Interview with John Major




 
 
 
................................................................................
 
                                 ON THE RECORD 
                                                    
                                                            
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1                                 DATE:  8.12.96
................................................................................
 
JOHN HUMPHRYS:                         Good afternoon. I am in Huntingdon at 
the home of the Prime Minister.  The Government is in crisis and I shall be 
talking to John Major.   That's fifty minutes with the Prime Minister, ON THE 
RECORD, after the News read by CHRIS LOWE.   
 
NEWS 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              The Government has had what may be its 
worst week since Mr Major took over from Margaret Thatcher six years ago.  The 
Prime Minister has lost his majority in the House of  Commons and his 
backbenchers have been at each others throats and at his over Europe and some 
have been baying for Cabinet blood.  And all this with the General Election at 
most only five months away.   
 
                                       I am with the Prime Minister now at his 
home in Huntingdon. 
 
                                       Prime Minister, I'd like to cover lots 
in this interview, including the economy and Northern Ireland; the state of 
your own Party; but, let's start with Europe because that, clearly, is at the 
heart of your problems.  
 
                                       What you are asking your Party to accept 
is that Britain should, perhaps, at some stage, go into a Single European 
Currency.  Now, that is plainly unacceptable to many of them.  Haven't you got 
to change your mind? 
 
JOHN MAJOR PM:                         What I'm asking everyone to accept - not 
just my Party - what I'm asking the whole country to accept is that the 
decisions that lie ahead on Europe - a Single Currency, but not only a Single 
Currency - the decisions in the Inter-Governmental Conference are very 
important too - are decisions that are critical to our own national interest.  
 
                                       Whether we go into a Single Currency, or 
whether we stay out of it, it is going to affect the United Kingdom in a whole 
series of ways - very significant ways - that will impact upon our livelihood.  
Now, I believe, it is in the national interest for the British Government to be 
in there negotiating.  And, I have to say to people: I do not know what I would 
say to the people of this country; people in the City, the farmer, the 
businessman; if I said, at this stage: I'm going to opt out of negotiations and 
I will not be in the negotiations to protect your interests.  If I did that, I 
think, you would ask me why are you Prime Minister?  Why aren't you there 
protecting British interests?  Well, I intend to stay there. 
                                        
HUMPHRYS:                              But, that's a question of keeping the 
opt-out.  What I'm really asking you about, at the moment, is whether you 
shouldn't say: Look, the Single European Currency is, as we speak, developing 
into a flawed system - a clearly, flawed system - because of fudged criteria 
and all the rest of it.  Therefore, it is not in Britain's interest to go in as 
it stands? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, let us take your premise.  
Certainly, a number of other countries are moving towards a Single Currency.  
Some of them for their own reasons are very enthusiastic about it.  For some of 
them, it certainly makes undeniable sense.  There's a great head of steam 
behind it.  All that is absolutely true.  You say they're looking at a flawed 
way of going in and by that I assume you mean that they will- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              'Fudging the criteria' and all the rest 
of it.  
 
MAJOR:                                 They-Well, the criteria is a jargon.  
Fudging the economic circumstances that would make it prudent to go into a 
Single Currency.   
 
                                       Well, let me take that proposition.  Let 
us assume that is what they are doing.  If they are fudging the criteria, then, 
there would be no question of the United Kingdom joining - no question at all.  
We established those criteria.  We have no intention of going into a flawed 
economic and monetary union.  That would be absurd.  But, let me take a second 
point, then.  
 
                                       If, they are fudging it, should we, 
therefore, say: now, we'll have nothing to do with it?  Well, I don't believe 
that we should.  And, I will tell you exactly why I don't believe that we 
should.  If they are fudging the criteria and they, then, set up a European 
monetary system that is weak that will have a very, damaging effect upon the 
United Kingdom.  We need to be in those negotiations, arguing against a fudge, 
voting against a fudge, seeking to prevent countries that are not ready to go 
into a Single Currency from going into a Single Currency.  
 
                                       But, giving ourselves a Red Card now and 
fleeing the field, when the game's still to be played, seems to me to be a 
dereliction of responsibility.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But, many of your critics would say, 
critics of that argument, would say: the game is being played - yes - but the 
other side is cheating in such a way that, clearly, the outcome isn't going to 
be acceptable to us?  And, that is already happening. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well - Well, if the outcome isn't 
acceptable to us we, uniquely, have an opt-out.  We can decide to go in or we 
can decide to go out.  But, if they're cheating, what should I do?  Do my 
critics say I should stand aside and let them cheat, without playing any part 
in the negotiations at all?  Where is the logic in that?   
 
                                       If they are seeking to bend the economic 
criteria and move towards a weak currency - if that is what our critics say is 
happening - then, my critics ought to be saying to me: You get in there and 
stop them.  Not stand aside and let them go ahead and do it.  Suppose they did, 
suppose they did bend the criteria and enter into a Single European Currency, 
with Britain not in it - that was a weak European currency.  What would be the 
impact of that?  Well, one obvious impact is the danger of instability right 
across Europe, right across our principle export markets.  Is that any good to 
British industry and commerce?  Is that any good for the City?  I think not. 
 
                                       Is it any good either that if that's a 
weak currency, that the world's floating money, then, moves to Europe to the 
strong currencies - to the Swiss Franc, perhaps, and to Sterling - pushing up 
the exchange value of Sterling and the Swiss Franc to ridiculously high levels 
and making us uncompetitive.  Now, I think, our critics should just think 
through what this means.  I cannot imagine, I cannot conceive of a Conservative 
Party or any Government actually saying that the right thing to do, for the 
United Kingdom - one of the great nations of Europe - is to stand aside when 
one of the most important decisions for Europe remains to be taken. 
 
                                       And, when the arguments about that 
decison remain to be had.  I do not understand the logic of that.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, the logic of it is that these 
economic criteria - these financial criteria - are already being fudged.  We've 
seen what the French have done - the French Telecom pension funds.  The French 
Government has, basically, pinched the funds and said: Right, we've cut our 
Government borrowing at a stroke.  Now, there's a bit of fiddling going on 
there for a start, isn't it?  The Italians have done various things, the 
Spanish have done various things and some of those things will affect the 
decision that has to be taken in some months' time, in a year's time, maybe, if 
you want to look that far ahead.  But, it's already affecting the situation 
today to such an extent that you, really, have little choice - they say - but 
to say: We cannot conceivably go in, in the first wave.  Perhaps, things will 
change later - perhaps.  But, we cannot go in, in the first wave because of 
what is already going on, at the moment.   
 
MAJOR:                                 But, you absolutely make my point.  If 
they're fudging the criteria we don't yet know.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, we do know that the French have 
been- 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well some of the decisions look odd but 
we haven't yet reached a decision as to whether the criteria can be met or not, 
that's the decision that lies ahead of us.  But, if when the time comes they 
fudge the criteria then I need to be at the table to argue against that.  I 
need to be at the table to vote against those countries going into a Single 
European Currency.  What authority would I have at that table if I decided at 
this stage, when this important debate is going on, when my critics say other 
people are cheating, if I said I'm not going to be there to try and prevent 
them cheating.   I don't think we should do that. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But the cheating is already happening. 
In that case ought you not to be saying, look: France for instance, come on you 
can't be in it, the whole thing... 
 
MAJOR:                                 I have been saying for weeks.  I mean I 
noticed what this morning's papers are saying about the criteria.  I have been 
saying for weeks, months, years in fact, that the criteria are the most 
critical element of it all.  I wrote it, very clearly in The Times, some weeks 
ago, that nobody must fudge the criteria.  If they do fudge the criteria we 
will try and stop them doing anything that will be damaging to Europe and 
damaging to the United Kingdom but I can't stop them from outside the 
negotiations.   I can't stop them if I've no influence in the negotiations.  
And the whole essence of this argument is that given this is the most important 
peace time decision Europe has taken, I can think of nothing comparable to it, 
nothing comparable to it in its importance and in its potential impact.  I ask 
again the question, should Britain, one of the great European nations, sideline 
itself from a decision that will be critical to us and critical to the whole of 
Europe.   We have uniquely, well not uniquely the Danes now have the option, we 
have the option of saying no to a Single Currency, even though we will probably 
meet the criteria, others don't have that option, I do, why rule myself out 
now.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So your objective is not just to say 
Britain may or may not go in clearly you've made that reasonably clear though 
we may come back to it, but if people are fiddling the figures, cooking the 
books, you will say, on behalf of Britain, this system ought not to go ahead, 
you will see it as Britain's responsibility to stop the system coming into 
being full stop.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Of course, of course.  And it's in the 
British national interest to do that, if they are cooking the books and I again 
enter the word - if - if when the time comes for decision the economic 
conditions are not right then this system would be a disaster if it proceeded 
and of course I will try and persuade my European colleagues not to proceed in 
those circumstances.  There's no advantage to Europe to have a European 
currency that is weak and that may not survive. No advantage at all.  We saw 
the fallout from the Exchange Rate Mechanism.  I don't just mean Sterling 
leading it, I mean when the Mechanism itself collapsed.  That will be a teddy 
bears' picnic compared to what would happen if a Single Currency collapsed. So 
of course if I think they are going into a unstable Single Currency I will try 
and stop it and so anyone should but I can't do that if I rule myself out of 
the discussions now.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And you would try to veto any single 
country going in if you thought it was cooking the books.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well we have to vote in due course upon 
which countries go into a Single European Currency.  Though that vote will be 
by qualified majority vote.  I think at the time if Britain thought a country 
was entering it without firstly having met the right economic conditions but 
crucially being in a position to sustain the right economic conditions.  No 
point in it all coming together for one single day if some countries and other 
countries are going in different directions. It needs to be a sustainable 
position, not just for the day upon which the decision is made but for good, 
but for good. Now we British have injected a dose of commonsense into this over 
the last few years, I think that dose of commonsense is needed and I don't 
intend to have it removed from the table. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And when you talk about it being 
sustainable persumably you're talking about other criteria being taken into 
account apart from those monetary financial things that we've already talked 
about, things like employment trends and rate of growth.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Push aside the jargon about criteria. 
What we really mean is whether we've got a whole series of economies that can 
broadly compete on an even level with... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And co-operate.   
 
MAJOR:                                 Both compete and co-operate with the 
same sort of inflation trends, the same sort of employment trends, the same 
sort of growth trends, the same sort of economic efficiency.  That is what 
we're looking for.  If you had a country in a Single European Currency that did 
not do that, that was a weak country that had just crept in because it met the 
criteria on day one, then it would become uncompetitive within that and you 
would get very large amounts of unemployment, structural unemployment on a very 
large scale in that particular country.  And what would happen then.  I know 
how the European Union works, then they would call everyone together and say we 
must find some expenditure to help this country out of its difficulties and who 
is going to pay for that.  I can't see Germany paying for it with the extra 
expense of the Eastern land, I can't see France paying for it at the moment, 
I don't see the United Kingdom paying for it because we have been warning 
against precisely that eventuality.  Now these are the arguments that need to 
be examined and I am putting those arguments to my European partners.  And then 
there's a further point. It isn't just the argument of those who are inside the 
Single European Currency, if it occurs.  What of the relationship between those 
who are inside it and those who are outside it.  This is a fundamental change 
in the European Union. We've seen nothing like it before, we're going to have 
half the nations, or whatever number, proceeding in a Single European Currency 
and the other half perhaps no,  and in addition to the half that don't there'll
be all the new members, another ten or so in the next few years who also will 
not be in a Single European Currency.  Now what is the relationship between 
those two groups, what is the relationship with the institutions, how does that 
impact upon the finances. What does that mean for the Common Agricultural 
Policy? We don't know the answers to those questions.  Should I rule myself out 
of discussions when I need to know the answers to those questions that are of 
my own national interest.                                                       
 
HUMPHRYS:                              What your backbenchers again, many of 
them would say to you is: we can already see that awful scenario that you 
paint, clearly is already happening. There is no way that we are going to 
converge for instance with Greece or with Spain or with whoever it happens to 
be. It is already happening an it's down to you to say, it isn't going to 
happen in time, there is no possible way, these things, if they are ever going 
to develop the way that you say they have to develop otherwise Europe is going 
to be torn apart, cannot happen in time. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, they can't be certain of that, and 
you can't be certain who will be ready and who won't.  Over Europe, our 
European - across Europe our European partners are doing Herculean things in 
some cases to try and meet the right economic conditions.   You talked of some 
areas a few moments ago, where perhaps there is a fudge emerging.  Well, we 
shall see.         
 
HUMPHRYS:                              More than perhaps.
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, we shall see.  Perhaps there is, 
but elsewhere huge changes are being made.  You cannot be certain who will meet 
the right economic conditions and who will not.  Some may, perhaps quite a 
number may.  We can't yet be certain.   Why should we rule ourselves out when 
we can't yet be certain?   If all these things are going wrong we need to try 
and stop them going wrong.  Can you stop them going wrong, can you win a 
football match if you're not on the pitch?  Of course you can't.  Now the point 
is not a question of Party management, it's not a question of appeasing people 
in the Party or beyond the Party who have themselves made up their minds before 
having all the information in front of them.  I'm in a different position from 
them.  I'm going to be the person negotiating this.  I shall be sitting down 
at the European table making the decisions as to who goes ahead, and what 
happens, so I need to look at the national interest way before the Party 
interest, and I will. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Let me come back to that in a moment, 
but one final question.  One other question on the first wave of the Single 
European Currency, if it happens at the end of the year as some countries are 
quite determined that it should.  Do you believe it likely, let me put it no 
stronger than that, do you believe it likely that Britain would be in that 
first wave, given the things that are happening in Europe at the moment? 
 
MAJOR:                                 I'm not getting drawn into that.  I see 
exactly what you're doing, but I'm not going to get drawn into ... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, it's a question that an awful lot 
of people would love an answer to for obvious reasons. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Indeed, and the moment I start providing 
an answer they will try and shift the policy even further.  The moment they 
start shifting the policy even further the Europeans decide that we're just 
playing a game with them, and our influence in the negotiations is lost.  I 
return to the central point. I need influence in those negotiations.  I need it 
in the British national interest.   We have held that position for a very long 
time.  I'm not going to change it, I'm not going to change it, .. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But why should it ... 
 
MAJOR:                                 I'm not going to neuter Britain's 
interest in these particular negotiations. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But why should it neuter Britain's 
interests to say - Look, we've looked at what's going on, we have serious 
concerns - and you've accepted that.
 
MAJOR:                                 John, I've been expressing those 
concerns.
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Indeed you have. 
 
MAJOR:                                 I've been expressing - I don't just mean 
here.  I've been expressing those concerns at European Council (INTERRUPTION)
after European Council,  and I will continue to do so.  And they hear those 
concerns, and they know that they are genuine. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So would it not therefore strengthen 
your position - it would certainly strengthen your position with your 
backbenchers, but put those aside for the moment, we'll return to those.   
Would it not strengthen your position in Europe to say, the way things are 
going, because they badly want us to join, the way things are going, it's 
looking pretty unlikely that we're going to be able to join? 
 
MAJOR:                                 That's not just a question of us 
joining, that is the point.  It's a question of whether (INTERRUPTION) - It's a 
question of whether the whole thing proceeds.  They see the domestic debate 
that goes on in this country, they draw their own conclusions.  One of the 
biggest difficulties one has in Europe is that because of the nature of the 
domestic debate, people often think the British Government's position is 
dictated by the domestic debate, and not by a dispassionate judgement.  Well, 
it isn't, it's dictated by a dispassionate judgement, and it is going to 
continue to be dictated by a dispassionate judgement, because we have to make 
the right decision for this country, and the right decision for this country 
needs to be made when we have the facts in front of us, when we can see our 
position, other people's position, and what the impact of a Single Currency 
would be either with us in it, or to us if it went ahead but we were not in it. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But you are prepared to say on the one 
hand, if it isn't in Britain's interest, as one would expect the Prime Minister 
to say - if it isn't in Britain's interests we will veto the whole thing.  Why 
then, people say, are you not prepared to say equally and at the moment, this 
isn't a commitment on Britain's part, but at the moment it's looking pretty 
dodgy.  That might give them a little incentive might it not, it might give 
them a little spur to do the decent thing, and stop cooking the books perhaps. 
 
MAJOR:                                 You're inviting me to say what in 
essence I have said at previous European Councils, that I have put it not in 
the relatively confrontational way you just did, ... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Let's remove the confrontation then. 
 
MAJOR:                                 I have put in the way of saying, if 
anyone proceeds with the criteria being improperly met, then there will be 
damage to the whole of Europe, damage to our employment prospects, damage to 
our growth prospects, damage to the cohesion that exists across Europe.  That 
is not a new message, it's not a scare story.  I have been saying that to our 
European partners for the last two years.   They are sick and tired of hearing 
me saying it. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, but perhaps then, in order to... 
 
MAJOR:                                 They may have to get used to me saying 
it a bit longer. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, indeed.  Well, perhaps you can 
remove that sort of feeling of - Oh, God, he's at it again, byt taking it just 
that little stage further, and saying: and look guys, the way you're going at 
the moment I reckon we're not going to be part of this party. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Some of them may well meet the criteria. 
They may well meet the criteria.   You're taking a larger step forward on what 
their position is than is, as yet justified by the facts.  Some of them have
taken some actions that look as though they are trying to move perhaps 
inelegantly towards the proper economic criteria, but they've also taken a lot 
of hard decisions that are moving them properly towards the criteria.  Now let 
us wait and see how they get on. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You see people will be listening to this 
interview, and you know as well as I that your backbenchers will be sitting 
there, glued to the television set, this Sunday lunchtime as they obviously are 
I've no doubt, and they will say:  The reason the Prime Minister cannot say 
that, is because he dare not say that, because his Chancellor of the Exchequer 
won't let him say that. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Yes, that's the fashionable view.  It's 
also complete rubbish.  I have been saying this for a very long time, not just 
over the last few weeks.   This isn't a new song you've heard from me.  I've 
made this point about the national interest for a very long time, and I return 
to the point that I made before. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              No, but it's what you haven't said you 
see, that's getting them going.  You haven't said the things they want you to 
say.  They say you can't because Mr Clarke won't let you. 
          
MAJOR:                                 Well I'm not saying the things they want 
me to say because I don't agree with the things they want me to say.  I'm 
saying what I believe.  I'm saying what I believe.  I understand out there  
over the last few years, the disillusion that there is with Europe - generally 
across this country - some of it justifiable - some of it, frankly, not 
justifiable - but as a result of the fact that everything that happens in 
Europe that's unpalatable gets massive publicity.  Everything that happens that 
is worth while gets no publicity at all.  But I understand the disillusion out 
there.   
 
                                       Look, there are three different views 
about Europe in this country.  The first one is that it's a shame we ever went 
in and it's a pity we can't come out; the second is that Europe is inevitable - 
we might just as well accept it's inevitable and go down the centralist route 
with all the rest of the Europeans if that's the way they wish to go; and, the 
third view - which I hold, which the overwhelming majority of my Party hold, 
which the overwhelming majority of my country hold, I believe - is that we 
should be in the European Union, we should play a full part in the European 
Union.  We should express our views in the European Union but that if the 
Europeans go off in a direction that is unpalatable to us we should say: we are 
not going with you because that is not suitable for the United Kingdom.   
 
                                       Now I very strongly hold to that third 
view.  There are concerns about some of the directions of European policy.  
Some of the propositions that are before the European Council and will be 
before the European Council in Amsterdam - when decisions have to be taken - 
are very unpalatable for this country.   I don't think that under any 
circumstances could we accept them and we have said that but because of this 
debate every aspect of it is mushrooming up in the most undesirable way because 
logic is being lost in a wave of emotion.  And, it is logic and a cool, 
dispassionate judgment of our interests that ought to govern what the 
Government does and will what the Government does.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And because it's being lost - to use 
your language - also because people are saying things - perhaps, not publicly 
because they dare not say them publicly; but behind closed doors or to 
journalists over lunch tables, or wherever it happens to be that they don't 
want to have coming back to their own doors - that was being reported very 
confidently, as you know in The Daily Telegraph last Monday - that you were, 
indeed, having second thoughts about Britain going into the first wave of the 
Single European Currency.   
 
MAJOR:                                 I've often expressed the concerns that I 
expressed to you this morning about a Single Currency.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Did you say that to The Daily Telegraph 
last week then or whenever it was.  
 
MAJOR:                                 The concept that I said to anyone - let 
alone The Daily Telegraph - that I was about to change my policy in the next 
few days, that Michael Heseltine was persuadable and we were turning a policy 
that we had had, for a very long time - that I had defended uphill and down 
dale at the Party Conference, that I had written about and spoken about 
repeatedly - the concept that I was, suddenly, going to turn that upside down 
and head in a different direction is just not sustainable, John.   It's just 
not sustainable. 
 
                                       We have held to this position for a long 
time - not because Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and others say that we should 
but because I happen to believe it is the right thing in the national 
interest.  I'm going to be judged by this.  In due course, people will make a 
judgment: did he close off our national interest options too soon or did he 
stay there and negotiate for our national interest and make a rational judgment 
on the facts?  I have always said I will make a rational judgment on the 
facts.  And I'm not going to be pushed off that by any sort of campaign from 
any quarter. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So why then did Mr Clarke use that 
colourful language about boomerangs blowing up - exploding boomerangs? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, I've no idea - I've no idea what 
was said.                                        
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Because he never denied that of course? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well I have no idea what was said.  But, 
I do know that his policy and my policy about maintaining the national interest 
is the same.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And he warned Dr Mawhinney, didn't he - 
Tory Central Office? 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, he did not.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              To get their scooters. 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, he did not.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Tell your boys to get the scooters off 
my....There's a Ken Clarke bit of language if ever I've heard one. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, no, he did not.  What a load of 
old nonsense.    And there was another story about Cabinet Ministers allegedly 
complaining about Brian Mawhinney to the Chief Whip. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              We'll come back to that later, if we 
may.   
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, it's factitious and it's just not 
true, John.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But, but- 
 
MAJOR:                                 It's just not true.  It's the 
Westminster rumour mill.  Now, you mustn't be part of the Westminster rumour 
mill - we must have a serious discussion about that.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, Heaven forfend!   Heaven forfend. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Heaven forfend that you should do so.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And I believe that we are.  But, it is 
odd, isn't it that the Chancellor didn't absolutely deny all those things that 
he was alleged to have said and the implication of that, therefore, must be 
that he did say them.  And, therefore, that he said them because he thought you 
were trying to do something- 
 
MAJOR:                                 John, John, John.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              -that he didn't approve of. 
 
MAJOR:                                 If I denied everything attributed to me, 
by people allegedly close to me, or alleged friends of mine, or alleged 
supporters of mine, if I spent my time denying everything reported, or said by 
you, and your colleagues, on the media that I'm supposed to have said, I'd do 
nothing else.  We get pretty case-hardened to a great deal of this nonsense.  
Now the substantive issue is what is European Policy. What is tax policy.  What 
is happening to the economy?  And, at the moment, we've got a Chancellor of the 
Exchequer that's delivering the best economic figures that we've seen literally 
for generations.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So, no truth at all in the notion that 
Tory Central Office was putting around: New Chancellor, New Chance? 
 
MAJOR:                                 I cannot conceive that anyone with any 
authority, or anyone with any knowledge of the upper reaches of Governmment- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              How about delegated authority? 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, no, no, no.  No, no, no.  I can't 
know what someone with no delegated authority would be doing here, there and 
everywhere in the forest. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Perhaps these are the boys on scooters? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, I've no idea.  I don't know how 
many people ride scooters these days but I can certainly tell you it wasn't 
authoritative.  It wasn't coming from anybody who was in any position. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But we did hear a former Chairman of the 
Party this morning going on the media and..on the Frost Programme and saying 
absolutely publicly: Lose the Chancellor or lose the Election, maybe?  Well, 
that's a worrying thought, isn't it? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Losing the Election?  I don't think 
we're going to lose the Election. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              No, no, no.  I mean- 
 
MAJOR:                                 And, we're not going to lose the 
Chancellor.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But if this is the choice, you see - 
there's a lot of people in your Party, as you know, are saying it - this is the 
choice between losing the Chancellor and losing the Election, let's lose the 
Chancellor.  
 
MAJOR:                                 It's a silly choice.  It isn't a choice. 
People can whip up these storms, if they wish.  I've got used to those.  I've 
got used to living in the eye of the storm over the last five, six years or so. 
I'm not going to be fussed about that.  The media have their fetish one week.  
They move on to another fetish the next week but it's not going to shift my 
decision.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So the Chancellor is unassailable, to 
use that famous word.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well I wondered how long before 
..(laughter)...The Chancellor is a very fine Chancellor of The Exchequer.  He's 
delivering the best economic figures for a very long time.  He's going to make 
you a lot better off in the future John - because the economy's doing a lot 
better - and everybody else watching this programme.  And I'd like a Chancellor 
that delivers good economic figures.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And he's going to stay there until the 
Election? 
 
MAJOR:                                 The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going 
to stay there. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Until the Election?   
 
MAJOR:                                 We'll all be staying there at the 
Election and beyond the Election but what my Cabinet will be then we'll have to 
wait and see.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Alright.  Let's-Let's just stay with 
Europe for a little bit longer because we have the IGC - the Inter Governmental 
Conference to think about.  We've seen some of the things that are included on 
the agenda for that, for the new Maastricht Treaty as it were.   An awful lot 
of things there that you are going to have to say: no, no, no, to.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Yes that's true.  That's exactly true.  
I mean there are some things in the Treaty that we've been pushing for and 
there are securely there.  There are a lot of things in the Treaty that frankly 
are an anathema to us, that we will not be able to accept and I have made that 
absolutely clear.  It's been clear for a long time.  It's a fashionable story 
in some quarters that the United Kingdom is isolated.  Well if we're right I 
don't mind being isolated.  Because the fact is that some of our European 
partners wish to go in a direction that I believe firstly is profoundly wrong 
for Europe.  That is the first point and secondly is just a direction that is 
untenable for the United Kingdom in my judgement.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Can I try to sum up your position on 
Europe as we head into the future?  And that is we are prepared to co-operate. 
We want to do lots of things to co-operate with Europe but we are not prepared 
to have anything else imposed upon us which would lead to greater European 
political integration.  Is that broadly it? 
 
MAJOR:                                 That's BROADLY right.  That's broadly 
right but I think the general way in which you put it wouldn't be wholly 
accurate but there are a whole series of things that are just not possible for 
us.  I mean the proposition for example that we would have our Immigration and 
Asylum policy brought under the control of the European Union is absolute 
nonsense - I couldn't contemplate that for a moment.  Labour Members of the 
European Parliament may want that, indeed so they do.  But I don't want that. 
That's not going to happen.  The concept that we are going to surrender control 
over our own borders is absolutely ludicrous.  There is no question of us 
remotely being able to do that.   The proposition that we should have our 
foreign policy decided by qualified majority vote in Brussels is laughable.  We 
couldn't possibly contemplate that.  Our opponents might but be couldn't 
possibly contemplate that.  Now, there are a whole range- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Or any other further QMV for that 
matter? 
 
MAJOR:                                 I don't see any need for any real 
extension of QMV.  I don't know whether hiding in the undergrowth for some tiny 
area that's worthwhile.  I can't be absolutely certain about that. But I 
certainly don't remotely agree to the massive extension of qualified majority 
voting. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              On any of the major issues?  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well not on social issues for example 
and not on industrial issues for example. The Labour Party have committed 
themselves to a whole series of areas where they would extend qualified 
majority voting. Well we won't extend qualified majority voting in those areas. 
Whether there's some tiny area lurking in the undergrowth that means that it 
isn't an absolute blanket - no I can't be absolutely certain - if there is I 
don't know what it is.  I don't at the moment anticipate seeing any more 
qualified majority voting as being acceptable to us.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And on a whole list of things, scrapping 
Border Controls, you say.  Common Asylum policy, European police force, more 
powers for the Commission and Parliament, common Employment policy.  All of 
those things you are absolutely clear; no further down that road.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well a common Employment policy would be 
very silly for us wouldn't it?  I mean you've got the Germans just getting over 
four million unemployed, the French at three million unemployed, the Italians 
at nearly three million unemployed and we are now getting people back into work 
- have a much lower rate of Unemployment; still too high but falling.  Quite 
significantly, a much lower rate of Unemployment than everybody else. The 
concept that I am going to agree, to Employment policy being centralised in 
Europe when it would be to repeal most of the changes that we have made to our 
labour market over the last eighteen years is just laughable.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So if Employment criteria were to be 
included as far as the Single European Currency is concerned that's dead then?  
 
MAJOR:                                  Now, that's what-That is what 
people have got to realise, particularly those in my own Party who would wish 
to change our policy. Some time between now and May the 1st - could be May the
15th - but it won't be later than May the 1st - we will have a General 
Election. The decision... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Last time we spoke you told me no later 
than May the 1st.  
 
MAJOR:                                 I've just said that again. I said it 
could be as late as May 15th, but in practice it won't be later than May the 
1st. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, alright.  Oh, in practice, I'm so 
sorry.  
 
MAJOR:                                 There you are you see.  This is how the 
......gets things wrong.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              We've corrected it instantly. I beg your 
pardon. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Excellent, excellent.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              In practice it will be no later than May 
1st.  Right, okay. 
 
MAJOR:                                 But the final decisions in this Inter 
Governmental Conference on borders, on qualified majority vote, on all these 
other issues we've just been talking about will be taken in the last days, the 
last hours of the Amsterdam Summit in June.  Now everyone is going to have to 
decide whether they want the pragmatic Conservative approach or whether they 
want the massive extension of European authority that would follow the election 
of a different Government. Now that is a choice I invite my own Party to 
examine as well as the nation when the election comes.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So President Santer - Jacques Santer,
President of the Commission - is right when he says that's the hour of truth 
approaching when we have to decide whether we are into Europe as a free market 
or whether we're into a political union. 
 
MAJOR:                                 It's an over simplification isn't it? 
It's an over simplification that the Europeans are fond of making; that on one 
hand you have total political integration and on the other hand you have 
nothing but a common trading area.  And they do it frequently.  But of course 
there is a vast range in between that.  We're in between that now in terms of 
some areas of political agreement.  But it is perfectly true.   I agree with Mr 
Santer the moment of truth is approaching and it's approaching for Europe as 
well as for the United Kingdom because some of the decisions that Europe will 
take, if they proceeded down the route that many of them wish to, would 
profoundly change the European Union.  And for the first time you would have a 
European Union of a different character to the one that we have had thus far.  
So it is true a moment of truth is approaching for the Europeans.   It is also 
approaching for us.  I wish us to co-operate in Europe.  I enthusiastically 
agreed with us going in Europe.  It's still in our interests, very heavily in 
our interests to be a major player in the European Union.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Your European Union.  The European Union 
that you decide.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well I'm coming precisely to that point. 
To be a major player in the European Union as a whole.  But it is not in our 
interests to try and go down a route that would be unpalatable to the British 
nation, unacceptable to the British Nation and very probably unworkable in the 
future.  Now what I am looking at is whether what is proposed is workable 
generally in the future as well as whether it is right for the United Kingdom. 
And some things are not and this is not before people jump on it and say: Ah, 
here's a new let out for the Prime Minister.  Let me now remind you that I said 
all this in the Leiden Lecture over two years ago when I raised the question of 
a more flexible European Union.  And I've explained what I mean by that.  The 
European Union thus far has broadly gone along in a way in which all the nation 
states did the same thing at the same time in broadly the same way.  That's no 
longer going to be possible.  It is not going to be possible.  It's not going 
to be possible with fifteen nations in the way that it was with six or ten. 
Certainly not going to be possible when there are twenty-six nations as there 
will be in the next ten years or so.  So we need flexibility. The question is 
what sort of flexibility?  The French and the Germans have put forward some 
ideas, the British have put forward some ideas.  And out of this Inter 
Governmental Conference will come a new form of European Union with a different 
form of flexibility.  Now what we have to determine is that it is a flexibility 
that preserves the things that are important to Britain, without Britain being 
forced into a position without influence in the European Union.   
 
                                       Now that is negotiable.  It is very 
difficult but it is negotiable.  But it is not negotiable if we have ourselves 
sidelined on all the important issues.  I cannot negotiate all these if I'm 
sidelined on every other issue because of domestic arguments.  And it is in the 
British interest that we take part in those discussions, that we win those 
arguments, that we negotiate and employ the traditional British genius -, 
occasionally for pragmatism, and some compromise to perserve the British 
interest.  Now that is what is going to happen in the next six months and these 
trivial, absurd arguments - overblown and distorted as they have been over 
recent weeks - do no good to ensuring that we have the right outcome from those 
discussions in the period between now and Amsterdam.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So you seem to be saying that your 
critics, within and without your Party are damaging your position, your 
negotiating position in Europe?  
 
MAJOR:                                 It's self evidently the case. I don't 
seem to be saying it, I am saying it.  It seems to be the case if you're 
playing poker with fourteen other skilled poker players you don't turn your 
cards face up so they can see precisely what they are.  If you do you don't win 
the hand of poker.  And poker as a game negotiating with our European partners 
is deadly serious. It's Britain's interest at stake.  So if we're sometimes 
opaque, if I don't sometimes respond with a total clarity about exactly what I 
would wish to do, there is a very good reason for it.  I can respond with total 
clarity on every issue and all my European partners will know exactly what my 
negotiating position is, exactly where it comes from, exactly what room for 
compromise I may have and what chance do I have then of winning the arguments?  
You know it would not make sense to do that. I know it would not make sense to 
do that and I am not going to be pushed into doing that because I do not 
believe if I did so that I could properly win the arguments that I believe I 
can win and will win between now and Amsterdam.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                               So you're saying to your Party - trust 
me. 
 
MAJOR:                                 I am saying to my Party trust me.  I 
said eighteen months or so ago to my party, much to their surprise at the time, 
that if they wanted to change the leadership here was their option.  They 
didn't push me into that, I gratutiously offered it.  There you are, I said, 
you know what my policies are, you know what I am seeking to do.  If you wish 
to change me I have freely given you the opportunity to do so.  They did not 
take that opportunity.  By a very large majority they did not take that 
opportunity.  Now I'm going to try and negotiate what I think is right for this 
country.  And if I have to choose between the Party interest and the national 
interest, I will choose the national interest and nobody should be in any doubt 
whatsoever about that. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Even if it costs you the election? 
 
MAJOR:                                 I shall choose the national interest. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But you are saying to them - if the 
Franco/German vision of Europe is what I am being pushed into, I don't want any 
part of that. 
 
MAJOR:                                 It's rather more complex than just that. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              That's the broad picture. 
 
MAJOR:                                 I am not going into, and have never 
shown any enthusiasm whatsoever, for a centralist Europe, a federalist Europe, 
if you like to use the jargon, that means different things to different people 
in different countries.  But that is not in the interests of the United 
Kingdom.  Co-operation yes, working with our European partners yes, extending 
co-operation with our European partners, yes.  Working together to further the 
interests of all Europe, yes, yes, and yes again.  But being forced to have 
decisions that rightly belong domestically across the range of issues that we 
talked about earlier, determined elsewhere, that is not what I think is in our 
interests.  Now colleagues are going to have to trust me.  If they don't, well, 
they must make that decision, but I am clear in my mind what is the right 
course to take in our European policy.  I have set it out often enough in the 
past.  When I have set it out, it has quelled these savage disputes for a 
while, and then they have blown up in a different part of the forest.  But my 
position hasn't changed on these issues, and it's not going to change in the 
last few months before the General Election. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You're going to be meeting Mr Bruton 
tomorrow.  You will talk to him, the Prime Minister of Ireland, you're going to 
be talking to him about Europe.  You'll also be talking to him about Northern 
Ireland, and there is a great worry about what's happening in Northern Ireland 
clearly, because we do not have a ceasefire.  Do you believe that there is the 
prospect now, of another ceasefire - a real prospect? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, I can't say I'm optimistic, but I 
couldn't rule it out either, and I will tell you why.  There is a great deal of 
pressure for a ceasefire from many people who broadly support the Republican 
cause, a great deal of pressure.   What I do not wish to see would be a phony 
ceasefire, a ceasefire simply to score public relations victories, and to try 
and have Sinn Fein parachuted into the talks without actually giving up the 
violence that has sustained it, that has sustained the IRA for so long.  I'm 
not interested in a phoney ceasefire.   In retrospect we had a phoney 
ceasefire.  We thought we had a real one, and what did we subsequently find 
out.  We subsequently found out that within days of declaring the ceasefire 
Sinn Fein/IRA were filling garages in London with Semtex and explosives.  
That's not a genuine ceasefire.  Now there should be no doubt about what I 
would wish to see.  Yes, I would like a ceasefire - yes, I would like it to be 
genuine, yes - I would like it to be monitored, so that we can see that it's 
genuine, and they're not targetting people, they're not buying arms, they're 
not preparing to go back to violence.  And when I am satisfied there is such a 
ceasefire, a genuine ceasefire, and that it looks as though it is going to be 
sustainable, and I will not wait for too long to see if it is to be 
sustainable... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              How long? 
 
MAJOR:                                 I'm not going to give you a time.  It 
depends on actions, not on the passage of a few days or weeks.  Once I am 
satisfied that is the case, then I will be as firm an advocate for the entry of 
Sinn Fein into inclusive talks, as would Sinn Fein be themselves, because I 
wish - I've devoted a good deal of the last six years to trying to get 
inclusive talks, so that we can hammer out an agreement that can remove the 
misery of violence from Northern Ireland for good if it can be done, but I'm 
not going down a fake path again.  We've done that and we were betrayed by Sinn 
Fein/IRA, who said one thing when they were doing another.  This time it needs 
to be real. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So it depends more then, on your 
intelligence reports, than on the passage of time?  
 
MAJOR:                                 Correct.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              To the extent that progress has been 
made in Northern Ireland, it's been made because we have worked - the British 
Government has worked so closely with the Dublin Government.  You've upset them 
now, because you've published your own position in the papers a couple of weeks 
ago.  That ruptured relations.  That's a worrying factor isn't it.  Wasn't that 
a mistake to do that, in retrospect? 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, it wasn't a mistake.  Indeed it was 
an inevitability.  Everybody else had set out their position, and Sinn Fein 
were seeking to set up a position that was not true, as to what the British 
Government's position was.  Mr Adams had been doing interviews determining his 
position for days.  If I had not published our position in the conspiracy 
atmosphere that so often exists in Northern Ireland politics, many people would 
have feared that we were doing a backstairs deal with Sinn Fein and with the 
IRA.  We were not, and the only way to make it clear to people that we were 
not, was to set out patently and clearly what our position was. There's nothing 
unreasonable about our position - very hard to find anybody who would say it's 
unreasonable to say:  yes, you can come into talks if you stop killing people, 
and if we are certain you're not going to go back to killing people, and if you 
remove the gun and the bomb from underneath the negotiating table.  I don't 
think that's asking a great deal... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Dublin thinks you've increased 
the barriers. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, we haven't increased the barriers, 
and I think Dublin know that. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Let's look at your Budget, the state of 
the economy.  Many people assume that the Budget was going to be the last real 
shot in your locker.   Now forgive .... 
 
MAJOR:                                 You mean the press and the media? 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              I mean many in your Party as well who 
were hoping that that would be the case, but forgive the horrible metaphor, it 
turned out to be a dmap squib didn't it? 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, it didn't, it didn't.  Budgets 
aren't for PR purposes in the short term.  Many people said twelve months ago:
Well, Ken Clarke's Budget, not a great deal in this, but it's actually steered 
us to a very good economic position. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You've only got ten months to go. 
 
MAJOR:                                 You're looking at it purely politically. 
I'm looking at it from the point of view of the economy.  As Ken Clarke said, 
good economics is good politics, and so... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              In the long run maybe.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, I think the long run may be a good 
deal shorter than you possibly imagine.  If you look at what is actually 
happening in the economy at the moment, you've got the highest growth of any 
European nation, we've got incomes growing,  we've got prices falling, we've   
got unemployment falling, we've got exports growing, we've got the trade gap 
narrowing, we've got the most competitive position in the United Kingdom 
economy that you and I have known since before you first joined the BBC.   Now 
that's not a bad background.  Economically we will enter the General Election 
whenever it comes, with the best economic scenario that any Government has 
entered into at a General Election for generations, and the best economic 
prospects that any Government has had for generations, now I think that's not a 
bad position to be in.  And most of the wiser commentators before the Budget 
were saying that the wise thing to do in the Budget was not a great deal - that 
was the advice we were getting from business and commerce, both large and small 
business and commerce, and I agree with that, and so did the Chancellor. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, you may, he may, some experts may, 
but the public seems not to, and the public is going to vote on you in the next 
few months.  And you've seen what the opinion polls say, what they think of the 
Budget, which is forget it - you are ten points some say, further adrift than 
you were before. 
 
MAJOR:                                 The opinion polls - what nonsense John. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, a week ago on this very programme 
your Deputy Prime Minister was commending the opinion polls to me because they 
were showing a slight improvement. 
 
MAJOR:                                 John, there was a ludicrous opinion poll 
last week.  It was published I think, on Thursday or Friday morning - Friday 
morning I think - quite ludicrous, and curiously on Thursday night we had a 
whole series of local council by-elections right across the country, and we 
made gains right across the country, and we got a higher vote right across the 
country.  Now there is dichotomy between what people are saying to some of the
opinion polls who probably have a bad sample in any event, and what is actually 
happening, when you look at the local election results, the reality is that the 
changed economic position in this country is filtering through, and it's now 
beginning to filter through quite quickly.  You can see it in a range of 
things, you can see it in vanishing negative equity - try booking a restaurant, 
try going into the shops, try getting a seat on a plane at short notice, try - 
just see what it's like over the weekend when you go and do your Christmas 
shopping and compare it to recent years.  The economy is beginning to become 
very healthy, it is very healthy indeed, and is getting stronger.  Now that is 
what people see, and that is what people are beginning to feel and that matters 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Alright.  You may deride the poll.  
There may have been a rogue poll, who knows, they do exist that's sure, but it 
added didn't it to what was for you a truly awful week, it really was? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, that's Westminster chatter of 
course. 
 
HUMPHRYS                               Everything we've seen in the last week? 
 
MAJOR:                                 No, no, no no, no.  The fact that the 
opinion poll added to an awful week.  I think if you go out in the middle of 
the country, go out in the middle of Blackburn, I doubt that they even know 
what the opinion poll was, so it added to the position of a few opinion formers 
like you and a few politicians around the House of Commons, but opinion polls 
don't impact upon the public as a whole.  What impacts upon the public as a 
whole is what is happening, what is happening in their own lives, whether more 
people are being treated in the Health Service as they are, whether more of our 
youngsters are getting into university as they are, whether people are having 
more net disposable income as they have, whether they can see the economy 
getting better as they do.  Those are the things that really matter. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But they also see, whether it's the 
people of Blackburn, or Blackpool, or Birmingham, or anywhere else, they also 
see things going wrong with the Government.  They see the wheels or, at least, 
they keep being told - by your own backbenchers amongst them - that the wheels 
are coming off this country.  It is becoming ungovernable. 
 
MAJORS:                              Well, that's self-evidently not so.  You 
have to judge by the result of what is happening in the country. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You lost your majority this week? 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, Labour Government governed, I 
think, for five years without a full majority.   I don't think that was 
unexpected - given the small majority we had when we started in this Parliament 
and the fact that we have now, virtually, completed a full five-year 
Parliamentary term against the expectations of many of the people who thought 
we wouldn't get this far.  But this is Westminster froth again. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Froth! 
 
MAJOR:                                 Westminster froth, Westminster froth, 
John.  You need to go out and see what is happening.  Oh, it's no good you 
looking shocked, you know it's Westminster froth. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Surprise, surprise - rather than shock - 
I'm past being shocked - no, no.  But John Gorst, one of your old stalwarths 
from years and years ago saying: That's it.  I'm withdrawing my support.  
You've got Terry Dicks, you've got Hugh Dykes threatening to do much the same 
sort of thing.  You've got George Gardiner this morning saying: I'm not going 
to support the Chancellor's European policy because he clearly sees a 
difference between his policy and your policy. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, I'm very surprised to hear him say 
that.  When George was about to be-When George was facing reselection some time 
ago, I believe, he saved himself by saying that he was a Government loyalist.  
So I'm extremely surprised to hear him saying that.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But you did see him saying that in The 
Express this morning.  
 
MAJOR:                                 As to the other cases, there was a time 
in the 1980s when we had a majority of over a hundred - at one stage, we had a 
majority of nearly one hundred and forty.  Throughout the whole of the period 
of any Government in recent years, there have been a small number of people who 
were mavericks upon one issue or another.  When there's a majority of a 
hundred, they don't matter.  Nobody takes much notice of them.  You don't take 
any notice of them.  You wouldn't have quoted George Gardiner and others to me 
when we had a majority of a hundred in the House of Commons.  You'd have 
regarded it as utterly irrelevant because you know and I know that there are 
always a few mavericks in Parliament.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              He's now threatening the Government.   
 
MAJOR:                                 The fact is..the difference is simply 
that we have a small majority.  
 
HUMPRHYS:                              Pretty important difference.  
 
MAJOR:                                 Let's- You said the wheels are coming 
off the wagon.  Let us deal with the reality in terms of policy.  They would 
have been irrelevant, if we had not had a very narrow majority.  Now, because 
we don't have a majority any one single backbencher can have his moment of fame 
if he decides that he is going to be difficult on any particular issue of 
policy.  
 
                                     Well, the Government can't be held to 
ransom like this and we're not going to be held to ransom like this.  We're 
going to continue with our policies and everybody will have to make their 
judgment whether they're going to support us or not.  If they don't support us, 
then, we may have a General Election but that is in the nature of politics.  
But I'm not going to be held to ransom by any single backbencher on any issue. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But let's look at the reasons why 
they're doing it.  I mean it may well be that the reason they're behaving like 
that is because they can see that the next Election is lost and from now on 
it's every man for himself.  They may not actually be jumping ship but they're 
sure as heck building the lifeboats!   
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, all I can say - well, I don't 
believe that is the case.  In fact, I'm certain it isn't the case - but if they 
really do think that then I think they are dangerously out of touch with the 
view that our activists have of people who hold the Government to ransom.  You 
saw that pretty clearly at the Party Conference.  There's a lot at stake.  Are 
you seriously saying to me that any of those backbenchers you mention would 
rather have Mr Blair going off to Amsterdam in June to negotiate and have the 
social.. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well I'm saying it's beginning to look 
exactly like that.  Absolutely, they way they're going on! 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, in that case, I think, they should 
sit back for a moment, take a cool, collective think and ask themselves do they 
want Mr Blair signing up to the Social Chapter? Do they want him under pressure 
to give away our Border Controls and Asylum and Immigration controls?  Do they 
really want to go down that sort of route in Europe?  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But that's the extraordinary thing. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Do they want to get rid of...well you'd 
better go and ask them about that.  Don't ask about me. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But presumably, you've asked them about 
that?  They've read that. 
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, they must make their own judgments 
about that.  I can just tell you I'm not going to be held to ransom by any 
single Member of Parliament on any single policy.  We've set out our policy and 
we're going to get it through.  If we don't get it through, then, we don't get 
it through.  But, I'm not going to have the Government bending and weaving away 
from the things that it believes are right on the basis that somebody's trying 
a bit of pork barrel politics or a bit of arm-twisting of the Government 
because it has a small majority.   And, I'll tell any of our backbenchers who 
have that in mind.  They won't get much warmth from the Party activists up and 
down the country if they imperil what this Government has achieved and what its 
predecessors have done over eighteen years because they have a bee in their 
bonnet about a particular policy.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Maybe, you'd better tell your Cabinet 
Ministers to stop having a go at Tory Central Office and vice versa as well 
while they're about it, then?  You mentioned Brian Mawhinney earlier - well.  
 
MAJOR:                                 There, you're back in the rumour mill, 
again, aren't you?   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, I said I'd pick it up.  You 
referred to it earlier.   
 
MAJOR:                                 Well, come on to serious matters.  Come 
on to serious matters, John.  Let's get away from this rumour mill.  Thus far, 
you've done extremely well and you've asked serious questions and I'd very much 
like to continue in that vein.  I'm not going to get sucked into the area of 
who might have said what at some fictional occasion, reported by somebody else 
who wasn't there at the time - all sorts of crazy things.  If you sat there any 
morning with me and had the report that I get on what is in the Press and you 
knew what the Government's posture was and what the Government were doing and 
you then saw what it was reported other people were saying, you would realise 
why I am, sometimes, just a touch dismissive of what I hear reported about what 
other people have said and done.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Aren't you also just a bit fed up with 
it all?  You've been there a fairly long time now.  Don't you sometimes say: 
this is a lovely place to be Huntingdon and all that, nice garden out there, 
nice conservatory that we're sitting in.  Don't you think oh for Heaven's sake. 
 
MAJOR:                                 But I love politics.  That's the point 
you need to bear in mind.  Yes, I've been there six years.  It's been a very 
good six years.  I look forward to the next six years.  There's still a lot to 
do.  Many of the things I would like to have done in this last Parliament we 
have only begun to do.  The Education changes, the improved health reforms - 
many other things that I would dearly love to do.  We haven't been able to 
proceed with them as rapidly as I would have liked because we've had to deal 
with the recession and put the economy in order.  We've now got the economy in 
order.  The Government after the Election is going to be operating against the 
backcloth of the strongest economy you've seen in this country literally for 
generations.   
 
                                       We can turn on to the social agenda, the 
things that politicians really care about.  So, if you think I'm thinking of 
packing my bags and walking off, then you're wholly wrong.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              On and on and on and on? 
 
MAJOR:                                 You're wholly wrong.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Prime Minister, thank you very much, 
indeed.
 
MAJOR:                                 Thank you. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And that's it for this week, we'll be 
back next Sunday at the same time from Huntingdon good afternoon.  
 
                                   ...oooOooo...