The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Helmut Kohl

  • 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.

  • 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 Chancellor Kohl in Bonn – 26 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference in Bonn with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, and the German and British Foreign Ministers, on Friday 26th May 1995.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Prime Minister, Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I would like to apologise for the fact of keeping you waiting. You know that I am not in the habit to do so normally but we had our normal and regular consultations here today and it was all of a sudden today that the events in former Yugoslavia took a fairly dramatic turn, so at this point I would only like to make very briefly a few introductory comments on what loomed on the agenda of our bilateral consultations and then the Foreign Ministers will give a report on what happened today.

    The delay took place because the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, whom we both wanted to call, and we did so, was not in Moscow but in Minsk and it took a little while to establish a telephone link with Minsk and unfortunately we had to keep you waiting. I would like to ask for your understanding.

    On the 25th Anglo-German consultations, they take place at a very important time in international politics. I would like to use the opportunity here, John, to thank you most warmly for the friendship that you have shown us and the support that you have shown us throughout these times that are so important in the history of our nation and where such painful memories come back into one’s memories. I would like to thank you for what you did on 8 May and I would like to thank you for the very good speech that you gave in Berlin, a speech that was characterised by friendship. On the issues that we discussed, well first of all we agreed on a private visit of John Major and his wife for the autumn of this year and I will be very happy to receive him as my personal guest at my home.

    We talked about the G7, about the preparations leading up to the G7 meeting in Halifax, to the EU meeting in Cannes, about all of the issues that we are going to discuss there, and we were at one in our desire before these important conferences, that is both for Halifax and for Cannes, to come to the closest possible consultation and cooperation between our two governments. And there are a number of priorities that we set for ourselves. First of all drawing the central and Eastern European countries closer to the European Union, legal harmonisation, looking here at the White Book of the Commission to that effect. Both governments have always been at one that drawing the young fledgling democracies of central and Eastern Europe closer to the European Union is one of the pre-conditions for being able to maintain peace in Europe.

    We talked about contacts and the relationship to the countries of the Mediterranean area; we talked about internal and legal policy about Europol and other related subjects; and obviously, and here too we closely cooperate, we talked about unemployment and the employment situation in general, and that incidentally was also a very important issue that loomed large on the agenda of President Chirac and myself last week.

    We also would wish that the Commission will submit the report in such a way to the Cannes meeting that we may be able to discuss the principle of subsidiarity. On the request of both of our governments, a German and a British group of entrepreneurs has brought in a number of proposals on deregulation and the Prime Minister and myself will, in a joint letter to the President of the Commission, submit this proposal for further examination,

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Helmut, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to what the Chancellor has had to say. We have had a very friendly, very wide-ranging, very candid, very practical and very constructive meeting, and as always it has been immensely enjoyable.

    As the Chancellor said, we spent some time discussing the prospects of a G7 meeting in Halifax, we have had a very close look at some of the ideas that are around for reform of the international financial institutions and the United Nations. We looked particularly at the agenda for the Cannes European Council on deregulation, as the Chancellor said. We have been working together. There has been an Anglo-German business group working together, they have reached some conclusions and we have jointly written to all our fellow Heads of Government in the European Union, and the President of the Commission, sending them a copy of that report with our full support.

    We also discussed transatlantic relations, trade relations and other relations. We are certainly keen on building those up, keen on looking at the prospects for building on the GATT agreement and the advent of the World Trade Organisation, and this is something else that we will continue to return to time and time again in the future. I will not run through all the details of the points the Chancellor mentioned. He set out I think accurately for both of us much of the substance of our discussion.

    The Foreign Ministers have spent this morning talking about Bosnia and the Chancellor and I have spent some time on that as well. Let me just say a word or two about that and what has been happening in the last couple of hours. Clearly the situation is very serious there and there is no doubt that we need to look very carefully at what is happening there at the moment and what will need to happen in the immediate future. I had the opportunity about an hour ago of speaking on the telephone to General Rupert Smith in Sarajevo and he reported on the present situation there, I think, as you know, a substantial number of people have been killed and wounded in the attacks, the precise numbers, some have been reported, but the precise numbers in truth are not yet known and may not be known for a little while yet.

    What is perfectly clear is that what has happened over the last couple of days is immensely serious. The remedy for this overwhelmingly lies with the Serbs. They need to observe the ultimatum that has been set and they need to return their weapons to the collection point.

    A second point I think that needs making very forcibly. Whilst it is necessary for the Serbs to do that, it is also necessary to ask the Bosnian government to restrain themselves and not to add to any of the difficulties that at present are being faced by the United Nations protection forces.

    And the third point I would make I believe is equally very important. I hope there are no more attacks against United Nations personnel, either direct attacks against them or attacks with the intention of taking hostages, at all. I believe that would not be a way for them to proceed. Putting pressure on the nations who have troops there in the protection forces is not the right way for us to proceed at the moment and I hope that is fully understood by the Bosnian Serbs.

    Clearly we have some difficult decisions to face in the near future. The Chancellor and I have sent a message to President Yeltsin asking him to use his influence with the Bosnian Serbs, and after sending the message we managed to find him on the telephone at Minsk, and also had the opportunity of speaking to him and delivering precisely the same message, and I am very hopeful on the basis of that that he will use his influence to try and calm matters down in and around Sarajevo.

    I think for the moment I will leave events at that, return it to the Chancellor. He may want the Foreign Ministers to say a word about their morning discussions and then perhaps we could take any questions you may have.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me to add, if I may, that we also established contact with the French Prime Minister. He is familiar with our message and the text of our message that we sent to Boris Yeltsin, but he is on the road somewhere in France and he is just now coming back to Paris. Klaus Kinkel will immediately try after this press conference to establish contact with him and inform him and I would like to remind all of us of the fact that yesterday night I had a long telephone conversation with President Clinton although all those things had not yet reached that dramatic peak that they have today.

    1. KINKEL:

    As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said, the crucial issue of the talks between the Chancellor and Prime Minister Major and between my British colleague, Douglas Hurd, and myself was certainly the situation in Bosnia, a situation that has reached a new, dramatic peak particularly in the areas in and around Sarajevo and Tusla. You know that the Serbs massively attacked Sarajevo particularly this morning and there was a very large number of casualties and wounded. We don’t as yet have any substantive figures. Another air strike took place in the meantime and the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and we Foreign Ministers were at one that everything has to be done in order to reach a de-escalation of the situation.

    I had talks in Washington with Vice-President Gore, the Security Advisor Legge and also the Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher and this dramatic peak which the situation had reached loomed large on our agenda. We are in very close contact with the Secretary-General of NATO; before our talks, we had a number of telephone conversations with him and tried to get information on the most recent state of affairs.

    The Prime Minister has already pointed out and the Chancellor also mentioned that a message was sent to President Yeltsin and we finally made telephone contact. This was a message directed to President Yeltsin where we appealed to him to exert his influence on Milosovic to prevent him from supporting the Bosnian Serbs; the message further contained an appeal to Milosovic where we asked him to please do everything to see to it that the border between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs remains closed. This message called for three very clear-cut objectives: first of all, de-escalation; secondly, the bombarding of the protected areas will have to stop immediately; and thirdly, heavy weapons have to remain in the collection points because there are indications that there too there may be a certain development that would be most unwelcome and most unpleasant and obviously the message said that the taking of hostages will not be in any way successful and that this must be stopped immediately.

    As the Chancellor said, we are in contact with Prime Minister Juppe, and with the Americans and tonight we are going to call them once again. Further steps will be the following:

    The Contact Group foreign ministers will meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Nortvige [phoentic] in Holland and then we will think once again about possible further steps and obviously we will try to make contact with Foreign Minister Kozyrev.

    I do not want to go into details of the military operation. We have been informed by Secretary-General Claus and by General Rupert Smith of the present state of affairs but this obviously is a matter for the military to assess the real situation on the ground and whether further measures will be taken.

    It is undoubtedly a very grave and very serious situation that we want to and will have to try to solve by resorting to political means. Any military solution of the Bosnian conflict, of the situation in former Yugoslavia, cannot and must not be the right way.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY DOUGLAS HURD:

    I do not need to add very much. As Klaus Kinkel has just said, it is clear that the decisions hour by hour on the ground and in the air rest with the NATO and United Nations commanders and as has been said, we have been in very close touch with them hour by hour this morning. Warren Christopher telephoned me first thing this morning in order to express his support for what the UN and NATO had done so far and indicated that it would be necessary, he thought, to do more. That is the view of everybody here and the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament yesterday that we fully support what has been done and that is also the German view so that is support for those who are responsible for these very difficult and dangerous decisions hour by hour on the ground but we have to support them in another way which is to try and bring the maximum pressure on all those concerned to prevent what is happening now which is bad enough – enough people are being killed – from escalating into an even greater war with more suffering, more casualties and the effect on the future of the United Nations effort and that is why the Federal Chancellor and the Prime Minister have sent a message to President Yeltsin, that is why they have talked to him, that is why we are in very close touch with the French and of course with the Americans. The Bosnian Serbs would have been wise to heed the terms of the ultimatum which they received; they would be wise to heed it now.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, can you tell us how President Yeltsin reacted to the message that he received from you?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    He clearly gave us to understand – and obviously in a way I am adding my interpretation of it and using my own words now – that he considered the situation to be extremely dangerous and he promised to act on the basis of our message in any direction desired in that message. We did not talk about details obviously but both of us talked to him on the telephone and we both impressed on him how serious we thought the situation is. It is obviously a fairly unusual way of proceeding the sort of action which we immediately resorted to which we thought however was a very necessary reaction in view of the circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you spoke about some difficult decisions to face in the near future. What are those decisions and do they include a decision on whether or not to withdraw?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the days ahead, the immediate difficult decisions I had in mind were the difficult decisions to be taken by the commanders on the ground in response to whatever action may be taken against Sarajevo, against the ammunition dumps or against any other target so those were the immediate decisions I had in mind. They are decisions that will not be easy for the commanders. Clearly, if the situation deteriorates, one would have to take a strategic look but let me make clear again what I have said in the past. I think there are two points that are relevant:

    Firstly, for as long as it is possible, for as long as the United Nations protection forces can credibly carry out their humanitarian mandate and save lives, it would be my wish for the protection forces to stay there providing they can do so at acceptable risk to themselves.

    The second point is equally important. If they cannot carry out their mandate at acceptable risk, if the fighting escalates to a level when it is quite impossible, then clearly circumstances could arise when it would not be possible for the United Nations protection forces to remain.

    I emphasise that is not my wish. I believe they have done a superb job there, I very much hope they will continue to stay there but I think everyone on the ground needs to be aware that they are there with a particular mandate, with a humanitarian responsibility and they are not equipped to be in the middle of a full-scale war.

    QUESTION:

    There are reports that President Yeltsin has condemned the latest UN air strike. Can you confirm that, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen such reports.

    QUESTION:

    He didn’t express any view to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were primarily discussing what can be done to de-escalate the problem there and President Yeltsin undertook, as the Chancellor said a moment ago, to use his best offices.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor or Prime Minister, has any idea been put forward to reposition forces or regroup forces and also to deploy Western forces in order to protect the United Nations troops on the ground there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be a matter for the commanders on the ground to advise about, indeed it would be a matter for them to take decisions about. In terms of regrouping and moving the forces, the commander has the responsibility and the authority to do that in the interests of his own troops and his own mission. Whether he is doing that at the moment, I don’t yet knew. I don’t believe he has yet done so. If he believes it necessary, then he would have the authority to do so.

  • 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 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.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Helmut Kohl – 27 April 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, held at Northolt on Wednesday 27th April 1994.

    [Some of Chancellor Kohl’s comments were inaudible due to the translation being heard at the same time].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I just say at the outset how pleased I am to see the Chancellor back in the United Kingdom. Over the last few years we have met in a number of countries, quite apart from the United Kingdom and in Germany, we have had meetings at chalets in Austria and many European Councils, I am delighted to see such a good friend of the United Kingdom back here for a meeting today at Chequers.

    We have a wide range of European Union and wider European matters to discuss today and no doubt we will report on those at our press conference later on this afternoon.

    Let me just say at the outset that I am pleased to say it does seem we had a pretty quiet night in Gorazde. At the moment aid is getting into Gorazde and patients are getting out and I am delighted that that proves to be the case and I hope further examination this morning will show that the Serb armaments have been moved to 20 kilometres away, as requested, we will know about that I think fairly shortly.

    I think the Chancellor and I will also wish to discuss the South African elections, both Germany and the United Kingdom have taken a great interest in moving South Africa towards democracy in recent years and despite the further disgraceful bomb incident this morning, it does seem that the election is proceeding satisfactorily and we look forward to the new government being formed and to the role that both Germany and the United Kingdom can play in helping South Africa move forward to the future.

    I think on bilateral and other matters I will reserve any comments until after our press conference this afternoon, but I will invite the Chancellor to say just a word or two at the outset.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    It is a very great pleasure to be here once again. We have had a very strong and [indistinct] cooperation and we have been able to achieve a lot together. And the relationships between our countries are not like the weather today, the relationships are very sunny, they are excellent, we have [indistinct] and if there are questions or problems then we always manage to discuss them in a very friendly atmosphere.

    We have a lot of understanding for each other, we understand each other well. Britain and Germany are amongst the important countries of the European Union and from my perspective as the German Chancellor it is particularly important that the common European future is actually done together with Britain. We have different histories, we have different traditions and it is quite natural and obvious to me that we take into consideration how the other countries have come this long way [indistinct].

    [Indistinct] very particular day because the truth is that it was the British government [indistinct] who during these whole years [indistinct] in South Africa have actually committed themselves to this course of action. It was a process that often one had to wonder whether it [indistinct] success and neither of us has any illusions, we know how very difficult it is and we know how difficult it is to achieve what [indistinct] and to achieve it in a useful way. But if I look at the many meetings in the European Council where we talked about it over the last 10 years or so, and if I think of the Conference of the G7, it is a very great pleasure to think that today we really have made enormous progress.

    And I wish all of those who are suffering in the former Yugoslavia that what has been attempted now and what has been started will actually lead to success and that all those who are active there will understand that a civilised international community cannot [indistinct] where one changes orders with brutal violence.

    I am looking forward to our day, a day amongst friends, and I would like [indistinct].

    QUESTION:

    Do you still believe Sir Leon Brittan should be the next Commission President?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a number of very good candidates, we think Leon Brittan is a very strong candidate for the Presidency of the Commission, there are other candidates as well. It is our view that Leon is the best candidate, we will need to discuss that with all our colleagues and there will be a collective decision.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl – 11 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, held at Heythrop Park in Oxfordshire on Wednesday 11th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say firstly that the Chancellor and his colleagues are very welcome indeed here at Ditchley, we know each other so well now we were able to get down very rapidly to business and it has been a very productive summit for both of us.

    I think everyone will know the length to which I and the Chancellor have both gone to persuade the Community and the United States to negotiate to reach a successful conclusion in the GATT round. I am delighted that the Commission have today announced that they intend to restart talks again next week. I think that is vital. What the world economic situation calls for at present is calm discussion and not sabre rattling and we do need that GATT settlement comprehensively and as speedily as possible. I have no doubt whatsoever that a very valuable prize in the form of that GATT settlement is within our grasp and it will bring with it a boost of some 200 billion dollars to world incomes.

    And I think there is a further point about GATT that the Chancellor and I have been able to discuss this morning and it is simply this. The rich countries of the world owe it to the developing countries of the world not to hold up a deal, the poorer nations would gain around 90 billion dollars from the GATT round and that is of course twice the level of total official aid and I think that does place a very considerable impetus on the need to secure a successful outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    On bilateral and European matters, the Chancellor and I discussed in detail the agenda for the forthcoming Edinburgh summit and I explained how, in our Presidency role, we intended to handle the Danish proposals. We agreed specifically on the need to take firm decisions at Edinburgh on subsidiarity. By that I mean the Community only doing what the Community needs to do and with greater openness. And we agreed also that we needed to make progress on enlargement of the Community, starting with the EFTAN states. Both of us want to see the early accession of those EFTAN countries into the European Community.

    We discussed also this morning the difficult question of the Community’s budget. Germany of course is the largest net contributor and the United Kingdom is the second largest. We both agreed that it is necessary to keep the Community’s finances under control and to ensure that we get the best possible value for money for the money that is spent communally by the European Community.

    One of the many positive aspects of the Maastricht Treaty is that it will help achieve that goal and whilst I mention the Maastricht Treaty let me commend to you the booklet produced today by the British Government which translates some of the Eurocomment into English and copies will be available for people and I hope they will find it very useful.

    At the plenary session with our Ministerial colleagues we discussed a number of matters, amongst them the European Fighter Aircraft, a very important European collaborative project. The recent four nation study has shown that we can cut the costs very substantially and I very much hope that future studies will confirm that we have a basis for going ahead with such a new fighter aircraft, we have not reached that position yet but the discussions will continue between our Defence Ministers in the weeks ahead.

    Ministers also discussed the former Yugoslavia, we welcome the news of a ceasefire although we remain cautious about how lasting it will prove. Douglas Hurd can respond to that in greater detail if there are specific questions on it.

    Let me also report straight away some excellent progress in combating international crime and drug smuggling. Community member states are working together on an intergovernmental basis to establish the first stage of Europol by 1st January next year and this stage will include a drugs intelligence unit which will involve officers from all member states of the Community. They are expected to work in support of national police forces to strengthen the hands of the police in the battle against organised crime.

    Those are just a few of the matters we discussed this morning, by no means a comprehensive list. A few examples are the areas of cooperation between Britain and Germany and very clear proof that relations between our two countries remain extremely good. I was very pleased this morning to be able to tell the Federal Chancellor how much The Queen had enjoyed her recent state visit.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I should like to thank you most warmly for the friendly and hospitable reception which we have received here today and I am thanking you on behalf of the German delegation also. These consultations have taken place in a very warm atmosphere and I think this is an atmosphere which reflects the relationship between our two countries and indeed reflects the friendly relations which exist between John Major and myself.

    I should like to take this opportunity before the British public here also to explicitly and expressly thank you for the State Visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Germany. We were especially pleased that the focal point of this visit was in the new Federal states which reflected the particular interest which Great Britain has shown in the development of the new federal states and I think the programme of the visit also shows that today, and this has been mentioned, Great Britain has moved into second place amongst foreign investors in the new federal states of Eastern Germany.

    At the forefront of our consultations, the Prime Minister mentioned this of course, were the preparations for the European Council in Edinburgh. It is in our joint interest for this meeting in Edinburgh to be a great success, In the course of the special meeting in Birmingham we conducted much useful preparatory work and we agreed that it is now time to ensure in these few weeks in the run up to Edinburgh that we lay down clear guidelines and above all criteria for the application of the principle of subsidiarity, we need to develop these criteria, this is going to be a most decisive point for our consultations in Edinburgh and this also corresponds with the wishes of our population.

    The Prime Minister and myself agree, and I think almost all our colleagues in the Community agree, that we also need to discuss in Edinburgh the wrong developments which took place in the past and we need to correct these false developments.

    Against the background of the discussions which have taken place over the last few months in connection with the Maastricht Treaty it is now time for us to do everything we can in order to ensure that we develop the picture of a democratic Europe which is close to its citizens and in which we respect national identity and culture of all member states. Maastricht is not, as occasionally is said here in Great Britain, the starting point for the development of a centralist Europe, nobody wants this. We wish in future with the Maastricht Treaty as Germans, Britons, Italians and French, we wish to remain within our national identities.

    We agreed that at Edinburgh we shall discuss the question of new states, of EFTA states, to the European Community. I hope that we will be successful in ensuring that at the beginning of 1993 negotiations can begin, and this is another area where we agree.

    A further focal point of our discussion of course concerns ratification and the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. Prime Minister Major explained to me once again the reasons why the ratification procedure in Great Britain has been postponed to the first half of 1993. I wish to state quite clearly that I of course respect this decision, this is a British decision, l have much comprehension for the problems and the difficulties which have been encountered and which have led to this decision. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister will undoubtedly ensure that the treaty is ratified and this is my particular wish and that of the German people.

    What is decisive for us is that the treaty should remain unchanged and should be ratified by all states within the Community so that it can then come into force in 1993. As you know, but I will repeat this once again, we shall be discussing the treaty and ratifying the treaty at the end of November in the Federal Parliament and then the second Chamber will discuss this in the middle of December and ratify the treaty also.

    We also wish to undertake all we can and we agreed on this point, the Prime Minister and myself, that we must find a way for our Danish friends to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht for as far as the German position is concerned I would emphasise once again that we wish to move into the future with all Community states, it is not our objective to create a Europe with two or three speeds, but we also do not want to have a Europe a la carte.

    Prime Minister Major, just to mention the GATT round, and I can only support everything that he said, both of us over the last few weeks, I think up to the last few hours, have been conducting joint work on this subject and trying to ensure that the GATT round comes to a successful conclusion. The situation of countries of the Third World, the situation as regards a recession in our economic development should force us to sensible action and should then help us to move towards a compromise.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell me, Chancellor, how the negotiations on the EFA project went on and whether the two Ministers came closer together?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    This is a question I would like to reply to. I am very keen that we speak to all our partners, with the UK, Italy and Spain, and achieve a sensible agreement. We have found that the project as it is at present has become too expensive in its general configuration and we made great savings and intend to make great savings and now new calculations are available and I am certain that we will have a sensible result. For the German side I would say very clearly that we wish to have a common European solution but no lack of confidence vis a vis our American friends are quite incapable of having that, but it is a precondition for our future development in Europe and there is a performing aircraft and aircraft industry and that is why I think we will achieve a sensible solution here.

    QUESTION (Edward Stourton, ITN):

    Could I ask the Chancellor whether he was upset by what the Prime Minister has said recently about the ratification process of Maastricht and whether he thinks it will threaten the Danish referendum or the outcome thereof? And the Prime Minister whether he agrees with what the Chancellor said about Maastricht remaining unchanged?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer the second point. We certainly do not want to change the substance of the Maastricht Treaty, that is the Treaty that I agreed to in Maastricht and we do not wish to change that. What Denmark wants to do is to make some amendments outside the Maastricht Treaty and that is what we will be examining in the discussion at Edinburgh and no doubt beyond Edinburgh. But the substance of the Maastricht Treaty is the treaty that we agreed before.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Would you allow me a frank comment concerning the whole of the subject after the debate in the UK? When I became Federal Chancellor, Ladies and Gentlemen, 10 years ago the most used word in Europe was Eurosclerosis, it was the concept of a bad illness going together with the concept of Europe. If 8 or 7 years ago we had held a press conference here and we had said we are able to work out the Maastricht Treaty, most of you would have commented that they must have gone quite mad, there is no chance at all.

    Now we drafted the Maastricht Treaty together, of course the Maastricht Treaty is a compromise, all sides of course have made efforts to achieve this compromise and we now have a new situation, it is a new milestone in the life of European peoples. Although in spite of the Maastricht Treaty we will remain Britons and Germans, we are not going to give up our homeland, our mother tongue, our nationality, we remain Britons and Europeans and Germans and Europeans. But particularly on a day like this, which is an historical date if we look at this century, we will have to look back at the long way we have come and I would put it to you quite simply, if one of our friendly countries, the UK, has for its own reasons the wish to say please give us a few months time, why should I criticise the British for that? I have every confidence in the Prime Minister that he will achieve his objective. I also have all confidence in the fact that the majority of the British understand that the future lies in a peaceful and economically successful. Britain in Europe. So if it is a matter for us to give some time to the UK, I would quite agree to say OK, proceed like that, I am quite confident that things will be successful and I have no reason to get excited about that.

    QUESTION (Hans Slegermann):

    Chancellor, did Premier Major ask you to exercise more pressure on the French as regards the GATT round of negotiations?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Not at all. That would have been a quite nonsensical activity, quite nonsensical if John was to exercise pressure on me and it would be just as ridiculous if I were to try to exercise pressure on the French. Anyone who understands the psychology of nations knows that this is the worst recipe for action that you can imagine.

    We are both convinced of the same thing and this I think is a conviction which is largely shared by our French friends. We need to conclude the GATT Round. It will be a compromise because without free world trade, positive development of the world economy is unthinkable.

    Before I look at the industrial countries, I would name the Third World as an example. If for example GATT is not successfully concluded, if we withdraw into a fortress mentality with declarations of a trade war, we will not be able to move forward into the future. It won’t be mainly the French, German and English who will pay although they will be paying – it will be the countries of the Third World who pay the most and if you look at the sums of development aid in the budgets of all the industrial countries and lump them all together then you still won’t get anywhere near the sum which you might achieve if you can guarantee free trade through GATT.

    We need to exercise international solidarity and we must have a commitment towards GATT and we need Free World trade if we believe that jobs in Germany, Great Britain or France can be secured and new jobs can be created. If we withdraw into Fortress Europe and the Americans withdraw into Fortress United States, then this would be an idiotic form of politics. That is quite simply a fact. We need GATT. We need a sensible compromise.

    I can only say quite critically that over many months we have been prepared to compromise and have wished for a compromise. I don’t want to place blame upon anybody involved but if the acting President and the future President of the United States are listening, I would like us to reach a conclusion and this is the vote we have put to the EC Commission in Brussels and I think we have a good chance of achieving this.

    As far as the French are concerned, France is an exporting country as we all are; they have agricultural problems as we do too but I am absolutely against now pillorying the French, which has happened occasionally over the last few weeks.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds – BBC Radio):

    Prime Minister, do you feel in any way weakened in your negotiations by your domestic problems? You have had problems with monetary matters, the miners, Maastricht and now munitions for Iraq. Do you feel that you are reversing the Teddy Roosevelt dictum about speaking softly and you are speaking loudly yet carrying a small stick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to your question is quite straightforward and quite simple – no. You asked me a direct question; I gave it a direct answer.

    No, I don’t. The negotiations we have carried out in Europe have been clear-cut and crystallised from the beginning by a clear set of objectives. That was the position and remains the position and I think on many of those matters we have negotiated very successfully with our European Community partners.

    In any negotiation there is always a degree of give and take. If there is not, it is not genuinely a negotiation. That is what has happened. I think our European partners have seen that we have negotiated with them in a straightforward and satisfactory way and I believe we have received a very satisfactory result as a result of those negotiations.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    May I add one comment, John, although the question was not addressed to me.

    I must say frankly that I think it would be bad policy if one of us were to have difficulties internally and we were to try and exploit those difficulties. The Europe which I wish to achieve must always be a Europe which comes together and those who want to really make the last possible calculations on this will fail.

    QUESTION (David Foley – BBC Newsnight):

    Prime Minister, how much damage did the withdrawal from the ERM cause to Anglo-German relations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it has caused damage to Anglo-German relations and I think you can probably see that quite clearly today. I didn’t seek a withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism; market compulsion made it necessary but I think that is well understood amongst our partners in Europe and I believe it has done no damage whatsoever. It is fully understood.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, the German Chancellor appears to have suggested that he is willing to see several months delay and understands the need for that over the Maastricht Treaty. Can the Prime Minister now give us an assurance that if the Danish referendum is delayed beyond May, perhaps to the summer or even the autumn, that he will proceed with the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill in the spring of next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the position perfectly clear about our proposals on the Bill. What is now clear as a result of the vote last week is that there is no way in which the Government can in future rely in any sense on the Labour Party supporting the passage of the Maastricht Bill. We cannot be certain that they will do that. Their vote and their tactics last week make that perfectly clear.

    That means that to ensure the passage of the Bill, which must be my first priority, I must win the arguments in the House of Commons and that will mean encountering a great degree of opposition from some and it will mean countering at length the arguments of those opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. They have already put down a large number of amendments so it will be a lengthy process and I would not expect the Committee Stage to be finished by May but we have said repeatedly that we are determined to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament and I am happy to repeat that today. I believe we will have the Third Reading some time after the expected date in May of the Danish referendum and I expect to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament.

    QUESTION (Michael Insted – BBC German Service):

    Did you discuss at all the question of Britain taking more refugees from Bosnia?

    May I also put a question to the German delegation? Are you satisfied so far with the number of refugees accepted by the UK?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Foreign Secretary to respond to that. Although the Chancellor and I discussed it, the Foreign Secretary and Herr Kinkel had more lengthy discussions on the matter as indeed did the Home Secretary.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    You may have followed what the Home Secretary announced last week, that after a period during which many thousands of Yugoslays have come here but in an uncoordinated way to the UK, there is now a visa regime except for Slovenia and Croatia and we have expressed our willingness to accept particular numbers of people identified by the humanitarian agencies as requiring a home beginning with an offer of 150 – that is heads of families so maybe 4/500 with their dependants – an offer which has not yet been taken up but which we are discussing. Over and above that, we have expressed our willingness on that basis to do more.

    At the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, Klaus Kinkel, sitting at the end there, made a very eloquent plea from Germany that all of us in the Community and the Americans, Canadians and other friends should rally round and make it clear that between ourselves we are willing to accept those 6,000 who have so far been identified from the camps as requiring places outside the former Yugoslavia and we as Presidency are now taking that up and identifying country by country who is able to do what.

    HERR KINKEL:

    Perhaps from the German side I may add that the Twelve discussed the problem of refugees from the former Yugoslavia very intensively in the last few weeks and also the question of the camps.

    As regards the refugees – and this is no secret – we certainly had to bear the main burden in the Federal Republic. We had to take more than 135,000 refugees and at last Monday’s Council we said that in any case we want to take on those people from the camps in Bosnia and other areas before Christmas who have to live under terrible conditions there. According to indications received by the Red Cross, there are about 6,000 people. As Europeans, we have committed ourselves to taking these people and for the Federal Government, with the help of the Federal Chancellor I have been able to say that we will be able to take 1,000 of the 6,000. I think this is a humanitarian gesture, to see that before Christmas, before the winter comes, the camps are emptied if this is at all possible.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    John Smith, the Labour leader, today told a meeting of the TUC that Britain opting out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht would mean that British workers were better placed to compete with the Taiwanese than with the Germans. As right-of-centre politicians who disagree on this matter, I wonder if you could both comment on that observation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Mr. Smith said but if Mr. Smith is so concerned about the Social Chapter or indeed any part of European development I am rather puzzled that he should have asked his party to vote against the motion in the House of Commons last week. There is no doubt that he put at very great risk the future progress of the Bill. As it happens he lost the division and lost a great degree of credibility, not only at home but in Europe.

    The Labour Party said they had consulted their European socialist colleagues about how they voted. It turned out that Mr. Cunningham had had a conversation with Jean Pierre Kot [phon], the leader of the socialists in the European Parliament, but if that was the position it is rather odd that Jean Pierre Kot subsequently seems to have contradicted him by making the point that the Labour. Party were playing with fire in the way in which they voted on Maastricht so John Smith may be going to a great deal of trouble to try and save his reputation but it is a little late. He threw his European reputation overboard in his tactical vote in the House of Commons a week ago.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, may I put a question to try and overcome a few misunderstandings concerning monetary policy and currency policy.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL

    Well don’t write a book about it!

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    Two months ago, from the German side we heard that Great Britain had been made an offer that they could devalue together with the Italians on the 12/13 September. Mr. Kurda said that, the Secretary of State. On the British side, it was said that no offer was made. Could you perhaps help us and say which version corresponds to the truth?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I can’t help you.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    I beg your pardon. You were involved with the Bundesbank on the matter.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I still can’t help you, I am afraid, in spite of that. The question is simple. I don’t think there is any point in discussing the past weeks in this context and continuing the discussion which won’t get you any further anyway. All sorts of statements have been made and all sorts of statements have not been made. I see no point in now writing a history book about it. When you are pensioned off and me too, then we will get together and write a third book about the subject together.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing – Channel 4 News):

    Chancellor, you indicated earlier that you had full understanding for the British position. How much do you fear that the longer the debate about Maastricht goes on, the less the will and the public support there will be for whatever emerges eventually?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think so. We have all learned more. I have too. The Maastricht Treaty is a milestone in the century towards the development of Europe and certainly as Heads of Government and others have to realise perhaps we have done too little in the field of psychology to really make people understand what a tremendous development this is and even in politics one can learn from the mistakes one has made.

    If I look at the asset side, I must say it is a tremendous thing that at this moment we are capable of going towards this development in Europe, that Europe is growing together, that we will be strengthened vis-a-vis other combinations in the world. In eight years it will be the year 2000 and that will undoubtedly see that in the North American area, the United States and Canada associated with Mexico will have a tremendous region of association. You will see associations like that too in Latin American. We see similar things in Asia if we just refer to Korea and Japan. We act in Europe as if the world is simply passing us by. The achievement at Maastricht of monetary union, economic union and political union really pulls the people of Europe together. It is time that we understand that we are not in 1902 but in 1992 and we have to draw the conclusions from that.

    Our British friends have their own history and their own traditions, and we only have to look at the history of the British Parliament which is not without reason called the “Mother of Parliaments” to see that we have to take account of this. The essence of friendship is that we make concessions to each other and the basis of my friendship with John Major is that we aim at helping each other, not obstructing each other. That is my view of European solidarity and European policies.

    QUESTION (Hella Pik – The Guardian):

    You have both today emphasised the unity of purpose and have obviously sought to minimise any differences. What Chancellor Kohl has said is somewhat in contradiction to what was said in Bonn on the eve of your visit here. You and your Foreign Minister were reported as being rather critical of the British delay in the ratification debate. I am just wondering whether you feel you have for presentational purposes today emphasised the positive and ignored the negative and whether you have any comments on that?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t know who said that to you in Bonn. I didn’t say it and under the German constitution it is I who decides the policy line and nobody else. I am not sure if you read some sort of magazine on the subject but you should stop reading them I think.

    Such a statement was not made by me and neither legitimised by me. I don’t know who else could have said that in Bonn and that is all I have to say on the subject.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is much to add to that.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I could firstly add my thanks to Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in the German government, to the government of Bavaria, to the City authorities, and perhaps above all to the people of Munich who had to face, as is inevitably the case on these occasions, some disruption to their lives. I am very grateful for their forbearance, I hope that next time I can walk in Munich in the streets rather than be part of a large number of cars that are blocking up the streets, and I look forward to that.

    May I now turn to the summit discussions. I think most of you will know when these discussions were first established some years ago, they were originally intended, as an informal opportunity for Heads of Government to talk. Over the years that original format has tended to change, they have become more elaborate, more formal, better prepared, but also I think engendering higher expectations.

    In this summit I think there have been some achievements and also some disappointments. We have met in the last couple of days against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish, a good deal more sluggish than we would wish to see it. All of us would like to see faster growth, but we are having to deal with the aftermath of a revolution as well as a recession. The revolution, of course, is still going on in Russia and even here in Germany there has been a revolution of a kind and Germany is having to use all its motor power to kick-start its own economy and to deal with the difficult problems of what was once known as East Germany.

    In our discussions, the difficulties of achieving non-inflationary growth were uppermost in our discussions. Unless we keep inflation down there is going to be no growth worth having. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated and we all acknowledged that in our discussions, we agreed that we cannot achieve sustainable non-inflationary growth without a commitment to sound money and to fiscal policy.

    There was one measure above all others, I believe, that will help, and that is a settlement of the Uruguay Round. A GATT settlement would give a very sharp, non-inflationary, boost to the world economy, a sharp boost I think also to confidence. But the specific boost to the world economy is equivalent to 195 billion dollars gain in annual world income and of that figure around 90 billion dollars would accrue to developing and to former communist countries. So it is a very great prize, that GATT settlement, when it is achieved, it would boost the economic transformation of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with other reforms and check protectionism in world trade.

    Quite bluntly, an agreement in that GATT round is essential. Some progress has been made, the CAP settlement is one illustration of that, better understanding of what remains to be done and the difficulties within individual states is another indication of progress. The remaining gap still to be settled in the Uruguay Round is relatively small. As far as Britain is concerned, we could settle our difficulties in thirty minutes, there is no difficulty there for us.

    In our discussions I repeatedly stressed the importance and the urgency of a settlement. I think it was essential to have a discussion here and as a result of that we have got in the communique a firmer commitment to detailed negotiations on the outstanding issues than we have had before.

    For Europe, the European Commission are of course our negotiators. But the United Kingdom, as Presidency of the Community, have an active role to play and we intend to play it, there is too much at stake to let GATT slip back down the agenda and we have no intention of letting that happen.

    I mentioned a moment ago that among the countries that would benefit from a GATT settlement would be the former Soviet Union. We are about to have lunch and then an extended meeting with Mr Yeltsin. We do not, I think, just meet as creditors and debtor, but as partners. The measures agreed at the weekend with the International Monetary Fund are tough measures for the release of the first tranche of assistance to the Russians. They open the way to that first credit tranche, they point the way clearly to debt rescheduling, they allow the United Kingdom to release the 500 million dollars of export credit cover that I announced in principle when Mr Yeltsin came to London in January, and we shall now release it without delay.

    The problems that Mr Yeltsin faces are huge and the dangers that he faces are enormous. Very clear evidence of what is at stake is shown by our interest in the safety of nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Chernobyl, to some, may seem a long way away, but I must say to you it is pretty close at home to a sheep farmer in north Wales who, six years after the Chernobyl incident, still cannot sell his sheep at market. The scale of the problem is huge with a dozen stations like Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union alone.

    We have to approach that problem in the following ways. Firstly, urgent safety work at the most unsafe power stations; secondly, to replace them with safe alternatives as soon as possible; and thirdly, to help the former Soviet Union develop alternative

    [section of original missing]

    If we had been able to agree a decisive breakthrough to a GATT settlement, it would have been a huge bonus for the Munich summit. Britain, as I have said, can agree without delay, everyone will have to reach an agreement, the sooner that is done the better. If push comes to shove I am confident it can be done and for my part, push and shove I will, and so will the United Kingdom until we do have that settlement.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, last year’s summit communique made optimistic noises about the prospects for recovery in the world economy, you meet here admitting that it is sluggish and you were over-optimistic, what hope do we have that this year’s declarations will have any more substance by the time we meet in Tokyo next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some signs of recovery and we can see them, but they are very slow and very sluggish. It was clear last year that like many other people we anticipated a stronger recovery and an earlier recovery than yet we have had. One of the ingredients of that, I am sorry to return to the point but I think it is a critical point, one of the ingredients to recovery is going to be confidence and one of the ingredients to confidence will be the security and certainty of reaching an outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    Now that is a self-evident statement of reality. It is very disappointing, not the fault of this summit, but it is very disappointing that we did not have an agreement to the Uruguay Round some time ago, some nations have difficulty with it and I understand that, but I think the clear understanding amongst every participant here of the importance to world growth and to confidence of that agreement on the Uruguay Round was self-evident. So I think we are better placed than perhaps we were last year when we felt the recovery would come earlier, swifter and more effectively than in practice it did.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I rather agree with that, I perhaps would not have expressed it in quite that way, but I rather agree with that. That was why I was the first Western Head of Government to say that I would go to Rio and why I am delighted that so many Heads of Government went to Rio for what was the start of a process, it was never going to be totally solved at Rio, just as it will not be totally solved by an interruption. But he clearly cares very deeply about it, the mistake he perhaps makes is to believe that other people do not care deeply about it as well and I believe that they do.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay):

    Are you disappointed in the results of your personal GATT initiative and do you apportion the blame for this to an over-estimate of American support or to an under-estimate of French obduracy, and do you agree, on reflection, that Munich is no place for British Prime Ministers to seek to make historic agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have made progress on GATT, I am not here to apportion blame for the fact that we were not able to make more progress, I am going to have to negotiate and talk with colleagues and apportioning blame is not a good basis for getting future progress subsequently, what I want is an agreement. I think it would have been intolerable if we had not raised the matter and discussed it here and I think there was general agreement about that.

    What is becoming increasingly apparent is the narrowness of the differences that actually exist. And with political will and political determination and political instruction, the negotiators will be able to reach a GATT agreement, that has been quite apparent from the discussions that we have had here in the last few days. So I think it has given a further impetus.

    And perhaps I can put the point to you the other way round. If I had not raised it and if others perhaps had not raised it and there would have been no discussion of GATT at Munich, what signal would that have given about the determination of people to reach a settlement? It had to be raised even though it was probably not practicable to expect a full settlement here, not least because all the negotiating partners are not here to reach a settlement. But it was imperative that the attempt was made and that the fact that this is of central importance was once again registered and accepted by the Heads of the most powerful industrial countries. So I think it was right to come here and raise the matter and. I think it has been helpful to have done so.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents’ wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend’s question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

    Mr. Kinnock : At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

    “were not hurting, they were not working,”

    did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

    The Prime Minister : We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday, “the conditions are now in place to underpin a sustained recovery.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month : “the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome.”?

    The Prime Minister : Caused the recession?–Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand ? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it ? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it ? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it ? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it ? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please settle down ?

     

    Chancellor Kohl

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Hunter : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries’ difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

    Mr. Radice : After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Lee : The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power–a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets– has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have less barracking.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cohen : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a “price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

    Mr. Allason : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

    The Prime Minister : We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2.5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

     

    Q6. Mr. Carr : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Carr : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

    The Prime Minister : There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

    Mr. Norris : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Welsh : Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

    The Prime Minister : This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland ; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

    The Prime Minister : I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones : I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.