The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Hungary

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Budapest on Tuesday 6th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to express my thanks to the Hungarian government for the hospitality and organisation of this conference. It is a very large conference by almost any reckoning and I think the organisation has been absolutely excellent and I am most grateful for that.

    During the whole of the summit I think it is fair to say that two issues have dominated: Bosnia, of course, as it was always likely to do; and the future enlargement of NATO. On Bosnia I set out in my speech yesterday what was at stake and frankly I have very little to add to that. The British troops in Bosnia are there to help the protection forces discharge an humanitarian mandate, they are there to save lives. In the period that they have been there I believe they have saved many thousands of lives and they are there to keep the peace where there is a peace to be kept. They are emphatically not there to fight a war or to take sides.

    But if the events deteriorate to the point where United Nations troops and the British contingent can no longer carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk, then of course they will have to leave, and that is simply to state a matter of fact.

    I very much hope that it will not come to this, it certainly does not have to come to this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Serb, Bosnian and Croat leaders in the last 48 hours and all of them, without exception, have said they would like the protection forces to stay. Now if that is a view sincerely held, the conclusion to be drawn is self-evident. The warring parties must, without delay, cease fire, allow the free passage of United Nations troops and aid and make it possible to re-start the peace negotiations.

    On the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation there has frankly been rather a lot of excitable comment this morning about an East-West rift. I think it is worthwhile looking at precisely what our aim should be. Our aim must be to spread eastwards the prosperity and the stability that members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy, and that is precisely why both organisations are currently developing ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in a number of cases with a view to eventual membership of those organisations.

    We wish obviously to move gradually and carefully towards enlargement, building on the Partnership for Peace programme. I spent some time discussing this yesterday with President Yeltsin and this followed an earlier conversation on the same subject when he visited Chequers last September. And it is perfectly apparent from that discussion that President Yeltsin’s concern is that NATO would enlarge swiftly to Russia’s Western border, possibly starting as early as next year. I said to him in our conversation that in fact NATO’s proposals were to move cautiously and without deadlines. NATO’s study into future membership is about the how and the why of enlargement, not the who and when of future membership. I made it clear to President Yeltsin that the United Kingdom wanted the outcome of the study to be discussed openly with all Partnership for Peace partners, including Russia, and there should be no surprises and there should be no secret deals about the enlargement of NATO.

    I formed the impression that President Yeltsin was entirely satisfied with that approach. He is concerned with the pace and the scale of NATO’s enlargement, he does not want to see a new dividing line drawn across Europe and neither do any of the members of NATO or the would-be members of NATO wish to see such a dividing line. It is therefore very important for NATO to continue to build up its relationship with Russia and that is why I hope that Russia will soon be able to sign its Partnership for Peace agreements with NATO.

    The talk we have heard over the past 24 – 48 hours of a relapse into the Cold War ignores I think yesterday’s very substantial achievements – the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the accession of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, the entry into force of START I, and a clearing of the way towards the ratification of START II. And I think what those agreements, signed yesterday, show, is that a great prize is still very much within reach between East and West, a partnership between Russia and the West from which the sharp hostilities of the Cold War will be absent.

    I think therefore that much of the talk about difficulties between NATO and Russia has been grotesquely overdone, there are concerns and I think those concerns can readily be met.

    During the period we have been here both I and the Foreign Secretary have had the opportunity of a large number of bilateral discussions with other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government and that also has been a very useful adjunct to the conference as a whole.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    How can you explain how the situation has arisen where you are talking of withdrawing troops when the Security Council resolution clearly gives you the right to use all necessary means to carry out the humanitarian mandate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I explained that rather clearly yesterday, I think, Paul. The troops are there for an humanitarian purpose, for so long as they can safely carry out that humanitarian purpose, they will stay. I am not anxious for the troops to leave, quite the reverse, we were one of the first countries to send troops there in large numbers and we did so because of our humanitarian concern for what is happening there. But those troops are not equipped to fight a war and they are not there to fight a war and we have to have concern for the safety of those troops, as indeed to other troop contributors. And the point that I have been making is that if they cannot safely undertake their task then it is not credible for them to remain. I hope that will not occur but I have to warn that it could.

    QUESTION:

    Is the British government thinking in terms of time to withdraw their troops from the former Yugoslavia and to get a peace plan approved by the various sides?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not got a particular timescale in mind and as I indicated just now, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to withdraw troops. But if they cannot satisfactorily undertake their task, and it is not safe for them to remain, then we may have no choice. As far as seeking diplomatic conclusion is concerned, the Foreign Secretary has had a range of meetings over the last weekend with Foreign Minister Juppe, he met Mr Milosevic and others, the Contact Group are resuming and we very much hope the peace plan can move forward, the Foreign Secretary may wish to add to it. Certainly we wish to explore more diplomatic moves to see whether a settlement can be reached, that infinitely is the prize that we must all aim for.

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    How much, if a withdrawal has to happen, will be dictated by what is happening on the ground, how much of it in the end will be dictated by your military advice which says Prime Minister if we do not go now, it is going to be increasingly difficult to withdraw. And secondly, is the withdrawal likely to take the 165 days which the UN mentioned at the beginning of last week or can it be done much quicker?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The points you raise are interlinked, of course. But the other point that needs to be made, it is not just a question of the British, it is a question of the other troops who are there as well, they are there as United Nations troops, of course we are particularly concerned about the British contingent there, but the United Nations themselves will be concerned about all the troops. We have to look both at what the situation is at present and what it looks as though it is going to become. Withdrawal is not an overnight affair so of course we must have contingency plans for that, but if you will forgive me I will not go into those in depth.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask if from the British point of view can we expect any concrete steps forward from the participants of this summit in connection with the Bosnian problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what concrete will emerge from this particular summit except the frustration that everyone feels, there is a universal desire to end the fighting and reach a negotiated settlement and repeatedly that universal desire is frustrated on the ground by one party or another. So I think undoubtedly there is a huge amount of frustration about that. What in concrete terms may emerge from this summit, I am not sure that this summit is going to produce anything that will definitively move the process forward and I am not sure it was ever likely that it will be able to do so.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think the sequences of what needs to happen is now increasingly accepted, the order of things, though some of the substance of them is difficult. First, there has to be a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities, beginning in Bihac. There is an argument about how long it should be for, arguments about how it should be worked out, and that is really for the UN on the ground to negotiate, as Mr Akashi is trying to do. Then there needs to be acceptance of the Contact Group plan. As you know, it is accepted by everybody except the Bosnian Serbs and even some of them yesterday in Belgrade said they should accept it, that is a new development, foreshadowed to Alain Juppe and myself by Mr Milosevic when we saw him the night before last. But that plan is not yet accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Then there can be talks about territorial adjustments, about land swaps, among the parties to see if such swaps can be agreed. At the same time there can be talks about Constitutional arrangements, as set out in the Contact Group document. And then there needs to be a Bosnian Serb withdrawal to the 49 percent which under the Contact Group plan they would be entitled to occupy within Bosnia Herzegovina, the integrity of whose frontiers is stated by the Contact Group plan.

    So that is the sequence of events. As I say, there is argument at several points of it, but everyone I have talked to, all members of the Contact Group, President Milosevic, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, accept that that is the sequence, that is the order in which these things ought to happen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Secretary sets out, the route map to peace is perfectly clear. The question at issue is whether the leaders of the opposing groups will actually march down that route, we very much wish to see them do so.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Baltic States is considered during all the European structures as a security question but at the same time in Western countries sometimes we hear about some neutrality or special status of the Baltic States because of the neighbourhood of Russia. What is your opinion about these things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO itself is developing a Partnership for Peace proposal which stretches straight through to Russia and includes Russia. We very much wish Russia to take a full part in the Partnership for Peace. That is a stepping stone. We need to deal with the realities of what needs to be done to avoid awakening old fears across Europe.

    Of course NATO is going to enlarge – that is no longer in question – but NATO is going to enlarge cautiously and carefully and I think no-one should be in any doubt about that. There is a great deal to be done. It isn’t just a political point, it is a military point as well. One needs to ensure that the circumstances are satisfactory for a cautious but worthwhile and continuing enlargement of NATO. That will take some time. In the meantime, Partnership for Peace is a very attractive and very worthwhile stepping stone.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    We certainly see the Baltic States as part of the European family, a welcome part, and we British are very active there, for example with the Nordic countries training the Baltic peacekeeping battalion and last Monday we agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on a mandate to open negotiations for the next agreement between the European Union and the Baltic States. As the Prime Minister has said, they are part of the Partnership for Peace; they have all three agreed to the Partnership for Peace and are working out the actual content of each Partnership agreement for each of the three countries so things are on the move and I think they will make steady progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had the opportunity of meeting the Baltic leaders not very long ago in Vilnius and we had the opportunity of discussing all this and how the progress forward might come and I think they are very realistic about what can be achieved and in what time-scale.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant , BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on the burning domestic issue and that is can you confirm that if the Government were to lose on the VAT issue you wouldn’t try to make up the shortfall by increasing borrowing and are you prepared to make a last minute appeal to potential rebels not to carry out their threat because if they do so at the very least the Government would be seriously embarrassed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we are going to win the vote this evening on the Budget resolution, I very much hope we are going to win; I shall no doubt learn more about that when I return to the United Kingdom later on this afternoon but the Chancellor set out the circumstances yesterday and I am going to say no more in Budapest this afternoon.

    QUESTION (RAI ITALIAN TV, CHANNEL 3):

    Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe an arms sale embargo should be lifted in Bosnia and in your talk with President Yeltsin what has emerged as an obstacle to developing a common document on Bosnia which is not coming out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal with the first point of lifting the arms embargo. We don’t believe lifting the arms embargo would be a wise development; we don’t believe that would aid peace. We do believe that lifting the arms embargo would make it impossible for the United Nations humanitarian mission to safely continue and if the humanitarian mission were to leave that is going to have very profound effects for a lot of people and I think it highly appropriate for people to think what would be the position on the ground if the arms embargo were lifted and the United Nations troops were to move. The single simple question to ask oneself is does that bring peace nearer or does that bring peace further away and I think the answer to that question is self-evident; it takes peace further away, it puts more people’s lives at risk, many more people would be killed and who knows to what extent the war then would spread.

    I don’t believe it is appropriate to have a situation where United Nations troops have had to go, the arms embargo has been lifted and one then sees a much wider war perhaps spreading southwards. Who can tell what precisely would happen? It is conceivable that events will force us down that path but we will not go down it willingly because we think it will add to the bloodshed and not end the bloodshed and it has been our determination to end it from the start of this conflict.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the second point, efforts were made to agree a separate document on Bosnia and our delegation tried to reconcile different points of view so there could be a document. My understanding, unless there has been some breakthrough in the last ten minutes, is it has not been possible to agree such a document. Our guidance is therefore the decisions of the Contact Group, the Security Council and indeed under the Security Council of the North Atlantic Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t speak for the last ten minutes but it certainly wasn’t agreed fifteen minutes ago.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Can I ask you, Prime Minister, whether you are not becoming increasingly concerned about the possible damage to relations between Britain and the United States over the situation in Bosnia? We have had the argument within NATO about bombing and we had Senator Dole in London last week. Is this not going to get worse and worse as long as this situation continues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when people look at differences between the United Kingdom and the United States these days they are confusing differences between Congress and the British Government rather than the American Administration and the British Government.

    The American Administration I think now very largely shares our view about the dangers of unilateral lift and what in practice would happen as a result of unilateral lift, so there are no strains of the sort that many people were forecasting some time ago between the British and the United States administrations about this. If I may borrow the word I used a few moments ago, we are both frustrated about the lack of progress, we both want to see a negotiated settlement. I think we both now recognise the dangers of unilateral lift.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I had a long talk last night with Warren Christopher before he went off to Damascus and I must say I felt quite strongly at the end of this talk that we and the United States, after a period of disagreement, were now actually moving in outline and in detail in the same direction. Since the Contact Group agreement on Friday night, the United States has had its contacts with some of the parties, we have had our contacts with some of the parties, we have compared notes, we were all saying the same thing so this is now an effort which we and the Administration are pursuing together. There are voices outside the Administration just as there are voices in Britain who take a different line but the two governments are working closely together.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Mr. Major, at the weekend your Cabinet colleague, Peter Lilley, said that the group of nine should have the whip reinstated at once. Do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He didn’t say that. What Peter Lilley said was that there was no choice but to withdraw the whip and he hoped colleagues would return in due course. He didn’t put a time-scale that. I hope colleagues will continue to support the Conservative Government. In due course, therefore, they will no doubt wish to return to the Conservative whip but I think you are putting words into Peter’s mouth.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Secondly, what will you do to those who vote against the Government or abstain tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear that I hope colleagues will support us tonight. I don’t propose to go further than that, you would be surprised if I did. I think that comes into the category of “Very good try, Peter!”

    QUESTION (National Review):

    Back to Bosnia for a minute, Sir. In your speech yesterday you emphasised that no side in the conflict there can expect to gain a military victory. Isn’t that precisely what is happening at the moment with the Serbs occupying 70% of the land there? If, therefore, the British contingent of the UN peace force is brought home, what danger remains, what justification exists for still not allowing the Bosnian government the right to defend themselves through lifting the arms embargo once that danger has been removed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are drawing two things together that don’t necessarily follow. I think it is very likely that if not the British but the United Nations protection forces were to withdraw, then very probably the arms embargo would be lifted but that is a separate proposition from lifting the arms embargo with United Nations troops in the middle of Bosnia and of course there are different things happening in different parts of Bosnia – there are Bosnian advances in parts of central Bosnia.

    One of the things that has bedevilled this whole enterprise from the start is that when one has moved close to what one thought might be a conceivable diplomatic settlement, one side or other has sensed some territorial advantage of the weeks or months that lie immediately ahead and at that stage the diplomatic settlement has slipped away and of course that has happened on a roller coaster basis time and time again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, what kind of message do you think it delivers to people living in Europe that this Conference apparently is unable to agree even on words that should be spoken about the greatest crisis on the Continent which is the war in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would have been very agreeable, we may yet get an agreement but we hadn’t as at fifteen minutes ago; it would have been very agreeable to have had one. I think what they would be better advised to look at is the large number of people in Europe who are anxious for a settlement, who have been sufficiently anxious for a settlement not only to put diplomatic effort into achieving a settlement but troops and humanitarian activities on the ground to try and promote a settlement and ease the suffering until there is a settlement but there are people with sharply differing views here and that is why it has not been possible thus far to agree a form of words.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t honestly think that many people are sitting up looking at their watches and saying: “When is the CSCE going to produce its document on Bosnia?” That is not what is preoccupying people really. The CSCE has to adopt everything by unanimity and that does put a limitation on what it can agree but what has happened – and quite dramatically – over the last few weeks is that all kinds of different ideas about how you can achieve peace in Bosnia have been examined and at least for the moment dismissed. There is no mention in the Contact Group document of the arms embargo; no government is now pressing for that to be lifted. There is no mention of a military victory, indeed it is excluded as a possibility and President Clinton was clear about that yesterday so everyone who is seriously engaged in this matter is now talking about a negotiated peace. Then you lead into how you achieve that and of course that is extremely difficult and has frustrated everybody up to now but then you get into the sequence of events which I mentioned before which I won’t repeat so there has been a lot of clearing out of ideas which don’t fit the present situation and that is helpful because if you are going to seek to do the things that are necessary you have to get out of your mind the things that aren’t possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the best-organised circumstances unanimity is not always possible.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky TV):

    I was just wondering about the remarks the Russian Foreign Minister has made about the sanctions on Serbia wondering whether there can be agreement amongst the Contact Group at least that those sanctions are lifted so that you might get Mr. Milosevic to put some pressure on Mr. Karadzic to actually get them to the peace table.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary met Mr. Milosevic the other day and spent an hour and a half with Mr. Kozyrev this morning so he is perhaps better placed than I am to give you an up-to-date answer.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Both Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kozyrev believe that the international community has not sufficiently recognised President Milosevic’s courage in accepting the Contact Group plan; they believe that it should be further recognised by further relief of sanctions. Alain Juppe and I have explained to both of them that that is not practicable unless there is further progress. There has been some relief as you know, there are now flights into Belgrade airport, certain events which fell under sanctions have been relieved and there is a provision for humanitarian relief but further lifting of sanctions will have to depend in practice on further progress and President Milosevic knows that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Statement with President Jacques Delors – 28 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint statement with President Jacques Delors, following a summit meeting with European Community and Visegrad Group leaders.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR AND PRESIDENT JACQUES DELORS

    1. It is for us a particular pleasure to welcome to London today leaders of the Visegrad Group of countries: Prime Minister Antall of Hungary, Prime Minister Suchocka from Poland, Deputy Prime Minister Baudys and Prime Ministers Klaus and Meciar from the Czech and Slovak Republic, as well as members of their governments.

    2. Our meeting demonstrates the support of the European Community and its member states for all the newly democratic countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and particularly for the tough political and economic reforms which they have undertaken. It symbolises our wish to work together and to cement our new, strong relationship. For the Visegrad countries, who see the European Community as the cornerstone of their restored place in the family of democratic European nations, it is an opportunity to express their determination to join the European Community as soon as possible.

    3. Since the dramatic events in Central and Eastern Europe only 3 years ago, we have shared with the Visegrad countries a common commitment to democracy and human rights, to market economies and to liberal trade. We have all fought for the greater democratisation of Europe, for greater understanding and cooperation between our citizens, to make up for lost opportunities since the Second World War. The European Community and its Member States have given concrete expression to their support through technical, assistance, coordination of G24 activity and, where appropriate, balance of payments assistance.

    4. We told the Visegrad leaders that the European Community had conceived the Association or “Europe” Agreements signed last December as a way of underpinning these shared common values. These Agreements are broad in nature. They underline the Community’s strong commitment to help market-based democracies through open markets, technical assistance and cooperation. We welcome the fact that there has already been significant trade liberalisation and that it has been agreed to discuss a further package of measures this year. The Community is determined to make a success of these Agreements, to develop and improve them in order to help the Visegrad countries prepare themselves for eventual membership. With the Visegrad leaders we recognise the importance of free trade stretching right across the continent, thereby creating the necessary conditions for economic growth, prosperity and stable democracy. We express our keen desire for an early, balanced and comprehensive agreement in the current GATT negotiations.

    5. We agreed today to encourage intensified, practical cooperation between the Community and the Visegrad countries. This will strengthen our links and encourage similar cooperation between countries of the region. We looked in particular at four areas for enhanced cooperation:

    (i) Towards more open and liberal Markets

    More open markets and liberal trade are indispensable to the development of our economies. We welcome the intention of the Visegrad countries to work for a free trade area which will complement more liberal trade between us. The Commission will consider technical assistance and training under the PHARE programme to share community experience in this area, particularly through a series of seminars some of which will be held in the capitals of the Visegrad countries over the winter months.

    (ii) Local and Democratic Links

    Pluralism and civic society are essential elements of democracy. The Community’s regional fund is already bringing together local and regional authorities from the Community and Central and Eastern Europe in order to encourage democratic practice. The new PHARE democracy programme will offer assistance to Parliaments, political parties and other major representative bodies. It will also help in such fields as journalism and human rights. We agreed to encourage more links between towns in the Community and in the Visegrad countries to promote a better appreciation of problems common to local institutions and organisations.

    (iii) Training and Education

    The Commission will offer to develop a programme of industrial training attachments in Member State companies and organisations. This would be for a number of qualified technical and commercial middle managers from each of the Visegrad countries. These attachments will concentrate on the development of the private sector. We welcomed the intention to establish a branch of the College of Europe in Warsaw.

    (iv) Parliamentary Links

    The President of the European Parliament has proposed building on the establishment of Joint Parliamentary Committees with each of the Visegrad Parliaments in order to strengthen the parliamentary dimension to the Community’s relations with the Visegrad countries. We commended this initiative, and hoped that it might also involve Member State national Parliaments.

    6. Taken together these initiatives will assist the process of democratisation and the creation of closer links between our countries. The Commission will report to the Edinburgh European Council on the development of closer cooperation. We also welcome the role of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights in spreading shared values between all European states.

    7. Our meeting today also discussed a range of international issues. We are delighted that the Visegrad leaders were able to lend their support to our approach on Yugoslavia, particularly the declaration on Yugoslavia adopted by the Birmingham European Council. And we welcome today’s agreement to sign a Joint Declaration on political dialogue. This will set the framework for regular discussions between the Community and its Member States and the Visegrad countries on major foreign policy issues which confront us both. It is through such regular and practical discussion that our thinking converges, and that we develop the habit of working together in response to world events. Our talks today also usefully covered events in the former Soviet Union. Over lunch we had an enlightening discussion on the problems of post-communist societies.

    8. We have today held a most significant meeting. The European Community and the Visegrad countries will soon be joined together by powerful Association Agreements. As leaders, we have demonstrated the value of cooperation and the depth of understanding between us. We all look forward to the development of ever closer cooperation which will give substance to the Visegrad countries’ Association with the European Community.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors and Prime Ministers from Visegrad Group – 28 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors and the Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group. The press conference was held in London on Wednesday 28th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps on behalf of President Delors and myself I can welcome again our guests from Hungary, Poland, the Czechlands and Slovakia for this historic first meeting in Lancaster House. Just four years ago a meeting of this sort would have been thought, and would have been, wholly incredible.

    Today we have had the opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues largely connected with the relationship between these countries and the European Community both in the short term and the long term ambitions that we have in the Community and that the countries have for eventual full membership of the European Community.

    What I think our meeting has demonstrated today is the Community’s support for the new democracies of central and Eastern Europe, it symbolises the wish that we have to work together with them to build a strong relationship.

    We have agreed a joint declaration of the Community and its member states and Hungary, Poland, the Czechlands and Slovakia and there is also a joint statement from the President of the Commission and from me. Both documents will be available to you but let me just explain the background for the meeting and mention a few key points.

    For the countries present who see the European Community as the cornerstone of their restored place in Europe, this meeting has provided an opportunity to make their case for early accession to the European Community. All the countries present have certain things in common, they all share a common commitment to democracy, to human rights, to market economies and to liberal trade. And to underpin these the Community have given technical assistance and where appropriate balance of payments assistance through the Group of 24.

    But I think all of us recognised that more was needed. The Community therefore signed association, sometimes called Europe agreements, offering open markets and cooperation backed up by technical assistance. Trade liberalisation has already begun and it has been agreed that we will discuss further measures later this year. All of us present recognised the importance of free trade. The Community is determined to make a success of the Europe Agreements, to develop them, to improve them and to help prepare the countries represented here today for eventual full membership.

    What we have considered today are ways to give substance to the agreements and how to help the countries towards membership, we have also looked at specific ways to strengthen practical cooperation under the agreements. We have therefore agreed a number of proposals: proposals for assistance to help achieve a free trade area between the countries; proposals for encouraging links between our local communities and democratic institutions; proposals for giving managerial, industrial and training experience in the Community to managers from each of the countries present; and stronger links between the European Parliament and the parliaments of each country here today.

    The Commission has been invited to report to Edinburgh with further ideas for developing cooperation. We have also had useful discussions between the Foreign Ministers on Yugoslavia and between Heads of Government on the former Soviet Union. The joint declaration on political dialogue formalises regular discussions between us on major international issues. This is the first time we have institutionalised such an agreement and I think it will be an important move forward for everyone who will take part in those discussions.

    Let me finally just add a personal note to our discussions today. The Community went through a turbulent period in the run-up to the French referendum. Since then however the Birmingham summit, the recent agreements reached in Denmark and today’s meetings all demonstrate that the Community is now getting back on the path to a more open, outward looking future. I very much hope and expect that we will be able to consolidate this progress at the Edinburgh Council in December.

    QUESTION (Polish TV):

    I have a question for the Polish Prime Minister. Are you satisfied with the result of this summit?

    MS SUCHOCRA:

    I want to say that yes I am satisfied with every meeting of what is called the Visegrad Group of countries, every meeting that takes place between the Visegrad Group and the European Community countries. I do feel that every step forward, every step towards reaching the European Community is of the greatest possible importance to us. Today’s meeting proved to be of very great importance because indeed we managed to make it quite clear what are the dangers, the threats, that do exist on each side with regard to our joining the Community. I feel that such meetings should be continued in the future and we on our part suggested that the next meeting of a similar type, that is between the European Community and the Visegrad Group, should be attended by Ministers of Transport, of Environment and of Finances to discuss matters that are of importance to them.

    QUESTION (Radio Free Europe):

    Prime Minister Major and M. Delors, the German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, on Monday said that the conflict over Gabcikovo Nagymaros could endanger the goodwill of the EC concerning economic support for Eastern Europe, do you two share these sentiments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter that is under discussion at the moment, it will stay under discussion and I hope it is a matter we will be able speedily to reach an agreement with. It is clearly complex, it is clearly very important, but I have no doubt that with satisfactory goodwill on all sides we will actually get an agreement. Let me say we have had meetings chaired by the Commission that have been taking place in London in the last 24 hours. We have made some progress, meetings are continuing as we speak. I hope the parties may, may, be able to reach agreement today on a process that will reach a settlement. There will not be an agreement today but I hope we may be able to reach agreement on a process that will lead onwards towards a settlement.

    So we have not wasted our time on the difficult problem of the Gabcikovo Dam today, there has been a good deal of discussion amongst officials and also some discussion amongst Heads of Government as well. It is a dispute which has threatened relations between countries whose developing ties with the Community we are marking at today’s summit. So I am very pleased therefore if the summit has helped to achieve progress and so far as one can tell at the moment it has helped, though we are not there.

    QUESTION (Hungarian News Agency):

    Is there any opportunity that you might come up by the Edinburgh summit with some approximate tentative timetable of the integration of the central European countries to the EC and with the qualitative conditions of their integration? Can you imagine any more formalisation, formal political security membership of these countries in the EC than the political dialogue before tackling the more intricate question of total integration involving the economic side?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We spent some time today discussing the question of eventual accession of the countries present. There should be no doubt that that is the objective, the association, the European agreements are a stepping stone towards it but is a stepping stone towards an objective of full membership of the European Community. What we are in process of doing at the moment is making an assessment of precisely what that means and that assessment is being prepared by the Commission and will be presented for discussion amongst the Twelve at the Edinburgh summit. What may spring immediately from that I am not sure, I cannot promise a timetable springing from that.

    What I think is going to be much clearer is the criteria that are necessary for membership and that is a point that was specifically asked for by a number of the Prime Ministers present here today that we should set out as clearly as possible what the criteria will be so that it is more possible to determine domestic policies and also assess progress towards full membership. So that is the way we would propose to deal with it up to and at Edinburgh. Beyond Edinburgh of course we will need further consultation in order to take the matter further.

    QUESTION:

    I have a couple of questions, one to Prime Minister Major and one to the Polish Prime Minister. Mr Major, we understand there was a discussion of the matter of the cooperation between the EC and the Visegrad Group but will you be bringing to the Edinburgh summit any concrete definite proposals specifically in the economic cooperation area? And to the Polish Prime Minister, I understand that there was at least a couple of economic requests or hopes that Poland had regarding a one billion ecu grant and also finance for some structural projects, have you been able to make any progress today with these two requests?

    MS SUCHOCKA:

    My answer is very simple because this problem has not been discussed during the plenary meeting today, maybe it will be discussed during the meeting of the Ministers of Finance so I think the better response will come from the Minister of Finance. The problem was discussed during our visit to Brussels and I think that M. Delors [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first part of the question you will find part of the answer of course in the statement from President Delors and myself in which we talked both about specific measures that help and also about the Europe agreements. Beyond that of course we would need to develop matters within the Community through ECOFIN and in further discussion, but that is a process that we are engaged upon, whether the process will be concluded by Edinburgh I cannot yet say.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    Prime Minister, in your opening statement you talked about the Community getting back on path, are you now confident that the Danish demands can be successfully negotiated without having to renegotiate the Maastricht Treaty itself or do you accept that may only become clear at the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a danger of a semantic misunderstanding. I have now seen an advance copy of the papers that Denmark will make available to people tomorrow and will present formally to many Community members next week. The Danes are not asking for a renegotiation of what is in the Maastricht Treaty. What they will be asking for are some additions and clarifications to the treaty and we will attempt to reach a framework for agreeing that at Edinburgh. I have not yet had a chance to study all they have to say in detail for I only saw the document a few hours ago. But I am clear upon several points. There is no intention of renegotiating the treaty itself, there are clarifications that the Danes require to the treaty, that the Danes make it clear they want to move towards a second referendum so that they may ratify the treaty.

    The other point upon which I am clear though I have had no chance to consult other European members of the Community today is that there is a great will amongst the Community to seek an agreement that will enable Denmark to ratify the treaty, but I will be able to respond in more detail to your question when I have had a proper time to study the documentation and I have not had that yet.

    QUESTION (Czechoslovak News Agency):

    I have a question to the Czech Prime Minister. Are you satisfied with the level of trade between central and Eastern European countries and the European Community and how would you judge the progress made here in London?

    CZECH PRIME MINISTER:

    Whether I am satisfied or not with the volume of trade between my country and the European Community it is not that relevant, that trade is low and it is in the interest of our businesses and of the businesses of the EC to increase the volume of trade. The problem is what the governments can do, what the institutions like the EC can do and in this respect definitely we need to liberalise trade, we need to dismantle the existing barriers and we echoed the issues this morning during our discussions and I am pretty sure that the discussions were very useful in explaining many things between us and I hope we will take it into consideration in the future and some progress will be done.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson – ITN):

    Prime Minister, you are effectively talking here about enlarging the Community but the Danes are in effect, are they not, questioning the new rules? Would it not be better for you in this country to put off ratification of the Maastricht Treaty until the Danish position at the very least becomes clear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What is an ambition of British foreign policy and I think right the way across the Community for some years has been the enlargement of the European Community, the enlargement to the EFTAn countries Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and then beyond that, the enlargement to Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Czechlands and Slovakia.

    We want that for a series of reasons. We want it firstly because we think it is economically desirable to enlarge the size of the Community but also because we think it is desirable in strategic, military, political and other terms to enlarge a free open market and to enlarge an area in which there is general and complete security. It is the extension and security of democracy in the Community.

    If I may draw your minds back a few years, it is not all that many years ago when we were actually wondering whether Spain and Portugal would be safe for democracy or whether they would slip back into some form of totalitarian regime. The more we can widen the Community, the more we will be able to ensure democracy extends itself further across Europe. That is good for the security of everyone in Europe and it is also good for the economic well-being of people across Europe.

    One criterion that is necessary in practical terms for the extension of the Community is the agreement to the treaty that was agreed at Maastricht. That is going to be a necessary preliminary to enlargement. I want, therefore, for that reason and for other reasons to see the treaty agreed and then for us to proceed to enlargement. I do believe enlargement is not just a matter of domestic political interest; it is of very wide-ranging historical interest that we are actually able to achieve that and I think we do need to lift people’s eyes to the wider vision that actually sits there and is a good deal more important than many of the details that appear either in the Maastricht Treaty or indeed in any other European treaty we have signed.

    QUESTION (Polish Press Agency):

    Prime Minister Major, I would like to ask you, Sir, to clarify one point. You used the words “eventual accession” or “eventual membership”. How far is it certain in the Declaration, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the implication, the presupposition, is that as soon as the applicant countries are ready to join the Community, the Community will be prepared to accept them. That is the presupposition. What we can’t at this moment do is put a precise timetable to that and that is not just the Community being difficult. There are very relevant economic circumstances that suggest that any country joining the Community needs to be economically ready to join the Community because the moment it does so, it is exposed to the full market forces that exist within the Community. That is the real reason for making sure that applicants are economically ready.

    The purpose of the Association Agreements and the political dialogue and cooperation is to assist in bringing every applicant country into a position where it can become a full member of the Community but I can’t put a date to “eventually” at this stage. When we can, we will but it is impossible yet.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, you promised the House of Commons last month that you would not bring the Maastricht ratification legislation back to the House until you had a clear definition, a settled order of subsidiarity in place and the Danes had a basis on which they could put the Treaty back to their electorate. Neither precondition has yet been satisfied. Why have you dumped that commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that that is accurate. You quote from the third paragraph. There are several paragraphs in the speech; if you read them all collectively, you will see that what we had in mind was knowing how people are going to proceed. We do know how the Danes are now going to proceed and we will have to proceed as well as the Danes do. We will have to proceed in parallel. Our parliamentary procedures are very lengthy and very complex, perhaps as lengthy and complex as anybody in the Community. We now know how the Danes are going to proceed. I think that is right.

    As far as subsidiarity is concerned, we have made quite a lot of progress. In fact, since I made the statement that you quote, at the Birmingham summit we reached for the first time a clear-cut political declaration upon subsidiarity together with an agreement that we would reach firm decisions on subsidiarity at the Edinburgh summit. That isn’t just a British ambition. The Commission are working on detailed proposals at the moment, so are the Presidency, so are a number of individual member states so all these matters are proceeding in parallel and I think are proceeding quite satisfactorily.

    QUESTION (BBC World Service):

    I would like to ask a question of the Hungarian Prime Minister. Mr. Antall, you referred in your speech and during the conference to the fact that Hungary would like to be a member state of the European Community by the end of this decade. I would like to ask you what is the basis of your optimism?

    ANTALL:

    Hungary has obtained the associate status, that is we have signed the Association Agreement. Austria, Sweden and some EFTA countries will probably become fully-fledged members by the mid-90s and I think the criteria which Prime Minister Major and President Delors referred to and the criteria we have ourselves proposed will have to take shape first and they will set the sort of conditions which each of the applicant countries will have to satisfy. For this reason, we do not emphasise years or dates, be it 1996, 1997 or whichever other year. What is more important for us is to consider the internal development within the Community, for example the Maastricht Agreement, and at the same time we also have to consider our own development so that they converge by the end of the decade and this is the basis for my optimism.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you on a personal level, if you did lose next week’s vote on Maastricht, would you stay on as Prime Minister or would you call a general election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that we are going to lose the vote next week. When one looked at the Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill there was a huge majority in the House of Commons for the Bill. I know there has been something of a furore in one way or another about various matters but I think the substantive position of Britain’s position in Europe and the importance of that and the relationship of the Maastricht Treaty to that is becoming increasingly understood.

    I think for a variety of reasons people have concentrated on the things that Britain did not agree to in Maastricht – the fact that we would not sign up to a single currency for reasons I have recently explained and that we did not agree to a Social Chapter – and because that has been the subject of principal discussion in the United Kingdom, an assumption has grown out of that that the Maastricht Treaty is wholly negative for the United Kingdom and that we are just concerned about what we get out of it. But that is not true and there are some matters in there that are very positive and of very great importance to the United Kingdom. Let me perhaps illustrate them for you.

    For the first time ever we have got written into a European treaty a method of cooperation between member states on an intergovernmental basis outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court and outside the competence of the Commission. That is a wholly new and, from the British point of view, benevolent way in which the Community can develop.

    Secondly, we have been able to circumscribe some of the ways in which the European Court of Justice was able to get creeping competence with its Court judgments by clarifying precisely what responsibilities they have.

    Thirdly, although it is a dreadful jargon word and I know that, the reality of what subsidiarity means is that it will bring many decisions much closer to the people who are affected by them and as I indicated a moment ago in an earlier answer, we will have a detailed menu of subsidiarity provisions before us at Edinburgh for decisions to be made by all the Heads of Government and that was agreed at Birmingham.

    That is an illustration of the positive points in the Maastricht Treaty that are relevant for the United Kingdom and welcome to the United Kingdom and have been elements of policy that have been sought for many years.

    QUESTION (Polish Section of BBC):

    Delors, we heard a few minutes ago a fairly clear commitment from Mr. Major towards eventual membership of the Visegrad Three countries to the EC and another commitment to enlargement. Could we hear a similar commitment from you, M. Delors?

    DELORS:

    Yes, absolutely! No problem. It is a question of efficiency but first the Commission is at the service of the Community and not the contrary and under the leadership of the British Presidency the Commission is asked for a report at Edinburgh on the criteria for further enlargement to the Eastern and Southern European countries and we must work on this point. Personally, I am very much in favour of the enlargement of the Community – there is no doubt about that.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, on the Danish question, if the Danes succeed in securing additional clauses or opt-outs tacked onto the Treaty, particularly on the question of European citizenship, will you seek to get them extended to Britain as a way of reassuring your own backbenchers and other people who are concerned about the Maastricht process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the question of citizenship, the particular illustration you give, is one that was a pretty significant factor in the Danish referendum, people were very concerned about that.

    As was made clear, of course, in the Declarations at the Birmingham summit there is no question of any citizen of the Community losing the citizenship of their domestic country. A Danish citizen will remain a Danish citizen, a British citizen will remain British.

    The essence of what was regarded as European citizenship was twofold: firstly, that it was subsidiary – it did not affect the citizenship of the individual country; and secondly, it was there simply to illustrate the fact that everyone in the European Community, irrespective of their citizenship, was entitled to certain benefits by virtue of being a member of the European Community.

    So it is not a matter of huge importance except emotionally where I think some people have feared that a European citizenship would subsume the individual citizenship of member states. There is no question of that happening. There is no question of the British, the French, the Germans or any other member state in the Community ever being other than a citizen of the country that they are a citizen of now.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask a question of Mr. Meciar and Mr. Klaus. Do you still have the strong commitment that you would like to go to the European Community together – that is the first part of my question. The second part is are you ready to go to Krakow in November and make this meeting successful?

    KLAUS:

    As regards the first question which means whether we want to join the European Community together, this is for me the future which I don’t want to forecast. We know that we have to prepare ourselves for being equal partners among European countries and whether it will be the same day or the next day is absolutely irrelevant for us just now.

    As you probably know, we succeeded two days ago in signing some fifteen treaties within the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, somehow building the basic stones for future cooperation between the two countries and we hope the cooperation will be successful. We will try to minimise losing the benefits of the mutual economic space on the territory of the current Czechoslovakia. In this respect, I am quite optimistic and quite confident and I hope Mr. Meciar as well.

    As regards the November meeting in Krakow, we will have to think about it because it is difficult now to sign something on behalf of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics and I am not pretty sure whether in November we shall be able to sign it on behalf of the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic so we are not in a hurry to do it just now because of technical and legislative reasons, not because of the substance of the Treaty.

    MECIAR:

    We handed out our memorandum where we claim that we take on the commitments of the Czechoslovak treaties. Concerning quotas, we handed out agreement that the quotas will be divided between the two republics. Now the question is how the European Community will approach this. We don’t find it necessary that all the conditions that were already reviewed be reviewed again.

    The agreement in Poland which will negotiate some issues of closer cooperation of the Visegrad Four countries is the subject of review but the Slovak Republic is not prepared in November to sign this agreement even though we find it is a very important document.