European Diary, 1977-1981 Read online

  I saw Giscard absolutely on the dot, and had eighty minutes with him. On this occasion, unlike the last two on which I had seen him, he spoke English, and spoke it very well. The only crunch was relating to my presence at the Western Summit meeting. He raised it himself, in a glancing way, saying that as I might be aware, the French Government were not in favour of this, not of course at all for personal reasons, etc. but because in their view the Summit should be a meeting of sovereign governments. I hope I left him in no doubt about the strength of my contrary view. I avoided getting substantially drawn into detailed arguments and merely said that I thought it was an enormous waste of time to cause difficulties about this issue, rather than the substance of the European line at the Summit. He took this reasonably well.

  At the end, when I was about to leave, I said, ‘Thank you very much. It has been a great pleasure to talk to you and I much look forward to seeing you again in Rome, and after that in London.’54 ‘Don’t say it,’ he said, ‘don’t say it. Just say, “Certainly on many occasions after that”.’ So on this reasonably agreeable but inconclusive note, we parted, and I drove across to Hôtel Matignon for lunch and subsequent talks with Barre.

  After lunch I had about twenty minutes alone with Barre in which we discussed the Summit. I forget who raised it, probably me, for he immediately said: Oh, yes, he had had a telephone call from Giscard after my meeting there informing him about this. He then put his case, which was a remarkably weak one, as I made fairly clear to him. One advantage or disadvantage of both Barre and Giscard is that their lucidity is such that it becomes a positive disadvantage when they have to put a very bad case, and Barre I think at least had the grace to recognize that his case was bad. Then nearly an hour’s good conversation with him with others present, mainly about the state of the French economy, but also international monetary affairs.

  A series of meetings in the afternoon, and then a Quai d’Orsay dinner of about fifty, with speeches, in a very grand upstairs room.

  TUESDAY,1 MARCH. Paris and Brussels.

  Rue de Varenne for a meeting with Lecanuet.55 I had met him once before, as he recalled, in London, in about 1968. Then he seemed much younger and was regarded at the time of his presidential candidature as a sort of French Kennedy. He still has a faintly American look about him, though he now reminds me more of Nelson Rockefeller, despite the fact that he speaks no English; very agreeable smile, but in a curious way rather difficult to talk to, so that we had some difficulty in spinning out the conversation for forty-five minutes. It was mainly about regional policy, in which he seemed to announce a complete change of French line. Previously they had been against the Regional Fund.56 He now expressed great interest in it, said that the French very much wanted to participate in it, but wanted a much larger quota for themselves; a move, in other words, from being indifferent to being slightly grasping.

  After that, I moved across the road for a meeting with Christian Bonnet,57 the Minister of Agriculture. This went much more fluently, as he poured out words almost on the scale of Marcora, his Italian vis-à-vis. This quality seems to be a feature of European Ministers of Agriculture. However, perfectly friendly conversation in which rather notably he did not mention the butter sales problem, though saying a great deal about a range of other issues, including their dispute with the Italians about wine. After this, on to the offices of the Commission, just off the Avenue Foch, for a very crowded press conference.

  Lunch Au Petit Riche, a nice old-style Paris restaurant which seemed hardly to have changed since Alexander Werth was constantly writing about it in the thirties. 3.20 train to Brussels in pouring rain, across the sodden Somme countryside. I also have the impression it has hardly stopped raining on these battlefields since 1916.

  WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH. Brussels.

  A meeting with Gundelach at 9.30. Difficulties clearly blowing up about the handling of butter sales to Russia. Our statement suspending so-called prefixation had been welcomed by the British press, though with a good deal of implication that we were closing the stable door after the horse had gone (though as only one horse had gone, while there were several still there, this was not wholly valid). However, this had been followed by much contrary criticism, building up in the early part of the week, from the French press in particular, but to some extent in one or two other countries too. Le Monde had distinguished itself by a violent attack on me for interfering with the working of the agricultural acquis, which had come out on the Tuesday evening. Gundelach at first seemed to be weakening, but on investigation it appeared that what he was proposing was thoroughly sensible. Into the Commission at 10.00 and disposed of this item without too much difficulty, within about half an hour. The Commission until 1.00 and then again for two hours in the afternoon.

  THURSDAY, 3 MARCH. Brussels.

  Berlaymont fairly early for a meeting with Ruggiero, concerned both with a briefing on the previous day’s Commission and with the general press blow-up, particularly in Le Monde, about our butter activities. Special Commission meeting from 10.00 to 12.30 on Ortoli’s general economic papers, which were fairly negative and into which I tried hard to inject a strategy for mobilizing all the borrowing funds that we could, as an alternative to a rather tiresome and probably ineffective line about the Germans reflating, in the hope that this would give us some room for manoeuvre and for coordination on the whole complex of Regional Fund, Social Fund, Sectional Intervention, FEOGA Guidance etc. Only about four Commissioners understood the significance of this; one or two of whom—Davignon, Tugendhat—liked it, and one or two others -Ortoli at any rate—probably did not, though he did not react violently against it.

  Then across to the Charlemagne building for a brief meeting with COREPER before lunching with them. I was amazed to discover that they met in the great ‘football pitch’ of a room which the Council of Ministers use, and find it difficult to understand how in these circumstances they can get any intimate discussion. We then adjourned for lunch, which was long and interesting; two hours with a lot of discussion about the Rome European Council. The Belgians put round a letter which they had addressed to everybody, taking a very strong line in favour of Commission representation at the Western Economic Summit, but, partly because I did not wish it to be done, it was not discussed at lunch.

  Later to the Cinquantenaire for our rather belated New Year reception for the diplomatic corps. As we have approximately 110 ambassadors accredited, and as they nearly all turned up, there was a considerable receiving-line job to do, in which Haferkamp assisted manfully.

  FRIDAY, 4 MARCH. Brussels and East Hendred.

  9.35 plane to London. Read in the Figaro that the Gaullist/Fianna Fáil Group in the Parliament had decided to put down a vote of censure on the Commission about the butter affair, but hoped that this need not be too serious. It is very difficult to see who they can get to coalesce with them on their criticism of what we have done. Plenty of other people would be willing to join in criticism, but it would be from the opposite direction.

  MONDAY, 7 MARCH. East Hendred, London and Brussels.

  Motored from East Hendred to London with Jennifer for Tony’s memorial service in Westminster Abbey. Sat in the front row of the north transept, surrounded by Foreign Ministers and other European representatives. The Cabinet and the ambassadors were in the choir stalls and Susan and her daughters opposite us and a little nearer to the altar. The service, which was a mixture of a traditional Westminster Abbey ‘Church and State’ occasion and some unorthodox, more personal elements, was on the whole successful and moving. Jack Donaldson’s address was excellent, assisted by some obvious Frankie touches.58 Derek Gladwin59 read the lesson well. Dick Leonard’s60 reading from The Future of Socialism, although in my view not at all badly done by him, did not quite come off, and at the end the Welsh Male Voice Choir from Caerphilly, who had been specially brought and performed from high up in the roof between the choir and the nave, seemed to me to get slightly lost in the rafters and not to produce as emotional
ly swelling a rendering of ‘Cwm Rhondda’ and one other Welsh hymn as I would have expected. But it was an impressive and harrowing occasion.

  After the service, I walked across towards 10 Downing Street, where Callaghan had a lunch for the four Foreign Ministers who had come—Forlani of Italy, Andersen61 of Denmark, Thorn of Luxembourg, and van der Stoel62 of Holland—as well as for Maurice Schumann representing Guiringaud, and David Owen and me. The conversation was fairly stilted, I thought, with Callaghan rather ill at ease trying to lead the assembled people through a mixture of international gossip and semi-serious points. What did they want him to put to Carter? What did they think of Carter’s views about dissidents? he asked, and nobody seemed to have anything very much to say. Then at the end he did a rather deliberate and calculated rehearsal of his difficulties about getting through the legislation for direct elections, while saying that he would of course do his best.

  After lunch I had twenty minutes’ official bilateral talk with him, and then we leant over the banisters at the top of the staircase at Number 10 for some time and talked more widely. He told me that he would not have appointed Tony Chancellor, even had Denis moved and even had Tony lived, because he had decided that his health was not good enough, which if true obviously showed considerable foresight. I asked him who then he would have appointed and he said he didn’t know, and talked rather vaguely about splitting up the Treasury. At no time, though he was perfectly civil, did he express any regret that he had let me go.

  3.55 plane to Brussels. Back in the Berlaymont more or less on time, we started rather long consultations with Gundelach about how to handle the European Parliament vote of censure. We eventually decided without too much difficulty, though with the consumption of a good deal of time as consultations with Tugendhat and Burke were also involved, that we would take the initiative in forcing a debate before the vote of censure itself could be taken, at which Gundelach would open and I would wind up.

  TUESDAY, 8 MARCH. Brussels and Strasbourg.

  Foreign Affairs Council. Routine business until just after 12.00, with David Owen proving a good and effective, self-confident but not aggressive chairman. Then a restricted session to discuss primarily the matter of Community, i.e. my, presence at the Western Economic Summit. David Owen threw it to the meeting without a lead, Guiringaud immediately spoke, but in a rather unengaged manner, slightly shame-facedly, saying the French Government were against. Almost immediately afterwards he left the room, leaving poor Nanteuil63 to hold the fort. Van Elslande and van der Stoel then spoke in strong opposition to the French.

  I followed, making a statement for about ten minutes, knowing the Belgians and others wanted something pretty strong from me, stating that our position was clearly and firmly in favour of being there, arguing the case in relation to the items under discussion and saying that it clearly would be absolutely ridiculous if we wasted our time at the Rome European Council, as we would have to unless Community presence was agreed to, debating this procedural question, rather than what at this moment of economic crisis we should say when we actually got to the Summit. The Irish State Secretary, Fitzgerald being away, supported this view, as did Forlani, as did Thorn, though rather tortuously.

  David then said that regrettably there was not a consensus in favour and therefore -1 think this was in accordance with his brief -the decision was that we should not be invited. He had first asked Nanteuil if the French wished to change their position. Nanteuil, who looked rather like an apprehensive goat tethered to his post, wishing he could go away and certainly not wanting to be called upon to say anything, produced a monosyllabic ‘non’. Genscher then came in rather reluctantly. He had been leaning back throughout the discussion. He said the Germans had not changed their position; they were in favour of Community participation; that would continue to be their view, but they did not want to have any great rows with anybody.

  I then contested David’s summing up, saying the fact that there was not unanimous agreement certainly did not mean that a decision had been taken against; there were still two months to go and clearly the matter would have to be raised at Rome apart from anything else. This was strongly supported by a number of other delegations and agreed to. We then went down to lunch. I reluctantly had to sit next to Guiringaud. We had some perfectly polite general conversation until near the end, when I told him that I had not been very pleased with what he had said, which would not surprise him, and that I wondered how much give there was in the French position. He implied that he thought there was some, without entering into any very definite commitment.

  We then went upstairs, when curiously enough he twice came running up to me to make some little point: Giscard hoped very much I would do some work on the institutional implications of enlargement; and that nothing was to be taken personally. Rather surprisingly overforthcoming for the French.

  Back to the Council for three hours. Then to Strasbourg by avion taxi. Dinner with Gundelach. Then half an hour’s walk round the cathedral.

  WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH. Strasbourg.

  To the new Parliament building at 8.30. The building, the hémicycle apart, is ghastly and inconvenient, as generally irritating and unattractive as I had feared at the opening ceremony it would be. Routine Commission meeting for an hour in a room about seventeen times too big, in which we sat as though we were on the platform of the Birmingham Town Hall with nobody in the audience. I spent most of the morning working on my fairly short speech on butter for the afternoon, its shortness being balanced by my relative ignorance of the subject.

  The speech did not satisfy me, and whether it satisfied anyone else I could not quite tell, but perhaps it more or less did. The Parliament is not really a rewarding body to which to speak. There is of course the linguistic difficulty and the fact that the Chamber is often pretty empty (not that it is different from the House of Commons in that respect, but it is bigger), and these difficulties are compounded by the extraordinary proliferation of the photographic industry in Strasbourg, so that not only are you liable to have moving television cameras producing film which is hardly ever used, but you also have flashlight photographers who come and photograph you the whole time you are on your feet—and even when you are not.

  FRIDAY, 11 MARCH. Brussels.

  Commission meeting from 11.00 to 1.15 involving Davignon on steel, which he did excellently. One of the best discussions on a specific issue which we had had in the Commission. Lunch in my dining room in the Berlaymont, with Jennifer, who had arrived in Brussels for the first time for nearly three weeks, and George Thomson, who was in Brussels, plus one or two cabinet members. Then back for another two hours’ Commission meeting, this time mainly on North/South questions.

  Soares, the Prime Minister of Portugal, arrived at 6.00 and Haferkamp and I went down to meet him at the front door. I then saw him alone for forty minutes. He speaks good French but no English at all. Agreeable, friendly, quite impressive man, who seemed rather tired, as well he might be after his tour round Europe. He talked reasonably interestingly but not fascinatingly. I asked him had he found much difference in the approaches to Portuguese admission as he went round the capitals, and he said yes, the Benelux countries were mildly réticent and the French were difficult, but the main thing the French wanted was that Portugal should pay a price and buy their colour television system. I said, ‘What—you mean that even Giscard raised this with you? The great head of this great Government, confronted with this great issue, is acting as a television salesman?’ ‘Yes, indeed,’ he said, ‘Giscard pressed it more than anybody else.’

  We then went into the special Commission meeting which lasted just over an hour. Soares did most of the talking: long, not bad, introductory statement, rather less good, slightly rambling reply to some general questions. We then adjourned until the dinner at the Château Ste Anne at 9.15. Relations became still warmer after my speech there, which the Portuguese were particularly pleased with, and which indeed did sound rather good. I had done very little of it
myself; it was a considerable achievement of Michael Jenkins. Unfortunately the young woman interpreter was so moved that she fainted about three-quarters of the way through. Soares was a little slow to go—he seemed particularly interested in talking to Nanteuil, I think about general French cultural matters rather than about politics—and we did not get home until 12.30.

  SATURDAY, 12 MARCH. Brussels.

  Into the Berlaymont just before 10.30 in order to receive Soares again. He was very late, so we gave up the attempt to receive him at the front door and retreated to the top of the lift, where Davignon said, Tor every minute he is late, put an extra year on the transition period.’ Soares’s great concern was against ‘globalization’, in other words the Portuguese application being treated as part of a package with Greece and Spain. He was quite realistic economically. He left us at 12.00 for a press conference.

  MONDAY, 14 MARCH. Brussels.

  Lunch with the Ecofin (Finance Ministers) Council. Sat between Apel and De Clercq,64 with Denis Healey opposite. Considerable row at the end about representation at the Summit, Duisenberg65 being very effectively aggressive and saying that if we were treated like this the Dutch would not lend any money to the British, or for that matter the French, in the future. A good sledge-hammer technique for dealing with Denis’s thick skin, and I think it was moderately effective. De Clercq said he wasn’t sure the Commission was strong enough on the need for representation and I assured him he was quite wrong and did a ten-minute piece.

  WEDNESDAY, 16 MARCH. Brussels.

  A ghastly day. Two hours’ work at home in the early morning because the Commission papers did not arrive until ridiculously late the night before, a rather bad-tempered briefing meeting in the office at 9.30, then into the Commission at 10.00. Commission business not perhaps too difficult during the morning. We disposed of a good many routine items and began Vredeling’s major paper on the Social Fund.66