Interviewer
Prime Minister, those of us who have watched you over the years at these sort of occasions thought we detected a milder tone towards even the sort of more constitutional aspects of the whole question of European union and so on. Did you adopt that deliberately?
Prime Minister
No. I think we discussed, as I always do, the actual questions in issue and put the arguments and we always do. We always do our homework, so do one or two of the other delegations, very effectively and we were getting down to the nitty gritty and the detail.
That is particularly so on the first thing, which is the Single Market, the common market, and where Britain is in the lead in translating what we have agreed into action.
When it came to the Social Charter, we had a much more realistic approach to it. There were some other delegations who were only voting for it on the grounds it was only a solemn [end p1] declaration and did not give rise to any course of action at all. I knew full well that would not be so. The Commission had forty-three proposals ready and seventeen directives and so, in the final communique they then tried to suggest that we support those coming into effect. That most certainly was thrown out by the overwhelming majority of the Community. Each directive will have to be considered on its own merits.
So there was not really anything very different except we all know one another better and we can discuss without any bitterness or any rancour.
Interviewer
Will this, though, be some sort of milestone? Will we look back to Strasbourg and say: “This is really where European Monetary Union was properly forged!”?
Prime Minister
I doubt it. There is an inter-governmental conference called but not for a year and it may take years and I am very far from certain that the majority of people, when they actually look at what is called Stage 2 and Stage 3 according to the Delors Plan, will accept it as it is. [end p2]
Interviewer
That sounds like it is going to be possible to delay this sort of thing more or less definitely. Is that what you mean?
Prime Minister
Look! It is not what I am saying. They have not agreed to the calling of it until the end of next year after the German elections and then, there is no time limit on it at all.
Interviewer
But you do not feel you need to delay it in other words?
Prime Minister
I am not necessarily delaying it. I do not think it needed to be called but now that the Fran&cced;ois MitterrandPresident said that there was a majority for its calling, it is a pretty slow process.
Interviewer
Has any of this brought us closer to membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System?
Prime Minister
No, not that. That was what we undertook at Madrid. On the Exchange Rate Mechanism, we laid down conditions when we join it. The conditions depend not only upon our performance but on how far [end p3] the other members of the Community live up to their promises. As you know, we have discarded many of the controls which they still have.
For example, France is going to abolish her foreign exchange control in the first half of next year. That will be a great move forward. Italy has not yet done it and will not do it as quickly and Spain will take longer, but we have already done it. And I said that we would join the Exchange Rate Mechanism when the several conditions we laid down had been achieved. So that was Madrid. It was not changed in any way here.
Interviewer
Public opinion, as expressed in an opinion poll in the “Daily Telegraph” this morning, seems to indicate that people want Britain to be a member of the ERM now.
Prime Minister
I am not sure whether one would deduce that or whether they quite understand what being a member of the ERM means. Some people think of it as a soft option. It is not. You have precisely the same mechanisms as you have now, namely, intervention or interest rate. They are precisely the same two things. You just do not have the same amount of freedom in using them as you do now. [end p4]
Interviewer
But do you think people are wrong to want to be members?
Prime Minister
I am not quite sure. It so much depends upon how those questions are put and to whom they are put and whether they fully understand what was said.
Interviewer
Another question, a very different question, finally.
Quite clearly, the statement on the question of German reunification was terribly carefully worded. It took a long time, as we understand it, to get the wording, but can we boil it down? Does Britain really favour the process of German reunification?
Prime Minister
We know that we have to fulfil all our other obligations, one of which is to NATO and so is Germany obliged to NATO; another is to the Helsinki Final Act, so is Germany - indeed, thirty-four countries including the Soviet Union - under which we each agreed that we would not violate one another's borders; that any change in borders could only come about by peaceful agreement. That is what we are pledged to: that any change would have to come about as part of that process and only as part of that process. [end p5]
Interviewer
So we are not exactly encouraging the process to begin?
Prime Minister
If it takes place, it must take place in the light of the obligations.