The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Jacques Delors

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Polish TV):

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

    MS SUCHOCRA:

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

    QUESTION (Radio Free Europe):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Hungarian News Agency):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MS SUCHOCKA:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Czechoslovak News Agency):

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

    CZECH PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson – ITN):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Polish Press Agency):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (BBC World Service):

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

    ANTALL:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Polish Section of BBC):

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

    DELORS:

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

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    KLAUS:

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

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

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

    MECIAR:

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in Birmingham on Friday 16th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I, before I turn to the substance of today’s European Council, express my thanks to the City of Birmingham for their hospitality and for the use of these splendid facilities here today. It has been the first time that the government have had a conference of this sort in Birmingham and I would like to express my thanks to everyone concerned for the splendid way in which the organisation has worked.

    May I now turn to the substance of the European Council and the reason it was called. Let me begin by painting the picture behind it. Last year nearly 60 percent of Britain’s visible trade was with our European Community partners. Half of the external investment in the United Kingdom comes from within the European Community. Eight of our top ten world trading partners are members of the European Community. And I mention those figures to illustrate how vital the Community is for our prosperity, for our economy and for our jobs. And I think you will find the same picture in each and every one of the European Community nations.

    In the last few weeks the very difficult situation of recession has been compounded by massive turbulence on the Foreign Exchange Markets. Those two things combined dealt a body blow to confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many areas right throughout the European Community. It was above all confidence that we needed to restore. That was why there was a request from a number of European partners for the European Council we have had today and that was why I called the meeting.

    Every single issue that we have discussed today has an important bearing on the successful development of the Community. And that is especially vital just three months before the single market comes into force; a market which could, when it is in force, bring around 5 percent extra growth in European Community GDP. And so the outcome of the meeting in the Birmingham Declaration and in our conclusions is of importance to our future and to our prosperity.

    Let me start with economic and monetary cooperation. Firstly, we have reaffirmed our determination to reduce inflation, to control budget deficits and pursue open market policies, not I emphasise just for their own sake but because each of us in the Community believe that that is the basis for recovery, the basis for social and economic cohesion and the basis for the creation of new and lasting jobs.

    Secondly, we have all put our authority behind the work set in hand by Finance Ministers following the recent turbulence in the currency markets. We believe that is important and we believe Finance Ministers and Bank Governors are the right people to carry it out.

    Thirdly, we have endorsed the progress made by the Commission in negotiating a settlement of the Uruguay Round and we have given them authority to work for a conclusion to that round by the end of this year. And I cannot stress how important such a settlement would be for recovery – an extra 200 billion dollars in wealth created every 10 years – that is the scale of the prize that hangs there if we can get a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round.

    Fourthly, we have in the Birmingham Declaration taken important steps towards giving the Community back to the people to whom it is answerable. That I think when people study the declaration will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed not just in the United Kingdom but in France, in Denmark and in countries right across the Community.

    And fifthly, we have taken a significant initiative to set up our humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia.

    In our discussions today right the way round the table there was a real sense that the success of the Community depends upon decisions being taken as close as possible to the individual Community citizens. President Delors in a presentation today highlighted a number of new commitments by the European Commission:

    – firstly, Community legislation should be more limited, should be clearer and should be better explained;

    – secondly, there should be more consultation by the Commission, we have in mind by White Papers and by Green Papers, a system of consultation very familiar to us in the United Kingdom and very welcome;

    – and thirdly, a Commission work programme each year which national parliaments would each and all be able to discuss. And Commissioners also should be designated to liaise with each national parliament.

    A common theme in the interventions by the European Community Heads of Government was that we should move together as a Community of Twelve, I emphasise that, a Community of Twelve, no inner core, no fast track, no slow track, no-one left behind, no inner groups, that was a constant theme of our discussions this morning.

    In our discussions a number of practical suggestions were made as well. I illustrate perhaps just two. President Mitterrand suggested we should hive off some decisions which had gone too far and should look between now and Edinburgh for specific examples of issues which need not be dealt with at the Community level. Chancellor Kohl, if I may give another example, urged the need for decisions to be taken at the level appropriate to that decision. And everyone had in their mind in those remarks the sort of unnecessary interference which all of us – the Commission, the Council, all of us – must now do our best to stop.

    All of that is set out in the declaration in what I hope will be seen by people not as legal language but as a simple straightforward easy to read guide to the sort of objectives we are going to seek. We are looking for a more open Community, a Community that respects national traditions, a Community which only acts where member states have given it the power to do so and then only when it is necessary to do so, a Community which has the lightest possible form of legislation with maximum freedom for member states.

    Those are some of the principles we have agreed today and those principles that we have agreed today will be translated into concrete action by Edinburgh. Some of the work is in hand, more of it will be put in hand so we can reach firm decisions, not pious hopes, firm decisions by the time we get to Edinburgh.

    In coming to Birmingham today the European Council has brought Europe right to the heart of Britain, I thoroughly welcome that. It is through Europe that the economic lifeblood of our country increasingly flows these days. We shall soon have a single market of over 350 million people in the European Community. Outside the Community other countries – Austria, the EFTANS, in due course some of the East Europeans – all wish to join the European Community. The market over time will get progressively bigger, progressively more valuable and progressively more vital to our national interest and the national interest of every European nation.

    After the squalls of the last few weeks it was necessary for us to meet and re-set our course, re-emphasise what it was we were about. There are difficult times now in each country in the European Community. And so today’s meeting was not just about the Maastricht Treaty, it was not just about subsidiarity, bringing things nearer to people, it was about reaffirming and re-ensuring an open Community that is open and viable politically and viable economically. That was what was in the minds of the Heads of Government, the Commission and everyone else present today and it was on that basis that we reached the decisions set out in our Council conclusions and in the three declarations – the Birmingham declaration and the declarations on Yugoslavia and on Somalia – which no doubt you have seen by now.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, now the Prime Minister has two press conferences, one after the other, so I do not want to hold you up. May I just say that this exceptional meeting of the European Council was indispensable as the President of the Council has just stressed. It enabled us to raise the level of trust and confidence among the Twelve and to have a joint assertion to press ahead with the building of Europe on a basis which is understandable to the citizens of Europe and with a confirmed and resolute determination. I think that was necessary.

    I myself expressed fears that given the events of the last few weeks a lack of trust could have emerged between member states and now I am reassured and today’s discussion, particularly this morning, was extremely rich and politically useful. and I think it augers well for the future of the Community.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (James Blaze, Radio VIP International, Mexico):

    Prime Minister, you talk about looking forward to a single European market in the future, Mexico has just signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which is involving Mexico, Canada and the United States, what is your reaction to the signing of the NAFTA and do you think that a single European market would mirror many aspects of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly welcome the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think it is a great step forward, it will be immensely helpful for Mexico. It is an important part of the Americas initiatives that President Bush has followed with I think some success over the last couple of years or so.

    In the single market in Europe, the single market has been something we have sought for some time. We are over 90 percent there. Of the measures that are necessary to complete the single market, 90 percent are concluded, a number are in the course of conclusion and we aim to complete the single market by Edinburgh at the end of this year. And the importance of it is it will remove barriers and it will open up a great deal of opportunity in terms of the United Kingdom, particularly for the City and elsewhere, but extra opportunities for each Community nation.

    When I say we will complete the single market by Edinburgh, I do not necessarily mean that each and every one of the single market ambitions will be concluded, but we will be sufficiently close to each and every one being concluded for us to be able to declare the single market properly open for business, and I illustrated to you earlier how valuable that would be for growth of Community GDP.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC Radio):

    How confident can you be that you are going to conduct your affairs with greater openness in view of the fact that you refused to let TV cameras in for any stage of your proceedings today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think openness comes in many forms, it certainly comes in forms of greater openness in consultation and greater openness in explaining what decisions are, greater openness in contacts with national parliaments. Thus far we have not opened Cabinet discussions to television and lots of other things either. But I do not exclude the possibility of television being there for part of discussions in future, that is one of the matters we are examining, but we have to examine that and reach agreement with all our Community partners about it. My personal view is that I think there is a case for it and I think it would be very wise, for example, to have a general discussion, perhaps in the Foreign Affairs Council once a year where it was entirely open to the public, televised perhaps if televisers wish to televise it, in which we can discuss the principles of the Community, where we are going and matters of that sort. That is certainly something we will wish to continue to discuss with our European partners and I hope we will reach an open conclusion.

    QUESTION (Vincent Hanna, A Week in Politics):

    I was interested in your statement about the idea of a Commissioner being accountable in some way to each national parliament, does that mean that you envisage at some point a Commissioner appearing before Westminster or a Select Committee at Westminster and answering questions and taking part in a debate, that would be unprecedented in our Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not in the Chamber itself, no Vincent. Firstly I should make clear we are not talking about extra Commissioners, we are talking about a Commissioner being allocated who would have a particular responsibility for liaison with one national parliament. I would not envisage that that Commissioner would appear in the Chamber of the House of Commons or Lords, indeed in terms of our constitution they could not, but certainly that they would answer appeals perhaps to appear before Select Committees or Backbench committees of any of the parties at Westminster so there is a different and better relationship. One of the things that strikes me quite starkly about the relationship between national parliaments and the European Community as a whole is the lack of understanding between the two, the lack of coordination between the two, and I think this is one way in which we can improve it. Having said that, I think it would be appropriate to ask M. Delors to comment, for it was his initiative that we should actually look at this particular proposition, and I warmly welcome it.

    1. DELORS:

    It seemed to me that in order to involve national parliaments more in terms of getting them to express their opinions about the Community and get information about the Community, a lot would depend on national practices, relations between national governments and national parliaments and also there was the idea of convening a conference of the European Parliament and national parliaments now and again. But that is not enough. Whether you are talking about Select Committees in the House of Commons or parliamentary committees in other countries, I think it would be useful and that was the proposal I made for these Parliamentary committees to know that among the members of the Commission there is one person who is particularly responsible for liaising with that national parliament who could appear before a Select Committee in order to provide information they need when they need it. Now of course I would make it clear straight away that for example the correspondent from the Bundesbank would not be German and the correspondent for the House of Commons would not be British, it would be better that way because that way they would get to know each other better. After twinning cities we would have twinning personalities.

    QUESTION (Mike White, Guardian):

    British authorities lowered interest rates today, I wondered if that was discussed at all at the Council and whether President Delors thought it was likely to increase the probability that Britain will re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism quickly or delay that? Secondly, we had expected to hear a little more about the economic recovery plan and the ideas associated with M. Delors, what has the summit done for Europe’s rising numbers of unemployed, including the British miners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of British interest rate levels was not discussed and neither in the form you put it was the second matter you raised. As to the rest of your question, I will be holding a domestic press conference immediately after this and I think that is more relevant to that press conference.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    Did you identify any concrete areas of common ground where all countries agree that Brussels currently exerts too much power? And secondly, is there anything that you said about subsidiarity that takes the information in the Maastricht Treaty any further?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have sought in the Birmingham Declaration to give more flesh to what subsidiarity means. But if I may borrow a very old English saying, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will actually see that when we come to Edinburgh and when we will be able to answer the first part of your question and we will have a specific list of illustrations of the way in which subsidiarity will work. And also we will be able to respond to the point that the Commission are also examining and that is those areas of legislation that previously the Community has been involved in where perhaps in future it need not be involved in. We have to seek the agreement of all twelve nations, work has been going on for this for some time, it is intended that we can reach conclusions at Edinburgh and I hope then that we will be able to put a good deal more detail behind the question you ask. It is the right question to ask, we will be able to answer it at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    On the question of the GATT your declaration seems to be positive and urges a GATT agreement by the end of the year. However, the American administration wish to achieve a breakthrough on the GATT by 3 November and this looks like it will not meet that request. Also the French President told us a few minutes ago that he had insisted that the term under the present mandate be maintained in the statement and that seems to limit the Commission’s freedom. Can you give any reason why Americans should not think this is a backward step on the GATT rather than the forward step it looks like?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it is not a backward step, most certainly it is not a backward step, and there was complete unanimity in the European Council about the economic advantages of reaching a conclusion to the Uruguay Round, not only the advantages of reaching it but the very severe disadvantages that could follow if we did not reach it.

    As to the timing, let me firstly say something about progress. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that in the meetings last week between the Community negotiators and Mrs Hills and Mr Madigan very substantial progress was made, not just in agriculture but in services, market access, financial services, a whole range of issues, far more progress than we have made in meetings for a very long time indeed. The negotiators believe more progress can be made. The end of the year is the target that has been set but it may be well in advance of that. The negotiators will be meeting again next weekend but of course that is the bilateral negotiation between the Community and the United States. They would then need to go to Geneva in order to sort out the details of their agreement with the other participants to the GATT agreement, of which there are a large number. But I think there is more optimism about the prospects of making progress today than there has been for some time and certainly a good deal more optimism than there was before the meetings over last weekend.

    QUESTION (Dutch TV):

    The Dutch Prime Minister has just said that the Danes are very close to a conclusion about Maastricht, in fact that they will come with concrete proposals within two weeks, can you now tell us when Maastricht will return to the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I have indicated some time ago that the preparatory debate that we have to have in the House of Commons before the committee stage can come back will be held shortly after the House of Commons returns. Once we have had that debate we can make a firm decision about the return of the bill to the House of Commons. But the bill will return and will go through the House of Commons in the present session of parliament.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the GATT, this is surely a French political problem more than anything else, you rightly allude to the progress made on Monday night and I wonder whether it was ever part of your strategy, given that both you and the Foreign Secretary have been at summits when the British Government has been quite ruthlessly isolated and voted down over an issue in the name of European Union, and that given under Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome it is possible to decide agricultural issues by qualified majority vote, did it ever occur to you that it might be advantageous at this stage to simply proceed to a vote on the question of agricultural subsidies with the French and vote them down at this summit or did you think that was not the way we did things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not got an outcome of the negotiations to determine yet. The negotiations on the agriculture element still continue, there are still some differences about import substitution and cereal production levels and export subsidies, there are still some differences in those areas to be resolved so it is not possible for us to determine how to reach an agreement until we have actually got an agreement that the Community collectively can decide upon. But it is the Commission that has the negotiating rights for the Community.

    What was vital today was to ensure that the Commission were given a continued mandate, to continue their negotiations firstly with the Americans bilaterally and ultimately thereafter to go straight off to Geneva and see if they could conclude a GATT agreement. That is the mandate that the Commission has and it means that the negotiations for a GATT agreement remain on track and proceed. Once the Commission are in a position to recommend a conclusion to us then we have to decide how it is determined, how it is agreed by the Community and as you rightly say that can be by qualified majority vote.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa – 4 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa (Japanese Prime Minister), held in London on Saturday 4th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say at the outset, we have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning and we will continue with those over luncheon, there are a number of matters we wish to talk about that we have not yet reached on our agenda.

    I think it is fitting that the summit meeting with Japan this morning is one of the first events of the UK Presidency of the Community, it does underline very starkly, I think, the commitment to an open outward looking Community that all our European partners wish to build.

    Japan, of course, is a very welcome guest here this morning, a major global power not just in economic and trade terms but also a major power in political terms as well. And Japan and the Community have in common a number of interests in close contact at the very highest level.

    Our talks this morning have covered many of the global challenges that face both Japan and each and every nation in the Community: the need for early and successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round; the matters we need to discuss on economic assistance to central and Eastern Europe and the very welcome Japanese contribution there has been to the efforts of the Group of 24; the future of the countries in the former Soviet Union, it was very useful to get a Japanese perspective on those difficulties this morning; we had the opportunity of a brief discussion on global environmental problems and the scene as we perceive it after Rio.

    We propose to continue our talks later and we have a number of key international issues still to discuss – Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, the Middle East peace process and also, I think, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We very much welcome the active Japanese role in that and as you will know, Japan and the Community jointly tabled UN resolutions on the register of arms transfers.

    So we have also had a good discussion this morning on the trade relationship, I think that is a central part of our relationship and it was worthwhile to spend some time on that this morning. I would like to stress a number of points about that, I would like to stress particularly the Community’s welcome for the inward investment there has been from Japan, we have a particular experience of that in the United Kingdom, 40 percent of Japanese direct manufacturing investment in the Community actually comes to the United Kingdom. We would welcome further Japanese investment and I know that is the view of our Community partners as well.

    Japan is also the Community’s second biggest trading partner and we are often in competition in the trade sphere and I think between manufacturing nations that is as it should be. But we certainly support the Commission’s efforts to reduce the trade imbalance in Japan and to remove the remaining barriers to trade. And we were able this morning to welcome the steps taken by the Japanese government to improve access to certain sectoral markets.

    These are matters that we will continue to discuss both today and in subsequent meetings both at political and at official level. Trade does remain the very core of the European/Japanese relationship but we do believe those economic questions should be discussed in the context of a wider dialogue involving political issues as well. Our aim for the community/Japanese relationship is quite clear cut and quite unambiguous, we want the relationship to be a long-term partnership based on shared value and objectives and to that end I think we had a useful series of discussions this morning.

    QUESTION (Finnish Broadcasting Company):

    Did you speak about the northern territories and did Japan get any sympathy for its idea that it should be a precondition for help for the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did touch upon the northern territories dispute, as we have in the past. It is essentially a bilateral dispute and can only be solved bilaterally between Japan and the Soviet Union and I think for the rest of us to take public positions would not assist in that bilateral settlement. The most important thing is that there is an agreement and there are very important discussions that lie not very far ahead, in September I think Prime Minister, between Prime Minister Miyazawa and President Yeltsin.

    QUESTION (Peter Bale, Reuters):

    Could you give the British attitude to Japanese wishes to take a seat on the United Nations Security Council and also elaborate on your views about GATT at this point having spoken to Mr Miyazawa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first point was not discussed at all this morning but it may be that it will come up in our bilateral discussions with Mr Miyazawa this afternoon. On the subject of GATT, we did touch on GATT, we spent some time on that. There is clearly an imperative to reach a conclusion to the GATT round as speedily as we possibly can, there are still some difficulties to be overcome, but I think we are sufficiently close to an agreement to make a real effort to get one and to get one without delay. There are a variety of reasons for that, not just the intrinsic desirability of an agreement on a Uruguay Round simply for the sake of having an agreement, but I doubt that there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that a GATT agreement would be a significant stimulus to world trade and as such particularly valuable at the moment when world trade is flagging, in many countries unemployment is rising and growth is falling. So I think there is the wider economic perspective for getting an agreement as well. It is also I think a particularly important matter from the United Kingdom point of view that that growth in world trade will not just be of benefit to the developing manufacturing nations of the world, but a very substantial part of that growth would go to the developing and third world.

    So I think for political, economic and humanitarian reasons, there is every imperative to seek a conclusion to the GATT Round as speedily as possible. I believe it is possible, nobody should under-estimate the difficulties and the national interests that remain, but there was an eclectic agreement this morning that we should try and pursue as speedily as possible a satisfactory outcome.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Miyazawa, according to a report yesterday President Yeltsin of Russia was critical of the Japanese attitude that Japan was not investing a single penny in Russia, what is your response? And my second question to Mr Major, in this joint press statement there is no mention about the northern territory problem, does this mean that the EC is reluctant to support the Japanese position in the Munich conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer the second point very quickly. We will discuss the matters in the Munich conference at the Munich conference and not in advance of it.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    With regard to your first question, Japan has already provided assistance amounting to as much as 2.65 billion and others and if President Yeltsin does not know of this then there must be something very strange.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    Mr Major, would the failure to build a European Fighter Aircraft weaken European industry and if such an aircraft is not built would you seek Community funds for retraining the workers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not yet have a decision on the European Fighter Aircraft, I read a great deal about what is going to happen to the European Fighter Aircraft. I have to say to you that we have had no formal communication yet from the German government about their position on the European fighter at all, I did see some reports that seemed to me to be a bit misconceived. We are talking to the Germans about the position on the European fighter and their Defence Secretary, Volker Ruhe, will be here in London at the beginning of next week and will be meeting Malcolm Rifkind. We are also talking to our partners from Spain and from Italy about the project. We made the decision some time ago that we needed an aircraft of EFA’s capability for military reasons, that was a decision the British government made some time ago. We believe it is certainly possible to reduce the costs of the European Fighter and we equally take the view that the alternatives to the European Fighter are likely to be more expensive, not less expensive, and will take longer to produce and cannot be produced in swifter time.

    So it remains the fact that we still see the European Fighter an an important project, we must wait and discuss the matter further with our partners but I hope it will be possible to continue with it.

    QUESTION (TASS):

    I have a question for you both, what is the government’s stance on the latest suggestion of President Bush to enlarge the G7 into G8 by including Russia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware of no formal proposal to do that. What happened last year was that President Yeltsin was invited to join the G7 so that the G7 could have discussions with another great world power after the conclusion of the G7 conference. That is what is happening again this year.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    Two or three days ago I had a meeting with President Bush and that subject was not brought up in our discussion.

    QUESTION (Peter Norman, FT):

    Prime Minister, you said a few minutes ago that you want to see a GATT agreement as quickly as possible, does that mean that we can expect some sort of parallel negotiations at the Munich summit because after all there are going to be major players there, Secretary Baker, Mr Andriessen, that sort of thing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not quite know what may be implied by parallel negotiations. I think it would be very surprising indeed if people did not discuss the present difficulties there are in the Uruguay Round whilst the major players, as you say, are there, but I do not know what the outcome of those will be but it would certainly be a matter I think that will be discussed, not necessarily in the main forum, that is a separate matter, but it will certainly be discussed I am sure in the bilateral meetings that will take place there.

    QUESTION:

    I refer to paragraph 8 of the press release and see that there is support for the Middle East peace process launched at Madrid in October 1991. What projects do you have at the European level and with the Japanese to support the economy in the Occupied Territories of Palestine?

    1. DELORS:

    The Commission has produced a document to the Council of Ministers of the Community in the case of peace in the Middle East to offer technical assistance, a common programme, economic concertation to the countries of the region and the Council of Ministers waits for the issue of the peace negotiation process to decide on the proposal of the Commission.

    QUESTION (Jackie Ashley, ITN):

    1. Delors, could you confirm a story in today’s “Telegraph” here that the European Commission is going to repeal some of its laws, particularly on the environment and on animal welfare protection?
    2. DELORS:

    No, not yet. we had only a meeting of the Commission. During this meeting, I repeat my proposals I made to the Heads of of Government over the dinner of the Council of Lisbon and also I explained to my colleagues what means in the communique of the Europeans Council of Lisbon and the Commission is prepared to follow and to apply the reorientation first for the new proposal of the Commission and also in parallel to study the content of the present legislation and possibly to revise this legislation but we must make a report to the European Council at the end of next year. Be sure that the Commission is very focused on this subject.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister Miyozawa and Prime Minister Major, did you discuss Japan’s efforts to stimulate the economy and if you did, how do you assess Japan’s efforts? Prime Minister Miyozawa, how did you explain your plan to prepare a supplementary budget this autumn?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    The Japanese economy is slowing down rather substantially and therefore even in the current budget we have significant front-loading of public works expenditure and about 70% of the entire public works expenditure for example will be spent in the first half of the year. If that is not sufficient as a stimulus, then we shall also introduce further resources for the purpose of public works investment, smaller businesses and so on as additional fiscal measures and, of course, the timing of such supplementary measures will depend on the timing of the effects of the permeation of the existing measures but I believe that it might be some time around the coming autumn.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can add to that on the part of the question directed to me, I think the Prime Minister set out some of the parameters of our discussion. In addition to that on economic stimulation, we did note that the domestic stimulation in Japan between 1985 and 1990 had played a material role in reducing the trade imbalances at present between the West European nations generally and Japan.

    The point I was particularly keen to discuss with the Prime Minister was the 5-year growth target averaging at 3 1/2% a year and whether that was a practical growth target that Japan would be likely to hit and the implications that would have on the growth of world trade. The Prime Minister felt that that was a target that Japan could meet. He drew attention to the growth record in recent years and was confident that that average of 3 1/2% over the next 5 years would be met and that is of course extremely good news.

    QUESTION (David Langton – Bureau of National Affairs):

    I would like Prime Minister Major to elaborate if he could on the discussions on global environmental issues and perhaps M. Delors to clarify the EC’s position on EFTA countries that might want to join the EC particularly in regard to those that are just about to leave the International Whaling Commission because they are upset with joint decision-making at that body and whether they would fit into the EC comfortably with their whaling policies and perhaps you could clarify the EC whaling policy.

    The second question is on EC-Japanese trade. Could you elaborate on whether you foresee that growing or declining in the coming years and whether that might be at the expense of the United States or either group?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment collaboration, we were really reviewing the collective follow-up to Rio rather than necessarily examining new areas of collaboration though we did reach an agreement in principle that environmental control was a matter that involved us. It was clearly a global matter. There would need to be further collaboration in terms of research and more relevantly in terms of action and we were able to discuss that and some of the actions that were necessary. I put one or two propositions forward that will be considered and taken forward privately.

    1. DELORS:

    On Norway, the first target for the government is to obtain the ratification of the new agreement on economic common space. For the application, we follow with great interest the discussion inside Norway. As you know, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland has opened a campaign of explanation in her party but also for public opinion and from the last news the Norwegian government intend to take a final position next November.

    QUESTION:

    A simple question for Mr. Major. As you know, international public opinion thinks that the collapse of the former Soviet Union requires a stronger major role in a special way in international and political relationships and the same public opinion wants to know if Mr. Major, politically speaking, will be so brave and sensible to achieve this major political role through the European Community that is from the federalist point of view institutional and decentralise from the political point of view according to the principle of subsidiarity. What is the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I like your definition of a simple question!

    I think there is no doubt that there has to be collective support in order to deal with the problems of the former Soviet Union. They are not problems that can be dealt with within the Soviet Union without external help; they are not problems that can just be helped bilaterally by the United States or by Europe. There is a collective need for help and it is for that reason that we have all collaborated in different ways, particularly through the Group of 24, to provide many billion dollars worth of assistance and why there are also the current discussions that are taking place between the IMF and the Russian Republic to determine the right sort of conditionality upon which Western aid will be made available.

    The point of conditionality is perfectly clear: we need to ensure that the large resources that will be made available rightly in my view to assist the Soviet Union are properly used to accelerate the reform process. There is no point in those resources being made available unless the reform process itself accelerates. The difficult balance that has to be struck is to make sure that the conditionality we ask of the Russians is conditionality that they can meet and that the terms set are not so severe that they are politically undeliverable in Russia.

    That is a matter that will have to be decided collectively; it is certainly a matter that will come up in discussion when Mr. Yeltsin is in Munich and it is a matter that has been discussed at official level between the IMF and representatives of the Russian Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Not translated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is going to be a difficulty about that. In terms of foreign policy matters, the position is quite clear. Where we can collectively agree foreign policy developments, whether in relation to the Soviet Union or elsewhere, the collective authority of the European Community is that much stronger than the individual position of any one, two or perhaps three or more member states so collectively, where there is a communal interest we will agree collectively but there will be areas where there are necessarily going to be bilateral matters between individual nation states within the Community that are not Community matters. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Hong Kong would be an example. You could find a similar example for a whole series of other countries within the Community. So there is no conflict of the sort you suggest there might be. There are areas of communal interest and there we will combine where it is appropriate to do so; where it is not appropriate to do so, we will conduct our foreign policy entirely bilaterally.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Miyazawa, in your meeting today I understand you explained Japan’s position on the Northern Territories. Were you able to gain the understanding of your interlocutors?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    I called on Mr. Major to comment on this and I explained the background to this issue and the Japanese Government’s current position on this matter. This is not a matter which directly bears on our relations with the European Community and of course we have been discussing this matter in our bilateral relations with the member countries. We had a meeting with M. Delors as well this morning and therefore I took the opportunity to explain to him Japan’s views on this matter.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will you be discussing world interest rates with the Japanese Prime Minister in your bilateral talks and will Britain be among those countries who are going to put pressure on Germany to bring down interest rates next week in Munich?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The discount rate in Japan I think is around 3 3/4%, something of that sort. We will discuss world trading matters and I think trading matters embrace a whole series of issues. Whether that particular matter will be substantive to the discussion, I am not sure.

    As to next week, we must wait for next week and see.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 1 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in London on Wednesday 1st July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to add my welcome to the President of the Commission and the other Commissioners to London this morning and to say we [indistinct] looking forward for the last year or more to the Presidency of the Community at what, it seems, will be a crucial period for its future.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing the very heavy agenda that lies ahead in the period between now and the Edinburgh summit. We have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning, it was very useful to have the views of the Commission on the workload that lies immediately ahead and I have no doubt that will help us in the efficient conduct of Community business as the individual councils begin to meet.

    We paid tribute at the outset of our meeting this morning to the work accomplished by the Portuguese Presidency that was brought to fruition at Lisbon over the weekend. The predominant part of our discussions this morning was a forward look at the agenda facing the United Kingdom Presidency. There are a particularly large number of matters that lie on the table requiring action and determination.

    Amongst the major themes clearly are the completion of the single market, we have a deadline for completing that at the end of this year; the future financing negotiations that we have touched upon but no detailed discussions have yet begun; the preparations for enlargement negotiations with the EFTAN countries; the development of relations with other applicants to the Community, and also with the countries of central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the consistent search for a conclusion to the GATT Round; we had discussions also this morning on proceeding with Maastricht ratification and on the way ahead to entrench subsidiarity as a way of life within the Community; we also spent some time discussing Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, and proposals are at present being put together for extra aid that I hope will reach a conclusion fairly speedily.

    Let me say also that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out our Presidency priorities in the House of Commons in a debate tomorrow and the Foreign Secretary of course will make the traditional Presidency programme speech in the European Parliament on 8 July.

    We look forward very much to working with the Commission, with the European Parliament and with our Community partners in all the member states over the forthcoming six months. I think at the outset that is all I wish to say, but I will invite the President of the Commission to add any points that he may think are relevant and then we will seek to take your questions.

    DELORS:

    The Commission and I take this opportunity to fulfil the preparation of the British Presidency and to concentrate our minds on the priorities designed by the British Presidency. And you must understand that in the spirit of the Community, during those following months, the Presidency and the Commission are on the same side, with the same purpose to make progress and to succeed.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Delors said that the Presidency and the Commission would be on the same side, do you see any areas where there is a tension between the British position and the position of the Presidency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are the Presidency so there is no distinction between the Presidency and the British position. But we will be discussing the areas that are difficult throughout the Community, both with the Commission of course and bilaterally with our Community partners. We have a dual responsibility during the Presidency, the first, of course, is to maintain the British interest and that we will do. But the second responsibility we have in the Presidency of the Community is to bring together the disparate views and seek a conclusion that is the right way ahead for the Community at large and in that we will work very closely indeed with the Commission and I have every reason to believe we will reach successful conclusions on many of the outstanding matters.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    How important is it for the success of the British Presidency for the House of Commons to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the Presidency ends and before the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will bring the Bill back to the House of Commons at some stage, I cannot be quite clear yet when it will come back, we will need to see precisely what is going to happen with the difficulties that at present exist in Denmark, we need to give the Danish government some time to determine how they propose to deal with that difficulty, I think that is perfectly reasonable. So we will take stock again when the House of Commons resumes in the autumn and decide what the right procedure is for bringing the Bill forward. It would be desirable to finish it by the end of the year but it is not essential.

    QUESTION:

    Your predecessor, Mrs Thatcher, called the Community ‘socialism by the back Delors”, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been in the Community now for 20-odd years, during that period we have helped frame the policies of the Community. The single market is a particularly strong British initiative in the Community, that has been the driving motor of the Community over the last two or three years, that embraces open competition, that certainly is a British concept, I do not know what others may call it, but I would say it is a concept of open liberal markets, that is what the single market is about.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Delors, how significantly do you think the British government’s position has changed with the advent of Mr Major as Prime Minister; and do you think that Lady Thatcher’s current comments are consistent with her Presidency of the Community and the attitude she took as Prime Minister?

    DELORS:

    I have not the intention to enter into the internal debate of Great Britain. I say that it would be possible to work frankly and friendly with the Prime Minister and the duty of the Commission is to help the Community to make progress, no more. And if we must have discussion, we have discussion on technical matters between the Minister in charge and the Commissioner in charge, no more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how does your Presidency intend to interpret the principle of subsidiarity, it is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty and how do you hope to have a good relationship with M. Delors who represents the federalist intention of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing I think I should say about subsidiarity is that whilst we feel very strongly that it is something that ought to be entrenched in the Community principles and practices, so does the President of the Commission who has made that position entirely clear on a number of occasions both publicly and privately. We are both committed to looking at ways in which the principle of subsidiarity can be enshrined as a natural part of the Community’s instincts rather than something that is just wheeled out from time to time when it is convenient. And the President is examining ways, the Commission will be examining ways, with our guidance and assistance, over the next few months to determine precisely how we carry that principle into practice. We have a number of ideas we are looking at, many of those are not yet right for public discussion, but I assure you progress is being made on that, we are determined to make progress on that as the British Presidency and the President of the Commission and the Commission are equally determined to make progress on it. We will report to the Edinburgh summit.

    QUESTION (John Cole – BBC):

    A question to M. Delors, please. How do you think a country which has opted out of the Social Chapter and reserved its own position on the single currency can give the kind of lead to Europe that you think it ought to have in the next six months?

    DELORS:

    The twelve member states accepted the two opting out in the Maastricht summit. This is not the first time there was an opting-out and it is frankly possible to manage the Community and to make progress in those conditions and the Maastricht Agreement obliged all member states and the Commission on all aspects of the treaty draft.

    QUESTION:

    A general and a specific question on the British presidency’s hopes to improve environmental concerns in Europe throughout your time. What will you do to, in a general sense, enforce improvement in environmental legislation in the EC and specifically on the question of Norway’s and Iceland’s attitude to whaling? Given Britain’s anti-whaling position, will the British presidency be able to lead the EC to perhaps take action against those two countries perhaps through trade sanctions to prevent them whaling?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are both important matters. We weren’t able to discuss them this morning, not least because as of this moment the Community does not have an Environment Commissioner. Ripo di Meana, who was the Environment Commissioner is now a member of the new Italian government and a new Environment Commissioner has not yet been appointed so we have not had the opportunity of discussing those matters this morning. I have no doubt, when we have a commissioner, that we will wish to discuss with him how to make progress on environmental matters – that we will do.

    On the subject of whaling, I think the British position is very clear both on whaling and on the smaller animals, the dolphins and others. Our position has been spelt out by John Gummer on a number of occasions. We will try and persuade other people in the Community and beyond it that that is the right way to deal with the present problems of whaling.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    A question for M. Delors, if I may. It was agreed at Lisbon that there could be no official enlargement negotiations for the Community until both the ratification of the treaty by all twelve member states and the settling of the budget but the British presidency has talked of unofficial negotiations starting on enlargement. How much do you, M. Delors, believe can be achieved by unofficial negotiations? How far can they go and are they a meaningful concept?

    DELORS:

    Practically, there is no difference between my colleague, the Vice-President Andriessen. We are in discussion not only with Sweden, for which we prepare an opinion but also with Austria, with Finland and so on and the objective of the British presidency is to be ready as soon as possible to start with official negotiations and during the following months the Community will do its best to accelerate the preparation of the opinion for Sweden and after for Finland and Switzerland and also to take in place the things which allow official negotiations starting as I hope since the beginning of 1993.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. In view of improving the relationship of the European Community with Turkey, will that include the adoption of the 4th Financial Protocol? My second question in about Yugoslavia. What are the next steps that the British presidency is planning to take with the government of Giro Gregorov [phon] in Skopje?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    As regards the first question, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss later this month the whole question of the Community’s relationship with Turkey on the basis of a working paper which the British Government was asked to prepare some weeks ago and which is now ready but certainly one element of that in our view should be the fulfilment of what the Community has already undertaken in the financial protocol.

    I have nothing at the moment to add to the Conclusions of the Lisbon Council on the question of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

    QUESTION (David Buchan – Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where you have a conflict between subsidiarity and the single market as you well might have – decentralisation might cause unevenness in the single market – which would your highest priority be?

    Could I ask President Delors about the environment? When do you plan to nominate an Environment Commissioner? Do you intend to give that dossier to one of your colleagues and will the Commission in general terms pursue your court case against the UK Government on the issue of bathing water?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I deal with the first part of the question?

    I actually made clear in the House of Commons the other day that there is sometimes a conflict between subsidiarity and achieving a level playing field across the Community – that is undoubtedly the case. The single market requires a level playing field and often that does require action at the Community level. We would have to look at the conflict between those two principles in terms of each individual matter that may arise but we are committed under the Single European Act to reach a single market and we do make sure there is a level playing field on the major matters of competition throughout the European Community so that clearly has a very high priority but we would have to look at each individual item to see whether the balance of advantage lay wholly with an unreconstructed level playing field or whether on occasions subsidiarity would have to take precedence but generally I think we would want the level playing field.

    DELORS:

    As you know, the Commission is a college and I intend to propose tomorrow to the college that a commissioner take by interim the portfolio on environment until the Italian Government appoint a new commissioner and with the interim commissioner in service, we intend to discuss the problem you raise concerning bathing water.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow – ITN):

    Delors, do you accept that it is the ambition of the British presidency to ensure that your last two years as President are less powerful than your first?

    DELORS:

    The most important for me is not to appear as powerful. The most important is to be useful, useful for the Community, that is all and evidently I do not please articles in the British press but this is not my problem. My problem is that the twelve member countries consider that the Commission will be useful to make progress in the Community – no more – and the problem of power, the problem of nomination of the President of the Commission is not of interest to me; even for French politics it is not interesting. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Regarding M. Delors’ comment on the issue of subsidiarity, what he, thinks about what kind of work should be done. Does it infer that in some way there could be some danger for the Commission itself.

    DELORS:

    I put my ideas over a dinner with the Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas I think are welcomed by the twelve Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas are put in the communique of Lisbon. Evidently, it is very difficult to draw the line between what is best done at Community level and what is best done at national level but we make an effort to conciliate for example as one of your colleagues raised the problem, the necessity to have an efficient single market and also the political necessity to bring closer the decision from citizens. It is not always easy but the Commission has has two debates on this question and is fully prepared to apply the principle of subsidiarity even before the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in the line of the [indistinct] given by the European Council in Lisbon.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph]:

    A question for both Mr. Major and M. Delors. Earlier this week, British Employment Minister, Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, cast some doubt over whether Denmark would be the next presidency of the Community and there were some suggestions at the Lisbon summit that because of the referendum Denmark should not take it because its commitment to the European Community was now in doubt. Are there going to be sanctions against Denmark?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that first. Denmark have confirmed to us this morning, I think, that they are going to be part of the Troika, that is to say the immediate past presidency, the current presidency and the future presidency and the implication for that is that Denmark proposes to take the presidency of the Community at the beginning of next year and it is our view that that is the right way for them to proceed.

    The wish across the Community is to give the Danes some time to sort out the difficulties that they have so that they may then decide how to proceed but that is a decision that Denmark must take. They are in the Community and they take over the presidency on 1 January next year.

    DELORS:

    I share the same point of view and the Commission is ready to prepare tomorrow the next Danish presidency.