The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: François Mitterrand

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Paris – 11 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview outside the British Embassy in Paris, held on Thursday 11th January 1996.

    QUESTION (Hugh Schofield, BBC):

    Prime Minister, what are your feelings after today’s service at Notre Dame in memory of the late President Francois Mitterrand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The sheer size of the attendance, both in terms of people from around the world, and also French men and women, indicates the degree of affection there was. I think that springs from a number of things. Certainly his remarkable service, not just as President of France for 14 years, but in a huge number of positions before that. His tremendous contribution to the development of France and the development of Europe, and beyond that, a rather personal feeling of immense admiration for his courage during his illness over recent years.

    QUESTION (French TV):

    What do you think his legacy will be, particularly on the European front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He was clearly one of the architects of the increasing integration of Europe. That has been his main theme over recent years. He has pursued that persistently over many years and with much success. I think that will be a legacy that people will always recall.

    QUESTION:

    But you did not always agree?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people often under-estimate the extent to which people have a very genuine and sincere admiration for people with whom they may not always agree politically. President Mitterrand was a very big figure in European history. That is recognised today, it will be recognised in due course by history, but his contemporaries understand that as well. In a way we have never seen in previous generations, heads of state and government know each other much better than they once did. They meet much more often. Communications are much better. So quite apart from the political discussions and the political comment, as individuals, as ordinary everyday human beings, they know one another much better than their predecessors could ever have done.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have any special personal memories?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have met President Mitterrand on a huge number of occasions over the past five or six years. I think the memories I have of him, that will be more vivid, are the private meetings, the private intimacies. The extent to which although there was often a business of state to discuss, that he was perfectly agreeable to sitting down and just discussing some of the everyday gossip of politics and international affairs. Politicians are humans too. They like that in the same way that everybody else does. And he was very proficient at that, with a very wide knowledge of European history.

    QUESTION (French TV):

    He was from a different generation to you. Does his generation offer anything from which lessons can be learned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think all generations do. If politics was just a preserve of the elderly generation then it would be rather stilted. If it was just the preserve of the younger generation it would be equally stilted. Politics is an ongoing stream. At any time there are elder statesmen with generations of experience and younger politicians as well. I think there is a proper mix between the two. And certainly he gave a great deal from his experience.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference in Chartres – 18 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Chartres on Friday 18th November 1994.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will start by giving you some elements of our conclusions and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will then add to these remarks.

    This was the 17th Franco-British summit. This Chartres summit was mainly geared to a certain number of European questions which are important, some of the really important international problems, on the development of the war in Bosnia, for example, and also matters of defence. That is not a comprehensive list, there is more, but I am telling you what the main themes were.

    On the European matters, we ran through the main issues of the day, the preparation of the Essen European Council meeting, the European summit, also the orientations of the up-coming French Presidency. Of course work has started, in fact in depth thinking has been started too and representatives of the Prime Minister and myself have discussed these matters at length and therefore we are completely ready to start the next phase on 1 January next.

    And we think it is essential to inform our British partners of this and of course our British colleague added his own remarks. The preparation also of the intergovernmental conference in 1996, this is a very important date and the preparation for this has been somewhat delayed by a series of political events in the domestic area. And lastly, but I repeat this is not an exhaustive list, we also talked about the future enlargements of the Union.

    I think we agreed in considering with the Prime Minister that the urgent thing was to consolidate what we had already achieved. That does not mean that we refuse to examine the way documents should be changed, that text should be changed and practices and customers too, each time that is necessary. But it would perhaps be a mistake to try to move yet even further forward without having consolidated what we had already achieved. That being said, we remain entirely open to suggestions from our partners.

    On international affairs, as I said before, the discussion was mainly-on Bosnia. I imagine that you have questions on that, therefore I will keep my explanations for later on.

    On defence, first we have clarified a decision which I think is very important and significant for the future, on the setting up of a Franco-British Euro-air Group. The purpose of the exercise is to train, to prepare in other words, our Air Forces to work together, to get them used to this, and in particular with regard to humanitarian operations and peace-keeping and peace-making operations. For example, there was a statement made in [indistinct] by the Western European Union in which these points were mentioned. And I think this project, because we want to move forward in pragmatic terms, a Europe .of defence, this group will be established in the UK at High Wycombe. The first Commander of the group will be a French Air Force General.

    And then another subject was the prevention and settlement of conflicts in Africa. But I have noticed, and I was very happy to note, Prime Minister, if I may say so, I was delighted to see that we have to some extent emerged from the situation that we were in in 1904, it is a bit late in the day but we have made progress. So we decided anyway to pursue cooperation between the two countries and with particular regard to preventive diplomacy. The idea is to give logistic and other support to the African countries which in the framework of action carried out in particular by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), on the basis of a mandate from the United Nations, or to the extent the OAU would ask for this, we have just emerged ourselves from a meeting with our African partners and I am delighted to see the cooperation among us, among these two countries which have great experience in Africa, that such cooperation is moving forward, and I particularly appreciate the contribution of the UK in this respect.

    Next, cooperation as far as armaments are concerned, well you are already informed of this, the tripartite frigate with Italy, the UK, France, the so-called new generation, also known as the Horizon Project. That is the vocabulary, our British friends are always at the front of the pack, but these are important things. So this is very satisfactory, I think more forward, than the military for the future FLA, the future large aircraft. Here obviously transport capacity has to be developed and on a European basis. This aircraft is the object of the project and several other countries are already associated, including Germany, Italy and Spain.

    It has been agreed to set up a study group, trusted with the task of looking specifically at the possible participation of the UK in this project. But I want to emphasise in speaking to our British friends, and in their presence, the precise importance that we attach to this project.

    In the nuclear field we have reasserted the intention of both sides to strengthen cooperation between our two countries. I made a remark earlier which is not a restrictive remark, because I personally very much intend to see the development of more and more cooperation, which will be the very foundation of European security, because can you imagine European security without the support of nuclear forces, that would be illusory. Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defence policies and the more our defence policies are one single defence policy the better that would be.

    In economic and financial affairs I just mention in passing, the most striking feature was confirmation of the economic recovery under way. It appeared necessary to emphasise the implementation of the measures decided in Naples on the debt of the poorest countries, 67 percent was the figure mentioned.

    Also, because curiously there is some talk of this, the question of the ratification of the GATT agreement, a discussion of this. It is not that we have become less enthusiastic spectators of all this, but what has been achieved has been achieved and has been done. And our officials have spent enough time and trouble to get these agreements through, it would really be rather a pity to have to come back on all this, I think it is in everyone’s interest.

    So those are the few remarks I wanted to say at the outset before asking Mr Major and Mr Balladur if they would like to add a few words which would add to my brief summary of what we have done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be apparent from what the President of the Republic has said that we have had an extremely productive summit, not just in the discussions that I have been privileged to have with the President and Prime Minister, but those which my colleagues have had with their counterparts in a range of different areas.

    Can I firstly say how grateful I am to the President, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Chartres for their hospitality on this occasion, it has been a delight to be here and also extremely useful.

    Let me pick up some of the points that the President has made. What has been apparent from our discussions today is that the interests of Britain and France coincide in a very wide range of areas, we have reached specific agreements today on a number of matters. Let me add a point to some of those that the President has mentioned.

    We have agreed today on the formation of a Franco-British Euro-Air Group. This is a natural development I think from our long-standing defence cooperation. The group’s headquarters will be at High Wycombe in England. The first Commander of the Group will be a French General and thereafter command of the group will alternate between British and French officers.

    Britain and France are the only two European members of NATO with the capability significantly to project military power overseas. And the new group will allow us to coordinate our Air Forces so that we can set up more speedily combined operations in peace-keeping or in humanitarian missions.

    We have also agreed to work together in another area where we have a self-evident joint interest, and that is of course in peace-keeping in Africa. In September in the South African Parliament I announced an initiative to help African countries develop further their peace-keeping capabilities. The French government, quite separately, had put forward very similar ideas. What we have agreed today is that our approaches are compatible and that we will now take them forward together with our African partners.

    We discussed also military matters, as the President has said. Specifically on military transport aircraft, I explained to the President and to the Prime Minister that British requirements fell into two quite different parts. The first was that part of our present Hercules fleet is very near the end of its operational life. We shall need to decide very soon whether to refurbish these aircraft or to buy a number of Hercules 0130J replacements to meet our immediate needs. But secondly, and as a quite separate matter, we shall need to consider our longer term requirement for similar aircraft and we are interested in exploring whether participation in the future large aircraft project would be a possible way of meeting this longer term requirement. And so to help in this I have today agreed with our French hosts that a group of senior experts from both our governments should be tasked to study possible British participation in the future large aircraft, it is without commitment but I think it is entirely right that we should examine it carefully to see the extent to which our military and our economic needs might coincide, and the extent to which, provided they do and a satisfactory agreement can be reached, that we may proceed together in this particular project.

    In the fairly wide ranging discussions we had on Europe I underlined one very high priority for Britain and was delighted to find that this was fully shared by the French government. I refer to the absolute necessity to crack down on fraud, waste and mis-management in the European Union that has been set out so clearly in the Court of Auditors Report over recent-days. Fraud in the European Union is not a fresh problem, it is not a concern that has just suddenly arisen for us, we had examined it before, we have looked at it before. The Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors new powers to uncover fraud and we intend to back the Commission fully, and the Court of Auditors fully, in using those powers. There is no doubt, following the Court of Auditors report, that there is a job to be done. First, we would like to see the Commission step up its flying inspection squads to detect fraud and fraudsters. That is an area where there should be no qualms whatsoever in any quarter about backing the Commission in the work that it has to do. And secondly, as I set out in my speech in Leiden some months ago, the European Parliament as a whole needs to act on fraud and I propose to pursue this with the President of the European Parliament. And third, we will insist at Essen that the Council acts on the Court’s special reports on particular areas of the budget and we wish to see member states cooperating in taking tougher action against criminal fraud, and I believe that is very much in the interests of taxpayers right across the European Union and particularly of course in Germany, France and Britain, the three largest net contributors to the European Union budget. And fourthly on this issue, we are in fact already in touch with the German Presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add yet further momentum to the war against fraud, and I was delighted to discover today that our French colleagues not only agree with us on the need to take action like this, but also will regard this as a matter of importance to them in the French Presidency that begins on 1 January next year.

    We discussed, as the President said, a wide range of other domestic and international matters, the President mentioned Bosnia, there were many others he could have mentioned as well. I think rather than deal with all those at this stage, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few moments time. So I will end my comments at this point.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I asked Mr Balladur, the French Prime Minister, whether he would have anything to add, he said not for the time being. We will therefore proceed to the traditional exchange of questions and answers. But I would like to say, not simply for reasons of courtesy, how grateful I am to the British delegation and to Mr Major, the British Prime Minister, for the way they have approached and undertaken the Franco-British talks. I have found that the climate that has prevailed today has been of the best that I have seen in the past few years and I wish to thank them for that. I wish also to thank Chartres, Mr George Le Moin [phon] its Mayor, for the welcome they have extended to us which has placed the summit in a context which, despite meteorological difficulties, has been particularly pleasant, and maybe accept our expression of gratitude.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with reference to Bosnia, following the American withdrawal of the embargo monitoring unit, it would appear that the Americans are considering therefore the possibility of lifting the embargo on weapons to Bosnia. Do you subscribe to this or are you thinking about whether French troops should continue to be part of UNPROFOR?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You may be right, you may be going a bit faster than events but if it is true that the Americans have announced that they wanted to change their line on Bosnia, in other words they are moving towards lifting the embargo and in that direction, it is by no means certain that they will actually go as far as providing weapons. According to some information we see in the press that would appear to be the case but that being said it is by no means certain, it may not happen at all.

    It is very difficult to talk with you about information which we actually don’t have and at present there is a curious ambiguity between the reality of what the American forces are doing there as American forces and the same American forces as members of NATO and therefore at the disposal of the UN. This sort of dual use of troops, will this last or not? I don’t know.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    As the President said, part of the question is based on information we don’t at the moment have. It is certainly the case that we do not favour lifting the arms embargo, that is undoubtedly the case, we think lift is a last resort: We are determined to ensure that it does not come to the situation where the embargo is lifted.

    We are in Bosnia as indeed France and other colleagues are in Bosnia to do a particular job; we are there to escort humanitarian aid and UK troops will stay there while they can do a useful job without unacceptable risk.

    What concerns us about lifting the embargo is that the logic of lift is that there will be more war; the consequence of that is that there will be more suffering. It is our judgement that a settlement will only come from negotiation. What concerns us is that lifting the embargo would unravel the approach that we have followed so we hope that it will not come to that.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I can but confirm what has just been said. I didn’t go into an explanation myself but we already had occasion to talk about this; with the French press, France is very much against – and the Foreign Minister has been explicit on this – the lifting of the embargo and it is difficult to announce conclusions and decisions that we don’t yet know about but it is certain that the problem of the presence of French forces – and we want them to stay with the international forces – will arise inevitably if there is a lifting of the embargo and maybe we will have to talk about this at a later stage.

    QUESTION:

    A question to you, President, and the British Prime Minister as well:

    Ultimately, given the information you have today, have you not reached the conclusion that you will not be able to withstand the American decision for much longer and will you take on the responsibility of keeping troops there, be they French or British, in situ especially if they are likely to come under fire from both sides?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think I had already answered that question before you asked it. Will we be able to hang on for long? I don’t know. Our position is that we are certainly not going to leave our soldiers there caught between the two fires which you were mentioning.

    There is a question of principle; will that situation arise? We don’t know. Secondly, if it does arise, obviously the logistic and technical implications are quite considerable but now we are talking about the political aspect of the military options. It is clear that it doesn’t seem to us to be compatible to be on the one hand encouraging the people who are making war to make more intense war and then at the same time to leave our Loops in between them as sort of buffers which would be a purely fictitious situation. This in fact simply adds to what John Major said really on our behalf in a way and it is a difficult embroglio and obviously the answer is negotiation and we haven’t finished our negotiation yet.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing, Channel 4 News)

    Could I ask you both what pressure you now plan to put on both the American Administration and the new American Congress to ensure your worst fears do not come to pass, that you are forced into this position of deciding whether to keep your troops in Bosnia or not?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    This isn’t a new problem or a new position. The position the British Government have taken over the lifting of the arms embargo is not a novel one, it has been known in Washington and known to Congress for a long time. That is the position and we will continue to sustain that position for the reasons I set out a few moments ago.

    We sent troops to Bosnia to do a particular job. It is very easy to look at the difficulties that still exist in Bosnia and forget what those difficulties might well have been if British troops, French troops and other troops had not been in Bosnia over the past two-and-a-half to three years. It is difficult to estimate what might have happened to the fighting, difficult to estimate how it might have spread, difficult to estimate how many people alive today might not have been alive but for the activities of the UN protection forces as a whole so clearly we sent them to do a particular job. I wish to see them complete that job.

    Self-evidently, we must look at the safety of the troops and their capacity to do their job in future. The right way for us to address that is for us to continue to argue what we believe is the rational case for proceeding with negotiations to try and find a settlement and for not lifting either collectively or unilaterally the arms embargo and we will continue to argue that case.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We are awaiting confirmation. There is no divergence of interpretation between the British and the French but there is a certain amount of information that we haven’t really got yet that we need in greater depth. It is clear that it is easier for the Americans to withdraw their troops from Bosnia than us because they haven’t got any there anyway!

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, given the uncertainties surrounding America’s future role in NATO and given the announcement today of the Anglo-French initiative, do you believe the time has come for urgent action in developing a European defence identity as something that should happen perhaps before the 1996 IGC, what form do you think it might take and do you have fewer reservations about a European defence dimension that you have about a European social dimension?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me pick up that point in some detail – uncertainties about the American position in NATO. I don’t believe there are any uncertainties about the American position in NATO. NATO remains the bedrock of our defence in the West and I think it is going to remain the bedrock of our defence in the West. Only within the last year or so President Clinton has re-confirmed his determination to leave 100,000 American troops on the mainland of Europe for the defence of Europe so I think nobody in looking at other areas of collaboration should doubt the primacy of the NATO Alliance, the permanence of the NATO Alliance or the importance of the NATO Alliance; it is absolutely fundamental to our future defence in the West and I do not believe anything can shake that.

    What does not follow from that is that there is not separately and in alliance with NATO – of which Britain, France and other western European countries are members – a capacity for further collaboration between western European NATO allies and that is what we have been doing in Bosnia of course, Britain and France in particular. It is what we anticipate we may well be called upon to do in the future in areas of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid; it is what underlies the decision today to establish the joint structure that we proposed.

    But defence is not a zero sum game. Because Britain and France are able to make greater cooperation wholly desirable – improved cooperation in my judgement – that does not in any sense detract from either our individual commitment to NATO or our joint commitment to NATO. It isn’t zero sum – it is a better use of our collective capability to defend ourselves within NATO and in some aspects as NATO partners bilaterally.

    QUESTION (Paul Taylor, Reuters):

    Mr, President and Mr. Prime Minister, how close are you would you say on the future of European institutions as they will come to be discussed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference and do you believe that 1996 should be a new re-founding act for Europe or a rather more modest incremental development of what was agreed at Maastricht?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think that there would not be much point in repeating what has been said in Maastricht; the important thing is to do what we are supposed to do. If you look at the progress made in reality concerning the decisions at Maastricht I don’t think that we need an order of priority there but I think it is more important to implement what has been decided than to think up yet new ideas. Of course, any interesting suggestion will be looked at with interest by France but I think the priority is to first of all implement what we have already decided.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I entirely agree with that – the President made that point earlier in his remarks – that one needs to consolidate and deal with what was decided at Maastricht. I know there are some people who believe that there is – if I may borrow a Chinese phrase – likely to be a great leap forward in 1996. I don’t believe there is going to be a great leap forward in 1996 and I don’t know of any European head of government who does.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mind you, it would be quite a leap forward to put into practice what one has decided to do! [Laughter]

    QUESTION:

    President and Prime Minister, I would like to come back for a moment to Bosnia. Do you not think that your public opinion will be surprised that President Clinton should have taken such a decision without informing you in some way or another insofar as you are often in touch with him, he is a privileged ally of yours, and the US is part of the Contact Group or do you explain this decision only in terms of American domestic policy?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You know as much as I do about that, probably more on the problems of internal political affairs in the United States. It is clear that Mr. Clinton is faced with a new situation; he has a Congress that has been very clear about its intentions on Bosnia so I think the two issues can’t be separated from each other. It is difficult to say that because for months, even years, this debate has been going on and I think no-one was presumably taken by surprise in learning of the decisions taken in Washington but it is true that things have taken on a sort of new course and it seems to us to be a rather sort of brutal, sudden change of course, it is perhaps even a dangerous turning. It hasn’t been decided collectively, that is true, but that is the way things are and I am trying to be as clear in my answers as you were in your question.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think much of the question spreads beyond “Sharpguard” and perhaps looks at other things that haven’t been decided so to that extent the question is based upon a premise that at the moment is not reality and in my experience the relationship and the consultation between the United States and her western European partners has been very good, is very good and I have no doubt is going to remain very good in future and I think, frankly, people have made rather too much of the particular issue of “Sharpguard”

    The work that “Sharpguard” was doing continues, other Western European Union navies are participating, there are eleven countries currently involved. The decision made by the United States has been overdramatised I think in some areas. It won’t significantly the operation and there were only two United States ships involved. I think to draw, as perhaps the questioner had in mind, rather wider conclusions from that is to draw conclusions that are not justified by the reality of what has happened.

    QUESTION (Richard Dowden, The Independent):

    Are the announcements made today about defence cooperation simple bilateral cooperation in interesting important areas but of no more significance than that or could they be the foundations and building blocks of a future possible European defence force?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    If I may pick up the point that underlies that question, Richard, it would be a suggestion that suddenly, uniquely and extraordinarily, Britain and France had decided to cooperate on some defence matters. I have to say to everyone present that that isn’t the case. The cooperation on defence matters between Britain and France is very substantial and has been very substantial for a very long time. We perhaps have more joint ventures and collaboration with France on defence matters than anyone else; that has been the case for a very long period. These are important developments but to draw the conclusion that these are developments of a wholly different nature from what we have seen before is I think going too far.

    We are looking as far as the future large aircraft is concerned at the possibility, all other things being equal, of a venture in which we will collaborate; we have done that before, there are other ventures going on at the moment that the President mentioned and that is very good. Certainly the establishment of the air group is a new but entirely rational development building on the cooperation that we have had before so rather than regarding it as some startling innovation I regard it as a further example of a growing level of defence cooperation that we have been privileged to enjoy with France for a long time and. I hope it will continue to grow.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    And in that respect I pointed that many of these projects have already been agreed to by a number of European countries so this isn’t always a specifically Franco-British approach in all fields. That being said, there is something specifically Franco-British in expressing the hope that it will serve European defence.

    QUESTION:

    A question, Mr. President, that may be of interest to your prime ministerial guest but to do with domestic policy. It has been suggested that a new referendum be held before we move on to economic and monetary union in 1997. I would like to hear your views on the matter.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Do you only mean mine?

    SAME LADY:

    And the views of the British Prime Minister which might be interesting as well but not the French Prime Minister. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    It would be an impertinence to comment on French internal politics – not now nor in the future – but it was a very good try.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think as far as referendums go, one mustn’t overdo these things. On that in particular, the decision has been taken by the French people themselves so I don’t really think that the matter is open for discussion quite honestly and as this concerns the very distant future anyway and I will certainly refrain from getting too much involved in that particular debate.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

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

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

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

    M. BALLADUR:

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

    QUESTION (La Tribune):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    M. BALLADUR:

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

    QUESTION (….Liberation):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It seems to work very well.

    QUESTION (David Langton, Bureau of National Affairs):

    Of course, no illegitimate questions from me at all!

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

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Tony Bevins, The Independent):

    Have you apologised to the bastards, Mr. Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell, Journal of Commerce):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC TV News):

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

    QUESTION:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

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

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

    QUESTION (France Two):

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

    M. BALLADUR:

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

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

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

  • Mr Major’s 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 Comments on the European Community – 12 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Community, made in an interview in Paris on Thursday 12th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was possible to widen and deepen the Community].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is possible to combine the two, but we have to ensure in the areas of deepening that in deepening we don’t erect the barriers that prevent subsequent widening; that is really the point.

    We are facing changes at the moment of an absolutely historic nature. There are chances here for creating a new circumstance across the whole of Europe, the whole of geographic Europe, on a scale nobody would have dreamed about even a few months ago. That is a chance that Western Europe and the Community must not let slip so whilst we look at the developments within the Community for deepening, we must do so and have it against the background of the possibility of widening the European Community very substantially in the years ahead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the process should be slowed down].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is just a question of slowing it down. There are many matters to be discussed and to be determined on economic and monetary union; we are getting deep into the detail now. The important matter is that as we determine that detail, we do so against a background of what will be possible in the years ahead for the Eastern European nations. We need to make sure that we leave open the possibility for them to meet their ambitions of joining the Community and that what we do does not erect a barrier over which they would never be able to jump.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a larger Community would fail to agree on issues].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a Community that is coming. I don’t know of very many European leaders within the Community who don’t actually expect that Community to widen. Even here in Paris yesterday, for example, President Mitterrand signed an agreement with the Hungarians and the Poles that presumed in due course their eventual membership of the European Community.

    We have a much wider issue in mind in terms of the general relations within the Community than some of the narrow-minded visions that have sometimes been enacted in the past. It is an opportunity we dare not miss.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if President Mitterrand thought this would take a long time].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one is suggesting that it is imminent. The Eastern European countries are going to have to prepare their economies so they can be satisfactory members of the Community. What we have to do to them is say: “It is worthwhile preparing your economies. When that has been done and when you are ready, we will say to you: “You are welcome in the Community!”, not “The barriers are up and we don’t want you”. They will be welcome and we must make that clear to them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there were still big differences of opinion between President Mitterrand and himself].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think you misjudge this question of a deep gulf. We are in the midst of negotiations. When one is in negotiations, there are differing opinions about which Europe has to reach a conclusion between here and Maastricht. It isn’t just a question of differences that may exist on negotiating positions between the British and the French. There are very many differences amongst all the nations in the Twelve at the present time; that is what the negotiations are about; if they didn’t exist, we would have no need for the negotiations, but we have the negotiations in hand and there is a general expectation that we will reach a satisfactory conclusion by Maastricht. That is what I wish to see and I think it is what every other member of the Community would wish to see as well.

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Advisers

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how many members of the Cabinet have a special adviser.

    The Prime Minister : Seventeen.

     

    Medicinal Products

    Dr. Hampson : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are made to provide the Department of Trade and Industry with briefing from the Department of Health on the issue of supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.

    The Prime Minister : There is close co-operation and regular contact between the two Departments, to ensure that health care, industrial and intellectual property issues are reflected in the Government’s approach to the Commission’s proposal.

     

    Farmed Salmon

    Sir Russell Johnston : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministry is responsible for negotiating with the European Commission concerning the dumping of farmed salmon.

    The Prime Minister : The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department are together representing the current concerns of the United Kingdom’s fish farming industry with Norwegian imports to the European Commission. In the event of a formal anti-dumping complaint being made by the industry, the Department of Trade and Industry working in close co-operation with other relevant Departments would represent the United Kingdom interest in Brussels in view of its overall responsibility for anti-dumping matters.

     

    Strategic Arms Reduction

    Mr. Andrew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the inclusion of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent in strategic arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union.

    The Prime Minister : The current strategic arms reduction talks are bilateral between the United States and the Soviet Union; British nuclear forces will not therefore be included in the agreement. If United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were further reduced substantially, and if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances. But the introduction of Trident in the mid-1990s will provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the next century and the reductions in prospect would not reduce our strategic needs.

     

    Indonesian Research Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Indonesian Research Minister on 19 June.

    The Prime Minister : I met Dr. Habibie, the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology, on 19 June. We discussed a number of issues including commercial co-operation, particularly in the aerospace sector, and the arrangements for Indonesians to study in Britain.

     

    European Council

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he expects to put to the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg.

    The Prime Minister : I shall make clear the United Kingdom objective of creating an open, liberal and efficient Community. We want to improve foreign policy co-ordination, but the basis of our security in Europe must continue to be the Atlantic alliance. In order to allow European co- operation to prosper, we need a flexible treaty structure distinguishing between Community and intergovernmental activity. We also want the European Council to give fresh impetus to the single market programme. We shall discuss a range of international issues, including the crisis in Yugoslavia.

     

    President Mitterrand

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during his meeting with President Mitterrand on 24 June.

    The Prime Minister : The talks at the annual Anglo-French summit in Dunkirk on 24 June concentrated on the two intergovernmental conferences and the forthcoming Luxembourg European Council; European security and defence questions; and the situation in Iraq. The talks were fruitful and timely. President Mitterrand and I agreed to meet again on 29 July in Calais on the fourth anniversary of the ratification of the channel tunnel treaty.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27 June.

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

  • 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.