The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Jacques Delors

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Brussels – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Brussels on Friday 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have, as you know, very little time. We are all due back at dinner where we have more discussions in just a few moments but let me say a word or two about our pre-dinner deliberations.

    It has taken us a little longer than we originally expected to make a decision on a Commission President but the most important part of that was to make sure that when the decision was made it was the right decision. I believe that that has now been achieved and I warmly congratulate Jacques Santer on his nomination. That now of course goes to the European Parliament and I hope they will speedily and unanimously endorse it.

    Let me just say a word, if I may, about the other candidates whose names have been put forward over the last few weeks but who have not been selected to be President.

    A number of people have contributed in many ways to this debate, a number of highly respected European figures have permitted their names to go forward. The whole matter has, I believe, been conducted in a dignified and a friendly spirit in these discussions and that certainly was the tone of the discussions we have had this afternoon.

    I think Jacques Santer is a wise choice for the next few years. He is well known to all of us, he has served on the European Council for ten years; he brings a wide degree of experience to the job as Prime Minister for some years, experience in finance matters, experience in foreign affairs. He has twice held the Presidency of the Council in 1985 and 1991 but on each of those occasions he made a substantial personal contribution to two of the most significant legislative acts that the Community has produced – the Single European Act in the mid-1980s and of course the Maastricht Treaty with its pillared structure in the early 1990s – and of course the importance of the pillared structure allowing matters to be decided by consensus was of very great importance in ensuring that that treaty came to be, so I think in Mr. Santer we have a President who is well able to reconcile conflicting views around the European table. I think that is very important indeed.

    There will be many difficult decisions to be taken in the future. He is committed to free trade, committed to the economics of the free market, a strong supporter of subsidiarity and a very strong supporter also of enlarging the Community and that is going to be a very important theme of the next few years. He comes from a country proud of its national identity and I have always regarded him as a healing force and not a divisive force and I think that will be very welcome with the difficult decisions that will need to be taken over the years that lie ahead. In brief, I think he is the right man in the right place at the right time and I wish him every success in the difficult and demanding job that he will be undertaking.

    When we had finished reaching agreement on the Presidency, we had a useful discussion on a number of other subjects and that discussion will continue over dinner this evening. Douglas Hurd gave the Council a detailed account of his visit with the French Foreign Minister to the former Yugoslavia. At the end of that discussion, very strong support was expressed by the Council for the plan set out by the Contact Group. We believe that it is absolutely essential to do everything to secure its acceptance and avert the threat of an intensified war in former Yugoslavia. It may be the Foreign Secretary will wish to add a word or two about that.

    The French Prime Minister also raised the question of emergency aid for Rwanda. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to describe the problems there as truly horrifying. The French are playing a leading part to bring about an improvement and they deserve our support. The United Kingdom has made a very substantial contribution to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and in other ways and we will continue to do so, so we supported the proposal from the French Prime Minister for further assistance to Rwanda and that will be discussed in further detail at the Foreign Affairs Council in the next day or so.

    That is as far as we have got with our subjects in this European Council thus far, the dinner conversation, as I say, lies ahead us but if you have any questions I will happily take them but first I will ask the Foreign Secretary perhaps to say a word or two more about Yugoslavia.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    I don’t think I need add much. I gave the Council an account of Alain Juppe and my travels and our talks to President Tudjman, with Izetbegovic and the Sarajevo Government and with the Bosnian Serbs and President Milosevic in Belgrade.

    We rammed home the strong arguments in favour of accepting the Contact Group’s plan but I told the Council that I came away with a rather sombre impression particularly from our discussions with the Bosnian Serbs. There is a very real danger of a drift back into war with all the consequences for the Bosnian people and for everyone indeed who is making an effort there so I left them with that feeling. It does mean, as the Prime Minister said, that anyone who has any influence over the situation has got to bestir themselves between now and the end of the month to maximise and improve to the utmost the chances of this plan being accepted.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you think you have achieved by vetoing Mr. Dehaene in Corfu? Haven’t you wound up today with a candidate very much in Mr. Dehaene’s line of thinking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never had anything personally to say against Jean-Luc Dehaene, as you know, but there are quite distinct differences in policy between those that Mr. Santer holds to and those that attract the support of Mr. Dehaene. Mr. Santer is a very strong believer in free trade not protection; he is a very strong decentraliser, he believes in federalism in the sense of decentralisation; he is a strong supporter of subsidiarity which is going to be an important theme of the next few years. He has shown by his record in a number of ways that that is the case. He was, as I indicated a moment ago, the author of the pillared approach that enabled agreement to be reached by consensus and not centrally-determined through the Commission; he was the President of the Council when it reached its final decisions on the Single European Act and crucially in that the Single Market, all of which are vitally important to us. I don’t think there is any doubt that he is a strong believer in nation states and I think there is another point perhaps that many other people have not yet spotted and that is the fact that for his own reasons he has been a longstanding opponent of harmonisation of taxes. All those are very distinct policy points of some importance to us.

    The other point I would make is in the nature of the man himself. He is, I think, a reconciler and a healer. We are soon going to have sixteen nation states sitting round the table, not twelve, and very possibly within five years will be moving towards twenty. It is very important that the views of all of those nation states are fully taken into account and reconciled; I believe he will be very good at doing that. It is quite a formidable list of reasons for supporting him and I am very pleased at the outcome we reached this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    I wondered whether in view of what you just said, Prime Minister, you are therefore surprised to hear that Mr. Santer just now has denied that there are any political differences between himself and Mr. Dehaene. I quote: “I certainly do not believe the time has come to pause in the process of further European integration and in a deeper political union” and he repeated himself as federalist in that sense. Does that entirely square with what you have just been saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Would you have expected him to say: “Well I have got a long list of differences with my old friend Jean-Luc!”? You know very well in terms of the European debate that he isn’t going to say that.

    I have set out a whole series of practical indications of his record of what he stands for. You will have seen, I am sure, the interview he gave in the Luxembourg press just a couple of days ago and he set out very clearly his views in terms of decentralisation; he made it perfectly clear there that he was a federalist in the sense of being a decentraliser, not a centraliser and I think if you read his interview you can take it from his own words, not mine, that he matches the list of attributes that I have just suggested to those present he has.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that you too now, Prime Minister, are a federaliser in the sense of a decentraliser?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am a decentraliser, that is certainly the case. I don’t think I would attribute any other words of yours to that. I am certainly a decentraliser, I certainly believe that the nation state is an important part of the European Union, so do other nations, and it will remain so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if the views of Mr. Dehaene and Mr. Santer are so different and if one must look through his policy record to prove that, why do you think it was that Mr. Santer backed Mr. Dehaene so enthusiastically in the first round debate on the President’s job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at the Christian Democrat meeting beforehand?

    ANSWER:

    No.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nor was I. I suggest you ask someone who was present at the private meeting for the answer to that question.

    MURRAY RICHIE (GLASGOW HERALD):

    If you are such a convinced decentraliser as you say and you agree with subsidiarity, why don’t you practise it in Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Scotland is part of a single United Kingdom, I am not going to join in the sort of decentralisation the Scottish Nationalists want in Scotland which has as its ultimate aim not decentralisation but the eventual removal of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

    As far as devolvement of authority is concerned, you will know, working for the “Glasgow Herald”, of the immense devolvement of authority that has now gone to Scotland and to the Scottish Secretary of State and the changes that are currently being agreed to extend that even further in the United Kingdom.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY TV):

    You said that Leon Brittan is the right man for the job and you did repeat that quite a number of times before and during the Corfu summit so would you agree that Jacques Santer is a compromise, has to be a compromise for you and for the other European leaders and has what happened to Mr. Tim Devlin caused you very much grief?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made perfectly clear that our first choice for President of the Commission was Leon Brittan and I don’t resile from that now. I think Leon Brittan in every way would have made an excellent President of the Commission for the next few years. None of that detracts from the fact that I think Jacques Santer is an excellent candidate who has attracted support right the way across the Heads of Government and I hope will attract the support of the European Parliament in the next few days so I think he will do an excellent job.

    As far as Mr. Devlin is concerned, the Chief Whip has dealt with that matter and I believe he has dealt with it properly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    And, of course, there is one other point to add perhaps: that Jacques Santer was chosen as the result of a period of very intensive consultation of everybody by the Presidency and that was not so before Corfu.

    JUDITH DAWSON:

    Do you think that should have happened the first time round?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Of course.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We not only think that now, we said that at the time loudly and clearly.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, now you have secured a candidate for the Commission who is clearly extremely satisfactory to Britain, do you consider that after the Corfu veto and in the talks that followed, you have put one over on Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a question of putting one over on any other members of the European Council, that is not remotely the way I see it. I thought it was right to take whatever action was necessary to get a President of the Commission whom I believe was right for Europe in the next few years and right for the United Kingdom in the next few years. That was the purpose of exercising the veto at Corfu and the only purpose.

    DON McINTYRE:

    Can I ask you whether, as David Howell said on the radio this morning, the really desirable thing about Jacques Santer from your point is that he will be very low-profile and that is really why you want him?

    May I ask the Foreign Secretary what on Bosnia he has in mind when he says that anybody who has any influence on the Serbs should use it in the desperately short time there is as they seem to be immune to all influence including that of the Russians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think possibly Jacques Santer will be lower-profile than his predecessor. I don’t think it is the height of the profile that is really the relevant factor but the direction in which the profile is moving and as I indicated to everyone a few moments ago, I think the direction in which he will take the Community will be very amenable to the majority of member states including us.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the Bosnian point, you never can tell in life when a particular argument or piece of persuasion or pressure is just going to tip the balance in favour of what you want done so there are all kinds of pressures, the Russians you mentioned. I was actually thinking of President Milosovic. I believe there are ways in which he could exert himself should he so choose which would really be effective in bringing the Bosnian Serbs to their senses. Whether he will do that or not I don’t know. It is in his interests to do, we urged him to do so, I hope he will do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, we have heard your comparison of Mr. Santer with Mr. Dehaene. How does he compare in your view to Jacques Delors? Is he better suited in your view to being the next President of the Commission than Delors was, more to your taste?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I got the underlying message! I think he will be very suitable for the next few years but I don’t think anyone should underestimate the contribution that Jacques Delors has made to the European Union over the last few years. He and I haven’t always agreed, there is no particular secret about that, but my respect for his abilities is very great.

    QUESTION (WALL STREET JOURNAL):

    Diplomats of some member states in Brussels have expressed fears that Jacques Santer is perhaps someone from a small country that doesn’t have the clout that M. Delors or M. Dehaene perhaps have and will find it hard to lay down the law in certain areas that are quite important to the UK I believe such as the internal market, insurance, where there isn’t much progress in enforcing laws. Are you worried that a weak Commission in this sense would undermine the UK’s interests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t accept the premise, if I may say so, at the outset. I think there has been some black propaganda of that sort about from Heaven knows where. I think from what I have seen of Jacques Santer is that he will press his case and his beliefs quite hard where that is necessary, certainly that is my judgement of the man.

    As far as the laws are concerned in the Community, the laws are there to be obeyed in the Community and I have no doubt the Commission collectively will ensure that they are. That was something we pressed for very strongly in the Maastricht Treaty. It was a matter of concern to us prior to Maastricht that we did have a number of laws across the Community and we were not satisfied that every member state was fully implementing them. There are now mechanisms to make sure that they do and I am sure they will be enforced.

    SHIRLEY DODD:

    Prime Minister, do you think you will be able to live easily with the fact that M. Santer is a strong supporter of the Social Dimension of the Union and of a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two things that often get run together: one is the Social Dimension of the Community and the other is the specific Social Chapter.

    As far as the Social Dimension of the Community is concerned, we have no difficulty with that. Indeed, if you were to ask the Commission which country has implemented more Social Dimension measures than any other, you would find it was the United Kingdom.

    As far as the Social Chapter is concerned, it is not a matter of relevance to us whether any President of the Commission supports it or not because we are not a party to the Social protocol, it doesn’t affect us, so whether they support it or not is not relevant to the United Kingdom but on the Social Dimension which is a separate matter, we support the Social Dimension, we have implemented the Social Dimension and I would anticipate will continue to do so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Corfu (I) – 24 June 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Corfu on Friday 24th June 1994.

    QUESTION:

    How significant is today for the future of Europe, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two very important agreements to be signed today, firstly the Accession Agreement for the EFTA countries to join the Community, that is something we have wished to see for a long time. The Community isn’t complete as twelve, sixteen is more complete with twenty later even more complete and of course the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia is a remarkable step forward; it will help open the European market to Russian exports and the Russian market to European exports and European investment so I think that is a very welcome development.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you are going to be able to reach agreement on Jacques Delors’s successor tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know yet. I haven’t had a chance to discuss the matter with others. Everyone would like to reach agreement if they can but as yet I don’t think anyone really knows.

    QUESTION:

    And the right person for the job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve always said that Leon Brittan is the best person for the job. That is not say anything against the other candidates. We think he is the best candidate but I’ll have nothing to say about that until we have finished our discussions.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Brussels – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Brussels on 10th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what was your reaction to President Clinton’s speech yesterday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was an absolutely excellent speech yesterday in every way, I think it set out many of the objectives of NATO. For the past 40 years NATO has essentially been the rock upon which our security has been based, over the next couple of days I think we are going to reaffirm the role of NATO, up-date it and make sure our insurance policy is in good shape.

    QUESTION:

    Some read alarming federalism into it, support for Jacques Delors’s ideas for a European super state?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I saw that but I think they did not read the speech very carefully. If you read the speech you will see that what President Clinton was talking about was integration of all Europe, he was talking about the relationship between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, not the tightly knit integration within the European Union itself. Some interpreted it that way I know, but they were mistaken.

    QUESTION:

    Is this summit going to do more about ending the conflict in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure that is a matter that is going to be on our minds, particularly amongst those of us who have large numbers of troops there, I am sure it will come up during the summit and perhaps particularly over dinner this evening.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a stronger line on Bosnia, there has been talk of possible bombing or new commitments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO has had a policy for some time that when the circumstances are appropriate, and we set that out some months ago, that we would go ahead with air strikes, that was the position and that remains the position today.

    QUESTION:

    What is Partnership for Peace?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think partnership for peace is part of an evolving development of NATO, there is clearly a desire amongst many of the central and East European nations to have a closer role with NATO, partnership for peace offers that on an evolutionary basis, it will be a very wide invitation extended to the central and East European nations, to Russia, to Ukraine, I very much hope they will take it up.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Borrowing – 10 December 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the proposal by Jacques Delors to borrow money to fund new jobs. The comments were made in Brussels, Belgium, on 10th December 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he wanted to create employment].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The point of issue is not whether we want jobs or not – of course we want jobs – the point of issue is whether it is a successful way to do that by taking a large, fresh loan at precisely the moment that every other country in the European Community is cutting down on its borrowing, and patently it isn’t.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 18 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington, held on Friday 18th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what did you manage to achieve in the talks with President Bush this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they were extremely productive talks, I think the most immediate outcome of them is I believe we have put the GATT talks in Geneva back on track, there was an agreement between President Bush, President Delors and myself that we should instruct the negotiators to go back to the talks, beginning again in early January, and seek to reach a substantive conclusion by mid-January, if that can be achieved it is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    President Delors was leaving no doubt that he thinks it is the Americans who should make concessions now in services in the non-agricultural area, is that your view too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you are in negotiations everyone makes concessions, that is the way one reaches agreement, I do not think one can be certain that it is the Europeans, the Cairns Group, the Americans, we are now into multilateral negotiations, not bilateral, and I think there may need to be movement on many sides. But the important thing is the sheer political will to make sure we reach a settlement, very important for the world economy, that political will has been put there today.

    QUESTION:

    How do you feel about the state of the special relationship after your telephone call with President-elect Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship, as you call it, is a very close relationship built on shared interests and it has been there for very many years, I do not have a shred of doubt that it will continue, not a shred of doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that things will change in American foreign policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one must let President-elect Clinton get his feet under the table but I think the preliminary judgment that one makes is that foreign policy will be remarkably similar in the future, there may be changes in domestic policy, I cannot speak for that, but as far as foreign policy objectives are concerned I think they will be strikingly similar.

    QUESTION:

    What about the UN Assembly decision today to step up the pressure on Yugoslavia, does that suggest that we are moving now towards tougher action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that further over the weekend. I think many people will regard as unspeakable many of the things that have happened in Yugoslavia but what we must do is temper that instinctive reaction with practical measures that will assist and not damage the development of policy in Yugoslavia. I shall be discussing that over the weekend.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Ottawa – 18 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Ottawa made on Friday 18th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Forty years ago, my family nearly emigrated to Canada. They did not at the last moment do so and so my first visit here has been somewhat delayed. I began to think as our plane moved from one airport to another and our car moved from one road to another that the delay might be even longer than I first imagined it to be but nonetheless, I am delighted to be here this evening and most grateful to you Brian and to you Mila for the very warm welcome we have received.

    We meet this evening in the Province of Quebec and we do so on the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of the parliaments of Lower Canada and Quebec City and I wondered when I uncovered that nugget of information what our forebears who fought over this place might have made of this meeting today. Were you to believe some of the accounts you occasionally read of European relations within the memberships of the Community, you might have thought that little has changed, that I was General Wolfe and Jacques Delors was General Montcalm. I must tell you that would be a misleading impression.

    Jacques Delors and I come here today to scale a different set of heights, a different set of heights in a different cause, partners in what we believe is a great enterprise – the building, the construction of the European Community and a new and wider Europe and as we debate from time to time the details of this directive or that piece of legislation, it is all too easy to forget what the principal aim of the Community is and all to easy to forget that the Community is unique amongst international organisations; unique in its shared framework of law among nations; unique in the way in which it has turned traditional enemies into firm friends in a matter of two or three decades; unique in the way in which it is breaking down economic and political barriers across Europe. It is a mixture, our Community, of vision and of shared self-interest.

    On this very day when you Prime Minister, George Bush and President Selinas have completed the North American Free Trade Agreement I should like to pay tribute to those same qualities which you have shown in bringing that agreement to fruition. [Applause].

    As so many times in the past, my country marches arm-in-arm in our instincts with Canada for in a fortnight’s time our Single Market in Europe will be fully open for business and since we faced the task of breaking down barriers among twelve countries, I think we too can take some small pride in that achievement.

    Both developments are welcome but there is a greater prize and both of us must continue to work together to secure the greatest free trade prize of all, a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round and a successful outcome as speedily and as comprehensively as we can get it. [Applause].

    Why do we need it? Not because of some free trade philosophy, some ideal; we need it for the most practical of all reasons, because of the boost it will bring to our economies, to the world economy at a time when that boost is sorely needed from one end of the world to the other. On both sides of the Atlantic we face similar problems, problems of recession, problems of recession leading to higher unemployment. In Canada, as in Britain, the burden of corporate debt has held back recovery. Many businesses have cut back their workforces, many people today are without work because of the depth, severity and length of that recession and yet productivity is rising sharply and that is vital to our success in today’s increasingly competitive markets, a success that can only be earned and will only be retained by those prepared to take tough decisions often unpopular at the time and often unpopular for many months after they are taken.

    In Canada, you have achieved exemplary success in controlling inflation. We too recognise the danger of that particular scourge. In Britain, we have now brought our inflation down below the European average, a dramatic change over the last two years. Our interest rates today are the lowest in Europe and even, Prime Minister, a touch today below yours.

    New growth is desirable in itself, desirable for prosperity but essential to bring unemployment down again in our countries. It will take time to reverse the trend so in Britain and at our Edinburgh Council across Europe as a whole we have announced initiatives to boost investment, reduce burdens on business and redirect government spending towards projects which will encourage long-term growth and short-term employment as that growth is built.

    These, I think, are shared instincts we have between Europe and Canada but let me say a word perhaps for a moment about Canada and the United Kingdom because your country of Canada and mine have a relationship which goes far beyond economics. We share a bond that comes from membership of the Commonwealth and from having the same Head of State. It is a deep bond, a lasting bond, an enduring bond and as we have developed a new relationship between the Community and Canada neither we the British nor for that matter the French have had to suppress our national ties of history, culture and shared interests. Indeed to the contrary, we have built upon those traditional ties and somewhere I suspect in that mix in Canada, somewhere Brian I think there has been an added ingredient – that tiny speck of Irish ingredient that may have given it perhaps a special flavour in your country. [Applause].

    We speak of ties, of shared links. I should like to say this evening to you, Brian, thank you for what you have done to strengthen those ties between Canada and Europe. I believe you can take pride in those achievements and also in the world role that Canada increasingly plays. Wherever you may look, look around as you will in the world’s trouble-spots, be it Yugoslavia, Somalia, Cambodia, you will find Canada is there and in Yugoslavia and Cambodia British forces are there alongside yours. In Somalia, our humanitarian agencies will be enabled by you and the United States to carry through their tasks and the European Community collectively is making an all-out effort to try and bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. That can only be done in partnership with others and in that partnership Canada’s role is both valued and crucial.

    So we, Britain and Canada, are partners in several enterprises. Today, Jacques Delors and I have approached Canada in a new guise, in the European Community-Canadian relationship and no European Presidency these days is complete without adding to that relationship with Canada. The strength and scope of it was very clear even in the brief discussions the President, the Prime Minister and I have been able to have since we arrived a couple of hours ago.

    I say tonight with total certainty that I confidently expect the same result in this new relationship as Britain has had over many years in all its dealings with Canada. Canada is a valued ally. More than that, Prime Minister, it is a close friend; it has been, it is and it will remain so in the future.

    You began this evening in a most agreeable way as we all await our dinner and I must say I think it is a very attractive trait to have the speeches before dinner – we will all enjoy our meal more, you will be more hungry and we will be more relaxed and we will all benefit. You began with a toast. Let me propose another, a toast I think of great importance, if you can reach for your glasses, one I propose with an immense degree of pleasure. I would like you to rise and drink to the further strengthening of cooperation between Canada and the European Community. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the toast – Canada and the European Community. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Mr Brian Mulroney and M Jacques Delors – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Mr Brian Mulroney and M Jacques Delors, held in Ottawa on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    MR MULRONEY:

    The Prime Minister and President Delors have been travelling and they were sidelined to Montreal and they had to drive up here so they are understandably pretty tired and they have got a full day tomorrow in Washington. So I thank them for coming and I will just say very briefly to offer both a welcome to them and our congratulations to the Prime Minister for the excellent success of Edinburgh and the great progress that was made, the Canadians thought very skilfully handled and so we are always very happy for progress that takes place in the European Community because of its importance for Canada and for the United States.

    We just had an opportunity for roughly an hour to review some trade matters and some political matters, especially the evolving situation in Bosnia, and we will have a chance to chat again over dinner and early tomorrow morning before the Prime Minister leaves. So in the interests of time, because we do have guests waiting and you have deadlines, there will not be any individual statements.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] and I would like to have the same comments from Mr Major, the decisions taken by NATO Foreign Ministers today in Brussels?

    MR MULRONEY:

    They are examining it, as we are causing it to be examined at the United Nations, and I had a call from Barbara McDougal a few hours ago and the steps taken today were prudent but our hope is that this matter will wind up with the Security Council of the United Nations and at that point in time there will be a decision I suppose that will be endorsed by the international community.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there is a great deal to add to that, it was a prudent and a balanced decision that was taken today. I suspect the matter is heading back in one form or another to the Security Council and at the moment there is a great deal of bilateral discussion taking place to determine exactly what happens there.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    Lady Thatcher today said that the West must bear its share of blame for not stopping Serbian aggression and she called for a military [indistinct] in Bosnia, what do you make of those proposals?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Well of course I was a partner with Mrs Thatcher when she was Prime Minister in respect of Kuwait and her view was, and that I certainly endorsed, that action of this nature should come about as a result of the Security Council of the United Nations speaking on behalf of the civilised world, and that is what we did. The United Kingdom and Canada and France and the United States and I think 26 or 27 others were partners in the initiative under the aegis of the Security Council that allowed us to take the action in the Gulf. Unilateral action in this circumstance would be dangerous and perhaps self-defeating, it requires absolutely the moral authority and the effectiveness of the resolution of the Security Council before industrialised countries and others can go beyond where we are at the moment. That is why Canada and I think the United Kingdom and others have been pressing for this matter to come forward at the Security Council at an early moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] whether they believe that given the danger of retaliation a No Fly Zone could be enforced in Bosnia without ground troops being available to finish the action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A key question, it is the question that may be unknowable until it is actually put to the test. The United Nations imposed the No Fly Zone and so far as one can tell it has been effective in that it has stopped combat aircraft flying, it has not been effective in that it has not stopped helicopters and other small aircraft flying. So there has clearly been no large-scale movement of troops, there may have been movement of commanders, there may have been movements of very small numbers of troops, that we do not know. The Security Council will clearly have to look at the question of enforcement and it will have to take into account the nature of enforcement, we need to be clear precisely what it means, whether it means that aircraft would be prevented from taking off, whether it means if they had taken off they were forced to land or whether in its most severe form it would mean shooting down aircraft that infringed it.

    These are matters that need discussing together with the impact of what that might mean for the humanitarian forces because there are two objectives and they run in parallel that the United Nations and its member states need to bear in mind. The first is the desirability, the necessity of seeking a political solution to stop the carnage in Bosnia and some of the unspeakable activities that have been going on there, that is the first objective. The second objective is one that we must live with day after day after day, and that is to sustain the humanitarian links that are actually taking food into literally hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise face starvation and have no medical care or medicines whatsoever. And we need to keep those two things running parallel, it is a very fine judgment, it is why there is so much bilateral discussion at the moment before those judgments are taken.

    But I repeat what I said a moment ago, I think this matter is going back to the Security Council, there is a mounting impatience in the West over the events in Bosnia and I do not see that rapidly being stilled.

    QUESTION:

    If the United Nations and the EC are unable to stop the killings, as they seem unable to, is a unilateral role by NATO right out of the question as far as you are concerned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for NATO, it is not a matter I can answer this afternoon. We have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is. This is not the same conflict as Kuwait where you had one country forcibly invaded and raped by another country. Here you have what is in essence a civil war, beginning when people of one nationality locked together with others suddenly started to seek a greater share of the land, it grew up, it mushroomed from that beginning. It is a very messy and difficult problem, it is not one capable of easy solution. That does not mean we can stand by and take no action whatsoever, it does mean we need to be very measured and certain in the action we take before we commit ourselves to it and that is why it does need international decisions, it is right I think for it to go back to the United Nations and for NATO and other nations collectively to look at it there and I think that is the way it will be dealt with.

    QUESTION:

    Are there positions beyond which the UK is not prepared to go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen in the future. We have made it clear at the moment that I do not think this is a matter that can be readily resolved with a few ground troops, we have got troops in Bosnia at the moment, the troops are there actually delivering humanitarian aid. We are seeking a political solution, we pursued that in the London Conference that we called during our European Community Presidency, Mr Vance and Lord Owen are still pursuing that settlement, there are a whole series of meetings that have been taking place just this very week. I am not going to anticipate beyond that, I do not think it would be wise from the point of view of the West and I do not think it would be wise in terms of indicating to others what might happen.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mulroney are you worried about the threat to humanitarian forces and to troops already protecting them if there is military enforcement of a No Fly Zone?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Yes we are, we, like the British, have substantial numbers of people in former Yugoslavia and we are very concerned not only for their welfare but for the welfare of other NGOs and United Nations humanitarian personnel who are there because there have been indications strictly given by leaders of the Bosnian Serbs that any indications of action, multilateral or otherwise, would provoke retaliation against people on the ground and we have obviously a primary obligation to our people and the representatives of our allies who are on the ground now trying to deliver humanitarian services. And so that too, as Prime Minister Major has indicated, is one of the reasons why unilateral action, dramatically articulated, has a certain appeal, a certain cachet, but in point of fact the reality is that this matter can only be resolved multilaterally by the Security Council of the United Nations. That does not preclude under that umbrella action by NATO forces, we all happen to be allies together in the pursuit of this objective, but clearly the leadership must come from the Security Council of the United Nations and we are looking for that leadership because we are extremely dissatisfied with what is taking place, as you know, and as Prime Minister Major has just stated.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that whatever does come perhaps should not occur before the elections in Serbia, that in fact you might strengthen the hand of Milosevic by taking a tough line at this moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Elections in Serbia are only a day or so away are they not?

    MR MULRONEY:

    I think the Prime Minister is right and then you are going to get this kind of unpersuasive response from Belgrade that they have got nothing to do with what is going on in Bosnia and so I hope no-one believes that. And so what is taking place there will be significant and hopefully the United Nations will deal with the situation both as it is in Bosnia and as the reality exists in Belgrade. The solution cannot come from one source alone, there is a bifurcation of responsibility here, it has to be brought together and dealt with strictly under the aegis of the Security Council of the United Nations but with both eyes on both of those areas and I think that to the extent that a solution might emerge it is in that regard.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    M. DELORS:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Jacques Delors – 12 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with M Jacques Delors held in Edinburgh on Saturday 12th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I begin by expressing my thanks to the people of Edinburgh for the very warm welcome we have had and the excellent way in which we have been cared for throughout the last two days.

    Let me say as President of the European Council I am very pleased to announce this evening a real breakthrough on a number of fronts at the Edinburgh meeting. The decisions that we have taken collectively today will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve, they open the way for new states to join, the Community has made important progress on subsidiarity and it has agreed a growth initiative that gives new confidence for investment and for jobs in every country throughout the European Community.

    I believe we faced at this summit more difficult interlocking problems than at any recent European Council but I believe we can claim that today we have solved the Rubik’s Cube that was laid before us.

    Let me turn firstly to Denmark. We have reached a legally binding decision which will enable Paul Schluter to go back to the Danish people and recommend a ‘Yes’ vote in a second referendum in the spring. Our decisions today deal with the genuine concerns expressed in Denmark but it does not require a change in the treaty and it does not require a fresh round of ratification in member states.

    Second, the economy. The growth initiative we have agreed today will boost confidence and promote economic recovery right the way across the Community, it includes a new European investment fund and a special loan facility to be provided by the European Investment Bank. In total these will be able to support new investment of up to 24 billion pounds.

    We are completing the single market on time, a magnificent achievement which provides Europe’s businessmen with new opportunities and Europe’s consumers with a new freedom of choice and we will continue to work for a GATT settlement which could add around 200 billion pounds to world income.

    Third, I want to say something about the budget. We have agreed on the financing of the Community to the end of this century. At a time of high budget deficits throughout Europe, we will keep the present limit on Community spending for a further two years, for two years there will be no increase, thereafter there will be a gradual and a limited increase, this will cover the Community’s own necessary expenditure, for example on research and development, and also support development and meet real needs in countries as different as Russia and Somalia, we have provided of course substantial help to those countries. It will also help the least developed regions of the Community, especially in building up their infrastructure.

    I have to say to you this was a very hard fought negotiation, while some pressed for much bigger increases others wanted less and there was a strong feeling that this was as much as the Community’s taxpayers could afford at a time when all member governments are having to restrain their spending at home.

    The UK abatement has been the subject of discussion over recent weeks, it did come under some attack during that period. I made it clear that the rebate was not a favour to Britain but a recognition that we would otherwise pay an unfairly large amount to the Community. Our Community partners have accepted this, the rebate is now renewed unchanged until the turn of the century and cannot of course be changed without Britain’s agreement.

    Fourthly, I would like to turn to enlargement. Here we have made a very substantial step forward. Up until now the formal position has been that enlargement negotiations could not begin until the Maastricht Treaty had been ratified, but all of us have agreed today that it is in the Community’s interests to get on with formal negotiation as soon as possible. There could l believe be no better sign of an outward looking Community and I believe this will be very welcome news indeed to Sweden, to Austria, to Finland and of course to Norway.

    The Commission have also put forward an important paper on the relationship between the Community and the countries of Eastern Europe. This paper, which is formally welcomed in the conclusions, calls for early trade liberalisation and full membership of the Community for the countries concerned as soon as they are ready for it.

    Fifthly, subsidiarity. Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty we introduced a new and legally binding principle of subsidiarity. At Birmingham we agreed that the Council must come up with a clear implementation package at Edinburgh and we asked the Commission to produce examples of existing legislation which might be changed or withdrawn or propose legislation which should be scrapped. At Edinburgh we have met all these targets and I would particularly like to offer my congratulations to the President of the Commission for the work that he has done to ensure that those targets have been met.

    [Interruption from audience, Prime Minister responds]

    I would just say before we continue that as far as I recall it was the United Kingdom that were the first country anywhere in the world to introduce a full scale environment department over 20 years ago and we still I believe lead the way in many of our environmental practices.

    Let me return back to subsidiarity. We have agreed today guidelines based on the principle that the Community can only act where given the power to do so, national powers are the rule and the Community is the exception and we have also agreed new procedures for the Commission and the Council. And we now have a list of examples to show that this principle is having real effect.

    Each country produces its own examples of excessive interference. In Britain today’s subsidiarity agreement is good news for example for groups threatened by draft directives, groups as diverse as the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the St John’s Ambulance Brigade. And again I express my thanks to President Delors on this matter.

    Sixthly, openness. In just 7 weeks since the Birmingham summit we have put together and agreed a package of measures to open up the Community to scrutiny by the people of Europe, we will open up debates on issues of general Community interest, we will ensure Community legislation is simpler and clearer and we will publish voting records whenever formal votes are taken in the Council.

    We have also agreed two important issues that have been outstanding for a number of Presidencies. On sites of institutions we have signed a decision this evening confirming the sites and working arrangements for all the main Community institutions – the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and some others – that is the heart of the problem that has blocked decisions on sites of institutions for years. We have agreed that decisions on new institutions, the European Central Bank and others will be pursued by the next Presidency.

    On Members of the European Parliament, we have agreed to increase the number of German Members of the European Parliament to reflect unification and at the same time to change the numbers for other countries, particularly bearing enlargement in mind, this will result in a European Parliament of manageable size after enlargement. Britain received six more Members of the European Parliament, as did France and Italy.

    Let me now turn to foreign policy issues. We have reached agreement on international aid for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The issue of recognition remains highly sensitive, but today we have agreed that we will not let it stand in the way of meeting the pressing need for large scale international assistance, that in itself we believe will help provide stability. We have also unreservedly backed the United Nations plan to put a battalion of soldiers to monitor the peace there, we would like to do the same in Kosovo. In Bosnia we have called, among other things, for the Security Council to examine systematically the operation of the No Fly Zone.

    Let me try and sum up. It has been hard pounding during this European Council but as we come to the end of this Council and near to the end of our Presidency I believe that both for Britain and for the Community much has been achieved. The single market, the largest free market in the world, is opening for business. There has been a long awaited breakthrough in the GATT talks whose completion could give a 200 billion dollar boost to world income. We have today agreed a growth initiative which could raise investment by up to 24 billion pounds, creating jobs and boosting confidence throughout the European Community. We have provided the way forward for Denmark to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The Community’s finances have been put on a sound, a fair and an affordable basis for the rest of this century and the Community has today opened the door to a wider Europe in the future.

    I believe that as a result of these decisions the Edinburgh European Council will be remembered as the summit that put the Community back together and put us all back on the track for recovery.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I would just like to add that contrary to the general atmosphere that has prevailed over the last few weeks, and contrary to what a lot of detractors have been saying, for these two days we have seen that the Community is in fine fettle, the Community has demonstrated that it is able to react in very difficult circumstances and the British Presidency has been able to untie the knot.

    The Prime Minister, the President of the Council, has gone through the main points, I shall just add three comments myself. First of all when it comes to the common policies and the financial resources the European Council agreed on 85 percent of the proposals made by the Commission so this means, as the President of the Council has said, that we can look ahead with optimism to the further development of the Community over the years to come.

    Secondly, on the question of the sites, that has been settled for the main sites, for the main institutions. It was not at all easy and it shows that there is still a family spirit in the Community which enabled us to clarify a situation which was very obscure and had been very contentious over the last few years.

    Thirdly, I would like to pay tribute to the European Parliament because for the first time in the history of the Community the European Council took up a proposal from the Parliament, that is the Degucht [phon] proposal, on the composition of the European Parliament, and took that as the basis for the proposal that was fully accepted. That shows the sound health of the third institution – the European Parliament.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, following the agreement with Denmark, could you confirm that the Third Reading debate in the Commons on the Bill to ratify the Maastricht Treaty will now be held after the second Danish referendum and is there a chance that Britain could ratify by July 1st, which is the date suggested by the European Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Danish referendum is now likely to be at the end of April or beginning of May. We can’t be precisely sure when it is and we will not be ready for Third Reading in the Commons until after that date so it will follow very hard on its heels. We will then ratify as speedily as possible but it needs to go through, of course, both the Commons and the Lords so I can’t be precise as to timing.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the Danish decision, can you explain in exactly what way these opt-outs for Denmark change that country’s legal obligations under the Treaty of Maastricht and if they don’t change Denmark’s legal obligations, how can Denmark go ahead and have a second referendum on an unchanged treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it clarifies and interprets a great deal that was of concern to Denmark and I think you will need to look very carefully at what we have done. It is a mixture of a unilateral Declaration by Denmark, a Declaration by the Community as a whole, Conclusions by the Community as a whole and a Decision that has been reached on several key issues of importance to Denmark.

    The key points are these: it is a legally binding Decision covering Danish concerns. The Danes won’t have to join the single currency or the Western European Union, the defence grouping, and that deals with their defence point. It will enable the Danish Prime Minister to go for a second referendum and I strongly suspect as a result of that it will enable the Community to move forward as a Community of twelve.

    QUESTION (Greek TV):

    On the question of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Conclusions there is a reference to the Lisbon Declaration.

    My first question is do you read this reference as a reaffirmation of the Lisbon Declaration. My second question is that if and when the question of recognition comes to the United Nations, will Britain support the Greek position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Ministers spent many hours discussing that, I think I will let the Foreign Secretary deal with it.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There was no effort at the European Council at any level to change the Lisbon Conclusions. As regards the second question, it is not actual and no decisions so far as I know have been taken by any of the member states of the Community belonging to the Security Council, certainly not by Britain, as to what her attitude would be in the Security Council if we encountered such a proposition. It certainly was not discussed in any way today, the handling of the matter at the Security Council.

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell):

    My question is for M. Delors. Excuse me for asking it in English, Sir. Given the wide gap between what you originally proposed in your Delors II package and what was finally agreed, are you not disappointed by the numbers that have been agreed on this budget proposal?

    1. DELORS:

    No. I have made a very rigorous calculation. I confirm that we have obtained 85% of the means we claimed for in the initial proposal.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I wonder if in crude terms you could just tell us in pounds, shillings and pence as it were how much more this agreement is costing than what Britain was going for, the 1.25%, and who are the main beneficiaries and by how much?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Community are the main beneficiaries and I do not think I am going to break that down for you this evening, Adam. Without going into too many technicalities, the Presidency proposal was for an own-resources ceiling – I apologise for using the jargon – of 1.25% of GNP. The final outcome is 1.27% of GNP and we have been able to reallocate resources to many of the most important areas but the details of this will be made clear quite soon.

    I am not prepared immediately to put a pounds, shillings and pence price on it. It goes up to 1.27% in 1999. The increases are phased. There is no increase in 1993 or 1994. There is an increase of .01% of GNP in 1995 and the other increases are phased in steps until 1999 and it is in 1999 that it reaches 1.27% of GNP. That is the way in which it is phased.

    I should say that a great deal of those extra resources was generally agreed and I strongly support this. It was on projects that will actually be devoted to infra-structural development of one sort or another in the cohesion countries and of course in the structural funds beyond the cohesion countries.

    QUESTION (Robin Chrystal):

    Thousands of Scots marched today in Edinburgh for a Scottish Parliament. The majority of Scots voted for parties other than the Conservative Party at the election. What is in the document that you have agreed tonight for them? Why does subsidiarity have to stop at London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidiarity does not stop at London. I think you are confusing subsidiarity with devolution. If you consider the proposals that are actually coming out of the Westminster Parliament, far from subsidiarity, which means moving something from an international level to a national level, we have actually been moving decisions from a national level in the United Kingdom firstly to the Secretary of State for Scotland but more importantly than that, right down to individual schools, individual hospitals, individual people and that is the best sort of devolution, subsidiarity, call it what you will.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    You spoke earlier on about the hope now that the final British stages of ratification would follow close on the heels of the Danish referendum in April or May. Do I take it that you are more hopeful that can be completed before the end of June and can you tell us whether the Danish agreement is judiciable in the European Court?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No deadline was set on ratification by the British Parliament. That is a matter for the British Parliament and Members of Parliament. They are an independent breed, as you know, and we will take the Bill through the House as speedily as we can consistent with good examination. Unlike many countries throughout the Community, the British Parliament will wish to examine the Bill line-by-line and clause-by-clause; they will have the opportunity to do so. It is a constitutional Bill; they may take their time over it. That is understood in the Westminster Parliament and it is understood by our colleagues across the Community. We have said for many months that we will complete ratification during this session of Parliament but I have neither been asked nor have I given a specific timetable for the ratification. We will ratify as speedily as possible.

    It is not judiciable in the Court. It is a legally binding agreement amongst the governments concerning the Danes. It is not judiciable in the European Court.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, could you give us your view on what the message of this summit is for the Euro-sceptics at Westminster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone will draw their own message. I have spoken of the message that I believe comes out of this summit. I think it is a message of hope and growth for economies across Europe. I think it is a message of openness for people who wish to join the Community. I think it is a message that shows very clearly that despite differing national interests, the Community is able to come together on important matters and give a clear-cut lead and I think there is a further message as well: the message is that dispute the internal matters that have concerned the Community, we have also been able to look outward to new entrants, outward to Somalia, outward to Eastern Europe and outward to other problems around the world in which the Community is now a major force.

    QUESTION (French Reporters):

    Prime Minister, President Francois Mitterrand said just a few minutes ago that on Thursday night Britain’s position regarding the Danish referendum was basically that if there was to be a “No” you could not go along with Europe. Is that still the British position now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are working for the Danish referendum to produce a “Yes” but the principle of the Community has always been that the Community marches along as twelve; that is what all of us wish to see. That is why we have gone to so much trouble over the last few weeks and the last few days to agree a framework across the Community that we believe will enable the Danes to meet their domestic concerns and successfully put a second referendum before the Danish people but it is the joint ambition across the Community for the Danes to win their referendum and for the Community to advance as twelve initially and after enlargement as thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, whatever it may be.

    QUESTION (George Brock, The Times):

    Prime Minister, if the decision on Denmark is not justiciable in the European Court, can you tell me if there are any other courts it is justiciable in and if there are not any that it is justiciable in, in what sense is it legally binding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Legally it is binding between governments; it is a legally binding commitment entered into between one government and another.

    QUESTION (David Langston, Bureau of National Affairs in Washington):

    On the growth initiative, the figure of £24 billion that you mentioned does not equate with the 26, 18 plus 5 billion Ecu mentioned by Henning Christophersen here today. Could you spell out precisely the terms of difference between the Presidency counsel and Henning Christophersen’s meeting with the EC Finance Ministers.

    Secondly, a matter after your own heart, what can you tell us about the environment, which was a matter raised by some of the earlier interjectors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment, I responded at the time to the environmental points that the objectors made.

    On the growth initiative, since I have one of the architects of the growth initiative here, I will invite him to do it. Chancellor!

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: [Norman Lamont]

    In the two Community policies that were particularly put forward, that is first of all the infrastructure facility within the European Investment Bank that is designed to finance infrastructure projects throughout the Community trans-European networks, it will be able to lend up to 75% of the value of projects instead of the normal 50% and that could involve extra investment of about £7 billion.

    The other main initiative that was put forward was a new European Investment Fund which will involve the private sector being involved as well. That will guarantee loans for investment, particularly loans to small and medium-sized business. There, the guarantees could be around £5 billion supporting additional projects of up to £17 billion or so.

  • PMQT – 5 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    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 today.

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to decide how to use the diplomatic and negotiating skills which he deployed so effectively at Maastricht to prevent a trade war between the United States and the European Community? Will he pull out all the stops to achieve an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade before President Bush leaves the White House, in the knowledge that agreement on GATT will do more than anything else to pull the world out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point– it is a very serious matter. It is for the European Commission, which has the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of member states, to make a deal, and we shall seek to reach a concerted position so that such a deal can be achieved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about that a little later.

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that, in the midst of all our present miseries– [Interruption.] Why is it that, in the midst of this situation, the Government think that it is a priority to abolish wages councils which offer a safety net for 2.5 million people, two thirds of whom are women?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very narrow view. When he studies the whole of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, he may have a more enlightened view. As he may know, we have decided that wages councils will be abolished because they distort the operation of the labour market. Abolishing them will lead to more jobs rather than fewer. These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992.

    Mr. Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the truth that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when wages councils were set up, which was that, if there is no wage protection, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad is undercut by the worst? Does he not understand that people in this country are sick and tired of his professing concern about unemployment when 1 million people have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It is precisely because of the concern to sustain and maintain jobs that we propose to get rid of the councils that destroy jobs. The fact of the matter is that they create unnecessary bureaucracy and add to the burdens on business. If that is the Opposition’s industrial strategy–more burdens, less business and fewer jobs–the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make it clear.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are in favour of a very tough public spending round this year, especially on the revenue account, even if that means a public sector pay freeze to protect capital projects? Is he aware also that, when we are having to take painful decisions, it is not acceptable for Mr. Delors to ask for an increase in own resources? Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that if he wants more cash, he should look to the waste, fraud and corruption revealed by a recent report of the Court of Auditors?

    The Prime Minister : On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot, of course, this afternoon anticipate my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement which he will make to the House next Thursday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission’s proposals for a massive increase in Community spending are excessive in the present circumstances. No more than anyone else can the Community spend more than it can afford. I believe that, when we consider the future financing, we must be guided by the same principles of budget discipline and sound public finance that we all agreed to put in the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q3. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Ms. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall the pledge that he gave in his election manifesto that the value of child benefit would increase each year in line with prices? Despite the wriggling evident in his previous answer, will he repeat that pledge to the House today?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady must wait for the autumn statement next week, and I will tell her why. When asked to anticipate a financial statement in the election, the Leader of the Opposition said, “You’ll have to wait till next week when I make it.” That applies to us as well.

    Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend believe that a single currency for Europe is a desirable objective?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated often enough in the House, not least yesterday, that I do not believe that that is a remotely likely objective to be reached in the time scale set and that one can only determine whether it is desirable in the circumstances of the day, when the decision needs to be made. That is not now.

     

    Q4. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the closure of the 31 pits would make 30,000 miners compulsorily redundant and destroy the jobs of up to 70,000 people in related industries and that very few of them would have any chance of finding other work? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister say in response to the extraordinary revelation made by the chairman of British Coal yesterday to the Employment Select Committee that, when he and the President of the Board of Trade decided to close the pits, he had no discussion, conversation or consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a great deal of consultation in government for some time over the whole question of pit closures and there was a great deal of detailed consideration for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman now knows precisely what the situation is from a lengthy and detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Lidington : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this country’s links with our friends in Europe continue to strengthen, our special relationship with the United States of America remains as vital now as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : It has been a very close relationship. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to it yesterday as an historic relationship. It has remained that for many years. I believe that that results from the shared interests that we have around the world and from a shared historical background. I have no doubt that that will continue.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Paddy Ashdown– [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the decision taken last night by the House, by however narrow a margin, nevertheless means that Britain’s future in Europe has been saved and, with it, tens of thousands of jobs around Britain?

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the response from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister must be heard in the House, as every other right hon. and hon. Member should. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the price of principle is often abuse, but he was right last night in the vote that he cast. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : Does the Prime Minister agree with the business men of Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would devastate jobs?

    The Prime Minister : That is a view with which I entirely agree. It is a view expressed not only by the business men of Scarborough and Whitby, clearly with great clarity, but by business men across this country. The social chapter was not in the interests of this country. We were right to reject it.

     

    Q6. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Dr. Berry : Is the Prime Minister able to explain why he believes that an increase in public expenditure will severely damage the economy while hoping and praying that exactly the same activity by the private sector will get Britain out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman produces his question. The Government’s position on public expenditure has always been that it must be prudent, it must be affordable and it must be in the interests of overall management of the economy. That was, is and remains the case.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to extend an invitation to President-elect Clinton to come to this country, immediately after 20 January, when he can?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward to meeting President-elect Clinton before Christmas. I have already had the opportunity of sending my congratulations to him and stating them both privately and publicly, and I look forward to meeting him before Christmas. I hope that it will be possible for him to visit this country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Fatchett : After the Prime Minister’s poor performance in yesterday’s debate and after his policy failure on unemployment, the mines, British industry and devaluation, does he agree that his recent 16 per cent. approval rating in an opinion poll shows the generosity of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman was looking for one person in this country who has good reason not to trust opinion polls, he has just addressed a question to him. As to yesterday–right sentiment, wrong leader.

    Mr. Ian Taylor : Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the true test of compassion in public services is not necessarily the amount of money spent but the quality and efficiency with which it is spent? Does he, therefore, share my horror at the lack of compassion of Lambeth council, which has already spent £400,000 of local charge payers’ money on phantom teachers?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I did see that particular report, which illustrated not only that Lambeth council is inefficient but that it is slightly less inefficient than Islington council, which spent rather more on the same matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Will the Prime Minister repeat in the House the assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that he would not introduce the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the second Danish referendum ? Does that not show that there was no limit to the wriggling of the Prime Minister in his attempt to obtain votes in the Lobby last night ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman’s last point had been right, there would have been no debate yesterday. It was precisely because I was concerned to get the Bill through that there was a debate yesterday and we will move to Committee stage, and move forward.

    I am happy to make the point entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the House reaffirmed its assent to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage. In doing so, no thanks to the official Opposition, it reaffirmed our determination to play a leading role in Europe and strengthened our negotiating hand in Edinburgh. As for progress, there will be a limited discussion before Christmas. We will return to the Bill in greater detail in the new year. I wish to have plenty of time for full and proper discussion on all the details of a constitutional Bill which is of great concern in the House. It is important to carry the assent of the House on the Bill. That will take time.

    The present intention of the Danish Government is to hold a referendum in May. Given the Committee timetable that we have in mind and the full discussion that we need, we will need to take the Third Reading after that date in May. That has been and is the position, and that is the point that was made clear yesterday.

  • 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.