Interviewer
Prime Minister, today eleven of the Community members decided they wanted to set a date for the second stage of Economic and Monetary Union. Does that mean that you have effectively lost that argument and we are now on our way towards a single European currency?
Prime Minister
I think it is quite absurd to set a date for what is called the next stage when you have not decided what the next stage is, it is just an absurd way to go about things. And they did that because they were not prepared to decide on the next stage, but that actually will have to be decided really by the inter-governmental conference, but it is absurd to set a date.
Interviewer
Did they suggest that they wanted to push ahead willy-nilly? Is there any evidence that your arguments are being listened to? [end p1]
Prime Minister
Let me say this, there were two sorts of things that we discussed at this particular Council: one, the urgent things, really urgent, on trading matters. On the urgent things which have to be decided by the end of this year we were not able to reach agreement because we have to be very detailed and know precisely what it is we want. On the things which are not urgent, and they are still vague, we were able to reach, eleven of them were, general phrases in the communique, they have not got down to the detail of those things, witness that they have not even decided what the second stage is.
Interviewer
But if it comes to it in December will you be willing to veto some kind of economic and monetary union?
Prime Minister
In December the inter-governmental conferences actually start to discuss these matters. We are not going to have a single currency imposed upon us, we have tabled proposals for a common currency alongside our own national currency. But I think any government that went to Parliament to say we were going to abolish the pound sterling would not get it through Parliament. This government certainly would not put such a proposal before Parliament and I believe it would be flatly contrary to the wishes of the people.
Interviewer
So if it comes to it you will veto it? [end p2]
Prime Minister
(Inaudible)
Interviewer
On farm subsidies why do you think you were unable here to reach any agreement?
Prime Minister
Because there they were actually dealing with the details. Gone are the very grandiose grandiloquent phrases, they could not take refuge in those, they are actually doing the details and away went all their grandiloquent phrases—the Community that matters, it is Britain that is isolated—you come into the detail, you nearly get agreement in the Agriculture Council and then France says no. And Germany says right if she is going to say no, we will.
I think it was disgraceful. The two sets of richest farmers in the Community are in France and in Germany. They said no to a Community position, many of whose farmers are nothing like as well off as theirs. It is plain straightforward nationalist interests. There you see the differences—the urgent things they go nationalist and say no; the things which are vague and in the distance they can take refuge in vague phrases and then blame us.
We get down to things in detail and we are not prepared to commit ourselves until we have got the detail worked out.
Interviewer
Do you think France and Germany are now in a mood to compromise? [end p3]
Prime Minister
I most earnestly hope so on that trading matter because if not the whole of the Uruguay Round on trade with all of the other nations could collapse and it would be the Community's fault. We are the last group, indeed the only group of trading nations that has not table a position on agriculture, the only one that has failed. The United States has tabled it, the Cairns group, Japan, Switzerland, and so on, Canada, we are the only group and we have been trying since 1986, we are the only group that has failed. When we have tabled our position we have just a few weeks before the end of this year in which to negotiate with others. I think it is a disgrace.
Interviewer
On the Gulf a very strong statement from the Community but at the same time the Soviets are desperately stressing that a peaceful resolution might be in prospect. Do you find that at all encouraging?
Prime Minister
If Saddam Hussein withdraws totally and the legitimate government of Kuwait is restored and if he pays compensation for some of the terrible damage he has done and then we will have to negotiate things to see that he gets rid of chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear, then a peaceful solution is possible. That depends upon his withdrawing voluntarily. [end p4]
Interviewer
If he does withdraw do you think there will be international support for the idea of keeping sanctions against him until he gets rid of his weapons?
Prime Minister
I think that the international people are very much aware that unless we deal with this matter of chemical weapons which he has used before, biological weapons which we believe he has got, nuclear weapons which we believe he is within reach of getting, we shall be in danger of being in the same position again within a few years time. People have this fundamental sense, they have made their judgment of the man, they know that is the danger, they will say: “Deal with it now” and we would have to.