John Fraser, IRN
Prime Minister, this Summit was a pleasant change because for once, instead of trying to deal with existing budgetary problems and farm problems, you have been able to look to the future to chart the way in which the Community is moving.
We are heading towards this great European market in 1992. First of all, how important is it and what are the priorities for 1992 and legislation for 1992 which have been sketched out in this Summit?
Prime Minister
I think it is very important because you know many people would just say: “Look! We joined Europe so that we have a market for our goods that is as big, if not bigger, than the United States!” and somehow it has not come about because there are all sorts of barriers to the movement of goods. There can, in fact, be financial barriers, there can be different standards so that you [end p1] cannot get your goods into Europe because they have different safety standards or they do not recognise the same patents or trade marks or they do not recognise a person's qualifications, therefore he cannot practice there, or they had quotas on lorries which they should never have had in a full Common Market or they would not let our insurance people try to get business over there. There were all these kinds of barriers to both manufacturing trade and also to commerce.
We are gradually going through all of these and whittling them down. We are going through them one by one and we have a lot of decisions to make between now and 1992, but it is being done in a systematic way so that genuinely, we can sell into a market of 340 million and they can all sell into our market. That means we have got to be bang up-to-date, highly competitive and always on the ball and a step ahead of the others.
John Fraser, IRN
Are you satisfied that this Summit has given extra momentum towards the many difficult decisions which have to be taken up to 1992? [end p2]
Prime Minister
Yes, it has. Two things:
First, our last Summit dealt in large measure with budgetary discipline so that we could not spend too much and also agricultural discipline, so that we did not go on producing surpluses and got rid of surpluses. All of those things, which as you know took a long time to negotiate and were hotly contested some of them, have now been put into European regulations which are legally binding. That itself is a great step forward.
Under Chancellor Kohl 's presidency, I think we have agreed to the removal of about fifty more barriers. We started it off some time ago with about forty-six, so that is another step forward.
We have also got to look at a good deal more and then we have had a look at some of the monetary conditions, to try to get a single market.
We are well ahead of most of the others. There is absolutely free movement of capital into and out of this country, we have no foreign exchange control; our central bank reserves consist of a number of other currencies, whereas the German one is only of the dollar, and we actually deal with the Ecu. So although some of them complain about us, we are fully entitled to turn round and say: “Look! When you have done what we have done, you can start to complain, but we are way ahead of most of what you have done!” [end p3]
John Fraser, IRN
Could I take you up on those monetary issues, because a committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Common Market President, Jacques Delors, to look into monetary matters.
You were very suspicious of the plans of some other governments to move towards a European central bank, a single European currency. Have you lost?
Prime Minister
No, they have, because there is not a single mention of a European central bank in that communique. Indeed, what we have done is not ask them to say about a European central bank—what we have done is something that we had already agreed before all our parliaments, that we gradually work towards the realisation of European monetary union.
That does not necessarily mean a single currency—you can have it without that—but it does mean that your currencies come into much closer cooperation.
I think the definition that Mr. Werner gave of it of irreversible exchange rates, you can never have them irreversible, but he was talking about a much closer relationship of exchange rates and that you had to have money being able to move freely about Europe which of course it cannot at the moment. [end p4]
John Fraser, IRN
Could I ask you about one of the fears about 1992, the fear that if physical barriers to the movement of people come down across Europe, this will be an open door for smugglers, for terrorists and for other criminals to cross into Ireland, Britain and cause problems?
I know that this was discussed at the Summit. Are you as worried as you were before?
Prime Minister
We had the beginning of a discussion on it and it will go forward to the General Affairs Council which is the Foreign Ministers.
Can I put the problem as we see it?
We are trying to get free movement of citizens of Europe around Europe. That is to say, once you are in you can move round from one country to another and within about eighteen months we shall have a common form passport. It will be a British passport, but it will be in European form. It will be a French passport, but in European form, so the computer can read it easily and your passage can in fact be made more easy across Europe. [end p5]
Now what we must beware of is that just because we want the movement of citizens around Europe more freely that does not mean that people coming in from other countries outside Europe can move around the countries of Europe freely and easily, otherwise, for example, you could get people from another country getting in for a very short stay, moving round Europe, taking up residence, we not knowing anything about it, and making great demands on our social services. So we have got to keep frontier controls for those people. We have got to make that clear.
Also, we have got to keep frontier controls for people who try to traffic in drugs, for terrorists, for any form of crime.
So we want is the removal of obstacles, or to make it easier for citizens of Europe to get about but to make it extremely difficult for anyone who wants to traffic in drugs, crime or terrorism— they must be caught—so you do not abolish the frontiers or frontier controls, you try to facilitate it for Europeans moving about themselves and it will be much easier when our passport is in common European form.
John Fraser, IRN
Finally, the Summit has put out a statement on South Africa. It has been suggested that it has been watered down at Britain's insistence and it might bring more comfort to the Pretoria regime than to the Sharpeville Six that you are trying to help.
Are you satisfied that enough pressure is being put on the South African authorities? [end p6]
Prime Minister
It is just not so. If you look at that communique, it is very similar to the one that was issued in Toronto last week. It has a specific extra addition referring to Nelson Mandela and his release because it is coming up to his seventieth birthday and after all, we have been asking for his release for some time.
But those three paragraphs which came before us this morning are in precisely the same form as they were. Then, there has just been a statement right at the beginning that relations between South Africa and the Community are in danger of deteriorating, which is correct, because of some of the other things that are happening, but as far as the Sharpeville Six are concerned, we are very much aware that their legal remedies are not yet exhausted and we are very much aware that you do not intervene or interfere with a country's legal jurisdiction.
John Fraser, IRN
But you are not going to stand off? If they are executed, is the British Government prepared to take some action?
Prime Minister
We have asked for clemency for them. I think each of us asked ourselves and then, as you know, I think partly as a result of the many comments and grave concern that were received by the South African Government, they did enable the case to be reopened. We [end p7] have asked for clemency—that is, the death penalty shall not apply—for the Sharpeville Six. We have made no decision whatsoever about what would happen should those six people be executed. We are not in a position to do so, but the word “sanctions” I must say, as far as we are concerned, has not been mentioned.