EU Commissioner: People are too stupid for referendums

Spanish EU Commissioner Joaquin Almunia has told El Mundo that the Lisbon Treaty is too complex to be submitted to a referendum.

He said: “I think matters which are as complex as a constitution or similar must be discussed in the systems available to democracy, or rather, in parliaments”.

He added that it is not “very democratic” to hold a referendum on issues which require a specific knowledge from the citizen. He said “It doesn’t seem to me that this procedure is the best example of democracy because referendums, in order for them to genuinely be something which citizens feel comfortable with and not pressured, they must be presented with very clear and simple questions”. He had previously said “presenting someone with a treaty with around 300 articles which require, to be understood, a certain education in European law is very complex”.

What's so hard? The EU institutions are desperate to keep people under the illusion that everything the EU does is far too high-brow and complicated for them to worry their little wooden heads about. Yes, the Treaty is ridiculously long and complex, full of boring EU jargon (whose fault is that?) But it's not difficult to wittle it down to the simple question - do you want to give the EU more power, or not?

Anyway, why is he saying all this? It's not as if Spain is toying with the idea of a referendum. No, he is just joining a long list of European politicians sticking their oar into the upcoming Irish vote.

Perhaps the most interesting thing though is the seamless interchangeability of the words "EU Constitution" and "Lisbon Treaty", which he, just like everyone else, knows is exactly the same thing. Even the headline reads: "Only MPs should vote on the European Constitution". Funny that.

Arcane Parliament

PA informs us that following the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the UK, the implementing legislation will be printed... on goatskin.

"Parliamentary officials confirmed later that a goatskin version of the EU Amendment Act would be prepared, and kept in the UK.

The practice of Acts of Parliament and other important documents being printed on vellum has existed since the 15th century. Both Magna Carta and Charles I's death warrant were produced on skin parchment.

There have been several efforts over recent decades to move to paper records, which would be less expensive and potentially save the lives of several goats a year.

They have been successfully resisted by traditionalists."

With these plans out in the open, it's suddenly becomes clear who the first victims of Lisbon will be..

Swedish legal opinion: Lisbon Treaty same as Constitution

The Swedish Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) – the Swedish expert body on constitutional matters - was commissioned by the Swedish government to give its opinion on the most appropriate way to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. It has concluded that the Lisbon treaty can be ratified in Sweden without special ratification procedures (i.e. referendum).

The reason: they say the Lisbon Treaty is “essentially equivalent to the Constitution”.

In fact, to save effort and avoid repetition the Council just quotes the opinion it gave on the EU Constitution back in 2005.

Ha!

Irish memo in full

Here's a copy of the Irish memo in full:

Irish have picked May 29 for voting but will delay an announcement to keep the no camp guessing (please protect). DFA's EU director gives us referendum timetable and details of the bill, to be published next week. Aim is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of EU rather than the treaty itself. Concern about the potential impact of a WTO deal and of
Sarkozy.

The draft, largely incomprehensible to the lay reader, had been agreed following lengthy consultation with government lawyers and with the political parties.

The bill would enter parliament in the second week of April and it would probably take two weeks to go through and be passed around 22 April. The minister for the environment would thus be entitled to set an order naming the date for the referendum between 30 to 90 days of the order being made. Technically, the Taoiseach and Ahern saw a slight advantage in keeping the no campaign guessing. 29 May was the assumed date in working plans.

Mulhall said a date in October would have been easier from a procedural point of view. But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great. Sarkozy was completely unpredictable. The only other unhelpful event the Irish thought might impact on the May vote would be a WTO deal based on agricultural concessions that could lead the powerful farming association to withdraw its support.

I ran through the UK parliamentary ratification timetable and noted that the refernedum vote on 5 March would be a particularly sensitive moment. Mulhall remarked that the media had been relatively quiet on the ratification process so far. We would need to remain in close touch given the media crossover.

Mulhall said other partners - including the Commission - were playing a helpful, low-profile role. Vice-president Margot Wallstrom, who had been in Dublin yesterday and today, had told Dermot Ahern that the Commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful.

??? ??? ???...so Irish thought treaty was taken for granted...... David Miliband not going

Most people would not have time to study the text and would go with the politicians they trusted.

Why UK justice safeguard cannot be watertight

In the House of Commons yesterday Frank Dobson MP raised the "injustice" done to one of his constituents, Joseph Mendy, under the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant. Mendy was arrested in the Canary Islands in November 2003 on suspicion of counterfeiting €50 euro notes despite the fact he was never found in possession of a counterfeited note. He and his friends were released and heard nothing more from the Spanish authorities until March this year when he was served with a European Arrest Warrant. Mendy appealed the extradition but as Dobson stressed, "this involves the UK courts doing nothing more than going through the motions, because there are virtually no grounds on which to challenge a European extradition warrant."

Dobson continued:

"At the subsequent court appearance in Madrid, Joe Mendy was denied bail on the bizarre grounds that he was a flight risk. By this time, the Spanish judicial holidays were commencing, so my innocent constituent of exemplary good character was held in the Spanish jail over the summer." "After spending almost two months on remand in the Spanish jail, Joe appeared before a Spanish judge on 15 September. His Spanish lawyer advised him that if he continued to plead not guilty, he was likely to be held in jail for at least a further year before his case came to trial. If, however, he pleaded guilty, he would, because of his exemplary record in Britain, get a suspended sentence and a small fine. Understandably in such dreadful circumstances, he pleaded guilty and got a two-year suspended sentence and a €600 fine."

"The treatment of Joe Mendy is a disgrace; it is exactly the sort of incident that brings European institutions into disrepute. What happened to the warrant between June 2004 and March 2007? Was it mislaid? Sadly, the law that we passed does not require the authorities to use their common sense or to have a sense of proportion. Having being passed by the House on the argument that it would speed up extradition, our law does not demand that the authorities proceed expeditiously. Instead, it demonstrably permits them to take nearly four years to crank up this draconian machinery."

Home Office Minister Meg Hillier responded saying:

"We have to have faith in our European partners, and there are safeguards in place to ensure that each European country has a proper legal and judicial process to take such decisions. We have heard that Mr Mendy’s case has been concluded and that he is back in the UK having received a suspended sentence. I am pleased to hear that he can now start at Liverpool University next year and begin to get his life back on track."

It goes without saying that this is a totally unacceptable outcome for a system that was originally intended to expedite the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism.

Sadly, it is likely that this case is far from unique. As leaked Commission documents revealed this summer, EU Arrest Warrants (EAWs) have been frequently issued for trivial crimes - including the theft of two car tyres, and a single case of piglet rustling. The EU report admits that the arrest warrants are being used "disproportionately" to the seriousness of offences.

It is clear from this case that serious inconsistencies in standards can arise between different legal regimes across different member states. But this sits uneasily with the basis of the EAW: judicial mutual recognition. For this reason, it is almost certain that we’ll hear increasing calls for legislating for EU-wide criminal procedural standards – in other words, the problems arising from mutual recognition creates the impetus for full harmonisation.

The revised EU Constitution provides the avenue for such harmonisation, with the dropping of national vetos in justice and home affairs. It is unlikely the UK will be immune from these developments, despite the Government’s claim to have an ‘opt-in’ arrangement in this area.

In short, the nature of the UK ‘safeguard’ on JHA puts a gun to the head of the Government if it wishes to opt out of future developments based on existing legislation which already applies to the UK, like the EAW. If the UK doesn’t want to accept the amending legislation to something like the EAW, then it will be thrown out of participation in that legislation in its entirety.

Given current the current security situation, it is highly unlikely that the UK Government would be prepared to give up any form of agreement with other member states on extradition, such as the EAW. It would therefore be highly problematic for Britain not to opt-in on measures amending the EAW.

If, as seems probable, the EU does choose to move towards criminal procedural harmonisation in order to address the issues raised by cases such as that of Joe Mendy, it would be unlikely the UK could in practice exclude itself from such moves under the revised Constitution.

Should the Constitution be ratified, existing UK participation in European extradition agreements will be a powerful lever to force the UK to opt in on future EU justice and home affairs legislation.

Barroso on EU empire

Barroso's comments describing the EU as an "empire" are up on You Tube. Link here.

The Blair fisk Project part 1

Tony Blair in Parliament yesterday: Our comments in bold.

Before the European Council, I made it clear that the concept of a constitutional treaty for Europe had to be abandoned and that we should agree instead a conventional amending treaty like the Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties and the Single European Act. I also made it clear that the UK had four central demands which had to be met. First, on the charter of fundamental rights, we secured a legally binding protocol, specific to the UK, and applicable both to the British courts and to the European Court of Justice. Let me read the terms.

"the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that the Charter reaffirms. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing inthe Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.”

However it looks like the UK's "safeguards" on the charter are already unravelling. A leaked analysis from Parliament’s legal expert looks at the claim by Tony Blair that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not extend the ability of the European Court of Justice to challenge UK laws. It said: "This is a high standard to set, and I doubt if what appears to have been agreed secures this result."

The Guardian reports that former Justice Commissioner Antonio Vitorino has questioned the legal basis for the British opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, negotiated by Tony Blair at the EU summit. According to the article, the Commission’s legal experts take the same view, and expect the British opt-out eventually to be tested in the courts.

Jacques Ziller, a professor at the European University Institute in Florence, said that the idea of one country opting out of the charter was “nonsense” and would quickly be challenged in the courts. (European Voice, 31 May 2007)

Firms operating in more than one member state would clearly be affected. Migrants coming from another member state to the UK would presumably still be covered. And anyone who travelled to another EU country – e.g. to use health services – would still be able to use the Charter.

It is also curiously worded. It singles out part of the Charter (Title IV), but not all of it to say that it does not create justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom “except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.” This itself begs the question – as it will be the European Court of Justice that has do decide fro itself whether the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

The Government has potentially created a lawyers paradise with this messy fudge. It has clearly broken its repeated promise that the Charter would not become legally binding.

In respect of our criminal law system and police and judicial processes, we obtained an extension of the opt-in rights that we secured in an earlier treaty on migration, asylum and immigration issues. This means that we have the sovereign right to opt in on individual measures, where we consider it would be in the British interest to do so, but also to stay out, if we want to. It is precisely the pick and choose policy often advocated. It gives us complete freedom to protect our common law system, but it also allows us to participate in areas where co-operation advances British interests. In asylum and immigration, for example, we have opted in on measures dealing with illegal immigration, and in measures allowing us to return asylum seekers to other European countries—both unquestionably in Britain’s interests. But it will be within our exclusive power to decide on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what we wanted.

This does not mention the one of the single biggest things the UK has given way of -Giving the European Court of Justice full jurisdiction over justice and policing. This clearly breaches previous promises from which is clearly a crossing of this red line. The Government themselves admitted that it was a big transfer of national sovereignty:

"The Government does not accept that we should agree to extend full ECJ jurisdiction over the very sensitive areas covered by the Third Pillar. These raise sensitive issues relating to national sovereignty — law and order and the criminal justice process.

"An acceptance of extended jurisdiction would have to be on a "once and for all" basis. This would be a significant extension of the ECJ's legal responsibilities. In any event, there is already some scope for the review or interpretation of Third Pillar measures by the ECJ, at the suit of the Commission or the Member States, pursuant to Article 35(6) and (7) TEU."

This is a really big deal. Giving the Court competence is an even bigger transfer of power than giving up the veto. At least if there is a majority vote we can try to get other countries to support us and block things we don't like. But if the court makes a judgement we don't like there is simply no comeback.

No one knows for sure what EU judges might do with their new powers.

On the Today programme on 14 June 2006, BBC Europe Editor Mark Mardell reported that if criminal justice was transferred to the first pillar: “A Commission spokesman was telling me, well we’d want to look at things like Belmarsh, can you hold foreign suspects indefinitely? The Commission don’t like it so Britain could get hammered.”

The Government also previously admitted that it would mean many more costly appeals in immigration cases:

“The Minister informed us that the UK had chosen not to opt in to the Commission's proposal (Q 28). While he acknowledged that there could be a benefit for parties faced with genuinely difficult questions of interpretation of EC law, "there is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes" (Q 28).

The Blair fisk project part 2

In respect of social security, we negotiated a provision which allows us to insist on unanimity in any case where we—that is, Britain—declare that any proposal from the Commission would affect important aspects of our social security system, including its scope, cost, or financial structure or balance. Our social security and benefits system is therefore completely protected.

While the Government has an “emergency brake” on one article dealing with social security (as in the original constitution) there are several other new powers for the EU in social security.

For example, article II-94.2 of the old constitution, (which is likely to be attached to Article 137 or 140 of the new Treaty on the Functioning of the Union) states that “Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages”. This is a major step away from the current treaties, which stress free movement for workers, and limit access to other countries’ social security and welfare systems to those who are in work.

As for the common foreign and security policy, the basis of this will now remain unchanged in a separate treaty, and a separate pillar, from the first pillar Community method. The essential features of the CFSP remain as they were. Unanimity voting is the rule. There is no sole right of initiative for the Commission. There is no role for the European Parliament in decision taking. There is no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice, except in the particular case of safeguarding the rights of individuals subject to EU sanctions.


This is very misleading - particularly the claim that unanimity is the rule. The key thing is the enormous exceptions to this "rule"

In fact there are several moves to qualified majority voting in the new version of the constitutional treaty. For instance:

(1) On Proposals from the EU foreign minister. The most important introduction of QMV relates to the new Foreign Minister. Article III-300 (2) stipulates that the Council shall act by qualified majority, “when adopting a European decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs has presented following a specific request to him or her from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the Minister”. So we could (unanimously) ask him to come up with a plan but then, if we don’t like what he comes back with, find that we were into majority voting – e.g. on the squabble between NATO and EU over who will supply air transport to the AU troops in Darfur we might not be able to block the EU from pointlessly duplicating NATO is this was being done – if this was proposed as part of a plan proposed by Solana.

(2) On the diplomatic service. Article III-296 also allows the organisation and functioning of the new EU diplomatic service to be decided by QMV.

(3) On Setting up an inner core in defence. Under Article III-312, the decision to set up the “permanent structured cooperation” group would also be taken by QMV, as would subsequent decisions to expel members, or to admit new ones to the group.

(4) On terrorism & mutual defence. Article III-329 stipulates that the detail and meaning of the “terrorism solidarity clause” is to be decided by QMV. This is important because the Government has clear reservations about this article. A proposed amendment by Peter Hain called for the key provision of the article - that “Should a Member State fall victim to a terrorist attack, the other Member States shall assist it” - to be deleted. In a separate proposal, the Government asked for the new EU power to “prevent” terrorist threats to also be deleted. At a plenary session of the European Convention Hain objected that, “if it carries real military obligations to offer military assistance it is duplicating the NATO guarantee. If it does not … it is empty rhetoric.” His objection has been ignored.

(5) Majority voting on the new Foreign Policy Fund

(6) Majority voting on urgent humanitarian aid (e.g. this might have been used to decide whether the union should continue to fund the Palestinian Authority after the elections which returned Hamas to power – the UK and other Member States disagreed about this, and the UK was keen only to fund NGOs and not the Hamas-led authority.

Also interesting that Blair talks about there being "no sole right of initiative". This implies very strongly that the Government accepts that the new Foreign Minister will have a right of initiative for the first time, as (1) above suggests.


The two jobs of Commissioner for External Relations and High Representative which, of course, exist already, will be amalgamated in a single job. But this reform does not extend the EU’s substantive powers to act in foreign policy. In particular, the Union Representative, when working on common foreign and security policy issues, will operate within a policy framework set by the European Union Foreign Ministers, by unanimity.


The UK government has had to give the Foreign Minister far more powers than it wanted to. The UK was so focusssed on getting the name changed it lost out on the substance.

For example, against the UK Government’s wishes, the Constitution proposed that the EU Foreign Minister would automatically represent member states in international meetings, particularly at the United Nations Security Council. Article III-305 (2) of the constitutional treaty proposed that, “When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.”

Peter Hain wrote an amendment arguing that “The UK cannot accept any language which implies that it would not retain the right to speak in a national capacity on the UN Security Council.” However the text remains.

Also, as the Guardian notes: "Britain said the new official should not chair regular meetings of EU foreign ministers, nor take over the resources of the European Commissioner for external affairs. It lost."

The UK Government also originally opposed the EU Diplomatic Service. In the negotiations on the draft constitutional treaty Denis MacShane said, “We believe that it remains for EU Member States to organise their respective bilateral diplomatic services at the national level.” (Hansard Written Answer, 17 June 2002) But again the UK has given way.


All these guarantees not merely remain in the new treaty, but are reinforced in a new overview articlethat reaffirms them and has full legal force. For the avoidance of doubt, we also obtained a declaration that sets out the unanimous view of all member states about the meaning of those guarantees. That declaration, which then informs the detailed negotiation of the intergovernmental conference, states that the common and foreign security policies of the treaty, including in respect of the office of Union Representative and the external action service:

“will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries, and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the UN.”

This is typical of Blair's negotiating approach: a totally non-binding declaration which says the opposite of what his actually happeneing. In effect the mouth denies what the hands are doing.

The Blair fisk project part 3

There was also a discussion at the Council about competition. The treaties have always made it clearthat competition in the internal market should notbe distorted. The now defunct constitutional treaty’s objectives would have included new wording about “free and undistorted competition”. When the treaty was set aside, that provision was lost, but we agreed on a new and legally binding protocol to be annexed to the treaties, which reaffirms the commitment to ensuring that competition is not distorted, and the other references to competition in the existing treaties will remain: for example, articles 4, 27, 34, 81 to 89, 96, 98, 105 and 157 from the European Community treaty. The legal position in relation to competition therefore remains unchanged.

This is genuinely unclear. It certainly worries the CBI, and the UK clearly dropped the ball (it was rescued by Prodi, of all people, after a phone call from someone sharp eyed at Goldman Sachs). But how big its effect is remains to be seen. Perhaps we will need to see some more legal evidence.

Alongside meeting our four essential requirements, we secured a number of further improvements. The new treaty will confirm for the first time, explicitly, that national security is the sole responsibility of member states.

Again, more warm words. But the IGC mandate states that, "The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence." The word "might" is changed from "will" in the original constitution. But do we really want to commit to "the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence?"

Surely we should be clear about this now. The disappointing thing is that the UK tried to get all these words deleted during the European Convention: Peter Hain wrote that: "Common defence, including as a form of enhanced cooperation, is divisive and a duplication of the guarantees that 19 of the 25 Member States will enjoy through NATO."

The Union already signs international agreements, but the treaty formalises its legal personality. However, we have now agreed a declaration by all countries for this intergovernmental conference confirming that the fact of this legal personality does not authorise the Union in any way to legislate or act beyond the powers conferred on it by member states in the treaties.

Actually this is a big deal and again the Government were opposed to it. It basically means extending the EU's legal personality to justicwe and police and foreign affairs issues.

Talking about the original version of the constitution, Italian PM Romano Prodi said that this change was “A gigantic leap forward. Europe can now play its role on the world stage thanks to its legal personality". The French Government’s referendum website argued that, “The European Union naturally has a vocation to be a permanent member of the Security Council, and the Constitution will allow it to be, by giving it legal personality.”

Even the UK Government admitted that it could cause problems. In particular he said that the Government could only accept legal personality for the EU if it was not combined with pillar collapse. When the constitution was first being drafted Peter Hain said that “We can only accept a single legal personality for the Union if the special arrangements for CFSP and some aspects of JHA are protected.” But the JHA pillar has been collapsed. This strongly implies that over time

Hain told MPs: “we could support a single legal personality for the EU but not if it jeopardises the national representations of member states in international bodies; not if it means a Euro-army; not if it means giving up our seat on the United Nations Security Council; and not if it means a Euro-FBI or a Euro police force."

The Blair fisk Project part 4

There are also new powers for national Parliaments to object to Commission proposals on subsidiarity grounds.

But these are meaningless - even more so than in the original constitution.

Compared to the 2004 text the protocol on parliaments has been altered so that half of national parliaments need to object to trigger the process rather than ‘just’ a third.

In the unlikely event that fourteen national parliaments all vote against their Governments on the same proposal, on subsidiarity grounds, during a eight week window, then the Commission has to ‘reconsider’ - but it can still override national parliaments. Which is exactly what happened the very first time the mechanism was given a ‘trial run’ several years ago. On the upside the time for them to try to use this ludicrous process has been extended from six to eight weeks (woo-hoo!)

Such proposals are actively damaging, because they give the impression of accountability without the reality, and are used to fob off proposals for real democracy in Europe.


There are a number of extensions of qualified majority voting. In the most sensitive areas of QMV—justice and home affairs, and social security—we obtained the right either not to participate or to insist on unanimity. In addition, a number of other QMV measures—for example, those about rules within the eurozone, or those in justice and home affairs—do not apply to us. As for the rest, we have agreed them, because qualified majority voting is often in Britain’s interest. The biggest move to qualified majority voting in Europe’s history was the Single European Act, but this allowed the creation of one of Europe’s greatest achievements: the single European market. More recently, we have secured reforms such as the services directive and other liberalising measures through QMV, including the lifting of the beef ban, when they would almost certainly have been blocked through unanimity. Among the QMV provisions in the treaty is one that provides a new legal base and QMV for energy market liberalisation, and another that provides QMV for decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries—both of them manifestly in the UK’s national interest.

There are plenty of moves to QMV. As noted above, even seemingly nice things like urgent humanitarian aid have clear downsides (e.g. aid to Hamas)

You can get a list of all of them on our analysis of the IGC mandate.

The claim that "The biggest move to qualified majority voting in Europe’s history was the Single European Act" looks wrong to us. There are far more moves under the new constitution. I don't understand how the Government can stack this up. Blair said later in the debate that there were 49 moves to QMV in the "new" treaty. But the Government also admits that there were only 12 moves to QMV in the SEA. We would love a reply from our regular at the Foreign Office on that one...


The other main reform is the fixed term, two-and-a-half-year presidency of the European Council, replacing the current rotating six-monthly arrangements. This is necessary for the Union’s efficiency, but does not involve any extension of presidency powers. The President of the European Council will remain the servant of the leaders of the member states.


Again, actually this is a big deal. The constitutional treaty would create powerful new positions and institutions, making the EU institutions more powerful in relation to the member states. These institutions are likely to grow in strength over time. Control of the 3,500 civil servants in the Council Secretariat would give the President a substantial power base – and the president would have an incentive to expand its own powers.

The new President would fundamentally change the nature of the legislative process in Brussels. Instead of negotiations between the supranational Commission and a national head of Government with a vented interest in protecting the rights of member states, negotiations would in future take place between one unelected, independent Brussels institution and another.

It has already been suggested that the new President of the European Council will be merged with the President of the Commission to create a US-style President for Europe. Sarkozy has called for the President to eventually be directly elected, as in the US.


The most important aspect of the new treaty is that it allows the European Union to move on to the issues that really matter. For too many years, we have been bogged down in a debate about institutions. Withthe increase from 15 to 27 member states, change is essential, but with this agreement, we can now concentrate on issues that really matter: energy security, organised crime and terrorism, globalisation, further enlargement and making Europe’s voice more effective internationally.


This is pathetic.

The lazy, hazy, argument that the new constitutional treaty is needed to make the EU work is not backed up by the facts. The EU is passing laws 25% faster since enlargement.

The vague arguement that this will somehow "let the EU fight terrorism" or save the planet is worthless too. What new power will the EU have to so this? Isn't the truth that the EU doesn't need more power to sort out its lamentable environmental record, but the will to sort out failing policies like the EU Emissiions Trading Scheme?


This agenda is surely quintessentially one in Britain’s interests. Over the past 10 years, Britain has moved from the margins of European debate to the centre. This is absolutely right for Britain. Whether indefence or economic reform or in energy policy orthe environment, or of course most particularly in enlargement and the appointment of the new Commission President, Britain has for a decade been in a leadership position in Europe. That is exactly where we should stay. I commend this agreement to the House.


A leadership position in Europe? What on earth?

This is from the Government that:

(a) Said there would never be a European Constitution. Keith Vaz, then Europe Minister said in Parliament, “the hon. Member for Ludlow said that the charter represented the beginning of a European constitution. If a telephone directory were published in Brussels, the hon. Gentleman would believe that it was the forerunner of a European Constitution. We are not going to have such a constitution” He said that the suggestion that there would be a European Constitution was “the last euro myth”. (Hansard, 22 November 2000)

(b) Promised the Charter would not be made legally binding. “Our case is that it should not have legal status and we do not intend it to”
- Tony Blair, 11 December 2000

(c) Said it would not give up the rebate - but then did. Tony Blair said "The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period." (Hansard, 8 June)

But the Government did give away 7 billion pounds of the rebate in return ffor nothing other thann the promise of a "review" of EU spending later. As German newspaper Die Welt noted at the time: "Tony Blair began the EU presidency as a tiger and ended it as a doormat."

Anyway - you get the general idea. We could go on and on about the Government's u-turns.

The Government's case against a referendum is pathetic. Every single serious EU leader says it is exactly the same as the old EU constitution.

But the Government's calculation is that while people don't like it, they won't care enough to make a difference. Proving them wrong is what the next six months are all about.

CBI turns against new EU treaty

A few extracts from CBI Director General Richard Lambert's speech at an event organised by pro-euro groups Centre for European Reform and Business for New Europe, 18 June:


“After talking to hundreds of companies around the UK in the last twelve months here’s my view on how British business views treaty changes, which are going to be discussed this weekend. The fact is the subject almost never comes up. Most companies I’ve talked to think it’s pretty much irrelevant. The reasons for that are pretty plain – if they think of treaty change at all they think of it more in terms of risks than opportunities. They see few potential benefits for business and some potential hazards.”

“And some business people ask the question: do we need these treaties anyway? The failure of the draft Constitution has not has catastrophic consequences, the eurozone economy has been rising at its briskest pace over the last nine months for the first time in some years… the union continues to function, despite the accession of twelve more countries over the last three years. The institutional framework continues to operate, the European Court has not collapsed into chaos, laws get passed, decisions get made. So the question people ask is: isn’t just this all just a total waste of time, a distraction from the real big issues which the union has to face: the current failing trade round, budget reform, energy security and climate change”

“But being on the margins of the treaty change debate does not mean that business is detached from European debates as a whole – far from it.”

“Until the matter is resolved one way or another, the treaty debate is not going to go away. Europe’s leaders will just go on gazing at their navels, engage in endless - and sometimes irritable – internal debate, ignoring the big issues and opportunities that Europe is facing in the big world.”

“The decisions to be taken over the weekend – if a deal is struck among the member states – those decisions will be intensely political in character and there is no political consensus in British business about what kind of trade offs and compromises might be acceptable next weekend, or about how far Mr Blair and Mr Brown could go without promising a referendum. No consensus – so I’m not going to go down that road this morning.”

“The conclusion is that there is a window of opportunity here – but it’s not as a result of treaty change, but through the shifting courses of European politics. For business I think that means getting more involved in European debates where they matter. Being clear about what would make the single market effective, being clear that its member states who need to raise their game and being clear about where we want Europe to act and not to act.” Focussing on those areas where collective action will do more to further Europe’s position of the global stage than if we just go plodding along in our own merry way. I think it’s these issues that the business community really needs to get stuck into, and let’s hope that this will be possible once the dust that is probably going to be raised in the next few weeks has started to settle.”


This is a major blow to the Government. The CBI previously campaigned for the euro, and the Government were hoping that they could hide behind the CBI on the new version of the constitutional treaty. But it looks like the CBI has wisely decided to steer clear of taking flak for the Government. Given that the new version of the text would still cut Britain’s power to block legislation by 30%, and inevitably mean even more costly EU regulation – it is not surprising that the CBI members have “little zeal” for the new version of the constitutional treaty.

Summit deal in the balance?

What are the chances of EU leaders reaching agreement at the June EU Summit?

Gideon Rachman informs us that although German foreign policy academics are fairly optimistic that Merkel can broker a deal, Berlin’s foreign ministry officials are less confident. They are giving odds of no more than 50-50.

Contrary to what the European Voice said the other day, of the three ‘problem’ countries – Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland (now apparently referred to by German officials as “the three crazies”) – it is Poland that is viewed as the biggest challenge. Specifically, Berlin fears that Warsaw’s demands on changes to the voting weight system proposed in the original Constitution could unravel the basis for agreement. If the matter of voting weights is opened up for discussion, this could open up a Pandora’s box of other issues that will be put back on the table.

“Poland has just one request – but that request is dynamite”, said one German diplomat.

The Poles seem to be sticking to their guns on this issue. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said "We are ready to die for this" (Echoing Jan Rokita's call for "Nice or Death" during the Constitution negotiations).

On the other hand, there’s still the possibility of Warsaw being bought off. According to El Mundo, Merkel hopes to win over Poland through a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, using €60bn of EU funds and a possible clause on energy solidarity as bargaining chips with Warsaw.

Meanwhile, we are now beginning to see a consensus crystallize around the idea of Sarkozy’s mini-Constitution, which appeared to have already received the consent of Berlin. Even the Belgians, Italians and Spanish now seem ready to fall into line behind the French idea, despite their previously strong opposition to anything that smacked of a “minimalist” treaty. Reuters quoted a senior EU official earlier in the week as saying: "Merkel knows what she's doing and the puzzle's mostly done".

Treaty Horsetrading

An interesting piece on the Constitution negotiations has gone up on the European Voice website (subscription only).

It reports that the UK is becoming "the most difficult member state" in the talks. Apparently the Government is opposing the creation of a "legal personality" for the EU - which is being made a "red line" issue by the Germans. As has already been reported the UK is also opposed to the Charter having legal force, to giving up more national vetoes and to collapsing the pillar structure (which would hugely increase the power of ECJ judges and the Commission).

What is interesting is that apparently the French are saying that in return for the Charter's omission, and the deletion of EU symbols from the text- such as the flag and the anthem - the UK needs to give way on majority voting. A spokesman for Sarkozy said, “Blair can be bold on qualified majority if there is nothing on the charter and the Union’s symbols”.

We doubt that the UK Government will sign up to anything that abolishes more national vetoes. But one thing is certain; they won't get their way without a fight. Time after time in EU negotiations Blair showed he wasn't up to it; can Brown deliver where Blair failed?

Blair slaps down Brown over EU summit

Lots of media interest this morning in the negotiations on the new EU treaty. The Independent has said that Tony Blair should step down immediately and that Gordon Brown should attend the crucial summit in June. The Times argued:

"The danger is that Mr Blair will sign Britain up to a treaty that is too integrationist and that Mr Brown, blaming his predecessor, will then try to avoid holding a referendum... The Chancellor must immerse himself in the detail of the proposed treaty and accompany Mr Blair to the Brussels summit. He must not allow the Prime Minister to sign anything that he would not be prepared to defend.”

But according to a written answer given to Lord Leach this morning Brown will not be allowed to attend. Lord Treisman said:

"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will lead the UK delegation at the European Council meeting on 22 and 23 June. The delegation will include my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary".

Blair's insistence that it will be him - not Brown - that will sign the deal on the new EU treaty is giving the Treasury jitters. According to the Mail Ed Balls a Brownite ally said,“We aren't being told what they are up to. It is very secretive. Our worry is that in an attempt to pull off a coup they will give away too much and damage Gordon".

According to PA, backbench Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay called this morning for Blair to let Brown go instead:

"It is not in the interests of the UK that somebody who is retiring should commit the country. It's simply wrong that the man who is going to have to deal with the consequences of the EU summit isn't the one who is going to be calling the shots. The UK would be substantially disadvantaged.”

But the PM's not for turning. His spokesman said this morning that Blair would represent both the country and the Government at the EU summit, and that the Government's position in Brussels would be based on normal discussions with ministers - including Mr Brown - ahead of the talks.

"He has been heavily involved in preparations for that EU summit and therefore it makes entire sense for him to be the one there. There are major issues still to be finalised within the coming period and that's what the Prime Minister will do."

Keep on Spinning

­­­Very interesting article in the Times today from arch-Blairite Alan Milburn. He says lots of good stuff that most people who are critical of EU integration would agree with. In particular he calls for powers to be returned to member states and attacks Angela Merkel for wanting to bring back the Constitution - although he does agree that some "piecemeal changes" will be necessary.


This sounds to us like another attempt by the Government and its supporters to distance themselves from the Constitution by attacking it as out of date and unnecessary, while trying to sneak in most of its provisions in a new 'amending treaty' without a referendum...

Any views?

Crisis looming over Constitution?

V interesting peice by Charles Grant from the CER on the German plans to bring back the Constitution and the deal that the British government might accept.

Download the article Britain and the EU: a crisis looms

The topsy-turvy world of the EU

At a seminar we held on Monday on EU trade policy one of the experts - Chris Stevens - said that dealing with the EU reminded him of the topsy-turvy world of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Two stories in today's papers illustrate his point nicely:

• Angela Merkel has claimed that unless the EU presses ahead with bringing back the EU Constitution the gap between EU politicians and ordinary people will widen.
• The EU is rocked by yet another fraud scandal. EU officials argue that this shows there is a need for even more integration. They want an EU Public Prosecutor to be appointed.

PS - for a much more eloquent description of the surreal world of the EU (such as official's arguments over "non non-papers") check out this recent FT article by Gideon Rachman .

With experts like these...

As we've remarked before relations between Germany and Poland are a little strained at the moment. They're in the midst of a number of different rows at the moment which are likely to overshadow Angela Merkel's trip to Warsaw today.

So it probably hasn't helped that the Polish government "expert" on bilateral relations with Germany has attacked Merkel in the Berliner Zeitung for knowing "little about Poland". He wrote: "We are dealing with a country whose national policies are essentially egotistical and not exactly friendly towards Poland."

PS - for all those following the negotiations on the Constitution, the Kaczynski’s advisor on European issues Marek Cichocki has said that Poland will not accept attempts to bring back the voting weights that were in the Constitution. He wrote in a Polish newspaper editorial that: “Poland will never resign from the votes in the council given under the Nice voting system, because it is a fundamental instrument of real influence in the internal and external policies of the union."

The last time Poland tried to block the Constitution in 2003 it very quickly met with threats that a flow of subsidies would be cut off by large member states. Once again we seem to be heading for a head-on collision.

Draft a Better EU Constitution

The Adam Smith Institute have launched a competition to design a new and better EU Constitution, with £1000 as a prize for the best contribution – to be judged by EU and UK policy experts. Unlike the monstrosity that EU leaders signed up to - the ASI have said that the winning Constitution is not allowed to be more than 2,000 words long.

To find out how to enter, click here.

Swedish secrets uncovered

The Swedish press has been awash with rumours that Angela Merkel sent a letter to the Swedish Government which - among other things - set out how the Swedes could go about avoiding holding a referendum on the EU Constitution. The intrigue was largely created by the Swedish Government's insistence that the letter was secret and should remain confidential - running counter to the convention that all official documents are should be made public.

Swedish online news site Europaportalen has got hold of a leaked copy of the letter. Unfortunately, as with most of these things, the reality isn't quite as interesting as the rumours. Merkel is simply asking Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to appoint an adviser "who enjoys your confidence" to take part in the discussions which will draw up the Berlin Declaration and will attempt to revive the EU Constitution.

Of greater interest is the "tentative schedule" that Merkel attaches to the letter. The "focal points" (advisers/sherpas) will focus on drawing up the declaration until March. Attention will only turn to the Constitution after that - first with a gathering of heads of government "on the margins of the celebrations". The Germans are obviously hoping to ram the thing through in under three months - although much will depend on the outcome of the French Presidential elections.

The Germans are reported to be pulling out the diplomatic stops - they have already identified the Poles, Czechs and the Brits as the problem countries and are threatening them with "isolation" unless they fall into line. It should be an interesting few months...