Hurd backs Brittan for EU president
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DOUGLAS HURD, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday said he would be pressing for Sir Leon Brittan to succeed Jacques Delors as President of the European Commission at next week's Corfu summit, writes Colin Brown.
While Sir Leon's support was reported to be growing in Europe, Mr Hurd told the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that Britain had no 'personal criticism' of Jean-Luc Dehaene, the Prime Minister of Belgium, who is emerging as the front-runner over Ruud Lubbers, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Mr Dehaene is seen as the favourite with the support of President Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor. But Mr Hurd said he believed Sir Leon was the best candidate after his handling of the Gatt round.
He said the EU did not need a promoter of new initiatives. It needed a president who would get a grip with the existing programmes and deal competently with them.
The 1996 summit, which is to review the structure of Europe, threatens to split the Tory Party again. But Mr Hurd said he did not believe it would repeat the problems of the Maastricht treaty, when Britain was on the defensive.
He pointed out that the Maastricht treaty obliged the EU to begin the review in 1996 but it did not specify when it had to end. That was seen as a clear signal that Britain would seek to minimise the damage by delaying progress on the 1996 summit until after the election, possibly in 1997.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments