................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 20.3.94
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Is the government
heading for another fine old row with its backbenchers and can it avoid it only
at the price of alienating its own allies in Europe and perhaps even torpedoing
its own policy? I'll be talking to Denmark's Foreign Minister, Niels
Helveg-Petersen. And the President of Europe's Conservatives in the European
Parliament, Leo Tindemans. And I'll be asking the former Chairman of the Tory
Party, Kenneth Baker, whether the solution THEY want can be sold to the Tory
backbenchers.
*******
HUMPHRYS: So, there is a split clearly between
Britain and Europe. But there's also a split within the Conservative Party.
Nothing new about that but what's different this time - as we saw in our film -
is that senior members at the centre of the Party are lining up with their old
opponents - some of them on the sceptical wing. So, if Mr Hurd does manage to
reach a compromise in Brussels, will he be able to sell it to his restive
backbenchers? Kenneth Baker, is a former Chairman of the Party - now, himself,
a backbencher. Now, are you a Twenty-threer? Is that your bottom line, Mr
Baker?
KENNETH BAKER MP: It would appear to, after you've just
been speaking to Mr Tindemans. It would appear that there is no possibility of
any compromise at all.
HUMPHRYS: He made that very clear, didn't he?
BAKER: He made absolutely clear and, if that is
the case, there will be impasse on Tuesday because Douglas will not be able to
come back with that message to the country, let alone to the Conservative
Party. What I think was interesting this week was a meeting that Douglas spoke
to of the Tory backbench Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday afternoon.
There were a hundred members there and what...what impressed me about this
meeting was the very determined way that Douglas defended the line he was
taking.
This isn't a policy that the Government
has slipped into by accident. It's not an oversight, not a blunder. He argued
very strongly on the importance of qualified majority voting as an issue. He
said: in future, more is going to be dealt with under qualified majority voting
and, moreover, we should not diminish Britain's position. He made this very,
very clear and he was doing it for British interests. I know your programme's
talking about the Tory Party but the British interest - Britain is fighting to
ensure that British companies are not lumbered with enormous costs that we stop
the subsidies to companies like AirFrance and company....that we have a single
market. So, there's a lot at stake in these particular negotiations.
HUMPHRYS: Now, that's the message that he
delivered to the backbenchers but wasn't there...didn't the Cabinet agree on
something slightly less dogmatic than that? Wasn't he told basically, look go
to Brussels and so long as you can hold onto the substance that's alright.
BAKER: Well, I'm not so sure that actually
happened at the Cabinet - I'm not a member of the Cabinet - even if I were I
wouldn't be able to tell you.
HUMPHRYS: You hear things.
BAKER: But what is interesting - yes - one does
hear a lot of things. What was interesting at that meeting were the views
expressed from the floor. Peter Hordern spoke. Now, in your interview, I
think, one of the most...two of the most criticial people were Peter Hordern
and David Howell - because they are both centralist, very loyal Members of
Parliament and they were in effect saying to Douglas: you've got very little
room for manoeuvre and I think that that is significant and important, as far
as the Conservative Party is concerned.
HUMPHRYS: So, let's forget all this talk about
maintaining the substance of the thing. We are sticking to Twenty-Three, come
Hell or high water.
BAKER: Well, I think, there is some room for
manoeuvre. The Spanish position, for example, is quite a good compromise. The
best possible compromise would be to push all this off to 1996 because the
heads of Government said last December that institutional and constitutional
reforms should be done in the next IGC.
HUMPHRYS: Well, not even Mr Helveg Petersen would
accept that.
BAKER: But you've heard that that is not on the
table. It's unfortunate, actually.
HUMPHRYS: To either the Council or the
Parliament.
BAKER: It is unfortunate because qualified
majority voting, John, was introduced in order to readdress the balance in
favour of the smaller countries. And, of course, that balance, when Mr
Petersen is being a little disingenuous because the balance of the smaller
countries gets greater under the terms of admission.
If you take the populations of the
smaller countries, they amount to about a hundred and twenty-five million
people and they will have about sixty per cent of the votes, in effect. In the
population of the four largest, it's two hundred and fifty million people, they
have forty per cent. And, anybody who's been to the Council of Ministers and
sat around that table knows that most of the people holding up their hands
wanting new programmes are going to get money out of them.
HUMPHRYS: And, anybody...
BAKER: And, we are the second biggest
contributor to Europe. We, who are the anti-European country. We are
contributing the second largest amount.
HUMPHRYS: But, anybody-anybody who's been to that
Council of Ministers, as you have in various forms, also knows that they
inevitably end up with what some might call a compromise, some might call a
fudge. You're not going to get away with this hard line position, are you?
You collectively are not going to get it....
BAKER: I think, there is some scope. I think,
the Spanish proposal is a move away. But, it would appear from what Mr
Tindemans has said, that nothing is available. I'll tell you one thing I
object to very much in the attitude of some of our European partners is that it
is always Britain who is out of step. We're the awkward - the awkwards.
HUMPHRYS: Well, we are, in this case - Spain-
BAKER: If you ask Mr Tindemans about the French
attitude last week to the building of the Parliament in Strasbourg. France was
prepared to veto Norway's membership - extended membership to Norway because
they want a new Parliament building. Now, when France does this, they don't
get attacked like we do - "Little England", you know and all the rest of it.
The thing about France is that defending its national interests is its national
pastime.
HUMPHRYS: But, this is a fundamental issue, isn't
it? We're talking here about the enlargement of Europe, which is an essential
part of British Government policy on Europe. Now, if Mr Hurd comes back with
some sort of compromise, is he going to sell it, going to be able to sell it to
backbenchers, such as yourself?
BAKER: Well. I think, John, it depends-
HUMPHRYS: I know you're going to say it depends
BUT...
BAKER: Of course, it must depend. One has to
say that. I think, if one's going down the line of nothing at all from Mr
Tindemans, or a delaying period from Mr Petersen, I think, that would be very
unattractive for many Tory backbenchers. But, also for the country. I come
back again. It is a matter of interest to our country that our power is not
reduced. Now, it's interesting, we wouldn't have this debate in the Liberal
Party, they would have surrendered a year ago.
Would you have this debate in the Labour
Party? John Smith, I understand, is going to attack us later today for putting
Party before country. I...John Smith, firstly it'll be interesting if he's
going to say something on policy because John Smith's policy is to say as
little as possible about as much as possible for as long as possible. But
if he says something on Europe, what's he going to say? He's going to say: we
are going to fight on a Socialist manifesto, agreed by our other Socialist
Parties in Europe. So, that is pious humbug. It is pious humbug for John
Smith to accuse us of putting Party first when he's going to fight on a
Socialist manifesto, agreed by Socialist Parties in Europe.
HUMPHRYS: You used the word a minute ago
"unattractive". Did you use that deliberately or did you mean unacceptable?
BAKER: Unattractive to what Douglas will come
back with?
HUMPHRYS: Yes.
BAKER: I think that if a compromise emerges
it's got to be closer to the twenty-three rather than the twenty-seven.
Douglas is a very experienced diplomat, he's the most experienced Foreign
Minister actually at the meeting on Tuesday, and I think he's got a very clear
message from the Party. But I come back to that meeting on Wednesday
afternoon. It was very clear that Douglas is very committed himself to
protecting qualified majority voting. And this is what the IGC of 1996 is all
going to be about. Endless debates it'll be upon the powers of the small, the
powers of the large.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So the answer to my question was
"unacceptable"?
BAKER: It would depend what it is. I think
that if it's going to be a sort of just delaying mechanism, I think that that
would be very difficult to accept, but I doubt very much whether Douglas
himself would accept it.
HUMPHRYS: You say you doubt whether HE would
accept it, but let us say he comes back with something that - experienced
diplomat that he is - he thinks he just might be able to get through (a) the
Council of Ministers, ... the Council, and then through the European
Parliament. Now to get it through the European Parliament it's got to be very,
very close indeed to the sort of views we've just heard expressed.
BAKER: Well, first, you never know exactly what
the proposal is going to be and how the European Parliament are going to vote
when it comes..
HUMPHRYS: But we've got a pretty clear idea of
what they think.
BAKER: Well, if it's as firm as that then you
might well say there's no point in having the meeting on Tuesday because it's
the European Parliament that will actually put the handbrake on and not us
because, in effect, we are retaining the status quo. There's no particular
virtue in going to twenty-seven and thirty per cent. It would be sensible to
keep, yes, but the precedent... it's quite different this time. You've got
four countries, relatively smaller countries coming in, with a balance of votes
which increases the power of the smaller countries.
HUMPHRYS: So, are you willing - and other
backbenchers from those we haven't yet heard from - are they willing do you
believe to sacrifice enlargement in order to maintain what you describe as the
status quo?
BAKER: Well, one hopes that that will not
actually be the choice, but if the choice...
HUMPHRYS: It might be.
BAKER: ...if the choice is there, if it's a
choice between enlargement and the status quo (and I don't think it'll be quite
as crude as that) I think there will be a compromise package of some sort, but
if it comes to enlargement - we want enlargement, certainly we've been great
proponents of enlargement.
HUMPHRYS: Cornerstone of our Party?
BAKER: I remember speaking at a conference with
Kohl back in 1990, urging a wider enlargement - Czechoslovakia, Hungary and
Poland. One of the things, of course, is it's all happening very quickly.
Five years' ago the Berlin Wall hadn't fallen and you know to get associations
to come together like this of countries usually takes longer than five years.
When the Rome Empire was being put together in the first century before Christ,
I think it was Setonius (phon) who said Festin a lente (phon)..
HUMPHRYS: They didn't have a Council of Ministers
then, did they?
BAKER: .. make haste slowly.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. But...
BAKER: They had some difficulties in getting
things through though.
HUMPHRYS: But are we prepared, let me just repeat
the question, are we prepared to sacrifice enlargement in order to preserve the
status quo?
BAKER: Well, I hope it will not come to that.
HUMPHRYS: But it may.
BAKER: It may come to that. It would not be a
sacrifice. It would not be ending enlargement, it's merely a postponement.
What in fact Europe has got to do is to have a serious and long and deep debate
upon institutional frameworks, upon the powers of the Commission, the number
of Commissioners, the balance of voting on certain matters, because all the
time the tendency's to extend qualified majority voting.
HUMPHRYS: So you are prepared, you and your
colleagues on the backbenches, are prepared to say to Douglas Hurd "we would
prefer to see enlargement put off," (maybe for a long time) "in order to
preserve the status quo".
BAKER: The message that Douglas gave to us at
that meeting on Wednesday was his very clear commitment to qualified majority
voting and also his desire to expand the Community by four. But obviously
there is a dilemma and difficulty in reconciling the two. I hope that, in
fact, a compromise of some sort will emerge on Tuesday night. I think.. I
hope it'll be closer to the twenty-three position than the twenty-seven
position. If it is so close to the twenty-seven position as to be virtually
meaningless, then I doubt very much whether Douglas will attempt to try and
present it to the House of Commons or to the Party.
HUMPHRYS: So, for the moment then enlargement
might be dead?
BAKER: Well, it was never going to be dead in
that sense. It is never going to be final. We want an enlargement - this is
only a first step of enlargement. There are going to be other countries
wanting to join and that is going to be a good thing. You should really
extend right down to the Urals.
HUMPHRYS: Kenneth Baker, thank you very much
indeed.
BAKER: Nice to be with you.
...oooOooo...
|