Downing Street Says » Prime Minister’s press conference

[This is the transcript of one of the Prime Minister’s occasional press conferences; these
are the words of the Prime Minister giving a statement and answering the
questions of journalists. Unlike the PMOS’s briefings, this is a more-or-less
verbatim transcript of the Prime Minister’s words. Such press conferences
happen about once a month, and occasionally more often.]

PRIME MINISTER:
Good Afternoon everyone. First of all let me say some words on the proposals that were announced earlier today in relation to migration. I think it is very clear from the two stock-takes that we have already had that the vast majority of people who migrate in and out of this country do so perfectly lawfully, but it is necessary for us to make sure that any potential abuses in the system are dealt with, and that is the purpose of the measures that have been announced today. The measures are on two areas, and there will be further announcements in the following weeks, but the measures on these two areas are on students and on marriages. In respect of the first, we are going to file an approved list of accredited colleges, and when this is up and running by the end of the year, students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to study if they choose institutions on that list, so there will be an approved list that people have to be part of. In the meantime, we are going to suspend applications from colleges whose bona fides we are not satisfied with.

I should just however say, because this is important all the way through, we are rightly proud however of the UK’s reputation as a place to learn. The fact that we have large numbers of people choosing to study here is important for our economy, our universities and colleges and the students themselves. And a British Council report that has just been published indicates the benefit to the British economy of overseas students coming to this country is around £3 billion a year, so we would be very, very foolish to lose that enormous benefit to Britain, at the same time obviously as we must deal with abuses.

We are also going to consult on an obligation for colleges to notify the Immigration and Nationality Division if any student fails to attend the course they have come here to study and we are examining whether we should require students to demonstrate they are self-sufficient or able to pay their fees up front before being granted entry clearance, as presently happens in Australia.

In respect of marriages, to prevent bogus marriages we will require third country nationals to apply to certain designated register offices before they can marry in the UK, and this will help the new teams of caseworkers and immigrations officers we are setting up to concentrate their efforts in tackling abuse on a smaller approved list of register offices. We are also considering whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry and reporting those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse the migration system.

In addition, one third area, we are going to reduce the quotas of workers coming in under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, and the other sector based schemes, which fill vacancies in the agriculture, hospitality and catering industries to take account of the impact of the new countries joining the European Union next month.

Now the impact of all these measures is to make sure that we are responding to what I understand is a legitimate public concern and worry over abuses within the immigration system, but protecting the fact that it is in this country’s interest that when we need workers from abroad they can come here and work, and when people bona fide want to come and study in this country, they are able to do so. If we excluded those workers that we need and excluded the possibility of bona fide students coming to study here, we would be doing damage to our economy, to our country and to our society.

So I think again you will see this set out again and again in the coming few weeks as we announce various measures to deal with these issues, but what we hope to persuade people of is that there is a proper balance to be struck here between weeding out abuse and making sure that the overwhelming bulk of people who migrate in and out perfectly lawfully are still able to do so. And never forget, there are some, I think it is around about 90 million people come in and out one way or another of our airports and ports and country every year. Britain is an open trading country, we have got to maintain that, but we do need to respond to legitimate public concerns about abuse of the system.

QUESTION:
Europe, a question of principle, people talk about destiny. Your previous predecessors – Margaret Thatcher, John Major – effectively lost their Prime Ministerships over Europe. You know what I am going to ask , isn’t it completely inconceivable that you could go to the country on a matter this big in a referendum, lose it and then survive?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would certainly be serious, wouldn’t it, to lose it? It would be a serious situation for the country and of course for the government and Prime Minister, but I think you will understand why I am not going to speculate on losing it at the present time. I think the most important thing is to realise, because I know people say well why have you wanted to change your position on this, I have not changed my position on Britain’s place in Europe, which I think has to be at the centre of Europe, I have not changed my position on the constitutional treaty, I think a treat embodying the basic rules of the European Union is important and right for Europe. What I have changed is my view that you can take this process forward without having an open genuine debate with the people. And if you believe in what you are doing, and I do believe in it, and you believe in Britain’s central place in Europe, it is time to make that argument. We haven’t succeeded in that argument and we are going to have to put it up to the people and accept their verdict.

PRIME MINISTER:
Can I say incidentally, I am very indulgent to this sort of cross-examination technique, but we have got to be quite careful. Anyway Andy, another one.

QUESTION:
Would you admit frankly then that when it came to the question of should there be a referendum, it wasn’t simply the pressure from one newspaper group or another, or a Cabinet Minister, you actually decided that in effect you had lost the argument and it was time to admit that?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think it was in a sense that I have spent 9 months arguing about whether we are trying to prevent the British people having a say, we are then going to spend another year having that argument, which is all about really are we open to the British people, open to a democratic argument or not, rather than having an argument on the substance of this constitutional treaty. And if you believe in Britain’s central place in Europe, and if you believe, and I do, that this argument has become grossly distorted in the British political debate over a significant period of time, it becomes a complete obstruction to making that case to people if you are arguing all the time about why won’t you let people have a say, rather than arguing about the substance of what you are trying to do. And I think it is time for the Eurosceptics to put their case, for the people who believe in Britain’s central place in Europe to put theirs, and then let the British people decide. And if in the end you are facing your own people, and I do, then we should allow that to happen. I suppose what has really happened with me is that I have been watching with mounting concern a situation which we have this tremendous opportunity for Britain at the moment, 10 new countries coming into Europe who basically support the British idea of Europe, we have this agreement in Europe as to a future way forward that makes Europe work more effectively, can we get any of this across? No. Why? Because the argument is all about why won’t you let people have a say in a referendum. So where I came to the view ultimately, and I don’t think there is any harm in this as a politician sometimes saying it is right to change your mind when you are not as it were forfeiting an issue of belief, but you are simply saying you have got to deal with this in a different way saying we have not succeeded in persuading people on this, let’s go out and succeed in persuading them. That is my view of it.

QUESTION:
Because as I understand it, you are not going to have a referendum on Europe, in or out, you are going to have the referendum on the constitution, and last week and in the previous months your team have been saying well we would quite like to have a constitution but it is not essential, Europe is going to go on. So why are you staking everything, your whole future, your Premiership on something which is apparently so unimportant. What is the cost of voting no – not very much as far as Britain’s position in Europe is concerned apparently.

PRIME MINISTER:
I think the cost, if we get a constitutional treaty and there is no vote then the cost would be significant obviously. But you see what you are saying is of course right if you go into the details of the constitutional treaty, but I think you would accept, and certainly I would, that we haven’t succeeded in that argument. The fact is what most people are saying, actually a lot of people even from a pro-European perspective is well this is an issue which it is time for the British people to decide, and let them have their say. Now the truth of the matter is we have not had referendums on these types of treaty before, that is absolutely right, although on the other hand, as my critics have been pointing out, for several months this government has actually been more open to consulting people by way of referendum than I think any government before it. In the end you have got to make a judgment about this. What is actually in the interests of this country? Now am I going to spend the next year, knowing as I see it that this constitutional treaty is right for Europe and right for Britain, that it doesn’t give away our foreign policy, or defence, or right to set our tax rates, and that is all nonsense, but it does actually make Europe work more effectively for Britain and other countries. Do I, knowing that, spend the next year arguing about why I am so anti-democratic I won’t consult the British people, or do I say OK, if that is what people want, let’s have the referendum, let’s have the debate out in the open, let’s go and argue it. And I think during the course of this, I am not saying that is apparent at the moment, but I think during the course of this it will become more and more obvious first of all that there are huge myths about what this constitutional treaty actually does, and secondly that there are huge benefits in Britain playing a constructive role in Europe.

QUESTION:
You just raised the phrase anti-democratic, won’t people feel that you are being anti-democratic if you don’t make it clear that no means no, no to the constitution, not another vote, not another chance, not let’s talk to our colleagues, that it means no. And if I may, just a brief supplementary, some pro-Europeans will say this, they have heard you say again and again that you will take the fight to the Eurosceptics. 7 years, 2 elections, a vast majority, a promise of two referendums, they don’t think you are ready for a battle this week, they think you have surrendered.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well first of all let me just lay one thing to rest. If the British people vote no in a referendum, their verdict is what counts, so that is absolutely clear. The second thing however is, it is true we have not put the single currency to people in a referendum. The reason we have not put a single currency to people in a referendum is that we believe unless the economics are in the right place, we shouldn’t join. When people say we have not fought the pro-European case, how many times have you guys here heard me here and in the corridors of the European Council and elsewhere, put a strong, a pro-European case as I possibly can. Now the fact is if we get this constitutional treaty agreement, and incidentally this is a treaty, one of the mistakes that has been made in recent days, this is a treaty like any other treaty, it has got no greater legal status than that, but if we get agreement to this treaty and we do have this debate in a referendum then we will have to stake our future on it as a country and say where it is each of us, where we stand on Britain’s place in Europe. And I understand why some of the Opposition pro-Europeans views, views in many ways I share on Europe, are frustrated about that because they are going to have to take the battle back into their own party again, and I know why they don’t want to do that, they would like me to take the battle on in their own party. I am afraid they are going to have to take the battle on in their own party, but that is as it should be I rather think.

QUESTION:
My question has got to do with Africa. While the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, is busy improving his relations with the United States and Britain, however the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the UN has said that Gaddafi was responsible, and is responsible for the destabilisation of African countries. David Crane said there was a detailed plan by Gaddafi to destabilise several west African countries, which has caused widespread suffering in the region. Now Gaddafi, your new found friend, or I don’t know how to put it, Libya’s new found colleague ….

PRIME MINISTER:
You have been learning a few things from these guys have you?

QUESTION:
Yes, do you know this, that he was one of these, and do you care? And while you were with him in the tent did you discuss this?

PRIME MINISTER:
We certainly did discuss the situation in Africa. The UN process is a matter for the UN, and let me make it clear to you, as I said at the time, we don’t set aside any of the concerns we have had about Libya, or we do have. On the other hand, if Libya as a country is prepared voluntarily to yield up nuclear and chemical weapons programmes that could cause a real security threat to the region and the rest of the world, we should respond to that, and I think that is a perfectly consistent position.

QUESTION:
Do the Archbishop of Canterbury’s criticisms of you cause any twinge to your conscience?

PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t, I have to say, studied the remarks in detail and seen how far they refer to me specifically, I simply don’t know. But I think he is perfectly entitled to speak and make his views known and that is a matter for him and we live in an open democratic country, as you know.

QUESTION:
Many people who know Iraq well know that the status of the UN in Iraq has been compromised for a very long time, not least by the sanctions period leading up to the war. Now that it is confirmed that the sanctions failures were compounded by corruption, and corruption in European governments and within the United Nations itself, how do you believe you really can use the UN as a credible force, either militarily or more particularly politically to bring about change on 30 June when it is held in such very low esteem by Iraqis themselves? And what other agency will you turn to if the UN is not really able to do it, which we know it is not able to do?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think you have got to distinguish between what happened before, and as I understand it the UN are investigating those allegations of corruption on the oil for food contracts, which is very very important and it is right that those are investigated thoroughly. I think you have got to distinguish between that and the process being conducted by Mr Brahimi at the moment which I think you will find has got a broad basis of consent within the various groupings in Iraq. And whatever difficulties there are historically about the UN’s role in Iraq, my assessment is that both within Iraq and within the international community, the UN is the body that has the international legitimacy to be able to certify and help guide the process of political transition. And after all, this is an extraordinary crucial moment in Iraq’s development, which is why so much fighting and terrorism is going on to stop it. If we can construct a political process that has legitimacy in Iraq that is a transition towards a democratic Iraq at the end of 2005, that would be a huge thing for everyone. And my sense of this, and I had a meeting with our representative from Iraq, David Richmond, yesterday, but my sense of this is that the UN does have that sufficient legitimacy within Iraq as well as outside, despite the past.

QUESTION:
… not to take any further UN personnel into the country. Mr Brahimi is handling this with a threadbare group of people and is himself certain that it is not safe to bring more personnel in.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well one of the things I discussed when I was with Kofi Annan, and that is a different point obviously, is the physical security of the UN personnel and we have to try and improve that. But Jon I hope you would understand, whatever people feel about the war, we can’t allow people who are prepared to blow up and kill UN workers to determine what the international community does. Let’s be clear, these people who have committed these atrocities in Basra, or south of Basra, yesterday, these are evil barbaric people who should not have a stranglehold over the future of Iraq. And what is happening now in Iraq is you can see very clearly that outside terrorists, religious fanatics, former regime elements of Saddam are trying to stop the move to democracy and we have got to make sure they don’t succeed. And the UN’s physical security is obviously one part of that.

QUESTION:
This week your government and the Irish government published the IMC report. If the Assembly in Northern Ireland had been sitting, Sinn Fein members would have been excluded or suspended. What is it that makes you believe that fining Assembly members a few thousand pounds is going to stop people like the Provisional IRA attempting abductions, as in the Tohill case. It is clearly not going to work, is it?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, nobody is under the illusion that any monetary fine is going to of itself change the situation. The question is rather different, the question is, is this IMC process, the idea of an independent commission that monitors the obligations of the parties, including those of the government incidentally, is this going to play now a central role in the future of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I think you can see the answer to that very clearly from yesterday, the answer is yes it is going to play a central role and it is going to play a central role because people in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic of Ireland, can see the full extent of paramilitary activity and can recognise therefore the justice of the demand being made by the British government, the Irish government or the other political parties in Northern Ireland, that anybody who wants to be a part of the government of Northern Ireland has to be clean from any association with paramilitary activity of whatever sort, and that is what the IMC report has done and it is important in that regard.

QUESTION:
Why did you postpone the intensive talks that were supposed to take place next week with the parties?

PRIME MINISTER:
We have not postponed it, there are discussions continuing the whole time, as you know I saw Mark Durkan yesterday. But I hope as soon as possible we will get back into an intensive round of negotiations because the only way we are going to deal with this is to make sure that people face up to the basic issue which is that we have everything agreed in Northern Ireland and we just need one thing to come into place, and that is the acceptance by everybody that we can no longer tolerate any level of paramilitary activity and that that paramilitary activity, terrorism whether it is so-called Loyalist or Republican, is what is holding the peace process back in Northern Ireland.

QUESTION:
You just said that if Britain votes no, that will be the verdict of the people. Yesterday you seemed to imply that if Britain did vote no you would, as the Irish government did before, go back, try and renegotiate at the edges and then ask the people again, and surely if they did vote no, given the way you are trying to frame this debate, which is to say do we want to be at the heart of Europe or at the margins, if they voted no they would be saying we would rather not go any further down towards the centre, and you would then have a duty to say we can’t agree such a constitution.

PRIME MINISTER:
No, I simply meant by the Irish example that if there is a no vote, obviously you would have to go back to the European Council and try and discuss the way forward.

QUESTION:
You would then have a mandate surely for agreeing this kind of treaty.

PRIME MINISTER:
What you would have to do then, you know you can’t tell what would happen in those circumstances, that is why it is a very serious thing if we reject the constitutional treaty, and you would have to sit down and discuss with the rest of the European partners, all of whom want a treaty that sets out the basic rules of the European Union, a way forward. The point that I was making was this, there is a world of difference however between as a government as this government, or this Prime Minister, saying we will go and discuss a way forward constructively with other European partners, and the Opposition position which is to say no to any treaty that sets out the basic rules of the way forward in the European Union, any treaty at all, and what is more wants to renegotiate not just aspects of this draft treaty now, but also in areas like defence, social policy, industrial policy, common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, even things that were agreed by previous governments. That is the point that I am making.

QUESTION:
But to continue with that point, you are still apparently leaving open the door to a further negotiation, coming back with another constitution, for another referendum, and really the result of that is that you are not allowing the British people the final say.

PRIME MINISTER:
No, let me make it absolutely clear to you. The British people vote no, they vote no, you can’t then start bringing it back until they vote yes, of course that is right. All I am saying is you go back to the Council and you have to try and work out a way forward, and I don’t know what that is at the moment, you can’t tell and I don’t intend to lose the referendum. All I am simply saying to you is that as part of this campaign, understand that whereas we will be saying we believe this constitutional treaty, setting out the rules of the European Union is the right way for Britain and for Europe, the Opposition alternative, and this will be part of the debate up until the next general election at least, is to say we won’t have any such treaty in any form, and what is more we are going to renegotiate the things that even previous governments agreed with the rest of Europe. But once the British people make their decision, they make their decision.

QUESTION:
Can I turn to the Middle East very briefly. What information do you have that Yasser Arafat might be prepared to take on board the new opportunities which you and President Bush have spoken of? Second, will Britain lead the way in Europe to seek a banning of Hamas within the EU, when is Britain going to ban Hamas totally, … not just the military wing, but the political wing? And finally can I ask you, terrorism is such a big problem, is it now not the time to alter the rules of engagement to deal with terrorists rather than leaving the international law with such lacunas as it has at the moment?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well the issue of the international law we could spend a long time on that. I just think what is important in the situation that exists at the moment out in the Middle East is that we don’t do anything that now damages the possibility of the disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, the offer that has been made by Israel, having a beneficial effect in the Middle East, that is all I am saying. In respect of Europe, we actually have been leading the way in Europe in respect of Hamas, we have frozen the assets of Hamas here, we keep under review whether there are further actions we need to take. And all I would say to you is that I think as to whether the Palestinians are prepared to take advantage of the offer that Israel has made, I can only say to you we will try and help to make sure that they do take advantage of that so that they are building the right as I say political and security and economic infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority, that they can take advantage of it and move the situation forward.

PRIME MINISTER:
That is a very big question, I don’t think we can get into all the detail of that at the moment.

QUESTION:
Is now not the time to send more British troops to Iraq, and if your answer is that you will assess the situation as it progresses, does that mean that you have no objection in principle?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, when I say that you keep the situation under review, I think that is a statement of the obvious and I wouldn’t take it as meaning we are about to do it, or any of the rest of it, it is just that obviously this is a changing situation and you have to look at it carefully, but we have no plans to do that.

QUESTION:
Sir, I asked you this question two years ago whether you could give examples of how your intervention had changed the mind of George Bush, and you cited increased aid to Africa and a more open approach to President Putin. I wonder if you could bring us up to date in this area. There are lots of areas, preparation for the Iraq occupation, not disbanding the Iraqi army, not asking the Palestinians to give up the right of return immediately, where your advice would seem to differ from the conclusions reached in Washington. Now you did get 5 of 9 Guantanamo prisoners back, but are there other examples, given your estimable powers of persuasion and your reputation with President Bush proving a stand-up kind of guy where you got results from him?

PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think it would be very helpful to give a sort of balance sheet, would it?

PRIME MINISTER:
It would be helpful to you guys, whether it would be helpful to anyone else I don’t know. Look, it is not like that and in respect of Iraq and the work that we are doing for example on the UN at the moment, it is a relationship where we discuss things as partners in a particular situation, in this case Iraq, but it is a very close relationship. But I don’t go through it every day and say well we moved them on this, and we haven’t moved them on that, it is not like that and neither should it be like that and it wouldn’t be very helpful if it was. What we are engaged in however, internationally is a struggle against the new security threat of our times, and we are working closely on that and we are engaged in reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq and we are working closely on that, and I believe that any points that we have to make about these things are best made between ourselves rather than grandstanding in public.

PRIME MINISTER:
I am getting into this cross-examination again and I don’t know about that.

QUESTION:
Let me just try this one time. We do admire your discipline, but it does look like you are caving into President Bush most of the time because he is winning on a lot of the things that seem important to him and on which you apparently disagree.

QUESTION:
I cited the preparation for the Iraqi occupation, not as many troops, not as well advanced, the right of return of the Palestinians …

PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, that is a few separate things mixed in together. I can say to you that we work very closely on the preparations for the aftermath in Iraq, and just take your mind back for a moment as to what people thought were going to be the problems in Iraq. The main problem we were having to prepare against was the idea you were going to have a humanitarian disaster, I mean many of you guys wrote about the humanitarian disaster we were going to have when we went into Iraq. Look, the situation about Iraq, there is good news and there is bad news, the good news is that it is easy to describe the problem in Iraq today, the bad news is it is tough to tackle it. The problem is perfectly simple, it is not that the Iraqi people aren’t agreed on the way forward, they are, it is not that the international community is not agreed on the way forward, we are, it is not that there is not fantastic work going on on reconstruction, that if the terrorism stops we would be transforming Iraq before our very eyes. All of that is true. The trouble is we have got this group of terrorists, former regime elements, religious extremists that want to stop us. Now all we can do in that situation is to make sure that we are doing our level best to build up the Iraqi capability to deal with these people and deal with them ourselves at the same time as we get a political process with international legitimacy, and that is what we are doing, and there has not been a disagreement between us on that at all, on the contrary we have been working closely on it.

QUESTION:
The anti-nuclear movement here in Britain claims that Britain is developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and says also that the nuclear states, including Britain, are not actually implementing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are just imposing this on the countries they don’t have these arms, that they themselves are not reducing their own arsenals. And my second question is about your opening statement, do you mean that you are going to impose on the students who are coming to Britain specific institutions, they cannot choose for themselves, what was that about?

PRIME MINISTER:
I am not saying that – we had better sort that one out before we go, an Al Jazeera special on that. Let me say exactly what we are saying. We are saying if you come here as an overseas student you have got to go to a bona fide institution, you have got to be a bona fide student. What you can’t do is come from abroad to a supposed college that doesn’t actually exist as a proper institute of learning, that is what we are saying, so we are trying to deal with any potential fraud within the system. We are not trying to stop overseas students coming to this country, on the contrary, it is a good thing that overseas students come to this country, it makes a lot of money for the country, some of these overseas students end up playing a role here or in their own countries of very great importance. We are simply saying we can’t have abuse of the system, that is all.

PRIME MINISTER:
Because in order to make sure, what we are doing is we are going to develop a list of accredited colleges. Many people come here to study English language courses of a reasonably short duration, so they come here because they want to learn English. Great, it is a good thing to be able to do and you are bringing people in from all over the world to learn the world’s foremost language – apart from French – to learn one of the world’s foremost languages. So it is important therefore that we make sure that people can do that because as I say it is a good earner for the country and it is a perfectly legitimate thing. What however there has been concern about is that there are certain so-called colleges, these are private sector organisations, that turn out not to be bona fide colleges at all. We have to make sure therefore that in order to deal with this potential abuse, that we draw up, and we will do that between now and the end of the year, a list of accredited colleges so that we know when people apply, because they have to apply to a particular college, that this college is a bona fide college. It is nothing more complicated than that. As for the first point, Britain is a signatory to all sorts of treaties on chemical and biological and nuclear weapons and we abide by the terms of those treaties and it is our desire to see a world in which the threat from nuclear weapons is reduced. What we cannot have though is a situation where people are proliferating or developing nuclear weapons in breach of international treaties and obligations. We do not do that here, and we are subject to all the rules and regular checks that the international bodies undertake. And one of the important things that has happened since Iraq is that we have got North Korea back into discussion now with the Chinese and with others, as well as the Americans, on dealing with their nuclear weapons capability, we have Iran back in discussion with the Atomic Energy Agency, we still have many concerns but it is important that that happens, and we have got Libya voluntarily yielding up its potential nuclear weapons capability, and we have got the A Q Kahn network, the former Pakistani nuclear scientist that I am afraid was proliferating and trading this stuff illegally around the world, being shut down. Now I think those are important gains for the world, I really do.

PRIME MINISTER:
No, we abide by our treaty obligations. We are not developing anything, we are abiding by our treaty obligations, and our demand is not that we should be subject to different rules from the rest of the world, but on the contrary that everybody should be within a proper framework of international law, and states that aren’t within that framework of international law are a potential threat to us.

QUESTION:
You met your Cabinet this morning. Some people wonder why, when you didn’t actually have a meeting with them before announcing the major policy change this week. And just on a different issue, because it was very close to your heart, did you find it distasteful, the idea that pictures of Princess Diana were broadcast in the United States overnight?

PRIME MINISTER:
In answer to the second question, I think everyone finds it distasteful that there are pictures that can cause distress to the family, and that is all I want to say on that. In respect of the first, well the trouble with these things, as you know, is that it is always difficult to keep things under wraps when you are having discussions with people and processes can always be better, you have just got to put up with that, but the important thing is that the decision was taken.

QUESTION:
Do you think it is honest to present the question of the constitution to the country as a question of in or out of Europe?

PRIME MINISTER:
The question would be on the constitutional treaty, don’t be under any doubt about that.

QUESTION:
… argument already, you and your Cabinet Ministers, as actually something bigger which is Britain’s future in or out of Europe.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think it is. Look, be under no doubt about this at all. First of all let me just deal with this point because what you find in a situation like this is you are arrogant if you refuse the referendum and you are weak if you give it. Now once you have got over that, then what happens is people then move to a whole series of well you have given us a referendum but actually it is not going to be a real one, you are either going to trick us with the question, you are going to trick us with the process, you are going to have the same referendum run several times. Look people are going to get their say on this thing, so let’s get to the substance. It is however, this is the treaty that the rest of Europe has come together, Britain has been part of this process and said look when we enlarge to 25 and then later to 28 countries, possibly 30 or more in the future, we need a set of rules that allows Europe to work effectively, because Europe doesn’t work effectively at the moment, not nearly effectively enough, that is precisely why there is a lot of concern within the European Union and elsewhere as to how it does it. So it is a big issue this. The point that we will be making about the Opposition position though is a perfectly legitimate question, because their position is not just to refuse any treaty for the future of Europe, any treaty at all. They are not going through and saying well this part of the treaty is fine, but we don’t agree with this, and this, and this, they are saying any of it they are not going to have, even though 75% of it is in fact previous treaties. And what is more they are saying that in respect of vital areas where Britain already cooperates with the rest of Europe under existing treaties, as I say the bulk of which actually were negotiated by a previous government, then they are not going to accept that at all. So that is why there is going to be a fundamental argument about this, because their position is to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s existing membership, never mind the future constitutional treaty.

QUESTION:
Can you think of any good transport argument not to build cross-rail?

PRIME MINISTER:
Shortly I hope, but it is important for London and it is important for the country. And the one thing that is absolutely sure, let’s be clear, London is probably – well I had better be careful after what I said about the English language – London is one of the great capitals of the world, it is a vibrant successful city, but if we don’t get the proper transport infrastructure and make the investment necessary for it, we will diminish the ability of London to compete with the rest of the world. And so I have made it clear all the way through I am in favour of cross-rail, I think we need to do it.

QUESTION:
Do you regard the defection today of the Daily Express as more of a hindrance or a help to the Leader of the Opposition?

QUESTION:
OK. Well I was tempted to ask after that whether it is a comfort to you that your greatest tabloid support comes from a newspaper which appears to regard you as a war criminal. I was going to ask you more substantially about your work permits U-turn. David Blunkett has been going around saying there is an acute shortage of staff in catering and hospitality and has quoted figures of 60,000 shortage in London alone. You are now unveiling a reduction, does that mean you expect the numbers in from East Europe to be much bigger than you had previously thought, and when did you tell Mr Blunkett he had got it wrong.

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well I can see what a difference a day makes. Right, first of all we are simply taking account of the fact that because these ten new countries are going to be in the European Union then obviously there is going to be a reduction in the quotas for that. But we haven’t changed our mind on the need to be able to recruit workers into this country when we need them. It is important to do that. If you took every migrant worker out of London, you would do an immense amount of damage to the London economy. I think we all know that, all of us here who live and work in London realise that. I think the British people can be persuaded of this argument, and this is what I have obviously got to try and do, that provided we are selective and have proper controls on the migration that we have, that it is sensible for us to allow people to come and study here, to allow people to come and work here where it is in the interests of the British economy, but what we should do is prevent people abusing that system. The vast bulk of people don’t actually abuse it, but where there are abuses we should deal with them. Now I think that is a place that most people can settle on, at least I certainly hope so.

QUESTION:
You said a moment ago that it is the vote of the British people that counts, I think you have said more than once this morning that there won’t be multiple referendums until you get the right answer that you want, the yes. Now is that right, because many people will conclude from that that if we vote against a constitution, should this referendum take place, that is an end to it, there will be no European constitution over-arching, more important than the treaty, as you suggested, at least none in which Britain will be involved. Now is that the case, if we vote no there will be no constitution, or will you say well it was a 49/51 split on a 23% turnout, let’s try again?

PRIME MINISTER:
You can’t say anything more Mike, than that you are going to have to come back to the Council, because this is what is contemplated, and discuss the right way forward. But what you can’t do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go. You can’t do that and I am not going to get drawn into speculating the way forward because I don’t intend to lose the referendum. But one thing you said which I have to correct, because this is very very important, this is not a constitution in the sense that it is different from any other treaty of the European Union, its legal status is a treaty, so it is the same treaty as any of the other treaties that has been signed up to by governments before us.

QUESTION:
The choice on that treaty, under Article 59 if I remember, is if you don’t like what is happening under the treaty with its constitutional implications is you must withdraw, it is not like the United States where you can’t withdraw from the constitution, you can at least withdraw, and officials closely involved with this say that is your get out if you don’t like the constitution as it evolves over time, and there are a number of powers built into it, and that is partly, when it comes, what this debate is all going to be about.

PRIME MINISTER:
I think what you are referring to is the ability to move forward and enhance cooperation, if people don’t agree with certain aspects of policy. That is true, it is one of the advantages of having this constitutional treaty. But don’t be in any doubt at all, it is obviously going to be extremely serious if all other 24 members of the European Union want to go forward and we don’t, and it is going to be important, it is not so much a legal issue this, it is a political question in terms of what happens if the whole of the rest of Europe say look we need basic rules drawn up for the European Union to take us forward in a different European Union, a European Union of 25, or 28, or 30 members, if the rest of Europe is in that position and Britain is in the position alone of all the other countries saying we are not taking part in this at all, and what is more even the things we have already agreed to we want to withdraw from, now that is not a credible position, I can assure you of that.

QUESTION:
Is the prospect of this referendum now a great tool for you to convince your European partners that they have to abide by your so-called red lines, otherwise the British people will reject the constitutional treaty?

PRIME MINISTER:
The positions that we set out on questions like tax and foreign policy and security I think are well known anyway and I personally don’t think we will have any difficulty in securing them because we have got many allies on those issues in Europe. I think it is more to do with this really, there is almost the most extraordinary and deep urge, and this is why I say to that part of the media that is not parti pris on this issue, there is an incredible urge not to debate what is actually in this constitution. Now one of the reasons for saying to people right let’s clear the decks, give people their say, is so that we can get to argue about it. Because I think if you asked a lot of people at the moment they would say well yes this constitution, it is going to mean that Britain can’t be an ally of the United States if Europeans say we can’t. Now once you have dispelled those myths I think the British people will take a completely different attitude on this, because they will say hang on, if we actually retain control over our tax rates and our pensions and our social security system and our foreign policy and our defence, what on earth is wrong with Britain coming together and co-operating with the rest of Europe? They have tried to drop the phrase associate membership, but that is where they want to be. So for example if Britain withdraws from European defence, which I have made sure Britain is a key player in developing in Europe, if we withdraw from European defence, it is not that European defence won’t happen, European defence will happen, it will just happen without Britain, and so Britain will be without influence on a major development in Europe, and that is what this argument is about, and the sooner we get to the substance of it and get over these process questions the better frankly.

QUESTION:
At any point in the last few weeks or months, were you advised or informed that one or more of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers would have great difficulty supporting the Labour Party at the next general election unless there was a referendum on this constitution?

PRIME MINISTER:
We have never entered into that sort of agreement, arrangement, been told that or anything else. Now you have just got to accept that at the end of the day the reason why I have done this is for the reasons I have given. I don’t know what particular newspapers are going to do, that is up to them. What I do know is that if you believe passionately, as I do, that Britain’s place is as a central player in Europe, that we have got these two great alliances with America and with Europe and we keep both of them, we don’t choose one over the other, then it is time for people like me to make the argument. And I know it causes distress in various quarters because I think a lot of the pro-Europeans, and I want to say this because I share their views on Europe, but it is all very well for them to sit there and say you should have just rail-roaded it through, used your majority in the Commons, done whatever you needed to do in the Lords, rail-roaded the thing through and then just stuck to it, but I tell you if the consequence of that was that the British people thought that in the end they were being tricked into something they didn’t agree with, that would have done huge damage to the European case in my view, and that is the decision ultimately I have come to. I have not changed my mind on Europe or on the benefits of this new treaty, I think those positions are completely unchanged. What I have changed my mind on is that there is no point in continuing to have an argument about whether we are giving people a say, whether I am a democratic person or not, whether we are just arrogant in refusing to listen to people, let’s clear it all out of the way and have a debate on the substance, and for goodness sake let’s start having the debate on the substance because I think there is every single benefit for us in doing so.

QUESTION:
In 1999 you launched Britain in Europe which was supposed to be a once in a generation campaign for Europe, last year in this room we were told there were going to be roadshows about the euro. Is it really going to be different this time, are you going to lead this debate yourself, when is it going to start, or is the referendum merely a device to kick the issue into touch until after the general election?

PRIME MINISTER:
It is not going to be kicked into touch because we are going to have a negotiation on this at the end of June, and the reason why this is different from the euro, look in respect of the Euro, you are quite right, I took the view, and take the view, that the principle is right that Britain joins the single currency. I know everyone used to think well the economic conditions are really just a blind for a political decision, they are not, they never were, the single currency is an economic and monetary union, so the economics matter, they are not an irrelevance, they are central to whether it is a good idea or not. The fact is you cannot at this moment in time make a compelling case economically for Britain to go into the single currency, and that is not just my view, I think a lot of pro-European business people would take the same view at the moment. Now my view about that is you keep that argument open, but the reason why we have not been charging round telling people that the single currency is the issue we have got to confront is that we as a government don’t think this is the time to confront it or to do it for the economic reasons that we have given. The issue on this treaty is completely different, that will take place, on the assumption that the Europeans agree a treaty, and obviously you can’t be sure of that because there are still negotiations to take place, but on the assumption that they do, we will be in this battle, and don’t say I didn’t do this without weighing up the dangers of it and the risks of it. But it is as I say to you, I think you come to the point where in the end you decide what it is you want to argue about, and I would prefer to argue about the substance than whether we are refusing people a say.

QUESTION:
On Iraq, we have been witnessing an upsurge in the Shia part of Iraq in the past few weeks, a very serious one, whereas the Shiite population of Iraq at the beginning were welcoming the coalition forces. Why do you think this change of heart has happened, is it because of the meddling of some neighbours who are supporting people like Moqtada al-Sadr or is it a reaction to the way that they have been governed or an objection to the things which are going on?

PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don’t think so, and it is very important here again to realise, we are in constant discussion and dialogue with the main Shia leaders in Iraq. But Moqtada al-Sadr, he wasn’t someone who was in favour of a moderate response and then became extreme, he has been in that position all the way through. The reason why an arrest warrant was put out for him was because of the issue to do with the murder of the cleric sometime ago, and the understanding I have from people in Iraq is that Moqtada al-Sadr does not represent, never mind not the majority of Shias, but barely represents anything other than a very small minority strand of opinion. Now we are trying to deal with that at the present time, but I don’t think the Shia population as a whole has changed on this, and certainly the views that we get back from them is that they are still wanting a broad based government in Iraq that comprises all religious groupings.

QUESTION:
Can I draw your attention for a moment on Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was the first reaction to terrorism, it was an appropriate war and justifiable and so on, and it is under the mandate of the United Nations, so politically correctly it is fine. I am just back from that country where I have been travelling with a mission of the United Nations, and the impression is that it is a half a miracle that the country is so quiet because the presence of NATO, which should have been extended from Kabul, is irrelevant except for … so as a matter of fact the elections are going to come there in September, nothing is going on on the military side. Don’t you think it should be time maybe to press that process forward in order not to put the clock back also on Afghanistan in a moment when Iraq is in such a bad condition?

PRIME MINISTER:
I agree, I think it is important we press on in Afghanistan. What we have got is two main areas of work where we are rebuilding in the one case a failed state, in the other case a state that was part of a brutal dictatorship, and both are important, and I think you are right, I think what is happening in Afghanistan is a half miracle, that is absolutely true, but we have got to make it a full miracle. Now I believe that that will require, as the Berlin Conference a few weeks ago was outlining, a greater commitment and I think it is possible that NATO will take an even bigger role.

PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn’t say they were doing nothing, you have got the provincial reconstruction teams outside of Kabul, but the whole purpose of the proposals that we and others are putting forward is to increase that radically and to make sure in a sense that the Americans are able, down in the south of the country where the problem is, to take on the Taliban and al Queda elements that are there, and then in the rest of the country to be building up the indigenous Afghan capability. And again whenever people talk about the problems in Afghanistan, and there are problems, it is just worth recognising you have got somewhere in the region of 3 million refugees that have gone back, including some from here, to Afghanistan.

QUESTION:
Britain has condemned the assassination of Sheikh Yassin and Al Rantisi, and the Israeli Prime Minister responded by vowing to kill more Hamas leaders, even those who are based abroad. I presume you agree with me that Israel is an occupying force, but why do you think it has the right to defend itself against terrorists and other countries do not have the right to defend themselves against Israeli outrage? You know that Britain shelters many dissidents who are considered by countries of origin as terrorists, but these countries are not sending their special forces or secret service agents to assassinate them. How would you respond to that?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well first of all if there are people here who are engaged in terrorism, because of the laws that we have changed, even if the terrorism that they are engaged in is abroad, we can arrest those people and if necessary deport them, and we have taken action against certain individuals here as a result of that. Of course some of the people who are talked about here claim that they are simply dissidents and disavow any support for terrorism at all, that is an argument that goes on. I disagree with the policy of targeted assassinations and I hope we can get to a different situation where we are able to move forward in the Middle East, but you would have to accept, and I am sure you do, that the Hamas leadership explicitly endorses this terrorism and indeed explicitly finances and encourages it. Now that is not to justify the retaliation taken, but it is to recognise that Israel has lost large numbers of its own citizens in these terrorist acts, citizens that have died, not in the occupied territories but have died in Israel itself. So I just think we need to balance that situation up a little bit.

QUESTION:
Just taking you back to Europe, there will be absolute clarity at the end of this debate over what a yes vote actually means. At the moment, will this whole referendum process be fundamentally flawed unless there is absolute clarity over what no actually means?

QUESTION:
In response to a question from Andy Bell you said that you were not absolutely sure about what a no vote outcome would mean.

PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I am absolutely sure about what it means, it means that the constitutional treaty has been rejected, that is what it means, and so you are in the same situation as you would be if I went to the summit at the end of June and said I can’t agree this treaty, you would be in exactly the same position. All I am saying is that I don’t know what the way forward is, you would have to sit down and talk about it with the rest of Europe.

QUESTION:
People are going to be voting in a referendum when you yourself said you don’t know what the outcome will be.

PRIME MINISTER:
What do you mean I don’t know what the outcome, if they vote no the outcome is no, isn’t it? The question is what then does the rest of Europe do, what do we do in those circumstances? You have to sit down and talk about it. But what then arises out of that, that is an issue for them. But the point that you guys are trying to suggest is that somehow what we are going to do is if you vote no you get it back, a few amendments and then you have it again, again and again. No, of course you can’t do that, you can’t do that, a no vote is a no vote, but people have got to realise what the consequence of that is going to be, you are going to be sitting down trying to work out a way forward in Europe when the rest of the 24 countries are going to be wanting to go forward, and then that is going to be a major, major problem.

PRIME MINISTER:
Adam, please, I know it is late on, but I think I am not going to get drawn into speculation as to what will happen to me or to anybody else. For a start, let’s just work one thing out, we haven’t had the treaty yet, so let’s get the treaty and then have the debate.

QUESTION:
You keep talking about myths and distortions, and yet I am sure you would have to admit that the draft treaty is riddled with articles which threaten and surround our sovereign right to decide our own tax, our own defence, our foreign policy and so on, so much so indeed that you have had to establish a red line defence around those areas. Wouldn’t it be simpler for you either to have already vetoed those articles, or to do so when you get together in June?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well we will be saying unless the articles are changed we won’t accept them.

QUESTION:
Well there are and we quote them in the Sun today – you should read it.

PRIME MINISTER:
The fact of the matter is actually even the language that is there now on tax and on defence, defence it says specifically the Council shall act unanimously, it says the same on foreign policy and it says the same on tax. Now there are issues to do with, for example there is a question about the administration of tax systems as to whether it would allow QMV by harmonisation. We are going to have to make it absolutely clear so that when we come back from this negotiation at the end of June, the British people, or the British government will retain its veto on tax, on foreign affairs, on defence, on the other central questions we had laid out, so that nobody can be in any doubt that that is the case. Now my point to you guys is if we do come back with that plain language, are you going to carry on saying we are about to give up our tax rates and our defence and we won’t be able to be allies of America any more, or are you actually going to print what the treaty really says, as opposed to what people would like it to say in order to get a no vote. Anyway that will be an interesting discussion that we can continue at that time.

QUESTION:
There has been a fair bit written and said about the different military styles in Iraq between the British and the US troops and General Mike Jackson implied this difference when he talked about the British troops must be able to fight with the Americans, not necessarily as the Americans. Do you agree, do you think that different military styles draw different results on the ground, or are drawing different results on the ground in Iraq, and do you expect or hope that NATO might join the battle in Iraq at some point after 30 June?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think in relation to NATO you have just got to see how the situation develops, and in any event it will be a matter for the sovereign Iraqi government to decide those issues. In respect of the first point, I think it is just worth pointing this out, I am very proud of what the British troops have done in the south of the country, and actually I think Australia should be proud of its troops in what they have done in respect of Iraq which has been immensely important and of huge benefit and value. The American situation that they have had has been of a different order of responsibility, and I think it is just important to point that out, and American troops have suffered heavy losses, they have performed with outstanding courage and they have been in the most difficult sector of the country, that triangle around Baghdad where most of the trouble has been. And so it is not surprising they are facing a different situation and the different pressures upon them. And never forget you have got a situation where actually in Iraq you have I think around about 130,000 American troops, you have got round about 16,000 troops from countries other than America or Britain, and you have got around about 8,000 British troops with some other British support outside of Iraq. It is a very very difficult situation for the Americans for that reason, they have got a far bigger troop contribution, they have got a far tougher job to handle and I think we shouldn’t end up putting rifts between the performance of various troops, it is sufficient to say that all of the coalition troops are doing their level best in a difficult situation. And the most important thing, and this is the point to leave you with is this, and it was confirmed for me yesterday when I talked to David Richmond who is our representative out in Iraq, the real battle that there is in Iraq is not just a military battle, it is also a battle about hearts and minds, and what the small group of extremists and their supporters want to do is to persuade people in Iraq that this is an army of occupation that desires to stay in order to take over either the wealth of the Iraqi people or the government of Iraq. What we have got to do is to persuade people of the truth, which is that the purpose of the troops being there is that they create the conditions in which we can have sufficient security so that the political process of democracy can work and the Iraqi people can have the freedom that we want them to have, and that is what we are trying to do and we do not want to stay, neither British troops, nor American troops, nor Australian troops, nor the troops of any other country one moment longer than we need to in order to help the Iraqi people with that process of transition to democracy, and that is why it is a battle, that it isn’t just security, it is about hearts and minds and it is one we have got to win.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, April 22, 2004

Prime Minister’s press conference

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries