................................................................................ ON THE RECORD SIR LEON BRITTAN INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 15.6.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Emma Udwin reporting there. And with me now one of the most senior figures on the European Commission, Vice President and Commissioner for Trade, Sir Leon Brittan. Sir Leon, if that Single Currency is going to go ahead on time it's obviously essential, vital, that the leaders agree this weekend on the stability pact, the rules that they'll have to follow once they're in. Now, the French have thrown that into doubt because they want to change the rules, so it's all looking a bit uncertain isn't it? LEON BRITTAN: There is a way forward. It is to agree the stability pact and I don't think anybody is seriously thinking there's any prospect of changing the actual text of the pact. But adding to it, whether in a declaration or whether through a treaty chapter on employment, words that stress the importance and indeed the overwhelming importance of employment. What I would say is that the stability pact and the Maastrict convergence criteria are about sound finance. You can't get unemployment down without sound finance, but you need something more. You need actual measures to do so, and so long as there can be an agreement on the type of measures I believe that it is possible to add a strong employment chapter, an employment signal to the commitment of a sound finance and not instead of it. HUMPHRYS: But that didn't seem to be enough for the French the other day did it, just tacking something on. The want fundamentally to change the rules don't they? BRITTAN: Well that remains to be seen. I don't think that that's by any manner of means clear. I think what the Germans, and Britain also for that matter won't agree to, is to alter the stability pact which concentrates on sound finance. What the Germans and the British would be very reluctant to do and wouldn't agree to do would be vast expenditures, vast changes in the powers. But on the other hand, if you are talking about the way to get employment down, it is quite clear from the British experience and the Dutch experience that the way to get employment down - unemployment down, is through a structural change, more flexibility of the labour market. And there I believe it is possible to have a way forward, stressing that the fight against unemployment is indeed a top priority as well as sound finance, but the way to get there is through more flexibility of the labour market and not to believe that you can spend your way out of it. HUMPHRYS: Which is what the French more or less seem to be saying, that maybe - to use that expression, spend you way out of it, but they do want to be able to spend more money, and this is the problem isn't it. There is this fundamental clash. BRITTAN: That is not absolutely clear. What is clear is that they want to show their electorate, having won an election, that they are giving top priority to employment. I believe we can help them to do that. I think it's reasonable to do that because it's not only in France that people are concerned about employment, but I think it is far from clear that the French are absolutely set on having a determination, and have the determination to seek to improve the employment situation by spending, and by big programmes of that kind because we know and Germany knows, the Dutch know,
that it doesn't work, and there is an example of bringing unemployment down. Britain in the last few years has done that, the Dutch have done the same. The way is clear, and I think that so long as the priority is on unemployment and not on a particular route to bringing unemployment down it is possible to square that circle. HUMPHRYS: Well, difficult to square that circle. BRITTAN: Of course. HUMPHRYS: I mean, let's pursue the geometry analogy for a moment, because you're going off on one angle - I've swapped the circle now for a triangle - and the French are going off on another. BRITTAN: Well, I'm saying that that's by no means clear because the only thing that the French have absolutely insisted on is that in addition to the stability pact there should be a strong commitment to policies to improve employment. What those policies are is another question, and of course it's not easy, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it on the eve of the meeting, but what I'm saying is that there is a sensible way forward. I can't promise you that it will be followed. Things can go wrong, but it's not an impossible one. HUMPHRYS: Sounds pretty impossible when you've got the Prime Minister of France Mr Jospin saying the Anglo-Saxon may what - what was that quote - threatens our civilisation. Sounds pretty fundamental! BRITTAN: Well, I think you may think something different in a couple of days' time, we shall see. HUMPHRYS: But you're not telling me this morning that you've stitched up a deal with the French? BRITTAN: I'm certainly not saying I've stitched up a deal with the French. I'm saying that there is a way forward which meets their concerns. I can't promise you that it will be attained, but a lot of work has gone into it, a lot of work is going into it, and I don't believe that France wants deadlock or breakdown at this meeting, and therefore it's got to be resolved unless we have a serious problem both with the Single Currency and with the treaty more generally and which everybody's worked so hard on. HUMPHRYS: Very hard to see how it's going to be resolved though, without somebody losing out or giving way in this absolutely fundamental argument. So who's going to give way, who's going to lose out? BRITTAN: You, of course want to put it in terms of polls, but I'm saying .. HUMPHRYS: They're pretty clear aren't they? BRITTAN: They're clear to you, but it's also clear to me that there is a strong desire shared by France, very strong that this conference should reach a successful conclusion, and that there should be agreement on the way forward, not just on the EMU but more generally on all the issues that Emma Udwin was talking about. I think that is in sight and I don't believe that France will want to jeopardise that, but I do believe that the other countries can show sensitivity to France's concern which is widely shared, by stressing the importance of the employment policy, yes but the right kind of employment policy. HUMPHRYS: But it's more than stressing the importance of employment policy because we had.... BRITTAN: Encouraging the right way of bringing unemployment down. HUMPHRYS: Who's right way? - this is the problem isn't it that Mr Jospin went to the French voters as you very well know, saying "this is our solution for creating more employment" a crucial issue in France. Absolutely overwhelmingly important in France and the way to do it is to spend money, is to invest and if that upsets the bankers a little bit, well so be it, we must upset the bankers, but...I promise you this is what we're going to do. BRITTAN: If I may say so John, you are not actually quoting what he said and... HUMPHRYS: I was paraphrasing. BRITTAN: You are paraphrasing. HUMPHRYS: I quoted directly earlier when he told about the threatening civilisation. BRITTAN: You are paraphrasing and indeed you are caricaturing it and... HUMPHRYS: Well am I? BRITTAN: Yes you are because the key thing for the French population is actually dealing with unemployment and they've got eyes and they've got ears and they can see that there are countries where unemployment has come down massively and countries where that has happened have
been the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. And therefore, of course they can try something else nationally but on the other hand they, if you're talking about a European commitment, a European commitment to policies dealing with unemployment, as the right thing to do, but it does not have to spell out a particular method which is contrary to the provisions that require there to be sound finance because we know that sound finance is not enough to get unemployment down but without sound finance you won't get it down. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's assume then that it goes ahead, we have the stability pact agreed over the next couple of days and the Single European Currency begins, perhaps even on January 1st 1999. William Hague, who may well be the leader of the Conservative Party by then, who may a few years later may be Prime Minister, said this morning: "even if this Government takes us into a Single European Currency I can assure you that I will negotiate Britain's way out of it." Now, can he do that, is that possible? BRITTAN: Well I'm not saying it's impossible, I think it's looking rather far ahead. I think myself that the obsession with the European issue and more particularly the obsession with the Single Currency isn't doing the Conservative Party any good. The fact is, as we've seen in the discussion we've just had, how fast things move on in Europe. We have to recognise the fact that the Conservative Party is just at the moment in opposition and can't actually change things for four or five years. Therefore, for the Conservative Party to tear itself apart, to have a divisive argument, exclusively about the Single Currency, when there are so many other issues, when it has to sort out its policy, its image, its organisation now. Seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. I believe that what a Conservative Party should be doing is looking constructively at the future, rethinking its policy more generally and not continuing with this pre-electoral obsession of the Single Currency. HUMPHRYS: I take all of that but the question was - can he, could he as a Prime Minister, get us out of the Single European Currency once we were in it? BRITTAN: Well nothing's impossible, I'm not saying...that's not the problem. The problem is whether it is right in advance of a leadership election even, whether it is right when we have just lost an election to start talking about hypothetical situations of that kind instead of saying: 'we have to rebuild this Party, we have to rethink all our policies and we've got to be inclusive" and we've got to allow that argument to take place, rather than to pre-empt it at this stage. HUMPHRYS: Right well let's deal then with the Party that is in power. Now Mr Blair is saying: 'we want to keep our - we heard Mr Cook saying it there, Robin Cook: "we want to keep our border controls". Europe is saying no, that ain't going to be the way it is, things have to change. Borders have to.....well.. BRITTAN: That is not the case. I don't.. HUMPHRYS: Europe is saying that there must be changes in the way that we cross borders, and we pass our goods across the border and all the rest of it. Now is he going to get his way, is Mr Blair going to get his way? BRITTAN: Britain's concern as expressed by the Prime Minister is the right to retain control over its borders. You will see after this conference is successfully concluded that Britain has achieved that and the reason for it, is that there is no disagreement amongst other countries that that should be the case. HUMPHRYS: Really? BRITTAN: Yes. HUMPHRYS: Well you'd never guess that from what they are saying in Downing Street and the Foreign Office ... BRITTAN: Well I'm not responsible for what they say in Downing Street or the Foreign Office, but I know that there is an acceptance that that has to be the position. The only question is to how it is done and the argument about whether it is done by an opt out, or whether it is done by an inclusion, by legal language of a different kind, is a secondary argument. HUMPHRYS: So the deal is done. BRITTAN: No, I'm ... just allow me. What I'm saying is that either way a deal which ensures that Britain will retain control over its borders unless it chooses to abandon that at some time in the future, I believe - and I am confident it will be arrived at and I think there is consensus on that and there is a slightly artificial argument going on at the moment as to whether it is done through an opt out or through some other way - the important thing is that it should not be capable of being disturbed unless Britain wishes it to be and that I am quite sure will happen. HUMPHRYS: Not the first time there has been an artificial argument - as you put it - in Europe. Let's look at another argument that may or may not be artificial and that's over European defence. Britain does not want European defence, the physical defence of Europe to be a matter for the European Union, it doesn't want the European Union to have control over defence forces. Are we going to get our way there? BRITTAN: That's a real discussion but not such a clear discussion, because already in the Maastricht Treaty Britain agreed, the previous Government agreed, that there should be a possibility eventually of a European defence policy and the concept of using the Western European Union as the arm of the European Union was envisaged at that stage. HUMPHRYS: Envisaged but not accepted. BRITTAN: Envisaged but not formulated and agreed. Some would like to now say that that's got to happen and that the WEU should be brought in to the European Union. I don't think that is going to be agreed because it's not just Britain who's opposed to it but quite a number of other countries, in particular the what used to be called the neutrals - the non NATO countries. HUMPHRYS: Sweden and so on. BRITTAN: Exactly. On the other hand it is possible, if you like, to firm up what was said at Maastricht to point in that direction a little further without a commitment that it should happen now or at any particular time and I believe that that is the most likely outcome on that point. HUMPHRYS: But that major step forward could not happen without Britain and Sweden and other neutrals agreeing. BRITTAN: Oh certainly and what they will not agree to is the WEU now becoming part of the European Union but moves in that direction, pointing in that way, might be a basis of agreement. HUMPHRYS: You and your colleagues in Brussels assume that we, Britain, Europe is going to be pushed forward. This .... new treaty intends to do that. Is it wise to do that when we are seeing over and over again now that public opinion in Europe is becoming increasing sceptical. BRITTAN: It depends what you mean by pushed forward. It would be crazy to advance a Europe in a centralist, federalist direction but it would be equally crazy not to make the changes which enable Europe to begin the process of taking in the countries of eastern and central Europe. You know we fought two world wars as a result of events in that part of Europe. Instability there is serious, having those countries in the European Union has always been a British priority, you've got to make changes in the way in which we run our affairs for that to be possible and that's really what this conference is about. HUMPHRYS: Sir Leon Brittan, thank you very much indeed. And that's it for this week. I shall be joined next week by Jack Cunningham, the Agriculture Secretary. Until then, goodbye. ...oooOooo...