance that cooperation as we develop a stronger European defence identity.

    So in summary we have had some very worthwhile and very wide ranging discussions over the last few hours, I have found them most useful and I look forward to continuing those contacts in the future.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I could add to what you have said, the intensity of our relationship will be given additional confirmation fairly soon because we will be meeting on 29 July in Calais to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the treaty signed at the time on the Channel Tunnel.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    [NB: Microphone difficulties made audibility difficult]

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would we be talking more about a common currency or a single currency?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    [Indistinct] that is of course the whole question of substance, as you know, single currency/common currency. What was said among ourselves is that the process that has started, and we agreed on the timetable for the three stages, the point is that this programme should make it possible for us to go towards a single currency with it being understood that for France this is a [indistinct] and to negotiate with our partners for the setting up of a single currency; whereas for the UK it could be a consequence if everything that will happen before that time, before the date chosen by the Community has in fact developed to lead harmoniously to the possibility of having a single currency. In other words, the theoretical and a priori view points are different, the method that would make it possible for a rapprochement to take place and really Mr Major quite recently has taken certain initiatives on the hard-Ecu which after all had made it possible for the situation to get unblocked. But I think it would probably be better for the Prime Minister to say himself what his position is on this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much. You do touch on the very heart of the problems that remain to be decided and there is a great deal to be concluded before we can reach proper decisions about this. One of the matters of course that is of most importance is a proper assessment of what the economic results of proceeding either via a common currency or via a prescriptive approach to a single currency might be. Such a detailed economic analysis has not yet been concluded and one does not quite know what the outcome of that would be. But I have expressed my concern in the past about a prescriptive move forward suddenly to a single currency without the right degree of preparation and the right degree of economic convergence. And the United Kingdom would find it very difficult to agree to the objective until it actually knew what the effect of the objective would be and we cannot of course know what the effect of the objective will be until we see to what extent and in what fashion and at what pace the economies do converge. And that is one of the matters that must remain under discussion between now and the remainder of the year.

    The proposal that the United Kingdom put forward when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a proposal to create a parallel or common currency in the term that you used but would enable countries to utilise that common currency whilst withdrawing their own domestic currency at the same time to ensure there was no growth in money supply and hence increased inflationary prospects in Europe. That is a matter we shall still want to discuss with our colleagues. If the hard-Ecu proposal were successful, if countries wanted it, if companies wanted it, if individuals wanted it, then it is self-evident that that would develop into a single currency and it was with that proposition and with that understanding that we actually launched this proposal in the summer of last year. So these are .matters under discussion and the prospect is that we will discuss these and the economic effect of those routes in the period between now and December.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The question, which you may or may not have heard, was should the word “federal” go, be removed from the Treaty, but that problem has not really been settled. Some people would like to move towards a federal structure, others no and the discussion is an open one so one cannot prejudge that particular question.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but question repeated by interpreter]

    The question is whether the French would be prepared to support the British in Luxembourg and try to defer or evacuate that problem of a federal goal.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The French are in favour of an orientation of that kind if you like but we had not planned to spend the little time at our disposal to try and persuade our British friends to share our views on that. We may perhaps try in Luxembourg or during the course of the year – that will be for later.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our views on the word “federal” have been clear for some time. There are some differing views within the European Community as to what the word “federal” actually means. It certainly means different things to different nations in the European Community and that does give rise to a considerable amount of confusion but as expressed and understood in the United Kingdom of “federal” being a centralisation, it is not an attractive proposition to the United Kingdom and the formulation we prefer is the formulation of course that appeared in the original Treaty of Rome of ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. That is a prospect that operates bilaterally and operates also through the Community that is a more acceptable premise but the idea of federal union is not an attractive concept for the United Kingdom and we have made that clear repeatedly.

    QUESTION:

    While accepting that the word “federal” can mean different things in different countries, why has it become such a sticking point for the United Kingdom?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There must, at the conclusion of these Inter-Governmental Conferences, in the Treaty be no doubt about the destinations to which we are heading in that regard so if there is doubt about what “federal union” may mean and it may be interpreted as leading to a great level of centralisation beyond that that we would find tolerable in the United Kingdom or that I believe many of our partners would find tolerable in the Community, then we ought not to leave such a phrase so capable of misinterpretation in the Treaties.

    At this stage, we have a draft Treaty in front of us, the details of that have not yet been discussed. There will be many changes, I have no doubt, of all sorts in the Treaty texts that are before us in Luxembourg and some of those changes may be flagged up in discussions at Luxembourg this week-end, others will not, but I think the time to be concerned about the detail of what is in the Treaty is as we come close to Maastricht and of course, at Maastricht and at the conclusion of it.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The discussion has only just started; one cannot consider it is closed. The two IGCs have fixed the end of 1991 in order to conclude and we have not got there yet so we cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think, Mr. President, that the discussion of the long-term goals of Europe is a purely British discussion? Do you think that on the French side the French have really accepted the idea of a European federation and that, in a way, we should talk about this?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    No, I confirm what has already been said: the debate has not yet taken place; it just has not started yet so we cannot say what the outcome will be.

    In France, I myself mentioned that as a hypothesis, a possibility, but it is only one hypothesis.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you now have French and German support at the Summit for a Monetary Union Treaty which, if necessary, allows Britain to opt-in at a time of its choosing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These are discussions that we are going to have in ECOFIN and at the European Council over the months ahead. We have discussed many of the details, many of the practical aspects of what needs to be discussed but until we have reached the conclusion of those discussions, we cannot determine what the outcome will be so it is not a question of making agreements and deals way in advance.

    We have set out the reservations which we have; we have discussed the details and the way ahead with our partners in France and in Germany and indeed in a number of the other European countries and we will advance those discussions over the months ahead.

    I think we have made the position as clear as we possibly can about the reservations that we have. I have, for example, made it clear on a number of occasions that progress towards economic and monetary union, which was mentioned originally in the Treaty of Rome and also in the Single European Act, is not just a question of dates though I understand the desire to set dates as a time-table but it is also utterly dependent upon the key questions of economic convergence which in the view of the British are more important than simply the dates; that one needs to see whether the economic situation makes it a justifiable proposition to contemplate moving from a dozen currencies in Europe to one.

    Those are all details and technical matters many of which are only in their infancy in terms of discussion, so it is impossible yet to reach final conclusions as to what the outcome will be.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We have come back several times to this kind of discussion and after all, it is very pleasant for me to see several members of the press who seem to be in a great hurry for the whole thing to be done with and in a way they sort of share my own feelings on this but certain deadlines have been fixed, certain times, a time-table has been fixed, a time-table which takes us in fact several years ahead. These are things that are very important, serious matters and difficult matters to be given time since they in fact will affect the future of the twelve countries of the Community and perhaps others too so it is something that has to be carefully thought out.

    Our positions on the French side are well known. We tend to want more, if you like, than the common structure that is under discussion and the discussion should be over its first period before the end of 1991. We ourselves have our preferences obviously and our preferences would be for a stronger structure of the federal type for example but it would be very premature to put that point of the problem to partners who have not even finished talking about Political Union and Economic Monetary Union, so I think there is a time for all things.

    QUESTION:

    My question is nothing to do with the Franco-British discussion. A Moroccan Member of the Opposition has just been expelled from France. Is that a question of “reasons of state” so to speak or are there genuine reasons which explain and justify the fact that Mr. Duni [phon] has been expelled from France? Why was this done?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mr. Duri for many years enjoyed the status from 1974 of a political refugee and this was under my predecessor – seven years under my predecessor, more than 10 years under me – but as long as he was content with respecting the obligations of a political refugee because there are certain obligations on both sides – it is a contract, if you like, a contract between the country of asylum and the refugee – and the political refugee has to show certain constraints and that is what happens.

    In France, there are political refugees of all nationalities. My definition of a political refugee is someone who is rejected by the government of his country and who rejects such government and so obviously is a spokesman of a certain vigorous form of action against the political system of his own country.

    But France, acting as host as it were, cannot accept to move into serious difficulties with each of the countries from which we have political refugees so there are certain duties concerning constraint shown by a political refugee and this is a legal obligation; this is mandatory for any political refugee asking for right of asylum in France.

    This kind of problem arises very often and I repeat that it is rather understandable surely. A political refugee is usually someone who wishes to pursue in a different form the [indistinct] that he is engaged in but France also has her own obligations.

    So for 17 years there was no real problem except that for several months now – and also this is nothing to do incidentally with the hypothesis that some people have thought up about the recent incidents – but for several months Mr. Duni had been warned that on several occasions and in several areas he was in fact violating the rules and his obligations. This does happen periodically but not very often in France because one is fairly indulgent but the time did come where he had gone beyond the limits and there were too many violations of all kinds and therefore it was decided to expel him.

    What do you want me to add to that? For the rest, under our French law, freedoms etc. are fully respected. One can express oneself in France, any French citizen who says something in writing or in speech and is subjected to no censorship as you know well, particularly with regard to Morocco because that is the country we are talking about. A foreigner can publish what he wants to publish but one cannot accept the repeated violations – I would almost say continuous violations – of the rules governing political refugees because after all, diplomatic relations between France and the countries concerned depend on all this.

    From time to time I have problems of this kind with a certain number of countries with whom we have diplomatic relations, very often good relations or perhaps not all that good, but the law is the same in all cases and one has to abide by the law.

    QUESTION:

    Can we take it, then, from what the President and the Prime Minister are saying, that the conference in Luxembourg will merely be a stocktaking exercise; that Britain need not expect to be bounced or ambushed in any way on major decisions at that conference?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Great Britain never allows herself to be bounced as you indicate and certainly no other country of the Community would try to do that. No! One tries to convince Great Britain of the validity of certain options but that is quite different and there have been in the past particularly fairly lively discussions but we have always managed to move forward; Europe has always moved forward so I am very confident in the outcome following discussions that it will be perfectly well understood that the Inter-Governmental Conferences are to be terminated in 1991 and therefore this will take place at Maastricht in the Netherlands.

    The first European Council in each year – and of course there is a change as you know every six months – makes it possible to take stock of the situation and see where we are, sort out the problems of the day and that is what will take place in Luxembourg, especially as the Luxembourg Government has prepared a document which is a very well-drafted document and which will contribute to shedding light on the whole range of our discussions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure there are going to be issues of substance discussed at Luxembourg – I don’t have any doubt about that. There are a great many things that will need to be discussed on the basis of the Luxembourg draft and then we will have to determine where there are broad areas of agreement and where there are not and I think it will highlight the direction in which the discussions must go for the remaining six months of the year. But we are only half-way into these discussions; there is a long way to go yet and a long way before we can reach final conclusions.

    One of the points of general agreement amongst, I think, all the Community nations is that there is a great deal of inter-relationship between the conclusions both of the Economic and Monetary Union Conference and the Political Union Conference and of the subjects that need to be decided within both of those treaties, so although some areas will throw up points of agreement and points of disagreement, for practical reasons it will be towards the end of the year before final conclusions can be reached when the two packages are seen as a whole.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister, following their discussions, how they both see the future relationship of NATO, Western European Union and the European Community developing and how soon each now expects to see a common defence policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a great deal to discuss about the development of defence. The defence of Europe has been based on NATO for a long period of time and both France and the United Kingdom are both members of NATO and very important members of NATO.

    The development of defence policy in the future has got to examine separate premises: the development and sustenance of NATO and also the fact that within that, it is both desirable and I think inevitable that Europe itself should make a larger contribution to the communal defence of its own territories.

    Those, I think, are points of total agreement and what we have to discuss in the discussions about NATO, about Western European Union and about the Community’s aspirations towards common defence is the best mechanism for taking this debate forward but it is an important debate and one we will have to take step by step.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The debate on common defence is not a debate between France and Great Britain but between France and those who, in the framework of the integrated NATO command, decided to take a certain number of initiatives quite recently, initiatives in which France intends to participate, so there is no specific point really between the UK and France on this; it is a more general debate within NATO at the political level and not in the military framework because France is not present in that military framework.

    But alongside this there is a debate also on the future of the WEU; in other words, we are looking for a sort of embryo for European security and the British and the French are on the same side and engaged in usually constructive discussions and it is really the link between these two manners of approaching security which is at present in question but I repeat this is not specifically a Franco-British negotiation.