14 June 2005
The Prime Minister spoke to journalists at the end of his two-day G8 European tour, during which he visited Moscow, Berlin, Paris and Luxembourg.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Read the transcript of the press conference:
Prime Minister:
Good afternoon. I thought it might be helpful to give you a round-up of where we are on the various issues that we have discussed in the past couple of days. It doesn’t seem like yesterday that we were discussing the G8 in Moscow, but indeed it was.
But I will start with the G8, do the constitution, say a little bit about future financing and then we can have some questions.
First of all in respect of the G8, and that was the original purpose of the tour, was to make sure that we get a good agreement at the G8 in July on the issues of climate change and Africa, which are the two principal issues, along with the Middle East, which will be debated at Gleneagles. And in respect of Africa I think there is a very substantial measure of agreement. I have just had an excellent and constructive meeting with President Chirac on the G8 - and I don’t say that to distinguish it from anything else incidentally - but it was a meeting at which I think there is a very great coming together of people’s views on that. And I believe that it is possible, I don’t put it higher than that, but I think it is possible that we could get good outcomes both for Africa and for significant progress on climate change at the G8, but there is a lot of negotiating still to do. However, there was a welcome in Russia, in Germany and in France for focusing on these two priorities, and certainly so far as those three countries are concerned, strong support for what the British chairmanship of G8 is putting forward for Gleneagles.
In addition I should say to you that at the lunch with Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, we were able to discuss the issues of Africa and development in greater detail, but also went through the entire agenda of international affairs.
Secondly then, of course although the original reason for the visit was about the G8, and that formed obviously a substantial part of the discussions, nonetheless both in Germany, and in France, and of course this morning in Luxembourg, we discussed the future of Europe following the referendums in France and Holland and the future financing arrangements.
In respect of the constitution, I am now more clear than ever before that it is right to have some pause for reflection before proceeding, and I believe it is possible that we could reach an agreement at the European Council. I don’t say it will happen, but I think it is possible, and indeed I think it would be sensible if we agreed, in view of the No votes in France and Holland, that it was sensible collectively to come to the view that we should have this pause for reflection over a period of months so that we can give Europe the debate it needs, and then the direction it needs on the key issues - the economy and globalisation, issues to do with security and crime, the debate that Europe wants and needs, and the direction it wants and needs. And so I think that though of course there is obviously a respect for what individual countries want to do, I have noticed somewhat of a change in mood over the past 48 hours in how people are approaching this issue, and I think such a pause for reflection would indeed be sensible.
In respect of future financing, it is very difficult. You know the positions that the respective countries have had, there is no need to rehearse them. The meeting I have just had with President Chirac was immensely amicable, but obviously there is a sharp disagreement. I think it is difficult to see these differences being bridged, but of course we continue to talk to people, including the Presidency, about it. The one thing that I think though is increasingly clear again on this too is that if we want to reconnect people in Europe with the idea of the European Union, we have got to set a clear political direction and we have got to, even in the financing of Europe, in fact in some respects particularly in the financing of Europe, reconnect the priorities that people have in Europe with the way that we spend the money in Europe. And if we were to set out some of that forward path and direction, then I think it would be a lot easier to persuade people as to why it is necessary also to have a new set of rules to govern a Europe that is enlarged from 15 - 25, then 27 and so forth.
So I think this is, as I was saying earlier, this is a moment of reflection, but it is also a moment of opportunity if Europe is prepared to seize it. But the political leadership of Europe has got to offer a clear perspective to people in Europe that connects with the priorities they have, and they want to hear us talking about jobs, and the economy, and globalisation, and the impact of the competition from abroad, they want to hear us talking about organised crime, illegal people trafficking, the problems of immigration. They want to hear us talk about those issues and they want to make sure that the priorities of expenditure of the European Union are focused on the issues that concern them.
So I think there are some very big questions that we need to resolve. Right, OK, we will have some questions.
(NB: Outside interference with the recording made audibility extremely difficult)
Question:
… in Luxembourg was that the talk of a freeze was too much and … other issues would be prepared to envisage changes in the rebate in the 2007-2013 period … only consider the changes if there was an unravelling of the deal that President Chirac has already got.
Prime Minister:
If people want a reconsideration of the rebate, there has got to be a reconsideration of the reasons for the rebate. What I have tried to explain here as well is that this is not some special thing that has been given as a special privilege to Britain, this is a mechanism of correction of what would otherwise be grossly unfair. And even today we are paying significantly more than … and if I have to make this, as indeed as I did to the Presidency very clearly today, there can’t be an agreement on this that doesn’t involve reconsideration of the fundamentals.
Question:
The meeting which you have just had with President Chirac was … you spent some time discussing numbers today about the rebate. Is it right to say that if the numbers are right, there isn’t a principled reason why the rebate can’t be renegotiated, changed from what it is now. And if I may, can I ask you about the other thing you said, this pause for reflection, does that last throughout the British Presidency, is it your view that the British Presidency should be dominated by the issues you talked about, jobs and so on, not by a debate about the constitution?
Prime Minister:
Well on the first, the reason we, and again let me make this very clear, the reason we are debating figures is because we are explaining to people why it is unfair that we yield up the rebate, that is the purpose of the explanation. And I think people have got to really … the second part of the question is that after these two No votes, and let’s be very honest, if there was a referendum in most parts of Europe at the moment, the answer would be no. So given that that is so, what should the response be of … the response should be to reconnect the priorities of the European Union with the priorities of the people of Europe. And it is not that I want the British Presidency dominated by a debate about the constitution, but I think a debate about the constitution and a debate about the future direction of Europe is one and the same in a way. Because what I am really trying to say to you is that I don’t think, and I believe this even more passionately having spent some time talking to other leaders, we are not going to resolve the issue … direction in which the constitution needs to be understood. And I have made it clear all the way through, I think that the constitution is a perfectly sensible set of rules for the future in Europe, but you are not going to get people to consent to it until it is very clear that the political direction is one the people in Europe accept. And that is why I think this pause for reflection, I think it would be better if we took the collective decision as a Council, this pause for reflection should go ahead. Exactly how long it lasts is something you discuss, but obviously you have got to give it time to develop the direction I am saying.
Question:
… your problem with the French farming subsidies, or farming subsidies generally. And also can I ask, there has been a British irritation that President Chirac has not said what he is going to do about the No vote. Did you ask him?
Prime Minister:
I think it is for him to speak, or it is for his spokesman to speak about it, but I think that he, like everyone else, realises that we have got to respond in some way. You know you can’t just have a No vote and then put it to one side and say well let’s carry on as usual. So as I say it is for him to express that in his own words, but I think I found some degree of convergence in the views on that. In respect of the Common Agricultural Policy, look my point about Europe is very, very simple, and I speak as a supporter of Europe, I am a passionate supporter of the European Union, which is why I am not and never will be a Eurosceptic. But you have a situation at the moment where we spend on agriculture probably ten times what we spend on science, or technology, or research and development, or training across the European Union. Now if you look at the early 21st century, never mind a country like Britain, a country like France, or Britain, or Germany, what is their priority for the early 21st century - to develop the economy and the infrastructure that allows us to compete with China, with India, with the United States of America, with the strong economies either here or emerging in the world. And what we should be doing therefore, I totally understand why countries may want to support their agriculture, and I have got nothing against people deciding they want to give their money to support farmers, particularly in periods of change and so on, but what I have an objection to is the European Union deciding collectively that it is going to put 40% of its budget into an area where you have got, what, 2% of the employment. It makes no sense, and because it makes no sense, people in Europe then say well the European Union is not connected with me. Whereas you can imagine if we were spending some of that money on producing the innovation and technology for the future that is going to make our companies more competitive, or even you were going to be spending some of that money fighting organised crime or people trafficking, then people would be saying right I understand what the European Union is about. I think there is a misunderstanding sometimes that people think people are anti-Europe. I honestly do not believe people are anti-Europe, but what they are though is demanding from the political leadership in Europe a clear and better sense of direction than the one we have got.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I don’t think it will send us into crisis at all, provided that we get to the right answer eventually and do so within a political context that people understand. Remember the actual financial perspective, the financing doesn’t come into effect until 2007, so we don’t have to do it now, but obviously it is preferable to do it now if you can do it, but it is better to get the right deal than a sort of slapped together compromise that doesn’t work.
Question:
You said that following your meeting with President Chirac there was a good outcome for Africa, can you tell us what the good news is, number one? Number two, on your Commission for Africa plan, what assurance do you give us of a serious monitoring mechanism that will make sure that money is not diverted so it is corruption?
Prime Minister:
First, the good news is we have had the debt cancellation last weekend, we have got an agreement from the European Union to double the amount of aid, we are now working with the Americans and others on programmes for education, for infrastructure, for combating HIV-Aids, malaria, TB, polio and so on, for peace keeping and peace enforcement proposals as well. So I think there is a lot happening. But you are absolutely right, there is no way that people will agree to this money being put forward unless it is going to the people that need it, and that is why we have written into the Commission for Africa the idea, through the peer review group mechanism for the African countries, a proposal that makes it clear that you get more money if you do have proper governance, proper measures against corruption and the money is to be properly used. And in addition incidentally, those programmes that we are putting forward, not just from the European Union but from the G8, those programmes are going to be tied specifically to conditions against corruption and for the proper use of the money. So the money is not coming unconditionally at all, it is coming with conditions.
Question:
Mr Prime Minister, after the political blow that President Chirac has to face on this latest referendum, and after the various political defeats that German Chancellor Schroeder had to face, how would you describe today, or would you qualify the Franco-German axis, or is there still one Franco-German axis today inside Europe?
Prime Minister:
France and Germany will remain, of course, major players in the European Union, they will be that irrespective of who from any time to time leads the European Union. And the idea of a European Union without a strong French and German relationship is unthinkable. What has changed in the European Union is not actually to do in fact with either Chancellor Schroeder or President Chirac, what has changed in the European Union is that it is no longer possible to run Europe in the way that it used to be run, it has got to be run on a different basis. And I think that that is one of the reasons why we need this strong debate in Europe. Some people may take comfort from the No votes and say well it is great if the European project seems in a state of breakdown. I don’t think that at all. I think we need a strong Europe, but it has got to be a strong Europe of the right kind, and I think the French-German relationship is extremely important but it cannot comprise all of what now drives the European Union. And I think to be fair, the current leadership of France and Germany would accept that.
Question:
Prime Minister, you said in your response to Adam Boulton that any deal on the rebate would have to address the fundamentals. Does that mean changes to the Common Agricultural Policy settlement lasting until 2013?
Prime Minister:
Well I think it is difficult to see how you have a change in the fundamentals that doesn’t make the change in the Common Agricultural Policy. And since the financial perspective we are talking about is 2007 - 2013, well it is very difficult you know to see how you can do it without such changes. And as I say, it is as you know my way always to negotiate and talk to people in a constructive and diplomatic way, but I do think this is a moment at which Europe also has to set some firm direction with some firm leadership.
delicious
digg
facebook
