................................................................................ ON THE RECORD KENNETH CLARKE INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE:14.2.93 ................................................................................ NICK ROSS: Do you think there is a real risk of the government going down over this? KENNETH CLARKE MP: It's obviously a serious vote if you have the rather Right-wing Euro-sceptics in my party voting with the Labour Party and the Liberal Parties on the other - people for and against Maastricht - people for and against the Social Chapter - all voted together. As far as the government is concerned we want to ratify the Maastricht Treaty and we also don't expect the Social Chapter because that would help to create a kind of Europe we don't want, indeed we want to be in the centre of Europe to influence things away from that kind of course. ROSS: If there's a real possibility of you losing this vote wasn't it reckless, wasn't it a mistake to threaten to withdraw the Maastricht Bill if the amendment succeeds? CLARKE: Douglas didn't put it like that. Douglas..what Douglas said didn't come as the slightest surprise to me not least obviously because I've had conversations with him over the course of time. This government quite clearly wants to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. We believe it's important because of the political influence it gives us through the common foreign policy developing on a government to government basis, it envisages for example and also because we want to be in the single market and at the centre of the single market influencing the kind of free trading open market that we want. The Social Chapter represents the kind of single market we don't want. We don't believe in this closely regulated labour market, it probably owes more to Bismarck than it does to Karl Marx but it's got a touch of both and we prefer to have the successful liberal policies that we pursued in the past and which have been pursued in other free market countries. So what Douglas said was we are in favour of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty, we are against making the Social Chapter binding on this country. Now that is a clear re-statement of government policy and we're faced by opponents who..and the Labour Party and the Liberal Party say they're desperately seeking to see the Treaty ratified and on our own backbenches say they're desperately keen not to see it ratified. ROSS: You say this is all clear Mr Clarke, let's make sure it is clear because it seemed at the time that Douglas Hurd had been pretty specific, he dropped a bomb into this - a bombshell. He said "we will withdraw the Bill" and certainly Downing Street seemed in the following days to support that view. You're saying no, the Bill will not be withdrawn, we will go ahead with Maastricht. CLARKE: Douglas stated commonsense and reality. We've taken this Bill so far through days and days of filibustering committee because we wish to see the Treaty ratified. One of the key points of our approach to the Treaty has been that we knew what we wanted, the pillared approach to Europe, we knew we didn't want the Social Chapter and one of the successes of the British negotiation was the so-called opt out from the Social Chapter. So, we will pursue whatever course is necessary to get the Treaty ratified without the Social Chapter. ROSS: Whatever course is necessary. Okay, but this is going to be interpreted as backpeddling by a lot of political observers and I suspect a lot of your own backbenchers as well. You are now saying what sounds to be in complete contraction of Douglas Hurd, you are saying we will not produce the sort of ultimate deterrent - the threat of withdrawing the Bill? CLARKE: Well you came in just towards the end of my sentence which to be fair you don't usually do - we're aiming at getting the Treaty without the Social Chapter and we propose to procede in parliament on that basis which is the basis we've set out ever since we started. At the moment a bewildering range of opponents from our Right and our Left, each of them fundamentally disagreeing with each other about the desirability of both Maastricht and the Social Chapter, appear to be coalescing against us. I think our political position, which Douglas re-stated, will eventually win us through, we have to handle this vote with care. Our aim is still to get the Treaty ratified without Britain being bound by the Social Chapter and I still believe we're going to achieve that. ROSS: Various government sources had been hinting, more than hinting, that frankly if the Social Chapter was changed, if the Labour amendment went through then frankly there'd be so many legal complexities the Maastricht Bill couldn't succeed. Do you accept that that really isn't the case, you..Britain could say well we're quite happy to go along now with the Social Chapter and everybody would just go ahead and ratify Maastricht. CLARKE: Well you've touched on the legal complexities and they are complexities and I suspect you and I are going to leave them on one side today about exactly what the amendment would do. That no doubt will be clarified in the next few weeks. The politics however I think is clearer than the law. The politics is that it is essential for this country to ratify the Maastricht Treaty if we're to continue to be a full participating member in the Community, to have the influence over the single market we want and to have the other advantages of Maastricht in moving forward in areas like foreign policy where the British have always wanted to but moving forward in an area free of the Treaty of Rome, government to government. Now the other thing that's clear is this government is against the Social Chapter. I have argued for years and years and years alongside all my colleagues and the great bulk of the Conservative Party that it is not an advantage to have continental type regulated labour markets. We've seen examples recently of the enormous costs that some of their governments impose on employers trying to employ people in their factories. It's better for the creation of jobs here and actually in my opinion over the rest of western European not to have that nonsense - which they don't have in other competitor developed countries and certainly it's an advantage for Britain to be outside that and so the politics is clear that if suddenly by some contrivance - leaving against whether the Labour Party have acceded or not in this amendment - if by some contrivance we were faced with the position where ratifying the Treaty meant taking the Social Chapter, I don't think the present government could reputably do so, we've been clearly against it. ROSS: So what would you do? CLARKE: What we will do is win this vote by confronting our ill-assorted opponents with the reality of what they're doing. It's no good George Robertson, whose views on Europe if anything are more Euro-enthusiastic than mine, saying I don't mind Teddy Taylor, Bill Cash voting with me, they appear to think I'm wrecking the Treaty but no, no, no, I am voting consistently. It's no good Bill Cash saying oh, well he's voting in favour of the Social Chapter, or he doesn't really quite believe in it at the request no doubt of Norman Tebbit. It's our opponents who are in confusion, fortunately, we have four or five weeks. It's the task of government to sort out these opponents and, more importantly, to sort out our supporters, to make sure we get the majority. ROSS: One task of government, surely, is to be candid about what could happen under different eventualities. Douglas Hurd tried to say what he thought would happen, if the vote was lost. What do you think would happen? What would you do if the vote was lost to the government? CLARKE: Well, as you may gather, I, actually - in my usual, optimistic spirit - do not believe it will be lost, in the end, because we're facing such a strange collection of critics and would-be voters against who contradict each other. ROSS: But, you're a prudent politician. You must plan for eventualities? CLARKE: I always plan for eventualities. ROSS: So, what is your plan? CLARKE: Well, again, on the narrow front, if we lost on Committee, the next stage is the report stage, where you can try to reverse it. But, I do not believe that will happen because these people have found themselves in alliance by accident. George Robertson must be very surprised to listen to Norman Tebbit, using quite hysterical language, urging people to vote for his George Robertson's amendment. Now, I, actually, think a government - which has been very purposeful, very consistent, all the way through, I think - has a good body of support - certainly, in the Conservative Party, for ratifying the Treaty, keeping the social contract away from this country - I think, we'll actually come through this mini-problem, in the end. ROSS: You said a few moments ago, that the legal issues are pretty complex. Let's not get into those. Let's look at the politics. In fact, the two are very closely intertwined. It's true, is it not, that, frankly, our other partners would embrace us immediately if we said:
Look, we're no longer going to opt out of the Social Charter, if the government lost this vote, clearly, couldn't get through Parliament what it wanted and had to stick with the Social Chapter, our other eleven partners aren't going to put any impediments in our way. CLARKE: The other eleven would all like us to enter the social protocol, as they call it. They know that we won't. Indeed, they've seen the advantage to us that it is to be out, very strongly recently. And I personally think as we carry on the struggle inside Europe, for what kind of Europe we want, eventually, they will see that it's not in their interest that the whole of Europe is jeopardised, if we start having this over-regulated, expensive labour market that puts employers off from investing and hiring people. If we were to do what this government would not do, go back and say: well, we'll now sign up to the social protocol, legally, it requires a further inter-governmental conference. And, I think, that would run the serious danger of blowing the whole agreement apart. Now, that's why Norman Tebbit and Bill Cash think it's a terribly good idea. But, I do not think it's a good idea. I think, that breaking up of the community would be a disaster. Everybody in this country wants the Single Market. I think, they ought to want us to ratify a Treaty that puts us in among the mainstream of Europe, influencing the kind of market we want. That's a market, as far as we're concerned, without the Social Chapter. ROSS: What I was really inviting you to do was to acknowledge that, perhaps, some of these legal objections are rather spurious. I mean, this inter-governmental conference that would have to take place - and that's certainly the case - that could just be done by civil servants; it could be ratified on the nod. The fact is, that the argument - that Maastricht will unravel - only really works if we are demanding concessions. Then, others might say: well, hey, we want concessions, too. In this case, Mr Clarke, we're making concessions to the other eleven. As I said earlier, they'll embrace us. CLARKE: The whole Maastricht agreement was a compromise of national interests. And, as we found at the time of the French referendum, there were a lot of Frenchmen who thought far too many concessions had been made to the British, because they mistakenly believed that reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, buying our land, various other things, had been forced upon them by the wicked British, and should be re-opened in the Maastricht referendum. If you go back to an inter-governmental conference, after that very successful Maastricht deal had been concluded, and say, we the British now wish to alter a particular part of it, you will find that several other member states will be compelled to open issues up, as well. ROSS: Which member states? CLARKE: Very bad for Europe as a whole. Well, will the Danes accept that they could vote Yes in the referendum and come onboard, without further legally binding amendments to the Treaty - most unlikely. But, I..that's all hypothetical. I touch upon it, as you do, to show that the ideas ...so, it's just five minutes, we go along, signed to the Social Chapter, is legally possible, so long as nobody else says a word during that five minutes. ROSS: But, I'm putting it to you, and I think.. CLARKE: That wouldn't be true. ROSS: I'm putting... CLARKE: We, in any event, as a government, are not going to go along to join the social protocol. The whole reason I want to be at the heart of Europe is 'cos, I think, we need the Single Market, we need Britain there, with France and Germany, to influence the kind of market it is, and that's a market without the social regulation that the Chapter represents. ROSS: Okay. So, you're not going to go back,
under any circumstances, into the Maastricht agreement, if you have to sign the Social Chapter, too? CLARKE: I, I just do think the Social Chapter, if it was signed up to by all twelve members, would be a very backward step for the Community, as a whole. It sounds very attractive, much of it, but once you see that to employ somebody in France, over and above the wages and everything else agreed by the employer, can add over twenty per cent extra costs so far as the employer is concerned. Europe isn't going to compete with North America. It isn't going to compete with south-east Asia, if we have that kind of arrangement. ROSS: I think, we all understand your opposition to the Social Chapter. Is it a resigning issue? I mean, how important to you is this? Are you saying, I simply..I, Kenneth Clarke, simply could not accept remaining in government, if we were to sign the Maastricht Bill with the Social Chapter as part of it? CLARKE: It's an issue where, I think, the consistency of the government's position - which I intend to fight for - becomes clear and the confusion in the minds of our opponents filibustering this Bill through Parliament becomes clear. I am saying that what I said, what Douglas said, what John Major said, what the government said, when we first negotiated the Maastricht Treaty: this Treaty is in British interests to ratify, 'cos the influence it gives us over the Single Market. It is contrary to British interests to accept the Social Chapter. And, our various opponents - and, if they'd be opponents, 'cos the Liberals are meant to be enthusiastic pro-Maastricht people - our various opponents find themselves coming together, by accident, apparently, on this amendment. By the time we get there, they are the people who have to sort out the tangle - not us. Paddy Ashdown has to ask whether he wants to risk the Treaty, that, apparently, on principle, he's supporting. George Robertson has to ask quite what he's doing voting with Norman Tebbit. ROSS: But you're saying they're not risking the Treaty, Mr Clarke? CLARKE: ..not me! ROSS: You're now saying the Treaty is not at risk. They can vote with impunity the way they want. They can all follow their consciences but you're disagreeing with what Douglas Hurd suggested earlier. You will bring the Bill back, so they've got another chance to see Maastricht through. CLARKE: What we are committed to is ratifying the Treaty but we can't ratify the Treaty if Britain is bound by the social protocol. Now, there is a legal argument about exactly the effect of this particular Amendment 27 is, but this amendment - any other amendment - you have to ask yourself: has the British government put itself into the position, on the strength of whatever Bill the House of Commons and the House of Lords pass, where we can go, ratify the Treaty with the so-called opt-out on the social protocol but signing up to all the other advantages, which I'm convinced Maastricht has for this country. And, the latest next..the next crisis in the..this rather perils of Pauline type episode towards getting there comes with Amendment 27 and it may be George Robertson and Norman Tebbit's followers will find they agree on the day, I don't think so. If they do, they will have created a crisis of their own making. I'm sure what the government's purpose is. ROSS: And you are going to continue to be as sweet and reasonable as you have been this afternoon, gone is any of the bullying, the blaster, the threat: Look, guys, you do this, you'll live to regret it because we'll withdraw the Bill. CLARKE: Whipping - and I was a Whip myself for years and years ago - whipping involves, actually, speaking to your own supporters, who've been elected with you on a manifesto at the Election, and making it clear to them what they're doing, fooling about, voting with people who're elected to oppose you. I very much hope the Whips will operate. I don't think they operate now any differently to they've operated over the last two or three decades. To help those Whips, I clarify the policy of the government will argue for that policy. And, the very fact that those who are proposing, at the moment, ought to vote together for this amendment, are all over the place. And, it's urged on mainly by the Left Wing of the Labour Party, the Right Wing of the Conservative Party against the Treaty, and then a lot of pro-Europeans in the Labour and Liberal Parties who don't seem to understand quite what they're doing getting into bed with Norman Tebbit's followers. I think, eventually, we can get the politics right and win the vote. ROSS: We shall see. Mr Clarke, thank you very much. CLARKE: A pleasure. ...oooOooo...