................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 8.12.96
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. I am in Huntingdon at the home of the Prime Minister. The Government is in crisis and I shall be talking to John Major. That's fifty minutes with the Prime Minister, ON THE RECORD, after the News read by CHRIS LOWE. NEWS HUMPHRYS: The Government has had what may be its worst week since Mr Major took over from Margaret Thatcher six years ago. The Prime Minister has lost his majority in the House of Commons and his backbenchers have been at each others throats and at his over Europe and some have been baying for Cabinet blood. And all this with the General Election at most only five months away. I am with the Prime Minister now at his home in Huntingdon. Prime Minister, I'd like to cover lots in this interview, including the economy and Northern Ireland; the state of your own Party; but, let's start with Europe because that, clearly, is at the heart of your problems. What you are asking your Party to accept is that Britain should, perhaps, at some stage, go into a Single European Currency. Now, that is plainly unacceptable to many of them. Haven't you got to change your mind? JOHN MAJOR PM: What I'm asking everyone to accept - not just my Party - what I'm asking the whole country to accept is that the decisions that lie ahead on Europe - a Single Currency, but not only a Single Currency - the decisions in the Inter-Governmental Conference are very important too - are decisions that are critical to our own national interest. Whether we go into a Single Currency, or whether we stay out of it, it is going to affect the United Kingdom in a whole series of ways - very significant ways - that will impact upon our livelihood. Now, I believe, it is in the national interest for the British Government to be in there negotiating. And, I have to say to people: I do not know what I would say to the people of this country; people in the City, the farmer, the businessman; if I said, at this stage: I'm going to opt out of negotiations and I will not be in the negotiations to protect your interests. If I did that, I think, you would ask me why are you Prime Minister? Why aren't you there protecting British interests? Well, I intend to stay there. HUMPHRYS: But, that's a question of keeping the opt-out. What I'm really asking you about, at the moment, is whether you shouldn't say: Look, the Single European Currency is, as we speak, developing into a flawed system - a clearly, flawed system - because of fudged criteria and all the rest of it. Therefore, it is not in Britain's interest to go in as it stands? MAJOR: Well, let us take your premise. Certainly, a number of other countries are moving towards a Single Currency. Some of them for their own reasons are very enthusiastic about it. For some of them, it certainly makes undeniable sense. There's a great head of steam behind it. All that is absolutely true. You say they're looking at a flawed way of going in and by that I assume you mean that they will- HUMPHRYS: 'Fudging the criteria' and all the rest of it. MAJOR: They-Well, the criteria is a jargon. Fudging the economic circumstances that would make it prudent to go into a Single Currency. Well, let me take that proposition. Let us assume that is what they are doing. If they are fudging the criteria, then, there would be no question of the United Kingdom joining - no question at all. We established those criteria. We have no intention of going into a flawed economic and monetary union. That would be absurd. But, let me take a second point, then. If, they are fudging it, should we, therefore, say: now, we'll have nothing to do with it? Well, I don't believe that we should. And, I will tell you exactly why I don't believe that we should. If they are fudging the criteria and they, then, set up a European monetary system that is weak that will have a very, damaging effect upon the United Kingdom. We need to be in those negotiations, arguing against a fudge, voting against a fudge, seeking to prevent countries that are not ready to go into a Single Currency from going into a Single Currency. But, giving ourselves a Red Card now and fleeing the field, when the game's still to be played, seems to me to be a dereliction of responsibility. HUMPHRYS: But, many of your critics would say, critics of that argument, would say: the game is being played - yes - but the other side is cheating in such a way that, clearly, the outcome isn't going to be acceptable to us? And, that is already happening. MAJOR: Well - Well, if the outcome isn't acceptable to us we, uniquely, have an opt-out. We can decide to go in or we can decide to go out. But, if they're cheating, what should I do? Do my critics say I should stand aside and let them cheat, without playing any part in the negotiations at all? Where is the logic in that? If they are seeking to bend the economic criteria and move towards a weak currency - if that is what our critics say is happening - then, my critics ought to be saying to me: You get in there and stop them. Not stand aside and let them go ahead and do it. Suppose they did, suppose they did bend the criteria and enter into a Single European Currency, with Britain not in it - that was a weak European currency. What would be the impact of that? Well, one obvious impact is the danger of instability right across Europe, right across our principle export markets. Is that any good to British industry and commerce? Is that any good for the City? I think not. Is it any good either that if that's a weak currency, that the world's floating money, then, moves to Europe to the strong currencies - to the Swiss Franc, perhaps, and to Sterling - pushing up the exchange value of Sterling and the Swiss Franc to ridiculously high levels and making us uncompetitive. Now, I think, our critics should just think through what this means. I cannot imagine, I cannot conceive of a Conservative Party or any Government actually saying that the right thing to do, for the United Kingdom - one of the great nations of Europe - is to stand aside when one of the most important decisions for Europe remains to be taken. And, when the arguments about that decison remain to be had. I do not understand the logic of that. HUMPHRYS: Well, the logic of it is that these economic criteria - these financial criteria - are already being fudged. We've seen what the French have done - the French Telecom pension funds. The French Government has, basically, pinched the funds and said: Right, we've cut our Government borrowing at a stroke. Now, there's a bit of fiddling going on there for a start, isn't it? The Italians have done various things, the Spanish have done various things and some of those things will affect the decision that has to be taken in some months' time, in a year's time, maybe, if you want to look that far ahead. But, it's already affecting the situation today to such an extent that you, really, have little choice - they say - but to say: We cannot conceivably go in, in the first wave. Perhaps, things will change later - perhaps. But, we cannot go in, in the first wave because of what is already going on, at the moment. MAJOR: But, you absolutely make my point. If they're fudging the criteria we don't yet know. HUMPHRYS: Well, we do know that the French have been- MAJOR: Well some of the decisions look odd but we haven't yet reached a decision as to whether the criteria can be met or not, that's the decision that lies ahead of us. But, if when the time comes they fudge the criteria then I need to be at the table to argue against that. I need to be at the table to vote against those countries going into a Single European Currency. What authority would I have at that table if I decided at this stage, when this important debate is going on, when my critics say other people are cheating, if I said I'm not going to be there to try and prevent them cheating. I don't think we should do that. HUMPHRYS: But the cheating is already happening. In that case ought you not to be saying, look: France for instance, come on you can't be in it, the whole thing... MAJOR: I have been saying for weeks. I mean I noticed what this morning's papers are saying about the criteria. I have been saying for weeks, months, years in fact, that the criteria are the most critical element of it all. I wrote it, very clearly in The Times, some weeks ago, that nobody must fudge the criteria. If they do fudge the criteria we will try and stop them doing anything that will be damaging to Europe and damaging to the United Kingdom but I can't stop them from outside the negotiations. I can't stop them if I've no influence in the negotiations. And the whole essence of this argument is that given this is the most important peace time decision Europe has taken, I can think of nothing comparable to it, nothing comparable to it in its importance and in its potential impact. I ask again the question, should Britain, one of the great European nations, sideline itself from a decision that will be critical to us and critical to the whole of Europe. We have uniquely, well not uniquely the Danes now have the option, we have the option of saying no to a Single Currency, even though we will probably meet the criteria, others don't have that option, I do, why rule myself out now. HUMPHRYS: So your objective is not just to say Britain may or may not go in clearly you've made that reasonably clear though we may come back to it, but if people are fiddling the figures, cooking the books, you will say, on behalf of Britain, this system ought not to go ahead, you will see it as Britain's responsibility to stop the system coming into being full stop. MAJOR: Of course, of course. And it's in the British national interest to do that, if they are cooking the books and I again enter the word - if - if when the time comes for decision the economic conditions are not right then this system would be a disaster if it proceeded and of course I will try and persuade my European colleagues not to proceed in those circumstances. There's no advantage to Europe to have a European currency that is weak and that may not survive. No advantage at all. We saw the fallout from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. I don't just mean Sterling leading it, I mean when the Mechanism itself collapsed. That will be a teddy bears' picnic compared to what would happen if a Single Currency collapsed. So of course if I think they are going into a unstable Single Currency I will try and stop it and so anyone should but I can't do that if I rule myself out of the discussions now. HUMPHRYS: And you would try to veto any single country going in if you thought it was cooking the books. MAJOR: Well we have to vote in due course upon which countries go into a Single European Currency. Though that vote will be by qualified majority vote. I think at the time if Britain thought a country was entering it without firstly having met the right economic conditions but crucially being in a position to sustain the right economic conditions. No point in it all coming together for one single day if some countries and other countries are going in different directions. It needs to be a sustainable position, not just for the day upon which the decision is made but for good, but for good. Now we British have injected a dose of commonsense into this over the last few years, I think that dose of commonsense is needed and I don't intend to have it removed from the table. HUMPHRYS: And when you talk about it being sustainable persumably you're talking about other criteria being taken into account apart from those monetary financial things that we've already talked about, things like employment trends and rate of growth. MAJOR: Push aside the jargon about criteria. What we really mean is whether we've got a whole series of economies that can broadly compete on an even level with... HUMPHRYS: And co-operate. MAJOR: Both compete and co-operate with the same sort of inflation trends, the same sort of employment trends, the same sort of growth trends, the same sort of economic efficiency. That is what we're looking for. If you had a country in a Single European Currency that did not do that, that was a weak country that had just crept in because it met the criteria on day one, then it would become uncompetitive within that and you would get very large amounts of unemployment, structural unemployment on a very large scale in that particular country. And what would happen then. I know how the European Union works, then they would call everyone together and say we must find some expenditure to help this country out of its difficulties and who is going to pay for that. I can't see Germany paying for it with the extra expense of the Eastern land, I can't see France paying for it at the moment, I don't see the United Kingdom paying for it because we have been warning against precisely that eventuality. Now these are the arguments that need to be examined and I am putting those arguments to my European partners. And then there's a further point. It isn't just the argument of those who are inside the Single European Currency, if it occurs. What of the relationship between those who are inside it and those who are outside it. This is a fundamental change in the European Union. We've seen nothing like it before, we're going to have half the nations, or whatever number, proceeding in a Single European Currency and the other half perhaps no, and in addition to the half that don't there'll
be all the new members, another ten or so in the next few years who also will not be in a Single European Currency. Now what is the relationship between those two groups, what is the relationship with the institutions, how does that impact upon the finances. What does that mean for the Common Agricultural Policy? We don't know the answers to those questions. Should I rule myself out of discussions when I need to know the answers to those questions that are of my own national interest. HUMPHRYS: What your backbenchers again, many of them would say to you is: we can already see that awful scenario that you paint, clearly is already happening. There is no way that we are going to converge for instance with Greece or with Spain or with whoever it happens to be. It is already happening an it's down to you to say, it isn't going to happen in time, there is no possible way, these things, if they are ever going to develop the way that you say they have to develop otherwise Europe is going to be torn apart, cannot happen in time. MAJOR: Well, they can't be certain of that, and you can't be certain who will be ready and who won't. Over Europe, our European - across Europe our European partners are doing Herculean things in some cases to try and meet the right economic conditions. You talked of some areas a few moments ago, where perhaps there is a fudge emerging. Well, we shall see. HUMPHRYS: More than perhaps. MAJOR: Well, we shall see. Perhaps there is, but elsewhere huge changes are being made. You cannot be certain who will meet the right economic conditions and who will not. Some may, perhaps quite a number may. We can't yet be certain. Why should we rule ourselves out when we can't yet be certain? If all these things are going wrong we need to try and stop them going wrong. Can you stop them going wrong, can you win a football match if you're not on the pitch? Of course you can't. Now the point is not a question of Party management, it's not a question of appeasing people in the Party or beyond the Party who have themselves made up their minds before having all the information in front of them. I'm in a different position from them. I'm going to be the person negotiating this. I shall be sitting down at the European table making the decisions as to who goes ahead, and what happens, so I need to look at the national interest way before the Party interest, and I will. HUMPHRYS: Let me come back to that in a moment, but one final question. One other question on the first wave of the Single European Currency, if it happens at the end of the year as some countries are quite determined that it should. Do you believe it likely, let me put it no stronger than that, do you believe it likely that Britain would be in that first wave, given the things that are happening in Europe at the moment? MAJOR: I'm not getting drawn into that. I see exactly what you're doing, but I'm not going to get drawn into ... HUMPHRYS: Well, it's a question that an awful lot of people would love an answer to for obvious reasons. MAJOR: Indeed, and the moment I start providing an answer they will try and shift the policy even further. The moment they start shifting the policy even further the Europeans decide that we're just playing a game with them, and our influence in the negotiations is lost. I return to the central point. I need influence in those negotiations. I need it in the British national interest. We have held that position for a very long time. I'm not going to change it, I'm not going to change it, .. HUMPHRYS: But why should it ... MAJOR: I'm not going to neuter Britain's interest in these particular negotiations. HUMPHRYS: But why should it neuter Britain's interests to say - Look, we've looked at what's going on, we have serious concerns - and you've accepted that. MAJOR: John, I've been expressing those concerns. HUMPHRYS: Indeed you have. MAJOR: I've been expressing - I don't just mean here. I've been expressing those concerns at European Council (INTERRUPTION)
after European Council, and I will continue to do so. And they hear those concerns, and they know that they are genuine. HUMPHRYS: So would it not therefore strengthen your position - it would certainly strengthen your position with your backbenchers, but put those aside for the moment, we'll return to those. Would it not strengthen your position in Europe to say, the way things are going, because they badly want us to join, the way things are going, it's looking pretty unlikely that we're going to be able to join? MAJOR: That's not just a question of us joining, that is the point. It's a question of whether (INTERRUPTION) - It's a question of whether the whole thing proceeds. They see the domestic debate that goes on in this country, they draw their own conclusions. One of the biggest difficulties one has in Europe is that because of the nature of the domestic debate, people often think the British Government's position is dictated by the domestic debate, and not by a dispassionate judgement. Well, it isn't, it's dictated by a dispassionate judgement, and it is going to continue to be dictated by a dispassionate judgement, because we have to make the right decision for this country, and the right decision for this country needs to be made when we have the facts in front of us, when we can see our position, other people's position, and what the impact of a Single Currency would be either with us in it, or to us if it went ahead but we were not in it. HUMPHRYS: But you are prepared to say on the one hand, if it isn't in Britain's interest, as one would expect the Prime Minister to say - if it isn't in Britain's interests we will veto the whole thing. Why then, people say, are you not prepared to say equally and at the moment, this isn't a commitment on Britain's part, but at the moment it's looking pretty dodgy. That might give them a little incentive might it not, it might give them a little spur to do the decent thing, and stop cooking the books perhaps. MAJOR: You're inviting me to say what in essence I have said at previous European Councils, that I have put it not in the relatively confrontational way you just did, ... HUMPHRYS: Let's remove the confrontation then. MAJOR: I have put in the way of saying, if anyone proceeds with the criteria being improperly met, then there will be damage to the whole of Europe, damage to our employment prospects, damage to our growth prospects, damage to the cohesion that exists across Europe. That is not a new message, it's not a scare story. I have been saying that to our European partners for the last two years. They are sick and tired of hearing me saying it. HUMPHRYS: Well, but perhaps then, in order to... MAJOR: They may have to get used to me saying it a bit longer. HUMPHRYS: Well, indeed. Well, perhaps you can remove that sort of feeling of - Oh, God, he's at it again, byt taking it just that little stage further, and saying: and look guys, the way you're going at the moment I reckon we're not going to be part of this party. MAJOR: Some of them may well meet the criteria. They may well meet the criteria. You're taking a larger step forward on what their position is than is, as yet justified by the facts. Some of them have
taken some actions that look as though they are trying to move perhaps inelegantly towards the proper economic criteria, but they've also taken a lot of hard decisions that are moving them properly towards the criteria. Now let us wait and see how they get on. HUMPHRYS: You see people will be listening to this interview, and you know as well as I that your backbenchers will be sitting there, glued to the television set, this Sunday lunchtime as they obviously are I've no doubt, and they will say: The reason the Prime Minister cannot say that, is because he dare not say that, because his Chancellor of the Exchequer won't let him say that. MAJOR: Yes, that's the fashionable view. It's also complete rubbish. I have been saying this for a very long time, not just over the last few weeks. This isn't a new song you've heard from me. I've made this point about the national interest for a very long time, and I return to the point that I made before. HUMPHRYS: No, but it's what you haven't said you see, that's getting them going. You haven't said the things they want you to say. They say you can't because Mr Clarke won't let you. MAJOR: Well I'm not saying the things they want me to say because I don't agree with the things they want me to say. I'm saying what I believe. I'm saying what I believe. I understand out there over the last few years, the disillusion that there is with Europe - generally across this country - some of it justifiable - some of it, frankly, not justifiable - but as a result of the fact that everything that happens in Europe that's unpalatable gets massive publicity. Everything that happens that is worth while gets no publicity at all. But I understand the disillusion out there. Look, there are three different views about Europe in this country. The first one is that it's a shame we ever went in and it's a pity we can't come out; the second is that Europe is inevitable - we might just as well accept it's inevitable and go down the centralist route with all the rest of the Europeans if that's the way they wish to go; and, the third view - which I hold, which the overwhelming majority of my Party hold, which the overwhelming majority of my country hold, I believe - is that we should be in the European Union, we should play a full part in the European Union. We should express our views in the European Union but that if the Europeans go off in a direction that is unpalatable to us we should say: we are not going with you because that is not suitable for the United Kingdom. Now I very strongly hold to that third view. There are concerns about some of the directions of European policy. Some of the propositions that are before the European Council and will be before the European Council in Amsterdam - when decisions have to be taken - are very unpalatable for this country. I don't think that under any circumstances could we accept them and we have said that but because of this debate every aspect of it is mushrooming up in the most undesirable way because logic is being lost in a wave of emotion. And, it is logic and a cool, dispassionate judgment of our interests that ought to govern what the Government does and will what the Government does. HUMPHRYS: And because it's being lost - to use your language - also because people are saying things - perhaps, not publicly because they dare not say them publicly; but behind closed doors or to journalists over lunch tables, or wherever it happens to be that they don't want to have coming back to their own doors - that was being reported very confidently, as you know in The Daily Telegraph last Monday - that you were, indeed, having second thoughts about Britain going into the first wave of the Single European Currency. MAJOR: I've often expressed the concerns that I expressed to you this morning about a Single Currency. HUMPHRYS: Did you say that to The Daily Telegraph last week then or whenever it was. MAJOR: The concept that I said to anyone - let alone The Daily Telegraph - that I was about to change my policy in the next few days, that Michael Heseltine was persuadable and we were turning a policy that we had had, for a very long time - that I had defended uphill and down dale at the Party Conference, that I had written about and spoken about repeatedly - the concept that I was, suddenly, going to turn that upside down and head in a different direction is just not sustainable, John. It's just not sustainable. We have held to this position for a long time - not because Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and others say that we should but because I happen to believe it is the right thing in the national interest. I'm going to be judged by this. In due course, people will make a judgment: did he close off our national interest options too soon or did he stay there and negotiate for our national interest and make a rational judgment on the facts? I have always said I will make a rational judgment on the facts. And I'm not going to be pushed off that by any sort of campaign from any quarter. HUMPHRYS: So why then did Mr Clarke use that colourful language about boomerangs blowing up - exploding boomerangs? MAJOR: Well, I've no idea - I've no idea what was said. HUMPHRYS: Because he never denied that of course? MAJOR: Well I have no idea what was said. But, I do know that his policy and my policy about maintaining the national interest is the same. HUMPHRYS: And he warned Dr Mawhinney, didn't he - Tory Central Office? MAJOR: No, he did not. HUMPHRYS: To get their scooters. MAJOR: No, he did not. HUMPHRYS: Tell your boys to get the scooters off my....There's a Ken Clarke bit of language if ever I've heard one. MAJOR: Well, no, he did not. What a load of old nonsense. And there was another story about Cabinet Ministers allegedly complaining about Brian Mawhinney to the Chief Whip. HUMPHRYS: We'll come back to that later, if we may. MAJOR: Well, it's factitious and it's just not true, John. HUMPHRYS: But, but- MAJOR: It's just not true. It's the Westminster rumour mill. Now, you mustn't be part of the Westminster rumour mill - we must have a serious discussion about that. HUMPHRYS: Well, Heaven forfend! Heaven forfend. MAJOR: Heaven forfend that you should do so. HUMPHRYS: And I believe that we are. But, it is odd, isn't it that the Chancellor didn't absolutely deny all those things that he was alleged to have said and the implication of that, therefore, must be that he did say them. And, therefore, that he said them because he thought you were trying to do something- MAJOR: John, John, John. HUMPHRYS: -that he didn't approve of. MAJOR: If I denied everything attributed to me, by people allegedly close to me, or alleged friends of mine, or alleged supporters of mine, if I spent my time denying everything reported, or said by you, and your colleagues, on the media that I'm supposed to have said, I'd do nothing else. We get pretty case-hardened to a great deal of this nonsense. Now the substantive issue is what is European Policy. What is tax policy. What is happening to the economy? And, at the moment, we've got a Chancellor of the Exchequer that's delivering the best economic figures that we've seen literally for generations. HUMPHRYS: So, no truth at all in the notion that Tory Central Office was putting around: New Chancellor, New Chance? MAJOR: I cannot conceive that anyone with any authority, or anyone with any knowledge of the upper reaches of Governmment- HUMPHRYS: How about delegated authority? MAJOR: No, no, no, no. No, no, no. I can't know what someone with no delegated authority would be doing here, there and everywhere in the forest. HUMPHRYS: Perhaps these are the boys on scooters? MAJOR: Well, I've no idea. I don't know how many people ride scooters these days but I can certainly tell you it wasn't authoritative. It wasn't coming from anybody who was in any position. HUMPHRYS: But we did hear a former Chairman of the Party this morning going on the media and..on the Frost Programme and saying absolutely publicly: Lose the Chancellor or lose the Election, maybe? Well, that's a worrying thought, isn't it? MAJOR: Losing the Election? I don't think we're going to lose the Election. HUMPHRYS: No, no, no. I mean- MAJOR: And, we're not going to lose the Chancellor. HUMPHRYS: But if this is the choice, you see - there's a lot of people in your Party, as you know, are saying it - this is the choice between losing the Chancellor and losing the Election, let's lose the Chancellor. MAJOR: It's a silly choice. It isn't a choice. People can whip up these storms, if they wish. I've got used to those. I've got used to living in the eye of the storm over the last five, six years or so. I'm not going to be fussed about that. The media have their fetish one week. They move on to another fetish the next week but it's not going to shift my decision. HUMPHRYS: So the Chancellor is unassailable, to use that famous word. MAJOR: Well I wondered how long before ..(laughter)...The Chancellor is a very fine Chancellor of The Exchequer. He's delivering the best economic figures for a very long time. He's going to make you a lot better off in the future John - because the economy's doing a lot better - and everybody else watching this programme. And I'd like a Chancellor that delivers good economic figures. HUMPHRYS: And he's going to stay there until the Election? MAJOR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to stay there. HUMPHRYS: Until the Election? MAJOR: We'll all be staying there at the Election and beyond the Election but what my Cabinet will be then we'll have to wait and see. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's-Let's just stay with Europe for a little bit longer because we have the IGC - the Inter Governmental Conference to think about. We've seen some of the things that are included on the agenda for that, for the new Maastricht Treaty as it were. An awful lot of things there that you are going to have to say: no, no, no, to. MAJOR: Yes that's true. That's exactly true. I mean there are some things in the Treaty that we've been pushing for and there are securely there. There are a lot of things in the Treaty that frankly are an anathema to us, that we will not be able to accept and I have made that absolutely clear. It's been clear for a long time. It's a fashionable story in some quarters that the United Kingdom is isolated. Well if we're right I don't mind being isolated. Because the fact is that some of our European partners wish to go in a direction that I believe firstly is profoundly wrong for Europe. That is the first point and secondly is just a direction that is untenable for the United Kingdom in my judgement. HUMPHRYS: Can I try to sum up your position on Europe as we head into the future? And that is we are prepared to co-operate. We want to do lots of things to co-operate with Europe but we are not prepared to have anything else imposed upon us which would lead to greater European political integration. Is that broadly it? MAJOR: That's BROADLY right. That's broadly right but I think the general way in which you put it wouldn't be wholly accurate but there are a whole series of things that are just not possible for us. I mean the proposition for example that we would have our Immigration and Asylum policy brought under the control of the European Union is absolute nonsense - I couldn't contemplate that for a moment. Labour Members of the European Parliament may want that, indeed so they do. But I don't want that. That's not going to happen. The concept that we are going to surrender control over our own borders is absolutely ludicrous. There is no question of us remotely being able to do that. The proposition that we should have our foreign policy decided by qualified majority vote in Brussels is laughable. We couldn't possibly contemplate that. Our opponents might but be couldn't possibly contemplate that. Now, there are a whole range- HUMPHRYS: Or any other further QMV for that matter? MAJOR: I don't see any need for any real extension of QMV. I don't know whether hiding in the undergrowth for some tiny area that's worthwhile. I can't be absolutely certain about that. But I certainly don't remotely agree to the massive extension of qualified majority voting. HUMPHRYS: On any of the major issues? MAJOR: Well not on social issues for example and not on industrial issues for example. The Labour Party have committed themselves to a whole series of areas where they would extend qualified majority voting. Well we won't extend qualified majority voting in those areas. Whether there's some tiny area lurking in the undergrowth that means that it isn't an absolute blanket - no I can't be absolutely certain - if there is I don't know what it is. I don't at the moment anticipate seeing any more qualified majority voting as being acceptable to us. HUMPHRYS: And on a whole list of things, scrapping Border Controls, you say. Common Asylum policy, European police force, more powers for the Commission and Parliament, common Employment policy. All of those things you are absolutely clear; no further down that road. MAJOR: Well a common Employment policy would be very silly for us wouldn't it? I mean you've got the Germans just getting over four million unemployed, the French at three million unemployed, the Italians at nearly three million unemployed and we are now getting people back into work - have a much lower rate of Unemployment; still too high but falling. Quite significantly, a much lower rate of Unemployment than everybody else. The concept that I am going to agree, to Employment policy being centralised in Europe when it would be to repeal most of the changes that we have made to our labour market over the last eighteen years is just laughable. HUMPHRYS: So if Employment criteria were to be included as far as the Single European Currency is concerned that's dead then? MAJOR: Now, that's what-That is what people have got to realise, particularly those in my own Party who would wish to change our policy. Some time between now and May the 1st - could be May the
15th - but it won't be later than May the 1st - we will have a General Election. The decision... HUMPHRYS: Last time we spoke you told me no later than May the 1st. MAJOR: I've just said that again. I said it could be as late as May 15th, but in practice it won't be later than May the 1st. HUMPHRYS: Well, alright. Oh, in practice, I'm so sorry. MAJOR: There you are you see. This is how the ......gets things wrong. HUMPHRYS: We've corrected it instantly. I beg your pardon. MAJOR: Excellent, excellent. HUMPHRYS: In practice it will be no later than May 1st. Right, okay. MAJOR: But the final decisions in this Inter Governmental Conference on borders, on qualified majority vote, on all these other issues we've just been talking about will be taken in the last days, the last hours of the Amsterdam Summit in June. Now everyone is going to have to decide whether they want the pragmatic Conservative approach or whether they want the massive extension of European authority that would follow the election of a different Government. Now that is a choice I invite my own Party to examine as well as the nation when the election comes. HUMPHRYS: So President Santer - Jacques Santer,
President of the Commission - is right when he says that's the hour of truth approaching when we have to decide whether we are into Europe as a free market or whether we're into a political union. MAJOR: It's an over simplification isn't it? It's an over simplification that the Europeans are fond of making; that on one hand you have total political integration and on the other hand you have nothing but a common trading area. And they do it frequently. But of course there is a vast range in between that. We're in between that now in terms of some areas of political agreement. But it is perfectly true. I agree with Mr Santer the moment of truth is approaching and it's approaching for Europe as well as for the United Kingdom because some of the decisions that Europe will take, if they proceeded down the route that many of them wish to, would profoundly change the European Union. And for the first time you would have a European Union of a different character to the one that we have had thus far. So it is true a moment of truth is approaching for the Europeans. It is also approaching for us. I wish us to co-operate in Europe. I enthusiastically agreed with us going in Europe. It's still in our interests, very heavily in our interests to be a major player in the European Union. HUMPHRYS: Your European Union. The European Union that you decide. MAJOR: Well I'm coming precisely to that point. To be a major player in the European Union as a whole. But it is not in our interests to try and go down a route that would be unpalatable to the British nation, unacceptable to the British Nation and very probably unworkable in the future. Now what I am looking at is whether what is proposed is workable generally in the future as well as whether it is right for the United Kingdom. And some things are not and this is not before people jump on it and say: Ah, here's a new let out for the Prime Minister. Let me now remind you that I said all this in the Leiden Lecture over two years ago when I raised the question of a more flexible European Union. And I've explained what I mean by that. The European Union thus far has broadly gone along in a way in which all the nation states did the same thing at the same time in broadly the same way. That's no longer going to be possible. It is not going to be possible. It's not going to be possible with fifteen nations in the way that it was with six or ten. Certainly not going to be possible when there are twenty-six nations as there will be in the next ten years or so. So we need flexibility. The question is what sort of flexibility? The French and the Germans have put forward some ideas, the British have put forward some ideas. And out of this Inter Governmental Conference will come a new form of European Union with a different form of flexibility. Now what we have to determine is that it is a flexibility that preserves the things that are important to Britain, without Britain being forced into a position without influence in the European Union. Now that is negotiable. It is very difficult but it is negotiable. But it is not negotiable if we have ourselves sidelined on all the important issues. I cannot negotiate all these if I'm sidelined on every other issue because of domestic arguments. And it is in the British interest that we take part in those discussions, that we win those arguments, that we negotiate and employ the traditional British genius -, occasionally for pragmatism, and some compromise to perserve the British interest. Now that is what is going to happen in the next six months and these trivial, absurd arguments - overblown and distorted as they have been over recent weeks - do no good to ensuring that we have the right outcome from those discussions in the period between now and Amsterdam. HUMPHRYS: So you seem to be saying that your critics, within and without your Party are damaging your position, your negotiating position in Europe? MAJOR: It's self evidently the case. I don't seem to be saying it, I am saying it. It seems to be the case if you're playing poker with fourteen other skilled poker players you don't turn your cards face up so they can see precisely what they are. If you do you don't win the hand of poker. And poker as a game negotiating with our European partners is deadly serious. It's Britain's interest at stake. So if we're sometimes opaque, if I don't sometimes respond with a total clarity about exactly what I would wish to do, there is a very good reason for it. I can respond with total clarity on every issue and all my European partners will know exactly what my negotiating position is, exactly where it comes from, exactly what room for compromise I may have and what chance do I have then of winning the arguments? You know it would not make sense to do that. I know it would not make sense to do that and I am not going to be pushed into doing that because I do not believe if I did so that I could properly win the arguments that I believe I can win and will win between now and Amsterdam. HUMPHRYS: So you're saying to your Party - trust me. MAJOR: I am saying to my Party trust me. I said eighteen months or so ago to my party, much to their surprise at the time, that if they wanted to change the leadership here was their option. They didn't push me into that, I gratutiously offered it. There you are, I said, you know what my policies are, you know what I am seeking to do. If you wish to change me I have freely given you the opportunity to do so. They did not take that opportunity. By a very large majority they did not take that opportunity. Now I'm going to try and negotiate what I think is right for this country. And if I have to choose between the Party interest and the national interest, I will choose the national interest and nobody should be in any doubt whatsoever about that. HUMPHRYS: Even if it costs you the election? MAJOR: I shall choose the national interest. HUMPHRYS: But you are saying to them - if the Franco/German vision of Europe is what I am being pushed into, I don't want any part of that. MAJOR: It's rather more complex than just that. HUMPHRYS: That's the broad picture. MAJOR: I am not going into, and have never shown any enthusiasm whatsoever, for a centralist Europe, a federalist Europe, if you like to use the jargon, that means different things to different people in different countries. But that is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. Co-operation yes, working with our European partners yes, extending co-operation with our European partners, yes. Working together to further the interests of all Europe, yes, yes, and yes again. But being forced to have decisions that rightly belong domestically across the range of issues that we talked about earlier, determined elsewhere, that is not what I think is in our interests. Now colleagues are going to have to trust me. If they don't, well, they must make that decision, but I am clear in my mind what is the right course to take in our European policy. I have set it out often enough in the past. When I have set it out, it has quelled these savage disputes for a while, and then they have blown up in a different part of the forest. But my position hasn't changed on these issues, and it's not going to change in the last few months before the General Election. HUMPHRYS: You're going to be meeting Mr Bruton tomorrow. You will talk to him, the Prime Minister of Ireland, you're going to be talking to him about Europe. You'll also be talking to him about Northern Ireland, and there is a great worry about what's happening in Northern Ireland clearly, because we do not have a ceasefire. Do you believe that there is the prospect now, of another ceasefire - a real prospect? MAJOR: Well, I can't say I'm optimistic, but I couldn't rule it out either, and I will tell you why. There is a great deal of pressure for a ceasefire from many people who broadly support the Republican cause, a great deal of pressure. What I do not wish to see would be a phony ceasefire, a ceasefire simply to score public relations victories, and to try and have Sinn Fein parachuted into the talks without actually giving up the violence that has sustained it, that has sustained the IRA for so long. I'm not interested in a phoney ceasefire. In retrospect we had a phoney ceasefire. We thought we had a real one, and what did we subsequently find out. We subsequently found out that within days of declaring the ceasefire Sinn Fein/IRA were filling garages in London with Semtex and explosives. That's not a genuine ceasefire. Now there should be no doubt about what I would wish to see. Yes, I would like a ceasefire - yes, I would like it to be genuine, yes - I would like it to be monitored, so that we can see that it's genuine, and they're not targetting people, they're not buying arms, they're not preparing to go back to violence. And when I am satisfied there is such a ceasefire, a genuine ceasefire, and that it looks as though it is going to be sustainable, and I will not wait for too long to see if it is to be sustainable... HUMPHRYS: How long? MAJOR: I'm not going to give you a time. It depends on actions, not on the passage of a few days or weeks. Once I am satisfied that is the case, then I will be as firm an advocate for the entry of Sinn Fein into inclusive talks, as would Sinn Fein be themselves, because I wish - I've devoted a good deal of the last six years to trying to get inclusive talks, so that we can hammer out an agreement that can remove the misery of violence from Northern Ireland for good if it can be done, but I'm not going down a fake path again. We've done that and we were betrayed by Sinn Fein/IRA, who said one thing when they were doing another. This time it needs to be real. HUMPHRYS: So it depends more then, on your intelligence reports, than on the passage of time? MAJOR: Correct. HUMPHRYS: To the extent that progress has been made in Northern Ireland, it's been made because we have worked - the British Government has worked so closely with the Dublin Government. You've upset them now, because you've published your own position in the papers a couple of weeks ago. That ruptured relations. That's a worrying factor isn't it. Wasn't that a mistake to do that, in retrospect? MAJOR: No, it wasn't a mistake. Indeed it was an inevitability. Everybody else had set out their position, and Sinn Fein were seeking to set up a position that was not true, as to what the British Government's position was. Mr Adams had been doing interviews determining his position for days. If I had not published our position in the conspiracy atmosphere that so often exists in Northern Ireland politics, many people would have feared that we were doing a backstairs deal with Sinn Fein and with the IRA. We were not, and the only way to make it clear to people that we were not, was to set out patently and clearly what our position was. There's nothing unreasonable about our position - very hard to find anybody who would say it's unreasonable to say: yes, you can come into talks if you stop killing people, and if we are certain you're not going to go back to killing people, and if you remove the gun and the bomb from underneath the negotiating table. I don't think that's asking a great deal... HUMPHRYS: Dublin thinks you've increased the barriers. MAJOR: Well, we haven't increased the barriers, and I think Dublin know that. HUMPHRYS: Let's look at your Budget, the state of the economy. Many people assume that the Budget was going to be the last real shot in your locker. Now forgive .... MAJOR: You mean the press and the media? HUMPHRYS: I mean many in your Party as well who were hoping that that would be the case, but forgive the horrible metaphor, it turned out to be a dmap squib didn't it? MAJOR: No, it didn't, it didn't. Budgets aren't for PR purposes in the short term. Many people said twelve months ago:
Well, Ken Clarke's Budget, not a great deal in this, but it's actually steered us to a very good economic position. HUMPHRYS: You've only got ten months to go. MAJOR: You're looking at it purely politically. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the economy. As Ken Clarke said, good economics is good politics, and so... HUMPHRYS: In the long run maybe. MAJOR: Well, I think the long run may be a good deal shorter than you possibly imagine. If you look at what is actually happening in the economy at the moment, you've got the highest growth of any European nation, we've got incomes growing, we've got prices falling, we've got unemployment falling, we've got exports growing, we've got the trade gap narrowing, we've got the most competitive position in the United Kingdom economy that you and I have known since before you first joined the BBC. Now that's not a bad background. Economically we will enter the General Election whenever it comes, with the best economic scenario that any Government has entered into at a General Election for generations, and the best economic prospects that any Government has had for generations, now I think that's not a bad position to be in. And most of the wiser commentators before the Budget were saying that the wise thing to do in the Budget was not a great deal - that was the advice we were getting from business and commerce, both large and small business and commerce, and I agree with that, and so did the Chancellor. HUMPHRYS: Well, you may, he may, some experts may, but the public seems not to, and the public is going to vote on you in the next few months. And you've seen what the opinion polls say, what they think of the Budget, which is forget it - you are ten points some say, further adrift than you were before. MAJOR: The opinion polls - what nonsense John. HUMPHRYS: Well, a week ago on this very programme your Deputy Prime Minister was commending the opinion polls to me because they were showing a slight improvement. MAJOR: John, there was a ludicrous opinion poll last week. It was published I think, on Thursday or Friday morning - Friday morning I think - quite ludicrous, and curiously on Thursday night we had a whole series of local council by-elections right across the country, and we made gains right across the country, and we got a higher vote right across the country. Now there is dichotomy between what people are saying to some of the
opinion polls who probably have a bad sample in any event, and what is actually happening, when you look at the local election results, the reality is that the changed economic position in this country is filtering through, and it's now beginning to filter through quite quickly. You can see it in a range of things, you can see it in vanishing negative equity - try booking a restaurant, try going into the shops, try getting a seat on a plane at short notice, try - just see what it's like over the weekend when you go and do your Christmas shopping and compare it to recent years. The economy is beginning to become very healthy, it is very healthy indeed, and is getting stronger. Now that is what people see, and that is what people are beginning to feel and that matters HUMPHRYS: Alright. You may deride the poll. There may have been a rogue poll, who knows, they do exist that's sure, but it added didn't it to what was for you a truly awful week, it really was? MAJOR: Well, that's Westminster chatter of course. HUMPHRYS Everything we've seen in the last week? MAJOR: No, no, no no, no. The fact that the opinion poll added to an awful week. I think if you go out in the middle of the country, go out in the middle of Blackburn, I doubt that they even know what the opinion poll was, so it added to the position of a few opinion formers like you and a few politicians around the House of Commons, but opinion polls don't impact upon the public as a whole. What impacts upon the public as a whole is what is happening, what is happening in their own lives, whether more people are being treated in the Health Service as they are, whether more of our youngsters are getting into university as they are, whether people are having more net disposable income as they have, whether they can see the economy getting better as they do. Those are the things that really matter. HUMPHRYS: But they also see, whether it's the people of Blackburn, or Blackpool, or Birmingham, or anywhere else, they also see things going wrong with the Government. They see the wheels or, at least, they keep being told - by your own backbenchers amongst them - that the wheels are coming off this country. It is becoming ungovernable. MAJORS: Well, that's self-evidently not so. You have to judge by the result of what is happening in the country. HUMPHRYS: You lost your majority this week? MAJOR: Well, Labour Government governed, I think, for five years without a full majority. I don't think that was unexpected - given the small majority we had when we started in this Parliament and the fact that we have now, virtually, completed a full five-year Parliamentary term against the expectations of many of the people who thought we wouldn't get this far. But this is Westminster froth again. HUMPHRYS: Froth! MAJOR: Westminster froth, Westminster froth, John. You need to go out and see what is happening. Oh, it's no good you looking shocked, you know it's Westminster froth. HUMPHRYS: Surprise, surprise - rather than shock - I'm past being shocked - no, no. But John Gorst, one of your old stalwarths from years and years ago saying: That's it. I'm withdrawing my support. You've got Terry Dicks, you've got Hugh Dykes threatening to do much the same sort of thing. You've got George Gardiner this morning saying: I'm not going to support the Chancellor's European policy because he clearly sees a difference between his policy and your policy. MAJOR: Well, I'm very surprised to hear him say that. When George was about to be-When George was facing reselection some time ago, I believe, he saved himself by saying that he was a Government loyalist. So I'm extremely surprised to hear him saying that. HUMPHRYS: But you did see him saying that in The Express this morning. MAJOR: As to the other cases, there was a time in the 1980s when we had a majority of over a hundred - at one stage, we had a majority of nearly one hundred and forty. Throughout the whole of the period of any Government in recent years, there have been a small number of people who were mavericks upon one issue or another. When there's a majority of a hundred, they don't matter. Nobody takes much notice of them. You don't take any notice of them. You wouldn't have quoted George Gardiner and others to me when we had a majority of a hundred in the House of Commons. You'd have regarded it as utterly irrelevant because you know and I know that there are always a few mavericks in Parliament. HUMPHRYS: He's now threatening the Government. MAJOR: The fact is..the difference is simply that we have a small majority. HUMPRHYS: Pretty important difference. MAJOR: Let's- You said the wheels are coming off the wagon. Let us deal with the reality in terms of policy. They would have been irrelevant, if we had not had a very narrow majority. Now, because we don't have a majority any one single backbencher can have his moment of fame if he decides that he is going to be difficult on any particular issue of policy. Well, the Government can't be held to ransom like this and we're not going to be held to ransom like this. We're going to continue with our policies and everybody will have to make their judgment whether they're going to support us or not. If they don't support us, then, we may have a General Election but that is in the nature of politics. But I'm not going to be held to ransom by any single backbencher on any issue. HUMPHRYS: But let's look at the reasons why they're doing it. I mean it may well be that the reason they're behaving like that is because they can see that the next Election is lost and from now on it's every man for himself. They may not actually be jumping ship but they're sure as heck building the lifeboats! MAJOR: Well, all I can say - well, I don't believe that is the case. In fact, I'm certain it isn't the case - but if they really do think that then I think they are dangerously out of touch with the view that our activists have of people who hold the Government to ransom. You saw that pretty clearly at the Party Conference. There's a lot at stake. Are you seriously saying to me that any of those backbenchers you mention would rather have Mr Blair going off to Amsterdam in June to negotiate and have the social.. HUMPHRYS: Well I'm saying it's beginning to look exactly like that. Absolutely, they way they're going on! MAJOR: Well, in that case, I think, they should sit back for a moment, take a cool, collective think and ask themselves do they want Mr Blair signing up to the Social Chapter? Do they want him under pressure to give away our Border Controls and Asylum and Immigration controls? Do they really want to go down that sort of route in Europe? HUMPHRYS: But that's the extraordinary thing. MAJOR: Do they want to get rid of...well you'd better go and ask them about that. Don't ask about me. HUMPHRYS: But presumably, you've asked them about that? They've read that. MAJOR: Well, they must make their own judgments about that. I can just tell you I'm not going to be held to ransom by any single Member of Parliament on any single policy. We've set out our policy and we're going to get it through. If we don't get it through, then, we don't get it through. But, I'm not going to have the Government bending and weaving away from the things that it believes are right on the basis that somebody's trying a bit of pork barrel politics or a bit of arm-twisting of the Government because it has a small majority. And, I'll tell any of our backbenchers who have that in mind. They won't get much warmth from the Party activists up and down the country if they imperil what this Government has achieved and what its predecessors have done over eighteen years because they have a bee in their bonnet about a particular policy. HUMPHRYS: Maybe, you'd better tell your Cabinet Ministers to stop having a go at Tory Central Office and vice versa as well while they're about it, then? You mentioned Brian Mawhinney earlier - well. MAJOR: There, you're back in the rumour mill, again, aren't you? HUMPHRYS: Well, I said I'd pick it up. You referred to it earlier. MAJOR: Well, come on to serious matters. Come on to serious matters, John. Let's get away from this rumour mill. Thus far, you've done extremely well and you've asked serious questions and I'd very much like to continue in that vein. I'm not going to get sucked into the area of who might have said what at some fictional occasion, reported by somebody else who wasn't there at the time - all sorts of crazy things. If you sat there any morning with me and had the report that I get on what is in the Press and you knew what the Government's posture was and what the Government were doing and you then saw what it was reported other people were saying, you would realise why I am, sometimes, just a touch dismissive of what I hear reported about what other people have said and done. HUMPHRYS: Aren't you also just a bit fed up with it all? You've been there a fairly long time now. Don't you sometimes say: this is a lovely place to be Huntingdon and all that, nice garden out there, nice conservatory that we're sitting in. Don't you think oh for Heaven's sake. MAJOR: But I love politics. That's the point you need to bear in mind. Yes, I've been there six years. It's been a very good six years. I look forward to the next six years. There's still a lot to do. Many of the things I would like to have done in this last Parliament we have only begun to do. The Education changes, the improved health reforms - many other things that I would dearly love to do. We haven't been able to proceed with them as rapidly as I would have liked because we've had to deal with the recession and put the economy in order. We've now got the economy in order. The Government after the Election is going to be operating against the backcloth of the strongest economy you've seen in this country literally for generations. We can turn on to the social agenda, the things that politicians really care about. So, if you think I'm thinking of packing my bags and walking off, then you're wholly wrong. HUMPHRYS: On and on and on and on? MAJOR: You're wholly wrong. HUMPHRYS: Prime Minister, thank you very much, indeed. MAJOR: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week, we'll be back next Sunday at the same time from Huntingdon good afternoon. ...oooOooo...