The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Republic of Ireland

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs – 11 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin, the Republic of Ireland, on 11 December 2018.

     

    The UK and Ireland in a New World

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin, and I’m delighted to be with you this morning … and on such a slow news day….

    It’s an especial pleasure to see John Bruton and Bertie Aherne here: both vital contributors to the Peace Process – and to the wellbeing of the island of Ireland.

    For me, John was an indispensable partner in negotiating the “Framework Agreement” – an essential mid-step between the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement.

    And Bertie, of course, worked tirelessly with Tony Blair to finalise the road to peace, established by that landmark settlement.

    I warmly congratulate them on their joint endeavour, and am honoured and delighted to see them here today.

    * * * * * * *

    There has rarely been a time when International and European Affairs were in such a fluid state, and so it is a uniquely appropriate moment to speak to this Institute.

    I will talk of British, Irish and European affairs shortly but first – not least for context – I would like to range more widely.

    Before I do, let me turn briefly to events last night in the House of Commons.

    Whether a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”, no-one welcomes chaos.

    So it is time for everyone to reflect and consider.

    Time to turn to reality – not fiction. Reason – not ideology.

    We need to calm the markets.

    We need to protect the economic wellbeing of the British people.

    We need to protect our national interest.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that – to do so – we need to revoke Article 50 with immediate effect.

    The clock must be stopped.

    It is clear we need the most precious commodity of all …. time.

    Time for serious and profound reflection – by Parliament and people.

    There will be a way through the present morass – there always is.

    In our national interest we must take time to find it.

    I hope and trust we will.

    Let me now turn more widely ….

    Wherever one looks, a new world is forming: it is vigorous, and often contemptuous of old thinking. For a long time democracy, free trade, and the spread of liberal politics seemed unstoppable: we now know they were not.

    Democracy hasn’t just plateaued – it is in modest retreat. Many democracies have relapsed over the first two decades of this Century, and there is widespread dissatisfaction in others.

    The United Nations reports that, in 2016, over 60 countries saw a decline in civil and political liberties, while only half that number had gains. That trend is continuing.

    This suggests that arguments we believed had comprehensively been won: about democracy and the rule of law, about a liberal system of government, about free trade – must be fought and won all over again.

    There are no limits to change in our modern world.

    This is true of politics, and the structure of world power. It’s true of how we live now, and how we will live in the future. It’s true of health, and the world of work. Globalisation, science, medicine, technology, and public expectations all drive unrelenting change.

    Few things in life are certain, but what we can be sure of is that the world of tomorrow – in which the UK and Ireland must live and trade – may be very different from the world of today.

    Internationalism – co-operation with and the understanding of others – is becoming unfashionable. An intolerant nationalism is raising its ugly head in far too many countries.

    Too often, the art of compromise – consensus politics – is condemned as “weak”. Agreements are more likely to be condemned than applauded, whilst more robust, more extreme, more antagonistic politics is attracting popular support.

    Capitalising on discontent – the worst sort of populism – is thriving. Countries like China and Russia have a history of autocratic leadership.

    Elsewhere, today, so-called “strong men” rise to power – or, if not power, influence – by preaching self-interest, and promising national wellbeing.

    But their idea of wellbeing is often at the expense of minorities, who may not be able to protect themselves. This is alien to the British, Irish and European tradition.

    The risk is clear. It is that the international values-based system is under threat. A selfish form of nationalism is on the march. A trend that proclaims “Forget shared values …. it is time for self-interest”, is a hazardous route of travel.

    That trend is evident across Europe. It manifests itself in xenophobia. It is anti-foreigner; anti-immigrant; anti-Europe. It is careless of the misfortune of others. It opposes overseas aid. It lacks human empathy or compassion. The drumbeat of its motto is – “Self, Self, Self.”

    All this needs to be resisted. There is a better way to go.

    After the last World War, the post-war generation faced the most daunting of challenges but – led by America – rose to meet them.
    World leaders worked together – across national boundaries, and beyond national self-interest – to build alliances and structures to oppose Communism; protect and build democracy; promote rules-based global trade; and – as far as possible – secure long-term peace. It was visionary.

    Out of the rubble of 1945, a new world was built: on shared values, and communal interest. Crude, self-promoting nationalism was defeated, and replaced by inter-national co-operation.

    But this laudable achievement is now being eroded, at the very moment it needs to be refreshed. The post-war settlement is out of date and needs to be updated, yet there is little sign of that happening. No-one is looking beyond national self-interest.

    At the same time, autocracy is thriving – not only in Russia and China, but in Turkey, in Iran, in Poland, in Hungary, in Brazil – and advancing in many other countries.

    Europe is the home and bedrock of democracy. Yet far-right groups are growing across Europe – in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, in Austria, in Holland, in the UK. The concept of crude, intolerant populism finds an echo in many countries.

    Even America, the nation which helped finance the rebirth of war-torn Europe with the “Marshall Plan”, now advances under the nationalist slogan of “America First”.

    America – for so long the most powerful ally to both our nations – is shifting her focus from the West to the opportunities of Asia-Pacific.

    Anglo-Irish and American policies, that have been so closely entwined for so long, are now beginning to diverge.

    We believe in free trade: America introduces tariffs.

    We support the Paris Climate Accords: America withdraws from them.

    We welcome China’s Infrastructure Investment Bank: America does not.

    We support the Iran Nuclear Deal: America rejects it, and threatens sanctions on European and British companies if they trade with Iran.
    Britain, as a full member of NATO, and Ireland as a member of the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, see NATO as crucial to global security: President Trump is equivocal.

    For the time being, upon these issues, British, Irish (indeed all Europe) and American views are diverging: I look forward to the day when – once again – we are at one.

    That is in both the European and American interest: even the Great Republic needs allies she can rely upon.

    * * * * *

    The most fundamental shift in world power for generations is the rise of China. In many ways that is welcome: a Chinese economic giant in the East – to match the American giant in the West – will better balance the world economy. Together, these two countries may shape the Century to come.

    But, as they do, the UK will no longer be part of a European political and trading block that can deal with both of them on a more-or-less equal basis.

    This illustrates a new dilemma for Britain – and for Europe. For decades, Britain’s overseas presence has been boosted by our close relationship with America, and our membership of the European Union.

    We were a more valued ally of America because of our influence in Europe; and were more valued by Europe because of our close relationship with America.

    But, America now appears to be moving away from us both – at the same time as we are moving away from Europe. Britain, shorn of these longstanding allies, is suddenly seen by the world as a mid-size, middle-ranking power, that is no longer super-charged by her alliances.

    This will surely diminish our international influence.

    Don’t misunderstand me: the UK will still matter – she is an amalgam of four proud and important nations – but she will matter less than once she did.

    But the UK leaving the EU is a double loss: the EU is weakened, too.

    Europe loses its second largest economy, and one of only two European nuclear powers, with a significant military capacity.

    It loses a nation with a worldwide foreign policy reach.

    And it loses the most significant counter-weight to the Franco-German policy alliance – a counter-weight that has often spoken out against policies opposed by smaller European nations reluctant to challenge any consensus.

    Any weakening of a United Europe – whilst China grows in power; Russia misbehaves; and America become more distant – cannot be in the best interests of Europe.

    Let me now turn to the UK and Ireland.

    This week is the 25th Anniversary of the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. The Declaration did not bring peace, but it did halt violence and bloodshed, and was an essential preliminary to the Good Friday Agreement.

    It did not come easily. It was hard pounding, and the outcome was the work of many hands – in and beyond politics.

    But it could not have been done without the vision and commitment of Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach, and I was delighted, last night, to have had the opportunity to pay tribute to Albert in his home town of Longford.

    I hope – and believe – that his work on the Peace Process will have earned him an honoured place in Irish history.

    As Brexit draws near, Ireland must contemplate a range of issues – among them her changed relationship with the UK; life in the EU without her nearest neighbour; and her future relationship with Northern Ireland.

    She must also consider how to re-activate the Power Sharing Executive in Northern Ireland – a core achievement of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It is now nearly two years since Northern Ireland had a functioning Government, and it is an indictment of both the DUP and Sinn Fein that they have not reached an accommodation.

    Few would deny that community relations have deteriorated during this time. And most would agree the causes of the dispute do not merit ignoring the interests of the electorate for so long.

    Everyone must realise that sectarianism has not yet gone: Northern Ireland is still far from a community that votes solely on policy and not identity. History’s legacy is not yet forgotten – or put aside. No-one should forget that.

    I understand the deep wounds of past history, and how they became hard-wired into the philosophies of Unionist and Nationalist politicians. There is hurt on both sides. But those wounds need to be healed and not re-opened.

    But – let me be blunt – if the DUP and Sinn Fein let old wounds, old suspicions, old enmities take fresh root and live again then the people of Northern Ireland will be the first to lose. They may not be alone: subsequent losers may include the culpable politicians.

    Both parties are elected to take up their responsibilities, and every day they find excuses not to do so is a dereliction of their duty to their electors. This is doubly true when the Executive should be jointly considering the impact of Brexit.

    Brexit has already inserted its very own poison into the turbulent politics of Northern Ireland. It begins with the DUP’s support for Brexit, which is flatly opposed both by their business base and by the majority of voters in Northern Ireland.

    It continues with the Confidence and Supply agreement the DUP reached to support the minority Conservative Government at Westminster.

    It may – on occasion – do so, but any formal support has the secondary (and inevitable) effect of undermining the UK Government’s role as an independent and honest broker in solving any problems between the two traditions in Northern Ireland.

    Let me ask two questions. Do the Westminster and Dublin Governments wish to see the Power Sharing Executive return to its duties? Self-evidently, yes.

    And is the British Government helped or hindered in its persuasion to do so by its dependence on the DUP in the House of Commons? Yet again, the answer is obvious.

    I have said before – and continue to believe – that, for this reason, the Confidence and Supply arrangement is a deal that would better have not been made.

    I cannot believe, despite its best efforts, that many Nationalists will accept the Government as a fair and dispassionate arbiter – as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement –whilst being politically yoked to the DUP.

    The enthusiasts for leaving the European Union like to present it as a great and confident liberation. It is not. It is a retreat, not a liberation.

    A more confident United Kingdom would be remaining within Europe, reforming it; not complaining about Europe and leaving it.

    But that is not the view of the Brexiteers. Their apparent belief that Europe “gangs up” against the UK, and that the Commission “bullies” the UK, is not only absurd, it is embarrassing.

    On one day, they boast that a “global” United Kingdom can successfully “go it alone” in the world; the next day, they complain that the UK is being “bullied” by mere officials.

    There is a disconnect in logic here. They really must decide whether we are the United Kingdom or Little England.

    And the European Union they classify as a bully is the same body that gave the UK a budget rebate; that agreed we need not join the Euro, nor sign up to Schengen, nor the Social Chapter.

    That same European Union offered concessions to the UK that left us in a privileged position no other Government has yet enjoyed. Some bully, indeed!

    Of course the European Union protects its own interests – as every country does – but they are activated, as we all are, by self-interest – and not by maliciously wishing to do damage to the UK.

    Nor do they need to do so: the UK has shown we are able to inflict that on ourselves that without any help from the EU.

    During the Referendum campaign in 2016, Tony Blair and I joined forces – not the most natural of partnerships you may have thought – to point out the importance of Northern Ireland, and the significance of the border, if the UK left the EU.

    Following our statements, we were told, in effect, by the then Northern Ireland Secretary and the present Leader of the DUP, that we clearly didn’t know what we were talking about. Subsequent events suggest that we did.

    Any border between North and South risks re-awakening memories of the worst of days; nearby graveyards bear witness to how bad were those days. No sensible person can wish to return to them.

    A border would not just be a trade barrier. It would be a visible manifestation of “us” and “them”.

    In the past, it not only divided communities, it divided minds; it created sides; it was the justification for conflict and murder; and its disappearance was one of the best days in the long history of Ireland.

    Under the Withdrawal Agreement, a new border is deferred while – for the time being – the UK remains in a Customs Union, until a technical solution is available to cope with trade formalities. But the problem is not over.

    The much sought after technical solution may be a mirage and – like waiting for Godot – the wait may be forever. What then? Does the UK stay in a Customs Union for good, or will impatient politics seek to drag us out? No-one knows: we cannot be satisfied unless a permanent solution is agreed.

    There are further dilemmas to face as the UK leaves the European Union, while Ireland remains a Member State.
    In such circumstances, the two sides will no longer be able to bond over common causes in Europe. No longer can they speak for joint interests.

    No longer will Ministers and officials meet daily in Brussels: the loss of this contact is unquantifiable – but profound.

    Some say that familiarity breeds contempt. Our Anglo-Irish experience as partners in the European Union suggests our familiarity is more likely to breed trust, agreement and peace.

    I recall being shocked, in 1991, when I learned from the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, that British and Irish Ministers only met rarely, and usually simply to disagree. We must never return to such a distant relationship.

    I believe it is essential that, post-Brexit, forms of permanent Anglo-Irish bodies be established that guarantee regular and substantive meetings between our respective Prime Ministers, other Ministers, and senior officials. Inside or outside the European Union, we will always have much to discuss with our nearest neighbour.

    Both sides can benefit from institutional engagement; from close ties; from established mechanisms to promote mutual interests; from delivery systems for sectoral issues. Such institutions should be built up and kept in good repair.

    Nor is this just about trade. The relationship between our two countries can be good or bad; close or distant; but whatever it is will have an effect on community relations in Northern Ireland.

    No-one should underplay the Anglo-Irish relationship. The UK exports more to Ireland than to China. Over 7,000 Northern Ireland companies trade across the border to the South.

    Since 2000, UK exports to Ireland have more than doubled: Irish exports to the UK have risen by 80%. We are a huge market for each other.
    We have been neighbours since the dawn of time. A huge Irish community is embedded in the UK. For nearly a hundred years, we have enjoyed a Common Travel Area that also offers reciprocal rights in health, education and employment – which, thankfully, will continue.

    We have offered one another unique voting rights in the host country. Our cultural links are extensive. In sport, we field common North-South teams in rugby, cricket and hockey.

    I could go on: our links far exceed politics and trade – important though they are. As a Briton, I say – Ireland is important to us and – in or out – of Europe that will not change.

    Our duty – if we are to part company from the European Union – is to build on our relationship and not let it fragment.

    We British owe that to Ireland – and we owe it to ourselves.

    We can do this. We should do this. And we must do this.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture – 10 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture held in Longford, the Republic of Ireland, on 10 December 2018.

    An invitation to deliver the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture was irresistible to me, for Albert was a friend I cared about, an ally who mattered, and a man I miss.

    I’m so sorry that, due to ill health, Kathleen cannot be with us today, but I am delighted that so many members of the Reynolds family are here….

    I have to tell you that walking into Albert and Kathleen’s home in Dublin was like being wrapped into a warm and cosy blanket – while enjoying hot tea and cakes. It was always a treat. And delivering this lecture is a tribute to a very special man.

    Albert was never a run-of-the-mill politician. Some thought he’d strayed into politics by accident, but I don’t agree with that at all. Certainly, his background was atypical – for Taoiseachs.

    Albert ran dance halls, and thrived on the back of 1960s pop music – but he was always fully prepared, fully equipped for politics: he was a deal-maker supreme, a “bottom line man”, a man who demanded an outcome, a solution, to every problem.

    His background – far from being a drawback – was an asset. Albert knew people: how they lived, how they thought, what they cared about.

    And, in my experience, he liked people – forever an asset in a politician.

    He had no illusions about how some could go astray, but no doubt about what they could achieve if given the opportunity.

    And he was an optimist – far more inclined to say “we can do this”, than to rule anything out. To Albert, a deal not made was a failure.

    Some people in politics are no more than ambitious concoctions. But Albert was the real deal – in practice and in spirit. The world saw just how authentic he was at his funeral service at Donnybrook Church, when symbols of his life were carried to the altar by members of his family.

    The Downing Street Declaration was, of course, laid on the altar. But then so was a pack of cards, and a tin of dog food. Even in death, Albert could shock the politically correct. During that Service I may have had tears in my eyes, but I knew that – watching from afar – Albert was chuckling.

    At the very core of Albert was Kathleen and their family, about all of whom he was inordinately proud, and often spoke. I once teased him that “I know you love children because you have so many”, and he replied, “Not enough, John. Not enough.”.

    And that is true, too, of his time as Taoiseach. Not long enough. Not long enough by a long chalk.

    But Albert left an indelible mark on Irish history and will, I believe, be remembered long – and fondly. I know the memory of Albert will always bring a smile to my face.

    In five days’ time it will be the 25th Anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration, which led to paramilitary ceasefires and, ultimately, the Good Friday Agreement. It would never have happened without Albert.

    The Declaration didn’t come easily. In negotiation, you give to gain. Albert and I had a common objective, but came at it from different directions. There were many proposals, many drafts.

    There were advances and setbacks. Mini triumphs and mini disasters. There were frustrations and rows, gains and concessions. And, of course, we both had critical – often hostile – opponents to persuade or to cajole.

    But, with help and advice from many quarters – officials, politicians, the Church – we got there and, for Albert’s sake, I’m delighted you have remembered his own vital contribution to this document, and also honoured me by your invitation.

    It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that I wasn’t able to complete the Peace Process, but I applaud Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern for doing so. They met all the challenges successfully.

    The Irish Ambassador to the UK, Adrian O’Neill – who is a superb representative of your country – quoted aptly from the Declaration in a recent speech.

    The Declaration had a range of objectives: to heal past enmity; to ensure a peace that lasted; and to encourage the economic and social co-operation that was, and is, and always will be, essential for mutual understanding and, with it, peaceful prosperity.

    The Declaration was born during a private conversation with Albert in the White Drawing Room of Downing Street. As I recall, we were talking of our respective children over a drink, and then – more widely – the children of the Troubles.

    Albert said, “No child should have to face this”, and I agreed, adding “If it were in Surrey or Sussex it would not be tolerated; nor should it be accepted in Northern Ireland.”. So, together, we agreed to try and end it, and I could never have had a more dedicated partner than Albert Reynolds.

    Were we together this evening, Albert and I would be concerned about Brexit; the Irish border; the protection of the Peace Accord; and – perhaps most important of all – the long-term relationship between our two countries.

    As the Peace Process advanced in the 1990s – and especially after the Good Friday Agreement was signed – the Anglo-Irish relationship blossomed.

    Our joint history is chequered, but it was put behind us: not forgotten, perhaps, but no longer used as a weapon with which to attack one another.

    In the last two decades, the Anglo-Irish relationship has been better – and closer – than at any time in our history. Now, once again – as the UK leaves the EU – there is reason to be concerned.

    The Republic – as well as the UK – needs the power-sharing executive to return to its duties in Northern Ireland. It needs to ensure that now – and in the future –there is no hard border dividing the island of Ireland; and it needs a future that embraces what Ireland and the UK have in common.

    Some opinion – including many who believe themselves to be Unionists – has shown a breath-taking ignorance of the likely impact that unsettling the Good Friday Agreement will have on Ireland, both North and South.

    To them, the Irish demand for a “backstop” is a bogus ploy to keep the UK in a Customs Union: in truth, a backstop is of vital national interest for Ireland and for the UK.

    As our own Prime Minister has said, this is not a demand imposed on the UK by Dublin or Brussels – it is an interest we all share.

    Furthermore, the Brexiteers claim that the backstop damages the Union is wholly misguided. The greatest danger to the Union would be a hard border that damaged jobs and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and undermined the Good Friday Agreement.

    If the people of Northern Ireland see a border returned – together with no power sharing at Stormont – will they not look once again at a United Ireland?

    The plain truth is this: the future of the Union is protected, not undermined, by avoiding a hard border.

    If the House of Commons defeats Mrs May’s plans tomorrow, the risk of a hard border once again becomes possible.

    Even if her plans are approved, the problem is not solved, but temporarily put on hold – until a “frictionless” border moves from myth to reality; or until a long-term deal is reached that removes the need for any border at all.

    A hard border – now, or at the end of a long transition period – would be disastrous. That said – whatever may happen at Westminster this week or later – I do not believe a majority of Members of Parliament will permit a hard border to become a reality.

    The reckless few, who are careless of its likely effect, are a clear minority. And with good reason.

    Of course, a new border would not remotely resemble its hated predecessor – with its barbed wire, its listening posts and its Army check-points.

    But any new border – however gentle its intent – would become a symbol, and thus a target. Both physically and emotionally it would present not only a barrier between North and South; between Unionist and Nationalist; but between the UK and her nearest neighbour.

    The fear – that must not be forgotten – is this: any border, be it now or in the future, risks creating an impediment to the excellent bilateral relations of recent years. That, truly, would be a tragedy.

    Peace is at risk if we erect barriers that remind people of ancient disputes: it will only be a way of life we can rely if we create a future in which old protagonists can live and work together.

    Peace is not secure – it never is – and any new border would be a focus for the wild men on the fringes to reactivate old disputes and hatreds that should be laid to rest – for good. Until sectarianism is ended, that will never be fully achieved.

    Some hardline pro-Brexit voices have claimed that European and Irish opposition to a “hard” border is merely a means of frustrating Brexit.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. They are blind to the reality.

    As Sir Hugh Orde, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, has said – the political consequences of Brexit “will play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed”.
    “Customs Posts”, Sir Hugh added, “would be a target for dissident paramilitaries”. Sadly, such dangerous people are still around – in both communities.

    Those who mock and disparage the “backstop” should reflect on the risks of destroying it, and stop relying on uninvented, fanciful, technical alternatives that, for now, exist nowhere.

    At stake is not only community relations, but security – and, with it, lives as well. We should not forget that the “Troubles” began in the 1960s with the murder of Customs Officials at the North/South border.

    A “no deal” scenario would have many damaging repercussions for the UK and Ireland.

    If – by accident or design – the UK was forced to trade under WTO rules, both sides would be forced to apply customs tariffs on imports from the other.

    This would not be optional. Under WTO rules, the UK and Ireland could not reach a bilateral “sweetheart” deal of low tariffs – even if they wished to do so.

    The UK would have to charge the same tariffs to Ireland as to any other member of the WTO worldwide.

    And Ireland would have to reciprocate. The impact on business – and farming – would be instant and profound. This is no way for friends and neighbours to treat one another.

    But, once again – for what it is worth – I do believe wise counsel will prevent this outcome.

    I have made no secret of my own view that the UK leaving Europe is a colossal error. It is a lose-lose decision for both sides. It betrays the internationalist past of the UK, and undermines her future.

    Most of the world believes we have taken leave of our senses, and so, I believe, will future generations. However, that is an argument I would prefer to make in the UK – and not here this evening.

    But what of Europe? How are they affected? That is an argument for now – and for Ireland as a member of the European Union. Is the whole of Europe, including the UK, better off with a strong European Union or a weak one?

    Across Europe, some extreme nationalists believe it would be better if the European Union collapsed and we returned to a Europe of nation states. I believe they are profoundly wrong in that judgement.

    We live in a world in which America – so long the guarantor of European safety – is turning her interest increasingly towards Asia-Pacific.
    China – with the largest navy in the world – is now growing both in economic and military power, and is prepared to use that power for political gain. Russia is, once again, behaving as a rogue nation.

    In the light of these developments, is Europe better or worse off being united rather than divided? Undoubtedly, it is better united.

    Are we all at greater risk if Europe is weakened? Undoubtedly yes – both economically and militarily.

    Is the world order better balanced with America, China and a strong European Union broadly economically equal, or with the European Union minus Britain falling below the economic authority of their two rivals? The answer is obvious.

    And yet the British departure will not only weaken the UK but – certainly more important to the wider world – diminish the role of the EU.

    The EU will lose:

    Sixty five million citizens, and its fastest-growing economy; potentially, the largest economy in Europe;

    It will lose one of only two powers with a nuclear capacity and a significant military capability;

    It will lose the nation with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach; and

    It will also lose the only buffer the EU has had to hold back policies promoted by Germany and France in partnership.

    British pragmatism and caution will be sorely missed by smaller EU countries: on many occasions, the UK was their protector.

    Time and again, it has not been unusual for the UK, alone, to oppose a European policy – while other member states remained silent – and later be thanked for having done so.

    The UK’s departure means that, for the first time, the European Union is contracting and not expanding. This will weaken the EU – especially when set against the superpowers of America or China.

    The British departure is likely to hasten European reform – which will involve Ireland as a Member of the Eurozone.

    Over the next few years, I expect members of the Eurozone to further align fiscal policy to protect the Euro even though – at present – that is not politically acceptable.

    I do not believe – after the Greek experience – that the Eurozone will hurry to admit new members and, if that assumption is correct, a distinct inner and outer core is likely to take shape.

    Other changes – opting in to policies rather than opting out – may be sought by the less consensus-minded countries from Central and Eastern Europe.

    Nothing is certain but – ten years from now – the Union may look very different. Ironically, it may be a Union that would be much more amenable to the UK.

    The Anglo-Irish relationship will change when the UK leaves the EU – but we need to cherish it, and I will talk of that at greater length tomorrow.

    For now, let me simply assert that the relationship should remain precious to us both, and our duty is to ensure that it is.

    My working assumption is that the UK will leave the EU in good order and not in chaos. If so, she has a robust political and economic structure – and should be able to weather the almost inevitable economic turbulence upon leaving.

    However, as many independent assessments have set out – as well as the Bank of England and the UK Government itself – I do anticipate lower growth, lower inward investment, and – subject to the terms of any future trade deal with the EU – a range of practical (and costly) obstacles for British commerce.

    No-one can be certain how long such a trade deal will take to negotiate: or even if aggrieved nations will hold back – or refuse – their consent to any, or all, of it.

    What we can be sure of is that the right deal will be tough to get; and an imperfect deal will be hard to sell – and harder still to justify. But, as grievances cool, a deal is in the best interests of both sides.

    The City of London is powerful, innovative and pre-eminent. But, post-Brexit, we can assume other financial centres in Europe will wish to challenge its present dominance. That is an unavoidable consequence of the British exodus.

    Although I don’t believe the EU can hope to replicate the City in any foreseeable timescale, I do expect they will move towards focusing more financial activity within their own Borders – politics will dictate this as well as long-term self-interest.

    Dublin itself may be a beneficiary of this trend.

    The wider trade implication of leaving the EU is that the UK not only loses her free trade deal with the European market of 500 million people, but also free trade deals with 53 other nations that were negotiated by the European Union – but only for its Members.

    Over time these can be replaced, but, for now, there is a very, very long way to go – and the question arises: are 65 million Britons really likely to get the same favourable treatment as 500 million Europeans?

    The UK lives by her trade – so, we must try. But this process will not be swift – or straightforward.

    Let me summarise. Barring a sudden outbreak of common sense, and a reality check on national self-interest, the UK will be the first nation to leave the EU.

    This will be yet another irony, as the first proposal for a European Union came not – as is generally supposed – from the French cognac salesman, Jean Monnet, but from an Englishman.

    Three and a quarter centuries ago, in 1693, William Penn advocated a European “Diet or Parliament” as a policy to end perpetual military conflict on the Continent. It took 280 years and two world wars to convince his fellow Britons that unity was better than division.

    Forty three years later, the British people reversed that decision.

    It is in the interests of both Ireland and the UK that wise negotiators can now minimise the downside and maximise the opportunities.

    Let us hope they will – and they can.

    Many futures depend on it – both in my country and in your own.

    As I speak, I can hear Albert’s lilting voice pushing us on towards a sensible deal.

    We must all do everything we can not to let him down.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to Trinity College Dublin Historical Society – 21 November 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made to the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society on Wednesday 21st November 2007.

    Mr Chairman, Mr Auditor, Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen of College Historical Society, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My privilege to propose “that the Best Thanks of the Society are due to the Auditor for his Paper”.

    Well done, Tim.

    Chancellor, Provost, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin and doubly so to be at this famous University.

    As you know, Albert Reynolds is unwell and can’t be with us this evening. However – the good news is – he’s recovering and will be out of hospital in a few days. I visited him this afternoon and he was in fine form. I know I speak for Albert Reynolds as well as myself in thanking you for the privilege of receiving this Award for our work on the Irish Peace Process. Timothy Smyth has presented a Paper full of insight and I am delighted to respond to it.

    Let me begin with a disclaimer: many people – some acknowledged, many not – contributed to the Irish Peace Process. They came from the Civil Services – I am delighted to see Roderic Lyne and Martin Mansergh here this evening – both of whom were pivotal figures in the whole process. They were crucial. When tempers heated, they cooled them. Tempers cool – they backed us in a way that rose them. They were magisterial. So were members of the Catholic and Protestant communities; the Churches; as well as figures from local and national politics.

    Paddy Mayhew, Peter Brooke, Dick Spring, John Bruton come to mind, as significant contributors. So – in different ways – do Jim Molyneaux and John Hume. And – it must also be acknowledged – individuals within the paramilitaries on both sides who realised violence was failing and opened their minds to a political settlement.

    Before I arrived at Downing Street, I had very little contact with Ireland – North or South – despite the presence of an Irish grandmother in my family. But, once there, Northern Ireland became a priority, and for long periods the priority. I held meetings beyond number in Westminster and in Belfast. Some were friendly. Some were rancorous. Some were full of hope. Some were interminable. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress. I knew from the outset that progress would be two steps forward – and one back: and so it proved.

    Invariably, I was struck by the disparity between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland Troubles lay deep in history, and were made worse by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots were ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning fiercely.

    And that loathing had led to carnage that, by the early 1990’s, seemed a permanent and irreversible way of life in Northern Ireland, with violence spinning off to the British mainland. Another atrocity. Another hooded victim. Another soldier dead. Such violence seemed to be so common-place, it often lost its place in the daily news. Shock receded to acceptance. Familiarity stilled the horror of butchery.

    But I did not believe the situation was irreversible. Nor, when I met him, did Albert Reynolds. I will now embarrass Albert. I’m sorry, Albert, but what I’m about to say is true. When I met Albert, I liked him instantly – not always the case among politicians. The man I came to know was a pragmatist with convictions – never an ideologue. He was a deal maker: a man who would offer something to gain something. It felt as though I was looking in the mirror. There was hope.

    At our very first meeting in No. 10, Albert and I agreed to put a peace process at the forefront of our political agenda. We knew we might well face hostility. Deep-rooted scepticism was certain. Political setbacks were likely. At worst, our careers might end. But at best, innocent people would no longer be killed. During the nearly seven years I worked on the Peace Process, that was the easiest decision I had to take.
    In his Paper, Timothy Smyth observed that there were lessons learned that might offer sign-posts to solving other conflicts. He is right: there is one, above all.

    Any Peace Process means dialogue: dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and dialogue – indirect at first – with the paramilitaries. That point about peace making is absolute: you cannot reach an agreement with someone to whom you do not – or will not – talk.

    That was my view – and Albert’s too. Yet it was not received opinion.

    For years, the IRA had sought a political objective through violence. For years, they had been resisted. It was a dance of death -interminable and pointless. It was also a stand-off that was convenient to the warriors of each side. The IRA could say they were not cowed by the power of the British – and would fight continuously for a United Ireland. The British Government could parade its strength by refusing to talk until the IRA disarmed which, without progress, they would never do. These so-called “strong positions” – these “positions of principle” – merely served to entrench the violence and the killing. And – as Mr Smyth observes – there was a cumbersome baggage of ideology on every side.
    Albert Reynolds and I approached the problem in the belief there would be a settlement because there must be. That ideology must give way to common sense. Some thought that was a triumph of hope over experience: we did not.

    It seemed to me the groundwork for a settlement was obvious:-

    (i) We had to agree objectives between London and Dublin for – if the two Governments had opposing agendas – the chance of a settlement was minimal.

    (ii) We needed to get inside the mind of the paramilitaries. People would be astonished at how many hours I spent trying to think myself into their minds – particularly those of the leaders of the IRA. What were their motives? Why did they act as they did? What constraints did they face within their own organisation?

    (iii) We knew we had to address the grievances that made it so easy for mischief makers to stir up hatred and foment disputes between the two communities.

    (iv) And we had to offer an end product that would encourage those within the paramilitaries, who had begun to realise violence would never succeed and were looking for a political settlement.

    (v) We also had to address contradictory ambitions and fears. Unionists feared a united Ireland. Nationalists favoured it. Both communities needed reassuring.

    Returning to Mr Smyth’s observation about lessons learned: the above approach, with modifications, has to be the bed-rock of any approach to end violent conflict.

    Putting together a Peace Plan in the early 90s was like playing multi-dimensional chess. It was a Rubik’s cube in Gaelic. What pleased London often worried Dublin. What was acceptable to the Unionists was anathema to the Nationalists. What was welcomed by some in Parliament was condemned by others. A peace process was never going to be a smooth ride – and it wasn’t.

    The Joint Declaration

    In his Paper, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Mr Smyth refers to “elements of mistrust” on both sides. He is absolutely right. Mistrust was a serious impediment to progress. Time and again committed advocates on both sides used leaks to the Media – often half-truths – to highlight fears and submerge progress. Everything that emerged from a Republican source (or was welcomed by Republicans) was poked at suspiciously and denounced by Unionists. The reverse was also true. The history of the Joint Declaration is a classic illustration of this tendency.

    In retrospect, the Joint Declaration stands out. But – in the early 1990’s – other avenues were being considered too.

    There was, of course, the three-stranded talks between the constitutional Parties; London and Dublin and North and South. They had many frustrations and deficiencies and ended up as a blind alley, but they were a source of ideas to determine what was acceptable to all sides, and what was a show-stopper. One point we learned was crucial for later: the political Parties would talk to the British Government but not to each other – yet we learned they would do so if elected to the same body. Years later, that led to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the unexpected partnership of Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness. In the 1990’s that would have seemed impossible, yet it is only when extreme positions are isolated, or neutered or brought together that a solution is possible.

    There was also the “back-channel” communication between the British Government and the Provisionals – a crucial clearing house and test bed. It was politically risky for the British Government, but also – let us not forget – for the Provisionals as well. When a newspaper “leaked” the existence of this channel, many were affronted by its existence – but making peace is a messy business and neither then nor now do I have any apologies to offer on this score: it advanced the Peace Process; it spelled out to the Provisionals what was – and was not – on offer; it removed misunderstandings; it helped save lives. To my mind, that is ample justification for it.

    It was in February 1993, through this “back channel”, that I received the following message:

    “The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold a dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion to the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet the Secretary of State’s public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked.”

    In London, we gave this message a very restricted circulation. Even so, amongst close colleagues, some were suspicious. Some saw a political trap to lure the British Government into concessions. Few thought it would yield anything worthwhile. Doubt, as well as distrust, was ever-present on all sides throughout the process.

    The advice I received from the Security Services was that the message was from the Provisional Army Council – more specifically, they thought, from Martin McGuinness – although I should place on record that he has always denied sending it. This is a pity since – even in the darkest days – those words encouraged me to believe a settlement was possible. And there were many dark days.

    In his Paper, Mr Smyth reminds us of the bombs at Bishopsgate, Shankill Road, and Warrington to which he could have added the Loyalist murders at a pub in the village of Greysteel, in revenge for the IRA’s bungled bombing at Shankill Road. These atrocities were pivotal in hardening the public mind against violence, and boxing in the paramilitaries.

    I remember those bombs with the clarity of yesterday. I was in my garden in Huntingdon on a bright and beautiful Easter Saturday when I heard news of the Warrington bomb which fatally injured two little boys. It came only days after I had received assurances of progress from the Provisionals through the “secret link”. It was the only time I seriously considered breaking off the Peace Process. I did not – for two reasons: – firstly, I did not want any more loss of life – not least those of children: and secondly, I had begun to understand the psyche of the IRA. They believed they had to show themselves to be “strong” to placate their volunteers: that meant violence would accompany progress as, in their own way, they sought to show they were not making concessions, not – in their own mind – giving ground. Blood and progress marched together. It was a bitter assessment, but I believe it was the right one.

    The concept of a Joint Declaration had been around for some years. John Hume and Gerry Adams had pioneered the idea in 1988. Various private enterprise and Government texts had been floated but none was remotely likely to gain the support of the Unionist community. They were seen as too “Green” in complexion. Therefore – to the Unionists – they were flawed. Therefore, they were denounced. As so often in Irish politics, a sound idea was spoiled by its parentage – only a text jointly negotiated and agreed by the British and Irish Governments had any chance of acceptance North and South of the Border. And any negotiated text was bound to be very different from the early cock-shies. Nonetheless, the Hume-Adams’ dialogue was important and opened a window.

    It was not easy to agree a text. Officials – North and South – worked at it incessantly. Road-blocks were common. Disputes were frequent. I had innumerable hours of meetings with my own Officials, as no doubt, did Albert on his own side. Frequently we met – or resolved points over the telephone lines. I recall a meeting at a European Summit that dwarfed the importance of the Summit itself. And a stand-up row – in private – in Dublin Castle, when Albert and I deserted our Officials for one of the fiercest rows I ever had in Government. We survived it and returned to negotiation: that afternoon, I knew we’d reach a settlement.

    Albert Reynolds and I resolved the final points in the text of the Joint Declaration over the telephone on 14th November 1993 and announced it publicly sixteen hours later.

    What was the Declaration about? Was it worth all the effort?

    I believe it was. After 74 years of partition and almost 25 years of violent conflict, the British and Irish Governments – for the first time – had agreed principles upon which they could both unite.

    The Joint Declaration promised fair play to both communities. The Unionists were guaranteed there would be no imposition of a United Ireland, and the Republicans were guaranteed their traditions and aspirations would be respected. It was implicit that if there were ever to be a majority in the North for unification, that the British Government would not stand in the way. In addition – and crucially – the Paramilitaries were promised a full place in democratic politics once they abandoned violence. It was a powerful symbol that pointed the way to a very different future for Ireland.

    The impact of the Joint Declaration was immediate. It received massive public support at home – and worldwide. It isolated the men of violence. Encouraged the IRA to offer a cease-fire. And drained from all the paramilitaries the subliminal sympathy that earned them funding, recruits and public tolerance from their own communities. I believe, too, it offered hope where none previously existed.

    Much work still needed to be done. Political restrictions on the paramilitaries were eased. The Joint Framework Documents, negotiated with Albert Reynolds and finalised in 1995 with John Bruton, bridged a gap towards a final settlement. Indeed, re-assembled they were the basis for The Good Friday Agreement – when a new future was finally put in place for all Ireland.

    Prior to 1990, the Prime Minister and The Taoiseach met irregularly as sparring partners, often playing to their own gallery: today, the political relationship between London and Dublin is a relationship of allies – of friends; old opponents – once viscerally at war with one another – now work together.

    Ireland saw a new future and grasped it – putting an end to a black history that cost too many lives and dashed the hopes of too many generations. The pessimists were confounded. Reason prevailed – and the winner was – is – Ireland.

  • Presidency Conclusions Following the Dublin European Council – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of the Presidency Conclusions following the Dublin European Council meeting on the 13th and 14th December 1996.

    PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The European Council, meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, took a number of significant decisions for the continued development of the European Union.

    The European Council:

    – achieved further decisive progress on Economic and Monetary Union,

    – identified a broad range of measures to be implemented at national and Community level aimed at boosting employment,

    – adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment,

    – welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Irish Presidency as a good basis for the final phase of the Intergovernmental Conference which should conclude at Amsterdam in June 1997,

    – adopted an important series of measures in the area of Justice and Home Affairs and, in particular, agreed ways and means to combat the scourges of drugs, organized crime, including terrorism, and the sexual exploitation of children,

    – reviewed the Union’s action in external relations.

    The European Council began its proceedings by an exchange of views with Mr. Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, on the main subjects for discussion at this meeting. It thanked Mr. HÄNSCH, who will be stepping down from office next January, for his valuable contribution to furthering constructive cooperation between the Institutions.

    A meeting also took place today with the Heads of State or Government and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, as well as Cyprus. There was a broad exchange of views on these conclusions and on matters pertaining to the field of Justice and Home Affairs, with particular reference to the fight against drugs and organized crime.

    1. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
    2. Economic and Monetary Union

    The European Council welcomes the further decisive progress which has been made in the preparations for EMU, which will begin on 1 January 1999.

    – The structure of the new Exchange Rate Mechanism has been agreed.

    – The urgent aspects of the legal framework for the use of the euro have been finalized for early adoption.

    – The principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in EMU have been agreed.

    The European Council therefore urges the institutions, public authorities and economic agents to intensify their preparations for the starting date of 1 January 1999.

    The European Council welcomes the excellent Report by the ECOFIN Council (annexed) on preparations for Stage 3 of EMU, which is fully in line with the conclusions of Madrid and Florence, and it pays tribute to the contributions, in their respective fields of competence, from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute (EMI). The contents of this Report are subject to Parliamentary reservations.

    In particular the European Council:

    – endorses the conclusions on the new exchange rate mechanism (ERM2) as proposed by the ECOFIN Council and the EMI. It invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare for the European Council in June 1997 a draft Resolution setting out the fundamental elements of the ERM2, following the precedent set in 1978 in relation to the present ERM. The EMI is invited to prepare, in parallel, a draft for an inter-central bank agreement, for submission to the European Central Bank and the central banks of the Member States not forming part of the euro area.

    – underlines the need to ensure durable budget discipline in Stage 3 of EMU and welcomes the agreement reached on the Stability and Growth Pact. It requests the ECOFIN Council to examine intensively the Commission proposals for two Regulations, one on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary positions and the other on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure. It invites the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Regulation on non-participating Member States. Furthermore, it invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare a draft Resolution on the Stability and Growth Pact to be adopted by the European Council in June 1997, recording the commitments of the Member States, the Commission and the Council to a strict application of the Treaty and the legal provisions on budgetary stability. The European Council notes that after it has adopted the Resolution, the Council will adopt the respective Regulations.

    – welcomes the agreement by the ECOFIN Council on the two Regulations establishing the legal framework for the euro which are being made public by the Presidency. It invites the Council to adopt the first Regulation based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty without delay. The second Regulation will be adopted by the Council as early as possible in 1998, once the decision on the Member States participating in the euro area has been taken.

    The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, has taken its decision under Article 109j(3) of the EC Treaty and confirms that the procedure laid down in Article 109j(4) will be applied as early as possible in 1998, with a view to the commencement of the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. In this context, the European Council welcomes the intentions of the Member States to further reduce budgetary imbalances in 1997 with a view to achieving the high degree of sustainable convergence required for participation in the single currency and it underlines the need for durable convergence in the third stage.

    The European Council underlines the importance of exchange rate stability for the process of convergence and the smooth operation of the internal market and accordingly warmly welcomes the entry into the ERM of the Finnish markka on 12 October 1996 and the re-entry of the Italian lira on 24 November 1996.

    The European Council underscores the need to make the euro tangible for citizens. In this regard, it welcomes the designs for the euro bank notes presented by the European Monetary Institute. It also welcomes the arrangements being made by the Commission for the design competition for the coins; this will allow the choice to be made during the Dutch Presidency.

    The Heads of State or Government decided to reappoint Baron Alexandre LAMFALUSSY as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 January 1997 until 30 June 1997. They decided to appoint Dr. Willem Frederik DUISENBERG, President of De Nederlandsche Bank, as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 July 1997 until the establishment of the European Central Bank.

    1. SEM 2000 (Sound and efficient management)

    The European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 2 December 1996 on the report of the Personal Representatives Group on Sound Financial Management.

    It reaffirmed its support for the Commission’s SEM 2000 initiative and generally welcomed the recommendations in the report which constitute a substantial action programme to improve the financial management of EU expenditure in partnership between the Commission and the Member States.

    The European Council invited Council and Commission to report on progress in implementing the recommendations to its meeting in December 1997.

    III. EMPLOYMENT

    1. Growth and Employment in Europe – the way forward

    The fight against unemployment is the prime responsibility of the Member States but also a priority task of the Union. The European Council had an in-depth discussion on the growth and employment strategy, based on the joint report from the Council and the Commission on employment, the Commission’s progress report on the initiative for “Action on employment: a Confidence Pact” and the joint contribution by the social partners on the Confidence Pact which they adopted in Dublin on 29 November. In its deliberations it has also taken account of the proposals in President Chirac’s Memorandum on a European Social Model with a view to giving greater emphasis to the human dimension of the Union.

    The European Council, building on the Essen strategy, endorses the analysis contained in the Joint Report and urges the Member States to pursue this strategy with determination and consistency. It calls for continued support for this strategy by all relevant actors at European, national and local level, including the social partners and reaffirms the importance of equal opportunities.

    To underline its commitment to this strategy the European Council has adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment (annexed), which reflects the recommendations in the Joint Report on the need for:

    – a continuation of the macroeconomic strategy for economic growth and employment in line with agreed economic policy guidelines,

    – increased efforts to modernize the markets for goods and services and to exploit new sources of employment,

    – a focusing on labour market efficiency and on investment in human resources,

    – making taxation and social protection systems more employment-friendly,

    – strengthening the interplay between macroeconomic and structural policies in the Member States’ Multi-annual Employment Programmes.

    It invites the Commission and the Member States, especially in the framework of the new Employment and Labour Market Committee and the Economic Policy Committee, to develop further the instruments for the effective monitoring and evaluation of employment and labour market policies and the identification of good practice. In particular, common employment indicators should be further developed and the possibilities of benchmarking should be assessed.

    The European Council welcomes the positive reaction to the initiatives on territorial employment pacts and urges swift implementation of the 60 projects proposed by the Member States.

    The European Council stresses once again the essential role of the Internal Market in promoting growth and employment in the Union. Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises has a crucial role to play to this effect. Whilst noting the progress that has been accomplished in this area, it remains concerned with the delays in the transposition and implementation of a number of Directives. It takes note of Commission’s intention to submit before the Amsterdam European Council an action plan and a timetable covering all necessary measures that must be taken to ensure that the full potential benefit of the Internal Market is achieved before the beginning of Stage 3 of EMU.

    The European Council noted the Commission report on the development of tax systems, which was drawn to its attention by the ECOFIN Council, underlining the need for further work on this issue. The European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to continue the discussions in a tax policy group, paying particular attention to the effects of this policy on employment.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission’s plans in relation to innovation and the development of the information society as important inputs for the future development of the Union’s competitiveness. Investment in education and training are crucial for securing equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in and benefit from the information society. The European Council believes that there should be regular monitoring and evaluation of the Union’s competitiveness against world best practice along the lines of the conclusions on benchmarking adopted by the Industry Council.

    The European Council reiterates the importance of regulatory simplification and requests, in this context, the extension of the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative. It emphasizes that the effort to reduce administrative costs for enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is necessary for Member States as well as the Community institutions and invites the Council to follow up in this respect its resolution on legislative and administrative simplification in the internal market.

    Postal services form an essential component of the communications infrastructure in the Union. The development of the internal market for postal services bears huge significance in economic and social terms. The European Council welcomes the intensive efforts made to date to effect relevant measures, but notes with regret that the Council has not reached a Common Position. It asks the Council to take a decision by the end of the year, taking account of the work already done at its meeting on 28 November 1996.

    The European Council asks the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take all steps so that an immediate decision to liberalize postal services can be taken. The universal service in the postal sector must remain assured.

    The European Council recognizes the importance of the implementation of the Trans-European Networks. It agrees with the proposal by the Portuguese and Spanish Governments that priority project No. 8 in list 1 from the Essen European Council will become the Multimodal link between Portugal/Spain and the rest of Europe.

    1. Subsidiarity and Proportionality

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of ensuring that the institutions apply subsidiarity and proportionality thoroughly to all legislative proposals. It welcomes the Commission’s 1996 “Better Law Making” report on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality, on simplification and on consolidation of legislation. The European Council invites the Commission to provide a progress report before the end of 1997.

    1. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    The European Council welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Presidency. This makes it possible for the negotiations to move now into their final phase.

    The European Council has also taken note of the recent letter from the German Chancellor and the French President which will be an important contribution to the further work of the Conference.

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of completing the Conference at Amsterdam in June 1997. The Presidency document provides a good basis for the work which lies ahead. As the document makes clear, delegations remain free to advocate their own proposals and to press their concerns in further negotiation.

    As it moves now into its final decisive phase, the Conference must seek to achieve a balanced outcome in all areas which will measure up to the aims and ambitions which the European Council has set for it. It is essential that the Union be equipped to face the challenges ahead as it prepares for the 21st century.

    The European Council notes with approval the progress at the Conference in identifying Treaty changes which would make the Union more responsive to the concerns of its citizens and it reaffirms the aims which it set out at Florence in this regard.

    The European Council notes with approval the particular importance which the Presidency document attaches to the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The European Council has agreed today on a number of important decisions under the existing Treaty provisions which are set out in Section V of the present conclusions. It asks the Intergovernmental Conference, taking account of the outline draft for Treaty revision presented by the Presidency, to work to reach agreement on a strengthened capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum, immigration, the crossing of external borders, the fight against drugs and international crime including terrorism, offences against children and trafficking in persons. Europol should have operative powers working in conjunction with the national authorities to this end. These issues are of the most serious concern to citizens in all Member States and the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the aim which it set in Florence of developing the external action of the Union. The Union must enhance its capacity to ensure that its external action is coherent and effective in all its aspects, and it must improve its decision-making procedures, if it is to play a role in the world commensurate with its responsibilities and its potential. The European Council noted the approaches which the Presidency has identified in its document in relevant areas including the options for establishing a new function to enhance the visibility of the CFSP and the strengthening of links with the WEU.

    Institutional issues will be central to the next phase of the negotiations. The Union needs to improve its ability to take decisions and to act. This is already true today and it will be even more necessary as the Union moves to enlarge its membership further. The Union must have comprehensible, transparent and democratic procedures and strong and effective institutions which enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

    The European Council notes that the Presidency document, responding to a view of many delegations that certain issues can be settled definitively only at a later stage in the Conference, does not include texts in Treaty form on the issue of flexibility and on certain sensitive institutional questions, although it offers an analysis of the issues and identifies options. In the next phase of the Conference solutions must be found on all institutional issues, including in particular on the size of the Commission, the role of the European Parliament, the collective association of national parliaments, the voting mechanisms in the Council and the functioning of the Court of Justice, while respecting the balances which have always been an important feature of European construction.

    The European Council also notes the progress made thus far in examining the proposals for Treaty provisions which would permit more flexible approaches leading to enhanced cooperation in appropriate areas, subject to agreed conditions. This issue is of great importance and the European Council asks the Conference to devote particular attention to it.

    The European Council emphasizes strongly that the future of the Union and the success of the further enlargement to which it has committed itself will depend on a satisfactory resolution of all of these questions.

    The European Council asks the Conference to develop the important proposal to amend the Treaties to establish it as a clear principle that no citizen of a Member State of the Union may apply for asylum in another Member State, taking into account international treaties.

    The European Council notes also the proposal submitted jointly by three delegations, since the presentation of the Presidency document, for the Treaty to include the specific character of the outermost regions of the Union and it asks that it be examined by the Conference.

    Finally, the European Council asks the Conference, on the basis of the preparatory work already carried out, to continue to work to present a significantly simplified version of the Treaties with a view to making them more readable and comprehensible to the Union’s citizens. This must be done in a way which does not reopen the acquis of the Treaties, preserves the pillar structure and does not delay the outcome of the Conference.

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

    The European Council reaffirms its commitment to maintain and develop the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice by putting to full use all of the instruments provided for in the Treaty on European Union.

    1. Fight against drugs

    The European Council welcomes the report from the Council on the substantial progress made since its last meeting in Florence and endorses the proposals for action contained in this report.

    The European Council welcomes, as a concrete expression of a shared political will, the agreement which has been reached on a Joint Action on the approximation of the laws and practices of police, customs services and judicial authorities in the fight against drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking, and the resolutions on sentencing for serious drug trafficking offences, on combatting drug tourism and on drug production and cultivation. It also welcomes the adoption of the Programme for Community action on the prevention of drug dependence.

    The European Council stresses that this constitutes a first step and that the momentum achieved must be maintained and further developed on those bases, in particular through:

    – continued examination of further harmonisation of laws, insofar as an agreed need for it is identified, complemented by reinforced cooperation between the Institutions and the Member States. In this context, the particular dangers posed by synthetic drugs deserve special attention;

    – continued review of further cooperation between law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking;

    – full application of the Directive on money laundering and its possible extension to those relevant professions and bodies outside the classical financial sector;

    – development by the Council and the Commission of the contribution which research activities can make in addressing the medical, socio-economic and detection aspects of drug abuse;

    – energetic implementation of the action plan to combat drugs in the Caribbean, as well as the implementation of the agreed follow-up of the report by the expert mission to Latin America;

    – further development of the structured dialogue with the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe in regard to drugs issues; comparable cooperation with the Russian Federation, initiated during the current Presidency, should be pursued;

    – following a proposal by President Chirac and Prime Minister Major, to examine ways to assist Central Asian republics, utilizing the TACIS programme, to fight transit in and production of drugs.

    Cooperation with transatlantic partners in these fields has also to be continued and, where appropriate, improved.

    The European Council confirms the priority it attaches to sustained and coordinated action in the fight against drugs making full and coherent use of all the instruments of the Union.

    It invites the Council to draw up by the end of 1997 a first assessment of measures undertaken, with a view to strengthening and supplementing them.

    1. Fight against organized crime

    The European Council underlines its absolute determination to fight organized crime and, to this end, stresses the need for a coherent and coordinated approach by the Union.

    The European Council welcomes the report made by the Presidency on stepping up the fight against organized crime and decides to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work. The Group should examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. The high level group should complete its work by March/April 1997.

    In order to implement rapidly the measures proposed in the report made by the Presidency, the European Council asks the Council to reinforce its Secretariat, by setting up a team of specialized national experts and practitioners, seconded for a limited duration.

    As a practical step in combating international crime, the European Council urges the ratification at the earliest possible date of the Customs Information System, Fraud and Extradition Conventions and their Protocols, as well as, by the end of 1997, of the Europol Convention and its subsequent Protocol. It also highlights the importance of bringing to a rapid conclusion the convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

    The European Council urges the Council and the Commission to take effective and coherent action to address the abuse of new communications technologies, including the Internet.

    1. Sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings

    The European Council expresses its abhorrence at the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings and undertakes to take all necessary action to protect those most vulnerable in society. It welcomes the agreement on a joint action defining a common approach to offences against children and improving judicial cooperation. Other joint actions aimed at enhancing police cooperation by widening the competencies of the Europol Drugs Unit and creating centres of expertise in investigating such crimes were adopted. Community funds have been made available for fighting these odious crimes.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission to implement actively these instruments and to consider necessary further action.

    1. Fight against terrorism

    The European Council condemns unreservedly all terrorist attacks and continues to pay close attention to the threat posed by terrorism both internally and externally. For this reason the EU is working closely with other international partners and international organizations to review and update measures already adopted against this threat and adopt, where necessary, new measures. For this reason the Member States reiterate their will to cooperate closely on the matter; the European Council emphasizes the need to do so.

    1. Racism and Xenophobia

    The European Council welcomes the progress made since its meeting in Florence and calls on the Council to complete its work with a view to the speedy establishment of a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia which will have to work in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.

    1. External frontiers

    The European Council draws again attention to the need to resolve speedily the remaining questions regarding the draft Convention on crossing by persons of the External Frontiers of Member States of the European Union.

    1. ENLARGEMENT

    The Commission informed the European Council on its progress on the opinions and other reports related to enlargement as requested of it at Madrid. The European Council welcomes the assurance given by the Commission that these documents as well as the communication on the future financial framework of the Union will be available immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. It confirms the timetable for the enlargement process as set at its Madrid meeting. The European Council takes note of the Council’s report on the implementation of the pre­accession strategy in the second half of this year. It also notes the Commission’s endeavours to strengthen the present implementation of this strategy. Moreover it welcomes the Commission’s intention to present proposals for an overall reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy together with its opinions and other reports under preparation.

    VII. EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION

    The European Council adopted the declarations on Former Yugoslavia and the Middle East Peace Process at annex.

    RUSSIA

    The European Union expresses its solidarity with the Russian people as they implement their historic choice in favour of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy. The European Council reiterates the Union’s readiness to assist the Russian Federation in meeting the difficult challenges ahead, notably through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU/Russia Action Plan and by bringing Russia as soon as possible into the WTO and other international fora.

    The European Council warmly welcomes President Yeltsin’s important decision to withdraw all Russian troops from Chechnya and the recent agreement between Chechen leaders and the Russian Prime Minister. It notes the intention to hold elections in Chechnya on 27 January 1997. The European Council expresses its continuing support for the important work of the OSCE Assistance Group in Chechnya.

    UKRAINE

    The European Council welcomes the adoption by the Council of the Action Plan for Ukraine which demonstrates the importance which the Union attaches to its relations with Ukraine and its desire to develop closer cooperation in the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

    The European Council recalls its firm attachment to the implementation of the memorandum of understanding reached with Ukraine on the definitive closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power station by the year 2000. It welcomes the closure by the Ukrainian authorities of reactor number one as an important step in this direction.

    BELARUS

    The European Union is seriously concerned at developments in Belarus, in particular relating to the referendum on the new Constitution. The European Union wishes to see a Belarus committed to democratic principles, human rights and a market economy playing a full part in Europe. The European Council calls on the leadership of Belarus to re-establish full respect for internationally accepted democratic and constitutional principles and practices and hopes that the leadership will accept the Union’s proposal for a fact-finding mission. The absence of progress in these areas would have a negative impact on relations between Belarus and the European Union and on Union support for Belarus’s accession to the Council of Europe.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE

    The European Council believes that the Council of Europe has a crucial role in upholding human rights standards and supporting pluralist democracy.

    It sees advantage in using to the fullest, in cooperation with other international institutions, the expertise and mechanisms of the Council of Europe to advance these objectives. The summit meeting of the Organization, in 1997, will provide a significant opportunity to review the progress made in these areas.

    REGIONAL COOPERATION IN EUROPE

    The European Council notes the wider range of regional activities in Europe reaching from the Arctic to the Black Sea. In this context, the European Council welcomes the Commission’s report on the Central European Initiative presented in response to its request at Florence. It notes that the Commission will submit regular reports to the Council on these regional initiatives.

    MEDITERRANEAN

    The European Council reaffirms the high priority it attaches to the European Union’s Mediterranean dimension and expresses satisfaction at the significant and balanced developments in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership during the year since the adoption of the Barcelona Declaration.

    In the political and security partnership, work on the implementation of the principles of the Barcelona Declaration will continue, notably through the action plan, towards the adoption of a Union-Mediterranean charter.

    TURKEY

    The European Council reaffirms the importance it attaches to the further development of the EU’s relations with Turkey in both the economic and political fields. It notes with regret, however, that certain serious issues remain to be resolved in the relationship. The European Council welcomes the Turkish Government’s stated intention to take measures to improve the human rights situation. In the context of closer partnership with the European Union it emphasizes the need for the observance of the highest standards of human rights.

    The European Council invites the Presidency to continue its efforts following the Council’s declaration of 15 July 1996 to promote an acceptable solution to the situation in the Aegean area in accordance with established international norms and to pursue contacts with the Turkish Government with a view to an early Association Council.

    The European Council urges Turkey to use its influence to contribute to a solution in Cyprus in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

    EU-US RELATIONS

    The European Council notes that the EU-US Summit in Washington on 16 December will be the first anniversary of the adoption at Madrid of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan and expects it to be another milestone in EU-US relations. It welcomes the qualitative improvement which this represents in principle as well as in practice over the past year.

    The European Council reaffirms the objectives which it shares with the US in promoting human rights, democratic values and fundamental freedoms in parts of the world where these are inadequately observed, but also its conviction that such objectives should be pursued by means other than unilateral action at the expense of close partners with shared values.

    The European Council reaffirms the essential contribution which close EU-US partnership can make to international stability, security and prosperity and the importance in this context of the Transatlantic Dialogue in deepening and widening the EU-US relationship through solid cooperation between them.

    EU-CANADA RELATIONS

    The European Council welcomes agreement on the text of a Joint Declaration and an Action Plan, which will further enhance cooperation between EU and Canada in pursuit of common objectives and on the basis of deeply-held shared values.

    GREAT LAKES

    The European Council expresses grave concern about the continuing violence in the Great Lakes Region, not only in Eastern Zaire but also in Burundi. It welcomes the return of large numbers of refugees, but underlines the need to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the remaining refugees, and to initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. It recalls the considerable efforts undertaken by the EU to meet humanitarian needs. In the meantime, the continuing humanitarian emergency, particularly in Eastern Zaire, requires fast and decisive action by the international community. Underlining the need for a flexible approach in the light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground, the European Council agrees that the implications of these changes for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the establishment, for humanitarian purposes, of a temporary multinational force will need to be addressed rapidly. In this regard, the European Council restates the willingness of the European Union to contribute fully and urgently to these efforts, pursuant to the Joint Action of 22 November 1996, the associated Council Decision of the same date and the WEU Ministerial Declaration of 19 November 1996. It welcomes the Commission proposal for a strategic and comprehensive plan of action for EU assistance to the Great Lakes Region.

    The European Council welcomes the initiative of the regional leaders in seeking to resolve the problems in Eastern Zaire through dialogue. It hopes that, at the second Nairobi Summit of Heads of State of the Region on 16 December, they can build upon the principles already agreed by them, including the crucial importance of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Zaire, in pursuit of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Recognizing the importance of the electoral process in terms of the stability of the region, it reiterates the commitment of the Union to play its part in support of the successful completion of that process in Zaire by means of the Joint Action adopted on 11 November 1996 and looks forward to the latter’s early and urgent implementation.

    The European Council reiterates its view that the problems of the region as a whole can only be resolved by political means. The European Union will, in particular through its Special Envoy, continue to support the efforts of the regional leaders and to encourage dialogue between the different parties to conflict in the region. The European Council reaffirms its support for the early convening of an international conference under the joint auspices of the UN and the Organization of African Unity in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the crisis and thus bring about a peaceful, durable and comprehensive resolution of the conflicts in the region.

    EAST TIMOR

    The European Council welcomes the initiatives within the European Union aimed at improving the situation, living conditions and human rights of the East Timorese people. It reaffirms its support for all efforts which can contribute to a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution, which fully respects the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Timorese people in accordance with international law. It hopes that the talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary General will lead to substantial progress towards the resolution of the question of East Timor.

    CUBA

    The EU wishes to see progress towards a peaceful transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba, as well as economic policies calculated to bring about a sustainable recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The Common Position adopted by the Council on 2 December will be pursued through a result-oriented constructive dialogue. The EU will lend its support to progress towards democracy, including the possible negotiation of a cooperation agreement. Any agreement would, in accordance with EU practice, contain a suspension clause in the event of a serious breach of the human rights provisions.

    TRANSITION IN HONG KONG AND MACAO

    The European Council reiterated the European Union’s strong interest in the future peace and prosperity of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China to be created next July, and the European Union’s desire to do anything possible to contribute to a smooth transition. The European Union is committed to strong continuing relations with the SAR in the World Trade Organization and in all other matters where the SAR will enjoy autonomy under the Basic Law. The European Council underlined the European Union’s full support for the specific status of the SAR and its citizens in all respects, including their right to representative democratic institutions as already established The European Council requested the Commission to propose in due course during 1997 how best to ensure close economic cooperation.

    The European Council takes note of the positive way in which the transition process has been developing in Macao. It hopes that the implementation of the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration signed in 1987 will continue to contribute to the progress and social stability of the territory with a view to a smooth transfer of government in December 1999. It also hopes for the continuation of the respect for the fundamental principles of the Joint Declaration beyond that date.

    WTO

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the outcome of the first regular bi-annual WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Singapore on 9­13 December 1996 and at which the European Union demonstrated once again the importance it attaches to the multilateral trading system and the efficient operation of the WTO.

    The European Council expresses its satisfaction at the renewed impetus which the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore has given to the liberalisation of world trade. It particularly welcomes the broadening of the WTO work programme to encompass issues which the European Union had identified as priorities. It also welcomes the breakthrough on trade in information technology products and urges the fullest possible participation by third country partners in the final agreement to be reached by 15 March 1997. The European Council also welcomes the continued momentum towards a successful conclusion of the negotiations on basic telecommunications in February 1997.

    The European Council welcomes the launch by the Commission of a new market access strategy and calls for enhanced and coordinated efforts by the Community and Member States to open up third country markets.

    With regard to the report on the evolution of the trade policies and preferential agreements of the Community, the European Council took note that the Council would finalize it in its February session with a view to presenting it at Amsterdam.

    VIII. SEATS OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES

    The European Council noted the progress which has been made in the implementation of its decision taken in Brussels in October 1993 on the location of Agencies and Offices. The Council endorsed the Commission’s decision of 10 December 1996 to arrange for the early transfer of the staff of the OICVP to Ireland initially and specifically thereafter to Grange, Co. Meath in premises to be made available at that location by the Irish authorities.

    The European Council urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required resources are made available to implement the Commission’s decision.

    The Council also notes the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 18 November 1996 as regards staffing of the OICVP and urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required staffing resources are made available to enable the Union to discharge its supervisory responsibilities.

    Addendum

    The European Council has noted the following reports from the Presidency/Council:

    – Council report on achievements in the field of Justice and Home Affairs

    – Presidency report on stepping up the fight against organized crime

    – SEM 2000 (sound financial management): Council Conclusions and report of the personal Representatives Group

    The European Council also noted the following reports from the European Commission:

    1. Europe as an Economic Entity
    2. The impact and effectiveness of the single market
    3. Putting services to work
    4. Europe at the forefront of the global information society
    5. The first action plan for innovation in Europe
    6. Europe’s place in the world: fourth report of the Ciampi group
    7. Trans-European Networks
    8. Better Lawmaking (report on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, on simplification and on consolidation)

     

  • 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 – 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.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland – 28 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the situation in Northern Ireland, made on 28th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Anglo-Irish summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.

    The Taoiseach and I met in Downing Street this afternoon and agreed a way forward set out in our communique, copies of which I hope by now will have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.

    First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism, and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of that ceasefire.

    Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored.

    Thirdly, we and the Irish Government will conduct further intense consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place. As the communique makes clear, the Irish Government can support an elective process that is broadly acceptable.

    Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10 June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored. Fifthly, we have agreed that, at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and to address also at the beginning of the negotiations Senator Mitchell’s proposals on decommissioning of weapons.

    I believe that these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach, to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will feel able to subscribe. No one will find in there all that he may have asked for; equally, no one need fear that his basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.

    The approach that the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still the detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have the framework and a time scale to address and to decide these matters.

    We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That, I must tell the House, is the position of the Irish Government as well.

    The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government, we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable. The second issue is the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again, there are strongly held views, although many believe that such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace. The third issue is the format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.

    We have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government for some time. I should have liked to be in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to be able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to be filled in.

    If I judge that it would be helpful, I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome. Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during that period, let me make it clear that, at the end of it, the Government will put forward to the House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced.

    These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgement of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make it clear that the process cannot be held up further if, in the end, there is still a complete lack of agreement.

    We are taking these decisions upon ourselves–together, where appropriate, with the Irish Government–because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.

    There is one other aspect of the communique that I should bring to the attention of the House–the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful democratic methods and rejection of violence.

    The Government will consider further with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum, but we will listen to the views of the parties, and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.

    Meanwhile, let there be no doubt on three points. The first is that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations themselves. Those who advocate violence, or who do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or the threat of its use by others, cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them.

    Senator Mitchell’s report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons, and makes proposals on how that can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.

    The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism or violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering thread of obfuscation and pretence about that.

    The third point is that the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments has never been better than it is at the moment. We will hunt down those responsible for the bombings and killings, and maintain security at whatever level is necessary to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business. The people of this country and of the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met, and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.

    The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9 February; but the Government said that we would not be deflected from our efforts, and we have not been. I am grateful for the support for our efforts that we have received from all parts of the House and across all parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and to bring a lasting peace. With the support of this House, I believe that we will succeed. But I must warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we in this House understand it.

    As we go through the process leading to the negotiations, and as we take the difficult decisions that lie ahead, concerns will be raised from this or that side, and this or that interest. We will take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective, because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. Their lives and their futures must be our first concern. I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and, ultimately, to a lasting and comprehensive peace.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 21 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with John Bruton, held in Dublin on Thursday 21st December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN BRUTON:

    The Prime Minister and I have had a very useful meeting. We reviewed the progress that has been made since the Downing Street communique. We are very pleased with the speed and application of the international body to its task and also the speed with which the preparatory meetings in the political tract have been put in place. We believe that every participant is showing commitment to making the process work.

    We had the opportunity here tonight to receive and approve a report from our officials on east-west cooperation. This covers cooperation between Britain and Ireland across the Irish Sea in the matter of joint planning of infrastructure, the development of science and technology, cooperation in the areas of health and education and broadcasting, a whole range of matters in which the two countries, both speaking the same language, both sharing much common history, have not cooperated as fully in the past as it would be mutually beneficial for both of us that we should and we are very happy that we have been able to commission this report, which we did at our meeting in Majorca; we have been able to receive it here today in Dublin and we now are looking forward to an intensive series of meetings between our respective members of government to put this into effect over the next year or so.

    In the course of the meeting, we also covered a number of European issues. We discussed the intergovernmental conference, we discussed the question of economic and monetary union, we looked at a number of the foreign policy challenges facing the European Union, the positions in Bosnia and Russia were also touched upon or will be touched upon later on in our further discussions.

    It was a meeting that was very useful from an Anglo-Irish point of view but certainly from my point of view I found it extremely useful in terms of the preparation that is to be done for the Irish Presidency of the European Union commencing in the middle of next year where obviously Britain is a very important player and it is very important for us to understand British thinking on the whole range of issues that are coming before Europe in that period and between now and then.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    There is very little to add. Let me confirm that I found it a very useful and very enjoyable meeting as our meetings have tended to be over the years.

    As far as the substance is concerned, I would like to say a word about the work that has been done about the Anglo-Irish relationship generally by our officials over the last few weeks.

    We have produced a more comprehensive examination of the Anglo-Irish relationship than I think there has possibly been at any stage in the past. We are close neighbours and yet over the years the relationship has not taken a fraction of the opportunities that it could have done. I find that almost inexplicable in logic. I think the reason for that is locked in history. It ought to remain in history and we ought to take advantage of the bilateral opportunities that occur and I think the work that we put in hand will begin that process. Certainly, both the Taoiseach and I expect a significant increase in bilateral exchanges and bilateral examinations of matters interest and I think that can only be good for two nations that have many interests in common; there are areas where we will perhaps even differ from time to time but there are many areas where we won’t and I think the work that has been done will assume greater importance when people begin to examine it over the months and years ahead.

    Let me confirm what the Taoiseach has said about the start that has been made by the international body. They have had a number of meetings already, they have behaved very impressively from the point of view of the participants who have reported to me on their discussions; they will continue with their work; what they have finished, I look forward to reviewing the outcome with the Taoiseach and I very much hope we can take matters forward.

    I spent the morning in Northern Ireland visiting Nationalist communities and Loyalist communities and what strikes me yet again is the universal feeling across the communities that they do not want any of the troubles to reoccur. There is a passionate commitment amongst the people you meet on the streets to ensure that this process can be carried forward. I find that immensely refreshing because in my judgement the biggest single impetus towards peace in the last few years has been the very effective demand for it from the people who suffered so many difficulties for so long so I was glad to see that that feeling was as deeply entrenched this morning as I have found it on every previous occasion I have been to Northern Ireland.

    The Taoiseach has set out the other matters we discussed. I won’t elaborate upon that except to say that I too found them extremely useful. The Irish Presidency of the European Union will come at an important time, a difficult time. It will be a very full time job to manage that as well as Ireland. We had a very useful series of exchanges and I hope we can have more before the Presidency begins.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    [Questions mostly inaudible]

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to potential disagreements over the Washington Three and other plans]

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    We both agreed that this is a matter that can be discussed in the political track and we encourage discussion not only of this idea but of other ideas that may be put forward to ensure that we, on an agreed and understood basis, can get all the relevant people talking to one another.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is not the case that it is a bilateral government difference as you expressed it just a moment or so ago. If I might elaborate the point, as far as decommissioning is concerned, the key point is that what we are both seeking is to get all the parties sitting down together. Without that, it is extremely difficult to see how the parties will sit down together and I seem to recall seeing an opinion poll I think here in the Republic saying that the vast majority of people in the Republic – I think 75/76% of the people – felt that some decommissioning should start immediately so I think there is a widespread view that that would be desirable.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to the Taunista’s comments on a seriously flawed idea]

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I read very carefully what the Taunista said and I notice he described some of the details in that fashion. I don’t think he felt that the idea of using that as a forum from which there might be negotiators produced is seriously flawed but at the end of the day, it is going to be a matter that is going to have to be examined by the parties and is being examined by the parties, all of them I hope, and I think people who don’t examine it would perhaps be closing off an option for proceeding that an increasing number of people find attractive.

    Of course, a whole Assembly can’t of itself negotiate and I think that was the point that Mr. Spring was making yesterday but from that, many options may themselves be delivered and I very much hope that would be the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to a small body chosen from an elected body, and what is meant by that?]

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It could be either. It is not for me to determine, it is not for me to impose. If these agreements are going to be reached it has to spring out of the discussions – forgive me no pun intended! It has to come out of the discussions that people are reaching. The point I made about everyone meeting together works both ways and it would also apply to whatever agreements were reached on that front.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Let us hope we don’t have to.

    QUESTION:

    Yesterday, the parole board in Britain decided not to allow two prisoners who are serving 20 years to apply for parole, one who had been arrested while only 17 years old, Paul Nauny. I am not asking you to comment on this particular case because that would not be sensible but are you satisfied that the British establishment is showing enough sensitivity of the prisoners’ issues?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is a sensitive issue here in the Republic, it is a sensitive issue in the United Kingdom as well. There have been discussions between the two governments and I think both of us realise the sensitivity in the other country. I hope we can reach a satisfactory way forward in a number of cases but I am not going to comment on any individual one.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] view expressed earlier today that it would be a fiction to see Sinn Fein and the IRA as separate organisations and whether the recent killings made you think on the British line that there should be some hand-over of guns before talks rather than afterwards?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    It is a fact of history that Sinn Fein’s ability to persuade the IRA to cease violence was a very important factor which has enabled us to have more than a year and a half without violence. It is also a fact that Sinn Fein has stated that they will speak authoritatively to the Commission on the matter of IRA weapons and on other matters concerning weapons but not on every other question but it is also a fact equally that Sinn Fein is a political party whereas the IRA is an illegal organisation.

    As far as the Irish Government is concerned, we deplore the killings that occurred in Belfast in recent times. We are not in a position to make any judgement as to where organisational responsibility for those barbarities rests but we do see these developments as an attempt to enforce control on an unaccountable basis in a particular area of a city where people who are not elected by anybody or accountable to anybody in any way enforce their law through punishment procedures of one kind or another. We believe that that is not consonant with any understood principle of civil rights or of freedom or of any of the democratic principles which we in this country and all political movements in this country hold dear and that is why, apart from the individual tragedy that is represented by these killings, it is for these wider reasons that we condemn then so strongly and both the Prime Minister and I discussed this here today. We joined together in condemning these appalling barbarities and we want them to stop.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, are both governments satisfied with the extent to which the Ulster Unionists have engaged the political track of the twin-track process?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think at this early stage in the process it is very premature to make any judgements about the contribution of any political party. Obviously, we are talking about long-held views and widely divergent views and we are talking about a very tight time frame within which we are asking these parties to come closer together in their views and after the first round of meetings, it would obviously be very surprising if agreement had been reached but we believe that all of the parties are approaching these discussions in a serious and workmanlike way and for that reason we are very hopeful of the outcome.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is only a few weeks ago that people were saying the parties wouldn’t enter into any talks, that this twin-track process wouldn’t start; it is not all that long ago that people said there wouldn’t be a framework document or there wouldn’t be a Joint Declaration.

    What people need to do occasionally I think is to stand back and see where we were and where we are and I think if you do that you see the grounds for hope. Those people who think we are suddenly going to rub our eyes one morning and it will all have gone away and it will all be settled I think are deluding themselves. We are making steady progress, we will continue to make steady progress, it will often require painstaking work but that work is being done and I am very grateful for the cooperation we have had from the Irish Government over many years on that work. It is proceeding and I don’t think people ought to look at a particular incident, a particular setback, a particular problem that may sometimes occur and overlook the wider progress that has been made because it has been quite remarkable.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, you commended the international decommissioning body for the impressive manner – to use your words – in which it is conducting its work. Will you accept its findings?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Its remit is quite clear. We have said we will examine its findings. It is an advisory body, it is not a body that it going to tell either the Irish Government or the British Government what to do, that is not its remit. Its remit is to produce its report in accordance with its mandate and then to advise us as to what it thinks. We will then examine it and we will discuss with the Irish Government what we think is the right way forward. It is not for them to impose anything upon us, it is for them to advise and for us to determine.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Irish Prime Minister – 28 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr John Bruton, held in London on Tuesday 28th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I first welcome you all here this evening. I am sorry this press conference is so late, but having reached the agreement we thought it prudent, before odd bits of it appeared out in public, to let you see the full text of the agreement we have reached and to answer any questions you may have.

    Can I first this evening thank the Taoiseach and his colleagues for coming over here, at such short notice, to launch the twin track initiative. If I can say so to the Taoiseach, I think it typifies his personal and, in my judgment, very courageous commitment to the success of the peace process.

    The Taoiseach and I first discussed the ideas which led to this initiative at Cannes towards the end of June. Work on it was carried forward by the Tanaste, Dick Spring, by Paddy Mayhew at the Northern Ireland Office, by officials of their departments and also by the Department of Justice in Dublin.

    I think as most of you know, reaching this agreement has been neither easy nor quick. In fact it has been an extremely difficult agreement to reach. But for both of us, I think John would agree with me about this, the most important thing has been to reach the right agreement, an agreement that in our judgment is going to generate further momentum in the peace process and help us address some of the difficult issues that lie ahead. That, we think, is the way to take us closer to negotiations on a lasting settlement involving all the political parties.

    The communique, which I hope by now you have seen, speaks for itself. I would just like to make a very few points about it.

    First, launching this initiative has been a truly joint exercise between our two governments, two governments whose work together has been a vital ingredient of the dramatic improvement of life in Northern Ireland over the last 15 months or so.

    Secondly, we intend to go on working together in that joint belief, and in the spirit of friendship which has carried us through a number of difficult negotiations throughout the last three years.

    The next point I want to make is simply this. In preparing this initiative we have both consulted very widely. This initiative does not represent the view of any one party, it is founded on the principles of the Downing Street Declaration and it does not cut across any of those positions of principle. We hope that this agreement we have reached will attract the widest possible cooperation on the part of everyone who genuinely wishes to consolidate peace in Northern Ireland.

    Let me also say that we appreciate the support that we have received from other governments. It is our two governments – the British and the Irish government – that carry the responsibility for this initiative and it is we who will have to make the decisions on the recommendations of the international body in due course.

    The international body will have three members. They will serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of the government of their country, and their recommendations to the Taoiseach and to me will be advisory recommendations. I am extremely grateful to Senator George Mitchell who has agreed to chair the committee, and also to the government of the United States for supporting his nomination. We are approaching through their governments two other eminent people from other countries to serve with Senator Mitchell and we hope to be able to announce their names very shortly indeed.

    It is now almost 15 months since the first of the two ceasefires in Northern Ireland. A great deal of progress has been made. But there are still very many problems to be resolved in Northern Ireland. Guns and explosives thankfully are not being used, but they have not yet been finally put away. There are almost daily episodes of violence and intimidation by paramilitary organisations which are far from the exclusively peaceful methods that we are seeking to engender in a truly democratic society. There is a great deal yet to be done to establish the level of accountability and responsibility which Northern Ireland would normally expect in running its own affairs.

    But we are now approaching a second successful peaceful Christmas throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. And it is I think beyond question that life in Northern Ireland has been transformed and that the people of Northern Ireland want both a just and a permanent peace. What they seek is a peace in which all parties and all people, irrespective of their denomination, can play a proper part.

    This initiative that we are launching this evening is about generating the confidence which will help us to achieve that lasting peace, the confidence that every party is committed exclusively to peaceful means and that the threat of violence can be relegated to the past, the confidence that the political parties can begin to find a way of working together and a basis which all of them can accept for constitutional negotiations.

    No-one, no-one, is being asked to abandon a principle. But if we are to reach agreement and carry this process further forward, everyone will need courage to take risks in the search for peace and I hope that they will be prepared to do so.

    The twin track initiative will undoubtedly test their readiness to do so. The Taoiseach and I will do all that we can to lead it to success, but achieving its goals will depend ultimately not only upon us but upon the parties and the organisations to whom it is addressed. I very much hope that they will respond to it and that they will receive the support of their communities in doing so.

    MR BRUTON:

    I am very pleased that we are able this evening to launch the twin track process. This is a process designed to lead, by the end of February, to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland. And the aim of those all-party negotiations is to reach an agreement which would involve the support of all the people in Northern Ireland, an agreement which will underpin the peace that people enjoy on a daily basis now in Northern Ireland.

    It is quite clear that there is a tremendous well of generosity amongst the people of Northern Ireland in the way that they relate to one another in their daily lives. Equally there is a tremendous generosity of spirit felt between north and south and between Britain and Ireland.

    What we need now is to move towards political structures that will give political expression to the feelings of the people, feelings which are expressed in terms of a yearning for peace, a yearning for reconciliation and a yearning for a way of life that entrenches mutual respect, that creates conditions in which both traditions within Northern Ireland will feel equally at home in their place of living and with one another.

    The very important message from this evening’s announcement is that we are now taking the steps necessary to restore momentum in the peace process. We are setting out on a road which is designed to overcome the difficulties that have prevented us up to now from setting a date by which we will be aiming to commence all-party discussions.

    Neither government, nor any of the parties, are being asked or expected at this point to move away from sincerely held views. What we are, however, doing is agreeing on a basis upon which we can move to resolve such difficulties as may have stood in the way of progress in the past. I would like to stress in particular, in regard to the international body, that it will, as paragraph 5 of the communique makes clear, be making an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. It will furthermore be consulting very widely on the matter and it will be receiving submissions from all of the relevant parties. And no limit has been set on the subject matter of those submissions.

    Of course the governments in the final analysis will be the bodies that will be making the decisions, but we are very grateful for the fact that we have been enabled to enlist such distinguished international assistance in overcoming problems that are there.

    Furthermore, I want to stress that the political track has, in the words of the communique, a very detailed and pro-active mandate. There is an open agenda, there will be detailed discussions with the parties in the fashion described to set in detail the preparations in place for the talks which it is our aim to be able to start by the end of February.

    I wish, in conclusion, to express my thanks to the Prime Minister, to John Major, for the enormous amount of time that he has devoted to overcoming these difficulties, difficulties which we identified at Cannes and towards the resolution of which we have been working resolutely ever since.

    I would like also, if I may, at a personal level to express my thanks to all of those who have assisted us in our work – the Tanaste, to the officials on the Irish and British sides, who have worked many long hours and spent very many sleepless nights overcoming the difficulties which have now been overcome and which have enabled us to have this important announcement today.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where do we stand on Washington Three? Is it an absolute pre-condition for Sinn Fein’s entry into all-party talks that the IRA makes a first physical handover of weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, we haven’t changed our position on Washington Three. Let me try and make the point clear so there is no misunderstanding. We won’t be asking the international body, the decommissioning body, to question our position on the Washington Three criterions. The international body was not established for that purpose, it wasn’t established to make recommendations on when decommissioning should start. That is properly a matter for discussion in the preparatory talks and for a government decision, as the communique says. But the British government’s position on Washington Three has not changed. It is not a matter of anything other than practicalities. The end product of what we seek to do is to provide a mechanism by which we can move into all-party talks in due course. Until we are able to re-engender the confidence of people to do so, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration when we started upon this long road some time ago, we can’t actually move into those talks. And we see no other way, other than the physical beginning of decommissioning by Sinn Fein – that was our position and it remains our position.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, are you confident you have the support of Sinn Fein for this agreement and how does it differ from the agreement which seemed to be so near to signing in September which they appeared unable to accept?

    MR BRUTON:

    The agreement here is much more detailed. First of all its makes very clear that insofar as the decommissioning issue is concerned that the international body will be making a thoroughly independent assessment of this matter. And I want to emphasise that the body will be independent in the way in which it will assess this matter, it will be independent in the procedures that it will follow, and furthermore I particularly welcome the fact that both governments have agreed that they will consider constructively any practicable suggestion that could help bring all parties into negotiations on the basis of the Downing Street Declaration. I think that is a very important statement. Just as the British government have not changed their view on Washington Three, the Irish government has not changed its view either. It is, as I said in my opening remarks, a situation in which we have a different view on this matter. And what we have set in place here is a process by which we can move forward. I am not asking the Prime Minister on this occasion to change his opinion, nor is he asking me to change mine. What we have agreed upon, however, is a process whereby we can move forward and listen to all the views that are expressed.

    And what we have further both agreed together is that we will consider constructively any practicable suggestions that may be made, in any context, that will help to bring the parties together. This is a process aimed at solving a problem, overcoming and transcending an impasse and I believe if it is to work it must be approached in that way, as a process, not as something whereby all answers to all questions can be answered before the process has even started.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Could I ask the Taoiseach if the British Government continues to maintain its belief in “Washington Three”, does he see any prospect of Sinn Fein being involved in those substantive all-party talks for which the target is the end of February?

    1. BRUTON:

    As you can see, the purpose of the international body is to examine in an independent way the decommissioning issue, which is one of the issues that has obviously, as we know, been a problem but equally, we are agreed upon an intensive preparatory talks phase which will run in parallel with the work of the international body.

    It is our hope that all of the parties participating in that preparatory phase will recognise first of all that it is in their best interests that there be a process that anchors the peace that they now enjoy through making political progress and that furthermore the parties themselves will see in the preparatory talks phase an opportunity to offer comfort and reassurance to other parties who may be fearful of their intentions. unless there is that spirit of generosity in the approach to both of these tracks by all of the parties, the processes that the Governments have put in place will not achieve their potential.

    What the Governments can and are doing is putting in place a sophisticated, carefully worked-out twin-track approach which allows a framework within which the parties can offer one another the sort of assurance that is needed for the ultimate talks process to be a success but unless there is that willingness on the part of the parties themselves to operate this opportunity in a generous way, the Governments will not be able to achieve the progress that they wish to achieve with the agreement of the parties concerned.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you expect the actual process of decommissioning to have started in the period between the body submitting its report in mid-January and the end of February target date by which you want to see all-party talks launched?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position has always been the same from the moment that we launched the Downing Street Declaration. The reality that we face is that there is not going to be sufficient confidence for all the parties to sit down and talk together in our judgement unless there is a beginning to the process of decommissioning. That has not changed as a position.

    Nobody is in a position to compel any of the democratic political parties to attend those talks; they will make their own decisions and it is perfectly clear to us that they will not all be attending those talks unless there is that process at the beginning of decommissioning unless something wholly unexpected happens. We have not found another way of building that confidence but that confidence needs to be built. No-one has yet found an alternative method of building it other than the physical start of decommissioning so that is why we regard it as a practical necessity. It is not a question of boxing anyone into a corner, it is a question of a practical necessity if we wish this process to continue.

    As the Taoiseach indicated a moment ago, what we are doing is creating a momentum and this is a very finely-balanced series of decisions that are being taken in this communique that the Taoiseach and I have reached with the commission – the international body – on the one hand looking at whether there is a will to decommission and how physically to decommission and then a range of political talks in the preparatory political track process but before the process proper can start we have set a target date and whether that target date can be met depends on the parties as much as us. We will do what we can to meet that date but it cannot be met unless a sufficient momentum and sufficient confidence is built up for all the parties to be prepared to come and sit down together.

    1. BRUTON:

    I would like to add that, as the Prime Minister stated his position and the position of his Government very clearly, it is the position of my Government that a physical gesture decommissioning of arms in advance of talks while undoubtedly desirable is not an attainable objective.

    That is our position at this stage. However, like the British Government, we are willing to listen constructively to that is said by all in both of the tracks of the discussion. We are willing to listen to what is said.

    I also would like to express the hope that the work that will be done before the commission in regard to identifying a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning and also the indication that will be given to the commission by the parties associated with those who have held arms that they will work constructively to achieve a full decommissioning of arms, that that process will in itself help increase the level of confidence that is felt by those who were previously threatened by those arms in a way that will overcome this impasse.

    We have not come here today to pretend that there are no differences between us or between the parties. What we have come here to do is most emphatically to launch a process with the firm momentum and backing of both Governments which is designed to overcome those difficulties. I see no purpose whatsoever in trying to pretend that difficulties and differences do not exist; they do exist, they exist even between the Prime Minister and myself in our assessment of one particular small part of this problem but what is much more important is that in regard to the much more important issue, which is getting all-party talks started, intensively working to prepare for those talks, seeking in a confidence-building way to overcome the remaining obstacles to the participation of all the parties in those talks, on those more important matters we are entirely united.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Indeed, if it were not for those difficulties and those differences, no doubt we would have cracked this problem some years ago.

    QUESTION (John Pienaar, BBC):

    In your fundamental views on this question, are you not adopting entirely contradictory interpretations of the remit of the commission in that Prime Minister Major takes the view it is no part of the work of that commission to consider whether by the beginning of decommissioning there should be a precondition for political talks and the Taoiseach holds to the view that that need not be a stumbling block? Whose interpretation should Sinn Fein believe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are misinterpreting what the Taoiseach said.

    1. BRUTON:

    Could I offer you as an answer to your question the text of the communique. I would invite you to read paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and you will see there very clearly an answer and I would like to start with paragraph 5.

    Paragraph 5 says that the two Governments have agreed to establish an international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. That is the governing paragraph- that sets out clearly the issue. It is absolutely plain that the commission will establish its own procedures, that people making submissions to the commission will be able to make submissions on any matter that is relevant in their view but equally, the Prime Minister has made the position of his Government in regard to one aspect of the matter quite clear. I have made my position clear. What this process is about is problem-solving. We haven’t solved the problem. Now we are putting in place a process the aim of which is to solve the problem.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And paragraph 7 is quite explicit as well, John, if you read it.

    QUESTION (John Reid – RTE):

    Taoiseach, Gerry Adams said on RTE tonight that he was of briefed on the contents of the joint communique. Is that the base and are you worried that he might say no?

    1. BRUTON:

    The position is that this is an agreement between the Irish and British Governments. We have been negotiating very intensively on this matter up until the time that we reached final agreement which was I think at approximately 8 o’clock and obviously while we have been consulting the Irish Government has been consulting with all of the parties in varying degrees of intensity including consulting with Sinn Fein. The only people with whom we have been consulting in full in terms of every aspect of the matter has of course been the people with whom we are reaching the agreement, namely the British Government.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made the point earlier that everyone is going to have to have some courage if we are going to be able to move forward. That includes Mr. Adams, I hope he will show it.

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

    Prime Minister and Taoiseach, given the timing of this announcement and the fact that it has not looked throughout the last few days as though you would reach this conclusion today, has the US Administration been involved in any way in using its good offices to achieve an agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can tell you we have had no pressure whatsoever from the United States Administration to reach an agreement, none whatsoever.

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

    If I might respectfully say so, that doesn’t quite answer my question. Have they been involved in discussions, for example, with the Irish Government or leaders of nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not with us.

    1. BRUTON:

    I might say that I did have a conversation with President Clinton last week. Personally, I would wish to express my appreciation of the interest that the US Administration has shown in the Peace process generally but I would also stress that this is an agreement that has been reached between our two Governments.

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    May I ask the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach if neither Government has changed its position fundamentally and if the United States Administration has had really little bearing on the outcome of your talks today and over recent weeks, why is it that you feel it possible to publish this communique tonight when you weren’t able to publish it yesterday. What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We agreed it today. It is quite difficult to publish before you have agreed it.

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As of last night, we had five or six points outstanding. We reached agreement on those points during the course of the discussions the Taoiseach and I had this morning, this afternoon, this evening and in the series of discussions that our officials have had after reference to us throughout the day.

    There has been intensive work on this on and off for ten days, very intensive work. Throughout the whole of Friday our officials were meeting with constant reference to us, throughout the whole of Saturday – there was more golf wrecked over the weekend than there normally is on these occasions – and a great many discussions between the Taoiseach and I over the last few days.

    1. BRUTON:

    We have done wonders for the revenue of the Tele [indistinct] and British Telecom!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have gradually whittled away the points of difference that existed. There has been a will to reach agreement for a long time. Gradually we have moved towards it. As you get closer to it, a momentum builds and we were keen to build on that momentum and reached an agreement at around 8 o’clock this evening.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – SKY NEWS):

    Can I ask you both separately where you place the Irish and British security forces in this political equation of arms silenced by the cease-fire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are not there. These are not the arms we are talking about. These are the paramilitary arms that we are talking about in this. The arms of the Irish Government and the British Government are the arms borne by legitimate nation states, they are not subject to negotiation.

    1. BRUTON:

    That is my position too. We have, however, emphasised paragraph 9 of the communique that both Irish and British Governments reaffirm their willingness to continue to take responsive measures advised by their respective security authorities as the threat of armed activity from other sources reduces. That draws a clear distinction which I think is very important and one that I have drawn on many occasions in the Dail and elsewhere between the arms held in Ireland by legitimately authorised authorities and other arms.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is an entirely agreed position between us and has been throughout.

    If I could just add to that point, over the last year or so, because of the changed security situation in Northern Ireland and as a result of advice from the GOC and the Chief Constable, we have been able to reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland but that has been solely as a result of the changed security needs in Northern Ireland and the military advice that we have I received from the Commanding Officer there.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Could I ask both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister whither they think that the agreement they have now reached will succeed in averting the threat of a resumption of violence and their assessment of how close we were to a resumption of violence without it?

    1. BRUTON:

    My view is that what we are doing here is setting in place a path towards a political process of negotiation that will solve the underlying problem. This approach on our part has not been motivated by any fear of imminent resumption of violence.

    As far as the Irish Government is concerned, we have had solemn statements made by myself and by my predecessor in conjunction with the leader of the SDLP and the leader of Sinn Fein in which Sinn Fein very clearly commits itself to exclusively democratic methods of political action. Those declarations which I have placed my faith in clearly exclude any support on the part of Sinn Fein for a resumption of violence associated with their political objectives.

    It is very important for people to look clearly at the texts that Gerry Adams signed in conjunction with myself and John Hume on that matter. Those texts clearly exclude any possibility of support on their part for a return to violence and I want to make it clear that we have been proceeding in all that we are doing here and elsewhere on the assumption that those solemn declarations are sincere and mean what they say. If any other assumption were the case, we would not be proceeding as we are proceeding and that is why, because of that assumption, we have put so much effort into getting Sinn Fein into political talks. The whole objective of this process is to create conditions in which all of the parties, including Sinn Fein, can sit around the table and work for their future but that is on the assumption that I have just made about their intentions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Neither the Taoiseach nor I were affected in the slightest in our discussions and our negotiations by the threat of a return to violence; that was not a motivating factor in any way in the agreement that we reached.

    There have been the occasional hawkish noises made over the last few weeks, it is difficult to determine whether they were genuine or whether they were part of a negotiating pattern but in any event it did not affect the discussions we had or the agreement that we have reached.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, isn’t it time now to meet Gerry Adams?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION (Same Man):

    Why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For the same reason I have given in the past. In due course the time will come. It is not here yet.

    When Mr. Adams and Sinn Fein and the IRA begin the decommissioning of their arms, then a different set of circumstances will apply but that hasn’t been reached yet. I look forward to the day when it does.