Prime Minister
I would like to take first the matters which were really urgent. They really fall into four groups: questions on the Gulf, and the hostages and the trade and the GATT Round and the fourth one, Hungary.
First, on the Gulf, we have a very firm declaration reaffirming our absolute commitment to full implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and saying that we will consider additional steps if Iraq does not comply. So the message that Saddam Hussein must not gain anything from his aggression is loud and clear.
And at the same time we have agreed to a very strong statement condemning Iraq for holding foreign nationals as hostages. That goes for all foreign nationals, not only those in the Community. And we affirmed our determination not to send representatives of our governments to negotiate with Iraq for the release of hostages and to discourage others from doing so.
So the unity of the Twelve on this matter is a very very powerful signal to Iraq. And you will see if you read the whole of that particular communique section you will get the full flavour of the unity and the determination not to have wedges driven between [end p1] nations on the question of hostages.
The next one was the Uruguay Round which as you know I had raised. It is urgent. We have in fact been trying to formulate the Commission's and the Community's negotiating position since September 1986. The Uruguay Round ends at the end of this year so there are only two more months in which to table our negotiating position and to negotiate with others. We are the only major trading group which has not tabled its negotiating position. The United States has, the Cairns group has, Japan has, Switzerland has, and so on, the Community is the only major trading group which has not tabled its negotiating position.
The matter was therefore urgent. The Agriculture Ministers have now had seven meetings on it, the last one was on Friday when after something like sixteen hours of negotiation they were really very near to what they thought was agreement. You will be aware of what happened, it was blocked by France and then Germany said that if France could not agree to it she would not, so a vote was not taken. It is vital therefore that next Tuesday we do formulate the negotiating position. Mr. Lubbers and myself wanted the new consideration on Tuesday next to be based on the position reached at the end of Friday. But we were not I am afraid successful in securing that so we do not know quite what will happen but we hope very much that there is an agreed position.
May I point out there is no shortcoming as far as the Community's institutions or its powers are concerned. The full power is with the Community, there is no national power, so we have to agree a Community line because it is the Community that is responsible both for the Agricultural Policy and for the Trading Policy. And it is also possible to deal with this matter by [end p2] majority voting. So there is no shortcoming as far as the powers of the institutions are concerned, there was a failure to agree and a failure of resolve.
It is very urgent indeed because if we do not get agreement on agriculture it will give a signal to the world that the Community is protectionist, it could upset the whole of this trading round and would just disintegrate into bilateral arrangements. And if that happened I am afraid it would be the fault of the Community. I most earnestly hope it will not happen and that they will be able to reach a position on Tuesday which can be tabled as the Community's position. We then have just a few weeks left between then and the end of the Uruguay Round at the end of the year to negotiate our position with that of other countries because the whole of that negotiation has still to be done.
The last thing which was urgent was the message we have all received from Hungary. I need not tell you the position, you will know it. They are in very considerable difficulty with not very much oil left and they have had to put up the price of it in order to conserve it and they are in difficulty with demonstrations and so on. And again we have made a very strong statement of support for Hungary on its path towards democracy and saying really that the law must be upheld. That was at the suggestion of Chancellor Kohl.
And then at our suggestion we have in fact accelerated the next instalment of the European Community loan. You will remember that there is a loan facility for Hungary, I think it is a billion ECU. The first tranche has already been allocated; the second tranche was due to be allocated in November. We thought that we could accelerate it and help Hungary over this particular period of difficulty. [end p3]
Those were the four urgent and immediate things: the Gulf, the hostages. the Uruguay Round and Hungary. Can I now come to the two things which took most of the time which were not the urgent things or the immediate things but they were the two inter-governmental conferences.
On this the position of the United Kingdom is basically unchanged, it is precisely the same as it was before this Council. We came on political union expecting to give an instruction to the Council, in fact to Foreign Ministers to continue to prepare the ground for the inter-governmental conference on political union, because if you look at what is before us it is a rag-bag of proposals and we thought that Foreign Ministers would sort it out for the inter-governmental conference.
It was clear from the communique that some countries wished to give specific directions and confirm specific directions on certain matters that did not meet with our agreement in any way. All of those matters we are prepared to discuss at the inter-governmental conference but not before. That is where they should be discussed and we should not pre-empt either their discussion or their conclusion. So we ourselves therefore have put a reservation on four or five points in that communique with the reservation being that we reserve our view to discussion at the inter-governmental conference on those matters.
With regard to the economic and monetary union conference, again the position is precisely as it was and we have followed the format of the Carli Report which you will recall set out the position of the eleven and then set out the position of the United Kingdom quite clearly because we have not in fact decided what the next stage shall be. [end p4]
We still have not decided what the next stage shall be. Others wanted nevertheless to set a starting point for the next stage. We do not wish to do so, what we wish to sort out is what the next stage shall be and then we can decide on the starting point. May I point out that that starting point which is in the communique, with which we do not agree, is one which will depend upon a treaty amendment, a treaty amendment will depend upon unanimity and of course getting the treaty amendment through each and every single Parliament.
So broadly speaking, on the two inter-governmental conferences the position is unchanged from precisely what it was before we came. We expect to do the arguing in those conferences. And I think I might just point out, the nearer you get to having to make a decision, the more realistic the argument becomes. Indeed as you will have noted on the Uruguay Round where it is urgent we have not been able to reach a decision or unanimity or even majority. On matters which are not urgent and which are in the middle distance there has been a good deal of agreement on rather vague wording.
So on the urgent things on trade we have so far failed, I hope we will succeed next week. On the non-urgent things it is much easier for some people to come to agreement. We I think are perhaps more analytical than some others would be under these circumstances. [end p5]
Question (John Dickie, Daily Mail)
Prime Minister, some people are already saying that you will have a very tough fight to defend the pound in the light of a communique which talks about the Community having its own currency, setting a date of January 1994 and also indicating that within three years of that you will be faced with decisions on the final phase. Some people are even saying that this is the beginning of the end of the pound in Europe. How do you reply to that?
Prime Minister
I do not think I shall have a tough fight on defending the future of the pound sterling in Parliament. If I were to suggest anything to the contrary I should have an impossible fight. It is quite clear from Parliament that they are prepared to consider a common currency and indeed if I might point out that we are ahead of the others in providing for a common currency because already we issue securities denominated in the ECU. So it is but a small step for us to propose that we have a European Monetary Fund to issue an actual ECU in a non-inflationary way.
But we have made it quite clear that we would not have a single currency imposed upon us. You can have a common currency alongside national currencies, but if one were ever to go to a single currency it would mean that each Parliament had to put up to its own members a proposition to terminate its own currency. I cannot see such a proposition going through the United Kingdom Parliament. I think it would be totally against the feeling of the people. [end p6]
The issue of a currency like sterling and support of it is one of the most powerful expressions of sovereignty which you can possibly have. And you know our view: a common currency, yes; but a single currency by imposition, no, you could not have it by imposition because it would have to be a decision by the United Kingdom to get rid of sterling. I would never put that before the United Kingdom Parliament and if anyone tried to do it I do not think it would get through either Parliament or people.
One moment, I have just had a note handed to me that although the text of the communique on the Uruguay Round as I left it when we all came away said next Tuesday 30 October, I have a note to say that they are trying to change that leaving more time for bilateral consultations. I tell you, the more urgent the decision the more difficult it is to get it. I did not expect that extra piece of evidence to that proposition.
Question (Italian TV)
What is your judgment on this Summit and what are the main differences between your position and that of Mr Andreotti?
Prime Minister
On the Summit as a whole, well I have tried to indicate, we are prepared to take all the urgent decisions and have been trying to get them forward and have been trying to make it quite clear that the Community is not protectionist. It is quite clear that there are some members who quite openly take the view that the Community is protectionist and is going to stay protectionist. That in our view would be very damaging both for the Community and for the [end p7] people of the Community.
And also, when it comes to the Uruguay Round, President Mitterrand did actually say, when we were discussing what would happen next time, he did actually say: “France will not accept the present proposals from the Commission on Agricultural Policy of the Uruguay Round, nor from the United States and France would have to vote against.” Clearly it was not us who were isolated.
Question (John Palmer, Guardian)
This is another Summit, is it not, where eleven out of the twelve Member States have reached a number of conclusions, rather important ones such as the date for the recall conference. Why is it that over a succession of European Councils you have so far failed to influence or change the thinking of any other single government on these issues and why we are in a minority? And how would you respond to President Mitterrand who said: “It is not for the country wanting to make the slowest progress to European union which should dictate the pace of the majority” ?
Prime Minister
First, it is France who in fact have stopped us from getting a solution at Friday's meeting to put forward urgently to the Uruguay Round, it was France who did the blocking. We were not isolated on the Uruguay Round by a long way, in fact Mr. Lubbers was very very vociferous in trying as we agreed to get the position as it was at the end of Friday night's meeting being the position that they considered next Tuesday. Well now, if I might point out, they are not even now apparently going to consider it next Tuesday. [end p8]
So the difference between us is this. We are always prepared to come to a decision on a matter which is very urgent and we are always prepared to analyse it and we have been trying for over three years. It is other people who have stopped that decision and which have in fact I think not left the Community's reputation as high as it should be. Added to that, it is quite clear that some of the other countries do regard Europe as a protectionist trading group. I do not, that is not my ideal for the Community. What is more, I believe that that would be ultimately very damaging for all the trading peoples of the Community and that the other people in the Uruguay Round could retaliate against us.
When it comes to the two IGCs, the nearer you get to decision the more differences will arise, just as they have on the Uruguay Round. The nearer you get to decision the more differences will arise. So long as you are on grandiose, grandiloquent language they will agree them, but when you look at some of the things they say, first some of them will say: “Yes, but the Twelve must keep together.” Second, they will say: “But the economies must be more convergent but they obviously will not be by that time” . Thirdly, some of them say: “We will need a lot of money if we are going towards a single currency.” All of those do not come out in the text because we are not on the verge of making a decision and the nearer you get to a decision the more the differences will emerge. We face the differences at the outset.
There are other differences, there are undoubtedly some people who want a federal Europe, there are some people who would like, positively like, to hand over their financial affairs and responsibilities to another body. We are not among that group. [end p9]
Question (French News)
Have you also the same reservations about the paragraphs concerning the enlargement of EC competence to security matters, is it also classified by your grandiloquent speaking?
Prime Minister
Yes, that is one of the things we put a reservation on. First, security is not defined, to us it includes defence and we believe that NATO is our main defensive organisation. And secondly, we are not the only people who when it comes to it in practice will have reservations because Ireland is neutral and of course France has not even got her military seconded to NATO so there will be differences. Thirdly, there are very great considerable differences in internal security matters between the competences of your police forces. So to me it is quite absurd to have all these differences simmering underneath but to have just a little phrase which takes no account of them. But they will come out when they are discussed in detail.
Question (Alastair Campbell, Daily Mirror)
Can you tell us briefly why the talks this morning over-ran?
Prime Minister
Overran what?
Question
I thought you were due to end earlier than you did? [end p10]
Prime Minister
We should have been absolutely amazed if it had ended at eleven o'clock this morning.
Question
Has the language in the document on the Uruguay Round changed since this morning?
Prime Minister
It looks to me as if since we have come here they have attempted to change the date! It seems to me really rather astonishing to get agreement on the communique and then to have someone try to change the date afterwards. But never mind, one is constantly surprised at these matters.
Question (Istanbul Turkish Daily)
Yesterday our Daily published your letter to Jacques Delors displaying your position of opposition to assistance being given to Front Line States, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, just a positioning it to the letter written by James Baker asking for the acceleration of the matters. We do not understand why you are against financial assistance to Front Line States in 1990. We understand the intricacies of bureaucratic procedures in the Community but when we made the sacrifice that we did, we did not calculate the bureaucratic aspects of the matter and we really did lose a lot both in economic terms and strategic risks. [end p11]
Prime Minister
I think you are mistaken in your interpretation. There is no opposition whatsoever, indeed we were in the forefront of trying to secure help, particularly for Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, because we reckoned those are the three states which suffer most of all from the imposition of sanctions and the imposition rigorously. And when Mr Brady came to us about money, yes we said immediately we would do it, there was no hesitation, no opposition.
What I am concerned about is that although Mr Brady has been around and although various of us have said what we are going to give and although the Community has said what it is going to give, the position does not seem to have got much further. There certainly is now a very good reason why some of the money should actually be disbursed to the countries and given to the countries in question because some of them are already suffering considerably from sanctions. And it was the procedure, it has not been properly put together and because it has not been put together the money is not now going out and it must.
So it is directly contrary to what you have in fact deduced from it. We are for it, we agreed to give to it, we were one of the earliest who agreed to give to it, we were one of the earliest to give also to the refugee position and of course one of the earliest, apart from the United States, in the Gulf. We have been early, early, early all along. We did not I am afraid think it our job to put the actual bureaucratic arrangements together, they must be put together competently and some of the money disbursed now. [end p12]
Question
I understand that you discussed Sweden's letter of intent to apply for membership of the Community, what is Britain's position?
Prime Minister
No, we did not discuss that.
Question
Denmark claims that you did discuss it?
Prime Minister
Well, we certainly did not discuss it with Heads of Government. But in any case our position on extra membership was set down quite some time ago that we are not entertaining new applications for the present because the biggest thing the Community is going to do in the future is the completion of the Single Market, hopefully by the end of 1992. That is a very very big matter and therefore the applications that have already been made, for example Turkey, Austria, Cyprus, Malta, will not be considered until after the completion of the Single Market.
What I think many of us would like to see is the Association Agreement, for example with Turkey, fully implemented, as it should be, but it is not we who are blocking that full implementation. Otherwise new applications will not yet be considered and that would also go for Sweden.