The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Germany

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Financial Situation – 9 October 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the financial situation, made in an interview on 9th October 2011.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the economy was in a serious state].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s pretty serious, but I think if you can reach a conclusion to the Eurozone crisis you’ll change the level of confidence and I think that will make a material difference. But at the moment you have the Eurozone pretty flat as an economy, you have American flat, you have the Chinese economy slowing and we don’t know how much it will slow, and you have the British economy teetering between no growth and tiny growth, so plainly it’s serious. And it is a different sort of recession from before because of the debt overhang.

    So yes, I do think it’s very serious.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Bank of England Governor was right in saying the recession was worse than in the 1930s].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think he’s looking at the scale of debt, if you actually look at the United Kingdom as an example, in 1997 – to pick a date at random – we had a national debt of about 350 billion, by 2010 it was 900 billion and on unchanged policies by 2014 it would be 1.4 trillion. So you begin to see the scale of the problem, and the fact it is absolutely unavoidable that you make changes in order to bring down that level of debt, because that overhang could be with us otherwise for generations.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if everyone would have to work harder and cut back].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Certainly for a while, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. There’s no point in pretending that the situation is suddenly going to magically come good with a bit of growth. I’m afraid we need a good deal more than that. And we’re going to have to restructure a great deal of what has happened, not least in the Eurozone which is crucial to us because we are not part of the Euro because, as you rightly say, I opted out in the Maastricht Treaty, but the Eurozone is 40% of our exports and the rest of the European Union as a whole is 50% of it, so their health is crucial to our health.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Germans would transfer more money in].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s very unlikely, and the Germans have expressly been told that they won’t move towards a transfer union which is essentially what is being talked about.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Eurozone would fracture].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s extremely unlikely that the European Union will fracture with nations dropping off the edge.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if Greece would default].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s conceivable.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if Greece would default within the Eurozone].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that is exactly what will happen and should happen. But I think that it is unlikely that the Eurozone will toss out a member, it’s conceivable that it could happen, but it would certainly be against their wishes.

    I think by far the most likely proposition, firstly you have to look at the short-term problem and then the longer-term problem. In the short-term the banks needs to be recapitalised and Greece needs to default. The sooner that happens and Greece defaults, the sooner you remove something, the overhang in the markets.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked what would happen if Greece defaulted].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    What would happen is that if Greece defaulted and couldn’t pay its debts, all the Greek bonds that are held in other banking systems across Western Europe would suddenly have no value. You could, as a knock-on effect, create a banking crisis in Western Europe and French and German banks have most of the bonds. That would be absolutely catastrophic if that happened. So the Greeks mustn’t default until the Western European banks are in a position to absorb any losses that there might be without creating a banking crisis.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if banks would be given money to fund this loss].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think the way they may do it, I think there are two things that they could do, the first thing I think they could do is turn the European structural facility from a structural facility into a bank, give it a banking licence, let it leverage.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if this would mean a new European Central Bank].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, it would be quite separate from the European Central Bank, let it borrow money as banks normally can from the European Central Bank and either buy up the Greek bonds to remove the danger, the contagion from the Western banks, or use the resources to recapitalise the banks so they can bear the losses.

    That seems to me to be the first thing that has to happen, and then it would be thoroughly desirable, in my view, to get the Greek default out of the way. It’s a terrible overhang in the market, it’s partly priced-in, let’s get it done and then we can move on to the longer term.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked why he didn’t join the Euro].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were three arguments, the first was that if you had a monetary union without a fiscal union it’s like a two-legged dog.

    The second argument, at Maastricht we produced some safeguards – although I opted out at Maastricht, we produced some safeguards – one of them was that no European nation would have a fiscal deficit of more than 3%, and the second was that before the Euro was formed the economies of those nations going into the Eurozone should converge, and by that piece of jargon we meant that they should operate at broadly the same level of efficiency. That didn’t happen.

    In the late 90s the French and Germans began to worry whether the Eurozone would ever happen, so they went into the Euro without the convergence. That was the tragic mistake, it shouldn’t have happened.

    Thirdly, when the Germans and the French went beyond the 3% deficit, the Commission took no action against them and everybody else did too, so you got this burgeoning level of debt that began to spread everywhere.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Euro would change].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It will have to change, I think it will have to change.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked about the flapping of white coats].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, the flapping of white coats was on a quite separate matter – and I don’t withdraw the remark. The substance of the argument is exactly the same as I advanced at Maastricht.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked whether the Euro-sceptics had been right].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They were partially right, but only partially right, and I will come to the situation as I saw it. The need for fiscal union is something we foresaw at Maastricht, which is why we opted out at Maastricht, that was right and is right.

    What is now I think going to happen, albeit in a crab-wise fashion, I think the Eurozone members will have to move towards a fiscal union. I don’t think they will suddenly say they are going into full-scale fiscal union, it would need a treaty and all sorts of other things.

    What I think they will do is produce legislation within the European Union that makes the control of fiscal deficits, the harmonisation of tax and matters like that, much more controlled from the centre. So they will be moving towards a federal state within the Eurozone and they will be moving to it out of failure and not out of success, that is the point.

    It then gets to the position where you have an inner-core within the Eurozone that is operating much more deeply and closely together than the rest of the European Union. And if you remember in the 1990s, Douglas Hurd and I, we called it variable geometry, and we saw a much looser European Union in which people opted in instead of opting out, and it wasn’t such a tremendously prescriptive union which everybody had to be a part of.

    That is the direction over the next decade, slowly, in which I think we will be going.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if there would be a referendum on a new treaty].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There won’t necessarily have to be a treaty in this country for fiscal union. In terms of fiscal union it is conceivable that there will be a treaty just among the members of the Eurozone, so don’t overlook that possibility.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the referendum could be about a federal Europe that Britain wasn’t a member of].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that is conceivable. There are a dozen different ways in which this could unwind and frankly nobody can be certain which way it will go at the present time.

    But it is possible that there will be a fiscal union amongst the Eurozone members, they would have their own treaty. But at some stage there will be another treaty because if there’s fiscal union in Europe, it changes our relationship with Europe. That is the fundamental point.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if powers should be transferred].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it gives an opportunity for two things, firstly, it gives us an option to negotiate for the looser form of Europe that I would like to have seen in the 1990s and we got no traction when Douglas Hurd and I argued for that then. I think it presents that opportunity. And secondly, I think there are some areas that are worth looking at, and this isn’t anti-Europeanism or Euro-scepticism. There are some areas which it would be worthwhile to repatriate.

    Fishing is one. There are elements of employment law, it used to be in the Social Chapter and has now spread, you will recall that I opted out of that in 1992 because I saw it as a job destroying mechanism. Now it has changed but the things like the working time directive, which I think is a very foolish piece of legislation, we could look at repatriating part of it.

    Clearly, financial services is another area. There has been a lot of talk about the financial transactions tax, I don’t think that will happen, for a range of complex reasons, but even so, financial services are crucial to the well-being of the British nation, it is what drove our growth – over-drove it as it happened – over the last twenty years or so.

    We really don’t want a whole series of restrictive notions damaging our financial structure in this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if this was a new opportunity for Britain].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Europe changed fundamentally when the Europeans ignored the safeguards in the Maastricht Treaty and proceeded to an unsafe Eurozone, which they did in 1999 without any bark of protest from the United Kingdom. That changed it, that changed everything, because the Eurozone was no longer going to be a stable instrument, we were going to be outside it, but it could have been stable and it wasn’t. And that was a significant change and now I think there is an opportunity.

    I don’t see this as a Euro-sceptic attack on Europe, I see that with 27 nations within the European Union it has to change. It cannot be the same as with 15 nations or with 6.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked whether quantitative easing was right].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It isn’t George who has just quantatively eased as it happens, it’s the Governor of the Bank of England, and I think the Governor is right to do so.

    When you consider how much of our economy is driven by exports and you then see what is happening to our markets overseas, I think the Bank of England are right to quantatively ease. I think he is right. But more valuable might be the proposals put forward by the Chancellor himself to direct money specifically to parts of industry.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked about Liam Fox and what the Prime Minister should do].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s extremely difficult to handle these, either natural justice requires that you have to wait a long time and you’re then said to be incapable of making decisions if you operate under natural justice. Or you move too speedily and you’re said to be ruthless, so I don’t know what the situation is, the Prime Minister has asked for the facts to have a first look on Monday, and I think that is right.

    From the Prime Minister’s perspective he has to balance natural justice and the truth, rather than the gossip, the rumour and things that may be true, but I’ve no idea whether they are or not.

    QUESTION:

    [Thank you].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you, my pleasure.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th Birthday Celebration – 11 April 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments made at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th birthday celebration, held at the German History Museum in Berlin on Monday 11th April 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Helmut Kohl is one of the towering figures in German history. He served as Chancellor for 16 years; entrenched Germany at the core of Europe; ushered in reunification and fathered a new currency.

    During the time I knew Helmut, I came to know the intense human man behind the public image. It is that Helmut, the private man, sometimes the rather emotional man, the man with a gift for friendship, who brings so many people here this evening.

    My meetings with Helmut were never dull. Nor did they focus only on business. Before we turned to any agenda, we exchanged jokes, discussed friends, dissected opponents and considered events: our conversation was wholly relaxed and occasionally scurrilous. Certainly it doesn’t bear repeating this evening.

    But I can take you behind the curtain a little. There are some cameos of politics with Helmut that I shall never forget.

    EU Summit in Birmingham

    The British Government had recently closed down a large number of unprofitable coal mines. The miners, understandably, were furious.

    Thousands of them marched to the EU summit, surrounded the Hall and began chanting “Coal for ever.”

    Helmut, in the Conference Hall, heard the chant and was delighted … he was confident that Anglo-German relations had reached a new high. “There you are, John” he said, “they love the Euro.”

    Three way conversation

    Helmut and I were meeting in Bonn when we heard reports of atrocities in The Balkans War. We phoned Boris Yeltsin and got him at the end of what had obviously been a very good lunch.

    Neither in Germany, nor in Russia, did we have appropriate interpreters with us. Each contribution to the conversation passed through a second language long before it reached the recipient in German, Russian or English. It was chaos.

    Helmut and Boris were shouting – one in Germany, the other in the Black Sea – and, frankly, they could have heard one another without phones. Our Ambassadors looked on horrified. When we put the phone down – confident we had saved the day – we learned the original report was false and no conversation had been necessary. We consoled ourselves with a glass of wine. The Ambassadors needed something stronger.

    Kurds

    Much more productive was the exchange at the end of the first Gulf War. The Iraqis were murdering the Kurds. I went to the European Union Summit with plans to establish a “Save Haven” for the Kurds.

    I put the plan to the meeting. Helmut agreed “Yes, John, very good. We’ll do it.” Francois Mitterrand said “France will do her duty.” The policy was borne. As a result, tens of thousands of lives were saved.

    That is the measure of the man we honour tonight. On behalf of us all Helmut, I wish you a very happy Birthday.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ignore advice from the Opposition, who would sign away Britain’s vital interests to some European super-state? When he meets European leaders in Florence tomorrow, will he remind them of Britain’s economic success, and will he continue to fight robustly for Britain’s interests in Europe, in contrast with the Opposition, who would fight for Europe’s interests in Britain?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the principal Opposition party would jeopardise the rebate, undermine the veto and follow policies in Europe which certainly would not add to employment and would damage our position here and in Europe. I confirm that we shall not remotely follow any of those policies. We have a crowded agenda to address at the summit at Florence this weekend–on the intergovernmental conference, unemployment and economic issues–and I hope to get a resolution of the beef dispute.

    Mr. Blair: Under the European Commission proposal, when does the Prime Minister think that the ban on beef will finally be lifted? Obviously, I am asking not for a precise date, but for the approximate time when he now expects it to be lifted.

    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have an agreement on the framework. There is unanimous agreement by the Standing Veterinary Committee on the eradication plan, which is a great step forward. The agreement on the framework document remains to be achieved and I hope to reach an agreement in Florence. I am not certain that I will, but I certainly hope that it will be possible. After then, it will be for us–not the Commission–to determine the dates, as it will depend on the steps that we have to take. I would expect that, provided that we can reach agreement in Florence, we shall begin to see the lifting of the ban in the early autumn, but that will depend on negotiations still to come.

    Mr. Blair: The question is not when it will begin, but when it will end. Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm the following about the deal. First, there is no date on the deal. Secondly, there are no guarantees; indeed, any part of the ban being lifted has to be referred to a committee which is under no obligation to accept it. Thirdly, he has had to concede extra cattle to be slaughtered, although there is no scientific basis for it. Fourthly, there is no lifting of the third country ban and, fifthly, there is no deal on additional compensation, though we shall be spending billions on it for years to come. If those points are correct, is not calling it a triumph, as some Ministers have today, an utter travesty of the truth?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every aspect of what he has just said. Let me make it clear to him that, but for the action that we have taken, we would be nowhere near the deal that it may be possible to strike this weekend. In the first eight weeks after the ban was imposed, nothing whatever was offered to us by our European partners. In the four weeks since we began a process of non-co-operation, we have reached agreement on the eradication plan and reached agreement with the Commission on a framework. I hope that we shall reach agreement with our partners on a framework to enable us to begin to move towards lifting the ban.

    The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the slaughter of extra animals. No animal that would not have been slaughtered is now to be slaughtered. All those animals would have been caught by the 30-months-plus plan. Almost every one of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman has just made shows a profound misunderstanding of the whole negotiation.

    Mr. Blair: My understanding is based on the European Commission document.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that was put to him: when does he expect the ban finally to be lifted? I suspect that the reason why he will not give us an estimate is that, if he did so, the period would be in years, not months. That is why he does not want to give it. Is not the truth that he is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything? There is humiliation in the deal. There is ignominy in the deal. In fact, it is not a deal at all: it is a rout.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s position is wholly idiotic. Not only that, but now that he is talking in that fashion, he might bear in mind that his hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture supported the ban, against the interests of this country, after it was proposed. First the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports our policy and that we must negotiate an agreement. Then, when we do negotiate an agreement, he changes his position. The fact of the matter is that there would have been no chance of an agreement, but for the policy of non-co-operation that we have followed. We are now within a few hours, with luck, of getting an agreement in Florence–and that is no thanks to the policies of the Opposition, who right from the outset have done all that they can for party advantage, notwithstanding the damage to the British agricultural industry.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers the old cowboy movies that he must have watched in his youth. In that context, if one of our colleagues had gone to Germany and told a German audience that he would never be prepared to see Britain isolated in Europe, and that he would therefore be prepared to give up the veto, but then told a British audience that he would never give up the veto because Britain might have to be isolated in Europe, would my right hon. Friend be justified in saying to that person, “Paleface speak with forked tongue?”

    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany, I at least did not expect him while he was there to attack a policy that he was nominally supporting in this country. But instead, to curry favour with his hosts, he rolls over on his back with his feet in the air.

    Mr. Ashdown: I did not support the Government in the policy of confrontation. Is it not perfectly clear that the Prime Minister, having again marched his troops to the top of the hill in Brussels, is now engaged once more in uselessly marching them back down again? What is the cost of all that folly, the terrible damage to Britain’s influence abroad and to respect for this country?

    There is muddle, confusion and chaos at home, and we are now required to slaughter more animals. The Prime Minister says none, but the National Farmers Union says 66,000. Brussels is to police the scheme; there is no starting date, no timetable, no clear phasing and no binding response from our colleagues. What words will the Prime Minister now use to convince us all that this is the brilliant and decisive victory that he has predicted all along?

    The Prime Minister: Yet again the right hon. Gentleman shows his breathtaking capacity to understand nothing. He is wrong on almost every aspect, as he will discover at the end of the discussions in Florence, when we will have finally dealt with the matter. We would still be waiting for any movement towards the lifting of the ban by Christmas or later, had we followed the policy that he advocated. As it is, we are close to an agreement that will be in the interests of the British agriculture industry. He says that he is interested in the agriculture industry when he is in his constituency, but when he is in the Chamber he just wants to make silly points.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Did my right hon. Friend read the remarks that Mr. Henkel made at the conference attended by the Leader of the Opposition? He said that unemployment in Germany was continuing to increase, whereas in Britain it had fallen by 20 per cent., that the rate of taxes on retained profits in Germany was twice as high as in Britain, and that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe. Is it not the case that we are doing rather well at cricket, our footballers are playing like heroes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is nearly 80 years old? We are moving towards a position where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, so why let Labour ruin it?

    The Prime Minister: Mr. Henkel, the president of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, said more than that: he pointed out that we had received 10 times as much investment from outside Europe as Germany had, despite the fact that Germany was a larger economy. What is rather strange is that the celebrated guest at that great meeting where the president of the BDI paid those compliments to the United Kingdom would like to change all the policies that have made this country so successful.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Simpson: Will the Prime Minister comment on his deputy’s claim on “Today” that the culling of a further 65,000 cows amounts to no more than “a handful” of cattle? How does he square that with yesterday’s comment by the Minister of Agriculture that any suggestions of a further cull were completely untrue? Will he give the House and the public two simple assurances: first, that the Government will guarantee full compensation to farmers for the reconstruction of the national herd and, secondly, that a sizeable contribution from Europe will now form a core part of the framework agreement that he has negotiated?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that 67,000 additional animals are to be slaughtered, That is not remotely the case. Every one of those animals was going to be slaughtered in any event. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered. [Interruption.] One can always tell when the Opposition do not like what they are hearing. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered, so the hon. Gentleman’s question is based on total nonsense.

     

    Q3. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Butler: May I wish my right hon. Friend a most enjoyable weekend break in Florence? So as to ensure that it is enjoyable also for Conservative Members, will he make it clear from the start, and again at the end, that he will accept no weakening of the British veto and no extension of qualified majority voting?

    The Prime Minister: Weekends in Florence are always enjoyable, as I have learnt on many occasions in the past. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is a lovely place, and I am looking forward to an enjoyable weekend there. And I can ensure that my hon. Friend enjoys both this and subsequent afternoons by giving him both the assurances for which he asks.

    Mr. Garrett: Why do the Government refuse to support the International Labour Organisation’s convention on home workers when this country has 1.5 million home workers, many thousands of whom earn less than £2 an hour, and many of whom earn less than £1 an hour? These people have no protection or rights under our existing legislation. Does that not show a quite incredible callousness?

    The Prime Minister: Not remotely. A large number of people in this country are in work rather than unemployed precisely because we do not have the sort of legislation that the hon. Gentleman prefers. I happen to take the view that policies, whether the hon. Gentleman likes or dislikes them, are for this House and should not be pushed upon us by bodies such as the ILO.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his Government’s policy to impose regional government and regional assemblies on the British people, which would mean yet another tier of government, more expense, more bureaucracy and more interference and would be a nightmare for the British taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that regional assemblies would be a total irrelevance, were they to be introduced. They are proposed by the Labour party only because it knows that its plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are untenable unless it moves into this nonsense. The Labour leader is rather confused about this policy. He said on one occasion, “We are not committed to regional assemblies,” and then on another occasion he said that regions should have assemblies. On this issue, not only does he disagree with his colleagues–he disagrees with himself.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Helmut Kohl – 29 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, held in London on Monday 29th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to welcome Helmut to the United Kingdom, he is a very welcome guest and we have had, as we always do, some useful and wide-ranging talks on a number of issues most of which I will set out for you in the next few moments.

    Apart from detailed matter, of course we looked at wider strategic matters as well. We looked at the future development of the European Union; there are many areas in there where we are of a mind and some where we have differing visions but nonetheless we took the opportunity to examine those yet again this morning.

    Of immediate and contentious matters, of course we spent some time discussing the particular difficulties that there are in the beef market in the United Kingdom and of course in the beef markets right across Europe. We discussed both the problems and the prospects for the Agriculture Council meeting today that perhaps will extend into tomorrow. The Agriculture Council of course cannot make decisions on this matter, it can only make recommendations for subsequent decision. I indicated that what we are looking for out of these discussions are some positive signals of support for relaxing the ban that at present exists; certainly we are looking for specific movement on the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and related matters and I indicated to the Chancellor that I hoped that would receive some support.

    There is a great deal occurring today in Brussels both in discussions and in bilateral contacts between the United Kingdom and our European partners and I hope we will be able to achieve some movement on this matter before long.

    We also took the opportunity this morning of looking again at the sheer scale of the commercial relationship between the United Kingdom and Germany. There has also at the same time this morning been a meeting between leading businessmen in British/German trade and they joined the Chancellor and I for a pre-luncheon reception.

    Britain is now Germany’s second-largest market around the world, Germany is Britain’s largest market for visible exports and a very important source of invisible earnings. There is a great deal of interdependence between our two economies, a very large number of German firms established here in the United Kingdom and a large number of British firms established in Germany. The trade flow between our countries is very large indeed and the mutual commercial interest is very great.

    On European matters, as we look forward to the inter-governmental conference, we discussed in particular subsidiarity, that is to say ensuring that decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and not automatically at the European level; we discussed the prospects for better employment across Europe and for enlargement of the European Union and on these matters we have asked our staffs to work together very closely so that we may concert positions that are very close.

    On competitiveness and deregulation the same circumstance applies: we are both concerned to improve competitiveness, we are both concerned to improve deregulation and there will be a high-level seminar on competitiveness later on in the summer.

    We talked about the prospects for monetary union. We do have differences in enthusiasm about that and an agreement upon the importance of the economic criteria before such a step could be taken and agreement that those economic criteria would need to be sustained. The British position is I think well understood by the Chancellor and we had an opportunity to discuss it this morning.

    We both agree very strongly on the need to sustain the transatlantic partnership and have decided to establish a new trilateral United Kingdom/Germany/United States-parliamentary forum. We think the importance of keeping the parliamentary opinion of these three countries in concert is extremely important both in the short and the long term.

    We discussed foreign affairs and followed up on our brief discussions at Moscow. We talked also about Moscow and about my visit to Ukraine.

    We discussed also Bosnia where the cooperation between Britain and Germany is excellent and where we have a joint view of present developments and a joint understanding of what we hope will be achieved later in the year.

    Defence cooperation with Germany continues to be both deep and wide-ranging.

    We discussed the prospects for the North Atlantic Council foreign ministers meeting in Berlin in June where one of the key themes will be the adaptation of NATO structures to deal with the evolving and changing nature of NATO.

    We also discussed the question of NATO enlargement where British and German views are very close indeed.

    We discussed also a number of other bilateral matters and in particular the joint wish that we set in train a couple of years ago to ensure that there were greater exchanges between young Britons and young Germans, one to the other’s country, to improve greater understanding for the future.

    We had a very wide-ranging discussion indeed which was conducted in the friendly spirit that I have come to expect in discussing matters, even contentious matters, with the Chancellor and I am delighted that we were able to have such a fruitful meeting.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me, if I may, to first of all use this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister most sincerely for the very warm hospitality with which we have been received, I myself and the members of my delegation, here in Downing Street. It is one of these visits that is part of our ordinary exchange of opinions but using the word “ordinary” does not actually correspond to the reality. It is more like a visit between very good friends because the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany is an excellent one and the personal relationship between the Prime Minister, my friend John Major, and myself is excellent and because friendships between politicians and those who are responsible in politics do not automatically remove problems, I have never been under that kind of illusion. That may be true but on the other hand such a personal relationship – such a good chemistry as the Americans put it – between two people certainly helps to smooth the way a little bit, even in those cases where one may be of different opinions and it was actually purely a matter of chance but also a good occasion for me here at this Round Table because it afforded us a good opportunity to meet with representatives of the business communities of the two countries and the Prime Minister underlined once again how close, how useful, how important, particularly the economic relationship between the two countries is and in my statement to the Round Table I said that after all British Officers launched the initiative for the Hanover Trade Fair that now has become the largest industrial fair in the world and I was very pleased to learn that next year, the jubilee year of the Hanover Fair, the United Kingdom will be the partner country of the Hanover Fair and I think we have every occasion to turn this into a big bash celebrating the friendship that has evolved between our two countries and business communities over the years and this meeting between the two business communities has actually also served to underline once again that we are here on a very good course in further intensifying our economic relationship and our exchange of views. I must say that from our talks today I took away a number of hints as to where we can come to improvements.

    We talked about a number of issues that are of mutual interest. We exchanged views during this admittedly rather short meeting about a number of issues. We also mentioned obviously the governmental conference on Maastricht 2 which was, as you know, inaugurated in Turin and we talked about further developments. I must say that it is of tremendous importance to me that we should cooperate as closely as possible with our British friends in this particular stage of European integration and we talked in very concrete terms about how matters are developing and I would like to say this here most clearly because sometimes I read in the British papers the exact opposite. I would like to state quite clearly what my position is exactly.

    I am a champion – and a fervent one at that – of building this house of Europe at the turn of this particular century that has seen such great suffering, that we should make room in this European house for our partners and friends in Europe and that we should make room on a sort of permanent lease for our American friends. It is unimaginable for me that this common European house might be one house where the United Kingdom does not have a firm position and its place.

    I know that internally you have a lot of discussions going on here in the United Kingdom and certainly here would not be the place nor the time for me to barge into that but there are voices I sometimes hear in public here that there are people over there in Europe who want to push the British out of Europe. This is absolutely not the case and it does become any more true because people repeat it. I will certainly not act for a Europe where the British do not have their firm place and position but I do think that in building this European house we should bear in mind the different traditions, different historical developments, different geographical situations and also the different kind of roads that we have to travel to get to these goals and this is why I say it is so important that we should bear each other’s interests in mind, that we should not enter into an almost theological debate where we say we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the others are completely wrong in what they say but that we should come to a working together and cooperation that is characterised by common sense and I am very much persuaded that then we shall have a great opportunity to make headway, to take a big step forward. Obviously, there are areas where we have different opinions the British and German governments, and there are areas where we are very close together.

    With the European Union we may have a different opinion as regards the two of us and the other partners on subsidiarity for example. That is a word that I know many people simply do not understand the way we interpret it. I would define it in a very simple way. I would say that when building this common European house – using now Brussels as a synonym for the European Union – I think we should opt for Brussels taking only those decisions that can be taken at that level and can then benefit citizens the best and decisions that can better be taken on a national level, for example in London, Paris and then later on in Berlin, those should be taken on that particular national level and those decisions that are best taken at a regional level – in Germany for example on the level of the Laenders – should be taken on that particular level. That is an issue that obviously we need to elaborate on a little bit further and in Maastricht 2 we will also have to ask a question as regards the [indistinct] local authorities in the European Union.

    I only mention these few examples to illustrate that I do see very good chances for coming to a common kind of position and that I will tenaciously hold to the view that this is indeed a policy which is not aiming at isolating anyone but that this is a policy which serves as a policy of rapprochement of the British, of the French, the Italians and all the other partners in the European Union.

    I don’t want to go into another issue now at length but I think I should raise it at least, BSE. I think that today and tomorrow, from what we have heard, the Agriculture Council will discuss the proposals submitted by the British Government and I think that those proposals should be then discussed as quickly as possible by the Veterinary Committee of the European Union and I would wish for the Agriculture Committee not leaving matters at that tomorrow but coming to a decision as quickly as possible.

    I am very much looking forward to your questions and since you are very often writing about me, I would even more welcome you writing about me when I am actually here to answer your questions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Chancellor Kohl, you have frequently said that Europe cannot afford to travel at the pace of the slowest ship in the convoy. Have you persuaded the British ship, in your talks with Mr. Major today, to move any faster?

    Can I ask the Prime Minister whether he and Chancellor Kohl have agreed that there should be any relationship between countries which stay out of an inner-core single European currency, any exchange rate mechanism to link those who stay outside and those who form any inner core?

    Finally, could I ask Chancellor Kohl if he did eat beef for lunch today?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Just as my friend John Major, I had indeed beef for lunch and I ate it and I think that was probably the underlying purpose for this press conference – to answer your question!

    What you have said by way of your second question you quoted me correctly but then automatically transposed that to the United Kingdom. This was not my meaning, that was your opinion from the BBC. I did not automatically declare the United Kingdom to be the slowest ship in the convoy which is why I cannot give you an answer to that question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me pick up those points.

    We had an excellent luncheon.

    As far as the slowest ship in the convoy is concerned, I am delighted that the Chancellor was able to respond to that because it isn’t the only occasion where a remark like that has been wrenched out of context domestically and there has been an assumption that it was the United Kingdom that was in either the Chancellor’s mind or whosoever may have made such a remark in the European Union. That isn’t the case. Indeed, one of the things the Chancellor and I have been discussing today is the desirability – the necessity – of a more flexible approach to Europe as Europe develops further and I think it is much to be hoped that people will appreciate that those are the sort of things that are under pragmatic and detailed discussion at the present time.

    We didn’t spend a great deal of time discussing the possibility of a fresh exchange rate mechanism, our finance ministers discussed that some time ago and I think the British position on that is well known and hasn’t changed so we didn’t spend any time particularly discussing that this morning. We did discuss the range of matters that I set out and the Chancellor set out.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I should perhaps mention and add to what the Prime Minister just said on this last point.

    We shall decide in the spring of 1998 on this matter and not a minute earlier and therefore I don’t think it makes a whole lot of sense to enter into philosophical debate on what may or may not happen. In my day-to-day life as a politician, I am in many cases forced to take certain decisions but in Germany too a new form of penitence seems to have evolved. In former times, usually you had your sin first and penitence later; today, you have penitence and also the sort of penalty first and then the sin but I am actually one of the old school for that matter.

    QUESTION:

    You are never enthusiastic about this kind of building and you showed a certain reservation about enthusiasm in European development when you made your statement just now. Can you enlarge on this a bit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that there is any doubt at all about the British wish to see Europe develop. What the main debate is about is the nature, pace and style and the purpose of the development and there is a great misunderstanding I think often in this country – partly it is linguistic, partly it is simply modes of expression – as to what is often meant by what is said by our European partners. The Chancellor is here so he will want to add something to this.

    Often, when people talk about a “European house” in this country referring, to what has been said in Europe, there is an assumption that that European house is going to be centralised, that all the decisions are going to be taken at the centre and more and more is going to be sucked away from the nation state. That isn’t the sense in which it is frequently used.

    I cannot envisage a time in the future when the Germans aren’t Germans, the French aren’t French, the Italians aren’t Italians in all their instincts and the British aren’t British so I think we should actually look at what pragmatically we are discussing with the development of Europe.

    Where are the areas of development that are of importance? – The single market. Who were the proponents of the single market? The British and the Germans were the great proponents of the single market. What is another area of great development? Enlargement of the European Union in order to spread the opportunities that exist in a democratic free market further across Europe. Who were the great proponents of enlargement? The British and the Germans were the great proponents of enlargement. Who were the proponents of saying too much must not actually be centralised? You have just heard the Chancellor speak of subsidiarity; he and the British are very much at one upon those points.

    The area where there has been some difference is the question of a single currency and Germany are clear that Germany favours a single currency. I made it clear at Maastricht that we reserved our position on a single currency.

    We both want to see – if you wish to use the parlance – a European house, it is the nature of the construction that is a matter of legitimate debate and if I can make the point, it is a matter of debate. It is not a matter of artificial conflict as it is so often presented. Britain and Germany agree on many things, we disagree on some other things but I think I can say – and I think the Chancellor will confirm – that where we disagree we don’t disagree with animosity, we disagree because we both recognise that the other country has a legitimate point of view and to borrow the Chancellor’s comments of five minutes ago, different traditions and a different historical experience.

    In the discussions that I have had with the Chancellor and my European partners I have found that understanding. It doesn’t alter the fact that on some issues we have different policies but those differences aren’t the subject of unpleasant and nasty disputes. It is a question of how we develop in mutual interest and there will be differences about that and we will see those gradually solved as Europe develops.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me, if I may, just a brief remark on that particular issue. Let me be very frank with you. It is not a question that may be of any local importance from London or for Bonn, it is a Europe-wide issue. I don’t understand this discussion at all because it sometimes demonstrates an impatience that I find absolutely absurd. I remember my first EEC summit, as it was called then, in Copenhagen in 1982, at the time the word that was most widely used to characterise the European Community was Euro-sclerocis, a very bad disease that had befallen Europe. And now here had I in the December of that year been here in this room with you I would not have believed that we would have come so far as we have come and everyone told me at the time it will not work, the internal market won’t work, Maastricht 1 will never come about, and then all of a sudden the treaty was there, and then people said it will never be ratified.

    So again and again we overcame those hurdles and we did move forward and it is simply not true that we have taken too long. Just look at European history over the past 200 years and it is only then that you have a correct yardstick as to what sort of distance we have travelled.

    Let me mention one example where we do disagree, at least at this particular point in time. For example on the issue of Maastricht II as regards intensification of our cooperation in the area of internal and justice matters, now if it were the case that we will not be able to come to some sort of conclusion in Maastricht II, would it be such a terrible thing if we were to find a formula that allows us to look at this matter again in let us say 5 years time. And then in the meantime we try to come to some sort of common decisions on an intergovernmental level. And these decisions will come, no matter what we may say now, at the very latest in 5 – 6 years there will be no European government that will be able to stand for elections and win the election shirking away from combating the threat from international crime and taking a defensive stand on it. And we will see that we will not make any headway on this particular issue on a purely national level. And it will be just the force of the situation as it stands at that time that we have to come to some sort of European-wide settlement. Obviously we have incredible amounts of drugs, for example, that are being brought into the European Union. This is not the fault of our police, but we have to come to a European-wide solution for that.

    So perhaps let us first of all come to some intergovernmental agreements. But it won’t be the end of the world for me. The decisive thing is let us make a move in this particular direction. And I am a pragmatist and it is rather a strange occurrence that it should be a German all of a sudden who opts for pragmatism because we have always been accused of doing exactly the opposite.

    So I am for a step by step approach and we shall make progress in one field and perhaps not in the other field, so well then there are areas where for the moment we will not make any headway at all, but this common European house will be built perhaps with different stages of development, but it will come about.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, I was interested in that last answer when you talked about internal discussion in this country, would you accept that some of the difficulties are driven by what people see as a relentless timetable towards EMU in the treaty, though Britain has its opt-out, and your own great enthusiasm for political union and that worries people here, and could that perhaps go slower as you suggest that other things might go slower? And Prime Minister, could you ever accept a situation where individual candidates, standing in election, could say in their individual addresses no to a single currency when that will not be your position in the main manifesto at the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the second question, I suggest you wait for the election. The government’s manifesto will be quite clear, our position on a single currency is quite clear. We have said repeatedly that we don’t have the information upon which to base a proper decision at this stage. It is the most important decision that anyone is going to take for very many years, it has to be right, the economics have to be right and it is folly to take a decision in advance of knowing what the circumstances may be, for a country with the trading tradition of this country and the importance of sterling at an international trading currency. So I don’t anticipate the problem that you refer to arising, I read about it in the press, I don’t anticipate it arising and I think the position we will set out in the manifest on a single currency is well known.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I must say I don’t see this, what you mentioned. Without this kind of planning, without this kind of timetable, we would have lagged significantly behind the sort of progress that we have achieved. Let me give you one example that applies to Ireland, but that actually in more ways than one applies to the rest of the European Union as well. Ten years ago, for example, I had a number of fights with Francois Mitterrand. It would have been inconceivable at the time that as regards the matter of convergence of economic policy we would have made the sort of headway that we have made, and the citizens in Europe, after all, have drawn a great benefit from that. I don’t know, as regards the EU average, as regards inflation, but I think generally in the UK it is between 2 – 3 percent, and I was told when I was a student at the university that this is virtually no inflation, and I think you have 2.3 or something, so that means it is the kind of social policy that is geared to those who have small incomes. So why don’t we talk about the positive results that this has yielded for individual citizens?

    QUESTION:

    Do you both think that you could win a referendum about the single currency in your countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we will have a referendum in this country if and when a British Conservative Cabinet decides to enter a single currency. If that were the case then we would clearly campaign for that. The answer, if you ask me whether we would win such a referendum today, is no we would not win such a referendum today, but then there is no prospect of us joining today so the situation does not arise.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    As far as I am concerned I have never been a great friend of this kind of democracy that is plebiscite because I am familiar with German history and up until 1933 it was not purely a coincidence that the fathers and mothers, as it were, of our constitution were very familiar with the Weimar Republic and later on very familiar with the concentration camps under the National Socialists who [indistinct] champions of democracy. And if we had this instrument in our constitution I would certainly not hesitate in using it, but if I use it for this particular area of politics I would have to use it for other areas of politics as well and I have great doubts whether that would actually lead and improve internal peace in our country because there are a number of issues, on for example immigration, that in many ways move people a lot in Germany and we don’t intend at all obviously to introduce that, it would mean changing our constitution and I have no intention of doing that. But if you ask me in concrete terms that if we held that, how would we decide, and I have no doubt at all that if we had this kind of referendum the majority of people who are well informed in our country would opt for it because they know that peace and [indistinct] of the 21st century depends on matters such as these.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, you have eaten British beef today and enjoyed it. Would you now tell the world clearly here today – eat British beef, it is safe and enjoyable?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I ate British beef but I am not a marketing manager for British beef. I said what is going on in the Commission and you don’t honestly expect me to say something like this, a sort of advertising slogan.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both would it be possible for a member state of the EU to go on enjoying the market advantages while resisting any deepening or further integration of European institutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I gave you the answer some time ago when I said we were talking about the problems that develop in the Community and the advantages of flexibility. The European Union is flexible now. There are a whole range of flexible instruments within the European Union. The two most obvious ones are the position of the Danes and the British, for example, on a single currency; the position of the British on the social chapter, but they are by no means the only illustrations. So the answer is yes.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t have this kind of concern, I don’t have the impression that we have this particular kind of problem that no-one wants to get into the European Union, quite the contrary, I think we have rather the opposite problem, there are so many who want to come at the same time, so I don’t share your concern. Actually the European Union seems to be one of the places to be in the world. If you don’t believe me, go to Tokyo, go to the Wall Street Bank of New York and ask them, to Latin America, other parts of this world, why do all of these people want to do business with the European Union, why at this conference that both of us attended in Bangkok only a few weeks ago meet with such interest – because we are the place to be.

    QUESTION:

    You said before that you would urge the Agricultural Commission to speed up the decision on the beef ban. Do you also respond to the Prime Minister’s request for help and support in a partial lifting of the beef ban?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think it would be entirely fair, I mean I am standing here as the German Head of Government and I am not part of those negotiations. My colleagues therefore are meeting there in Brussels today and tomorrow, they intend to look at the British proposals, they will submit it to the Veterinary Committee in order to examine it. The only plea I have is don’t let matters stand as they are but do it as quickly as possible and then there will be a concluding session where we come to a decision. But I don’t think it would be in any way a reliable or very serious answer that I could give at this point in time. After all, the debate will take place tonight when the individual Agriculture Ministers meet on that matter.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, Douglas Hurd said at the weekend that you no longer believe in a European super state, I just wonder if you could confirm that analysis or not. And Prime Minister, on the matter that Mike Brunson raised, are you worried that some people in your own party are now using the alleged electoral threat by Sir James Goldsmith to have one last push at making you rule out a single currency in the next parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that point first. I think you must ask other people what their motives are. I have made the position clear. We will decide upon a single currency when it is necessary for us to decide upon a single currency and we are not going to do that precipitately. I know many people think it would be extremely convenient if I were to say now, no we are not going to do it. But I think in the national interest I need to see what the circumstances are, I need the British voice in the negotiations right up to the time when the decision is made. I don’t want the British voice to be excluded from those negotiations.

    Whether we in the event turn out to be part of a single currency, or whether we in the event say we will not be part of a single currency, what happens in the development of that currency is important to the national interest in this country. If our European partners proceed with it, it is not a matter that we can just ignore, it will have its implications not only for those countries but for every country right the way across Europe. And frankly, for a country of the size and influence of the United Kingdom to exclude itself from the most important economic debate that Britain has had for 50 years, and will have for 50 years, does not seem to me to be in the British national interest.

    So we will not exclude ourselves. We will make a choice when we are compelled to make a choice and then we will decide upon the basis of what we think is right for this country at that stage. So there will be no change in our position upon that point.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I am not familiar with this particular quote from Douglas Hurd’s speech. If I understood you correctly, you said that he had said I was no longer a proponent of the European super state. If this is actually what he said, I don’t quite understand how he can say something like that because I have never been a champion of a European super state, perhaps he has read it in one of your papers here but it has certainly never been an opinion of mine. For a time perhaps there have been a few misunderstandings, because we actually adopted a sentence out of Churchill’s Zurich speech, it is a very beautiful speech and a very beautiful phrase, but I think it was a bit misleading for our people. At the time I was 17 years old and he appealed to the Europeans, to the Germans, the French, but to the Europeans generally speaking that they should build these united states of Europe and perhaps that was a bit of a misleading kind of slogan. I used it for several years and the association obviously was that people thought we wanted to build the United States of America on European soil, but this is something that we never wanted and we have always said we remain Germans, we remain British, we remain Swedes, and this is different than being from Texas, from Oregon, from Minnesota or New York. This is a misleading kind of comparison even though it may be from Winston Churchill and may sound very nice.

    I actually gave a speech a few years ago at a party meeting that because it was misleading we should no longer use this particular expression. I said we are building the European Union and the European Union, and again I think this is a bit misleading perhaps and may lead to different interpretations between the British and the Germans and I did try to define what I mean by mentioning this image of a common European house. It simply cannot be a centralised state and even though the British and the Germans may be of exactly the same opinion as regards the approach, we talk about federalism and for many people here in Britain in what we understand as federalism means quite a different thing.

    What we understand when we speak about federalism is exactly what you want, but it is perceived differently here. We are saying on the level of the citizens, on the local level, on the land level in many areas of Europe, on a regional level, this is where decisions should be taken that can best be taken there, this is what we understand when we speak about federalism, it is exactly the opposite of a centralised state. I have always been a very fervent champion of federalism in Germany. I would hold that one of the most important, and then subsequently most positive decisions by the parliamentary assembly when they drew up our constitution and basic law was that they sort of tried to make room for the sort of variety that has always existed in Germany, that the Lander, that the Bavarian, the man from the north will find that he has left an imprint on the constitution and that they all are part of one whole. So I have certainly not said at any time that [indistinct] super state.

    First of all I would like to thank Douglas Hurd for actually mentioning me at all because it is after all always an advantage. I have never been a man who has been a champion of federalism. I have always been, in the German sense of the word, how we understand it, not how you British understand it, a federalist. And actually those who think alike here in the United Kingdom should be creative and come up with a different kind of expression that exactly says that – this building of a common European house. So thank you once again. I will read your leading articles and will see what you come up with.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac, held in London on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you to this press conference. This has been my seventh meeting with President Chirac in the last 6 months and on this occasion he has brought a very powerful team of his Ministers with him.

    This morning our Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, Finance Ministers, Transport Ministers, have all held separate discussions and subsequently reported to us about them. Collectively we have reached a number of wide ranging decisions.

    Let me just firstly say that this morning the President and I visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe. And we did so for two special reasons. Firstly, to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group; and secondly, to present decorations to General and General Rose who worked so successfully for so long together in Bosnia.,

    I think that that ceremony, both the inauguration of the Air Group and the joint award of Honours, illustrates the increasingly close partnership that is developing between France and the United Kingdom. It is a global partnership and that theme of global partnership has been the dominant theme throughout this summit. Let me set out precisely what I mean by that.

    Britain and France are both European countries a worldwide outlook. We are the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. We each make a huge contribution to the overall defence of Europe. We are the largest European contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. We are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and participants in the Economic Summits. And we both have obligations to parts of the world, like Africa, where we have long-standing and historic ties.

    In defence, upon which we spent a great deal of our time this morning, the President and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.

    Step by step in defence, our approaches are moving closer together. In defence procurement, Britain has a wider range of joint projects with France than with any other country. We are discussing together the most effective structures for European defence, drawing on the lessons that we have learned In Bosnia.

    The Franco-British Euro-air Group is one bilateral dimension. We have decided on another – new arrangements for the Royal Navy and the French Navy to exercise and to train together.

    We have made important progress in deepening our nuclear cooperation. Our aim is to strengthen deterrence whilst retaining the independence of our nuclear forces. This deepening of cooperation will strengthen the overall European contribution to deterrence.

    Our Armed Forces, taking all aspects together, are closer today than at any time in the last 50 years, and the President and I shall look for yet further defence cooperation.

    We discussed the full range of European questions. We have a different approach to some of those questions, but we agreed to work together on a number of aspects at the Intergovernmental Conference. Subsidiarity is an area where we have a shared interest and concern. Subsidiarity – that is keeping or returning decision-making to the national level. We discussed, and have a common interest, in a more effective common foreign and security policy based on an intergovernmental agreement. We have a common approach to justice and home affairs matters and for the role of national parliaments. And we agreed to continue discussion on these and a number of other aspects that we are likely to face at the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We spent some time discussing the removing of regulations and red tape. We both agreed that small businesses had a vital role to play in our economies as generators both of employment in the future and of growth. And we have decided therefore to launch a joint initiative to reduce burdens on business and will invite businessmen from both countries to contribute to that work.

    Both of us have long, historic and very strong interests in Africa. We are launching today a joint initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa. We shall help African countries to develop their own capabilities and shall invite Western European Union partners to join us in sending advisory teams to Africa.

    You should, I hope, find on your chairs a detailed note of further joint approaches which we will take in Africa. These include a number of matters which you may wish to raise in questions but will not detain you with now.

    Let me just highlight four others of the many subjects we discussed.

    The first of these is Bosnia. We will continue working closely together on Bosnia and will both make a large contribution to the peace negotiations and the implementation of a peace settlement.

    Second, terrorism. I deplore the recent bombings that there have been in France. I have promised President Chirac every possible assistance and we have agreed on specific steps to enhance cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in dealing both with terrorism and with organised crime.

    On United Nations reform, about which we both spoke at the UN meeting just a few days ago, we both want to see effective follow through to the work of the G8.

    And finally, on a very positive note, we are launching the Entente Cordial Scholarship Scheme. This is an imaginative scheme that will be privately funded to help young people in Britain and in France to study in each other’s language and in each other’s country.

    Those are just the sketchy headlines of what has been, I think we both believe, a particularly productive summit.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I have nothing to add to the substance of what the Prime Minister has said, I have nothing to change in what he has said.

    As to the specific details, we shall be happy, both of us, to take questions from the press and I am very happy to welcome members of the British, French and other press corps as well.

    But let me make one comment, if I may, to start with. I have been attending French/British meetings for many years now and I have followed how these meetings have progressed and I am most struck by the sea-change which has occurred in our discussions. In Franco/British relations today there is no trace whatsoever of a gracility of ill humour. I think it has become quite natural for us to talk about everything, to discuss everything frankly and openly, to discuss matters which bring us together as well as matters which can divide us. But there is no drama about it, it happens quite naturally and openly.

    And on an increasing number of subjects all the time we have increasingly convergent views on these issues which are the challenges for our countries in the future. In other words, we have a greater and greater awareness all the time of the increasing solidarity of the destiny of our two countries, and that is extremely pleasant, this friendly atmosphere, this atmosphere of friendship which goes beyond us politicians but which concerns our countries and our systems. And I am very struck and impressed by this increasing closeness between France and Britain.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, particularly on the point of terrorism, do you think the British government is doing everything it can to prevent a spill-over from the Algerian war taking place in Britain and to stop Britain being used as a haven by Islamic radicals?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I do not think, I am absolutely convinced that the British government is fully determined to do everything it can. I am convinced that there is excellent cooperation between the British and French services involved. And I have only thanks to express to the British authorities on these two scores.

    I would add that the Prime Minister wished to go beyond even that and proposed to me a strengthening of our cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and he also proposed to me that we should strengthen our cooperation in the fight against drugs, and I thoroughly agree with him on those two counts.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both what the significance to Anglo/French relations, and indeed to nuclear cooperation, you find in the British decision to back French nuclear testing over the protestations of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that point first. President Chirac had scientific advice about the necessity to test the French nuclear deterrent. I think on the back of that scientific advice it would have been extremely difficult for the head of any country not to have accepted that scientific advice and tested, as advised, his own nuclear deterrent. Upon that basis, I have offered the President my support for the action that he has taken. If one is a nuclear power there are certain obligations. Some of those obligations involve ensuring that the nuclear weapon is in proper order, that it is working as expected. And one does need in those circumstances to test, if that is the advice one is given. That is the advice the President was given, he accepted that advice. Frankly, I believe he had no choice and upon that basis I have offered him my support.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Support for which I am most grateful and which is also part and parcel of the solidarity of countries of the European Union. But I would also like to say that I was fully aware of the reaction that international public opinion would have when I took my decision. But the decision was absolutely inevitable for the safety and the reliability of French nuclear weapons. It would have been irresponsible of me not to take that decision. That is the negative answer to your question if you like. But there is a positive answer to your question too, which is that I am now in a position to confirm that France, as the United Kingdom, will sign the full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that France and the United Kingdom have both said that they will support the zero option on on-site controls, no small tests, no tests whatsoever, that France and the United Kingdom have just signed the Protocols of the Ruratonga Treaty which next spring will make it possible to declare the South Pacific a nuclear-free zone. And therefore there will be no further problem of nuclear testing.

    The United States, as you know, have agreed too to the zero option. In my recent discussions with the Russian President I understood him to say that that would be Russia’s position too. I am not answering in Russia’s place of course but I understood that would be his position. And I would not rule out China taking the same position too, and that would be a very optimistic and positive conclusion to the whole affair.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President, on behalf of France, the Americans and the British have agreed to sign the Protocols to the Ruratonga Convention. I think that is very welcome. What we can actually now see, not very far in the future, just a few months away, is an end to nuclear testing and the signature of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is now, with luck, just a matter of months away and I think that is great progress and I am delighted about that.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow, Channel 4 News):

    When you became President, one of the earliest public pronouncements you made, or one that was recognised worldwide, was the offer to send French troops to save the people of Srebrenica. The Dutch government has today published its findings over what happened in Srebrenica and sad reading they make. The Dutch Defence Minister says that the whole concept of the so-called safe areas failed dismally. Could I ask you both whether as members of the Permanent Five Security Council of the UN you accept any culpability, any blame, for what went wrong and the fact that we are now sitting in a situation in which 8,000 citizens of that area are either dead or missing?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You are referring of course to events which occurred as I became President. I believe that the United Nations forces were not able to fulfil the role that they were supposed to play. And I think it was wrong in the past to accept that confusion between a military role and a humanitarian role and the result was that events of that kind did occur. Who was responsible? Certainly not the United Nations because the United Nations was not given to proper mandate to act. I think it was a collective responsibility, I think that the British and French governments realised that when they decided together to react to what happening, to change their policies and to set up together the Rapid Reaction Force. And a lot of observers made fun of the Rapid Reaction Force when it was announced initially, but it did make it possible to give the troops the resources they needed to attain their objective, which was a peacekeeping objective and which was I think behind the positive developments that we have witnessed since.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is perhaps sometimes a little too easy to overlook the reality that it is the British and the French, and their troops on the ground, who have played the biggest single role of turning what looked like at one stage a trans-Balkan war, and at another stage like the mass genocide and slaughter of huge numbers of people, into a position where across central Bosnia there is peace and where we can now look forward to the possibility of a peace right the way across Bosnia. That would not have happened but for the action of the British and French governments who sent the largest number of troops and sent the troops not only in the largest numbers but sent them earliest. There were also those countries who participated predominantly in the conferences that were held and that determined with the Rapid Reaction Corps to respond to some of the events that were occurring. So, no-one doubts the horrors from the early genocide and subsequently what occurred in the former Yugoslavia, but I think the British and French troops played the predominant role in mitigating the slaughter and saving lives. And I do not think it an exaggerated claim to say that but for the activities of British and French soldiers and their commanders, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would otherwise have been dead. And I think in the scales of who did what and what the outcome was, that is something that should weigh heavily.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could you clarify this statement where you say you do not see situations arising where the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened – is that like the NATO declaration that if one country is invaded, could you tell us what it means?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think I need to elaborate a great deal on this. We are very strongly linked politically, economically, culturally and geographically, and I am not referring to the Channel fixed link. I am referring quite clearly to the fact that we are very close to each other. But clearly one cannot imagine a situation where in the immediate future or in the foreseeable future a conflict might occur in which France and Britain would not be on the same side, we will clearly be on the same side, and I think we must draw some conclusions from that strategically speaking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really the point is quite straightforward. Neither the President nor I can conceive of circumstances in which in any way France was threatened militarily, in which the interests of the United Kingdom would not be seen to be similarly threatened. And equally the President can conceive of no circumstances in which the United Kingdom was threatened militarily that would not equally threaten the vital interests of France. And we thought it appropriate to make that point crystal clear on this occasion to exemplify the increasingly close cooperation we have in all aspects of defence.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, 50 years ago, referring to somewhat complicated relationships with General de Gaulle, Winston Churchill said: “Of all the crosses I have to bear, the cross of Lorraine is the heaviest”. I would like to ask the successor of General de Gaulle, whether this is a heavy cross to bear on your shoulders? I am referring to the increasingly Euro-sceptical policy of Her Majesty’s Government or if that policy is a relief and a comfort for you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I must say I don’t know what Euro-scepticism is – is it a fad. And in every country of the European Union, not only the United Kingdom, there is such a phenomenon. So let us be realistic about this and if one is realistic, what does one see? What one sees is that there is considerable progress in European construction. There are areas in which France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat different approach. We discuss these differences and I say we discuss these differences quite equably and openly, it is certainly not a heavy cross to bear. And there are other areas in which our views are perfectly convergent, and the Prime Minister has told you what they are, everything which concerns the construction of a Europe which is closer to its citizens, on enlargement, on other issues. On these issues we have no conflict of views whatsoever. So let us not be ideological, we are pragmatic people. We are moving ahead at our own pace but very positively and without there being any misunderstanding between us.

    QUESTION:

    To come back to terrorism I have three somewhat distinct questions. First of all, the French government has stated that it is concerned about the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is information to the effect that the SIS might open an office in London, the BBC announced this this afternoon. And thirdly, Abad Anas [phon], one of the founder members of SIS, is supposed to be in the UK and has made a request for political asylum. Can you comment?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first question, my answer is no. There is no difference of view between us on that. On the other questions I have no comment to make. But I would refer you back to what was said earlier on which is that I consider that cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in the fight against terrorism is absolutely first class, it is efficient and I warmly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us about what concrete steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation between the French and British governments in the fight against terrorism?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    When it comes to the fight against terrorism, it is not customary to announce publicly exactly what one is going to do, and I am sure you will understand that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will just add one point to that. Although the President is entirely right in saying that we do not announce publicly what the cooperation is, let me just say two things to you. Firstly, the cooperation is already close; and secondly, the President and I agreed this morning on ways to make it closer yet. Terrorism is a scourge to all countries and we will work very closely in dealing with it, but I am afraid that we are not going to tell people precisely what we shall be doing.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who might be the next Secretary General of NATO, whether it is clear that there will be a British candidate, and if there is not then can you both tell me what you think of the candidature of Ruud Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that first. We did consider the possibility not of one, I saw one British name being floated in the press, there were in fact a number of British names that we considered. But we also looked at other names that were already in the field. Dr Lubbers is not yet a formal candidate, I should make that entirely clear. But were Dr Lubbers to be a formal candidate for the Secretary General of NATO, I think he would receive strong support from the British government.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that there again we share the same view.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    Prime Minister, do you agree that Euro-scepticism is a fad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many ways to describe Euro-realism, Euro-scepticism, Euro-philyism, Euro-phobism, there are all sorts of names. I think what is important is that one looks at the problems related to Europe with a clear and open mind and decides what is the answer most appropriate to the British interest and the European interest, and that is the way the government examines them.

    QUESTION (Tom Carver, BBC TV):

    Can both Presidents tell us what this new rapprochement that seems to exist is going to do for the much vaunted Franco-German axis that we have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to be promoted to President but I fear it is not a title I can accept. I will leave the President to answer that.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The Franco-German friendship, let me put it that way, is part and parcel of our destiny for reasons of history and geography that I don’t need to elaborate on here. But also because we are two countries at the very heart of Europe it was always clear that Europe would never get anywhere unless there was a clear understanding between France and Germany. If there is no understanding between France and Germany, there will be no Europe, full-stop. But Europe is not only France and Germany, Europe is also a number of other countries and a leading country of course is the United Kingdom with its traditions, with its history. And the United Kingdom cannot be on the sidelines. Therefore the cooperation between France and Germany, the understanding between France and Germany is absolutely essential but it is not enough, there has to be something else and that something else is the British presence. Clearly that is a reflection of British interests. And I think France is in a position to facilitate that necessary synergies between the British view of things and say the German view of things. One always tends to imagine that there are very considerable differences of view, but when one gets down to them and when one looks at them very closely one realises there is no difference which cannot be reduced. And I believe that Franco-British cooperation, which is going from strength to strength every year and is gaining in strength at each one of our meetings, is one of the important points for a vision of a sound stable Europe developing strongly into the future.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Quebec referendum and what is the position of Paris and London?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The referendum is going on this very day and you will hardly expect me, nor the British Prime Minister, to make any comment on that.

    QUESTION (Magreb Press):

    Why has it taken so long for the former dominant powers in Africa to launch the present initiative, that is conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and what prompted the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose one could always have done a good thing earlier. I think the fact that the President and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. We both in our own backgrounds have a direct interest in parts of Africa, it was a matter that naturally arose in our conversations some time ago and that we have subsequently taken forward. It clearly is important. If you look at what has happened in Africa over the last few years there are some people who will say, well it is very depressing to look at the problems in Africa. I think that is at best a half truth, and at worst a complete untruth. Because many of the changes that have taken place in Africa have been very beneficial. Many of the African governments are struggling very hard to turn away from bad economic policies to sound economic policies. Many of the African countries that were not democracies are moving towards being democracies. Of course there are some areas where things are not yet right, but a great deal of progress has been made and both the President and I would like to lend a helping hand, where we can, to that process.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And I would just add one further point to that. There was reference earlier on to Euro-sceptics, now we are talking about Afro-pessimists. But I am neither one nor the other. And as far as Africa is concerned, I think that Africa is moving ahead in the right direction. And I fear that a lot of Afro-pessimists are in fact people who are trying to withdraw from Africa and trying to shuffle off the efforts which are necessary for the development of Africa. But I am optimistic for three reasons: firstly, Africa is moving ahead in the right direction; the rule of law is gaining ground; the management of public affairs in Africa is improving every year and that is I think clear when one looks at the increasing number of agreements which are entered into with the international financial institutions; thirdly, today African nations have understood that there are two things they must do – first of all they have to take into account regional interests and they also have to be involved in conflict resolution in order to avoid conflicts as far as that is possible. And those three developments I think are liable to give greater confidence to African peoples but also to Europeans who wish to participate in the development of Africa and that is why I am an Afro-optimist.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about advances in European construction thanks to excellent Franco-British cooperation, particularly on defence matters. But when you discuss matters like the EMS, the single currency, the IGC, is that not likely to hold back European construction, is that not pragmatism too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned some of the areas in terms of what is loosely called European construction. I am always wary when people talk of European construction, it means different things to different people.

    As far as the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, I set out a series of areas where it is clear already, before the Intergovernmental Conference begins, that there is a broadly common interest between the British position and the French position. There will not be unanimity on every issue between Britain and France, or indeed I suspect between almost any two countries in the European Union, total unanimity is a very rare proposition. But there is a good deal of unanimity and we will try and build on that in the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be some things that will be unacceptable to some nations and that is a matter that will need to be determined in the conference when it begins next year.

    As far as Monetary Union is concerned, the British position on that is well known, our position has not changed. I set it out pretty clearly in the Maastricht negotiations when I obtained for the British the right to opt-out of a Single European currency if that is formed and if it is not thought to be in the British interests to join. That was the position and that remains the position.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Just one comment as far as France is concerned. Let me first of all point out, if I may, that each time a debate of this kind gets going we are told that things are going very badly. But I think it is quite beyond challenge that Europe is progressing. Some people find that Europe is not moving ahead as quickly as possible, some people say not as well as possible, but basically it is moving ahead. Soon after I became President, France was the President of the European Council and I hosted a meeting in Cannes of 15 Heads of State and Government, plus 11 Heads of State and Government of countries which may one day become members of the European Union, and I have no recollection of there ever being a venture of this kind in history. Nobody thinks today that there could be such a thing as a war in Europe, if one excludes the unfortunate affair of ex-Yugoslavia. So I think that is real progress.

    Once you have got that far, you have of course other issues to deal with – the Intergovernmental Conference, the need to adjust the European institutions to an increasing number of member countries. That is necessary. Well we shall be tackling that issue and we shall be thinking pragmatically once again about the ways in which we can succeed in that reform. And on several points France, the United Kingdom, Germany, see eye to eye, on other points there are differences. Fine. But that is what diplomats are there for and that is precisely why we agree on a certain period of time necessary to come to an agreement. But I don’t doubt that eventually we shall come to an agreement on the best institutions which are best suited to the principles of each country and I hope that Europe will be enlarged, that it will be closer to its citizens thanks to the application of the principle of subsidiarity on which both British and French and Germans fully agree.

    Then you raised the issue of the currency, a big debate on the currency. You are familiar with the position I took during the French debate on Maastricht, I came out in favour of [indistinct] today I have made it very clear that whatever efforts need to be made and of course those efforts have to be properly distributed in France, but France will meet the conditions which will enable it to become a member of the single currency on 1 January 1999 – that is the French option. And I don’t think anybody can challenge today that France has the political will to do that because it is in our interests and we believe it is in our interests because it requires us to reduce our budget deficit and it is only by reducing our budget deficits that we shall be able to rise to the challenge of unemployment, and that is my objective, to fight against unemployment. Clearly fighting against unemployment means sound management and sound exchanges. France being what it is, I believe the single currency is a positive thing for France, it is something which will enable France to fight effectively against unemployment and to maintain social cohesion, which is something also which I have stated a great deal. And I would also say that it is a great French tradition, the single currency basically is an assertion of the stability of exchange rates, that is the objective of the single currency. And France’s objective, France’s view of things, has always been in favour of the stability of exchange rates. That was one of the major hobby-horses of General de Gaulle, whom you referred to earlier on, and it remains France’s unwavering position on monetary issues.

    The British Prime Minister has just recalled his position, which we are amply familiar. The United Kingdom, which does not have the same characteristics, the same constraints as France does, does not wish to have its hands tied. It wishes to keep full freedom to take that decision if and when it feels it is in its interests to do so. And I would observe that the UK will fulfil the criteria for monetary union if it wishes to embark upon it because its economic management is sound and reasonable. So the UK will have its hands entirely free to take the decision it feels fit to take and it will take that choice when it feels appropriate to do so. I am sure we will discuss it beforehand and I am sure the British government will discuss it with its British partners. We must respect the freedom of choice of the British government in this respect.

    QUESTION:

    Could you clarify something the Prime Minister said about global partnership. Does that mean that it is easier to have common foreign policy between countries which have a worldwide presence than within the 15 countries of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not what it was intended to convey. Though a common foreign policy, agreed by unanimity and not imposed by qualified majority vote, is a very attractive proposition for Europe.

    Clearly collectively if the whole of Europe agrees to a foreign policy then we are in a stronger position than if any one or two countries themselves agreed. But the remark I made about global partnership was not particularly geared to one aspect of policy like foreign policy, but geared to the range of interests that I set out, and the President set out, that are common both to France and the United Kingdom. We are the only two European nations that are nuclear powers, that have a worldwide interest, that sit on the United Nations Security Council, that have long-standing historical interests in large parts of the world like Africa and it is upon that basis that we have a common outlook on many problems. And it was that common outlook, based on common background, common history and common interests, that led the President and I to conclude that there was ample scope for a global partnership. And as we have indicated in defence and other areas, there are large areas that illustrate in very practical terms the extent of partnership that already exists today between Britain and France and we have both reiterated our determination to sustain those areas of agreement and to build on them wherever and whenever we think it appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at German State Ceremony – 8 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech at the German State Ceremony at the Schauspielhaus in Berlin on Monday 8th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Herr Bundespraesident, Herr Bundeskanzler, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This week, in London, in Paris, in Moscow and here in Berlin, we are turning our minds back 50 years to remember those on all sides who fell in the last War and to remember the day that peace came to Europe. I said “the last War” and I said that because I believe that for our countries gathered here today it was the last time that we will ever fight one against another. [Applause]

    Many have contributed to this: Churchill and de Gaulle, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, Konrad Adenauer who rebuilt Germany and you, Herr Bundeskanzler, who have led it so long and have seen it reunited in peace and in freedom.

    Fifty years ago Europe saw the end of 30 years that had contained not one but two world wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens; all these left a Europe in ruins just as did the 30 Years War some centuries before.We are commemorating the end of this European tragedy in our great cities. We must not forget the past but here in Berlin this evening I would like to think not of the past but of the future.

    In September last year, we met here in this wonderful theatre and we did so to bid farewell to the Allied Forces that had guarded Berlin for 40 years. I would like to recall a phrase I used on that occasion: “If we are wise, Europe stands today on the threshold of a New Age of Reason. We have before us new possibilities of peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before.”

    The first age of reason, the enlightenment, brought new confidence to Europe. The wars of religion were replaced by reason and tolerance. Superstition was replaced by science. Newton gave us laws of nature, Bach laid the foundations of music, Montesquieu taught us the spirit of the law and Adam Smith explained the laws of the market.

    In those days Europe was awakening from the darkness of the mind. Today, Europe is emerging from a century of violence and ideology. Traumatised in the first half of this century by brutality and destruction, Europe has lived the second half of this century half frozen in a trance. We are, as it were, still rubbing our eyes after 1989 wondering if it can be real but thankfully it is real.

    What do I mean by a new age of reason? First, I mean an end to dogma and ideology. Fascism and communism lie behind us. The two great enemies of reason have been defeated not just by armies but by more powerful ideas, freedom and democracy and by reason itself.
    Freedom means freedom to think, to choose, to question. The European tradition is of pluralism, scepticism and debate. Today, the authoritarianism of the mind is gone, I hope and pray, for ever. We can now look forward to a Europe of open minds.

    A new age of reason will be the new age of the individual. The tyrannies that we have overcome were erected in the name of race, state or of history. With the first enlightenment came the ideas of freedom and of democracy. Today, we have escaped from the ideologies of race and the state. The individual for us these days is the measure of all things. Freedom is always freedom of the individual; responsibility is always individual responsibility. Freedom of choice, equality before the law, open minds and a just and open society, these are at the heart of our European traditions and it is this that will help us build the Europe that lies ahead of us.

    A new age of reason means a new international society.

    The Europe of today has come a long way from the Europe of the first 30 Years War but the threats and dangers of extremism or violence, military and civil, have not gone altogether. Today, we no longer need the old system of coalitions to contain national ambitions, the old system of the balance of power. We now bring our different histories and traditions together in pursuit of common goals. This is not an easy process. There have been, and there will be, setbacks but I cannot believe that we will ever again revert to the old way of doing things.

    We can be proud that out of the ruins of war we have built a system of cooperation never known before in all the long history of the world: the United Nations – struggling towards law and justice; NATO – the only lasting peace-time alliance; the European Union – that unique blend of integration and cooperation across national boundaries and the one essential rule of this system is that we settle our differences by discussion and by compromise, by reason and never again by violence. [Applause]

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the war whose end we remember was fought for the freedom of the individual against the tyranny of the state, for the freedom of the mind against the tyranny of ideology and the peace we have built in these fifty years is built on the foundation of a new international society.

    If our international society is based on reason, it is also based on friendship, friendship between our peoples who were once in dispute and war and personal friendship amongst ourselves and amongst all our citizens.

    The first Age of Reason came as the men of ideas – Hume and Voltaire – led us out of the darkness of the mind. In the last 50 years we have lived through a political enlightenment. We owe a debt to those who have led us out of political darkness. We are all their inheritors and we have a responsibility to use that inheritance wisely. Our chance today is that we may be able to make a reality of Kant’s vision of a Perpetual Peace.

    The price of that peace will be perpetual vigilance. Freedom and peace are not to be had as gifts. We will need courage and commitment to defend what we have created in these 50 years of peace but I believe that we are justified in having confidence that it can and that it will be done.

    Civilisation is a partnership between the dead, the living and those who are not yet born. We have a debt to those who died in the War and we have a debt to those who built the peace. Those debts can properly be repaid only to the next generation. For them we must build a world of open minds, of individual freedom and responsibility; and for them we must strengthen and extend the New International Society. Herr Bundespraesident, for me these will be the pillars of the New Age of Reason. [Applause]

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Festakt in Berlin – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Festakt in Berlin, on 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Herr Bundesprasident, Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This is a memorable day. Let me begin by thanking you, Chancellor Kohl, for the generosity of your tribute to the role of Allied Forces in Berlin. Let me thank you too, for this very special farewell to mark the Allies’ departure.

    It is a pleasure to be here in this wonderful setting, a pleasure which none of us could have enjoyed only five years ago. Outside, we have seen the magnificent restoration of one of the most beautiful squares in any European city. Ladies and Gentlemen, restoration is not just about buildings. We are here today in a city made whole again, in a re-united country, and in a Europe restored.

    A few years ago, it used to be fashionable to talk about European architecture. Here around us we have the sort of architecture I would like to see for Europe. The French Church in the square outside, matching the German Church across the square, stands for a tradition of hospitality, free speech and tolerance. This theatre itself is an echo of a different age – the Age of Reason, of Locke and Voltaire, of Kant and Benjamin Franklin.

    So it is fitting that we should be meeting here today. For if we are wise, Europe today stands on the threshold of a new Age of Reason. We have before us now possibilities for peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before. Today there is no West Berlin and East Berlin, no West Germany and East Germany, no West Europe, no East Europe. The points of the compass have lost their post war political connotations – and they have lost them for good.

    We owe this great opportunity to many people. First, to the men and women of the Forces themselves: our forces, American forces, French forces, and standing behind them the whole of NATO, including the Bundeswehr.

    We came to Berlin as occupying forces, we stayed as protecting forces, and we leave as friends. Earlier this afternoon we attended a moving ceremony to commemorate those who gave their lives during the Airlift. The Berlin Airlift marks the point when enemies became Allies. We honour those who lost their lives in the Airlift. Our ceremonies today, in a united and free Berlin, demonstrate to us all that they did not die in vain. They will always be remembered.

    We also honour all of those stationed here who were prepared to give their lives in the defence of freedom and for the sake of Berlin. It is to their commitment that we owe the new opportunities in Europe today.

    The second people I would honour are the statesmen. Adenauer and Churchill, Truman, Bevin, Kennedy and De Gaulle; and, of course, Ernst Reuter, Governing Mayor of this city in some of its most difficult days and years. All of these, in different ways, defended and sustained Berlin. Later came others led by a former Governing Mayor, Willi Brandt, who began again the slow process of turning former enemies into friends.

    First, the defence of freedom then the hand of friendship. And the final act, where the hand is taken and the friendship sealed, will forever recall the name of one of the great statesmen of the post-War period, Mikhail Gorbachev and, of course, your own name, Herr Bundeskanzler.

    Finally, we owe this opportunity for a new beginning in Europe to the people. It was the people of Berlin who rebuilt this city from the ruins of war. It was the people whose courage and humour sustained Berlin during the tensest moments of the Cold War. And it was the people on the streets of Berlin who brought the wall down.

    The story of freedom always begins with the people. On the streets of Berlin, on the streets of Leipzig, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw and Moscow.

    The service of our soldiers, the wisdom of our statesmen, the courage of our people. These have given us the opportunity for a new Age of Reason in Europe. That all of these historic changes have come without bloodshed gives us hope that this may be so.

    While Europe was still divided, the process of building the institutions we need to preserve peace and to spread freedom had already begun. The old world of the balance of power is gone. Instead we have the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the CSCE. Above all, we have the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. The peace, freedom and prosperity that these have brought to all our countries must now be carried eastward across the old borders of the old divided Europe.

    War between us has become unthinkable. Next year we will celebrate 50 years of peace in Europe, something never known before. I look forward to welcoming our partners, and Allies, including your country, Chancellor Kohl, to our celebrations on 7 May 1995 to mark this anniversary.

    We are here today to bid farewell to the Allied Forces in Berlin. When they arrived Berlin was in ruins. While they served here, it was divided. Now they leave it, a city restored, making ready to take its place again as the seat of Germany’s Government and Parliament. Herr Bundeskanzler, we came as adversaries, we stayed as allies, and we leave as friends.

    But our links with this city will not diminish. Through our future new Embassy in Wilhelmstrasse, our businessmen, our culture, our architects and our people, we remain committed to Berlin and Germany’s future. British people will continue to play their part in the life of this fine city.

    On behalf of the British forces in Berlin, Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your warmth and hospitality to British servicemen and women down the years. I join them in celebrating your success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Berlin Brigade Headquarters – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Berlin Brigade Headquarters, held on Thursday 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today is an historic occasion, it is not often one can say that and mean it with total sincerity, but on this occasion one certainly can, because today is the end of a chapter of British and Allied military involvement in Berlin.

    I know from some of the soldiers I have spoken to in the last few minutes that for some of them and their families it will be a matter of great sadness to leave a city that they have many fond memories of, but I believe as they do so, they can do so with great pride in what has been achieved over recent years. We can recall not just the recent years, not just the service of the men here at present, but the contribution made by British soldiers and British airmen to preserving the peace not only in Berlin but in Europe as a whole over many years.

    Berlin for many years was the front line in the Cold War and the men who defended Berlin for so many years were the front line troops in that Cold War, it was a unique task, preserving half a city isolated in the middle of hostile territory. But despite the difficulties, despite the problems, despite the depth of commitment that was needed, that position was successfully defended for 49 years.

    As this chapter closes another one inevitably opens, new links are being forged between Britain and Berlin, the new British school has been opened in the city, a centre for British studies is to open at the Humboldt University, British companies have a thriving commercial presence here in Berlin, and a British church will remain to serve a British community of around 8,000 people.

    All this is to look forward, but I know as we look forward that people will not forget the contribution made by British troops over so many years. It is perhaps almost a unique circumstance. Normally everyone is very pleased to see the back of a foreign army, but I suspect the people of Berlin will look very differently upon the years that you have served here. To them I do not believe you have been a foreign army, you have been protectors, you have been allies and I believe in their minds as well as in ours you pass as friends.

    Later on today I shall have the pleasure of attending ceremonies which will express gratitude for the role played by Britain and the other two Western allies in preserving for nearly five decades the freedom of Berlin, we shall be commemorating the Berlin Airlift at the Luftbruke monument, a permanent symbol of thanks to the British and American servicemen who broke the blockade of Berlin.

    Sixty-eight Servicemen, Servicemen and civilians, gave their lives in that remarkable and historic operation and twenty-eight of them were British. They will not be forgotten by us and I believe they will be remembered here long after we have left.

    All those who served here will I believe also be remembered, they will be remembered by the people of Berlin and I am grateful to Chancellor Kohl’s interest in keeping those memories alive in the exhibition he opened last Saturday which will form the core of the Allied Museum, a permanent record of the role played by the allies.

    In a few moments I have the pleasure of unveiling another permanent reminder, a commemorative stone at this site which for over 40 years was the seat of allied military government, and has since 1990 been the headquarters of the British battalion in Berlin. In a few moments that will be a duty I perform with great pleasure, with pleasure, with gratitude for those who served their country so well and with enormous pride in the historic role played by Britain in the defence of freedom and democracy in Europe.

    But that is a perspective perhaps from a political view point. know that many of the men here today will not only have that perspective, will not only have the personal pride and memories of what they have achieved in their time here in Berlin, I believe they will go home with personal memories, personal memories of friendships forged here, duty well done here and I hope a life enjoyed here, and it is those contacts as much as any others which bode so well for the future relations between Germany and between Britain.

    Perhaps I may say on a purely personal note how proud I am of the contribution that has been made over so many years by so many British soldiers here in Berlin.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Berlin – 8 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Schauspielhaus Theatre in Berlin on Thursday 8th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Herzog, President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, Secretary of State, Governing Mayor, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Today is a memorable day. Let me begin by thanking the German government and the German people for their generous tributes to the Allied Forces in Berlin, thank you for this very special farewell to mark the departure of the allies from this remarkable city.

    It is this evening a pleasure to be here in this wonderful setting, a pleasure that none of us could have enjoyed only 5 years ago. Outside we have seen the magnificent restoration of one of the most beautiful squares in any European city. But restoration is not just about buildings, we are here today in a city made whole again, in a united country and in a Europe restored.

    President Mitterrand talked a few moments ago about European architecture. Here around us we see the sort of architecture that I would like to see for Europe, the French church in the square outside matching the German church across the square standing for a tradition of hospitality, free speech and tolerance. This theatre itself, this theatre is an echo of a different age, the age of reason, of Locke, of Voltaire, of Kant and of Benjamin Franklin.

    So it is fitting that we should be meeting here today, for if we are wise, Europe today stands on the threshold of a new age of reason, we have before us new possibilities for peace, freedom and friendship that we have never had before. Today there is no West Berlin and East Berlin, no West Germany and East Germany, no West Europe, no East Europe, the points of the compass have lost their post-war political connotations and I hope and I pray that they have lost them for good.

    We owe this great opportunity to many people, first to the men and women of the Armed Forces themselves, British forces, American forces, French forces, and standing behind them the whole of NATO, including the Bundeswehr. We came to Berlin as occupying forces, we stayed as protecting forces but we leave as friends.

    Earlier this afternoon we attended a moving ceremony, a ceremony to commemorate those who gave their lives during the airlift. The Berlin Airlift marks the precise point when enemies became allies. We honour those who lost their lives in the airlift, as ceremonies today in a united and a free Berlin demonstrate to all that they did not die in vein and that they will always be remembered.

    We also honour all of those stationed here who were prepared to give their lives in the defence of freedom and for the sake of Berlin, it is to their commitment that we owe today the new opportunities that exist across Europe.

    The second people I would honour today are the statesmen – Adenauer and Churchill, Truman, Bevan, Kennedy and De Gaulle, and of course Ernst Reuter, Governing Mayor of this city in some of the most difficult days and years. All of these, all of them in different ways defended and sustained Berlin. There later came others, led by the Governing Mayor, Willy Brandt, who began again the slow process of turning former enemies into present friends, first the defence of freedom and then the hand of friendship, and the final act where the hand is taken and the friendship sealed will forever recall the name of one of the great statesmen of the post-war period, Mikhail Gorbachev, and of course Chancellor Kohl your own name as well.

    We owe this opportunity for a new beginning in Europe to the people, it was the people of Berlin who rebuilt this city from the ruins of war, it was the people whose courage and humour sustained Berlin during the tensest moments of the Cold War, and it was the people of the streets of Berlin who eventually brought the Wall down.

    The story of freedom always begins with the people. On the streets of Berlin, on the streets of Leipzig, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw and Moscow the story is always the same. The service of our soldiers, the wisdom of our statesmen the courage of our people, these have given us the opportunity for a new age of reason in Europe, that all of these historic changes have come about without bloodshed gives us hope that this may be so.

    While Europe was still divided the process of building the institutions we need to preserve peace and to spread freedom had already begun, the old world of the balance of power has gone, instead we have the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the CSCE, above all we have the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. The peace, freedom and prosperity that these have brought to all our countries must now be carried Eastward across the old borders of the once divided Europe.

    War between us has become unthinkable. Next year we will celebrate fifty years of peace in Europe, something none of our predecessors has ever known in the long history of our countries. I look forward to welcoming our partners and allies, including your country, Chancellor Kohl, to our celebrations on 7th May next year to mark this anniversary.

    We are here today to bid farewell to the allied forces in Berlin. When they arrived Berlin was in ruins, while they served here it was divided, now they leave it, a city restored, making ready to take its place again as the seat of Germany’s government and parliament. We came as adversaries, we stayed as allies and we leave as friends.

    But our links with this city will not diminish. Through our new future Embassy on Willem Strauf [phon], our businessmen, our culture, our architects, and above all our people, we remain committed to Berlin and to Germany’s future, British people will continue to play their part in the life of this fine city.

    President Herzog, Chancellor Kohl, Mr Governing Mayor, on behalf of the British forces in Berlin I thank you for your warmth and hospitality to British servicemen and women down the years. As they go home from today they leave a part of their hearts behind here in Berlin, and as they go home today I join them in celebrating your success.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Helmut Kohl – 27 April 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, held in London on Wednesday 27th April 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had today at Chequers, and with other Ministers elsewhere around London, a formal summit but frankly with a fairly informal side. It has certainly, judging from the reports of the plenary, both been very easy natured and very productive. Many of the meetings that have been held have produced some initiatives and I will touch on some of those in a few moments time.

    In the discussions I had with the Chancellor at Chequers we spent the bulk of our time looking at the broad picture of what will happen in the European Union and in our European continent beyond the boundaries of the European Union in the years immediately ahead.

    The key issue we were keen to exchange views on today was how to extend the security and prosperity that we have become used to in Western Europe to our neighbours further to the East, and we agreed that Germany and the United Kingdom should continue to work together on that particular objective.

    We agreed on three specific projects: first, we will jointly make a proposal to Hungary for our armed forces to hold a trilateral peace-keeping exercise in 1995 in the broad framework of the Partnership for Peace Agreement; secondly, we have agreed to coordinate our national efforts to help Ukraine remove all nuclear weapons from her soil; and thirdly, we agreed to enlarge our traditional bilateral defence seminar and enlarge it by inviting representatives of Partnership for Peace countries to take part next year at our seminar in Hamburg.

    We also discussed relations with Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries of central and eastern Europe. I do not think I need to go into those discussions in depth, our approach to them is virtually identical and our governments continue to cooperate very closely in these areas.

    We spent some time this morning looking at the problems of Bosnia. I think there is no doubt after the set-back earlier this month that UNPROFOR has taken a step forward today with the withdrawal of Serb heavy weapons from the surrounds of Gorazde. That was the result of some very difficult and some very carefully measured decisions by NATO and of skilful and courageous work yet again by the United Nations protection forces on the ground. We are both determined to help NATO and UNPROFOR defer aggression against any of the safe areas, but we agreed this morning that the real prize is a negotiated settlement. Both the United Kingdom and Germany are represented in the new contact group that has now been established and that will try to help the United Nations achieve a comprehensive ceasefire which must be linked to the settlement negotiations.

    Neither of us were in any doubt that achieving a settlement, a lasting settlement, was likely to be an immensely difficult task, but we share the view that we will have the best chance of achieving that by pooling the diplomatic effort between Europe, the United Nations, Russia and the United States in the contact group that has been established.

    We spent some time on European Union matters. The Chancellor of course takes over the Presidency of the Community in a couple of months time and he may wish to say more about that himself in a few moments. But before then we hope to see the accession treaties of the four EFTAn applicants through the European Parliament and signed. During the German Presidency we agreed we wish to work together on specific steps to build up the Union’s relations with the countries to the east.

    We also identified a fairly long list of European Union subjects where we share a common approach. Simply to list them for you illustrates the scale of the areas of agreement: competitiveness; subsidiarity; deregulation; the single market, especially telecommunications, energy, transport and budgetary discipline; a more effective foreign policy; and common action under the Justice and Home Affairs pillar on illegal immigration, asylum, terrorism, drugs and other forms of crime. We have issued a joint statement on cooperation in those areas which I think you should have by now.

    There is no doubt you are going to hear a good deal more about deregulation in Europe. The Chancellor and I wish to see a substantial reduction in the regulatory burdens on European business because we both believe it will help growth and help competitiveness.

    We have agreed today to work with the Commission and other members to ensure that deregulation is at the heart of European policy-making in order to promote real increases in competitiveness, employment and economic growth.

    At their bilateral the President of the Board of Trade and Herr Rexrodt agreed that an Anglo-German group of businessmen should be invited to scrutinise European Union regulation and to act as a stimulus for specific deregulatory measures in Europe.

    I do not wish in these brief remarks to cover all the subjects we discussed, though I should emphasise to you the importance to both countries of the South African elections today. Both Britain and Germany have worked for many years, very often very closely together, to help bring about change in South Africa, so we both wish to do all we can to assist the in-coming government after the elections are concluded in South Africa. We hope to see business investing there and both competing and collaborating to develop the enormous economic potential that we both believe exists in South Africa.

    What was clear from our discussions was that the Anglo-German relationship is in very good heart indeed. Our politicians, our professionals, our businessmen, our performers, our cultural figures, all of them know one another, I believe they both like and respect one another as well.

    But we did discuss one other matter, we do wish to bring our young people closer together if we possibly can and improve our understanding of each other’s countries. So the Chancellor and I agreed this morning that we would ask our officials to come up with specific and imaginative proposals on this and we will discuss them and take decisions on that at our next meeting later this year.

    So that is a broad summary of what has been happening, I will invite the Chancellor to add, or if he wishes, subtract from what I have just said.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    First of all, I will gladly take this opportunity here to thank you and the members of the British Cabinet on my own behalf and also on behalf of my colleagues in the Cabinet, for these very frank, very open, very fruitful talks that were characterised by a spirit of mutual friendship.

    The relationship between our two countries are of the utmost importance, particularly if we look towards the future development of the European Union. We have taken different courses during this century and this century will soon end in only a few years time and it was a century that was characterised by a lot of suffering, death and pain, and we see it as our task, looking to our children and generations to come, to build a cooperation characterised by friendship and mutual trust in all possible areas.

    And John, here in front of the public of your country, l would like to thank you personally, John, for the fact that during your time in office we have been able to discuss matters in such a frank, open and very warm atmosphere and I trust that we might be able to continue that.

    The Prime Minister has just mentioned in his introduction most of the issues that we discussed, I would just like to make a few remarks. The first remark is that another subject which we discussed was one that may not be the most dramatic one, but that is important too, we agreed that until the next Anglo-German consultations to enlarge and intensify the exchange of young people, I think that this is a very important subject indeed. You know that we should foster this to the best of our abilities and I think there should be very many possibilities for young people to meet and to get to know each other.

    On 3 September in Berlin we will, together with Vice President Al Gore, Francois Mitterrand and John Major, take leave of the allied troops that have been stationed in Berlin for so long and I would like to use this opportunity to thank the hundreds and thousands of British soldiers who served in our country and who lived together with their families in our country and the fact that we, before unification the Federal Republic of Germany, were able to maintain our freedom and peace and the fact that we have been given this gift of German unification is due to the fact that they have served and done their duty in our country. I know it is not fashionable these days to say “Thank You”, but I would like to use this opportunity to say a very warm “Thank You” to you.

    The Prime Minister mentioned a number of issues that we discussed this morning, we were totally in agreement that we should do everything in our power in order to give help for self help to the reforming countries in central and eastern Europe and I think that we have after all entered into a promise here and we have said to those people who were subjugated under the yoke of communism, should you throw off that yoke, should you introduce democracy, the rule of law and a market economy, we will help you, and we have to keep this promise now.

    We talked about the important vote that will be taken next week in the European Parliament on the accession of the EFTA countries -Norway, Sweden, Finland and Norway – and we hope that there will be a clear majority of the European Parliament for this accession.

    Another important issue was the German Presidency, Germany will take over the Presidency of the European Union in only a few weeks and we have agreed on trying to promote a number of very important issues together in very close coordination and cooperation, close cooperation also of the immediate members of our personal staff.

    Of the many issues that we discussed this morning that will play a role in the second half of this year, I would like to only mention a few. First of all a discussion of the white book on employment and economic growth. In spite of the positive developments that we see in our economic systems the problem of the loss of jobs is a concern, one of the most important concerns that we both share, the problems that many people have to find jobs. And John Major talked about the intensification of cooperation in the common foreign and security field, and there is another area where we should cooperate, namely in home matters, in domestic matters, would like to mention here particularly the fight against organised crime, against the mafia. In only few weeks time there will be a summit meeting under the Greek Presidency and we will have this on the agenda.

    Another important subject obviously is the issue of migration and the whole complex of issues related to asylum. Then another subject that we discussed already in Edinburgh but which I think has not really developed in a very positive sense, something that is at the real heart of the integration of Europe, namely the subject of deregulation, getting away from too much rhetoric, too much bureaucracy on a European level, and that is a subject that I take a personal interest in.

    In Germany we are very satisfied, although one would have to wait and see whether optimism is really in place here, but there seems to be a bit of light at least at the end of the tunnel in former Yugoslavia in view of the developments this morning. We sincerely hope that those who have political responsibility in Serbia understand the message that the civilised world has sent to them, and last but not least, that NATO has sent to them.

    A last point. Since we have waged so many battles together, the British government and the German government, over the past 10 years on South Africa on abolishing apartheid, racial discrimination, I would like to say that we both note with particular pleasure and satisfaction that the elections are now going on in South Africa and let me say that I am hopeful that they will be democratic and free elections, obviously we would all have to remember here in Europe that this is an enormous undertaking and we all hope I think for peaceful developments there in South Africa.

    In one word and in a nutshell, John, thank you for the very warm and friendly reception and we will go on and continue to work together closely.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, two questions, the first one as to the relationship between the UK and Germany. One sees that the mood seems to have improved considerably since the predecessor of Mr. Major left office.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    He has his own complex, John, you know!

    SAME MAN:

    There are certain irritations in the press however on for example the commemoration of D-Day. Do you feel that this is something normal or do you think that this is a burden on the relationship?

    The second question is on Europe where too one has mentioned a number of different accents that seem to be put on different parts of policy by the two governments. Do you think that what has been the policy enumerated in the Maastricht Treaty is no longer realistic in the light of present developments? And then the development of Europe will not go without blood, sweat and tears?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Well, John, I have known this esteemed colleague from the British press for a long time and I would have been very disappointed had he not mentioned your predecessor in office. That has been his standard subject for many years.

    The relationship is an excellent one and has been for a long time and I don’t think one should make any bones about it and as far as I can see, in every family however there are obviously disagreements and there are as far as I can see also in every newspaper editor’s room about this.

    As to the events that will commemorates what happened fifty years ago, I must say quite frankly that I really don’t understand what people are talking about. When I read these reports in the press I am really surprised because at no point in time did I ever seek to get invited to the commemorations for D-Day and had I been invited I would not have attended and this was very well known so this has never been an issue between us but what is I think quite a matter of course and understandable to everyone is that we want to learn our lesson from history and if next year for example, looking back on the end of the Second World War, we agree to meet and to remember the dead of that war and to pay our respects to the victims of that particular war it will be in the joint conviction that it is our duty – and let me say this on a very personal note; after all I was 15 years old when the war ended so I have a very personal memory of it – that we feel obliged to see to it that no generation will ever be in such a situation again in Europe that there be war between them.

    As to enlargement, I think we have a common policy concert and we will have to obviously discuss that during the Presidency.

    As to the question of union, from the German point of view there has always been a very clear list of priorities. The first and most important point has been and will always be that a future joint European currency will have to be subordinated to the laws of stability and that stability is more important than anything else.

    As to the date, I think you should wait and see a little but after all I was in Paris six years ago and had I said at the time that the Common European market will be introduced and if I had given you the date and people would have been very doubtful five years ago had I told you we would agree on the Maastricht Treaty and adopt it. People here would have said: “Well now he has finally gone round the bend! That treaty will never come!” People said it would never be ratified and now it has been ratified and is being ratified so please be a bit patient with us!

    Here in this house you can feel history in every nook and cranny and you can feel also that time is very relevant if you look back into history. What is important now is that we make the right decision and this is what we want.

    QUESTION:

    I wanted to know if the chances of the Belgian Prime Minister for the Presidency of the EC Commission are stronger after this summit than before.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read in the newspapers today, those that I read, that the Chancellor and I were supposed to be having “sharp disagreements” I think was the expression over the Presidency of the Commission, I hate to disappoint you but we haven’t managed a sharp disagreement today on any subject at all!

    As far as the Commission Presidency is concerned, the question is now only beginning to come under discussion around European capitals. It didn’t feature high on our agenda and it is not something which will be decided between Britain and Germany or indeed between any two member states; it is a collective decision for all the members of the European Union.

    The matter will almost certainly be discussed at the Corfu Council which is still two months away and the Twelve will collectively look for a well-qualified candidate who can command general support. It is not absolutely necessary that the decision is made at Corfu but clearly we will examine it there. At this stage it isn’t yet wholly clear who all the candidates might be. I have heard at least half a dozen names mentioned; it may be others will be mentioned as well so there is no sharp disagreement, no determination who the next President of the Commission will be, it is a decision for a later time in a larger group.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, let me comment if I may. I would like to say that the Federal Government has not in any way made any firm choice or is trying to push any particular candidate. The purported talks that have been reported in the papers have never taken place. Obviously we will consult about this matter with partners in the European Union, with colleagues of state and government so whoever is reporting that we have already fixed a candidate will report something that is totally wrong and if you think that I am a candidate you may rest assured that I will certainly not be a candidate for this particular post.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, your former colleague in government, Lord Young, who is now Chairman of Cable & Wireless launched a very strong attack yesterday on the European Community. He suggested Britain was wasting its time being a member of it and should actually look to the emerging markets in the Far East. He also gave a very strong warning about unemployment in Europe and the rise of fascism. Could I have your response to that please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is total agreement certainly between the Chancellor and I and amongst the other European Heads of Government as well that Europe can’t be inward-looking, that Europe does have to look to the Far East and elsewhere. It is with those markets that we have to compete. Germany and Britain don’t just have to compete against Spain and against France; we have to compete against Japan, the United States, the Pacific Basin and Latin America as well so to that extent Lord Young is right to say that the whole of the European Union must lift its sights and make sure that it collectively can compete with the rest of the world. There is nothing startling about that. The Chancellor and I would absolutely agree with that point.

    We also think that within the European Union a great deal has been gained collectively by the development of the Community into the present Union. That would be our view on the latter point but of course we must look beyond the European Union. We are not, we can’t be and we never will be a narrow inward-looking group that doesn’t raise its sights to what goes on in the rest of the world so of course we will compete beyond it. A great deal of Britain’s trade is with the European Union, we are massive trading partners of Germany, Germany are our largest trading partners in the European Union but we also have very substantial trade in the Far East, America, Africa and elsewhere and so of course do our partners so I think Lord Young on the substantive part of his thesis was preaching a gospel that would be generally accepted.

    QUESTION (Barnaby Mason, BBC World Service):

    Prime Minister and Chancellor, you are both in favour I think of opening up the European Union towards the countries of central and eastern Europe. What changes, what reforms do you think there are going to have to be in the structure of the European Union in order among other things that it should be able to pay for the financial implications of enlargement?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Before I answer the question, allow me to make just one remark on what Lord Young said. In the Federal Republic of Germany every fourth job comes from export into countries of the European Union and allow me half in jest to say that the productivity of the European Union cannot be seen if you look at the atlas of 1914, you have to look at the map of today of 1994; then you can see very clearly that the world is a very changed place and that the world has changed for the United Kingdom, changed for Germany and changed for all.

    Right now we are in the final phase of enlargement of the European Union with new members Norway, Finland, Sweden and Austria coming in and obviously after the referenda are taken in these countries and the decision has been made there needs.to be a certain phase of tranquillity, a certain breathing space when one has to discuss the consequences for institutions, for the Parliament, for the budget in the European Union because after all we must not have a situation where enlargement means that we raise the number of funds to an unlimited number; we also have to achieve budget stability.

    Secondly, under German Presidency – and I am saying this in such a general way because I don’t want to preempt anything that anyone else might want to say – we will have to discuss in public an enlargement at a later point in time. I don’t want to mention any dates here but obviously under the precondition that these countries themselves actually want it and actually create at home the necessary preconditions for that it will have to be seen in such a way that the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary would be the first candidates for that enlargement. Then we will have to talk very frankly about where we see limits to enlargement and in all the discussions that are now going on about enlargement, further enlargement will certainly not be possible. We will have to discuss the possibilities of concluding Treaties of Association in the security field and the foreign policy field and in the economic field and enlargement over and above the countries that I have mentioned and on the list of the Parliament for next week for the vote but that will only be possible in a number of years and when this will be no-one is able to say and certainly only after the present enlargement has been concluded.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those who are familiar with the British position on enlargement will have been familiar with what the Chancellor has just said. I think it indicates the degree of practical agreement between us on many of these issues. Clearly, we have to look at institutional change. It also means looking at policies. As the Chancellor said, there is no bottomless budgetary pit and we have to take account of the economic readiness of applicant countries as staging posts. We will wish to see what we can do in a variety of ways – trade liberalisation and other ways as well – to help encourage the next tranche of members to become ready for membership and to look at Association and other agreements to achieve it. That is very much a matter that we will need to address not in the far distance but in the near distance so that we can begin to prepare the path for those applicant countries we have identified and assist them to become ready to join the Union.

    QUESTION (Andrew Marr):

    Could I ask the two leaders whether they believe that the historical drive for a deeper Union is now over?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I certainly don’t think so, certainly not. We are right now at the front of a development that may have both possibilities in it. We will have to do a lot of work, we will have to increase the awareness of people in our countries about what is going on. We have to disseminate information but I must say I am very clear in my mind that if we were to be asked how do we want to shape the future of countries going back on what we have achieved would mean yesterday and then there is a common future in a European Union that is not a centralist state, not a supranational entity that takes care of everything. Quite the contrary would be a Community where we all of us maintain our identity, where we bring in our traditions, our culture, where the British stay British, the French French, the Germans German and it would be a rather boring sort of club if we were not to maintain our national peculiarities.

    In the decisive questions however as they relate to the acceptance of our people we would not be able to cope with matters. Just look at the worldwide challenge posed by the subject of environmental pollution and other matters like development policy, the gap between rich and poor countries; look at the European Union! In spite of all the difficulties that we may have it is actually a community of the rich nations. If I look at the task that we have in order to maintain peace, freedom and security on our continent no-one should believe that these terrible spectres of the past, these terrible ghosts of the past, are only at home on the Balkans; they may raise their ugly heads at any minute and there are a number of other issues where I feel we have to work strongly together. I think that we are now at a historical cross-roads where we have the possibility to ensure that one’s own country enjoys prosperity and wealth and together with our partners we go into the future and create that sort of prosperity for all of us.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Chancellor said, we illustrated earlier some areas of greater cooperation not a centralist state as the Chancellor indicated a moment or so ago but if one pitches one’s mind forward for a few years and looks at the sort of world we will be living in – Japan, a much, more powerful China, United States, Russia – there are going to be areas where in the collective European interest one will wish to have the collective European muscle and those are areas of cooperation where it is very much in the interests of each individual country in Europe to seek cooperation. The Chancellor touched on some, I would offer others! The initiatives that were developed between our Home and Interior Ministers today on crime are an illustration where it is practical for us to work together. You can call that “deepening” if you wish. The development of the foreign policy pillars is another illustration where one works as individual nations but collectively exercising muscle. They both arise – the home affairs pillar and the foreign affairs pillar – out of the Maastricht Treaty and there are developments like this where it is going to be collectively in the interests of the European states without, as the Chancellor emphasised, creating a centralist state which so many people not just in the United Kingdom are concerned about, where it is in the interests of all of us in the European Union to cooperate so I think there are many areas.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Could I ask Chancellor Kohl please: we are at the moment in the European elections campaign. Does he think that the European Parliament has sufficient powers at present and if not, how would he like to see those powers enhanced at the next intergovernmental conference in 1996?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I think that the European Parliament now has an enlarged competence after the Maastricht Treaty. One may obviously discuss whether one has actually gone a step further in adopting the Maastricht Treaty but I do think that we have gone a step further. Now the new Parliament will be elected and will have to deal with its rights and obligations. There will be a certain phase of transition which we will have to get used to it and you will see after a certain phase of consolidation that for the first time the European Parliament will actually be able to have a say and a very significant say in the appointment of the President of the Commission.

    I am for pragmatic solutions. I don’t think that one should hold any dogma. I must say that I am rather surprised that the Germans should be all of a sudden the pragmatists and that there are others in Europe who look at the subject in a way that I think is particularly German. I am for a number of many small steps but I am for making those steps. As to how they may develop also in view of the intergovernmental conference in 1996 one would have to look at that in the light of developments.

    There is one thing that I would like to mention here. If I look back fifteen years ago when we discussed the question of competency at the European Parliament, if I remember my first EC summit meeting in December 1982 in Copenhagen at what was possible then and what is now reality now, I am not pessimistic at all.