The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Dungannon – 18 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at Bush Primary School in Dungannon, held on 18th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just wanted to say this morning how pleased I am to be here in Northern Ireland this morning and how much I’ve enjoyed the visit to the Bush School. I’m sorry we didn’t have time to finish the school play, it was just getting to the tense part but I’m reliably informed that it ends happily. I have, this morning, three places of extremely good news for every part of the United Kingdom. The unemployment figures announced a few minutes ago show the largest drop in unemployment since records were first kept, 25 years ago. We’ve seen today unemployment drop by just under 96,000 and we’ve seen that drop reflected right the way across the United Kingdom in terms of male unemployment, that has fallen, female employment has fallen and it has fallen in every region across the United Kingdom. This fall this morning doesn’t just take unemployment below 2 million, it takes it down to over 1.9 million, a very long way below 2 million, and it’s extremely good news for very many people.

    The other two pieces of good news I think, perhaps, help explain the drop in unemployment. The first is the report of the OECD into the economy across the United Kingdom. The OECD independent forecast not only notes that we’ve had the largest growth in the United Kingdom of anywhere in Europe last year and this year, but forecasts that we will have the largest growth across Europe next year and the year after that and that we will do that by maintaining very low inflation.

    The third piece of good news is the growth in retail sales showing yet again that the economy at the moment is extremely buoyant, so what we can see as we come to Christmas 1996 is perhaps the best economic prospects that we’ve seen across the United Kingdom for a very long time. I don’t think many people will remember when the prospects were quite as rosy as they were at present and we now have to make sure that those rosy prospects are turned into future realities and I have every intention of ensuring that we do. Here in Northern Ireland we’ve seen today’s unemployment figures take unemployment down below 10 per cent for the first time, I think, in about 15 or 16 years and that is a trend, I think that looks as though it’s going to continue, so extremely good news for very many people.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I just ask you if you’re still committed to the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m totally committed to the peace process and I will remain committed to the peace process for as long as I remain in politics, which I expect to be a very long time.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you disappointed with all this good news you’re telling us about doesn’t extend to good news about real progress in the peace process which you might have expected coming back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would have liked to have had more progress. I’ve said from the outset of this that it would often be two steps forward and one step back and I’m afraid over the last few weeks we’ve been in the one step back mould. I very much regret that but I think if we take the long view and see the changes that have occurred over the last few years, the change not just in terms of tangible progress but the changes in the terms of debate, the way in which the debate is expressed, I think we can see that over the longer run a lot of progress has been made and I believe that more progress can be made and will be made. The principal reason I’m confident about that is what I see every time I come to Northern Ireland. I come to Northern Ireland and I see people, whichever side they may instinctively support, who wish to see progress. I don’t believe people can stand in the way of that progress, it may be slow, it may be painful, but progress I’m confident there will be.

    QUESTION:

    What words of hope would you offer to the people of Northern Ireland for 1997? 1996 started off looking very good, ‘97 doesn’t look so good?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I hope from where we are that we will be able to move forward. As I said a moment ago there’s a pause in the move forward but I don’t think this pause will last for good, providing everybody who speaks about their will to have peace means that they say, then there’s no reason why we can’t make progress. We have always known there’d be some very difficult hurdles to overcome but we know those hurdles would come at irregular intervals in the process, we have now hit a hurdle, but I think it is a hurdle we will be able to overcome, we’ve done so in the past, I have every intention of trying to do so again.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with John Bruton – 9 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with John Bruton, held on Monday 9th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly apologise for the fact that we are running so late, but I think you know there were some fog problems this morning and the Taoiseach arrived at Downing Street a little later than previously advertised, we had a very lengthy agenda and I am afraid that accounts for our late arrival out here in Downing Street. My apologies for that.

    I welcome the Taoiseach here really in two capacities: first as the current President of the European Union; and secondly of course as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. We divided our discussions today into both those quite separate compartments.

    We began with a very comprehensive examination of the European Union issues that lie in front of us, most obviously of course the Intergovernmental Conference and the summit that we have in Dublin on Friday and on Saturday.

    I would like at the outset to congratulate the Irish Presidency not only on the work they have done during their Presidency thus far, but on the excellent Presidency text that they have produced about the Intergovernmental Conference, which is not prejudicial to the subsequent decisions to be taken, but which seta out with great clarity and fairness the differing positions of all the countries on the various European issues. It cannot have been easy to get such an excellent text but it is one I think that will be very useful in the months that lie immediately ahead.

    The text of course sets out the basis for negotiation during the period between the Dublin Summit and the Amsterdam summit, and it does not prejudice what the outcome of any of those discussions may be. But I think there is little doubt that at the Dublin Summit this weekend, as we discuss many of the issues in the Intergovernmental Conference, that the different positions of member states on a range of issues will be set out, and certainly we anticipate discussing Economic and Monetary Union, common foreign and security policy, employment, justice and home affairs, and also some anti-drugs initiatives that the United Kingdom have been working on with France and with other countries as well, and I look forward to discussing all those issues, and others as well, I strongly suspect, at Dublin on Friday and Saturday.

    We also spent some time discussing the current position in Northern Ireland, about which the two governments have worked together for so long and so well with the same objective in mind. We are united in wishing to see a credible ceasefire, and we are united also, provided we can get a credible and verifiable ceasefire, in peeing Sinn Fein join the talks and making them inclusive in due course. And of course they would have to join the talks in accordance with the ground rules that were established some many months ago.

    We both wish those talks to succeed, but we recognise that if they are to succeed they must be carried out on a basis that will require all the participants to remain at the table so that we can credibly examine the issues that still lie before us in Northern Ireland.

    I don’t wish this afternoon to speculate about whether a particular date is possible for Sinn Fein to join the talks. That, as I have indicated on a number of occasions recently, depends on what is said and done and whether an unequivocal ceasefire is declared and is then held after having been declared. Clearly the developments on the ground need to be consistent with the Mitchell principles of peace and democracy. And I certainly share with the Taoiseach a wish that we will be able to get in due course to inclusive talks involving all the parties as soon as all the parties have established their commitment to a democratic process and to peaceful means.

    I share his judgment too that there should be no undue and unnecessary delay in coming to a judgment upon matter. But the onus, to enable us to reach that judgment, depends upon the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA firstly to restore their ceasefire credibly, to do so as soon as possible and then to have a judgment, made upon whether it is a genuine and lasting ceasefire and upon the actions on the ground that we need to see in order to establish the ground rules procedure.

    Those are the matters that we need to look at, but whether they join the talks or not, we expect the talks to continue in any event. They would be better if inclusive, but whether inclusive or not depends upon the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA and a proper judgment being made upon whether those actions are sincere and lasting or not.

    So these are the issues we have been discussing, we have discussed also some, if I may use the jargon, east-west issues, London/Dublin issues, where there is a range of initiatives that I don’t think I need detain you with at the moment, but add up to an ever improving relationship between London and Dublin. I very much welcome that. I think the developments between the two countries are much better when we work together, and we have done so very successfully in recent years and I look forward to that continuing.

    I would like now to invite the Taoiseach to say whatever he wishes on European matters, and Northern Ireland matters as well no doubt, as well as East-West, and then we will endeavour to take any questions you may have.

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all, this is the 13th of a series of 14 meetings that I am having with other Heads of EU Governments. I am travelling to Paris tomorrow to complete the series of bilaterals in each of the capitals of the European Union in preparation for the Dublin Summit next week. And I have outlined to the Prime Minister basically what we would like to achieve at the Dublin Summit. First of all we want to move forward on the issues that remain to be resolved in regard to the creation of an Economic and Monetary Union in Europe based on a single currency. The issues that have been worked upon and are ready for decision at Dublin include the actual date, the confirmation of the date for the commencement of the single currency, which is 1 January 1999; the legal arrangements, which are exceptionally complex when one is moving from one currency regime to another, which have also been finalised; the arrangements for the relationship between those Union countries that will be in the single currency from day one, and those who will not be in it from day one, that again required a lot of complex work, which has been completed; and finally the budgetary discipline that will apply to the countries that are already in the European currency from day one.

    There are some difficulties that remain to be resolved as far as that is concerned, but tremendous progress is being made and I hope that the remaining arguments will be settled at the Economic and Finance Ministers meeting, which is taking place later this week.

    We will also be reaching conclusions in accordance with the Essen Process, and which the Prime Minister was involved in initiating, in regard to employment. We will be re-dedicating ourselves to work as members of the European Union to reduce unemployment as it exists in the Union at the present time. It is worth noting that the total level of unemployment in the European Union at the present time is equivalent to the population of the three smallest member states combined. So clearly we have a requirement to work hard on that question.

    We will also be taking note of the treaty, to which the Prime Minister has referred, which we have prepared a draft of, which we hope will be completed at Amsterdam, a new treaty for the European Union.

    And finally, we will be making decisions we hope on crime and drug issues. In particular we hope to adopt a major statement on organised crime, which is an increasing problem across national boundaries within the European Union, and also on the supply of and the demand for drugs within the European Union, which is a trans-national problem, it is not a problem confined to one member state.

    We hope that across all of those issues that I have mentioned, plus a number of foreign policy questions, including the Middle East Peace Process, our relations with central and eastern Europe, we will be able to reach very substantial conclusions which will mark a major advance in our work.

    As the Prime Minister has said, we availed of this opportunity which arose primarily from an EU-related visit, to review our joint work in regard to Northern Ireland. We have two objectives in common: firstly, both governments are seeking a truly inclusive process of negotiation involving all of the parties, of the electorate represented; secondly, we are both working for an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire at the earliest possible moment. Both of these conditions are necessary for any durable and freely negotiated agreement to be reached which will be fair and acceptable to all. Violence is inimical to the reaching of a freely agreed solution.

    Obviously the problems that we are dealing with are complex and long-standing. But the two governments are working together to solve those problems on the basis of the firm foundation of the communique that the Prime Minister and I agreed here on 28 February of this year, and also the ground rules that we agreed between our two governments for the all-party talks which relate in particular as far as an IRA ceasefire is concerned, to paragraphs 8 and 9, which determine eligibility as far as Sinn Fein is concerned for participation in the talks.

    Since the original IRA ceasefire, it is worth noting that major steps forward have been made. We have agreed a joint framework document between the two governments which set out a long term outline of how we see the solution to the problem being arrived at, an agreed position between the two governments, something never achieved before historically. Since the ceasefire also there has been amelioration in the conditions of prisoners, and also the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin reached a joint report involving the largest range of parties ever to sit around the same table in Ireland since 1917.

    Since the ceasefire broke down, we have continued our work. We have fixed a date for all-party talks, that date – the 10th of June – and the talks have started. We agreed detailed ground rules for those talks and procedures for those talks, and we are now working together to achieve an IRA ceasefire so that all the parties, including Sinn Fein, can participate in the talks.

    My government’s position is that if the IRA calls an unequivocal ceasefire, in words that are believable and provided there is nothing done that is inconsistent with this ceasefire, or with the Mitchell Principles, then Sinn Fein should be admitted to participation in the talks in accordance with the ground rules that we have agreed. The first step, however, is a credible ceasefire. The onus is on the Republican Movement to restore the ceasefire credibly at the earliest moment. I want to see Sinn Fein’s participation in the talks at the earliest moment too on that basis.

    In practical terms, given the imminence of the Christmas recess, would hope that this would be possible early in the New Year. But there could also be room for reciprocal confidence-building measures in the meantime. The sooner we have a ceasefire, the sooner we can work in that direction.

    A way forward is now in place. All who are willing to negotiate with patience and determination are welcome to take part. For the sake of the people of Ireland, and of all in these islands, I call on the Republican Movement to give us an IRA ceasefire so that all can negotiate their future together free of threat.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you if you agree with what Mr Bruton has just said, that this business of bringing Sinn Fein in and starting the substantive phase of the all-party talks could happen by the New Year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never been prepared to put a date on to it because I don’t think the question is the passage of a particular timespan. The question at issue is the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA. It is not just a question of saying we are going to have a ceasefire, we need to know on this occasion that it is a genuine ceasefire, so we need to examine that, we need to see not only what they say about the ceasefire, but what they subsequently do. And that is why I have spelt out on a number of occasions the particular things that we will be looking at. So we are not looking at a particular time frame, either short or long, I am not seeking undue delay, this is not a delaying process, but I need to be certain that if they have a ceasefire it is a genuine ceasefire and for that reason we have set out the sort of things that we will look at to make a judgment about whether it is a genuine ceasefire. And once that is the case of course we are better off with an inclusive process. But I can’t put a date to it. Sinn Fein/IRA may be able to put a date to it, but that is for them, not for me.

    QUESTION:

    But you are not ruling out the prospect of this being settled by the New Year or by January?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not ruling anything out or ruling anything in. I am not going to be drawn on dates because I have said until I am blue in the face that I don’t think dates are the point, the point is actions, the point is people need to be convinced, in order to sit down and talk with Sinn Fein, that this time it is not a fake. Another fake is of no use, except in the very short-term. What we want is a genuine ceasefire, so we need to see whether the actions that follow the words are satisfactory, and I can’t and won’t put a timescale to that because it is the actions that are relevant, and I have spelt that out on a number of occasions over recent days.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t it a fact that based on what you have said, and what the Taoiseach has said, that there still appears to be a gulf between your two positions? The Taoiseach seems to be saying, ceasefire, adherence to the Mitchell Principles, straight into talks against the backdrop of a credible ceasefire. You don’t seem to be saying that, am I interpreting you correctly?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Could I just say that what I have said consistently on this matter is that for a political party to take part in the all-party talks, there must be compliance with the ground rules for the talks. They are set out in paragraph 8 and 9 in particular, and paragraphs 8 and 9 require a ceasefire, but also paragraph 8 in particular requires demonstration that the ceasefire is credible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And I couldn’t have put it better myself, thank you.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] on how you established paragraph 8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We set out the ground rules, as the Taoiseach said, some time ago and I put some flesh upon how we will interpret the ground rules. And so that is why I say to you, the point isn’t just setting an arbitrary date, that is not really the point. I understand the fears that some people have that because there is not an arbitrary date that that necessarily implies a very long delay. Well that would be a wrong reading of the situation. We set out the ground rules some time ago, we need to make sure the ground rules are kept. I have set out some of the things that we are going to look at to make sure the ground rules are kept. Once we have examined those, if there is a ceasefire, we will look at the wards that are issued with the ceasefire, but beyond that we will look at the sort of things necessary to see if the ground rules themselves are met, and that is what we propose to do, that is why you can’t put a particular timescale to it.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, on Europe, on the basis of your talks do you think it is going to be possible to make any meaningful progress on the sensitive areas or whether it is going to be again a question of Britain against the rest?

    MR BRUTON:

    It certainly won’t be a question of Britain against the rest. The issues which I have outlined are ones on which I believe we will make substantial progress in Dublin, I believe we will make substantial progress on crime and drugs, because here there is a complete identity of views around Europe that this must be a very high priority for all political leaders and governments. I believe also we will make progress on employment based on each government taking its own responsibilities, but also our working together to free up the internal market, and indeed to free up labour markets so that maximum job opportunities are created within Europe and between European countries.

    As far as Economic and Monetary Union is concerned, it is obviously the case that Britain has an opt-out of their own which was negotiated and agreed to by all other member states, but as far as the other states are concerned we are on track to move forward on time to introduce the single currency on the date specified, and I believe you will see at the Dublin Summit evidence of a huge amount of detailed painstaking and effective work that has been done to lay the technical basis for the early introduction of the single currency.

    QUESTION:

    In the current circumstances the conditions that now exist for Sinn Fein to get into talks, the Republic Spokesmen and the IRA have repeatedly made clear on the current circumstances they simply are not interested. Is there anything that either you or the Taoiseach can say to Sinn Fein to persuade them to talk to the IRA to persuade the IRA to have another ceasefire, because on the current circumstances they don’t want to know.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for Sinn Fein/IRA, they must make their own judgments. If they wish to remain pariahs then I suppose they will remain pariahs, but I don’t believe that they can expect suddenly to return to the talks after having been in a process, after having effectively broken their word during that process. We were told repeatedly during the last ceasefire that the ceasefire was for good, the bomb and the gun has gone forever we were told time after time. We now know self-evidently that that was not true. Not only have we discovered it wasn’t true, we know that it wasn’t true at the time they said it, because they were planning to return to violence at the same time that they said it. So if they are frustrated about the need to get back into talks, the frustration arises out of their own actions, not out of anything anyone else has done.

    MR BRUTON:

    That question was addressed to both of us and I would like to answer it too. I would like to say to the Republican movement, first of all you have a talks process now in existence, which you can join. You know the terms upon which you can join it, they are set out in the ground rules for the talks.

    When you had the previous ceasefire there was no talks process in existence; there is one now which you can join. Furthermore, we have independent chairmen ready and willing to include you in the talks and take the necessary steps to ensure that your position is adequately safeguarded, as will be the position of all other parties. There are detailed procedures agreed insofar as the talks are concerned to ensure that no minority is in any sense badly treated. None of these conditions existed when the first ceasefire was called. These conditions exist now, so why not have a ceasefire now.

    I would say in particular to the Republican Movement, those who are in Sinn Fein are people of ability. They should have nothing to fear from sitting down at the table to discuss their future – and it is a joint future – with all their neighbours in Northern Ireland. They don’t need recourse to violence to argue their case, they have the ability of their minds and the strength of their convictions to argue their case. They have nothing to fear from a ceasefire, nothing to fear from taking part in the talks. The only barrier that is preventing them from taking part in the talks is the absence of a ceasefire and the absence so far of compliance with the ground rules for the talks.

    QUESTION:

    Those talks have been going now for 6 months, they appear to be heading nowhere, surely those talks are pointless without Sinn Fein?

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all I think it is fair to say that the problems which those talks are addressing have existed on the island of Ireland for 400 years, they have caused 25 years of violence. I don’t understand these expressions of impatience at the fact that after just 6 months of talks we haven’t found a solution yet. Anybody who looks at this problem against the sweep of history will have to see that what we have now is something we have not had for 75 years, which is all the people with a table that they can sit around, with governments that are willing to work with them to find a solution, with governments that respect both minority and majority in that situation. Let us not ask whether the glass is three-quarters full or not, let us look at the fact that we have got a process now which enables the participants together to fill the glass to the brim if that is what they want to do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And let me add just a word to that. We heard similar expressions of pessimism about what would happen repeatedly before the first cease-fire and before the progress we made on a whole range of things – the Downing Street declaration could never be reached, the frameworks could never be reached, the agreements I have reached with John Bruton could never be done – we have heard all this time, and time, and time again. It is certainly true that this is a frustrating process, often two steps forward and one step back. It was always likely that it was going to be that way, and it certainly has been that way. But I think what the Taoiseach and I share is a conviction in the power of reason, reason suggests that the only way this is ever going to be resolved is by people coming together and reaching a conclusion in democratic talks.

    Anyone who believes this is going to be resolved in anyone’s favour out of the barrel of a gun I think mis-judges the situation, deceives themselves and deceives other people. Reason must prevail. It must be very frustrating, I know, for many people who wish to see faster progress that reason often seems to take so long to be reached, but I think that is the only way of making progress, that is what the two governments are seeking to

    QUESTION:

    You set out in your interview yesterday a number of areas of pressure for greater integration in Europe which you were prepared to resist, for example border controls, asylum and immigration, qualified majority voting. Do you expect to find yourself isolated in Dublin on those issues and are you prepared to face such isolation, and do you agree with the Taoiseach that unemployment is a problem for the European Union to solve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the first point. I don’t expect to be isolated on all those issues, certainly on some of them we will have allies, how vocal they will be only time alone will tell, but we are certainly not isolated on all those issues. But on some of the issues where we are isolated I have to say I am undeterred by that.

    I think the needs and requirements of what is right for the United Kingdom must govern what I do in the Intergovernmental Conference, in the discussions at Dublin and beyond, and it most assuredly will do so. When the Taoiseach spoke a moment ago about employment, he spoke also of the Essen Process. The Essen Process of course is explicit to the extent that this is a matter for the member states and sets out quite particularly a range of supply side measures, a number of which we have adopted in the United Kingdom. So certainly across Europe there is a communal interest in employment. What is not the case is that getting unemployment down further could best be done at the centre by Community policies, I don’t believe that and I don’t think most dispassionate observers could believe that. That we should discuss how unemployment generally could come down, of course that is fine, but the decisions and the judgments as to how to get it down must be decisions and judgments made individually within each member state, as foreshadowed in the Essen Agreements.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, you have called on the Republican Movement to ensure a ceasefire, but given that there is a difference between yourself and the British Government over a possible time or date for the verification process to be completed, could you say with conviction to the Republican Movement that if they called a ceasefire that Sinn Fein would speedily get into substantive negotiations?

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all, let me say that there are no time limits on the table. The conditions, and the only conditions, that have to be fulfilled for Sinn Fein to take part in the talks are set out in the ground rules paper. Obviously that calls upon the IRA to take certain very clear decisions. They know, and have known since April, what are the conditions they must fulfil because they are set out in a published document, namely the ground rules paper. I believe that if a credible ceasefire is called, a ceasefire which sets out in the terms in which it is called, to convince everybody in Northern Ireland, including those who have been at the receiving end of IRA violence over 25 years, to convince them that this time there is no going back to violence.

    And if the IRA makes the necessary effort, in the way in which they frame their ceasefire declaration, to convince all concerned that this time there is no turning back to violence, yes I believe Sinn Fein will be quickly admitted to talks.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 28 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 28th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government had published their position on Northern Ireland at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were asked to publish this originally some time ago, there has been a lot of discussion about what it should be. Earlier this week Mr Adams pre-emptively gave his views, so I think not to have published now would have just caused great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. People would have just said: “well if the British Government are asked to publish what their position is, what is the delay? Are there secret negotiations? Is there bargaining?”, and we have seen the sort of turmoil that that misinformation has caused in the past. So the moment there was the interview by Gerry Adams it was necessary to publish speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would be a credible ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we were cheated last time, weren’t we? When the ceasefire was declared we were told by the IRA and by Sinn Fein that this was for good, that it wasn’t going to go back to violence. But it did. And not only did it go back to violence, we now know that within days of declaring the ceasefire they were actually putting many tons of explosives in the London garage that we subsequently found. Now that won’t do. That was a fake ceasefire. They didn’t just mislead the British government, they misled Ireland, north and south, and the rest of the world as well. Well I don’t think that is any good in the future. So what we are saying about an unequivocal ceasefire is that when they declare it, we will need to be satisfied that this time they genuinely mean it and it is not a fake. And we will judge that in two ways: firstly, by what they say at the time of the ceasefire, we will require them to say that this is for good, for lasting.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it needed to be a written statement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will make a statement presumably, I am not going to be pedantic about how they do it, but we want them to commit themselves to the fact that this is real. And secondly, we will judge what happens on the ground, we will judge what they do as well as what they say. And by that I mean we will judge whether they are still conducting surveillance, whether they are still targeting, whether they are still purchasing arms. We will judge those things. We will judge whether there are paramilitary beatings. If those things continue then it is a fake ceasefire and we will state it as such. If those things cease then we will be able to accept – as I hope it will be – that this is a genuine ceasefire. And when we can be satisfied that it is a genuine ceasefire, then the door opens for Sinn Fein to enter the talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for a timescale].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to put a timescale on it because I think a timescale would be supremely unhelpful. What matters is not the artificial passage of time but the certainty that what they have said is actually being carried out on the ground. Now I don’t know how long that will take, but I am not looking for artificial delay, I am not looking for a piece of string stretched from here to forever, I am looking for the certainty that what they have said is genuine. And when we can be satisfied that it is genuine then we can open the door to talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it would be one or two months].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to put a time to it, either short or long. I don’t think we can put a time to it. But I will make a judgement as soon as we think we credibly can.

  • Government Statement on Northern Ireland – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of the Government Statement on Northern Ireland, issued by 10 Downing Street on 27th November 1996.

    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON NORTHERN IRELAND:

    The Government wishes to set out the facts about recent contacts with John Hume and explain its position on the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire.

    Mr. Hume has suggested to the Prime Minister over the last few months that a new IRA ceasefire, which would in his view this time become permanent, is available if the Government clarifies its position on various issues, including the nature of the Belfast talks, decommissioning and possible future confidence-building measures.

    The Prime Minister has consistently made clear the Government’s position that we would welcome a new ceasefire but that we are sceptical about how credible it would be. The Prime Minister has also said from the start that there could be no question of changing our policy, or negotiating with Sinn Fein, to achieve a new ceasefire, which should be declared without further prevarication. However, he has added that he was prepared to re-state existing policy if that would help.

    The Prime Minister accordingly gave Mr. Hume in July the terms of a possible re-statement. Mr. Hume subsequently suggested different forms of words which did not, however, properly reflect the Government’s position. The Prime Minister sent Mr. Hume a further text on 23 November. This text included our views, in the light of continuing IRA attacks, notably on the Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, on the terms and process of entry to apply after any restored IRA ceasefire.

    This British Government text is attached. It describes a position which we believe to be fair, balanced and reasonable.

    If Sinn Fein want to join the talks, it is for the IRA to declare a restoration of their ceasefire in terms which are convincingly unequivocal, indicate the intention that this ceasefire should be lasting, and reflect commitment to exclusively peaceful means. The fulfilment of paragraph 8 of Command Paper 3232 is directly relevant to this (“parties … which … establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process”). If this was followed by the absence of paramilitary activity, including such confidence-building factors as no targeting, surveillance and weapons preparation, the way would be open for the Secretary of State to invite Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations on an equal basis with other parties, in accordance with the legislation setting up the talks.

    The talks are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume in January at a date yet to be agreed. The statement attached does not determine how early Sinn Fein can join the talks after a ceasefire. That depends on the words and deeds of the IRA and Sinn Fein. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire and to make a credible judgement that it is lasting. We need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. The Government is not erecting new hurdles or seeking delay. We wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible.

    But if Sinn Fein continue to exclude themselves from the talks, the talks must of course go on without them.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS

    This Government has made clear its approach to the search for peace in Northern Ireland on many occasions. But we continue to be asked about this or that aspect, particularly about the multi-party negotiations which started on 10 June in Belfast. There has been continued speculation about a new IRA ceasefire, despite the no-warning attack on Thiepval barracks, Lisburn and various arms finds, including the huge find in London. This has renewed questions about what effect this would have on the negotiations, and our approach to these negotiations. It may therefore be helpful to spell out our position again.

    The purpose of the negotiations is to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The negotiations have one overriding aim: to reach an overall political settlement, achieved through agreement and founded on consent.

    They will therefore address all the issues relevant to a settlement. Inclusive in nature, they involve both the British and Irish Governments and all the relevant political parties with the necessary democratic mandate and commitment to exclusively peaceful methods.

    It is important to emphasise that all parties are treated equally in the negotiations, in accordance with the scale of their democratic mandate and the need for sufficient consensus. But no one party can prevent the negotiations continuing by withdrawing from them. No party has an undemocratic advantage. Both Governments intend that the outcome of these negotiations will be submitted for democratic ratification through referendums, North and South.

    The prospects for success in these negotiations will obviously be much greater if they take place in a peaceful environment. The loyalist ceasefire has made an important contribution. It made it possible for the loyalist parties to join the negotiations. They are now playing their part in shaping Northern Ireland’s future, as I have acknowledged by meeting their leaders.

    The British and Irish Governments agree that, beyond the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, these negotiations are without preconditions. But in the light of the breaking of the ceasefire and the events since then, assurances are obviously needed that any new ceasefire would be intended to be genuinely unequivocal, i.e., lasting and not simply a tactical device. Consistent with this, the process set out below would follow the declaration by the IRA of an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire with the stated purpose of the conflict being permanently ended.

    The successful conclusion of this process would depend on whether words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire. For example, how far the declaration of a new ceasefire was convincingly unequivocal and intended to be lasting would be an important indicator. Whether or not any paramilitary activity, including surveillance, targeting and weapons preparation, continued would also be directly relevant. Developments which were inconsistent with an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire or Sinn Fein’s commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence would affect consideration adversely. Sufficient time would have to be taken to ensure the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Command Paper 3232 were accordingly met before Sinn Fein were invited to participate in negotiations.

    We envisage that the process would involve:

    – meetings with Sinn Fein at various levels to explore with them what assurances could be given and what confidence-building measures established;

    – the British and Irish Governments would invite Sinn Fein to meet them together for the purpose of making an early total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and nonviolence;

    – the two Governments would then propose bilateral and other consultations with all the parties to seek to determine how, if this process were successfully concluded, the negotiations could most constructively be advanced, including the issue of the participants adopting an agreed indicative timeframe for taking stock of their progress;

    – following a successful conclusion of the process set out above, including due time for consideration, the two Governments would expect the independent chairmen to convene a plenary session for all participants, with Sinn Fein invited formally to participate, to consider the outcome of these consultations and the future programme of work.

    From their entry into negotiations onwards, Sinn Fein would, in common with all the other participants, be subject to all the agreed provisions and rules of procedure. These include those governing the contingency where any participant is no longer entitled to participate on the grounds that they have demonstrably dishonoured the principles of democracy and non-violence.

    The range of issues on which an overall agreement will depend means that the negotiations will be on the basis of a comprehensive agenda. This will be adopted by agreement. Each participant will be able to raise any significant issue of concern to them, and to receive a fair hearing for those concerns, without this being subject to the veto of any other party. Any aspect can be raised, including constitutional issues and any other matter which any party considers relevant. No negotiated outcome is either predetermined or excluded in advance or limited by anything other than the need for agreement.

    Among the crucial issues is decommissioning. So the opening plenary is addressing the International Body’s proposals on decommissioning of illegal arms. In their report, the International Body said the parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations. We and the Irish Government support this compromise approach. Agreement needs to be reached on how to take it forward, so that the process of decommissioning is not seen as a block to progress in the negotiations, but can be used to build confidence one step at a time during them. So both Governments have already said they will be looking for the commitment of all participants to work constructively during the negotiations to implement all aspects of the International Body’s report.

    It is essential that all participants negotiate in good faith, seriously address all areas of the agreed agenda and make every effort to reach a comprehensive agreement. For their part, the two Governments are committed to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed. They will do so themselves with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.

    For our part, we are wholly committed to upholding our responsibility to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement over a period through the negotiations.

    This must be based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions. We want to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement.

    We are also determined to see these negotiations through successfully, as speedily as possible. This is in line with the hopes and aspirations of people in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. These have already given momentum to a process which will always have difficulties. We will encourage the adoption by the participants of an agreed indicative timeframe for the conduct of the negotiations and, if it would be helpful, will bring forward proposals for this. We have already proposed that a plenary meeting should be held in December to take stock of progress in the negotiations as a whole. The two Governments will also review progress at regular intervals. I will be meeting the Taoiseach on 9 December and the Secretary of State regularly meets the Tanaiste. Progress will be reviewed again by the end of May 1997, a date set in the legislation.

    Meanwhile we are committed to raising confidence, both through the talks and through a range of other measures alongside them. The International Body’s report itself proposes a process of mutual confidence-building.

    So we will continue to pursue social and economic policies based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equity of treatment and parity of esteem irrespective of political, cultural or religious affiliation or gender. We support, with equal respect, the varied cultural traditions of both communities. We are also committed to developing policing arrangements so that the police service should enjoy the support of the entire community.

    It is worth recalling that, in response to the ceasefires of Autumn 1994 and the changed level of threat, we undertook a series of confidence-building measures.

    These included changed arrangements for release of prisoners in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, security force redeployments, a review of emergency legislation and others. If the threat reduces again, the opportunity for further confidence-building measures returns.

    But confidence-building is a two-way street. Support for the use of violence is incompatible with participation in the democratic process. An end to punishment beatings and other paramilitary activities, including surveillance and targeting, would demonstrate real commitment to peaceful methods and help build trust.

    The opportunity for progress has never been greater. The process of peace and reconciliation has received valuable economic support from the United States, the European Union and through the International Fund. The negotiations are widely supported internationally and benefit from independent chairmen from the USA, Canada and Finland. They also have the overwhelming support of the people throughout these islands. They want them to take place in a peaceful environment, free of all violence. That is our aim too.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing in London – 25 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing, held in London on 25th September 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to make a long introductory series of remarks. Just very briefly, there are just 2 or 3 things that seem to me to be quite important at the moment. Very important that the peace process continues. I remain as committed to it as I was in the past. Underneath the surface oratory quite a lot is happening, a lot still has yet to happen, and it is very important that it does. We will continue to give it all the support we can. I will no doubt enlarge on that in any questions, if you wish me to. Not a helpful occurrence, the huge potential explosion that didn’t take place. We have been in no doubt for some time that the IRA were planning future atrocities. This would have been a very big one, it didn’t take place, I think we can all be thankful for that. Thirdly, the European Summit approaches with the Irish Presidency, clearly a lot of very important European issues about, not just the preparation for the Inter-governmental Conference, though that certainly is important, also the continuing work that is proceeding towards the possibility of monetary union at a later stage, and also of course a range of other problems – working time directive, beef, fishing and a whole series of other things.

    If I may say so, the Presidency of the European Union is always a mixed blessing for the country that has the privilege to hold it. I daresay that John Bruton and his colleagues are discovering that, just as all his predecessors have in the past. It is a tough old job being President of the European Union for 6 months, and everyone takes it up with huge enthusiasm and in my experience usually lays it down with equally huge enthusiasm 6 months later. So I look forward to seeing my European colleagues in Dublin twice – once on 5 October for an informal meeting I believe, though the agenda is not yet finally determined, as I understand it; and then for the normal 6 monthly meeting at the end of the year.

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    Prime Minister, there was that incident in London that you said was not very helpful, has it been clarified yet as to whether the person who was shot dead was armed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be a matter for the Coroner. The Police undertook the action, the incident occurred, I don’t know what happened. The Coroner will examine that and there will be a subsequent investigation but I don’t know the details of it yet. I don’t know all the details of the police investigation yet, no doubt that will come out subsequently.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] so many explosives and arms [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some things self-evidently are revealed. It self-evidently reveals the fact that the IRA were perfectly prepared to continue violence on the mainland, and not only continue violence on the mainland but continue violence on a very large scale indeed – 8 to 10 tons of explosives. That dwarfs anything we have seen before. This was clearly, whatever it was going to be, one or more for all we know, one or more very large incidents. Having said that, it is difficult to know what the psychology of the IRA is. I suspect there are divisions of opinion, quite sharp divisions of opinion, within the IRA as to the right way to proceed. There will be those, I am sure, who are arguing that if you commit another outrage it will force the British Government into concessions. That has been a standard piece of Republican – I mean Republican in the sense of IRA Republican – thinking for a very long time. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way any British Government, not just this one, would respond, but it is the way they think. And so very possibly they were thinking that it would put pressure on us. It would have done immense damage to the peace process if that had occurred, and would have destroyed any shred of credibility that remained amongst the leadership of Sinn Fein. I am very disappointed that Sinn Fein have not unequivocally denounced what happened, I think it would have been extremely helpful if they had.

    At some stage Sinn Fein are going to have to make it clear precisely what their position is: either they are the political wing of the IRA, in which case there is no real role for them as people who will sanction violence; or they have got to denounce the IRA and say we are a democratic political party, in which case they are welcome at the negotiating table to argue their views with the DUP, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the others. I hope they will prove to be a political party. I have to say, they haven’t proved it yet. And a failure to denounce what undoubtedly would have been an atrocity, leading to mass murder, in unequivocal terms is pretty disappointed to put it mildly.

    QUESTION (Daily Correspondent, Dublin):

    As a supplementary to what you said about atrocities not influencing the British Government, the public perception throughout Ireland is that the Canary Wharf bombing did in fact influence you into taking action, action that people felt had been very slow in coming before that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That may be the perception, because that is the way people choose to think and act. I can tell you, sitting here, the only thing atrocities do as far as I am concerned is make me dig my heels in more against the people who commit the atrocities. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the British character, and I think the Northern Irish character, I don’t mean it isn’t the case for the southern Irish character, I don’t know that quite so well, but the Northern Irish character to believe that we would actually respond in that fashion. I know it is something that the IRA believe, that is self-evident to anyone who has made even a cursory study of them, but it is just flatly wrong. Canary Wharf did not influence the government’s decisions at all. Those sort of atrocities often, if they have any influence at all, have a malign influence in holding back moves that might otherwise have been taken towards rapprochement and proper dialogue. That is the only impact it has and it is a wholly negative impact. It would not have a positive impact of encouraging the British government into constructive dialogue, quite the reverse.

    QUESTION:

    There is another perception which is that for 17 months up to the Canary Wharf bombing the British Government perhaps acted too slowly in response to the initial ceasefire. How do you respond to that now, looking back, and possibly looking forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you exactly how I respond to it. I genuinely say to you it is a wrong perception. It has always seemed apparent to me that if you were going to have these negotiations continue, they cannot continue down a track in which one side seems to be winning every element of the argument and the other side seems to be losing. And there was a straight-forward and blunt disagreement between two effective sides of the negotiating table, one side saying we will only decommission at the end of the talks, and the other side saying we will only begin the talks if you decommission before the talks begin. Aft immense amount of work went into trying to find a way through that. It was apparent at the beginning that at the end of a long amount of discussion it was very likely that the way through would have to be decommissioning in parallel with talks. The Mitchell Commission was established, an independent look was taken, and they indeed ratified what I expected would be the case when they looked at it, and that is the only way it is going to come forward. But what caused the delay was the fact that if one had proceeded without having that particular element of the argument in play, the talks would have got nowhere because we would have called the talks and one side or the other would not have been prepared to talk because there would have been conditions laid on the table that the other side simply could not meet. And that is the fundamental reality that we had to face during that long period.

    QUESTION:

    But was that pragmatic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is pragmatic, I am a pragmatist on some issues. I am a pragmatist about finding a way that will end the murder and mayhem that we have seen in Northern Ireland. It is important to me that people realise that this is an issue that has been, and is, and will remain for as long as I sit in Downing Street, a matter at the top of the British government’s agenda.

    I don’t think what happens in Northern Ireland is tolerable. If it had been happening in Surrey or Sussex I wouldn’t have tolerated it, couldn’t have tolerated it, why should I tolerate it in Northern Ireland, I can’t. That is why I will pursue these talks. But the belief that you can do it, and reach a peace and a settlement that will last to provide both peace and peace of mind in Northern Ireland, without actually getting a negotiated settlement is folly. So you have got to create the conditions for a negotiation and that is very painful and difficult when you have competing views asking for pre-conditions that the other side can’t meet, and it is a lengthy business that takes a lot of time. I said at the beginning that it would often be 2 steps forward and 1 back, 2 forward and 1 back, and so it has proved. The important point is that we keep taking the steps forward.

    QUESTION:

    You mentioned that had the bomb gone off it would have caused immense damage to the peace process. How do you respond to the view that is being expressed, not just by the media but by politicians as well, that if it is discovered that the alleged IRA volunteer was unarmed, that that will do damage to the process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on something I know nothing about at this stage, and I think it would be extremely unwise of me to do so. Let us wait and see what happened, and why it happened, and then we can make a proper judgment of it. What we do know is that there was a huge amount of explosives which presumably wasn’t there for any purpose other than to be used. We do know that. Beyond that the information is not yet clear and our system of law requires that there is a Coroner’s Inquiry and a proper investigation. When we have had the inquiry and the investigation, then would be the time for the government to respond, not in advance of the inquiry and the information. So I fear there is nothing I am going to say about that until I have the information, but at the moment I don’t have that.

    QUESTION:

    What is your personal assessment of Gerry Adams?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find it difficult to make a judgment of Gerry Adams. He talks of his wish for peace and yet he doesn’t denounce atrocities that operate against peace. He has indicated on a number of occasions that he is moving in a particular direction, he hasn’t done so. What I don’t know is whether he is a man who wants to move in that direction but is constrained by his membership, or whether he is deliberately seeking a public relations posture that does not reflect his real views. It is difficult to know precisely.

    What I can say is that I do think that he could be a good deal more forward and constructive in trying to carry the peace process forward and I hope he will be so. But I don’t think my personal view of Gerry Adams is – well I won’t continue with that sentence, I will leave it there.

    QUESTION:

    What does this mean, I am quoting from Sir Patrick Mayhew’s speech today, in which he says that the restoration of the ceasefire, [indistinct] to the Mitchell principles, and then it says and entrusting to the issue of decommissioning. What does that mean, to the issue of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means exactly what it says, that there has got to be constructive discussion about how one actually decommissions the weapons. What we have not said, not because it wouldn’t be desirable but because it wouldn’t be deliverable, is that the weapons should be entirely decommissioned before Sinn Fein enter the discussions, the talks. What we have said is that during the currency of the talks there has got to be progressive decommissioning in order to build confidence on both sides. And don’t think, unless we have a parallel track like that operating, that we will get to the end of the talks.

    And what has been the missing ingredient for so long in this whole sorry affair is any element of trust between the representatives of the various communities. Progress in the talks, and decommissioning, would add an element of trust and confidence that this could be carried through to a conclusion that we haven’t previously seen. And I hope that is the direction that we can go in. If we don’t move in that direction then I think the prospects for the talks are grim.

    QUESTION:

    Something you said earlier echoes something that the Secretary of State said this morning, and that is that progress is being made even if it is not being seen. Not only is it not the public perception that progress is not being made, many of the politicians taking part in the talks, and particularly Seamus Mallon has said that in fact the Unionists are stalling and holding them up. Can you give us any indication which shows that progress is being made and indeed would explain the Taoiseach’s optimism about what is happening at the moment, because it is certainly not apparent to anyone else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If one wanted an analogy for the talks I suppose you could think of a duck on the water, not a lot seems to be happening on the surface but the animal is paddling like hell beneath it. And there is a certain amount of that going on.

    There is more contact between the two sides in private, between the Unionists and the Nationalists in private; there is a much greater understanding between the two sides; I think there is a greater appreciation of what I called a moment ago the parallel process of decommissioning. All of those are happening under the surface. One of the things that bedevils it of course is that often public statements are made in order to bolster a particular position and as part of the negotiating process, which give the impression that no progress is being made at all. And progress is being made, not as fast as I would wish, but I think progress is being made.

    QUESTION:

    In what areas, other than perhaps the breakdown and the animosity that was there previously between the SDLP and the Unionists, in what areas is there further progress because the one particular issue that we thought we would see reaffirmed by September, September was the date, was the whole question of a format for decommissioning. We know that people are meeting each other certainly, and we know that people are making statements in public, but we have had no evidence to support the claim that these are purely public statements and that progress is being made. So what evidence is there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will have to wait. I am not going to outline the information that has come to me of what has emerged from some of these private contacts, I don’t think it would be productive to the peace process to do so. I can only say to you that I think the atmosphere has improved quite significantly over the last few weeks, I am not saying to you that all is roses, self-evidently not, you know that and I. know that and everybody involved with it knows that. But the atmosphere has noticeably improved and many of the hurdles that people wondered whether we would get over just a few months ago have been got over. Would we actually get up to the elections? Would people take part? Would the forum be established? Would anyone turn up? Would anybody sign up to the Mitchell principles? All those things, one by one, all of them have had their little dramas of one sort or another – well not little, in many cases quite big dramas – all of them have had their dramas but one by one we have overcome those points. And you could actually go back over much of the last 5 years and see the same thing. The frustration one has is really two-fold: firstly that it is taking so long; and secondly that from time to time there is a set-back. Both of those I share the frustration very personally that all of you must share reporting it, but that the progress has been made is undeniable and I think it is still happening and I think it has a good deal further to go.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that John Cree contributed to the distrust that has been established between the two communities and that that had any impact on the progress of the peace talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt that there was a great deal of fuss after John Cree, absolutely no doubt. There was a great deal of fuss on both sides of the sectarian divide after John Cree, it would be absurd not to say that that wasn’t the case, it was, and there was plenty of blame to spread around in every direction. The point is the atmosphere has lightened a good deal since then, I said there would be occasional set-backs, that was a set-back, don’t expect me to say it wasn’t, it was.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    One of the perceptions in Ireland is that Mr Bruton is doing more to lean on Nationalists, Republicans, than you are doing in leaning on the Unionists, and in fact the idea that the Unionists are holding things up, are not being persuaded is quite widely spread. There is also a feeling that they can be persuaded, they can be pushed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a false perception. I don’t doubt that John Bruton is encouraging people to move. I have regular discussions with John and I know how strongly he feels about this issue, he knows how strongly I feel about it. Anybody who seriously thinks haven’t used all the influence I have to encourage people to move forward into this process, hasn’t examined what has happened in this process over the last few years. So people may have that perception. But I suppose there are many things you learn sitting in this particular chair and one of them is that there is often quite a gap between perception and reality.

    QUESTION:

    The Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein maintain, at least in public, that if they were sure of the how and the when of decommissioning then it might be possible to have a ceasefire and Sinn Fein go into talks, because Sinn Fein’s fear is that they will be sucked into talks and get nothing.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But that is the reason for the progressive decommissioning. I think that argument, I mean I wouldn’t agree with that argument because I think there is absolutely no justification for violence to pursue a political argument at all. Let me just say that at the outset. But given that that is my position, and I think the position of most people, what people are saying to Sinn Fein and the IRA is let us have progressive decommissioning, decommission something, see how the talks proceed, as the talks proceed decommission a bit more. If you are really trying to press your political points, remove the impediments to other people who are saying we are not going to negotiate everything, and then at the last minute have Sinn Fein walk away from the table threatening to return to violence because they didn’t get the last element of the deal that they wanted. There are going to be compromises in this deal, if this is going to come to a conclusion there are going to have to be compromises, don’t imagine otherwise. No one side is going to get everything they want.

    So what is the logical argument against a progressive decommissioning in line with progressive movement in the political process? I am not asking, and never have asked, the IRA to put themselves in a position where they have to come and throw down their weapons in front of the British government. I don’t mind how they are decommissioned, I don’t mind what international body actually oversees the decommissioning, I don’t mind about that. I just want them taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the north of Ireland to the extent that the RUC was forced to back down in the face of the threat of violence at Drumcree, and he said on a number of occasions that it was not possible for the police to hold the line and that that situation might prevail again. That seems to be a very serious admission that the British Government has lost control in the north?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we patently haven’t lost control in the north. We have got 17,000 troops there, we have had them there for years, we have got a very large RUC presence, there were a particular set of circumstances on a particular incident. No-one should think one hasn’t learned from that incident. To draw a general conclusion about law and order from a particular incident and a particular series of decisions taken by the Chief Constable I think would be to read too much into that particular incident. So I wouldn’t accept the conclusion you draw from it.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary of State made that conclusion.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen what the Secretary of State said and I don’t draw the conclusion in its generality in the way that you present it to me.

    QUESTION:

    When the Taoiseach went to Washington recently, I am sure you will have seen that there was a story generated as a result of that that he appeared to be optimistic about the chance of a new ceasefire and there was some clarification sought [indistinct] the true import of what he said. But in the Republic I sense there is a feeling that the Taoiseach has been drumming up a sense of optimism, that a deal is inevitable, and we are trying to get the sense of whether this optimism is founded on a good basis. Can you send us away with some feeling of where the progress really is occurring?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer is I won’t. I am sorry but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity. Forgive me, I suppose that is a dreadful thing to say to you, but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity,

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    I listened to you very eloquently last year of your passion for peace in Northern Ireland, as you are today. What went wrong in the last year and how do you re-mend it to get Sinn Fein/IRA to the talks, at the same time undoing the damage of Drumcree and the sectarian [indistinct] that exists in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Quite a lot has gone right as well as gone wrong. I won’t reiterate the points about the elections and the forum, and the Mitchell Principles and the fact that the parties are now actually sitting down talking together in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. All that is right. What has not gone right is the fact that violence has returned – that was a unilateral decision by the IRA – and Drumcree was an incident which caused difficulties, we have dealt with that and that we can’t get Sinn Fein back into a position in advance of the ceasefire where they could credibly join the talks.

    They couldn’t credibly join the talks, even if .I were inclined to invite them – which I wouldn’t be – because nobody else would remain at the talks to talk to them. So the question in many ways ought more accurately to be directed to the IRA. I don’t know what caused them to decide that they would return to violence. I can make judgments as to what it is – I am not going to, before you ask me to – and I think those judgments might be right, but I don’t know. I hope that as it becomes increasingly evident that progress is going to be made, and that we are not going to back away from this peace process and neither are the Irish Government, whether Sinn Fein are there or not, that it will become increasingly apparent to Sinn Fein that they are going to have to be there. And if they are going to have to be there, there is going to have to be a ceasefire and it is going to have to be credible, and there is going to have to be progressive decommissioning in line with political progress. What I am not prepared to do is to see these talks grind into the sand and stop because of the way the IRA have behaved. I am not prepared to do that, I will do everything I can to avoid that happening, and I hope that we will see a ceasefire in due course and that they will return. But I can’t determine that myself.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, if you mean of a particular issue?

    QUESTION:

    Yes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, no. I don’t do that.

    QUESTION:

    If you enjoyed a stronger majority in the House of Commons, do you think you might have been able to move faster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think that is a false assessment because I have had a lot of cross-party support in the House of Commons. The majority in the House of Commons for the posture the government has taken is absolutely overwhelming. On any free vote in the House of Commons I would have a massive majority for this policy in the House of Commons. So the argument that the policy is held back by the size of the government’s majority does not stand up to any logical examination at all.

    QUESTION:

    What about the increasing evidence that the Republican movement, both Sinn Fein and the IRA, are going to sit it out and they are going to wait for a Labour government in Britain and a Fianne Foyle government in Dublin. Does that cause you concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are going to have a jolly long wait.

    QUESTION:

    But it is something obviously you are aware of?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware that that might be their view. I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock, I can live with the shock they are going to be receiving, but I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock if they actually take that view.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My word, you are sharp.

    QUESTION:

    The implication of it is that they are not going to do business, that they are going to hold back and that they are going to continually attack the British Government and try to force a coalition in the south against the British Government as well.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If that is the strategy that they choose to pursue, why were they floating the prospect a few weeks ago that they were going to declare a ceasefire? If that is the strategy, how are they going to deal with the fact that there is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there? There is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there. If they want to sit it out they will miss the progress, they will have no voice at that table for those talks and those talks are going to continue. I am determined on that and so is John Bruton. So if that is their strategy it is an extremely misguided one.

    QUESTION:

    On progressive decommissioning the [inaudible] argument is very valid. Can there be an agreement in the multi-party talks that all the parties already in the multi-party talks will accept progressive decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by all the parties.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you had better ask that question of David Trimble and not me. I am looking for an agreement that will enable us to have parallel decommissioning and political progress.

    QUESTION:

    At what stage would the first [inaudible] have to be decommissioned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be one of the matters that the decommissioning sub-committee would examine. It is not something that I would prescribe myself, I would be perfectly prepared to prescribe it myself but it wouldn’t be the best way of getting an agreement, it would have to be an agreement in the discussions between the participating parties in the Mitchell sub-committee, it would have to be done that way.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    In the event of a sustained impasse developing in the all-party talks, what alternative is there open to the government? Would it, for example, have a bilateral agreement with the Irish government and then attempt to impose that over the heads of the parties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I wanted to bring the talks to a juddering halt, I would suggest what I would do in the event of that actually happening. I don’t think it would be helpful for me to speculate at all on what I would do. I expect the talks to continue, and I believe the talks will continue and I wish the talks to continue and I am not going to speculate.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that the British government has a fall-back position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Whether we have a fall-back position or not, I am not going to speculate about it.

    QUESTION:

    Tomorrow morning Gerry Adams will be in the House of Commons. Does this infuriate you, what are your feelings on [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy to offer cross-party support to Mr Blair in his problem.

    QUESTION:

    Is he offering you cross-party support in your problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He has offered me cross-party support on Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    But on Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But he has got the same problems that I have.

    QUESTION:

    But yours are particularly acute.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Only because your colleagues in the press tend to concentrate more on ours. He has got more real anti-Europeans and Euro-sceptics in the Labour Party than there is in the Conservative Party. Do not be deceived about that. The day Mr Skinner, Mr Benn, Mr Shore and 50 others I could easily mention become anything other than solidly opposed to any aspect of the European venture will be a very remarkable day indeed. They are keeping very quiet for the time being.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] and maybe history will tell us, that by meeting Gerry Adams in the House of Commons you might actually achieve the securing of the peace talks once again. Have you thought that you might be able to help by having such a meeting, would it not be an issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that it would help at this moment to have such a meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it would help to have such a meeting at this moment. Gerry Adams has just utterly declined to condemn the prospect of 10 tons of explosives, in the middle of London or wherever it may be; he utterly failed to condemn the murder of those little boys at Warrington; he utterly failed to condemn Canary Wharf. Upon what basis would a British Prime Minister meet him when that is his position?

    QUESTION:

    Because you might move the situation forward and achieve a ceasefire as a result of a gesture like that, it is just a suggestion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I understand you are putting it to me as a suggestion but I don’t think it is a suggestion that is credible at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    There is very little evidence that the Unionist parties have any interest in these talks, with or without Sinn Fein, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that they will sit down with Sinn Fein, even in the context of a ceasefire. How do you bring all-party talks about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With great respect, you say there is little evidence that they will actually do it.

    QUESTION:

    Because they feel that they don’t have to.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is right and I will try and answer your question I think in two complementary ways. Firstly, the comment that you just made that they don’t have an interest in proceeding and so forth, that is exactly the view that many people have taken right the way through the last few years, that they would never accept the Downing Street Declaration, they would never accept the framework plan, that they would never accept a whole range of other things. Gradually they and the Nationalist parties have accepted those things. I understand the frustration, and at any one time can find 10,000 reasons why there won’t be progress. But slowly, often I concede at a snail’s pace, progress is continually being made, each hurdle gradually has been overcome.

    The other point that I personally make, you may have heard me say it before but I passionately believe it to be true, that whatever the view may be of the political parties at any one stage, the view of the everyday citizen in Northern Ireland is that they want progress. For the first time in the lifetime of nearly half the people in Northern Ireland, they had an 18 month period in which they had the same sort of peaceful existence that people could expect in London or in Dublin. And they liked that. When one is out on the streets meeting with them and talking with them, the tangible feeling from them, from the churches, from the community leaders that they wish to see that return is real. Now the political parties have to be in negotiating posture. But don’t think as individuals that in the case of the politicians that they too don’t want the return of that. I have seen some of them, both sides, I am not making a Unionist point or a Nationalist point, I have seen some of those MPs, whether in the Ulster Unionist Party or any of the other political parties, the SDLP, the DUP, I have seen those MPs after there has been some atrocity in their constituency. So of course they have negotiating positions, but the feeling amongst their supporters, whichever party they represent, that they want and they believe the politicians should find a way through this problem is tangible.

    Now what we have to do is to stop the thing that has bedevilled Northern Ireland so frequently over recent years where you have something that becomes a part of the mythology and hauls progress back just when you think you are moving forward. That happens from time to time but we are going to have to try and ride over that. The greatest hope for peace in Northern Ireland is retaining the determination amongst ordinary people, everyday people, that they have a right to that peace in their part of the island of Ireland. I believe that very strongly. Every time I go there I believe that, whether they are people who are supportive of what r am doing or oppose what I am doing. I think the politicians are not immune from that and they cannot be immune from that.

    QUESTION:

    The worrying thing is that of course there is a desire for peace, but we have never seen the dearth of sectarianism that we now see across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the [indistinct] and this is the result that it would seem from the post-Drumcree split where the Province was paralysed, where towns and villages were surrounded and barricaded and where force seemed to triumph. So the politicians really would need to break out of that sectarianism and show leadership, but there is very little leadership being shown. Certainly perhaps on the Nationalist side we have people like John Hume and Seamus Mallon, but on the Unionist side [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Out of disaster can come triumph. I think the sheer concern that you illustrate, which I know existed in Northern Ireland after Drumcree, the sheer concern and in some cases fear as to what might happen that actually came out of that, I think shook everybody, including the politicians. I believe that does change minds. Who would wish in any way to be in the position where it was said they had contributed to that problem again? Who in public life in Northern Ireland would wish to find themselves in that position? It is not so easy to strike attitudes on the back of that. So I don’t think Drumcree was a plus, but I think out of Drumcree you can see the possibility of changed attitudes and I think we will see a possibility of changed attitudes, and I am not as pessimistic as some of the comments around this table lead me to believe that you are, not at all.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] which is the religious thing [Indistinct] do you understand that, because that is your core problem? [Indistinct] and the churchmen have [Indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My experience of the churchmen, overwhelmingly, whether it is on the Protestant side or on the Catholic side, is that they have been very supportive. I have met the senior churchmen regularly here and they have been unfailingly supportive. They haven’t always agreed with every aspect of government policy, I am not trying to suggest that to you, but their desire to see this process move forward, on no occasion have they denied their support when I particularly needed it to move the process forward. And I think some of the things they have said, on both sides, have been very brave. I don’t agree with everything they have said and I wouldn’t pretend to you that I did, but some of it I think has been very brave.

    QUESTION:

    Ted Heath, in his proposal through the power-sharing executive [Indistinct] education because of the failure of [Indistinct] they don’t get to the core. What are your proposals for an integrated education in Northern Ireland? It is things like that that get back to the basics.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take that point directly. One of the things that Northern Ireland has lacked over the past 25 years or so is politicians in Northern Ireland who had to take decisions rather than to advance views. That is profoundly worrying. Politicians ought to take decisions and then answer for their decisions. I want to get back to a situation in Northern Ireland where politicians actually take decisions on local matters and have to answer to people for the decisions they take, rather than simply represent their electors with the views that they and their electors have had. When you are faced with the reality of taking decisions, it is a different proposition from when you are simply advancing a view. And that is the direction in which I am moving and the direction in which I wish to move. Once they are taking decisions the ball-game begins to change. And there is a lot of talent in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy in Northern Ireland that for 25 years you have not had politicians with any real decision-making to take.

    QUESTION:

    I am happy about what you are saying. I remember being present at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin when Protestant churchmen came down, and I think it was Dr Mahaffey who said, he was being asked to discuss the problem of leadership, and he said you can’t lead from a mile down the road. And that struck me, I thought it was a worrying kind of observation. Would you make any comment on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a slightly ambiguous observation. Can you tell me who said it?

    QUESTION:

    Dr Mahaffey, the Bishop of Derry.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For a Bishop he would make a superb politician because there is a degree of studied ambiguity in that which I very much admire.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you for clarification of one point, because it is ambiguous and it is open to several interpretations, and that is your comment that you want to see politicians in Northern Ireland getting back to making decisions. You know there is a great fear on the part of a number of Nationalists of a return to a Stormont-type situation and you know there is a desire on the part of some Unionist politicians for a return. So what exactly do you mean?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I know exactly what you are worrying about, am I talking about a wholly internal settlement? No, I am not talking about a wholly internal settlement. I am talking about the fact that as part of the three-stranded process, as part of the discussions between the parties, we have got to get ourselves into a situation where there is a genuine capacity for decisions that in the rest of the United Kingdom are actually taken directly by local politicians actually being taken in Northern Ireland as well. I am glad you raised that question so that there was no misunderstanding about it. It is a lack of accountability when so much of the decision-making process which normally ought to be in local hands is not in local hands. I would like to put it back in local hands, I think it is a very healthy thing to do. But it isn’t an easy thing to do and it has to be done by agreement, but it is one of the things that I think we need to stretch to. If we are going to get this thing really working properly it is going to be platform by platform, step by step, you are going to have to build it up. I think that is one of the building blocks.

    QUESTION:

    What contribution do you think the framework document can make in that respect, and the [Indistinct] document that actually talks about building political structures locally as well as cross-border institutions and executive powers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The framework document is not a blueprint. The blueprint, if indeed there is to be one, will come out of the talks and then it will be agreed between the political parties. What we were effectively asked to do was to provide a cock-shy as it were, a framework that we thought, that we the government thought, would be acceptable to people. But neither of the governments are saying this is an absolute blueprint from which no-one can deviate, these are things that they will have to discuss themselves.

    QUESTION:

    The Irish Government is saying that it should form a very important building block.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is self-evidently a very important building block.

    QUESTION:

    You accept that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course it is an important building block, that is why we developed the frameworks. An important building block, yes; written in letters of fire and immutable, no. It has to be discussed and agreed, it is a basis for the discussion and agreement that is to follow. But what we wish to see is to make sure that that discussion and agreement takes place. We have set out in the frameworks the areas that we think need discussing. But if it was immutable there would be no point in going into the talks process. We have to go into the talks process so that we can find out the degree of support, or opposition, or areas where mild changes may be needed amongst the various political parties in Northern Ireland. And then after that of course, when a final agreement has been reached, it will need to be put to all the people of Northern Ireland as an outcome in a referendum.

    QUESTION:

    Can you envisage the outline of a settlement, as Dick Spring has suggested he thought was possible over the last few days, an idea yourself of how this could be resolved and over what timescale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Timescale depends on goodwill. It is very difficult to pick timescale. With serious and mature discussion and a willingness to pragmatically compromise and decommissioning proceeding in parallel, I think quite rapid progress could be made. Without any of those ingredients progress is going to be very slow. So I think that is the difficulty when people occasionally say to us well why don’t you set a constraining time limit to the talks? What would happen is that anybody who wished the talks to fail would simply fail to reach agreement within the time frame and that it would all fall to pieces. So although it sounds as though it would put impetus into the talks, I think it would ensure the talks ground to a halt. If you mean can I see a way in which you could have an outcome, personally yes I do see a way in which there could be an outcome. But it isn’t what I think at the end of the day is going to be the only determining factor. The principal determining factor will be what can be agreed between the political parties and either for John Bruton, or Dick Spring, or I to say we think this is the right way forward might not necessarily – I say this with some humility – be the best way to ensure that you got that agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that you will call your general election before John Bruton calls his?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that depends on when John Bruton calls his.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] November, but May/June might be more realistic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This year or next year? Well I am in no hurry for my general election. Our economy is now outstripping the rest of Europe quite comfortably and the economic statistics are rolling out extremely well. We have now got inflation at levels we haven’t seen it for a very long time; we have got mortgage rates and interest rates lower than we have had for a very long time indeed; we have got growth accelerating, exports accelerating and we are probably the most competitive nation at the moment in Western Europe. And there is no doubt that that trend looks pretty well established. So I am in no hurry. I am happy to let the trend roll on for a while.

    QUESTION:

    When will you decide on EMU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know the facts to decide on it yet. Let us assume you were a farmer, well you might be for all I know. A farmer asked me the other day: How will EMU affect me? And I said to the farmer: Well I can’t tell you the answer to that question. He said how will it affect me if we – by that he meant the UK – are in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet. How will it affect us if you are not in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet, I don’t know what the circumstances of it are. Will it affect us? Yes, I said to him, it will affect you whether we are in it or whether we are out of it.

    And that is really the substantive point. If it is going to affect my country whether we are in it or whether we are not in it, how could I explain to the farmer, or the businessman, or the man in the city, or the man or woman in the street, that I had decided to rule myself out of those negotiations when the outcome of those negotiations would affect them? What would I have said to my farmer who asked me whether it would affect him, and I said Yes, when he then said to me: Then why are you, the British Prime Minister, not in there negotiating in my interests?

    What is the answer to that question? There is no answer to that question. And the decision that will be taken on Economic and Monetary Union for Europe as a whole, I am not just talking of the UK, will be the biggest economic decision Europe has taken. It needs to be right, it needs to be considered. You have to consider what it means for the smaller countries of Europe as well as the big countries of Europe. You have to consider what it means for the countries who don’t go into a single currency as well as those who do go into a single currency.

    If people are Statesmen, they would have to consider what it means for the countries who are coming into the European Union as well as those who are in it. The biggest single issue I think that the European Union has to face is how to absorb into the European Union those former Iron Curtain countries in central Europe who look to the West for freedom, an open market and a quality of life that we enjoy in the West. That is an opportunity for this generation of politicians that no generation of politicians has ever had before – the opportunity to create an economic market that would prevent the sort of wars that have twice started in Europe in this century and that in the last few years we have seen in Yugoslavia. l think that is a bigger prize than institutional change within the existing members of the European Union. And I think to concentrate on the institutional change, without looking at that wider picture that may ensure that our children and our grandchildren never face the sort of difficulties that our fathers and our grandfathers faced, is not Statesmanship but folly. And that is why I think we have to look at that as the first issue.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was pleased about the progress at Stormont, but how would he stop slow progress in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do welcome it very much, I think we are now making progress. What we now need to do is to move from the talks about talks, the talks about procedure to talks about the items which should be on the agenda and then to get on to the talks about substance and to do it speedily and I hope we can use the momentum created by the enormous disappointment – almost despair – felt by so many people after Drumcree to give some real momentum to these talks. That I think is the best way to restore confidence across Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Loyalist paramilitaries were being treated differently to Sinn Fein].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a difference between the Loyalists at the moment and Sinn Fein. The Loyalists have a ceasefire, they have held to that ceasefire, they are engaging constructively in the talks, they have accepted the six Mitchell principles. None of those things apply to Sinn Fein and the IRA; they are in the middle of a campaign, we have seen a campaign, they are not engaged constructively in the talks and they haven’t accepted the Mitchell principles. I wish they would. I would like to see Sinn Fein/IRA call a ceasefire, it is what I believe every sensible person in Northern Ireland would like to hear from them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would let Sinn Fein join the talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I propose that they should get themselves into the talks. That is what I have set the talks up for. For a very long time Sinn Fein and others have said: “We need to sit in round-table talks with the other political parties!” You know, I know, everyone watching this interview knows that has been their cry for very many years.

    I have delivered an opportunity for them to do so. We have set up these talks, we have set up a forum in which they can take part. That opportunity to sit down face-to-face with the other politicians they have wanted to meet for a long time is there and the only reason they haven’t taken it is because they don’t have a ceasefire and they haven’t adopted the Mitchell principles and it is in their hands to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if mob rule was ruling Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, mob rule isn’t going to rule and it mustn’t be allowed to rule. The events of Drumcree were a disgrace and so were the events that followed it and on both sides the behaviour frankly in many cases was appalling, let there be no doubt whatsoever about that and I hope everyone has learned the lesson of Drumcree.

    Nobody gained from Drumcree. I hope the Orange Order or anybody else don’t think they gained anything from Drumcree. Everybody lost including the peace process in Northern Ireland. What we now have to do is to prevent a recurrence of that sort of event and use that event to push some real momentum into the talks in the months and weeks ahead and that is what we intend to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the marches situation was now out of control].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course it isn’t out of control and there is a great deal of work going on at local level between community leaders and others to make sure that the Apprentice Boys march does not cause trouble and I think it is very important that it doesn’t and Northern Ireland will feel very badly let down if anybody gets out of hand in the Apprentice Boys march.

    Freedom of marching and assembly is a traditional part of the United Kingdom tradition, it has been that way for a long time but it needs to be exercised responsibly and with restraint. The right to march should be a right to march for something not a march that is seen as an affront by other people and I hope those people organising that march or indeed any march realise that while they have a right to peacefully march, they do not have a right to cause disturbance and affront to other people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he wanted Northern Ireland to be governed in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to see a peaceful Northern Ireland governed certainly with its own proper local government structure. We have had three generations of Irish politicians who have never had any responsibility at all except to advance views but never any responsibility to take decisions. That is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and I would like to see that corrected. Beyond that, it is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland but I would imagine they would still be part of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Michelle Smith’s performance in the Olympics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a superb performance, a magnificent performance. I don’t think anybody expected Michelle to win three gold medals and there may of course yet be a fourth in the butterfly so I very much hope there is. My warmest congratulations. I hope that everyone on the island of Ireland is cheering her, she deserves the support, she is getting a lot of cheers from over here.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 12 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held on Friday 12th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his opinion on the European Court decision on beef exports].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the detailed argumentation yet. All I have heard thus far is that they seem to have accepted many of our arguments but not reached a favourable decision. I don’t know why. I haven’t seen the judgement. It’s very long and complex, but it’s clearly very disappointing and frankly rather surprising.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he would do now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to study the decision. What this court decision was about was dealing with a fairly small element of the whole problem. What we still need to do with the beef industry is to continue to restore confidence in British beef. That is the most important thing. I think there is no reason not to have confidence in British beef. We must persuade consumers of that and I think that largely now they are persuaded and also abroad.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether his meeting with John Bruton was both frank and tough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was both of those things. That’s certainly true. But then John Bruton and I know one another very well. There is no point in us dissembling with one another. We had some frank exchanges on the issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his reaction to the policemen injured in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s indefensible. What we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last few days is thuggishness. Thuggishness on both sides. It’s all very well for everyone attributing blame to one side or another. The truth is it is on both sides and it is utterly unacceptable.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether any political pressure can been used on the RUC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Government brought no pressure to bear on the RUC. This was a police operational decision as it had to be a police operational decision. The Chief Constable has made that clear. I wish Sinn Fein would stop telling lies. The reality is that if the Chief Constable had not acted as he did, people’s lives would have been lost. The Chief Constable’s responsibility is to maintain law and order and preserve property and people’s lives. I can just imagine what Sinn Fein and others would have said if the Chief Constable hadn’t acted as he did, if the matter had then got out of control as he believed it would, and lives had been lost. I wonder what Sinn Fein, with their double standards, would have said then.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on British Constitution – 26 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the British Constitution, made on 26th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This evening I want to address a vital debate – the state of the British constitution.

    This debate is about the very nature of our nation. About the United Kingdom, and the constitutional fabric that underpin our freedoms and make us what we are.

    The British constitution is complex and, in many ways, intangible. Too many people are put off by the word “constitution”, and make the mistake of thinking it a technical subject that only the experts can understand.

    Well I don’t claim to be a constitutional expert. But I am a politician and a citizen, and it is from that practical experience that I want to address the issues. Because the constitution is not, to me, simply a matter of institutions – Parliament, the Crown, our legal system. At its heart I believe it’s about individuals and individual freedom. How we influence and control the kind of nation we live in. The Constitution is shorthand for our rights and our democracy.

    This is a huge subject. A number of members of the Cabinet will be focusing on aspects of it in speeches over the coming weeks.

    Tonight I want to start the process by setting out my view of the constitution, its enduring strengths. and how it has adapted and must continue to adapt to serve the people of this country.

    And I shall cast a clear eye on some of the proposals for change that others have floated. Some are pointless. Others are damaging. But many are, in practical terms, irreversible.

    We are fortunate. The British constitution is vibrant and robust. But it is not indestructible. People must realise that our Constitution is not a piece of architecture that one can re-engineer by knocking down a wall here or adding an extension there. It’s a living, breathing Constitution. Its roots are ancient, but it has evolved. And it has been stable because it has popular support.

    Let me give you an example – the Monarchy. This has evolved over centuries. No alternative institution, fabricated by political theorists, would be designed with its current role and powers. And yet no alternative could ever match it in the affections of the British people.

    It is one of the great features of our nation. Binding us together as a people and ensuring that political debate – the rough and tumble that swirls around Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State – leaves our Head of State untouched and untarnished.

    So our constitution isn’t just dry institutions and legalistic relationships. It embodies a set of values, a legacy of understandings, that have developed year by year over the centuries – an understanding that is breathed in Parliament, reflected every day in the media, taken for granted in the saloon bar arguments about the state of the Nation.

    And at its centre is something we are all instinctively proud of when pointed out to us, but – thankfully – rarely need to think about in our day to day lives. That is the fundamental freedom we each have as subjects of The Queen and citizens of the United Kingdom.

    And you only have to pause a moment and think how few countries can boast such freedom, for so long, with so little national strife and struggle, to realise what a precious gift that freedom is and how much we owe to the unseen, unsung constitutional backbone that binds together our British way of life.

    A living constitution that changes with the times.

    Look at the history of this century and the changes there have been – not fundamental but significant nonetheless – in Parliament, our electoral system, the Civil Service, local administration, even the Monarchy and Church. Not change for change’s sake. Not the result of some technocratic plan. Not to serve the interests of the institutions themselves. They have been changes to strengthen the links with the individual citizen who they are there to serve.

    That’s the kind of constitutional change that I support. Practical change, not grand plans. And above all, change that is driven by what people want. Conservatives believe in giving the citizen the reins wherever possible.

    It is not right to suggest, as some do, that this Government has generally centralised power. In some areas, it’s true, we have introduced strong national controls over limited areas where most people would agree that it’s right and proper for national government to be responsible. The most obvious examples are the overall level of local government spending, and the definition of the national curriculum.

    But these are areas where there was a specific problem which Government could not ignore. And they are the exceptions. Wherever possible, the record shows that we have moved Government closer to the people.

    Moving power from centralised bureaucracies to smaller structures, closer to their local communities and consumers.

    Decisions on health care from the NHS executive to individual hospital trusts.

    Decisions on education from local government to individual school governing bodies.

    And buttressing that with choice and information for the parents and patients who use them.

    Opening up government, with more information now available than ever before.

    The Citizen’s Charter – restoring the individual’s rights to hold large, impersonal organisations to account.

    Privatisation – replacing government control with popular ownership, encouraging competition and putting consumers, not producers, in charge.

    Curbing the power of trade unions, who for too long were out of touch with the interests and instincts of ordinary members.

    Strengthening the independence of individuals by reducing taxation, encouraging home ownership, private pensions.

    That’s my idea of freedom.

    Protecting the freedom of the individual is an old principle, embodied in basic freedoms of speech and association.

    The principle of Habeas Corpus still lies at the heart of English common law today, although born before our language itself.

    But basic freedoms need to be constantly updated and applied to match the challenge of new technologies and social change.

    Where should the rights of the many give way to the rights of the few?

    When and how should a free and vigorous press be restrained from infringing the privacy of the individual?

    What are the right safeguards for people in their homes as information – and other things – flood down the superhighway?

    Some countries leave such questions to be decided by reference to a written constitution: we do so in the ordinary process of politics.

    I believe ours is the right way. Vigorous politics offers the best safeguard of individual freedoms.

    And in Britain it is our Parliament – the Parliament of the United Kingdom – that is, and should be, at the centre of that democratic, political process. That’s why piecemeal reforms that threaten to erode the power and supremacy of Parliament are so dangerous.

    I know that some people argue that the freedom of the individual would be better protected if Britain had a written constitution or a new bill of rights, setting out a list of fundamental rights.

    I don’t agree. I simply don’t believe that you could enshrine in a single piece of legislation the British conception of freedom. It’s no exaggeration to say that we believe our individual freedom is absolute, unless restrained by law.

    It’s a way of life.

    And we have no need for a bill of rights because we have freedom.

    Any attempt to define our freedoms by statute would diminish Parliament’s historic role as the defender of individual freedoms.

    Judges would become the guardians of a written constitution or bill of rights, and the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people in Parliament would – for the first time since the 17th Century – be eroded. Is that really the way we want to go? I think not.

    It is not as though the processes of judicial interpretation are infallible.

    In the United States, at different times, the Constitution was held both to support and to outlaw slavery. More recently, Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights has been held to be inconsistent with earlier laws on Sunday Trading, drug trafficking, and abortion.

    It is no slur on our judicial system to say that such great issues should be decided by elected representatives, not judges and courts.

    All of this is based, not on any formal separation of powers, but on a silent boundary: a boundary of mutual restraint. No-one has the power to make final pronouncements about that boundary.

    But collectively as part of our living constitution, I believe we all know, understand and respect where that boundary lies.

    Some suggest that boundary is under pressure. That the greater use of judicial review means the Government is in conflict with the courts.

    I see nothing surprising in the increasing role of judicial review. I believe it is a function of the increasing complexity or administration, and the legislation which governs it. And it is clearly right that the courts should hold Ministers and departments to the proper use of their powers, and should safeguard the procedural quality of public decision-making. This is merely an example of our constitution working. But, by the same token, it is of course ultimately up to Parliament to decide the laws on which judges and courts make their judgements.

    In our constitution, Parliament is supreme, because the people are supreme. Parliament is the process through which the representatives of the people control the Executive.

    Our Parliament may have its quirks and its faults, but it is hard to find another country today whose Parliament is so central to its national life. The proceedings of national Parliaments are televised in many other countries. But in how many others are they followed as avidly as here?

    In Britain, Parliament is where things happen. It is the voice of the people of Britain, fighting out all the complexities of our national interest on issues which in some other countries are settled in smoke-filled rooms.

    It is the focus of the nation’s unity at times of national grief or outrage. And it is the theatre for the great convulsions of political history.

    So-one should lightly contemplate tampering with an institution that is so ancient and yet so alive. But that is not to say that nothing about Parliament can ever change.

    Nor has that been our philosophy.

    The last 17 years have seen the introduction and flourishing of Select Committees; new procedures to scrutinise European legislation; reform of Parliament’s working day; and a Budget, that brings together tax and spending. Now even Hansard and Bill papers may soon be on the Internet.

    All these developments have made Parliament more open to the citizen, and the Government more accountable. Now I want to carry this process further.

    I believe we could start by looking at the Parliamentary year. The House is swamped at the turn of the year with debates on The Queen’s Speech, the Budget, and the Second Reading of the bulk of the Government’s major bills.

    I think there’s a case for change here. I would like to examine starting the Parliamentary year in May not November, so that some of these processes can begin sooner and be spread more evenly.

    There are also legitimate complaints about the speed with which detailed legislative proposals are prepared and put through both Houses.

    We have already made significant progress in tackling this through publishing bills in draft form for early scrutiny.

    I’d like to develop more structured planning of the legislative programme and more time for consultation. I believe this could be done by preparing each year not only detailed proposals for the Queen’s Speech covering the next Session, but provisional plans for what would be in the Speech for the year after that. This would give Departments the opportunity to bring forward detailed proposals including, in some cases, draft Bills, for consultation in the year before the actual legislation was brought before Parliament.

    That would allow Select Committees time to take evidence and report, and give Parliament a much more positive and forward-looking role in the policy process. It should also mean better legislation.

    Improving Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation is the sort of constitutional change I favour: it identifies a problem, and comes up with a practical solution which could help. It is not change for change’s sake.

    The same cannot be said for some of the proposals being floated for change to the House of Lords.

    For example, some have suggested removing hereditary Peers’ voting rights, and developing the House of Lords in some other way.

    But if you actually look at what the House of Lords does in its Parliamentary role, it is hard to cast it convincingly as the villain.

    Has the House of Lords been overstepping the mark with the House of Commons? Of course not.

    Has it been showing bias over the years, dispensing favour to one political party in Government and refusing it to another? Not at all.

    So what precisely is broken, that needs to be fixed?

    I find no convincing answers to these questions. To people who say that a House of Lords with a strong hereditary element is an anomaly, I say that it works. The fact is that the House of Lords has been far more effective than many overseas equivalents as a revising Chamber. But precisely because the Lords has no rival democratic mandate, the supremacy of the elected Chamber is guaranteed.

    And what, anyway, are the alternatives?

    A wholly appointed House of Lords. Is that more representative?

    Or is it to be another elected Chamber If so how? And if we had two elected chambers, how would we avoid a situation where the two Houses are pitted against each other in legislative gridlock, or the executive plays one chamber off against the other?

    I believe passionately in the House of Commons as the vital link between Government and citizen. That is why I don’t want to see it weakened by the establishment of a competing elected body.

    Nor do I believe that the link between citizen and Government would be as strong if we were to change our electoral system and move to proportional representation. This carries a number of dangers. First, the idea that PR leads to short-lived coalition governments is not just theoretical. Take Italy, where I was last weekend – there they’ve had 55 governments since the War. And instability has other consequences. Politicians spend more of their time campaigning than governing. And the electorate have less and less influence over Government since so much of the agenda is the result of back-room barter.

    Some of the models of proportional representation would damage Parliament in other ways too, by breaking the link between every citizen of this country and their MP. It is that individual responsibility which alone can balance the pressures of party loyalty and gives Westminster its unique electricity.

    But Parliament is more than simply the focus for our democracy. It’s the cement that holds together the countries of the United Kingdom. Countries with distinct traditions, culture, history and language. But countries which have remained one nation because it was in their interests to do so. Unity brought stability. And stability bought prosperity.

    Threaten the central role of our National Parliament, and you threaten that unity and stability.

    Why do I feel so strongly about the Union? In many ways, the cynics would say I shouldn’t. After all, a purely English Westminster would be to the advantage of the Conservative party. But the unity of the nation, all parts of it, is so crucial to our future that our duty is to stand up to protect it.

    The Conservative commitment to the United Kingdom doesn’t mean ignoring the distinctive individuality of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the contrary, we’ve gone further in recognising that diversity than any previous Government.

    The new powers we’ve given to the Scottish Grand Committee are a huge step forward. They mean Scottish MPs can call Ministers to account and debate legislation. We’re making similar changes to the Welsh Grand Committee too, which will involve for the first time Welsh Members of Parliament asking their questions to Ministers in Welsh in Wales.

    Some seek to exploit the ideas we put forward some time ago for a possible Assembly in Northern Ireland, as part of an agreed overall political settlement there, by suggesting that they form a justification for proposing a Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. But they do no such thing.

    There are plainly differences, self-evident even on the most casual examination. I have set them out before.

    For one thing, the kind of Assembly that might emerge is not likely to be the same as is proposed for Scotland. The ideas we put forward did not, and for good reason, extend to an Assembly with power to raise taxes, unlike the Assembly that is proposed for Scotland.

    And the political background is quite different too.

    In Northern Ireland, there has been a sectarian divide for years. That does not exist elsewhere.

    In Northern Ireland, none of the parties could obtain a majority in the UK Parliament or form a UK Government. In Scotland and Wales, all of the major Westminster parties are represented.

    In Northern Ireland, because of its history, there has been an Assembly in the past. That does not apply elsewhere.

    These are some of the differences. And they explain why a solution tailored to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland would not threaten the stability of the United Kingdom.

    By contrast, the alternatives floated by the Opposition could not fail to destabilise and, in the end, diminish the British Parliament.

    This audience needs little reminding of the intractable problems they raise.

    The West Lothian question, for a start. Simply put, why should Scottish and Welsh MPs be able to vote on English matters, but English MPs unable to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters?

    Would devolution mean a cut in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster? If not, why not?

    At the moment, the Government spends more in Scotland and Wales than it raises in tax. Would that continue? And if so, who would fund it?

    Would we still have Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the Cabinet? If yes, what if one party has a majority in Scotland or Wales, and another in Westminster? Which one would choose?

    Why give the Scottish Parliament the power to raise tax and make the Scots pay more tax than any part of Britain?

    Why should Scotland have a tax raising Parliament, but Wales only an assembly?

    And why should a Scottish Parliament be elected by PR, but a Welsh Assembly by first-past-the-post?

    It’s no use the Opposition retreating and trying to dodge the argument by pledging a referendum. Who would vote in this referendum? The Scots of course. But who else? Because the result would affect the whole of the United Kingdom. And would the result be decided by a simple majority or a higher threshold?

    Frankly the opposition don’t know as they wriggle and turn to try to avoid answering the questions that expose the folly of their plans. A referendum would do nothing to make these plans less dangerous. People would still need to know the answers to the questions and precisely what they’d be voting for.

    These are serious questions. The Opposition have implicitly acknowledged this. Why else did they come forward with the wholly unwelcome proposal that, to justify a Scottish parliament and a Welsh Assembly, we should have English regional assemblies too.

    But what are the regions? How do we define them? Why must we carve up England in some arbitrary way just for the sake of legitimising devolution elsewhere in the UK?

    Where is the demand for these assemblies?

    Anyway, surely what would be required to match a Scottish Parliament would be not a set of regional assemblies but an English Parliament?

    But one thing is clear. Go down this route, and there will no longer be a single focus for democracy. Set up rival parliaments or assemblies, and they will grow hungry for more power.

    Of course, there’s nothing to stop people voting to undermine or destroy the Union. Our unity depends on democracy. At the next election, just as at the last, people will be able choose if they want to embark on a voyage into the unknown, uncharted waters of tempestuous change. The choice is – rightly – theirs. Our task is to warn them of the perils of doing so.

    And there’s another choice people will face come the election. Not only could they undermine the role of Parliament in the United Kingdom, but also its relationship with the European Union.

    The choice could not be clearer. I have often set out my view of a flexible Europe, a Europe of nation states. Not a federalist State. Not a Europe of regions that would effectively bypass national governments and weaken our strong national voice. I will not reiterate those points again this evening, except to say that they rest on my belief that our national Parliament must remain the primary focus for our democracy.

    People might disagree. They might want greater integration, and see Britain become part of a European superstate. Or they might want a wholly federal Europe.

    But they should recognise that both of these would affect the role of Parliament. And having given powers away, it would be all but impossible to get them back.

    I intend to make sure that the issues at stake in the constitutional debate are properly understood.

    So over the coming weeks, a number of Ministers will directly address current constitutional issues.

    The Lord Chancellor, James Mackay, will speak on Parliament and the Judiciary and the vital role each plays in our Constitution.

    The Home Secretary, Michael Howard, will develop the same themes and speak on the need to retain our present method of election to Parliament.

    The Leader of the House of Commons, Tony Newton, will be talking about parliamentary reform: how do we preserve and build on Parliament’s strengths.

    The Environment Secretary, John Gummer, will speak about the importance of local government, and the absence of a convincing case for regional assemblies.

    The Chancellor of the Duchy, Roger Freeman, will talk about the improvements we have made to provide the public with services which are more accountable, open and efficient.

    The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, Michael Forsyth and William Hague, will address the Opposition’s devolution plans.

    And I expect other colleagues will want to add to the debate too.

    This will be the most thorough debate on the constitution for a generation. And it is right that we should have it. Right because it’s too easy to take for granted the traditions and institutions that make us a nation. Our constitutional fabric has been woven over the centuries. It’s the product of hundreds of years of knowledge, experience and history.

    It’s been stable, but not static.

    Along the way the key events stand out, spanning generations of our ancestors – the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the First and Second Reform Acts, step by step progress towards universal suffrage, Reform of the House of Lords, and the introduction of Life Peers. Each one a footprint in our nation’s story, a step down the path towards today’s modern constitution.

    Out of this evolutionary change has grown one of the finest, strongest and most admired constitutions in the world.

    I’m all for practical change that would solve real problems or improve the way our constitution works.

    But pointless fiddling with our constitution wouldn’t solve any problems. It would just create new ones.

    In the end, it would begin to unstitch our way of life. One group of politicians could unravel what generations of our predecessors have created.

    I don’t make any apology for defending what works. I’m a Conservative and I reject change for change’s sake.

    That doesn’t mean I avoid change where it’s needed.

    We live in a world that is changing rapidly in many areas.

    In the economy, for example, I am committed to following through the changes necessary to ensure Britain can compete and prosper. Many of our opponents resist such changes.

    But on the Constitution, the arguments are reversed. There, our opponents favour experiments that would undermine our stability and introduce new uncertainties for no good purpose.

    Our constitution is the lifeblood of the United Kingdom. It upholds our freedom. It binds Parliament and the Government to the Citizen. It provides the checks and balances that prevent abuse of power. It cements the Union together.

    It’s not just precious because it’s ancient. It’s precious because it’s alive.

    I said earlier that the three key institutions in our constitution were Parliament, our legal system, and the Crown. We British have a great gift for underselling our virtues. We should not do so with our Constitution.

    Just ask yourself: if you had to face a court of law, where is justice more impartial than in Britain?

    In which country is parliament more accountable, more accessible, more likely to right a wrong?

    And if we had no Monarchy, how would we find a Head of State who was so much above party politics, who would provide the impartiality, the continuity and the focus of so much of our national life?

    To ask those questions is to know the answers.

    That is why I care so much about our constitution. It’s why I will defend our tradition, our heritage, and guard against any needless change which threatens the institutions that make us one nation.

    It is that which makes me a Conservative and Unionist.

    To conserve what is best.

    To change what is needed.

    And to make one nation a stronger nation.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 10 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made in Northern Ireland on 10th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed that the all-party talks had started in confusion].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I wouldn’t frankly. I think if you had been in there at the outset of the talks, they started in extremely good order and in extremely good humour. There are going to be many difficult things to discuss over the weeks and months that lie ahead and from time to time they are going to be difficult. I don’t think is any doubt about that. These are very difficult issues. No, I don’t agree with that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Sinn Fein were turned away when they said they had an electoral mandate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well if I may say so they would say that, wouldn’t they? The reality is that they have known from the outset that the position of the British Government and of the Irish Government and of the overwhelming majority of opinion is that Sinn Fein cannot enter the talks with the gun under the table. Now that is the position. I would like to see Sinn Fein in the talks and the doors are open for Sinn Fein to come into the talks, but we do need an unequivocal IRA ceasefire and then their entry route is clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if just a statement was sufficient].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s got to be clear and unequivocal, be certain of that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that would get them entry into the all-party talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They could come into the talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he needed from the decommissioning of weapons process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think we need them to meet the proposition set out in the Mitchell Report. If you recall at one stage the position was that from some parties there should be decommissioning before the talks, the IRA position was that they would decommission only at the end of the talks and the Mitchell Report proposed the compromise of parallel decommissioning, that is to say decommissioning taking place during the period of the talks. That is what the Mitchell Report says. It is quite unequivocal about that and that is what we expect from decommissioning.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the main negotiations could begin without weapons being handed over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think everyone is going to have to operate in good faith. If anyone thinks they can enter the talks saying “yes, I’m going to decommission” but in practice not do so right until the end of the talks then the reality is that the other parties to the discussions would not permit that. If there is a progress on decommissioning there will be progress on the other elements of the talks and I think it is a twin-track process that is the purpose of the Mitchell compromise of decommissioning during the period of the talks. But it has to operate in good faith. We need to get through these talks in good faith and without that we won’t get there. It is very easy for people to prevent there being an agreement, that is very easy.

    You can always prevent there being an agreement in talks of this sort but it will take a certain amount of courage and a bit of compromise and a good dollop of commonsense to make sure that we do get through these talks. I hope everyone will show those qualities.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if serious negotiations would start without decommissioning].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the political parties will want to see firstly a clear intention that there should be decommissioning and then they will take stock of progress, probably at the end of September. Now the decision as to how far that goes is a matter that will have to be made by the participants in the talks as well as by the Governments. So I think there will be a general question to be asked about that.

    QUESTION

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a difficulty over the choice of George Mitchell as the chairman of the all-party talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we shall see. This is a matter that is being discussed. Quite probably I think it is entirely proper that the participants in the talks should discuss who should chair the plenary and then the decommissioning on top of that. I think that is absolutely fine. I am very happy with that. I have no problems with that at all. I think at the end of the day they will reach an agreement and Senator Mitchell will chair the talks. I believe that will be the case. I almost hope it will. We invited Senator Mitchell to do that because we thought his personal qualities made him an admirable choice for that role and also of course because as author of the Mitchell Report, he is in a better position than anybody else to be clear about what is said in that report. There can be no obfuscation of people saying the report means this, the report means that. The author of the book is there. He can make it perfectly clear what it means.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had any problems over the choice of George Mitchell].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t. I think he will approach it with integrity and with impartiality and if I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t have invited him to chair the plenary.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the talks could succeed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The world is full of pessimists. The world is full of people who will say to me it is not going to work. But those are the same people who have been saying to me over the past five years that you’ll make no progress in Northern Ireland, that you won’t ever agree anything. That you won’t agree the Downing Street Declaration, you won’t agree the Framework Document, you won’t agree how to hold elections, you won’t agree how to set up a Forum. Well we have done all that and now we have a new series of challenges just in front of us and we will do what we can to agree them as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the possibility of a ceasefire being achieved].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is not productive of me to guess. I very much hope there will be a ceasefire. I very much hope so firstly for the people of Northern Ireland and secondly because providing there is an unequivocal ceasefire Sinn Fein will be able to enter the talks and that is clearly better than having them outside. But without such a ceasefire there is no way they can enter and that is the agreed position with the British and Irish Governments and I think of all commonsense opinion as well.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 10 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, held at Stormont Castle on Monday 10th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly say how pleased I am to be joined at this press conference by the Taoiseach. It has been a fairly lengthy and a fairly difficult process to get where we are today to the beginning of talks. And yet this is in many senses just the end of the beginning. There is a great deal that lies ahead in the negotiations that will begin with the discussions today.

    I don’t think either John or I have any illusions about the difficulty of the task that still lies ahead. It is going potentially to be long, to be difficult and to be demanding not just of the two governments but of all the participants as well.

    Of course in our discussions today Sinn Fein are not present in those discussions. But no amount of grand standing by them can hide the fact that all-party talks are a reality and that they are going to continue. Sinn Fein can be a part of that process provided there is an unequivocal ceasefire. Without an unequivocal ceasefire, they cannot be part of that process and the process will continue without them. And that is a wholly united position between the two governments.

    Despite their absence, this is an historic day. It is an opportunity to begin putting behind everyone some centuries of enmity and distrust.

    In the last two or three decades, we have seen an enormous amount of wholly senseless violence, a violence that I believe is abhorrent to the ordinary law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, similarly abhorrent to other parts of the United Kingdom, and also to the citizens of the Irish Republic.

    In Northern Ireland I have no doubt that people want a just and fair settlement, and I believe that also applies to others as well. And I don’t believe they are asking for something that is unreasonable – the opportunity to lead a normal life, the opportunity to have the same hopes and aspirations that other people automatically accept in their own way of life.

    What we have seen since the ceasefire in 1994 is a glimpse of the opportunities that could exist for Northern Ireland given a permanent settlement of the dispute that has riven the area for so long. I believe it is wicked, quite literally wicked, that the shadow of violence has reappeared in Northern Ireland and I hope we are going to get that unequivocal ceasefire before too long.

    Let me say a word about the talks process that has begun today. There is, I believe, a very heavy responsibility upon the participants in these particular talks, a heavy responsibility to participate fully in the process, a heavy responsibility to, wherever necessary, see if they can reach a reasonable compromise towards getting a settlement, and above all a responsibility to make sure that they will continue to talk one to the other so that they may finally find the settlement that people have been longing for for so long.

    It would, of course, be very easy to prevent a settlement in these talks, nothing easier than declining to agree in discussions of this sort, and it will be very hard to forge an agreement in these talks. But no-one can deny which is the better outcome and I hope everyone taking part in them will try and forge that agreement.

    There has been a great deal of discussion, and I think that is to the good. Before the meeting commenced this afternoon I had a meeting with David Trimble and John Taylor, with Ian Paisley and with Robert McCartney. And I don’t think they have any doubt about the possibilities ahead and I am sure that applies to all the other participants as well.

    Let me say immediately how grateful I am to George Mitchell, John de Chatelain and Harri Holkery for the part that they have so generously offered to play in these negotiations, They have, individually and collectively, a great amount of talent and experience, a great amount of integrity, and I am confident of their impartiality. I believe they can work with objectivity and understanding and I look forward to them taking up their responsibilities. They are very substantial responsibilities. They don’t come to them entirely fresh, they come to them on the back of a practical set of principles to set the talks in a context of democracy and non-violence; they come on the back of proposals that deal with the thorny area of decommissioning, the proposals set out in the Mitchell Report; and they offer a way forward so that both the negotiations and the decommissioning can take place in parallel in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    As far as the British government is concerned, it will do all it can to further the negotiations. And ultimately it is for the participants themselves in these negotiations to reach and agree an outcome. Once that outcome has been agreed, it must first go to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and then, as appropriate, for legislation in the British Parliament.

    To all the people in these negotiations this morning I think I would simply say this. The eyes of people not just in Northern Ireland, the Republic and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the eyes of people right the way round the world are on these negotiations at present. There is a great deal of hope residing in the belief that these negotiations offer the best opportunity for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland that we have seen for many decades. We cannot afford to fail, because the opportunities that have now been opened, having reached this far in the discussions, may not easily re-emerge were this opportunity not to be taken.

    I hope and I believe that everybody engaged in the negotiations understands quite what rests upon a successful outcome of those negotiations. The hopes and expectations of very many people rest upon the goodwill and the negotiating skills, and courage where necessary to compromise, of the people involved in these particular talks. I wish them well. But there can be absolutely no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland want these talks to succeed, and I very much hope that they will.

    MR BRUTON:

    The first thing I would like to say is that all those who are gathered for these talks have a tremendous opportunity to do enormous good, not only for the people of this island, but for the people of the neighbouring island, and for successive generations to come. This is truly an enormous opportunity, but it is an opportunity that can only be taken if there is a willingness to compromise by those who are gathered around this table, or who have a right to take their place at the table.

    What is being sought is to overcome the legacy of history. And what is being sought to be resolved is a difference about allegiance, and there is no more difficult political difference to overcome than a difference of allegiance.

    I think it is important also that people put their efforts in context by recalling all those who have died in the unresolved conflict over the last 27 or more years. I particularly feel this strongly as I came here to Belfast from the funeral of Garda Jerry McCabe, somebody who was shot down in the prime of his life, for no reason, for no good, who paid the supreme sacrifice. And there are so many other Jerry McCabes who have paid the supreme sacrifice. But there are those who have the opportunity now to make compromises, to have a sense of a very heavy responsibility to ensure that there will be no repetition of these types of loss of life of the kind that we have witnessed on this island and indeed in Britain for so long.

    I particularly recalled in my address some of the politicians who gave their lives, but the politicians were perhaps the ones who obtained more notice. But there are people who didn’t lose their lives, who are suffering, in constant pain from injuries from which they will never recover. Their pain is just the daily bread of their life.

    Those who gather together here have a responsibility. If they cannot alleviate the physical pain that those people suffer, at least to seek to alleviate the psychological pain by giving those who suffered so much a sense that the cause of that suffering is being removed. People should see their responsibilities in that broader human context. This is not simply a political exercise. This is an opportunity for all to put right a great wrong, and that wrong was violence and division.

    I recall the fact that the Republican Movement in particular have campaigned throughout the length and breadth of these islands and across the world on the slogan “Peace Talks Now”. Now is today. Today is the day that talks are available. And only one condition needs to be fulfilled for everybody, including Sinn Fein, to be present at those talks, and that is a restoration of the IRA’s ceasefire.

    Sinn Fein have already accepted the Mitchell principles. And it is worth recalling that the first of the Mitchell principles is total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. There is no consistency between accepting those principles and not having an immediate IRA ceasefire. Failure to restore a full and immediate IRA ceasefire is inconsistent with the very first of the Mitchell principles. I think it is also important to recall that another one of the Mitchell principles calls for an end to punishment beatings and killings for good.

    I want to compliment all the parties who have come to these talks for the commitment they have shown. I want to say that the atmosphere, given the legacy of difference that has existed in the past, at least in the period that the Prime Minister and I were present, was good and constructive.

    I want also, speaking as I do on behalf of an Irish government, to recognise the just pride in their own tradition and in their own British allegiance of a Unionist community represented by various parties at these talks. They are, as the poet John Hewitt said, “no stranger here”. And it is important to recognise that constitutional nationalists in all of the great debates that have gone on within nationalism over recent years has come, not just simply to recognise the Unionist community as having a distinctive cultural ethos, but has also come to recognise – and this was difficult, but it has happened – that their sense of being British is a crucial and central part of their identity as a Unionist community.

    That is now recognised, it perhaps was not recognised in the same way 20 or 10 years ago, it is now recognised by Nationalists and that to my mind gives real reason for hope.

    But to northern Nationalists I also say, on behalf of the Irish government, that we in the south have failed in the past, particularly in the early years when we were so painfully constructing our own state, we failed to give adequate, as distinct from self-serving rhetorical, adequate practical support to the Nationalist community in defending their rights and asserting their sense of Irish National allegiance.

    I believe a great change is now taking place. That change represents an attempt, a sincere attempt on all sides, to come together. As I said in my few remarks, I quoted the words of King George V in 1920 where he appealed to all Irish people to pause and stretch out a hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget and to join in making the land, which they love, one in which there was a new era of peace.

    And the important thing I think, to move on from those words, is the fact that both communities in this part of Ireland truly do love this land. They belong here. All that is needed is for each community to recognise that the other belongs here too.

    I believe that that is happening. And where appeals of that nature may have fallen on less responsive ears in the past, I believe we may be seeing now a time when there will be a meaningful response and where we will create a political structure, in this island and in this part of this island, to which all can give equally.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Could I ask you both on behalf of your governments at the beginning of the negotiations between the parties here in the north, what claim both your governments make on these six counties now and how far you are prepared to go during the course of negotiations? What claim does the Irish Government make on the six counties?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Our aim is to provide an opportunity for people to find a way of walking together. I believe that claims of the kind that you refer to which are phrased I think in territorial terms, don’t represent the reality of the modern world where people can move from one territory to another with such great ease.

    What is crucial now is the sense of allegiance that each individual feels not to the land that they live on or what flag flies on that land or who has the deeds of the land. What is important is the sense of allegiance that each individual wherever they live feels themselves and what we are seeking to do in these negotiations and certainly I see the framework document that the Prime Minister and I agreed as being essentially an agreement whereby we are putting the allegiance of people first and putting matters of claims of the kind that you raised into their proper, comparatively less important role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And the allegiances will be determined and endorsed in a referendum as I said earlier.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a chance that Mr Mitchell will now not chair the talks as you originally planned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope not and I would expect not. George Mitchell is a very able and talented man, he spent a great deal of time and trouble over the Mitchell Report and the Mitchell principles are the basis that formed the entry point into these particular discussions. Quite apart from George Mitchell’s natural talents and ability to chair the plenary, I believe that much otherwise fruitless discussions about what the Mitchell Report might have meant can be readily dispensed if you have the author of the Mitchell Report chairing the plenary when he can make it perfectly plan what he meant and he was perfectly plain in his report about the need for decommissioning to go alongside political negotiations during the talks.

    I think it is perfectly proper for the participants to discuss this, they are going to have to sit under the chairmanship at the end of all the discussions and I think it is perfectly proper for them to discuss it, but I very much hope and believe that George Mitchell will be acceptable and will carry out his responsibilities.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    Prime Minister, the Taoiseach mentioned the framework document twice in his speech earlier and he has mentioned it just now, but I notice it is not mentioned in your speech. Has there been a cooling of enthusiasm on the British Government’s part in relation to the framework document, have you retreated from it or gone cool on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the interesting aspects of these negotiations all the way through is that if John and say the same thing everyone says: “It is extremely boring! They agree! They are concerted!”, but we both agreed the Downing Street Declaration, we both agreed the framework document as a possible outcome. We were asked actually to consider that by the participants and to do that; we did that and those agreements were made and were reached.

    We have now reached the circumstances where the negotiators themselves will determine what is satisfactory. We can’t impose it upon them, we are not in the business of imposing things upon people. That, firstly, is not the way we wish to proceed, and secondly, it would not be effective. That is the background against which they now carry out their negotiations and you should read nothing sinister into any textual differences between the Taoiseach and I on that or indeed on other matters; I dare say there were one or two things in my speech that John didn’t mention, I will look carefully through and see what they are but in essence it has to be determined by the negotiators, that is the basis upon which these talks take place.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you ever pinch yourself in the past two years or ask yourself whether you had been too cautious about the peace process because the republicans said today they don’t trust you. Why should they trust you against that background?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose I might have pinched myself two ways: I might have pinched myself if the republicans said I was too cautious and I might have pinched myself if some of the unionists said I was quite the reverse. The reality is that this is only going to succeed if we bring all the parties together to talk and an awful lot of people I seem to recall, not just over the past two years but over the last five years or so, have predicted with absolute certainty that we would never get to this day, exactly the same people who said you will never get agreement on the Downing Street Declaration; exactly the same people who said you would never get agreement on frameworks; exactly the same people who said you would never find a way in which you can hold the elections and everybody will take part, someone will walk out; exactly the same people who said you won’t get agreement on the forum and exactly the same people who said you would actually not get everybody sitting around the table. If I pinched myself every time somebody suggested that wouldn’t be achieved, I would quite literally be black and blue from head to tail and I promise you I am not.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on what basis you have this confidence, unlike many people in Northern Ireland who believe this process is doomed, and you believe it can work?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is the same point I have just been making. People have been saying this process is doomed from the very first day but there is, if I may put it this way, a secret weapon in making sure that this talks process succeeds and the secret weapon is the determination of the people of Northern Ireland who have had not just the last 25 years, historically much longer but certainly the last 25 years in which their living standards, their well-being, their security, their safety, their whole way of life has been totally diminished by the violence that we have just seen and my judgement of the people out there – I don’t just mean the negotiators, I mean the people they represent, all the people of Northern Ireland – is that they are sick and tired of this issue and they want their politicians and their governments to come together and actually see if they can find a solution. I think that is a powerful imperative and it is upon that basis that I think there is an obligation upon the elected politicians in Northern Ireland to do everything they can to try and reach a settlement. They won’t have to answer to me if they don’t or to the Taoiseach if they don’t, they will have to answer to the people of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Prime Minister, did you get any assurances from either Mr Trimble or Mr Paisley about the position of Senator Mitchell, particularly in view of the fact that Mr Paisley was saying categorically this morning that if Senator Mitchell was there he would walk out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what Ian Paisley may have said to you this morning and I am not going to comment on reported comments. I discussed the matter with them and I think at the end of the day that George Mitchell will prove acceptable and I think that is most certainly going to happen, it is being discussed now and I am confident of the outcome.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Did he give you a promise to that effect though?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I had a private discussion with them Michael; I don’t talk about private discussions.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, have any events in recent days or weeks changed your conviction that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness do not intend to get the ceasefire upon which their participation depends?

    To the Taoiseach, the same question but is it still your conviction that they cannot and that they are somehow beholden to other forces within the IRA?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can’t know entirely what is happening within their minds or within the IRA. What we can know and what we have both stated quite clearly is that providing there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire, then the route is open for Sinn Fein to take part in this talks process. Without that, the route is closed for Sinn Fein.

    We have done what we can in order to facilitate an all-party talks process that included Sinn Fein. We have carried out our obligations, it is now a matter for the IRA.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    There are two other points I would add to what the Prime Minister has said.

    First of all, I think it is very important to recognise that many people who voted for Sinn Fein did so in order to encourage Sinn Fein to pursue a peace strategy and indeed in their campaign they referred to peace a lot and obviously the opportunity that they have to pursue a peace strategy is made available to them in these talks starting today and the only obligation that is required is that the IRA would reinstate the ceasefire and I believe that that in fact creates a great pressure for a restoration of the ceasefire.

    I would also like to make the point that John Hume and the SDLP over many years when many others didn’t, shall we say, have confidence in the commitment of Sinn Fein and the Republican Movement ultimately to a peaceful solution, John Hume kept faith with them. It is very clear that John Hume and the SDLP also want them to come into these talks and want the IRA to have a ceasefire now so that that can happen. I think all of those forces within their own community and in light of their own mandate are working towards the restoration of the ceasefire and I believe that weight will be given to those.

    It is furthermore very important to make the point that the two governments have sought to give answers to every query – to every issue that was raised there have been answers provided – and the condition has been created now for truly inclusive and meaningful negotiations which you will recollect is what they were looking for all along. That is now there, those negotiations start today and all that needs to be done for Sinn Fein to take their full part on the strength of their full mandate is for the first of the Mitchell principles to be accepted by the entire Republican Movement.

    QUESTION (Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, if there is an IRA ceasefire will you be willing to meet Gerry Adams and shake his hand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us get the IRA ceasefire first shall we and then we will deal with other matters of that sort.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is possible to reach a lasting settlement which will take in this part of Ireland without Sinn Fein or do you think the talks are, in the words of an Irish government official, not worth a penny candle without them?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think that it is very important that Sinn Fein should be in the talks but I will put it this way: nobody has a veto. I think we have been hearing indeed from the Republican Movement that no one party should have a veto; they were of course thinking of somebody else when they were saying that but equally, they don’t have a veto either and it is important to make the point that nobody, whether they be nationalists or unionists, whether they be a big party or a small party, has a veto and in that sense of course the talks that are starting today, which represent 85 percent of the people plus the two governments, can do a great deal of business but for the sake of completeness and as part of the reflection of the peace process that has been running for a number of years now which was one of bringing everybody in from both extremes as well as the middle, to give fulfilment to that process it is important that Sinn Fein are there and it is important that they be allowed to be there by the IRA.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Let us see. Hopefully, that question will not have to be answered. We can’t answer that with a double hypothesis involved in the question and it is not really possible to answer it without engaging in the gift of prophecy and it is difficult enough to deal with the present without having to cast oneself and one’s skills that far forward.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    If and when there is a ceasefire and Sinn Fein come to the talks, the DUP has said quite clearly that they will leave. Is it possible to have a settlement in Northern Ireland without the DUP on board?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to see what happens when we get a ceasefire and what the circumstances of the ceasefire are. I think often many people and many parties have a particular position but these are moving negotiations, they are not static. I can recall other statements made by one party or another relating to today – that has changed as they all sit down together today so I am not going to be in the business of saying things that are going to make it more difficult for everybody to take part in inclusive talks later. I think we can get inclusive discussions and that is what we will be working for.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think it is also worth making the point that all the parties represent people and that the overwhelming majority of the people who support all the parties want a settlement, they may not want exactly the same settlement but they all want a settlement and I don’t think that the electorate that supported any of the parties would forgive any one of them if they were the ones that prevented the possibility of a settlement being achieved.

    It is important to make the point that there is a responsibility on everybody’s shoulders here, it is not just a responsibility for the governments or for the bigger parties, everybody has a responsibility.

    QUESTION (New York Times):

    Mr Adams repeated today what he has been saying for at least a week now, that regardless of what happens today or this week, Sinn Fein will be part of an all-inclusive settlement. Do both of you agree with him that this will come to pass?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can certainly be part of an all-inclusive settlement, we have gone to a great deal of trouble to give him the opportunity to become part of an all-inclusive settlement. We would like Sinn Fein in the talks, there ought to be no doubt about that, we have been saying that consistently over the past couple of years.

    The option for that to happen is with Mr Adams and with the IRA. If what he is hinting at is that there is going to be a ceasefire then I am very pleased to hear that.