The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Italy

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Romano Prodi – 31 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Romano Prodi, held on Friday 31st January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon, thank you for being here this afternoon. Can I firstly say what a pleasure it is to have the Prime minister back at Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity over the last three hours or so to run across a very wide field of mutual interest. We have spent a lot of time self-evidently discussing three particular areas. Firstly, the development of European Policy, and in particular the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam. Secondly, bilateral matters, and I think the Prime Minister would probably agree with me when I say that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy is in very good shape indeed. There is a great deal more trade and mutual cooperation, perhaps particularly in the defence field, but not only that, than many people perhaps have realised. And the third area we have been discussing is international affairs. We have a joint interest of course in the G7 Group, of which we are both members, a joint interest in NATO, of which we are both leading members, and of course a joint interest in the European Union.

    So those are the areas that we have had the opportunity of discussing this afternoon. There are areas in European policy where we have a very similar position; there are areas, as we will both acknowledge to you, where we have a different perspective, and we have had the opportunity of discussing both of those this morning.

    MR PRODI:

    I have very few things to add to what John has said, because our conversation was very frank and the points you listed very well, we discussed deeply and our position, there are many points that are similar or identical. For example, we share similar views on enlargement both of NATO and of the European Union. We have stressed our position but we have always helped each other to understand, two countries, different interests and positions, and to have how to converge in the future, how to help each other in the common policies. We have also, I have to sum up, added to this [indistinct] specific elements like agricultural policy, BSE and other specific European issues.

    I have to confirm that in the bilateral programme there are really no different views, that we are working in order to enhance the cooperation, especially in the military industry field and in a few basic fields in which Britain afforded the process of privatisation, that is British Airport, British Airways, common action in weapon production field and all these fields of cooperation must be deepened in the future.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Do you think Italy is making a big mistake in wanting so badly to join a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which Prime Minister?

    QUESTION:

    To you Mr Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a brace of them here. I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to comment on Italian policy. The Italian Prime Minister has taken a great many courageous decisions in order to meet the criteria necessary to enter a European currency. I think we both share the view that the criteria need to be right, that it is necessary to have the right criteria. But I think it is for you to ask Romano that question, not me. I wouldn’t dream of commenting on that.

    MR PRODI:

    I can answer that. In this long conversation we have underlined that it is possible to have different interests between different countries you know and I have understood better a lot of the British position and I think that John has understood why I “badly” – as you told – insist on Italian entrance into the common currency. There is a different system, different interests and I think that this conversation, even if the result is not similar action, is very useful to understand each other much better.

    QUESTION:

    If Britain doesn’t go into monetary union, does this affect Italy or does it affect other European countries?

    MR PRODI:

    The problem of Euro will affect all Europe of course because I think that there is a general decision and the effect will be spread over all the European countries. So I think that each country must have a responsibility for a right and correct decision in the future and we have really deepened the problem of the consequence of the different actions.

    QUESTION:

    Did you reach any point of convergence? I understand why Britain wants unanimity in order to let some specific groups within the European Union on further integration [sic], Italy takes a more liberal view on this subject.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is fair to say that Italy has a more flexible view of flexibility than we do, that is certainly true. I think there is a much greater understanding of both countries’ position on that. That there has to be great flexibility in an enlarging European Union I think is a common position, but amongst the 15 nations of the European Union there is a fine selection of what flexibility might mean in practice and there is a lot of debate to be had about that.

    I don’t think anyone wishes to see a position in which a small hard core, against the interests of everybody else, proceed ahead and we need to find a way of actually coping with that and protecting the interests of other nations. There are many different models. It is safe to say that no communal model has yet commended itself. I think we made some interesting progress in discussing the problem, but I wouldn’t pretend to you that we cracked the problem in our discussion on flexibility.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Prodi, can you expand any further on next in Brussels on Monday that you might be bringing forward the budget for 1998? Is there anything further on that?

    MR PRODI:

    No, it is completely untrue and I know that there were rumours on this decision in Brussels. There is no official decision but the rumours that we have are in a completely different direction.

    QUESTION:

    Italy is to ask the European Union to launch a political initiative in Algeria. What is your comment on this initiative and can we consider it as the official position of your government?

    MR PRODI:

    No, the official position is that Algeria is an independent country and so we don’t want to interfere in their internal problems.

    QUESTION:

    My question is that you discussed the rumours of Italy bringing the 1998 budget forward, how do you fell about that?

    MR PRODI:

    I misunderstood your question. Look, this is debated in the political arena in Italy. I think personally that it is very useful to anticipate, even if there is no radical difference, but to have a clear idea of next year’s budget is very useful for the international environment, but this must be discussed with the opposition because to do it five months before the date, we have an agreement for the parliamentary procedures, so this discussion will go on.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Prodi, you said a couple of days ago that your comments that the lira was too strong were misunderstood. Could you clarify what you meant by that and what levels were you referring to in terms of the recent strength?

    MR PRODI:

    I don’t want to have any opinion on the real value of the lira. I only told a few days ago, and I repeat, that the lira, the decision of putting the lira at 990 lira per deutschmark was taken a few weeks ago and I clearly mean that if the rate of exchange goes a little up or a little down from that it has no real meaning, you know, they are completely normal fluctuations and so I am not worried about that. We have always fluctuated in the [indistinct] of the central band taken in Brussels.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Meeting with Romano Prodi – 13 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Romano Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, on 13th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. Let me just say a very few words about our discussions this morning. I was very pleased to welcome the Prime Minister here this morning, to congratulate him upon his recent election win and the formation of his government, and to thank him for the constructive role the Italian Presidency have been taking over recent weeks over the difficult problem of resolving the crisis over beef. The Presidency have been extremely helpful and we have had a very useful discussion about that this morning.

    Our discussions centred really in three areas: bilateral relations, which are excellent; the agenda for the European Union meeting at Florence in a few days time that I much look forward to attending; and how to resolve the present difficulties over beef. On each of those areas we had extremely constructive and worthwhile discussions and I am very encouraged by them. The Prime Minister may want to say a word or two and then we will take just a very few questions.

    MR PRODI:

    I think that you have already given the clear picture of what we have told in our discussions. I want only to add that the discussion has been very constructive, deep, without of course conclusion because this is a process of discussion, but I think it has been very helpful for preparing the Foreign Ministers meeting of next Monday and the Florence Conference at the end of next week.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Can I ask you both what prospect you now see of a settlement in the beef crisis before the opening of the Florence settlement, and whether that peace can be achieved without the agreement for Britain to kill another 20,000 cows?

    MR PRODI:

    I can talk in terms of probabilities, I tell you that this morning we have pointed the questions in a very clear and precise way, you know you approach the moment in which you see not, you don’ t see the solution done but you see which can be the solution. And so I think we have made good progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are making progress but we are not there yet.

    QUESTION:

    Does the information coining out today that Britain continued to export, or double its exports of contaminated foodstuffs to the rest of Europe after the ban in this country, does that complicate getting a settlement before Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No problems at all with that and we have had no difficult discussions about that whatever this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the firm action which was taken against Bill Cash and the Referendum Party yesterday will send a useful signal to Europe in this context?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was an internal question and it was dealt with internally.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    Mr Prodi, what would you hope to achieve at Florence apart from this question of beef? What were you hoping to do there?

    MR PRODI:

    We shall tackle the institutional programme. But we shall give the agenda for the intergovernmental conference and we shall not take a decision, because you know that is a project that is starting now and the directional work will be changing the institutional framework the programme of internal policy and foreign policy and the science. And in Florence we shall tackle deep the problem of unemployment and the different strategies to tackle unemployment in Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Italian Prime Minister – 6 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Lamberto Dini, held in Florence on Wednesday 6th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    [Indistinct] and I guess that it also brings to mind other historical periods [indistinct] Prime Minister Major and his Ministers for having accepted to come here to Florence for this encounter prior to the European Union Madrid Council. Of course we are full of gratitude to the Mayor for having made it possible to host these encounters here in this beautiful Palace.

    I must say, to begin with, that these talks have helped to reinforce and strengthen the ties of friendship that exist between our countries, they are historical indeed and long-standing and both have helped to strengthen the personal ties and the friendship that exist between myself and Prime Minister Major, as well as the other Ministers.

    We have chosen to have these encounters here in Florence because it shows how strong these ties are. In fact for those of you who are not familiar with this beautiful city and who have had a chance to get to know it will know quite well that there are numerous distinguished British statesmen and guests who have come here in fact throughout the previous and current century. I must say that this is a special sign therefore of the friendship between our two countries.

    The aim of this meeting was to have an exchange of views and to compare our opinions on the [indistinct] with regard to the problems and issues that Europe is faced with. As I was saying earlier, of course we are going to have our Madrid European Council meeting and there are other meetings which have been scheduled of course at the European level throughout 1996 and in the future as well. There are numerous points of convergence vis a vis the issues that we have been dealing with together.

    The agenda that has been planned for the Madrid Summit meeting is very rich indeed and very significant and the Heads of Government will of course be discussing the timetable for the European Monetary Union. Of course there don’t seem to be major differences between our countries with regard to the future whereby we will be able to create a [indistinct] European Monetary Union and especially with regard to the fact that in terms of this timetable, again we don’t wish to advance our decision to go into Stage Three before the spring of 1998, as was originally scheduled.

    There is another point of convergence with regard to these approaches and that is that in consideration of our spring 1998 meeting [indistinct] will pass over to the Stage Three, to stay free of the European Monetary Union, while we both believe that we must very carefully analyse and assess the potential and likely effects at Community level of a division or split amongst European member states and those of course that may join and become members in 1999. This is what has been scheduled and hopefully we will be able to follow this timetable, others will be left out unfortunately.

    We have indicated some of these risks and some of these consequences, which of course will have implications at Parliamentary level, and I think that the risks which will arise pursuant to this division of course will have an impact on the global economic stability. We agree that the consequences or the effect of this split or separation, division as it were, the effects on the economy as well as the political risks that are involved are paramount and hence we must be very careful assessing all these issues.

    There is another concern that we will be discussing in Madrid and this issue has to do with subsidiarity. In other words, at Community level, it will be necessary to restrict some of the functions which cannot be executed at national or local level.

    And I would say that there is a feeling that we basically share in our countries, and in other countries as well, a feeling according to [indistinct] the implementation of the single market, perhaps there have been some excesses in Community regulations in regulatory decisions which of course always aim at positive results, ie, reviewing possible distortions that exist in terms of business competition so as to be able to take them on at the same level. The regulations of that have been adopted, perhaps there have been some excesses, and we have now come to the understanding that these are all aspects that have to be reviewed, especially so as to avoid creating constraints in the future that are not necessary.

    I would say that the Community must be able to do what the countries cannot do themselves without becoming concerned with other issues, as I said, which can be easily regulated and handled at national level and at local level as well of course.

    There are other subjects which of course will be analysed and examined in the course of the Madrid Council meeting, and this includes of course the situation in former Yugoslavia. And we have been discussing this issue not only because our countries will be operating in that area, in that theatre, the peacekeeping forces following the Dayton agreement but also because all the actions that are going to have to be taken and the efforts and commitment are going to be so huge for our countries, for European countries especially but others as well, in terms of the reconstruction of those geographical areas in the former State of Yugoslavia. So this is a financial commitment as well as being an humanitarian one. In Yugoslavia there will be Italian troops, together with British contingents, and of course this is one of the subjects that we have been discussing together.

    I would also like to add some additional comments. I stressed to Prime Minister Major how much importance Italy attaches to the results of the Barcelona Conference in terms of the strengthening and consolidation of Mediterranean ties, and I think that in this connection as well there is a total and full understanding and agreement as to the need to try to bring together and to bring closer other countries in the other flanks of the Mediterranean area during the Italian Presidency, so initiatives will be taken, as has already been expressed in the parliament, so as to be able to comply with the Barcelona declaration. This is one of the objectives which we think top priority should be attached to.

    We were talking about the subject of subsidiarity. I would say that we are in full agreement as to the fact that the governments need to make special efforts so as to be able to bring Europe closer to its citizenry and I think that this should be seen in [indistinct] of the Intergovernmental Conference which will be initiated in the spring of 1996. And I would also like to emphasise the fact that Prime Minister Major has expressed his agreement and his willingness to support the possibility of initiating this conference in Italy during the Italian Presidency more or less at the time that has been scheduled, ie, the beginning of the spring.

    And I would say therefore that in this connection we are once again in full agreement. I was talking about the fact that Europe has to be brought closer to its citizens on the citizenry. The Intergovernmental Conference will be discussing and reviewing major issues that have to do with the transformation of the European Union, ie what was referred to as the two pillars, the second and third pillars of the Maastricht Treaty. And I would say that this is an issue that is closely related to the enlargement of the European Union and I would say that from this point of view we are in full agreement as to the fact that we need to review and assess the implications of this enlargement and extension of the Community, even before it will begin talks and negotiations with these countries. In fact there are issues that have to be dealt with, there are actions that have to be taken above and beyond the reforms relative to the operations and functioning of the institutions, we are also going to have to review and revise some of the common policies. These policies of course also have economic and financial repercussions for our country as well as for all the other European Union member states. And these consequences and implications and modifications that may be necessary vis a vis these policies are going to have to be carefully assessed and weighed and examined and therefore decided upon before even beginning this negotiation.

    I think that those of you who follow this carefully realise that there is going to be a direct influence on the own resources of the Community and the Community budget and the contributions that the member states are going to have to make. In other words what the taxpayers are going to have to be putting into this. I would say therefore that these are paramount issues and concerns and, as I said, we are in full agreement on the fact that we have to have a very in depth analysis of all these issues before taking any specific decisions as to the enlargement of the Community.

    The Intergovernmental Conference will have a mandate which will be redefined at the conference at Madrid and it will then be further developed by our Foreign Ministers, the two pillars of common foreign policy, defence on the one hand and domestic security and judicial issues on the other hand will of course require very careful examination and there are different viewpoints regarding these issues. I think therefore that once again we are going to have to try to strike an even balance between the prerogatives and functions at Community level. This is going to have to be done at an intergovernmental level and of course there are other issues at Community level and the Community government, ie, the Commission, will be empowered as it were to take initiatives so as to pursue these assessments.

    The third pillar, as I was saying earlier, has to do with the domestic security and judicial affairs and in this connection would say that the fight against organised crime requires the full and global cooperation amongst all countries, ie, the European Union countries, and this is going to be important in terms of the fight against drug trafficking. With regard to this issue I must say we have had an exchange of views and Prime Minister Major did make some suggestions in an attempt to try to prevent the flow of drugs, the trafficking of drugs, before it even gets to our continent, in other words we try to block it at its point of origin, and I would ask Prime Minister Major perhaps to take this up during his comments.

    These are the main subjects and issues that we wanted to brief you on and these are therefore the issues that we have been dealing with in the course of our talks and encounters. There are other problems that have been tackled by the Foreign Ministers during the course of their talks, and by the Defence Ministers. As you can see, they are all present, they are all here with us this afternoon. But at any rate I would say that these are the prominent or main issues that we have been focusing our attention on and that I wanted to report to you and bring to your attention.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, thank you. I think you have set out a very comprehensive account of many of the matters that we have been discussing over the last few hours.

    I would like firstly, if I may, to thank you, Prime Minister, and the Mayor of Florence for your hospitality in this remarkable and historic city. Over the years I have attended summits in many glamorous places. I cannot recall any quite so beautiful as this. If the central heating lacks something, the decor most certainly doesn’t. And my colleagues and I have been delighted to be here on this occasion.

    This summit I think comes at an important time both for Italy and for the United Kingdom as we prepare for our respective Presidencies of the European Union, in the case of Italy, and the Western European Union in the case of the United Kingdom. And what I think has been demonstrated very clearly in our discussions, not only mine but those of our colleagues, the Foreign and Defence Ministers, is the real warmth and common ground that exists in the relationship at the moment between the United Kingdom and Italy.

    The Prime Minister set out many areas of agreement. There is one I would like to touch upon that has been very apparent over the last two or three years, and that is to take the opportunity of being in Italy to express my thanks to the Italian government for their help and splendid hospitality to United Kingdom forces who have been operating in Bosnia, but operating on many occasions out of Italy. It has been a joint endeavour, it has been a vital role for both countries but the generosity and hospitality that has been shown to British troops is something that we very deeply appreciate and will not forget.

    We have had on this occasion the opportunity, with Foreign and Defence Ministers, to have a productive range of discussions over a whole series of issues. We agreed on the importance of a European Union that looks outwards, that deals with subsidiarity and deregulation. And I think we share the hope, as far as subsidiarity is concerned, that we might be able to enshrine that principle in whatever treaty emerges from the Intergovernmental Conference that lies ahead of us – a European Union that looks both to the east and to the south for enlargement, that looks across the Atlantic to our relationship with the North American States and looks to our partners around the world.

    We discussed the prospects and importance of promoting and encouraging trade, growth, prosperity, security. And in many ways that has been one of the key things of the summit. We agreed to work closely to enhance the competitiveness of European business. The Prime Minister and I share the view that Europe has to be competitive, not just one country with another in Europe, but each European country with countries in the Pacific Basin, in Japan, in the United States and elsewhere.

    And with that in mind we discussed deregulation, the simplification of procedures, the deregulation of regulatory reform and removing many of the burdens on small and medium sized business that both of us believe have been over-imposed over the dears both perhaps at European level and in some cases at national level as well.

    We look forward to the Intergovernmental Conference and the events that would follow it. We agreed that the conference that lies just ahead has to be seen not as an entity on its own, but in the context of the other important challenges that will face Europe over the next five to ten years. For that reason we felt it should concentrate on practical, realistic measures and the detail of how those measures might be carried out.

    We confirmed our commitment to enlargement, I see two principal themes of discussion on enlargement at Madrid next week: firstly, we should underline the need for a full analysis of the implications of enlargement, a full analysis of the implications for reform of European Union policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy, so that enlargement, to which we are committed and to which we have given our word to other countries, can be prepared on a sound and sustainable basis; and that secondly that we should ask, without delay, the Commission to proceed with work on preparing their formal opinions on the candidates for membership so that accession negotiations can start, with the benefit of that information, with at least some candidates and with minimum delay after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We had an extremely useful series of exchange of views on economic and monetary union. The Prime Minister set out for you some of those views a few moments ago. Both of us look at the prospects of the European Union proceeding with monetary union and the possibility, perhaps probability, that only a minority of states would go ahead upon the present Maastricht timetable. And we believe that we need to examine the implications for the whole European Union of a split in which only a minority of states might go ahead with a single currency and in the first instance a majority of European states would not be able to go ahead. And we think that is very probable at the present juncture and that we should examine what the implications of that might be for ail members of the European Union – what are the implications for the exchange markets, for the single market, for the relationship between those within the single currency and those beyond the single currency? And these are important practical matters that we believe need to be examined and considered so that decisions in future can be taken with the advantage of having had those matters properly examined. There are great implications with that, it will be a new departure for the European Union and we need to have a proper examination of what that means.

    We discussed and recognised the need for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the structural funds and that too needs to be carefully examined and I suspect we will reflect those concerns in our approach to the Madrid European Council in a week or so.

    The Prime Minister touched upon some ideas I put to him about dealing with the drugs problem, and I briefed the Prime Minister on an initiative I shall be proposing with others for the Madrid Council. What I would like the European Union to do is to examine effective help to small Caribbean states in the east Caribbean to cut off the trans-shipment of drugs from Latin America, via the east Caribbean, to northern Europe. It is one of the great routes of drugs to northern Europe, it is a problem that every Western European country faces, it is one we all feel immensely strongly about and I will have some proposals to put, with others, to the European Council about how collectively and bilaterally we might assist the eastern Caribbean countries in blocking off that large supply of drugs from the east Caribbean before it comes through to pollute the lives of so very many people in Western Europe. And the Prime Minister was very supportive in these proposals and we will seek to take them forward at the Madrid Council at the end of next week.

    We will be working very closely with Italy to strengthen the European Union’s relationship with its Mediterranean neighbours, we recognise the great importance of that and we share the views that the Prime Minister set out a moment or so ago. We would like to see a promotion of stability and further economic prosperity in the Mediterranean region, building on the work that was done, and the relationships that were forged at the recent Barcelona conference.

    We both I think would like to strengthen further the European Union’s relations with Turkey and I hope that the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey will be ratified by the European Parliament later on this month.

    We believe it is important to continue to work for a settlement to the situation in Cyprus and that is something we British feel passionately about. We have had troops in Cyprus for 29 years, the time for a settlement is long past and I think we will be looking to see what can be done to promote an end to that intercommunal dispute that has gone on for far too long.

    We discussed also the very important UK/Italian initiative on cooperation with central European associates and we would both wish to involve the central Europeans even more closely in European Union governmental work on foreign affairs and on justice and home affairs.

    We agreed that we wanted to see effective follow-up on key elements in the new transatlantic agenda that was discussed at the European Union/United States summit in Madrid a few days ago, and in particular the proposals on trade, including the study on reducing or eliminating barriers to transatlantic trade and of course to increase cooperation there also against drugs and against crime.

    We discussed, and so did our Defence Ministers, our growing defence relationship. There are, we think, many areas where we can work together during our respective European Union and Western European Union Presidencies. I would like our British Western European Union Presidency to focus on what I suppose you might call operational practicalities. We need to strengthen the Western European Union and improve its ability actually to do things in the peacekeeping and humanitarian areas. And I hope very much that we will enjoy the support of Italy and their important contribution in this enterprise.

    I mentioned a moment ago the appreciation we feel for the outstanding host nation support we have received from Italy as a NATO force involved in Bosnia. The Prime Minister and I also discussed developments in former Yugoslavia following the Dayton peace agreement and our respective contributions to the Peace Implementation Force in Bosnia. Both of our two countries, in separate ways, are going to have a crucial part to play in implementation of the Bosnia peace agreements and we will be holding an international conference on this in London later this week that Malcolm Rifkind, the British Foreign Secretary, will chair. We think it is vital not only for Bosnia, but for European security and the transatlantic alliance, that the difficult task of implementation should be a success and we hope to set out the guidelines for that at next week’s conference.

    And finally, Lamberto, if I may, just a further word of personal thanks for the warmth of your reception here in Florence and for the openness of the discussions that we have been able to have at Prime Ministerial level and also at Foreign Secretary and Defence level. I look forward to pursuing some of our joint interests at Madrid this week. I think it has been an extraordinarily useful summit and I am very grateful for your invitation and delighted to have been here today.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (AP Dow Jones):

    Prime Minister Dini, yesterday, you said with some considerable force Italy could bring its deficit-to-GDP ratio to 3% a little sooner than 1997 in order to make the new criteria. Given that Italy and other countries as well – Belgium and others – don’t make the criteria on other items, why should Italy be asked to make such a sacrifice ifs any event?

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I indicated to Parliament what the effort was that would be required in 1997 on the side of budgetary policy if Italy was to qualify in terms of the ratio of deficit to GDP, to bring it down to 3%. That was the purpose of my presentation yesterday. No decision has to be taken on this point yet. It will be part of the preparation of the 1997 budget and the document that comes out in the middle of 1996.

    I don’t think there is a single country that questions that criteria must be respected in order to qualify for Phase 3 by 1999 so what is said is subject to an element of appreciation and of judgement on the part of governments. What is written in the Maastricht Treaty Protocol is the reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio that must be continuing over a period of time. That contains an element of discretion and therefore at this point in time it is difficult to say that, say, The Netherlands, Ireland or Belgium would not qualify on the basis of the last criteria; they must all qualify in terms of deficit-to-GDP ratio. That is right.

    QUESTION (Matt Fry, BBC):

    Prime Minister Major, you sound quite ecstatic today. Have you found a new friend in Lamberto Dino regarding any misgivings about monetary union and what will this friendship, if indeed it does exist, signal to Germany and France?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I don’t know quite what you mean by ecstatic. I have repeated what I have said on a number of occasions in the past about the matters that needed to be examined.

    European Monetary Union, when and if it proceeds, will be very important for the whole of Europe; very important for those countries that may be part of a single currency and it will be very important for those countries that are not part of a single currency. It will affect everybody, whether they take part in it or not and what I have said repeatedly for a long time is that we have to examine not just the Maastricht criteria and whether individual countries will meet it but what the implications will be for the whole of the European Union of some countries proceeding and other countries not. That is a novel proposition.

    We have never seen anything in the European Union that will be quite like the development of monetary union with a minority going ahead and very probably, on present projections, a majority not going ahead and what I have been saying is we have to consider what that means. What does it mean for the relationship between the countries in the inner core and the countries outside? What it will mean on the foreign exchange markets? What it will mean for Structural Funds and the Common Agricultural Policy? What will it mean for the voting habits of the countries within the inner core and the countries outside?

    Those are questions the answers to which have not yet been examined properly at European level and what I have been saying and what I think the Prime Minister said as well to you a few moments ago is that we should examine those matters and see what they would mean because whether any individual country goes ahead or does not go ahead, the answer to those questions is very important for the whole working of the European Union and above all, of course, there is the question of whether those countries not in the first tranche would be able subsequently, if you will forgive the jargon – to converge and join later or whether the practicalities would mean that many countries would diverge and not be able to join later and that becomes especially important when you think at the same time we are going to be looking at enlargement and a number of other institutional changes.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t that slowing it down?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    With respect, it isn’t a question of slowing it down or speeding it up. If this proceeds – when this proceeds – it has got to be right. If it isn’t right, there will be chaos and difficulty right across Europe. That is the point that I have made consistently over many years to my European partners.

    Predominantly economically, one has to be certain what the implications of this quite novel procedure of moving to a single currency might be and the question is much more important than the way you put it – is it to slow it down or whatever? The question is to make sure that Europe realises what the implications of proceeding are and in particular what the implications of only a minority of members proceeding might be as things may change but as we meet today, the working assumption would be that less than half of the European Union would in fact meet the Maastricht criteria and be able to proceed by the date of 1 January 1999.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    If I may, I would like to add a few words on this;

    First of all, we have two years ahead of us to study the problems in depth. Secondly, the matter has been raised by Prime Minister Major and also by myself in Majorca and we had a first exchange of views on the consequences of having a split in our European Community in regard to the Union when we come to it. Today, we have gone more in depth into analysing the areas that need to be looked into.

    I myself mentioned some of these things yesterday in my statement to Parliament ahead of this meeting which shows we were thinking on parallel lines even before this meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Gentlemen, can it be said that you see yourselves as allies in a movement against what would be destabilising for Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I think we are allies in examining in detail the implications of what is proposed so that everyone is aware of what those implications are. I think to that extent certainly we are allies. We are not battling against our European colleagues. What we are trying to do is to examine very practical matters that follow from the decisions that previously have been taken and the decisions that lie immediately ahead.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I quite frankly expect that all our colleagues and the ministers of finance of the Union will agree that the studies and analysis that we have mentioned are indispensable before going ahead because the implications may be strong and important for both countries that could be in as well as those that could be out of the Union.

    QUESTION:

    In the meeting with Gonzalez, you said [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I am still of the same opinion [indistinct] in the last 24 hours. I think we are moving in the right direction of good government continuity during the first six-month period of 1996 being assured.

    QUESTION (Jon Hibbs – Daily Telegraph):

    Mr. Major, can I just refer you to the Joint Declaration on the future of the Western European Union, paragraph 3, where it talks about allowing a growing cohesion [indistinct] the need for political, economic and military instruments as part of a common foreign and security policy?

    How does this square with the remarks that the Secretary of State for Defence made in Paris yesterday about the folly of merging the European Union and the WEU and what do you think your Eurosceptic backbenchers are likely to make of these moves?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I will answer you and the Defence Secretary may wish to add something; I will certainly give him the opportunity.

    I think there are two points here. The first is the extent to which we can continue to cooperate in the Western European Union using the Western European Union as the European arm of NATO and that is our policy. What is not our policy and what the Defence Secretary will have said yesterday is to let the Western European Union fall under the direct aegis of the European Union and the European Council; that is emphatically not our policy. Our policy is to promote cooperation and cohesion within the Western European Union and to ensure that it becomes the European arm of NATO and the reason we take that view is of course there is a different membership between the Western European Union and the European Union itself and in the European Union there are a number of nations that are neutral.

    Our position has been quite clear: NATO has primacy; NATO must remain having primacy and we do not see NATO being supplanted, short-term or long-term, by the European Union or by the Western European Union becoming subordinate to the European Union so what we are talking about here is continued cohesion and development of the Western European Union as the arm of NATO, not as a part of the European Union and I think you will find that is what the Defence Secretary was saying yesterday.

    QUESTION:

    Two questions, one to the Italian Prime Minister and one to the British Prime Minister, the first one to the Italian Prime Minister Dini.

    Today, the exchange markets did well and the stock market too. Do you think that this was due to your declaration yesterday in Parliament that this manoeuvre to stabilise the [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    [Inaudible] rapidly to my declaration which might be a target or objective for 1997. I rather think that beyond fluctuations we witness every day in the exchange markets trend is that probably markets are having a more relaxed view as to the political prospects for our country.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    As for the consequences of monetary union, one of the themes underlying our discussion is that it is very difficult to foresee with certainty what the consequences of monetary union may be without the work that we have been asking to be carried out that has not yet been carried out. It is perhaps rather surprising that many of the questions that we have identified, which have been around for a long time, have not yet been the subject of detailed study within the European Union but for one reason or another they have not and we are now pressing that they should have such a study and when that is done it might be possible to answer your question with greater credibility as to the impact of it in due course but at the moment I think the answer from anybody, whomsoever they might be, would be an opinion and not a certainty and I would prefer to wait for the work.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I would add with regard to the strike in France,- I think, as we learned from our own bitter experience in the past and recently, when a government imposes a decision having wide implications for all the citizens is a time which has now gone. It is not possible to do that any more and making decisions which are necessary in the interest of a nation is something requiring dialogue and discussion, not imposition.

    I think that also countries with a strongly centralised government the power in the hands of the President in France is not complete and full. This is a teaching for them and for all of the others. You know what we did in Italy especially as to the reform of the social security system and you know how we did work on that occasion.

    QUESTION (French News Agency):

    Mr. Major, what do you think about Mr. Dini’s proposal of a simplified mechanism with regard to European Monetary Union?

    Prime Minister Dini, I would like to know whether you made that proposal because you are afraid that Italy will not be able to participate in the third stage of the monetary union.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    A number of suggestions have been put forward already as to what mechanism might exist to maintain some comparability between those countries inside a single currency and those countries outside. Clearly, for the working of the single market, it is attractive that the value of currencies does not bounce all over the place and that people follow sensible economic policies.

    I don’t, to be blunt, think it practicable to go down the route of artificial fines for countries that do not meet particular criteria. I know that has been suggested, I do not agree with that approach. What I do think is a practical approach is to look at the sort of criteria that we have all agreed in the past are sensible economic criteria on their own merit – the Maastricht criteria we set out, they could have been different but they are an indication of that – and I think providing there is agreement between governments to follow that sort of sensible economic policy, we will continue to get convergence over a period of time and I think that is the right way to do it. I don’t think that can be artificially imposed.

    To take matters a little further, I would be quite sceptical – very sceptical – of the suggestion of a new form of exchange rate mechanism outside the single currency. I think there are many disadvantages to that; I won’t enumerate them all now for we do not have enough time for me to do that but I don’t think that that would be a credible way forward and we are going to have to look at setting the right sort of economic targets and let governments follow sensible economic policies to ensure that those targets are met and that seems to me the most desirable way to try and reach the convergence that is firstly desirable in its own right and secondly, important for the satisfactory working of the single market.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    What I suggested did not differ significantly or greatly from what Prime Minister Major just said and certainly the suggestion I made was not out of fear that Italy may be out because we will need some sort of consultative body or arrangement to make sure that the countries that are out pursue sound policies, policies of convergence, without of course thinking of a change to the mechanism that would be dead once monetary union is created. The fact remains that if not all of the member countries of the Union join the monetary union from the start, it might have adverse consequences and also instability of exchange rates so we should make sure that we have something in place as to the countries who are out so that they can work closely towards convergence following sound policies and therefore trying to ensure a reasonable degree of exchange rate relationship between the monetary union and the currencies that will remain temporarily out.

    QUESTION:

    At this point, there are different forces meeting in Rome from the different political parties so as to try and pursue a common foreign policy. In fact, we are devoting tomorrow to the European issue and I think that the [inaudible] party is also trying to establish May as an electoral deadline. Do you think if you go to May, it would ensure this kind of continuity that is so desirable?

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    This is something that I desired without having really expressed it clearly in Parliament. In other words, if the political forces succeed in striking an agreement as to the European policies – and this of course basically refers to foreign policy – then I think that this would be a very important sign of political maturity because foreign policy needs to be less out of the divisions as much as possible. We are talking about a policy which needs to have bipartisan support.

    There are talks under way which are very positive I must say. I also think that it is positive that following yesterday’s discussions we are having these meetings so as to try to come to an agreement as to what the parties believe to be an appropriate date to be suggested at a later time to the Head of State for elections to take place. This is of course an opportunity to ensure government continuity throughout the Italian Presidency of the European Union and I think therefore that this is a very positive approach.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Dini and Prime Minister Major, you mentioned that your countries [indistinct] of the European Union and the Western European Union during the delicate implementation of the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. Did you discuss any specific aspects of cooperation between your two countries to that extent?

    The second question is addressed to Prime Minister Dini, it has to do with the [indistinct] decree. Minister Fantozzi said that for Italians there were going to be new taxes. Would you like to comment?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    What we were really looking at were the general problems and the size of commitment that the United Kingdom and Italy would both separately make to the peace implementation force and we were really casting our minds forward to the peace implementation conference that the Foreign Secretary will chair in London early next week so there isn’t really much more to say than that.

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    With regard to the [indistinct] decree, I guess I should say that it is seen as a new tax hike by journalists, by the writers of headlines, but I don’t think that this is very appropriate. In fact, the [indistinct] decree contains certain tax measures but this was already provided for in the Finance Act and therefore it is an integral part of the 1996 Finance Act. Hence, it isn’t a novel element, it is something that has already been done and if there are tax measures that need to be taken for 1996, they will be disclosed or announced through a decree at the end of the year. [Indistinct] I don’t think that we should be frightened by this. It isn’t question of a strong tax hike but some necessary adjustments.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it seems to us that the outcome of the debate could refer to the continuity of the government throughout the Italian Presidency. Do you think that a change in the present coalition would change the European debate?

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I think that it is too early to answer the question that you are rightly posing today. I think that perhaps we should await the time of discussions and contacts that will be pursued before giving you a definitive or conclusive response. These are all possibilities. The outcomes that you are implying are possible but as I say, it is too soon what will exactly happen.

    QUESTION:

    This morning, there was discussion on the Mancuso affair. Do you think that you should comment on the appointment of a new Justice Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER DINI:

    I think that in respect of the court, since you do not know what the final decision will be, we should await that decision before proceeding further. I think the court has made a ruling according to which the work of the government and governmental initiative and the initiative of the head of state were totally justified and warranted and therefore this ruling clarifies once and for all what Parliament’s possibilities are in terms of giving a vote of no confidence. As I said, this refers to the immediate replacement of a minister who no longer received a vote of confidence from Parliament. I think that the constitutional court therefore has fully acknowledged the work carried out by myself and by the Head of State and I must say I am fully satisfied with this outcome. I think that we will continue therefore with the necessary verification and I am going to have to once again address Parliament and meet with the Head of State so as to express the fact that I have executed my mandate and in terms of the future horizons, we certainly won’t leave Italy without a minister of [indistinct] and justice and of course it is going to be somebody who is knowledgeable on these issues.

    QUESTION:

    Do you already have a name in mind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I must say I don’t yet.

  • PMQT – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend welcome today’s unemployment figures, down for the second month running and coming on top of an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output and 2 per cent. in the retail sales figures–proof that the economy is growing in confidence? Does he agree that it is about time Opposition Members stopped prophesying gloom and doom about the economy?

    The Prime Minister : This is only the second successive month, but today’s fall in unemployment will be seen as very good news by everyone, especially the families of people now back in work. Especially welcome is the fact that the number of unemployed people has fallen in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each and every region in England. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are signs of growing business and consumer confidence. I hope that in the future that will bring further good news on jobs, which everyone who wishes this country well will surely welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : While welcoming the fall– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”]–in the official unemployment total announced today, is it not the case that a total of over 2,900,000 is still far too high and should never have been allowed to reach anything like that level? If the Prime Minister seeks to take credit for a fall of 26,000 in the official figures, is he equally prepared to accept responsibility for the million people who have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister, the vast majority of whom are still unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : Grudging might be an appropriate word for that welcome, but I at least welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has this month, unlike last month, welcomed the fall in unemployment. Perhaps he might mention to the shadow Chancellor–who said even yesterday that unemployment would go on rising–that he should look more carefully in future.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares with me a wish to produce permanent, long-term jobs in a growing economy, perhaps he will also join me in the right policies to achieve that, including welcoming limits on public sector pay, welcoming caps on council spending, welcoming our trade union reforms, dropping his equivocation over strikes and welcoming our reforms to improve education. If he really cares about future long-term employment, will he welcome those? Yes or no?

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate–[Hon. Members– : “Answer.”]–that unemployment at this continuing high level is in large part a reflection of the underlying weakness of an economy bedevilled by persistent under-investment in manufacturing and skills and menaced by a dangerously high balance of payments deficit? if the Government’s economic policies are satisfactory, why are we suffering a multi-billion pound deficit in our balance of payments at a time of recession? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should lift his eyes. I know that he has to encourage his Back Benchers, but he should know that across Europe, 17 million people are unemployed and it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the result of the international economy over many years. There are also 3 million unemployed in France. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants the answer to the question he should look at what is now happening in the economy. Car production figures last month were the highest for 19 years, a survey by the British chambers of commerce shows that business confidence is up, there has been the biggest growth in manufacturing exports for three years, surveys by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all show good news. In addition, there are extra jobs at Toyota in Derbyshire, Ford in Dunton and Kimberly-Clark in Humberside. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome what everyone else but him can see?

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question that I asked him? Why was it predicted in the Budget that the balance of payments would deteriorate from £12 billion to £17.5 billion? Is there any other country in the European Community with such a miserable prospect?

    The Prime Minister : The European Community as a whole has a deficit, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again changing horses. Every month he used to ask me about inflation, until it fell when he stopped talking about it. He then started talking about unemployment until it began to level off and fall. Now he has changed horses again. I have bad news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman : he is going to run out of things to whinge about.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Pickles : In replying to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the British chambers of commerce. Did he see in that report that business confidence and business activity are both at high levels? Did he also note that the amount of export orders is at an all-time high? Given that trade union leaders, commentators and even economists now see an improvement– [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not like improvements. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, look forward to the time when all hon. Members will welcome good economic news and talk Britain up rather than whinge?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, of course, is right. Any good news for the economy is bad news for the Labour party. There has been a range of encouraging economic news, but we wish to see far more–to that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a range of encouraging economic information- -retail sales are up, exports are up, manufacturing output is up, car production is up, house sales are up and business confidence is up. That is leading to a position whereby Britain will be on the up.

    Mrs. Roche : Given the appalling record of Group 4 prison escort services, will the Prime Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the chairman of the Tory party, to resign from another Group 4 company?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the overwhelming vote in Italy against proportional representation– [Interruption.] Does it not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s view that the first-past-the-post system is the best one, and delivers decisive, democratic and honest government? Will he join me, 32 million Italians and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in recommending the first-past-the-post system to the Leader of the Opposition and the Front-Bench team?

    The Prime Minister : This is, of course, a divisive issue, which divides, not least, the Labour party as to whether it is in favour of proportional representation. I have never made any secret of my views on proportional representation. It is one of the few matters on which I share the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. While others have tried to dance on the head of a pin during the election, the Conservative party campaigned four- square for the existing system. It has brought us over many decades stable and secure government. I hope that it will do the same for the Italians. The Italians are right to scrap the backstairs deals that inevitably come with PR.

    Mr. Salmond : Talking of back stairs, does the Prime Minister believe–

    [Hon. Members] : Back stairs

    Madam Speaker : Order. All these interruptions are very time- consuming.

    Mr. Salmond : Does the Prime Minister believe that the provisions of the social chapter are popular or unpopular with the general public? Does he intend to include in his European speech this evening a passage expressing thanks to the leader of the Labour party for saving his political bacon in the referendum vote in the early hours of this morning?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman will, as he always does, read my speech with great care.

    Mr. Hood : Send him a letter.

    The Prime Minister : I will not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a letter on this matter but, at the risk of leaking my own speech, he may not find the sentence that he seeks in it this evening.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. Friend speed up the efforts being made to prevent British industry and commerce being stifled by over-regulation? Is he aware that there is still much evidence that officials are being over-zealous in the interpretations of health, safety and fire regulations, with the resulting damage to British commerce and industry?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy–I emphasise the word unnecessary– stifle industry and enterprise. I also agree with him that we have to beware of over-implementation of regulations whether from Whitehall, Brussels, county hall or town hall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my other right hon. Friends are all examining regulations to see what might satisfactorily be diluted or scrapped. This will be a continuing programme and I hope that we shall be able to bring measures before the House before too long.

    Mr. Hood : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to restate his confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would he like to describe his position as unsellable?

    The Prime Minister : I know that I am keen on exports, but there is a limit.

     

    Thurlestone Hotel, South Devon

    Q5. Mr. Steen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Thurlestone hotel in South Devon.

    The Prime Minister : Although I have no current plans to do so, I will certainly bear the possibility in mind for my next visit to the west country. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the proprietor, Mr. David Grose, when he visited the area last Friday. I gather that the hotel has been in the same family since the 1890s and even in difficult times has been expanding its business.

    Mr. Steen : When my right hon. Friend does come to the hotel, I think that he will be fascinated to take a look at the decor, because every room in the hotel is covered in a plethora of red tape. I suggest that the Prime Minister should get hold of the new officials who are zealously interpreting the rules and regulations and make sure that they do not destroy hotels and small businesses. In particular, he should have regard for the undercover operations of the hygiene police.

    Will my right hon. Friend, in his deregulation initiative, make sure that he gets rid of a number of public officials and puts a moratorium on the implementation of rules and regulations–and lifts the burden of such rules and regulations off the backs of the hoteliers?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well known as a champion both of the south-west and of deregulation. I know how important both are to him and I will take careful note of what he has to say. We certainly wish to cut as much red tape as possible.

    Mr. Hume : When the Prime Minister visits this hotel in Devon, will he give consideration to the fact that this generation of human beings is living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world –a technological, telecommunications and transport revolution? Will he bear in mind that it means that the wealth of society is being created by far fewer people and that that in turn has great implications for the role of the state in the social and economic welfare of people? The Government should therefore be paying far greater attention to the role of the state in that capacity, instead of heading in the direction in which they are going : privatisation, survival of the fittest and, ultimately, the law of the jungle.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the fact that this is likely to be one of the most rapidly changing decades in peacetime in the lifetime of even the most venerable Members in the House.

    Technological change is inevitable and should be welcomed. It brings with it great benefits. I know that many people always fear that any technological change will have an adverse effect on jobs. I am sure that that argument was advanced when the wheel and a whole series of other inventions were thought up. We must live with technological change ; we must advance it ; we must make the most of it ; and we must lead it.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Mr Giuliano Amato – 27 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Giuliano Amato, held in Rome on Friday 27th November 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Can we ask you what sort of things you discussed in your meeting today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a discussion on the whole agenda for Maastricht, the difficulties with ratification in Denmark, how we might meet some of those difficulties, we discussed future financing, indeed the whole range of issues that will be discussed at Edinburgh in a few weeks time.

    QUESTION:

    And on European economic recovery did you discuss the concerns there obviously are now about Europe’s economic position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes we did. Clearly the growth pattern across the whole of Europe is far less attractive than it has been in recent years, we have been used to growth across Europe of something in excess of 2 percent, next year the projections across Europe as a whole are a good deal lower, so yes we certainly did discuss that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you any more confident about the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am in the midst of talking to all our colleagues, there are a whole series of complex matters, many of them interlocked, and at the moment I am in the midst of a series of discussions to find out precisely what are the priorities of all our European partners. I think it is in the nature of things that as we begin to conclude these discussions, the outcome at Edinburgh will become clearer.

    QUESTION:

    But you are not getting much support, did you get the support you are looking for today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make an assertion like that, I suggest you wait until Edinburgh and see what the outcome is.

    QUESTION:

    Are we getting support for European economic recovery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were some rather strange stories about European economic recovery over the weekend, I do not know where they came from, they certainly did not emanate from us. But I think what we are keen to do is to make sure that within the resources available to Europe that they are directed to the right sort of expenditure, clearly we would like to see infrastructure expenditure both with growth potential in the short and medium term and as a result of that for its employment creation potential.

    QUESTION:

    What was your reaction to that particular proposal?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing it with all our partners, those I have discussed it with share my view that that sort of growth is the right sort of growth for Europe.

    QUESTION:

    What is your opinion about the Italian position on GATT?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask the Prime Minister about the Italian position on GATT. I think all of us in the Community understand the overriding importance of stimulating world trade. All around the industrial world and the non-industrial world we wish to see an increase in trade and an increase in growth. One of the important components of reaching that is to have a satisfactory agreement on the Uruguay Round.

    QUESTION:

    Does Mr Amato support your budget?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask the Prime Minister.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Amato, what is your view of the EC budget?

    MR AMATO:

    We discussed the issue but this is really something for which the Presidency is looking for a good compromise that in Edinburgh can be reached.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a wide range of views on the budget, we are seeking to bring all those views together and to reach a compromise. Some would wish to increase expenditure by rather more than others but we will reach a satisfactory compromise I hope at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel that you are going to get the kind of compromise that you would want?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must wait and see, certainly there are I think views on both sides of the compromise we have produced, we must wait and see at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    MR AMATO:

    [Inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your view of Her Majesty the Queen’s decision to pay tax?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a domestic matter in the United Kingdom, that was a decision that The Queen took, she asked me to consider it in the summer, we considered it, I made a broad announcement, we will make a detailed announcement sometime early in the New Year.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Mr Andreotti – 27 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference with Mr Andreotti, held in Rome on Wednesday 27th November 1991.

    MR ANDREOTTI:

    Within the framework of the preparation for the European Council, we had the pleasure of meeting this morning the British Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom and this falls within the framework of an intense activity of meetings and contacts which will be furthered in the days which still have to pass before the Maastricht meeting.

    Prime Minister Major will fly this afternoon to Bonn to have a meeting with Chancellor Kohl and on Sunday will have a meeting with the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Lubbers, and on Monday with President Mitterrand. I myself had the possibility yesterday to participate in Brussels in a meeting of the six Prime Ministers who belong to the popular parties, the Christian Democrat parties, and tomorrow I will fly to Bonn to meet Chancellor Kohl.

    And of course the final rush will be entrusted to the Foreign Ministers who in the preceding days of the meeting in Maastricht will set out the text upon which discussion, the debate will be carried out between Heads of State and Government.

    We had read with the utmost interest the statement that Prime Minister Major made in front of the House of Commons, pointing out that the Community certainly involves some sacrifices, everyone has to give up something. Each one of us has his own view points and interests but for each of our states the EC provides a positive opportunity because they extend our possibilities and provide us with a set of opportunities that otherwise would be lacking.

    We had a chance with the utmost frankness to consider those issues that are still being discussed, but I think that we can say that in spite of the fact that there is still a lot to be done in order to arrive at a convergent position on all issues, the position of Prime Minister Major is clearly positive as far as the possibility is concerned to reaching an agreement at the end of the two inter-governmental conferences which will be an agreement that helps the Community to stride towards greater forms of union.

    Therefore, setting aside that very useless way of saying if you are optimistic or pessimistic, we say that the work which has been carried out up to now is very serious and that we have to bear in mind all positions and that we have the reasonable expectation that the inter-governmental conferences may conclude in the best possible way for the development of the European Community.

    For our part, I have confirmed that Italy is committed to honour what have been the positions we adopted also within our nation and in particular as far as the convergency plan of our budget and public expenditure, and in this respect it is my chance that the discussion of the budgetary law occurs in the same month when we have to conclude the European conference in particular as far as the monetary system is concerned which is marching towards this monetary union. For us it is an absolutely indispensable precondition of abiding by those guidelines that the Community has already appreciated and the indispensable passport in order not to be left out of this common path.

    I believe that none amongst you will be surprised that if in this stage when we are still discussing and debating the unresolved issues we keep a certain confidentiality so that through this work carried out in these last days our positions may further come nearer.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, thank you very much indeed and thank you for what you said over the last few moments.

    I am very pleased to be back again in Rome with the Foreign Secretary so very soon after the NATO Summit. Not only was that an extremely successful summit in every respect, it was also an opportunity a few weeks ago that you and I had to have a look at the whole catalogue of matters that need discussing and agreeing if we are to reach a conclusion in the two inter-governmental conferences at Maastricht next month.

    I was very pleased that we were able to return to those matters in a very frank and worthwhile way this morning as we try and bridge the differences that still exist in the negotiating positions of the various partners in the Community.

    As you set out, this is part of a wide ranging preparation for the discussions in Maastricht next month. I will, as you say, be meeting Chancellor Kohl later on today, Prime Minister Lubbers on Sunday and President Mitterrand on Monday, and I will have further meetings later on next week with other colleagues in the Community. I think that is both necessary and desirable as we deal with the matters that are still yet undetermined.

    And the Foreign Secretary of course, with Signor de Michelis, will be attending the Conclave next week where many of these matters will also be discussed.

    We had no difficulty this morning in agreeing upon the desirability of a satisfactory conclusion at Maastricht, we are all working for that and I reiterate the points that I made in my speech at the House of Commons, I need not set them out, they were there perfectly clearly, about the desirability of an agreement and the areas where we believe an agreement presents difficulties and those where we are prepared to meet the general wishes of some of our colleagues.

    I believe an agreement is possible, but it has to be said there are still a lot of difficult issues that need to be resolved. We will continue to discuss those and it may be such is the nature of the negotiations upon which we are embarked that many of those issues will not be solved until a very late stage in these discussions.

    We did this morning have the opportunity of reinforcing our agreement on defence matters, that we will continue to press the ideas set out in the joint Anglo-Italian paper that was published some time ago, and we also agreed on the need for a strengthened cooperation on foreign policy. It has worked very well in the last few years and it seems to us to be collectively in the interests of the Community nations to maximise their authority on foreign policy matters where that is appropriate.

    We also discussed the areas of difficulty and as the Prime Minister said, it is not appropriate to go into those in any detail except to say we had a very free and frank discussion about those areas of difficulties, what lies behind them and whether in certain circumstances they may be capable of being bridged.

    I am grateful for the opportunity of these discussions today, I have no doubt whatsoever that in one way or another, whether face to face or perhaps over the telephone, the Prime Minister and I will talk again before we come to the conference next month. But I do not think in terms of introductory remarks there is anything else I wish to say about Maastricht this morning.

    We did discuss some other bilateral matters as well and we also had a brief discussion over lunch on matters of mutual international concern and it may be that those will turn up in questions but I do not think I need elaborate on them now.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY TV):

    Do either of you see room for a possible compromise on political union based around the idea of dropping the federal goal from the treaty in exchange for fixed milestones making a commitment to greater political union in the future at set times?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Adam, our position on many of these matters has been set out perfectly clearly. We have had the opportunity of discussing those today. I don’t think from what the Prime Minister has said and what I have said this morning that either of us are going to go into details of our discussions this morning. It is not appropriate and I am not proposing to do it.

    SILVIO TOMASI (SPLIT DAILY):

    Probably in your discussion on international affairs you also touched upon the issue of Yugoslavia and I would like to ask the two Prime Ministers whether an agreement has been reached on the fact that a UN peacekeeping force should be sent to the area and whether there have been any steps towards a recognition of Slovenia and Croatia on the part of Germany and Italy as opposed to what the British position may be.

    PRIME MINISTER ANDREOTTI:

    We strongly supported the initiatives and debates in course in the Security Council of the United Nations where both Great Britain and France as Permanent Members are pushing towards a solution. We believe that this is in favour of the possibility of reaching the sending of the UN peacekeeping force to the area which should allow a resumption of dialogue and the beginning of a settlement post-federation in Yugoslavia which might correspond to the wish and aspirations expressed by the peoples of each single republic.

    As far as recognition is concerned, our hope is that it might occur within the unanimous framework of the EEC and for the time being we do not wish to add anything more and certainly both Croatia and Slovenia know that there are for us no doubts as to their recognition.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On recognition and on a peacekeeping force, we have been looking at recognition there for some time and by “we” of course I don’t just mean the United Kingdom, I do mean the European Twelve, because I think when we come to the question of recognition we will do it together – that is desirable – and indeed I think it is now inevitable that we will do it together.

    The question really now is substantially a matter of timing. What we need to consider is whether recognition will complicate the task of peacemaking or assist the task of peacemaking and that is a crucial decision for us to take. Up until now, our view – and again I mean our view as the Twelve in the Community – is that we should hold off, that we shouldn’t yet recognise Croatia and Slovenia because we believe that would actually complicate the prospects to making peace which must be the first priority but in due course things will change and then no doubt we will move to recognition.

    On the subject of a peacekeeping force, there is of course an essential preliminary to a peacekeeping force and that is that you need a peace if you are going then to keep it and we don’t yet have that peace. If in due course we have that peace and if there is a clear and evident wish amongst those forces that have been in conflict that there should then be a peacekeeping force, the circumstances have changed, it may then be right to have one. Indeed, it may even be right, as parts of the country become peaceable, for a peacekeeping force to move step by step into those parts of the country in which conflict has ended in an endeavour to ensure that conflict does not re-ignite. That is a possibility that no doubt will be discussed over the weeks ahead, so that I think is largely precisely where we are on peacekeeping at the moment.

    QUESTION (ITALIAN PAPER):

    Mr. President, I understand your invitation to acknowledge confidentiality at this moment but could you just at least mention the issues upon which the frankness of your discussion was particularly important?

    PRIME MINISTER ANDREOTTI:

    I believe that since the speech made by John Major in front of the Commons was public and you too have edited the document that was thereupon issued by the House of Commons, the issues were reiterated that we shall seek through the work in these weeks to clear our positions and see how to find satisfactory solutions. There are some issues which concern other countries of the Community and also these we have discussed for the very reason that we have to try to arrive at Maastricht with the clearest possible ideas and the fewest points to be still solved.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You may safely presume that we discussed all the relevant as yet undetermined points in the treaties. we ran through them very comprehensively.

    DAVID SHUKMANN (BBC):

    Without asking you to comment in any way on the details of negotiation as I know you don’t want to, could you just tell us whether yesterday’s meeting in Brussels of the Christian Democratic leaders – which I know you didn’t attend – is significant in helping find a solution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Christian Democratic leaders of the Community want an agreement at Maastricht that carries with it every member of the Community – they all understand that very well. Individually, I have spoken to them all. I had the pleasure of being here this morning with Prime Minister Andreotti and it is their intention, I am sure, to try and assist in reaching an agreement next month – that is our wish too. I will discuss with them what was said there and what the implications of what was said there may be but as to their objective, I have no doubt.

    GEOFFREY ARCHER (ITN):

    Could I ask you to give in broad brush terms an outline of what you see as the main differences that you will have to bridge in your talks with Chancellor Kohl this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I did so, Geoffrey, in very great detail, in the House of Commons last Wednesday and the situation is still the same.

    GEOFFREY ARCHER:

    Has that not changed at all following the announcement in Brussels?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You asked me to set out what the broad areas were. They are the broad areas that I set out last week. I am not going to touch on detailed discussions today.

    GEOFFREY ARCHER:

    Can I ask you one other thing not to do with the EEC? In your bilateral talks, did you talk about Lockerbie and possible sanctions against Libya?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had a general discussion about Lockerbie and about the investigation, yes.

    GEOFFREY ARCHER:

    But you are not prepared to say whether you are taking any steps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had a general discussion about Lockerbie this morning most certainly. I think there may be an announcement from elsewhere later on today but not one I can anticipate now.