SPEECH TO BE GIVEN BY THE RTHON MRS THATCHER FRS, MP, AT THE OPENING OF THE 39TH ACADEMIC YEAR OF THE COLLEGE OF EUROPE, BRUGES: 20 S 1988
Britain and Europe
Mr Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage. If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful co-existence!
I want to start by disposing of some myths abut my country, Britain, and its relationship with Europe. And to do that I must say something about the identity of Europe itself.
Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome
Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution. We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Cur links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history. For three hundred years we were part of the R o m a n Empire and our maps still trace the straight lines of the roads the Romans built. Our ancestors - Celts, Saxons and Danes - came from the continent.
Our nation was - in that favourite Community word - "restructured" under Norman and Angevin rule in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
This year we celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the Glorious Revolution in which the British crown passed to Prince William of Holland and Queen Mary-
Visit the great Churches and Cathedrals of Britain, read our literature and listen to our language: all bear witness to the cultural riches which we have drawn from Europe - and Europeans from us.
We in Britain are rightly proud of the way in which, since Magna Carta in 1215, we have pioneered and developed representative institutions to stand as bastions of freedom. And proud too of the way in which for centuries Britain was a home for people from the rest of Europe who sought sanctuary from tyranny.
But we know that without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did. Fromclassical and medieval thought we have borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilised society from barbarism. And on that concept of Christendom- for long synonomous with Europe - with its recognition of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual, we still base belief in personal liberty arid other h u m rights.
Too often the history of Europe is described as a series of interminable wars and quarrels, Yet from our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised and - yes, without apology - civilised muchof the world is an extraordinary tale of talent and valour.
We British have in a special way contributed to Europe. For over the centuries we have fought arid died for her freedom, fought to prevent Europe from falling under the dominance of a single power. Only miles from here lie the bodies of 60,000 British soldiers who died in the First World War. Had it not been for that willingness to fight and die, Europe wouldhave been united long before n o w- but not in liberty and not in justice, It was British help to resistance movementsthroughout the last War that kept alive the flame of liberty in so many countries until the day of liberation came. TomorrowKing Baudouin will attend a service in Brussels to commemorate the m a n bravey Belgians who gave their lives in service with the Royal Air Force.
It was from our island fortress that the liberation of Europe itself was mounted. And still today, we station 70,000 British servicemen on the mainland of Europe. All these things alone are proof of our commitementto Europe's future.
The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity. But it is not the only one. We must never forget that East of the Iron
Curtain peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedomand identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities.
Nor should we forget that European values have helped to make the United States of America into the dynamic defender of freedom which she has become.
Europe's Future
This is no arid chronicle of obscure historical facts. It is the record of nearly two thousand years of British involvement in Europe and contribution to Europe, a contributionwhich is today as strong as ever. Yes, we have looked also to wider horizons - and so have others - and thank goodness we did, because Europe would never have prospered and never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club.
The European Community belongs to all its members; and must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all of them in full measure.And let me be quite clear. Britain does not dream of an alternative to the European Comity, of some cosy, isolated existence on its fringes. O u r destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community That is not to say that it lies only in Europe. But nor does that of France or Spain or indeed any other members.
The Community is not an end in itself. It is not an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of sane abstract theory. Nor must it be ossified by endless regulation. It is the practical means by which Europe can ensure its future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerfulnations and groups.
We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies o n internal disputes or arcane institutional debates. They are no substitute for effective action.
Europe has to be ready both to contribtute in full measure to its own security and to compete - compete in a worldin which success goes to the countries which encourage individual initiative and enterprise, rather than to those which attempt to diminish them.
I want this evening to set out same guiding principles for the future which I believe will ensure that Europe does succeed, not just in economic and defence terms but in the quality of life and the influence of its people.
Willinq m-operation between Sovereiqn States
My first guideline is this: willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community.
To try to suppressnationhood and concentratepower at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeapordise the objectives we seek to achieve.
Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.
Sane of the founding fathers of the Community thought that the United States of America might be its m o d e l
But the whole history of Americais quite different fromEurope. People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has, over two centuries, helped create a new unity and pride in being American -just as our pride lies in being British or Belgian or Dutch...
I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see them work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, defence or in our relations with the rest of the world. But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy.
Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, sane in the Community seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.
Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, Parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country, for these have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries.
Encouraging Change
My second guiding principle is this. Community policies must tackle present problem in a practical way, however difficult that may be. If we cannot reform those Community policies which are patently wrong or ineffective and which are rightly causing public disquiet, then we shall not get the . public'ssupport for the Community's future developent.
That is why the achievements of the European Council in Brussels last February are so important.
It wasn't right that half the total CommunityBudget was being spent on storing and disposing of surplus food. Now those stocks are being sharply reduced.
It was absolutely right to decide that agriculture's share of the budget should be cut in order to free resources for policies, such as helping the less well off regions and tranining for jobs.
It was right too to introduce tighter budgetary discipline to enforce these decisions and to bring t o t aEl Cspending under better control.
Those who complained that the Communitywas spending so muchtime on financial detail missed the point. You cannot build on unsound foundations; and it was the fundamental reforms agreed last winter whichpaved the way for the remarkable progress which we have since made onthe Single Market
But we cannot rest o nwhat we have achieved so far. For example, the task of reforming the CommonAgricultural Policy is far from complete. Certainly, Europe needs a stable andefficient farming industry.
But the CAP has become unwieldy, inefficient and grossly expensive. And production of unwanted surpluses safeguards neither the income nor the future of farmers themselves.
We must continue to pursue policies which relate supply more closely to market requirements, and which will reduce overproduction and limit costs.
Of course, we must protect the villages and rural areas which are such an important part of our national life - but not by the instrument of agricultural prices.
Tackling these problems requires political courage. The Community will only damage itself in the eyes of its own people and the outside world, if that courage is lacking.
Europe open to enterprise
My third guiding principle is the need for Communitypolicies which encourage enterprise if Europe is to flourish and create the jobs of the future.
The basic framework is there: the Treaty of Rome itself was intended as a Charter for Economic Liberty. But that is not h o itw has always been read, still less applied.
The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70s and 80s is that central planning and detailed control don't work, and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth; and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results.
The aim of a Europe open for enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market by 1992.By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a Europe-wide scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and the other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.
It means action to free markets, to widen choice and to produce greater economic convergence through reduced government intervention.our aim should not be moreand moredetailed regulation from the centre:it should be to deregulate, to remove the constraints on trade and to open up.
[...]
Europe open to the world
My fourth guiding principle is that Europe should not be protectionist. The expansion of the world economyrequires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade, and to do so in the multilateral negotiations in
the GATT.
It would be a betrayal if, while breaking d o w nconstraints on trade to create the Single Market, the Community were to erect greater external protection. We must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home.
We have a responsibility to give a lead here, a responsibility which is
particularly directed towards the less developed countries. They need not
only aid but more than anything they need improved trade opportunities if they are to gain the dignity of growing economic independence and strength.
Europe and Defence
My last guiding principle concerns the most fundamental issue, the European countries' role in defence. Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through NATO. There can be no question of relaxing our efforts even if it means taking difficult decisions and meeting heavy costs. We are thankful for the peace that NATO has maintained over 40 years. The fact is things are going our way: the democratic m o d e ofl a free enterprise society has proved itself superior; freedom is o n the offensive, a peaceful offensive, the world over for the first time in my life-time.
We must strive to maintain the US commitmentto Europe's defence. That means recognising the burden an their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their Allies should play a full part in the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier. Increasingly they will look to Europe to play a part in out-of-area defence, as we have recently done in the Gulf.
NATO and the WEU have long recognised where the problems with Europe's defences lie and have pointed out the solutions. The time has come when we must give substance to our declarations about a strong defence effort and better value for money.
It's not an institutional problem. It's not a problem of drafting. It's such more simple and more profound: it is a question of political will and political courage, of convincing people in all our countries that we cannot rely for ever on others for cur defence but that
each member of the Alliance must shoulder a fair share of the burden.
We must keep public support for nuclear deterrence, remembering that obsolete weapons do not deter, hence the need for modernisation.We rmst meet the requirements for effective conventional defence in Europe against Soviet forces which are constantly being modernised.
We should develop the WEU, not as an alternative to NATO, but as a means of strengthening Europe's contribution to the common defence of the West.
Above all at a time of change and uncertainty, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we must preserve Europe's unity and resolve, so that whatever may happen our defence is sure. At the same time, we must negotiate on arms control and keep the door wide open to co-operation on all the other issues covered by the Helsinki Accords.
But our way of life, our vision, and all that we hope to achieve is secured not by the rightness of our cause but by the strength of our defence. On this, we must never falter or fail.
The British Approach
I believe it is not enough just to talk in general terms about a European vision or ideal. If you believe in it, you rmst chart the way ahead. That's what I have tried to do this evening.
This approach does not require new documents: they are all there, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Revised Brussels Treaty, and the Treaty of' R o m etexts, written by far-sighted men, a remarkable Belgian - Paul Henri Speak - a m othemng.
What we need now is to take decisions onthe next steps forward rather than let ourselves be distracted by Utopian goals.However far we may all want to go, the truth is that you can only get there one step at a time.
Let us concentrate on making sure that we get those steps right.
Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding e a otherc better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our c o m m Europeann endeavour.
Let us have a Europe which plays its full part in the wider world, which looks outward not inward, and which preserves that Atlantic Community - that Europe on both sides of the Atlantic - which is our greatest inheritance and our greatest strength.
Πηγή:Collège de l'Europe
Mr Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage. If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful co-existence!
I want to start by disposing of some myths abut my country, Britain, and its relationship with Europe. And to do that I must say something about the identity of Europe itself.
Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome
Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution. We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Cur links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history. For three hundred years we were part of the R o m a n Empire and our maps still trace the straight lines of the roads the Romans built. Our ancestors - Celts, Saxons and Danes - came from the continent.
Our nation was - in that favourite Community word - "restructured" under Norman and Angevin rule in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
This year we celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the Glorious Revolution in which the British crown passed to Prince William of Holland and Queen Mary-
Visit the great Churches and Cathedrals of Britain, read our literature and listen to our language: all bear witness to the cultural riches which we have drawn from Europe - and Europeans from us.
We in Britain are rightly proud of the way in which, since Magna Carta in 1215, we have pioneered and developed representative institutions to stand as bastions of freedom. And proud too of the way in which for centuries Britain was a home for people from the rest of Europe who sought sanctuary from tyranny.
But we know that without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did. Fromclassical and medieval thought we have borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilised society from barbarism. And on that concept of Christendom- for long synonomous with Europe - with its recognition of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual, we still base belief in personal liberty arid other h u m rights.
Too often the history of Europe is described as a series of interminable wars and quarrels, Yet from our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised and - yes, without apology - civilised muchof the world is an extraordinary tale of talent and valour.
We British have in a special way contributed to Europe. For over the centuries we have fought arid died for her freedom, fought to prevent Europe from falling under the dominance of a single power. Only miles from here lie the bodies of 60,000 British soldiers who died in the First World War. Had it not been for that willingness to fight and die, Europe wouldhave been united long before n o w- but not in liberty and not in justice, It was British help to resistance movementsthroughout the last War that kept alive the flame of liberty in so many countries until the day of liberation came. TomorrowKing Baudouin will attend a service in Brussels to commemorate the m a n bravey Belgians who gave their lives in service with the Royal Air Force.
It was from our island fortress that the liberation of Europe itself was mounted. And still today, we station 70,000 British servicemen on the mainland of Europe. All these things alone are proof of our commitementto Europe's future.
The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity. But it is not the only one. We must never forget that East of the Iron
Curtain peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedomand identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities.
Nor should we forget that European values have helped to make the United States of America into the dynamic defender of freedom which she has become.
Europe's Future
This is no arid chronicle of obscure historical facts. It is the record of nearly two thousand years of British involvement in Europe and contribution to Europe, a contributionwhich is today as strong as ever. Yes, we have looked also to wider horizons - and so have others - and thank goodness we did, because Europe would never have prospered and never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club.
The European Community belongs to all its members; and must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all of them in full measure.And let me be quite clear. Britain does not dream of an alternative to the European Comity, of some cosy, isolated existence on its fringes. O u r destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community That is not to say that it lies only in Europe. But nor does that of France or Spain or indeed any other members.
The Community is not an end in itself. It is not an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of sane abstract theory. Nor must it be ossified by endless regulation. It is the practical means by which Europe can ensure its future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerfulnations and groups.
We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies o n internal disputes or arcane institutional debates. They are no substitute for effective action.
Europe has to be ready both to contribtute in full measure to its own security and to compete - compete in a worldin which success goes to the countries which encourage individual initiative and enterprise, rather than to those which attempt to diminish them.
I want this evening to set out same guiding principles for the future which I believe will ensure that Europe does succeed, not just in economic and defence terms but in the quality of life and the influence of its people.
Willinq m-operation between Sovereiqn States
My first guideline is this: willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community.
To try to suppressnationhood and concentratepower at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeapordise the objectives we seek to achieve.
Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.
Sane of the founding fathers of the Community thought that the United States of America might be its m o d e l
But the whole history of Americais quite different fromEurope. People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has, over two centuries, helped create a new unity and pride in being American -just as our pride lies in being British or Belgian or Dutch...
I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see them work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, defence or in our relations with the rest of the world. But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy.
Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, sane in the Community seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.
Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, Parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country, for these have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries.
Encouraging Change
My second guiding principle is this. Community policies must tackle present problem in a practical way, however difficult that may be. If we cannot reform those Community policies which are patently wrong or ineffective and which are rightly causing public disquiet, then we shall not get the . public'ssupport for the Community's future developent.
That is why the achievements of the European Council in Brussels last February are so important.
It wasn't right that half the total CommunityBudget was being spent on storing and disposing of surplus food. Now those stocks are being sharply reduced.
It was absolutely right to decide that agriculture's share of the budget should be cut in order to free resources for policies, such as helping the less well off regions and tranining for jobs.
It was right too to introduce tighter budgetary discipline to enforce these decisions and to bring t o t aEl Cspending under better control.
Those who complained that the Communitywas spending so muchtime on financial detail missed the point. You cannot build on unsound foundations; and it was the fundamental reforms agreed last winter whichpaved the way for the remarkable progress which we have since made onthe Single Market
But we cannot rest o nwhat we have achieved so far. For example, the task of reforming the CommonAgricultural Policy is far from complete. Certainly, Europe needs a stable andefficient farming industry.
But the CAP has become unwieldy, inefficient and grossly expensive. And production of unwanted surpluses safeguards neither the income nor the future of farmers themselves.
We must continue to pursue policies which relate supply more closely to market requirements, and which will reduce overproduction and limit costs.
Of course, we must protect the villages and rural areas which are such an important part of our national life - but not by the instrument of agricultural prices.
Tackling these problems requires political courage. The Community will only damage itself in the eyes of its own people and the outside world, if that courage is lacking.
Europe open to enterprise
My third guiding principle is the need for Communitypolicies which encourage enterprise if Europe is to flourish and create the jobs of the future.
The basic framework is there: the Treaty of Rome itself was intended as a Charter for Economic Liberty. But that is not h o itw has always been read, still less applied.
The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70s and 80s is that central planning and detailed control don't work, and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth; and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results.
The aim of a Europe open for enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market by 1992.By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a Europe-wide scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and the other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.
It means action to free markets, to widen choice and to produce greater economic convergence through reduced government intervention.our aim should not be moreand moredetailed regulation from the centre:it should be to deregulate, to remove the constraints on trade and to open up.
[...]
Europe open to the world
My fourth guiding principle is that Europe should not be protectionist. The expansion of the world economyrequires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade, and to do so in the multilateral negotiations in
the GATT.
It would be a betrayal if, while breaking d o w nconstraints on trade to create the Single Market, the Community were to erect greater external protection. We must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home.
We have a responsibility to give a lead here, a responsibility which is
particularly directed towards the less developed countries. They need not
only aid but more than anything they need improved trade opportunities if they are to gain the dignity of growing economic independence and strength.
Europe and Defence
My last guiding principle concerns the most fundamental issue, the European countries' role in defence. Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through NATO. There can be no question of relaxing our efforts even if it means taking difficult decisions and meeting heavy costs. We are thankful for the peace that NATO has maintained over 40 years. The fact is things are going our way: the democratic m o d e ofl a free enterprise society has proved itself superior; freedom is o n the offensive, a peaceful offensive, the world over for the first time in my life-time.
We must strive to maintain the US commitmentto Europe's defence. That means recognising the burden an their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their Allies should play a full part in the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier. Increasingly they will look to Europe to play a part in out-of-area defence, as we have recently done in the Gulf.
NATO and the WEU have long recognised where the problems with Europe's defences lie and have pointed out the solutions. The time has come when we must give substance to our declarations about a strong defence effort and better value for money.
It's not an institutional problem. It's not a problem of drafting. It's such more simple and more profound: it is a question of political will and political courage, of convincing people in all our countries that we cannot rely for ever on others for cur defence but that
each member of the Alliance must shoulder a fair share of the burden.
We must keep public support for nuclear deterrence, remembering that obsolete weapons do not deter, hence the need for modernisation.We rmst meet the requirements for effective conventional defence in Europe against Soviet forces which are constantly being modernised.
We should develop the WEU, not as an alternative to NATO, but as a means of strengthening Europe's contribution to the common defence of the West.
Above all at a time of change and uncertainty, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we must preserve Europe's unity and resolve, so that whatever may happen our defence is sure. At the same time, we must negotiate on arms control and keep the door wide open to co-operation on all the other issues covered by the Helsinki Accords.
But our way of life, our vision, and all that we hope to achieve is secured not by the rightness of our cause but by the strength of our defence. On this, we must never falter or fail.
The British Approach
I believe it is not enough just to talk in general terms about a European vision or ideal. If you believe in it, you rmst chart the way ahead. That's what I have tried to do this evening.
This approach does not require new documents: they are all there, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Revised Brussels Treaty, and the Treaty of' R o m etexts, written by far-sighted men, a remarkable Belgian - Paul Henri Speak - a m othemng.
What we need now is to take decisions onthe next steps forward rather than let ourselves be distracted by Utopian goals.However far we may all want to go, the truth is that you can only get there one step at a time.
Let us concentrate on making sure that we get those steps right.
Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding e a otherc better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our c o m m Europeann endeavour.
Let us have a Europe which plays its full part in the wider world, which looks outward not inward, and which preserves that Atlantic Community - that Europe on both sides of the Atlantic - which is our greatest inheritance and our greatest strength.
Πηγή:Collège de l'Europe