................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 23.6.96
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Was it a triumph or was it a travesty? I'll be talking to the Foreign Secretary and asking him whether the beef row was just a lovers' tiff or whether our marriage with Europe is approaching an irretrievable breakdown. That's after the News read by MOIRA STUART. NEWS HUMPHRYS: Mr Major insists that what he got in Florence was what he set OUT to get, and therefore he'd been right to sabotage the business of Brussels. Many others say that's nonsense and the policy of non co-operation was, if anything, counter-productive. And SOME say our relationship with our European partners can never be quite the same again. Well, let's discuss all that with the Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind. Good Afternoon Mr Rifkind. MALCOLM RIFKIND MP: Good Afternoon. HUMPHRYS: You've been claiming a victory, but now that we know the details it turns out it's nothing of the sort. RIFKIND: I have not been claiming a victory. That's your words, not mine. What I've said and what the Prime Minister has said is that we achieved what we set out to achieve, and that's very very important, because the objective was to do two things, to get the ban on beef derivative so called, lifted, that was lifted about ten days ago, and to get agreed a framework which will provide for the phased lifting of the rest of the ban. That's now in place, and frankly, four weeks ago no-one would have given us an earthly for getting that in place by the Florence summit. HUMPHRYS: Well, you wanted the world-wide ban, selling beef to other countries lifted as well. The agreement doesn't say it will be lifted, only that it may be lifted. RIFKIND: Well, there's two things happening on that front. First of all, we had a very great deal of resistance to that, but what they've accepted is that if a country applies to Britain to buy British beef, then that can be looked at on a case by case basis, and of course there's really not that many countries traditionally outside Europe that we sell beef to. One of the most important is South Africa. South Africa are indicating that they are interested in buying British beef, so we should be able to test that in the very near future. The second side of that same coin is of course there is a court action being considered at this very moment. Within the next week or so we should get a ruling which we hope will declare that part of the ban totally invalid. HUMPHRYS: Well, as you say it'll test it or not, because the point is it's got to go to the commission. Let's say South Africa says, "Yes, we'd like to buy some of your beef". It then has to go to the commission - the commission then has to consult the veterinary experts and the scientists, and they are the very people who got us in trouble in the first place. RIFKIND: No. There's only one legitimate interest the European Union has on whether we sell beef for example, to South Africa, and that's whether it might re-export from South Africa back to a European Union country. Now that's a legitimate concern, and therefore they will have to be satisfied that that sort of re-exporting which does occasionally happen, wouldn't happen in these sort of circumstances. HUMPHRYS: But the vets aren't going to say - and scientists aren't going to say, "Surely, yeah of course you can sell the stuff to South Africa. We wouldn't eat it, the French wouldn't eat it, the Germans wouldn't eat it. It's alright for the South Africans to eat it". RIFKIND: Well, sixty million people in Britian are eating it. That's the crucial point worth remembering. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but..... RIFKIND: Hold on, hold on. Not only are sixty million people in Britain eating it, but Franz Fischler the European Union Commissioner has said that British beef is safe to eat. That's why we believe the whole ban in Europe and elswhere is unreasonable and unneccessary. But we accept that being realistic to get that ban lifted throughout Europe is going to happen phase by phase. The question of sales to other countries, that now, it's been agreed contrary to the wishes of a number of countries, there can be exceptions to allow that to happen. HUMPHRYS: Well, there can, there might possibly be acceptions. RIFKIND: Nothing's certain in this world. HUMPHRYS: Ah, but exactly, but very uncertain indeed. Have a look what Dick Spring said: it is extremely unlikely it'll be lifted for third countries before it's lifted for the European Union. RIFKIND: Well, that's what the original European Union satement said. That was changed during the course of the Florence summit, and it was agreed that if a country for its own domestic consumption wishes to buy British beef there can be exceptions. That was what was agreed. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's look at what people said after the summit then. Klaus Henscher, President of the European parliament: in practice, it's not going to happen. RIFKIND: First of all Mr Henscher is not in the European Commission, nor is he in any member government. He is President of the European parliament. It's rather like Madam Speaker expressing a view on what the government might do. It's very interesting to hear, it doesn't necessarily tell you what you need to know. HUMPHRYS: Well, let me give you a quote from somebody who is in the Commission then, Mr Van der Pass (phon) who is the spokesman for the Commission, for the President. "It does not commit the Commission to do anything at all". RIFKIND: Well, that's not correct. If you read the document, what the document says, and I've been very much involved in the drafting of the document - what it says is, that when the United Kingdom believes that the conditions have been met to lift part of the ban - let's take for example herds that normally only eat grass and therefore could not have been infected by the animal feed that may cause BSE. When the United Kingdom is satisfied that it has a certification scheme in place then it can put forward proposals showing that it meets the necessary conditions, and what has been agreed now which we did not have before, is that that can't be interfered with by other member governments applying non-scientific criteria. What caused this whole crisis a few weeks ago was when the Commission were totally satisfied that the conditions had been met to lift the ban on beef derivatives, and a number of governments for their own domestic political reasons blocked that happening...refused to co-operate with the Commission. That's what caused the crisis, that can't happen now. HUMPHRYS: Now, you say that the court case over this goes on. We haven't dropped the court case. RIFKIND: Correct. HUMPHRYS: A bit odd that isn't it. If we've got what we wanted, to continue to take to court those people who gave us what we wanted. RIFKIND: What we want is the whole ban to be lifted, and we're not suggesting that the ban has been lifted yet. And if the court case can be successful and lift the ban completely, say what we believe,
that it should never have been introduced in the first place, that's even preferable. HUMPHRYS: So, we didn't get what we wanted? RIFKIND: Look, Mr Humphrys, we never suggested that the purpose of the non-co-operation policy was that it would continue until the ban was lifted. That's not what the Prime Minister said, so those who criticise the Prime Minister for not achieving something he didn't set out to achieve through this policy, have only got themselves to .... HUMPHRYS: Well, that's partly because you set very very limited objectives indeed didn't you... RIFKIND: No, we set realistic objectives. If you're involved in a negotiation, it's no use going for the moon and saying unless you actually leap from here to the moon in one go then everything is a complete disaster. That's foolish, that's not the real world. HUMPHRYS: But if you've set such limited objectives one wonders whether where's any point in getting involved in this sort of threat at all. I mean why bother, you know, it .... RIFKIND: Well, you only have to ask yourself, would we have achieved what has been achieved, but for the policy of non-co-operation in the last four weeks. For the first eight weeks of this crisis nothing happened, no lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, no agreement by other member states to discuss an exit strategy as to how the ban was to be lifted, a number of countries, Germany, Austria and so forth saying, "This is too difficult, come back in a few months' time - our own public opinion feels too strongly about this" The Prime Minister said that's unacceptable. Four weeks ago he said to the House of Commons, "Until we get an agreement which lays down the basis on which this beef ban is going to be lifted we will have the non-co-operation policy". Four weeks later we have that strategy. HUMPHRYS: And the beef ban hasn't been lifted, not even the world-wide ban has been lifted. RIFKIND: Shall I repeat it to you more slowly? HUMPHRYS: Well no, I take the point that you're making, but what I'm saying is that it was such a limited objective wasn't it? I mean to say to the farmers of Britain, just forget everybody else, but just the farmers of Britain. "Look, we've scored some kind of victory. Alright, I take your point, you're not saying we got everying we wanted, but we scored some kind of victory. The trouble is you still can't sell your beef". I mean
they're entitled to shake their heads aren't they? RIFKIND: First of all, if it was such a limited objective why do you think hundreds of French farmers were demonstrating in France a couple of days ago.. HUMPHRYS: Because they can't stand the Brits. RIFKIND: ...hold on, attacking their government for allegedly backing down to British pressure. Why has the German government been attacked in the Bunderstag and by its opposition and by its press for giving in to the British, and all these sort of accusations all over Europe. You know, we can't all be doing the same thing, if that is indeed what has actually happened. The point I'm making is that we realise perfectly well that in order to get the ban lifted you actually have to have a negotiated structure whereby that will happen. We had to get our colleagues to concentrate on the need to agree to such a strategy which they weren't prepared to do four weeks ago. Now we've got that. HUMPHRYS: If we've got at least that, and if things are going reasonably well then, in that case one wonders why Mr Hogg is under so much pressure. I read this morning that he is going to be sacrificed. RIFKIND: If you believed or I believed everything you read in the newspapers, you and I wouldn't be bothering talking to each other at this moment in time. HUMPHRYS: So, no truth in that. Full confidence in Mr Hogg? RIFKIND: I think that's complete nonsense, but these are matters for the Prime Minister, not for me. HUMPHRYS: Full confidence? RIFKIND: I said I think it's complete nonsense, but that's a matter for the Prime Minister, not for me, as it is for every minister including even the Foreign Secretary. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's look at another price that we have paid as a result of what we've done in Europe. We've got a deal of sorts, but at the cost of immense damage to our relationship with our colleagues in Europe. RIFKIND: I'm not certain about that. I know people - it's very fashionable to make that kind of remark. I remember a few weeks ago the French were being attacked from all sides because of their nuclear tests. We were the only friend they had. Thirteen other countries, every meeting I went to bitterly attacked the French. They were told how their whole place in the world was being sacrificed by this policy, not just in Europe but elsewhere, and now two months later the world's moved on, and the reality is that what countries respect, what other governments understand is when a government says "I'm sorry, there is an important national interest at stake here, we don't like doing what we're doing but we believe this is something which is crucial to the well-being of our people". And also in this particular case, going back to the beef situation for a moment, there was a deep sense of unfairness in the United Kingdom, not because we didn't recognise there was a public health problem because of BSE, of course there is, and that's much more a problem in the United Kingdom than in any other country, so we recognise the need to protect public health, and to get rid of BSE. What was grossly unfair was the fact that people in a number of countries were getting so emotional about it that they were not prepared to look at the scientific facts, but simply had a knee jerk reaction, imposing blanket bans and embargoes simply as a result of domestic political pressure back home. HUMPHRYS: You say other governments will sympathise with us ultimately, maybe already do sympathise with us, Prime Minister of Sweden - Sweden, one of our friends in Europe, I was going to say one of our few friends in Europe, but nonetheless one of our friends in Europe, this will remembered, Britain will pay a very high price. RIFKIND: Look if you have a non-co-operation policy which is to put pressure on your colleagues, you can't expect them to welcome it. It would be much more newsworthy if you were able to tell me that the Commission and other governments had welcomed Britain's policy of non-co-operation, and said we think this is exactly right and we're very pleased... don't be naive. HUMPHRYS: Well no, you're saying they would say that anyway? RIFKIND: The point of the policy was to put pressure on them to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. They have their own domestic opinion. They cannot say to their own public opinion, we welcome this pressure being put upon us, we think it's a great idea, and we've given in to it. Of course, they've got to say this is a failed policy, this hasn't worked, anything that the British have got, they would have got anyway. Of course they would have to say that. HUMPHRYS: They don't use such language. RIFKIND: Well, the fact is that we wouldn't have achieved in four weeks what we certainly did not achieve in the previous eight for that policy. HUMPHRYS: Well, that's not what Mr Santer says. Yesterday's results, he said the day after, could have been achieved quickly and without any political damage. Now, you're saying he would have said that anyway. RIFKIND: Well, the facts speak for themselves Mr Humphrys, for two months that's what we tried to achieve. And there was no lifting of the ban on beef derivatives and there was no... INTERRUPTION RIFKIND: ..hold on, let me finish at least the sentence. For two months we tried the path of patient diplomacy, we had no lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, it was blocked despite of the goodwill of the Commission. We had no even willingness to discuss the strategy for lifting the rest of the ban. We started a non-co-operation policy, four weeks later, at the Florence Summit, it all happens. HUMPHRYS: Well, you've left something out of that, haven't you? In the meantime, we've also said we'll slaughter another sixty thousand cows if you want us to. RIFKIND: Hold on, let's just be realistic for a moment. First of all, every single animal that is being slaughtered and destroyed and not being allowed to enter the food chain, that was going to happen anyway. INTERRUPTION RIFKIND: ..yes, every single one of them... HUMPHRYS: That was born between '89 and '90. RIFKIND: Yes, every single one of them because the government announced two months ago a policy whereby every cow over the age of thirty months would when it ended its working life, be slaughtered and destroyed, the carcass would be destroyed. Now what the Commission asked was that be brought forward for those between '89 and '90. Accelerate, not... a new group of cattle be identified, but that it be brought forward because there was a slightly higher risk that they might have BSE. We've agreed to do that and we've agreed to compensation.... HUMPHRYS: Well now this acceleration bits a bit odd, isn't it. I mean, both you and I both know we're going to die, but if somebody said "Listen will it be alright with you if you die next week instead of in thirty years' time", we'd say "Sure" ..It's a preposterous thing to say... RIFKIND: Well, you said it and you're quite right, what you said is prepostrous. And let me explain again to you patiently, if you're prepared to listen without interrupting me, and I think I can deal with the point very easily because it's a very easy point. I was not saying that all cattle eventually die just as you and I will eventually die, this might happen a bit earlier. I said that we have at the moment a scheme which was announced two months ago whereby all animals over the age of thirty months when they've reached the end of their natural working life are slaughtered and destroyed. Now, for dairy cattle, which is what we're talking about, mainly it's '89, '90 the average life of dairy cows is six years eight months. 1989 ..... let me finish, we're talking about cattle born seven years ago. Now, some would have continued for two or three years longer because they have a longer working life and these are the ones who are going to be slaughtered and destroyed earlier than would otherwise have happened. That is way additional compensation was paid. Okay, so it's not quite .... HUMPHRYS: ... except that the idea that the average life of cows is six or seven years, so therefore we slaughter all those who are older than that is I repeat preposterous, because you'll find many herds in this country where the average age of a cow is nine or ten years old and those animals are going have to die and they wouldn't have otherwise had to die. That's the point. RIFKIND: No, it's not the point. Instead of just repeating something that's wrong and thinking you've settled the case, the fact is that all cattle, every single cow in the United Kingdom for the time being until the BSE problem is eradicated, over the age of thirty months is not allowed to enter the food chain, and so when it's slaughtered the carcass is destroyed. That is what is going to happen, that was announced two months ago, not just in the last week. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's move to the wider picture. Beef is not just an isolated incident, is it? It is part of a much wider picture. We are at loggerheads with our European partners over so many issues and what I suggest to you is that isn't just the sort of lovers' tiff that's blown up and is going to be forgotten, as you I think suggested in maybe a couple of weeks or months, this is approaching an irretrievable break-down of marriage. RIFKIND: In the best families, there are disagreements. What was unique about the beef problem, quite different from the other disagreements we've had with the European Union, is that this was a unique situation of fourteen other countries imposing an export ban on the fifteenth, which was the United Kingdom, a policy which only applied to the United Kingdom, which breached the Single Market, and then when the Commission advised at least part of the ban could already be lifted, refusing to do so. Now, that is what created the crisis, that's a unique set of circumstances.. HUMPHRYS: Jean-Luc Dehaene says we must find a way of preventing this from ever happening again. It cannot be allowed to happen again. We must find a way of making attitudes like the one adopted by the U.K. impossible or to punish it with sanctions. RIFKIND: These are brave ... brave rhetoric, which doesn't actually add up to a row of beans, if I may say so, because what the United Kingdom, it is not unique, it is a policy which the Italians, the
French, the Spanish and various issues of policy had blocked matters which they do not have a disagreement over in order to bring pressure to achieve a different result. This is not a unique situation, and even Belgium I have to say, has not been immune from that particular tactic when it thinks it suits its national interest. HUMPHRYS: But it is indicative of an attitude isn't it? And we've got Santer himself saying it must never happen again. RIFKIND: Because Santer is President of the Commission and the Commission inevitably have to say to all member states, and it's not just the United Kingdom - at the moment Greece, for example, has been blocking regulations on aid to the Mediterranean, because of its disagreement with Turkey. It has been doing that for several months. This is not an unusual.... HUMPHRYS: So what do we do than when maybe Mr Dehaene, maybe Belgium, maybe somebody else introduces or tries to introduce some measures that would prevent us...or indeed any other country, doing what we've just done? RIFKIND: Anything which involves changing the Treaty can only happen if there is unanimity. There is no way in which Mr Dehaene or anyone else can change the Treaty unless every country agrees to that and we will look at any proposals on their merits. HUMPHRFYS: And we would be prepared to veto anything that came forward along those lines? RIFKIND: We have made clear that on important matters unanimity should be preserved because the European Union is a partnership of nations, it is not a super-state. It mustn't pretend that it is and mustn't act like one. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's look at another area then where we may be heading, probably are heading for another crunch, and that's the European Court ruling over the forty-eight hour working week which the rest
Europe wants to introduce and we don't. Now, that's probably going to happen within the next couple of weeks isn't? What are we going to do? RIFKIND: Well, two things. I mean, first of all, the point at issue there is that the Prime Minister negotiated an opt-out for the United Kingdom on the Social Chapter. Our annoyance and anger is because what has happened in this case is that they have used the Health and Safety regulations, which have nothing to do... HUMPHRYS: They're going through the back door, as it were? RIFKIND: Precisely, it was a misuse of other regulations which could be taken through on a majority vote in order to get round the British opt-out on the Social Chapter. We have to see what the court ruling is, we haven't yet had the final court ruling, that will be in a few weeks' time. If that goes favourably, then that's obviously very satisfactory from our point of view, but we've already said that if it goes against us,it will be one of our objectives in the inter-governemental conference which is taking place at the moment to get the necessary changes made to deal with that. HUMPHRYS: But you can't over-rule the European Court can you? RIFKIND: No, but the law can be changed by the member states. It's rather like when there's a court ruling in the United Kingdom which interpretes a law in a way different to what Parliament expected, Parliament is willing to, Parliament can then change the law to... HUMPHRYS: But here we've got fourteen countries against one,fourteen saying we want this forty-eight-hour working week ... RIFKIND: ...they can have it. HUMPHRYS: ... alright, but.. RIFKIND: ...that's the whole point, they can have it, we do not .... HUMPHRYS: ... but the European Court's saying, yeah (sic), that is now, we agree, we agree, so therefore that is now the law for all fifteen countries, not just those fourteen..., us included. RIFKIND: ... unless the member states agree to change the regulations. Well, that's going to be part of the negotiation at the Inter-Governmental conference, but the Inter-Governmental conference can only be a success if there is unanimity and other countries have their own objectives as well. HUMPHRYS: But we'll be asking them to do something they've already refused to do. RIFKIND: No, on the contrary. They've agreed to a opt-out for the United Kingdom on the Social Chapter. On this particular part of social policy, they've tried to get round it by using the Health and Safety regulations. We think that's a disgrace and therefore we will use all the means at our disposal through the negotiations at the Inter-governmental conference to deal with that. HUMPHRYS: At the end of it all, are we prepared to defy the European Court? RIFKIND: We obey the law. We are a party and a government that actually believes in the rule of law and you don't believe in the rule of law and then break it. HUMPHRYS: So we might end up with a forty-eight hour week? RIFKIND: You seek to change the law and we have very strong means at our disposal whereby we can seek to get the changes in the law that may be necessary if the court ruling goes ahead. HUMPHRYS: But we might fail. Clearly we might fail. RIFKIND: Well nothing's prefect in this world but the fact is within the Inter-Governmental Conference, that conference can only succeed if there is unanimity on all the matters of the conference and therefore there is quite a significant amount of leverage. HUMPHRYS: Can't you understand why many people are saying about Europe: look, it's beginning to look as if this whole game isn't worth the candle. There is so many things that Europe wants and we don't want, I mean look at the list: Monetary Union - which we're cool about, Social Dimensions - you've just talked about that, Common Defence Policy, Open Borders, the European Court doing things we...fishing policy that we don't like. It's beginning to appear as though we are in a club and we don't actually like the facilities that club has to offer - let alone the rules. RIFKIND: No there are a whole range of matters for which the European Union's responsible which we strongly support and in some cases which we ourselves advocated; the Single Market is the most obvious example of that and it's been a very great success and the United Kingdom's one of the countries pioneering it. But you're right, there are a lot of issues in which either the United Kingdom or other countries feel uncomfortable with. I mean, for example, if a Single Currency goes ahead half the Member States at least will not be able to be part of a Single Currency even if they want to, for many, many years to come. So the European Union is going to have to get used to the idea, quite apart from Britain, of some countries being involved in areas of integration which other countries are not. It's what's called variable geometry in the jargon of the European Union and I believe that it's quite possible that over the next few years we will see a more flexible form of Europe, first indicated by our own Prime Minister in his speech at Leiden a few years ago, whereby the European Union will be much more comfortable with the fact that some Member States either aren't able or do not chose to integrate in areas of integration that others wish to go forward. That already exists with regard to frontiers under the Sheden (phon) system, it already exists with regard to Social Policy, it's going to exist with regard to the European Currency question, regardless of Britain's final decision on that and so that is something which I think will be a characteristic of the European Union in years to come. We will still be members of it, participating in most of what it does but there may be areas that we do not. HUMPHRYS: Well you say most of what it does I mean it's beginning to look as though we measure our success by the number of things that we can opt out of. RIFKIND: That is not how I measure our success. What I do and what I believe the government does is to look at each proposal for integration and to examine it by the criteria of will it help the people of the United Kingdom, will it increase our prosperity, will it add to job security, will it help the quality of life in this country. If the answer is yes, as it was with the Single Market, then we support it and support it very strongly. Likewise, enlargement of the European Union, we support very strongly. If there are other aspects of policy, for example the Social Chapter, which would destroy jobs and unemployment in Britain is lower than the rest of Europe and it's going down when theirs is going up, then I'm damned if we're going to implement policy of that kind which would damage our prosperity and our economic market. HUMPHRYS: And increasingly the answer is no. I mean we like the Single Market but that seems to be it. RIFKIND: No, it's more than that. It's much more than that because there are fundamental issues of common interest. For example on foreign policy. A very wide range of issues where the interests of all the European countries are the same. HUMPHRYS: No but we don't want a common foreign policy do we? RIFKIND: There are many areas of foreign policy where I do not object and we've never objected to common positions on foreign policy. HUMPHRYS: And we could have had that anywhere. You don't need to be in Europe to have that, we've always had relationships with France, with Germany, with Holland, with whoever. RIFKIND: Sure. If there are areas of foreign policy where we have the same objectives, for example in the Middle East or North Africa or towards Russia and soforth. Then it does make sense for the countries of western Europe to put forward their views, jointly as well as individual countries. Where there are special national requirements which we have because of our Commonwealth links, because of our historic responsibilities to the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar or Hong Kong, then we need a national foreign policy. And France is in exactly the same position, so are other countries and therefore this is not a significant problem. HUMPHRYS: And you don't need Europe for that, that's the point I'm making. RIFKIND: No, it does help because Europe is a very disparate continent and if there are major areas on foreign policy, on defence where together with the United States, we all share a common defence interest, then it makes sense to do things together. HUMPHRYS: You've got NATO. RIFKIND: Yes, NATO is crucial for the Atlantic alliance, occasionally there are issues where it is western European countries who have a particular objective which may be different to that of the United States. HUMPHRYS: But look, my point is that the price of the Single Market and as you say that's the thing...that's terribly important to us, we want the Single Market, there are some people who say even that doesn't add up to very much in truth if you look at the figures but there we are. The price of being in that may be too high. The rest of Europe afterall wants an ever closer union, it wants more integration, more political integration, we don't. RIFKIND: Well you say the rest of Europe. It's certainly true other European Governments want that, I'm not sure whether their public share it with the same enthusiasm. Certainly if you look at the opinion polls in France or Germany. HUMPHRYS: Sure, the governments decide. RIFKIND: That's a very patronising remark if I may say so. HUMPHRYS: No the contrary you don't look at the opinion polls and say: we will do this because that's what the opinion polls tell us to do. If you did you wouldn't be in power now. RIFKIND: You're quite right, you don't govern by opinion polls but the public ultimately decide where their country is going and we..it's quite clear that whether in the United Kingdom, or France or Germany, it is the public who eventually will decide what degree of integration they are prepared to live with. Politicians reflect the public mood, they sometimes lead the public mood but they can't be divorced from it entirely without ceasing to be elected politicians. HUMPHRYS: Chancellor Kohl runs things in Germany, whether we like it or not, and his view and I quote from a quote you'll know very well I've no doubt: "In about the next two years we shall make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight." RIFKIND: Yes, yes well I think the process of European integration is irreversible in some respects. I mean, for example, one of the great achievements of the European Union in the last fifty years is the reconciliation of countries in Europe that spent the previous two hundred years fighting each other. That is a very important political achievement, that was the achievement that Margaret Thatcher highlighted when she strongly campaigned for Yes in the Referendum twenty years ago. The political reconciliation of the countries of western Europe, that is a massive achievement. The Single Market is a massive achievement, very often we will have problems of environmental pollution which, as with Chernobyl, can only be dealt with at the international level if they are going to be dealt with successfully. So there are many areas where we have common ground and we can work together through the European Union. But you are right, there are a number of other areas of possible integration which some countries might wish, which we may not wish. The challenge for the European Union is not to react in terms of extremes, either everybody does the same thing or we leave, that is foolish and that is frankly pointless, the challenge for the statesmen of Europe, both in Britain and elsewhere is to construct a European Union that all the countries of Europe can be comfortable with and that is something which we are in the process, I believe, of building. HUMPHRYS: But there is a problem here. The rest of Europe wants to travel in the same direction, may be at different speeds. We don't want to go in that overall direction, we don't want the same destination. RIFKIND: Well we do in some areas. Of course every country in Europe, including the United Kingdom, wants the closest co-operation, wants a high standard of living, wants prosperity, wants to deal with the increasing economic challenge from the Far East, from Latin America and South East Asia. These are economic challenges which we have to work together as European countries if we are going to be able to respond effectively. The areas where we have the greatest disagreement tend to be with regard to proposals for social integration or for changing the way of life in Britain in a way that countries in the continent may be comfortable with but we are not. Alright, the challenge is to reconcile these differences in a way that enables us to continue to doing the things that we best do together. HUMPHRYS: Final, very quick thought. Could we get
out if we wanted to? RIFKIND: Well I've no doubt any country could break away but I believe it would be a disaster and I don't think it will happen. HUMPHRYS: UDI would be the only way of doing it, would it? RIFKIND: Well I think there would be other ways of doing it but I think it would be such a damaging process that I cannot see any benefits that would justify the trauma involved and I think that our..the real challenge is how we build a Europe that we are comfortable with, a partnership of nations. HUMPHRYS: Foreign Secretary, thank you very much. ....ooo00000ooo....