EXCLUSIVE: THE RIGHT HON MARGARET THATCHER

My job is to stand up for Britain

Interview by Paul Potts Political Editor

It has been one of the toughest weeks since the Falklands war for Premier Margaret Thatcher.

At times last week she must have thought she was back at war as her nine European partners rounded on Britain during the crucial Common Market summit in Brussels.

But throughout the fierce verbal assault Mrs Thatcher stood firm and spoke out for British interests.

Today in an exclusive interview Mrs Thatcher explains to Political Editor Paul Potts why she is taking such a tough line.

• How disappointed are you by the lack of progress made at the Brussels Summit?

I was very disappointed. We went to Brussels in a positive frame of mind determined to negotiate a deal which the Community needs as much as Britain.

We came pretty close to petting that deal. President Mitterrand, who was in the chair, certainly tried very hard to secure it.

But in the end it was a case of “So near and yet so far away.” Very sad.

But we shall keep on trying. The Foreign Ministers will have another go on Tuesday.

• Do you think there is a solution to the problem of our budget contribution and rebate?

Most certainly. But could I just make it clear that this is not a British problem—it is a Community problem.

The Community is running out of money because it is spending too much supporting agricultural production. This system is building up huge surpluses which we don't want and can't eat.

So what the Community is first seeking is a system which imposes effective control over agriculture—indeed all Community spending.

Within that, the Community—because it accepts the justice of our claim that we are paying in far too much—is trying to find a lasting method of sharing the burden more fairly.

We came very close to solving all this at Brussels. I believe it is now only a matter of time before we actually do so.

BURDEN

Without a lasting method of controlling expenditure and of sharing the burden there can be no question of our agreeing to an increase in the Community's income.

• How far are you prepared to go on standing up for British interests in Europe?

My job is to stand up for Britain. If I don't no one else will. But I try to do it in a positive way, recognising that each of my nine colleagues in the Council of Ministers has problems striking a deal.

Any agreement which we eventually reach is bound to present each of us with a problem at home. So my whole aim is to be constructive.

But I'm bound to—say that I don't think it is helpful that France and Italy have taken it upon themselves to block the £450 million rebate on our outlay in 1983 agreed in Stuttgart last June.

• Is the money at stake worth the disruption to European relations?

The money at stake can be—and is—represented as a tiny proportion of total national or Community spending. But the absolute sums are not chicken-feed.

Last year our net contribution to the Community before any refund was well over £1,000 million.

This, however, is to avoid the real issue. And the real issue is whether we are going to have a fairer Community—fairer to Britain and West Germany who alone contribute while all the other eight states benefit; and whether we are to have a more rational Community—that is one which doesn't waste millions on producing mountains of food and lakes of wine, milk and olive oil.

It is only if we get a fairer, more sensibly financed Community that we can develop it.

That is the real prize we seek: a Community rid of its present internal tension and freed to become a broader based, more outward looking and more influential group of nations. [end p1]

• How much damage do you think the failure of both the Athens and Brussels summits have done to European relations?

I don't think there is any lasting damage yet—even though too many people on the Continent are only too ready after each of these unsuccessful Councils to say wounding things about Britain and myself personally.

There is a great deal which binds us together—common political, trading, and cultural interests.

But we really do need to get the problem of securing an effectively controlled and fairer means of financing Europe out of the way so that we can turn our attention to building a bigger and better Community.

Fair

• Do you think it will be necessary to withhold British payments to the EEC in order to achieve our objectives?

I very much hope not. Let's see what happens on Tuesday first. But it would help if the Community would play fair and cough up the £450 million or so it committed itself to pay in Stuttgart and the £42 million owing to us under an agreement for 1982.

We hear too much about Britain's need to honour its obligations and too little about the need of our partners to do so.

• What are the prospects for other areas of European co-operation such as foreign affairs if the partners are constantly squabbling over money?

The development of the Community is hindered by this present argument. But once we get it out of the way I know where I want to go.

I want the Community

• To seize the initiative on world problems, not react wearily to them.

• To forge political links across the European divide and so create a more hopeful relationship between East and West.

• To use its influence as a vital area of stability to strengthen democracy across the world.

• To strive for freer trade breaking down barriers in Europe and the world to the free flow of goods, capital and services.

• To make Europe the home of the industries of tomorrow—and the jobs that go with them.

That is what we can together strive for when we settle our internal problems—as we must soon.