................................................................................
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...
|